__________ About this Dialogue __________

A dialogue with Catholic geocentrist Bob Sungenis. My words are in black, and Bob’s are in blue.

Now, remember, if the earth isn’t moving, it means that Chandra actually has to follow this path in reaction to the “forces from the stars.” So, while Marisat 3 is tracing out its lovely figure-eight, Chandra goes diving south across the western United States (the gray line in the image), makes a giant loop around the South Pacific, then goes spiraling up around the Northern Hemisphere a few times before taking a nose-dive off the coast of Japan, making another giant loop around the Indian Ocean, and then spiraling up around the Northern Hemisphere again.

Either that or the earth rotates and Chandra orbits in a perfect ellipse.

Your pictorial exhibit of Chandra’s movement is not real. It is a computer-generated image of the trajectory Chandra would transcribe on the earth if the earth were rotating. The computer merely calculates what the path of trajectory would be if it is given information that the earth is rotating, along with the speed, inclination and foci of Chandra’s orbit, and then the computer just plots it on a graph. And then NASA puts it on a screen for you to download and then you show it to a waiting audience as your “proof,” and no one is the wiser.

Wow, just like Capricorn One! I can picture the NASA administrator, like a villain in a Scooby Doo episode, saying, “We would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren’t for you meddling geocentrists!”

It’s very clever, but it doesn’t prove the earth is rotating. All it proves is that the virtual imagery of NASA is alive and well. They use it all the time. I have a lot of information on it if you’re interested.

Oh, I’m sure you do. Well, NASA is nothing if not clever. Apparently, they know the earth doesn’t rotate, but in order to defend Copernicanism (their primary mission, I guess), they generate false ground-track images and feed them to a gullible public.

We can prove this is the case if you consider some facts about Chandra and the line that is transcribed on the pictorial. First, Chandra only has three land-based tracking posts on earth: California, Spain, and Australia.

You’re referring to NASA’s Deep Space Network of tracking stations. But then, how do we know those alleged “tracking stations” really exist? Could be part of the conspiracy.

They don’t have posts in China, India, Africa, and almost all of the other places Chandra is said to traverse on your map, and thus those locations would not be able to tell if Chandra crossed their latitudes.

Alright, let’s take a look at Chandra’s flightpath over one of the places where NASA does (allegedly) have tracking facilities: Goldstone, in the Mojave desert in California:

Please explain to me how a satellite that’s in an elliptical orbit around a stationary earth can cross over North America twice in an east-west direction, and then a third time in a north-south direction. Of course, you can’t, so you’ll say this image is a lie.

So, by all appearances, you’ve been duped by a computer.

That must be it.

By the way, the same is true for your other images. They are all computer generated on the basis of a rotating earth and the specified orbit, but that doesn’t mean at all that the earth is rotating. It just means that somebody can plug in numbers and get the desired effect from computer graphics. Essentially, Gary, all they have done is used the fixed-earth math in reverse. They send Chandra into its orbit based on fixed-earth math (as they do with every satellite), but then they use computer-generated virtual imagery to show you what it would look like if the earth wasn’t fixed. How clever of them.

I knew it! Several days ago, I wrote to some friends in a private email, and I predicted that once you realized you couldn’t explain the evidence, you’d simply deny the evidence and say it was all a hoax! Thank you for being so predictable.

You see, Gary, there’s a big difference in watching the stars go around the earth in a perfect circle and concluding from that evidence that they are actually moving, as opposed to watching virtual imagery from NASA generated from a computer and claiming that the earth rotates: The stars are real; the virtual imagery is not.

Right, it’s all a very clever lie designed to fool everybody into thinking that the earth rotates. That way, NASA can . . . well, they can . . . Oh, I’m sure they must have some reason for doing this. It’s odd that the flight controllers for the various private satellites have never noticed that their satellites aren’t really flying in the figure-eights and zigzags that NASA predicts. I wonder why that is? Hey, maybe they’re in on it!

Upset because I discovered your little charade, Gary?

Oh, yes, I’m just devastated! :-)

Your problem is that you have no way to prove that what NASA provided you is a real image.

Uh, actually, I do. See, the same website that drew those neat little ground tracks also gives information, based on the same data, about when specific satellites will pass overhead in a given location. If NASA’s ground-track projections weren’t accurate, we’d all look up at the appointed time and see nothing.

Further demolishing your bizarre conspiracy theory is the fact that Meade Instruments Corporation makes a nifty little computer-controlled telescope mount called “Autostar.” It has a database full of satellites, and it uses this information – just as NASA does – to predict when a satellite will pass overhead. Autostar then aims the telescope right at it. You can go to Meade’s website and download the satellite parameters yourself. I’ve reproduced a few of them here:

LES 9                   

1 08747U 76023B   02151.77533244 -.00000049  00000-0  10000-3 0  8377

2 08747  11.4057 223.7588 0024117 219.1049 337.8354  1.00271201 41611

MARISAT 2               

1 09478U 76101A   02152.13659723 -.00000262  00000-0  10000-3 0  1862

2 09478  13.1443  14.2793 0000962  10.3476 240.1316  1.00269964 37149

COMSTAR 4               

1 12309U 81018A   02152.63846527 -.00000064  00000-0  00000+0 0  2571

2 12309  11.3905  29.2687 0002155  23.5283 137.0000  1.00273632 79399

SATCOM 5                

1 13631U 82105A   02151.79228633 -.00000107  00000-0  10000-3 0  7226

2 13631   8.0386  50.0718 0001383 347.9780  31.2835  1.00271441 38312

These are the same parameters NASA uses. In fact, NASA’s website has a link to the page from which Meade’s Autostar gets its data. So, either the data is accurate, or else Meade is in on the conspiracy. And not only Meade, but hundreds of Meade customers, too. Apparently, they’re willing to stare through their telescopes at nothing, pretending they’re seeing satellites, just to maintain the facade of heliocentrism.

So propping it up to your audience as if its the nail in the coffin is mere presumption.

It is the nail in the coffin. That you have to come up with ever more outlandish and far-fetched ways to dismiss it is proof of that.

It seems that Gary, whether inadvertently or intentionally I don’t know, is trying to obfuscate the issue. I hope its not intentional. I never said that NASA couldn’t tell someone where to find the satellite. All I said was that the trajectory on the pictorial was a computer-generated image based on the input the computer receives regarding a rotating earth.

You said quite a bit more than that. You said, “Your pictorial exhibit of Chandra’s movement is not real. It is a computer-generated image of the trajectory Chandra would transcribe on the earth if the earth were rotating.” But because you know the earth isn’t rotating, you know that Chandra doesn’t follow the path over the ground that NASA predicts. In fact, you said, “by all appearances, you’ve been duped by a computer.”

But then I pointed out that astronomers use that same data to aim their telescopes, and so now you have to do some frantic backpedaling. Now you say:

I didn’t say the pictorial was wrong, at least not from a rotating earth framework. In fact, Gary Emerson can use that computer-based imagery and know that, from the perspective of a rotating earth framework, Chandra is going to be over a certain place at a certain time.

Which means, of course, that the computer-based imagery is accurate. If it says Chandra’s going to be “over a certain place at a certain time,” it will be. And if an astronomer happens to be somewhere beneath that flightpath, he can program NASA’s data into his computer-controlled telescope, and the telescope will point straight up at the appointed time.

So, it seems that you are now conceding that Chandra really does follow the ground-track that NASA predicts. Therefore, my original question remains unanswered: If the earth isn’t rotating, how do you get a satellite to move around it in a crazy pattern like the one shown above?

The point of my previous post, to put it crudely, is that Chandra does not have a big pencil that reaches to the earth and by which it marks out a trajectory.

But if it did, it would mark out exactly the trajectory shown on NASA’s maps. Again, the fact that astronomers use this same trajectory data to aim their telescopes proves that Chandra is right where NASA says it will be relative to the surface of the earth.

Once again, the image we see in NASA’s pictorial is exactly what one would expect to see from a rotating earth. But that doesn’t prove that the earth is rotating. All it proves is that if one assumes a rotating earth, the trajectory will follow the path depicted in the pictorial.

No, the satellite follows that trajectory whether the earth rotates or not. In other words, if you’re standing somewhere on that looping yellow line, and you look up at the right time, you’ll see the Chandra satellite. If the earth rotates, the ground-track makes sense. It’s simply the result of superimposing a highly elliptical orbit over a rotating globe. But if the earth isn’t rotating, that means that somehow Chandra is able to go looping wildly around it, like a bee circling its nest. You need to tell us how that happens.

But if one assumes a stationary earth and a rotating star system, the trajectory is going to be different. In this case, NASA would have to program the computer to assume a stationary earth, and then feed the information about Chandra’s ellipses, inclination and speed into the computer. The computer, programmed for a stationary earth, would then calculate the pictorial trajectory of Chandra. But in the case of a stationary earth, the earth would be showing the same face toward Chandra about 80% of the time (based on a 2.5 day flightpath and a apogee of 80,000 odd miles). In this case, the trajectory the computer will transcribe on the pictorial will be much simpler, that is, it will not have a long zig-zagging and looping line going all over the globe, rather, it will have a simple descending line in the shape of a horseshoe.

Yes, if the earth weren’t rotating, a satellite in an elliptical orbit would follow a simple trajectory relative to the ground. But because the earth is rotating, that satellite follows the bizarre trajectory shown in the image above instead. But whether the earth is rotating or not, that is Chandra’s actual flightpath over the ground. That’s where you have to aim your telescope if you want to see it. How can you account for that flightpath if the earth isn’t rotating?

It just so happens that the horseshoe trajectory of the stationary earth will circumscribe the zig-zagging and looping trajectory of a rotating earth at every point, since both systems account for Chandra’s whereabouts at all times.

Except that if the earth isn’t rotating, then Chandra isn’t in an elliptical orbit; it’s in a bizarre, spirally, loopy orbit. Mathematically, you could assume that the earth is stationary, and that Chandra is moving in a bizarre, spirally, loopy orbit. But in real life, it’s just not possible for a satellite to move like that (not without a lot of fuel and a very powerful rocket). Therefore, we can rule out the idea that the earth is stationary. Instead, the flightpath over the ground followed by Chandra is the result of superimposing its simple elliptical flightpath over a rotating earth.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3