Previous Update

Updates Index



MIDDLE EAST UPDATES
(if there are any to speak of)
July 26 - 31, 2016

James Bradley's Telescope Hoax
or
The First Measurements of the Sun's Distance


I cannot agree, though it was once my theory, that NASA conducted the moon hoax to beat the Russians to the moon. I can agree that they did it, in part, to make everyone believe they beat the Russians, but they were not fooling the Russians, who knew the Americans were incapable of building a lunar lander (that actually landed). The Americans could have exposed the Russians for their false claim of landing a craft on the moon, but decided against it. The space race had nothing to do with either country's global-war capabilities. To say so is like saying that the global nuclear war will be won by the country that gets the most gold medals in the Olympics. There is no relationship. Again, if there was such a thing as a craft that could adjust its position, with jets, so as to land on the moon, they would have shown the same here on earth. If they can't do it here into 2016, they didn't on the moon in 1969. The last chapter showed glaring hoax's amongst NASA's own photos.

The question is whether NASA decided to conduct the hoax mainly to push evolution? First of all, a great respect was manufactured in the people for scientists when NASA claimed to land men on the moon with drama. They were viewed instantly as the gods, lasting for years. Whatever scientists said became the closest thing to reality, benefiting evolution greatly, for NASA took the anti-Creationist position. But then the house of cards began to fall, and Creationism is having a time of relief and prosperity; evolutionary science is going downhill. God will vanquish the fools and their staunch supporters. This is the way it will one day be for all of surviving mankind. Jesus was the small step for man, and the giant leap for mankind. The future is His.

The exploration of Mars, and the money for it, came on the heals of the lunar "success." And while exploration of the moon can serve evolution little profit, Mars is reportedly the planet with water and life-sustaining temperatures. Besides, there is a lot of money to be made feigning a Mars-exploration venture. It's all the life-blood of NASA. It is curious that some of those who believe in the moon hoax don't have the same opinion about the Mars venture.

One of evolution's main tools is the speed of light, which they turn into something more like a sacred gift upon the alter of satan. And one of the stated purposes of the moon landings was to enhance the speed of light. Here is a little of that story:

Jerry Wiant...is the Chief Engineer from the MacDonald Observatory on Mount Livermore, near Fort Davis, Texas. This observatory is one of those responsible for getting laser readings from the retro-reflectors allegedly placed on the lunar surface by the Apollo astronauts.

...

Aulis [the people presenting Jack White's information in websites above] contacted McDonald Observatory on Mount Livermore near Ft Davis, Texas, and Jerry Wiant together with his colleagues kindly responded to our enquiries.

Jerry corroborated the fact that the Soviets used specially made French laser reflectors on both their Lunokhod roving vehicles in order to provide two LR3s for measuring the precise Earth/Moon distance. These Lunokhod reflectors were built higher up on the chassis than the cameras that returned over 80,000 images, and both cameras and laser reflector had protective dust covers. Lunokhod 1 arrived on the Moon in November 1970 by which the time the Soviets, who were highly skilled at remotely controlling their vehicles, had acquired enough data on the properties of the lunar surface to be prepared for any dust movement.

So how can it be the case, as Jerry Wiant informed us, that the LR3 on Lunokhod 1 was unusable because it had become covered in dust from the wheels? Jerry Wiant also confirmed that the Lunokhod 2 (which arrived on the Moon in January 1973) worked better than Lunokhod 1.

As well as these Soviet LR3s, Jerry Wiant told us that his observatory used the three American LR3s, situated at the 'Apollo 11' [the first manned flight ever placed one of these hoaxes on the moon], 'Apollo 14' and 'Apollo 15' designated landing sites.

We were informed by Jerry Wiant that four laser reflectors, (three from Apollo plus Lunokhod 2) were still being used in 1997 by the MLRS at McDonald Observatory in Texas, although the signal received from 'Apollo 14' was higher (i.e. better) than that returned by 'Apollo 11'. This, Jerry added, was considered to be due to the scattering of debris onto the retro-reflector during the LM Eagle lift-off. Note that at the time of filming this segment for the documentary, a colleague asserted that they were currently using two sites, and then corrected this to three sites.

Allegedly, at the time of 'Apollo 11' the 120 inch optical telescope at the Lick Observatory on Mt Hamilton in California and the brand new 107 inch telescope at McDonald Observatory were used to concentrate these beams [sounds like science fiction].

However, the above record of when the laser(s) was/were first fired turns out not to be correct. Jerry Wiant stated that the McDonald Observatory was unable to obtain any readings from the lunar surface until "mid-August 1969". Why? Well, Jerry told us that there were too many clouds in the local Texan sky that summer [liar-liar, pants on fire].* So to check this claim, we contacted the relevant American meteorological office and interestingly their weather data for the area recorded: Clear skies with temperatures averaging 88F and no precipitation from July 18 thro' August 25 1969!

http://www.aulis.com/jerry-wiant.htm

I can't really say that it was absolutely necessary to feign a moon landing purely to enhance the ability to test the speed of light with a light ray bounced off the moon. Nor does it sound likely that the American government needed to beat the Russians to a refined speed-of-light figure. However, the Russians, for all I know, may have been advancing a speed-of-light figure not in tune with that of the West, and this may have been deemed a critical problem. The Americans could now boast that they had the best measurement method. JF Kennedy was not only the president that spoke openly on putting a man on the moon by 1970, but was the one who defeated the Russians in a game of chicken involving a feared nuclear-bomb showdown. But Kennedy also exposed that Russia was not willing to have a nuclear war.

I don't approve of Aulis' James Beals where he tries to justify the faked moon landing based on a dire cold-war scenario with Russia. It makes NASA look like the good guy for the fake job. No one can argue that the Mars program has anything to do with beating the Russians in a world-wide publicity stunt to somehow give the Russian nation a jolt to its ego, making it less capable of winning a nuclear war. Mars is a lot of money and effort for nothing, if the aim is to impress / scare the last vestiges of Sovietism.

Note how the man in charge of the lunar reflectors makes us believe that California had the ability to find these reflectors on the moon using a telescope. In that case, the Hubble telescope should be able to find and show one of the rovers left on the moon. So what if it doesn't come into perfect focus; show us the rovers, anyway. But, no, that can't happen for obvious reason; the rovers aren't on the moon. The article continues: "Even though McDonald Observatory uses these LR3 reflectors to this day, Jerry Wiant was {in 1997} unable to advise us as to what extent the Moon is moving away from Earth. This was one of the alleged reasons for establishing these reflectors. Jerry wrote: 'The number I remember (sometimes I cannot trust my memory) is 4 millimetres.' We were totally astonished at this professional's memory lapse, because it is generally acknowledged that the Moon is moving away from the Earth at a distance of approximately 4 centimetres per annum." The writer doesn't believe in the moon landings, and is forwarding this statement to suggest that the reflectors are not on the moon.

Obviously, this reflector hoax was used to advance the 186,000 figure. The world was ready to believe the evolutionary gods with anything, the minute that Armstrong took his giant leap off of that thin, three-foot high ladder? Or was it the thick ladder that reached the ground? According to NASA images, he came down both ladders.

"...on December 18 1997 the London Daily Telegraph published a positively rhapsodic article exclaiming over the fact that astronomers can measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon." These reflectors were reinforcement in the minds of the masses, and, more importantly, in the minds of the scientific establishments, that the astronomical gods really could size the solar system without error. We then learned that they did not go to the moon, wherefore there are no reflectors up there, wherefore the California telescope is involved in this hoax along with the Texas observatory. The United States appears to be nothing but a band of thieving liars pillaging the peoples' hard labor to the max. The United States is a sick societal model, good only for global break-down.

Here's another story from Aulis:

Well, even 25-50,000 miles out there was yet another type of "atmosphere" around the Earth. It isn't made of gasses, but of electrons, and protons. Electro-magnetic plasma. It is known as the Van Allen radiation belts. In 1958 the US sent the first Explorer craft to see how high and far we could go. Explorer was supposed to escape Earth's gravity and fly past the Moon and keep on going. At around 25,000 miles it ran into an intense band of radiation. A dense zone of electro-magnetic energy. The band was extremely dense and intense. So much so, that after sending back some data, the craft not only slowed down, but it went hay-wire as all the electrical circuits on board, including the transmitter and receiver, literally 'fried' out, burned up in the strong electro-magnetic currents of the radiation belt.

Back in the late '50s and early '60s the US sent one Explorer after the next to try and keep the electronics from frying, and to go beyond the belts. One after another the various crafts met with problems.

According to my friend Rob, we never got a craft through the radiation belts. But let's go back to the first claim the Soviets made when they announced to the world they had a craft that passed through the radiation belts. They had the largest rockets; they were now claiming to be the first to get a craft out of Earth orbit, through the Van Allen belts and the first country to send a space craft (unmanned) to crash land on the Moon. Russia claimed to have actually reached the Moon with an unmanned craft.

http://www.aulis.com/moonshadows2.htm

There is the solar wind, said to consists of both electrons and protons, but, really, the protons do not exist; it's an evolutionary fallacy. NASA was the one that invented the solar wind in that way. They claim to have gone out into space to test the "atmosphere," to discover what's in it. Evolutionary physics claims that protons cannot be destroyed, and that every proton has exactly one electron in orbit. Therefore, as NASA was able to detect electrons in space, they had to maintain the theory that as many protons as electrons were up there too. But it is sheer lunacy to suggest that free protons were flying through space with free electrons, for the two attract one another to form atoms. They did not report atoms up there, they reported free protons and free electrons. Therefore, be wise to the trick, and realize that electrons alone are up there. And these constitute the "ether" that Einstein sought to destroy, along with his evolutionary goon squad. NASA did not announce that the solar wind was the ether, because NASA was not in business to be honest. It was pushing evolution.

So, the solar-wind electrons are the light medium after all, and Einstein went to his grave in error. There is no speedy photon, just an electron ether through which light waves move.

When Einstein put forward this idea in the special theory of relativity, it immediately solved an important conundrum. Many physicists believed that light, like other waves, must travel through a medium which they called the luminiferous ether. Since the Earth moves around the Sun, it must move relative to this ether. Therefore, the speed of light in a given direction ought to change during the course of the year and even throughout the course of a day [wrong assumption].

The now famous Michelson-Morley experiment knocked this idea on the head when it failed to find any variation in the speed of light relative to the Earth's motion through space. Physicists have repeated this experiment with increasing accuracy many times since with the same result. The speed of light really is constant.

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-one-way-speed-of-light-fcc5f05c5e44#.iny7l7g8u

Well, the writer is like an echo, repeating the line that evolutionists want the world to repeat on this matter. Evolutionists have now "proved," thanks to the reflectors on the moon, that light travels at the same speed in outer space no matter which way the moon is orbiting relative to earth, and this "proves" that there is no ether out there. But we now have solid indication that, if the reflectors are a hoax, we can't trust American science with their light-speed claims. Let's go to Wikipedia:

The Michelson-Morley experiment was performed over the spring and summer of 1887...It compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The result was negative, in that the expected difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles, was found not to exist; this result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then-prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out a stationary aether. The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Okay, so the experiment claimed to find that light, in the lab, moves in all directions at the same speed. Doesn't that prove that the ether is stationary in the lab? Why, then, does the experiment claim that the ether is not stationary? Because, they were viewing the room flying through space with the earth. They were thinking, at the time, that the ether hung in all space perfectly still. This was a wrong assumption. The experiment tended to prove that there could be no ether at all, stationary or otherwise, if, in a room flying at 67,000 miles per hour, no difference in the speed of light could be detected by performing the experiment in all directions. But this ignored the reality. The air in the room was stationary even while flying 67,000 mph through space. Why couldn't the same apply to ether particles? Indeed, it does. The air and ether in the lab are both stationary, both in relation to the walls and to the earth flying through space.

There were differing opinions on the nature of the ether. It was a developing science, wherefore, even if they did prove that the ether was not stationary when scientists were leaning in that direction, it was no reason at all to do away with it. Yes, the cosmic ether has particles in motion. So what? It moves as a wind from the sun and stars, wherefore Einstein had no right to do away with it. The earth always plows into the ether wind in the same, never-changing situation.

Western science was hasty in eradicating it. What was their motive? If evolutionists proved that a stationary ether didn't exist, why not entertain one with ether particles in motion? Well, that idea itself had become problematic, but this was due to a view of ether particles sweeping across the earth from any direction, except for the reality: from the sun. Leading scientists were as sloppy with their faked experiments as NASA was with its moon photos.

In the atmosphere, free electrons are trapped between, and mixed with, air atoms. The electrons are therefore moving with the earth even as the air atoms are. It didn't matter whether M and M faced the experiment toward one wall or the other, the ether in the room was circling the sun as fast as the earth was, and was rotating on the earth axis as fast as the earth was. The ether in a room is moving perfectly with the earth. The experiment was therefore flawed by a false premise, and evolutionists grasped at the results, like a child to candy, because they were grasping any flimsy argument possible to tear down the light-wave basis of light, and to replace it with the speedy photon.

Evolutionists of about that time came to profess that all particles are in constant motion, yet, on this matter, the ether was said to be stationary in order to disprove its existence. Evolutionists came to believe that all motion is wrapped up in electrons, and they knew that heat production produced electrons, wherefore they had every green light to view electrons streaming from the sun. Virtually all of the solar system's energy was streaming from the sun. They knew it. Why, therefore, did they never claim that the ether streams from the sun? Because, they didn't want the wave theory with electrons serving as the wave medium.

Free electrons move away from the sun, and enter the atmosphere of earth. From that point, the electrons blow around with the air, unless they are trapped in a lab with the windows closed. There is nothing complicated about this.

And, by the way, why should we trust the M-M experiment as per the particular speed of light it discovered? Doesn't it seem to you more like science fiction to be able to discover such a fantastic speed in merely a lab?

What follows is the reason that the ether was found to be stationary. Keep in mind that these experiments were before the discovery of the electron:

...Designing experiments to test the properties of the aether was a high priority of 19th century physics.

Earth orbits around the Sun at a speed of around 30 km/s (18.64 mi/s), or 108,000 km/h (67,000 mph). The Earth is in motion, so two main possibilities were considered: (1) The aether is stationary and only partially dragged by Earth (proposed by Augustin-Jean Fresnel in 1818), or (2) the aether is completely dragged by Earth and thus shares its motion at Earth's surface (proposed by Sir George Stokes, 1st Baronet in 1844)...Eventually, Fresnel's idea of an (almost) stationary aether was preferred because it appeared to be confirmed by the Fizeau experiment (1851) and the aberration of star light.

According to this hypothesis...a so-called "aether wind" (Fig. 2) should exist. Although it would be possible, in theory, for the Earth's motion to match that of the aether at one moment in time [i.e. at one part of its orbit], it was not possible for the Earth to remain at rest [i.e. at the same direction flow] with respect to the aether at all times, because of the variation in both the direction and the speed of the motion [in orbit].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

In other words, they entertained an ether wind, as opposed to a stationary ether, and viewed the earth as a ship sails through wind in various directions. Figure 2 shows the ether wind in one cosmic direction only, sweeping across the earth and sun both. In this false picture, the earth flows into the ether wind in one part of its orbit, then against the wind in the opposite part of the orbit, and cuts across the ether wind in the remaining parts of its orbit. This creates an irregular effect on the planet that scientists thought could be discovered one way or another. As they could not discover the irregularity, they decided the ether did not exist.

A proposed singular direction of the ether wind is so strange that it seems contrived for the very purpose of wrecking the light wave. Where would the ether wind come from if it sweeps across even the sun??????? Didn't anyone realize that the wind came from the sun, and flowed out in all directions, always hitting the earth (no matter where it was in orbit) exactly the same? If they neglected this latter view, they could hardly be called scientists, but more like schemers seeking to have their own way with contrived experiment. As they had no source for the ether particles, as they wished to perceive the ether wind, their hasty knock-down of the ether theory had no premise. If you continue to read the Wikipedia article, it will be identical to eating garbage.

I can't explain to you why light-speed experiments are faulty because the methods used to measure the speed are over my head. The device needs to register the precise micro-time that the light wave goes out, and the precise micro-time that the light wave returns to register in a wave-catching system. The micro-time involved is so small that this has got to be fiction. No timing mechanism can itself act at the speed of light. From the time that it receives the light to the time that it registers it for human use, a lot of time has gone by that ruins the experiment. I have a big problem with this, but to say that light-speed was measured even roughly in the 1800s is asking me to believe in a hoax.

"The first round of Michelson's measurements were made in August of 1924. These he presented in a paper titled 'Preliminary Experiments on the Velocity of Light' which was published in the Fall of 1924. In that paper Michelson gave the speed of light to be 299,820 Kilometers per second, accurate to about 1 part in 10,000. But he thought he could do better." Correct to 1/10,000th, but not good enough for 1924, eh? Surely, he couldn't have gotten that close. "He returned again during the Summers of 1925 and 1926 making a more extensive series of measurements...From these he obtained a speed of light in vacuum of 299,796 Kilometers per second...For comparison, the speed of light measured by modern techniques is taken to be 299,792.458 Kilometers per second." Gosh, Michelson got it right to within 3.5 kilometers per second; he must have been a science god. How can anyone dare profane a science god?
http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/physics/historical-speed-of-light-measurements-in-southern-california/the-mount-wilson-mount-san-antonio-measurements-1922-1926/

You can read in the article that the speed was measured, not in a lab, but in the outdoors, between two mountains 22 miles apart. Just think of how fast light travels 22 miles according to his own measurement? And he got this measurement correct within a speck of error? The article doesn't get into the method by which the light was registered on a clock. But the "fact" that he got so close, way back then, is a red flag indicating a pre-planned hoax by the club to which he belonged.


James Bradley's Telescope Hoax

The huge-solar-system hoax can be brought back to the first people studying the heavens with telescopes:

The first successful measurement of c [light speed] was made by Olaus Roemer in 1676. He noticed that, depending on the Earth-Sun-Jupiter geometry, there could be a difference of up to 1000 seconds between the predicted times of the eclipses of Jupiter's moons, and the actual times that these eclipses were observed. He correctly surmised that this is due to the varying length of time it takes for light to travel from Jupiter to Earth as the distance between these two planets varies. He obtained a value of c equivalent to 214,000 km/s, which was very approximate because planetary distances were not accurately known at that time.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html

It becomes clear that his figure, more than two thirds the speed of light measured later by Michelson, was in view of a huge solar system. For, his measurement was based partly on the distance that he thought Jupiter was at. It reveals that the giant solar system was already in progress. The other part of his calculation involved the prediction of when exactly the moons of Jupiter were in eclipse mode, but how could any of this have been known at such an early time after the discovery of the telescope? In order to make that prediction, one must at least claim to know how long it should take, with great precision, for any moon to do one full orbit. How can this be done unless the distances between the moons and Jupiter were known, as well as the size of Jupiter?? That is, the orbital diameter of the moons needed to be known, but that's not all; the velocity of the lunar orbits needed to be known. I say that Roemer's experiment was a farce because he did not know either, nor did he know the distance from his eye to Jupiter.

The scientists have placed themselves into a trap. The closer Jupiter, Mars or Venus is to us, the slower the speed-of-light measurement must be. When science finally admits that the solar system is not as big as now claimed, all of their rigged light-speed experiments in the lab will be proven as hoaxes, for the lab experiments claim to jibe with light-speed experiments in the cosmos.

Soon after:

In 1728 James Bradley made another estimate by observing stellar ABERRATION [caps mine], being the apparent displacement of stars due to the motion of the Earth around the Sun. He observed a star in Draco and found that its apparent position changed throughout the year. All stellar positions are affected equally in this way...Bradley measured this angle for starlight, and knowing the speed of the Earth around the Sun, he found a value for the speed of light of 301,000 km/s

First of all, we discover here that the 93-million-mile system was already in place in Bradley's time. There is no other way to interpret, "knowing the speed of the Earth around the Sun," than to realize that the modern sizing of the earth orbit was already established in his day. I would like to know how he arrived to his light-speed figure just because he knew the velocity of the earth. As the earth's orbit is not really twice 93 million miles, his math is ruined on that basis alone. His light-speed figure is much too high, and because it's the same basic speed as found in a lab, the lab experiments that are fed to us in common educational channels have been hoaxes, or, at best, manipulations.

Was Bradley nothing more than a magician pulling a rabbit from his hat? What connection can there be between the velocity of the earth orbit and the bending of starlight? Things like this could easily be tricks. Why should light bend just because you are moving? Your motion is not connected to the light ray. It's apples and oranges. You are to imagine that light could bend noticeably if you are in fast motion, and they could convince you by posing it in certain language.

Bradley claims to have found stars moving in the opposite direction to what one expects from the direction of earth orbit. For example, if you run south past a person standing, the person standing shifts toward the north from your perspective (this is parallax motion). In the same way, if the earth is moving one way, stars in the sky should appear to be moving the other way, but Bradley claimed that stars move in the opposite direction, i.e. the same direction as the earth. If he was correct, he obliterated parallax motion and replaced it with light-bending aberration.

If he was not passing off a hoax, no one should ever talk about parallax measurements without also mentioning the opposite motion due to aberration. As parallax motion is a fact, even if it is very small with stars, there can only be one conclusion if aberration is true: per each star, its specific amount of parallax motion is displaced / countered by the aberration effect. For example, if a star is observed (over any time period) to move to the right by x distance due to aberration, it has actually moved further than x distance, if aberration is true, because, simultaneously, the star was pulled to the left by parallax.

This presents a critical problem for the claim that stellar distances can be known through parallax measurements, but evolutionists quell the uncertainty with their claim that all stars exhibit identical aberration levels. It makes the complication sound so easy to deal with. Later, you will see a claim that stars perpendicular to earth motion (in orbit) undergo the most aberration effect. It is totally expected that stars viewed in the direction of earth motion should show no aberration at all, which explains why stars viewed perpendicular to earth motion are predicted to show the greatest aberration. Therefore, stars can have the same aberration levels only if they are in the same position in relation to earth orbit. Imagine the resulting harsh complication for astronomers doing parallax measurements, and the great room for abuse / manipulation for dishonest schemers. We on the streets are helpless to prove them wrong or right with any stellar measurements. We are simply to trust, and many do. Our educational channels are geared to their views constantly.

Aberration could be a trick. It may be theory only. The first clue is factual experiments. If a car is passing a post in the distance, the post moves away from the car much faster than the aberration of light can make the post go the other way. In fact, no one even notices the aberration of light off the post. Does it even exist? Why should aberration motion be greater, with stars, than stellar-parallax motion? It's not the way things are here on earth. This is Bradley's claim, as we shall see, that aberration is greater than parallax. Yet, he becomes suspect as a fraud for very-obvious reason.

"Very early on, it was realized that if the Earth moved around the Sun the positions of the stars would change, due to stellar parallax. And in fact, many observers in the late 1500's claimed to have actually observed [sounds almost miraculous] such changes; but the much more accurate observations of Tycho Brahe showed that there was no change in stellar positions which could be attributed to anything other than observational errors; and given the lack of any reliable observations of stellar parallax, Tycho rejected the idea that the Earth moved." Fine, Brahe was wrong about the motion of earth, but his investigations showed no positive stellar deviations, in relation to earth's motion, while science of later times claimed that the deviations were measurable enough to find distances to stars many light years away. Sheer trickery, absolutely, by desperadoes. The failure of early astronomers to find evidence of apparent star motion works against aberration too. If they could find no definite star motion, neither was aberration likely.

While stellar deviations are so small that they can be attributed to human error, yet Bradley came up with a speed of light, almost bang-on that of Michelson, using angles of stellar deviation due to aberration. I see this as a red flag indicating a hoax to move toward the 186,000 figure. "Unfortunately, the parallactic movement of stars caused by our orbital motion around the Sun is incredibly small (smaller, even, than the size of the smallest stellar images on every photograph of the sky taken more than a few years ago), and the technology required to observe that motion would not be achieved until the 1800's." But what does the writer know? He makes it sound as though the measurements of stellar deviations became reliable in the 1800s, but this was merely the claim, not necessarily the fact. The writer has no way to prove anything; he's just repeating what the evolutionists have claimed.

In 1725 James Bradley, who held a position at Oxford as astronomer and natural philosopher [what's that?], began observations of Gamma Draconis [a star] at the home of a friend, Samuel Molyneux. Using a telescope attached to a chimney so that it pointed nearly vertically [sounds really reliable for taking tiny star angles, haha?], he changed the position of the telescope very slightly, and very accurately [who can prove that it was accurate?] measured its change in position using a screw and plumb-line [and I thought it couldn't get any funnier]; and over the course of a year or so found that the star did indeed vary in position during the course of the year by 40 arc-seconds...

http://cseligman.com/text/history/bradley.htm

Later, the 40 figure got changed to 20, not even close.

I am puzzled by the wording, and cannot make sense of it. Another article clarifies with a much better job of explanation. It says that Robert Hooke, shortly before Bradley, fixed his telescope through his roof to find Draconis' parallax angle, and measured the angle between the straight-up position (called, zenith) as compared to Draconis when it came across the meridian (longitude) line through his zenith spot (Draconis and zenith were on the same meridian at the time). The zenith is straight up. Okay, now I understand what was taking place.

Hooke could measure the angle of Draconis anytime it came spinning around through the same meridian. Unfortunately, the article, mercilessly, does not explain the rest of the measurement. The implication is that he sought small changes in distance between Draconis and his zenith spot, from month to month, for example. He expected the distance to grow larger for six months, then smaller for six months. At least, that's the way I see his expectation. Along comes Bradley, doing the same experiment on the same star, but he finds changes in distance between Draconis and his zenith??? Draconis was as perpendicular as one can get from the earth motion, yet Hooke found zero aberration motion in this star. Instead, Hooke reported motion in the other direction. Someone might think to charge Bradley with fraud. Instead, they elevated him to astronomical godhood.

Wikipedia's article on Aberration of Light says he presented his findings to the Royal Society (the article doesn't have the bones to comment on the obliteration of the parallax scheme by his results). Bradley became highly respected in the Royal Society, so much so that his fraud may have been initiated, and later perpetuated, by Royal-Society insiders. One might predict that Bradley was rewarded for his hoax with the chair of Astronomer Royal.

As Hooke and Bradley were not seeing the same thing at all with the same star, one wonders whether there had been conflict of interest between astronomer groups, each pushing their own particular pet-theories, and seeking evidence for them.

Wikipedia: "Albert Einstein then developed the theory of special relativity in 1905, which provides the modern account of aberration." Oh, great. It was a Bradley bounce to Einstein, not a wonder that physics and astronomy are both in deep trouble. It seems that one can track Einsteinian relativity, which was brought over-board, back to the Bradley circle of schemers. The following shows the war between sides: "[Bradley's] explanation [for aberration] proved inaccurate once the wave nature of light was better understood, and correcting it became a major goal of the 19th century theories..." Along comes Einstein and makes aberration his pet simultaneous with the obliteration of the light wave.

Before Einstein's photon, there was Bradley's photon: "Bradley conceived of an explanation in terms of a corpuscular theory of light in which light is made of particles unaffected by gravity." We hereby find that they did entertain weightless particles, which was inconsistent with Newtonian gravity. The shooting light particle goes back to times before Isaac Newton, who himself adopted it, then advanced it. The battle was on for control: "The corpuscular theory was largely developed by Sir Isaac Newton. Newton's theory remained in force for more than 100 years and took precedence over Huygens' wave front theory, partly because of Newton's great prestige." Yes, the leaders of the Royal pack, with their prestige, got to win the day with the masses, whether their theories were correct or not. It paid for science clubs to remain close to the Crown, all the better if the club could control the Crown...which was the aim of what some call the Illuminati.

If you go to the article below, and see the diagram, you will see the explanation for differentiating between parallax and aberration. The stars are moving in tiny elipses in both cases, but parallax is shown counter-clockwise, and Bradley's aberration goes clockwise. The stars either make tiny loops in one direction or the other. You can't have both. Which is it per any given star at any given time? What a mess. And the situation for measuring stellar distances becomes even worse if aberration does not exist while it's part of the calculations. In fact, I can see aberration used as part of the manipulations when a certain star is needed at such-and-such a distance, while parallax alone isn't doing the trick for them.

Bradley gave his findings to the Royal Society, the band of curious men once governed by Newton, and Bradley had adopted Newton's proto-photon. The Royal Society can be understood as a band of Rosicrucians partly disguised as pro-Creationists, but evolving toward Evolution just as soon as they could within a Christian backdrop where the politics was against them. Astronomy attracted evolutionists bent on proving evolution using astronomy. The great speed of light was a necessary ingredient in the evolutionary quest to control science. Bradley's idea was simply deceptive. Let's repeat it and analyze it: "...the size of the aberration is a direct observation of a particular ratio, namely the speed of the Earth compared to the speed of light". That is, the angle of star aberration was linked to the motion of the earth, apples and oranges.

The nuttier things get in astronomy, the more normal it is because nuts have controlled it. We can even expect two contradictory theories accepted as truth. Not only do we have both parallax and aberration accepted as truth, but the ones who rejected the light wave came to believe that the photon was a wave principle, anyway, one of the nuttier ideas known to science. These people can wrap their heads around absolutely anything because they haven't the proper reins on their brains to stay in sanity lane.

What Bradley and others espouse is the idea that a person in a moving car sees the star in a different position than it's really at (see Wikipedia's illustration). Ditto with a person riding the orbiting Earth. Seeing a star in a different place than where it really sits REQUIRES that you are seeing a curved beam of light. But Bradley and the rest (some of them before his time) are not at all talking about light curvature due to passage through the atmosphere. Bradley claimed that his aberration was not due to light curving in the air. They were inventing a different kind of curvature. Einstein wanted curved light as per gravity attracting photons. It seems that, for some reason, they wanted curved light. Was something(s) in their scheme so problematic that curved light was the only fix?

Bradley's curved light has nothing to do with the physical path of the light beam; the light beam is itself not curving. Instead, light bends merely because you are moving along while receiving the light beam. If you can't wrap your head around this, you are absolutely normal, don't worry. You need to grasp the problem, and you can, if you think straight. With aberration, the bending angle of the light ray is at the telescope tube. The telescope bends the light ray. I kid you not; this was Bradley's claim.

Lets use raindrops, because this is what aberration specialists use to give us their view of this thing. They say that if you are running in vertical rain, it's as though the rain is coming down at an angle upon you. This is a trick. The truth is, you are running into the vertical rain drops. End of story. There is no reason to imagine them at an angle from you. They are using a trick to fool you into believing that rays of light into your eye change angle when you are running. If you look at the drops as you are running, they look like vertical drops moving toward you. That is all.

They say, although light originated at A, it looks like it originated at B just because you are moving. But there is no connection between your motion and the motion of rain drops. You have your origin, and they have their origin. You meet, so what? Does the origin of the rain drops change because they meet you while running? If not, why should the origin of light rays change when they meet you running? If you try to imagine a single raindrop coming at you while running, you don't get the impression that the drop is moving in the same direction as you are running, but rather in the opposite direction. That's parallax angle, no problem, but this claim that the star appears to be moving in the direction of motion has no logical basis, especially as the very concept is supposedly due to an effect of light in the telescope.

Here is how they see it. Imagine running with a tube on your shoulder, pointed up in the direction of rain drops falling. When the raindrops enter the tube, they change direction with your direction. The tube has hijacked the raindrops, in other words. This is the very definition of Bradley's aberration of light.

If you are moving, you have left the path of light rays that were headed your way, and you have gotten into the path of other light rays. None of them curved to become "apparent" (their term) light rays. None of them changed angles. The waves coming straight at you do not say, "hey, there he goes, let's change direction and cut him off at the pass." Your motion has no bearing on their motion. If you connect the two, it's like Einstein's connection of time and space, nutty. But Bradley had found a way to curve light as per a telescope hijacking it. I'm not kidding. Bradley is not claiming that light changes path due to a trick of the eye while the eye is in motion. Scientists today might want for you to believe that this is what Bradley was saying, but, as you will see, his math proves that his real claim was a telescope hijacking light.

All stellar light rays that hit your eyes are on straight-line paths to the center of the star, which is why the location of the star in the sky cannot change regardless of which beam you get, nor how fast you are moving when you get it. There is nothing curvy-supernatural about it. The star won't appear to change position just because you caught up to beams u, v and w instead of beams x, y and z that you left behind while running.

It turns out that Bradley's type of aberration is now called "annual aberration," defined as the type caused by the earth's orbit. Wikipedia: "Assuming a circular orbit, annual aberration causes stars exactly on the ecliptic (the plane of the Earth's orbit) to appear to move back and forth along a straight line...A star that is precisely at one of the ecliptic poles (at 90 degrees from the ecliptic plane) will appear to move in a circle of radius...and stars at intermediate ecliptic latitudes will appear to move along a small ellipse." Okay, so Bradley was, supposedly, seeing and studying the polar regions only, explaining why he got only circles. But the statement above may be theory only, not verified fact. With science of this sort, one never knows at first. Have star gazers truly seen stars, under study, going "back and forth" over the course of one year?

If you did not understand why aberrations are defined as near-circular elipses, thin elipses and straight lines, let me try to explain. These elipses reflect the shape of the earth's orbit. If the earth moved in a straight line, the star would always be at the same spot, never forming any shape. But as the earth turns in orbit, the star is forced to turn too. If you watched one star for an entire year, you would not see a loop at any one time. You would see only one star at any one time. It would be constantly moving, and, at the end of the year, it will have made a loop. The concept of aberration is that it would not follow a looped shape if there were no bent light. The bent light is what makes the loop shape, and the loop is around the true star that is never seen. The true star sits in the middle of the loop all the while, and the only star that is seen is the star's bent light.

In the webpage, "FREEMASONS AND THE ROYAL SOCIETY," James Bradley is listed. He was ordained as a vicar, but left that lifestyle to become a big-cheese astronomer, and may have schmoozed with all sorts of Masonic demonism in that capacity. Michelson is also on the page:
http://www.freemasonry.london.museum/os/wp-content/resources/frs_freemasons_complete_jan2012.pdf

Bradley claimed to find the angle using the speed of earth around a sun some 93 million miles away. The speed per hour of the earth is found by the orbit circumference divided by 365.24 days, and divided again by 24. If the earth is only 3 million miles from the sun -- the eclipse lines do not lie -- then the earth-orbit circumference is only 18.8 million miles, wherefore the earth velocity is 18.8M / 365.24 / 24 = 2,150 miles per hour. It will change Bradley's math, where he instead used something like 66,600 mph.

Bradley's discovery of the aberration of light was made while attempting to detect stellar parallax....This stellar parallax ought to have shown up, if it existed at all, as a small annual cyclical motion of the apparent position of the star. However, while Bradley and Molyneux did not find the expected apparent motion due to parallax, they found instead a different and unexplained annual cyclical motion. Shortly after Molyneux's death, Bradley realised that this was caused by what is now known as the aberration of light.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bradley

It also says: "In 1742, Bradley was appointed to succeed Edmond Halley as Astronomer Royal..." He was one of the big cheeses. "In 1722 Bradley measured the diameter of Venus with a large aerial telescope with an objective focal length of 212 ft (65 m)". He had come a long way since his chimney telescope. He must have been in the very thick of things toward the parallax experiments as per the transit of Venus over the sun.

Not many in the scientific world would dare go against Bradley's aberration claims as he sat as the big astronomical cheese? Whom did he appoint / favor to oversee astronomy around himself? How did the near-future pan out due to his influences? Did anyone object to his beliefs? Prior to Bradley, the world of astronomy was like so:

During the 17th century the idea of an orbiting and rotating Earth became increasingly popular, but opponents of this view continued to point out that the theory had observable consequences that had never, in fact, been observed. Why, for instance, had astronomers failed to detect the annual parallax of the stars that must occur if Earth orbits the Sun?

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1208/1208.2061.pdf

Stellar-parallax angles didn't really exist in measurable form, because the stars are too distant......or because aberration was over-riding it. Bradley's contribution was to claim that parallax was over-ridden, which allows scientists today to claim that parallax is indeed there, but disguised. In other words, Bradley's contribution may have had the express purpose of allowing stellar parallax measurements where they were previously unjustified due to the absence of parallax angles. An evolutionist could then say, "aha, there she-be, hiding behind aberration. Just remove the aberration angle, and there she-be, the parallax angle. We can now measure our great distances to the stars."

The page above is a treatment on aberration, and even gives details on how Bradley's mind was working on the speed-of-light problem. "Bradley realized that it takes the light from a star a finite time to travel through a telescope tube, and during this time the tube moves slightly because of the motion of Earth." At first, I couldn't see what he was doing, but then it sprung on me. He's claiming that the light ray is hijacked by the telescope tube in motion. I totally understand this, and it's dead wrong right away. I am not mistaken with this explanation because Bradley's math on the page above verifies it. The aberration is based on the length of the telescope. Here is the page above:

The starlight enters the top of the tube at p1. It then travels a distance h before reaching the eyepiece at p3. If c is the speed of light, then it takes a time h/c for the light to travel this distance. During this time the telescope has moved a distance vh/c, where v is the velocity of Earth's orbital motion. As a result, the telescope cannot be aimed directly up toward the star. It must be tilted slightly toward the direction of the telescope's motion. This phenomenon is now called the aberration of starlight...

Bradley was trying to pass off the idea that the telescope tube shifts the light within it before it reaches the eye at the bottom of the tube. When it does reach the eye, the light ray, he claims wrongly, appears to be coming from a slightly different direction than the original ray that brought it to the telescope. This is hilarious. I doubt very much that he can fool the astronomer with this, if the astronomer is worth his salt. Astronomers to this day may merely pay lip service to aberration (just to pass the exams), and then simply ignore it when studying stars. If astronomers just ignore it (because they realize the error), it can explain why stellar-parallax articles don't mention aberration.

In case you don't get it, let me put it another way. Bradley claimed that the eye at the base of the telescope cannot see the straight ray of light between the star and the top of the telescope simply because this portion of light doesn't reach the eye. It's only the portion in the tube that hits the eye, and it has been shifted over so that the viewer does not see the real star position, but sees a position a little to the side of the real position. For as long as one views a star in a telescope, it's not the real star position, but the apparent position. That is, the light shift is claimed to be constant for as long as the eye is looking through the telescope, because the telescope is constantly shifting the light with it.

In order to grasp the mechanics, don't view the light as constantly incoming; it becomes too complicated that way, and you'll get aberration of the brain. Just focus on one ray, from star to eye (the next rays will act in the same way). The question is whether the telescope will really hijack the ray of light within it. It's easy to imagine it doing so, but it's not correct. If Bradley was not looking at this situation the way I am, it's not me that has it wrong. I am showing the certain and easy mechanics of his situation. The telescope is fixed on a star, that is all there is, aside from the telescope flying through space in the meantime. It's not more complicated than that. If his mechanics were not mine, he has the problem of complicating things unto a trick. If the aberration angle were due to something besides the telescope motion, he would not have used telescope motion as the crux of his aberration. There is no other way to understand the aberration angle aside from the motion of the telescope causing it. How does the telescope motion cause the light ray to change position???

If the telescope does shift the light ray, then we need to see the ray as broken off, at the top of the telescope, from the original ray. Just ask yourself where the original ray goes once the telescope breaks a small piece away. Into oblivion? Does it no longer exist? The answer will inform you that Bradley was a fraud. Bradley conducted detailed drawings of his work, and knew that the original ray entered the telescope, and reached the eye piece. He knew that the light ray was never broken, and even knew that the telescope is not capable of shifting a light ray. However he posed this thing, it was a known fraud.

The math involves the difference between a speed-of-light figure and the earth velocity. I assume he had an earth velocity similar to what we have today, about 18.5 miles per second. This figure happens to be 10,054 times smaller than 186,000 mps (he calculated 10,210 times, according to the article under discussion). So, if the light traveled down a ten-foot telescope (I read he was initially using one at four or five feet long), the telescope would have shifted by 10,054 times less than ten feet, or .001 foot = .012 inch = 12/1000ths = 1/83rd of one inch. That's all folks. Even at his super-fast earth velocity, his telescope would have shifted far less than the width of the pupil of your eye. The only light in the telescope is the star at the center of the telescope top, and it comes down the center of the tube in a tiny ray to the pupil at the center of the telescope bottom. This small shifting of the telescope, whether done by the earth's motion or a bat flying into it, cannot be predicted to affect a ray of light, at the center of the tube, in any way. You can shift the telescope a lot more than 1/83rd of an inch, and still see that star's original ray of light. It never does break. No aberration effect whatsoever can take place as defined by Bradley.

The curiosity is that he includes the length of the telescope in his equation. The page says, "the telescope moves a distance vh/c during the time it takes light to travel down the tube". 'V' is the velocity of earth, and 'h' is the length of the telescope. If 'h' is 10 feet, it's .0019 of one mile. If we do vh/c using that number, we get 18.5 x .0019 / 186,000 = .000000188 mile = .0119 inch, which is my figure of .012 inch. My method is h / c/v. That is, 10 feet divided by (186,000 / 18.5) = .000995 foot = .0119 inch. My math allows us to understand what his formula was saying.

The obvious curiosity is a red flag, that, if we double the size of the telescope, the shift doubles. How can that be? It proves that he was viewing a hijacking of the light by the telescope, and that the telescope was flinging the light to some other angle. The longer the telescope, the more fling. This is nuts. Can you really hit a light ray, and smack it around, with a telescope, as a baseball bat hits a ball? Bradley was either a nut, or a fraud.

If the telescope reached to the star, the shift would go on in earth orbit for as long as the starlight took to reach the eye on earth. The poor ray of light would be trapped in the telescope all that time. Do you believe that this sort of mechanics is the correct way to look at it? I sure hope not. In reverse, there is almost zero aberration fling if the star is viewed minus a telescope i.e. by the naked eye.

With the speed of light secured in his pocket with this "discovery," he was able to know the distance to the sun, and the article even says that Gamma Draconis, the star he first worked on, was measured by the aberration method to be 400,000 times further than the sun. Just like that, a super-huge galaxy was fashioned on a hoax. The writer of the article, as I'm sure the Royal Society did, portrays Hooke as a bad astronomer who got everything wrong. It was Bradley who got everything right. James Bradley, the hero of the evolutionists. However, I've looked at this closely, but there is no way to know how far the star is. He can create a triangle with his two stars -- the real and apparent one -- with the triangle's axis, but the best that can be done is to measure the angle of the axis, which can tell Bradley the two identical angles on either side of the triangle's base line (between the two star positions), but it can't tell him how far the star is along the triangle's other two lines (the long ones).

The hoax involves the idea of a telescope filled with light that gets shifted by the telescope. Wherever the telescope goes, so goes the ray of light. But, please, what do you think will happen if the walls of the telescope come into contact with the ray of star light? The light gets absorbed or reflected by the walls. Besides, the question is not called for because the telescope is constantly focused on the star, regardless of the earth's orbit, wherefore the light never strikes the walls of the tube. One may as well ignore that the tube exists altogether. The telescope is then just the lens and the eye-viewer.

The length of the telescope is simply the distance between the lens and the eye-piece. How could the lens bump the light over? Besides, Bradley does not say that the thickness of the lens is the crux of shifting light, but rather the length of the telescope. He thinks that the light, after it passes the lens, is someone being moved over progressively as the light comes down the tube in raw space. This is a trick. Why should the light be shifted over in the raw space of the telescope? I don't know whether Bradley was using a lens or mirror type telescope, but either way, the argument here stands because light is traveling through air in the telescope. His math suggests a lens telescope i.e. with the light making one trip only down the tube.

The air for miles above the telescope is itself moving with the earth, no different from the air in the telescope. Where is the light-bending mechanism within the telescope? Why should light bend in the air of the telescope and not in the air above it? Where is the logic? Or, if we disregard the actual air as having anything to do with it, and if we just say that the light from the top of the telescope reaches the eye when the latter has moved over a little bit, what's the point in having the telescope involved at all? If the light ten feet between the eye and the star doesn't experience the aberration effect without a telescope in use, why does Bradley say that there is an aberration when viewing the star through a ten-foot telescope? What exactly does the telescope do to bend light that doesn't get bent without the telescope? I haven't read anyone telling this amazing thing. We would all have heard about this amazing thing as children in school, if it was truly going on in the telescope.

How did Bradley's toil on aberration get the speed-of-light figure? Until he had it, he could not use the formula above to discover the shift distance. He needed to calculate the time for light to pass from top to bottom of the tube; where would he find it? He used the telescope shift and the speed of the earth for this. But unless he had the speed of light, he couldn't have the shift (the amount of), and unless he had the shift, he couldn't have the speed of light. Ouch. The shift is defined as the amount of shift from the time that light takes between top and bottom of the tube. Without the speed of light, he and his partners knew only the angle of shift (refined to 20.2 arc seconds = .0056 degrees), but not the distance of shift, yet this angle was determined by the size of the star loop in the sky. Whatever he measured in star shift (if he really did find the loops) had nothing to do with telescopic shift; the two are wholly independent of each other, or irrelevant toward one another; it was a figment of his imagination.

I'm sure you are lost concerning the angle of shift. There is a true angle of telescopic shift, just as there is a true distance of telescopic shift, and whether those things were measured correctly by anyone depends on whether they have the correct speed of light. The shift is the difference between the two positions of the telescope when it first receives the light and when the light hits the bottom of the telescope. These two positions create an angle (explained below) that Bradley put into his drawings.

In his drawing, the first position of his telescope points to the real star, and the second position points to the apparent star that the eye sees. How could he use the distance between, or angle of, the two telescope positions to find the distance to the star? The entire thing is sheer lunacy to begin with, which underscores the willingness of modern men to throw themselves at such unreliable, laughable science in determining stellar distances. If we follow Bradley's brain with this trick, we realize that he had to know how far below the telescope the axis of his two telescopic lines were. There was only one way to figure this one out, so far as I can see. But before getting to it, let's mention that his first measurement on aberration was in the ballpark of 40 arc-seconds. How did it get down to 20, only half the size? He wasn't really measuring the star shifts, in the sky; he was going purely by his drawing of the two telescope positions. As he said that these positions are discovered by the speed of the earth, he must have had a drastically-different earth velocity in order to get 40 versus 20. What was going on there? The slower the earth velocity, the larger the arc-seconds. Did someone in his cult decide to double the earth velocity as part of that hoax? Apparently, yes.

Why is there a 666 in 66,600 mph, the earth velocity when the sun's average distance is made 93 million? The math is like so: 93M x 2 x 3.14 = 584,040,000 miles = circumference of the earth orbit. Then, divide by 365.24 days, and divide again by 24 hours, to find the velocity of earth: 66,627 mph. Perhaps they started with 66,600 mph, in honor of their satan, and then kept to the 93 million figure that this velocity produced by that figure.

We saw above that, by his own math, the shift distance, and therefore the shift angle, increases with the increasing size of a telescope length. How do we understand this figure, 20.2? Is that with a certain-size telescope, or the naked eye? The page above says, "Bradley's data indicates a displacement of 20.2 seconds of arc for a star that lies in a direction perpendicular to Earth's motion." That is, with a telescope pointed straight up, and the tube shifting across, perpendicular to the incoming light, the telescopic shift distance and angle is at maximum, and is 20.2 arc seconds. His theory predicted that the angle becomes smaller the more that the star is viewed in the direction of earth motion. It is said that there is zero angle when the telescope is pointing flat along the ground, to a star on the horizon, in the direction, or the direction opposite, of the earth travel. That's because the telescope shift is longitudinal (instead of perpendicular), with the light direction, meaning that there is no shift at all in relation to the direction of light. If you understand this paragraph, it exactly indicates that Bradley was passing on a hoax in which starlight was hijacked by the telescope whenever the two are moving in different directions.

It's important to understand that Bradley's discovery of the speed of light incorporated the earth velocity (roughly) still held to today. His shift distance was wholly dependent on the speed of the earth, meaning that the 93-million mile hoax was already an accepted "fact" by his time, and he was before the measurement of Venus as it crossed past the sun (as viewed from earth). It was Halley who pushed that experiment, and it was Halley who was replaced by Bradley as chief astronomer royal. They were out to "verify" the Bradley-hoax distance to the sun. We would like to know how Bradley and others knew the distance to the sun. We would like to check on whether there was a hoax there too.

In short, Bradley and his gang could say that the light at the top of the tube took the same amount of time to reach the eye-piece as the tube took to shift from one position to the other. Therefore, instead of in miles per hour at first, they claimed the speed of light to be: length of the tube per time of shift. One can convert that into miles per hour. But this is faulty if the telescope does not hijack the light in the first place, or if the speed of the earth has nothing to do with the position of the apparent star that he imagined (it was the real-star position all along, not an apparent position).

Just think of what they did. The length of the tube per time of shift. They found the speed of light based on the length of a telescope, I kid you not. If anything is quackery, this is it. They would have us believe that, if the telescope were not there, they could not figure the speed of light. Why does having the telescope there matter? They may as well take an imaginary length of air, say ten feet, and measure how far it will shift in a certain time frame. They could then say that the light through ten feet of air shifts by such-and-such amount in the time that it takes light to pass through it. After all, air flies along with the earth as much as a telescope does. As a 10-foot telescope shifts 1/83rd of an inch, according to Bradley's math, ditto for a ten-foot imaginary tube of air. What's the difference?

There is a difference. You readily see the hoax if we use an imaginary tube of air to your eyes, but the telescope is used to deceive you, to make you think there is something to the star-bending claim.

How can anyone find the speed of light just because a tube of air of known length shifts 1/83rd of an inch in such-a-such time period? You can't. You first need the speed of light to find the 1/83rd distance to begin with. That's the amount of shift during the passage of light across ten feet, yet they can't know that shift amount unless they first know the speed of light.

If a bus has rolled 10 feet at 5 mph in the time that water flows 10 feet down a hose, one can find that the water is itself flowing at 5 mph. But if it's not known how far the bus has rolled at 5 mph, neither can one find the water's velocity over 10 feet. Or, if the water's velocity is not known while the distance rolled by the bus is not known, the problem becomes doubly impossible. Bradley did not have the distance that the telescope rolled across, nor the speed of light through the hose, yet he miraculously found both. What an amazing god. He needed the speed of light to find the shift distance, and needed the shift distance to find the speed of light, but, not knowing either, he found both. He could get away with it because no one could understand his trick as he had posed it. But I'm explaining it to you.

As you can see, both his shift distance and speed-of-light figure were bogus. He could not know them. He claims he could find the shift distance and angle by the star loop, by astronomical history must be filled with suppressed cases of astronomers measuring star angles in search of his loops, and never finding them. Hooke was the first one they suppressed. I simply refuse to acknowledge his star loops based of his fraudulent use of the telescope to bend light. The whole of his drawings were fraudulent.

There is not only a distance of shift in his trick, but also a change in the telescope angle because the telescope TILTS, defined as the bottom moving over less than the top. Two positions of a stick pointing out from an orbiting sphere will have a tilt as the sphere moves in a circle, because the bottom of the stick will shift over less than the top. Two lines from two different positions of the stick-in-the-earth (i.e. the telescope pointed straight up) will spread out with distance from the ball (i.e. not parallel lines). This creates an angle. What Bradley was claiming is that the angle he measured between the center of his star-track loop and the loop itself was perfectly expressed by the 20.2 tilt angle of two telescope positions. It begs the question on whether the loops exist at all, or whether they were invented to make it seem that he had a method of figuring out the shift distance.

If you go to figure 4 in the page I've been quoting from (below), you will see a diagram of the telescopic shift. It has three telescopic positions greatly exaggerated, all separated from one another i.e. with space between them, very wrong for reflecting the reality. They shift involved (between the time that the light enters the telescope to the time that it reaches the eye) is much less than one telescope width...meaning that the three telescopes should be shown over-lapping one another. They have vh/c (the formula that gets 1/83rd = .012 inch using a ten-foot telescope) shown between the two outer telescopes. The telescope, T1, is the one by which the viewer is viewing the star, and T3 is the one that's claimed for the final viewing (never happens) of the star. T2 can be construed as the point having the light half way down the telescope.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1208/1208.2061.pdf

The one who created at least part of this drawing shows the distance, vh/c, between both the tops of T1 and T3, and the bottoms of T1 and T3, meaning that this person views the telescopes parallel with one another. This is wrong. In fact, one can see that the telescopes are slightly closer to one another at their bottoms than at their tops, likely intentional to reflect Bradley's claim. Note the angle made with the solid-blue line; it has nothing to do with the angle of shift that the viewer sees (supposedly) in the dotted line of the T3 telescope. I have no idea why this blue angle is shown. The shift angle is the spreading out of the two lines between four green dots. That is, line 1 is between the two green dots in the T1 telescope, and line 2 is between the two green dots in the T3 telescope. These two lines (one not shown) form an angle with telescopes tilting, and will meet at some spot beneath the telescopes.

Someone has put a right angle, and a box shape, into the drawing to display some aspect of the shift geometry. Is this a trick? Looks like. If the telescopes were shown properly, over-lapping one another, there would be no 90-degree angle, as shown. That is, the line from P1 to P3 would have P3 in contact with the green dot at the bottom of the T1 telescope. The P1 to P3 line would therefore be at virtually the same angle as the telescope, and, in fact, the P1 to P3 line would be exactly the shift angle. But it would NOT be at 90 degrees, which is why I'm calling this 90-degree angle, and it's related blue angle, a trick.

The distance that Bradley could not have known, vh/c (or use my h / (cv)), is only applicable between the tops of T1 and T3. The distance between the bottoms will be less, but microscopically less. How does one go about calculating where these lines meet in what would be the axis of a triangle?

Bradley could not know the shift of the telescope even if his aberration were true. He points his telescope to the center of the loop made by Gamma Draconis, and notes the angle. He then points the telescope to the loop, and notes the angle. The problem is, his telescope is not positioned in the same way as the earth carries T1 to T3. He can never match T1 to T3 with his own telescope situation because he doesn't know it yet. If he claims that he can know T1 and T3 by taking a hands-on measurement of the angles to the loop versus to the center of the loop, he's being fraudulent again. A telescope has a built-in method of changing its angle, and this is not the same as how the earth would carry T1 to T3.

When one points a telescope straight up at a spot perpendicular with the earth's orbit, the line of a telescope will go through the center of the earth exactly. If one shifts the telescope 20.2 arc-seconds, the telescope will again point to the center of the earth exactly. That's because the telescope never changes position when viewing a star. Yes, the telescope is shifting IN SPACE as the earth moves, but in relation to the Bradley's toes, the telescope never moves. Bradley says that, while viewing a star with the telescope unmoved, the telescope is flying through the air and causing us to see an apparent location of the star. As his telescope has not moved in relation to everything around him, he has no idea what the shift distance. He knows only how fast the telescope is moving with the earth in solar orbit. But if he doesn't know the duration from T1 to T3, he can't know the shift distance, and consequently he can't know the shift angle.

With some serious math, one could figure out how far the bottom of a telescope will travel between T1 and T3, and do the same for the tops of the telescopes, thus finding the angle between them. One could therefore check to see if Bradley was being honest in this regard.

The way that I understand an arc-second measurement of any body in the sky is two lines from the center of the earth. It's essentially a V-shape to the width of the cosmic body being measured. An arc-second is a small piece of 1 degree. The latter is 3600 arc-seconds, wherefore 20.2 arc-seconds equals .0056 of a degree. This angle is the same whether one measures it as a fraction of the circle in the sky, or as an angle between two lines at the center of the earth. If you understand what I'm saying, skip the rest of this paragraph. For the others, imagine a circular clock, and let it act as the earth. Take one line from 3 o'clock and connect it to the center of the clock. Imagine a telescope pointed into the sky at 3 o'clock; and use it as Bradley's' line 1. Next, do the same at 12 o'clock for Bradley's line 2. The angle where the two lines meet, at the center of the clock, measure 90 degrees, and the part-circle between 12 o'clock and 3 o'clock is one quarter of the whole circle. As a circle always has 360 degrees, one quarter of it is 90 degrees of roundness. Therefore, when they say the angle was 20.2 arc seconds, its both the fraction of sky circle as well as the angle of the two lines at the center of the earth.


Evolution of the Solar Hoax

The page I'm quoting from says that Bradley was able to figure out that Draconis was 400,000 times the distance of the sun. Isn't that the same as knowing the distance of Draconis in miles? Yes, it is. The problem is, we never read on aberration angles when scientists measure distances to stars. They always measure stellar distances using triangulation with the triangle base on earth, and the axis at the star. Why bother, if aberration angles are absolutely certain, and can give stellar distances??? The fact is, knowing the angle between T1 and T3 together with the exact location of the axis is sorely insufficient to tell the distance to a star. T3 points to nothingness, a mirage, if you will. Only T1 points to the true star, meaning that one cannot use the two lines together as a triangle. How then, was Bradley able to get the distance to the star? Another hoax?

Another problem for aberration is that, when it comes to sunrise/sunset theory, astronomers speak on the light of the sun bending significantly due to atmospheric blockage of light. This entire matter is a topic of the next chapter, and is yet another hoax; there is no bending of light by the atmosphere, to the tune claimed, but is instead a way to keep people from realizing the truth on the 93-million-mile hoax. One can use sunrise/sunset lines to find the distance and diameter of the sun, the task of the next chapter.

The point here is that, if atmospheric bending of light did occur, it would be a natural part of any aberration discussion, yet I did NOT read once how it applies to it. Their claim is that light bends in one direction every morning, and the opposite direction every afternoon. The same must apply, if true, to starlight: bending in one direction for half the night, then the opposite direction for the other half. How does this affect aberration or parallax angles? Why didn't Bradley discover that his loops were affected by this atmospheric bending? Because, leading astronomers lied to their students, to keep their secret, and the students became false-information professors.

My eclipse method of finding the distance to the sun (called the astronomical unit) does not lie. No one in the past was able to use it until the size of lunar shadows upon the earth's surface were known. Wikipedia has an article on the astronomical unit, telling of various historical methods for finding it, but nothing is said about use of a lunar eclipse in conjunction with a solar eclipse. These lines do not lie, and they make frauds out of telescope-toting astronomers that used parallax on Mars and Venus. It says, "In the 2nd century AD, Ptolemy estimated the mean distance of the Sun as 1210 times Earth's radius" [4.8 million miles]. To determine this value, Ptolemy started by measuring the Moon's parallax..He then derived a maximum lunar distance of 64 1/6 Earth radii." The latter gets 254,000, nearly correct, which indicates how likely it is that triangulation on the moon works reliably, unless it was a lucky guess.

The fable of finding stellar distances with triangulation can be made plain by the fact that the sun and moon are virtually the same size in the sky. Therefore, if merely finding the angles of the moon six months apart could find the distance to the moon, or a star, one would need to say that the sun is exactly the same distance as the moon, for the moon and sun measure at the very same angles six months apart. We learn here that triangulation alone is useless unless the diameter of the cosmic body is first known. Therefore, when astronomers claim to know the distance in light years to stars, they may as well be puking in your face. They claim that triangulation in combination with the background of stars is the key, but they cannot know the distance of stars in the background of one star, wherefore how can the background help them? It's a trick, and all astronomers are taught to be professors of tricks.

I've read that they can't use triangulation with the sun. Why not? It's huge as compared to a star, and the sun's ball is clearly visible in the evening without all the midday brightness. Astronomers can know which stars are behind the sun at any given time, because they have the view mapped out. It should be easy to find the solar distance using parallax and triangulation together on the sun. Chances are, they say it can't be done because it doesn't give them their 93-million-mile distance.

It says that Ptolemy found his distance to the sun as did Aristarchus, by using the size of the earth's shadow in a lunar eclipse, but this is not possible without the lines of a solar eclipse. "Given these data [earth's shadow size and sun-moon equality in apparent size], the distance of the Sun from Earth can be trigonometrically computed to be 1210 Earth radii." That's a 4.8 million distance. Even if he had the lunar-eclipse lines perfectly drawn, I don't see how the sun-moon equivalency can indicate for him a certain distance for the sun using earth radii as the measuring stick. If it can, it's way over my head until someone explains it. Perhaps he had some other factor that Wikipedia doesn't mention; perhaps t was the solar eclipse lines as best he could derive the size of its lunar shadow. Perhaps this is the thing that astronomers will not mention in a treatment on ancient methods for finding solar distance, because they don't want people to know about it, for the combination of precise lunar-eclipse and solar-eclipse lines tells the solar distance without doubt. My figure of 3 million, using that method, stands as a good approximation. I have done enough math with this method to know it is not a wrong method. I have the tools that Ptolemy and Aristarchus didn't have. And so do you if you care to use them. The only thing we don't have, thanks to astronomers, is ease in getting the correct data. We need to filter out their trash before finding the facts.

Again, I pose the question: why does astronomy never tell of using lunar and solar eclipse lines in combination? I've never read on it, anyway. If one has more than one thing that creates lines to the sun's edges, there will be more than one set of lines. Where the lines of both sets meet, that's where the sun is. The simplicity of this, and the ease of realizing it in the first place, is what condemns the astronomers as frauds. I am not an astronomer, yet the question came to my mind: I wonder whether eclipses can tell the distance to the sun. This question occurred to me when I was asking how to find the solar distance. It is a thing that WILL NATURALLY come to an astronomer's mind, and it is a thing that surely crossed Ptolemy's mind, yet Wikipedia seems bent on not mentioning his use of solar-eclipse lines.

Therefore, triangulation work done on Venus and Mars is fraudulent, and I would like to know how. One needs two telescopes at a distance upon earth, but also the relative size of the planet as compared to the earth. Both lines point at the planet at the same time and record their angles. The base of the triangle is the distance between the two telescopes, and this seems so easy and reliable that no one could get it wrong. But unless the sizes of the planets are known, this method is useless.

When they claimed to find the distance to the sun with the passing (transit) of Venus over it, they used parallax with the sun alone in the background for the clues. As I understand it, they were able to use parallax only because they had figured the relative distance between the earth and Venus; this was discussed in the last chapter as per figure 5 in this article:
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity-space-astronomy-and-cosmology/transit-of-Venus-and-the-distance-to-the-sun/

Wikipedia's article on the astronomical unit has a picture of Venus over the sun, with the sun's brightness greatly reduced artificially for this shot. I assume, but do not know how well, astronomers were able to darken the sun in the 1760s. As you can see, Venus is a dot upon the sun, which, for me, does not indicate a massive size for the sun, but rather a small size for the planet. One needs to draw the transit of Venus in a diagram from a side view, not in the view of seeing the planet over the sun. The profmattstrassler page above has such a diagram in figure 6 (not to scale). As you can see, they devised two triangles, one between the earth and Venus, and one between Venus and the sun. If they know the relative distances between these three bodies, they can make their drawing to scale. Until now, I have agreed with their ability to know the relative distances, because I can see nothing that their claim involving error, so long as they are correct for measuring a half-crescented Venus at a 45-degree angle to the earth (as per figure 5). If they have this wrong, then it would become the fodder for the entire sun-distance hoax.

In the parallax method for a transiting Venus, telescope 1 points at Venus and notes the distance of the center line of the path from the center line (call it the "equator") of the sun. Telescope 2 does the same, with the aim of finding the distance (not in miles) between the two paths. It doesn't matter what distance there is between the two paths, meaning that the telescopes can be anywhere on earth (though not on the same latitude, of course). It is an easy and fairly-reliable matter to find the distance between the two paths as a certain fraction of the solar diameter. This distance then gets transferred to a side-view diagram.

Forget figure 6, as it's not drawn to scale, and, besides, it doesn't use the sun. To draw the diagram to scale, Venus needs to be .28 the distance between the sun and earth. On a page, make the sun 100 millimeters (3.9 inches) from earth, and Venus 28 millimeters (1 inch) from the earth. Make Venus a small dot, not a circle, because it's the center of Venus that is the only concern. Besides, we don't yet know the diameter of Venus. As we don't yet know the diameter of the sun, don't draw the sun on the diagram yet. Make the solar distance a straight vertical line instead. The diameter of the earth is all we know. But if we don't know the size of Venus or the sun to begin with, nor the distance in miles to Venus or the sun, neither can we make a circle to scale for the earth.

Or, put it this way, that if we do not know the mileage of anything besides the distance between the two telescopes, neither can we use triangles to find the distance to either Venus or the sun. Let's assume that the two telescopes are on both poles, about 7,900 miles apart. How will we go about making the triangle, to scale, between the telescopes and Venus? We can't. Therefore, as the one who made figure 6 doesn't point this itty-bitty problem out, isn't that fraud? The diagram purports to be able to find the distance to the star using triangles.

Go ahead, make the drawing, and then decide how large the earth circle should be upon it. You cannot find it. The only way to find it is if the distance to Venus is known. One would then divide that distance by 7,900 to find how much smaller the circle should be than the Venus distance. But if they already knew the distance to Venus in the 1760s, what was all the great excitement for recording the transit of Venus? They say that some people were killed attempting this. What was that really about?

In your drawing, you can draw the sun circle to scale in the following way. First, determine the size of the earth circle. You then draw two lines, telescope 1 and telescope 2, though the center of Venus until it comes to the vertical line at the solar distance (100 millimeters from earth). You now make the sun circle to scale according to the transit-of-Venus findings. If they found the two Venus paths to be apart by x fraction of the solar diameter (or circumference), you make the sun circle accordingly. Wonderbar. Except that they couldn't draw the lines unless they first had the size of the earth in relation to either the sun or Venus. Close, but no cigar.

We are now wholly dependent on their triangulation method used for Venus, or any other planet (we must ignore speed-of-light measurements, as these are unreliable). We are back to the question of reliability for this method. Can we trust them? Absolutely not. For taking angles is not enough. They need to know the distance of what they are angling.

Ptolemy's view of the solar distance went unchallenged until the telescope. This is when astronomers should have brought his 4.5 million to a closer reality around 3 million. Instead, "Johannes Kepler was the first to realize that Ptolemy's estimate must be significantly too low (according to Kepler, at least by a factor of three) in his Rudolphine Tables (1627)." Why did Kepler increase it? Well, the Internet is running out of room, explaining why the Wikipedia writer didn't spell out this thing for the reader. It's not a minor thing to go from Ptolemy's view to a jump three times as much; a couple of sentences telling why would have done the topic some soundness. Instead, Wikipedia goes to this: "Flemish astronomer Godefroy Wendelin repeated Aristarchus' measurements in 1635, and found that Ptolemy's value was too low by a factor of at least eleven." Whoosh, Wendelin jumped up to more than 51.7 million miles, but Wikipedia offers not one sentence as to why, a good reason to denounce Wikipedia's astronomy writers for being shady. That's the term required when insufficient light is upon a topic.

Wendelin repeated Aristarchus' / Ptolemy's eclipse method, and the writer(s) at Wikipedia did not offer one page where one could go see these methods. Again, there is no way to use the lunar-eclipse lines alone to determine the distance to the sun. What else was being used, we would like to know. But astronomers don't want us to know, do they? Astronomers don't want us to look at ways we, on the street, can calculate the solar distance, do they?

I smell a rat: "Jeremiah Horrocks had attempted to produce an estimate based on his observation of the 1639 [Venus] transit (published in 1662), giving a solar parallax of 15 arcseconds, similar to Wendelin's figure." It looks like they were going way up together, yet not enough for the Bradley circle of goons. They almost doubled Wendelin's figure. Then, the article goes to what I was talking about above, and claims that the Venus transit can allow one to know its distance from the earth, though no link is offered where we may verify it, and of course no brief explanation is given because the Internet has insufficient room:

A somewhat more accurate estimate can be obtained by observing the transit of Venus. By measuring the transit in two different locations, one can accurately calculate the parallax of Venus and from the relative distance of Earth and Venus from the Sun [this statement is what I disproved above], the solar parallax α (which cannot be measured directly). Jeremiah Horrocks had attempted to produce an estimate based on his observation of the 1639 transit (published in 1662), giving a solar parallax of 15 arcseconds, similar to Wendelin's figure....

The smaller the solar parallax, the greater the distance between the Sun and Earth: a solar parallax of 15" is equivalent to an Earth-Sun distance of 13,750 Earth radii [54.5 million miles].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit#History

The transit of Venus gives the difference between the size of Venus and the sun, and yet both astronomers above did NOT get 93 million miles. Why not? And how did they get any distance figure at all with the limitations I pointed out above? Anyone making the drawing as per the information of the Venus transit is left not knowing how the solar distance was found, and the articles on the topic do not tell us how it was done. This indicates that the claim of finding the solar distance as a fact of astronomy, by way of the Venus transit, comes up short. They are giving us a diagram that doesn't work fully, and leaving us to believe that they really know what they are doing; trust them.

To show that the solar angle was obtained from extrapolation after measuring planets, we quote Wikipedia again: "Jean Richer and Giovanni Domenico Cassini measured the parallax of Mars between Paris and Cayenne in French Guiana when Mars was at its closest to Earth in 1672. They arrived at a figure for the solar parallax of 91/2", equivalent to an Earth-Sun distance of about 22000 Earth radii [now up to 87 million miles] " Today, they have the parallax angle of the sun at 8.794 arc-seconds = .0024 degrees. Below, I learn, from my own computations, not from anything online, that they measure this angle from an edge of the earth to the center of the sun. In itself, it does nothing to get the solar distance. It's virtually the same angle as measured for the center of the moon. I assume that parallax angles for stars are through their middles.

They were using the planet parallax angle to figure the sun's parallax angle when they could simply have used the lunar and solar eclipse lines in combination. NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, is mentioned about this in finding the distance to the sun. VERY SUSPICIOUS. The earth's shadow is a line that goes from edge of the earth to edge of the sun in a lunar eclipse. The lunar shadow is a line that goes from the edge of the moon to the edge of the sun. Just draw this on paper, and where the lunar-eclipse lines meet the solar-eclipse lines, that's both the diameter and distance of the sun. Too simple...but not big enough of a solar system for the evolution goons whom have lied to the entire human race for about three centuries. GREAT SHAME.

Their problem is that they have artificially (i.e. lied to us) reduced the size of the earth-shadow diameter, which has the purpose of increasing the angle from the edge of the earth to the edge of the sun to more than it really is. They did this to get the sun as far as possible for anyone using lunar-eclipse lines in combination with solar-eclipse lines. The greater the angle of the lunar-eclipse lines, the further the sun, when both eclipses are used.

Here's from the last update: "Under the condition that the lunar eclipse was at the average lunar distance, the sun works out to about 94 million miles away when the eclipse takes place where the earth's shadow (a cone) is about 5,780 miles wide." I'm not an expert on this, but I have become quite good at it recently. For argument's sake, let's use 5,920 miles, which works to their advantage in this argument. The earth's diameter is about 7,920 miles, or 2,000 miles wider than the earth shadow (above) where the moon crosses it. If you draw this on paper, you will see why the earth shadow rises 1,000 miles to the edge of the earth. That's 1,000 miles of rise per about 240,000 miles across between moon and earth. I have just discovered (this minute) how to convert this to degrees; I'm getting .24 degrees.

Here is how I arrive to .24 degrees. In a protractor, there are 360 degrees (or units) to a circle. Using the distance between these degrees, there are 114.6 of them (360 / 3.14) in the diameter of the same circle (because a circle is always 3.14 times the diameter). When we use a protractor, we use only half the diameter of the circle, which is 57 (114 / 2) units long (actually, it's 57.3, but I'll use 57 for approximations). Therefore, we can translate this 57-unit length into the distance between the earth and moon, and we want to know how many units high a line will climb when it's going up 1,000 miles along this stretch of 57 units. The math is easy enough: we first divide 57 by 240,000 in order to justify multiplying it by 1,000 to find the distance up on the protractor. The distance up is the angle. Therefore, 57 / 240,000 x 1,000 = .2375 degrees (based only on approximate numbers, needs refining). This math method is verified below.

There has got to be a calculator online that converts any angle to degrees. For example, how many degrees is it for x units up and y units across? I cannot find such a converter. One cannot use the 57-method for any approximation for more than about 10 or 15 degrees. After that, the upward direction starts to circle too much rather than to continue up. The first degree is almost straight up, making .24 degree very reliable. To understand the math, do 240,000 / 52 to find 4,615 miles, the number of miles per each of the 57 units (same size as the degrees on the circle), and then multiply it by .2375 to get 1,000. You have simply reduced the eclipse line to a degree upon the protractor.

Let's try my method for measuring the angle from the edge of the earth to the center of the sun to see whether this is their 8.794 arc-seconds = .00244 degrees. The distance up is now an earth radius = 3,960 miles, and the distance across is 93 million. The 57-method math is: 57 / 93,000,000 x 3960 = .002376 degrees. Yup, this is how they measure their solar parallax, from earth edge to center of sun. You can now use this 57-method to find the angle of any two lines.

From edge of earth to edge of sun, using their mileage: 57 / 93,000,000 x (865,000/2 - 3960) = .2595 degrees. The next chapter will use this same method with the solar distance and diameter that my eclipse lines have found. We will also study the angles of the sunrise/sunset lines that are exactly the lunar-eclipse lines.





NEXT UPDATE

Table of Contents


web site analytic