Henri Wilson wrote:

Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit.
From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have
different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit
plane is normal).
For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical
pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend to
catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will detect
bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast pulses
will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes.

Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will receive
pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will, in
reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable) star in
orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that will
depend on the distance to the star.

There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular
brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my
variable star simulation program:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

Except for a number of huge problems. Try "extinction".
You claim that -all- measurements of k in c'=c+kv from DeSitter
on which have consistently yielded k~0 are flawed because of
extinction.

If extinction effects prevented DeSitter etc. from measuring
k, extinction must work equally well to predict that BaT cannot
explain variable star light curves. Light being emitted adjusts
its speed to that imposed by the interstellar medium almost
instantly, and faster and slower light cannot add up as you
say it does.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, HENRI! You can't have extinction
invalidating DeSitter's results and not invalidating yours.

Jerry