Initially, etherists' belief that the speed of light is independent of
the speed of the emitter was wrong but not insane: after all, the
speed of all other waves does NOT depend on the speed of the emitter.
The wrong belief became insane when the Michelson-Morley experiment
clearly showed that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the
emitter and etherists started procrusteanizing the reality
(introducing length contraction etc.) in order to somehow vindicate
the wrong belief.

Etherists have always been sane in their true belief that that the
speed of light does depend on the speed of the OBSERVER whereas
Einsteinians, in order to camouflage this almost obvious fact, have
introduced one of the most idiotic statements in the history of
science: the WAVELENGTH varies with the speed of the observer (so that
the speed of light could remain constant).

In this sense etherists are less insane than Einsteinians and have the
right to publish verdicts like these ones:

http://allais.maurice.free.fr/Paradoxe.htm
Maurice Allais: "De là a résulté une incroyable situation sans aucun
précédent dans toute l'histoire : la domination dogmatique et
intolérante pendant un siècle d'une théorie fausse, la Théorie de la
Relativité, résultant elle-même du plagiat indiscutable d'une
incontestable erreur. Les conséquences néfastes qui en ont résulté
pour la science ont été incalculables, l'orientation totale pendant un
siècle de la science dans une voie erronée, et une régression de la
pensée scientifique qui n 'a cessé de constituer un obstacle
insurmontable sur la voie du progrès."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim.../dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
Contemporary Philosophy)
"Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of
original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and
physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory of
Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary
paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed
since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity,
and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys
relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and
physics. There is no other book like this available; hence
philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its
publication."
"UNFORTUNATELY FOR EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY, HOWEVER, ITS
EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOW SEEN TO BE
QUESTIONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, FALSE, PERHAPS EVEN ILLOGICAL."
Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to
respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of
time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these
effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the
Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and
radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz
invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and
the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not
purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-
Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime
include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant
structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian
spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this
picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is
uniquely decomposable into space and time."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

ETHERISTS:

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"The principle underpinning modern physics, which states that the
speed of light is constant and independent of the motion of the source
and the observer, is shown to be invalid. (...) For a stationary
observer O, the stationary light source S emits light at speed c,
wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If the observer
moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical analysis, the
speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c + v) and not c as
required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence the observer
intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which is higher
than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c+v)/Lo Fo. (...) In
light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is difficult to
understand why this invalid theory has been (and continues to be)
accepted for the past 100 years. It is time to reject STR with its
incorrect light speed invariance principle long pointed out by Ives,
and return to the Lorentz-Maxwell ether-based theory elucidated by
Ives and summarized by Erlichson."

EINSTEINIANS:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev