Reciprocal Length Contraction and Time Dilation: Insight of Genius or Idiocy?

An absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate ("without contradiction" is unwarranted):

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p. 105: "In one case your clock is checked against two of mine, while in the other case my clock is checked against two of yours, and this permits us each to find without contradiction that the other's clocks go more slowly than his own."

Implication (fatal for Einstein's relativity): If your clock is consecutively checked against multiple synchronous clocks of mine, it will lag behind them, no matter whether your clock is moving and mine are stationary, or yours is stationary and mine are moving. That is, if in the following picture the single clock were stationary and the multiple synchronous clocks moving, the STATIONARY CLOCK WOULD BE SLOW (in the sense that it shows less and less time elapsed than the moving clocks it consecutively meets) while the MOVING CLOCKS WOULD BE FAST:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...y/Clocks_1.png

The picture was taken from he

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ity/index.html
John Norton, Is Special Relativity Paradoxical?

Pentcho Valev