Those of us trying to help Kelleher

From time to time quite a few regular posters to this group invest
time and effort trying to help Kelleher. For a number of reasons I
suspect that we are all wasting our time and that there are more
productive methods of "helping" than creating customised answers to
whichever minor variation of his theory Kelleher comes up with on any
given day

Kelleher never seems to produce any number based analysis to support
his one-man crusade. Pose almost any number-based question to him and
all that happens is that he will post another minor variation of the
standard text he uses. He will not answer the questions asked of him.

Even queries about some of the phases he is so fond of using will be
ignored or will result (yes you have guessed it!) in him posting
essential identical material for the Nth time where N is frightenly
large.

As other have pointed out Kelleher is clearly both articulate and
intelligent enough to realise the mistakes in his analysis. Indeed I
now strongly suspect that the only reason that he continues with his
regular postings is that he gets some bizarre satisfaction from them.

Martin Nicholson
Daventry, UK

As other have pointed out Kelleher is clearly both articulate and
intelligent enough to realise the mistakes in his analysis. Indeed I
now strongly suspect that the only reason that he continues with his
regular postings is that he gets some bizarre satisfaction from them.

I guess I've never been clear what numbers you think Oriel should supply.
Aside from that, I, too, have sometimes wondered if he's just having fun
yanking everybody's chain. If so, he's putting in an awful lot of work to
compose all of that verbiage which, though repetitive, doesn't appear to be
cut-and-paste.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W

On 11 Apr, 06:55, "Curtis Croulet"
wrote:
As other have pointed out Kelleher is clearly both articulate and
intelligent enough to realise the mistakes in his analysis. Indeed I
now strongly suspect that the only reason that he continues with his
regular postings is that he gets some bizarre satisfaction from them.

I guess I've never been clear what numbers you think Oriel should supply.
Aside from that, I, too, have sometimes wondered if he's just having fun
yanking everybody's chain. *If so, he's putting in an awful lot of work to
compose all of that verbiage which, though repetitive, doesn't appear to be
cut-and-paste.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W

As an example - Kelleher uses the example of images Uranus that are
supposed to show something crucial to his theory. But without detailed
analysis of the angle at which we are seeing the planet (in all three
dimensions by the way) and details on where both planets were in their
orbits at the time such analysis is impossible.

I simply don't believe he has done any meaningful numerical analysis
on the images and that what he claims to have noticed (but will never
never descibe in detail) is just a wind-up.

On Apr 11, 8:05*am, ukastronomy
wrote:
On 11 Apr, 06:55, "Curtis Croulet"
wrote:

As other have pointed out Kelleher is clearly both articulate and
intelligent enough to realise the mistakes in his analysis. Indeed I
now strongly suspect that the only reason that he continues with his
regular postings is that he gets some bizarre satisfaction from them.

I guess I've never been clear what numbers you think Oriel should supply.
Aside from that, I, too, have sometimes wondered if he's just having fun
yanking everybody's chain. *If so, he's putting in an awful lot of work to
compose all of that verbiage which, though repetitive, doesn't appear to be
cut-and-paste.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W

As an example - Kelleher uses the example of images Uranus that are
supposed to show something crucial to his theory. But without detailed
analysis of the angle at which we are seeing the planet (in all three
dimensions by the way) and details on where both planets were in their
orbits at the time such analysis is impossible.

I simply don't believe he has done any meaningful numerical analysis
on the images and that what he claims to have noticed (but will never
never descibe in detail) is just a wind-up.

Why didn't you ask that specific question ?.

Just to do this roughly.

The orbit of Uranus is 84 years therefore,the orbital change in
orientation to the Sun is a little over 4 degrees per each Earth
year ,this is borne out by observation -

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

As the orbital change is uneven due to the variable speed and
elliptical orbital geometry,that rough value is just provisional.

On 11 Apr, 08:14, oriel36 wrote:

Why didn't you ask that specific question ?.

Just to do this roughly.

The orbit of Uranus is 84 years therefore,the orbital change in
orientation to the Sun is a little over 4 degrees per each Earth
year ,this is borne out by observation -

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

As the orbital change is uneven due to the variable speed and
elliptical orbital geometry,that rough value is just provisional.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A typical Kelleher response to a number based challenge to his theory!

I had said:
"Kelleher uses the example of images Uranus that are supposed to show
something crucial to his theory. But without detailed analysis of the
angle at which we are seeing the planet (in all three dimensions by
the way) and
details on where both planets were in their orbits at the time such
analysis is impossible. I simply don't believe he has done any
meaningful numerical analysis on the images and that what he claims to
have noticed (but will never
never descibe in detail) is just a wind-up.

He STILL provides no evidence of the detailed analysis that needs to
be done and still provides no information on what these images are
supposed to show that prove this theory correct and the rest of the
astronomical world wrong.

Just words, an seemingly endless stream of words, with nothing behind
them!

On Apr 11, 8:59*am, ukastronomy
wrote:
On 11 Apr, 08:14, oriel36 wrote:



Why didn't you ask that specific question ?.

Just to do this roughly.

The orbit of Uranus is 84 years therefore,the orbital change in
orientation to the Sun is a little over 4 degrees per each Earth
year ,this is borne out by observation -

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

As the orbital change is uneven due to the variable speed and
elliptical orbital geometry,that rough value is just provisional.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A typical Kelleher response to a number based challenge to his theory!

I had said:
"Kelleher uses the example of images Uranus that are supposed to show
something crucial to his theory. But without detailed analysis of the
angle at which we are seeing the planet (in all three dimensions by
the way) and
details on where both planets were in their orbits at the time such
analysis is impossible.

The influences of Earth's own orbital motion on the perspective of
Uranus is almost non existent given the 1.7 billion miles distance to
Uranus therefore the change in orientation via the sequence of images
is most certainly the orbital specific which changes its orientation
to the Sun by an average of over 4 degrees.

The idea of referencing 'tilt' to the central Sun as the cause for the
seasons does not stand up to interpretation as an additional component
is needed.Complain about me all you wish,I have a few myself in
respect to the major organisations in charge of climate studies.Before
they get people to cough up billions based on the direct correlation
between carbon dioxide levels and global levels,they still have to
explain the seasons properly and until they get that straight,they
will not be capable of distinguishing between human or other
influences.

It is that important and that simple





I simply don't believe he has done any
meaningful numerical analysis on the images and that what he claims to
have noticed (but will never
never descibe in detail) is just a wind-up.

He STILL provides no evidence of the detailed analysis that needs to
be done and still provides no information on what these images are
supposed to show that prove this theory correct and the rest of the
astronomical world wrong.

Just words, an seemingly endless stream of words, with nothing behind
them!

On 11 Apr, 11:15, oriel36 wrote:

Yet another typical Kelleher response to a number based challenge to
his theory!

"The influences of Earth's own orbital motion on the perspective of
Uranus is almost non existent given the 1.7 billion miles distance to
Uranus therefore the change in orientation via the sequence of images
is most certainly the orbital specific which changes its orientation
to the Sun by an average of over 4 degrees."

He STILL provides no information on what these images are supposed to
show that prove his theory correct and the rest of the astronomical
world wrong. The same might be said for all the other questions asked
of him over the years that he ignores - the concept of proof is lost
on him?

Just empty words, an seemingly endless stream of words, with nothing
behind them!

His psychosis runs very deep. He is convinced that his theories are correct
no matter what anyone else says and in his mind he has felt he has proved
them, however the actual proof to outsiders is unrevealed. This is very
similar to the John Nash situation: a brilliant mathematician who went
undiagnosed for quite some time but eventually was diagnosed and treated
before it was too late.

William

"ukastronomy" wrote in message
...
On 11 Apr, 11:15, oriel36 wrote:

Yet another typical Kelleher response to a number based challenge to
his theory!

"The influences of Earth's own orbital motion on the perspective of
Uranus is almost non existent given the 1.7 billion miles distance to
Uranus therefore the change in orientation via the sequence of images
is most certainly the orbital specific which changes its orientation
to the Sun by an average of over 4 degrees."

He STILL provides no information on what these images are supposed to
show that prove his theory correct and the rest of the astronomical
world wrong. The same might be said for all the other questions asked
of him over the years that he ignores - the concept of proof is lost
on him?

Just empty words, an seemingly endless stream of words, with nothing
behind them!

ukastronomy wrote:

snip
As other have pointed out Kelleher is clearly both articulate

He is certainly not articulate. Far from it. Isaac Asimov was
articulate. Greg Egan is articulate. Kelleher is not articulate.

He is instead tediously verbose.

and
intelligent enough to realise the mistakes in his analysis.

Obervation of his output says otherwise.

I do not know what his specific malady is. There may be a kernel of
intelligence in there; if so, it's being hampered by an inoperative
rational analysis process and an expression routine stuck in an
infinite ego loop.
--
Dave

On Apr 11, 3:34*pm, "William S. Dell" wrote:
His psychosis runs very deep. *He is convinced that his theories are correct
no matter what anyone else says and in his mind he has felt he has proved
them, however the actual proof to outsiders is unrevealed. *This is very
similar to the John Nash situation: a brilliant mathematician who went
undiagnosed for quite some time but eventually was diagnosed and treated
before it was too late.

William

"ukastronomy" wrote in message

...

On 11 Apr, 11:15, oriel36 wrote:

Yet another typical Kelleher response to a number based challenge to
his theory!

"The influences of Earth's own orbital motion on the perspective of
Uranus is almost non existent given the 1.7 billion miles distance to
Uranus therefore the change in orientation via the sequence of images
is most certainly the orbital specific which changes its orientation
to the Sun by an average of over 4 degrees."

He STILL provides no information on what these images are supposed to
show that prove his theory correct and the rest of the astronomical
world wrong. The same might be said for all the other questions asked
of him over the years that he ignores - the concept of proof is lost
on him?

Just empty words, an seemingly endless stream of words, with nothing
behind them!

Well,all this physchobabble is fine and good but I see the average 4
degree turning of the rings with respect to the central Sun indicative
of the specifics of orbital motion which generate seasonal variations
-

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

Those sequence of images let scientists know that they do not
understand the basic temperature fluctuations between January and July
which is quite amazing given the fuss over global climate.

It must be great to make a personal judgment without having the
intelligence to make a technical one and I do not care how many
astrologers complain about their beloved 'tilt' to the orbital
plane,it does not work for distinguishing climate from weather and
those observations of Uranus in motion prove it to a 100% certainty.