Kelleher

From time to time Kelleher posts material that clearly demonstrates
the utter futility of debating issues with him and the seriousness of
his "problems".

He wrote "The idea of an astronomical version of 'Piltdown man',except
that is many magnitudes worse,may slowly begin to dawn on those with
the intelligence to recognise a fabrication when they see it,in this
instance the analemma hoax which is used to deflect attention away
from daily rotation to the Sun and the natural noon inequality and
substitute it by referencing daily rotation to an astrological
framework of distant stars"

Far from being a hoax the observational evidence for the analemma is
overwhelming and it is so typical of Kelleher that he offers no
evidence to back up his claim. Had he bothered to do the experiment
himself he would know that he was writing rubbish but of course any
form of practical science seems beyond his remit.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma


He also wrote "The same dynamics which are responsible for the
seasons (and subsequently related to climate studies) are also
responsible for the variations in the natural noon cycle and this
means dropping variable 'axial tilt' to the central Sun thereby
exposing the analemma for the hoax that it always was -"

Nobody has proposed variable axial tilt. Indeed almost everytime
Kelleher repeats this lie people correct him but that doesn't stop the
flow of mis-information he generates.

On Apr 29, 8:18*am, ukastronomy
wrote:
From time to time Kelleher posts material that clearly demonstrates
the utter futility of debating issues with him and the seriousness of
his "problems".

He wrote "The idea of an astronomical version of 'Piltdown man',except
that is many magnitudes worse,may slowly begin to dawn on those with
the intelligence *to recognise a fabrication when they see it,in this
instance the analemma hoax which is used to deflect attention away
from daily rotation to the Sun and the natural noon inequality and
substitute it by referencing daily rotation to an astrological
framework of distant stars"

Far from being a hoax the observational evidence for the analemma is
overwhelming and it is so typical of Kelleher that he offers no
evidence to back up his claim. Had he bothered to do the experiment
himself he would know that he was writing rubbish but of course any
form of practical science seems beyond his remit.

Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma

He also wrote "The same *dynamics which are responsible for the
seasons (and subsequently related to climate studies) *are also
responsible for the variations in the natural noon cycle and this
means dropping variable 'axial tilt' to the central Sun thereby
exposing the analemma for the hoax that it always was -"

Nobody has proposed variable axial tilt. Indeed almost everytime
Kelleher repeats this lie people correct him but that doesn't stop the
flow of mis-information he generates.

The Piltdown man hoax is noteworthy from many different angles but
there is one angle which is troubling when dealing with the
astronomical version and adequately demonstrated in a wry commentary
after the Piltdown hoax was finally accepted -

"Anthropologists refer to the Pilltdown man hoax as 'another instance
of desire for fame leading a scholar into dishonesty' and boast that
the unmasking of the deception is 'a tribute to the persistence and
skill of modern research'. Persistence and skill indeed! When they
have taken over forty years to discover the difference between an
ancient fossil and a modern chimpanzee! A chimpanzee could have done
it quicker." Daily Sketch

Not to diminish the importance or urgency of what is in effect a
crisis,what makes the astronomical hoax particularly distinct from the
fossil hoax is not so much the urgency in correcting the matter but
rather,the apparent complete absence of authority or individuals who
recognise an obvious error and the reasoning which supports it.

I do not feel that the level of intelligence employed in resolving the
hoax and placing astronomical methods and insights back at a restore
points is beyond any individual(s) as long as they give up the
pretenses surrounding sidereal time/analemma hoax yet the appeal to
this target audience cannot be indefinite.The material does not belong
on the usenet any longer but neither can it go through the affirmation
process which is causing the problem in the first place,this I
understood all along for the advantages and disadvantages.

On May 1, 8:39*am, oriel36 wrote:
On Apr 29, 8:18*am, ukastronomy
wrote:



From time to time Kelleher posts material that clearly demonstrates
the utter futility of debating issues with him and the seriousness of
his "problems".

He wrote "The idea of an astronomical version of 'Piltdown man',except
that is many magnitudes worse,may slowly begin to dawn on those with
the intelligence *to recognise a fabrication when they see it,in this
instance the analemma hoax which is used to deflect attention away
from daily rotation to the Sun and the natural noon inequality and
substitute it by referencing daily rotation to an astrological
framework of distant stars"

Far from being a hoax the observational evidence for the analemma is
overwhelming and it is so typical of Kelleher that he offers no
evidence to back up his claim. Had he bothered to do the experiment
himself he would know that he was writing rubbish but of course any
form of practical science seems beyond his remit.

Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma

He also wrote "The same *dynamics which are responsible for the
seasons (and subsequently related to climate studies) *are also
responsible for the variations in the natural noon cycle and this
means dropping variable 'axial tilt' to the central Sun thereby
exposing the analemma for the hoax that it always was -"

Nobody has proposed variable axial tilt. Indeed almost everytime
Kelleher repeats this lie people correct him but that doesn't stop the
flow of mis-information he generates.

The Piltdown man hoax is noteworthy from many different angles but
there is one angle which is troubling when dealing with the
astronomical version and adequately demonstrated in a wry commentary
after the Piltdown hoax was finally accepted -

"Anthropologists refer to the Pilltdown man hoax as 'another instance
of desire for fame leading a scholar into dishonesty' and boast that
the unmasking of the deception is 'a tribute to the persistence and
skill of modern research'. Persistence and skill indeed! When they
have taken over forty years to discover the difference between an
ancient fossil and a modern chimpanzee! A chimpanzee could have done
it quicker." Daily Sketch

Not to diminish the importance or urgency of what is in effect a
crisis,what makes the astronomical hoax particularly distinct from the
fossil hoax is not so much the urgency in correcting the matter but
rather,the apparent complete absence of authority or individuals who
recognise an obvious error and the reasoning which supports it.

I do not feel that the level of intelligence employed in resolving the
hoax and placing astronomical methods and insights back at a restore
points is beyond any individual(s) as long as they give up the
pretenses surrounding sidereal time/analemma hoax yet the appeal to
this target audience cannot be indefinite.The material does not belong
on the usenet any longer but neither can it go through the affirmation
process which is causing the problem in the first place,this I
understood all along for the advantages and disadvantages.

"I believe in an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall
out."
- Sulzberger

On May 1, 6:17*pm, palsing wrote:

"I believe in an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall
out."
- Sulzberger

Amen to that.

Has anyone noticed a pattern emerging here?

Is ukastronomy (cough) Kelleher playing the double bluff?

And where does Brad Guth fit in?

Answers on a virtual postcard, please, to sci.astro.asylum.

On May 1, 5:17*pm, palsing wrote:
On May 1, 8:39*am, oriel36 wrote:





On Apr 29, 8:18*am, ukastronomy
wrote:

From time to time Kelleher posts material that clearly demonstrates
the utter futility of debating issues with him and the seriousness of
his "problems".

He wrote "The idea of an astronomical version of 'Piltdown man',except
that is many magnitudes worse,may slowly begin to dawn on those with
the intelligence *to recognise a fabrication when they see it,in this
instance the analemma hoax which is used to deflect attention away
from daily rotation to the Sun and the natural noon inequality and
substitute it by referencing daily rotation to an astrological
framework of distant stars"

Far from being a hoax the observational evidence for the analemma is
overwhelming and it is so typical of Kelleher that he offers no
evidence to back up his claim. Had he bothered to do the experiment
himself he would know that he was writing rubbish but of course any
form of practical science seems beyond his remit.

Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma

He also wrote "The same *dynamics which are responsible for the
seasons (and subsequently related to climate studies) *are also
responsible for the variations in the natural noon cycle and this
means dropping variable 'axial tilt' to the central Sun thereby
exposing the analemma for the hoax that it always was -"

Nobody has proposed variable axial tilt. Indeed almost everytime
Kelleher repeats this lie people correct him but that doesn't stop the
flow of mis-information he generates.

The Piltdown man hoax is noteworthy from many different angles but
there is one angle which is troubling when dealing with the
astronomical version and adequately demonstrated in a wry commentary
after the Piltdown hoax was finally accepted -

"Anthropologists refer to the Pilltdown man hoax as 'another instance
of desire for fame leading a scholar into dishonesty' and boast that
the unmasking of the deception is 'a tribute to the persistence and
skill of modern research'. Persistence and skill indeed! When they
have taken over forty years to discover the difference between an
ancient fossil and a modern chimpanzee! A chimpanzee could have done
it quicker." Daily Sketch

Not to diminish the importance or urgency of what is in effect a
crisis,what makes the astronomical hoax particularly distinct from the
fossil hoax is not so much the urgency in correcting the matter but
rather,the apparent complete absence of authority or individuals who
recognise an obvious error and the reasoning which supports it.

I do not feel that the level of intelligence employed in resolving the
hoax and placing astronomical methods and insights back at a restore
points is beyond any individual(s) as long as they give up the
pretenses surrounding sidereal time/analemma hoax yet the appeal to
this target audience cannot be indefinite.The material does not belong
on the usenet any longer but neither can it go through the affirmation
process which is causing the problem in the first place,this I
understood all along for the advantages and disadvantages.

"I believe in an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall
out."
- Sulzberger- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*This is not meant for you*

This is not a taunt,the best astrologers can hope for is that others
will not be interested enough to determine the double hoax where both
views are absurd and even contradict each other -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

The ability to ignore it is unlikely given the implications for
climate studies but one thing is certain,it will not suffer the same
fate as the Piltdown Man hoax where the ultimate result was that the
empirical approach created the scaffolding for self protection rather
than self correction.Having angered just about every section of
society under the name of astronomy/science,it may be necessary to
expose what actually drives these reckless conclusions and the
thinking behind it,something which did not occur before and after
Piltdown Man.

I would not count on careers and reputations being safe but that is
not my interest,my concerns are that future generations will have a
chance to escape the cult that has driven the wider popultation into a
state of fear by turning a reasonable argument for pollution control
into an altogether different animal by attaching human influences as
the sole cause of temperature variations.It is easier to do this
working with contemporary institutions who do not wish to continue
with the pretenses of late 17th century cult ideologies but even I
cannot wait indefinitely even if the alternative for me is troubling.

On May 1, 11:29*am, oriel36 wrote:

....but even I cannot wait indefinitely ...

*****************

Thank god for that...

"No mas"
- Roberto Duran

On May 1, 7:22*pm, "Chris.Bee" wrote:

Is ukastronomy (cough) Kelleher playing the double bluff?

There are differences. ukastronomy is not nearly as nuts as oriel.
That's already obvious from their choice of handles: I am Pierre, you
are Chris. Not "belgianchocolate" or "danishbeer". But "Toutadriel"
and "Beowulfiel" would be even worse. Both have too much spare time
and seem slightly (cough) obsessed - I can't wait for the 666 or the 7
seconds challenge that would enlighten us about what is possible in
those highy symbolic time frames. But if they were my neighbors I
think I might have more fun with Oriel. Something like "Hey, Gerald,
how's Newton/Copernic/Kepler doing today?" and then a good laugh
rather than a registered mail informing me that I will be sued if I
refuse to recognize the importance of the number of four-leaf clovers
in my grass as revealed by (rented) satellite imaging time.

But that's only my opinion ;-)

On 1 May, 19:29, oriel36 wrote:
On May 1, 5:17*pm, palsing wrote:





On May 1, 8:39*am, oriel36 wrote:

On Apr 29, 8:18*am, ukastronomy
wrote:

From time to time Kelleher posts material that clearly demonstrates
the utter futility of debating issues with him and the seriousness of
his "problems".

He wrote "The idea of an astronomical version of 'Piltdown man',except
that is many magnitudes worse,may slowly begin to dawn on those with
the intelligence *to recognise a fabrication when they see it,in this
instance the analemma hoax which is used to deflect attention away
from daily rotation to the Sun and the natural noon inequality and
substitute it by referencing daily rotation to an astrological
framework of distant stars"

Far from being a hoax the observational evidence for the analemma is
overwhelming and it is so typical of Kelleher that he offers no
evidence to back up his claim. Had he bothered to do the experiment
himself he would know that he was writing rubbish but of course any
form of practical science seems beyond his remit.

Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma

He also wrote "The same *dynamics which are responsible for the
seasons (and subsequently related to climate studies) *are also
responsible for the variations in the natural noon cycle and this
means dropping variable 'axial tilt' to the central Sun thereby
exposing the analemma for the hoax that it always was -"

Nobody has proposed variable axial tilt. Indeed almost everytime
Kelleher repeats this lie people correct him but that doesn't stop the
flow of mis-information he generates.

The Piltdown man hoax is noteworthy from many different angles but
there is one angle which is troubling when dealing with the
astronomical version and adequately demonstrated in a wry commentary
after the Piltdown hoax was finally accepted -

"Anthropologists refer to the Pilltdown man hoax as 'another instance
of desire for fame leading a scholar into dishonesty' and boast that
the unmasking of the deception is 'a tribute to the persistence and
skill of modern research'. Persistence and skill indeed! When they
have taken over forty years to discover the difference between an
ancient fossil and a modern chimpanzee! A chimpanzee could have done
it quicker." Daily Sketch

Not to diminish the importance or urgency of what is in effect a
crisis,what makes the astronomical hoax particularly distinct from the
fossil hoax is not so much the urgency in correcting the matter but
rather,the apparent complete absence of authority or individuals who
recognise an obvious error and the reasoning which supports it.

I do not feel that the level of intelligence employed in resolving the
hoax and placing astronomical methods and insights back at a restore
points is beyond any individual(s) as long as they give up the
pretenses surrounding sidereal time/analemma hoax yet the appeal to
this target audience cannot be indefinite.The material does not belong
on the usenet any longer but neither can it go through the affirmation
process which is causing the problem in the first place,this I
understood all along for the advantages and disadvantages.

"I believe in an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall
out."
- Sulzberger- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*This is not meant for you*

This is not a taunt,the best astrologers can hope for is that others
will not be interested enough to determine the double hoax where both
views are absurd and even contradict each other -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

The ability to ignore it is unlikely given the implications for
climate studies but one thing is certain,it will not suffer the same
fate as the Piltdown Man hoax where the ultimate result was that the
empirical approach created the scaffolding for self protection rather
than self correction.Having angered just about every section of
society under the name of astronomy/science,it may be necessary to
expose what actually drives these reckless conclusions and the
thinking behind it,something which did not occur before and after
Piltdown Man.

I would not count on careers and reputations being safe but that is
not my interest,my concerns are that future generations will have a
chance to escape the cult that has driven the wider popultation into a
state of fear by turning a reasonable argument for pollution control
into an altogether different animal by attaching human influences as
the sole cause of temperature variations.It is easier to do this
working with contemporary institutions who do not wish to continue
with the pretenses of late 17th century cult ideologies but even I
cannot wait indefinitely even if the alternative for me is troubling.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You keep postting links over and over again

Here's on for you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudos... table_claims

On May 1, 9:32*pm, Pierre Vandevenne wrote:
On May 1, 7:22*pm, "Chris.Bee" wrote:

Is ukastronomy (cough) Kelleher playing the double bluff?

There are differences. ukastronomy is not nearly as nuts as oriel.
That's already obvious from their choice of handles: I am Pierre, you
are Chris. Not "belgianchocolate" or "danishbeer". But "Toutadriel"
and "Beowulfiel" would be even worse. Both have too much spare time
and seem slightly (cough) obsessed - I can't wait for the 666 or the 7
seconds challenge that would enlighten us about what is possible in
those highy symbolic time frames. But if they were my neighbors I
think I might have more fun with Oriel. Something like "Hey, Gerald,
how's Newton/Copernic/Kepler doing today?" and then a good laugh
rather than a registered mail informing me that I will be sued if I
refuse to recognize the importance of the number of four-leaf clovers
in my grass as revealed by (rented) satellite imaging time.

But that's only my opinion ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma

Now that you know the nature of the hoax and can see the conflicting
views side by side it affords me the luxury of generalised
comments,something you cannot do so be content with your lot as I
explain something very quickly to those with enough common sense to
know what is going on.

How much tolerance do you think people have for mathematical
speculation at the moment either on the climate front or the financial
front -


"Rose: Somebody said to me that we entered a period in which they were
worshiping mathematical models … And mathematical models had no
business sense.

Volcker: The market was being run by mathematicians that didn’t know
financial markets. And you keep hearing, you know, god, that event
should only happen once every hundred years, according to my model.
But those every hundred years events are coming along every two or
three years, which should raise some questions."

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/...eal-questions/

The same problem happened to astronomy where mathematicians tried to
impose conclusions into the celestial arena without understanding the
antecedents methods and insights with the same predictable results
when they try to 'model' anything therefore as humanity is beset by
climate 'modeling' based solely on a carbon dioxide and without any
astronomical context,the results likewise are catastrophic.

So,Martin has no pretense whatsoever to anything other than observing
the universe through the celestial sphere framework and you may join
him in that exercise.I could ask you how long does it take the Earth
to rotate through 360 degrees,but as you are an astrologer,you will
give the incorrect answer to the most basic of all astronomical
questions -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

In your cartoon realm,the rotation of a celestial sphere to a
stationary Earth equates to the rotation of the Earth to a stationary
celestial sphere.

On May 1, 10:03*pm, wrote:
On 1 May, 19:29, oriel36 wrote:



On May 1, 5:17*pm, palsing wrote:

On May 1, 8:39*am, oriel36 wrote:

On Apr 29, 8:18*am, ukastronomy
wrote:

From time to time Kelleher posts material that clearly demonstrates
the utter futility of debating issues with him and the seriousness of
his "problems".

He wrote "The idea of an astronomical version of 'Piltdown man',except
that is many magnitudes worse,may slowly begin to dawn on those with
the intelligence *to recognise a fabrication when they see it,in this
instance the analemma hoax which is used to deflect attention away
from daily rotation to the Sun and the natural noon inequality and
substitute it by referencing daily rotation to an astrological
framework of distant stars"

Far from being a hoax the observational evidence for the analemma is
overwhelming and it is so typical of Kelleher that he offers no
evidence to back up his claim. Had he bothered to do the experiment
himself he would know that he was writing rubbish but of course any
form of practical science seems beyond his remit.

Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma

He also wrote "The same *dynamics which are responsible for the
seasons (and subsequently related to climate studies) *are also
responsible for the variations in the natural noon cycle and this
means dropping variable 'axial tilt' to the central Sun thereby
exposing the analemma for the hoax that it always was -"

Nobody has proposed variable axial tilt. Indeed almost everytime
Kelleher repeats this lie people correct him but that doesn't stop the
flow of mis-information he generates.

The Piltdown man hoax is noteworthy from many different angles but
there is one angle which is troubling when dealing with the
astronomical version and adequately demonstrated in a wry commentary
after the Piltdown hoax was finally accepted -

"Anthropologists refer to the Pilltdown man hoax as 'another instance
of desire for fame leading a scholar into dishonesty' and boast that
the unmasking of the deception is 'a tribute to the persistence and
skill of modern research'. Persistence and skill indeed! When they
have taken over forty years to discover the difference between an
ancient fossil and a modern chimpanzee! A chimpanzee could have done
it quicker." Daily Sketch

Not to diminish the importance or urgency of what is in effect a
crisis,what makes the astronomical hoax particularly distinct from the
fossil hoax is not so much the urgency in correcting the matter but
rather,the apparent complete absence of authority or individuals who
recognise an obvious error and the reasoning which supports it.

I do not feel that the level of intelligence employed in resolving the
hoax and placing astronomical methods and insights back at a restore
points is beyond any individual(s) as long as they give up the
pretenses surrounding sidereal time/analemma hoax yet the appeal to
this target audience cannot be indefinite.The material does not belong
on the usenet any longer but neither can it go through the affirmation
process which is causing the problem in the first place,this I
understood all along for the advantages and disadvantages.

"I believe in an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall
out."
- Sulzberger- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*This is not meant for you*

This is not a taunt,the best astrologers can hope for is that others
will not be interested enough to determine the double hoax where both
views are absurd and even contradict each other -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

The ability to ignore it is unlikely given the implications for
climate studies but one thing is certain,it will not suffer the same
fate as the Piltdown Man hoax where the ultimate result was that the
empirical approach created the scaffolding for self protection rather
than self correction.Having angered just about every section of
society under the name of astronomy/science,it may be necessary to
expose what actually drives these reckless conclusions and the
thinking behind it,something which did not occur before and after
Piltdown Man.

I would not count on careers and reputations being safe but that is
not my interest,my concerns are that future generations will have a
chance to escape the cult that has driven the wider popultation into a
state of fear by turning a reasonable argument for pollution control
into an altogether different animal by attaching human influences as
the sole cause of temperature variations.It is easier to do this
working with contemporary institutions who do not wish to continue
with the pretenses of late 17th century cult ideologies but even I
cannot wait indefinitely even if the alternative for me is troubling.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You keep postting links over and over again


Both openly try to explain the Earth's daily rotational and orbital
motions in two separate ways while using the average 24 hour day.One
requires a wandering Sun every 24 hours while the other requires an
equable 24 hour natural noon that does not wander,have a ball with
them if you like but they have all the substance of the Piltdown man
skull -

http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecac...wnpainting.jpg

Newton might have given the astrological framework a direction but the
fault lies squarely on John Flamsteed's awful conclusion which I
cheerfully reproduce -

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical..." Flamsteed

Had he said the world is flat it would have been less shocking than
that for it was known since remote antiquity that the total length of
the daily cycle determined at noon is unequal hence the noon
adjustment which equalises observation of natural noon to the average
24 hour day.I cannot hold Flamsteed responsible for creating the
sidereal vs solar fiction but even in its most basic outlines,no such
reasoning can exist.



..