Are Textbook Distances to Mars and Other Planets--as Well as
to the stars--Also A Necessary Part of A Great Deception
Now Upholding An Anti-Christ Religious Doctrine Which Teaches the
Evolution of the Universe, the Earth, and Mankind?
You have seen numerous examples of hard evidence which demonstrate that the alleged distances to the stars(without which there can be no Big Bang Evolutionary Paradigm) are deceptions from start to finish (HERE - HERE - HERE - HERE - Etc.). Now--as many have suspected--there is mounting evidence that the textbook distances given for bodies within the "solar" system are demonstrably false also. Along with his excellent "Geocentric Universe 2.1" (HERE), Physicist Dr. Neville T. Jones is trying to break through the universal censorship of such evidence.
Check his letter to the Editor of The Guardian in London concerning the major news item about the close approach of Mars to Earth in the Summer of ‘03. Then draw your own conclusions as to whether the distance to that planet-- and, by inference, to all the other bodies in the "solar" system--is greatly exaggerated just as is the distance to the stars and the end of our finite universe(HERE - HERE - HERE):
***Old Bruan Schoolhouse
30th September, 2003
There seems to be some fundamental flaw in the astronomical data regarding the planet, Mars, as supplied in the "Starwatch" Column on page 22 of yesterday’s Guardian.
If Mars has a radius 0.5327 times that of the Earth(Encyclopedia Britannica) and is really 72,000,000 km away from us, then it would subtend and angle of 19.4 - 20 arcseconds, as stated. However, the lower limit of human sight, corresponding to the wavelength for peak spectral sensitivity, 560 nm (Hecht and Williams, J. Gen. Physiol., 5, 1-34), is given by Born and Wolf as 24 arcseconds (Principles of Optics, 6th ed., p.415). It should be noted that this figure from Born and Wolf is a minimum and, in fact, the angular resolution of the human eye is usually taken to be about 1 arcminute.
Hence, based upon this data, Mars should be invisible to the unaided eye, rather than the extremely brilliant object that we can all very easily see. Since the eye has been extensively studied in terrestrial laboratories, it seems obvious that the quoted distance to Mars (and possibly also the planet’s size) is therefore significantly incorrect.
Dr. Neville Jones
Daytime phone number: 01847 889593