#26A How Did The Kings of Astronomy Get it So Wrong? Part I: Copernicus – Newton


“It may be boldly asked where can the man be found, possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus-pocus, if he had not in the first instance willfully deceived himself;

Only those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the conduct of Newton and of Newton’s school. To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convince.

In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern history theory of Cosmology, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientists of genius, who will pick u courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics”.  ~ Johann Goethe


This is mostly taken from the work of Gerard Hickson in his 1922 book, “Kings Dethroned”.  He lays clearly, concisely and irrefutably how astronomer by astronomer in the 16th and 17th centuries began in error by the way they measured distance from Earth to Sun, Moon and planets and then subsequently came up with preposterous theory after theory, over decades, to cover up there errors, that continues to this very day.

From Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Halley, Newton in Europe across the pond in the 1900’s to Einstein and NASA, astronomy has used the same errors in calculating distance of stars and planets in what is called Astrometry.

In the 1920’s, Gerrard Hickson proves conclusively, using their own geometry, math and theories of heliocentrism, gravity, relativity, etc., are gravely in gross error.

In no uncertain terms this work blows apart the Sun centered, Earth a sphere rotating, gravity based heliocentric theory that has been taught in every classroom on our flat plane Earth for the past century or more.


Kings Dethroned: A History of the Evolution of Astronomy from the Time of the Roman Empire Up to the Present Day (1922)

(Original book title)

Kings Dethroned; A History of the Evolution of Astronomy from the time of the Roman Empire up to the present day; showing it to be an amazing set of blunders founded upon an error made in the Second Century B C.

Click to access kingsdethronedhi00hickrich.pdf


It will be remembered how Hipparchus failed to get an angle to the stars 2,000 years ago, and arrived at the conclusion that they must be infinitely distant; and we have seen how that hypothesis has been handed down to us through all the centuries without question.
~ G. Hickson ~
Gerrard Hickson


In the year 1907 the author made a remarkable discovery which convinced him that the sun was very much nearer to the earth than was generally supposed.

The fact he had discovered was demonstrated beyond all doubt, so that he was compelled to believe that— however improbable it might seem— astronomers had made a mistake when they estimated the distance of the sun to be ninety-three millions of miles.

He then proceeded to examine the means by which the sun’s distance had been computed, and found an astounding error in the “ Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax,” which had been invented by Dr. Hailey in the early part of the 19th century, and which was used by Sir David Gill in measuring the distance to the planet Mars in 1877 ; from which he deduced his solar parallax of 8.80″.

Seeing that Sir Norman Lockyer had said that the distance to and the dimensions of everything in the firmament except the moon depends upon Sir David Gill’s measurement to Mars, the author set himself the tremendous task of proving the error, tracing its consequences up to the present day, and also tracing it backwards to the source from which it sprang.

The result of that research is a most illuminating history of the evolution of astronomy from the time of the Roman Empire up to April 1922 ; which is now placed in the hands of the people in “ Kings Dethroned.”

The author has taken the unusual course of submitting these new and startling theories for the consideration of the general public because the responsible scientific societies in London, Washington and Paris, failed to deal with the detailed accounts of the work which he forwarded to them in the Spring of 1920.

He believes that every newly-discovered truth belongs to the whole of mankind, wherefore, if those whose business it is to consider his work fail in their duty he does not hesitate to bring it himself direct to the people, assured of their goodwill and fair judgment.
Astronomy has ever been regarded as a study only for the few, but now all its strange terms and theories have been explained in the most lucid manner in “Kings Dethroned,” so that everyone who reads will acquire a comprehensive knowledge of the science.The author takes this opportunity of assuring the reader that none esteems more highly than he, himself,the illustrious pioneers who devoted their genius to the building of astronomy, for he feels that even while point­ing out their errors he is but carrying on their work, striving, labouring even as they did, for the same good cause of progress in the interests of all.
On the other hand, he thinks that astronomers living at the present time might have used to better purpose the greater ad­vantages which this century provides, and done all that he himself has done by fearless reasoning, devoted labour; and earnest seeking after truth.
G. H


“How do i do it?” he said to The New York Times correspondent. ” I know where the winds come from, and no so-called meteorologist knows that. It is quite simple. The sun heats the earth more rapidly than the sea; currents of air are set up, and if you study the coast lines and hills you soon find out all about the winds.”

“But how can rays from the sun, 93,000,000 million miles away, distinguish between sea and land?” G.H., Founder of the Hicksonian Society.


THREE thousand years ago men believed the earth was supported on gigantic pillars. The
sun rose in the east every morning, passed overhead, and sank in the west every evening ; then
it was supposed to pass between the pillars under the earth during the night, to re-appear in the east again next morning.

This idea of the universe was upset by Pythagoras some five hundred years before the birth of Christ, when he began to teach that the earth was round like a ball, with the sun going round it daily from east to w e s t; and this theory was already about four hundred years old when Hipparchus, the great Greek scientist, took it up and developed it in the second century, b .c . Hipparchus may be ranked among the score or so of the greatest scientists who have ever lived.

He was the inventor of the system of measuring the distance to far off objects by triangulation, or trigonometry, which is used by our surveyors at the present day, and which is the basis of all the methods of measuring distance which are used in modern astronomy. Using this method of his own invention, he measured from point to point on the surface of the earth, and so laid the foundation of our present systems of geography, scientific map-making and  navigation.


No star is more than 10,000 miles away, and the sun never more than 7,500. How did he prove that? Why, by triangulation, of course. The astronomers used the system suggested by Halley, but it was ridiculous. Mr. Hickson just made New York one end, and calculated from that. Had he been to his southern observation point? No, but he had made a model and worked it out from that.


A triangle must add up to 180 degrees. When laid out flat it is one-half of a circle of 360 degrees. By having two points known, a third can be determined.


The principles of triangulation are very simple, but because it will be necessary— as I proceed— to show how modern astronomers have departed from them, I will explain them in detail. Every figure made up of three connected lines — or three-angle, quite regardless of the length of any of its sides.

The triangle differs from all other shapes or figures in this ;— that the value of its three angles, when added together, admits of absolutely no variation ; they always equal i8o degrees ; while — on the other hand— all other figures contain angles of 360 degrees or more.

The triangle alone contains 180 degrees, and no other figure can be used for measuring distance. There is no alternative whatever, and therein lies its value. It follows, then, that if we know the value of any two of the angles in a triangle we can readily find the value of the third, by simply adding together the two known angles and subtracting the result from 180. The value of the third angle is necessarily the remainder.

Now if we know the length of the base-line A— B, in feet, yards, kilometres or miles, (to be ascertained by actual measurement), and also know the value of the two angles which indicate the direction of a distantobject as seen from A. and B., we can readily complete the triangle and so find the length of its sides.
“Now you have got it, ” replied Mr. Hickson. “Who told you the sun was 93,000,000 miles away? Why, the astronomers. And who told the astronomers?  Why, other astronomers. You can carry it back to Copernicus-yes, to Hipparchus. They all repeat what others have said. They are all in a conspiracy.”
Hipparchus and Ptolomey
A little reflection will now enable the reader to realize the difficulties which confronted Hipparchus
when he attempted to measure the distance to the stars.
It was before the Roman Conquest, when the geography of the earth was but little known, and
there were none of the rapid means of traveling and communication which are at our disposal to-day.
Moreover, it was in the very early days of astronomy, when there were few— if any— who could have helped Hipparchus in his work, while if he was to make a successful triangulation to any of the stars it was essential that he should have a base-line thousands of miles in length, with an observer at each end; both taking observations to the same star at precisely the same second of time.
The times in which he lived did not provide the conveniences which were necessary for his under­ taking, the conditions were altogether impossible, and so it is not at all surprising that he failed to get any tri­angulation to the stars. As a result he came to the conclusion that they must be too far off to be measured, and said “ the heavenly bodies are infinitely distant.”
Such was the extraordinary conclusion arrived at by Hipparchus, and that statement of his lies at the
root of astronomy, and has led its advocates into an amazing series of blunders from that day to this.
The whole future of the science of astronomy was affected by Hipparchus when he said ” the heavenly
bodies are infinitely distant,” and now, when I say that it is not so, the fate of astronomy again hangs in
the balance. It is a momentous issue which will be decided in due course within these pages.
The next astronomer of special note is Sosigenes, who designed the Julian Calendar in the reign of
Caesar. He saw no fault in the theories of Hipparchus, but handed them on to Ptolemy, an Egyptian
astronomer of very exceptional ability, who lived in the second century AD.
Taking up the theories of his great Greek pre­decessor after three hundred years, Ptolemy accepted
them without question as the work of a master; and developed them. Singularly gifted as he was to carry on the work of Hipparchus, his genius was of a different order, for while the Greek was the more original thinker and inventor the Egyptian was the more accom­plished artist in detail; and the more skilful in the art of teaching.
Undoubtedly he was eminently fitted to be the disciple of Hipparchus, and yet for that very
reason he was the less likely to suspect, or to discover, any error in the master’s work. In the most literal sense he carried on that work,built upon it, elaborated it, and established the Ptolemaic System of astronomy so ably that it stood unchallenged and undisputed for fourteen hundred years.
And during all those centuries the accepted theory of the universe was that the earth was stationary, wliile the sun, moon, stars and planets revolved around it daily. Having accepted the theories of Hipparchus in the bulk, it was but natural that Ptolemy should fail to discover the error I have pointed out, though even had it been otherwise it would have been as difficult for him to make a triangulation to the stars in the second century AD., as it had been for the inventor of triangulation himself three hundred years earlier.
However, it is a fact that he allowed the theory that “the heavenly bodies are infinitely distant ” to
remain unquestioned; and that was an error of omission which was ultimately to bring about the
downfall of his own Ptolemaic system of astronomy.
Ptolemy’s was still the astronomy of the world when Columbus discovered America, 1492, but there was
living at that time— in the little town of Franenburg, in Prussia— a youth of 18, who was destined in later years to overthrow the astronomy of Hipparchus and Ptolemy, and to become himself the founder of a new theory which has since been universally accepted in its stead ; Nicholas Copernicus.
It is to be remembered that at that time the earth was believed to stand still, while the sun, moon, planets and stars moved round it daily from east to west, as stated by Ptolemy ; but this did not seem
reasonable to Copernicus.
He was a daring and original thinker, willing to challenge any theory— be it ever so long established— if it did not appear logical to him, and he contended that it was unreasonable to suppose that all the vast firmament of heavenly bodies revolved around this relatively little earth, but, on the contrary, it was more reasonable to believe that the earth itself rotated and revolved around an enormous sun, moving within a firmament of stars that were fixed in infinite space ; for in either case the appearance of the heavens would be the same to an observer on the surface of the earth.
This was the idea that inspired Nicholas Copernicus to labour for twenty-seven years developing the
Heliocentric Theory of the universe, and in compiling the book that made him famous :— ” De Revolutionibus Orbium Ccelestium,” which was published in the last year of his life: 1543.

And now it is for us to very carefully study this fundamental idea of the Heliocentric theory, for there is an error in it.

Ptolemy had made it appear that the sun and stars revolved around a stationary earth, but Copernicus advanced the theory that it was the earth which revolved around a stationary sun, while the stars were fixed ; and either of these entirely opposite theories gives an equally satisfactory explanation of the appearance of the sun by day and the stars by night.

Copernicus did not produce any newly discovered fact to prove that Ptolemy was wrong, neither did he offer any proof that he himself was right, but worked out his system to show that he could account for all the appearances of the heavens quite as well as the Egyptian had done, though working
on an entirely different hypothesis ; and offered his new Heliocentric Theory as an alternative.

He argued that it was more reasonable to conceive the earth to be revolving round the sun than it was to think of the sun revolving round the earth, because it was more reasonable that the smaller body should move round the greater.

We see that Copernicus recognised the physical law that the lesser shall be governed by the greater, and that is the pivot upon which the whole of his astronomy turns ; but it is perfectly clear that in building up his theories he assumed the earth to be much smaller than the sun, and also smaller than the stars ; and that was pure assumption unsupported by any kind of fact.

In the absence of any proof as to whether the earth or the sun was the greater of the two, and having only the evidence of the senses to guide him, it would have been more reasonable had he left astronomy as it was, seeing that the sun appeared to move round the earth, while he himself was unconscious of any movement.

When he supposed the stars to be motionless in space, far outside the solar system, he was assuming them to be infinitely distant; relying entirely upon.

The statement made by Hipparchus seventeen hundred years before. It is strange that he should have accepted this single statement on faith while he was in the very act of repudiating all the rest of the astronomy of Hipparchus and Ptolemy, but the fact remains that he did accept the ” infinitely distant ” doctrine without question, and that led him to suppose the heavenly bodies to be proportionately large; hence the rest of his reasonings followed as a matter
of course.

He saw that the Geocentric Theory of the universe did not harmonise with the idea that the stars were infinitely distant, and so far we agree with him. He had at that time the choice of two courses open to him:—he might have studied the conclusion which had been arrived at by Hipparchus, and found the error there ; but instead of doing that he chose to find fault with the whole theory of the universe, to overthrow it, and invent an entirely new astronomy
to fit the error of Hipparchus !

It was a most unfortunate choice, but it is now made clear that the whole work of Copernicus depends upon the single question whether the ancient Greek was right or wrong when he said “ the heavenly bodies are infinitely distant.”

It is a very insecure foundation for the whole of Copernican or modern astronomy to rest upon, but such indeed is the case.


Some thirty years after the publication of the work of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, the Danish astronomer,
invented the first instrument used in modern astronomy. This was a huge quadrant nineteen feet in height (the forerunner of the sextant), which he used to very good purpose in charting out the positions of many of the more conspicuous stars. He differed with some of the details of the Prussian doctor’s theory, but accepted it in the main ; and took no account what­ever of the question of the distance of the stars.

Immediately following him came Johann Kepler, and it is a very remarkable circumstance that this German philosopher, mystic and astrologer, should have been the founder of what is now known as Physical Astronomy.

Believer as he was in the ancient doctrine that men’s lives are pre-destined and mysteriously influenced by the stars and planets, he nevertheless sought to discover some physical law
which governed the heavenly bodies.

Having accepted the Copernican Theory that the sun was the centre of the universe, and that the earth and the planets revolved around it, it was but natural that all his reasonings and deductions should conform to those ideas, and so it is only to be expected that his conclusions dealing with the relative distances, movements and masses of the planets, which he laboured upon for many years, and which are now the famous “ Laws of Kepler,” should be in perfect accord with the Heliocentric Theory of Copernicus.

But, though the underlying principles of Kepler’s work will always have great value, his conclusions cannot be held to justify Copernican astronomy, since they are a sequel to it, but— on the contrary—they will be involved in the downfall of the theory that gave them birth.

While the life work of Johann Kepler was drawing to a close, that of Galileo was just beginning, and his name is more widely known in connection with modern astronomy than is that of its real inventor, Nicholas Copernicus.

Galileo adopted the Copernican theory with enthusiasm, and propagated it so vigorously
that at one time he was in great danger of being burnt at the stake for heresy. In the year 1642 he invented the telescope, and so may be said to have founded the modern method of observing the heavens.

Zealous follower of Copernicus as he was, Galileo did much to make his theory widely known and commonly believed, and we may be sure that it was because he saw no error in it that other giants of astronomy who came after him accepted it the more readily.

Nearly eighteen hundred years had passed since Hipparchus had said the heavenly bodies were
infinitely distant, and still no one had questioned the accuracy of that statement, nor made any attempt whatever to measure their distance.

It is interesting to mention here an event which— at first sight— might seem inimportant, but which—now reviewed in its proper place in history— can be seen to have had a marked effect on the progress of astronomy as well as navigation. This was the publication of a little book called ” The Seaman’s Practice,” by Richard Norwood, in the year 1637.

At that time books of any kind were rare, and this was the first book ever written on the subject of measuring by triangulation. It was intended for the use of mariners, but there is no doubt that ‘ ‘ The Seaman’s Practice ” helped King Charles II. to realize how the science of astronomy could be made to render valuable service to British seamen in their voyages of discovery, with the result that in 1675 he appointed John Flamsteed to make a special study of the stars, and to chart them after the manner of Tycho Brahe and Galileo, in order that navigators might guide their ships by the constellations over the trackless oceans.

That was how the British School of Astronomy came into existence, with John Flamsteed as the first Astronomer Royal, employing only one assistant, with whom he shared a magnificent salary of £70 a year ; and navigation owes much to the excellent work he did with an old-fashioned telescope, mounted in a little wooden shed on Greenwich Hill.

At about the same time the French School of Astronomy came into being, and the end of the
seventeenth century began the most glorious period in the history of the science, when astronomers in England, France and Germany all contested strenuously for supremacy, and worshiped at the shrine of Copernicus.


Before passing on to the more important part of this work, it is only just to record the fact that the first practical work in triangulation since the time of Hipparchus was performed by Jean Picard and J. and D. Cassini, between Paris and Dunkirk toward the end of the 17th century ; when Newton was working out his theories.

At this time the Copernican theory of astronomy was well established, and was accepted by all the scientific world, though it is probable that the public in general found it difficult to reconcile the idea of an earth careering through space at prodigious speed with common sense and reason. Even the most ardent followers of Copernicus and Galileo recognised this difficulty, and some strove to find a satisfactory explanation.

Nearly a hundred years ago Kepler had suggested that some kind of unknown force must hold the earth and the heavenly bodies in their places, and now Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest mathematician of his age, took up the idea and built the Law of Gravitation.

The name is derived from the Latin word “ gravis,” which means “ heavy,” “ having weight,” while the Law of Gravitation is defined as “ That mutual action between masses of matter by virtue of which every such mass tends toward every other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses, and inversely as the square of their distances apart.”

Reduced to simplicity, gravitation is said to be “ That which attracts every thing toward every other thing.” That does not tell us much ; and yet the little it does tell us is not true ; for a thoughtful observer knows very well that everything is not attracted towards every other thing. . . The definition implies that it is a force ; but it does not say so, for that phrase “ mutual action ” is ambiguous, and not at all convincing.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us that “ The Law of Gravitation is unique among the laws of nature, not only for its wide generality, taking the whole universe into its scope, but in the fact that, so far as is yet known, it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever.”

Here again we observe that the nature of gravitation is not really defined at all ; we are told that masses of matter tend toward each other, but no reason is given why they do so, or should do so ; while to say that “ it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever ” is one of the most unscientific statements it is possible to make.

There is not anything or force in the universe that is absolute! No thing that goes its own way and does what it will without regard to other forces or things. The thing is impossible; and it is not true; wherefore it has fallen to me to show where the inconsistency in it lies.

The name given to this mutual action means “ weight,” and weight is one of the attributes of all matter. Merely to say that anything is matter or material implies that it has weight, while to speak of weight implies matter. Matter and weight are inseparable, they are not laws, but elemental facts. They exist.

But it has been suggested that gravitation is a force, indeed we often hear it referred to as the force of gravitation ; but force is quite a different thing than weight, it is active energy expressed by certain conditions and combinations of matter. It acts.

All experience and observation goes to prove that material things fall to earth because they possess the attribute of weight, and that an object remains suspended in air or space only so long as its weight is overcome by a force, which is contrary. And when we realize these simple facts we see that gravitation is in reality conditioned and modified by every other active force, both great and small.

Again, gravitation is spoken of as a pull, an agent of attraction that robs weight of its meaning, something that brings all terrestrial things down to earth while at the same time it keeps the heavenly bodies in their places and prevents them falling toward each other or apart. The thing is altogether too wonderful, it is not natural; and the theory is scientifically unsound. . .

Every man, however great his genius, must be limited by the conditions that surround him ; and
science in general was not sufficiently advanced two hundred years ago to be much help to Newton, so that— for lack of information which is ordinary knowledge to us having in the 20th century— he fell into the error of attributing the effects of “ weight ” and “ force ” to a common cause, which— for want of a better term— he called gravitation ; but I have not the slightest doubt that if he were living now he would have arrived at the following more reasonable conclusions:— That terrestrial things fall to earth by “ gravis,” weight; because they are matter ; while the heavenly bodies (which also are matter) do not fall because they are maintained in their courses by magnetic or electric force.

Another figure of great prominence in the early part of the eighteenth century was Dr. Hailey, who survived Sir Isaac Newton by some fifteen years, and it is to him that we owe nearly all the methods of measuring distance which are used in astronomy at the present day. So far no one had seriously considered the possibility of measuring the distance to the sun planets or stars since Hipparchus had failed— away back in the second century B.C.— but now, since the science had made great strides, it occurred to Dr. Hailey that it might be possible at least to find the distance from the earth to the sun, or to the nearest planet.

Measuring Stars At A Distance

Remembering the time-honoured dogma that the stars are infinitely distant, inspired by the magnificence of the Copernican conception of the universe, and influenced— no doubt— by the colossal suggestions of Ole Roemer, he tried to invent some means of making a triangulation on a gigantic scale, with a base-line of hitherto unknown dimensions.

Long years ago Kepler had worked out a theory of the distances of the planets with relation to each other, the principle of which— when expressed in simple language and in round figures— is as follows :

“ If we knew the distance to any one of the planets we could use that measurement as a basis from which to estimate the others. Thus Venus is apparently about twice as far from the sun as Mercury, while the earth is about three times and Mars four times as far from the sun as Mercury, so that should the distance of the smallest planet be— let us say— 50 million miles, then Venus would be 100, the Earth 150, and Mars 200 millions of miles.”

This seems to be the simplest kind of arithmetic, but the whole of the theory of relative distance goes to pieces because Kepler had not the slightest idea of the linear distance from the earth to anything in the firmament, and based all his calculations on time, and on the apparent movements of the planets in azimuth, that is— to right or left of the observer, and to the right or left of the sun.

Necessity compels me to state these facts in this plain and almost brutal fashion, but it is my sincere hope that no reader will suppose that I under-estimate the genius or the worth of such men as Newton and Kepler ; for it is probable that I appreciate and honour them more than do most of those who blindly worship them with less understanding. I only regret that they were too ready to accept Copernican astronomy as though it were an axiom, and did not put it to the proof ; and that, as a consequence, their fine intelligence and industry should have been devoted to the glorification of a blunder.

Kepler’s work was of that high order which only one man in a million could do, but nevertheless, his calculations of the relative distances of the planets depends entirely upon the question whether they revolve round the sun or not ; and that we shall discover in due course.

However, Dr. Hailey had these theories in mind when he proposed to measure the distance to Mars at a time when the planet reached its nearest point to earth (in opposition to the sun), and then to multiply that distance by three (approximate), and in that manner estimate the distance of the sun.

He proceeded then to invent what is now known as the “ Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax,” which he described in detail in the form of a lecture to contemporary astronomers, introducing it by remarking that he would probably not be living when next Mars came into the required position, but others might at that time put the method into practice.

He began by saying that “ If it were possible to place two observers at points diametrically opposite to each other on the surface of the earth (as A and Bin dia^am 5), both observers— looking along their respective horizons— would see Mars at the same time,the planet being between them, to the east of one observer and to the westward of the other.

In these circumstances the diameter of the earth might be used as a base-line, the observers at A and B might take simultaneous observations, and the two angles obtained, on being referred to the base-line, would give the distance of the planet.

But this was in the reign of George II. long before the invention of steamships, cables or telegraphs, and Dr. Hailey knew that it was practically impossible to have B taking observations in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, so he proposed to overcome the difficulty by the following expedient:— He suggested that both the observations could be taken by a single observer, using the same observatory, thus—

  “ Let an observer at A take the first observation in the evening, when Mars will be to his east : let him then wait twelve hours, during which time the rotation of the earth will have carried him round to B.  He may then take his second observation. Mars being at this time to his west, and the two angles thus obtained— on being referred to the base-line— will give the distance of the planet.”

This proposition is so plausible that it has apparently deceived every astronomer from that day to this, and it might even now deceive the reader himself were it not that he knows I have some good reason for describing it here.

It is marvelously specious ; it does not seem to call for our examination ; and yet it is all wrong! and Dr. Hailey has a world of facts against him. He is at fault in his premises, for if the planet was visible to one of the observers it must be above his horizon, and, therefore, could not be seen at the same time by the other ; since it could not be above his horizon also at both A and B points on Earth.

Again, his premises are in conflict with Euclid, because he supposes Mars to be midway between A and B, that is between their two horizons, which are parallel lines 8,000 miles apart throughout their entire length, and so it is obvious that if the planet— much smaller than the earth— was really in that position it could not be seen by either of the observers.

The alternative which Dr. Hailey proposes is as fallacious as his premises, for he overlooks the fact that— according to Copernican astronomy— during the twelve hours while the earth has been rotating on its axis it has also travelled an immense distance in its orbit round the sun.


Let us pass on to something more important, the measurement of the distance to the moon, the first of the heavenly bodies to be measured. This was performed by Lalande and Lacaille in the year 1752, using the method of direct triangulation. Lalande took one of the observations at Berlin, while Lacaille took the other at the same time at the Cape of Good Hope ; a straight line (or chord) joining these two places giving them a base-line more than 5,000 miles in length.

The moon was at a low altitude away in the west, the two observers took the angles with extreme care, and at a later date they met, compared notes, and made the necessary calculations. As a result the moon was said to be 238,830 miles from the earth, and to be 2,159.8 miles in diameter, the size being estimated from its distance; and these are the figures accepted in astronomy the world over at the present day.

I have occasion to call the reader’s attention to the fact that some books— Proctor’s “ Old and New Astronomy ” for example— in describing the principle of how to measure to the moon, illustrate it by a diagram which differs from the diagram above.

Though the principle as it is explained in those books seems plausible enough, it would be impossible in practice, for the diagram they use clearly shows the moon to be near the zenith. Further, it is often said that the distance to the moon has been several times measured, but the fact is that it is of no consequence whether it has or not, for it is the result obtained by Lalande and Lacaille which is accepted by astronomy, and their observations were taken as I have stated.

Moreover, one of the greatest living authorities on astronomy tells us that their work was done with such precision that “ the distance of the moon is positively settled, and is known with greater accuracy than is the length of any street in Paris.” Nevertheless we will submit it to the test.

There is every reason to believe that the practical work of these two Frenchmen was most admirably done, and yet their labours were reduced to naught, and the whole object of the triangulation was defeated, because, in making the final computations they made ” allowances ” in order to conform to certain of the established false theories of astronomy.

The “What you see is not what is Theory”

One of these is the Theory of Atmospheric Refraction, which would have us believe that when we see the sun (or moon) low down on the horizon, at sunrise or sunset, it is not really the sun itself that we see, but only an image or mirage of the sun reflected up to the horizon by atmospheric refraction, the real sun being at the time at the extremity of a line drawn through the centre of the earth, 4,000 miles below our horizon. (That is according to the astronomy taught in all schools.)

According to this theory there is at nearly all times some degree of refraction, which varies with the altitude of the body under observation, so that (in simple) the theory declares that the real moon was considerably lower than the moon which Lalande and Lacaille actually saw, for that was only a refracted image.

They had therefore, to make an allowance for atmospheric refraction. They had to find (by theory) where the real moon would be, and then they had to modify the angles they had obtained in practical triangulation, by making an allowance for what is known as “ Equatorial Parallax.”

Equatorial Parallax is defined a:

“ the apparent change in the direction of a body when seen from the surface of the earth as compared with the direction it would appear to be in if seen from the centre of the earth.”

It is difficult not to laugh at theories such as these, but I can assure the reader that astronomers take them quite seriously.

If we interpret this rightly, it is suggested that if Lalande and Lacaille will imagine themselves to be located in the centre of the earth they will perceive the moon to be at a lower altitude than it appeared to them when they saw it from the outside of the earth; and modern Copernican astronomy required that on their return to Paris they should make allowance for this.

Now observe the result. It has been shown that “Equatorial Parallax” is only altitude ; it is a question of higher or lower; it has to do with observations taken from the top of the earth compared with others taken theoretically from the centre.

Really it is an imaginary triangulation, where the line E P in diagram 9 becomes a base-line.
The line E P is vertical; therefore it follows that the theoretical triangulation by which Equatorial
Parallax is found is in the vertical plane. . . We remember, however, that the moon was away in the west when seen by Lalande and Lacaille, while their base-line was the chord (a straight line running north and south) connecting Berlin with the Cape of Good Hope.

By that almost inconceivable blunder real and imaginary angles came into conflict on two different planes, so the triangulation was entirely lost ; and as a consequence the distance of the moon is no more known to-day than it was at the time of the flood. All other attempts to measure the distance to the moon since that time have been defeated in a similar manner.


This history of the evolution of astronomy would not be complete if we omitted to mention here the fact
that, though the French school of astronomers had been foremost in adopting practical triangulation, it
was not until the British took up the work in 1783 that the triangulation of the earth was seriously begun.
 At about this time Immanuel Kant was laying the foundation of the Nebular Hypothesis— the theory
that the earth and the planets were created by the sun.
Sir William Herschell became interested, and carried the thought further, but the Nebular Hypothesis may be said to have been still only in a nebulous state until it was taken up and developed by the brilliant French mathematician and astronomer the Marquis deLaplace.
According to this hypothesis there was a time, ages ago, when there was neither earth, nor moon, nor
planets, but only an immense mass of incandescent nebulous matter (where the sun is now), spinning and flaming like a gigantic Catherine wheel. . . alone amid the stars.
In other words there was only the sun, much larger than it is at the present time. This mass cooled and contracted, leaving a ring of tenuous blazing matter like a ring of smoke around it. In the course of time this ring formed itself into a solid ball, cooled, and became the planet Neptune.
The sun contracted again, leaving another ring, which formed itself into a ball and became the planet Uranus, and so it went on until Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, and then the Earth itself were created in a
similar way ; to be followed later by Venus and Mercury.
In this way Laplace explained how the earth and the planets came to be racing round the sun in the manner described by Copernicus; and, strange to say, this Nebular Hypothesis is now taught in the
schools of the twentieth century with all the assurance that belongs to a scientific fact.
Yet the whole thing contradicts itself, for the laws of dynamics show that if the sun contracted it would rotate more rapidly, and if it rotated more rapidly that would increase the heat, and so cause the mass to expand.
It appears then, that as every attempt to cool increases the rotation, and heat, and so causes further expansion, the sun must always remain as it is. It cannot get cooler or hotter ! and it cannot grow bigger or less ! and so it is evident that it never could leave the smoke-like rings which Laplace imagined.
Therefore we know that the earth could never have been formed in that way; and never was part of the sun.This Nebular Hypothesis is pure imagination, and it is probable that it was only allowed to survive because it made an attempt to justify the impossible solar system of modern astronomy. It ends in smoke.
Just like a weed— which is always prolific— the Nebular Hypothesis soon produced another equally
unscientific concept, known as the Atomic Theory.
The idea that everything that exists consists of—or can be reduced to— atoms, was discussed by
Anaxagoras and Democritus, away back in the days of Ancient Greece, but it was not until the beginning of the 19th century that it was made to account for the creation of the entire universe. Let us dissect it.
An atom is “ the smallest conceivable particle of matter,” that is— smaller than the eye can see, even

with the aid of a microscope ; it is the smallest thing the mind of man can imagine. And the Atomic
Theory suggests that once upon a time (a long way further back than Laplace thought of) there was
nothing to be seen anywhere, in fact there seemed to be nothing at all but everlasting empty space ; and yet that space was full of atoms smaller than the eye could see, and in some manner, which no one has been able to explain, these invisible atoms whirled them­selves into the wonderful universe we now see around us.
But if there had ever been a time when the whole of space was filled with atoms, and nothing else but atoms in a state of unity, they must have been without motion ; and being without motion, so they would have remained for ever ! . . . Of course the idea that all the elements could have existed in that uniform atomic state is preposterous, and shows the whole theory to be fundamentally unsound, but if— for the sake of argument— we allow the assumption to stand, the atomic condition goes crash against Newton’s “Laws of Motion,” which show that “everything persists in a state of rest until it is affected by some other thing outside itself.”
The tide of events now carries us along to the year 1824, when Encke made the first serious attempt to
find the distance to the sun ; using as the means—the Transit of Venus. He did not take the required observations himself, but made a careful examination of the records which had been made at the transits of 1761 and 1769, and estimated the sun’s distance from these ; employing the method advocated by Dr. Hailey.
What is meant by the ” Transit of Venus ” is the fact of the planet passing between the observer and
the sun (in daylight) when, by using coloured or smoked glasses to protect the eyes, it may be seen as
a small spot moving across the face of the solar disk.
The method of finding the distance to the sun, at such a time, is as follows:— Two observers are to be placed as far apart as possible on the earth. Make B and S two positions from Earth. From these positions we will see Venus cross the face of the sun the parallel lines on the Sun, while we will see the

planet projected nearer to the bottom edge of the sun, moving along the line closer to the center of the sun.
The distance which separates the two projections of Ven­us against the solar disk, indi­cated by the short vertical line will bear a certain proportionate relation to the base-line— or diameter of the earth— which separates the observers B and S.
On referring to the Third Law of Kepler, laid down in the 17th century— it is calculated that the ratio
of the line closet to mid Sun to A as compared with the line lower and to B will
be as 100 is to 37. Consequently, if we know the dimensions of the triangle from B and S to Venus it
is a simple matter to find the dimensions of the triangle from Venus to the points by the formula— “ as100 is to 37.”
Further, when we have found the number of miles that are represented by the space which separates the two dotted lines on the face of the sun, we can use the upper line on the Sun as though it were a
yard-stick or a rule, and so measure the size of the sun from top to bottom.
Such is the method which Encke used in his study of the records of transits of Venus which had been
made fifty years before, and it is stated on the most reliable authority that the results he obtained were
accepted without question.
In round figures he made the sun to be about 97,000,000 miles from the earth and 880,000 miles
from top to bottom.
All this seems reasonable enough, and it certainly is ingenious ; and yet—The observers were not— as a matter of fact—placed at the poles, nor were they diametrically opposite to each other as in the diagram, but they observed the Transit of Venus from two other points not so favourably placed, and so “ allowances ” had to be made in order to find what the dimensions of the triangle B S Venus would have been if the observers had been there to see the transit.
And in making these allowances our astronomers were all unconscious of the fact that if the observers really had been there (as in the diagram, and as illustrated in all books and lectures on the subject) they could not both have seen Venus at the same time, because A and B are upside down with respect to each other— their two horizons are opposite and parallel to each other—and the planet could not be above the two horizons at the same time.
But the allowances were made, nevertheless, and the triangle, which, as we see, was more metaphysical than real, was referred to the Third Law of Kepler; which had been designed to
fit a theory of the solar system which, so far, has not been supported by a single fact. The result of the entire proceeding was “ nil.”
The world of astronomy being satisfied that Encke had really found the distance of the sun, the time
had come when a triangulation to the stars might be attempted ; and this was done by F. W. Bessel in the year 1838.
He is said to have been the first man to make a successful measurement of stellar distance
when he estimated the star known as “ 61 Cygni ” to be in light-years, or 63,000,000,000,000 (Trillion) miles from the earth ; its angle of parallax being 0.31“; and for this work Bessel is regarded as virtually the creator of Modern Astronomy of Precision.
The reader who has followed me thus far will suppose that I intend to examine this measurement of “ 61 Cygni.” That is so ; but as it will be necessary to introduce astronomical terms and theories which will be unfamiliar to the layman, I must explain these at some length in order that he, as one of the jury, may be able to arrive at a just verdict.
In the meantime I respectfully call the attention of the responsible authorities of astronomy to this chapter, for it is probable that I shall here shatter some of their most cherished theories, and complete the overthrow of the Copernican astronomy they represent.
Light is said to travel at a speed of 186,414 miles a second ; that is 671,090,400 miles in an hour, or
six billion (six million millions) miles in a year. So when ” 61 Cygni ” is said to be io| light-years distant
it means that it is so far away that it takes its light ten and a half years to travel from the star to the eye of the observer, though it is coming at the rate of 671,090,400 miles an hour. One light-year equals 6,000,000,000,000 (Trillion) miles.
Angle of Parallax

An “angle of parallax ” is the angle at the star, or at the apex of an astronomer’s triangulation. The angle of parallax 0.31″ (thirty-one hundredths of a second of arc) is so extremely small that it represents only one 11,613th part of a degree.


There is in Greenwich Observatory an instrument which lies a vernier six feet in diameter, one of the largest in the world. A degree on this vernier measures about three-quarters of an inch, so that if we tried to measure the parallax 0.31 on that vernier we should find it to be one 15,484th part of an inch.


When angles are as line as this we are inclined to agree with Tycho Brahe when he said that “ Angles of Parallax exist only in the minds of the observers; they are due to instrumental and personal errors.”
The Bi-annual (or semi-annual) method of stellar measurement which Bessel used for his triangulation
is very interesting, and, curiously enough, it is another of those singularly plausible inventions advocated by Dr. Hailey.
It will be remembered how Hipparchus failed to get an angle to the stars 2,000 years ago, and arrived at the conclusion that they must be infinitely distant; and we have seen how that hypothesis has been handed down to us through all the centuries without question, so we can understand how Dr. Hailey was led to design his method of finding stellar distance on a corresponding, in­finitely distant scale.
It appeared to him that no base-line on earth (not even its dia­meter) would be of any use for such an
immense triangulation as the stars required, but he thought it might be possible to obtain a base-line long enough if we knew the distance of the sun; and his reasoning ran as follows;— As we have learned from Copernicus that the earth travels com­pletely around the sun once in a year, it must be on opposite sides of the orbit every six months, therefore, if we make an observation to a star— let us say— to­
night, and another observation to the same star when we are on the other side of the orbit in six months time, we can use the entire diameter of the orbit as a base-line.
Of course this suggestion could not be put into practice until the distance to the sun was found, but
now that Encke had done that, and found it to be about 97,000,000 miles, Bessel had only to multiply that by two to find the diameter of the orbit, so that the length of his base-line would be, roughly, 194,000,000 miles.
It seemed a simple matter, then, to make two observations to find the angle at the star “ 61 Cygni,” and to multiply it into the length of the base-line just as a surveyor might do.
A critical reader might observe that as there is in reality only one earth, and not two, as it appears in
the base-line is a very intangible thing to refer any angles to; and he might think it impossible to know what angles the lines of sight really do subtend to this imaginary base-line; but these questions do not seriously concern the astronomer because the “ Theory of Perpendicularity ” assures him that the star is at all times perpendicular to the centre of the earth, while the “Theory of Parallax” enables him to ignore the direction of his base-line altogether, and to find his angle— not at the base but at the apex of the triangle— at the star.
These theories, however, deserve our attention; Parallax is “the apparent change in the direction of a body when viewed from two different points.” For example, an observer at A, would see the tree to the left of the house, but if he crosses over to B, the tree will appear to have moved to the right of the house.
Now in modern astronomy the stars are supposed to be fixed, just as we know the tree and the house to be, and an astronomer’s angle of parallax is ” the apparent change in the direction of a star as compared with another star, when both are viewed from two different points, such as the opposite sides of the orbit.”
The “Theory of Paral­lax ” as stated in astronomy, is “that the nearer the star the greater the parallax ; hence the greater the apparent displacement the nearer the body or star must be.”
In other words, it is supposed that because the tree in the diagram is nearer to the observer than the house, it will appear to move further from the house than the house will appear to move away from the tree, if the observer views them alternately from A and B. That is the principle which Bessel relied upon to find the parallax of “ 61 Cygni.” (I will leave the reader to make his own comments upon it.)
The “Theory of Perpen­dicularity” tells us that all stars are perpendicular to
the centre of the earth, no matter what direction they may appear to be in as
we see them from different points on the surface; and proves it by “Geocen­tric Parallax.”
If that is so, then every two obser­vations to a star must be parallel to each other, the
two angles at the base must inevitably equal 180 degrees, and consequently there
can be no angle whatever at the star!
But the word perpendicular is a relative term. It has no meaning unless it is referred to a line at right angles. More­ over, no thing can be said to be perpendicular to a point; and the centre of the earth is a point as defined by Euclid, without length, breadth or thickness; yet this theory supposes a myriad stars all to be perpendicular to the same pomt. The thing is false.
The fact is that the stars diverge in all directions from the centre of the earth, and from every point
of observation on the surface.  It would be as reasonable to say that all the spokes of a wheel are perpendicular to the hub.
A hairs breadth
So much for the theories ; but Bessel believed in them, because they are among the tenets of astrono­mical faith ; and he discovered that ” 61 Cygni ” appeared to move by an 11,613th part of a degree,
as compared with another star adjacent to it. So he deduced the parallax 0.31″ as the angle of “ 61
Cygni,” the other star (the star of reference) being presumed to be so much further away as to have no
angle whatever.
It appears that— in spite of the fact that the theory of Perpendicularity makes it impossible to obtain any angle to a star— Bessel is supposed to have found an angle by means of parallax; for although the two lines of sight are as nearly parallel as possible, the parallax 0.31′ indicates that they are really believed to converge by that hair’s-breadth.
Unfortunately for this idea, however, the theory of Perpendicularity is supported by another theory— that of Geocentric Parallax, which makes every line of sight taken at the surface of the earth absolutely parallel to a line from the centre of the earth to the star, wherefore astronomy has the choice of two alternatives, viz. : if these two theories are right, neither Bessel nor any­ one else could ever get an angle at the star; while, on the other hand, if he did obtain an angle,— then the two theories are wrong.
Still we have not done with this matter, for the triangulation was made still further impossible by the use of Sidereal Time.
Hipparchus had observed that whereas the sun crossed the meridian every 24 hours, the stars came
round in turn and crossed in a little less, so that, for example, Orion would cross the meridian every 23
hours 56 minutes 4.09 seconds. This is called a Stellar or Sidereal day.
It is divided into 24 equal parts, or hours, each a few seconds less than the ordinary hour of 60 minutes which is taken by the sun, and it is this Sidereal Time which is used by all modern astronomers, their clocks being regulated to go faster than the ordinary clock, so as to keep pace with the stars as they pass.
As Sidereal time is designed to bring every star back exactly on the meridian every 24 hours by the sidereal clock, it follows of necessity that the stars re-appear on the meridian with perfect regularity ; (if they do not the clock is altered slightly to make them do so.) The agreement between the star and the sidereal clock becomes a truism, and a law invincible.  It is certain, therefore, that if “ 61 Cygni ” did not appear to be exactly in its appointed place by the astronomer’s time, the clock was wrong.
 Inline image 1
(need clearer picture here, anyone?)
We have now two theories and the sidereal clock to prove that every line of sight to“ 61 Cygni ” is
parallel to every other; that they cannot possibly converge, and con­sequently that no triangulation was
obtained. Let us illustrate it in a diagram above.
An observer at A sees the star 61 Cygni, and also R, the star of reference ; both on his meridian. The earth is supposed to be moving round the sun in the direction of the arrow, until in 182 or 183 sidereal days the observer is at B, and then sees both the stars on his meridian exactly as he saw them before.
The two meridians and lines of sight are parallel, so that if continued for ever they can never meet at a point, and the two angles at the base equal 180 degrees, yet the stars are on both lines. It is obvious, therefore, that the stars have moved to the left (east), precisely as much as the earth has

moved to the left in its orbit. If the earth has moved, so have the stars; that is clear. We have proved
that Bessel did not get a triangulation to ” 61 Cygni,” because it is impossible to do so by the semi-annual method; and that the apparent displacement, or parallax 0.31″ was due to error.
No such displace­ment could be discovered unless the clock was wrong, or unless Cygni itself had moved in reality, more or less than the star of reference ; wherefore, as every astronomer since 1838 has used the same method, it follows that no triangulation to a star has ever been successfully made ; and that every stellar distance given in the modern text-books on astronomy is hopelessly wrong.
Prima Facie Evidence Conclusive
Though my case is now really won, and students of astronomy will see the justice of my conclusions, this chapter may not be quite complete without the following comments with reference to diagram above…..
Reasoning entirely from the standpoint of the Copernican Theories, we have seen that if the earth
has moved from one side of the sun to the other (from A to B), so also have the stars ; but astronomers
know as well as I do that the stars do not move east­ward, neither do they— in nature— even appear to
do so ; their movement (real or apparent) being beyond all doubt— to the westward. So it is established that the stars have not moved eastward from A to B, and this— added to the fact that they
really would be in the same positions with respect to the meridian as shown in the diagram, proves that
the earth has not moved eastward either.
And as the earth has not moved from A to B, as Dr. Hailey and Bessel behaved, the base-line disappears, the orbit no longer exists ; and with the orbit falls the whole solar system of Nicholas Copernicus.
N.B.— If the earth remained at A rotating on its axis once in every sidereal day, the stars would appear always as shown at A— on the meridian at the end of every revolution; but then we could not account for the fact that the sun is on that meridian at the end of every solar day— which is nearly four minutes longer than the stellar day.
On the other hand, if we assume the earth to be rotating on its axis once in every 24 solar hours, we could not then account for the stars being on the meridian every 23 hours 56 minutes 4.09 seconds, as we have proven them to be ; and so we arrive at the only possible explanation, which is— that the earth remains always at A and does not rotate at all; but the sun passes completely round it once in 24 hours, while the stars pass round it (from east to west) once in every sidereal day ; thus they re-appear on the meridian at every revolution, including the 183rd; and so we find that the star “ Number 61 in
the Swan”.
(Cygni) was observed twice from the surface of an earth which has never moved since the creation. Thus we know that the stars are not fixed, as Copernicus believed; and the edifice of modern astronomy— which Sir Robert Ball described as “ the most perfect of the sciences ” might be more truly described as the most amazing of all blunders.
MARS, Ancient Tablets and Eclipses
Ideas that have been familiar to us from our very earliest childhood, which we have heard echoed on
every hand, and seen reflected in a thousand ways, are tremendously hard to shake. We seem to love
them as part of ourselves, and cling to them in the face of the most overwhelming evidence to the
So it often happens that men and women whose common sense and reason tells them that many of the
statements of astronomy are as incredible as the story of Jack and the Beanstalk, are still loth to part
with their life-long beliefs, and suggest that, after all, the modern theory must be true because astronomers are able to predict eclipses.

Tablet VAT 4956 is an astronomical diary that records 13 lunar observations, and 15 planetary. It details the position of the moon and the planets in regard of certain stars and constellations, indicating the days and the months throughout the year 37 of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon; and the astronomical observations recorded in this tablet, can only correspond to the year 567 BC.

The fact of isolating a single observation in order to attribute the tablet to some other year would be naive and useless; the astronomers point out that an identical combination of astronomical positions repeats only every 40,000 years, so the observations recorded could only coincide with the astronomical sky of tens thousands of years before.

The lunar eclipse in the 15th day of the third month, described on 14th line of the obverse side of the tablet, took place, according to modern calculations, in July 4th of 567 BC; this eclipse started in the evening and could not be seen from Babylon. The Babylonian astronomer computed it on the base of the eclipse cycle called Saros1), and then wrote “atalû Sin”, or “calculated lunar eclipse”, and “Sa Lu”, or “unseen because of the weather”, perhaps because the sky was cloudy. (Source)

But the Chaldeans used to predict the eclipses three thousand years ago ; with a degree of accuracy that is only surpassed by seconds in these days because we have wonderful clocks which they had not. Yet they had an entirely different theory of the universe than we have. The fact is that eclipses occur with a certain exact regularity just as Christmas and birthdays do, every so many years, days and minutes, so “that anyone who has the records of the eclipses of thousands of years can predict them as well as the best astronomers, without any knowledge of their cause.
The shadow on the moon at the lunar eclipse is said to be the shadow of the earth, but this theory received a rude shock on February 27th, 1877, for it is recorded in M. Camille Flammarion’s “ Popular Astronomy ” that an eclipse of the moon was observed at Paris on that date in these circumstances:
” the moon rose at 5.29, the sun set at 5.39, and the total eclipse of the moon began before the sun had set.”
(editor note: Moon is said to be some 233X’s the Earth and the Earth is 4X’s the size of the Moon. The Earth is 238,000 miles from the Moon and the Sun is 93 million miles away from Earth. If scaled properly, the Earth shadow should significantly dwarf the Moon every eclipse for a much longer period of time due the slower orbit of the Moon against the speedy Earth.)
The reader will perceive that as the sun and moon were both visible above the horizon at the same time
for ten minutes before sunset, the shadow on the moon could not be cast by the earth. Camille Flam-
marion, however, offers the follow­ing explanation: He says,
“ This is an appearance merely due to refraction. The sun, already below the horizon, is raised by refraction, and remains visible to us. It is the same with the moon, which has not yet really risen when it seems to have already done so.”
Here is a case where modern astronomy expects us to discredit the evidence of our own senses, but to
believe instead their impossible theories. . . This Atmospheric Refraction is supposed to work both
ways, and defy all laws. It is supposed to throw up an image of the sun in the west— where the atmosphere is warm, and at the same time to throw up an image of the moon in the east— where it is cool! It is absurd.
When speaking of the measurement of the distance to Mars by Sir David Gill, in the same year, 1877, Sir Norman Lockyer described it as
One of the noblest achievements in Astronomy, upon which depends the distance to and the dimensions of everything in the firmament except the moon.
Evidently a very big thing, worthy of our best attention. The method which Sir David Gill used was the “ Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax,” which we have dealt with in an earlier chapter. He adopted the suggestion made by Dr. Hailey, and took the two observations to Mars himself, at Ascension Island, in the Gulf of Guinea.
The prime object of the expedition was really to find the distance to the sun (though we remember “that that had been done by Encke fifty years before by the Transit of Venus), which was to be done by first measuring the distance to Mars, and, having found that, by multiplying the result by 2.6571 (roughly 3), as suggested by Kepler’s Theory of the relative distances of the sun, earth and planets, in this manner :
Distance to Mars, 35,000,000X2.6571 = 93,000,000miles.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us that “ The sun’s distance is the indispensable link which connects
terrestrial measures with all celestial ones, those of the moon alone excepted, hence the exceptional pains taken to determine it,” and assures us later that “The first really adequate determinations of solar
parallax were those of Sir David Gill— result 8.80″,’’and that his measures “ have never been super­
He found the Angle of parallax of Mars to be about 23*, which made its distance to be 35 million miles,
and this, multiplied by 2.6571, showed the sun to be 93 million miles in the opposite direction. We realize that although the sun’s distance is said to be the indispensable link, it depends upon the measurement to Mars, so that this is more indispensable still.
(Image of angle parallax)
It is the key to all the marvellous figures of astronomy, and for that reason we will give it special
The figure 35,000,000 miles depends upon the angle at the planet, which is an angle of parallax. That is the apparent change in the direction of Mars to the right or left of the star x (star of reference) when both are viewed from the opposite ends of a base-line, which, in this case, is the diameter of the earth.
 Theory: If Mars is much nearer than x, and both are on a line perpendicular to the centre of
the earth, an observer at A will seethe planet to the left or east of the star, while B will see it to the right or west of that star. (East and west are local terms, and change with the position of the observer.)
The star of reference is presumed to be billions of miles away, so far away, indeed, that it is supposed to have no angle at all, so that the lines A x and B x are really parallel to each other, and at right angles to the base­ line, as shown in diagram 16. Even Mars is at a tremendous distance, so that the angle of parallax is the very small fraction of a degree by which the planet is less perpendicular than the star.
(image of hickson chart 42.)
Nevertheless, however slight the apparent displacement of Mars may be, if it is be­ tween the two perpendiculars A x, and B x, the lines of sight A M and B M would meet some where at a point.
So far we have supposed A and B to be making observations at the same time, but Sir David Gill believed with Dr. Hailey that he might take the two observations himself, the first from A in the evening, and the second from B the next morning, allowing the rotation of the earth to carry him around from A to B during the night, and that these two observations would give the same result as two observations taken by A and B at the same Greenwich time.
Accordingly he took two observations at Ascension Island, one to his east and the other to the west, and, relying upon all the theories of his predecessors, failed to perceive that the second line of sight to the planet was on the wrong side of the perpendicular, and diverged from the first.
The fundamental principle of parallactic angles is unsound, while it is at the same time in conflict with quite a host of other astronomical theories, because the theories of Atmospheric Refraction, Perpen­dicularity, Geocentric Parallax, and the Aberration of Light, combined with the use of Sidereal Time, all go to prove that every observation taken from the surface of the earth to a star is exactly parallel with a line from the centre of the earth to the same star,and that B’s line to x is parallel to that of A.
Consequently if Mars were on the line O X (in diagram 15), as Dr. Hailey presumed when he invented
this method, it would be perpendicular to both A and B, therefore neither one observer or the other would see it at any angle at all;
It is not possible for any observer on earth to see Mars to the right or left of a star that is perpendicular unless the planet is in reality to the right or left of that perpendicular. No apparent displacement could occur, but the displacement must be physical; and so the theory of parallactic angles is exploded.
Of course there will be some ready to contend that Sir David Gill really did measure an angle. That is
true ; but it will prove to be an actual (physical) deviation of the planet from the perpendicular, which
is a very different thing than an angle of parallax. But it was believed to be a parallactic angle, that is to
say— it was supposed to be only an optical or apparent displacement due to the change in the position of the observer from A to B, hence a world of romance is built upon that httle angle in this fashion : Angle of Mars 23″ = 35,000,000 miles, .-.35,000,000×2.6571 =93,000,000= solar parallax 8.80’ = distance of the sun .-.the sun’s diameter is 875,000 miles; weight XYZ lbs., age 17,000,000 years, and will probably be burnt out in another 17 million years.
(Image 18. 19)
93,000,000 x 2 = 186,000,000 miles diameter of earth’s orbit, the distance to the stars must be billions of miles or even more, they must be a terrific size, and the earth is only like a speck of dust in the Brobdinagian Universe. But we have not yet done with that angle. Regardedas an angle of parallax,
and considered to be equivalent to just such an angle as a surveyor would use in measuring a plot of
land, it was of course pre­sumed that the two lines of sight converged so as to meet at a point thirty-five
million miles away. (See diagram 18.)
Page 46
This, however,is a mistake, for the two lines of observation, when placed in their proper re­lations to each other, and in the order as they were taken, should be as in diagram 19, which shows that
they diverge. We will prove this in diagram 20. A study of our earlier diagram 6— which gives a suggestion of a small section mapped out with dotted lines to indicate latitude and longitude in universal space— reveals the fact that twelve hours’ rotation of the earth does not transfer the observer from A to the point B in space, because— according to Copernican astronomy—the earth is not only rotating on its axis during those twelve hours, but also rushing through space in a gigantic orbit round the sun at the rate of sixty-six thousand miles an hour, or thereabouts, and so when the observer takes his second observation he is some­thing like three-quarters of a million miles away from where he started. He is at latitude G in diagram 6.
” So Mr. Hickson has his own view of the universe – a stationary earth with stars rotating around it – and when the astronomers deign to answer him publicly he will confute them utterly.
Then will his weather forecasts receive the respect that is their due and he will confer blessings on mankind and gain profit himself.
Meanwhile the police have stopped his street lectures, and he can do nothing but hang out his challenge until some one takes it up.”  LONDON, special to NY Times, March 4, 1921

Since then no books on a geocentric, a flat earth round Earth has been published until Eric Dubay published the “Flat Earth Conspiracy” in 2014. I highly encourage everyone to get this most important book to understand, and help end, 500 years of one massive Lie.

It is also important to understand how the Greatest Lie in 500 years was initiated by the Vatican when books first began to be published to the Commoner and has been perpetuated by the Royal Society of Astronomer’s in London, to Einstein, to NASA. This will be covered in a subsequent post.

Please also review the “Very Brief Heliocentric History Timeline”


And Sir Isaac Newton’s 500 year Lie



This is a new Age of Discovery to go within and understand the history, the mechanics, and the massive hoax that has been ongoing, yet ending now, for over 20 generations.

Part II, TBA


One thought on “#26A How Did The Kings of Astronomy Get it So Wrong? Part I: Copernicus – Newton

  1. Negdog January 7, 2016 at 10:01 pm Reply



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: