Hey Ken, did you ever get that conversation you asked for? Word on the street is that you got what you asked for and went silent. Did you think it didn't exist?.

It does not look like the CT lead you to flat earth. It looks like you are trying to lead it to flat earth.

Introducing Grok Imagine.

And then when you found at that most of the peaks & occlusions didn't actually match FE, you started putting in fudge factors to make it look like they matched. You say "Let the chips fall where they may" But at the same time, your other hand is moving the chips to desired place.

Heffron says "Let the chips fall where they may,". while with the other hand he's adjusting each sample to the exact value needed to match flat earth. Oh well for letting the chips fall where they may!.

Re: Yeah Shane, with the J factor off, look how 90%+ of the measurements don't even match flat earth. Just to "Clean up the data" yeah to make a false impression of a perfect match! That's called lying!. Heffron says "Let the chips fall where they may.".

Truth fears no investigation! Unless it's Shane's truth :D.

> Bro, that is wild. How does he not see that if you test for a curve and get a null result,. Bro, YOU are wild! You are way behind the times! Heffron did NOT get a null result. Until, that is, he nulled it out by individually "adjusting" each measurement to match flat earth.

But if you think it is unacceptable to call a PhD a liar then let me find a PhD who will tell you that earth is a globe and that he is absolutely certain of it. Welcome back to the globe! Obviously you're never going say he's lying, since you could never imagine saying that!.

Well, you tell me. If a PhD continues for weeks to repeat false statements that he has known for weeks to be false, then what do YOU call that? If that's not lying in your book, then what is?.

What Shane is not telling you is that the actual measurements don't match flat earth any more than a stopped clock is right twice a day. So then Heffron adds in a custom offset to each measurement to make it match flat earth. That's the straight line you see. Not a measurement.

For those following the Celestial Theodolite, @AntiDisinfo86 is pretending nobody has a refutation of his "Celestial Theodolite" method but that's just because he's got those who do blocked so they can't refute it. Re: See reply to this for refutation.

Wow! 48 tuned in! Great interaction, thank you everybody!.

@swaaalla . See line 50, these two hills have line of sight to eachother and are similar height.

And PS I was not spamming anything, I was responding on-topic to posts in which I was tagged as being part of the conversation by X.

Ahh, I'm being threatened with being muted. I must have asked a question that wasn't on the approved list!

Are you saying that the question I asked you was not on your Nathan Oakley Dave Weiss approved list of questions?.

Now time for you to put up or shut up. You're accusing me of something serious but providing no evidence. I simply filmed stars at the moment where they transitioned between occlusion and no occlusion, and sent the timestamped video to Dr. Heffron. That's all. What's modified?.

Yes @SheepDogLegend if you honestly think I've done anything improper with Heffron's method then let's have a 1v1 discussion or debate, your choice. I have nothing to hide. I have spoken with Dr. Heffron at length about it as well as Alan and others on their team!. How about it?.