B. Müller gave me permission to reprint his comment from a post down below regarding Simon Shack and his new book, The TYCHOS, The True Model of Our Solar System. I am curious the discussion this book will draw, and am keeping my distance, that is, I do not trust Simon Shack, but have never been vocal about it. It is my view that he has drawn interest from some of the very best thinkers in our community, but that his high-profile and the fact that he was able to make a major motion picture* make him at least suspect.
His book is five years in the works, he says. That does it no credit in my view, as just about every book in history or current events at Barnes and Noble is years in the making, and none of them are reliable. I am further suspicious as at the MM conference in 2016, he said that he thought Shack was going to turn out to be an “anti”, that is, one who gathers up support for all the right reasons, and then discredits it. He thought that Shack would eventually be a flat-earther, and that is not far off the mark in my view.
There is, or was, a lively discussion in the works at Fakeologist, but it ended at 24 comments.
Here is B. Müller, just to get the ball rolling:
I’m reading this weird Tycho topic on the cluesforum and it becomes more and more obvious to me, that this is flat earth in new clothes. Also simon, hoi, nonho, etc. are all the same person/team just talking to themselves. Simon repeats himself constantly stating his Tycho model is so simple and obvious at the same time posting complicated graphics and drawing weird conclusions. That suggests if you don’t get it you must be stupid. He admits, that he is using a flash-simulation software which he considers to be very accurate instead of making some observations in nature. Maybe one simple example can demonstrate how fake all this is: many astronomers use telescopes fixed properly on concrete foundations positioned to the celestial pole which on the north half is very near the polar star. They’ve adjusted their mountings (tripods) very accurate to the celestial pole to be able to rotate it with the stars (against the rotation of the earth) and make long time exposures. They don’t touch their mountings any more for many years. The polar star appears year for year, day for day always on the same position, only rotating slightly through the night because it is not exactly on the celestial pole but the pole itself stays constant. This alone definitely proves the huge distance between the Earth and the stars. I see the polar star always on the same position from my roof terrace. My mounting has fixed legs and elevation and I only have to adjust it to the left or right side to point it to the celestial pole.
*It has been pointed out to me, accurately, that September Clues is hardly a “major motion picture.” What I should have said was that of the genre, 9/11 expose’ films (Loose Change and Ace Baker’s Psyopera are the only other ones that comes to mind – it has been a long time ago), I considered it the most credible. Anyway, read AB’s remarks and my response here.