well can one of the globers explain to me how come north star polaris never move?

with all the motions earth is claimed to be doing

Third they are talking about Lake Balaton not Lake Ijessel which I gave you

polaris literally moves

Then what you posted

I shall link a picuture that merely proves my point instantly

no it doesnt tho

evidence please?

you are claiming polaris is moving you should be the one providing evidence

https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/07/24/what-keeps-the-north-star-stuck-at-exactly-north/

its the north star

its closer to the pole

The laser used by FECORE was never demonstrated to run parallel to the water's surface, across the entire target span.
In slide 13 they state:
"the laser beam was adjusted parallel to the water surface using the horizontal line and visible city light on the opposite shore as reference."
This alone invalidates all of FECORE's math and conclusions, because their laser beam was not parallel to the lakes water line.
---------------Every laser test past the primary horizon (2.85 meter laser height reaches the horizon at distance 6-km) has to contend with light bending, beam expansion and distortion from multiple effects, such as:

This "This alone invalidates all of FECORE's math and conclusions, because their laser beam was not parallel to the lakes water line." Is literally circular logic

therefore movement is slowed

its in the name

can you tell me in your own words?

cmon anon

you can do better

can you read?

my own words would be opinion

therefore facts would be altered

read the article for yourself

what are you trying to say, im still right

how can the earth axis be pointing at same star throughout the whole year?

with all the motions surely the polaris should be moving as well

Refraction of the beam was ACCOUNTED for , mot only by calculation but by measuring for any refraction. The fact the test was done at increasing distance by hoirzontally panning the laser PROVES there could be no refraction.

http://bit.do/fptrQ i believe this image instantly proves my point

@NinjaMaster like I said. Your refutation sums up to Nuh-uh

@anon415454+4646 are you referring to the sun?

what?

Did you just post a cartoon earth?

LOL

Yes he did.

it proves my point

does it not

@indio007 they still use snell law which does not account for mirage, turbulance.... etc

which will through their math off alot

>
> Did you just post a cartoon earth?
> @indio007 no that is earth

anon, I am sorry but do you know what an axis is?

you're talking out your ass, There is no evidence for a mirage or turbulence. They measured the meteorological conditions/ And mirages do not happen at all distances

@Just what's the source?