For those who are not so keen to think they know everything about what they know, I will say this one final time:

Things may all be a dream. Barring that, let's say they aren't.

If we know things about the world, something is or it isn't.

But how do we know what we know about it? Could we be fooled by our own tests? Of course we could.

Normally, we are not: pendulums and so on are good tests and necessary, and so we know.

But a radical philosophical doubt admits even then that we are human, and perhaps something else is fooling us, or our instruments were flawed, etc.

Normally, this is not necessary to think. What I test for (or use my senses to know) is there; I know it.

But AS AN EXTREMELY STRONG BELIEF, not absolute knowing, technically speaking.

Now under what circumstances does this become important? Very rarely, in fact. Most of the time, that extremely strong belief is basically KNOWING.

But once in a while, being aware that we live with EXTREMELY STRONG SCIENTIFIC BELIEF, not knowing, is important to remember:

for once in a while, admitting that we don't know what we know perfectly, allows something we would not have questioned to be questioned and turn out to be different.

I admit it's rare when such radical questioning is useful, in ordinary circumstances (as with the rather clear case showing we are not stopped in rotation -- but technically speaking we know nothing ever for certain though); but it is important to admit it to oneself, just in case something absolutely unthought-of is trying to get across to you and you DID miss some aspect of knowing.

Such as in the case of the South Pole Telescope and Vatican purported photos of PX ...

They may be fake or real, but no-one has properly handled all the issues raised about them by the pro-PX crowd. No, your debunking sites didn't.

So, in being less sure to start with, i.e., remembering you are human and could be wrong even where it's unlikely, you might find an interesting set of issues. And if any among you want to see if there is any evidence for PX and where it might be -- minus the stopped-Earth or wobbly-Earth of Nancy -- you will want to doubt your positon enough to look hard at the arguments about these photos and the SOHO photos.

The debunkers do not have complete answers here. I have checked.

By the way, on philosophical doubt, even radical doubt:

This is not rambling; it is explication (laying out/unfolding) of the necessary principles upon which our deepest insights come.

And when I say I know and agree with you about the non-stoppage of the Earth, and then say that TECHNICALLY I don't know ... it is this radical honest doubt which I am appealing to, not ordinary doubt, and stupid ignorance of the points made showing that the Earth isn't stopped.

And also when I cover the openness you require to look into the questions of the PHOTO ANALYSIS -- and not rely only on debunking sites which do NOT cover all aspects of those photos -- I am saying that if you could go to the level where even what you know to be true is humbly your deep belief (scientific belief) to the point of knowing, then you can come back and surely less strenuously be able to question the photos more honestly.

No-one has handled the photo evidence here thus far in these pages. Someone should take the time and effort, and not rely whole-hog on the debunker sites. They have not handled all objections.

Good luck. Have fun. Question ... and let's see if anyone can FULLY argue about the many points raised by these photos.

Clare