@TakeThatDarwin For the love of pete, some localities are fighting for the right to shot wolves willy-nilly and they are endangered. People talk about shooting coyotes and strays openly and utterly without fear in rural areas. That is reality.
@TakeThatDarwin You were the one who claimed that the kid did it for fun. Snopes clear that the evidence for that is slim. Unless rural society where this happened is _VERY_ different from what I've seen in OK, TX, and the UP of MI, the kid was never in any legal danger.
@TakeThatDarwin I see Snopes saying that there was an accusation and a denial.
Meanwhile, the fact remains: Rural police almost never give one flying fuck if you shoot a stray dog. Indeed making a legal case would be _VERY_ difficult even if it was "for fun."
@TakeThatDarwin That "for fun" is a biggie.
Snopes is also not saying that there was a police cover up which is about the only way that I'm going to hold this against the father. Rural police caring about a killing of a stray dog, in and of itself, is a _HUGE_ stretch.
@TakeThatDarwin Snopes seems to disagree. And I rather doubt that shooting a stray dog in a rural setting is something that police are going to care about unless you are trespassing, violate a gun law, cause damage property, or manage to hit a human.
@Richardwaynewh@foofly @annathewoz @FlatEarthFlip @CharlieCanFly Not to mention that stars are often observed to change brightness. It is quite dramatic in the case of Supernova. Those in the Southern Hemisphere saw one in 1987.
@Richardwaynewh@foofly @annathewoz @FlatEarthFlip @CharlieCanFly Not to mention binary stars which astronomers observe orbiting each other.
Or using the Doppler shift to measure whether a star is getting closer or getting farther.
@Richardwaynewh@foofly @annathewoz @FlatEarthFlip @CharlieCanFly Welcome to #FlatEarth where "facts" are things are things which we can see are NOT true. Like all FEers you simple refuse to look. Telescopes are the ultimate #flerfbane. Meanwhile, the stars are moving and you can observe this if you wish to.
@Richardwaynewh@foofly @annathewoz @FlatEarthFlip @CharlieCanFly You can say that the stars are unchanging all you want, but observation will still indisputably says the opposite. The stars do slowly change their positions with respect to one another. Yet another example of how telescopes refute FE crap.
@Richardwaynewh@foofly @annathewoz @FlatEarthFlip @CharlieCanFly I don't know why the other person did not reply, but that the constellations do change was noticed in the 1700s. With a modest telescope, you can observe some nearby stars changing positions with respect to others stars.
https://t.co/tGmkY6RtFi
@maxsec@Dinosauriermars .Bradley's observations of stellar aberration can be found at:
https://t.co/FIG4HrifH5
Hopefully someone can find it useful. Since Kentucky Fried Flat and Stationary cries a river when a direct link is given, so I removed him.
@rokro111@maxsec@Dinosauriermars Bradley reminded me of Ole Rømer who used the timings of the moons of Jupiter to measure the speed of light. So, @rokro111, do you accept that the Moon of Jupiter, which I have seen, exist? You need Newton and the speed of light to predict their motion.
@rokro111@maxsec@Dinosauriermars I can give the exact word that Airy used: "aberration" which is the tilt of a telescope you need to compensate for Earth's motion. The aberration changes through the year as expected if the Earth orbits the Sun. Airy's experiment relied on that fact.