ekkehard-friebe.de (Farce of Physics online), 2026-10-04

URL: https://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/FP_C5_LL.HTM (also FP_C6_RR.HTM for Ch.6) Found [web]: an online HTML edition of The Farce of Physics hosted by Ekkehard Friebe (German relativity critic). Text matches the project's farce.txt (checked: Tolchelnikova, Hollingsworth passages are in the local text). Adds a photo caption not in the plain text: "Bryan Wallace delivering his paper on the 1961 Venus Radar data ... at the 1989 First International Conference 'Problem of Space and Time in Natural Science' held in Leningrad USSR, with Svetlana Tolchelnikova doing the translating." Material in Ch.5 (digest-only in this project; flag for the reviewers) — all Wallace's account [web, same text as read]: - 1968 review/editing of his first radar paper by Thornton Page; calculations checked by Heinrich K. Eichhorn. - Correspondence with Shapiro: 26 Dec 1968 (Wallace sends preprint); Shapiro 13 Jan 1969 (agrees with Dingle's comments); Shapiro 17 Jan 1969: the radar data "are not consistent with the 'ballistic theory' of light, but are consistent with general relativity (cf. ... second-order Doppler shift in Phys. Rev. Letters circa October 1966)" — Shapiro's side, as relayed by Wallace = PRL 17, 933 (1966) on ADS; Shapiro 27 Mar 1969: data "did not exist in the form" requested; later Air Force (L. M. Hollingsworth, AFCRL, 29 Sep 1969) supplied an IBM card deck, which Wallace judged useless for a c vs c+v test (stations too close, observing times constant); Shapiro 9 Dec 1969 declined to head an investigation. - Wallace's key equation as he states it: radar distance c+v model D = t(c+v)/2 - tv/2 = tc/2, versus "Einstein c" D = tc/2 - tv/2; he says T. D. Moyer's 1981 Celestial Mechanics paper (JPL light-time formulation) uses the "Newtonian light time" and is c+v in substance. - Soviet 1975 Venus radar paper [79]: delay residuals vs ephemeris "reach 3500 microseconds ... 500 km". - Walter Sullivan (NYT) 13 Mar 1969 letter deferring to Page; NASA's William E. Brunk 1991 Q&A. Bears on: claims 1, 2, 6; it gives Shapiro's stated reason (ballistic theory inconsistent with the radar Doppler data) for the reviewers to weigh beside Wallace's.