Another Flood Question

[PsychoSarah]

I don't trust freemasons.

Smoke and mirrors, secrets and deceitfulness.

Initial List of 33rd Degree Masons

It would have been more effort to fake the moon landing than to actually go there, based on the technology needed to fake it and the huge number of people that would need to be in on the conspiracy and would need to keep quiet.

 

[Speedwell]

Just cause to not believe "There is no peer reviewed scientific evidence to suggest there has ever been a worldwide flood." being the end of the story.

Or, God doesn't exist because there is (no peer reviewed scientific evidence to suggest He exists) being the end of the story.

No. The existence of God is what is known as an unfalsifiable proposition, which means that science cannot disprove it.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Sorry, I find those sentences difficult to parse*. Do you want to try again?

*Actually, I don't think they do parse, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Unlike man's endever for truth in his own efforts, and his follies, to understand.

The Truth, never changes.

Hebrews 13:8
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

From my perspective being of Faith, I'm watching the toing and froing of man's attempts to progress/regress to the unchanging Truth, God.

In science, what is accepted today, may not be accepted tomorrow.

Especially when fraud is involved.

So just cause to not believe everything that's accepted today.

It would have been more effort to fake the moon landing than to actually go there, based on the technology needed to fake it and the huge number of people that would need to be in on the conspiracy and would need to keep quiet.

NASA's P/A budget is?

And if they failed publically?

 

[I'm_Sorry]

No. The existence of God is what is known as an unfalsifiable proposition, which means that science cannot disprove it.

Ok understood.

 

[PsychoSarah]

NASA's P/A budget is?

Not high enough to fake a moon landing in 1969. It's like you are arguing that the Union won the US civil war by using lasers, and that there was a huge conspiracy to hide it. They didn't have the technology to do it; the only way to get the proper lighting, for example, would have been to use white light from a specific type of light source that, at the time, only existed in red. And were expensive as all heck (yes, enough to bankrupt NASA in 1969 quite easily). Also, there is still a reflective strip left behind on the moon, so anyone that points a laser light powerful enough at the right spot will have it reflect back to them.

And if they failed publically?

They'd have been the butt of Russian jokes, I suppose. If anyone wanted them to fail, it was Russia, so why would they confirm the moon landing as real? They'd have more motivation to say it didn't happen, regardless of the truth.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Not high enough to fake a moon landing in 1969. It's like you are arguing that the Union won the US civil war by using lasers, and that there was a huge conspiracy to hide it. They didn't have the technology to do it; the only way to get the proper lighting, for example, would have been to use white light from a specific type of light source that, at the time, only existed in red. And were expensive as all heck (yes, enough to bankrupt NASA in 1969 quite easily). Also, there is still a reflective strip left behind on the moon, so anyone that points a laser light powerful enough at the right spot will have it reflect back to them.

Popular theory suggest Stanley Kubrick had an involvement in the filming of the faking of the landing.

Reflectors:

A: The Russians successfully placed such retro-reflectors on the surface of the moon, yet they have never claimed to have put a man on the moon. The Russian reflectors were carried by the unmanned rovers Lunokhod 1 & 2. One of these reflectors is still in use. The recent Mythbusters show claimed that the only way retro-reflectors could have got there is by astronauts. This was said while on a visit of the APOLLO laser ranging facility which uses the Lunokhod 2 mirror.

If there are reflectors at the Apollo sites, they were dropped there by unmanned probes. The US certainly had the capability to do this since they had earlier placed several Surveyor probes on the moon. In fact, the lunar retro-reflector experiments were originally intended for the Surveyor missions. Hence similar probes carrying reflectors would have done the trick.

Some propagandists claimed that if there was no reflector on the lunar surface, we’d never get the laser signal back because the moon would not reflect it. This false claim even found its way onto Mythbusters. When it was pointed out that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)16 and the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory17 were able to bounce lasers off the moon and back to earth without the aid of any retro-reflector, propagandists have now switched the statement into saying the retro-reflectors can reflect lasers with better accuracy than the bare lunar surface. They even tried to use Jarrah as a fall guy for the propagandists’ erroneous claim that the moon is unable to reflect lasers back to earth!


Frequently Asked Questions

They'd have been the butt of Russian jokes, I suppose. If anyone wanted them to fail, it was Russia, so why would they confirm the moon landing as real? They'd have more motivation to say it didn't happen, regardless of the truth.

Freemasons and secret societies are in Russia too.

Its possible that the Hegelian dialectic was performed.

Hegelian dialectic. an interpretive method, originally used to relate specific entities or events to the absolute idea, in which an assertable proposition (thesis) is necessarily opposed by its apparent contradiction (antithesis), and both reconciled on a higher level of truth by a third proposition (synthesis). Also called Hegelian triad.

Hegelian dialectic

 

[PsychoSarah]

Popular theory suggest Stanley Kubrick had an involvement in the filming of the faking of the landing.

Reflectors:

A: The Russians successfully placed such retro-reflectors on the surface of the moon, yet they have never claimed to have put a man on the moon. The Russian reflectors were carried by the unmanned rovers Lunokhod 1 & 2. One of these reflectors is still in use. The recent Mythbusters show claimed that the only way retro-reflectors could have got there is by astronauts. This was said while on a visit of the APOLLO laser ranging facility which uses the Lunokhod 2 mirror.

If there are reflectors at the Apollo sites, they were dropped there by unmanned probes. The US certainly had the capability to do this since they had earlier placed several Surveyor probes on the moon. In fact, the lunar retro-reflector experiments were originally intended for the Surveyor missions. Hence similar probes carrying reflectors would have done the trick.

Some propagandists claimed that if there was no reflector on the lunar surface, we’d never get the laser signal back because the moon would not reflect it. This false claim even found its way onto Mythbusters. When it was pointed out that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)16 and the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory17 were able to bounce lasers off the moon and back to earth without the aid of any retro-reflector, propagandists have now switched the statement into saying the retro-reflectors can reflect lasers with better accuracy than the bare lunar surface. They even tried to use Jarrah as a fall guy for the propagandists’ erroneous claim that the moon is unable to reflect lasers back to earth!


Frequently Asked Questions



Freemasons and secret societies are in Russia too.

Its possible that the Hegelian dialectic was performed.

Hegelian dialectic. an interpretive method, originally used to relate specific entities or events to the absolute idea, in which an assertable proposition (thesis) is necessarily opposed by its apparent contradiction (antithesis), and both reconciled on a higher level of truth by a third proposition (synthesis). Also called Hegelian triad.

Hegelian dialectic

-_- and tens of thousands of people kept their mouths shut, despite having knowledge of the faked moon landing and possibly physical evidence of as much. Right. Also, did you really just say Russian Freemasons lied to their own countrymen for the benefit of an enemy country? What for? Also, you have yet to address the lighting issue, and you pretty much admitted that unmanned vessels at least have gone to the moon... so why not manned vessels?

-_- what's the point of your conspiracy if items that can measure stuff on the moon have made it there?

 

[I'm_Sorry]

-_- and tens of thousands of people kept their mouths shut, despite having knowledge of the faked moon landing and possibly physical evidence of as much. Right. Also, did you really just say Russian Freemasons lied to their own countrymen for the benefit of an enemy country? What for? Also, you have yet to address the lighting issue, and you pretty much admitted that unmanned vessels at least have gone to the moon... so why not manned vessels?

-_- what's the point of your conspiracy if items that can measure stuff on the moon have made it there?

Yes, those on a need to know basis are not in the know.

Also how many CIA members are there? Do they spill secrets, and if they did, what does the organisation do? discredit, eliminate?

Freemasons are a global organisation. They want a new world order (synthesis).

The light issue: Can you show me the source that the lighting you mentioned is a requirement to successfully fake.

Manned vessel, well van allen belt's radiation is what theory claims.

Why don't we hear of any other manned missions beyond Low Earth Orbit?

 

[Ophiolite]

Thank you for your response.

Unlike man's endever for truth in his own efforts, and his follies, to understand.

The Truth, never changes.

Hebrews 13:8
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

From my perspective being of Faith, I'm watching the toing and froing of man's attempts to progress/regress to the unchanging Truth, God.

Perhaps you are correct, but man's understanding of that Truth changes and at any one time multiple interpretations of that Truth exist, many of them contradictory. (If this were not so, there would not be such a range of denominations.)

I don't have a problem with the idea that, in searching for God's Truth in scripture and via personal revelation, that different understandings should emerge.

In science, what is accepted today, may not be accepted tomorrow.

Especially when fraud is involved.

So just cause to not believe everything that's accepted today.

As I have pointed out fraud is not common, nor is it unique to science. Do you deny that there are fraudulent pastors, who manipulate their flock?

Moreover, in science and in religion, fraud is uncommon. (Should I avoid friendship with anyone, simply because one or two supposed friends betrayed me in the past?) Also, I have pointed out that those frauds that do occur in science are identified by scientists and exposed through the scientific method. The authenticity of the Piltdown skull that you mention was doubted from the outset. We do not even know if the perpetrators were practicing scientists, though it seems likely.

And, the central point, I don't believe anything in science. Science is not a discipline that requires, or expects belief. I accept many things in science as being currently the best explanation for what is observed. I know that a few of these explanations may be abandoned in future and that many of them may be modified, often through expansion of the detail.

This ability to change ones explanations in the light of new information or new understandings is a strength, not a weakness. Christianity has followed a similar approach. If it had not then all Christians would likely be Roman Catholics.

 

[Astrophile]

Really? you were there?

Yes, I was there. I read the book in the late 1950s; it was a 12th birthday present, as a matter of fact. I became fascinated by astronomy in about 1957, and during the 1960s I read everything that I could find on the subject. As a result, I received the impression that there was something odd about Pluto, that it was too small to fit in with the other planets. Some of the books that I read mentioned suggestions that Pluto was an escaped satellite of Neptune (a hypothesis proposed by Professor R.A. Lyttleton, if I remember correctly) or that it was the largest body of an asteroid belt outside Neptune's orbit (a prescient suggestion, as it turned out).

And all their children who made a model of the solar system for the science fair and left Pluto off got an A?

Patrick Moore didn't have any children. Also, the fact that Pluto is only a dwarf planet doesn't justify omitting it from models of the solar system; asteroids and comets aren't planets, but one ought not to leave them out of solar system models.

More seriously, although Pluto was anomalous astronomers had to classify it as some sort of object, and since it wasn't a star, asteroid or comet, the only other possibility in the existing classification was a planet. It was only when astronomers started discovering trans-Neptunian objects of about the same size as Pluto that it became clear that the existing classification didn't correctly represent the observed facts and that it needed to be amended by the addition of a class of dwarf planets, one of which is Pluto.

Speedwell's answer to your post sums up the matter correctly:

Do you really think that changing the classification of Pluto removes it from the Solar System?

Classifications are not objectively real. They are merely cognitive tools we create for our own convenience. Nothing real was changed about Pluto just because the classification was changed

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, I was there. I read the book in the late 1950s; it was a 12th birthday present, as a matter of fact. I became fascinated by astronomy in about 1957, and during the 1960s I read everything that I could find on the subject. As a result, I received the impression that there was something odd about Pluto, that it was too small to fit in with the other planets. Some of the books that I read mentioned suggestions that Pluto was an escaped satellite of Neptune (a hypothesis proposed by Professor R.A. Lyttleton, if I remember correctly) or that it was the largest body of an asteroid belt outside Neptune's orbit (a prescient suggestion, as it turned out).



Patrick Moore didn't have any children. Also, the fact that Pluto is only a dwarf planet doesn't justify omitting it from models of the solar system; asteroids and comets aren't planets, but one ought not to leave them out of solar system models.

More seriously, although Pluto was anomalous astronomers had to classify it as some sort of object, and since it wasn't a star, asteroid or comet, the only other possibility in the existing classification was a planet. It was only when astronomers started discovering trans-Neptunian objects of about the same size as Pluto that it became clear that the existing classification didn't correctly represent the observed facts and that it needed to be amended by the addition of a class of dwarf planets, one of which is Pluto.

Speedwell's answer to your post sums up the matter correctly:

If you seriously want me to believe this argument should be so convincing, then you tell me why they had to rig a vote to demote Pluto.

You may have thought something was fishy with Pluto, but at the time, I'm sure you were in the minority.

I wish ... oh, how I wish ... they would reopen the Pluto issue and hold an honest vote.

That would settle the issue for me.

But expecting honesty from scientists today is like expecting water and oil to mix.

 

[Astrophile]

How can anyone trust the methods science uses to "prove things"....as they have equipment and project charts and prophesy and predict and it doesn't come to pass
Weathermen can't do s))

So why did a lot of people go on 21st August to places on a line across the United States where scientists had predicted a total eclipse of the Sun? Did that not come to pass?

I also think that you are underestimating the weathermen. Unfortunately, only too often, when they predict overcast skies at night, their prediction does come to pass.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, those on a need to know basis are not in the know.

Ah, this makes me think of the Bat cave. How many people do you think it would take to build Batman's secret lair? Of those various construction workers and entire businesses commissioned for parts and electronics, do you think none would comment on the crazy billionaire making an extremely technologically advanced lab in a cave?

Also how many CIA members are there? Do they spill secrets, and if they did, what does the organisation do? discredit, eliminate?

-_- you say that as if members of the CIA aren't human and capable of mistakes, and as if no NASA employees worked on the moon landing at all. You also say that as if the CIA has never had traitors in its midst. Faking the moon landing, much like building the Bat cave, would have taken too many people and businesses cooperating to silence all the people that would end up knowing the moon landing was faked. Tens of thousands of people

Freemasons are a global organisation. They want a new world order (synthesis).

So people have said. And I recognize the fact that humans are too disagreeable to actually cooperate with that, making it a stupid goal for any organization to have.

The light issue: Can you show me the source that the lighting you mentioned is a requirement to successfully fake.

Of course. Note that in this picture of one of the moon landings, all of the shadows are parallel to each other https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/as11-40-5949b_0.jpg . This shadow pattern only usually can be replicated using natural light, due to the fact that it normally demands that the light source be extremely distant from the objects casting the shadow (like how the sun is very distant from the moon). In order to replicate it, one would have to build a wall of millions of laser lights shoved so close together that they would be like pixels on your computer screen. Unfortunately for that effort, laser lights in 1969 were like this https://www.photonics.com/images/Web/Articles/2010/5/21/History_Figure11.jpg , they cost a ton, and they only came in red light. See what I mean by it wouldn't have been possible to recreate?

I challenge you to produce a photo with artificial lighting in which the shadows are all parallel without a modern computer program.

Manned vessel, well van allen belt's radiation is what theory claims.

The Apollo missions actually aimed their trajectory such that they avoided the inner radiation belt completely, and passed through a thinner section of the outer belt to make the time spent in it very brief. Also, radiation shielding. The Apollo astronauts were exposed to some of the radiation from this, but not nearly enough to kill them.

Why don't we hear of any other manned missions beyond Low Earth Orbit?

Oh my gosh, that video is edited to all heck dude. It doesn't even let people finish their sentences.

Also, why haven't you even bothered to look up, say, manned missions to the Moon in Google? The United States has had 6 manned missions to the moon. Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17.

As for why manned missions outside of low Earth orbit haven't occurred since, it's a simple matter of risk and reward, as well as logistics. Unmanned rovers can go to far more distant and dangerous places in the solar system than people can, and those trips are less expensive. Unless it is for setting up bases or colonies, there's not a lot of reason to actually send people.

 

[christianforumsuser]

So why did a lot of people go on 21st August to places on a line across the United States where scientists had predicted a total eclipse of the Sun? Did that not come to pass?

I also think that you are underestimating the weathermen. Unfortunately, only too often, when they predict overcast skies at night, their prediction does come to pass.

If I said something incorrect I should admit my fault shouldn't I
I have a bias I might push a bit past what's fair
But what I said still stands I think

Of course people have some science that works somewhat well
And compared against itself...it is its own baseline
If I said "you should do better, I bet God's ways would teach better" worldly people get offended because I don't pat them on the back for every accomplishment. If you had a parent who never gave it to you easy you might act the same. I guess we all grow up different to some extent

I can make friends with the lowly...they don't push their cultural expectations on me so fiercely
Then again even those my carnal sense might think have nothing to boast of yet still always manage to find reasons to not be spiritually minded and cling to their worldly ideas, strengths, and resources.
I hope to not be peer pressured to sin with those who boast of cleanliness or "humble" filth. If I cast aside my own ideas what am I left with

 

[Astrophile]

The earth is not in a solar (sun centre) system. (heliocentric)

The earth is at the centre of creation. (geocentric)

The earth is flat and motionless. (sun created on day 4 in the firmament)

The windows of the heaven (firmament) opened up and flooded the circle of the earth.

The sun and the moon are smaller and closer (in the firmament).

Believe the bible not the global deception.

View attachment 211477


Genesis 1:14-19

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

At least you have confirmed my opinion that the Bible teaches that the Earth is flat and that the firmament is a solid vault.

 

[AV1611VET]

At least you have confirmed my opinion that the Bible teaches that the Earth is flat and that the firmament is a solid vault.

How long have you had that opinion? and who taught it to you?

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Ah, this makes me think of the Bat cave. How many people do you think it would take to build Batman's secret lair? Of those various construction workers and entire businesses commissioned for parts and electronics, do you think none would comment on the crazy billionaire making an extremely technologically advanced lab in a cave?

​

They would all be labelled "conspiracy theorists" sprouting "swamp gas", "hot air"

And if they had evidence, well....

Also how much money is your silence worth?

Q: Did Germany has a prototype flying disk? Who knew about it?
What's at area 51?
What's in your military bases?​

-_- you say that as if members of the CIA aren't human and capable of mistakes, and as if no NASA employees worked on the moon landing at all. You also say that as if the CIA has never had traitors in its midst. Faking the moon landing, much like building the Bat cave, would have taken too many people and businesses cooperating to silence all the people that would end up knowing the moon landing was faked. Tens of thousands of people

See above reply.

So people have said. And I recognize the fact that humans are too disagreeable to actually cooperate with that, making it a stupid goal for any organization to have.

Yet it is being attempted.

It will take the anti-christ to accomplish it when his time is right and the restrainer is removed.

Of course. Note that in this picture of one of the moon landings, all of the shadows are parallel to each other https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/as11-40-5949b_0.jpg . This shadow pattern only usually can be replicated using natural light, due to the fact that it normally demands that the light source be extremely distant from the objects casting the shadow (like how the sun is very distant from the moon). In order to replicate it, one would have to build a wall of millions of laser lights shoved so close together that they would be like pixels on your computer screen. Unfortunately for that effort, laser lights in 1969 were like this https://www.photonics.com/images/Web/Articles/2010/5/21/History_Figure11.jpg , they cost a ton, and they only came in red light. See what I mean by it wouldn't have been possible to recreate?

I challenge you to produce a photo with artificial lighting in which the shadows are all parallel without a modern computer program.

a NASA source?

Lets get some peer reviewing.

NASA is maintaining the lie with your TAX

​

The Apollo missions actually aimed their trajectory such that they avoided the inner radiation belt completely, and passed through a thinner section of the outer belt to make the time spent in it very brief. Also, radiation shielding. The Apollo astronauts were exposed to some of the radiation from this, but not nearly enough to kill them.

See my last comment.

Oh my gosh, that video is edited to all heck dude. It doesn't even let people finish their sentences.

Reminds me of NASA's "live" feeds.

Also, why haven't you even bothered to look up, say, manned missions to the Moon in Google? The United States has had 6 manned missions to the moon. Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17.

As for why manned missions outside of low Earth orbit haven't occurred since, it's a simple matter of risk and reward, as well as logistics. Unmanned rovers can go to far more distant and dangerous places in the solar system than people can, and those trips are less expensive. Unless it is for setting up bases or colonies, there's not a lot of reason to actually send people.

No other country has gone to place a bigger flag next the USA.

The technology NASA went to the moon in is like a tin can now.

Shouldn't cost much.

 

[Astrophile]

How long have you had that opinion?

Longer than I care to remember; certainly more than 50 years.

and who taught it to you?

I probably picked it up first from various books on astronomy that I read during the 1960s and 1970s. More recently, I have read Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood (Macmillian 2007); in the appendix (pp. 363-369) of this book, Garwood cites 40 "Scriptural 'proofs'" that the Earth is flat and immovable and that it rests on water. These 'proofs' are taken from Zetetic Astronomy: Earth not a Globe! by 'Parallax', 3rd edition, (1881). In addition, the First book of Enoch, in the Apocrypha, gives a detailed description of the Hebrew cosmology - see The Flat-Earth Bible. .

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Thank you for your response.

Perhaps you are correct, but man's understanding of that Truth changes and at any one time multiple interpretations of that Truth exist, many of them contradictory. (If this were not so, there would not be such a range of denominations.)

I don't have a problem with the idea that, in searching for God's Truth in scripture and via personal revelation, that different understandings should emerge.

As I have pointed out fraud is not common, nor is it unique to science. Do you deny that there are fraudulent pastors, who manipulate their flock?

Moreover, in science and in religion, fraud is uncommon. (Should I avoid friendship with anyone, simply because one or two supposed friends betrayed me in the past?) Also, I have pointed out that those frauds that do occur in science are identified by scientists and exposed through the scientific method. The authenticity of the Piltdown skull that you mention was doubted from the outset. We do not even know if the perpetrators were practicing scientists, though it seems likely.

And, the central point, I don't believe anything in science. Science is not a discipline that requires, or expects belief. I accept many things in science as being currently the best explanation for what is observed. I know that a few of these explanations may be abandoned in future and that many of them may be modified, often through expansion of the detail.

This ability to change ones explanations in the light of new information or new understandings is a strength, not a weakness. Christianity has followed a similar approach. If it had not then all Christians would likely be Roman Catholics.

evil and the evil of men is the common factor that attempts to cover truth with lies for its/their own evil will and purpose.

 

[AV1611VET]

I probably picked it up first from various books on astronomy that I read during the 1960s and 1970s. More recently, I have read Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood (Macmillian 2007); in the appendix (pp. 363-369) of this book, Garwood cites 40 "Scriptural 'proofs'" that the Earth is flat and immovable and that it rests on water.

None of my business, but what are you trying to reinforce?