Another look at the moon landing.

[Radagast]

NASA lacked the technical expertise to put a man on the Moon.

They did not.

the absence of stars in lunar surface photographs was indicative of a hoax.

Stars are not visible when a camera is adjusted for daylight conditions.

there were unexplained optical anomalies in the photographs taken on the Moon

There were not.

there was an absence of blast craters beneath the Lunar Modules

Incorrect.

And let me just say that I saw the landing on TV in Australia. The signal came directly from the moon, not from NASA.

 

[Apple Sky]

And let me just say that I saw the landing on TV in Australia. The signal came directly from the moon, not from NASA.

Prove it.

 

[Apple Sky]

Your opinion regarding the lunar missions isn't worth a hill of beans.

No -Course it's not, it's worth it's weight in Gold.

 

[Strong in Him]

Prove it.

Prove that it didn't.

 

[Strong in Him]

No -Course it's not, it's worth it's weight in Gold.

Fool's gold, maybe.

It has already been said that you lack credibility, due to the YouTube clips you have posted which say the opposite of what you claim.
And that was before you converted to believing in a globe earth, only to change your mind again when you found another flat earth clip on YouTube.
The chart with the 200 verses was a bit of a damp squib too - even you argued with it.

 

[Apple Sky]

Prove that it didn't.

I'm not the one claiming this happened.

 

[Apple Sky]

Fool's gold, maybe.

No - Genuine 33ct masonic gold

 

[trophy33]

Prove it.

Not one but two Aussie dishes were used to get the TV signals back from the Apollo 11 moonwalk

When Neil Armstrong stepped on to the Moon 50 years ago this month, Australians saw the images first. Australia even defied bad weather to bring the historic images to the world.

theconversation.com

 

[Radagast]

The chart with the 200 verses was a bit of a damp squib too - even you argued with it.

That infamous chart is nonsense. NONE of the cited verses teach "flat earth."

Indeed, Christianity has NEVER taught "flat earth."

Even 2000 years ago it was obvious that the earth was a globe.

 

[trophy33]

Indeed, Christianity has NEVER taught "flat earth." Even 2000 years ago it was obvious that the earth was a globe.

What do you make of the description of the ascension of Jesus to heavens, by being lifted up above clouds? Did Jesus accommodate to the cultural believes of His disciples?

 

[Radagast]

What do you make of the description of the ascension of Jesus to heavens, by being lifted up above clouds? Did Jesus accommodate to the cultural believes of His disciples?

Jesus made the first part of his transfer to heaven visible in an appropriate way. That does not imply a flat earth.

Indeed, Luke and Paul, at the very least, would have been fully aware that the earth was a globe.

 

[Apple Sky]

Not one but two Aussie dishes were used to get the TV signals back from the Apollo 11 moonwalk

When Neil Armstrong stepped on to the Moon 50 years ago this month, Australians saw the images first. Australia even defied bad weather to bring the historic images to the world.

theconversation.com

Yes alright - We know just like when Nixon used his landline to phone the astronauts on the moon.

 

[trophy33]

Yes alright - We know just like when Nixon used his landline to phone the astronauts on the moon.

View attachment 365246

You were asking about Australia receiving the signal from the Moon. Why do you change the topic?

 

[trophy33]

Jesus made the first part of his transfer to heaven visible in an appropriate way. That does not imply a flat earth.

Appropriate in what context? Heaven is "up above the clouds" only in the context of the flat earth cosmology:

In the standard cosmology, there is no heaven above the land of Israel. Going "up" in Australia is going to the opposite direction than in Norway, for example.

 

[David Lamb]

Yes alright - We know just like when Nixon used his landline to phone the astronauts on the moon.

View attachment 365246

Two things came to my mind as I saw your post. First, a question: How does Australia using two dish-shaped "receivers" (I don't know their technical name) to see images of the moon landing relate to the use pf a phone? Second, you often mention Nixon talking to the astronauts on his landline phone as though you imagine his phone had to be connected by telephone cables to the moon. According to the AT&T Archives, "Simply, the call went from the Oval Office in Washington D.C. to Houston, where it was routed into space via Mission Control, through the capsule communicator, or CapCom."

 

[Apple Sky]

You were asking about Australia receiving the signal from the Moon. Why do you change the topic?

Australia having used those gigantic satellites to film - why ? Weren't they close enough or what ?

 

[trophy33]

Australia having used those gigantic satellites to film - why ? Weren't they close enough or what ?

Your questions do not make sense. The satellite dishes do not film anything. They are not cameras.

 

[Apple Sky]

Two things came to my mind as I saw your post. First, a question: How does Australia using two dish-shaped "receivers" (I don't know their technical name) to see images of the moon landing relate to the use pf a phone? Second, you often mention Nixon talking to the astronauts on his landline phone as though you imagine his phone had to be connected by telephone cables to the moon. According to the AT&T Archives, "Simply, the call went from the Oval Office in Washington D.C. to Houston, where it was routed into space via Mission Control, through the capsule communicator, or CapCom."

Yes OK David I believe you

 

[Apple Sky]

Your questions do not make sense. The satellite dishes do not film anything. They are not cameras.

Oh sorry - For TV's to pick up the signals.

 

[Strong in Him]

I'm not the one claiming this happened.

You're claiming the moon landings didn't happen.
How are you going to prove a negative - especially when there is evidence to the contrary?