Another look at the moon landing.

[Apple Sky]

No, I'm just pointing out that you are complaining that we are accusing Christians - Dean and Rob - of lying. But you are doing the same thing re Charles Duke.

You're pointing the finger, while being guilty of the same thing.

Why are you so hung up on Charley ? This is someone who your always going on about.

 

[David Lamb]

If I remember right he wasn't lying, he was showing how when a guy walks across a flat field how the line of perspective shows him to disappear,

But as Phil G said, American football fields aren't flat.

 

[Strong in Him]

Why are you so hung up on Charley ? This is someone who your always going on about.

Only because a) you once believed, accepted and were moved by his testimony. So much so that you apologised to God for doubting the moon landings. And b) he has a great ministry now, giving talks about the moon and leading people to.Jesus.
As a Christian, you should be pleased about that - but you've said that he "must be" lying because the landings were faked

You go on about Dean Odle a lot too.

 

[Apple Sky]

But as Phil G said, American football fields aren't flat.

Dean was only portraying something, if he said the football field was flat that would have been the normal thing to say & if I'd have been doing the video I would have said the same.

 

[Apple Sky]

Wernher Von Braun Weighs In

Also quite notable is this statement made by Wernher von Braun and his two colleagues concerning the original mathematical calculations these highly intelligent rocket designers considered as being the only way for astronauts to reach the Moon.

This necessary methodology was not even partially adopted by NASA during their "Apollo" missions: "It is commonly believed that men will fly directly from the Earth to the Moon, but to do this we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility.

Calculations have been carefully worked out on the type of vehicle we would need for the nonstop flight from the Earth to the Moon and to return. The figures speak for themselves:

Three rockets would be necessary; each rocket ship would be taller than the Empire State Building and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or 800,000 tons each."4 (emphasis added) – Wernher von Braun, Willy Ley, Dr Fred Whipple

 

[prodromos]

If I remember right he wasn't lying, he was showing how when a guy walks across a flat field how the line of perspective shows him to disappear,

Perspective would make the guy appear smaller and smaller, not have the bottom half of his body hidden. He claimed the field was flat when in fact the field was curved. Dean was lying, and because he continues to leave the video without retraction or correction, he is continuing to lie.

 

[prodromos]

Dean was only portraying something, if he said the football field was flat that would have been the normal thing to say & if I'd have been doing the video I would have said the same.

Claiming something is due to perspective when in fact it is due to curvature, is being deceptive. If we deliberately try to deceive people, are we following God, or are we following Satan?

 

[prodromos]

Wernher Von Braun Weighs In

Also quite notable is this statement made by Wernher von Braun and his two colleagues concerning the original mathematical calculations these highly intelligent rocket designers considered as being the only way for astronauts to reach the Moon.

This necessary methodology was not even partially adopted by NASA during their "Apollo" missions: "It is commonly believed that men will fly directly from the Earth to the Moon, but to do this we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility.

Calculations have been carefully worked out on the type of vehicle we would need for the nonstop flight from the Earth to the Moon and to return. The figures speak for themselves:

Three rockets would be necessary; each rocket ship would be taller than the Empire State Building and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or 800,000 tons each."4 (emphasis added) – Wernher von Braun, Willy Ley, Dr Fred Whipple

Hence why they didn't fly directly to the moon. Instead they flew into orbit, then increased their speed to take them into a high enough orbit such that the pull of the moon's gravity overcame the pull of the earth's gravity, then they could simply fall into orbit around the moon.

You are back to your bad habit or quoting without providing links to your source.

 

[prodromos]

No, I'm just pointing out that you are complaining that we are accusing Christians - Dean and Rob - of lying. But you are doing the same thing re Charles Duke.

You're pointing the finger, while being guilty of the same thing.

She doesn't just accuse Charles Duke of lying. She accuses every employee at NASA and government officials from India, Australia, Russia, UK, USA and China of lying about going to the moon.
She also does this without any evidence.
We don't do the same because we provide evidence.

 

[Apple Sky]

The simple fact is, today, with 50 years of more advanced rocket and computer technology, NASA can only send astronauts into outer space as far as one-thousandth the distance to the Moon.

To claim that they sent astronauts, ahead of schedule, on the very first attempt, with untried 1960s technology, which had one-millionth the computing power of a cell phone, 1,000 times farther than they can send astronauts today, simply defies logic.

Plus it would be the very first time in history that technology was more advanced in the past than in the future (1,000 times more advanced), and the first time in history that an alleged scientific breakthrough could not be repeated by anyone on Earth, including the supposed pioneer, 54 years after the initial claim. Even the South Pole and Mount

 

[Apple Sky]

We don't do the same because we provide evidence.

Who's we ? What evidence ? You talk as if you were there.

 

[prodromos]

To claim that they sent astronauts, ahead of schedule, on the very first attempt, with untried 1960s technology, which had one-millionth the computing power of a cell phone, 1,000 times farther than they can send astronauts today, simply defies logic.

No one claims that. It took many missions into space before NASA were finally able to land astronauts on the moon, namely Apollo 1 to Apollo 10, not to mention all the earlier missions including Mercury and Gemini.

Your sources are stupid.

 

[tharkun73]

Your sources are stupid.

And her sources are un-cited, as per usual. Wonder why that is?

 

[Strong in Him]

To claim that they sent astronauts, ahead of schedule, on the very first attempt,

It wasn't the first attempt. There were several failed attempts before that - did you look at the link I gave you previously?

And other men went to the moon afterwards, so why could it never be repeated?

 

[prodromos]

Who's we ?

Those of us pointing out Dean's lie

What evidence ?

The video on his website and the USA standards for drainage on sports fields

You talk as if you were there.

Twaddle!

 

[Apple Sky]

Those of us pointing out Dean's lie

The video on his website and the USA standards for drainage on sports fields

Twaddle!

Go back and read post

• #1,669 the one I was referring to

 

[Apple Sky]

It wasn't the first attempt. There were several failed attempts before that - did you look at the link I gave you previously?

What link was this ? I must have missed it.

 

[prodromos]

Go back and read post

• #1,669 the one I was referring to

You seem confused.
You basically claim a whole bunch of people of lying without being able to provide any evidence to support your accusation.
When we make the claim that someone is lying, we also back up that claim with evidence.
Do you understand my point?

 

[Apple Sky]

You seem confused.
You basically claim a whole bunch of people of lying without being able to provide any evidence to support your accusation.
When we make the claim that someone is lying, we also back up that claim with evidence.
Do you understand my point?

Yes, so where is your evidence that Dean was lying ? If it's that video about the football field your wrong.

 

[David Lamb]

Dean was only portraying something, if he said the football field was flat that would have been the normal thing to say & if I'd have been doing the video I would have said the same.

But even if he was portraying something, why say that the field was flat when it wasn't? That would make a huge difference to what he was attempting to portray. If I remember correctly, he was trying to show that because of perspective, a man going further and further from the camera on the football field gradually disappeared, legs first, then more and more of him. But that isn't perspective; perspective makes things appear smaller as they get more distant. Perspective doesn't make the bottom half of something disappear while the top half remains in full sight. The "disappearing legs" were not caused by perspective, but by the curvature of the field.