Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
Their claims are not science either. Like sending space probes billions of kilometres away - no veritable evidence just claims and shady images.
Science should be verifiable - all their claims of the moon landings are not,not to mention they look completely fake too!
Unlike the Bible, eh. THAT has loads of veritable (er what?) evidence.
But you agree they went billions of kilometers away? Interesting.
You realize to do so requires a precise understanding of the solar system and celestial mechanics, and they did all those calculations based on the heliocentric doctrine?
Meeting distant objects like this is like spinning on the back of a train traveling north from Sydney and swishing a jelly bean into a cup on a train traveling south from Perth. But harder.
There'd be no photos AT ALL (like the ones of Pluto) if they based the calculations on the wrong system...Select to expand quoterockmagnet said..
I do like the bit about having a concubine, it's not all bad.
Wisest man in the Bible has 300 wives and 700 concubines. Should tell you how smart the Bible characters were. Or weren't, as the case may be.Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
Exodus 21:7 7
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do."
Quality stuff.
Yep. I'm looking and I give a good price too.
Don't forget Deuteronomy 22:28-29 -- grab the hottest girl you can find and get it on. Instant wife!
And Judges 19, especially verses 23 - 28 ... send your virginal daughter and your house guests' wife out as rape fodder and when they dump the beaten corpses on your doorstep in the morning, tell them to get their asses up and get your breakfast.
Quality stuff the Bible. I bet the science is of the same standard.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
Biblical writings point clearly to the earth being fixed and unmovable.
Where in the bible are these writings?
To my knowledge, most people believing in the bible do not believe in a flat earth. I've never seen anything in the bible to suggest the earth is flat. Even if it says in the bible the earth is fixed and unmovable (which I have not found), I don;t see how a spherical earth does not achieve this? Surely it is possible to have something fixed, unmovable and spherical?
Select to expand quotevosadrian said.. Where in the bible are these writings?
To my knowledge, most people believing in the bible do not believe in a flat earth. I've never seen anything in the bible to suggest the earth is flat. Even if it says in the bible the earth is fixed and unmovable (which I have not found), I don;t see how a spherical earth does not achieve this? Surely it is possible to have something fixed, unmovable and spherical?
Probably in one belonging to a flat earther, scribbled in the margins
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
You guys are not going to get your answer as I have no proof - suffice to say in the Bible it is mentioned frequently of a great deception on morality. I see this increasingly daily so I'm going with intelligent design / God.
Really Peter
If your going to make statement like this please give a reference to where this is stated
Also include which bible and version you are referring to
There is a edition of the bible that states "thou shall commit adultry"
Select to expand quotevosadrian said..petermac33 said..
Biblical writings point clearly to the earth being fixed and unmovable.
Where in the bible are these writings?
To my knowledge, most people believing in the bible do not believe in a flat earth. I've never seen anything in the bible to suggest the earth is flat. Even if it says in the bible the earth is fixed and unmovable (which I have not found), I don;t see how a spherical earth does not achieve this? Surely it is possible to have something fixed, unmovable and spherical?
Surely if God is all powerful, he wouldn't be so stupid as to create a flat earth.
Select to expand quoteAdriano said..
Surely if God is all powerful, he wouldn't be so stupid as to create a flat earth.
If god is all-powerful, a flat earth is no problem at all 
Select to expand quotevosadrian said.
Where in the bible are these writings?
To my knowledge, most people believing in the bible do not believe in a flat earth. I've never seen anything in the bible to suggest the earth is flat. Even if it says in the bible the earth is fixed and unmovable (which I have not found), I don;t see how a spherical earth does not achieve this? Surely it is possible to have something fixed, unmovable and spherical?
www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-flat-earth/
Select to expand quote
Interesting.... but I could not see anything about it being flat. There are mentions of it being strong, firm, secure, with foundations. It even mentions the circle of the earth. Nothing about it being flat, and nothing that prevents it being spherical.
As with many things in the bible, context has to be considered. We use many terms common speech that if taken literally are ridiculous: "It is boiling hot today". Terms like "ends of the earth" or "corners of the earth" are probably just terms to refer to everything on the earth. Often these quotes are in Poetic structured parts of the bible, and the author would have written them that way to add to the dramatic nature of his words rather than to be literal.
PM33 seems to present his main evidence for a flat earth as the bible, but I can't see that the bible has anything to say on the subject. I think comments in the bible about the earth are more about how solid and immovable and beyond the ability of man to control it is... yet God can so man should respect him. I don't think the bible even attempts to comment on the geometry of the earth.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
Their claims are not science either. Like sending space probes billions of kilometres away - no veritable evidence just claims and shady images.
Science should be verifiable - all their claims of the moon landings are not,not to mention they look completely fake too!
Moon landings are not "science". They are explorations.
The Polynesians arriving in Tahiti was no more "science" than the moon landings.
You going to a spot nobody has sailed before is also not "science". It's just going somewhere.
Why on earth do you think going somewhere, travel, is a scientific experiment?
Interesting.... but I could not see anything about it being flat. There are mentions of it being strong, firm, secure, with foundations. It even mentions the circle of the earth. Nothing about it being flat, and nothing that prevents it being spherical.
emulator.tips/bluestacks/ luckypatcher.pro kodi.software
As with many things in the bible, context has to be considered. We use many terms common speech that if taken literally are ridiculous: "It is boiling hot today". Terms like "ends of the earth" or "corners of the earth" are probably just terms to refer to everything on the earth. Often these quotes are in Poetic structured parts of the bible, and the author would have written them that way to add to the dramatic nature of his words rather than to be literal.
PM33 seems to present his main evidence for a flat earth as the bible, but I can't see that the bible has anything to say on the subject. I think comments in the bible about the earth are more about how solid and immovable and beyond the ability of man to control it is... yet God can so man should respect him. I don't think the bible even attempts to comment on the geometry of the earth.
No telemetry: www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/Apollo_11_TV_Tapes_Report.pdf
No original tapes:
Blow this joint right open! You need to watch it to the end. And the out takes!!!
www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/1460223043708/the-dark-side-of-the-moon
I have heard many stories of this. Quite a few "smart" people like you guys above. Have said that NASA was under a lot of pressure. So they filmed fake footage in case they never made it. This footage was supposedly made in AREA 51
This footage was never needed as they made it to the moon.
this is just what a few people have told me in the past.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..
That is an interesting one, I would think there would be more blast marks .
Or is that whole area blasted . Dust would settle at one quarter speed .
Select to expand quoteImax1 said..kiterboy said..
That is an interesting one
Not really they did not use those to land. They are for take off.
Or you can listen to people who were involved instead of ****tards on their keyboards like silver hat pete
www.bbc.com/news/av/stories-48955513/moon-landing-wow-it-worked
At this point, the engine was started again to begin powered descent. During this time, the crew flew on their backs, depending on the computer to slow the craft's forward and vertical velocity to near zero. Control was exercised with a combination of engine throttling and attitude thrusters, guided by the computer with the aid of landing radar. During braking, the LM descended to about 10,000 feet (3.0 km), then, in the final approach phase, down to about 700 feet (210 m). During final approach, the vehicle pitched over to a near-vertical position, allowing the crew to look forward and down to see the lunar surface for the first time.[5]Astronauts flew Apollo spacecraft manually only during the lunar approach.[6] The final landing phase began about 2,000 feet (0.61 km) uprange of the targeted landing site. At this point, manual control was enabled for the commander, who had enough propellantto hover for up to two minutes to survey where the computer was taking the craft and make any necessary corrections. If necessary, landing could have been aborted at almost any time by jettisoning the descent stage and firing the ascent engine to climb back into orbit for an emergency return to the CSM. Finally, one or more of three 67.2-inch (1.71 m) probes extending from footpads on the legs of the lander touched the surface, activating the contact indicator light which signaled the commander to manually shut off the descent engine, allowing the LM to settle onto the surface. On touchdown, the probes would be bent as much as 180 degrees, or even break off.
Select to expand quotehilly said..Imax1 said..kiterboy said..
That is an interesting one
Not really they did not use those to land. They are for take off.
Or you can listen to people who were involved instead of ****tards on their keyboards like silver hat pete
www.bbc.com/news/av/stories-48955513/moon-landing-wow-it-worked
Fair point , what did they use to land ?
Select to expand quoteImax1 said..hilly said..Imax1 said..kiterboy said..
That is an interesting one
Not really they did not use those to land. They are for take off.
Or you can listen to people who were involved instead of ****tards on their keyboards like silver hat pete
www.bbc.com/news/av/stories-48955513/moon-landing-wow-it-worked
Fair point , what did they use to land ?
See edit above. Mainly attitude jets as the main burns happened at altitude to slow them down.
Select to expand quoteImax1 said..
There going to do it again in five years , in HD . It's going to be spectical .
I don't want to be disrespected and one of those guy who reckon everything's easy. But, I think scientists have it a lot easier, these days. Like the difference between Robin Knox-Johnston's round the world trip and Jessica Watson's. A lot more technology to help out. They supposedly already know what worked in the past moon landing.
Another moon landing with all the new technology available to test on the moon. Would indeed be interesting, imagine what discoveries could be found on the moon with the tech available now.
Regards,
Mick
Select to expand quote
hilly said..
Not really they did not use those to land. They are for take off.
Finally, one or more of three 67.2-inch (1.71 m) probes extending from footpads on the legs of the lander touched the surface, activating the contact indicator light which signaled the commander to manually shut off the descent engine, allowing the LM to settle onto the surface. On touchdown, the probes would be bent as much as 180 degrees, or even break off.
So the decent engine was used to slow them down until the probes projecting 1.71m down from the underside of the landing feet, contacted the surface, signalling for a manual shut down of the engine...
Couple of things on this:
- the nozzle is pretty big (you can see it there under the lander in the middle) and the outlet of which is set around, say 400mm above the bottom of the feet, this would put the nozzle about 2.1m above the surface when the probes touched.
- the lander was firing through the decent to slow them down, so it was still firing (and decending) before the probes touched.
- the manual shut off would not have been instantaneous, you have the reaction time of the commander or whoever it was that flicked the off switch. As well as that, the thrust shut off would not have been instant like a light switch, there would be some wind down before full shut down.
- from the above we can safely assume that there was still enough thrust coming from the decent engine for some time after the probes touched as the lander continued to descend and settle.
- lets say the probes retracted slightly as the lander descended and there was still thrust coming from the engine, at 1.71m surely there would have been enough thrust to kick up some moon dust and make a mark on the surface.
As Imax said, the dust falling at 1/4 rate of fall to that of Earth - there is no dust on the lander feet or any other surface, it's all shiny and clean...
Where's the dust and descent engine mark?
It is not a Hollywood movie with the lander coming in super fast with thrusters blasting to slow down. They drift in slow and settle in the minimal gravity. Too hot and they bounce off and cannot land. The lander just came out of a dust free factory it was brand new and shiny. The wide angle view would not pick up the minimal dust that settled on it.
Do you really think in the middle of the Cold War that the Russians did not have telescopes pointed at the moon??? Would they have not called the yanks out if there was not something up there?
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
www.reformation.org/general-groves.html
Usual CT twaddle with not an ounce of truth in it.
Select to expand quotehilly said..
It is not a Hollywood movie with the lander coming in super fast with thrusters blasting to slow down.
Didn't say that.
There would have been enough thrust to mark the surface even slightly, no evidence of any mark, also enough dust to be noticeable on the shiny surfaces which look pristine.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..
What's an impact "creater". Is someone that is not good at spelling somehow good at physics?
