Science-Technology
See other Science-Technology Articles
Title: RAW FOOTAGE: Balloon, aka NASA "Satellite" Floats Across Full Moon
Source:
YT
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAfdkWy0QtE&feature=youtu.be
Published: Feb 3, 2018
Author: Flat Earth Dude
Post Date: 2019-09-28 17:41:37 by Liberator
Keywords: NASA, Satellite, Balloon
Views: 31214
Comments: 184
(Video taken through a Nikon P900 camera)
Poster Comment: Cool! Great shot of the Moon as well. (Sure doesn't seem like it's 239,000 miles away.) So.... is balloon technology how NASA really photographs earth? It appears they are able to attach an equipment gondola to the Balloon...and let 'er rip into Low Earth Orbit. One also wonders if "Astronauts" are actually embedded into a special Balloon gondola instead what's depicted in those dodgy "ISS" shots. Orbital velocity is the velocity needed to achieve balance between gravity's pull on the satellite and the inertia of the satellite's motion -- the satellite's tendency to keep going. This is approximately 17,000 mph (27,359 kph) at an altitude of 150 miles (242 kilometers). Without gravity, the satellite's inertia would carry it off into space. Moving juuuust a bit slower than 17,000 MPH. Source: 'HOW STUFF WORKS' https://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite6.htm
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-129) not displayed.
.
.
.
#130. To: Pinguinite (#128)
Why can't the Earth be only 6000 years old? Don't tell me you believe in evolution, too. You should spend some time pondering the impossible complexities of a cow's udder...you would never, ever believe in evolution again!
Because that person WANTS to spend eternity in hell. That person does not want to be with God...so He sends them to the place He created for Lucifer. Very simple actually.
No it isn't true because I believe it. It is what a critical look at the evidence says. How were fossils formed on the scale they are unless buried in mud very quickly all over the earth. If there was no great flood there would be no fossil record that we have today.
I think Google has hid the search results and buried them for this site. I used to be to find my song parody about burning the Koran. I can't find it with google anymore. It used to be the number one search result with the key words I would find it with. Now nothing.
Why can't the universe be as old as it is big? Do you doubt the speed of light is what science says it is? Is the furthest object away no more than 6000 light years distant? You choose.... **we**... choose to believe what we want. And that which we choose to believe, we call truth. For me, it is illogical to believe that God created a universe/earth just 6000 years ago and made it look like it was far older. Christianity teaches God is not the "author of deception". Well, if He made the universe look older than it is, that would be pretty deceiving. As for evolution, it explains a lot and I have no problem with it. But it's not compatible with your version of truth.
Or because they never heard the gospel because some Christian failed to do as ordered. Or because that person was born in a pure Islamic culture and died at 6 years old, having never heard about Jesus. Yes, very simple.
God created a finished universe. The speed of light doesn't disprove anything. However the amount of dust on the moon proves without doubt that the earth is young and not billions or even millions of years old. Or did I read that you think that is a hoax? I honestly don't remember. I know liberator believes such nonsense.
You should study the Bible more and you would know this. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) Now that you know this you should revise your thinking and not use this as an excuse to not believe in God anymore. Yes I said believe in God. Believing in a hypnotist carnival act is not believing in God.
Why wouldn't you have a problem with something that can't be duplicated in the lab. Something with no evidence. If there is evidence you should share it. Something that has never been witnessed but would be witnessed if it was happening. There are no new species evolving. A peach tree is always a peach tree and never changes into anything else. All the other species 100 percent of the time produce after like kind and have never been shown to produce a new or different species. So frankly people who believe in evolution are kind of dumb. Maybe not dumb in all ways but certainly dumb on the fairy tale of evolution. It is bullshit and you should know better because you are smart generally speaking.
It isn't so simple. I should have put that a couple posts above. But it really isn't that simple since you ommited what I quoted from scripture. What is simple though. Jesus is either a liar or telling the truth. I say he is telling the truth. You can call him a liar if you want the choice is always yours.
How is that deception? How else could He create time and space unless He actually selected a time as to how His creation would look? Adam and Eve were created to be a certain age, and again, how is that deception? When God made the universe it didn't look older than it is...it looked brand spanking new...the universe had not yet "fallen" through man's sin.
Where do you get this strange notion that God made the world look older that it is? Here is the fact. Doubters trying to disprove God grasp at straws like the speed of light and try to put God in a box and say he has to wait for light to come to the earth and he couldn't just make a finished universe. Tell me why God couldn't have made a finished product? I mean you have no problem thinking brain structures, lungs, blood flowing, sexual organs for reproduction naturally comes into being by dirt sitting around for a long time. You have to have a really active imagination to believe that bull shit.
Do you really believe thear are versions of the truth. I don't believe that. I believe something is either true or it is not. Therea are no different versions of the truth. That is silly. Maybe you meant people believe things to be true that aren't and act as though it was.
Why wouldn't you have a problem with something that can't be duplicated in the lab. Something with no evidence. If there is evidence you should share it. Something that has never been witnessed but would be witnessed if it was happening. I won't debate evolution now. But suffice to say that a great many people consider denying evolution on par with denying a spherical earth. You don't believe evolution because it conflicts with your belief in the Bible as the "Word of God" literal truth. As far as I'm concerned, you validate my point that people will believe what they choose to believe.
I used to queston the Bible because of evolution. Then I did some research and learned that there isn't anything to it that is scientific. It is a religion. It is wise of you not to debate evolution. The facts aren't on evolutions side. You should read a book by Gary Parker a former evolutionist professor head of the science department at some university that I forget the name of. He was biased towards evolution. Or if you don't want to then don't.
We are observing things with telescopes that scientific consensus says is upwards of 10 billion light years away, meaning the light departed from those objects 10 billion years ago. If the universe is not anywhere close to that age, then did God, when he created the universe 6000 years ago, also create that light so that when we see it now would make us *think* that we were viewing those objects as they were 10 billion years ago. Was God too impatient to wait 10-13 billion years for the universe to play out, and just set the stage to give that illusion? To me, this is flat earth talk. You consider the Bible to be the "Word of God" and you construct your entire world view around that premise. The difference between us is I go beyond that. I don't concede without question that the Bible is the infallible "Word of God". You do. Certainly you consider many creations of man to be defective, but the Bible is somehow immune to being influence by the failings of man. You do not allow for what I consider a plausible history which, to my satisfaction, explains why and how the Bible came to be and is regarded with such reverence as it is today.
Is that a fact or opion. Oh it is an opinion. Why couldn't the creator have created a complete universe? Why is that impossible?
No silly God made a complete universe. He made light move fast so it would be constant. You are making excuses.
Of course there are. A plain reading of just about anything illustrates that all too well. Only one truth, but many versions of it as people believe what they will.
Over 1000 doctoral scientists agree with you. https://dissentfromdarwin.org/
I honestly don't have time and little inclination to look into this, but the quote above is not necessarily an indictment on evolution as a whole. Rather it's an indictment of "random mutation" and natural selection as the basis of how complex life came to be. In other words, what if evolution is real but does NOT involve "random mutation". What if there is some biological mechanism that facilitates evolution without "random mutation" being an ingredient? What if there are mutations driving evolution, but they do not happen randomly? Beyond that, one major problem with creationism is that it's a theory that cannot be disproven. That is, no amount of physical evidence that is collected could definitively show that creationism/intelligent design could NOT have happened. That's important because any theory that cannot be disproven cannot be proven either. Creationism/intelligent design is therefore a "default" theory that one subscribes to if there are no other known theories that can work.
I understand about time/inclination, believe me, I do. But you ought to take a moment and click on the link. (audio on) When a 1000 scientists make a statement regarding their skepticism of Darwinian evolution your might call that a paradigm shift. Something big has happened. Where it might lead, I do not know.
Was that the opening post on that old thread about burning the Koran? [found using DuckDuckGo, using search terms burning the Koran site:libertysflame.com]
I listened to the short clip. It's not anything substantiated in the short length it is. More akin to a movie trailer. But my current belief set doesn't really care how we got here. It allows for either creationism / intelligent design OR evolution, or a combination of the two. It doesn't matter which it is, or if it's something else entirely, because our humanity is only incidental. Our bodies, including our brains, do not define what or who we are. It's rather what we have, or what we possess. Put another way, they are temporary rental units, not things we own for "life". I.e., the life of the soul. With the Christian belief set you subscribe to, you don't quite have that luxury. Humanity has to be something special, above and beyond the animal kingdom. The story of Genesis provides that explanation of how & why humans are special. Whatever weaknesses evolution has, creationism has the difficulty of explaining why so much of the human body has things in common with various primates. Even Human DNA is very close to the same as chimpanzee DNA. Why would that be, in the intelligent design scenario? My favored question: What is it about Human DNA that gives rise to an immortal soul that defies all laws of thermal dynamics that chimpanzee DNA does not possess? Those are rhetorical questions. I can't promise any long winded discussions as I've had with Liberator. But with my belief set, human conception in no way causes any immortal soul to be created (why would it, given souls defy basic universal laws?), and what makes us spiritually special above and beyond the animal world has zero, zip, zilch to do with our humanity. So I'll clarify that my belief set in no way requires evolution to be the explanation for our human origins. Bottom line is, the human race exists. It came into existence some way, some how. What makes you and I special is something that goes far and away, above and beyond the human genome, beyond even this universe.
We humans have a spirit that can relate to God, Who is Spirit. If not evolution, how? (Every human being wants to know the how and why of our existence...I know that you are no different, Ping)
Something that can't be disproven can't be proven. What a load of crap. If apple trees started evolving and having a new kind of fruit on them. That would disprove creationism because things produce after like kind. If a monkey turned into a man that would disprove creationism. You don't see your own made up biases. How do you disprove the big bang? Stick that in your fuse box.
What if imaginations are not scientific. It is how we got the imagined theory of evolution. Frankly a lame theory that makes no sense in the real world. It doesn't happen. Never happened. No examples to demonstrate it. It ie deception for people who don't want to believe it might upset their world and they will have to admit they are living as sinners. That is why we all get to choose heaven or hell.
Do **you** want to know how humans came into existence? It doesn't seem so. With creationism, you simply accept that God made us and have no concern for the how's and why's. The biggest question we already know the answer to... we DO exist. I think, therefore, I am. The how is one question of many we don't have answers to, and is more academic than critical. The Newton model I subscribe to does allow for "intelligent design", or the means of physical life to be altered or even created outright by entities from the spirit world. The detailed history of human creation is somewhat analogous to knowing the exact route someone took from their home to meet me at a restaurant. It's not really the most pressing question I'd have for them upon meeting.
No it would not. Creationism involves, from the perspective of our physical world, new life forms springing into existence. There is nothing about creationism that states that evolution can't also exist. Even if all life did evolve from primordial goo over the last 4.5 billion years, a new life form could divinely appear tomorrow, in full glory showing off the power of "intelligent design". None of us can prove such a thing cannot happen, as none of us can prove alternate universes do not exist, or what the nature of them is or in what ways they can or cannot impact our universe. But creationism, even if proven, does not disprove evolution. And evolution, even if proven, does not disprove creationism. Strictly speaking, in science terms, both can co-exist, even if one were to deem them incompatible from a religious perspective. You and I don't communicate all that well. That's why I've not responded to many of your posts.
You claim evolution is bogus because it's never been proven in a lab. Well, has creationism been proven in a lab? Have some experiments been conducted that has successfully shown new life forms divinely springing into existence on empty and sterile tabletops? You have no evidence of creationism. You do have, allegedly, evidence that discounts evolution. But even if evolution is disproven, that does not prove creationism. As I said previously, creationism is a "default" theory. It's something people might believe if they don't have any other theory to explain, to their satisfaction, the origin of complex life. Evolution is one theory, but next year someone might come up with a totally different theory. Creationism has never been proven and regretably is incapable, by its very nature, of being disproven, unlike evolution.
lol
I have the answers... Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
I pretty much knew immediately it was doctored as the earth wouldn't be on the horizon for any Apollo mission, and the shadows didn't match earth's spherical illumination. Earth was also way too detailed for the cameras they had back then. It was a beautiful shot designed for desktop backgrounds, but was not real. Interesting, Ping... You've simply shared an observation that questions the integrity of NASA, and suddenly TC immediately makes you the subject of an Inquisition, aggressively attempting to gaslight even you. WHY should you or anyone else be harassed and on the defensive simply defensive simply for sharing a valid observation?? I'd say this says quite a bit about Tooconservative's agenda. By your own observations, logic, and common sense you *knew* that NASA Apollo photo was an absolute doctored-fake. (NASA has been busted so many times with they hoaxing, CGI, and sloppiness that it is beyond embarrassing.) 'Earthrise' was the one and ONLY "photograph" taken "by Astronauts" allegedly "on the Moon. That's it. FIVE trips on the Moon (supposedly). ONE PHOTO. (Does that make ANY sense at all??) Earthrise is a PROVEN FRAUD. (The size/proportion of "Earth" from the "Moon" is comically wrong as well.) ONLY loyalists of NASA's lies (*cough, TC) dismiss even questioning the obvious il-logical and impossibilities of their sloppy photos, ridiculous shadows and countless inconsistencies while "on the Moon." THAT said, that quibble is hardly the worst of the exchange. Part of TC's Inquisition: "Is 1+1=2 just an opinion?...(followed by badgering and peppering with several questions by TC that challenged your intellect and integrity...) Well, it is a fundamental question and not just one of manners or humoring people who are mentally deficient....humoring people disputing the most basic science/math facts can lead to tragic results, usually for them but sometimes for others...There is a big difference between humoring someone and agreeing with them." Hilarious. "TRAGIC RESULTS"?? "For them and others"?? Bwaahaaa!! -- what a hyperbolic Drama Queen you've become. Attempting to blatantly gaslight Pinguinite not only insults his intelligence and integrity, but that of the rest of the entire forum. Casting such dispersions on Ping or myself (through Ping) is a new low for you. Except that only YOU pretend not see it. The *rest* of us DO. Here's a "fact," TC -- YOU are NOT the arbiter of "manners," nor "truth" or "facts"; Not close. Nor of "basic science/math facts." NOR ESPECIALLY of integrity or intellectual honesty. You don't actually care about "facts"; Who are you kidding? You care only about Gate-Keeping and maintaining institutional "official" narratives. It's pathological. On behalf of LF, I'm going to suggest that you may want to pull back the reins a bit in your crusade in questioning the mental health of anyone here. Some introspection is desperately needed. In other words, SEEK HELP.
The old saying comes to mind, which I like: A fool thinks himself wise, but a wise man knows he is a fool. And when you think about that quote, it inescapably means that all of us are fools. The only difference is that some of us know it, and some of us don't. Nicely stated. (I doubt you'll get a sincere, thoughtful response). Your point is well taken. Simple conversations and exchanges of ideas don't necessarily mean we must agree on any of all of what is discussed. You and I have always proven that. And so have many here at this forum. LF has never been an echo chamber. Neither have LP or 4um.
That is a completely false suggestion. [Edit: I responded as though you suggested NASA itself created that doctored photo, which you did not state. Apologies...] We do not know who doctored the 2 photos. Most likely it was done by artistic type, not for the purpose of faking any moon landing evidence, but rather to simply make a cool desktop background photo. As I said, it was a beautiful work. Certainly we do not accuse artists of trying to mislead people when they do similar photo splicing of various images. We cannot & should not be overly paranoid. I assume you mean photos of the earth from the moon, as there are plenty of images alleging to be of the landing sites themselves. If you examine the moon map of the alleged landing sites, none are on the edge of the moon as viewed from earth. Therefore, the earth would have been relatively high in the moon-sky as viewed from the landing sites -- one thing that tipped me off that TC's posted photo was doctored as it showed earth on the horizon. But even if the Apollo astronauts turned their camera to the sky to photo the earth, there probably would have been no moonscape visible to give the photo context. And if the sun appeared directly in the photo, it might have wrecked any such image anyway. Keep in mind these were 1970's vintage cameras, now nearly 50 years old. Any such moon shots today would be far superior in quality. Proportions can be misleading, as they can vary depending on the lens used. You've certainly seen photos of the moon on, say, a beach setting where it appears far bigger, in relation to other objects, than it does to the human eye. That happens when a telephoto lens is used. The reverse happens with a wide-angle lens, making the sun or moon appear as a mere dot. Your mind is made up, and that's fine. Whatever the truth is re: Apollo missions, the truth will be revealed as technology improves. I was surprised to learn that the Hubble space telescope, while powerful enough to look at galaxies billions of light years away was not powerful enough to show the moon landings. I'm sure you'd say that is one more excuse to cover the fraud (though you certainly would say there is no Hubble telescope orbiting the earth anyway). You are satisfied that the moon landings were faked and the earth is flat. I am satisfied that the earth is round and the moon landings were, in all likelihood, real. That's fine. Best to you...
Absolutely!
Earthrise is a PROVEN FRAUD. (The size/proportion of "Earth" from the "Moon" is comically wrong as well.) ONLY loyalists of NASA's lies (*cough, TC) dismiss even questioning the obvious il-logical and impossibilities of their sloppy photos, ridiculous shadows and countless inconsistencies while "on the Moon." As I mentioned - and is copiously documented in many other places - Earthrise was a photo snapped from moon orbit as Apollo 8 came around from behind the moon, making Earth appear to "rise" over the clearly visible horizon. It was unscheduled but the astronauts found the site of colorful Earth so compelling that they grabbed some color film and took the photo. They weren't supposed to use the color film for that but they ended up taking one of the most famous photos in the history of human space flight. Apollo 8 did not land on the moon. It was a test of the 3-stage Saturn V rocket, the capsule, the use of von Braun's preferred orbit, etc. Apollo 9 was a fuller dress rehearsal for the entire lunar mission but never did leave Earth orbit. Apollo 10 was a full dress rehearsal for the lunar landing and had all the equipment needed to land but it, like Apollo 8, only orbited the moon and did not land. It was used to fully test every system except the lander. Apollo 11 was the mission that finally landed on the moon. So all your blathering is just more Flat nonsense because you don't even understand the fundamentals of the Apollo program. Yet I think you are old enough to recall at least some of the Apollo missions. Pinging people to a post is a "new low"? LOL.
Earthrise was taken from lunar orbit by Apollo 8, which never landed on the moon. By your own observations, logic, and common sense you *knew* that NASA Apollo photo was an absolute doctored-fake. (NASA has been busted so many times with they hoaxing, CGI, and sloppiness that it is beyond embarrassing.) 'Earthrise' was the one and ONLY "photograph" taken "by Astronauts" allegedly "on the Moon. That's it. FIVE trips on the Moon (supposedly). ONE PHOTO. (Does that make ANY sense at all??) Earthrise is a PROVEN FRAUD. (The size/proportion of "Earth" from the "Moon" is comically wrong as well.) ONLY loyalists of NASA's lies (*cough, TC) dismiss even questioning the obvious il-logical and impossibilities of their sloppy photos, ridiculous shadows and countless inconsistencies while "on the Moon." You're just a liar. And an ignoramus. You are the "PROVEN FRAUD" on this thread, not the old Earthrise photo from Apollo 8. I decided to ping Neil to this post, even if you call pinging someone a "new low", even for me.
Way back when you and I started our conversation I asked you if you could describe God, and now I want to take up that challenge again. You say "God is better than that" and use the masculine third-person, singular personal pronoun "he". If you can, please flesh out these thoughts you have about God. For example, is God the originator of your belief system? Does God play a central role in your belief system? Is God actually a "he"? How is he better? Does God just stand off in the distance as you live out your life in your belief? Is God a person? You've already given us a rundown of your beliefs, can you tell how He (or he) actually fits in to it.
I was short on time yesterday. Let me revisit this. You say they can both be true. So the earth could have been created in the timeframe the Bible describes, thousands of years ago. And it can also be true that it was billions of years ago. No they cannot both be true. You also said there can be two truths. No only on truth. For example the Easter bunny exists or he doesn't. Both can't be true. Please explain how two things that are different can both be true. They can't so I expect a dodge here. Stick that in your fuse box simply means think about that.
Comments (170 - 184) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestearth is either flat or only 6000 years old
#131. To: Pinguinite (#128)
How logical is it that one would face an eternity in hell
#132. To: Pinguinite (#128)
Stone has his explanation for the earth only being 6k years old.... we all have explanations for what we believe, but that does not make them true.
#133. To: Pinguinite, tooconservative (#129)
It's here somewhere, but even I'd have trouble finding it.
#134. To: watchman (#130)
Why can't the Earth be only 6000 years old?
#135. To: watchman (#131)
Because that person WANTS to spend eternity in hell.
#136. To: Pinguinite (#134)
Why can't the universe be as old as it is big? Do you doubt the speed of light is what science says it is? Is the furthest object away no more than 6000 light years distant?
#137. To: Pinguinite (#135)
Or because they never heard the gospel because some Christian failed to do as ordered.
#138. To: Pinguinite (#134)
As for evolution, it explains a lot and I have no problem with it.
#139. To: Pinguinite (#135)
Yes, very simple.
#140. To: Pinguinite (#134)
Christianity teaches God is not the "author of deception". Well, if He made the universe look older than it is, that would be pretty deceiving.
#141. To: Pinguinite (#134)
You choose.... **we**... choose to believe what we want. And that which we choose to believe, we call truth. For me, it is illogical to believe that God created a universe/earth just 6000 years ago and made it look like it was far older. Christianity teaches God is not the "author of deception". Well, if He made the universe look older than it is, that would be pretty deceiving.
#142. To: Pinguinite (#134)
But it's not compatible with your version of truth.
#143. To: A K A Stone (#138)
#144. To: Pinguinite (#143)
#145. To: watchman (#140)
How is that deception? How else could He create time and space unless He actually selected a time as to how His creation would look? Adam and Eve were created to be a certain age, and again, how is that deception?
When God made the universe it didn't look older than it is...it looked brand spanking new...the universe had not yet "fallen" through man's sin.
#146. To: Pinguinite (#145)
We are observing things with telescopes that scientific consensus says is upwards of 10 billion light years away, meaning the light departed from those objects 10 billion years ago.
#147. To: Pinguinite (#145)
when he created the universe 6000 years ago, also create that light so that when we see it now would make us *think* that we were viewing those objects as they were 10 billion years ago.
#148. To: A K A Stone (#142)
Do you really believe thear are versions of the truth.
#149. To: A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#144)
The facts aren't on evolutions side.
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
#150. To: watchman (#149)
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
#151. To: Pinguinite (#150)
(Edited)
I honestly don't have time and little inclination to look into this
#152. To: A K A Stone (#133)
I used to be to find my song parody about burning the Koran. I can't find it with google anymore.
#153. To: watchman (#151)
#154. To: Pinguinite (#153)
What is it about Human DNA that gives rise to an immortal soul that defies all laws of thermal dynamics that chimpanzee DNA does not possess?
It came into existence some way, some how.
#155. To: Pinguinite (#150)
Beyond that, one major problem with creationism is that it's a theory that cannot be disproven. That is, no amount of physical evidence that is collected could definitively show that creationism/intelligent design could NOT have happened. That's important because any theory that cannot be disproven cannot be proven either.
#156. To: Pinguinite (#150)
What if there is some biological mechanism that facilitates evolution without "random mutation" being an ingredient? What if there are mutations driving evolution, but they do not happen randomly?
#157. To: watchman (#154)
If not evolution, how? (Every human being wants to know the how and why of our existence...I know that you are no different, Ping)
#158. To: A K A Stone (#155)
If apple trees started evolving and having a new kind of fruit on them. That would disprove creationism because things produce after like kind.
How do you disprove the big bang? Stick that in your fuse box.
#159. To: A K A Stone (#156)
(Edited)
No examples to demonstrate it. It ie deception for people who don't want to believe it might upset their world and they will have to admit they are living as sinners.
#160. To: Pinguinite (#158)
both can co-exist
#161. To: Pinguinite (#157)
The how is one question of many we don't have answers to
#162. To: Queen of LF Gaslighting, Tooconservative, Pinguinite, ALL (#127)
(Edited)
TC, I remember you posting that photo that showed one of the Apollo landing sites from the lander with the earth hugely lit behind it on the horizon.
#163. To: Pinguinite, ALL (#122)
Do you/we accept people who see the world differently than we do? Or do we make a big stink about it and call them stupid?
#164. To: Liberator (#162)
(Edited)
By your own observations, logic, and common sense you *knew* that NASA Apollo photo was an absolute doctored-fake. (NASA has been busted so many times with they hoaxing, CGI, and sloppiness that it is beyond embarrassing.)
'Earthrise' was the one and ONLY "photograph" taken "by Astronauts" allegedly "on the Moon. That's it. FIVE trips on the Moon (supposedly). ONE PHOTO. (Does that make ANY sense at all??)
Earthrise is a PROVEN FRAUD. (The size/proportion of "Earth" from the "Moon" is comically wrong as well.) ONLY loyalists of NASA's lies (*cough, TC) dismiss even questioning the obvious il-logical and impossibilities of their sloppy photos, ridiculous shadows and countless inconsistencies while "on the Moon."
#165. To: Liberator (#163)
Simple conversations and exchanges of ideas don't necessarily mean we must agree on any of all of what is discussed. You and I have always proven that. And so have many here at this forum.
#166. To: Liberator, Pinguinite (#162)
Earthrise' was the one and ONLY "photograph" taken "by Astronauts" allegedly "on the Moon. That's it. FIVE trips on the Moon (supposedly). ONE PHOTO. (Does that make ANY sense at all??)
Casting such dispersions on Ping or myself (through Ping) is a new low for you.
#167. To: Liberator, Pinguinite (#162)
I'd say this says quite a bit about Tooconservative's agenda.
#168. To: Pinguinite (#128)
I say God is better than that. And with the model I subscribe to, he is.
#169. To: Pinguinite (#158)
But creationism, even if proven, does not disprove evolution. And evolution, even if proven, does not disprove creationism. Strictly speaking, in science terms, both can co-exist, even if one were to deem them incompatible from a religious perspective.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]