Another look at the moon landing.
- By Hentenza
- Conspiracy Theories
- 3443 Replies
lol at least you are conceding that there IS a space beyond earth. But Artemis 1 made it all the way to the moon.Probably, to low earth orbit.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
lol at least you are conceding that there IS a space beyond earth. But Artemis 1 made it all the way to the moon.Probably, to low earth orbit.
No, that's not a rebellion. It's not organized, nor is it trying to overthrow the government or otherwise seize control of the state.I agree part 1 doesn't apply.
I disagree. When citizens are attacking agents attempting to stop them form doing their jobs and are attacking federal buildings where agents are located, surrounding agents and attempting to prevent them from doing their jobs thats rebellion.
Law enforcement is never able to arrest everyone that they try to.They are able to arrest people, but that doesn't mean they are able to arrest everyone they are trying to.
Charles Duke is testifying that he walked on the moon; you are saying that he is lying. Not mistaken, confused or anything else - lying.Then why tell me that I'd need to take it up with the astronauts over certain issues we have discussed ?
I have already responded to this and even showed you where this is a covenant with the house if Israel, not with the gentiles.BobRyan said:
read the New Covenant in Jer 31:31-33 and Heb 8 "I will make a NEW Covenant.. this IS the Covenant.. I will write MY LAW on their heart and mind..."
IN Context -- Jermiah's readers knew this to be in ref to the Commandments of God in Ex 20 where Deut 5:22 says He spoke the Ten "and added no more"
Audience= Israel."from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before ME to worship" Is 66:23
Are you actually reading and replying to my actual post? I have already explained this but you ignored it.So then -- you do not claim to be under the New Covenant of scripture?
I am a bit surprised by that
1. Love God with all your heart and mind in Matt 22 is directly from the LAW of Moses in Deut 6;5
2. Love your neighbor as yourself in Matt 22 is directly from the LAW of Moses in Lev 19:18
The two commandments summarize ALL of the law meaning that the law is no longer binding for the Christian. The law was never given to the gentiles in the first place.And these two are the bedrock foundation of ALL scripture and Law as Christ said RATHER Than "on these two commands I now DELETE all scripture and all law" as some have it.
You are continuing with the Strawman. I have already answered this so reply to my answer.ALL are BASED on those two commands in the Law of Moses --- Jesus does not say all scripture is DELETED by those two commands
Yep. The only one that could.Commands that Christ perfectly complied with (which is the meaning of Fulfill in this context
Nope. The first covenant went away because Jesus fulfilled it.Fulfill as in "perfectly comply with" in this context.
No. Fulfill= completed.Which is why in Rom 13 we TOO are commanded to "comply with it" to fulfill it.
Rom 13:9 For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law
Obviously this "fulfill" is in the sense of "perfectly comply with " rather than "perfectly delete"
It was fulfilled in us through Jesus redemptive sacrifice.Rom 8:4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
Yes. Jesus first commandment.Rom 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! 16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
That's right -- taking God's name in vain is STILL a sin, believe it or not
Not the law, that’s for sure.Matt 28 the post-crucifixion command of Christ is "Go and TEACH them to observe all that I commanded YOU" and in fulfillment of that command the Gospel accounts are written to teach us all that Christ commanded His followers.
Another Strawman.He did not say "Go and teach them to IGNORE ALL that I taught you"
The Strawman continues.Indeed -- perfectly complied with , not perfectly deleted.
Moral law is prescriptive. It tells us what is right. You do not DELETE the command to have no other God's before the one true God, by one act of serving only our one God. Rather you have to ALWAYS do that, same is true of the command to not take God's name in vain.
What part of the law is a curse do you not grasp? Why would Jesus REDEEMED us from the curse of the law only to continue being under the law? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.This is incredibly obvious to all of us
true. But just like the speed limit (another prescriptive law in human terms) , one act of compliance does not delete that Law.
This is incredibly obvious to all of us. I am not saying anything you do not already know is true.
True. But the result is not that it is no longer a sin to take God's name in vain.
The Law remains.
Eph 6:1-3 is an appeal to the STILL VALID set of TEN in the OT
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), 3 so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth."
Paul ADDs to his own command to "obey parents" by appealing to the SET of TEN where the 5th commandment is the FIRST COMMANDMENT in that set of TEN with a promise.
Notice it is not the first command in scripture with a promise. Rather in the TEN. Paul appeals to the TEN just as Jesus did in Matt 19, Just as James does in James 2, just as Paul does in Rom 7 and in Rom 13.
This idea that to comply with moral law is to end it, to delete it , to abolish it is false.
Rom 3:31 "what then? Do we ABOLISH the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW ol God"
We do not DELETE a Law that we comply with and ESTABLISH
This point cannot be any more obvious.
James 2 says to break even one of the TEN is to break them all.
The Exorcist III was based on Blatty's own 1983 sequel novel, entitled Legion. The rest of the movies, as far as I know, were not based on his novels---they used the characters and outlines for plots dreamed up by Hollywood screenwriters.William Peter Blatty went on to direct The Exorcist III and lived his life as a committed Catholic with his wife.
I'm afaid you won;t find morality out there.Which is in response to me: 'And as there are no acts without context...'
Well, allrighty then. Give me an act without context from which you can determine the morality.
And any response maybe a day or two in coming. I'm in the middle of the Nullabor. Connection to the interweb is iffy at best.
Why will I have to take up with NASA the fact that you're wrong?All's I'm saying is that she'll have to take it up with NASA, I've been told the same many times on here.
He pulled a stunt on an event which never happened?-That was just a stunt to satisfy at the time a country who still was religious.
You can't guarantee anything.I guarantee if this deception would have been been done today for the very first time. There would have been absolutely no reading from The Bible (Genesis 1, etc..)
Yes. God's word was read from the moon - you've even just confirmed it.This is all they read
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
So? They couldn't read all of it, could they?But stopped before they came to this part of Genesis
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then 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. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 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. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
This has been dealt with many times in answers to you. The reason they don't go straight up is because in order to overcome the weight of the rocket holding it to the earth, it needs to reach a certain speed. That is done by circling the earth, before it then goes in the intended direction.Rockets always arch over & never go straight up.
Just like NASA never a straight answer![]()
Another leader who understands the challenges of brokering peace congratulates President Trump.![]()
‘He Deserves All The Credit’: Ex-Dem Strategist Praises Trump For ‘Historic’ Israel-Hamas Peace Deal
Former Democratic strategist Dan Turrentine praised Donald Trump on Monday's “The Morning Meeting” for brokering a peace deal between Israel and Hamas.dailycaller.com
Here's another Democrat who is giving President Trump credit for this peace deal.
Again, you miss my point. I don't care that he's making money off of his videos. I'm cautioning you that he has a financial incentive to present this topic in the way that he does. Maybe he's right - I don't care enough to really dig into the claims he made - but people scaremongering on an issue that they sell services to resolve should always be treated with skepticism.There’s a misconception in our society regarding information and the exchange of funds. Content creators aren’t charities. Whatever their motivation the end goal for most is compensation. They’re well within their right to exchange their knowledge for a fee. If you don’t want to pay that’s fine. It doesn’t bother me and I view their legwork as a service. Which frees up my time for other things. I’d appreciate it before they put it behind a paywall. YouTube won’t always be like that. You’ll see a portion of content for free in the future.
~bella
What do you mean, enter space?
How is any of these related to what's happening in Gaza?Extorting rare earth minerals from desperate countries in return for help?
And we can't forget the reign of terror by ICE agents and unwanted, unneeded federal troops. With every sentence he spreads hatred and division.
It made it to space.
As far as I understand on this particular measure which is from the UnChartedX site is in both guage sensor and CT scanning from memory. Its in 3d as its talking about cyclinricity on the opening to determine axis B which is the horizontal center line of that cyclinder down the vase.So from the data they show there are things that needs explanations, they show their own measure but I don't believe that measure means what is normally used in 3D tolerance specifications more than in name.
The vases tested at Petrie museum are from Petries digs in the late 19th and early 20th century. Most vases would be from Petries digs as he was the pioneer and has whole museums full of stuff.So which of Petries vases came from where? This is what an archeologsist would contribute.
Thats why it takes time to ensure everything is done properly. They started testing vases and came up against the providence issue and then Karoly began to test vases at museums with good providence only this year. So more needs doing. But so far very interesting results.This is not something that inspires confidence.
Yeah I would expect all areas need to be consulted. But as mentioned the aim is to test vases which have already been verified by archeologists like at museums.Most means that they all must be individually evaluated preferably by archeologists.
Why. What I mean by formal is that if you notice the tests and analysis is written like a paper with method, results, discussion and conclusion. Proper tests are done and the process is explained. All the steps are laid out that will support the conclusion so that people can read it and check it.Self-publishing is not formal.
I don't know. Thats why I keep going back to the conclusions and summaries. They explicitly state that the findings show the precision in some vases to be on par with modern machining and lathing. I must have said this 10 times now. REgardless of all these objections they still clearly contradict the claim that these vases are not on par with modern machined vases on some sort of lathe.What bits did I pick out of context? The surface deviation plots at the Artifact Foundation shows deviations in the mm scale, belieing modern lathing performance https://3ee9be00-b8a0-4f00-991d-97c...d/3ee9be_e79661f238934aed91a28269a61725d8.pdf. It's a very big pdf.
OK fair enough. Then perhaps we should dedicate as much time on scrutinising those making analysis on this thread to the same level as what has been thrust upon the researchers. Questioning their credibility, wanting to know every detail about their qualifications and questions their qualifications as to whether they are most suitable for the testing. I don;t see any consistency here.No, I view the analysis that have been presented in this thread as on par with what is presented by the Artifact Foundation and Max. It's interesting but probably not the final word, it is enough to realise that more analysis on well provenanced objects is needed.
See this is a prime example of the inconsistency applied by skeptics. You and I know to what extent skeptics have been subjecting these researchers to. I can go back and show you if you want. But all sorts of demeaning names and questioning every little thing. I don't see that level of scrutiny on those objecting like yourself.They have as much credibility, I'm for peer-review. It is done by experts in their respective field, but then Chris Dunn, the Artifact Foundation and Max need to get going and actually publish their findings.
I think this is dishonest. To begin with the researchers article is done like a peer reviewed paper with the abstract, method, analysis, discussion and conclusion. Thats the formal way scientfific articles are done. I don't see any of that on this thread. Or are you now lowering the bar on this thread and allowing parts there of as equivelant.They haven't presented any formal article, so they get what they wanted.
The point is I can say "it is a fallacy" just like you have your opinion. If you can say it without qualification then so can I and it can keep on going. If you say that remarks on this social media are good enough and are equivelant to a 5 or 10 page formal test and analysis. Then anyone can say anything and it counts as a formal scientific article. Its a crazy way to do acience.It's not a fallacy.
But what you don't realise in saying that their expertise has not been shown. I can just say your expertise has not been shown for you to make such a complaint lol. I can say I don't trust your credentials. If this social media site is equivelant to a formal science article then we can say anything and its classed as science.Where did I say they are not experts? I said their expertise in relevant subjects haven't been shown. Do they publish in metrology? Max is the closest one but his scientific output is not in 3D scanning.
Wow, thats all I am saying but its like its the hardest thing for some to admit. Just to admit these vases are out of the ordinary for that time. You have added that perhaps a wheel or lathe was around 1,000 years before the orthodox story tells us.The data if true is nothing more than there exists vases with very good quality. I have no problem with someone arguing, that perhaps the potter's wheel made it across the Red Sea 1000 years earlier therefore I'll go and try to find it.
Of note I pointed out that these engineers are also specialists in precision tooling up to the aerospace precision. Dunn in particular over 50 years in machining, tool making from the basic laths of the 60s to modern CNC for NASA. So they know metrology as that is a key part in tolerances.Most engineers do not do the science of metrology.
Do you honestly think a expert precision tool maker could not do both the measurements and the scientific study of measurements as part of the same expertise in making precision tools. In fact Dunn makes the machines that make the precision tools.To do the measurements, not the metrology.
I only mentioned that as it sounds cool. But Max does all sorts of scanning and testing. Thats what he specialises in. Half thee reason he is doing the vases is because he already has an equipped lab. Why would he have the equipment and not know how to use it lol.Why? There's no connection between having a nuclear reactor in the lab and using a light scanner.
Then why have not you questions others on this thread about their credentials as much as you have these researchers.
Actually they speculate and they are never specific. They have too as the evidence shows these vases were lathed. But the fact is its orthodoxy that the potters wheel and bore stick type lathe did not come in until the old kingdom around 2600BC. A 1,000 years before these vases.But the use of turntables has already been hypothesised by an article that YOU referenced. They existed in the world at that time, there would be cool if they found explicit evidence for it. This wouldn't be a crisis for egyptology.
Yet you make claims like you an expert and don't subject yourself to the same scrutiny. You just questioned that the researchers were not qualified enough. But neither are you to make the determination.No, I'm not an expert in these fields.
The point is you can write in and dispute the findings. Thats how its designed. To be able to down load the files and do it yourself and either find fault or find new discoveries in the works like Unsigned.io did with the geometry.Without an editor and peer-review that is all that is presented to us.
Ok and I agree that its not just peer review but more tests of more vases in museums. More repeated tests of the same vases by the same method and by independent testers. THis is ongoing and the testers admit this. But the findings so far are interesting.There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History
I have never said that any specific measurement is wrong? I'm saying they need to get their data published and peer-reviewed, if they want to be taken seriously. Right now all they're doing is conjecture.
Well thats officially as there have been may 10 plus. A few single tests such as the OG has been done around 6 times or more. A couple of vases replicated by modern CNC and compared, and a lot of guage testing as this is easy. But more museum tests are needed.Three independents, are we talking about groups or tests now.
Yes I just mentioned that. Like I said its relatively new and more of a data base is needed.This wouldn't solve any systemic errors. And for it to help they need to measure the same vases.
I don't think you realise. For example when you say "I don't believe that measure means what is normally used in 3D tolerance specifications more than in name" or No, I view the analysis that have been presented in this thread as on par with what is presented by the Artifact Foundation and Max.What claims?
That's my line.You seem to be missing our original discussion
You seem to keep retreating back to this irrelevant point to my original point.. I have established that there were differences. That proves my point.Please provide Scripture. Did it serve different purposes? Please provide Scripture.
What do you mean, enter space? Do you expect to see a sudden change when the rocket leaves the earth's atmosphere? That atmosphere gets thinner and thinner the higher one goes, as mountaineers know. It doesn't suddenly change from "atmosphere" to "space."SpaceX Starship Successful 11 Launch
Login to view embedded media
It had a successful launch but as per you never see it enter space.
“The flight test began with Super Heavy igniting all 33 Raptor engines and ascending over the Gulf. The successful first-stage ascent was followed by a hot-staging maneuver, with Starship’s upper stage igniting its six Raptor engines to continue its flight to space.”SpaceX Starship Successful 11 Launch
Login to view embedded media
It had a successful launch but as per you never see it enter space.
Sadly, that's all they know. That's why early education is very important for young kids. Free mommy classes would be a good. Teaching about BC. Having free BC and condoms available. Drug programs. It would be nice if churches and the government would help these people.
Trump loves big Oil companies.Why generate clean energy when we can burn more oil?
If a ceasefire or steps toward peace aren't celebrated, perhaps the IDF could resume fighting. Critics of Israel seem perpetually dissatisfied, even when peace is possible, which may explain why Israel often ignores them.Maybe you meant gathering in the rubble which has buried so many tens of thousands of their loved ones.
Oh, sorry. You must have been referring to the Israelis. My bad.
And we do but not as part of the Jewish law but as the commandment given by Jesus. There is a difference.Turns out we are also supposed to "Love GOD with all our heart" Deut 6:5, Matt 22.
And the two commandments summarize the whole law so no longer the law but the Spirit. The law is not of faith or of the Spirit. You can’t keep the law and walk by the Spirit at the same time.It is TWO Commands in the Law of Moses that form the bedrock foundation for ALL Law and ALL scripture Matt 22.
Strawman. No one is arguing that the law was deleted.Christ does not say in Matt 22 "By these two commands I have deleted all scripture and all of God's Law"
The believer does not walk on the flesh but by the Spirit. You are misinterpreting this passage. Let me remind you how Romans 8 begins.No wonder Paul says in Rom 8
He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.