Author Topic: We never landed on the Moon (Read 16867 times)

Binechi · « **Reply #105 on:** June 04, 2013, 10:23:32 PM »

Wikipedia is not likely to address the the factual component of the "Where s and Hows", of the what went on. I think you ll find out more on U tube. My opinion .

Popular Machanics ran a attempted debunking about a year ago on the theories. I don t think it went over to well.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #106 on:** June 06, 2013, 01:47:13 AM »

Quote from: Director

Wikipedia is not likely to address the the factual component of the "Wheres and Hows" of what went on. I think you'll find out more on YouTube. My opinion.

Popular Mechanics ran an attempted debunking about a year ago on the theories. I don't think it went over to well.

Do you recall what they did to 'debunk' it? Any links?

Wikipedia can be revised moments after someone posts something there.
It's pretty useless to try to introduce any facts on Wikipedia that are not
welcome by the NWO or "gαy rights activists" or the h0Ɩ0cαųst religion,
etc. There must be a small army of sentries with cell phone alerts set up
so they get a text message every time an edit feature is invoked on one
of their pet topics, so they get right on it.

As for YouTube, if enough subscribers complain, they'll pull a video too.
So you're probably not going to see any videos that are really convincing.
The ones you see will be weak or not too good, IMHO.

Binechi · « **Reply #107 on:** June 06, 2013, 06:11:29 AM »

If I recall , it was mostly on the Photo s , flag , shadows , and reflection on helmet.
Ditto on u tube items, They use to have a photo of a wire caught on a shot running across the bottom, like would be in a big studio lighting operation.

Any how enough said about this subject for me. There is however something connected with this that relates to this that Id like to bring up and discuss
But before I do that , It was said that they couldn t use the calculations of the earth going around the sun, but had to use only those that showed the Earth Stationary to make the shots work.

How many out there still think , as we were brainwashed in public Schools ,and still being taught in Catholic schools, that the earth travels around the sun. Mmmm ?

snowball · « **Reply #108 on:** June 06, 2013, 07:29:07 AM »

"Mythbusters" tv show "shadow" presentation
fully debunked by real scientists.
I am not surprised, I was never impressed with
that show, or anything on that "channel". You have to be
very skeptical when watching anything produced by
Disney. Read:

http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm

Binechi · « **Reply #109 on:** June 08, 2013, 10:29:48 AM »

There is however something connected that relates to this and Id like to bring up and discuss

It was said that they couldn t use the calculations of the earth going around the sun, but had to use only those that showed the Earth Stationary to make the shots work.

How many still beleive that the earth goes around the Sun. (Helocentrism), or that as Scripture reads The earth is the Center of the universe, stationary in its axis, and that the whole universe traverses around it. ?? (Geocentrism)

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #110 on:** June 08, 2013, 12:19:19 PM »

It can be observed that, as you say, "the earth goes around the Sun. (Helocentrism)"
It can also be said that "The earth is the Center of the universe" from our perspective.
Would that you might provide a reference to the Scripture of which you refer?

Binechi · « **Reply #111 on:** June 08, 2013, 04:42:42 PM »

sssssllforthe information

roscoe · « **Reply #112 on:** June 08, 2013, 04:53:34 PM »

Quote from: Director

There is however something connected that relates to this and Id like to bring up and discuss

It was said that they couldn t use the calculations of the earth going around the sun, but had to use only those that showed the Earth Stationary to make the shots work.

How many still beleive that the earth goes around the Sun. (Helocentrism), or that as Scripture reads The earth is the Center of the universe, stationary in its axis, and that the whole universe traverses around it. ?? (Geocentrism)

E can rev around S without S being fixed or center of U( aka 'helio-centrism') & that( true science tells us) is precisely what is happening. :reporter:

Binechi · « **Reply #113 on:** June 08, 2013, 06:21:06 PM »

More to follow... :pop:

Binechi · « **Reply #114 on:** June 09, 2013, 05:23:45 PM »

St. Basil: “There are inquirers into nature who with a great display of words give reasons for the immobility of the earth...It is not, they go
on, without reason or by chance that the earth occupies the center of the universe...Do not then be surprised that the world never falls: it
occupies the center of the universe, its natural place. By necessity it is obliged to remain in its place, unless a movement contrary to nature
should displace it. If there is anything in this system which might appear probable to you, keep your admiration for the source of such
perfect order, for the wisdom of God. Grand phenomena do not strike us the less when we have discovered something of their wonderful
mechanism. Is it otherwise here? At all events let us prefer the simplicity of faith to the demonstrations of reason.” (Nine Homilies on the
Hexameron, 10)

BTNYC · « **Reply #115 on:** June 10, 2013, 10:42:46 PM »

Prof. Wolfgang Smith has made some fascinating arguments for geocentrism in "The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology."

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #116 on:** June 13, 2013, 01:19:14 AM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Prof. Wolfgang Smith has made some fascinating arguments for geocentrism in "The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology."

Do you have any examples?

BTNYC · « **Reply #117 on:** June 13, 2013, 05:18:05 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: BTNYC
Prof. Wolfgang Smith has made some fascinating arguments for geocentrism in "The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology."

Do you have any examples?

I can't seem to find my copy - which leads me to suspect I have it in storage...

In lieu of the transcribed quotes I'd hoped to provide, here is a quote I found online that roughly sums up his position:

"Two crucial experiments, based upon different physical principles, had now reached the same conclusion: the Earth does not move....whereas contemporary astronomy is thus implacably opposed to the geocentrist hypothesis, it happens that pure physics is not. According to general relativity, it is in fact permissible to regard the Earth as a body at rest: as Fred Hoyle has put it, the resultant theory "is a good as any other, but not better." Relativity implies that the hypothesis of a static Earth is not incompatible with the laws of physics and cannot be experimentally disproved.....If the Airy or Michelson-Morley experiments had yielded their intended result, the scientific case against geocentrism, though still not compelling, would have been at least impressive, however, as the matter stands, the ancient doctrine has not even been rendered improbable, let alone has it been disqualified...one knows today that on the basis of physics that Galileo's arguments are inconclusive, and that in fact the stipulated motion cannot be proved at all... the most that physics as such can say is that geocentric astronomy cannot be ruled out."

Soma · « **Reply #118 on:** June 13, 2013, 09:56:11 PM »

Currently reading "Galileo was wrong the church was right" by Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett. Long ago stopped believing in anything but Geocentric system, but never read a scientific promotion of the hypothesis. Just remember my physic teacher finally agreeing that both were unproven theories.

Quite fascinated by the texts so far.

roscoe · « **Reply #119 on:** June 14, 2013, 12:18:46 AM »

I have not read Sungenis. What does he say Galileo was wrong about? :smoke-pot: