Author Topic: Was this video faked? (Read 10318 times)

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #30 on:** August 10, 2015, 09:24:12 PM »

I seen convincing evidence that the 1969 landing and the walk on the moon
was faked. The surface of the moon is really 250 degrees Fahrenheit.
No human could stand that temperature even in a space suit.
The claim that the site was visited via photo from a satellite showing
the surface of the moon where the 1969 moon landing took place
and spotted at polaroid camera photos that would not have lasted
anytime in that temperature.

roscoe · « **Reply #31 on:** August 10, 2015, 09:32:28 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Jehanne
The sun's motion around the Galactic center has been confirmed from its solar parallax:

Again, relative motion. Both the sun and the galactic center are in motion with respect to the earth ... which is fixed. So I repeat that no scientific experiment has ever shown the earth to be in motion.

Very sorry but this is not true as Bradly and Foucalt(?sp?) have both done this.

roscoe · « **Reply #32 on:** August 10, 2015, 09:39:59 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I've been prescinding entirely from the theological part of this myself.

It's quite clear, however, that Scripture states that the earth was created BEFORE the Sun and Moon.

So I'd like to know whether the heliocentrists here on CI accept that?

.

Could you cite the scripture used? :confused1:

roscoe · « **Reply #33 on:** August 10, 2015, 09:50:00 PM »

My response does not imply a belief in helio-centrism.... :reporter:

Matto · « **Reply #34 on:** August 10, 2015, 09:54:36 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Could you cite the scripture used? :confused1:

Just read Genesis chapter one. It is clear there.

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/01001.htm

Jehanne · « **Reply #35 on:** August 11, 2015, 06:36:02 AM »

Quote from: RomanCatholic1953

I seen convincing evidence that the 1969 landing and the walk on the moon
was faked. The surface of the moon is really 250 degrees Fahrenheit.
No human could stand that temperature even in a space suit.
The claim that the site was visited via photo from a satellite showing
the surface of the moon where the 1969 moon landing took place
and spotted at polaroid camera photos that would not have lasted
anytime in that temperature.

There is no (or, very, very little) air on the Moon; as such, its temperature varies quite a bit. As for the astronauts, they were wearing shoes and space suits, which not only allowed them to breath air but also had environmental controls, cooling them when the temperatures inside their suit became too hot and heating them when things got too cold.

roscoe · « **Reply #36 on:** August 12, 2015, 09:59:54 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

That's correct; the Sun is moving in an orbit around the Galactic center:

http://www.astrosociety.org/edu/publications/tnl/71/howfast.html

The sun's motion around the Galactic center has been confirmed from its solar parallax:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_apex

It is possible that S may be going around something else while that object is going around the G Center.... :detective:

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #37 on:** August 13, 2015, 12:38:45 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: RomanCatholic1953
I seen convincing evidence that the 1969 landing and the walk on the moon
was faked. The surface of the moon is really 250 degrees Fahrenheit.
No human could stand that temperature even in a space suit.
The claim that the site was visited via photo from a satellite showing
the surface of the moon where the 1969 moon landing took place
and spotted at polaroid camera photos that would not have lasted
anytime in that temperature.

There is no (or, very, very little) air on the Moon; as such, its temperature varies quite a bit. As for the astronauts, they were wearing shoes and space suits, which not only allowed them to breath air but also had environmental controls, cooling them when the temperatures inside their suit became too hot and heating them when things got too cold.

Seriously do you believe all what you said:

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/168-What-is-the-temperature-on-the-Moon-

The next issue is the highly redioative Van Allen Belt.

And the millions and millions of space rocks that travel through space at very high speeds.
The space ship would have been ripped apart.

Jehanne · « **Reply #38 on:** August 13, 2015, 07:56:28 PM »

More fake video:

When will it ever end???

roscoe · « **Reply #39 on:** August 13, 2015, 09:20:49 PM »

Quote from: RomanCatholic1953

Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: RomanCatholic1953
I seen convincing evidence that the 1969 landing and the walk on the moon
was faked. The surface of the moon is really 250 degrees Fahrenheit.
No human could stand that temperature even in a space suit.
The claim that the site was visited via photo from a satellite showing
the surface of the moon where the 1969 moon landing took place
and spotted at polaroid camera photos that would not have lasted
anytime in that temperature.

There is no (or, very, very little) air on the Moon; as such, its temperature varies quite a bit. As for the astronauts, they were wearing shoes and space suits, which not only allowed them to breath air but also had environmental controls, cooling them when the temperatures inside their suit became too hot and heating them when things got too cold.

Seriously do you believe all what you said:

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/168-What-is-the-temperature-on-the-Moon-

The next issue is the highly redioative Van Allen Belt.

And the millions and millions of space rocks that travel through space at very high speeds.
The space ship would have been ripped apart.

How do the various spacecraft such as Pioneer or the one that recently sent back pics of Pluto avoid being ripped apart by those rocks?

How does the signal carrying those pics make it back through the highly radioactive Van Allen w/o any interference?

:confused1:

Jehanne · « **Reply #40 on:** August 14, 2015, 09:55:59 AM »

Why do you see the Sun during the day? Light is just "radio waves," just a more energetic form of them:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum1.html

And, if the Van Allen belts are so energetic, why are ham radio operators able to bounce their signals off the Moon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%E2%80%93Moon%E2%80%93Earth_communication

As for asteroids, if there are so many, as you claim, how is the Earth, which is far, far bigger than any space probe, able to survive all of these rocks, or, at least, why is not the night sky ablaze with huge meteor bolides:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolide

There are simply not that many asteroids in interplanetary space.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #41 on:** August 14, 2015, 10:06:29 AM »

Ladislaus · « **Reply #42 on:** August 14, 2015, 10:08:15 AM »

Quote from: roscoe

My response does not imply a belief in helio-centrism.... :reporter:

Nor a belief in the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

roscoe · « **Reply #43 on:** August 14, 2015, 01:12:38 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: roscoe
My response does not imply a belief in helio-centrism.... :reporter:

Nor a belief in the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

Nor a belief in Bibliolatry.... :cheers:

BTNYC · « **Reply #44 on:** August 14, 2015, 04:01:57 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: roscoe
My response does not imply a belief in helio-centrism.... :reporter:

Nor a belief in the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

Nor a belief in Bibliolatry.... :cheers:

If this semi-sentient cloud of pot smoke were ever seen as a humorous novelty around here, certainly by now he is no longer so (I certainly never thought so).

Now that he's shown himself to be a pertinacious heretic, who openly calls the Sacred Scriptures "wrong" and mocks those orthodox Catholics who hold to the dogma of the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture as "Bibliolaters," hopefully he will soon be going the way of Glaston, TheKnightVigilant, Impy, and all of the other not-so-funny "novelties" who once darkened CI's doors with unhappy regularity.