Not in the 1970s they couldn't, and they also couldn't produce technology required to got to the moon in the 1960s either ... so the faked the moon landing.  Just remember what kinds of junk cars people were driving in the 1960s and 1970s.

I worked at NASA and often participated in radiation/temperature testing of electronic components, and even with today's technology, 90% of the tech they claimed was resistant to radiation and extreme temperatures failed the tests miserably, and this was in the early 2000s, not in the 1970s.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that it's the height of absurdity to pretend that Voyager can beam meaningful signals back to earth using a 23 watt radio ... from allegedly 24 billion miles away.  That signal would be so dispersed over those distances that it could not contain any meaningful data (similar to the absurd claim that Webb is beaming high-definition data from a million miles away).  In real practice, the higher bandwidth you get, the more concentrated the signal has to be and the more power you need to send it.  If we could beam high definition data across millions of miles, cell phone companies would have gotten rid of the cell towers they have to build every mile or two a LONG time ago, to say nothing of the absurdity of hitting the target with a high bandwidth signal from a million miles that would be so tiny as to be imperceptible ... WHILE the earth is allegedly rotating at (an average of) 700 MPH AND revolving around the sun at over 6,000 MPH.  You'd be a great shot if you could hit something the size of a jar lid from 100 yards away.  Now move it to a mile away, and then to 1,000 miles ... and you're not even close to the proportions we're talking about from million miles away.  And now put the target into motion at 6,000 MPH.

You recently had a company set a record for high-bandwidth transmission at about 230 miles (across the Mediterranean), and they had to use line of sight microwave signals, since you need a very concentrated (and therefore line of sight) beam to carry high-bandwidth data.  Now try to send high-bandwidth data over a MILLION miles.  To get high bandwith, you need a concentrated, tight, and therefore line of sight signal ... and I'm sure we're getting that from Webb at about a million miles away, as the earth rotates 700MPH and flies around the sun at 6000MPH.  Suuure.  Of course, on a side note, at 230 miles (with the aforementioned microwave signal across the Mediterrean), it couldn't have been line of sight on a globe, since the target (150 foot towers) would have been obscured by 8 miles of curvature bulge.

Back in the day when we hard our rabbit-ear antennas, and then even the small dishes, to get a decent TV signal from most stations, you had to point the in just the right direction and just at the right angle to have some stations come in ... and that's when the transmitters were about 20 miles away, much less 24 billion.

Not to nitpick, but viewers almost never use "dishes" for terrestrial TV reception, those are just for satellites.  I say "almost" because there is one type of TV antenna, a UHF parabolic reflector, which is sometimes used by people in remote areas to pick up stations from 80-120 miles away (I have one):




They are 6 to 7 feet tall, and operate by concentrating the TV signal into a center point, which is then reflected onto a small grid, and then reflected back onto the antenna itself, which in the picture above (not my dish, but one similar to it) consists of two things that look like bow ties.  They are also sometimes used by cable TV companies (which is where mine came from).  You can even envelop the "ribs" with chicken wire cut to size and then shaped and fastened onto the frame (makes the dish very heavy!).

Full-power TV signals typically get about 60 miles out from the transmitter, with the area from 60 to 80+ miles being a "fringe area", and anything further out from that being just the "luck of the draw".  The maximum, under normal conditions, that a TV signal can get out, is about 120 miles.  Freak atmospheric conditions can cause signals to get out hundreds of miles beyond that, just the other morning, I was getting random signals (with another antenna, not the dish) from 300-400 miles away.

So what are those pictures of?  Are you implying because his software couldn't track properly it is faked?  The way I think this photography works is that it takes many snapshots in a time period and then those images are combined together and rendered to create the photo you see.  Granted I am guessing.

It is also could be that shutter on the camera has to stay open for a lengthy amount of time to capture the image.  The computer is just used to make the photo more crisp from all the shaking of the camera. Again I am guessing.

Why does Saturn appear like a globe and Earth is not a globe?  Please direct me to a FE model that shows how the stars planets and all hang in the sky in relation to this flat earth.  Are you implying that we are in like a snow globe?  Doesn't that put limitations on God?  Why can't God create a vast Universe for us to discover?  I really don't know why I bother.  I mean really the fact people like to argue these things is silly.  God isn't going to say oh you thought my Universe is (fill in the blank), you are going to hell.  You need to believe in God and follow his rules.  It is just that simple.  Science is just what humans do to figure out what God already put into place.

It's comical.

Atheist scientists are lying and/or wrong about the origin of the universe, God, religion, the Bible, the nature of Man, the existence of aliens, possibility of time travel or sentient AI, and countless other fundamental errors.

And they've been caught lying more times than I can count. And their lies and errors *couldn't get* larger or more fundamental: existence of "dark matter", the Theory of Relativity, etc.

"But by gum, they are telling the honest truth about the shape of the earth and "outer space"! It's the Bible that's being poetic, wrong, etc."

Another great point.  Dr. Sungenis spent a large portion of his "Flat Earth, Flat Wrong" book defending NASA, even though NASA considers his geocentrism to be utterly absurd and him to be a crazed lunatic.  Sungenis admitted that NASA lied one time, though he minimized it as a "foible".  You could write volumes about NASA lying and fraud that could exceed the output of Dr. Sungenis' own considerable output over the years.  Then, he engaged in a logical fallacy by denouncing the FEs for holding the position (a strawman) that if NASA lied about one thing, they lie about everything.  Nobody says that.  I'm sure they sometimes tell the truth ... when they have no reason not to.  What he misses is that there's a law of evidence, applied correctly in courts known as falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, "false in one thing, false in all things".  What this means is that once a witness has been caught lying about one thing, the entire rest of his testimony loses credibility.  Sure, he might be telling the truth, but, since we know that he has no problem with lying, he also might not be telling the truth with other stuff.  As a result, none of what he says can be used as proof or evidence ... without independent verification.  So because NASA has a demonstrable track record for lying (way beyond the single "foible" that Sungenis concedes), we have no idea whether they're lying about any given thing, and what they tell us is not acceptable as proof ... not unless you already believe the earth is a globe and accepted it as proof due to confirmation bias.  If NASA had the temerity to lie about the moon landings, and rovers on Mars, they could be lying about almost anything.

There is an easy answer to that. We share a love that just makes us want to be answerable for each other and to spend all our lives together, eg. cooking together, doing groceries & chores together, attending mass & other church community activities together, praying together, being beside each other as we lay down to sleep/pillow talk, etc. And we cannot do some of that without the Sacrament of Marriage.

I do not believe an union between two persons have to be about sex. I used to think that way in my youth but now I am actually quite surprised by the kind of nurturing love that can be shared between two persons who did not put sex as a motivation. Love can be shown by other ways that lasts longer than an orgasm.

I don't believe it has to be "about sex" either, however, isn't it something that the Church considers an essential part to a valid marriage?  To be clear, I want to keep this conversation PG (please) and I do not mean to be disrespectful to you, but maybe others can chime in on this.

Having said all of that, from what I'm reading, I suspect that you are already married.  The reason why I brought the attraction issue up is because, assuming you are still married and cannot re-marry, then it sounds like it would still be possible (not exactly what you both WANT, but possible) for you to have this relationship with this person as a great friend without cohabitating. The fact that there is no physical attraction is a huge plus in this regard.