Man-kind never set foot on the planetary body known as the 'moon', acc to Bible (KJB), Hist. & Sci.

[Alofa Atu]

... Funny; the Russians took photos of what the Americans had left on the moon ...

Did you see the quote where nearly half of Russians disbelieve that the United States of America ever went to the moon?

Ask yourself why is it taking so long for the United States to go back and why others, who were 'ahead' in technological achievements at the time, didn't push forward to the moon, and beyond already, even right after the US supposedly did? Why did Russia just throw in the towel, and China never even bother? What about the rich Saudi's? They don't see any advantage of mining operations, mineral deposits?

Why would the most powerful countries, not have bases set up if not on surface, then in orbit, to control the higher altitude of space, to dominate the lower altitude? In military terms, the high ground is generally the best position.

 

[Alofa Atu]

This cannot fix unbelief. But for those who are interested.
New Images Offer Sharper View of Apollo Sites

Also,
Are Apollo Landing Sites Visible Using a Telescope? - AstronimUs

Have you seen the evidence?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Have you seen Jarrah White's responses yet? Please remember, I watched yours, and am ready to discuss it when you are.

You seem to have missed the response below to your posts, or perhaps you didn’t understand its point. But I did watch yours, or began to.

Unfortunately, from the outset you posted something so obviously faked as if it was the real deal that there seems no need to go any further.

Besides, from the outset, I agreed with the general premise that space colonization pursuits are a waste of money.

Thanks for putting that raw footage of a directed “interview” first. Quite compelling, obviating the need to watch the others. Posting a fake interview alleging a fake moon landing really takes the cake.

From moonwalk to cakewalk. And the light side/dark side of the moon face shot is a nice touch, “Tom.”

 

[37818]

Have you seen the evidence?

At this time I have absolutely no grounds to even consider the claims of any denials on the authenticity of the Moon landings.

 

[timtofly]

Did you see the quote where nearly half of Russians disbelieve that the United States of America ever went to the moon?

Ask yourself why is it taking so long for the United States to go back and why others, who were 'ahead' in technological achievements at the time, didn't push forward to the moon, and beyond already, even right after the US supposedly did? Why did Russia just throw in the towel, and China never even bother? What about the rich Saudi's? They don't see any advantage of mining operations, mineral deposits?

Why would the most powerful countries, not have bases set up if not on surface, then in orbit, to control the higher altitude of space, to dominate the lower altitude? In military terms, the high ground is generally the best position.

Do you accept the moon is a light or a "rock" in space? Why has no one attempted to land on the back side of the sun? Because it would not make sense. One could place a larger base on the sun than the moon, as the sun is a greater light than the moon. If they are mere lights in the sky, and one light had man on the backside, taking God at His Word, would mean both could be landed on.


Not that we did not land on this light. It is that the more one sees these as just large lights, the less they are seen as part of a huge universe, instead of just a fixed place in a universe the size of earth itself.

 

[robycop3]

This! ... this is ... this is just soooo hilarious.

Yes, just because you had someone secretly tell you that they were a homosexual, means you had the 'inside clearance' into top secret intel, like 'Operation Paperclip' (some of which is still classified), 'Operation Northwoods', 'Monarch', 'MK-Ultra', "Project Bluebird', 'Project Artichoke', 'Mockingbird', etc.

If you are able to still take care of 'battle casualties', I need your assistance, as my side is terribly splitting from laughter. Help Doc - MEDIC! I need a gurney, I need to lie down and rest from this acute case of the guffaws and giggles. Fresh air ... that's what I need. Yes. Some fresh air.

You're simply hooked on your ridiculous conspiracy theory. Again, if the USSR or China had discovered it was a hoax, they would've trumpeted it clear to the moon! And i'm sure you're privy to what the US military brass knew back then.(ROFL!)

 

[robycop3]

Did you see the quote where nearly half of Russians disbelieve that the United States of America ever went to the moon?

Ask yourself why is it taking so long for the United States to go back and why others, who were 'ahead' in technological achievements at the time, didn't push forward to the moon, and beyond already, even right after the US supposedly did? Why did Russia just throw in the towel, and China never even bother? What about the rich Saudi's? They don't see any advantage of mining operations, mineral deposits?

Why would the most powerful countries, not have bases set up if not on surface, then in orbit, to control the higher altitude of space, to dominate the lower altitude? In military terms, the high ground is generally the best position.

I don't know your age, but I can tell you the old USSR would've exploited any opportunity they could get to show themselves more technologically-advanced than the USA, & loudly exposed any hoaxes they would've found. I figure they likely looked long & hard with their considerable intel resources for any hoax that might've occurred, while wishing the Apollo crew to have had an accident.

Your conspiracy theory holds as much water as a sieve, which goes along with your reputation here for promoting goofy stuff.

 

[Alofa Atu]

At this time I have absolutely no grounds to even consider the claims of any denials on the authenticity of the Moon landings.

I am just asking if you watched a rebuttal position, even as you asked me to consider your (the video you presented) position.

What I have really and most especially noticed, is that not one person has even tried to address the OP scriptures (the primary evidence). They merely attempt to debunk the science or forensic evidences. I used to think Baptists were people of the book (Bible), but I find that individuals of such are a rare and dwindling breed. There are a few good persons to be sure, but overall, going extinct. Of all the people that call themselves Christians, it was the Baptists I had the most hope for to consider truth in the scripture, since they, generally, had used to be so much like us in the past. That hope dies a little every day.

So for you, a slightly differing material, may you consider it at least once. PM me if you want to open a new thread about it, and I would be glad to discuss it with you.

Well, 37818 ('BIBLE' in reverse and upside down using calculator language), I still have a hope for you, at least a little (God shows me things ...).

 

[Alofa Atu]

I don't know your age, but I can tell you the old USSR would've exploited any opportunity they could get to show themselves more technologically-advanced than the USA, & loudly exposed any hoaxes they would've found. I figure they likely looked long & hard with their considerable intel resources for any hoax that might've occurred, while wishing the Apollo crew to have had an accident.

Your conspiracy theory holds as much water as a sieve, which goes along with your reputation here for promoting goofy stuff.

'Operation Paperclip' proves collusion between the two powers behind the scenes by specific people. Outwardly there was a visible confrontation, even later a 'cold war' (propaganda, since all wars increase the profits of the elite merchants), but behind the scenes, even at an economic level (international bankers), there was cooperation. Both the United States and Russian (USSR) governments, had constant communication with each other, utilizing numerous means, like teletypes (of which my own father, is still (age 77 this year) a mechanic (a lead repair technician, and instructor, at several locations, McClellan AFB and US Army Depot, CA before, etc) for, though retired), faxes and computer links transmitting encrypted text messages between the Kremlin and Pentagon. Capitalism and Communism are simply two sides of the same destructive coin. Both countries used propaganda on their own citizens. The space race was just as much propaganda as the 'cold war' ever was. What bout spys, etc? That is indeed the game, if one reads 'The Art of War', since Jesuits controlled both sides, but that is a deeper 'conspiracy' and 'confederacy' yet, and for another time. Surely individuals bought into the propaganda, even at high levels, but that too was all part of the required game (a hegelian dialectic, and now we are witnessing the synthesis of their efforts in this our day).

I will give you a clue about my age. I will relate some birthday information. I was born upon the same day and in the same month as my father, and so I am as old as my tongue and a little bit older than my teeth.

 

[Alofa Atu]

Do you accept the moon is a light or a "rock" in space?

The "moon" is a planetary "body" in the 2nd heaven (Genesis 1:14; "celestial", 1 Corinthians 15:40) known in scripture as "the lesser light" (Genesis 1:16). It does not give light of itself, but reflects the "glory" of "the greater light" (the Sun). The "moon" can have "shadow" (of the earth) cast across it by the shed light of the Sun. When the Earth (symbol of wordliness) is directly between the Sun (symbol of Christ Jesus) and Moon, it causes the shadow of wordliness to cross over the moon (a symbol of the church). When the Moon is directly between the Sun and Earth, it causes a shadow to fall upon the Earth, and thus the world is in darkness and unable to see the light of the Sun (Christ Jesus) for the Moon (church) obstructs the view and gets in the way sometimes. This is another way how to know that the Moon does not shed her own light, but reflects the light and glory of the Sun, which has a differing glory.

The Sun in scripture is a type of Jesus Christ, the "light of the world" - Malachi 4:2; John 8:12, 11:9; 2 Peter 1:19, etc.

The Moon in scripture is a type of the body of Christ, or the Church, which reflects His glory - Revelation 12:1; 'dead' to itself. The "moon" is indeed a "rock", since the church stands upon the rock (the word of God; Exodus 33:21; Matthew 7:24, etc)

The Earth in scripture is a type of worldliness (Isaiah 13:11; Mark 4:19, 8:36; John 8:23; etc), and has no light of itself, and requires the light of God, even later the Sun, Moon and Stars (or also lightning) to see out of darkness (Genesis 1:2,15,17, etc).
​

I pray your question is answered satisfactorily.

 

[Alofa Atu]

You're simply hooked on your ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Let me tell you, it was not until I saw and considered and studied the evidences that I changed my position, and that which solidified that position, giving me a true foundation, was the scripture itself, as I knew all things are considered therein. I prayerfully sought out what God's word says on the matter and simply believed Him. This was why the OP is based in scripture, not pieces of scientific detritus, as true as they are.

 

[Alofa Atu]

Besides, from the outset, I agreed with the general premise that space colonization pursuits are a waste of money.

Ok. I agree with you at least in that. I would even go so far as to say it is theft, or leeching vital forces in economic (and also mental) terms.

 

[37818]

I am just asking if you watched a rebuttal position, even as you asked me to consider your (the video you presented) position.

No. Videos I need to set time aside to watch. Since I know not any argument which in my mind would cause me to doubt the moon landings. Seriously.
What one issue caused you to doubt the moon landings? Which gave you reason to look into it further?
People believe things differently for reasons. Where I differ and do not feel I need to change the other's mind I will simply give my reasons for my belief. And hear the other's stated view. And if I have added reasons for believing the way I do I will state it.

Well, 37818 ('BIBLE' in reverse and upside down using calculator language), I still have a hope for you, at least a little (God shows me things ...).

I have hope for you too. Our Christian belief differences and similarities. I believe in only 7th day Sabbath not Sunday but I am not a 7th day Baptist. Worship on Sundays.
I believe in the mortality of the soul and not in annihiationism. Just saying we believe what we are able to understand to be true. Got to find the common ground.

 

[Alofa Atu]

Which gave you reason to look into it further?

Hmmm, hard to remember the first, but the original reason, was because of what I knew of Heavens (plural all 3), and the earth and the great controversy itself from the Bible. If I were to think about a video that helped in certain areas, I would have to go with this one (by David Percy, etal.), a 2 parter (both in one):

 

[timtofly]

The "moon" is a planetary "body" in the 2nd heaven (Genesis 1:14; "celestial", 1 Corinthians 15:40) known in scripture as "the lesser light" (Genesis 1:16). It does not give light of itself, but reflects the "glory" of "the greater light" (the Sun). The "moon" can have "shadow" (of the earth) cast across it by the shed light of the Sun. When the Earth (symbol of wordliness) is directly between the Sun (symbol of Christ Jesus) and Moon, it causes the shadow of wordliness to cross over the moon (a symbol of the church). When the Moon is directly between the Sun and Earth, it causes a shadow to fall upon the Earth, and thus the world is in darkness and unable to see the light of the Sun (Christ Jesus) for the Moon (church) obstructs the view and gets in the way sometimes. This is another way how to know that the Moon does not shed her own light, but reflects the light and glory of the Sun, which has a differing glory.

The Sun in scripture is a type of Jesus Christ, the "light of the world" - Malachi 4:2; John 8:12, 11:9; 2 Peter 1:19, etc.

The Moon in scripture is a type of the body of Christ, or the Church, which reflects His glory - Revelation 12:1; 'dead' to itself. The "moon" is indeed a "rock", since the church stands upon the rock (the word of God; Exodus 33:21; Matthew 7:24, etc)

The Earth in scripture is a type of worldliness (Isaiah 13:11; Mark 4:19, 8:36; John 8:23; etc), and has no light of itself, and requires the light of God, even later the Sun, Moon and Stars (or also lightning) to see out of darkness (Genesis 1:2,15,17, etc).
​

I pray your question is answered satisfactorily.

Symbolism is fine, but a light is a light. All lights give their own light. If no light, then not a light. Both the sun and moon were placed in the firmament between heaven and earth.


The bodies in the firmament are all angels. Celestial bodies are the angels.

 

[Alofa Atu]

Symbolism is fine, but a light is a light. All lights give their own light. If no light, then not a light. Both the sun and moon were placed in the firmament between heaven and earth.

The bodies in the firmament are all angels. Celestial bodies are the angels.

I think you are confused about how the bible uses the word "light", and also in matters 'where' the Sun, Moon and stars (local Sol system) exist, and possibly the shape of the earth itself if I am reading you right.

I, as a true Seventh-day Adventist (from Roman Catholicism of 30 years), would like to share some scriptures (KJB), as all true Seventh-day Adventists, whose final authority in all matters of faith and practice is the Bible (which includes the gift of Prophets/prophecy, 1 Cor. 12:28, 14:32; Eph. 3:5, 4:11, &c.) will acknowledge that the Earth is indeed a 'spheroid' (Isa. 40:22; Job 22:14; Psa. 19:6; 1 Sam. 7:16; Ecc. 1:6; Heb. 1:2, 11:3; 1 Sam. 2:8; Psa. 90:2; Isa. 3:18; Gen. 9:13-16; Eze. 1:28; Rev. 4:3, 10:1; Psa. 144:5; Isa. 45:6, 59:19; Mat. 24:27; Dan. 8:5; Jos. 12:1; Num. 2:3; Jos. 1:4; Deut. 11:30; Ecc. 1:5; Psa. 50:1, 113:3-4; Mal 1:11; Eze. 8:16; and the Sanctuary itself, among many other scriptures and examples.), and the Spirit of Prophecy/Testimony of Jesus re-confirms this (sister White said that the "world" is "round", a "globe", an "orb" (just as Sun and Moon are), an "sphere" (when speaking of natural and spiritual matters).), see Letter 167, 1900, pp. 1, 2. (To G. A. Irwin, March 23, 1900.); Letter 167, 1900; 3SM 317; 10MR 9; ST, March 20, 1884 par. 6; CET 88; CCh 324; CT 185; DA 59-60; TA 111; ST, April 14, 1881 par. 11; EW 290; Ed 99; FLB 28; Hvn 155; HP 40; RH, August 15, 1899 par. 17; ST, August 3, 1904 par. 6; SW, January 24, 1905 par. 4; 13MR 382; AA 29; CME 30; ChS 18; CH 215; 6T 23, 24; CSW 133; CET 219; HP 93; LS 379; LS 402; MM 330; RC 121; 6T 23; 7T 51; Letter 183, 1899; TSA 83; AUCR, January 1, 1901 par. 6; GCB, October 1, 1901 par. 16; PUR, July 7, 1904 par. 2; RP, September 15, 1908 par. 4; RH, July 7, 1903 par. 7; CH 215; DA 822; FLB 94.6; AG 238.2; SC 68.1; 7T 51.1; ST Nov. 24, 1887; 1BC 1085.1; ST, July 18, 1892 par. 6; RH, January 18, 1881 par. 22; RH, May 31, 1887 par. 4; RH, January 24, 1882 par. 1; 1888 1370.2.

Just in case anyone asks.

 

[Alofa Atu]

Thanks for putting that raw footage of a directed “interview” first. Quite compelling, obviating the need to watch the others. Posting a fake interview alleging a fake moon landing really takes the cake.

From moonwalk to cakewalk. And the light side/dark side of the moon face shot is a nice touch, “Tom.”

It's actually from "Shooting Stanley Kubrick", directed by T. Patrick Murray (I assume Timothy Patrick Murray, here - https://www.linkedin.com/in/tpatrickmurray ), with 'actor' Tom Mayk (2015). You can see that here:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12008602/

The point of the video presentation, in my reply, is that many of the persons who do not believe that NASA landed a man on the moon, understand that Stanley Kubrick, as a film maker was most likely involved, even if at just a technical level, since there are photos of him with NASA personnel:

Now, the video of "Stanley" is obviously a mock up of what persons think Stanley might have said in such an interview, and I posted a secondary video beneath it, not just this one. The claim was made that a film-maker disagrees with the people who believe that NASA faked the Apollo missions (at least). I replied with a film maker, in which is 'Stanley' saying he believed it was 'fake'. Now, that you took the time to actually discern that the video was itself concocted, why do you not see the same chicanery in the official NASA videos, like the one I already cited from Bart Sibrel in which an NASA astronot is told by a third-party (unknown male voice) to "talk" in between dead-air after a question is asked to him supposedly by Houston. Why cannot you see the "strings" on these puppets:

Walt Disney was also supposed to be involved in prop making, etc, and he is also seen with NASA persons, like NAZI Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun:

Did NASA need any models built and animatronics? Yes. Quite a bit.

His (Stanley Kubrick's) films are filled with material that are 'Apollo' related, as for instance, in the Shining, 2001 Space Odyssey, Eyes Wide Shut (whom several believed he was killed for (I am undecided on that), etc ( Stanley Kubrick - IMDb ):

What's really going on?

So, good job on spotting the obvious, and now will you attempt to identify the same in the NASA footage itself? if not, why not? It's just as obvious.

 

[Alofa Atu]

You seem to have missed the response below to your posts, or perhaps you didn’t understand its point.

No, it just takes time, and the right amount of time. See my just now previous reply. I want people to think, and re-consider what they supposedly thought or 'saw' happen so long ago with a fresh point of view.

 

[robycop3]

Let me tell you, it was not until I saw and considered and studied the evidences that I changed my position, and that which solidified that position, giving me a true foundation, was the scripture itself, as I knew all things are considered therein. I prayerfully sought out what God's word says on the matter and simply believed Him. This was why the OP is based in scripture, not pieces of scientific detritus, as true as they are.

God gave MOST of us common sense. When I was but a little child, I figured out that the moon was illuminated by the sun, by seeing them both in the sky at once & seeing the illuminated part of the moon was facing the sun. I also figured out on my own what "earthshine" is, when the moon appears as just an illuminated sliver, but the dark part is slightly aglow from sunlight reflected from the earth. And I'm no genius. It's just COMMON SENSE.

The USSR wanted to destroy us ever since near the end of WW2. Stalin was so jealous of us! And so were his successors, Malenkov, Bulganin, & Khrushchev. There was no way any of them would've fully cooperated with the USA in anything.

You remind me some of L.Ron Hubbard, Arnold Murray, & Herbie Armstrong, all very-believable-sounding charlatans, in coming up with theories & assertions which are total horse feathers. You may continue to fool yourself with them, but you're not fooling anyone else here, especially me.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

It's actually from "Shooting Stanley Kubrick", directed by T. Patrick Murray (…), with 'actor' Tom Mayk (2015). …

The point of the video presentation, in my reply, is that many of the persons who do not believe that NASA landed a man on the moon, understand that Stanley Kubrick, as a film maker was most likely involved, even if at just a technical level, since there are photos of him with NASA personnel:

Now, the video of "Stanley" is obviously a mock up of what persons think Stanley might have said in such an interview, and I posted a secondary video beneath it, not just this one. The claim was made that a film-maker disagrees with the people who believe that NASA faked the Apollo missions (at least). I replied with a film maker, in which is 'Stanley' saying he believed it was 'fake'. Now, that you took the time to actually discern that the video was itself concocted, why do you not see the same chicanery in the official NASA videos, like the one I already cited from Bart Sibrel in which an NASA astronot is told by a third-party (unknown male voice) to "talk" in between dead-air after a question is asked to him supposedly by Houston. Why cannot you see the "strings" on these puppets:

Walt Disney was also supposed to be involved in prop making, etc, and he is also seen with NASA persons, like NAZI Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun:

Did NASA need any models built and animatronics? Yes. Quite a bit.

…

What's really going on?

So, good job on spotting the obvious, and now will you attempt to identify the same in the NASA footage itself? if not, why not? It's just as obvious.

It was hardly sapient of you to spam this thread with clips without explanation when their captions are misleading. It’s too late to say you made a mistake posting something fake as though it supported your theory. If you knew it didn’t, you should’ve said so at the outset. Not interested in spending more time wading through such utter nonsense.

In any case, top craftsmen advising NASA on simulation, animation, cinematography, etc., is hardly a sign of anything nefarious or clandestine.

And BTW, what the Russian masses think about this doesn’t affect the truth. However, your reasons for imagining otherwise should prove entertaining, if you wish to share them.