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

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.

 

Have you seen the evidence?

 

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 ...).

 

'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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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):

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.