Offbeat

Rant

Moon Hoax Surfaces Fear Of Exposure

Posted 29 months ago|77 comments|3,690 views
"One giant leap... of faith"
VIDEOS
Written by
(July 20, 2009) "If you believe they put a man on the moon
If you believe there's nothing up their sleeve
Then nothing is cool...
--R.E.M.
NASA's Moon Landing Conspiracy Scam obviously has legs -- and so-called mainstream media has promoted this conspiracy and cover-up for more than 40 years.
On July 16, 1969, the Man on the Moon Propaganda blitz began -- and it never stopped.
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel....

With half the people in the USA dubious about a successful moon-mission... and Obama unwillingness to put to rest all those doubts... moon-hoax theorists won't go away. But does it matter? Are people just stupid to believe these conspiracy theories... or stupid because they do not?

I found most people are simply afraid to say what they think, for fear that it will get them put into one camp (concentration) or the other. Either you are a nut because you don't believe your government or you are a nut for the opposite. There is much evidence on both sides but most are in fear to pick one... the use of humor goes a long way to say things that you can claim you didn't say.

With all the fear out there... the fact remains that half the people in he US aren't buying the whole man on the moon thing... giving that the technology back then was equaled to less than a cellphone today... and nobody is going to the moon now. It seems on this issue anyway... silence isn't "golden" it's just plain yellow!
UPDATE - 29 months ago
Here is a site with a wealth of information and a question... "This was by far the biggest moment in the American space program. You'd think they would care about hanging on to the evidence."
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

UPDATE - 14 months ago
John Piper - Don't Waste Your Life
http://dwynrhh6bluza.cloudfront.net/reso...
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Considering the large numbers of people who buy into paranormalism, homeopathy, religious faith healers, and other forms of charlatanism and superstition, why would be surprised that many of them are inclined to deny reality and actual Science?

By the way, how much of a hyper-political partisan can you be to blame Obama for this? The Moon Hoax nutters have been around since the actual moon landings; for example, in 2001 the Fox Network (gee, what a surprise) presented a program called "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" - it's debunked here:

http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/moon...

Should you not blame Bush for not nipping that in the bud? Are you really from Canada?
29 months ago: Mark,

Interesting... a quick cut and paste of a ref and that does it for you, while I must provide detailed point by point info that you have another paste for? I will read your ref carefully not to miss a thing... but you do sound like a bit like someones parrot... just sayin... Eh.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Wait a minute Truth - you didn't provide a point by point analysis to support the hoax "theory" yet you're needling me for doing the same as you did? Hello, Pot, Kettle, Parrot? Frankly Truth, I have no interest in debating the point by point Moon Hoax 'theory', and it's not surprising that a religious person is proffering this. If you recall, when superstition still ruled the world, Galileo was put on trial by the Catholic Church for having the rational temerity to defend heliocentrism. Should we debate that as well?

Closer to the present, should we debate whether or not there's 24 satellites in orbit around the Earth that provide time and navigational data? Did you know that the first time navigation satellite pre-cursors to our current GPS system was first launched in 1967? Golly gee Beaver, how did they do that with less than "cell phone" technology?

In light of that reality, how can one have difficulty accepting the reality of the moon landings - the complexity of a satellite based navigation system is no less impressive than shooting a rocket to the moon. Is there some religious or political mental block for not accepting that reality?
29 months ago: Mark,

To be honest I just get a kick out of your way-serious responses so I just put stuff out there to get you going. You're a hoot!
29 months ago: But seriously have you seen some of those iphones?
29 months ago: They make better videos than those that "prove" the Loony Landing.
29 months ago: Mark,

"inclined to deny reality and actual Science"

I, like you are inclined to question the "reality and actual science" especially when greater minds and decorated professionals in their field absolutely do. What is your response to those accomplished specialists who have weighed in as "unbelievers" on this topic? Surely you respect their educated findings... unbiased by faith?
29 months ago: Mark,

If you are referring to the religious starting this question of the manned-moon mission... let me remind you the religious were to busy being patriotically faithful to God and Nation to even think of questioning the evidence given them. Check out who did most of the stirring on this subject... it may be that they are skeptics like you.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Oh, you mean like the Hare Krishna's who believe that the moon is farther away from the sun so they claim it's a hoax too - see:

http://krishna.org/proof-of-faked-apollo...

Not much different than certain religious fundamentalist who believe that life was created on our planet approximately 6000 years ago. To maintain this belief they have to reject vast amounts of knowledge.

Both religion AND politics are often antithetical to Science and rationalism. It's just not religion but they do tend to co-mingle. But let's get to brass tacks; you are an openly religious person, and you are the one who put out this topic. What's the religious dogma behind this effort to promote the moon landings as a hoax? Does this somehow lead to another religious sales pitch?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: And in addition to the Krishna's there are evangelical Christians who dispute the moon landings on Biblical grounds. In fact, maybe this video reflects your actual viewpoint on the subject. The title is, "Jesus Christ calls NASA Liars! - Moon Landings never happened" and the gentleman in the video cites the Bible for why the moon landings couldn't happen. It illustrates my point exactly - religious superstition and the inventing of an absurd conspiracy theory to ensure that the religious superstition is not doubted or contradicted by the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvpvoOaNf...

Do you agree with the video?

29 months ago: Mark,

NO.. no agreement whatsoever!

The Biblical text is talking about Heaven (Spiritually) not "heavens" in other Biblical references to the physical. I believe it is possible to go to the moon I only questioned whether or not it happened.... by all the evidence given by skeptics like yourself.
29 months ago: Mark,

"Brass tacks" are these... as I am challenged for my faith in Creation and in Jesus Christ's existence and relevance in this life... I thought I would challenge a "sacred cow" that has been challenged by the same skeptics... and lunatics alike... knowing the truth has nothing to loose. Agree?
29 months ago: Mark,

I have nothing to gain or loose if the moon-walk was faked. I have nothing to gain or loose if Jesus walked the Earth or not... the truth doesn't change whether I believe it or not.... but some people are so close-minded that they will not even consider what billions (even thinking people) have experienced to be true.... and are presently loosing their lives for... that at least deserves a second look... if anything it is evidence for at least suspicion. Don't you agree?
29 months ago: Mark,
"not surprising that a religious person is proffering this"

You should give me a medal for being a bit skeptical and not swallowing all that propaganda that is made to make people feel unpatriotic for free-thinking!

"In 2009, a poll conducted by the British Engineering & Technology magazine found that 25% of Britons do not believe that humans have walked on the Moon. Similarly, 25% of Americans between the age of 18 and 25 are not sure the landings happened."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landin...

markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Truth,

In another poll, only 21% of Americans knew the capital of Canada.

http://www.mail-archive.com/pen-l@galaxy...

Should we deduce a severe deficit in the educational system or should we question the existence of Ottawa? Is that Obama's fault too?
29 months ago: Mark,

That's totally Obama's fault had he played his first week in office right he would have had Canada as it's next republic and then it would have been important to know it's capital. Look I'm not American... but what are you insinuating about the intelligence of 21% of your population... I say question the existence of Ottawa!! We in the West sure do when it comes to our voices being heard!!
29 months ago: Truth is everyone wants to know for sure... and if NASA has the answers and evidence then lets have it... and silence all the intelligent ones that asked the questions in the first place...
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

It is way bigger than the Fox Network.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: While it's not likely to satisfy you, NASA already has:

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sci...
29 months ago: Mark,

I am looking at the link right now... and I must admit that they brought up something I never before thought of, so thanks for bringing it to my attention... here it is....

"Fortunately the Soviets didn't think of the gag first. They could have filmed their own fake Moon landings and really embarrassed the free world."

Have you even viewed any of the expert review of the data that is supposed to prove the "moon walk" ...or were you just to embarrassed at the thought of being so unpatriotic? See, I'm one guy that could understand because people challenge my faith all the time.... with theoretical claims of evidence.
29 months ago: Mark,

I almost forgot the NASA response starts with an emotional plea to not hurt some dear lady's feelings??? Huh?? Here it is:

"February 23, 2001 -- Last week my phone rang. It was my mother ... and she was upset.
"Tony!" she exclaimed, "I just came from the coffee shop and there's an [adjective omitted] man down there who says NASA never landed on the Moon. Everyone was talking about it ... I just didn't know what to say!"
That last bit was hard to swallow, I thought. Mom's never at a loss for words.
But even more incredible was the controversy that swirled through her small-town diner and places like it across the country. After a long absence, the "Moon Hoax" was back."

WOW, how many times I could have sent e-mails of the like of how my wife or kids felt after they heard of someone not believing my life story or the gospel. Get real. I am not callous, but if I started the defense of my life with how bad people on the internet disliked me... "daddy.. the bad people are back on the internet" ...I would be laughed off the planet!

Seriously... is this NASA's first and best line of defense for the manned-moon mission? YOU better not hurt NASA's mommy's feelings?
29 months ago: Mark,

I think I get NASA's approach, years ago when my mom was still alive she saw me accept Christ as my Savior.... and I felt the need to get a few things off my chest in "confession" so I told my parents a few things like my doing drugs... it broke her heart! I didn't have the nerve to tell her I did more than that... I get it... don't break moms heart! Who cares what's the truth or not.

Point being sometimes the truth hurts. I get more flack from people about me saying Santa and the Easter bunny don't exist. (KEEP IN MIND) I am being sarcastic when I say... some of the best evidence for Santa was conveniently destroyed.

29 months ago: Let me put it this way: I have full faith that Jesus died for my sins and I did not see him do it and even if I did I have no proof that him dying will actually clear away any of my indiscretions from Gods record book. Those statements not only apply to me but to every other Christian believer on this planet whether they believe in a manned moon landing or not.

Yet even though that is the case every committed believer will defend his or her faith with evidence convincing or contrived, including me. Those that believe in a manned moon landing therefore I have no problems with because like them I have my reasons for believing what I do, but for those that don't believe in a moon landing I have to ask them: What the heck is wrong with you? Is recorded historical evidence not enough for you? Perhaps slavery in the United States is fake too?

I hate it when people play both sides of the coin without even blinking and then expect nonbelievers to believe in their fairy tales, because that is what any unproven detail of events is to an unbeliever until proven otherwise and we all know that God is not in the business of convincing anybody of anything. So there is the Christian believer in Jesus and unbeliever in the moon landing peddling a fairytale while denying fact, or there you are for example a minister of the Gospel denouncing a very real event as hocus-pocus while hoping that others believe your own wishy washy story. Whose side are you on anyway? Don't you realize that that kind of rhetoric cast doubt on your credibility? It is much like the whole abortion and war debate where the side that is anti abortion is also pro-war. What part of Prince of Peace does not equate with these types.

Would you like to know why I believe in a manned moon landing because there is physical proof in the form of human debris left on the moon including one experiment that allows for a laser to be reflected of a reflector that was placed up on the moon, that is still working to this very day. This piece of yours really pushed all the wrong buttons with me. Why would you choose to print such trash? Humans are capable of many horrendous atrocities for which we will be judged for by the Almighty. Going to the moon is not one of them. All this does is cast a negative light on Christians.

Is that what you are trying to do? I am a Christian! I am so because I have faith. It is not based on discernable fact it is based upon hope. I believe in science because it is based upon discernable fact and not hope. There is no conflict. Those that try to bolster the credibility of the Christian faith by casting unfounded shadows of doubt upon human discovery and initiative are not ministers of the gospel but work against it because it is God whom humans are made in the image of. It is God who gave us our intellect. To cover up truth with error is to deny God and his son. To cover up the moon landing with hogwash is the same thing.

By the way MarkByrne is correct, you rewally show your partisanship by bashing Barack Obama. Shame on you!
29 months ago: DJ,

"What the heck is wrong with you?"

1)This is one of the reasons for posting what I did. IF you don't believe in a manned-moon landing... you are anti-American... rewriting history, against the plight of slaves. (That whole thing about Obama was just a joke... easy.
2)My humor is a little dry but you made my point... a person cannot even have an opinion that is out of goose-step or far out without being anti-Christian... like some Christians who hold to evolution?!? See my point? You have done a great job of exposing the fears of 25% of the people who don't believe it.
3)"expect nonbelievers to believe in their fairy tales" ...I expect people to believe in the truth... just as you do on this issue. And so we are patient and informative and see to save instead of righting off those who aren't as informed. What we have is not a "fairy tale" and I am not insulted by those who don't believe... because my life has been changed by the truth. Have a little faith in the truth, it never lies. "The truth need not be defended... it need only be lived."
4)"minister of the Gospel... with own wishy washy story" Yeah, I guess as a preacher I am expected to keep the status quo, and fear free-thought... NEWS FLASH I'm not Joel Olsteen or Robert Schuller... they have their mandate I have mine... "Don't you realize that kind of rhetoric casts doubt on your credibility?" doubt on my credibility is the last thing I worry about... if people don't believe the Bible as recorded History and I give them a taste of how it feels for a demonstration... You figure it out.
5)"a negative light on Christians" ...is caused by our faith in the cross (that is fictitious to some)... believing in MJ's moon-walk gets me in with certain folk.. not believing gets me in with others... most love the drama and humor of it all. This is quite the "sacred cow" I stumbled on... WOW!
29 months ago: Friday, November 22, 1963 ...John F. Kennedy was assassinated...

"The FOX News poll, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation (search), also shows that most Americans (74 percent) think there was a cover-up of the facts about the assassination of JFK. Few people (14 percent) think "we know all the facts" and 12 percent)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1025...

What do you thing about this FOX poll? The same country 6 years earlier with a believed massive "cover-up" ...seems like the stage was set for doubt or deception.
29 months ago: That is not relevant and you know it doesn't really matter. Bottom line is that the first Catholic president was assassinated period and there hasn't been another since. If there is anything to learn from JFK's murder is that a message was sent and received. Now you as a Canadian should not care but what is your interest with American conspiracies, first the moon landing, then implicating Obama my president and now JFK? Should I change my analysis of this piece you wrote from "irresponsible naiveté" to a "veiled agenda" ?
29 months ago: DJ,

What is relevant is that most Americans believe the same Government 6 years earlier contrived a massive cover-up of the assassination of their own president. So, if they did it then what makes you thing in the following six years things got better?

As to "implicating Obama" ..I will repeat it was a joke. I think the guy is the best opportunity for change... unfortunately there is a lot of things that he has signed off on that may have changed the landscape of the world...
29 months ago: Don't get me wrong it's natural to have strong emotions about a subject that you are passionate about regardless of how factual it may or may not be just reread my last comment if you need an illustration and you don't need to explain yourself to me because you are entitled to believe what ever you wish.

My point is that your words have intended and unintended consequences. You stated what the intended consequences are and I stated what the unintended consequences are. I just wanted to lend my voice and make you aware of those unintended consequences because the whole piece you wrote seemed reckless and bias and it seemed to me anyway that you were overlooking the obvious conclusions that your readers would draw.

It may seem to you that you are being clever and somehow drawing out stereotypes and biases but the contrary is true. What you are actually doing is segregating and alienating groups that are already deeply invested in their own beliefs and ideas. Take for instance conservative Christians in the US who are so convinced that the earth is at its end that they are willing to bring about its annihilation themselves if they don't see Jesus do it now.

Such groups overlook that politically speaking, Jesus actions were seen as socialist and anti government. Not at all the so called conservative Judeo-Christian war-mongering anti green movement Christ of the Christian Right. Committed socially and environmentally conscious Christians on the left such as Jimmy Carter are ridiculed by such right leaning "Christians" despite their so called common faith. Why, because he cares for the poor and proves it by his actions. Why, because he seeks peace rather than war? Why, because he wants to preserve the earth for future generations despite the fact he believes in Jesus imminent return?

Can you see a problem with what you are saying now? Facts are facts. They need not be disputed to prove something else. If team A had 50 wins last season team B does not need to argue the validity of those wins inorder to prove they haver a better team this season. All they need do is play them and win.
29 months ago: DJ,

Drawing out biases is lending them acknowledgement of their own "blind faith" ...and may help people see that one doesn't have to have "sight" to believe and understand the truth.
29 months ago: DJ,

My "blind faith" allows me to believe he real Jesus went to the Cross and paid for my sin (I don't have to see the blood that was shed for me, or go to Heaven to believe it can be done)... I can believe the testimony of those who have gone before.

Others "blind faith" allows them to believe man went to the moon... (they don't have to see the footprints in the moon dust, or go to the moon to believe it can be done)... they can simply believe the testimony of those who have gone before.
29 months ago: DJ,

I appreciated your wise point of view and I can see you are protecting the passer-by that may not be as playful with topics for discussion as I might be. To them they make these things dividing points of fellowship and get heated up over our freedoms to believe what we want. Let's face it... we are not as "free" as we think. Thanks for the rebuff.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: So the 27 astronauts who went to the moon (six missions actually landed on the moon) or actually walked on the moon are are deep cover conspirators plus the hundreds of thousands of support people who would have to be in the hoax and have kept the secret for all these years. Now let's look at the real problem here - that would be the irrationalism of false conspiracy theories, and how to spot them:

# The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

# The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

# Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.

# The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.

#The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.

#The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

# The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.

And most important for you "Truth":

# The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.

Credit to: http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...

Now when is somebody is prone to believing in absurd superstitions, paranormalism, miracles, and the like, they will certainly be easy marks for buying into every conspiracy that comes down the pike.

Also, if the event in question conflicts with the persons religion or their politics, they'll find a conspiracy to jam the square peg into the round holes. For example, we have left-wing 9-11 Truthers and we have right-wing Birthers. So tell me, why can't you accept the proposition of man going to the moon as opposed to other demonstrated high tech capabilities such as creating atomic bombs?

Is there some religous dogma that causes you to doubt the moon landings?
29 months ago: Mark,

Allow me a little room...

So the 500+ disciples who saw Jesus' resurrection (six post-resurrection sightings of Jesus actually walking on Earth) or actually walked with Jesus are are deep cover conspirators plus the hundreds of thousands (now billions who have personally encountered Him since). Support people who would have to be in the hoax and have kept the secret for all these (2000) years. Now let's look at false theories, and how to spot them:

# The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off...

# The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

# Similarly, the theory involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets...

# The theory suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true...

#The theory assigns meanings to insignificant events...

#The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations...

# The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all...

And most important for you "Mark":
# The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.

Credit to:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diKEZb9_M8Q

Now when is somebody is prone to believing in absurd theories (Origin of Species), relativism, atheism, evolution, and the like, they will certainly be easy marks for buying into every "religious" conspiracy that comes down the pike.

Also, if the event in question conflicts with the persons humanism or their politics, they'll find a theory to jam the square peg into the round holes. So tell me, why can't you accept the proposition of people going to Heaven as opposed to other demonstrated miraculous observations such as everything created by a big bang?

Is there some theoretical dogma that causes you to doubt Jesus' earth landings?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: Well played
29 months ago: OOTB,

You my friend are getting close.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: Keano Reeves once said to Al Pacino....

"It's entrapment! You set me up!"
29 months ago: OOTB,

I'm an easy mark because I am a Christian... all MY plays are in the play Book for all to see... so maybe I "Crossed" the line on this one.
29 months ago: Mark,

I couldn't help myself you have laid out a perfect argument so intelligently, and I knew you wouldn't accept my demonstration (I couldn't have formed it so well anyway). Credit for my argument goes to Lee Strobel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diKEZb9_M...
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Saw your update and so you're now resorting to quoting from a hyper-partisan political website that also has a conspiracy cover-up story on the Okalahoma City bombing. Looks like you're heading down hill - who you going to quote from next? Art Bell? George Noory? By the way, they were on that website. Please do not tell me that you listen to Coast to Coast AM and regurgitate whatever kook conspiracy of the day they put on the air.

For the benefit of others, I've put up the rational links that debunk the hoax as well as exposing what underpins false conspariacy theory. But it's interesting that you brought up the story of of Jesus allegedly resurrecting to life. Using the SAME logic stream that you're employing to discount the moon landing, millions or billions for that matter don't believe in the story of Jesus' resurrection and are not Christians. Therefore to employ YOUR logic, it must not have happened and it's most likely a hoax. Gotcha!
29 months ago: Mark,

The millions or billions I refer to (since the time of Christ) are very much Christian. And my conspiracy reference was for content only. You quoting Einstein doesn't make you a believer in God does it?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: Simply enough, I'm a Christian and I'm a skeptic. I loooove a good conspiracy theory.(Like this one that claims our own government remotely flew the planes into the World Trade Centerhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCcb6NV8Io&feature=related

But I believe there is overwhelming evidence that the lunar landings occurred. Now we have sent spacecraft to the outer limits of the universe, using multiple slingshot passes around other planets and the sun to gain the necessary speed to get them there. We landed a probe on a space rock no bigger than New York City, from a distance of millions of miles. We impacted a speeding comet from a bajillion miles away, using very sophisticated timing and machinery.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: It's interesting how how many folk think of the government as though as their faceless alien geniuses from the planet Venutia instead of average Joes and Janes who got a government job or got elected to office. As ineptly and as incompetently government often functions, it's almost comical to presume the government could also mastermind and execute brilliant conspiracies, and if they could, they'd be genius enough to clean up loose ends and dispose of any rabble rousers like Michael Moore.

Considering the Wikileaks debacle, how can we possibly believe that the government is capable of keeping anything a secret? Oh wait, it's a double secret conspiracy - the evil government with Beelzebub at the helm actually wanted the information leaked and Julius Assange is simply playing the foil - Mwahahaha!!

I suppose we'd rather think of the government as brilliantly evil as oposed to bureaucratic boobs leading us to ruin but I think the truth is much closer to the latter than the former.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: We're getting into the home stretch; let's go back to your central point. That being that that half the people in the US aren't buying the whole man on the moon thing and given that the technology back then was equaled to less than a cellphone today... and nobody is going to the moon now, it seems on this issue anyway... silence isn't "golden". That's according to you.

That same logic also applies in the case of the resurrection of Jesus - only around 30% of the world believes in Jesus (steadily declining), and a whole lot of people arent buying supernatual miracle stories of Jesus. Given the fact that there's no evidence except for contradictory bible stories written long after the events allegedly happeneped, and no follower of Jesus can do any miracles today except for proven charaltans like Benny Hinn, it seems on this issue that only the faithful 'patriots' of Christianity are still swallowing the Jesus hoax Kool-Aid.

So how do you like your own medicine? Not that I'm actually buying it mind you but I'm just dispensing your own logic right back to you on a subject that I know you won't accept. There's far more evidence for the space programs than there is for the alleged resurrection. You claim there's 500 witnesses but they could have lied just as you believe that all the moon landing "conspirators" did. More likely there was no witnesses since it didn't happen but the faithful wrote the story and they can make up anything they want.
29 months ago: Mark,

What do you do with Billions of lives, since Jesus walked this Earth, that have been radically transformed (like me) ...by Jesus?

I some time ago asked you, on one of my rants, to find out for yourself if Jesus would respond to your humble inquiry to Him... and confirm your disbelief. Being a true seeker of truth and knowledge... eager to prove your conclusions... how did that go?
zambi007
zambi007
21 months ago: pardon my poking nose in here, but i feel this discussion has taken a not-so-pleasant turn from discussing whether the moon landings took place or not, to proving, or disproving, religius beliefs, which has strictly no connection, whatsoever, to the world's first e.t. scientific exploration.

if i may please be permitted to speak here. the moon landings happened or not has now become entirely an issue of dogma, that, we the citizens whether being of scientific bent of mind or not, we choose to take it as a matter of faith, or choose to try to disprove based on our wishbones of illogical analogies and ill-notions of poor physics.

pardon me again for being so rude but the issue to be discussed, whether we are competent enough or not to discuss it, is whether those who believe that the apollo missions took place in reality or not, are right or wrong. again, it is irrelevant to presume that the soviets would have blown off the u.s. cover if u.s. attempted the moon landing. the soviets were the first in everything the space exploration had to offer, sans the moon landing. the u.s. acknowledged this publicly (newspaper reports) which the americans, being used to "i'm #1; i don't know who the hell you're" attitude, couldn't digest. so president kennedy announced the ultimate space challenge and served the american scientific community to prove its mettle.

still, it had taken nasa eight goddamn years to finally put a man on the moon. i'm saying this confidently, despite not being an american, because the apollo launches were being tracked all over the world by different space agencies of different countries. does anyone even bother to think that should it have been only the soviets that had access to such tracking? no, the british, the germans, the french, the israelis, the japanese, hell even the chinese (couldn't believe eh?) and many more had tracked the apollo launches all the way to the moon and back. shouldn't one think, logically, that any one of them, especially, the germans, the japs and the chinese would have been only too pleased to wipe the **** out of the american clothing?

the second point is concerning the apollo videos. leave aside the inconsistencies so far "spotted" by amateur apollo hoax blowers. those ones can be, and have been, easily debunked by even a high school keen student. there are some very simple physical happenings seen in the videos that are so consistent with what had been earlier verified mechanically as can be said to have happened only on the moon. the first of these is the regolith falling when it gets kicked by the boots or by the rover tires. the kicked up dust follows exactly a parabolic path. the other thing is that the dust doesn't billow as when kicked here on earth's surface. these two observations concludes that the dust is in pure vacuum.

thirdly, the point is about lighting. first of this is the sunlight falls even all over the moon surface. second of this is that the shadows of anything seen over the moon surface are so sharp and well defined, that they could have only been from a light source as massive and parallel as the sun. any artificial light source would have cast diffused shadows (since it'd have been shot on earth and there's no way you could have vacuum so massive). no, but the shadows of the lrv and the astronauts, which are broad enough to be closely observed, are sharply fallen over the surface.

lastly, as a mentioning point but not so much relevant to this discussion, the point is that the moon surface in the nasa apollo media archives does look white and gray as it had been observed from the surveyor pictures.

the three points alone as above are enough to prove that the apollo landings did take place on the moon and are not earth filming as all of the apollo refuters would claim.
21 months ago: Zam,

Thanks for your insight... but it is irrelevant. Simply because someone says so. My motive for posting this was to prove that people will not believe in something regardless of the proof, many eye-witnesses and forensic evidence, and current lives being changed by whatever is being discussed. You are simply too late. History has already been written and rewritten. Your opinion is welcome... but just that.

Now I must confess the entire first paragraph is sarcasm if you didn't get it yet, and I do welcome your valid point. And what you may think is irrelevant to the discussion of the Moon Landings ...is exactly what is going on with the life of Jesus Christ, and those who reject His existence... regardless of His impact on everything we take for granted today... and the impact He is yet to make in the future.
zambi007
zambi007
21 months ago: thanx for replying.

likewise your point could also be taken as irrelevant because you, like one of the ½-a-billion, including myself, who believe in jesus' ransom sacrifice, ends up believing something in blind faith while disproving something which has loads of physical evidence to support.

again, i started the not-to-the-point thing about this discussion and i'm now tilting a wee bit toward it myself. let's talk about religion please, if you and i may.

pardon me please if i sounded rude, but i'm a hindu - by birth, by blood (if that's what you might like to suffix), and by actions. however, long back, i came to know about the truths in the bible. more importantly, how satan is using false religion as a bait to trap poor human beings in the web of wealth and deceit. then i understood the meaning of heaven. it isn't some place where humans were and are destined to go. heaven is simply the resting and working place of our heavenly father jehovah. now i don't say this, you can check it up in psalms yourself.

secondly, jesus isn't exactly god reincarnated, as most christendom denominations would have us believe. he is simply his father's son (1 & 2 corinthians). now, the difference between other hindus and me is that my thoughts, each bit of it, endorses the bible truths so unfailingly that given a chance to get out of the hindu deceit kingdom, i'd show my belief thru my words and actions.

now, having said that, let me tell you what the bible says about jesus. first, jesus never claimed worship (like satan does - matthew, luke). jesus set for all a model prayer and told everyone in his contact to pray to the heavenly father. second, he never claimed to be god. he always spoke of himself as the son of god.

thirdly, he chose to be sacrificed as the lamb. jehovah agreed because jesus, as man reborn, was the perfect equivalent of adam-before-sinning. satan, as the opposer of the almighty god, challenges god that there'd be no human being born that'd rise up to be pure faithful to him till death. this is why jesus' was reborn as a human and we have his ransom sacrifice for all of us to hang upon.
(contd)...
zambi007
zambi007
21 months ago: (contd)
you and others believe in jesus because of word and mouth, mostly. i'm not saying that you don't read the bible. you do, you do, but because you have a christian background, it's easier for you to. however, i didn't have that advantage. i had to cope with blasphemy of hindu gods to take my stand of my newfound faith in the bible. now, even though certain hindu actions of mine might defy my bible beliefs, but when one gets in a trap, he has to be in it while maintaining a distance with his by-birth religius atmos and at the same time, be spiritually in union with the truth. trust me on this, it's not just extremely difficult, but also one becomes hopeless and devoid of energy. however, i'm thankful to god that he has given a choice for me that i can judge rationally and logically. that's free will - a gift from god to all of us.

coming back to this era, please let me say that since you choose to not believe in some facts (apollo missions), it's not because you've not been told about it as a fact-of-the-matter. it's because you have formed an opinion based upon your study, that you choose not to defy. however, in the light of facts that i had stated in my first post, an educated person can only agree with me more. again, it's not that i'm calling the rest uneducated, but the point is one has the choice and free will to either accept it or to reject it.

i hope i've made my point clear now.
21 months ago: Zam,

I just need a little info before I respond...
Do you believe in reincarnation?
21 months ago: Zam,

Here is a link to what I believe about Jesus...

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Philippians 2:6)
http://rantrave.com/Rave/Trinity-In-Ques...
zambi007
zambi007
21 months ago: reincarnation ~ re..in..carnal

i just mentioned here the etymology. carnal means of the body. incarnate would therefore refer to taking the form of the body. so reincarnate is literally to give a new body for an individual who has/had died.

the bible tells us of the armageddon - the holy war of god when 'goats' will be separated from the 'sheep'. then there's the reconstruction of the earthly world into a paradise. after that, 1. those who had died keeping faith in the truth, 2. those who died without getting the knowledge of truth and 3. those who god thinks might change their ways to a life of good obedience if given a chance, would be "resurrected". in plain words, god would create for each such ones a new body into which person he'll give life as it was before they died, with all the thoughts and emotions as they had then.

this resurrection is what the word 'reincarnation' directly refers to as far as the bible is concerned.

now to the point: i firmly believe in resurrection!

however, if reincarnation is attested any other inference, then i'd say the bible does not even mention it, neither does god.
21 months ago: Zam,

So I take it that you don't believe that we existed spiritually first, and then God gave us a body? I just want to understand your position before I continue.
zambi007
zambi007
21 months ago: if i had existed having a spiritual body then why would god go into the trouble of reincarnating me as a human? and for what purpose? the bible nowhere states this.

1 corinthians 15:44 it is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. if there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. 45 it is even so written: "the first man adam became a living soul." the last adam became a life-giving spirit.

i'd be foolish to try to explain this to you simply because you're an ordained minister. what jehovah had sensed to explain humans is self-explanatory to you.

i'd just add that adam took all of us into a sinful state while jesus (last adam) sacrificed himself for humans so that we can believe in him and approach god thru him. since jesus was lowered from his spiritual state to a physical one, therefore, it follows that he'd have to be raised by god himself back to his original state.

all i've to say is that adam returned to a state of non-existence (dust) from which jehovah might or might not give him a lease of life. and if i die and/or if god saves me at armageddon, then he might just be glad to say, "oh, you seem harmless and good human to me. i think you'd lead a life of righteusness if given a chance." however, that's my hypothesis. if god thinks, "no, i don't think you'll be able to lead a life that i desire from humans." then i, along with billions of other ones like myself, will be destroyed selectively by god to a state of non-existence. you can better appreciate genesis 3.

on the higher front, god raised jesus from his physical death into a spirit person as he was before he was given a human form. i'm sure you'd comprehend the differentiation i made here.

so my death now would return me to dust, awaiting, possibly, god's judgment on me. however, if i was satan or one of his pals, then i'd await spiritual destruction in the metaphorical death-valley. i'd be wiped out forever from this universe.
(contd)
zambi007
zambi007
21 months ago: so the question of my believing in something would be inaccurate. i'd more appropriately say that i believe in the bible "truths" which do not at any place state spirit beings or humans having two different lives - spiritual and physical.

jesus was the only exception. however, as i had already stated, somebody from the human race had to stand up as "THE" faithful follower and worshiper of god. since adam "WAS" the only perfect human - and i stress was - somebody perfect equal of him had to be created. the answer right in joseph & mary's laps - jesus.

one other thing is, and please pardon me if i'm trying to teach you here which i'm not, i came to appreciate god jehovah (after criticizing him many a times) when i put myself in his shoes. think about it: you're god, the supreme, massive bundle of dynamic energy. you were alone in the universe. then you created jesus. called him firstborn. then created angels. then the galaxies, stars, planets, moons, &c. then life on earth. you thought everything was perfect. it sure was till you delegated free will to humans. you'd already granted angels this gift. so you place satan (before his rebellion he'd have been called an angel) to oversee adam & eve in expanding the eden. but satan overthrows the pie-plate at you, calling you all sorts of bad names, and attaching to you the tag of liar, misinformer, fact-hider and what not. remember satan didn't deceive adam, he was too clever for him. satan deceived eve because women just don't have the brains to figure things out for themselves.

so here starts a storyline that you, as god, didn't at all expect. so now before adam & sons inc start becoming more evil, you choose to stop giving them forever life-sustaining energy and make their ages limited. please think, you'd not in any way make them take rebirths & rebirths only to add to the already prevailing confusion.

i hope i clarified. however, if not, then i'd only be too glad to discuss further.
zambi007
zambi007
21 months ago: tb, i just read my two posts, and thought i justified this website's name! :-}

straight to your question, the fact is if i existed spiritually and god gave me a physical body then, clearly, this act of down-delegation when cut and pasted on the billions of other lives like me, only adds to confusion and chaos. why would god do that?
- 1 corinthians 14:33.

if however, god chooses some eligible human to live life as a spirit being (like in the case of the 144,000 lucky ones) then this act of relegation would not only expand jesus' immediate ministry but this act would befit those who kept their steadfast faith at a time they preached and prophesied when people were basing their beliefs in miracles and not on the word of faith.

on the other hand, people like myself have a "fair hope" of living a life of harmony, peace, &c on this earth - in physical bodies - if god so desires.

i'll make myself clearer: rebirths, reincarnations, evolving into spirits, ghosts, ghouls, having any entity called soul, &c are fictions created by satan (the devil) and his followers (demons) so that as large number of humans as possible should remain without getting the true knowledge about god and his purposes. worshiping crosses, idols, the idea of purgatory, hell, heaven &c, politicization & commercialization of world, harming anyone willfully, being part of satanic world, partying, busybodies etc - the list almost seems endless - all do not, and will not, get condoned by god at armageddon. so i try to stay as far away from this worldly activities as possible.

this is the stand i've taken after a very careful study of the bible.

this has nothing to do with my believing in the apollo missions having taken place. that's due another careful study of scientific evidence before concluding anything.

this has to be my clearest post yet.
21 months ago: Zam,

You are a Jehovah's Witness then?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
21 months ago: Not intending to butt in here, but asking opinions. Where does the "conciousness" go between death and the Second Coming?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
21 months ago: The reason I ask is that a lot of people believe that when a Christian dies, his soul goes straight to heaven to be with Christ and the Father. Then, I suppose, they believe their souls will be transferred back into their dead remains so that they can be raptured and meet Christ in the air when he returns. That doesn't make sense.
Content Removed by Truthbrary
21 months ago: "For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him...."

[they have gone to be with Christ at death, so Jesus could bring them with Him when He returns to earth to reign]

"...According to the Lord's word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep..."

[all those who have died "fallen asleep" will have gone to be with Jesus, that is why we do not "precede those who have fallen asleep"]

"...For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first..."

["the dead in Christ will rise first" is a mere reiteration of what Paul already said, so it flows chronologically from the time of Christ til now*]

"...After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words." (1 Thessalonians 4:14-18)

[*Note that the structure of Greek allows the "point" of the passage before it's "order"...]

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves AFTER his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." (Matthew 27:52-53)

[...you can see here "the dead in Christ will rise first" ...and have already to be with Christ. As Paul states...]

"Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord." (2 Corinthians 5:8)
21 months ago: OOTB,

The above ref is Thessalonians 4:14-18
21 months ago: OOTB,

I showed scripture to show the chronological events from the time of Christ there were those who were resurrected after Jesus was (Matthew 27:52-53); so as Paul stated that we would not precede those who have fallen asleep (Thessalonians 4:15); because when we die we are present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8). Make sense?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
21 months ago: For there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
Isaiah 26:14


So what happens to all the non-Jews that died before Christ came?
21 months ago: OOTB,

Everyone was held in death before Christ rose... all the way back to the beginning, and for sake of the story it mentions that Jesus spoke to those who were "dead" back to the time of Noah....

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built." (1 Peter 3:18-20)

...now the Bible doesn't tell us everything, much less chronologically, however we can piece together the "big picture" by cross ref both Old and New Testaments. But here is a question, if the "dead know nothing" why was Moses alive, cognizant and communicating at the transfiguration of Jesus Christ in front of three disciples.... after God pronounced Moses dead???

"Moses my servant is dead. Now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, you and all this people, into the land that I am giving to them, to the people of Israel." (Joshua 1:2)
21 months ago: And the ref to Isaiah 26:14, is from the living's perspective... like most of the Old Testament scriptures that say the dead no nothing...

"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten." (Ecclesiastes 9:5)
zambi007
zambi007
21 months ago: hi tb,

i knew you'd do sherlock holmes from the bible verses i quoted. but i told you earlier that i consider myself a hindu, not in the sense of following hinduism but because of being born with that identity and not having rejected that faith in totality.

i studied with jw a long time back. they do have some very good concepts which are very profoundly revealing about this world and worldly ways. in fact, i learned so much from one of their brothers (an elder about my age) that i never knew i could have been so much better receptive and open to insight.

leaving aside all that, let me tell you that i didn't become part of their society even after having studied the bible with them for over 14 years!

let me again tell you why. it was simply because i couldn't gather myself to the fact that i was becoming a slave not of jehovah but of their society and their hanging-on-extremity ideologies.

to quote an example, they refuse blood quoting paul's advise to corinthians. you see, in ancient times, not a dime was known about blood. blood groups were a 20th century discovery. blood components were discovered much later. so god couldn't have thought that way. people were simply told to "abstain" from blood because now we know blood is the best hotel for bacteria and viruses.

now that science and technology have advanced manifold, jw say their community must avoid blood transfusion. however, the intake of some blood components are left to the discretion of the jw that might require. now, here's where the hypocrisy bumps in. paul didn't have an inkling about the 21st century advancements. so his admonition to "abstain" from blood applies to even 100th century people (if that age does happen)!

there are many other points which is beyond the scope of this discussion but i chose my own path because of valid reasons which i wouldn't want to discuss here.

i still quote from the nwt bible because it's a literal translation. its interpretation counts!
21 months ago: Zam,

Unfortunately the hypocritical JW society you mentioned, has most all of it's beliefs contaminated from a false NWT translation by the Watchtower and Tract Society. I have studied with JW's for over 20 years, and can tell you their core beliefs have only originated with Charles Taze Russell only 150 years ago... which are opposed to the common Christian teachings from the Bible since it's beginning.

If some basic teachings like the consuming of blood are wrong, one needs to consider others as well. I appreciate the willingness the Witnesses have to go into the community, yet when I have asked them to study certain passages, they don't... because they fear the Society... not good. Perfect love casts out all fear. I too left my parent's religion, and suffered for it... it is not a small thing.
zambi007
zambi007
21 months ago: i wouldn't say their nwt is a translation in error. neither are their concepts of congregations and worshiping they way they do. they carry out all their religius activities in the exact manner jesus and other elders had prescribed.

way back in 1997 i'd myself compared verse-for-verse the nwt with kjv. it's done perfectly! however, it's the interpretation (or misinterpretation, sic) by the watchtower that's at fault. to quote, in 1996, they believed matthew 24:34 to mean the generation of the 20th century. then shortly afterward they had a flash which changed the 'generation' to mean the 'wicked generation'. i don't know what their current 'generation' would mean to be!

here's where insight comes in: if i take 'generation' to mean any of this, then i'd be completely wrong. the generation jesus meant was the ones living after the start of the great tribulation which i'm sure you know already. but try telling that to any jw, and you're likely to get back, "if you want a bible study, do come to the kingdom hall." i already told you about the blood interpretation.

having said these, i'd say jw still try to follow a life of righteusness as jehovah had laid out for model peoples. however, even there, there's the pre-condition of being a publisher, then a ministerial servant, then probably an elder, overseer and what not, to become known and to get married even! if they believe all human beings are equal in the eyes of god, then why place criterias and qualifications for befitting a social status?

as a point, i was told during my study that the society lacks number of publishers. in third world countries the ratio is as high as 1 publisher for every 100 willing people. so they placed importance on statistics.

till such time the watchtower society is there, they'd be dragged into misconceptions. its the blind faith in the bible verses and possibly the lack of insight to deeply examine the meanings that they're being lured.
zambi007
zambi007
21 months ago: replying to my own post. i believe we're into a rave that's quite the opposite of this rant start. :\)
21 months ago: Our "conciousness" goes to be with Christ between death and the Second Coming, as Jesus portrayed in the account of The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:14-31).
21 months ago: Lazarus went to be with Abraham (the faithful) and the rich man went to Hell (with the unfaithful)... and Jesus lead all those faithful to be with Him at His resurrection.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
21 months ago: I thought the Parable of the rich man and Lazarus was a meant as a rebuke to the Jewish leaders, addressing their lack of belief, their greed, and their self-importance.
I don't think it was meant literally, as there are several problems with the literal application of it.

http://www.bibleexplained.com/Gospels/Lu...
21 months ago: OOTB,

I could write this all out, but I agree in principle with this link...

"There is no indication here that this is a parable. It doesn't start out like a parable, but says, there was a rich man, and a man by the name of Lazarus, specifically named."
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-grace/...

21 months ago: The following is a more comprehensive study on the Old and New Testament teachings on the place called "hell"...
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictiona...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
21 months ago: The author of the book of Hebrews, speaking of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: Hebrews 11: v39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.
21 months ago: Good point, however sometimes the chapter and verse placement (added later) gets in the way of presenting context and a better picture...

"These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect. Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith." (Hebrews 11:39- Hebrews 12:2)

...like those who were promised the Promise Land, so our Promise Land awaits us ONLY after the final judgement... yet we will be with Jesus Christ before then, like those souls under the altar that are given robes and told to wait...

"Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been." (Revelation 6:11)

...we too must return with Christ for a thousand year reign, and ONLY after the devil is loosed for a short time, and the final judgement, those written in the Lamb's Book of Life (including all the faithful) will then inherit the promises!

"When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Revelation 20:7-10)
21 months ago: 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:32)
21 months ago: "God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect." ...goes along with the scripture that says that Jesus...

"After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built." (1 Peter 3:18-20)

"Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men." (In saying, "He ascended," what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)" (Ephesians 4:8-10)

...Jesus after His death descended and led all those captives with Him, and we too will go to be with Him after death... only to return with Him... "ever to be with Him".

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.