Search results

Your picture shows cracks in the dirt which is another sign there was no dirt what ever kicked up by the blast from the module rocket or a disturbance of any kind. Thanks for the help you just proved my point. --Dave

And we who are "open theists" are among that delusional group of conspiracy theorists who believe the Catholic Church for centuries has covered up the Biblical teaching of the true nature of God and replace it with a Greek view of an "Unmoved perfect being" of Greek philosophers. You're a pot...

I'll answer the star issue a little later, if you can wait. --Dave

Thank you for watching some of the video. There's a testimony from a Navy radar specialist who said that they use line of sight radar missile guidance system that is a straight line of fire at over 30 miles, which would be impossible on a curved ocean. --Dave

Suez Canal is 120 miles long and is level from end to end https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-view-to-earth-red-sea-suez-canal-window-metres-flying-height-above-sea-level-airplane-image60898688 --Dave

Take two aspirin, watch 6 min of the video I just posted and then comment. This thread is not only a theoretical proposition, visual evidence is required. And yes video can be altered. You can decide for yourself who you think is faking their videos, NASA or flat earthers. But you cannot make...

In the first "6 min" this video proves it's two main points. The horizon is completely flat 360 degrees to the observer regardless of altitude which would not be possible on a globe earth. The natural physics of water is to seek and maintain it's own level. The curvature of the earth is 8...

I'm the one who stared this tread, not you. I proposed a viewing of a few videos which you and others have consistently "dodged". Did you bother to look at the last video I posted and comment on it? You're the dodger not me. I'm leading this thread not you. --Dave

Matthew 5:22 whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. " --Dave

Most if not all your posts are irrelevant to the thread. --Dave

I watched the myth busters and was simply not persuaded. The foot print test sided with my view. --Dave

Eye Direction and Lying http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies_eyes.php Can Neil Armstrong pass this lie detection test? Watch and see this 12 min test. --Dave

In summary here are 5 moon landing contradictions 1. No moon dust located on lunar module pads yet astronauts are seen kicking up lots of dust. 2. Well defined foot prints would suggest moisture on moistless moon surface. 3. Well defined foot prints on surface with granny particles of dust or...

Here is a 4 min video of astronauts kicking up moon dust. See it for your self and then try to tell me that the module did not do the same if not even more so. --Dave...

TRW Incorporated's artist concept depicting the Apollo 11 Lunar Module (LM) descending to the surface of the moon. https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/9352710092/in/set-72157634767563484?ytcheck=1

Maybe the men went to the moon but the module did not? :rotfl: --Dave

The point is that the astronauts in comparison to the module kicked up the dust or sand, but the module that was much heavier, did not kick up any dust or dirt when it landed. It would be impossible for the men to do what the module could not do. I thought you smart enough to understand this...

The answer is this module never went to the moon no matter who says it did. --Dave

There would be some dust or dirt on the pads of the module and some hole or small crater under it. About that bridge... --Dave