tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post1095721618721705429..comments2023-08-09T04:20:22.205-07:00Comments on deretour: "Moontruth"? Why?Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-10138123766063036072014-02-21T06:30:16.685-08:002014-02-21T06:30:16.685-08:00And when I wrote I "calculated" anything...And when I wrote I "calculated" anything about speeds of objects the distance of Neptune, I got the info from another man and then either checked it with a calculation I do not recall (though I would have been able to) or did not.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-55110988352601988702014-02-21T06:28:20.342-08:002014-02-21T06:28:20.342-08:00New short link to the post answering Dan Barker:
...New short link to the post answering Dan Barker:<br /><br /><a href="http://ppt.li/rrxn" rel="nofollow">http://ppt.li/rrxn</a><br /><br />Full link:<br /><br /><a href="http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-blooper-dan-barker-from-atheist.html" rel="nofollow">somewhere else : What a blooper, Dan Barker from Atheist League!<br />http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-blooper-dan-barker-from-atheist.html</a><br /><br />And first a link to the first in the series, now I am a bit less in a hurry:<br /><br /><a href="http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2011/03/question-of-contemporary-evidence.html" rel="nofollow">The Question of Contemporary Evidence<br />http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/2011/03/question-of-contemporary-evidence.html</a><br /><br />Back to implications of blog post itself: if Geocentrism is true, Mars might be a lot rockire ride than the Moon as calculated above./HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-12053079684195056032013-04-16T05:26:36.204-07:002013-04-16T05:26:36.204-07:00Since two links in above (one at least recurring) ...Since two links in above (one at least recurring) are short links, and they are blocked, the new short links are:<br /><br />- for this message <a href="http://ppt.li/29" rel="nofollow">http://ppt.li/29</a><br />- for the message by Neil Haggath on which I comment <a href="http://ppt.li/2a" rel="nofollow">http://ppt.li/2a</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-27379630387429524362012-08-27T02:38:15.210-07:002012-08-27T02:38:15.210-07:00As for the 500, I have met the challenge of one Da...As for the 500, I have met the challenge of one Dan Barker on Atheist League in <a href="http://o-x.fr/rrxn" rel="nofollow">this blogpost.</a><br /><br />As to Neil Armstrong, <a href="http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/08/where-did-armstrong-go-now.html" rel="nofollow">feel free to read this.</a> It is not an eulogy, nor a curse, simply a memento of important things.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-26951437251673826602010-08-04T06:56:55.274-07:002010-08-04T06:56:55.274-07:00The author of above quote has on the comments thre...The author of above quote has on the comments thread of <a href="http://o-x.fr/9cke" rel="nofollow">my first link</a> #89 made clear he does not wish to be associated with my ridiculous beliefs.<br /><br />Now this is forwarded, and remember, it is really, really not his fault I quoted him, I only used the right of quotation within limits I judged reasonable.Hans-Georg Lundahlhttp://o-x.fr/2a5noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-5895452702335990222010-07-28T09:11:32.523-07:002010-07-28T09:11:32.523-07:00PS: my comment was published!PS: my comment was published!HGLhttp://o-x.fr/2a5noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-47454966130394221822010-07-28T09:06:19.746-07:002010-07-28T09:06:19.746-07:00HERE is an argument Apollo landings could not have...<a href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage6.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> is an argument Apollo landings could not have been faked - final argument very reminiscent of argument for believing the Resurrection of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ. Though the theological argument is stronger.<br /><br /><i>NASA chose these companies to do the work, because they had the expertise to do it; if Grumman was asked to design and build the LM, then the company’s engineers would investigate all the problems involved in landing on the Moon, and set out to solve them. The inevitable result is that between them, the contractors would end up actually producing a spacecraft which worked! And if they managed to do that , then there was no reason why NASA couldn’t carry out the Apollo missions for real, and hence no need for any conspiracy at all!</i><br /><br />I buy that the spacecraft worked. Problem is - does the astronomy of it? <a href="http://o-x.fr/1po1" rel="nofollow">Above</a> I have argued, that maybe, yes it does even if Geocentrism is true. But was NASA all that confident?<br /><br />In Resurrection story, there is no such loophole.<br /><br /><b>"And once 500 people saw him, most of whom are still alive"</b> wrote St Paul.<br /><br />If these early witnesses and believers did not exist, how could a conspiracy have convinced later believers they had met such?<br /><br />And if these later "fooled" believers were fooled about existnce of witnesses, they were the first ones, and how do you convince the "real first" they had met earlier ones and those witnessing Resurrection if these earlier ones did not exist?<br /><br />About the witnesses, there is a very clear contrast with the alternative "big scenario" in the argument. Try to find it out ...Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-41736195122758518932010-07-28T09:06:02.622-07:002010-07-28T09:06:02.622-07:00HERE is an argument Apollo landings could not have...<a href="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage6.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> is an argument Apollo landings could not have been faked - final argument very reminiscent of argument for believing the Resurrection of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ. Though the theological argument is stronger.<br /><br /><i>NASA chose these companies to do the work, because they had the expertise to do it; if Grumman was asked to design and build the LM, then the company’s engineers would investigate all the problems involved in landing on the Moon, and set out to solve them. The inevitable result is that between them, the contractors would end up actually producing a spacecraft which worked! And if they managed to do that , then there was no reason why NASA couldn’t carry out the Apollo missions for real, and hence no need for any conspiracy at all!</i><br /><br />I buy that the spacecraft worked. Problem is - does the astronomy of it? <a href="http://o-x.fr/1po1" rel="nofollow">Above</a> I have argued, that maybe, yes it does even if Geocentrism is true. But was NASA all that confident?<br /><br />In Resurrection story, there is no such loophole.<br /><br /><b>"And once 500 people saw him, most of whom are still alive"</b> wrote St Paul.<br /><br />If these early witnesses and believers did not exist, how could a conspiracy have convinced later believers they had met such?<br /><br />And if these later "fooled" believers were fooled about existnce of witnesses, they were the first ones, and how do you convince the "real first" they had met earlier ones and those witnessing Resurrection if these earlier ones did not exist?<br /><br />About the witnesses, there is a very clear contrast with the alternative "big scenario" in the argument. Try to find it out ...Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-57079396482949212062010-07-28T06:25:48.757-07:002010-07-28T06:25:48.757-07:00And let us see if they publish my comment:
Hans-G...And let us see if they publish my comment:<br /><br /><a href="http://o-x.fr/1po1" rel="nofollow">Hans-Georg Lundahl</a><br /><br />I am linking to a blog entry on my site. Saying basically “moon hoax” is not scientifically necessary for geocentrism to be possible.<br /><br />However, I find last comment #66 (Neil Haggath) including a very silly answer to #27 (Mr. White).<br /><br /><i>If, as you and Kaysing’s solitary ( and probably imaginary ) geologist believe, the Apollo samples were faked in a lab on Earth, then please explain how their isotopic composition, and the age derived from it, has proved to be entirely consistent with the currently favoured theory of the Moon’s formation – a theory which wasn’t formulated until 12 years after the Apollo missions ended!!!! ( The theory was not formulated from studies of the samples, but independently of them. )</i><br /><br /><b>If</b> one goes out of one’s way to fake a sample, <b>why</b> would one <b>then not</b> be able, both financially and morally to fake a coherence between a theory and that sample and fake the independence of the theory vis-à-vis the faked sample?<br /><br />“Why don’t they teach logic in these schools?” (character in CSL’s famous Lion, Witch and Wordrobe romance)HGLhttp://o-x.fr/1po1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-23963001713118895082010-07-28T06:11:42.041-07:002010-07-28T06:11:42.041-07:00Without even hearing, I link to a video saying the...Without even hearing, I link to a video saying the one I linked to previously back before I left Sweden in 2004 on another site was wrong.<br /><br /><a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/07/26/that-nasa-look/" rel="nofollow">HERE is a message with a VIDEO on it</a><br /><br />Let us see if anyone reads this before I get a chance to hear that video, and let us see if the video answers the point I am making NOW, here above.HGLhttp://o-x.fr/2a5noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-91517082221003389962010-07-20T01:53:54.407-07:002010-07-20T01:53:54.407-07:00IONS=Institute of Noetic Sciences cofounded by Edg...<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Noetic_Sciences" rel="nofollow">IONS=Institute of Noetic Sciences</a> cofounded by Edgar Mitchell who also walked on the moon as the story goes.<br /><br />To me Gagarin and Mitchell are no theologians or correct philosophers. And Star Trek, Star Wars, Valérian and Laureline are no Bibles.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-23373341762045439442010-07-01T09:12:00.555-07:002010-07-01T09:12:00.555-07:00This one is in French, but has a bonus in diagrams...<a href="http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/geometries-geocentrique-et.html" rel="nofollow">This one</a> is in French, but has a bonus in diagrams, plus another diagram stating the causalities that an atheist materialist and a Christian differ on, as possible for movements.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-5010930005557769732010-07-01T09:08:43.865-07:002010-07-01T09:08:43.865-07:00This previous post explains the difference between...<a href="http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/trigonometry-principles-astronomic.html" rel="nofollow">This previous post</a> explains the difference between trusting triangualation in general and trusting a triangulation made on Parallax, that being as interpreted by astronomers, a heliocentric assumption.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com