You're actually comparing the mass murder of MILLIONS of unborn babies for $$$ with those sins??? I believe there's a special place in Hell for abortionists!
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
Abortion is evil and that is for sure and for certain .
Special circumstances - since Abraham’s lie that his wife was his sister would be the cause of the king committing adultery with her, by marrying a married woman, God stepped in and stopped it.
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
"Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this. And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her." (Genesis 20:5-6)
No, it had nothing to do with Abraham.
It was because the king did it in the integrity of his heart.
And anyone conducting his affairs in the integrity of their heart can be given the same benefit. Especially Christians!
Because:
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin" (1 John 3:9)
No, it had nothing to do with Abraham.
It was because the king did it in the integrity of his heart.
And anyone conducting his affairs in the integrity of their heart can be given the same benefit. Especially Christians!
Because:
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin" (1 John 3:9)
amigo de christo
Well-Known Member
That dont look good at all my friend . It seems its possible we might have been lied too .
Oh, it gets worse, when they begin to pay people to try to 'prove' a lie, for it only increases the lies and eventually enough lies shoots oneself in the foot:
what a colossal waste of time, trying to prove the round earth is really flat, and that space travel and going to the moon is impossible,
I’m now finding out that it is primarily SDA followers who do that. Ellen White apparently must have claimed somewhere that the earth is flat and space travel impossible.
I’m now finding out that it is primarily SDA followers who do that. Ellen White apparently must have claimed somewhere that the earth is flat and space travel impossible.
I think you are being deliberately obtuse, in the hopes such a foolish conversation takes place, to obfuscate the reality of the evidence I presented on the actual OP material.
Here's what I said, in plain English:
"... N.A.S.A. - Never Accept Serpent Assertions.
Saying such does not validate the heresy of 'flat-earth' rhetoric. One error demonstrated (NASA), does not validate an associated error (flat-earth) as true. This thread is not for the purpose of discussion of said erroneous 'flat-earth' (make your own thread, and I will be glad to show from scripture and SoP/ToJ the error of 'flat-earth' in great detail). ..." - Man-kind never set foot on the planetary body known as the 'moon', acc. to Bible (KJB), Hist. & Sci.
Present better evidence against what I have already shared. Be careful, you wouldn't want to be caught in their deceptions and standing upon quicksand.
Umm, look at this merely statistically, and it is well beyond certain Seventh-day Adventists:
"... Just under half of Russians think the U.S. moon landing in 1969 was a government hoax, a poll has found. In a survey of 1,600 adults in Russia, researchers also found only 31 percent believe American astronauts landed on the moon in the last century. ..." - U.S. moon landing was a hoax, half of Russians believe
The Russians got their own 'thing' going besides the US.
"... 1 in 10 Americans Don't Believe the Moon Landing Really Happened ..." - 1 in 10 Americans Don't Believe the Moon Landing Really Happened
"... The United States had an official resident population of 331,449,281 on April 1, 2020, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. ..." - Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia
"Aug 01, 2021 08:44 UTC (+7) ... 332,579,330 (as of this citation) ..." - Population Clock
Thus 1 out of 10 = 33,257,933 people just in the United States alone.
She 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).
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, 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.
I would be glad to speak with you about any other issues you may have with true Seventh-day Adventists, but please have some mercy on those which may be unaware of what the Bible and SoP/ToJ clearly teach. Feel free to have those "adventists" contact me also, and I will share the truth with them.
She said the opposite, that 'space travel' is entirely possible for those who are and will be given glorified immortal bodies. For most of humanity, that is after Jesus returns (exceptions, Enoch, Elijah, Moses, Firstfruits and Jesus).
Radioactivity in cissolar and cislunar space:
As an instance of this:
Apollo 17 - December 7-19, 1972
So the Apollo 16 & 17 'missings' were supposedly occurring during the timeframe of a peek solar maximum cycle.
Apollo 11 (July 16-24, 1969)
Apollo 12 (November 14-24, 1969)
Apollo 13 (April 11-17, 1970)
Apollo 14 (January 31, 1971 - February 9, 1971)
Apollo 15 (July 26 - August 7, 1971)
most of which is roughly 11 years later (1957 + 11, 1968) in the same solar maximum cycle (within about 3 years, 1969-71.
Again:
"... the sun produces a fairly steady flux of light in optical wavelengths, it produces bursts of x-rays and other short wavelength photons that directly modify the ionosphere and high frequency radio communication; it emits a continuous but unsteady flow of ionized material into the heliosphere (the solar wind) that our magnetic field detects and must exclude; it occasionally ejects high energy particles that can be deadly to electronic components and biological systems; it often ejects "tongues" or "ropes" or "clouds" of gas that move through the ambient interplanetary medium and impact the Earth and other planetary bodies; and it radiates noise in frequencies that can be received by working antennas and thus interferes with communication ..." - intro
"... The area between the Sun and the planets has been termed the interplanetary medium. Although sometimes considered a perfect vacuum, this is actually a turbulent area dominated by the solar wind, which flows at velocities of approximately 250-1000 km/s (about 600,000 to 2,000,000 miles per hour). Other characteristics of the solar wind (density, composition, and magnetic field strength, among others) vary with changing conditions on the Sun. The effect of the solar wind can be seen in the tails of comets (which always point away from the Sun). ...
... Intense solar flares release very-high-energy particles that can be as injurious to humans as the low-energy radiation from nuclear blasts. Earth's atmosphere and magnetosphere allow adequate protection for us on the ground, but astronauts in space are subject to potentially lethal dosages of radiation. The penetration of high-energy particles into living cells, measured as radiation dose, leads to chromosome damage and, potentially, cancer. Large doses can be fatal immediately. Solar protons with energies greater than 30 MeV are particularly hazardous. In October 1989, the Sun produced enough energetic particles that an astronaut on the Moon, wearing only a space suit and caught out in the brunt of the storm, would probably have died. (Astronauts who had time to gain safety in a shelter beneath moon soil would have absorbed only slight amounts of radiation.) ..." - Primer on the Solar Space Environment
"... The area between the Sun and the planets has been termed the interplanetary medium. Although sometimes considered a perfect vacuum, this is actually a turbulent area dominated by the solar wind, which flows at velocities of approximately 250-1000 km/s (about 600,000 to 2,000,000 miles per hour). Other characteristics of the solar wind (density, composition, and magnetic field strength, among others) vary with changing conditions on the Sun. The effect of the solar wind can be seen in the tails of comets (which always point away from the Sun). ...
... Intense solar flares release very-high-energy particles that can be as injurious to humans as the low-energy radiation from nuclear blasts. Earth's atmosphere and magnetosphere allow adequate protection for us on the ground, but astronauts in space are subject to potentially lethal dosages of radiation. The penetration of high-energy particles into living cells, measured as radiation dose, leads to chromosome damage and, potentially, cancer. Large doses can be fatal immediately. Solar protons with energies greater than 30 MeV are particularly hazardous. In October 1989, the Sun produced enough energetic particles that an astronaut on the Moon, wearing only a space suit and caught out in the brunt of the storm, would probably have died. (Astronauts who had time to gain safety in a shelter beneath moon soil would have absorbed only slight amounts of radiation.) ..." - Primer on the Solar Space Environment
As an instance of this:
"... estimates of human exposure in interplanetary space, behind various thicknesses of aluminum shielding, are made for the large solar proton events of August 1972 and October 1989. A comparison of risk assessment in terms of total absorbed dose for each event is made for the skin, ocular lens, and bone marrow. Overall, the doses associated with the August 1972 event were higher than those with the October 1989 event and appear to be more limiting when compared with current guidelines for dose limits for missions in low Earth orbit and more hazardous with regard to potential acute effects on these organs. Both events could be life-threatening if adequate shielding is not provided ..." - Interplanetary crew exposure estimates for the August 1972 and October 1989 solar particle events - PubMed
Apollo 16 - April 16-27, 1972
Apollo 17 - December 7-19, 1972
"... The sun goes through a natural solar cycle approximately every 11 years. The cycle is marked by the increase and decrease of sunspots -- visible as dark blemishes on the sun's surface, or photosphere. The greatest number of sunspots in any given solar cycle is designated as "solar maximum." The lowest number is "solar minimum." ..." - Solar Minimum; Solar Maximum
"... the epoch of AP8 model (1964 for solar minimum and 1970 for solar maximum) ...
... Galactic cosmic ray particles originate outside the solar system. They include ions of all elements from atomic number 1 through 92. The flux levels of these particles are low but, because they include highly energetic particles (10s of MeV/n ~ E ~ 100s of GeV/n) of heavy elements such as iron, they produce intense ionization as they pass through matter. As with the high energy trapped protons, they are difficult to shield against. Therefore, in spite of their low levels, they constitute a significant hazard to electronics in terms of SEEs. ...
... The levels of galactic cosmic ray particles also vary with the ionization state of the particle. Particles that have not passed through large amounts of interstellar matter are not fully stripped of their electrons. Therefore, when they reach the earth's magnetosphere, they are more penetrating than the ions that are fully ionized. The capacity of a particle to ionize material is measured in terms of LET and is primarily dependent on the density of the target material and to a lesser degree the density and thickness of the shielding material." - SEECA - Section 3
... Galactic cosmic ray particles originate outside the solar system. They include ions of all elements from atomic number 1 through 92. The flux levels of these particles are low but, because they include highly energetic particles (10s of MeV/n ~ E ~ 100s of GeV/n) of heavy elements such as iron, they produce intense ionization as they pass through matter. As with the high energy trapped protons, they are difficult to shield against. Therefore, in spite of their low levels, they constitute a significant hazard to electronics in terms of SEEs. ...
... The levels of galactic cosmic ray particles also vary with the ionization state of the particle. Particles that have not passed through large amounts of interstellar matter are not fully stripped of their electrons. Therefore, when they reach the earth's magnetosphere, they are more penetrating than the ions that are fully ionized. The capacity of a particle to ionize material is measured in terms of LET and is primarily dependent on the density of the target material and to a lesser degree the density and thickness of the shielding material." - SEECA - Section 3
So the Apollo 16 & 17 'missings' were supposedly occurring during the timeframe of a peek solar maximum cycle.
"... We have rough estimates of what the moon travelers can expect, based on a few observations made during the last solar maximum in 1957. The most violent flares probably will produce exposures of 100 roentgens each hour and may hold this level for several hours ..." - The Sun Under Surveillance in the 1967 World Book Science Year; Edward P. Ney; page 89 - https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q="We+have+rough+estimates+of+what+the+moon+travelers+can+expect,+based+on+a+few+observations+made+during+the+last+solar+maximum+in+1957"
Apollo 11 (July 16-24, 1969)
Apollo 12 (November 14-24, 1969)
Apollo 13 (April 11-17, 1970)
Apollo 14 (January 31, 1971 - February 9, 1971)
Apollo 15 (July 26 - August 7, 1971)
most of which is roughly 11 years later (1957 + 11, 1968) in the same solar maximum cycle (within about 3 years, 1969-71.
Again:
"... SOLAR FLARE
Very hazardous and intermittent but may persist for 1 to 2 days.
High energy protons travel at the speed of light so there is no time to get under cover
Protected dose 1O-100 REM/hr
Unprotected dose Fatal ..." - Dr. Ray Noonan's Archives: NASA's Humans in Space by Ken Jenks
Very hazardous and intermittent but may persist for 1 to 2 days.
High energy protons travel at the speed of light so there is no time to get under cover
Protected dose 1O-100 REM/hr
Unprotected dose Fatal ..." - Dr. Ray Noonan's Archives: NASA's Humans in Space by Ken Jenks
"... The main space weather hazard to human life is the ionizing radiation resulting from exposure to high energy particles. These energetic particles may come from distant stars and galaxies (galactic cosmic radiation); they may be found trapped in planetary radiation belts, such as the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts; or they may be ejected into space by the Sun in the solar wind or more rapidly by solar flare eruptions (figure 2). To put the space weather radiation hazard to human life in perspective, at geostationary orbit, with only 0.1 gm/cm2 of aluminum shielding thickness, the predicted radiation dose (REM) for one year continuous exposure, with minimum-moderate solar activity, is estimated to be about 3,000,000; using 5.0 gm/cm2 of aluminum shielding, the REM for one year continuous exposure would be reduced to about 550. (Note: REM = dose (RAD) x Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) of particular ionizing radiation.) Although drastically reduced by shielding, 550 REM for a sample population would cause radiation sickness and about 50 percent deaths. Astronauts protected with only a spacesuit during normal-length extra-vehicular activity at geostationary altitude could receive about 0.43 REM per day under minimum to moderate solar activity conditions, which is sufficient to damage the eyes and other vital organs. Under high solar activity, and most importantly during large solar flare occurrences, daily REM values could be a thousand-fold higher and probably lethal. In comparison, an earth-bound person would have an estimated total yearly radiation dosage in the range of 0.17 to 2.6 REM; the daily dosage would be approximately 4.7 x 10-4 to 7.1 x 10-3 REM (2 to 3 orders of magnitude less than the astronauts daily dosage in our example). ..." - Spaced-Based Solar Monitoring and Alert Satellite System (SMASS)
Here are the Solar H-alpha Flare Events of 1969-1972:
Here are the Solar X-Ray Flares Events of 1969-1972:
Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1969
Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1970
Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1971
Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1972
Apollo 11 (July 16-24, 1969)
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1969/solar-flares-halpha_196907.pdf
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1969/solrad_1969.txt
Apollo 12 (November 14-24, 1969)
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1969/solar-flares-halpha_196911.pdf
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1969/solrad_1969.txt
Apollo 13 (April 11-17, 1970)
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1970/solar-flares-halpha_197004.pdf
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1970/solrad_1970.txt
Apollo 14 (January 31, 1971 - February 9, 1971)
Apollo 15 (July 26 - August 7, 1971)
Apollo 16 - April 16-27, 1972
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1972/solar-flares-halpha_197204.pdf
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1972/solard_1972.txt
Apollo 17 - December 7-19, 1972
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1972/solar-flares-halpha_197212.pdf
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1972/solard_1972.txt
Dr. James Van Allen's scientific research paper, which was never refuted by him in a scientific journal:
"... The Jan. 20th [2005] proton storm was by some measures the biggest since 1989. It was particularly rich in high-speed protons packing more than 100 million electron volts (100 MeV) of energy. Such protons can burrow through 11 centimeters of water. A thin-skinned spacesuit would have offered little resistance.
"An astronaut caught outside when the storm hit would've gotten sick," says Francis Cucinotta, NASA's radiation health officer at the Johnson Space Center. At first, he'd feel fine, but a few days later symptoms of radiation sickness would appear: vomiting, fatigue, low blood counts. ..." - Sickening Solar Flares | Science Mission Directorate
1989 - 15-20 years (roughly 2 cycles) brings us right back to peak solar flare years of 1969-72.
" ... The key word is suddenly. You can get 300 rem spread out over a number of days or weeks with little effect. Spreading the dose gives the body time to repair and replace its own damaged cells. But if that 300 rem comes all at once ... "we estimate that 50% of people exposed would die within 60 days without medical care," says Cucinotta.
Such doses from a solar flare are possible. To wit: the legendary solar storm of August 1972.
It's legendary (at NASA) because it happened during the Apollo program when astronauts were going back and forth to the Moon regularly. ..." - Sickening Solar Flares | Science Mission Directorate
But Solar Flares are simply instance of instance bursts, and not counting the standard solar winds at those peak times (coming from the Sun/Sol, and doesn't even include that which is coming from extra-solar-system space). NASA would have been fools to attempt such real endeavors at those peak times! Instead, what we see in the video of Apollo 11, etc is LEO outside with blue tint of earth in the windows, which is below 400 miles, below Van Allen belts, behind massive Van Allen belt shielding.
The radiation of Van Allen and beyond is not merely destructive to human (biological) cells, but also very destructive to communications, electronic equipment, and as such, even low level bursts of Gamma, X-Rays, etc can 'kill' a guidance system, life-support and homeostasis systems, dosimetry system, etc. If those systems are damaged or dead then the persons inside the tin can, are also just as dead, even before they die of lack of oxygen, cold or heat, radiation, etc.
Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/h-alpha/tables/1969
Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/h-alpha/tables/1970
Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/h-alpha/tables/1971
Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/h-alpha/tables/1972
Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/h-alpha/tables/1970
Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/h-alpha/tables/1971
Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/h-alpha/tables/1972
Here are the Solar X-Ray Flares Events of 1969-1972:
Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1969
Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1970
Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1971
Index of /stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1972
Apollo 11 (July 16-24, 1969)
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1969/solar-flares-halpha_196907.pdf
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1969/solrad_1969.txt
Apollo 12 (November 14-24, 1969)
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1969/solar-flares-halpha_196911.pdf
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1969/solrad_1969.txt
Apollo 13 (April 11-17, 1970)
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1970/solar-flares-halpha_197004.pdf
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1970/solrad_1970.txt
Apollo 14 (January 31, 1971 - February 9, 1971)
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1971/solar-flares-halpha_197101.pdf
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1971/solar-flares-halpha_197102.pdf
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1971/solard_1971.txt
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1971/solar-flares-halpha_197102.pdf
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1971/solard_1971.txt
Apollo 15 (July 26 - August 7, 1971)
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1971/solar-flares-halpha_197107.pdf
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1971/solar-flares-halpha_197108.pdf
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1971/solard_1971.txt
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1971/solar-flares-halpha_197108.pdf
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1971/solard_1971.txt
Apollo 16 - April 16-27, 1972
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1972/solar-flares-halpha_197204.pdf
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1972/solard_1972.txt
Apollo 17 - December 7-19, 1972
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...ha/tables/1972/solar-flares-halpha_197212.pdf
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space...lar-flares/x-rays/solrad/1972/solard_1972.txt
Dr. James Van Allen's scientific research paper, which was never refuted by him in a scientific journal:
"... Our measurements show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some practical way can be found to shield space-travelers against the effects of the radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles. A "space station" must orbit below 400 miles or beyond 30,000 miles from the earth. We are now planning a satellite flight that will test the efficacy of various methods of shielding.
The hazard to space-travelers may not end even when they have passed the terrestrial radiation belts. According to present knowledge the other planets of our solar system may have magnetic fields comparable to the earth's and thus may possess radiation belts of their own. The moon, however, probably has no belt, because its magnetic field appears to be feeble. Lunar probes should give us more definite information on this point before long. ..." - Scientific American, page 47 - http://www.moontruth.org/VanAllen/SciAm1959March/ScientificAmerican_VanAllenBelt.pdf
"... "The Moon is totally exposed to solar flares," explains solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. "It has no atmosphere or magnetic field to deflect radiation." Protons rushing at the Moon simply hit the ground--or whoever might be walking around outside. ..." - Sickening Solar Flares | Science Mission Directorate
During another peak time a massive solar flare took place in 2005:The hazard to space-travelers may not end even when they have passed the terrestrial radiation belts. According to present knowledge the other planets of our solar system may have magnetic fields comparable to the earth's and thus may possess radiation belts of their own. The moon, however, probably has no belt, because its magnetic field appears to be feeble. Lunar probes should give us more definite information on this point before long. ..." - Scientific American, page 47 - http://www.moontruth.org/VanAllen/SciAm1959March/ScientificAmerican_VanAllenBelt.pdf
"... "The Moon is totally exposed to solar flares," explains solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. "It has no atmosphere or magnetic field to deflect radiation." Protons rushing at the Moon simply hit the ground--or whoever might be walking around outside. ..." - Sickening Solar Flares | Science Mission Directorate
"... The Jan. 20th [2005] proton storm was by some measures the biggest since 1989. It was particularly rich in high-speed protons packing more than 100 million electron volts (100 MeV) of energy. Such protons can burrow through 11 centimeters of water. A thin-skinned spacesuit would have offered little resistance.
"An astronaut caught outside when the storm hit would've gotten sick," says Francis Cucinotta, NASA's radiation health officer at the Johnson Space Center. At first, he'd feel fine, but a few days later symptoms of radiation sickness would appear: vomiting, fatigue, low blood counts. ..." - Sickening Solar Flares | Science Mission Directorate
1989 - 15-20 years (roughly 2 cycles) brings us right back to peak solar flare years of 1969-72.
" ... The key word is suddenly. You can get 300 rem spread out over a number of days or weeks with little effect. Spreading the dose gives the body time to repair and replace its own damaged cells. But if that 300 rem comes all at once ... "we estimate that 50% of people exposed would die within 60 days without medical care," says Cucinotta.
Such doses from a solar flare are possible. To wit: the legendary solar storm of August 1972.
It's legendary (at NASA) because it happened during the Apollo program when astronauts were going back and forth to the Moon regularly. ..." - Sickening Solar Flares | Science Mission Directorate
The radiation of Van Allen and beyond is not merely destructive to human (biological) cells, but also very destructive to communications, electronic equipment, and as such, even low level bursts of Gamma, X-Rays, etc can 'kill' a guidance system, life-support and homeostasis systems, dosimetry system, etc. If those systems are damaged or dead then the persons inside the tin can, are also just as dead, even before they die of lack of oxygen, cold or heat, radiation, etc.
People call those who think that mankind did not 'land' on the 'moon' 'deceivers.
Deception? Hmmm. What do they think about this? Do they really think this took place on the lunar surface? Golf and a Javelin throw? Notice the ending result of both please. Also keep an eye on the 'lunar soil' (which is supposed to be 1/6th earth gravity with no 'air' resistance):
Please. Think about this event. Look at what was recorded (carefully). Think about the physics that should have taken place in 1/6th earth gravity with no 'air' resistance with ball, javelin, soil, etc. Think about the angle of the shot of the two balls and the angle of the Javelin thrown. Think about the possibility that the ball and Javelin landing in the same 'crater' only a few yards away. Think about 'smuggling' anything onto a carefully controlled and weight checked facility (for fuel). Think about the silliness of the script and the words themselves. Do they not think that is deception, and at the minimum absurdity?
Deception? Hmmm. What do they think about this? Do they really think this took place on the lunar surface? Golf and a Javelin throw? Notice the ending result of both please. Also keep an eye on the 'lunar soil' (which is supposed to be 1/6th earth gravity with no 'air' resistance):
"... A golf ball 'lost' by Alan Shepard on the Moon that he claimed travelled 'miles and miles' has been found in newly restored images — and it only travelled 40 yards.
On February 6, 1971, the Apollo 14 mission commander hit two golf balls across the lunar surface as one of the final acts of NASA's third crewed Moon landing.
One of the balls was hit into a crater, but the other was said to have travelled 'miles and miles' — at least by Commander Shepard.
However, newly restored images of the Apollo 14 landing site suggest that his golf swing may not have been as successful as he first thought.
In fact, the first ball came to rest 24 yards from Commander Shepard's 'teeing off' point, while the second flew a mere 40 yards.
The only footage of the swing was captured on grainy video, but Andy Saunders, an image specialist, has painstakingly enhanced high-resolution scans of the footage from the lunar mission.
He digitally enhanced scans recently released of the photographic film and used a 'stacking technique' including smaller 16mm footage shot by the crew.
This allowed him to find the second ball — not seen in five decades — and work out that, rather than travelling 'miles and miles', it had moved a mere 40 yards.
In some accounts, Commander Shepard allegedly 'smuggled' the key part of his makeshift golf club up to the Moon — hiding the head of a specially-adapted six iron inside one of his socks to get it aboard the rocket. ...
... Following the 'game' of golf, Lunar Module Pilot Edgar Mitchell threw a lunar scoop handle in the manner of a javelin — and it settled in the same crater as Commander Shepard's first golf ball. ..." - Alan Shepard's 'lost' golf ball only travelled 40 yards on the Moon
See also - Remastered images reveal how far Alan Shepard hit a golf ball on the Moon
On February 6, 1971, the Apollo 14 mission commander hit two golf balls across the lunar surface as one of the final acts of NASA's third crewed Moon landing.
One of the balls was hit into a crater, but the other was said to have travelled 'miles and miles' — at least by Commander Shepard.
However, newly restored images of the Apollo 14 landing site suggest that his golf swing may not have been as successful as he first thought.
In fact, the first ball came to rest 24 yards from Commander Shepard's 'teeing off' point, while the second flew a mere 40 yards.
The only footage of the swing was captured on grainy video, but Andy Saunders, an image specialist, has painstakingly enhanced high-resolution scans of the footage from the lunar mission.
He digitally enhanced scans recently released of the photographic film and used a 'stacking technique' including smaller 16mm footage shot by the crew.
This allowed him to find the second ball — not seen in five decades — and work out that, rather than travelling 'miles and miles', it had moved a mere 40 yards.
In some accounts, Commander Shepard allegedly 'smuggled' the key part of his makeshift golf club up to the Moon — hiding the head of a specially-adapted six iron inside one of his socks to get it aboard the rocket. ...
... Following the 'game' of golf, Lunar Module Pilot Edgar Mitchell threw a lunar scoop handle in the manner of a javelin — and it settled in the same crater as Commander Shepard's first golf ball. ..." - Alan Shepard's 'lost' golf ball only travelled 40 yards on the Moon
See also - Remastered images reveal how far Alan Shepard hit a golf ball on the Moon
Please. Think about this event. Look at what was recorded (carefully). Think about the physics that should have taken place in 1/6th earth gravity with no 'air' resistance with ball, javelin, soil, etc. Think about the angle of the shot of the two balls and the angle of the Javelin thrown. Think about the possibility that the ball and Javelin landing in the same 'crater' only a few yards away. Think about 'smuggling' anything onto a carefully controlled and weight checked facility (for fuel). Think about the silliness of the script and the words themselves. Do they not think that is deception, and at the minimum absurdity?
Can anyone tell me what the boots, along with the spacesuits were made of, and what radiation protection was built into the boots, and suit, and their thermal tolerances?
Here is some information that you might consider:
"Chromel-R" is a metal woven fabric. Beta felt is a Teflon coated Beta cloth (glass fiber).
I did not see any radiation shielding mentioned in the making of those boots - at all. Silicone, glass fiber and 'stainless steel' are not radiation shielding materials. Galvanized Steel can block some EMF radiation.
Additionally, When those boots (and the compositional materials, especially the outer most external material) were in direct contact with the lunar surface on excursions (EVA's) for several hours at a time - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spacewalks_and_moonwalks_1965–1999 while in direct sunlight, and in shadow, what radiated the heat (sunlight and surface temperature - Lunar Temperature - Lunarpedia ) and cold (shade and surface temperature) away from the soles of the astronauts feet?
Would that boot material, under standard earth conditions crack, warp or deviate in form (shrink or expand, and to what extent) under similar temperatures and durations?
Can we see a demonstration of such a boot test from NASA of those historical footware that are on display, showing that they are capable of withstanding such temperatures and their extreme ranges.
If those boots really worked so well as claimed on a lunar surface, then why wouldn't they work on Martian ones or future lunar surface EVA'S, and why the need to redesign them? The only 'boots' utilized now are for non-walking EVA's - NASA - These Boots are Made for Walking
Here is some information that you might consider:
"... This boot is part of the pair that was made for and worn by Eugene Cernan, commander of the Apollo 17 mission that landed on the moon on December 10, 1972.
The International Latex Corporation made the boots which were part of Cernan's extra-vehicular (EV) equipment. The EV boots were worn over the boots that were integrated into the spacesuit and which included the pressure bladder and thermal coverings. The boots were made with a silicone sole, woven stainless steel uppers (Chromel-R), and included additional layers of thermal protection and beta felt in the soles as protection against extreme temperatures and sharp rocks on the lunar surface.
Transferred to the National Air and Space Museum from NASA in 1974 ..." - Boot, Left, Lunar Overshoe, Cernan, Apollo 17, Flown | National Air and Space Museum
The International Latex Corporation made the boots which were part of Cernan's extra-vehicular (EV) equipment. The EV boots were worn over the boots that were integrated into the spacesuit and which included the pressure bladder and thermal coverings. The boots were made with a silicone sole, woven stainless steel uppers (Chromel-R), and included additional layers of thermal protection and beta felt in the soles as protection against extreme temperatures and sharp rocks on the lunar surface.
Transferred to the National Air and Space Museum from NASA in 1974 ..." - Boot, Left, Lunar Overshoe, Cernan, Apollo 17, Flown | National Air and Space Museum
"Chromel-R" is a metal woven fabric. Beta felt is a Teflon coated Beta cloth (glass fiber).
"Chromel R, a nickel chromium alloy fiber developed by Hoskins Mfg. Co. in the mid-1960s, was used in the form of a woven-metal fabric to protect the astronauts’ legs from hot gases produced by the astronauts’ maneuvering unit. These materials would also be used in the subsequent Apollo program."- Textiles in space – Advanced Textiles Source
"... The outer layer of a lunar boot, except for the sole, was fabricated from Chromel-R and the tongue area was made of Teflon-coated Beta cloth. ..." - https://www.history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch6.htm
"... The 1967 tragedy in the Apollo program led to major breakthroughs in textile science and engineering. The cabin fire that killed Gus Grissom, Edward White and Roger Chaffee during a launch pad test directly led to the development of the Beta glass fiber by Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp.
The company had been experimenting with an ultrafine glass fiber when NASA’s Johnson Space Center contracted it to further the development of ultrafine fibers. The result of this work was the development of a glass fiber with a 4.8 micron diameter that became known as Beta fiber in the aerospace community. Both NASA and Owens Corning invested in this development.
Owens Corning built a full-scale production plant after the successful development of the finest glass fiber ever made. Beta glass fiber was used extensively in the Apollo spacesuit and many other applications through the Apollo and space shuttle programs. The production plant operated until the mid-1990s when it was dismantled. Aerospace agencies had been the only customers for Beta glass fiber over the decades, and the consumption of the fiber was insufficient for the company to sustain the operation of the plant. ..." - Textiles in space – Advanced Textiles Source
"... The inner layers consisted of two layers of Kapton followed by five layers of aluminized, perforated Mylar. The Mylar layers were separated by four layers of nonwoven Dacron followed by an inner liner of Teflon-coated Beta cloth. Two layers of Nomex felt in the sole ..." - https://www.history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch6.htm
"... The 1967 tragedy in the Apollo program led to major breakthroughs in textile science and engineering. The cabin fire that killed Gus Grissom, Edward White and Roger Chaffee during a launch pad test directly led to the development of the Beta glass fiber by Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp.
The company had been experimenting with an ultrafine glass fiber when NASA’s Johnson Space Center contracted it to further the development of ultrafine fibers. The result of this work was the development of a glass fiber with a 4.8 micron diameter that became known as Beta fiber in the aerospace community. Both NASA and Owens Corning invested in this development.
Owens Corning built a full-scale production plant after the successful development of the finest glass fiber ever made. Beta glass fiber was used extensively in the Apollo spacesuit and many other applications through the Apollo and space shuttle programs. The production plant operated until the mid-1990s when it was dismantled. Aerospace agencies had been the only customers for Beta glass fiber over the decades, and the consumption of the fiber was insufficient for the company to sustain the operation of the plant. ..." - Textiles in space – Advanced Textiles Source
"... The inner layers consisted of two layers of Kapton followed by five layers of aluminized, perforated Mylar. The Mylar layers were separated by four layers of nonwoven Dacron followed by an inner liner of Teflon-coated Beta cloth. Two layers of Nomex felt in the sole ..." - https://www.history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch6.htm
I did not see any radiation shielding mentioned in the making of those boots - at all. Silicone, glass fiber and 'stainless steel' are not radiation shielding materials. Galvanized Steel can block some EMF radiation.
"... One concern about gamma radiation is the possibility of too much crosslinking. Additional crosslinking may deform the product and decrease its flexibility and tensile strength as well as increase the durometer of the silicone. Bond rupturing also occurs in extreme cases. ..." - 3 Sterilization Methods for Silicone Devices
Additionally, When those boots (and the compositional materials, especially the outer most external material) were in direct contact with the lunar surface on excursions (EVA's) for several hours at a time - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spacewalks_and_moonwalks_1965–1999 while in direct sunlight, and in shadow, what radiated the heat (sunlight and surface temperature - Lunar Temperature - Lunarpedia ) and cold (shade and surface temperature) away from the soles of the astronauts feet?
"... Over the course of a full lunar day and night, the temperature on the Moon can vary wildly, from around +200 to -200 degrees Celsius (+392 to -328 degrees Fahrenheit) ..." - This is our planet: Awesome ISS time-lapse will blow your mind | Space Facts – Astronomy, the Solar System & Outer Space | All About Space Magazine
Would that boot material, under standard earth conditions crack, warp or deviate in form (shrink or expand, and to what extent) under similar temperatures and durations?
Can we see a demonstration of such a boot test from NASA of those historical footware that are on display, showing that they are capable of withstanding such temperatures and their extreme ranges.
"... Museum conservators try to extend the life and integrity of objects that have become fragile over time. The fragile interior rubber bladder layer and woven Link-Net restraint layer of this suit mean that it needs to be displayed with as little weight as possible pulling on it. Because the boots are sewn onto the legs of the suit, a reclined display removes that additional pressure. ..." - Floating | Outside the Spacecraft
If those boots really worked so well as claimed on a lunar surface, then why wouldn't they work on Martian ones or future lunar surface EVA'S, and why the need to redesign them? The only 'boots' utilized now are for non-walking EVA's - NASA - These Boots are Made for Walking
Has anyone seen the evidence that Richard Hall (as mentioned in the OP, "Richard Hall and fellows") provided showing that those 'photos' of the Lunar surface of the landing sites are doctored and the items highlighted are way out of scale?
So, many still trust that which is provided by NASA (and their eyesight), over the word (Bible, as given in OP), the history and science which shows that it was not possible to have landed man-kind upon the lunar surface in 1969 and subsequent even unto this day?
Any can see some of that here:
There are also plenty of photo analysis of the NASA 'photos' here:
AULIS Online – Different Thinking
Many seem to think NASA cannot just make up any image they want, but they themselves show the opposite is true:
Look carefully at the admittedly doctored photo. Do any think they cannot and have not altered a simple grayscale of lunar surface?
First, persons have to accept that the 'LRO' is real and accomplished what they (NASA) says it did/does. Then they have to accept that its camera can do what they claim it does in the vacuum of space with the known radiations existing, without any degredation of signal or data (think about the problem logistics of simple earth communication and the interference just at high altitude).
Look at the supposed 'LRO' photo of the 'lunar surface' (more like high desert imitation or mock up):
http://www.mem-tek.com/apollo/LRO/a11/M109080308RE__published_lm_westcrater_deconvolved.png
Northerntruthseeker: The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax: Proof Positive That The Recent LRO Images Of The "Apollo Landing Sites" Were Photo-shopped Fakes!
More photo analysis - Moon Hoax Images
Here is a pretty good list of objections (see point 149):
THE APOLLO "MOON" HOAX: FACT OR FICTION? - UFO Digest
So, many still trust that which is provided by NASA (and their eyesight), over the word (Bible, as given in OP), the history and science which shows that it was not possible to have landed man-kind upon the lunar surface in 1969 and subsequent even unto this day?
Any can see some of that here:
There are also plenty of photo analysis of the NASA 'photos' here:
AULIS Online – Different Thinking
Many seem to think NASA cannot just make up any image they want, but they themselves show the opposite is true:
"...To better understand the details of these images of the Apollo landings site it can be useful to refer to Figure 3.8-13, which is a digitally edited photograph from the Apollo 16 mission. It shows how the LM descent stage would appear after the crew lifted off in the ascent stage ..." - MOON HOAX: DEBUNKED!: 3.8 Photographs of the vehicles left on the Moon
Look carefully at the admittedly doctored photo. Do any think they cannot and have not altered a simple grayscale of lunar surface?
"... Can’t we simply point a telescope at the Moon and see if the Apollo vehicles are there? It’s one of the most frequent and common-sense questions regarding Moon hoax theories.
The answer, unfortunately, is no: even the world’s most powerful telescopes are currently unable to resolve such tiny objects at the distance of the Moon, for reasons detailed in Chapter 7. ..." - ibid.
The answer, unfortunately, is no: even the world’s most powerful telescopes are currently unable to resolve such tiny objects at the distance of the Moon, for reasons detailed in Chapter 7. ..." - ibid.
First, persons have to accept that the 'LRO' is real and accomplished what they (NASA) says it did/does. Then they have to accept that its camera can do what they claim it does in the vacuum of space with the known radiations existing, without any degredation of signal or data (think about the problem logistics of simple earth communication and the interference just at high altitude).
Look at the supposed 'LRO' photo of the 'lunar surface' (more like high desert imitation or mock up):
http://www.mem-tek.com/apollo/LRO/a11/M109080308RE__published_lm_westcrater_deconvolved.png
"... Take a look at the excuse for a module. The lunar photo of the module is an indistinguishable white blob, a nothing burger. Look at and compare this with the boulders strewn at 4:00 in the photo. In fact, when you click to enlarge the photo, you can actually make out detail and shapes and certainly determine that these are boulders. ..." - Lunar Lunacy: Disappearing Moon Rocks, Contradictory Mineral Data, Missing Apollo Film and Destroyed Mission Technology | Winter Watch
Northerntruthseeker: The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax: Proof Positive That The Recent LRO Images Of The "Apollo Landing Sites" Were Photo-shopped Fakes!
More photo analysis - Moon Hoax Images
Here is a pretty good list of objections (see point 149):
THE APOLLO "MOON" HOAX: FACT OR FICTION? - UFO Digest
Seems the common response is meme-ology, rather than Bible, science and history. If all people have is a meme, then I am home free in what is presented.
Because frankly your kind of foolishness and the stupidity of ideas in the op don't deserve a serious response. Only one that does have enough faculties images that the moon landing is in the Bible when the Bible was not written for such things and is a two thousand year old book that talks about Salvation history. Since you believe such foolish and unintelligible nonsense you would accept no real Science or History. I would not be surprised if you thought the doltish idea of flat earth was real.
It would appear, from your lack of reading, or engaging in the conversation due most likely to meme searching, that you have already missed the OP and a further response about the heresy of 'flat earth':
Feel free to read that here:
Man-kind never set foot on the planetary body known as the 'moon', acc. to Bible (KJB), Hist. & Sci.
Then, if you are incapable of addressing the OP (apparently not even reading it in detail) or subsequent materials in Bible, science and history, then perhaps another thread would suit you. If however, you do actually choose to engage the evidences provided I would be glad to speak with you further as you have need.
The Bible, speaks about all of history (even as far back as history taking place before the creation of this world; and all the way into the New Heaven and New Earth, even with today's events transpiring therein), not just history 2000 years ago. Yes, the book deals with salvation, and I address that also in the OP if you read carefully, for I mentioned a last days tower of Babel system which is a counterfeit to the Gospel.
Similar threads
