Heaven

[Sebastian Toe]

Can you or I prove otherwise... NO! because the men who could talk about it were all mysteriously killed.

All?
All - except for those astronauts who actually went to the moon, they can and have talked about it often.

Some of them Christians.
Are those Christians liars Sassy?

For example;

James Irwin , Apollo 15 astronaut,

For two decades, Irwin traveled the world and presented small flags he carried from the moon to the leaders of various countries. “These flags were so powerful,” says Bill Dodder, a close friend to Irwin. “He took flags to each country as a means to witness for Jesus Christ.
http://www.godreports.com/testimony-view/1249

Sassy, did he lie when he said to all of those people that the flags were from the moon?

or

Buzz Aldrin Apollo 11 astronaut;
Here he is writing about his path to being the first and only man to take communion on the moon.
https://www.guideposts.org/faith/stories-of-faith/guideposts-classics-buzz-aldrin-on-communion-in-space?nopaging=1
Quote
And so, just before I partook of the elements, I read the words which I had chosen to indicate our trust that as man probes into space we are in fact acting in Christ.

I sensed especially strongly my unity with our church back home, and with the Church everywhere.

I read: "I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me, and I in him, will bear much fruit; for you can do nothing without me." John 15:5 (TEV)

Is Buzz a liar Sassy?

or


Eugene Cernan,the last man to walk on the moon said;

We launched off that pad in a big Saturn V rocket that took us to the Moon. People had dreamed of leaving the cradle of civilisation – this Earth of ours – and we did it. Fortunately, I was one of the guys to go out there, to look back at the Earth and try to comprehend the meaning of it all.

When I left the Moon and started up the ladder, I was really at a loss. I didn’t want to leave and I looked down at my last footsteps and realised I wasn’t coming this way again

I searched for that answer, I needed more time. I wanted to press the freeze button, stop time to give myself a chance to think about it. I had an opportunity to sit on God’s front porch looking at the small part of the civilisation of this universe that he created.

Is Eugene a liar?

Sassy?

[Sassy]

Spot the paradox.

Collection of old fairy stories, myths and legends about old man in the sky who does nasty things to people (like drowning everyone except one family) and who who makes a virgin pregnant. Their offspring, who does conjuring tricks, is executed, becomes alive again and then does an imitation of a helicopter and disappears into the sky. Total lack of supporting evidence, contemporaneous eye-witness reports and reliable archaeological evidence.

Why use the above? It means nothing at all in the great scheme of things.
I know people all over the world who believe receive healing.
The evidence it there, the truth is you cannot handle the truth.
You are in denial.
.

Sassy - every word is unfailingly true.

As you have never done anything for yourself or searched for truth we have to dismiss what you say. Having witnessed the statements and the testimony of others, I have to say you are wrong. Feel free to prove differently. But not opinion please. The opinions you have shared so far are all outdated.

A mission by the USA to send men from Earth to the Moon and back again. Every single detail is verifiable, every technical component is feasible and entirely consistent with metallurgy, chemical engineering, electronic engineering and Newtonian physics. Every second of the mission is recorded in detail and independent observations made by totally independent and non-American agencies.

Behave....if is was provable there would not be physicist and other scientist saying it wasn't possible. There would be no dispute or us talking about it.

Sassy - this is a confidence trick played on the world. Total fiction.

You have never looked into the issue. In fact your own quoting of others proves it.

Thomas Ronald Baron was a safety inspector in Apollo 1’s construction. After the fire, Baron testified before Congress that the Apollo program was in such disarray that the United States would never make it to the moon. He claimed his opinions made him a target, and on 21 April 1967 reported on camera to news reporters that he and his wife had been harassed at home. As part of his testimony Baron submitted a 500 page report detailing his findings. Exactly one week after he testified, Baron’s car was struck by a train and he, his wife and his stepdaughter were all killed instantly. Baron’s report mysteriously disappeared, and to this day it has never been found.

Still believe in your own testimony?

[Harrowby Hall]

Thomas Ronald Baron was a safety inspector in Apollo 1’s construction. After the fire, Baron testified before Congress that the Apollo program was in such disarray that the United States would never make it to the moon. He claimed his opinions made him a target, and on 21 April 1967 reported on camera to news reporters that he and his wife had been harassed at home. As part of his testimony Baron submitted a 500 page report detailing his findings. Exactly one week after he testified, Baron’s car was struck by a train and he, his wife and his stepdaughter were all killed instantly. Baron’s report mysteriously disappeared, and to this day it has never been found.

Wow, Sassy. You've got me convinced.

You've got to admire the dastardly cunning, haven't you! Being able to magic-up a train just at that very moment. Incredible.

If I were you, I'd be very careful. For giving away information like this , you are almost certainly on their hit list ....

[torridon]

Those descriptions appear to be functions of life forms.  They don't indicate what 'life' is nor what 'awareness' is.  It is not about redefining those phenomena but being open to the possibility that there is a simple awareness which allows those phenomena to function rather than remain inert like a grain of sand.  Who dictates that ' 'consciousness'  more properly applies to a neurological phenomenon in higher animals of orders of magnitude greater complexity.'?  Consciousness may be simple rather than complex and it is just the life form which changes in complexity and which gives the illusion of a complex underlying consciousness.

I don't see that we need to add any extra ingredients to understand the phenomenon of life.  Living things are made from the same stuff as non living things, the difference lies in the degree of complexity of organisation.  Do we need to add any extra ingredients to understand subjective experience and awareness and qualia, or are the underlying models of quantum theory up to biochemistry sufficient ? This is where it gets more interesting.  It might be that we simply need to improve our understanding of the concepts of subjectivity and emergence; others go further, Chalmers says we need to accept that information has a phenomonenological aspect.  I'm not sure about that, watch this space I think. What I'm not keen on is people seizing on gaps in knowledge to licence their pet flaky ideas that lack scientific rigour. We don't understand the origin of the universe, so we get people claiming 'God', who doesn't like gays by the way, as if this sort of thinking had the same rigour as is practised in cosmology.  Similarly we don't fully understand consciousness and so we get people claiming spirit worlds and reincarnation within the same intellectual space as neuroscience as if there is some equivalence of intellectual discipline there.

[Sriram]

I don't see that we need to add any extra ingredients to understand the phenomenon of life.  Living things are made from the same stuff as non living things, the difference lies in the degree of complexity of organisation.  Do we need to add any extra ingredients to understand subjective experience and awareness and qualia, or are the underlying models of quantum theory up to biochemistry sufficient ? This is where it gets more interesting.  It might be that we simply need to improve our understanding of the concepts of subjectivity and emergence; others go further, Chalmers says we need to accept that information has a phenomonenological aspect.  I'm not sure about that, watch this space I think. What I'm not keen on is people seizing on gaps in knowledge to licence their pet flaky ideas that lack scientific rigour. We don't understand the origin of the universe, so we get people claiming 'God', who doesn't like gays by the way, as if this sort of thinking had the same rigour as is practised in cosmology.  Similarly we don't fully understand consciousness and so we get people claiming spirit worlds and reincarnation within the same intellectual space as neuroscience as if there is some equivalence of intellectual discipline there.

You are still confusing 'religion' with phenomena that are natural but currently outside the scope of science. 

People are not 'claiming' spirit worlds and reincarnation out of the blue. They are actually experiencing them and it makes sense to them too. Problem is that many science enthusiasts have got into the habit of dismissing all experiences that we don't understand, as just anecdotes and brain generated imagery. Nothing to see here folks!!

Fortunately, there are many scientists, doctors etc. who do see these experiences as actual experiences of another reality.  If we do take such phenomena seriously, it could turn many scientific theories upside down. What has been presumed as an outcome could become the cause.... and vice versa.

And that probably is what  all the resistance is about.

[torridon]

People are not 'claiming' spirit worlds and reincarnation out of the blue. They are actually experiencing them and it makes sense to them too. Problem is that many science enthusiasts have got into the habit of dismissing all experiences that we don't understand, as just anecdotes and brain generated imagery. Nothing to see here folks!!

Where we dismiss anecdotal claims of exotic experience it is because we have learned the hard way that this is the weakest form of evidence.  We hold to the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence for very good reason, if we abandoned that rigour we would still be in the seventeenth century in knowledge terms.  There is no body of theoretical work supporting notions like spirit worlds and reincarnation, however the disposition of humans to lie and to be mistaken and for brains to produce exotic phenomenology under particular circumstances is well understood.

[Sriram]

Where we dismiss anecdotal claims of exotic experience it is because we have learned the hard way that this is the weakest form of evidence.  We hold to the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence for very good reason, if we abandoned that rigour we would still be in the seventeenth century in knowledge terms.  There is no body of theoretical work supporting notions like spirit worlds and reincarnation, however the disposition of humans to lie and to be mistaken and for brains to produce exotic phenomenology under particular circumstances is well understood.

You insist on using a microscope to look at the stars and then claim...'there is nothing there'!      

[torridon]

 

[Harrowby Hall]

Thomas Ronald Baron was a safety inspector in Apollo 1’s construction. After the fire, Baron testified before Congress that the Apollo program was in such disarray that the United States would never make it to the moon. He claimed his opinions made him a target, and on 21 April 1967 reported on camera to news reporters that he and his wife had been harassed at home. As part of his testimony Baron submitted a 500 page report detailing his findings. Exactly one week after he testified, Baron’s car was struck by a train and he, his wife and his stepdaughter were all killed instantly. Baron’s report mysteriously disappeared, and to this day it has never been found.

It has been pointed out to me by Sebastian Toe that I have made an incorrect statement. I am therefore amending this post,

Amendment 1

Thomas Ronald Baron was not a NASA employee, but an employee of North American Aviation - a contractor to NASA.

Since his death preceded the Moon landing mission by more than two years he cannot be considered to have been a witness to any cover up. I would like to know how his death, caused by a collision with a railway train and independently witnessed, could have been engineered by external forces. It is also not clear that he had a "500 page report". It is more likely that he had collected 500 or so individual report forms.

Amendment 2

Space vehicles launched by Russia, Japan, China and India have all produced photographic evidence of the presence on the Moon of Apollo missions.

 "Chandrayaan sends images of Apollo 15 landing". The Times of India. New Delhi: The Times Group. September 2, 2009.

 "Chandrayaan's moon findings: Water, rocks and traces of Apollo". MSN India. Redmond, WA: Microsoft. India Syndicate. October 22, 2009.

 Lina, Yang, ed. (February 6, 2012). "China publishes high-resolution full moon map". English.news.cn. Beijing: Xinhua News Agency.

[ekim]

I don't see that we need to add any extra ingredients to understand the phenomenon of life.  Living things are made from the same stuff as non living things, the difference lies in the degree of complexity of organisation.  Do we need to add any extra ingredients to understand subjective experience and awareness and qualia, or are the underlying models of quantum theory up to biochemistry sufficient ? This is where it gets more interesting.  It might be that we simply need to improve our understanding of the concepts of subjectivity and emergence; others go further, Chalmers says we need to accept that information has a phenomonenological aspect.  I'm not sure about that, watch this space I think. What I'm not keen on is people seizing on gaps in knowledge to licence their pet flaky ideas that lack scientific rigour. We don't understand the origin of the universe, so we get people claiming 'God', who doesn't like gays by the way, as if this sort of thinking had the same rigour as is practised in cosmology.  Similarly we don't fully understand consciousness and so we get people claiming spirit worlds and reincarnation within the same intellectual space as neuroscience as if there is some equivalence of intellectual discipline there.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from.  I think the goals of religion initiators and science investigators are different.  The former is transformation oriented and the latter information oriented.  To relate it to the topic of this thread, the former seeks within for a heavenly state of being, bliss, nirvana, peace, harmony etc. and the latter seeks without for answers to create models and theories of the physical landscape to better understand it and perhaps manipulate it.  The former uses mythos to communicate and the latter logos.  The former is experiential and personal and the latter experimental and impersonal.  The former is not concerned about understanding consciousness but more about clarifying it and freeing from intellectual and emotional baggage.

[SusanDoris]

And again with the insults.

It's astonishing that you can't see the way you behave makes you look silly.

Never mind, thanks for the laughs.

BA's posts reveal large chips on shoulders I've always thought.

[Sebastian Toe]

His collision with the train had occurred five months earlier, in November 1966.

You might want to double check that.
I think he left NASA in Nov 1966....

Baron was a rank and file inspector at Kennedy from September 1965 until November 1966, when he asked for and received a leave of absence.
http://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/barron.html

[torridon]

Yes, I understand where you are coming from.  I think the goals of religion initiators and science investigators are different.  The former is transformation oriented and the latter information oriented.  To relate it to the topic of this thread, the former seeks within for a heavenly state of being, bliss, nirvana, peace, harmony etc. and the latter seeks without for answers to create models and theories of the physical landscape to better understand it and perhaps manipulate it.  The former uses mythos to communicate and the latter logos.  The former is experiential and personal and the latter experimental and impersonal.  The former is not concerned about understanding consciousness but more about clarifying it and freeing from intellectual and emotional baggage.

That's all fair enough, although we can never entirely separate the two principals - the urge to experience and the urge to understand experience. I suppose it all comes back down to that old split brain thing in the end.

[Harrowby Hall]

You might want to double check that.
I think he left NASA in Nov 1966....

Baron was a rank and file inspector at Kennedy from September 1965 until November 1966, when he asked for and received a leave of absence.
http://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/barron.html

Thank you, Sebastian. I have checked other sources and found that the one I had used earlier was incorrect.

Nevertheless, I find it difficult to conceive how Baron could possible even be connected to any cover-up. He was a low-ranking technician working for a contractor - he would have no access to any strategic information. His death took place more than two years before the eventual Moon landing. There does not appear to be any evidence that Baron was not certain that the Apollo mission was anything other than genuine.

Again, I ask why it is that Sassy should be absolutely certain that events for which there is no other evidence than questionable stories more than 2000 years old should be true, and one of the most completely recorded events of recent times should be a hoax.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA's posts reveal large chips on shoulders I've always thought.

With respect, SD, you thought wrong.  Frustration, yes irritation, yes;  but no more.  They are my faults here, but I put them down to my age as much as anything!

[Sassy]

Wow, Sassy. You've got me convinced.

Mockery! Really?

Joseph Goebbels

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

The lies you believe are the greatest enemy of the USA. But yet you see not the truth so as to be able to understand it's consequences.

You've got to admire the dastardly cunning, haven't you! Being able to magic-up a train just at that very moment. Incredible.

If I were you, I'd be very careful. For giving away information like this , you are almost certainly on their hit list ....

It is not I, which poses any threat but the truth. As we advance your science reveals the untruths, only the scientist are a risk. What would uncover the truth is any attempt to go to the moon again. The bible tells us that Christ is able to save unto the uttermost all who come unto him by God. The bible tells us that those who set traps for others will fall into them themselves. The most likely truth is your frightened that if you allow yourself to believe the truth maybe they did not go to the moon that it opens a more fearful prospect that the USA will kill to cover the truth.

You and I, are no threat we have no qualifications just our opinion. Do you realise how many of the worlds people they would have to murder to make the disbelief go away?
To be honest it is of no importance today. No one can change or do anything about that which might have or might not have been. Frankly, I am surprised you would suggest such a thing. America has bigger things to worry about.

[Aruntraveller]

opens a more fearful prospect that the USA will kill to cover the truth.

It's a given that most, maybe all, nations at one time or another have killed to cover the truth. So a fearful prospect, yes - but not at all unknown.

However, with so much readily verifiable information about the moon landing your stance on this is incorrect.

[Sassy]

BA's posts reveal large chips on shoulders I've always thought.

Did you bring the salt'n'vinegar ?  That way you can make a meal of it...

I am surprised Susan that you would suggest such a thing when you know how sincere  BA's beliefs are. It does not become you. Rather sad you do as others do and insult rather than reply with an argument regarding the actual issues. 

[Sassy]

It's a given that most, maybe all, nations at one time or another have killed to cover the truth. So a fearful prospect, yes - but not at all unknown.

However, with so much readily verifiable information about the moon landing your stance on this is incorrect.

What was that I said about believing a lie and it becoming the truth?

There is absolutely NO verifiable evidence. If it had existed they would have been able to produce it by now and put an end to the argument.

Scientist don't agree with you... those scientist you have proffered as evidence for how long?

[ekim]

That's all fair enough, although we can never entirely separate the two principals - the urge to experience and the urge to understand experience. I suppose it all comes back down to that old split brain thing in the end.

Quite possibly, I suppose the ideal is a harmony of the two without either seeking dominance.  Bringing such a heavenly harmony to earth seems far away despite the prayer of 'Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven'.

[BashfulAnthony]

Did you bring the salt'n'vinegar ?  That way you can make a meal of it...

I am surprised Susan that you would suggest such a thing when you know how sincere  BA's beliefs are. It does not become you. Rather sad you do as others do and insult rather than reply with an argument regarding the actual issues. 

Sassy.  Thank you for that vindication.  It's appreciated.

[Aruntraveller]

What was that I said about believing a lie and it becoming the truth?

There is absolutely NO verifiable evidence. If it had existed they would have been able to produce it by now and put an end to the argument.

Scientist don't agree with you... those scientist you have proffered as evidence for how long?

Which scientists - all of them. I think not.

Anyway its only wiki but have a read and take your conspiracy goggles off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

[Sriram]

That's all fair enough, although we can never entirely separate the two principals - the urge to experience and the urge to understand experience. I suppose it all comes back down to that old split brain thing in the end.

Exactly!  Its about two aspects of our personality that seem to be split. That is why we often have this problem with integrating the material with the non-material.

The purpose of Yoga (union) is to unite the two principles. This gives us an integrated view of life without the duality. This is considered a privileged and superior world view.

[Maeght]

What was that I said about believing a lie and it becoming the truth?

There is absolutely NO verifiable evidence. If it had existed they would have been able to produce it by now and put an end to the argument.

They have, as has been pointed out to you before.

Scientist don't agree with you... those scientist you have proffered as evidence for how long?

Yes, the vast majority do. Again, as has been pointed out before.

It won't make any difference of course, but worth pointing out again.

[Harrowby Hall]

Sassy


What do you consider would be verifiable evidence?

What do you understand by the term "verifiable evidence"?