Flat Earth Theory Destroyed by Pres Uchtdorf

[LdsMarco]

Honestly, I don't know why people dwell over this flat earth theory. Let's say it is -- what do we accomplish? Why would they lie about it? For all I know - they have no idea what it looks like and it's a freaking square LOL (All jokes aside)

Let me begin to say that I know NASA is a liar and a deceiver. I don't trust them either. I do not believe we landed on the moon. I don't believe it is possible unless God allows it and we know he hasn't. That's another subject but it is my personal belief.

When Joseph Fielding Smith said men will never land on the moon -- he was right. But because NASA said they did, he took it back. Did he go along with it? - IDK.

I would like to remind you that Pres Uchtdorf made a comment this past General Conference in "Bearers of Heavenly Light" when he stated: "that the earth will continue to rotate" https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... t?lang=eng

That being said, I don't give it too much effort to even try to prove any theory at all due to the fact, it really doesn't matter or it is not as important as we think it is. Giving too much effort and time in things like this takes me away from sharing the gospel with others. I can be doing missionary work other than trying to figure out if the earth is flat or round

[larsenb]

Honestly, I don't know why people dwell over this flat earth theory. Let's say it is -- what do we accomplish? Why would they lie about it? For all I know - they have no idea what it looks like and it's a freaking square LOL (All jokes aside)

Let me begin to say that I know NASA is a liar and a deceiver. I don't trust them either. I do not believe we landed on the moon. I don't believe it is possible unless God allows it and we know he hasn't. That's another subject but it is my personal belief.

When Joseph Fielding Smith said men will never land on the moon -- he was right. But because NASA said they did, he took it back. Did he go along with it? - IDK.

I would like to remind you that Pres Uchtdorf made a comment this past General Conference in "Bears of Heavenly Light" when he stated: "that the earth will continue to rotate" https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... t?lang=eng

That being said, I don't give it too much effort to even try to prove any theory at all due to the fact, it really doesn't matter or it is not as important as we think it is. Giving too much effort and time in things like this takes me away from sharing the gospel with others. I can be doing missionary work other than trying to figure out if the earth is flat or round

Just a suggestion, but I would avoid bringing up your belief that men didn't go to the moon while doing missionary work, as well. That ain't going to help your effort.

(From a person who is a co-author on a paper in: Apollo 15: Preliminary Science Report.)

[LdsMarco]

Did someone get offended? LOL jk.... sorry if it did. I'm not here to make people believe the same as I do. Just pointing out my position.

[AI2.0]

Did someone get offended? LOL jk.... sorry if it did. I'm not here to make people believe the same as I do. Just pointing out my position.

He's right, I'll speak frankly, if you share your belief with investigators that we didn't land on the moon, you'll come off as a tin-foil hat loony and I'd rather not have the image of an LDS person be someone who believes in a faked moon landing.

Referring to the OP--It's sad to think that people would need to hear an apostle say the earth is round before they'd believe it.


Hey! 'Earth to the Flat earthers': The earth is round.

[LdsMarco]

He's right, I'll speak frankly, if you share your belief with investigators that we didn't land on the moon, you'll come off as a tin-foil hat loony and I'd rather not have the image of an LDS person be someone who believes in a faked moon landing.

Now... why would I tell an investigator we didn't land on the moon? What mission would I fulfill? I would never tell anyone that - UNLESS - I was asked. I don't plan on lying if I was asked btw

Example. My bishop asked me if I believed we landed on the moon and I told him no. He laughed by the way

C'mon people, it's common sense here.

[JohnnyL]

Right, because apostles have never said anything wrong, especially about personal beliefs, in GC. )

Believe me--though you won't--I could ask all kinds of questions to the apostles about personal things, and I'd get all kinds of wrong answers. They're human.

[OCDMOM]

If the earth was flat, all the cats would have pushed everything over the edge. Ha Ha.

[Silver Pie]

If the earth was flat, all the cats would have pushed everything over the edge. Ha Ha.

ROFLOLH*

You got that right.








*Rolling on floor laughing out loud hysterically

[LdsMarco]

Blog: http://guerreromarco.blogspot.com/2017/ ... -pres.html

Video

[creator]

We didn't land on the moon.. but I also would have no reason to bring that up with an "investigator".

[h_p]

It always perplexed me, too, why people would be so adamant about believing in Flat Earth. But I recently found out that at least some (all?) believe it because of a literal reading of Genesis 1:

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

That's a Flat Earth description of the world, where there's this dome above the Earth keeping the waters from pouring in on us. When you read Genesis 1 and 6-8 about the Flood with this picture in mind, the verses make a lot more sense. I don't believe it, but apparently the ancient Hebrews did.

bible-flat-earth.jpg (234.86 KiB) Viewed 1672 times

[gclayjr]

BrianM,

We didn't land on the moon

You too? I guess I should have guessed.

How do you explain how the Laser Ranging Retroreflectors got placed upon the moon?


Regards,

George clay

[braingrunt]

I used to be very open to the idea we didn't get men to the moon. Or that 911 was an inside job.

But then I studied flat earth theory, and the people in it.

I don't want to be like them, so in the case of 911, even though I don't understand how buildings can fall that fast-- I've decided I'm not qualified to have a strong opinion. And I see flat earthers regularly think they've got the killer proof, meanwhile I can see that they've managed to look slick while crapping themselves.
I don't put Dr Jones in that category, but you know, I've decided I can't have any certainty, even from him, until I'm qualified somehow.

PS the BOM and DC kill flat earth, so Uchtdorf chiming in is small news.

[Col. Flagg]

BrianM,

We didn't land on the moon

You too? I guess I should have guessed.

How do you explain how the Laser Ranging Retroreflectors got placed upon the moon?


Regards,

George clay

You don't need to send men to the moon in order to place laser retro-reflectors on it - unmanned craft are perfectly capable of doing that, just ask China and Russia.

[gclayjr]

Col Flagg,

You don't need to send men to the moon in order to place laser retro-reflectors on it - unmanned craft are perfectly capable of doing that, just ask China and Russia.

So let me get this straight. The moon landing (Which I watched in July of 1969) was a fake, but Russians, and Chinese who have never even claimed to have landed on the moon have secretly landed there.

Also, I am curious is to why, if the US could land unmanned craft, and they can support life in space, can't they land a manned space craft?

[MODERATOR NOTE: Inappropriate comment, please adhere to the forum rules]
I guess you conspiracy folks are so immensely deaf to the incredible lengths that you bend logic and create ridiculous stories just to support conspiracy theories, that make no sense whatsoever, that you will never see it no matter what proof is put before you.

Regards,

George Clay

[larsenb]

We didn't land on the moon.. but I also would have no reason to bring that up with an "investigator".

Brian, think of all the people involved in the rocketry, tracking, monitoring and construction of all the equipment to do this. A bit tough to fool so many people, or to bring them in on the deception and keep it to themselves the rest of their lives.

My experience was to work directly with people who trained the astronauts in geology at Flagstaff and other locations, with the aim to help them discern the moon geology and how to identify the best rock specimens to collect. These folks also debriefed the returning astronauts and had access to the samples they brought back.

This is another layer of people you would have to bring in on the deception.

I've actually handled moon rocks in the form of 2x3 thin sections and have analyzed them by microscope. Their almost universal aspect was the possession of multiple stages of brecciation, indicating different episodes of being shattered. I've never seen any other rocks like that, and I've worked as a mineralogist using a microscope for a goodly portions of my career. The cause of this brecciation was best explained by the rocks undergoing multiple incidents of shattering by meteoric impact.

We also had a very large depository of photographs taken on all the previous Apollo landings. They were stored in banks of old library-card cabinets. I used to peruse them for recreation. Hundreds of them, taken at ground level and consisting of multiple landscape shots, with many of these showing various astronauts and the lander; also many, many shots of the astronauts in their various activities. Very compelling evidence. Very real.

Additionally, my wife's father was an engineer (graduate degree level), who worked for Allison Corp. (subsidiary of GM) on various heat transfer problems involving Saturn rocketry and, I believe the modules. He very avidly followed all the moon landings, taking a very personal interest in the whole scenario because of his direct involvement with the equipment. If you had told him it was all fake, he would laugh you out of the room.

He is an example of the type of people that would have to be fooled, and there were undoubtedly thousands in this category.

You may want to temper your ideas about the moon landings. Just a suggestion.

Was Stanley Kubrick used to make mock moon landing shots or movies for PR purposes? I don't know. But even if he was employed to do this, what he may have done does not mean that the moon landings were fake. The two possible scenarios aren't mutually exclusive, though the later involves a certain amount of deception. But what is PR anyway, but largely deception?

[larsenb]

Col Flagg,

You don't need to send men to the moon in order to place laser retro-reflectors on it - unmanned craft are perfectly capable of doing that, just ask China and Russia.

So let me get this straight. The moon landing (Which I watched in July of 1969) was a fake, but Russians, and Chinese who have never even claimed to have landed on the moon have secretly landed there.

Also, I am curious is to why, if the US could land unmanned craft, and they can support life in space, can't they land a manned space craft?

I guess you conspiracy folks are so immensely deaf to the incredible lengths that you bend logic and create ridiculous stories just to support conspiracy theories, that make no sense whatsoever, that you will never see it no matter what proof is put before you.

Regards,

George Clay

George, I sympathize with your attitude regarding moon landings, mainly because of my exceedingly minor involvement with the Apollo program and the experience of my wif'e's father in same.

However, I think you're being too black-and-white about 'conspiracy folks' and 'conspiracy theories'. The world abounds in very real conspiracies and the people that run them, all the way from a couple of robbers planning a bank robbery, to those conspiring to create some nefarious, high-level political result. False flags, for instance, are very real and many of them highly documentable. They are planned and executed by 'conspiring' people.

9/11, whatever you may think about it, was brought about by conspiracy. Just how involved the accused Muslims were (in all stages, from planning, execution, to coverup), is very questionable, however. And the 9/11 science that controverts the official story is science, having nothing to do with conspiracy. The results of 9/11 science, however, strongly indicated that those who were the high-level conspirators in this event, have not been publicly recognized and brought to trial, even though many involved have probably been identified.

[David13]

If the earth was flat, all the cats would have pushed everything over the edge. Ha Ha.

Just what kind of comment is that supposed to be?
dc

[larsenb]

If the earth was flat, all the cats would have pushed everything over the edge. Ha Ha.

Just what kind of comment is that supposed to be?
dc

That's what cats do. They play and paw with things until they drop off the edge . . . provided the cats are working on a flat surface that has an edge.

[David13]

If the earth was flat, all the cats would have pushed everything over the edge. Ha Ha.

Just what kind of comment is that supposed to be?
dc

That's what cats do. They play and paw with things until they drop off the edge . . . provided the cats are working on a flat surface that has an edge.

larsenb
It was just my avatar what was getting defensive, not particularly me.
dc

[gclayjr]

larsenb,

However, I think you're being too black-and-white about 'conspiracy folks' and 'conspiracy theories'. The world abounds in very real conspiracies and the people that run them, all the way from a couple of robbers planning a bank robbery, to those conspiring to create some nefarious, high-level political result. False flags, for instance, are very real and many of them highly documentable. They are planned and executed by 'conspiring' people.

While I generally agree with you (although probably not about 911), my issue is that when conspiracy folks chase every ridiculous conspiracy, then nobody is going to listen or pay attention to real conspiracies, which do exist.

If someone goes on ranting about JFK, Moon landing, and yes optical illusions of planes crashing into the pentagon on 911, they will be branded a nut case, and they will have no credibility when trying to expose things like the deep state, or Friends of BIll and Hillary, or even those who may not be so hidden or mysterious, but who do use their power and influance to buy off legislators, judges etc.

And we need believeable people to sound the alarm about real consiacies, not consipacy folks who have destroyed any credibility by making rediculous claims for a flat earth or faked moon landings.

Regards,

George Cly

[larsenb]

larsenb,

However, I think you're being too black-and-white about 'conspiracy folks' and 'conspiracy theories'. The world abounds in very real conspiracies and the people that run them, all the way from a couple of robbers planning a bank robbery, to those conspiring to create some nefarious, high-level political result. False flags, for instance, are very real and many of them highly documentable. They are planned and executed by 'conspiring' people.

While I generally agree with you (although probably not about 911), my issue is that when conspiracy folks chase every ridiculous conspiracy, then nobody is going to listen or pay attention to real conspiracies, which do exist.

If someone goes on ranting about JFK, Moon landing, and yes optical illusions of planes crashing into the pentagon on 911, they will be branded a nut case, and they will have no credibility when trying to expose things like the deep state, or Friends of BIll and Hillary, or even those who may not be so hidden or mysterious, but who do use their power and influance to buy off legislators, judges etc.

And we need believeable people to sound the alarm about real consiacies, not consipacy folks who have destroyed any credibility by making rediculous claims for a flat earth or faked moon landings.

Regards,

George Cly

I wouldn't have a problem with your point of view, but as Silver knows, I have a real problem w/black-and-white thinking. For instance, if you had said: my issue is that when [some] conspiracy folks chase every ridiculous conspiracy", it would have been a lot more palatable (injecting 'some' as a qualifier to conspiracy). I totally agree with this usage. But many people who theorize about who did this or that, have compelling reasons for their beliefs that may be well worth consideration.

I've heard it said by people I trust that CIA basically weaponized the terms conspiracy, conspiracy theory or conspiracy theorist in an internal memo produced in 1967, with the purpose of changing the meaning of the terms to one of ridicule and derision. They wanted some simple way to marginalize those who did not believe in the JFK assassination as depicted in the Warren Report. One could probably research the 'truth' of this allegation. I'm disinclined to spend the time doing so.

All I know is that 'conspiracy theory or theorists' HAS been weaponized to be a term used to summarily dismiss and ridicule people who have the gall to speculate about who did whatever; especially publicly.

Regarding 9/11, I have had considerable experience with both direct involvement in 9/11 scientific research and those involved in it, and with others more involved with more general forensic investigations into same, which doesn't allow myself much room for doubt that the official story is essentially bogus. If I could feed you information I have on these issues in maybe a 3 day seminar, your head would probably explode, or you might go running out of the room at the end of that time with your hands over your ears and yelling: "Enough! Enough! I can't take any more" (I've actually produced this effect in my oldest sister a couple of times, for which I feel some guilt )

[gclayjr]

larsonb,

All I know is that 'conspiracy theory or theorists' HAS been weaponized to be a term used to summarily dismiss and ridicule people who have the gall to speculate about who did whatever; especially publicly.

I have no connection to the CIA or been influenced by them. I have made my own observations, and I use the term Conspiracy folks to avoid using an insulting term. As I have mentioned, I have been frustrated, because I always hoped that we could find some common ground and really warn people about real conspiracies. I should know that no common ground can be found, and while I rarely participate any more in conspiracy threads here, I guess I let myself get sucked up in it when it comes up on tangential threads. I should know better.

I should know that I cannot ever reach past the well entrenched ideas of conspiracy ........folks, and have a reasonable conversation.

Good Bye,

George Clay

[larsenb]

larsonb,

All I know is that 'conspiracy theory or theorists' HAS been weaponized to be a term used to summarily dismiss and ridicule people who have the gall to speculate about who did whatever; especially publicly.

I have no connection to the CIA or been influenced by them. I have made my own observations, and I use the term Conspiracy folks to avoid using an insulting term. As I have mentioned, I have been frustrated, because I always hoped that we could find some common ground and really warn people about real conspiracies. I should know that no common ground can be found, and while I rarely participate any more in conspiracy threads here, I guess I let myself get sucked up in it when it comes up on tangential threads. I should know better.

I should know that I cannot ever reach past the well entrenched ideas of conspiracy ........folks, and have a reasonable conversation.

Good Bye,

George Clay

"Conspiracy folk" is a very broad spectrum. There are many who might belong to this group who could have a very reasonable conversation with you. But if your attitude is "that [you] cannot ever reach past the well entrenched ideas of conspiracy", probably a waste of time for you to even skirt these types of issues . . . whatever you think that means ("well entrenched ideas of conspiracy").

You come across to me as somehow who has been caught up too much by the pejorative usages of conspiracy terms.

[David13]

Why is it that no one has pointed out the simple fact that a flat disc can rotate, just like a round ball.
To say that the earth rotates says nothing about whether or not it is flat.
A pizza pie can rotate, can it not?

The problem gclayjr has is that he concludes that, if any person believes one conspiracy theory, they believe them all. And further that anyone who looks at, considers, ponders any conspiracy theory therefore believes that conspiracy theory completely, 100%.
It just isn't like that.

dc