tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post3968910810276682595..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Dialogue on Errors Regarding God's Characteristics and Geocentrism (vs. Robert Sungenis)Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-84973178412754729462011-01-26T19:08:01.934-05:002011-01-26T19:08:01.934-05:00That's a great anecdote. Thanks!That's a great anecdote. Thanks!Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-68806476571177897972011-01-26T17:34:18.590-05:002011-01-26T17:34:18.590-05:00A friend of mine came across this while searching ...A friend of mine came across this while searching for something else and thought it might be worth sharing it here.<br /><br />http://www.kl7uw.com/mw3456.htm<br /><br />Notice the 5th paragraph:<br /><br />"I came on board at Goldstone as the last two Apollo Moon missions were being conducted. Dick set up a ten-foot comm dish in his yard with a simple circular horn, diode mixer, and signal generator to pick up the carrier of the Apollo orbiting the Moon. It was pretty neat to hear the changing doppler as the orbiter circled behind the Moon and the signal dropped out and came back about 20-minutes later!"<br /><br />So these men independently set up a dish antenna and pointed it at the moon at the very time that NASA said there was going to be an orbiter around the moon and, just by some happy coincidence, managed to pick up signals with just the expected doppler characteristics (notice that it had a 20 minute period, which would NOT be the case if it was just an earth orbiter, which would be much longer). How about that.<br /><br />Well, I suppose the conspiracy theorists like Sungenis will say these guys must be part of the hoax, too. They were just paid off by NASA. :-/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-69960881933827477432010-12-20T10:31:13.109-05:002010-12-20T10:31:13.109-05:00Fair enough. I'll delete my comments about fi...Fair enough. I'll delete my comments about fixing it then. Merry Christmas!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-5921430310432916222010-12-20T02:06:51.794-05:002010-12-20T02:06:51.794-05:00I think it is sufficient. You have that stuff here...I think it is sufficient. You have that stuff here, anyway.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-26249812811346099762010-12-19T19:59:48.090-05:002010-12-19T19:59:48.090-05:00The two initial comments of yours were cross-poste...The two initial comments of yours were cross-posted and are there (just checked). The old comments total was 444; now it is 446, and I closed the combox again. You have to make sure you're on the last page of the comments (comments 401-446).<br /><br />I went through the spam filter and found many duplicate posts. One didn't seem to make it through at all, so I allowed it in. It starts with "Now, could it just be . . ."Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-15004187174844534172010-12-19T18:46:06.897-05:002010-12-19T18:46:06.897-05:00http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_e...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment<br /> <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Retroreflectors <br /> <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_ExperimentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-86564953980899252392010-12-19T18:45:27.298-05:002010-12-19T18:45:27.298-05:00Here are some helpful links on this topic:
http:...Here are some helpful links on this topic:<br /> <br />http://www.clavius.org/ <br /> <br />http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html<br /> <br />http://spie.org/x38304.xml?ArticleID=x38304<br /><br />(more to follow, below)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-77799518490968946112010-12-19T18:43:53.178-05:002010-12-19T18:43:53.178-05:00Another factor to consider, as the article below s...Another factor to consider, as the article below states, is that the nature of the return signal indicates that it must be bouncing off something well under a meter in size vs. photons reflected from the lunar surface. Also, returns from other non-lunar landing areas are "featureless", meaning that there is no evidence of something unusually reflective anywhere other than where we and the Russians landed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Retroreflectors<br /><br />I don’t see the relevance of the Russian mirrors placed on the moon in 2005 that Sungenis mentioned. Scientists around the world have been using these retro-reflectors - some for decades now - and they get their results by focusing where NASA landed and placed retro-reflectors.<br /> <br />So, he still should either remove this section of Galileo Was Wrong or stop promoting NASA lunar landing conspiracy theories.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-38743722894912842542010-12-19T18:42:31.686-05:002010-12-19T18:42:31.686-05:00Now, could it just be that there just happens to b...Now, could it just be that there just happens to be a reflective rock located at each of the sites where NASA says we placed mirrors and that's what's giving consistent readings? No. Why? Because scientists from all over the world are able to focus these laser bursts at these same lunar locations and get the same accurate results. No matter where the laser burst is fired from around the globe, the light returns to that same location. No naturally formed object has such a reflective property. Conversely, this is *exactly* what a retro-reflector array is *designed* to do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector <br /> <br />Bennett himself mentions this in Galileo Was Wrong: “The retro-reflectors have an ingenious design, which always reflects the captured beam exactly back along the path of the incoming ray. If any light beam strikes the reflector surface, it will return on the same path; there’s no deviation in direction, no correction angle.” (GWW, p. 827)<br /><br />(continued below)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-49520516213355911982010-12-19T18:39:15.064-05:002010-12-19T18:39:15.064-05:00In other words, it’s not possible to obtain consis...In other words, it’s not possible to obtain consistent, repeatable, precise measurements by bouncing lasers off the irregular lunar surface, but scientists can and do attain that level of consistent, repeatable precision when bouncing lasers off the retro-reflectors. This is a primary reason why the U.S. and the Soviet Union put the retro-reflectors there in the first place – because they dramatically enhance accuracy. Unlike the surface of the retro-reflectors, the lunar surface is obviously far from uniform. As a result, when laser photons return to the earth from the irregular lunar surface (the laser burst covers about a 1 mile wide diameter when it hits the moon), the distances recorded will vary significantly from test to test. But when a laser photon from a laser burst hits the fixed retro-reflector, the measurements are extremely consistent and precise. Even back in the 1970’s and early 1980’s scientists were able to attain a precision level of 10-15 centimeters. From the mid-1980’s they could measure to within one centimeter. Now they can measure to within 1 millimeter. (See: http://spie.org/x38304.xml?ArticleID=x38304)<br /><br />Continued belowAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-40568990194787715842010-12-19T18:10:09.067-05:002010-12-19T18:10:09.067-05:00I will cross-post this reply to the long thread. T...I will cross-post this reply to the long thread. Thanks for it.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-54516422912449965132010-12-19T17:52:24.008-05:002010-12-19T17:52:24.008-05:00I noticed that Sungenis is still trying to answer ...I noticed that Sungenis is still trying to answer the contradiction between him and his Galileo Was Wrong co-author (Bennett) on the loooong thread. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you copy and post this reply over there as well, Dave? It would be good to have it in both places, if you don't mind.<br /> <br />IMO, all he’s done with his "new information" is to model the propagandist/conspiracy theorist mindset. As I previously told Johnmartin (http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-sungenis-opts-for-personal.html?showComment=1289532816869#c2770407935333708365), they're guilty of the very things that they accuse modern science of. They approach the evidence with an extreme bias that blinds them to the facts in front of their eyes or they fail to honestly seek out contrary evidence in the first place. <br /> <br />Sungenis first waved off the contradiction between Bennett and him with a non-answer that gave the appearance of being an answer. Then, after it was exposed that his answer didn't actually answer anything, he didn’t even acknowledge that fact and instead went off to find "new evidence" to "vindicate" himself (in his own words). And that's exactly what a propagandist/conspiracy theorist would do. His belief is dictating his "fact" search rather than allowing his fact search to dictate his belief. His recommendation of the “excellent documentary” video put out by other conspiracy theorists rather than information put out by reputable scientists also fits the propagandist/conspiracy theorist mold. <br /> <br />Another illustration of Sungenis' propagandist/conspiracy theorist mindset is that he knew about this contradiction several years ago, before his book was published (unless he wants to say that he never read Bennett’s chapter). But only now, after the contradiction was publicly exposed, did he make any effort to resolve it. <br /> <br />So, did Sungenis’ “new information” accomplished anything? Not really. <br /> <br />First, how does Sungenis' "new evidence" "vindicate" him and Bennett from "any contradiction", as he claims? Bennett says in Galileo Was Wrong that there are mirrors "placed on [the moon's] surface by astronauts" and Sungenis supports and promotes conspiracy theories that astronauts never went to the moon. Either Bennett is wrong or Sungenis is wrong. That contradiction remains.<br /> <br />Second, while it’s apparently possible to detect laser light that has bounced off the lunar surface, it’s clear that this is <b>not</b> what happened and continues to happen with the lunar laser experiments run by scientists around the world (the ones referenced and used by Bennett). Why? A few reasons. <br /> <br />As stated at the University of California at San Diego website:<br /> <br />“We measure to the retroreflector arrays left on the moon by the Apollo astronauts, and by an unmanned Soviet rover carrying a French-built reflector. These define very specific points of reference on the lunar surface. <b>This is far better than measuring to the rough-and-tumble surface. We would never have any hope of measuring the lunar distance to millimeter precision without these well-defined reflectors.</b> We aim at one reflector at a time when performing the measurement.”<br />http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html<br /><br />(continued below)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-56954401976081175902010-11-29T17:41:24.658-05:002010-11-29T17:41:24.658-05:00Three comments.
* What is with the prophetic-apoc...Three comments.<br /><br />* What is with the prophetic-apocalyptic warnings and presumptuous invocations of God’s name? “God has given me something with which I intend on changing the world, and I'm not going away. The conference was just the start of what I and my associates are planning.” “I’ve sent them my books free of charge, but they refuse to read them… I’m sure they will answer to God for their negligence.” <br /><br />* I'm sure you'll be glad to know that you weren’t being impersonated at Shea's blog. I read in the comments there that it was a joking reference to astronaut Neil Armstrong and not you. <br /><br />* I struggle understanding immutability, too. I sometimes wonder if the answer may lie in the distinction between the temporal and the eternal perspectives. Change is a fundamental aspect of time and God did/ does enter into time in order to interact with His creation. But from the eternal perspective, God does not and cannot change. Regardless, at least from what I'm reading at your blog, Sungenis was sloppy. He needs to be more careful when writing about a dogma like that so that no one is confused or led astray about God.<br /><br />Nice job keeping the teaching straight and orthodox. <br /><br />But have you ever heard this joke? Q: What was God doing before the creation? A: Nothing. He didn’t have time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-74126447489384827092010-11-23T16:46:59.395-05:002010-11-23T16:46:59.395-05:00As of 1:30 AM EST on 11-23-10 (Tuesday) I have add...As of 1:30 AM EST on 11-23-10 (Tuesday) I have added two more replies from Bob and my own counter-replies.<br /><br />Now it turns out that some idiot on Mark Shea's blog was pretending to be me and using the nick "Mr. Armstrong." Bob Sungenis mistakenly assumed this was me (the person was running him down).<br /><br />I will happily acknowledge any retractions and removals Bob makes as a result of my replies and the info. that a person was unethically pretending to be me, but other than that I'm done with all this, including dialogues with Bob on immutability.<br /><br />Ain't interested any more after his latest replies regarding the immutability issue . . .<br /><br />Bob has apologized for the mistaken identity error in a private e-mail to me. I appreciate that.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-1531174661719338982010-11-22T12:41:30.791-05:002010-11-22T12:41:30.791-05:00Douay-Rheims Bible -- Matt. 21:16 -
And said to hi...Douay-Rheims Bible -- Matt. 21:16 -<br />And said to him: Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus said to them: Yea, have you never read: Out of the mouth of infants and of sucklings thou hast perfected praise? <br /><br />Douay-Rheims Bible -- 1 Cor. 1:27 -<br />But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise; and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong.<br />**********************************<br /><br />I would commend to your readers an article by an author who is considered weak and foolish by those who consider themselves strong and worldly wise: "Recanting Galileo" by Solange Hertz which should be found at http://philossophiasirach.blogspot.com/2010/11/galileo-galilei.html and http://ldolphin.org/geocentricity/index.html.<br /><br />James B. PhillipsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-75986935269367473142010-11-22T10:54:20.097-05:002010-11-22T10:54:20.097-05:00Thanks very much for the kind words. All the best ...Thanks very much for the kind words. All the best to you and your family, too, as the blessed Advent season approaches.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-48762192457323028782010-11-22T00:33:57.287-05:002010-11-22T00:33:57.287-05:00I see that Sungenis tried to answer the contradict...I see that Sungenis tried to answer the contradiction about the mirrors on the moon. He wrote, “The answer is simple. I didn’t write that section of the book. Dr. Bennett did. And it doesn’t come from page 827 since there is no page 827 in the book. If come from page 440.”<br /><br />I looked at the page again and it says “827” at the bottom. Maybe he’s looking at a different edition or format than I am. I think there are four or five editions and a variety of formats.<br /><br />No matter because his solution doesn’t really address the central problem. As I said, it seems to me that either the mirrors are there and he needs to admit that NASA did put men on the moon or his lunar-landing hoax theories are valid and he needs to remove this section of the proof for geocentrism. Who wrote what in the book is really irrelevant. So, Houston, we've still got a problem. It's odd that he can't see that.<br /><br />Thanks again for hosting these discussions, Dave. But I think that will do it for me. I’ve spent too much time on them already – and I know my wife agrees! LOL As I'm hoping to convince her to make me an extra one of her delectable pies this Thanksgiving, I’d best make myself more available for all the preparations. :-) <br /><br />By the way, I took a look at some of your other articles and you have some great material here. I was particularly touched by the ode you wrote to your wife. Good stuff. I plan to refer some friends who are looking for resource material to your website. I hope to be back after the holy-days. Have a nice Thanksgiving and a blessed Christmas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-4082696978404083912010-11-21T20:15:56.879-05:002010-11-21T20:15:56.879-05:00Dr. Sungenis:
"Because the Church never has ...Dr. Sungenis: <br />"Because the Church never has and never will contradict the face value, literal words of Scripture."<br /><br />[u]Romans 3:22[/u]<br />23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God<br /><br />But the Catholic Church teaches Mary never sinned. Obviously Dr. Sungenis doesn't understand Catholic theology as well as he things.Ronniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12999674884401144818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-80043629790022682342010-11-21T15:16:14.492-05:002010-11-21T15:16:14.492-05:00Mark,
Interesting info., but could you please ref...Mark,<br /><br />Interesting info., but could you please refrain from personal attacks? I can hardly object to Sungenis' personal attacks against me and not also speak out against attacks made towards him as well.<br /><br />We can strongly critique ideas without getting into that.<br /><br />Thank you.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-84049862210008502272010-11-21T03:22:26.946-05:002010-11-21T03:22:26.946-05:00(quotes from Dr. Barr continued)
I just looked yo...(quotes from Dr. Barr continued)<br /><br />I just looked you up in the ISI database and find that no one named M.J. Wyatt has ever published a research paper in physics. There is an M.J. Wyatt who has published a few papers in engineering. What are your credentials for arguing about General Relativity with someone who has taught graduate courses in it at a major university? (In fact I am teaching it again next fall.) You have what some people call Chutzpah. <br /><br />Look, fellah. I do this stuff for a living. Do you also tell brain surgeons and airline pilots about the technicalities of their fields? Sorry to be harsh, but God is not served by his followers speaking nonsense.<br /><br />......<br /><br />Bennett is an ignoramus when it comes to physics and Sungenis is a bigger one. Sungenis wrote some brilliant theological works (like "Not by Faith Alone") but he is now dabbling in things he knows zippo about. He still obviously has the fundamentalist idea of every man his own Pope, except that instead of rejecting 2,000 years of Church Tradition, as he used to do as a fundamentalist, he now rejects 400 years of well established physics. <br /><br />Just as he used to think he could figure out the whole Bible on his own without the aid of Tradition, so now he thinks he can figure out the physical universe on his own without knowing what theoretical physicists have been up to for the last 400 years. Chutzpah to the nth degree....<br /><br />...<br /><br />I am the author of "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith". Bennett is an ignoramus, and you can quote me on that. <br /><br />....<br /><br />I have talked enough to Robert Bennett by e-mail to be able to say that he does not even understand physics at the level of a college freshman physics major. He misunderstands basic things. If he has a Ph.D. it cannot be in theoretical physics from any reputable physics department. He uses terms like "inertial frame", and "Lense-Thirring effect" without any understanding. He made arguments to me about stellar parallax that involved elementary blunders. <br /><br />My own credentials? I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Princeton Univ. (1978) and have published over 125 papers in research journals on fundamental physics.<br /><br />(End Quotes)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-28480864173584516712010-11-21T03:18:14.040-05:002010-11-21T03:18:14.040-05:00If you and your readers are interested in some enl...If you and your readers are interested in some enlightening comments from a real PhD in physics who corresponded with Bennett, go here and review the comments:<br />http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1657397/posts<br /><br />You'll note more of their odd double-mindedness where Sungenis/Bennett use accepted scientific information when it benefits them, but then deny it's fundamental legitimacy. <br /><br />For example, Dr. Stephen Barr writes to a Sungenis acolyte: <br /><br />By the way, Robert Bennett told me, when I pressed him, that he does not believe in either special or general relativity! I can send you the e-mail where he said this to me. Bennett talks (as you do) about the Lense-Thirring effect and the dragging of inertial frames, but the Lense-Thirring effect is something that exists in General Relativity and not in Newtonian physics. Yet Bennett says he believes in Newtonian physics and not General Relativity. He totally inconsistent!<br /><br />He rejects GR and then appeals to a GR effect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-46164078945189378552010-11-21T03:04:54.349-05:002010-11-21T03:04:54.349-05:00If you and your readers are interested in some enl...If you and your readers are interested in some enlightening comments from a well-respected and acclaimed PhD in physics who corresponded with Bennett and Sungenis, go here and review the comments:<br /> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1657397/posts<br /><br />You'll note more of their weird double-mindedness where Sungenis/Bennett use scientific information when it benefits them, but then deny its fundamental legitimacy. <br /><br />For example, Dr. Stephen Barr writes to a Sungenis acolyte: <br /><br />(Begin Quotes): <br /><br />By the way, Robert Bennett told me, when I pressed him, that he does not believe in either special or general relativity! I can send you the e-mail where he said this to me. Bennett talks (as you do) about the Lense-Thirring effect and the dragging of inertial frames, but the Lense-Thirring effect is something that exists in General Relativity and not in Newtonian physics. Yet Bennett says he believes in Newtonian physics and not General Relativity. He totally inconsistent!<br /> <br />He rejects GR and then appeals to a GR effect. <br /><br />I just looked you up in the ISI database and find that no one named M.J. Wyatt has ever published a research paper in physics. There is an M.J. Wyatt who has published a few papers in engineering. What are your credentials for arguing about General Relativity with someone who has taught graduate courses in it at a major university? (In fact I am teaching it again next fall.) You have what some people call Chutzpah. Look, fellah. I do this stuff for a living. Do you also tell brain surgeons and airline pilots about the technicalities of their fields? Sorry to be harsh, but God is not served by his followers speaking nonsense. <br /><br />....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-83665116446977305092010-11-21T02:46:51.600-05:002010-11-21T02:46:51.600-05:00R. Sungenis: "The answer is simple. I didn’t ...R. Sungenis: "The answer is simple. I didn’t write that section of the book. Dr. Bennett did."<br /><br />A "simple" answer that resolves nothing - typical Sungenis folderol. The point "S" made stands untouched regardless of who wrote what section of Galileo Is Wrong. This parsing of his book into "his and mine" is schizophrenic idiocy. He would rather throw his own book and co-author under the bus rather than having the humility(or at least the common sense!) to admit that his unimportant conspiracy theory is wrong. <br /><br />But it really is simple, isn't it? Either the book is correct or it's not. Either the mirrors are present or they are not, Mr. Sungenis. If they are present, then stop spreading your ignorant conspiracy theories and admit you were wrong. If you don't believe they are present, then have the integrity to remove this section from your book. <br /> <br />And I had to laugh out loud when reading Sungenis' description of those who don't doubt that men landed on the moon. <br /><br />Sungenis: "Any intelligent person who has studied the issue is going to have doubts as to whether the United States had the capability to put a man on the moon in 1969..." <br /><br />So what, pray tell, what does that say about his own co-author's brain power? <br /><br />Alas, I have to agree with him, there. Neither he nor his co-author know what they are talking about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-37988601311222101622010-11-20T23:21:34.069-05:002010-11-20T23:21:34.069-05:00Bob sent another reply and I gave some additional ...Bob sent another reply and I gave some additional counter-replies, as of 11:20 PM EST Saturday night.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-92047041179244754892010-11-20T01:33:29.966-05:002010-11-20T01:33:29.966-05:00Touche! Brilliant . . . and what will be the answe...Touche! Brilliant . . . and what will be the answer from <i>Bob</i> (not one of his bulldog underlings)?Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.com