Depends on which part of Texas. Austin is awesome
Well, we're near Austin, but still a very conservative area.
Rick Perry affectionately calls the politics in Austin the blueberry in the tomato soup.
so i was fooled by the witnesses.
what can i learn from that?
not to accept things at face value but to seek out opinion and different view points.. hence my question " do you believe man landed on the moon?.
Depends on which part of Texas. Austin is awesome
Well, we're near Austin, but still a very conservative area.
Rick Perry affectionately calls the politics in Austin the blueberry in the tomato soup.
so i was fooled by the witnesses.
what can i learn from that?
not to accept things at face value but to seek out opinion and different view points.. hence my question " do you believe man landed on the moon?.
My god, this is why we need to teach critical thinking starting in kindergarten.
They are. At least in my daughter's district. What's surprising is that this district is in Texas.
One of the cameras I shoot on is an HPX250.
Pretty cool. I know that camera backwards and forwards.
so i was fooled by the witnesses.
what can i learn from that?
not to accept things at face value but to seek out opinion and different view points.. hence my question " do you believe man landed on the moon?.
The Rebel: If it's any consolation, I sympathize with you.
Remember: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Landing on the moon is extraordinary. There is a wide range of empirical evidence to support that man landed on the moon. An extraordinary amount of evidence.
As extraordinary as the claim of man landing on the moon is, an even more extraordinary claim is that it was all faked. The hypothesis that the landing was faked has been thoroughly debunked as false. There is no evidence to support ANY of the claims, much less anything coming close to the definition of "extraordinary."
so i was fooled by the witnesses.
what can i learn from that?
not to accept things at face value but to seek out opinion and different view points.. hence my question " do you believe man landed on the moon?.
Regarding the flag waving: all the motion in this video can easily be explained by inertia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxEV6H7Shpc
Here is a video thoroughly debunking the flag waving myth:
so i was fooled by the witnesses.
what can i learn from that?
not to accept things at face value but to seek out opinion and different view points.. hence my question " do you believe man landed on the moon?.
Viviane:
Just the facts, ma'am.
so i was fooled by the witnesses.
what can i learn from that?
not to accept things at face value but to seek out opinion and different view points.. hence my question " do you believe man landed on the moon?.
I have examined the supposed "evidence" for the conspiracy theories about the landing.
There is no plausible evidence to suggest that man did not land on the moon.
Especially the blowing flag argument.
Air resistance is not needed to see a flag "flutter." All that is needed is the motion of the astronauts setting up the flag. It's a simple concept called "inertia."
that was what the radio said yesterday.
it prompted me to look for the topic.
the following link speaks of the same issue but is not from npr.
LDS church becoming more transparent says NPR
Does that mean more people will be able to see through their crazy teachings now?
hi guys.
i actually have had dealings with rod and found him to be a very reasonable and "non-robotic" man in the past.. i know it should not surprise me, but i was disappointed to hear his lies and half-truths.. they know their stuff and are not easily led, but he tried to lead the royal commission to believe that 2 people could be involved in investigating a claim - which is wrong.. his lack of memory on what parts of the judicial process are biblical - hello - none are.
there are no scriptures that backup the use of 3 men, a body of elders, cutting people off from family and friends, restrictions, etc.. he also lied about the gb being involved in policy creation and changes.. his statement that in all cases, elders are told to inform parents that they can go to the authorities and get the full support of the congregation is not verifiable.
They know their stuff and are not easily led, but he tried to lead the Royal Commission to believe that 2 people could be involved in investigating a claim - which is wrong.
For the record, Spinks is correct on this point. It is routine for a body of elders to form an investigating committee, usually comprised of 2 elders, to investigate a claim of wrongdoing and determine if a Judicial Committee needs to be formed.