Please actually answer my question re: drug implication/peacemaker.

As for being deluded on something nearly everyone can see, hello… nearly everyone knows we are the result of a cosmic accident followed by a thousand other fluke accidents, right? You are the deluded one who believes in a magic Sky Daddy, right?  Are YOU on drugs?

Finally, a…[Read more]

Is implying that someone, who’s arguments you can’t refute, is on drugs being a peacemaker in your opinion?

And yes, D4T, my mind also went right to the billions of years point.  Why billions?  Because evolution (cosmic, chemical and biological) needs it.

As for Tater’s claim that the Bible doesn’t give an age for our world, it’s just another o…[Read more]

D4T: I’m pretty sure who NEEDS the meds but I’m not saying.

Mike I’m so glad you put that video out! 

Thanks man!  I’m getting a lot of positive response.  Not from Tater, though.  He’ll probably keep watching the comments to see of someone else posts a rebuttal that sounds remotely feasible – and then claim victory by proxy!  😁😎

I talked to t…[Read more]

Tater:  Nothing outstanding from what I can tell. Anything new?

Again, I can only guess at what you’re referring to.  My video?

How about starting with what I said was small so we all know what you’re even talking about?  Micro-meteors? My vacuum video?

What?

t8: Debunks on a daily basis…

Who would design a vessel that requires the crew to risk their lives doing basic maintenance?  I single microscopic meteoroid hitting a space suit would mean curtains for the astronaut.  It’s like putting the equipment to raise and lower the sails of a boat on the bottom of it… underwater!  😁😂🤣

Werner Von Br…[Read more]

My latest includes a quote from Tater himself…

Do YOUR own homework!  Only a blathering idiot would try to argue something he hasn’t even looked into.  Or, in better words…

He who answers a matter before he hears it, It is folly and shame to him.

– Proverbs 18:13

Diversions are ignored.  What’s the answer to my last question?  You said you don’t know.  Find out.  (Hint: Google Earth lists the source of the image at the bottom of the page.)

I await your answer.

Tater, they don’t have any of the footage that I mentioned above simply because you can’t have real footage of things that don’t exist.  Maybe this will help…

This is an actual size comparison of Antarctica overlaid on a photo of the moon I took.  The diameter of the moon is 2158 miles.  The diameter of Antarctica is 2768 miles.  So what you…[Read more]

There are 93,000 square millimeters in one square foot.  My P900 sensor is 28 square millimeters.  So the camera on that 6 year old satellite is 3300 times better than my camera, which takes very clear images of a moon that is 626 times farther away than the satellite is to the earth!

But tater is sure they have some valid reason for this n…[Read more]

Yes of course.  Just like NASA and all the other space agencies of the world have their reasons for not putting a slew of stationary hi res cameras on the moon so we could study cloud patterns, electromagnetic activities, solar flares, tides, and basically just watch the spinning ball earth rotate round and round in real time.  This would be H…[Read more]

Oh… and the satellite’s square foot sensor is also 626 times closer to its subject than my 5 square millimeter sensor! 😉

Dude, that 6 year old satellite’s sensor is one square foot!  The sensor in my P900 – which takes very clear photos of the moon – is about 5 square millimeters!  😁😂🤣

Okay… now we’re going to assume that you also realize that the clarity of the space satellite photos would be almost 1000 times better than my photos of the moon – and that’s assuming that they put $500 cameras with tiny sensors on those billion dollar pieces of equipment.  Here’s an article about a satellite from 6 years…[Read more]

Okay then… we’ll give you an undeserved benefit of the doubt, and just assume you know that 250 miles away is much closer than 240,000 miles away.  That means that even with a crappy $500 camera, a space satellite taking photos of anywhere on earth will result in clarity almost 1000 times better than my photos of the moon.  Can you agree with that?

t8:  Read my post again. Flat white plains is not high priority on image upgrades when populated areas are in need of attention.

If you can’t see that, then you have to be blind. It’s obvious. …

All images were okay but then pixelated when you wanted to look at your house. Slowly but surely they have been making these lower altitude imag…

[Read more]

They got a 27 mile laser and mirror at Salton Sea 2 days ago. 👍 Videos coming soon.

Do you suppose Google Earth can afford $2000 for their Loon program?  Or do you think they’re using those disposable cardboard party cameras?

Now to the next step….

Which is closer – me to the moon or a Loon balloon to the earth?

The latter?  Well done.

Now, can we take a better quality photo of, say, a mountain from 5 miles away, or from 2…[Read more]