True

Now the question is: who are the kings and rulers of the earth?
22vkx7.gif (click to show)

Upvoted

You dingus, Eldershire literally said that the height wasn't what it was about. The Tower of Babel was built with the intention of reaching heaven. The Moon Landing happened because we wanted to prove that we could get to the moon.

It wasn't because it was too high, it was because of why they built it. Learn to read, please.

:)

They don't because Babel was about fighting God, and the moon landing was about fighting people.

It's because of the thoughts and beliefs of the people who were building it; not because of the tower itself or how bad people were at constructing it.

Remember, in the Bible's timeline, God couldn't be talked to directly. People had to use sacrifices and other tools, and in this case, they used the wrong practices.

Well, yeah, that's what I meant.

When I say "the Bible's timeline," I meant to put "of Genesis" after it, but my mind drew a blank for a second there...

But you do realize the Apollo 13 was real, had a real and similar malfunction, and had the same names for its astronauts, right? I memed about those real people.

Ephesians 6:12 We wrestle/fight not against flesh and blood but against principalities, powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

That doesn't mean that the "kings and rulers of this earth" are not part of spiritual warfare.

Ephesians 2:2 Satan is the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is right now working in the children of disobedience.

That word "worketh" "working" is the Greek word 'energeo' where we get our words 'energy' or 'energized.' So satan is energizing the "children of disobedience." That is every unconverted person, whether it be the dope addict in a ghetto alleyway or the king/potentate/president of any country.

A lot of the conspiracy theories that I am familiar with focus on the presidents, kings/queens, politicians, etc. But I am more concerned about the "influence peddlers" such as musicians, actors/actresses, and other celebrities that masses of people idolize and seem to "foam at the mouth over." Because those along with political rulers, are the ones whom satan is using to influence "the course of this world" (Ephesians 2:2) or 'direct the contemporary age in which we live.' When we were all unsaved we "walked" or 'lived our lives' "according to the course of this world." Which means that we conducted ourselves by the instruction or counsel of the contemporary age in which we live, which was all under the counsel/influence of satan.

I'm not one of those, "We should ban all rock music (or insert whatever genre of music/entertainment you think is worst) and only listen to psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" type people. But we do need to recognize that if the entertainment or information we take in doesn't exalt Jesus Christ, is is "ungodly counsel" being propagated by someone being energized by satan to push our contemporary generation away from God. So we must not model our lives after that ungodly counsel: "blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly." Psalm 1:1

In the Bible, these "rulers" are Satan's followers, thus why that verse makes these "rulers" so evil.

Ephesians 6:12 We wrestle/fight not against flesh and blood but against principalities, powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

That doesn't mean that the "kings and rulers of this earth" are not part of spiritual warfare.

Ephesians 2:2 Satan is the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is right now working in the children of disobedience.

That word "worketh" "working" is the Greek word 'energeo' where we get our words 'energy' or 'energized.' So satan is energizing the "children of disobedience." That is every unconverted person, whether it be the dope addict in a ghetto alleyway or the king/potentate/president of any country.

A lot of the conspiracy theories that I am familiar with focus on the presidents, kings/queens, politicians, etc. But I am more concerned about the "influence peddlers" such as musicians, actors/actresses, and other celebrities that masses of people idolize and seem to "foam at the mouth over." Because those along with political rulers, are the ones whom satan is using to influence "the course of this world" (Ephesians 2:2) or 'direct the contemporary age in which we live.' When we were all unsaved we "walked" or 'lived our lives' "according to the course of this world." Which means that we conducted ourselves by the instruction or counsel of the contemporary age in which we live, which was all under the counsel/influence of satan.

I'm not one of those, "We should ban all rock music (or insert whatever genre of music/entertainment you think is worst) and only listen to psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs" type people. But we do need to recognize that if the entertainment or information we take in doesn't exalt Jesus Christ, is is "ungodly counsel" being propagated by someone being energized by satan to push our contemporary generation away from God. So we must not model our lives after that ungodly counsel: "blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly." Psalm 1:1

Just kidding. That’s very perceptive. I haven’t studied that verse in depth yet. Good discernment...

Yes, there is a whole lot of ungodly counsel on this site, but I'm not here for that. I'm here to make memes!

Amen to that! : )

Same idea I had... but you still put it waaay better! ;D

Look into the probability of just eight prophecies being fulfilled in the life of one individual. There were at least three hundred fulfilled in the life of Jesus of Nazareth.
If you have ever read Nostradamus' "prophecies" you will see they are vague at best so there are actually more than one historic event that could be pressed into the "fulfillment."
The prophecies of Scripture, especially those fulfilled by Jesus Christ, are very specific. Just read Psalm 22, it is an exact recounting of a Roman crucifixion thousands of years before it was invented.

Yeah, I think that is bait, so you can accuse God of "being more evil than satan."
Satan is a created being, a fallen angel, who has no power on his own. Everything he does is by permission of God. Job 1:6-12 satan has to have permission from God to afflict Job.
If you try to accuse God of "being more evil than satan" or being a tyrant or some other such, God has a purpose for the evil he allows AND if you hold to a materialistic worldview you have NO reason complain about morality because your worldview can't account for morality.

The "rulers" and "Kings of the Earth" aren't the same people in this verse.

Because he was punishing his children for using Him to their advantage.

"Their" is the referring to the Lord and his Messiah, so I guess the bible app I copy and paste from has "Their" capitalized?

You GUESS??? I think I'd want to do my homework and know this stuff for sure before I went proselytizing out in public!

That was an ironic reply. The NASB capitalizes antecedents that refer back to deity.

I am having trouble adding my meme... hmm ? so if he/ your God, is real and he is a loving parent, then why would he allow bad things to happen to good people. Would you as a parent , if you had the power, take away the pain and heartache and bring goodness and happiness to your children?

Sorry you can't add your meme. Sometimes threads "close" so you can't respond to the last comment someone made and you have to go to a previous comment they made to respond to them. I don't know why that is. Some users have issues with the meme generator.

There are no "good people." I'm not saying, "there are no good people apart from Jesus Christ," as if I'm good because I'm a Christian and other Christians are "good." I am not good, nor are other Christians, neither are you. Jesus Christ was the only "good" person and he voluntarily suffered the torment of men and the wrath of God. That is the biblical position that I hold as a bible believer. Other Christians who think that they are "good" because they are Christians don't know the bible very well.

We are not all "children of God." Scripture teaches, "For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:26
Apart from faith in Christ we are only God's creatures and God has a purpose for suffering in the lives of his creatures and children. God uses suffering in our lives to bring higher goodness and happiness than just the temporal pleasures a human parent can give to their child.

Like I said, God has a purpose for the evil he allows AND if you hold to a materialistic worldview you have NO reason to complain about "evil" or "bad things" happening to people because your worldview can't account for "good" or "evil" or "right" or "wrong" because all of that is just subjective to feelings of the individual. If there is no standard of morality and good and evil, why should I even care that people are suffering if I'm not the one suffering?

Upvoted - even though the HD format did not exist during the Apollo Program.

Only off by about a half century or so... close enough!

Anecdote: I'm old enough to have watched the moon landing live in '69. I remember the video quality was so poor, it almost looked like you were looking THROUGH the lunar lander. LOL

I watched it live also (streaming, I guess). I'm an old geezer too!

I don't think they called it "streaming" back then. Streaming was what you did with ribbon back during ticker tape parades.

BTW: And 'ticker tape". How many people today know what ticker tape was? LOL x 5

Ticker tape! I forgot about it until now... lost in the mist of time!

Now I feel ancient. Thanks for cheering me up! ;-p

I've been to a ticker tape parade once. In lower Manhattan. It was around 1990 or 1991.

Even THAT was a long time ago...

That's all right. It's one more TT parade than I can say I've seen. We don't get them high-falutin' VIPs that you big city slickers get! Our last big moment in the spotlight was hosting the 1995 European Ryder Cup team with HRH Prince William as Honorary Team Captain. Which doesn't mean squat if you're not a golf enthusiast. :)

If I recall correctly, the parade was for the released Iranian hostages.

It's amazing how much the wind and cavernous skyscrapers grab the paper and they twirl it upwards between the buildings. Like a blizzard in reverse, almost.

I'd hate to have to clean it up, though. ;-)

And yet where are the feminists complaining about lack of women in THAT job? XD

You again...

Hey- we have a connection to the hostages!. Reporter/hostage Terry A. Anderson had a sister (Peggy Say) who lived just a couple miles from me. She was on the local news so much, she was getting more TV time than Rochester's mayor! LOL

Coincidence?

YOU decide! ;-p

Originally, yes...you're right. But I think the author was referring to the process of digitally turning raw footage into HD imagery (or whatever the proper terminology would be).

You can't do that... you literally can't. There is a huge loss/lack of data. You can't just MAKE IT UP.

OK, now I'm confused. If you can digitally remaster sound recordings, why cant you do that with images?

Because such recordings had a *master*, which contained a significantly higher sampling rate than mass market cassettes could support. Masters were usually dual-spool, slow-turning, and heavier and thicker tape than what you bought at the record store. I don't know what LP Masters were made of, but it was sturdier (and more expensive) than vinyl.They were usually stored under controlled conditions and used very infrequently to preserve their integrity.

Images on the other hand, were 35mm chromium film (or 65mm or 70mm or whatever the movie was originally shot in) that only gets just so good. Still better that what your old analog NTSC television could support, or even your standard movie theater projector. But when compared to today's 4K UHD resolution, you just can't get there from here. You can do contrast enhancements and histogram adjustments and stuff which will help, but you only have just so much information to work with.

You can't turn a 640x480 picture with a 256 color palette into a 4K UHD image, no matter what you think you saw them do on CSI: Miami.

LOL, very impressive response!!!!

The Apollo missions were equipped with 70mm Hasselblad cameras. You can find a catalog of the images here https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/

According to IMAX, 35mm film has a digital equivalent of 6000 lines of horizontal resolution (6K), while 70mm film has the equivalent of 18,000 lines of digital resolution (more like 12,000 in reality)

Thanks for the link. Those are some impressive shots. But the Hasselblad cameras were only for still images. The movie cameras (made by Westinghouse and RCA) ran at 10fps, and had a scan resolution of maybe 320 scan lines. They had to upscale the framerate to show it on television, which is why it looks so terrible.

Recordings where done frame by frame by capturing PHOTONs. A PHOTON is nowhere near the same size as a pixel, my friend; in fact; about 100 million times smaller! Therefore, because the image doesn't have a "resolution" but rather, a "blend" that ran slowly, pixels can represent just a tiny area of that Photon exposure, thus why it can be digitally made.

It's the same idea with Disney's remastered Blu-ray disks. It is able to be done, because the frames were drawn one by one by a speed artist. Because the paper itself didn't have the tendency to form a grid-like affect that a 4K pixel has, it is possible to capture an area that equals (1/3840)x(1/2160) of each frame into a single data pack (which on 32-bit TVs is 4 Bytes.) Since each movie type isn't RAW, but COMPRESSED, the processor only changes pixel colors that are changed after each frame. Digital television works the same way, thus why bad or interrupted signals are a collection of squares that combine 5 to 25 frames within the same moment.

According to howtogeek:

"35mm film, the kind of film used for most old movies, can easily be considered around 20 megapixels or greater in resolution. The lesser used but absolutely enormous 65-70mm film has, as you’d guess, roughly double the potential resolution of 35mm film and could be converted into a 30-40 megapixel image."

and as a frame of reference:

"The resolution of a 1080p movie, when translated into a “megapixel’ count, for example, is a mere 2 megapixels (as there are roughly two million pixels in each frame). Even the new 4K video that blows everyone away with its realism only provides a little under the equivalent of nine megapixels of resolution per frame."

From https://www.howtogeek.com/199182/ask-htg-how-can-studios-release-high-definition-versions-of-decades-old-movies-and-tv-shows/

Yes, all this is true.

The movie cameras on the Lunar Lander wasn't exactly Panavision or Cinemascope, was my point. This is why the Apollo 11 movies aren't going to get much better than what you've already seen.

That may be true, but if anything it's more due to the "handling" the film itself went through. NASA would naturally have had the highest quality equipment possible, and even if they only used 16mm film, that's still a potential base resolution that's equivalent to 4K, at around 9-10 megapixels.

However that film had to go through things like the turbulence of atmospheric re-entry and handling by scientists rather than film experts and such, all of which MAY have caused degradation.

The difference between film and digital recording is that film doesn't use pixels, it doesn't take a digital representation of the scene, it captures the scene entirely. So with good enough original recording equipment and a powerful enough scanner, the moon landing could absolutely be viewed in HD. Hell, I once took a wallet sized photo I had of my mother, who died in the 70's, and scanned it to near poster size with absolutely no loss of picture quality, and the picture became much more visible, with previously unseen details.

"...NASA would naturally have had the highest quality equipment..."

Except that it wasn't. Well, it was, but not in the way you're thinking. They were more concerned with the thing surviving extreme temperature ranges, and operating on only 7 watts of power. They were custom designed movie cameras specifically designed by RCA and Westinghouse to operate in space.

The camera itself recorded film at 10 fps, and a very low number of scan lines.

Dude, no camera uses scanlines to produce a picture. Scnalines are only used for electrical video output CRTs. LCDs and LEDs don't do that, giving the manufacturer the chance to put much higher resolutions in a smaller box more easily. When a camera (even digital ones, but instead of going onto film, photons strike against nano-level color sensors) is taking a picture, it is capturing PHOTONS. PHOTONS are much smaller than an electron (which it is electron movement that displaces photons) and an electron is approximately 1.0x10^-16 (100 femto-meters, 10 billion times smaller than a meter.) Therefore, when the image is converted to work on a television, the converter takes a look at a small area of the photons (about 80 micrometers) and puts the color data it sees as the brightest.

It is impossible to make a camera that does "scanlines" that only happens during output. A printer is "scanlining" but on paper, not a phosphor CRT.

The camera was not digital or electrical for capture. It used actual film; which is not used digitally or electrically, but rather by the laws of particle physics themselves.

Do you realize that cameras were about since 1876, and the world's first microprocessor wasn't until 1971, and even then it could only process a 320x200 image at 0.2fps?

Ah well, fair enough. I guess it does make sense they'd be more concerned with actually being ABLE to film it, and less with image quality.

Right, and in 1969 color TV was just starting to become a thing. Most homes were still running B&W TVs. The idea of a movie camera in space sending LIVE footage from the f**king MOON was just short of a miracle by itself.

But I think people focus too much on resolution anyway. You can have all the resolution in the world, HD, UHD, 8K, etc. But of you're using a 256 color palette and recording at 6 fps, guess what you're gonna get? Crap, that's what.

You can, NASA has done that with the film that came back.

The HD format didn't exist, but the raw footage on film is of a much higher quality than current HD can achieve, if the film is properly stored and maintained.

Good info.

Upvoted. :-)

Frame rate is also a factor. Most movies are filmed at 24 FPS.