God, new and improved

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jefferson:
http://www.theologyonline.com/newgod/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth to this.

 

Sad but true, thats what the world wants, & unfortunatly most of the churches too it seems.

 

Hey preacher, what are those rolling and jumping smilies before your solemn statement, "Sad but true......?" Sorry friend, but if you combine the two concepts they become oxymoron in nature.

Now, the link was very interesting. Goes very well with our modern concept of Contemporary Christians, doesn't it?

 

I said those little smilies would get me in trouble! The web page itself, it's design & layout, & some of the remarks, were funny to me. It is a sad situation & I'm sorry you misunderstood my intentions. Please don't tell me I'm not allowed a warped sense of humor at times too!

 

well, we'll forgive you this time - but don't let it happen again!

 

Y..Ye...Yes..Si..Si..Sir!!! Oh! by the way, which am I, an
OX or a MORON ?

[ September 28, 2001: Message edited by: preacher ]

 

Did you say an ox or a mormon? I figured you were a Baptist. Am I wrong?

 

Folks, be not deceived.

Jefferson is a staunch support of Bob Enyart and ShadowGov. He runs (or has something to do with running) the internet radio station that is affiliated with both.

I encourage you to visit the Theology Online forums, and check them out for yourselves.

Personally, I think it's somewhat deceitful of Jefferson to simply come to this board, knowing full well that he doesn't profess to be a baptist, knowing full well that he's not here to debate or discuss but to advertise the website that he has something to do with....

But don't take my word for it. Check him out for yourselves. And if I'm wrong, show me so that I may apologize.

 

My apologies; I've seen you advertise the KGOV internet radio station before, and thought I read once or twice that you have a show on it, or assist with a show on that station.

I also had you pegged for a non-denominationalist; my apologies there as well.

As for "debate and discussion"; well, you have yet to prove that one...the only things I've seen you post so far are that shtoopid photo (shame on you for proliferating that garbage, by the way) and this blatant advertisement for theology online and Bob Enyart.

Unless, of course, you're posting in the theology discussion forums, which I read a lot but don't participate in...nope, just did a search. You have only two posts that I can find on this entire message board.

If you're *really* here to discuss and debate, Jefferson, get with it. Otherwise, admit that you had something else in mind, and move on.

[ September 29, 2001: Message edited by: Don ]

 

...and speaking as a person who has doctored photos (I like to put people's heads on other people's bodies, or on animals, or other fun stuff for parties, birthdays, etc.), that photo is doctored.

Truth or Fiction apparently doesn't have the experts to figure this out. Look at their review of the tourist on the World Trade Center; not one mention is made of the fact that the right wing of the aircraft (as the plane is facing you, as in the photo, it would be the left wing) has a distinctive "smudge" around it. In most digital editing programs, this is called the "smudge" tool; it's used to smooth the line of a super-imposed image. Blowing up the visitor's picture clearly shows this smudge. You can tell most from the fact that the smaller buildings distinctly show dark areas that are windows; in the smudge area, those are blurred and not distinct at all.

There are several problems with the photo you posted a link to, and Truth or Fiction's web site analysis of it. First, T or F doesn't claim it to be truth or fiction; apparently, they have been unable to completely confirm it. Second, the Associated Press, who are given credit for the black and white photo, web site has absolutely nothing on this photo. Third, T or F gives a link to a CNN site filled with videos, but doesn't give you a clue as to which one to look at. Fourth, in the T or F article, it's stated that the photographer shot the AP photo right after the first tower was hit; but in the photo, both towers are billowing smoke (what's the story?). Fifth, again, speaking as someone who has had some experience with doctoring photos, and some experience with researching and debunking hoaxes, this AP photo has some interesting shadowing problems--such as, the smoke that contains the "face" is decidedly different than the rest of the smoke coming from either of the towers.

Jefferson, in times like this, the LAST thing anyone needs is fear-mongering....

 

Preacher, tell the truth now, those face icons you used above are charismatic faces, aren't they?

LOL

In His Steps,

Alex Peterson
II Corinthians 10:5

 

On the "last pic taken from the trade towers" hoax:

According to truthorfiction, the photo is doctored.

I, too, have a lot of experience with doctoring photos.

It's a fake, and they even say so.

There is extensive pixelization around the plane and the 09-11-01 insert.

Also, the guy on the observation deck is dressed for winter. The forecast for that day was in the 80s.

The shadows from the plane and observation deck do not coincide.

And last, but certainly not least:

Only one tower had an observation deck. The plane that hit that tower was a United plane.
The plane in this picture is an American Airlines plane.

All this (and much more) is readily available on the truthorfiction.com web site.

In His Steps,

Alex Peterson
II Corinthians 10:5

 

Actually, Alex, we're discussing the photo of the "face in the smoke."

I firmly believe that one, too, is a fake. The Truth or Fiction web site is stating that they don't consider it truth or fiction yet, just not a hoax.

 

Oh, Jefferson; that's TOO funny.

Inside Edition is a King World show, not ABC. It's distributed to ABC, CBS, NBC, WB, and UPN, among others.

Where'd you get the transcript from? I"d like to take a look at it.

'Cause I sure ain't finding diddly about it on their web site....

I've sent Inside Edition an e-mail asking them when they aired this report.

 

Don wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually, Alex, we're discussing the photo of the "face in the smoke."

I firmly believe that one, too, is a fake. The Truth or Fiction web site is stating that they don't consider it truth or fiction yet, just not a hoax. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I looked at that one, too. Now that one, I could not see any evidence of it being doctored.

I could not find pixelization or smudge pixels that were incongruent to their surroundings.

Unless someone could prove where I missed it (I am capable of being wrong. It doesn't bother me), I would contend that the photographs of "a face in the smoke" are real.

I am not playing twilight zone music here. I am only looking at the evidence I can see.

Usually doctoring is not all that sophisticated. In cases where it is well done, the photograph has to be tailor-made for the fudge factor (doctoring).

If you will bring both photos up in your favorite picture manipulation tool, and look at them side by side, it becomes obvious.

The "top of the tower" pic is obviously faked because of the numerous anomalous factors previously listed.

On the "face in the smoke" picture, none of this is obvious at all (even when blown up to the point where a pixel is the size of my little fingernail).

But, I could be wrong. I only await the evidence to the contrary. The evidence I have been able to observe leans toward authenticity.

As Baptists, we have a natural tendency to discount the spectacular or sensational as it pertains to spiritual matters.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad guideline, but we have to remember that it is only a guideline.

Spiritually sensational things do still happen, albeit not that often.

If they happened every day, they wouldn't be called miracles, they would be called regulars (Chuck Swindoll).

So, without debating that, I will stay with the evidence I can poke a pointy stick at.

So, that's 2 for, 1 against. On the opinion breakdown, it works out something like this:

One is going on the integrity of various media he is quoting as sources with no personal technical backup. (That's great, that's 98% of the world, this isn't a knock.)

Two are going upon direct physical, technical interpretation of the evidence.
Both of these hold opposite views of the evidence. Now any person who goes with a technical bias has to form an opinion on said findings based upon the technical expertise of either party.

I have been a programmer, programmer/analyst, systems/analyst (10 years), and web site designer (4 years). I don't know if that constitutes experience for some people. It may not. It does involve extensive picture manipulation and pixelization clean up.

There may be someone out there with more experience. There always is. And no two of us egg heads ever agrees on anything.

That's why your computer has to be rebooted 6 times a day.

LOL!

In His Steps,

Alex Peterson
II Corinthians 10:5

[ October 01, 2001: Message edited by: petersonalexw ]