DC Owl

Status
Not open for further replies.
lol, 'whats he going to do?' like it was an accident... wtf?! It was HIS paper! HIS design..! Oh, man. Ah well.

Let me restate. I'm suggesting that he designs the grounds, with the actual requirements in mind. Nice curved paths, some clear areas to hold functions in, dramatic views of the capitol while walking the paths accounting for the terrain.

Then he's done, but he notices it looks a bit like an owl. When I say "what's he going to do", I'm not suggesting he's going to do anything other than smile and show it to his wife. "Look dear, it looks somewhat like an owl, that will confuse people a bit when we get Google Earth in 150 years".

I think we might have reached an impasse here. I'm not even that sure what the argument is about.
 
lol, 'whats he going to do?' like it was an accident... wtf?! It was HIS paper! HIS design..! Oh, man. Ah well.
Grieves . . . Love your Omar Khayyam quote . . . my fav since I was a kid . . .

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on : nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
http://onetruename.com/Khayyam.htm
Content from External Source
 
lol, that's because there really shouldn't be one, I think. Man drew paths on a big rectangular lawn. Paths looked kind of like an owl. Man was almost certainly aware, even as he was doing it... because he was doing it. Thats aboot all there is to this one, so far as I'm concerned. :p

And thanks alot George, though (and I'm going to nerd out here a bit) Omar Khayyam didn't actually write it, it was done by a guy named Edward FitzGerald, who was 'translating' Omar Khayyam's work from the original Persian. Of course lyrical, flowing rhyme schemes don't at all translate from Persian to English, so though FitzGerald effectively captured the essence of Khayyam's poetry, he took rather wild liberties in the wording to give them that 'English' appeal. There's a much more direct translation out and about now, picked it up a couple of years back, and its pretty good stuff. Not as pretty, but nice to wrap one's head around.

khayam01.jpg
His tomb. Ah, the wonder and complexity of things made by design, no? :p
 
lol, that's because there really shouldn't be one, I think. Man drew paths on a big rectangular lawn. Paths looked kind of like an owl. Man was almost certainly aware, even as he was doing it... because he was doing it. Thats aboot all there is to this one, so far as I'm concerned. :p

So I think the argument is about if he was trying to make an owl, or he just happened to make an owl, or somewhere in-between. I lean towards it just happening without intent.
 
And thanks alot George, though (and I'm going to nerd out here a bit) Omar Khayyam didn't actually write it, it was done by a guy named Edward FitzGerald, who was 'translating' Omar Khayyam's work from the original Persian. Of course lyrical, flowing rhyme schemes don't at all translate from Persian to English, so though FitzGerald effectively captured the essence of Khayyam's poetry, he took rather wild liberties in the wording to give them that 'English' appeal. There's a much more direct translation out and about now, picked it up a couple of years back, and its pretty good stuff. Not as pretty, but nice to wrap one's head around.

And Khayyam references the Book of Daniel, and the Writing on the Wall.

I've always felt it a bit irony in the electronic age, where writing is volatile, and can be changed. The "moving finger" being the cursor, and now we've got the backspace key :). Memory hole and all that.

Of course it's more about the finality of the past and/or the unavoidability of fate.
 
I've read every post on this thread and I'm still beyond lost. Why on earth are we discussing landscape design around the Capitol building? What, does someone think it's a clever symbol from the Illuminati to say they have a death grip on our political system's balls?
 
I've always felt it a bit irony in the electronic age, where writing is volatile, and can be changed. The "moving finger" being the cursor, and now we've got the backspace key :). Memory hole and all that.
Hit the nail on the head.
 
Justin Bieber just got an owl tattoo on his arm (he's a wannabe illuminati). When asked about the meaning of the tattoo he replied "it has a special, secret, meaning to me."


So? Many people get tattoos of butterflies. Does that mean that they are part of a secret cult? No!

Maybe the owl represents something personal to him. A story that he was inspired by, or maybe he liked Harry Potter! Who cares! It's irrelevant.

And if this were a symbol of the Illuminati, there's a bit of a hole, there. Isn't their symbol supposed to be the "eye of providence? "
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And why would that not be "wisdom", the traditional meaning of an owl?

I don't like Bieber much myself, but I would just like to point out that Bieber likely does value wisdom. He's actually pretty smart despite his appearance and demeanor in some social appearances. He's a prolific investor in various high tech companies in silicon valley, some very successful. He also commands an immense amount of influence in social media. In addition he doesn't seem to be going crazy despite the fact that he essentially prints money.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2012/0...ber-investments-music-venture-capitalist.html
 
(Oxy is probably the closest, but still somewhat reasonable).

Interesting Mick, I find BlueCollarCritic to be the closest. He sees everything as a conspiracy, and makes fun of debunkers for not agreeing with him.
 
Interesting Mick, I find BlueCollarCritic to be the closest. He sees everything as a conspiracy, and makes fun of debunkers for not agreeing with him.

I was referring more the hidden symbology type of thing. There's always someone more extreme in one way or another.
 
I've read every post on this thread and I'm still beyond lost. Why on earth are we discussing landscape design around the Capitol building? What, does someone think it's a clever symbol from the Illuminati to say they have a death grip on our political system's balls?

Yes, someone does. That's the whole point of the entire symbology theories. People think that the illuminati like to leave symbols everywhere, for hundreds of years, apparently just for the lulz.
 
The logic isn't for the lulz, it's part of the black magick ritual code of ethics that you must signify your intent somehow, or the mass baby-sacrifice won't work and recharge your etheric batteries properly or give your psycho-kinetic powers the boost you want.

It also conveniently allows for some selfless hero researcher, who has the discernment and acuity not given to lesser mortals but only to god's chosen avengers of righteousness, to find those ritual symbol 'clues' and say to lesser sheep, "Look, be outraged, they're worshipping Lucifer and drinking the blood of your children! For shame!"

So clearly the satanic owl is part of a ritual glyph that empowers the forces of evil somehow, who always have significant players in the Whitehouse, and ensures success for their long term plans of astral slavery for all the people of earth.
 
And that would be because Viracocha and Pachamama would have a birds eye view, yes? Are looking down on the whole image from above, and thus can see the full scope of it?
From what vantage would every full rendering of the path-system be composed? Every sketch, every drawing, every diagram, right from the very start to the final product including an illustrated building and little green trees? I don't understand the notion that the artist producing this symmetrical image didn't realize or consider what the symmetrical image might resemble as he was producing it, and make a conscious decision to proceed with that design.

G, maybe you're flogging a dead owl - seems the US Navy had the same problem. Obviously they only have boats, so they couldn't tell what this building would look like until someone looked at it from the air. And this was the 1960's - almost 200 hundred years later than the Capitol landscaping project. So if they didn't have plans and architects and designers and technicians then, doing their drafts and revisions and detail drawings, then what hope can you have for those poor saps back in 1770's?

Some senior US Navy spokesman (can't recall rank or name) said that: we didn't realize what it would look like from the air until after the groundbreaking ceremony.
Which probably passes for an acceptable answer round here. And, when you think about it in those terms, it's easy to understand that the symbol just happens to align perfectly with the North/South axis - pure fluke, coincidence, bad luck - it's not design, G - how could it be?

US Navy building, Coronado, California
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, someone does. That's the whole point of the entire symbology theories. People think that the illuminati like to leave symbols everywhere, for hundreds of years, apparently just for the lulz.
Well the Masonic Organizations sure do . . . they have left their cornerstones across the decades on buildings theirs and not theirs . . . Lol!!!
 
In the works of Pablo Picasso, Paul Klee and Henry Moore, Jellicoe recognised the artists’ concern to tackle issues beyond colour and form, to delve outside the confines of the visual world. “Like the portrait painter, the landscape designer needs to be a psychologist first and then a technician afterwards. He needs to dig into the subconscious,” wrote Jellicoe.

A group including Queen Elizabeth, Jackie Kennedy and Prince Philip at the John F Kennedy memorial site in Runnymede

Jellicoe’s interest in the writings of Carl Jung lead him to explore the ways in which people are influenced by their surroundings. At the JFK memorial site, for instance, visitors walk through woodland on a path made of hand-cut stones, each symbolising a year of Kennedy’s life.
“The Water Gardens at Hemel Hempstead were one of Jellicoe’s first experiments in exploring, like Paul Klee, the role of the subconscious in design,” says Tom Turner, principal lecturer in garden history and landscape architecture at the University of Greenwich.
The canal with arum lilies at Dorset’s Shute House

“At Grove Terrace [Jellicoe’s north London home], while Jellicoe fell asleep in his chair, his wife Susan plied me with sherry while I asked about the projects they had done and the places they had seen. She said the Water Gardens in Hemel Hempstead were their favourite and best project.”
Hemel Hempstead was one of several towns in the UK that was redeveloped to house the population displaced by the Blitz. Jellicoe designed the Water Gardens with the conviction that a relatively small, urban garden could dramatically enhance the lives of the town’s residents.
Jellicoe built a canal with weirs and delicate footbridges that lead visitors from the town car park to the shopping centre. He added a lawn so visitors could walk along the waterfront. Towards the south of the garden, Susan Jellicoe, a skilled plantswoman, created a rose garden.
Inspired by one of Paul Klee’s paintings, Jellicoe designed the canal in the shape of a serpent. “The lake is the head and the canal is the body,” wrote Jellicoe in his book Studies in Landscape Design. “The eye is the fountain; the mouth is where the water passes over the weir. The formal and partly classical flower gardens are like a howdah strapped to its back. In short, the beast is harnessed, docile, and in the service of man.”

Content from External Source
I remember Jellicoe talking passionately about the design of the water feature at Hemel Hempstead - when the excavations were done for the feature they made the underside (the underwater body part of the serpent, which no-one could see) in a rounded underbelly shape, rather than the conventional and much more straightforward square and sheer sides - in other words, the shape was that of a serpent's underbelly. Although, said Jellicoe, the senses could not perceive it, the subconscious could.

There is ofcourse another famous serpent in the form of a water feature, or is it a water feature in the form of a serpent... in London. It's called The Serpentine (clue in the name?) and no-one would be able to see that except from the air either....what would be the point? Stupid bloody designers - what were they thinking?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G, maybe you're flogging a dead owl - seems the US Navy had the same problem. Obviously they only have boats, so they couldn't tell what this building would look like until someone looked at it from the air. And this was the 1960's - almost 200 hundred years later than the Capitol landscaping project. So if they didn't have plans and architects and designers and technicians then, doing their drafts and revisions and detail drawings, then what hope can you have for those poor saps back in 1770's?

Some senior US Navy spokesman (can't recall rank or name) said that: we didn't realize what it would look like from the air until after the groundbreaking ceremony.
Which probably passes for an acceptable answer round here. And, when you think about it in those terms, it's easy to understand that the symbol just happens to align perfectly with the North/South axis - pure fluke, coincidence, bad luck - it's not design, G - how could it be?

US Navy building, Coronado, California


It is possible that the Navy contracting office and the Army Corp of Engineers were oblivious to the design but I bet the architect and builders weren't . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I remember Jellicoe talking passionately about the design of the water feature at Hemel Hempstead - when the excavations were done for the feature they made the underside (the underwater body part of the serpent, which no-one could see) in a rounded underbelly shape, rather than the conventional and much more straightforward square and sheer sides - in other words, the shape was that of a serpent's underbelly. Although, said Jellicoe, the senses could not perceive it, the subconscious could.
Content from External Source
There is ofcourse another famous serpent in the form of a water feature, or is it a water feature in the form of a serpent... in London. It's called The Serpentine (clue in the name?) and no-one would be able to see that except from the air either....what would be the point? Stupid bloody designers - what were they thinking?
Content from External Source
Who knew landscape designers were part of THE sinister conspiracy . . . Who is next . . . plumbers???? Lol!
 
There is ofcourse another famous serpent in the form of a water feature, or is it a water feature in the form of a serpent... in London. It's called The Serpentine (clue in the name?) and no-one would be able to see that except from the air either....what would be the point? Stupid bloody designers - what were they thinking?

The Serpentine was formed by damming a stream, it was intended to look like a natural lake.

And yes, people could actual see the shape of things on initial plans, and later the general public could see it on maps, and the designers would be aware of this.

But the question of intent is very difficult to determine, unless the designer actually discussed it. It's obvious that people are going to find patterns in maps and things, that's just human nature. Here's the Capitol grounds plan (west side) in 1854:



Looks like a face, but is this evidence of aliens or robots?

Here's one from 1829:


Looks like a kitten. But is it evidence of Isis worship?
 
Last edited:
It is possible that the Navy contracting office and the Army Corp of Engineers were oblivious to the design but I bet the architect and builders weren't . . .

I doubt it would be possible that anyone could be oblivious to such a stark image - there would have been reams of plans and specs which would have passed over many desks for approval, revisions etc.
 
I doubt it would be possible that anyone could be oblivious to such a stark image - there would have been reams of plans and specs which would have passed over many desks for approval, revisions etc.

I doubt the PTB would have done it deliberately. Seems more likely that they did not notice, or that they did not think it would matter.
 
I doubt the PTB would have done it deliberately. Seems more likely that they did not notice, or that they did not think it would matter.
Someone did it deliberately, obviously. The planning, finessing and construction of buildings is a very deliberate act. It's not a haphazard/no-one noticed/it'll turn out like it turns out kind of exercise. Not where I come from.
 
Someone did it deliberately, obviously. The planning, finessing and construction of buildings is a very deliberate act. It's not a haphazard/no-one noticed/it'll turn out like it turns out kind of exercise. Not where I come from.

I'm bamboozled as to why someone would do such a thing deliberately. Let's design this building to look like a swastika because....?

To me, "didn't notice", or "didn't think it was important" seem like much more reasonable explanation than some illuminati agenda.
 
Why would you make such an argument? Who's talking about 'illuminati' - except you?! Quite a lot of you keep bringing it up - have you noticed that's it's only you and no-one else? Isn't that just a crude classic straw man?
 
I use the term loosely to refer to some kind of long term secret ruling elite that seems to be posited to exist behind most conspiracy theories.
 
I'm bamboozled as to why someone would do such a thing deliberately. Let's design this building to look like a swastika because....? To me, "didn't notice", or "didn't think it was important" seem like much more reasonable
But you ask the impossible to answer question - Why? The point is that it exists - how and why are just guessing games, speculation.
 
But you ask the impossible to answer question - Why? The point is that it exists - how and why are just guessing games, speculation.

Not so much "why did ..." but "why might ..." I as inviting ideas as to why someone MIGHT do such a thing. Yes, speculation.
 
But you ask the impossible to answer question - Why? The point is that it exists - how and why are just guessing games, speculation.

Yes, those buildings do exist and there are, probably, a myriad of reasons why an architect would design a building in that shape, just because we can't envision those reasons, doesn't mean that they intentionally set out to litter the landscape with swastikas.
 
Someone did it deliberately, obviously. The planning, finessing and construction of buildings is a very deliberate act. It's not a haphazard/no-one noticed/it'll turn out like it turns out kind of exercise. Not where I come from.
Architects and builders work to very fine limits on these plans and their implementation... to suggest they did not know beforehand 'how it would turn out or look', is really insulting peoples intelligence.
 
I'd just like to point out that it's oriented to the east, for one thing. Dunno if that holds any extra meaning.

Also,

u0MpzPj.jpg
 

Attachments

  • dc.png
    dc.png
    2.8 MB · Views: 400
If it's oriented to the east that means it doesn't exist. (JK)

I'd like to point out that an Owl is a predator that can see in the night. But we can't really move on to discuss the meaning of this Owl, if most of you guys can't even admit that it's there.
 
If it's oriented to the east that means it doesn't exist. (JK)


I'd like to point out that an Owl is a predator that can see in the night. But we can't really move on to discuss the meaning of this Owl, if most of you guys can't even admit that it's there.


So, let me get this straight, the designer of DC worked in a comical caricature of an owl, that, like shown many times before in this thread, could easily be something else depending on how you look at it...?

No, it must be an owl, because Bohemian Grove.
 
What a barrel of jokes.

JVNK, as to your picture, the red-circled ovals are large, centrally-positioned, proportionately spaced with their wide bottoms tilted toward one another, and their narrow tops tilted away from one another. This is highly suggestive of a pair of eyes from a design perspective. The smaller circles at the base, which form simple crescent-grooves at the bottom of the image in the original design, are small, perfectly round, and closely spaced, while being entirely non-central from the image. If the large ovals are taken as eyes, which is obviously the way most minds tend to naturally view them from a design perspective, then you know which way is up and which way is down with the image. Above and on either side of the eyes the paths are clearly 'horned', as in they frame the narrow tops of the ovals with outward-jutting, triangular-shaped paths. The outlining path runs narrowly down past the oval 'eyes', but then bulges outward into a plumper, more circular shape toward the bottom. This shape, when viewed by most people in relation to the ovals, is clearly indicative of a setting for those 'eyes'. Now, viewing this setting as a 'face' comes pretty naturally, especially given that, in my tracing, the outline of the capitol building looks something like a 'mouth'. However, the 'face' it comes to resemble is inevitably an exceedingly silly one, to the point that comic-book kung-fu aardvarks and goofy tiki-masks are the only sorts of 'faces' it can be said to vaguely resemble. The shape of the outline is simply too wide in the 'cheeks', too rounded at the 'chin', and the crescent grooves don't indicate anything face-like. However, if the distinctly shaped outline is seen as resembling an owl, the wide, rounded outline, the 'horned' corners, and the crescent 'grooves' all fit rather perfectly, and match rather splendidly many classic 'owl' designs. That it also happens to fit the outline of comical caricatures of owls only reinforces this.

I've got to say, this whole discussion is exceedingly revealing. Y'all are teetering on the border of denying there's such a thing as conscious design just to prevent an association of friggin' owls to the capitol building (seriously, who cares...?), and yet I'm supposedly the one in denial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top