The Moon landings are a fact

[Soulfly]

That's what I would have done had I not spent the previous two days getting harassed by a select few here, one of whom routinely posts inaccurate comments and facts.

After all that, when that person once more dismissed something out of hand and made an inaccurate assertion as support, I pointed it out.

I did it sarcastically because I was tired of being pummeled by this person and others. It's hard playing 5 on 1 and getting elbowed constantly and then getting called for the foul when I push back.

Perhaps you could supply some evidence as a counter to these inaccurate assertions made by someone?

 

[Joe Newman]

So this thread is about the reason they went to the moon, presumably sweeping aside the accepted notion of it being part of the political and technological context of the time.

So, do you think
- they went to the moon to consult with our Reptilian Overlords and get their orders for the next phase of the plan for our planet and that's why they had to fake some footage to hide their presence
or
- the whole 10+ year space program was an elaborate Masonic Magick Ritual enacted to symbolise the Illuminati's institution of their official Forth Reich reign which is also why they hired ex-nazi scientists.

Gathering from the hints you drop I suspect it's the latter, but why would they have the need to fake any footage for that?

Or is the fake footage (which you haven't identified yet) to hide the unexpected appearance of intelligent alien presences?

Excellent, Pete. Very nice mix of method and moonbat. Say, brother, you do disinfo by any chance? I know I've heard some folks who have swallowed all that whole, so don't laugh.

Regardless, thank you for having finally getting us in site of the forest. If you or anyone wants to go into it, we need to clear out the dead wood, sure, but you've done a far better job getting us here than my sad attempt, so nicely played.

I've already been burned a few times assuming folks knew the playing field beyond the playing card version and it has caused me much wasted time and has branded me as a loon. Now that's irony for you, eh? A place that dismisses secret societies out of hand is a perfectly scaled model for why they exist in the first place. I don't want to babalon so let me just ask two simple yes or no questions and we can take it from there or not.

Was the Pan patch just a coincidence or are there indications that there could be much more to it?

Is there is a possible significance to the Apollo name that can be connected to Jack Parsons in a way that has nothing to do with rocketry hardware?

 

[Landru]

snipped for brevity

Was the Pan patch just a coincidence or are there indications that there could be much more to it?

There is no evidence that there is more to this. Do you have any?

Is there is a possible significance to the Apollo name that can be connected to Jack Parsons in a way that has nothing to do with rocketry hardware?

There is no evidence that there is significance to the Apollo name beyond it being a name. Do you have any?

A simple statement followed by a link will do. If you get long winded with your answers people will start to mistake you for a troll.

 

[Joe Newman]

There is no evidence that there is more to this. Do you have any?

How could I, you just told me there isn't any? This is bad debunking form.

There is no evidence that there is significance to the Apollo name beyond it being a name. Do you have any?

See above.

A simple statement followed by a link will do. If you get long winded with your answers people will start to mistake you for a troll.

Too late for that, apparently. But don't worry. Since you've already decided there isn't any evidence, you can declare me a troll and move on to more productive pursuits. No harm, no foul, and no more wrangling with those with nothing to add to the flow.

 

[Landru]

How could I, you just told me there isn't any? This is bad debunking form.



See above.



Too late for that, apparently. But don't worry. Since you've already decided there isn't any evidence, you can declare me a troll and move on to more productive pursuits. No harm, no foul, and no more wrangling with those with nothing to add to the flow.

I made a statement which may or may not be provable. If you have evidence to support a claim make the claim and supply the evidence so it can be discussed.

 

[Pete Tar]

So, the evidence for the case is coming?
Or were the questions given their possible connection to other contexts and uses, all of it?
Because then I would just have to go with 'coincidental', as unless more direct evidence is coming, that seems to be the reasonable position.
The 'possibility' of connections to interesting and nefarious groups with shadowy intentions is interesting, but completely inconclusive.

 

[Joe Newman]

So, the evidence for the case is coming?
Or were the questions given their possible connection to other contexts and uses, all of it?
Because then I would just have to go with 'coincidental', as unless more direct evidence is coming, that seems to be the reasonable position.
The 'possibility' of connections to interesting and nefarious groups with shadowy intentions is interesting, but completely inconclusive.

How did you arrive at the idea that the evidence is completely inconclusive? This is the million dollar question. Are you saying there isn't a sufficient quantity of evidence or are you saying that the quality of the available evidence is inadequate?

If it's a matter of quantity, then, yes, of course there is plenty more. You think I've been going through all this mess for one fucking Pan patch? As daft as I'm deemed, I ain't that idiotic.

If it's a matter of quality, it doesn't matter what I present because it will be instantly dismissed, no matter how much there is of it.

 

[Joe Newman]

I made a statement which may or may not be provable. If you have evidence to support a claim make the claim and supply the evidence so it can be discussed.

Since you are sure there is no evidence, what evidence are you aware of and on what grounds have you dismissed it?

 

[cosmic]

Shaka, when the walls fell.

 

[cosmic]

How did you arrive at the idea that the evidence is completely inconclusive? This is the million dollar question.

What's going to constitute evidence depends on what claims you're making. You still haven't gotten around to that part, despite your insistence to the contrary.

Pointing at vague correlations or inferences you've made isn't evidence of anything.

 

[Pete Tar]

How did you arrive at the idea that the evidence is completely inconclusive?..

Because I'm referring only to what you've hinted at. That 'evidence'. I have no idea how many mountains of it are out there if you haven't presented it. I said it's inconclusive unless further (well, any really) evidence is presented.
It would be evaluated as it's presented. It's a really simple concept.
Sure, I may still decide that personally it doesn't convince me, but so what?

 

[Grieves]

All the Expedition crews that have rotated on and off the ISS should attest to that. Note the cumulative crew time.

The ISS orbits at a trace fraction of the distance between the earth and the moon, and is well within the protective influence of the planet. The experiment I cited was at a higher orbit than that of the ISS, but still a distance insignificant to those which had to be crossed in order to achieve the moon landings. I find it strange that, given the resounding success of the moon-landings, no further experiments have been done with manned flights into what our limited range allows us to call 'deep space'. If we can do it, there are sound reasons to be doing it, and it's relatively safe to do it, I wonder why we aren't.

 

[Grieves]

Can you back up ANYTHING you say? You just throw statements out there. Obviously no one else is on the same page as you. Explain.

say what?

 

[JRBids]

So why don't you just lay out your thesis in one concise post?

 

[Soulfly]

Shaka, when the walls fell.

I wish I could like this 100 times, because it fits Joe perfectly!

 

[cosmic]

The ISS orbits at a trace fraction of the distance between the earth and the moon, and is well within the protective influence of the planet. The experiment I cited was at a higher orbit than that of the ISS, but still a distance insignificant to those which had to be crossed in order to achieve the moon landings.

The point remains that we have no trouble keeping things alive in space. Your gripe appears to center upon radiation exposure, but again, that's not what caused the animal deaths in the experiment you referenced. It would be appreciated if you would acknowledge that.

I find it strange that, given the resounding success of the moon-landings, no further experiments have been done with manned flights into what our limited range allows us to call 'deep space'. If we can do it, there are sound reasons to be doing it, and it's relatively safe to do it, I wonder why we aren't.

Simple: no directive has been acted on to do so. Since Apollo, three presidential administrations have drafted different space policies which called for humans leaving Earth orbit again (G.H.W. Bush, G.W. Bush, Obama). None so far have been carried to fruition, but solely for bureaucratic reasons. Current plans involve sending a crew of astronauts via Orion/SLS on a circumlunar flight (EM-2) to carry out the first manned test of the new crew module in 2021 -- if all goes according to schedule and is funded to completion.

More importantly: the region of space which concerns you has been traversed by humans nine times. NASA isn't in the habit of designing new missions just to appease the general public's incredulity.

 

[Pete Tar]

How much effort has gone into the plans for manned Mars missions at this point?
Is there a planned approach underway?
I thought there was a recruitment campaign for expressions of interest recently.

 

[cosmic]

How much effort has gone into the plans for manned Mars missions at this point? Is there a planned approach underway?

In NASA's territory: not much has transpired yet, but it's still early on. The related programs are still in their relative infancy and the agency has had a difficult time adjusting financially given already-strained budgets and sequestration. Partisan politics has really taken its toll on the appropriations process.

Current policy states:

The Administrator of NASA shall:
• Set far-reaching exploration milestones. By 2025, begin crewed missions beyond the moon, including sending humans to an asteroid. By the mid-2030s, send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth;

Content from External Source

That's a bit open to interpretation, of course. There's more agency support for Mars missions than visiting an asteroid, which is a bit of a long story (there's a NRC report if you're interested). Though, they've attempted to tweak the asteroid mission design recently to include moving one to lunar orbit. I don't think it's a bad idea, it just requires more of a commitment than anyone appears willing to undertake in the current climate. (And the republican-controlled House hates it, for hopefully obvious reasons -- they basically want to legislate Bush's Vision for Space Exploration into effect, regardless of the fact that the Augustine Commission shot that down years ago.)

I thought there was a recruitment campaign for expressions of interest recently.

You're probably thinking of Mars One, one of a few a private sector projects. It might be more fitting for another thread, but I am not a fan. A mission of that scope relying almost entirely on revenue from reality television is simply doomed to fail.

 

[Oxymoron]

lolwut? It's quite obviously both. That's how acronyms more often than not work. If your acronym doesn't have a double-meaning, you really, really suck at composing acronyms. I mean, 'Paladium at night' isn't exactly a scientific term. It's a creative, indistinct label for the project that leaves the intent of the project unstated, meaning that could have said most anything. They -chose- to make the acronym pan, likely as a shout out to this guy and his chanting.

You are well off the mark here Grieves... I mean how do you explain the Uniting Strengthening America Providing Appropriate Tools Required Intercept Obstruct Terrorism Act... Are you you seriously suggesting they came up with that title deliberately so that it spells USA PATRIOT Act... Please show me EVIDENCE/PROOF that that is the case. You keep making these ridiculous assertions and yet you have absolutely no PROOF to BACK THEM UP.

Obviously it is simply a coincidence and yet you attach actual meaning to it. This site deals with FACTS and PAN is Palladium At Night!!!

Do you have any proof for your claims or any evidence to back them up? I've heard stories of bunnies on Mars but stories don't make them true

 

[Critical Thinker]

Do you have any proof for your claims or any evidence to back them up? I've heard stories of bunnies on Mars but stories don't make them true

Bunnies on mars...? I have proof!

 

[Oxymoron]

Bunnies on mars...? I have proof!

No... it is simply pareidolia



http://forgetomori.com/2008/skepticism/best-pareidolia-ever/

you can see the clear profile of a giant bearded man with closed eyes. It does resemble common representations of a fellow named Jesus. Even though that enormous Jesus head doesn’t quite fit into the rest of the image. What’s going on there? Jessica writes that “the child died short after the photo was taken”.
Child?
If you look carefully you may recognize that the photo is of a Victorian couple, with a small child sitting on the knee of the man. And then you may realize that that child is Jesus

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

You are well off the mark here Grieves... I mean how do you explain the Uniting Strengthening America Providing Appropriate Tools Required Intercept Obstruct Terrorism Act... Are you you seriously suggesting they came up with that title deliberately so that it spells USA PATRIOT Act... Please show me EVIDENCE/PROOF that that is the case. You keep making these ridiculous assertions and yet you have absolutely no PROOF to BACK THEM UP.

Obviously it is simply a coincidence and yet you attach actual meaning to it. This site deals with FACTS and PAN is Palladium At Night!!!

Do you have any proof for your claims or any evidence to back them up? I've heard stories of bunnies on Mars but stories don't make them true

Sarcasm does not always work well on the internet.

I don't think it's really "obvious" that PAN refers to the god Pan. Acronyms sometime have meanings in the words they form, and sometimes, like with the patriot act, it's a "backronym" (inventing a phrase to fit an acronym word, like SOS = Save Our Souls). But the actual source of the word PAN is unknown. It could quite possibly have a classified technical meaning, like "Precision Aiming Network". Or refer the the name of the team leader's cat. Or it might just be a "Pick A Name", seeing as you've got to call it something, and USA-207/2009-047A is a bit of a mouthful. But what came first, the name or the acronym? Nasa seems quite fond of backronymizing things

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym

A backronym or bacronym is a phrase specially constructed so that an acronym fits an existing word. For example, NASA named its ISS treadmill the Combined Operational Load-Bearing External Resistance Treadmill (COLBERT) after Stephen Colbert. The backronym was a lighthearted compromise in recognition of the comedian's ability to sway NASA's online vote for the naming of an ISS module.[

Content from External Source

http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/nasa-researches-backronyms-flying-spherical-robots

Thank goodness for the ironically straightforwardly acronymed NASA and MIT, who are braving the field of wild, retroactively applied acronyms so the rest of us don’t have to.
NASA’s and MIT’s current research in the field centers on its SPHERES project. SPHERES stands for “Synchronized Position Hold, Engage, Reorient, Experimental Satellites.”

Content from External Source

 

[Landru]

Since you are sure there is no evidence, what evidence are you aware of and on what grounds have you dismissed it?

So you don't have any evidence then.

 

[mynym]

Heh. Truly, that was the plan, according to Mr. C.

I left the Ozzy ref out at the last moment since I didn't think it would be recognized, so I'm glad you got it.
....
That was a slight hint right there, the bit about the Uncle Al's plan. I know you'll think it vague, but it would be a lot clearer if you had the libretto. Honest.

That's where I screwed up. I assumed that you and others were aware of this part of the tale, given that you were so into the space stuff. My bad.

When you bring up Babylon and things like that you're usually going to look like you're just babbling on. Crazy, huh?

Ramble. Guess I'm a ramblin' man.

 

[cosmic]

Nasa seems quite fond of backronymizing things

Sure, although for clarity it should be emphasized that the satellite is not a NASA project.

 

[Pete Tar]

No... it is simply pareidolia



http://forgetomori.com/2008/skepticism/best-pareidolia-ever/

you can see the clear profile of a giant bearded man with closed eyes. It does resemble common representations of a fellow named Jesus. Even though that enormous Jesus head doesn’t quite fit into the rest of the image. What’s going on there? Jessica writes that “the child died short after the photo was taken”.
Child?
If you look carefully you may recognize that the photo is of a Victorian couple, with a small child sitting on the knee of the man. And then you may realize that that child is Jesus

Content from External Source

I didn't realise Jesus was a pinhead.

 

[Joe Newman]

When you bring up Babylon and things like that you're usually going to look like you're just babbling on. Crazy, huh?

Heh. Not only that, but the NASA contest winner that has no connection to anything occult came right out and stated it's rationale:

The biblical Babylon Project was the construction of the tower of Babel. This construction required the cooperation of thousands of people over a great span of time. They didn’t have to challenge the linguistic, national, and cultural barriers that humanity faces today. Since this legendary project, all humanity has never worked together towards one common goal.

No, they haven't. The question is why? What happened? What got in the way?

As in ancient Babylon, humanity may once again unite together into a project of epic proportions

This sounds so positive, doesn't it? Who could possibly be against such a unifying ideal?

"Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them" Genesis XI, 6

Ah, got it.

 

[MikeC]

Nothing got in the way - the tower of Babylon wasn't built by "all humanity" either, so not only hasn't "all humanity" never co-operated in this way since then, it has never co-operated in this way ever.

the contest winner might have had a nice idea, but is grasp of actual history is faulty.

 

[cosmic]

Nothing got in the way - the tower of Babylon wasn't built by "all humanity" either, so not only hasn't "all humanity" never co-operated in this way since then, it has never co-operated in this way ever.

the contest winner might have had a nice idea, but is grasp of actual history is faulty.

Yep. They were also selected for their mission proposal, not their use of metaphor.

I hope everyone's aware of the fact that these contest mission designs don't actually get implemented. It's all STEM public outreach from Ames, for kids. Trying to read something further into the situation is an exercise in chasing shadows.

 

[Joe Newman]

Yep. They were also selected for their mission proposal, not their use of metaphor.

I hope everyone's aware of the fact that these contest mission designs don't actually get implemented. It's all STEM public outreach from Ames, for kids. Trying to read something further into the situation is an exercise in chasing shadows.

Just give me a target so I know what to shoot for. That last one was a doozy right there, and your reaction to it underscores why it was. But more of the same isn't going to work.

What would such evidence look like to you? I don't have DNA tests or classified documents, so short of that, would someone, anyone please just give me a hint what would constitute legitimate evidence.

Sometimes a Babylon ref is just a B5 ref, and sometimes it's just a contest for kids, and sometimes it's just an honest oversight, etc. I know that.

Give me an example of the type of evidence that would demonstrate that it might not be "just" whatever? What would make you reconsider your view?

I'm fairly sure I can provide it if only I knew what it was. That's all that's holding up the crazy train, Cos. Answer that simple question and no one will ever have to bug me for evidence again, promise.

 

[mynym]

What would such evidence look like to you?

Evidence of what? Somehow I feel like you may be looking to provide evidence having to do with chaos or nothing, which is impossible and might leave you babbling too. Or at least looking like you were.

But with respect to evidence of Babel that anyone should be able to see... there's always the European Union parliament building that was apparently modeled "based" on an artists rendering of the Tower of Babel. Ever notice how progressives and people with a "debunking"/atomizing mentality never seem to have anything to say about the separation of church and state when it comes to having Promethean statues of Lucifer the light bearer or conscripting the resources of nations to build huge statues of Apollo.... or building huge monuments to the ignorance of the base that are modeled (incorrectly, ironically enough) after the Tower of Babel*? They couldn't even build it like a pyramidal structure, the most likely type of tower. (Guess they didn't get the memo about how stable it would be if they did.)

[off topic link removed]

*

The Tower Building (named after the Tower of Babel) houses the Fifth Parliament of Europe. It is certainly a building of the Space Age. The seats are designed like the crew seats in the Star Trek space machines. The legislative amphitheater is arranged in a massive hemicircle and has 679 seats, each assigned to a particular lawmaker. For example, Seat 663 is assigned to Rep Souchet, 664 to Thomas-Mauro, 665 to Zizzner and 667 to Rep Cappato.

While these seats are allocated to Members, one seat remains unallocated and unoccupied. The number of that seat is 666. Link

So it looks like science fiction, again. How entertaining. It's probably a big joke on the base too. Which would be even more entertaining, etc.

Yet, who will pay for the show?

 

[cosmic]

Just give me a target so I know what to shoot for. That last one was a doozy right there, and your reaction to it underscores why it was. But more of the same isn't going to work.

Would you please stop speaking in riddles? I have no idea what that means. Please offer a clear explanation.

What would such evidence look like to you? I don't have DNA tests or classified documents, so short of that, would someone, anyone please just give me a hint what would constitute legitimate evidence.

Evidence of what?

Sometimes a Babylon ref is just a B5 ref, and sometimes it's just a contest for kids, and sometimes it's just an honest oversight, etc. I know that.

That's not obvious from your posts. You've spent some time now making vague suggestions which you have yet to clarify.

Give me an example of the type of evidence that would demonstrate that it might not be "just" whatever? What would make you reconsider your view?

Unless you make an effort to clearly communicate your meaning, I'm not going to know what it is. Evidence of what? My view of what?

Are you asking what it would take for me to view a title given by 13-year-olds to their project as being representative of some kind of sinister symbolism?

Are you asking what I would require to be suspicious of Ames Research Center's public outreach department?

If not, what?

I'm fairly sure I can provide it if only I knew what it was. That's all that's holding up the crazy train, Cos. Answer that simple question and no one will ever have to bug me for evidence again, promise.

I have reason to doubt all three of these statements.

 

[Joe Newman]

I see an acronym, not a reference to a Greek deity.

There's no reason to assume it's a "shout-out". . . . You're strongly asserting something to be true which you're unable to demonstrate. That's really all there is to it.

Even if we were to accept at face value that Parsons said or wrote that statement (and ignoring any possible context), why do you think there's a relationship between the quote and a title some 9th grade kids gave their contest project some fifty years later?

Are you seriously suggesting NASA has "occult roots" only because Jack Parsons had some quirky beliefs?

Why, doesn't it have to do with the Apollo program, or have you changed your mind?

I like that song. [Ozzy's Mr. Crowley.]

Clearly, there has been no version of "even if it's true, that still doesn't mean it went beyond Parsons or had anything to do with NASA." The "official story" is that there is nothing to see here, period. You passed Parsons off as a guy with "quirky" beliefs, nothing more.

Yet you bristle at the idea of there being occult roots in the space program and NASA. Why? What's the big deal if that PAN patch was a shout out to some long gone goof ball? According to NASA's own site, Jack "was a freethinking explosives expert who dabbled in pagan rituals and liked to keep volatile rocket fuels in his home"? They didn't have a problem with his "dabbling," so why would you?

Mick was quite clear that any occult or Satanic stuff was considered by atheists as "just another silly superstitious religion." You already said you like Ozzy's Mr. Crowley. It's all just stuff and nonsense anyway, so what's the problem with a little "Crowley-esque junk" back in the early days?

 

[Mick West]

Yet you bristle at the idea of there being occult roots in the space program and NASA. Why? What's the big deal if that PAN patch was a shout out to some long gone goof ball? According to NASA's own site, Jack "was a freethinking explosives expert who dabbled in pagan rituals and liked to keep volatile rocket fuels in his home"? They didn't have a problem with his "dabbling," so why would you?

Mick was quite clear that any occult or Satanic stuff was considered by atheists as "just another silly superstitious religion." You already said you like Ozzy's Mr. Crowley. It's all just stuff and nonsense anyway, so what's the problem with a little "Crowley-esque junk" back in the early days?

There is no problem. Nobody is saying there would be a problem. We are saying there's no evidence of it, hence no reason to believe it.

 

[cosmic]

Clearly, there has been no version of "even if it's true, that still doesn't mean it went beyond Parsons or had anything to do with NASA." The "official story" is that there is nothing to see here, period.

What "official story" are you talking about? Please cite a reference.

You passed Parsons off as a guy with "quirky" beliefs, nothing more.

Right. What justification can you provide to demonstrate otherwise? Evidence please, not suppositions.

Yet you bristle at the idea of there being occult roots in the space program and NASA. Why?

No, I'm bristling at the fact that you won't elaborate on, let alone substantiate any of the vague suggestions you're floating. Parsons may have had weird or unconventional beliefs, sure. But how do you manage to single out that one tidbit and somehow apply it to everyone else from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory? Why do you try to stretch it to include all of NASA and the US space program? Do you not recognize the non-sequitur you've constructed?

You also know Parsons died several years before NASA was even established, right?

I wouldn't care if Parsons dressed up as a hobbit and danced high on opium in the moonlight, whatever floated his boat in his spare time. What mattered were his contributions to rocketry. Neither magical incantations nor reverence for obscure ancient Egyptian deities get payload off the ground.

If you're going to claim that all of NASA has "occult roots" (whatever that means): 1) explain it, 2) demonstrate it.

What's the big deal if that PAN patch was a shout out to some long gone goof ball?

It wouldn't be a big deal. You just can't show that the claim is true. Even if you could, you haven't breathed a word of what significance you think it would have, or why.

According to NASA's own site, Jack "was a freethinking explosives expert who dabbled in pagan rituals and liked to keep volatile rocket fuels in his home"? They didn't have a problem with his "dabbling," so why would you?

I don't, as it should be abundantly clear.

Mick was quite clear that any occult or Satanic stuff was considered by atheists as "just another silly superstitious religion." You already said you like Ozzy's Mr. Crowley. It's all just stuff and nonsense anyway, so what's the problem with a little "Crowley-esque junk" back in the early days?

My musical tastes are numerous and diverse, but that has no bearing on whatever story you're trying to cobble together.

What's the significance of one person in JPL's distant past adopting a fringe polytheistic belief set?

Edit: typo fix.

 

[Joe Newman]

What "official story" are you talking about? Please cite a reference.

Your official story, cos. I cited my refs. Just nailing down your position so it's established. Prelim is over. Trial starts next post in a new thread.

Right. What justification can you provide to demonstrate otherwise? Evidence please, not suppositions.

Don't worry. More than you want. Starting next thread, from the ground up.

No, I'm bristling at the fact that you won't elaborate on, let alone substantiate any of the vague suggestions you're floating. Parsons may have had weird or unconventional beliefs, sure. But how do you manage to single out that one tidbit and somehow apply it to everyone else from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory? Why do you try to stretch it to include all of NASA and the US space program? Do you not recognize the non-sequitur you've constructed?

That's just a card or two from the deck. I've been saying that all along. The point is that you have radically undersold the situation with Parsons. I am fully going to demonstrate this. When I do so, you or someone else is going to shift the goal post to "It still doesn't mean it's got anything to do with NASA." That's why I established the "official story." It does.

It's not about all of JPL or all of NASA. It never is in any org anywhere ever, let alone in a classified situation. Throw out that whole argument, because it doesn't hold water. Shit, the guys making the capsules didn't have clue one as to what the guys making the space suits were doing, let alone anything going on up the chain.

Stay in your unit. It's the code in any strategic situation. That line of argument is inadmissible, not to mention vapid. Drop it here.

You also know Parsons died several years before NASA was even established, right?

Cos, I know far more about Captain Jack than you can ever comprehend. Not because I'm blessed with any special insight, just because I haven't closed down the aperture of my world the way you guys have.

I wouldn't care if Parsons dressed up as a hobbit and danced high on opium in the moonlight, whatever floated his boat in his spare time. What mattered were his contributions to rocketry. Neither magical incantations nor reverence for obscure ancient Egyptian deities get payload off the ground.

Exactly. You aren't supposed to care. Your not even supposed to notice. You are supposed to mock it. So far, looks like things are working out well. As to Captain Jack's spare time, it has had more influence on you than any rocket ever could. Ample evidence to follow. As for the Egyptian deities, that they are obscure to you does not mean that they are obscure to all. Not a small difference, as will be seen.

If you're going to claim that all of NASA has "occult roots" (whatever that means): 1) explain it, 2) demonstrate it.

That's just it. You don't know what it means. Others do. They don't agree with your assessment and never have. They don't see it as Hobbit droppings and frolic, like you do. Only difference is they got the rockets and you don't, so their opinion counts and your doesn't.

It wouldn't be a big deal. You just can't show that the claim is true. Even if you could, you haven't breathed a word of what significance you think it would have, or why.

I'm going to show just that. By the way, go back and look at the patch. You shrugged off Altas. Another insignificance to you, not to others.

I don't, as it should be abundantly clear.

Yes. It's abundantly clear. It's also abundantly shortsighted and myopic. It ain't all your fault though, so don't take it personally. You had help. Lots and lots of help. That's the underlying theme of it all.

Jack's spare time has had more influence on you than anything else you can think of. You'll see. Or not. If not, it won't be for lack of evidence though.

My musical tastes are numerous and diverse, but that has no bearing on whatever story you're trying to cobble together.

Heh. It has everything to do with the story I even haven't begun to "cobble together." I don't cobble, I build. And I'm guessing your tastes are not as diverse as you might think. Do me a favor and we'll see. Make a list of 20 artists you like. That will show you all sorts of stuff.

What's the significance of one person in JPL's distant past adopting a fringe polytheistic belief set?

You couldn't have asked a better question to end all this. Had anyone asked such a simple and sane question at the beginning, there's no telling how far along we'd be. Instead, it's been nonstop insistence that there isn't any possibility. Well there is. And that's what the new thread will be all about. More significance than you ever dreamed of.

See ya there.

 

[Joe Newman]

There is no problem. Nobody is saying there would be a problem. We are saying there's no evidence of it, hence no reason to believe it.

There's plenty of evidence to demonstrate that things are different than you guys have imagined them to be. Whether that's a problem is not my call to make, as I don't know where folks stand on the issue. Some think it is, others don't. People have to decide for themselves. I'm just saying they should know what it is they are deciding on, because the picture's different than think. That's what the thread is and the first part is establishing what would constitute a problem.

Just as with the thread about the possible riots, some think it is a problem, some thing it would be a great thing if the whole thing jumped off tomorrow. It all depends on where they are coming from.

I'm sure you think there's no connection between that thread and this one, but if anyone wants to jump straight to the heart of both, here's a neat way to do so and figure out what side you are on or if there's any problem.

If you are in favor of widespread rioting breaking out and kicking off everything all the moonbats are warbling about, then there is no problem.

If you think those same riots are not the optimal scenario and don't care for any apocalyptic scenario such as some folks would rather avoid, then there just may be a problem.

I can't make that call for you because I don't know where you stand. But there's one person I do know of who would not think it a problem. Instead he would cheer louder and longer than anyone watching it all burn.

Jack Parsons.

 

[cosmic]

So... I guess this thread wasn't actually about the Apollo program then?

 

[mynym]

And I'm guessing your tastes are not as diverse as you might think.

My attitude is that once you're aware of a pattern from a different perspective, just have some fun with it on its own terms. Something along these lines:



Because people with a debunking mentality (nothing wrong with that perspective either, seems to me) can usually atomize any work of art or an artifact of consciousness, even if a pattern actually might or does "exist."

Take pareidolia, the official act of the herd mind of seeing a pattern in which only lunatics and unprofessional individuals see patterns to things? They're allowed to see patterns and even diagnose for dollars and so forth but individuals are not allowed to recognize patterns about psychologists. So there's nothing to see here according to official reports, move along.

The ironic thing about it, it would be in the interests of the ruling class or conspirators to make use of illusions based on patterns in order to hide their secrets in plane sight in works of art and architecture. Or in the case of NASA, to make anyone who thought that they saw runways laid out at NASA to encrypt the number 33 and so forth look like one of those crazy "lunatics." I.e. the type of dangerous people that can only be seen in light of the full moon, I'd imagine.


Worth noting:

In his notebooks, Leonardo da Vinci wrote of pareidolia as a device for painters, writing "if you look at any walls spotted with various stains or with a mixture of different kinds of stones, if you are about to invent some scene you will be able to see in it a resemblance to various different landscapes adorned with mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, plains, wide valleys, and various groups of hills. --Wikipedia

So if you were interested in such things you could encrypt symbolism into things in such a way as that only those with eyes to see, would see. And apparently NASA did that with their runway and so forth. So it's an open question what else they may have done. Apparently it's always been important to the ruling classes and the alchemical/astrological or chemical/astronomical priests of knowledge/scientia what their monuments to the ignorance of base men looked like from above or from a different perspective, even before airplanes and all the rest of it were invented or common pranksters began making crop circles too. The mentality of people into that sort of thing is that they have "top secret" knowledge of things that can only be seen from a higher perspective... while the base doesn't. Shrug. They're actually basically correct about the base men. But given the existence of a "top secret" or illuminated mentality in which one can be closer to the all seeing eye of knowledge at the top one should be aware that people in the ruling class and/or in secret societies are likely to be conspiring with each other to keep important aspects of knowledge a secret or perhaps playing pranks on those that are not illuminated and so forth.

So... what if that was the mentality at NASA? From my perspective, it would seem that the possibility of the manipulation of perceptions and so forth would be something to look for instead of something to avoid. I'm not saying I've "seen" something that looks like evidence of anything more than a top secret mentality and the work of secret societies and so forth.

Yet, you'll only begin to "see" evidence if you're willing to look for it from within the context of different theories and perspectives.

Simple rule of thumb that people usually seem to forget. Life is like that.

 

[cosmic]

The ironic thing about it, it would be in the interests of the ruling class or conspirators to make use of illusions based on patterns in order to hide their secrets in plane sight in works of art and architecture. Or in the case of NASA, to make anyone who thought that they saw runways laid out at NASA to encrypt the number 33 and so forth look like one of those crazy "lunatics." I.e. the type of dangerous people that can only be seen in light of the full moon, I'd imagine.

The runway designation at KSC is 15 (NW) or 33 (SE). And, no, NASA is not obsessed with the number thirty-three, Richard Hoagland is. Hoagland has penned never-ending pseudoscience using his favorite two numbers: 19.5 and 33. From his claims about "sacred geometry" to (non-existent) alien structures in the Cydonia region of Mars, to his nonsensical pet ideas about "hyperdimensional physics", he's deliberately manipulated whatever information he's presenting so that those two numbers are prominently featured. One would probably need to be familiar with Hoagland's claims to recognize that.

What I'm wondering, honestly: is Scott Onstott just really bad at fact-checking, or is he intentionally trying to mislead viewers? In the video segment you linked, he states (after mentioning the KSC runway):

"If that seems like circumstantial evidence to you, how about this: Here is astronaut Buzz Aldrin, 33rd Degree Mason, on the Moon, holding the flag of the Supreme Council..."

Content from External Source

He's talking about the cover image of Richard Hoagland's book, Dark Mission, which is shown in the video frame as he's speaking. Does he seriously think that's a real image? I hope not.

Look at the cover photo I linked, and note the reflection in the astronaut's visor. What do you see? An American flag. The image of the Mason flag is just superimposed for use on the cover.

That's also not Buzz Aldrin. It's Alan Shepard, during an Apollo 14 EVA:



Full-size: AS14-66-9232. The shadow belongs to Edgar Mitchell, who took the shot.