by metatron 6 Replies latest jw friends
see:
http://www.sys-con.com/read/450055.htm
A prominent NASA employee was fired after making claims about covering up UFO's and evidence
of extraterrestrial buildings on the moon.
This isn't the first time an space agency worker has made a claim like this.
metatron
They probably have secret pics of Freddie Franz having a coffee break after hours of peddling watchtowers. He's eating green cheese with a hot young sister™ while sipping on their cappuccinos.
W
From the linked article:
Johnston's startling Apollo allegations have recently appeared in a new book, "Dark Mission: the Secret History of NASA," co-authored by former NASA consultant and CBS Science Advisor, Richard C. Hoagland and Mike Bara, an aerospace engineering consultant
Here's a well-written review of the book from Amazon:
Dark Mission fails basic fact checking, October 26, 2007
| By | Professor Fulcanelli - See all my reviews |
The Dark Mission is certainly an interesting book. But a lot of its claims are not easy to verify without a considerable research on the subject, except the fact that some claims are easy to check and they do not seem to stand up to a pretty basic fact checking, which in my mind undermines the grand conspiracy laid out in the book. You know, the whole thing about "the chain only as good as its weakest link" thingy and all that. So, let's go on a fairly basic fact finding mission, shall we?
Page 251 of The Dark Mission states the following, "In looking at White Sands Missile Range, where Wernher Von Braun conducted his first V-2 tests in America, it came to light that there had, in fact, been only one launch pad at the range, yet it was numbered - "Launch Complex 33." [Fig. 5-31] And the one and only landing strip at the Kennedy Space Center, at Cape Canaveral? "Runway 33" ... of course. Interestingly, if you stood at the southern base of the Great Pyramid at Giza, and then set your compass heading to "333" you would eventually find yourself at the door step of ... the modern Jet Propulsion Laboratory. This relentless, repeating "NASA ritualistic pattern" didn't restrict itself to just the numbers, either."
Let's expand a little more on this subject and take a look at what the authors (Hoagland and Bara) said about this "mysterious" numbering scheme on their website.
Quote: "... There is a precedent in our investigation for this kind of encoding. At the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, there are two launch pads from which all of the Apollo and Space Shuttle missions have been launched. They are certainly the best known launch sites in the world to any space exploration buff. Pads 39a and 39b.
Now, it has always bugged us, why 39a and b, instead of 39 and 40, or 38 and 39? The answer is that neither of those combinations is tetrahedral! As if to reinforce the point, the two pads are adjacent to a runway -- the only runway at the cape --
-- Runway 33.
And lest you forget, the sine of 19.471° (the un-rounded 19.5) is -- .3333.
And the Cape itself, "Cape Canaveral" translates to English as the "Cape of Reeds." And what ancient Egyptian god was associated with reeds?
Osiris, of course. They may have just as well called it the Cape of Osiris.
Starting to note a trend here?
Now, our critics will say that all of this is just a lucky coincidence, that we are applying "magical thinking" to pull connections out of our rear ends. But how likely is that really?" End of Quote.
It is not a lucky coincidence, but yes, you guys are applying magical thinking, because you are implying that there is something special or conspiratorial about the numbering scheme that NASA uses. The fact is that there is nothing special about it.
"They" did not call it "Cape Canaveral" to begin with. According to Wikipedia, "Cape Canaveral from the spanish Cabo Cañaveral" and ""The name "Canaveral" (Cañaveral in Spanish) was given to the area by Spanish explorers. It literally means "canebrake". The name can be interpreted as "Cape of Canes""
Were the Spanish explorers on an alleged NASA conspiracy before NASA itself even existed? And no, there was no "lucky coincidence" either, just science folks.
According to the same article in Wikipedia, quote: "Cape Canaveral was chosen for rocket launches to take advantage of the earth's rotation. The linear velocity of the Earth's surface is greatest towards the equator; the relatively southerly location of the Cape allows rockets to take advantage of this by launching eastward, in the same direction as the earth's rotation. It is also highly desirable to have the downrange area sparsely populated, in case of accidents; an ocean is ideal for this. Although the United States has sites closer to the equator with expanses of ocean to the east of them (e.g. Hawaii, Puerto Rico), the east coast of Florida has substantial logistical advantages over these island locations." End of quote.
Right, but what about those pads (39a and 39b) runway 33, etc? Turns out there is a straight forward explanation for it as well. Oh, and NASA is more than willing to explain why they are named this way. Here is the explanation, quote:
"The numbering depends on upon the compass headings. The same runway has two different numbers depending upon the direction of approach of the aircraft, in KSC's case, nos. 15 and 33. The entire complex (pads, mobile launch platforms, crawlers, roads, VAB) is designated 39. Unlike the other launch complexes (34, 37, etc.) 39 has more than one pad, hence A & B.
Runway information:
"Runways are identified by numbers that indicate the compass heading of the runway centerline to the nearest 10º. For example, a runway aligned on a heading of 183º (nearly South) would be Runway 18. Its opposite end would be Runway 36, representing the reciprocal of 180 degrees."
(The examples given below are the exact numbers of the KSC runway) "Number designations are painted on each runway. These are determined by the runway's magnetic direction. Assume, for example, that a runway is oriented in a southeasterly direction with a compass heading of 145°. This is rounded up to the nearest ten degree number (145° in this case becomes 150°) and the final zero is dropped.
This runway's number becomes 15. Similarly, if we consider the position that is 180 degrees opposite this, the resultant compass heading is 330°. Because this number doesn't need to be rounded upward, we simply drop the final zero and the runway becomes number 33. An aircraft using this runway would be taking off in the opposite direction from that in the first example." End of Quote.
In short, runways are numbered in reference to magnetic headings and launch sites go from number 1 to over 40, so 39 or 33 or any other number in that range has to come up somewhere. These are not some arbitrary numbers that are picked by NASA to fit some nonexistent Egyptian/Masonic/Nazi symbolism as implied in the book.
Now let's take a look at Page 249, quote: "In fact, throughout antiquity there is a pattern of paying special homage to the number "thirty-three." Clearly, the authors of the Old Testament believed that the number itself was the key to many things, that it somehow held tremendous power. Some Biblical scholars have referred to Jeremiah 33:3 as "god's phone number," the moment of darkness for Jeremiah, where God shows him how he can be reached and how the powers he possesses can be accessed: "Call on me in prayer and I will answer you. I will show you great and mysterious things which you still do not know." End of Quote.
It is called cherry picking, fudging the data, and taking things completely out of context, if the quote above can be called "the data" to begin with. Throughout antiquity, one can find numerous numbers. No credible biblical scholar has ever claimed that number 33 is special in any way. The authors of the Old Testament believed in many things that are gibberish, including that the Earth is flat and that children should be stoned to death for misbehavior. But regardless of any of that, there is absolutely nothing in the Old or New Testaments that gives special treatment to 33 or 19.5.
Why didn't Hoagland and Bara mention that almost every book of the Old or New Testament has 19:5 and or 33:3 chapter/verse combination? Why not quote from those? Almost all of them talk either about God or prayers to God. The majority of text in the Bible is about God's promises, prayer to God, etc. Is this a big surprise? We are talking about the Bible after all. None of it, however, says or even implies that 33 is special.
Now let's take a look at Page 250, quote: "So if "thirty-three" is a key code to figuring out how to access the "power of the gods," why do we see Sirius at 19.5- above the Apollo 11 landing site, instead of 33s? How do the two numbers connect--if at all?" End of Quote.
But 33 is not a key to figuring out how to access the "power of the gods." Where does God say in the Bible that 33 is a key number to anything? Where does God even mention number 33 in the Bible? God told Jeremiah to pray to him, the God (singular), not "the gods." It says nothing about access to the power of the gods. God promised Jeremiah to show some things he does not know. According to the New Living Translation of the Bible, Jeremiah 33 is about "Promises of Peace and Prosperity." And Jeremiah 33:3 reads, quote: "Ask me and I will tell you remarkable secrets you do not know about things to come." End of Quote. The Lord is talking about "Promises of Peace and Prosperity." Jeremiah 33:6 reads, quote: "Nevertheless, the time will come when I will heal Jerusalem's wounds and give it prosperity and true peace." End of Quote.
If one wants to make a case for access to the power of the God, it makes much more sense to quote Matthew 21:21, quote: "Then Jesus told them, "I assure you, if you have faith and don't doubt, you can do things like this and much more. You can even say to this mountain, `May God lift you up and throw you into the sea,' and it will happen." End of Quote. And Matthew 21:22, quote: "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." End of Quote. But obviously, 21:21 and or 21:22 does not fit into the whole "33 is somehow significant" fantasy, so they cherry picked Jeremiah 33:3 and took it completely out of context.
Page 250 Continued, quote: "Engineer and probabilities expert Mary Anne Weaver (who would later do some crucial probability work on Hoagland's developing "ritual alignment model") has studied the possible mathematical linkage between the two numbers. She first pointed out that one of the basic trigonometric functions of a circumscribed tetrahedron, the sine of 19.471--the canonical "circumscribed tetrahedral '19.5 angle" at Cydonia--is .3333. That would be merely interesting if it were the only mathematical link between the numbers, but there is another, even more "symbolic" link." End of Quote.
What Mary Anne Weaver said is irrelevant. And here is why. According to Weaver's website, she is NOT a probabilities expert and she has admitted - on that same website - that her paper (the so-called "crucial probability work on Hoagland's developing "ritual alignment model"") is flawed, because it contains mistakes which she does not have resources and or knowledge to fix. It states plainly on her website, quote "I am not a statistics expert." End of Quote, and, quote "THERE ARE ERRORS IN THIS STATISTICS PAPER THAT I HAVE NOT HAD THE CHANCE TO CORRECT. They do undermine the conclusions of this paper." End of Quote.
Of course, there is no mention of any of this in the book, which seriously undermines author's credibility, don't you think?
On page 251 they continue with the Jeremiah 33:3 nonsense, but now the hyperdimensional aspect of Jeremiah 33:3 comes into play. Quote: "... the hyperdimensional aspect of Jeremiah 33:3 could literally unlock these "great and mysterious things" that the Lord is alluding to." End of Quote. Oh, so now the Lord has made Jeremiah 33:3 hyperdimensional? That is really low...
The Lord was talking about the power of prayer and the promise of peace and prosperity for Jerusalem, not some structures on Mars that were allegedly found and covered up by NASA more than 2,000 years after the time of Jeremiah, which is obvious to any rational person.
But Hoagland and Bara don't stop there, they go on to claim that NASA has orchestrated two Apollo landings to coincide with, wait for it, Hitler's date of birth of April 20th. (Page 253). How can they prove that? They cannot, of course. They imply that a technical problem with the Lunar Module on Apollo 16 - which lasted for several hours - was a setup by NASA to delay the landing so that Apollo 16 lands on Hitler's birthday.
I can go on but what is the point? Some people deny Holocaust, The Dark Mission claims that NASA follows Nazi and other rituals. What do they have in common? Both are a work of fiction. So, as a fiction book, The Dark Mission deserves 5 stars rating, but as a book which exposes the secret history of NASA, it deserves as much attention as the Holocaust deniers.
As it says in the book, "all real science ultimately has to be based on verifiable, independently repeatable experiments." It is a common knowledge that those who make claims (and especially those who make extraordinary claims like Hoagland and Bara) have a burden of proof to prove their allegations. Bara cries on his blog that the mainstream press doesn't take him seriously and the book is not being reviewed objectively by the mainstream press.
Yeah, sure. Let's see. Some book comes out which accuses NASA (without a shred of evidence) of Nazi rituals and what must be the grandest conspiracy of all time (hiding alien artifacts) - again, without a shred of evidence - and you want to be taken seriously?
I don't know, maybe on Mars they do things differently, but here on the Earth, if you want to be taken seriously, you have to present evidence. You know, the real stuff, not some conspiracy mumbo jumbo.
I'm not saying that Johnston isn't a bit weird but then again all of NASA is more than a bit odd.
The first man on the moon is nearly a recluse ( Neil Armstrong). The moon project was led by a
former SS officer ( Von Braun). ... and , in the midst of 'moon landing hoax' theories, NASA lost all
their videotapes of the moon landings???
http://johhnybravo.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!D07E44E25A3A13EB!2145.entry
metatron
All that play w numbers explained in the review, don't mean a substantial thing. Whether it's the wt, obves, or this guy, johnston, you said his name is? It's manufacturing something out of nothing, imo.
S
in the midst of 'moon landing hoax' theories
I honestly cannot believe that anyone is still beating that drum. If you have any lingering doubts on any part of the moon landing hoax claims, I suggest bringing them up over that the "Bad Astronomy" discussion board and allowing them to enthusiastically beat it out of you.
I never said the moon landing was a hoax. However, the sloppy and careless response of NASA
is almost equally incredible!
metatron
