Posts by kepler

8

Mr. Geoffrey William Jackson = Humpty Dumpty

by kepler in

when i use a word, humpty dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, it means just what i choose it to mean neither more nor less.. .

the question is, said alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things.. .

the question is, said humpty dumpty, which is to be master thats all.

kepler

Well, where were we? I'd say that Mr. Jackson's rhapsodizing about his duties gives much food for thought.

Too much to comment on all at once. Especially when there are more ex cathedra pronouncements to integrate as well. Let us look at this interchange:

29 Q. Is there any biblical impediment to a determination,

30 a judicial determination, being made by a body which

31 includes women, although the elders thereafter may respond

32 as the decision‐maker in relation to what happens to

33 someone after a decision has been made as to the truth or

34 not of an allegation?

35 A. That's a good question. Could I just mention first,

36 your Honour, something ‐ please bear with me on this. The

37 judicial system that Jehovah's Witnesses use is not in

38 competition with the criminal justice system. We respect

39 that and we feel that that is something that the community

40 needs to make use of. But also, if I can just highlight,

41 any victim is not viewed as someone that needs to stand

42 before a judicial committee. They did not do anything

43 wrong. They are the ones that have been victimised. They

44 need the help.

45

46 Now, to answer your question directly, women can be

47 involved in this very sensitive area, but biblically

.14/08/2015 (155) 15954 G W JACKSON (Mr Stewart)

Transcript produced by DTI

1 speaking, the role of the judges in the congregation lays

2 with men. That's what the Bible says and that's what we

3 endeavour to follow.

4

5 Q. Can you give me the reference for that?

6 A. Yes. In the scriptures ‐‐

7

8 Q. That is, judges being only men ‐ not elders, but

9 judges being only men?

10 A. Okay. I would have to check ‐ I think Deuteronomy is

11 one of them, but with regard to 1 Timothy, chapter 3 ‐ and

12 I'm sure, your Honour, you are very familiar with this, in

13 verse 1:

14

15 This statement is trustworthy: If a man is

16 reaching out to be an overseer, he is

17 desirous of a fine work. The overseer

18 should therefore be irreprehensible, a

19 husband of one wife, moderate in habits,

20 sound in mind, orderly, hospitable,

21 qualified to teach, not a drunkard, not

22 violent, but reasonable, not quarrelsome,

23 not a lover of money, a man presiding over

24 his own household in a fine manner, having

25 his children in subjection with all

26 seriousness.

27

28 In biblical times, the same expression that is used for

29 "elder" is also used for "older man". And when we are

30 translating ‐ of course, that is my field ‐ sometimes it is

31 hard to decide whether it means "elder" as in a position or

32 "older man". But definitely, when it speaks of judges at

33 the gates of Israel, we are talking about older men. But

34 I apologise, your Honour, seeing you asked this question,

35 I cannot give you the exact scriptural reference but will

36 be happy to do that.

37

38 Q. We would appreciate it, because one possible

39 modification to meet this issue of the lack of women as

40 judges of allegations brought forward by women against men

41 may be a modification of your process to include women in

42 the judicial determination step. You understand?

43 A. I do understand, your Honour, and we will make sure

44 you get those references.

45

46 Q. Can you understand how a woman, a young woman ‐ any

47 woman ‐ might feel when allegations which she makes of

.14/08/2015 (155) 15955 G W JACKSON (Mr Stewart)

Transcript produced by DTI

1 having been sexually assaulted by a male are determined

2 exclusively by men?

[ Not being present in the court, but having at home a copy of the 1984 NWT, this correspondent – Kepler – refers the reader to the book of Judges Chapter 4, which I would presume a Governing Board member in direct correspondence with Jehovah should be acquainted with. After all, this is
THEIR translation in collaboration:

Then the sons of Israel again began to do what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes now that [Judge – Kepler note] Ehud was dead. 1. So Jehovah sold them into the hand of Jabin the king of Ca’naan who reigned in Hazor and the chief of his army was Sisera and he was dwelling in Harosheth of the nations. 2.

And the sons of Israel began to cry out to Jehovah, because he had 900 chariots with iron scythes, and he himself oppressed the sons of Israel with harshness 20 years. 3

Now Deborah a prophetess , the wife of Lappidoth was JUDGING Israel at that particular time. 4

Now Debora a prophetess the wife of Lappidoth was judging Israel at that particular time. 4.

And she was dwelling under Deborah’s palm tree between Ramah and Bethel in the mountainous region of Ephraim and the sons of Israel would go up to her for JUDGMENT 5.

And she proceeded to send and call Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedesh Naphtali and to say to him, ‘Has not Jehovah the God of Israel given the command: go and … and you must atke with you 10,000 men out of the sons of Naphtali … and I shall indeed given them into your hand. 7

At this Barak said to her: if you go with me, I also shall certainly go; but if you will not go with me, I shall not go. 8

To this she said: Without fail, I shall go with you. Just the same, this beautifying thing will not become yours on the way that you are going, for it will be into the hand of a woman that Jehovah will sell Sistera.

8

Mr. Geoffrey William Jackson = Humpty Dumpty

by kepler in

when i use a word, humpty dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, it means just what i choose it to mean neither more nor less.. .

the question is, said alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things.. .

the question is, said humpty dumpty, which is to be master thats all.

kepler

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass (Dialog between Humpty Dumpty and Alice)

----------------------------------------------------------------

And in the transcripts of the Australian Royal Commission investigating institutional child abuse, we argue that we meet Humpty Dumpty Incarnate .

As Mr. Geoffrey Jackson officiates over the JW writing committee and "consults" in behalf of the teaching committee, it must be conceded that gentleman on the video with the stentorian, Down Under Voice has a facility, if not power of words. Beginning his career in the missions of Polynesia as a translator, Mr. Jackson set the foundation for his career in the JW publications translation department, which in the commission transcript he proudly points out several hundred languagetranslations of the Bible or NWT and hundreds more of WatchTower publications.

It was difficult to really read the face or thoughts of Mr. Jackson in testimony. Everything he said was in a stentorian monotone, frequently prefaced by "And may I point out..." At the very least, we surmise that he is thankful for the choice and consequences of serving in Polynesia and mastering Polynesian languages. It certainly awarded him a place in life where he had opportunity to wear a dark 3-piece suit.

But at the same time, the suit, the booming voice and evasions exposed his vulnerable nature.

It's all a bluff. A bluff that lasts as long as those in Kingdom Hall can be cajoled into believing he speaks for God because a blind and mute Jehovah is captive in the GBs Brooklyn basements and the evasive explanations for his selection were pointed out by the Same in an invisible sign language - which only the governing board can master.

But Mr. Jackson and his colleagues power really rests on one thing. Just like it did for other demi-gods (e.g., the President of Ceaucescu of Romania). When that wave of shock and amazement passes through the crowd - their power is suddenly gone.

Ceaucescu never made it to his plane out of Bucharest in winter 1989-90 and fraternal, socialist republic operated to his benefit was gone.

In the testimony of Day 8 of the inquiry, Mr. Jackson attests that he was born in 1955...

44 Q. And you were baptised as a Jehovah's Witness in

45 Queensland in 1968?

46 A. That is correct.

47

1 Q. And you left school at the age of 15 and commenced

2 pioneering work for the Jehovah's Witnesses in Tasmania; is

3 that right?

4 A. That is correct.

5

From all appearances, Mr. Jackson spent much of his career translating between English and languages prevalent in Tasmania.

Mr. Jackson, despite his appointment to translation and writing positions, never establishes his credentials as a translator of Scriptural Languages or as a Biblical scholar. And the times he speaks ex cathedra, as it were, as a member of the governing board in these specialties, his pronouncements have a great many holes and cracks.

1 obviously, I was appointed on the Governing Body because of

2 my spiritual qualifications. So my role as a consultant

3 with the teaching committee and personnel committee

4 involves me evaluating recommendations that are made to see

5 if, first of all, they are scripturally accurate and

6 correct, and, secondly, whether they are translatable.

7

8 Q. So would that be with regard to all business and

9 decisions of the committees on which you serve ‐ you would

10 fulfil that function you have just described?

11 A. That is the function that I fulfil.

12

13 Q. So, in other words, to give guidance and ensure that

14 the decisions and work of those committees are scripturally

15 accurate and correct?

16 A. As well as translatable.

17

18 Q. And by "translatable", do you mean translatable into

19 various languages of the world?

20 A. Yes, just ‐ you probably are aware of the fact that

21 Jehovah's Witnesses translate their material into nearly

22 900 languages ‐ I think it's something like 893 translation

23 teams that we have ‐ and our magazine, The Watchtower, is

24 translated into approximately 250 languages, so at times

25 these committees need my input with regard to how things

26 will be translated into other languages.

27

28 Q. As I understand it, your input on those committees is

29 not restricted to the question of translation; it would

30 cover all the business of those committees; is that right?

31 A. It covers all the business in the aspect of me

32 analysing the scriptural basis for decisions.

29 Q. You have said that the Governing Body presently has

30 seven members. How is it determined how many members there

31 will be from time to time?

32 A. There can be any number of members on the Governing

33 Body. In the past few decades ‐ for example, when I was

34 appointed on the Governing Body, there were 12 of us.

35 I believe the number has been 18 at one stage. But the

36 qualifications of a member for the Governing Body ‐ it

37 involves someone who is considered an anointed Witness, who

38 has worked in scriptural, with a scriptural background,

39 either as a missionary or a full‐time servant for many

40 years, and is able to fulfil the role of the Governing

41 Body, which is, may I state, a group, a spiritual group of

42 men who are the guardians of our doctrine, and as guardians

43 of the doctrine, look at things that need to be decided

44 based on our doctrines, which are based on the constitution

45 of the Bible.

46

47 Q. I take it if the Governing Body is to be increased in

.14/08/2015 (155) 15933 G W JACKSON (Mr Stewart)

1 size, that that will be a decision of the Governing Body

2 itself?

3 A. That is correct. But obviously, we would get

4 information from other fields.

5

6 Q. And is it the case that the Governing Body then

7 appoints new members of the Governing Body?

8 A. That is correct.

9

28 Q. Do correct me, Mr Jackson, if I misunderstand this,

29 but this does seem to me to suggest, in the use of the

30 words "brothers select for yourselves seven reputable men",

31 that a broader congregation of believers would make the

32 selection, rather than the seven themselves?

33 A. Well, this is one of the difficulties we have when

34 a secular Commission is trying to analyse a religious

35 subject. I humbly would like to mention that point. Our

36 understanding of the scriptures is these ones were

37 appointed by means of the apostles. Your point is well

38 taken. Let's assume, hypothetically, that others selected

39 these seven men, but it was at the direction of the

40 apostles.

41

42 Q. Do you, as members of the Governing Body, regard

43 yourselves as being appointed by Jehovah God or under the

44 capacity or authority of Jehovah God?

45 A. What we view ourselves, as fellow workers with our

46 brothers and sisters ‐ we have been given a responsibility

47 to guard or to be guardians of doctrine. So just the same

.14/08/2015 (155) 15936 G W JACKSON (Mr Stewart)

1 with elders, they are referred to as being appointed by

2 holy spirit, as you probably are aware, we believe that

3 means that when an elder is in harmony with what the Bible

4 says is required of an elder, then he is appointed by the

5 holy spirit. So the same is true with the Governing Body.

6

24 Q. You have the Bible there. If you go to 1 Timothy

25 chapter 3 ‐‐

26 A. Yes.

27

28 Q. ‐‐ verse 4, there is a discussion of a man presiding

29 over his household having his children in subjection. Now,

30 what does that mean?

31 A. That's a very good question, your Honour. Biblically

32 speaking, the word "subjection" infers respect and

33 a willingness to comply with direction. It does not ‐‐

34

35 Q. Your Bible then provides a reference back to Ephesians

36 chapter 6 verse 4?

37 A. That is correct.

38

39 Q. Which imposes the obligation on fathers to bring their

40 children up in the discipline and admonition of Jehovah.

41 What is the "discipline of Jehovah"?

42 A. Your Honour, the original language, discipline,

43 indicates a process of teaching, educating, making

44 a disciple.

45

46 Q. Well, from that reference in Ephesians, your Bible

47 takes us back to Proverbs chapter 13, verse 34?

.14/08/2015 (155) 15947 G W JACKSON (Mr Stewart)

1 A. Yes.

2

3 Q. And the exact quote is:

4

5 Whoever holds back his rod hates his son.

6

7 What does that mean?

8 A. So, your Honour, you will notice there is an asterisk

9 there on the term "rod", and you see the footnote.

10

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. "Discipline or punishment". So in the application of

13 this, the term "rod" is used as a symbol or a metaphor to

14 indicate the authority to give some punishment. For

15 example, in a modern‐day setting, my father could say to me

16 I don't go to the movies because I had broken some of the

17 rules of the home.

18

19 Q. So it's not about inflicting corporal punishment,

20 then?

21 A. It absolutely is not about inflicting corporal

22 punishment.

23

24 Q. It would have been when first written, wouldn't it?

25 A. How people applied it back then, at that time, of

26 course is open to question.

27

28 Q. Well, what you are telling me, as I understand it, is

29 that your religion, your church, is prepared to interpret

30 the Bible having regard to contemporary social attitudes

31 and standards; is that right?

TO BE CONTINUED

64

Geoffrey Jackson: "That would be presumptuous of us"...

by Calebs Airplane in

within the first few minutes, mr. stewart asked geoffrey jackson if the members of the governing body consider themselves to be god's spokesperson on earth.. his response: "that would be presumptuous of us" (implying that they don't consider themselves to be god's sole channel of communication).. to me, that was the worst lie of about 26 lies he's told during this hearing.

however, mr. stewart missed an opportunity to call out mr. jackson on this bold-faced lie.

he should have asked him to explain why the watchtower magazine teaches otherwise.

kepler

"Nothing is going to change..."

Let's set aside for the moment the specific terrible issue that this RC inquiry is all about.

Let's consider for a moment what a lot of the forum's discussion is about, curtailing the absurd influence that this organization has in the first place.

Of course, I don't get it. I never was a JW. But the cult stepped into my life anyway. And the assumption was among those that bought into it was these people were spokesmen of God.

Now here's one of the GB testifying, contradicting the publications and policy. He's on the writing committee and responsible for interpretation of Scripture from the original language...

So he is as free with the translation as suits him for the moment - and no one dares to challenge.

Come on. You can't get those single interpretations out of the Bible. You have to squeeze them.

This to an outside observer ( e.g., me) is not the single source spokesperson or persons from God. He is trying to wiggle out of the present and the past and put the responsibility on other guys who are out of town. At the same time give promotional speeches.

The last time the likes of Jackson came out from under cover was in Scotland 60 some years ago with Fred Franz and cohorts appealing to get a full dispensation from UK national service. A lot of what they said dynamite, but it remained obscure until very recently. Now you can download the 100-mbyte transcripts.

Times have changed. Evidence on internet goes a much longer way than a Watch Tower magazine.

If anybody is listening to what he's said and ia still in - You should take it right inside the KH and quote it aloud! And in chorus. Point to his transcript and show his smiling face.

After all. It's not the Royal Commission's responsibility to drop attendance and stop this organization.

It's yours.

64

Geoffrey Jackson: "That would be presumptuous of us"...

by Calebs Airplane in

within the first few minutes, mr. stewart asked geoffrey jackson if the members of the governing body consider themselves to be god's spokesperson on earth.. his response: "that would be presumptuous of us" (implying that they don't consider themselves to be god's sole channel of communication).. to me, that was the worst lie of about 26 lies he's told during this hearing.

however, mr. stewart missed an opportunity to call out mr. jackson on this bold-faced lie.

he should have asked him to explain why the watchtower magazine teaches otherwise.

kepler

65 minutes into the testimony. Mr. Jackson is still patting himself on the back -along with the other members of the governing board. He is explaining to the commission the Biblical nature of the preclusion of women from acting as judges, citing Timothy, Deuteronomy and Acts - The court asked him to provide citations.

Mr. Jackson omitted a significant source on this question.

The Book of Judges

Chapters 4 and 5

4:1.

Once Ehud was dead, the Israelites began again doing what is evil in Yahweh's eyes and Yahweh handed them over to Jabin king of Canaan ...

The Israelites then cried to Yahweh; for Jabin had 900 iron chariots and had cruelly oppressed the Israelites for 20 years.

4:3

Deborah, a prophetess, wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at the time. She used to sit under Deborah's Palm between Ramah and Bethel in the highlands of Ephraim and the Israelits would come to her for justice. ...

Chapter 5 is the Song of Deborah

And the country had peace for 40 years.

---------------------------------------------------

This man on the video with the stentorian, Down Under voice and the conservative, dark, 3-piece suit is actually more like an emperor without any clothes.

64

Geoffrey Jackson: "That would be presumptuous of us"...

by Calebs Airplane in

within the first few minutes, mr. stewart asked geoffrey jackson if the members of the governing body consider themselves to be god's spokesperson on earth.. his response: "that would be presumptuous of us" (implying that they don't consider themselves to be god's sole channel of communication).. to me, that was the worst lie of about 26 lies he's told during this hearing.

however, mr. stewart missed an opportunity to call out mr. jackson on this bold-faced lie.

he should have asked him to explain why the watchtower magazine teaches otherwise.

kepler

Another reflection from the testimony.

Mr. Jackson is completely unable to explain how the GB are appointed, other than citing the parable in Matthew 24 which after Rutherford had a row with his lawyer, morphed into translation as the faithful and "discreet" slave. In other words, his lawyer talked to much when he resigned from Bethel.

Since Mr. Jackson has a hands off philosophy in his public testimony, it would appear that governing board members had to be groomed by someone somewhere. In the case, say of Mr. Morris, who often relates about his Vietnam service and then objections which led to incarceration, many of us have tried to find public record of this but found nothing. His testimony indicates to observers that the GB does what it wants, selects its members and they are answerable to no one. Moreover, their backgrounds and activities are largely hidden rather than to serve as examples in conducting one's duty toward God.

64

Geoffrey Jackson: "That would be presumptuous of us"...

by Calebs Airplane in

within the first few minutes, mr. stewart asked geoffrey jackson if the members of the governing body consider themselves to be god's spokesperson on earth.. his response: "that would be presumptuous of us" (implying that they don't consider themselves to be god's sole channel of communication).. to me, that was the worst lie of about 26 lies he's told during this hearing.

however, mr. stewart missed an opportunity to call out mr. jackson on this bold-faced lie.

he should have asked him to explain why the watchtower magazine teaches otherwise.

kepler

Some quick notes.

This episode seems to resemble the Glasgow inquiries about minister status for members of a congregation back in the 1950s in which Fred Franz and other officers testified. I suspect the council is aware of these proceedings and is handling testimony from a GB accordingly.

Consider the discussion about literal interpretation of the Bible and t cross references leading back to "spare the rod and spoil the child." Mr. Jackson claims that the Hebrew did not mean "rod". Something else? He interjects as writing committee chairman in this case, so far as I can tell. My Hebrew TaNakh says the same thing as quoted. "He who spares the rod hates his son." For all practical purposes from what I hear about discipline in JW surroundings, the Proverb is applied. But when question by the committee, Jackson caves again in public and says he does not condone corporal punishment.

On women as Elders, he makes the claim that the Bible from the beginning excludes the possibility. He should be aware of several translations of Paul's epistles where greetings from the Apostle to women who served in high capacity ( i.e., Elders were changed to masculine names). This includes the NWT.

Mr. Jackson should be asked about how he obtained his Biblical scholarship. According to his own account, he left school at the age of 15. It appears that he has excellent command of Polynesian languages, but no one has demonstrated he has any knowledge of Greek or Hebrew to make the calls he just gave in this 90 minute recording.

And Mr. Jackson, including his "that would be presumptuous", provides this testimony by first swearing on his own Bible.

I am familiar with videos of other GB members giving their views. Are there some in the archives for Mr. Jackson?

64

Geoffrey Jackson: "That would be presumptuous of us"...

by Calebs Airplane in

within the first few minutes, mr. stewart asked geoffrey jackson if the members of the governing body consider themselves to be god's spokesperson on earth.. his response: "that would be presumptuous of us" (implying that they don't consider themselves to be god's sole channel of communication).. to me, that was the worst lie of about 26 lies he's told during this hearing.

however, mr. stewart missed an opportunity to call out mr. jackson on this bold-faced lie.

he should have asked him to explain why the watchtower magazine teaches otherwise.

kepler

If I recall correctly, Mr. Jackson as chair of the writing committee holds a position that has been held by a number of other governing board members. Mr. Stewart should ask Mr. Jackson about this history of illustrious board members. Perhaps he will mention Ray Franz.

9

Sumerian history

by StarTrekAngel in

can anyone recommend a good, updated book or documentary on the sumerian civilization?.

thanks in advance.

kepler

CrazyGuy, StarTrekAngel,

Responding to the question about destruction of Babylon:

Back about 5 or 6 years ago, I was asked to take instruction by my then fiancée. This consisted of having two representatives come to my house on Saturdays and take me through the pamphlet "What the Bible Really Teaches". About page 23 there was a section titled, "A Book of Prophecy". The text made claims about the book of Isaiah, about how Isaiah prophesied the destruction of Babylon by Cyrus and quotes on page 25:"She will never be inhabited, nor will she reside for generation after generation. And there the Arab will not pitch his tent, and no shepherds will let their flocks lie down there (13:20)". "I will sweep her with the broom of annihilation (14:22)."

The idea here was that Jehovah had devastated Babylon for desecrating the Temple. And wouldn't you like to have a deity like Jehovah backing you up when you're in trouble, et cetera?

Interesting. But I found this odd. I looked at my under-used copy of Herodotus. It seemed like Babylon was a bustling metropolis according to his account of his world a century or so after its presumed destruction. No reports of recent destruction or recovery from thereof. Later Alexander seemed to want to establish his capital there and the Persians were loose with the notion of where a capital was, save for where they liked to have court. And Ezra with a large party appears to have left Babylon with well wishes from Cyrus. Not even all the Jews left when he did. Something fishy.

I look at other accounts of history and I start reading Isaiah carefully for myself.

Chapter 14 is whole host of denunciations, that lead up to a fist shaking at Assyria which in Isaiah's time under Sennacherib had laid siege to Jerusalem and fumbled the ball. A plague broke out in its camp and the siege was lifted. Isaiah credits Jehovah's intervention ( or the Lord's or Yahweh's... depending on text). Prior to that, about Babylon, he says, quoting the Lord: "I will rise against them, ... and deprive Babylon of name, remnant, offspring and posterity, declares Yahweh. I shall turn it into the haunt of hedgehogs, a swamp. I shall sweep it with the broom of destruction... ( 14:22-23)."

As I said, the next few lines are about how the Lord would "break Assyria in my country: (14:25).

So what about the Ancient Iraq section and other similar texts? The destruction of Babylon did NOT occur 150 years later (539 BC), but around 689 BC. Cyrus was greeted as a hero. A peaceful takeover and favorable reception by local religious authorities is chronicled in stone. As is the earlier destruction by Sennacherib the Assyrian by FLOODING. "I will turn it into a haunt of hedgehogs, a swamp." Sennacherib diverted the river to flood the city and carted off the nobility and wealthy to slavery much as would happen later to the same classes in Jerusalem under order of Nebuchadnezzar. Cyrus did nothing of the kind, however.

And it means that the whole proposition of the segment on "What the Bible Really Teaches" was wrong. Jehovah did not punish Babylon for destruction or desecration of the Temple by desolation because it was Sennacherib that had done the deed 150 years before. And it was his son Esarhaddon who rescinded the 70 year sentence after 681 in an act of mercy or remorse that the Biblical account, which seems to borrow from Assyrian "jurisprudence" seems unable to consider or imagine. I would add that the scribes appear to have deliberately conflated the two events. And their work in that regard seems to have succeeded immeasurably better than they could have imagined.

Several times I confronted elders from the particular Kingdom Hall with these matters. They continued to insist that Babylon was irrevocably destroyed. It's amazing the tenacity of their beliefs. I also pointed out that the NWT claims that Peter was writing his epistles from Babylon...

Case closed.

13

Photodrama of creation: Solar system has 12 planets?

by Saintbertholdt in

in the photodrama of creation there's a picture of the solar system.. there are 12 solar orbiting objects.

(also a 13th orbit which seems to be a comet, probably halley).

does anyone know where russell got this from?.

kepler

Like today, the 19th century had evidence for astronomical bodies that had not yet been observed.

One of them that I thought might show up on the diagram was "Vulcan", an object that supposedly perturbed Mercury's orbit just like a 9th might have been responsible for effects on Neptune's. Number 8.

Pluto is first detected circa 1929. Too late for Russell's diagrams.

As it turned out, there was no Vulcan to be found inside the orbit of Mercury and Pluto is too insubstantial to have had any effect on Neptune. A part of the "advance" of Mercury's perihelion ( near approach to the sun) in the celestial sphere is attributed to General Relativity. Reasons for discrepancies in Neptune's orbit...Don't know if anyone has found a reason. So representation on the Russell chart seems to be major asteroids.

Aside from that, interesting, but I don't think the sketch was too rigorous on scale.

579

Won't get fooled again ...Moon Landing.

by The Rebel in

jw
friends

so i was fooled by the witnesses.

what can i learn from that?

not to accept things at face value but to seek out opinion and different view points.. hence my question " do you believe man landed on the moon?.

kepler

This might be a repeat. I stepped away from my desk and the text was gone.

Some time last night I remembered a 1970s film about faking a NASA crew landing on Mars shortly after the Viking landers in 76. The film was called Capricorn One and the director was Peter Hyams. Looking a Wikipedia articles about it and the growth of the lunar landing conspiracy theory, it seemed like they had an interesting cross fertilization, including Carpicorn One's access to NASA and contractor simulation facilities for either type of mission (Viking or Apollo).

Suffice to say, that since that time our abilities to simulate other things could make the historical record and simulations more blurry. Perhaps all our recorded history was really concocted in studios - including old newsreels.

But for the time being, given that we are talking about the implications of not having evidence in our hands, I would like to point out some another potential problem. After all, if a spacecraft is in orbit around the moon - and especially in the era of 1968 to 1972, there is no communication with the spacecraft when it is on the other side.

What could be going on with the spacecraft and its crew when every other hour it is lost from contact behind the moon?