Apollo 15, Jim Irwin's historical narrative in review

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Sample Bag 196 was opened on Wednesday night. The Genesis Rock was NOT in Sample Bag 196. Switcher-oo.

No. Not even your newspaper article says "bag 196 was opened Wednesday night." You just interpret it that way. You need to stop believing everything you think you read in the newspapers.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by Vitruvian
I am rather concerned about the recent "moon rock" posts. I.e., why am I seeing postings here that make it seem as though there really were rock specimens having been returned to the earth from the moon? Perhaps you all should instead be talking about already existing meteorites found right here on planet earth that were used to pose as moon rocks and/or Werner Von-Brauns several visits to the Antartic in search of earth meteorites and earth rocks suitable for the "rock ruse"- no?
There were no astronauts on the moon! So how can anyone here surmise that non-existent moon walkers brought such things back with them?

edit on 24-6-2012 by Vitruvian because: spell

Vitruvian, what do you think of the newspaper articles? How does it all add up to you, Vitruvian?

I think the entire moon rock episodes - all of them - were made up of fraudulent images, faked news and other journalism stories, and invented conversations. Call this particular aspect of the fraud the mythical quest for the (missing) Genesis Moon Rock - and even the so-called replica of it that Scott allegedly carried with him all of the time is also fake.

I am enclosing the entire official NAZA conversation on the rocks - here --->

www.hq.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Vitruvian

I think the entire moon rock episodes - all of them - were made up of fraudulent images, faked news and other journalism stories, and invented conversations. Call this particular aspect of the fraud the mythical quest for the (missing) Genesis Moon Rock - and even the so-called replica of it that Scott allegedly carried with him all of the time is also fake.

You are welcome to believe that as an article of faith. Incidentally, they later found rocks even older than the "Genesis Rock."

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

I think the entire moon rock episodes - all of them - were made up of fraudulent images, faked news and other journalism stories, and invented conversations. Call this particular aspect of the fraud the mythical quest for the (missing) Genesis Moon Rock - and even the so-called replica of it that Scott allegedly carried with him all of the time is also fake.

You are welcome to believe that as an article of faith. Incidentally, they later found rocks even older than the "Genesis Rock."

DJW001

..............As I understand things an article of faith may be defined as a very basic belief not to be doubted: usually within the context of a strongly held belief or a set of beliefs often found in religious creeds, that frequently begin with something like "We (I) believe...", which attempt to more or less define the fundamental theology of a given religion. But, my remarks and the understanding that underpins them are grounded in diligent research within the framework (not necessarily spiritual) of a consistent pursuit of truth, so I am of the mind that your use of said religious terminology does not appy in this case, and in fact falls well short of the mark as to the intentions of this OP

reply to post by Vitruvian

As I understand things an article of faith may be defined as a very basic belief not to be doubted: or a strongly held belief or a set of beliefs usually found in religious creeds, that frequently begin with something like "We (I) believe...", which attempt to more or less define the fundamental theology of a given religion. But, my remarks and the understanding that underpins them are grounded in diligent research within the framework (not necessarily spiritual) of a consistent pursuit of truth, so I am of the mind that your use of said religious terminology does not appy in this case, and in fact falls well short of the mark as to the intentions of this OP

In that case, you're simply wrong. I will defer to your rejection of science based on your religious beliefs, judging by the Adam Kadmon you are currently using as your avatar. On the other hand, if you expect anyone to believe you have done diligent research into aerospace engineering, celestial mechanics, space science, selenology, historiography or even one of the myriad disciplines necessary to form a negative evaluation of the historical record, I'm afraid they won't believe you any more than they believe Dr. Tea Stoked Decisively.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

As I understand things an article of faith may be defined as a very basic belief not to be doubted: or a strongly held belief or a set of beliefs usually found in religious creeds, that frequently begin with something like "We (I) believe...", which attempt to more or less define the fundamental theology of a given religion. But, my remarks and the understanding that underpins them are grounded in diligent research within the framework (not necessarily spiritual) of a consistent pursuit of truth, so I am of the mind that your use of said religious terminology does not appy in this case, and in fact falls well short of the mark as to the intentions of this OP

In that case, you're simply wrong. I will defer to your rejection of science based on your religious beliefs, judging by the Adam Kadmon you are currently using as your avatar. On the other hand, if you expect anyone to believe you have done diligent research into aerospace engineering, celestial mechanics, space science, selenology, historiography or even one of the myriad disciplines necessary to form a negative evaluation of the historical record, I'm afraid they won't believe you any more than they believe Dr. Tea Stoked Decisively.

I smile - preferring to rely on ordinary common sense, a strong intuition, and an education in the arts, philosophy, language(s) and theology............damn the despoiled historical record, and most especially the corrupted and dishonorable sciences - so-called- to which you refer.

BTW - My AVATAR is a varation on an image of the Tetragrammaton - the unspoken name of GOD and NOT Adam Kadmon. In the religious writings of Kabbalah, Adam Kadmon is a phrase meaning "Primal Man".- As referred to In the Kabbalah/Zohar he is closely related to the Philonic doctrine of the heavenly Adam --->

Here is an image of Adam Kadmon and the Jewish understanding of it.



ADAM KADMON
________________________________________
ADAM KADMON (Primordial Man), kabbalistic concept. The Gnostics inferred from the verse "Let us make man in our image" (Gen. 1:26) that the physical Adam was created in the image of a spiritual entity also called Adam. The early *Kabbalah speaks of adam elyon ("supreme man"; in the Zohar the corresponding Aramaic is adam di-l'ela or adam ila'ah). The term sometimes represents the totality of the Divine emanation in the ten *Sefirot ("spheres") and sometimes in a single Sefirah such as Keter ("crown"), Ḥokhmah ("wisdom"), or Tiferet ("beauty"). The term "Adam Kadmon" is first found in Sod Yedi'at ha-Meẓi'ut, an early 13th-century kabbalistic treatise. In the Tikkunei Zohar, the Divine Wisdom is called Adam ha-Gadol ("The Great Man"). The spiritual man is hinted at in the verse "a likeness as the appearance of a man" (Ezek. 1:26) which the prophet Ezekiel saw in the vision of the divine chariot. The letters of the Tetragrammaton (see Names of *God) when spelled out in full have the numerical value of 45, as do the letters of the word Adam. In this fact support was found for the revelation of God in the form of a spiritual man (Midrash Ruth Ne'elam in the Zohar). In contrast to the First Man Adam, this spiritual man is called in the Zohar proper the adam kadma'ah ila'ah ("primordial supreme man"), and in Tikkunei Zohar he is called Adam Kadmon ("primordial man") or Adam Kadmon le-khol ha-kedumim ("prototype of primordial man"). In the Kabbalah of Isaac *Luria, great importance and new significance is given to Adam Kadmon. There Adam Kadmon signifies the worlds of light which, after the retraction of the light of *Ein-Sof ("The Infinite"), emanated into primeval space. This Adam Kadmon is the most sublime manifestation of the Deity that is to some extent accessible to human meditation. It ranks higher in this system than all four worlds: Aẓilut ("emanation"), Beri'ah ("creation"), Yeẓirah ("formation"), and Asiyyah ("making"). The portrayal of this Adam Kadmon and his mysteries, and in particular the description of the lights which flow from his ears, mouth, nose, and eyes plays an important role in Ḥayyim *Vital's Eẓ Ḥayyim and in other kabbalistic works of the Lurianic school. Through this theory the mystical anthropomorphism of the school becomes crystallized. This anthropomorphic figure recurs in all the stages and in all the worlds. Consequently there is an adam de-veriah ("man of creation"), adam di-yzirah ("man of formation"), and an adam de-asiyyah ("man of making"). In contrast to Adam Kadmon, who is from the holy emanation, stands Satan, from the world of iniquity. In the Tikkunei Zohar, and subsequently in the Lurianic Kabbalah, Satan is called adam beliyya'al ("evil man"). In the Lurianic Kabbalah, there is no relationship between Adam Kadmon, which is the light which transcends all other lights, and the *Messiah. Such a connection was made only in the system of the extreme Shabbateans, who believed in the divinity of the Messiah and regarded *Shabbetai Ẓevi as the incarnation of Adam Kadmon. (He figures as such in a number of poems of the sect of the *Doenmeh.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: S.A. Horodezky, in: Ha-Goren, 10 (1928), 95 ff. [Gershom Scholem]
________________________________________
Source: Encyclopaedia Judaica. © 2008 The Gale Group. All Rights Reserved.

reply to post by Vitruvian


Wow. You need to do some research into your basic beliefs.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

Wow. You need to do some research into your basic beliefs.

You speak as a fool................I actually feel sorry for you.

reply to post by Vitruvian


No. No, you don't. You make Kabbalists look bad.

reply to post by Vitruvian

I smile - preferring to rely on ordinary common sense, a strong intuition, and an education in the arts, philosophy, language(s) and theology

theres nothing wrong with relying on common sense and intuition.. but you cant rely solely on it.

common sense once upon a time said the world was flat, that the earth was the centre of the universe, that a 500+ton plane could not possibly fly, that a 100,000ton ship would immediately sink, common sense suggested no one will buy german cars after WW2 especially a VW being advertised with the headlines of "lemon" and "think small"

common sense says the first 23seconds of this youtube video should be impossible.

like i said dont rely solely on common sense and intuition, try to back them up with substance, otherwise you are just speculating.

reply to post by DJW001

judging by the Adam Kadmon you are currently using as your avatar.

ok. This # just got officially weirder than Jim Irwin's Golden Mountains.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


how is it strange??

didnt they find a green rock?? have you been to the moon and seen the colours available?? would the gold coated visor change the mountains colour?

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

theres nothing wrong with relying on common sense and intuition.. but you cant rely solely on it.

preferring to rely on ordinary common sense, a strong intuition, and an education in the arts, philosophy, language(s) and theology

Rather than to disparage the notion of common sense and a good intuition - You would do well to be mindful of the value of COMMON SENSE - A STRONG INTUITION coupled with a good education.to back them up.

edit on 25-6-2012 by Vitruvian because: edit

reply to post by choos


That's right. Jim said he found green rocks on the moon, the guys on the ground later said the rocks were green. It seems to confirm Jim's color accuracy.

Jim also said the mountains were golden. Should we believe it based on his proven "green accuracy" test? If the mountains were indeed glowing like gold would the Hasselblad pictures automatically confirm this?

If the Scriptures were in harmony Jim Irwin's Mountains of Gold would be supported by other evidence. Well, is it?

You can find this Jim Irwin propaganda article implanted into the news media from 1971. This article was written by none other than Jim Irwin himself. It stated that the Mountains glowed like gold. He also clearly stated (and this is very important) the mountains were not gray and brown!

reply to post by Vitruvian


so you will use religion and philosophy to work out how the solar system works?? wasnt it religion that suggested the earth was the centre of the universe

You would do well to be mindful of the value of COMMON SENSE - A STRONG INTUITION coupled with a good education to back them up.

that i can agree with, and was my original point. but not so much relying on theology and arts and philosophy, a broader spectrum would be more accurate, you need sciences as well as among others.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


depends on the composition of the mountain and the lighting.

i dont know the composition of the mountain nor do i know the lighting.. perhaps it was white and the gold visor played a small part of it.. was it a vibrant gold colour or was it dull gold?

reply to post by choos


Is Jim Irwin the only astronaut to describe the lunar mountain areas as "golden"? Jim specifically noted the mountains were "not gray or brown". It's not worth arguing about it. He wrote the bloody article so I must presume that he intended to mean, precisely, that the mountains were "golden" and "not gray or brown". I believe Jim Irwin and what he wrote there.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


i cant say.. but you are right no point in arguing about it since there is nothing strange about it in the first place.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Follow the trail of heiny jive to hidden vats of NASA vomit that lay just under the simulated lunar surface

The astronauts consistently claimed that the color of the moon's surface varied depending upon the angle of the sunlight striking it, and the angle of observation as well. So why is this never reflected in the photos that we are shown ? By the time Apollo 17 rolls around, they have take shots of the moon at a variety of incident light angles, from a variety of observation angles. The camera's eye is but another eye. If what they say is true, we should see some of this interesting variation well represented in our collection of lunar photos. Why do we not get to enjoy all of these interesting colors/shades that the astronauts describe ?

What was the astronauts' motivation for lying to us about this particular aspect of the journeys that they never made ? Where there is Apollonian lie, there is motivation with respect to the Apollo fraud. These grand lies are nothing less than transcendental clues, follow their wretched trails and you shall be lead to a nobody's fool's gold mine of NASA BULL nuggets, huge hidden vats filled with NASA vomit regarding fraud dynamics/details/logistics/machinations. Follow the trail of NASA lies, their trail of heiny jive, to the truth as regards how it was our parents' money was squandered on Johnson's and Nixon's spies and bombs, and rockets and other worthless what nots.

reply to post by decisively

Some jive heiny Ozzie needs to do his research

The astronauts consistently claimed that the color of the moon's surface varied depending upon the angle of the sunlight striking it, and the angle of observation as well. So why is this never reflected in the photos that we are shown ?

These two photos are from the same roll of film. (AS11-446617 and AS11-6564):