NASA Scientist Fired - Promises Disclosure

Originally posted by pippadee
Go to www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/list and click on COPERNIC Copernicus crater (with center missing = just first month of data).

You gotta use
www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil...

more comments to Bara's blog that might be censored...

Bara has been pretty good about not overdoing this, so give him a few more days to do the right thing, but here are current comments from me awaiting his 'approval'.

RE: Uncanny coincidences show NASA controlled by Egyptian muthology worshippers

Comment on darkmission.blogspot.com...

My introduction to these kinds of claims was on your website in discussing the choice of launch time for the FGB, the first ISS component, in 1998. As you recall, you triumphantly listed all the Egyptian constellational coincidences of the date and time (www.enterprisemission.com...).

Since I was in charge of the orbital design team that created the criteria for the launch time in 1996-7, and saw how they led to the choices actually made in November 1998, I was mightilly amused by the preposterous hand-waving on your website regarding 'secret intentions'.

This wasn't in the book, so we can discuss it in more detail elsewhere. But I spent a chapter in my 2002 book 'Star-Crossed Orbits' (www.jamesoberg.com...) discussing exactly this process in the real space program.


Add to darkmission.blogspot.com...

Mike: "NASA could have selected any number of spots along the Florida east coast to build their launch facility and still had the same benefit, and they (just by coincidence) selected an area that is symbolically associated with the Egyptian god Osiris."

I was waiting to see if any of Mike's other blog-readers choked on these historical or geographical inconsistencies, but nope, they all seem to have no problem swallowing them:

1. The missile range on 'Cape Canaveral' was founded in 1949. NASA wasn't organized until 1958. How could it have had any influence on a choice made a decade before it even existed?

2. NASA chose an area for its moon port (pad 39) on Merritt Island, adjacent to but not on the geographical entity known as 'Cape Canaveral'. Sure, the news media often simplistically calls it "Cape Canaveral" too (shuttles are still launched from there), but people concerned with geographical and cartographical precision ought to know better.

So -- are these facts a 'surprise' to Mike?


Comment to darkmission.blogspot.com...

To expat, Bara wrote: "When someone A) calls me a liar without any evidence, B) compares me to a Holocaust denier, or C) just generally irritates me with a nonstop series of inspid insinuations, yeah I tend to lose it. "

Maybe now that what goes around, comes around, and in the glow of the New Year (and your book's creditible commercial success), you might reconsider why your own postings about me made me feel EXACTLY the way you wrote here that YOU felt about somebody else.

With a little empathy, we can work our way towards treating initial careless bad guesses and accusations into what can be documented, and what can't be.

Please join me on this step-by-step process.


Comment on darkmission.blogspot.com...

Your point on the meaning of 'Canaveral' is reasonable -- although 'canebrake' is the classic translation of it, 'reeds' seems an acceptable variation.

Regarding Runway 33, though, you claim: "Our point, or course, is that NASA built the runway with a magnetic heading of “33” deliberately, just as the launch pad at White Sands was designated “launch pad 33” deliberately. "

Well, what other reasons might the runway have had that orientation? Checking maps of KSC (for example,
www.psu.edu...) you can see the runway parallels the pre-existing rail and road lines running NNW from the VAB area. Building the long runway with any OTHER orientation would have entailed significant disruption of the ground transportation infrastructure.

I suggest you are fishing for coincidences and have a statistically expectable level of random 'hits'.

Ditto the biblical reference:
Mike: "We simply noted that the famous verse known as “God’s phone number” is numbered 33:3. ... The point is, this is not “fact” that is in dispute. “God’s phone number” is Jeremiah 33:3, period, just as we wrote in the book."

I didn't see it clearly in ProfF's note, but we all need to remember that the chapter and verse numbering scheme cited here is a very recent literary add-on to the text, and even a few centuries ago wasn't consistent. This is about as pure a case of 'accident' as I can imagine devising.

As for other accidents, you still make an issue of your claim:
"we never said that two “Apollo landings” took place on Hitler’s birthday. On the pages he cites we clearly write that NASA landed two missions on the Moon on Hitler’s birthday, Apollo 16, and Surveyor 3 These are indisputable facts." In the book I clearly sensed the claim that this was deliberate. Can you elaborate?

In general, your concentration on these angle numbers strikes me as artificial because the numbers themselves -- the 360 degree circle -- are artificial. They're man made. The 'natural' measure of an arc is in radians, and if your numbers had made non-random patterns in radians, I might have been more impressed.

Originally posted by pippadee
Thank you Buddha for your wisdom. I must drop NASA a line and tell them that their multi billion dollar space telescope, designed to photograph galaxies 14 billion light years from Earth, is suffering from 'pixellated blur' on it's shot of the Earth's moon 250k miles away.

I concede that once the object is looked at with a better instrument, there is no longer pixellated blur such as
www.thelivingmoon.com...

which people with vivid imagination perceive as alien structures. And it's plainly clear that the surface of the Moon has a lot of... craters. All in magnificent Hubble resolution.

the pyramid/geometric structure visible on Hubble image of Copernicus ( whether alien, man made or natural ) can be clearly seen on the US Navy Clementine photo of Copernicus crater
...
Will you agree that the same anomaly is clearly visible on both Hubble and Clementine images ?

No, I looked hard and I can't still point to anything that does not look like various details of a lunar crater. No spaceports, satellite dishes and/or giant spacecraft. If you say there is a mound of some sort, well yes, Moon has hills. Sorry but nothing exciting.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

No, I looked hard and I can't still point to anything that does not look like various details of a lunar crater. No spaceports, satellite dishes and/or giant spacecraft. If you say there is a mound of some sort, well yes, Moon has hills. Sorry but nothing exciting.

Thanks for looking Buddhasystem. However I never mentioned anything about spaceports,satellite dishes, and/or giant spacecraft. Just a very large pyramid/geometric shaped anomaly as viewed from above.

Mind you, if you look VERY carefully, you may see a smokestack/vent inside the rim at the 12 o'clock position on the Clementine image. It is at the 11 o'clock position on the Hubble image.

Regards.