homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » We are Subject To Our HISTORY (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: We are Subject To Our HISTORY
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:

But the simplest conclusion to draw from this is that there are no buildings on the moon or Mars.

I've looked at some of your photos that were supposed to show buildings on Mars, but I don't see a darned thing other than bare rock, and not even a rock formation that remotely resembles a building.

How many photo images did YOU see? I saw about 40000, and I can remember buildings that I saw, a temple at East Hills, a new Defense building there; and underground enclave at Victoria Crater and a military outpost. At Merridian, there was a palace long ruined, now a lake. At the north pole, it's a building shaped like a lady's hat, single story. I remember the buildings, the greenhouses, highway and byways ... and the snakes. Oh the snakes.

Has anyone ever agreed with you that they see in your photos what you're seeing? [/QB]

Oh yeah! There's a group of us centered around Facebook and we all do our work separates, but compare notes occasionally. A couple of those guys know everything I know, understand our reality the same way I do. So, I don't need to be defensive because I've done the work, I do the work, and my friends do the work.

The work of figuring out what is true and what is not true is an honorable work, I'm convinced.

Thanks for asking.

Em

Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561

 - Posted      Profile for Lothiriel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why should I look at 40,000 photos? If I look at 50 and see absolutely nothing like you describe, what reason is there to think that the next 39,950 will be any different?

--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery

my blog

Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've found an academic research tool maintained by Oxford University, which gives online access to Sumerian literature and associated English translations.

Here's the link

If you use the simple search facility and go to the list of proper names, you'll find a-nun-na as a divine name. If you click on that, you find 182 entries listed. Against some of them, you'll find the symbol /Tr/ which means English text translation available for context. Click on /Tr/, and you get the text.

I haven't been through them all yet, though I could. But others have done this kind of research and are unable to find any translations which match up to those claimed by Sitchin in his extra-terrestrial hypothesis. So Emily's claim that other translators have confirmed Sitchin's work cannot be substantiated by reference on the Oxford University website.

Amazing what resources are available online these days.

I'm sure there are loads of historical researchers out there, some of whom have the capability to check the Oxford website translation against the original sources. If you buy into Emily's conspiracy all of them must be getting paid off as well. Probably quite handsomely, given the money that can be made out of the interest in the possibility of extra-terrestrial visitors. "They" must have very deep pockets.

Whether or not you find Sitchin's hypothesis to be intrinsically absurd, it's clear that it can be checked independently, as can the content of the Oxford University site, to see how well the data and the claims stack up against the original sources.

I'm now happy to bet the ranch on my assertion that Sitchin's translation work in support of his hypothesis cannot be replicated by group peer review processes. Indeed, there is powerful evidence that at least on this point it can demonstrated to be false.

Of course this will not convince Emily, but there is a certain reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity") in this thread now. Even if you didn't find absurdity in this on general grounds at the start.

[ 23. May 2013, 07:52: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A couple of points occur to me.

Amateur astronomers are abundant, and not dependent on grants. Moreover, many of them make their own telescopes, including the mirrors, and so are not bound by the conditions of this supposed treaty. And there isn't evidence that they have uncovered any of the features supposed to be hidden by the academics and professionals. They are as capable of publishing as those, or the proponents of the Annunaki hypothesis. And much more likely to leak than someone whose job was put at risk.

And, perhaps more importantly, if they came for our gold, how come we still have it? The stuff in our stores isn't all recently mined. If they were so advanced, how come they didn't mine out all the accessible stuff when they were here?

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Hawk

Semi-social raptor
# 14289

 - Posted      Profile for Hawk   Author's homepage   Email Hawk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
You don't wanna piss people off whose technologies are a million years ahead of your own ... now do you? That's where the Annunaki stood until recently ... when Karma came home to them too.

I asked previously where you get your ideas about the Annunaki from. I suspect many sources over the years have contributed. For instance your description of the treaty situation is almost exactly the plot of the last few seasons of X-Files. You've also mentioned in another post that in contacting us the Annunaki have violated the galactic Prime Directive, which orders that they shouldn't ever interfere with less-developed societies. Of course as any sci-fi fan knows, this is an invention of the Star Trek franchise.

I wonder if you're even aware that you're picking up your ideas from science-fiction TV, either from watching these directly, or reading others who have. Or perhaps you are aware and think that the TV shows are a false-flag operation, part of the conspiracy to hide the truth.

--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer

See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts

Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:


3. Established Distances & Dimensions.--These are historically {SET} and they cannot be questioned. The method for establishing planetary distances is said to have been "discovered" centuries ago. Never mind, they were inaccurate then, and they're inaccurate now--GROSSLY OFF BY thousands of percent. An example. Our Moon is described by NASA as 2100 in diameter, 226000 miles out. What if I told you it's only 10.8 miles in diameter, only 50000 miles out? That is the order of magnitude of errors in CONVENTIONS in the Astronomy discipline.

Try Parallax.

Parallax checks can be made on distances of astronomical objects. These distances have not been set historically. Just measured. And the measurement process can be repeated today by any independent observers.

Stellar Parallax is a more complicated matter, but as for the moon, checking the reported distance is relatively easy. The calculations are just a matter of the basic geometry of triangles. See the section on lunar parallax.

Emily, there appear to be lots of things you don't know - or don't trust.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just a question, Emily. What do you want us to do? From your posting on the Ship, it is obvious that you want to convince us that the Annunaki are real and that Niburu exists.

Suppose for a moment that you'll succeed, and that a large number of Shipmates will be convinced by the sheer logic of your arguments. That is what you want, right?

Then what next?

The Ship of Fools isn't an ordinary place. Most of us have above average intelligence. There are scientists here, engineers. There's a number of politicians among us, others are in the higher echelons of Churches of different denominations. We have access to the media (one of us was on the BBC last week). Some of us can get our hands on considerable financial resources.

I see potential here.

Surely this is why you chose us? But we'll need a plan. And your inside information will be invaluable for this.

Here's what I'm thinking. We start producing a small number of telescopes that would be able to see Niburu. There are a number of people here with the knowledge to produce telescopes, and funding won't be a problem. With your unique insights about Niburu we'd give them the exact specifications to look through its transparent surface.

After we produce the telescopes, we'd give them to key persons --indicated by you-- who could be convinced to go over to our side. In the meanwhile, we would work the media and politics (according to a specified plan of course, we couldn't just tell them everything at once). Preachers would pass the Truth from the pulpits.

Of course, you would be the overall leader to guide us through this process.

It's not going to be easy, but after a while we might be able to open the eyes of the world to the Truth. Not everyone of course, some people will still cling to the old conventional pseudo-science (hah!) But with a lot of work and sacrifice, a significant part of the world's population would know what is Real.

What then? Surely, this would break our part of the Non-Disclosure Treaty with the Annunaki. We should be prepared for anything, and we cannot rule out that there would be a violent reaction from them. Should we begin plotting military strategies?

Help us, Emily! What should we do??

[ 23. May 2013, 10:31: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
This is neither the circus nor heaven - no trolling, no games. Parodies that make no debating point come very close to personal attack / trolling.

You are not obliged to participate in this thread if you don't want to, other boards (including hell) are thataway -->

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

I do not want to have to repeat myself again.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:


3. Established Distances & Dimensions.--These are historically {SET} and they cannot be questioned. The method for establishing planetary distances is said to have been "discovered" centuries ago. Never mind, they were inaccurate then, and they're inaccurate now--GROSSLY OFF BY thousands of percent. An example. Our Moon is described by NASA as 2100 in diameter, 226000 miles out. What if I told you it's only 10.8 miles in diameter, only 50000 miles out? That is the order of magnitude of errors in CONVENTIONS in the Astronomy discipline.

Try Parallax.

Parallax checks can be made on distances of astronomical objects. These distances have not been set historically. Just measured. And the measurement process can be repeated today by any independent observers.

Stellar Parallax is a more complicated matter, but as for the moon, checking the reported distance is relatively easy. The calculations are just a matter of the basic geometry of triangles. See the section on lunar parallax.

Emily, there appear to be lots of things you don't know - or don't trust.

You're right about parallax, but there's an even easier way to tell the difference between the NASA moon and EW's moon - subtended angle. An object with a diameter D at a distance R will subtend an angle of D/R radians (or (D/R)*(180/pi) degrees), for cases where D is much less than R. So we have:
  • NASA:(2100/226000)*(180/pi)=0.53 degrees
  • EW:(10.8/50000)*(180/pi)=0.012 degrees
So EW's moon would look about 44 times smaller than NASA's moon - a huge difference, and easy to spot.

This doesn't require astronomers or telescopes; 0.53 degrees is the angle subtended by a 1" diameter disk held at a distance of 108 inches (1/108 = 2100/226000), but 0.012 degrees would correspond to a 1" disk at 4630 inches (1/4630=10.8/50000).

If you are short of 1" diameter disks, you can use your thumb for comparison. My thumb is about an inch wide, and it's about 30 inches from my eye when I extend my arm - that's (1/30)*(180/pi)=1.9 degrees. So it would take about 1.9/0.53 = 3.6 of NASA's moons to equal the width of my thumb held at arm's length, but a full 1.9/.012 = 158 of EW's moons!

I probably won't be able to check today (clouds) but I feel comfortable saying NASA's moon is a much better fit than EW's.

Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
True, Dave, but I was thinking about something else.

I suspected that Emily's "smaller" moon and "closer" distance figures were probably inaccurate - maybe miscopied - but thought the major point she was seeking to make was that a small moon nearer to the earth might have the same apparent size in the sky as a large moon further away. Which is true, but irrelevant if one is using parallax to spot distance. So I focused on distance determination by parallax.

Of course the issue of apparent size of heavenly bodies, rather than real size, becomes most obvious during total eclipses, when the apparent sizes of sun and moon are virtually the same, despite huge differences in both real size and distance from the earth.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561

 - Posted      Profile for Lothiriel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've been thinking some more about the silencing of all the astronomers in the world, and the size and extent of the alleged conspiracy in general. And I began to wonder (and I pose these questions in all seriousness, no satire or baiting intended): Emily Windsor-Cragg, how is it that the conspiracy to hide "the truth", which apparently exerts total control over thousands(?) of people who are in on the secret, has allowed your Facebook group to continue posting "the truth"? How is it that googling your name returns 188,000 hits, rather than "no results found"? How have your website and photos been allowed to stay up for years? If the conspiracy is as powerful as you suggest, surely they'd be able to prevent you and your friends from spreading your ideas all over the Internet. Surely all it would take is a little pressure on your Internet service provider and you'd be offline.

--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery

my blog

Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hawk:

I don't share Emily's beliefs. But sci-fi TV shows and films are often inspired by ideas that are already published or otherwise in circulation.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hedgehog

Ship's Shortstop
# 14125

 - Posted      Profile for Hedgehog   Email Hedgehog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
If the conspiracy is as powerful as you suggest, surely they'd be able to prevent you and your friends from spreading your ideas all over the Internet. Surely all it would take is a little pressure on your Internet service provider and you'd be offline.

I thought about this, too. But if Emily were right in every particular, the Conspiracy might well leave her website up and running. Consider: if you have been running a global Conspiracy for thousands of years, you might well develop more sophisticated ways of dealing with your adversaries than simple suppression. Suppressing the truth constantly would take a huge amount of effort and energy. Very inefficient. But allowing the truth to be printed and then taking steps to mock it or make is seem ludicrous would serve the dual purpose of (1) most people not taking the truth seriously and dismissing it and (2) sowing the seeds so that future dissemination of that same truth would be accompanied by large groups of ready-made mockers from the normal populace, without the Conspiracy having to lift another finger. It would be an elegant way to deal with the problem. An ongoing solution for an ongoing problem.

[ETA: typo fix. Even after doing a preview post.]

[ 23. May 2013, 19:06: Message edited by: Hedgehog ]

--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'

Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
[qb]

Emily, there appear to be lots of things you don't know - or don't trust.

Yes! On both counts, I agree.

The scale of objects on the Moon is ABSOLUTELY impossible given official dimensions and distances. Absolutely!

I cannot account for the differences, and I don't pretend to be scientific enough to do so. So it's just a cunundrum I have to live with. And I complain about this all the time, to no avail.

People just keep reciting the same stuff back at me, and I say, "Well, I hear you!"

Em

Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Why should I look at 40,000 photos? If I look at 50 and see absolutely nothing like you describe, what reason is there to think that the next 39,950 will be any different?

I can't help you, I'm sorry.

Seeing is subjective, is true.

Thanks for your candor. It's better than avoidance in my book.

Em [Smile]

Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Good point.

Amateur astronomers tend to believe the conventions, of course, because they discount their own intuitive realizations, that there's more going on than customarily meets the eye.

I know a few guys who do not go with conventions. John Walston, Bill Bryson, Henning Kemner, on-line during the past year or two have captured images of people walking around on the Moon's surface, architecture and so forth. You can Google them.

JAXA captured a whole video of a ceremonial parade on the Moon a couple of years ago.

Moon video images are in my Facebook files, and what they bring up is that clarity is possible.

Therefore, clarity is necessary, to my mind; and all the photographers who can only bring up the texture of rocks on the surface are truly missing the point of clarity.

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
A couple of points occur to me.

Amateur astronomers are abundant, and not dependent on grants. Moreover, many of them make their own telescopes, including the mirrors, and so are not bound by the conditions of this supposed treaty. And there isn't evidence that they have uncovered any of the features supposed to be hidden by the academics and professionals. They are as capable of publishing as those, or the proponents of the Annunaki hypothesis. And much more likely to leak than someone whose job was put at risk.

And, perhaps more importantly, if they came for our gold, how come we still have it? The stuff in our stores isn't all recently mined. If they were so advanced, how come they didn't mine out all the accessible stuff when they were here?


Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hawk, I have come to believe that we all have the capacity to link in to a global consciousness about what is true, if we desire to.

I have come to see modern media and fantasy and sci-fi are hooking into the same Sources I do.

We all know TPTB utilize the some-truth, some-myth model of knowledge presentation, in order to keep us all fascinated and confused at the same time.

This is why I dumped my tellie in 1997, and I haven't "WATCHED" a single drama on that medium since I began this work, so modern media is outside my experience entirely. I eschew it all.

How do I know what I know? I am a remote viewer, an Annunaki-hybrid myself, somewhat telepathic; and what I KNOW FROM DATA dovetails with what I believe from Intuition and Inspiration.

That is the best I can do. History will judge my predictive work after I'm gone.

Em [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
You don't wanna piss people off whose technologies are a million years ahead of your own ... now do you? That's where the Annunaki stood until recently ... when Karma came home to them too.

I asked previously where you get your ideas about the Annunaki from. I suspect many sources over the years have contributed. For instance your description of the treaty situation is almost exactly the plot of the last few seasons of X-Files. You've also mentioned in another post that in contacting us the Annunaki have violated the galactic Prime Directive, which orders that they shouldn't ever interfere with less-developed societies. Of course as any sci-fi fan knows, this is an invention of the Star Trek franchise.

I wonder if you're even aware that you're picking up your ideas from science-fiction TV, either from watching these directly, or reading others who have. Or perhaps you are aware and think that the TV shows are a false-flag operation, part of the conspiracy to hide the truth.


Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One of the Occult principles of the Annunaki is that the Truth itself has some value, if people happen to find it. So, I use completely public domain images, I use my own re-rendering process, I show my data.

Nothing I do is illegal. I have spoken with about 20 individuals at NASA and NSA, and under the Law I am allowed to publish whatever I come up with.

If it's true or not in actuality, people who claim to know or show that Convention is deliberately Wrong ARE PERMITTED BY LAW to make this claim.

The principle is called, "Hiding the truth in plain sight."

Em


quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
I've been thinking some more about the silencing of all the astronomers in the world, and the size and extent of the alleged conspiracy in general. And I began to wonder (and I pose these questions in all seriousness, no satire or baiting intended): Emily Windsor-Cragg, how is it that the conspiracy to hide "the truth", which apparently exerts total control over thousands(?) of people who are in on the secret, has allowed your Facebook group to continue posting "the truth"? How is it that googling your name returns 188,000 hits, rather than "no results found"? How have your website and photos been allowed to stay up for years? If the conspiracy is as powerful as you suggest, surely they'd be able to prevent you and your friends from spreading your ideas all over the Internet. Surely all it would take is a little pressure on your Internet service provider and you'd be offline.


Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
LeRoc, I have saved yours for last, and I will have to leave for a while after this, without addressing other threads. I have a set of twins to care for today.

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Just a question, Emily. What do you want us to do? From your posting on the Ship, it is obvious that you want to convince us that the Annunaki are real and that Niburu exists.

Let's all become more aware people; let's be more aware that our Leadership is vested in deceit and secrecy, and they're cheating us in more ways than we are even allowed to know. This is cosmic play, and I believe the winners are those with acute awareness rather than those who are content to sit as sheeple.

Nobody here is sheep; that is very clear to me, and I'm delighted with the response I have received on this set of issues. Very thought-provoking, and I hope I have honored your questions sufficiently.

Suppose for a moment that you'll succeed, and that a large number of Shipmates will be convinced by the sheer logic of your arguments. That is what you want, right? Then what next?

I'd be flabbergasted. I wouldn't know what to do. Cynicism is what I usually get back. [Smile]

The Ship of Fools isn't an ordinary place. Most of us have above average intelligence. There are scientists here, engineers. There's a number of politicians among us, others are in the higher echelons of Churches of different denominations. We have access to the media (one of us was on the BBC last week). Some of us can get our hands on considerable financial resources. I see potential here.

I can see that! You guys are awesome! Most of you are way over my head, intellectually, broadly and deeply. But I'm doing something kind of unusual, and I don't get to talk about it ... ever ... not with my kids, not with my former Xeroids and certainly not with my neighbors! But I do get over at Facebook to hobnob with some others who share my same suspicions about OFFICIAL DOGMA dominating over real information.[/QB]


Surely this is why you chose us? But we'll need a plan. And your inside information will be invaluable for this.

[QB]Here's what I'm thinking. We start producing a small number of telescopes that would be able to see Niburu. There are a number of people here with the knowledge to produce telescopes, and funding won't be a problem. With your unique insights about Niburu we'd give them the exact specifications to look through its transparent surface.


You don't need telescopes to see Nibiru. You need light filters on conventional cameras to filter out everybody but uv light. Maybe NIGHTSHOT would do it, I don't know. Nibiru is HUGE; it's filling our skies, but our skies have the blue-white, aluminum-barium powder ceiling that is hard to see through.

... Of course, you would be the overall leader to guide us through this process. It's not going to be easy, but after a while we might be able to open the eyes of the world to the Truth. Not everyone of course, some people will still cling to the old conventional pseudo-science (hah!) But with a lot of work and sacrifice, a significant part of the world's population would know what is Real.


I love your humor here, and I'll just smile. Uhm, the whole world doesn't need to know, only about 2% of the population which are in charge of governance NEED TO KNOW. And people who want to know Science, need to know. But this knowledge is not salient to struggling multitudes for whom survival is their only real and abiding interest.

Nibiru is not threatening us. Our Cosmic God YHVH allowed the Annunaki to peel us out of Olesol's orbit and into this orbit for reasons.

It's all going to come out in the wash, is my conviction. I trust God.

What then? Surely, this would break our part of the Non-Disclosure Treaty with the Annunaki. We should be prepared for anything, and we cannot rule out that there would be a violent reaction from them. Should we begin plotting military strategies?

That Treaty is dead in the water since March 1st of this year, when the Annunaki overturned the Monarchy, there, that made it.

Help us, Emily! What should we do??

Let's pray for good weather, then, okay?
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Anchorman
Apprentice
# 16469

 - Posted      Profile for Anchorman   Email Anchorman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Speaking as an Egyptologist, history is one thing the O/P is not.
Fantasy in a Hancock style, possibly, but not history as we understand the term.
I had hoped we had got rid of the pyramidiocy of Russell, Smythe and co in their romantic fantasies.
I was wrong, apparently.

Posts: 25 | From: South West Scotland | Registered: Jun 2011  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
This is why I dumped my tellie in 1997, and I haven't "WATCHED" a single drama on that medium since I began this work, so modern media is outside my experience entirely. I eschew it all.

How do I know what I know? I am a remote viewer, an Annunaki-hybrid myself, somewhat telepathic; and what I KNOW FROM DATA dovetails with what I believe from Intuition and Inspiration.

What is your subjective experience of telepathy - what actually happens ?

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Emily Windsor-Cragg: Let's all become more aware people
This is more or less the answer I expected.

In your posts, you say that you believe that there is a threat from the Elite and/or the Annunaki (I still haven't figured out if the Annunaki are the good guys or the bad guys in this story). However, the only answer you have to this threat, the only thing we could do about it, is 'become more aware'.

Compare this for a moment with, for example, Global Warming. Some of us (including me) believe that Global Warming is a threat to our society. So, what is our reaction to this threat?
  1. We try to make people aware of this threat.
  2. We propose some ideas of what we can do against this threat. Using cleaner energy, reforestation, etc.
In your case, part 2 is absent. You want to make people aware, but aware to do what: If you genuinely believed that we were under threat, you'd propose at least some things we could try to do about it.

This strongly suggests to me that you aren't really interesting in doing something about the Annunaki/Elite threat you perceive. You just want people to be aware, you want to get their attention. And I have a strong suspicion that it isn't really the Annunaki that you want attention for.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:

What is your subjective experience of telepathy - what actually happens ?
The mind grows in the space it occupies; it takes on location, time and expansion-or-contraction.

It becomes a space, a room not unlike a computer monitor, sense-able.

My own thoughts constitute the "processor," but other thoughts intrude, slide by, or linger.

Over the past 22 years when I began doing this, it was like chat-text. Now, with more practice, it's like a chat-room, and I'm the moderator of it.

But in my case would I ever claim that all thoughts that come to me are of my own creation.

Does this make sense to you?

Em [Smile]

Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Emily Windsor-Cragg:[qb] Let's all become more aware people

This is more or less the answer I expected.


In your posts, you say that you believe that there is a threat from the Elite and/or the Annunaki (I still haven't figured out if the Annunaki are the good guys or the bad guys in this story). However, the only answer you have to this threat, the only thing we could do about it, is 'become more aware'.


Annunaki are divided into factions; so some of them are good guys and some of them are bad guys.


Compare this for a moment with, for example, Global Warming. Some of us (including me) believe that Global Warming is a threat to our society. So, what is our reaction to this threat?[list=1]
[*]We try to make people aware of this threat.
[*]We propose some ideas of what we can do against this threat. Using cleaner energy, reforestation, etc.


This topic, Global Warming, is a perfect example of an issue MUDDIFIED by the existence of silent complicity with unnamed Treaties (with the Annunaki); with the pacification and compartmentalization of scientists who remain ignorant of the FACT we have a different Sun from before; and with the Use of Media as an element to keep the general populace in uproar and confusion so nobody can confront and challenge TPTB.

Another FACT is, the same corporate interests that keep quiet about the sun are the same ones that blame humankind (and not unaccountable, toxic industries) for the "over-production" of CO2, which isn't even toxic to life. Those same interests are the ones buying up patents and silencing inventors of Free Energy ideas.

That whole topic is so ripe and rife with hypocrisy, it's a perfect example of how toxic leadership can get when they have control of information.

In your case, part 2 is absent. You want to make people aware, but aware to do what: If you genuinely believed that we were under threat, you'd propose at least some things we could try to do about it.

1. Buy-cut and under-cut corporate media.
2. Vote with your feet; accept no more Diebold rigged elections and media lackeys and shills as leaders.
3. Rearrange your life so you don't need corporate fuels, corporate housing, corporate funding and corporate information. Why? Because corporations profiteer on lies and influence-peddling, and that's no way to run a world.
4. Be a leader. Say what you're gonna do and then DO IT! Stop mouthing platitudes but continuing to follow the crowd consuming stuff on the broad road.
5. Organize your family and friends into a club or cooperative that challenges the system, inter-personally, with a buying club, a local tool and toy library, a senior hospice, an after-school club for kids that doesn't hammer propaganda into the kids, etc. Return to the community and reassert the desire and need to share and cooperate one, with another.

These suggestions are in my book, "Civil Life in Galactic History," available at amazon.com .

This strongly suggests to me that you aren't really interesting in doing something about the Annunaki/Elite threat you perceive. You just want people to be aware, you want to get their attention. And I have a strong suspicion that it isn't really the Annunaki that you want attention for.

Wanna bet? [Smile]
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Emily Windsor-Cragg:
1. Buy-cut and under-cut corporate media.
2. Vote with your feet; accept no more Diebold rigged elections and media lackeys and shills as leaders.
3. Rearrange your life so you don't need corporate fuels, corporate housing, corporate funding and corporate information. Why? Because corporations profiteer on lies and influence-peddling, and that's no way to run a world.
4. Be a leader. Say what you're gonna do and then DO IT! Stop mouthing platitudes but continuing to follow the crowd consuming stuff on the broad road.
5. Organize your family and friends into a club or cooperative that challenges the system, inter-personally, with a buying club, a local tool and toy library, a senior hospice, an after-school club for kids that doesn't hammer propaganda into the kids, etc. Return to the community and reassert the desire and need to share and cooperate one, with another.

Some of these are actually good, with or without the Annunaki. If believing in them causes you to use less fossile fuels and care about your community, I would be the last one to object.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
True, Dave, but I was thinking about something else.

I suspected that Emily's "smaller" moon and "closer" distance figures were probably inaccurate - maybe miscopied - but thought the major point she was seeking to make was that a small moon nearer to the earth might have the same apparent size in the sky as a large moon further away. Which is true, but irrelevant if one is using parallax to spot distance. So I focused on distance determination by parallax.

Of course the issue of apparent size of heavenly bodies, rather than real size, becomes most obvious during total eclipses, when the apparent sizes of sun and moon are virtually the same, despite huge differences in both real size and distance from the earth.

The disadvantage of appealing to parallax (valid though the point is) is that actually applying the method requires some effort. You need observations of the moon taken from two widely-spaced points to measure its apparent position vs. the distant stars. The longest baseline you can get on earth is 4000 miles, so at 226000 miles you'll see a maximum shift of (4000/226000)*(180/pi)=1.0 degrees, and you won't be able to estimate this by using your thumb - you need two distant observers taking measurements simultaneously to avoid discrepancies due to the moon's own motion in orbit. (You can't just take two observations 12 hours apart by yourself, because the moon's 28 day orbit will cause it to traverse an angle of about 6.4 degrees in that time - and it's in a direction that would make your computed parallax angle nonsensical.)

I was attracted to comment on EW's size and distance numbers precisely because they offered an unusually clear and simple way to compare claims to observation. I can think of lots of reasons why her claims are wrong based on well-established principles; for instance, if the moon were 50000 miles away instead of 226000, a month would only be 2.8 days long instead of 28. (This is a consequence of Kepler's 3rd Law, which is literally on page 2 of my copy of Fundamentals of Astrodynamics.)

To apply this, you'd at least need to a) be willing to accept centuries-old physical principles, and b) know how to do exponents on your calculator. Parallax requires simpler math, but careful and tedious observation. But the angular size argument is so simple and easy, it allows you to see almost instantly that her numbers can't be right - because at arm's length, the width of your thumb just does not appear to be 160 times the diameter of the moon.

Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Right again, Dave. (Nice rational tangent as well BTW.)

I knew the Wiki Parallax link for other reasons (recent conversation with one of my grandchildren over stellar distances), thought Emily (who is clearly attracted by visual images) might "get" the diagrams, not need the maths. Took the easy way out (for me!)

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:

These suggestions are in my book, "Civil Life in Galactic History," available at amazon.com .

Emily, that's covered by our Commandment 9 and we discourage it. The "avaiable at amazon" makes it a direct bit of self-advertising.

Linking to content you've already written or shown in a blog will normally get a pass, provided it's in the context of the discussion and doesn't cross any of the other guidelines.

Here's the Commandment wording

quote:
9. Don't advertise or spam

Don't use these boards to advertise your site or product, or to lift email addresses to spam our members.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host


--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:

What is your subjective experience of telepathy - what actually happens ?
The mind grows in the space it occupies; it takes on location, time and expansion-or-contraction.

It becomes a space, a room not unlike a computer monitor, sense-able.

My own thoughts constitute the "processor," but other thoughts intrude, slide by, or linger.

Over the past 22 years when I began doing this, it was like chat-text. Now, with more practice, it's like a chat-room, and I'm the moderator of it.

But in my case would I ever claim that all thoughts that come to me are of my own creation.

Does this make sense to you?

Em [Smile]

Yes, but we would probably disagree about the origin of thoughts in your head that you do not believe arise from your own mind.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Yes, but we would probably disagree about the origin of thoughts in your head that you do not believe arise from your own mind. [/QB]

No doubt!

But please keep in mind, I place every thought that comes to me within the context of the Christian Covenant going back to the Jacobian Covenant of the Kingdom of David initiated by YHVH, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I am not a Wiccan.

Also, my books are not commercial because they're cheaper than having to print off a free manuscript off a home printer. It's just a simpler way to disseminate information. I haven't earned $100 in royalties at amazon.com in the four years since they started printing my books. I don't even call it publishing. They're a printer, is all; and what I write is not going anywhere--not commercially.

But ok, I'll respect Commandment No. 9.

Emily

Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is there a categorical difference between this so-called Jacobian-Davidic Covenant and the Abrahamic Covenant, which the New Testament identifies as the Covenant of Grace fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gextvedde
Shipmate
# 11084

 - Posted      Profile for Gextvedde   Email Gextvedde   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
Oh!

I placed the links to evidence in the Annunaki thread.

what I expected to discuss here is how it happens to be that Scriptures only begin 4000 years ago when in scientific fact, the Earth is 3.5 billion years old.

Doesn't make sense to me that Earth, with so many mysterious artifacts, pyramids and hidden cultures, must restrain ourselves to such a short official history.

Any takers?

Yep, comparing action man fighter pilots with ancient stone artifacts has definitely convinced me. Where do I join up?

--------------------
"We must learn to see that our temperament is a gift of God, a talent with which we must trade until he comes" Thomas Merton

Posts: 293 | From: The Twilight Zone, near the M25 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Have you seen the Indian "vimannas", jet planes from ancient Hindu India, ten thousand years ago?

They had them; they also had nuclear wars; there's residual radioactivity in some uninhabitable areas of India.

... under Hierarchy leadership.

I'll put up the link to a "vimana" plane image tomorrow. It'll take a while to dig out of my folders.

Em

[ 26. May 2013, 01:33: Message edited by: Emily Windsor-Cragg ]

Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561

 - Posted      Profile for Lothiriel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
Have you seen the Indian "vimannas", jet planes from ancient Hindu India, ten thousand years ago?

They had them; they also had nuclear wars; there's residual radioactivity in some uninhabitable areas of India.

... under Hierarchy leadership.

I'll put up the link to a "vimana" plane image tomorrow. It'll take a while to dig out of my folders.

Em

If you're talking about these "aircraft", the Wikipedia article notes

quote:
A study by aeronautical and mechanical engineering at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in 1974 concluded that the aircraft described in the text were "poor concoctions" and that the author showed complete lack of understanding of aeronautics.
The article notes also that the text that the description is found in was created in the 20th century by "mental channeling", which no serious historian would accept as a valid source.

As far as the radioactivity goes -- there is such a thing as natural background radiation. Some areas are noted for high levels of radiation due to high concentrations of naturally radioactive material. No need at all to postulate ancient nuclear war.

--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery

my blog

Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I find odd artifacts interesting--regardless of their true origins. I like to play with ideas, and think if there's anyway something *could* be true.
The Antikythera mechanism is one example.

When I was growing up, in the '70s, there was a lot of public attention given to the plane Emily mentioned, Nazca lines, ancient astronauts, etc. I considered the possibilities, but didn't come to any particular conclusion. I read some Von Daniken. I found I was more interested in the actual items than his interpretations of them.

I personally think that humans have a vested interest in thinking that of course current human knowledge is the greatest that has ever been, because we don't want to believe that knowledge could've been lost, or that current humans aren't "all that". We're the top of the evolutionary heap. We're the only ones who use tools (except many animals do), who have language (except whales and prairie dogs do, e.g.), who play as adults (except many animals do), etc.

Which, I think, is one reason we get so fascinated by how the pyramids and stone circles were built. How in the world did they do it, when we don't have the knowledge, and they had only very primitive tools?

IMHO, attributing ancient technology to space aliens is a way to get around that and still keep our self-esteem. Clearly. we ARE "all that" on our planet. But we were visited (or even planted) by beings who were more advanced, and they did all that ancient stuff that we don't understand, and we'll be like them when we grow up. And then we'll be even more "all that".

I don't know if aliens/hybrids exist, if they've been here, or what they got up to if they were. But, just maybe, we once knew a bunch of stuff that we've forgotten--both how to do things, and that we may not be the only "advanced" creatures on earth.

{Cue whale song and prairie dog whistles.}

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The AntiKythera mechanism is a stunning piece of work, and the only thing I really wanted to see when I was in Athens for a day. (And I had my purse nicked on the Metro, and had to go into the bowels of the police station, and find a bureau de change that would take my left over Hungarian and Rumanian currency, before I could get there.) It looks as though they have changed the display since then, as there was no reconstruction.

I've a book on the subject, currently in the hands of a clock repairer who I thought would be interested, which tells a story of a clock expert whose work was not welcomed by the scientific experts at work on the device, but also reveals that various Roman period writers referred to such objects.

Apropos of not a lot, Lucian of Samosata, a satirist, wrote of creatures on the Moon who had a mirror mounted in a well with which to observe the Earth, and hear what was said on it - though perhaps I should not mention this. It does suggest technology which disappeared for a while. I wonder if it can be shown that Newton had access to the document (which was read by Rabelais, who passed the idea on to Cyrano de Bergerac for his own SF novel.) (Though Roger Bacon was reputed to have a mirror which allowed his students to see distant objects.)

[ 26. May 2013, 12:47: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561

 - Posted      Profile for Lothiriel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I find odd artifacts interesting--regardless of their true origins. I like to play with ideas, and think if there's anyway something *could* be true.
The Antikythera mechanism is one example.

I personally think that humans have a vested interest in thinking that of course current human knowledge is the greatest that has ever been, because we don't want to believe that knowledge could've been lost, or that current humans aren't "all that". We're the top of the evolutionary heap. We're the only ones who use tools (except many animals do), who have language (except whales and prairie dogs do, e.g.), who play as adults (except many animals do), etc.


Oh, I agree -- modern Western science is not necessarily and in all areas the acme of human knowledge and achievement. But when, in a very short Wiki article, two reasonable objections to the claim that that these were pre-historic "jet planes" appear, I see no reason not to point them out.

Assuming, that is, that these were what Emily was referencing.

--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery

my blog

Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58

 - Posted      Profile for Ariel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Apropos of not a lot, Lucian of Samosata, a satirist, wrote of creatures on the Moon who had a mirror mounted in a well with which to observe the Earth, and hear what was said on it - though perhaps I should not mention this. It does suggest technology which disappeared for a while.

Pure fiction, sorry. The "True History" is Lucian having some fun parodying Homer's Odyssey and a few other things. Not only are his characters carried up by a whirlwind to the Moon (which is impossible) they then have all sorts of silly adventures.

Lucian was an inventive and imaginative author probably best known for writing "The Ass", which, even centuries later, is still a good read (but not true either).

People could be, and were quite imaginative in those days. When almost everything had to be done manually and the hard way, no wonder magic was invented: stories of boats that didn't need rowing, or that could just fly, doors that magically opened for you, work that was done for you by invisible beings, voices that spoke from thin air to give you advice or warnings... the natural human longing for colour, excitement, expediency. A brief break of much-needed imaginative escapism, before getting back to the daily grind.

Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree that the journey to the Moon is fiction, and a device for allowing him to comment on current politics.

But the idea of using a mirror in that way is odd in the context of a story which is so imaginative. His manner of getting there is much less ridiculous that that Cyrano used (the glass containers of dew) - he could easily have observed a waterspout, if not a full blown tornado, and that it could pick up such things as fish. It is based on extrapolating to a ridiculous extent an observable natural phenomen. So why not have used an observation made in the bowl of a silver spoon? And why not try it out? I wouldn't argue that some sort of full sized well based observatory had been tried at the time. That's just silly. But the concept could have been developed from the well at Syene, used in Eratosthenes' Earth measuring maths, where the Sun could be observed at the solstice.

I believe Arthur C Clarke based some of his fiction on current scientific ideas. SF, and I would include Lucian as SF, uses unconsidered scientific and technological trifles that people have left lying about. If he did invent the idea himself, that's even more remarkable than picking up some philosopher/technician's gadget idea. It isn't, of course, unrelated to Archimedes' solar focussing weapon, whether or not that actually ever existed.

I suppose it could be argued that if enough authors are churning out enough ideas, some of them are going to turn out to be related to some sort of workable ideas that could have been around at the time, while most are going to be without any foundation in the laws of physics. Certainly Homer's "invention" of Hephaistos' mechanical serving maids is obviously wild fantasy with no grounding in anything around at the time.

[ 26. May 2013, 18:44: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Firenze

Ordinary decent pagan
# 619

 - Posted      Profile for Firenze     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One example of the way technology washes back and forth is The Ruin. Some (you feel cold and wet) Anglo Saxon looking at the remains of Roman Bath, and calling it enta geweorc.

Our forebears were not any less intelligent and our current mode is not the only (and probably not the best) way to do civilisation.

*work of giants.

Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's a brilliant poem, isn't it? And the rest of it makes it quite clear that he knew Bath had had people in it, and was built by them, so was using metaphor.

I've just been looking at my bookshelves to re-read it. I was sure I had an Anglo-Saxon reader, which might have had the original words, but couldn't find it, only a verse and a prose translation.

I think you're right about him being cold and wet - he does keep returning to the hot baths, and the men in golden halls quaffing mead, doesn't he?

It's interesting that he sees that the skills are lost - I went to a lecture in Oxford about the period of the collapse of the Roman occupation, and one of the features was the loss of pottery skills. People went back to worse than before the Occupation - presumably because they had relied on centralised production and no-one local knew how to make pots properly.

One of my favourite technology stories is of St Eanswyth in Folkestone, in her late teens, marking out the route for an aqueduct from a spring a few miles from her convent, which worked from the 6th century to the beginning of the 20th. There's a hagiographic version, involving her drawing a line with her crozier, making the water cross a valley with a stream without the waters mixing, and flowing up out of said valley, but there is, or was, evidence on the ground for something more sensible. A wealth of stuff that wasn't lost, and no way of knowing how it had been transmitted.

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What is noteworthy in this chat situation is that you're trading stories on sci-fi authors and popular literature.

I'm talking about science and technology in previous ages, and my Annunaki page at Facebook presents solid evidence of their pre-eminence in the remote past.

We can't make the past go away and pretend we're at the top of the pile, when we're not at the top of the pile, and others went before us, much more learned than we are now.

Today, we could not duplicate the pyramids, we cannot travel in space regularly except at great danger; we have no command of Free Energy.

Did you see the South American pyramid that emitted a huge light straight into the sky? I've got the image report on that.

I think contemporary culture is conceited in this regard.

quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
If you're talking about these "aircraft", the Wikipedia article notes

quote:
A study by aeronautical and mechanical engineering at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore in 1974 concluded that the aircraft described in the text were "poor concoctions" and that the author showed complete lack of understanding of aeronautics.
The article notes also that the text that the description is found in was created in the 20th century by "mental channeling", which no serious historian would accept as a valid source.

As far as the radioactivity goes -- there is such a thing as natural background radiation. Some areas are noted for high levels of radiation due to high concentrations of naturally radioactive material. No need at all to postulate ancient nuclear war.

Okay, I won't laugh at your sources if you won't laugh at mine. [Smile]

Oh, you believe what Wikipedia tells you, and whoever wants to write anything as content, they are free to do that.

I placed the image of the vimanna at

http://freecommonlaw.us/images/TimeAnu/SumerianArtifact.png

Emily

[ 27. May 2013, 02:41: Message edited by: Emily Windsor-Cragg ]

Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This just in - according to the latest observations from a noted Boston observatory (i.e. the roof of my apartment building - the clouds finally cleared up!) the moon, when compared to a tape measure held at arm's length (approx. 27 inches from my eye), appears to have a diameter of about 1/4 of an inch. This corresponds to an angular size of 0.25/27 = 0.0093 radians or 0.0093*(180/pi) = 0.53 degrees - a good match to NASA's size/distance figures and a poor match to EW's values, as previously described here.

So Emily, how do you explain the fact that the angle subtended by the moon is 44 times larger than you claim it to be?

Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Laud-able

Ship's Ancient
# 9896

 - Posted      Profile for Laud-able   Email Laud-able   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One of the sad things about the Velikovsky/von Däniken/pyramidiot adherents is the great dishonour that they do to human achievement.

When I stood in front of the pyramids at Gizeh, or walked within the circles of Stonehenge and Avebury, I would have thought it insulting to suppose that they were built by anyone other than devoted, strong, and ingenious human beings – the same kinds of devoted, strong, and ingenious human beings who would later build the Parthenon, and – later still – Salisbury Cathedral.

Within the pyramid of Khufu [Cheops] there is a graffito* naming one of the teams of workers as ‘Friends of Khufu’, and within the pyramid of Menkaure [Mykerinos] there are graffiti naming teams called ‘Friends of Menkaure’ and ‘Drunkards of Menkaure’. All of these suggest a very earthly humanity that rings true across the ages.

Theses people were not gods or visitors from outer space: they were human beings who sometimes got it wrong. An object that illustrates both the skills and the limitations of ancient stone workers is the unfinished obelisk in the granite quarries at Aswan. It may have been ordered by the Pharaoh Hatshepsut, wife of Thutmose II. It would have been taller than any other obelisk known to us today, but after the great labour of pounding and polishing to free the shaft had almost been completed on three sides, a flaw appeared in the granite, and it lies where it was abandoned, still attached to the bedrock, a monument to hard labour and bad luck.


* Of course the pyramidiots, for ever possessed by conspiracy theories, claim that this graffito is a forgery perpetrated by its discoverer, Howard Vyse.

--------------------
'. . . "Non Angli, sed Angeli" "not Angels, but Anglicans"', Sellar, W C, and Yeatman, R J, 1066 and All That, London, 1930, p. 6.

Posts: 279 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
passer

Indigo
# 13329

 - Posted      Profile for passer   Email passer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Laud-able:
Of course the pyramidiots, for ever possessed by conspiracy theories, claim that this graffito is a forgery perpetrated by its discoverer, Howard Vyse.

Well duhh, obviously it's a forgery. Even the Chinese are at it nowadays. What gave this one away was that it says "Ding Jinhao was here - 1425 BCE" - an elementary flaw.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The forensic trail of the Vaimānika Shāstra goes back to 1952.

It was a denizen of the ship that revealed to me that T. Lobsang Rampa was in fact Plympton plumber Cyril Henry Hoskin AKA Carl Kuon Suo ...

If there had been jet aircraft and a nuclear war in India in the past hundred million years we'd have found the culture that produced them.

Em, I WANT to believe all that you say, like I WANT to believe, seriously, that the cosmos was made in six days (not like I want a hole in the head, honestly) but my epistemology won't let me.

How do I change my epistemology ?

To the OP, our history is in the mind of Love, as is our present and our future. All will be well, regardless.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561

 - Posted      Profile for Lothiriel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
Okay, I won't laugh at your sources if you won't laugh at mine. [Smile]

Oh, you believe what Wikipedia tells you, and whoever wants to write anything as content, they are free to do that.

Emily

Wikipedia is increasingly reliable, at least in broad strokes. They do make extensive use of external references, and these are found in the footnotes. The paper by the engineers at the Indian Institute of Science, cited in the Wiki article, is available here.

You seem to want scientific and historical validation for your ideas, Emily, but reject out of hand evidence that seems to run counter to your claims.

Scientists (and, indeed, scholars in all disciplines, including history) spend much of their time taking apart the ideas of others to see if there truly is logical and evidentiary support of the claim. Academic and scientific journals are full of arguments over hypotheses. A scientist who brings forth an idea fully expects that others will stomp all over it to try to disprove it. This is how science works--the ideas that survive this intense scrutiny become the theories that are seen as approximating some aspect of "the truth".

--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery

my blog

Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Maybe that's what Vince in Rex the Runt meant when he said, 'Tuesday!'!.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687

 - Posted      Profile for Emily Windsor-Cragg   Author's homepage   Email Emily Windsor-Cragg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
This just in - according to the latest observations from a noted Boston observatory (i.e. the roof of my apartment building - the clouds finally cleared up!) the moon, when compared to a tape measure held at arm's length (approx. 27 inches from my eye), appears to have a diameter of about 1/4 of an inch. This corresponds to an angular size of 0.25/27 = 0.0093 radians or 0.0093*(180/pi) = 0.53 degrees - a good match to NASA's size/distance figures and a poor match to EW's values, as previously described here.

So Emily, how do you explain the fact that the angle subtended by the moon is 44 times larger than you claim it to be?

The problem is, they've got the distance wrong ... and that's by design.

So, I'm helpless here because details on the surface are absurd and impossible given the official size and distances.

I'm just a digital imaging tech. I cannot evaluate what astronomers are doing. But they look crazy as shit to me!

Emily

Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Prove it.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools