In now-closed threads, poster "amyjo" has attempted to make a case for, say, supposed Hubble telescopic discovery of gleaming white cities of God floating in outer space, along with, say, supposedly offering "scientific" proof for 80-ft. tall angels who drop by malfunctioning orbital labs to smile through the windows at the cosmonauts.
In trying to make a case for such black-space magic, amy criticizes those who do not share her faith in pseudo-scientific fantasies as not being professional scientists. Never mind that (1) neither is she; and (2) she doesn't understand science in the least (although she invokes goofball "science" in various attempts to make an alleged case for humongous, shining, floating outer space cities of God. along with super-sized outer space angels. At the outset, I will at least agree that it's totally spaced.
Let's run through the arguments for those Lost in Space who, in their own words, give it their best spaced shot:
Exhibit A
"You're not a scientist. You're a cynical and crude person with no respect for the realm of science or you would not lampoon the spiritual realm.
"Science can and does co-exist with the spiritual.
"You fail to understand the most basic laws of our existence."
(Posted by: amyjo, Date: April 08, 2015 08:25AM)
Well, that wasn't exactly a case of presenting scientific evidence to make her point. Let's try another approach to science.
EXHIBIT B
"All you've got are empty words. They mean nothing because you lack conviction in things that are unseen.
"Someday you may see the light, but that will be when you cross over to the other side."
(Posted by: amyjo, Date: April 08, 2015 08:23AM)
So, now proof of science is stuff that can't be seen. LEt's try again:
EXHIBIT C:
“Your words ring about as hollow as a milk chocolate Easter bunny, or the Tin man.
“Your beliefs at the end of the day are still beliefs, proven by nothing other than your assumptions of what you presume the universe is or isn't.
“You don't really know if there isn't a God, or that angels don't exist. Just because you haven't had a personal witness doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means you don't know whether they exist or not. You can neither prove or disprove them.
“I prefer to accept the mystery, and say that I don't know, or have all the answers. And there are some things that cannot be explained by science or religion. Both try. And both come up short. Like your empty words.
“We'll just have to agree to disagree about yours versus my beliefs.”
(Posted by: amyjo, Date: April 08, 2015 07:57AM)
Still not scientific proof, because things are one big mystery that science can't penetrate. One more time:
Exhibit D:
"Why would I want to cast pearls before a vulture like yourself?
"You don't have any respect for others personal experiences with angelic intervention because you attack even the premise angels exist.
"You've had a lifetime to form your beliefs. I'm not going to change them or try to convince you that angels are more real than yourself. Or as real.
"You come up short. You don't understand now at your age, you may never understand there is more to this life than what's at face value.
"The spiritual cannot be seen or quantified. My experiences are personal, and you wouldn't appreciate them anymore than you accept me as I am.
"You've done nothing but attack me here on this board. You are not only an atheist. You're a hateful person.
"I've met other atheists who are kind and accepting of others beliefs.
"You, on other hand, are a mean and antagonistic person.
"You are to be pitied in more ways than not having some witness that there are angels above you watching your every move."
(Posted by: amyjo, Date: April 08, 2015 08:17AM)
So, now the claims amy wants others to scientifically accept can't be seen or quantified.
Hmmmm.
After having denounced “science” when it does not agree with her versions of phony "science," amy decides to prove, once and for all, what she apparently believes is the "real" scientific proof of it can't obtained by amy resorting to tabloid-level spaced-out-junk "science."
Be let's see amy give it a go:
“'December 26, 1994--NASA's largest telescope, Hubble, photographed images of a Great White City floating in space.
“'The pictures almost immediately thereafter became highly classified, except for a couple that were already in circulation. NASA uses them for study in astronomical laboratories.
“'The size of the City is considered remarkable. Our Earth would be but a grain of sand in comparison. Computer analysis of still images obtained by Hubble show 'that the City's traffic in general coincides with the movement of the surrounding galaxy relative to the Carth.'
“'It is possible, according to some theories, that the City found Hubble rather than Hubble finding the "City"?'"
http://survincity.com/2010/03/great-white-city-floating-in-space-sensitive/(Posted by: amyjomeg, Date: March 24, 2015 09:11PM)
**********
amy's source for these starry-eyed absurdities is the woo-woo website, "Encyclopedia of Safety: Surviving in the City. Survival in a World." It is, shall we say, less than credible--and that's being kind.
Here, for example, is what it offers up as juvenile bedtime story consumption, complete with “photograph”:
(“Scientists Predict Forthcoming Meeting with the Aliens,” at
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsurvincity.com%2F2011%2F03%2Fscientists-predict-forthcoming-meeting-with-the%2F&ei=Ls8TVYCGMM_roASp2YLgAg&usg=AFQjCNExcsDCUoKCOdmwlvuER7Wc0ASO_w&bvm=bv.89217033,bs.1,d.eXY)
--Battlestar Galactic-Huh?:
What's conveniently left unmentioned in any of the above is that this allegedly NASA-verified “Flying Celestial City from Outer Space” has been featured on the Mothership of all Cuckoo-for-Space-Junk” websites--the notoriously nutty “Weekly World News (“WWN”). Read all about it here, where this Tabloid from the Void “reports” its own version of this supposed Cruising Celestial City and the unholy cover-up that's keeping it tucked behind a veil of secrecy:
“WASHINGTON, D.C.--Despite new repairs to the Hubble Telescope, NASA refuses to release old photos or take new ones of Heaven!
“In 1994, a researcher was smuggled one top-secret photo the Hubble Space Telescope had taken of what is presumed to be Heaven. Weekly World News was the first to print the image and report on Dr. Masson’s findings, but despite the media coverage, NASA refused to acknowledge the existence of the photo.
“Now that the Hubble has been repaired and NASA is officially releasing some of it’s new findings, the Weekly World News editorial team believes it is NASA’s responsibility to further investigate this space anomaly!
“NASA has yet to respond, but take a look below for our exclusive report on the first photo.
“HEAVEN PHOTOGRAPHED BY HUBBLE TELESCOPE
“February 8, 1994
“Just days after space shuttle astronauts repaired the Hubble Space Telescope in mid December, the giant lens focused on a star cluster at the edge of the universe--and photographed Heaven!
“That’s the word from author and researcher Marcia Masson, who quoted highly places NASA insiders as having said that the telescope beamed hundreds of photos back to the command center at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, on December 26.
“The pictures clearly show a Vast White City floating eerily in the blackness of space.
“And the expert quoted NASA sources as saying that the City is definitely Heaven “because life as we know it couldn’t possibly exist in icy, airless space.
“’This is it--this is the proof we’ve been waiting for,” Dr. Masson told reporters:
http://weeklyworldnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/new_hubble_images_full.jpg?w=500&h=321“’Through an enormous stroke of luck, NASA aimed the Hubble Telescope at precisely the right place at precisely the right time to capture these images on film. I’m not particularly religious, but I don’t doubt that somebody or something influenced the decision to aim the telescope at that particular area of space.
“’Was that someone or something God himself? Given the vastness of the universe, and all the places NASA could have targeted for study, that would certainly appear to be the case.’
“NASA spokesmen declined to comment on the author’s report ‘pending further analysis of the photographs received on December 26.’ In spite of official silence, agency insiders concede that NASA ‘has discovered something that might alter the future of all mankind.’
“They also confirmed that President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore have taken a keen personal interest in the photographs and have requested daily briefings. Dr. Masson said: ‘The Hubble Space Telescope was designed to photograph images as far away as the edge of the universe but a lens flaw prevented it from doing so until shuttle astronauts corrected the defect during a recent mission.
“’When they finished their work, the telescope trained its enormous glass eye on the outer reachers of the universe.
“’From what I understand, the first images it received were nothing more than kaleidoscopic bursts of color and light.
“’As adjustments were made and the focus sharpened, NASA analysts couldn’t believe their eyes.
“’After checking and rechecking the data, they concluded that the images were authentic. They also theorized that the City couldn’t possibly be inhabited by life as we know it.
“’The only logical explanation was that the City was inhabited by the souls of the dead. As one of my sources put it, ‘We found where God lives.'
“It has been rumored that the space agency has forwarded photographs to Pope John Paul II at his request, but Vatican sources will neither confirm nor deny it.
“Dr. Masson, who obtained copies of a single photograph from her NASA sources, says the space agency’s next move 'will be most revealing.'
“’This is a chance for NASA to come clean with the public and tell us everything it knows,’ she said.”
(“NEW HUBBLE IMAGES,” by Marge Floori, “Weekly World News,” 10 September 2009, original emphasis, at
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweeklyworldnews.com%2Fheadlines%2F11684%2Fnew-hubble-images%2F&ei=idETVaavOsrioASu6YDQBg&usg=AFQjCNG0Ztr_DDTu3oAnZz90aejmEOMEkw&bvm=bv.89217033,bs.1,d.eXY)
Hold on to your space chariots.
--"Weakly World News" and Its Critics
Even fellow Webmasters of the Unifarce admit that “WWN” doesn’t exactly enjoy the greatest reputation. One such domain for the insane confesses that “[the ‘Weekly World News,’] is known to exaggerate stories and to publish some really controversial articles.”
Ya think? That’s got to be the Galactic Understatement of the LUnatic Lunar New Year.
But, yet, incomprehnislvy, this website, “Heaven and Hell,” insists that “[‘WWN’] also publishes some true stories, so we cannot trash this story just because it first appeared in ‘Weekly World News’ magazine.”
Well, if you can’t, we can. On its humble homepage, the “Weekly World News” magazine bills itself big city capital letters, “THE WORLD’S ONLY RELIABLE NEWS”:
http://weeklyworldnews.com/Maybe that’s the case for those who are mentally sub-orbital and whose opinions, therefore, on things rational are not to be taken seriously. Truth be told, Flying Circus of “WWN” is a complete joke.
Let us count just a few of the ways:
“The ‘WWN’ [has] traditionally claimed that it always print[s] the truth (typical slogan: ‘Nothing but the truth: The “Weekly World News!’). Many stories, however, appeared to have comedic intent. In ‘Bat Boy Lives’--a book about the ‘WWN’--a semi-serious introduction admitted that while Reader A reads the tabloid for real news, Reader B will read it for laughs. . . . .
“[T]he ‘WWN’ never publicly questioned the accuracy of its own stories until 2004, when the paper began stating that ‘the reader should suspend disbelief for the sake of enjoyment.’ . . . . [The] ‘WWN’ [stands] alone in its unique niche of basing a weekly publication on supernatural news stories, such as sightings of Elvis Presley and the Loch Ness monster. . . . [Other] [c]ommon WWN stories [have] involved alien abductions, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, time travel, an oncoming depression/apocalypse and newly-found lost prophecies . . . .
“Aliens are [a[ subject frequently tackled by ‘WWN.’ [which has’ blamed these creatures for holes in the ozone. [Other examples include]:
-”A Roswell crash survivor, ‘Altair Bob,’ [who] made contact with ‘WWN ‘ via telepathic e-mail.
-“Several factions of extraterrestrials have been using the Moon to dump garbage.
-“Martians have been monitoring the Mideast crisis.
-”Warrior aliens have been resurrecting the dead, fighting Bigfoot and training in a mock U.S. town hidden in Antarctica.
-”San Franciscans have opened their hearts to immigrants from Mercury.
-”One such alien, named P'Lod,’ . . . made several appearances in ‘WWN,’ [and] has been known to fraternize with known women of politics. It was reported that he and Hillary Rodham Clinton once had a close relationship that ended up in a brawl between him and Bill Clinton, who went on a jealous rage. . . .
-“In [its] June 7, 1994, edition, ‘WWN’ reported that 12 U.S. senators were aliens from other planets. The piece quoted several senators or their spokespersons humorously ‘confirming’ the story. The ‘Associated Press’ ran a follow-up piece that confirmed the tongue-in-cheek participation of Senate offices in the story. . . .
-“In [its] August 11, 1998, edition, ‘WWN’ reported that autograph dealer Steve Koschal offered to pay $1 million for anything signed by an extraterrestrial. Koschal said he would pay the million dollars to anyone who had a signed letter or signed photograph or anything signed by a visitor from outer space. ‘Hundreds of people claim to have been abducted and taken aboard UFOs and yet there's not a single verifiable signature of an extraterrestrial being anywhere on Earth,’ said Koschal in an exclusive interview. ‘Someone out there must have asked one of these creatures for an autograph,’ continued Koschal. ‘If not, someone will in the future. When they do, I want to be the first collector to acquire it.’ [
-“During the 2000 U.S. presidential election, then-candidate George W. Bush posed for photographers with a 'Weekly World News' issue opened to the article reading, ‘Space Alien Backs Bush for President!’ . . .
“Other [‘WWN’] stories [include]:
-“Bigfoot having stolen a race car during a race, earning the name BigLEADfoot!
-“Raw sewage being sold as hamburger meat in Japan.
-‘”A Dutch biography of Hans Christian Andersen that alleges that Andersen hated children and frequently dined on human flesh. . . .
-“A cruel surgeon who reattached a pair of ‘Siamese twins’ after they failed to pay their medical bill for the initial surgical separation he performed.
-“Christer Hilding, a Swedish baby who died after drinking household ammonia, whose parents had his remains freeze-dried by a taxidermist. When the couple died in a boating accident, his remains were bought for $10 in a garage sale. . . .
-”The latest purported discoveries from the RMS Titanic, often featured on the 'Weekly World News' front cover, particularly in its later years. Examples of objects being found onboard were puppies, live babies, and the remains of gay lovers still in embrace."
Actor Keith Farley, anticipating the return of “WWN” in website form after its print edition was discontinued, said:
“I’d like to see Satan’s face in a cloud of smoke again. It would be comforting to see ‘Bat Boy’ screaming at us from the bottom rung of the supermarket rack again.”
(“Weekly World News,” at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_World_News; and “New Adventures for Bat Boy, and His Tabloid Creator,” by Stephanie Cliffor,” in “New York Times,” 12 October 2008, at: times.com/2008/10/22/business/media/22adcol.html?_r=0)
--“Respectiable” Tabloid Websites Spreading the Gospel about God’s Cosmic Cosmopolitan City
One wacky website seeking some of that elusive anti-gravity gravitas suggests--under an all-caps headline --that the Hubble telescope has managed to capture God’s Urban Utopia of the Universe on film:
“’CELESTIAL CITY OF NEW JERUSALEM PHOTOGRAPHED BY NASA’S HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE’
“We . . . examine [this] story, not to approve or disapprove it, but to see whether such a thing is possible. . . . [W]e are only looking at the possibility of such a photo being taken by Hubble telescope. This does not mean that we are supporting the story or refuting it. Indeed, we wish to leave you to make your own opinion. . . .
“It is worthwhile to consider [certain] aspects of the story:
“Is the Photo a Space Photo?
“If the photo published in this article is actually from space, then 99% of doubt of whether it is of New Jerusalem or not is eliminated. Dr. Masson--the scientist who is said to have smuggled the photo from NASA-- says that they aimed the telescope at a cluster of stars.
“I am not an expert in photography, but if you scrutinize the photo carefully, you find that the city is surrounded by stars; if at all, it was taken in space.
“The only people who really know whether this photo is actually a space photo is Dr. Masson--the scientist who allegedly took it to ‘Weekly World News’ magazine-- and NASA scientists--the ones who are said to have taken the photo. Since I have not been able to contact any of these people, it really is difficult to verify whether the photo was taken in space or not.
“If the photo is really a space photo, then it could most likely be the Celestial City of God because it is clear that what is in the photograph is not a star, a planet or any other known heavenly body.
“Since we are only examining the possibility that such a photo could have been taken, let us continue examining [more] aspects of the story as well.
“Can the New Jerusalem, the Celestial City of God, be Seen as a Star from Earth?
“Certainly yes! We see stars because they emit their own light and so does the city of New Jerusalem. New Jerusalem emits its own light.
“For an object to be visible from Earth, the distance from earth does not matter as long as the light from that object reaches the Earth.
“According to the Bible, the city does not have a Sun or Moon. The glory of God is its light:
“Rev 21:23
“’And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the Moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it and the lamb is the light thereof.’ . . .
“Is the New Jerusalem Physical in Nature or Not?
“This is important because if the City of New Jerusalem is not physical in nature, then it can neither be seen with our physical eyes nor its photo be taken by a telescope. It is clear from the Bible that the City is made of physical materials such as gold. which implies that the City must be physical in nature. The walls, the foundations and the great streets of the City are all made of precious metals:
“Revelation 21:18-19
“’And the building of the wall of it was Jasper. And the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass. And the foundations of the walls of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones’ . . .
“The Size of New Jerusalem and Its Distance from Earth
“If an aeroplane passes overhead at night, you are able to see the light emitted by it. If that aero plane was to go higher up from the surface of the Earth, eventually you won’t be able to see any light from it--and that is only after moving a few kilometers up. This is because of its small size. Yet, our eyes are able to see--without any aid--stars that are millions of light years away. This is because of their large size.
“The further away an object is from the surface of the Earth, then the bigger it needs to be and the more the light it needs to emit for it to be seen from Earth.
“The City of New Jerusalem is much smaller than most of the stars that you see on the sky. To be more precise, it is much smaller than our planet Earth. Remember that here we are not talking of the entire heaven where God lives but of the City of New Jerusalem. The city of New Jerusalem is currently located in heaven. Of course, heaven is much larger that the City itself. The photo seems to be of the City itself rather than the entire heaven.
“The size of the New Jerusalem is described in the bible as follows
“Revelation 21: 15-17
“’And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the City, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof. And the City lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth. And he measured the City with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. And he measured the wall thereof, a hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel’. . . .
“The 'New International Version [of the Bible]' converts the above measurements to be 2,200km long and wide and high and 65 meters thick. To get an idea of how big this is, the average diameter of the Earth is 12,742km. Since the height, width and length of the walls of the City of New Jerusalem is given, the best statistic to compare with our planet earth is volume. From the measurements of New Jerusalem described above the volume of New Jerusalem is 1.0648x 1010 km3.
“According to ‘Wikipedia,’ the volume of the Earth is 1.08321×1012 km3. This implies that the Earth is 169 times larger in volume than the City of New Jerusalem!
“Given the size of New Jerusalem, in order for it to be observable from Earth, it must not be very far from planet Earth, or it must be extremely bright, or both. The Bible neither tells us how far heaven is from earth nor how bright it is.
“Perhaps, testimonies of those who have been to Heaven and back can give us an idea. Seneca Sodi seems to indicate that the City is either within the solar system or not far from it. On his way to Heaven, he asked the angel how far Heaven was from Earth and the angel answered him ‘not far.’
“He also indicates that the light there is far superior to that of the Sun.
“If Seneca Sodi’s testimony is anything to go by, then it may be possible to take a photo of the City of New Jerusalem. . . .
“Is It True that the Hubble was Repaired in Mid-December 1993 as stated in the [‘WWN’] Article?
“Yes. It is true that repairs took place on Hubble in 1993.
“According to ‘Weekly World News’ magazine article, repairs were complete by mid-December and the first images after repair were beamed to earth on December 26, 1993. This corresponds with the information in
http://www.hubblesite.org, which says that the repairs were complete by December 9.
“The Hubble website says that the images were released (not beamed to Earth) by NASA on January 13, 1994, which means they must have been beamed to Earth between December 9, 1993 (the date when the repairs were complete) and January 13, 1994 (the date the photos were officially released). December 9, 1993 (the date given by ‘Weekly World’ magazine), is between these dates and, therefore, a possible date of the beaming of the photos to Earth.
“’Weekly World News’ magazine published its first article on the images on February 8, 1994 and again on September 10, 2009.
“There is no contradiction in any of these dates.
“Regarding the repairs,
http://www.hubblesite.org states as follows:
“’On December 2, 1993, the Space Shuttle Endeavor carried a crew of seven into orbit for a mission that would involve five days of spacewalks and repairs. They removed the High Speed Photometer and replaced it with COSTAR. They replaced the original Wide Field/Planetary Camera with the newer WFPC2. They performed a host of other tasks, replacing solar panels, fuse plugs and other hardware. By December 9, they were finished.
“’NASA released the first new images from Hubble’s fixed optics on January 13, 1994. The pictures were beautiful; their resolution, excellent. Hubble was transformed into the telescope that had been originally promised.’ (www.hubblesite.org, Hubble essentials)
“Conclusion
“The conclusion is yours to make of whether the photo is of the New Jerusalem, the Celestial City of God, or not. However, from the facts examined above, it could [be] true that a photo of New Jerusalem can be taken and especially by a powerful telescope as Hubble.
“If indeed the photo is of the Celestial City of New Jerusalem, then the implications are profound. It would be a proof that the Bible is the only true word of God as it is the only book that probably describes the City of New Jerusalem so clearly and so well.
“If the photo is not of the cCelestial cCty, that does not change the truth. The truth remains that the City of New Jerusalem still exists as described in the Bible.
“Another truth is that when we die we are destined to go to either Hell or Heaven, depending on whether we received Jesus as our Saviour or not when alive on Earth (New Jerusalem is currently located in Heaven). This decision, my dear reader, is entirely yours to make. The sooner you make it, the better. Be blessed.”
(“Celestial City of New Jerusalem Photographed by NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope,” under “Heaven and Hell: Do Hell and Heaven Exist?” by “samuelmwanginjogu, ” 30 April 2011, at
https://hellandheaventestimonies.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/celestial-city-of-new-jerusalem-photographed-by-nasa%E2%80%99s-hubble-space-telescope/Ynbder)
--Reality Check TIme for This Heavenly Pie-in-the-Sky Place
On the “Snopes” website--where dumb ideas go to die--the following question was asked under the topic headline, “Hubble Shots of Celestial City?”:
“Hello all.
“Probably a worn-out question, but has anybody heard of this, or have a link to an answer? My mom heard a pastor's wife in Florida talk about how the Hubble telescope's orbit went haywire. It ended up at the edge of the galaxy, where it took photos of some kind of celestial city. Supposed article in ‘Newsweek,’ and big cover-up by NASA et al., and so on.
“Obvious poppycock, but I could find no info anywhere to bust this hoax. My mom, instead of quizzing the lady for particulars, asked me for info disproving it. Any assistance would be appreciated.”
Some of the reader responses:
- “The telescope's ORBIT went haywire, and took it to another GALAXY? Well, the nearest galaxy to our own is either the Large Magellanic Cloud or the Sagitarius Dwarf Galaxy (mostly hidden from our sight by the main band of the Milky Way), and tens of thousands of light years away, so for the [Hubble’s] orbit to take it to another galaxy would take, oh, let's see, call it a few HUNDRED MILLION YEARS!!!! And then another ten or twenty thousand years to send us back the image. Now, maybe she meant that it accidentally POINTED at a different galaxy. Sure, that could happen. So what the story comes down to is a claim that the [Hubble] took some pictures that are being suppressed by NASA. OOOH! LET'S DISPROVE THAT, SHALL WE? Nope. Can't do that. Also, I can't disprove the rumour that the [Hubble] took a picture of a giant memorial on Mars engraved ‘ In loving memory of God-- may He rest in peace.’ Of course, that picture is being suppressed by the Christian engineer at NASA who helped find the missing day in the orbital calculations.” (original emphasis)
-“First time I've heard this but not surprised. . . . [T]here's references to a supermarket tabloid, which lends great credibility to the subject. . . . Also, numerous sermons, UFO whacko stuff, etc. I'm still looking, though. It's interesting.”
-“Must be true then. I thought that the vast majority of Christians didn't believe that Heavan was an actual physical place, but a spiritual one on a different plane of existence. I mean, doesn't it kinda take the magic out of Heaven if you can fly there in a spaceship?”
-“. . . I read [that] it [God's Flying Celestial City] was ‘3 billion light years away’ and everyone who has died is still on the journey. And you can't take anything with you so, no books for the trip. Dang. Join me now: ‘999,999,999,999,999,999 bottles of beer on the wall . . . ‘”
-“Would that mean that souls move at light, or even sub-light speed? Damn, those physical laws apply even to our incorporeal selves?”
- “Sometimes the ‘Weekly World News’ writers really earn their keep. This is one of those times. ‘People should know they must prepare mental games to keep busy on the long voyage to Paradise.’”
-“I'm assuming that the result of a trip that long [to Heaven] would cause you to go insane from boredom or isolation (if you can't communicate with others, which might be difficult if you're actually going through space). In contrast, the trip to Hell should only take a few seconds, since (according to some folk) it's right under our feet).”
-“The more I look at the Argonews.com [Note: a domain currently up for sale], the more it reminds me of either the Hubble Deep Field or Deep Field South images. Have a look at
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1998/41/a.html and you will see a remarkable similarity. I am sure the Hubble image has been doctored by some one with Photoshop to make the argonews.com image. The fuzzy thing in the middle is a Barred Spiral galaxy, if you look at the bigger versions of the image.”
(“Topic: Hubble Shot of Celestial City?.” reader comments, 13-25 March 2011, at
http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=94;t=000074;p=1)
--NASA Says There ARE “Celestial Cities”
On its official website, NASA refers to “Celestial Cities” that exist in space. But don’t get your hopes up, all you believers in God’s Towering Spacescrapers. They’re not the “cities” that folks like “amyjomeg” believe zipping around the heavens.
Earth to the God=and-fact =earers: They are galaxies.
From an article entitled,“Celestial Cities and the Roads That Connect Them”:
“This is a representation of galaxies in and surrounding a galaxy cluster called Abell 1763. The placement of each dot is based on the actual coordinates of galaxies in the region. Blue dots are active star-forming galaxies; red dots show galaxies that are not actively forming stars;
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/images/largesize/PIA10227_hires.jpg“Galaxies across the universe reside in cosmic communities big and small. Large, densely populated galactic communities are called galaxy clusters (highlighted in the orange circle). Like cities on Earth, galaxy clusters are scattered throughout the universe and are connected by a web of dusty highways called filaments (highlighted in purple). Smaller galactic communities are sprinkled along the filaments, creating celestial suburbs.
“Over time, astronomers suspect that all galactic suburbanites make their way to a galaxy cluster by way of filaments.”
(“Celestial Cities and the Roads That Connect Them,” Jet Propulsion Laboratories, California Institute of Technology, 25 January 2008, Pasadena, California, at
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/multimedia/20080125.html)
--Fly Me to the Moon, to Jupiter, to Mars and to the Stars
Sorry to disappoint all the Kolobic Kool-Aid drinkers out there on the fringes of space, but there are no Jetsons-for-Jesus “Celestial Cities” up there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2Z8kPpLg1gBut it’s still a helluva view. In fact, ya gotta love it.
Take it away, Frank, baby!:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhujM7T1_fQ*****
amy also argues, in the name of so-called "science,” that Soviet cosmaonauts aboard Sayluyt 7 actually saw “real angels."--again invoking supermarket tabloifs as the preferred r go-to source for “science”:
“As for giving you evidence of angelic sightings, you just have to study to prove yourself or not. There's tons of angelic encounters in the lives of ordinary people. They aren't so magical. They are personal.
“On July 12, 1984 3 Soviet cosmonauts aboard a space shuttle each witnessed seven majestic angels hovering outside their spaceship. The angels even smiled back at them as they stared with amazement at them!
“One cosmonaut described it as thus: “What we saw were seven giant figures in the form of humans, but with wings and mist-like halos as in the classic depiction of angels.”
“Ground control sent up reinforcements as the men had already been in space for 155 days, thinking perhaps they were delusional. Well, the reinforcements saw the same seven angels appear to them as well, as the original trio - only then they were witnessing them altogether - 6 cosmonauts watching 7 angels from their portholes.
“Radiant, beaming, smiling angels. These guys (and one female cosmonaut,) went up Atheists and returned from orbit changed from this experience. How could it not?
“They didn't believe in Angels. And yet they each saw seven beautiful, gigantic angels towering outside their spaceship all at the same time. The second sighting was described as thus:
“'They were glowing and we were truly overwhelmed. There was a great orange light, and through it, we could see the figures of seven angels. They were smiling as though they shared a glorious secret, but within a few minutes, they were gone, and we never saw them again..'
“That's just one true account of many. But these men and one woman were all scientists, and Atheists, when this occurred. Even they didn't deny what they saw. You can argue all you want about the impossibility. When the possibility is much more real than you seem able (or willing?) to comprehend in your finite understanding.
“The miraculous is all around us. :)
*
http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2012/04/space-angels-aliens-or-sign-of-the-apocalypse/ “
_____
First off, Saylut 7 wasn't a good place to be doing
"miraculous" "angel" watching--and for good scientific reasons:
--Prior to allegedly spotting winged, haloed, gigantic smilely-face angels, the Russian cosmonauts whom amy cites for her "angel" sightings were having all kinds of major issues with their spacecraft that affected not only the vehicle but the crew itself. (No doubt, "ajm" will say this is proof that the angels arrived on-scene as the cosmonauts' friendly neighborhood rescue unit).
Time for some head-clearing. The following is from the article, "Salyut 7 Problems Spur Doubts about Russian Space Goals," by John Noble Wilford, published in the "New York Times," 18 October 1983 (divided and sub-headed for easier reading). If any, some or all of the issues persisted into subsequent months aboard Saylut 7, then this could have been a serious "Moscow, we-have-a-problem" moment.
--SALYUT 7 NOT EXACTLY IDEAL PLATFORM FOR OBSERVING "ANGELS" (space station seriously malfunctioning and impacting crew personally)
"Besides the rocket explosion [on the launch pad], a whole series of malfunctions have plagued the Salyut 7 orbiting laboratory. The mishaps were reported in the Oct. 10 issue of 'Aviation Week and Space Technology,' an authoritative trade magazine, and the incidents have been confirmed by American intelligence analysts. The Soviet Union has not officially acknowledged the problems, but Soviet officials in Moscow privately admit that a rocket exploded on its launching pad Sept. 27th. . . . Unless the Soviets are willing to change their mission rules and return the crew in the older Soyuz, 'Aviation Week' said, ''the degraded station condition will heighten Soviet interest in quickly recovering from the Sept. 27 booster explosion to deliver a fresh return vehicle to the station crew."
--POSSIBLE ORIGIN OF ORANGE MIST, CLOUD OR GAS (relates to photographs taken by cosmonauts of fuzzy material outside of space vehicle).
"One earlier problem, a propellant leak on the Salyut craft, was so threatening that the two astronauts donned their space suits, entered their descent craft and were prepared to make an emergency return to the earth, the magazine reported. The leak, which occurred Sept. 9, reportedly left the Salyut with a greatly reduced maneuvering capability. . . . The 'Aviation Week' report, which quoted American intelligence sources, said that the propellant leak occurred when a pipeline feeding nitrogen tetroxide from three tanks ruptured. Propellant from two of the three tanks spilled out into space, leaving the Salyut with only one tank of the oxidizer. The oxidizer acts to ignite hydrazine, the craft's maneuvering fuel, on contact. The failure, according to the magazine, left the Salyut craft with 16 of its 32 maneuvering clusters unusable and also prevented use of the vehicle's back-up main rocket engine. . . . 'Salyut 7 is essentially dead in the water,; the magazine quoted an American source as saying.
--POSSIBLE REASON FOR LOW LEVELS OF BREATHABLE OXYGEN IN CREW COMPARTMENT (Oxygen deprivation to brain known to cause hallucinations).
"On another occasion, an acrid odor filled the Salyut and also almost forced the astronauts to abandon ship."
--POSSIBLE IMPAIRMENT OF CREW MEMBERS' VISION (would affect the ability of cosmonauts to see clearly what was going on outside space station).
"An apparent failure of the vehicle's environmental control system, later corrected, also caused annoying eye irritations, the magazine reported. A similar problem seven years ago on Salyut 5 did force a crew to return to the earth prematurely."
--POSSIBLE DISORIENTATION OF CREW DUE TO CRAFT NOT STEERABLE, STEADy OR MANUEVERABLE (may have affected what they thought they were seeing and where).
" . . . Tass, the official Soviet press agency,[announced] that the astronauts aboard Salyut, Vladimir Lyakhov and Aleksandr Aleksandrov, were now spending most of their time on materials- processing experiments, which do not require that the vehicle be pointed in any particular direction."
http://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/18/science/salyut-7-problems-spur-doubts-about-russian-space-goals.htmlGeezus, "amyjomeg," with all this having gone on, why in the hell would those 80-foot tall angels even be smiling at the cosmonauts? (unless maybe they were singing, "God be with you 'til we meet again, on Earth")
Moreover, here are some questions for “amj's “ to add her “scientific” list of considrations:
You choose to back up your Macy-Day-Parade-balloon-sized-space="angels"-supermarket-tabloid tripe by invoking a woo-woo website hysterically advertizing the advent of the impending "Apocalypse"? Seriously? No offense, but that immediately reduces your credibility to laughing-stock level, or less.
As to your Cosmonutty tale, some inconvenient pushback, if I may. It comes in the form of certain aspects of these "alien angels" that, for whatever reason, you failed to touch on:
"'Crew Hallucination'
"On 12 July 1984, cosmonauts Leonid Kizim, Vladimir Solovyov and Oleg Atkov were on their 155th day aboard the Salyut 7 when the trio started to group hallucinate, seeing what was described as a 'brilliant orange cloud' surrounding the station. The hallucination was reported to Ground Control and the crew was subject to psychological and medical examinations upon their return.
"The Russian newspaper 'Pravda' confirmed that the cosmonauts officially reported the group hallucination, which was attributed to pressure, temperature fluctuations and shortage of oxygen to the brain."
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CDwQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSalyut_7&ei=Is4NVePNK4ewggSEz4PYCQ&usg=AFQjCNEKH9bvt6FhlGD3e3wSUA-IjWpFWw&bvm=bv.89060397,bs.1,d.eXYBelow are relevant excerpts from that "Pravda" report on the Salyut 7 mission, which include details that you either missed or deemed unfit to print as you were perhaps too busy looking for more "End of Times/Aliens" internet havens (FYI, the "Pravda" article is referenced in the source list provided in the above-linked account as #6 which, if you click on it, will lead you directly to the "Pravda" site. In case you're not interested in looking it up yourself, I've included the web link at the end of the following "Pravda" account:
"'Angels in Space Nothing but Top Secret Hallucinations'
". . . [A]ngels and other supernatural phenomena, which people may encounter in their lives, can only be a result of hallucinations, NASA specialists said. However, stories about such encounters, told by pilots, cosmonauts and astronauts, become classified immediately.
"In 1985, there were six crew members on board the Soviet Salyut-7 space station. They were cosmonauts Leonid Kizim, Oleg Atkov, Vladimir Solovyov, Svetlana Savitskaya, Igor Volk and Vladimir Jannibekov. That day, the cosmonauts were doing their routine work connected with laboratory experiments. All of a sudden, a cloud of strange orange gas enveloped the station. A flash of bright light blinded all the cosmonauts on board for a while. As soon as they could see again, the cosmonauts saw silhouettes of seven figures outside the station. The aliens looked like humans, but were of higher stature. They also had large wings behind their backs and luminous halos above their heads. The creatures looked like angels.
"The crew reported the bizarre sight to the Earth. The document was classified as top secret immediately. All members of the crew were subsequently subjected to psychological and medical tests, which found no abnormalities at all. . . .
"NASA psychologists say that the majority of the above-mentioned phenomena are of psychic nature. They may occur as a result of such factors as pressure and temperature fluctuations, shortage of oxygen, etc."
("Angels in Space Nothing but Top Secret Hallucinations," in "Pravda," English edition, 14 June 2011,
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2 %2Fenglish.pravda.ru%2Fsociety%2Fanomal%2F14-06-2011%2F118195-angels-0%2F&ei=rNENVf7NEYOrggT574GYAQ&usg=AFQjCNEVMA6V2IuZP0nJ0HV-G3RS1_hMHw&)bvm=bv.89060397,bs.1,d.eXY
NOw, a few questions for amy:
1. Why didn't you mention in the text of your post the "cloud of orange mist" ["Pravda" actually described it as "orange gas"] that may have prompted the crew hallucinations in the first place--instead of leaving that little detail out as you waxed poetic about King Kong-sized E.T. "angels" with useless wings floating above Earth?
"Cosmonauts Leonid Kizim, Oleg Atkov, Vladimir Solovyov, Svetlana Savitskaya, Igor Volk and Vladimir Jannibekov were doing their routine work, and laboratory experiments, when suddenly a cloud of orange mist enveloped the entire station."
You might enjoy the screaming headline from whence the above came from--"HUGE ANGELS SEEN IN SPACE,--accompaned by a doctored "photograph" of the "angels":
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbeforeitsnews.com%2Fbeyond-science%2F2013%2F07%2Fangelic-beings-seen-in-space-by-astronauts-and-satellites-2442904.html&ei=QNsNVeiQLIXVggTQ-YMY&usg=AFQjCNEYuYIfmuxutb518MrpMP3ETCbIvg&bvm=bv.89060397,bs.1,d.eXY2. Why didn't you mention in the text of your post that the spacecraft had suffered from earlier fires?:
"In July 1984, Russian cosmonauts aboard the Sovie space station Salyut 7 were on day 155 of their mission. This was also the day that the group reported strange lights and beings. According to commander Oleg Atkov and cosmonauts Vladmir Solovyov and Leonid Kizim, the space station was completely bathed in a mesmerizing orange light. It appeared to enter from outside the space station and bled through an absolutely opaque wall. For a short period of time, the orange light was so bright that it blinded the crew. When their vision returned, each one looked out the portholes for the source of the light, looking specifically for a possible explosion. They knew the Salyut 7 had suffered previous fires . . . ."
Nice omission. Too bad you got caught trying to put out the fires by not mentioning them.
3. Why didn't you make due note in the text of your post that the cosmonauts reported seeing "Beings as big as a jetliner with human faces"?:
In your link, even its "angel believers" seems rightly skeptical of that claim:
"The cosmonauts went on to described these mist-haloed beings as being nearly 80-feet in height with a wingspan comparable to that of a 747 jet; although, it should be noted, that there’s no indication in the public record of how these men of science came to these proportional estimations."
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmysteriousuniverse.org%2F2012%2F04%2Fspace-angels-aliens-or-sign-of-the-apocalypse%2F&ei=zNwNVYa6B4OhgwSHjIOwCA&usg=AFQjCNHwWYuQmI3zJktSNbNclUEktITepw&bvm=bv.89060397,bs.1,d.eXYDetails, details--so back to more damn details:
"On day 167, the crew was then joined by another team of three from the Soyuz T-12 spacecraft: Svetlana Savitskaya, Igor Volk and Vladimir Dzhanibekov. Shortly after joining then, the Salyut 7 was once again bathed in a warm orange light. Then, like clockwork, they immediately looked out the portholes, and once again, were joined by angelic beings. They were reportedly the size of an 'airliner,' according to the cosmonauts. . . . All of the cosmonauts reported seeing the faces of seven angels who were hovering just outside the space station. They told ground control they were humanoid in appearance (faces and bodies looked human), but they had wings and halos."
Hmmmm. Apparitions as big as jetliners wearing halos and sporting wings (in space where there is no air and, hence, no need for wings).
4. Are airline-sized silhouettes topped with halos and outfitted with aerodynamically-shaped wings in airless space your idea of "angels"? (If so, please explain why. And why would angels be using wings in space? Another one of those wonderful mysteries?)
5. Why didn't you provide this link to the above elements that you chose to leave out of your edited for faith-time viewing?:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CFYQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.techeblog.com%2Findex.php%2Ftech-gadget%2Fmind-blowing-story-of-russian-cosmonauts-who-saw-angels-in-space&ei=hdINVYKyIcOxggTps4TQCg&usg=AFQjCNHkyD8rSTJCfui57LL5_IuhywnLnA&bvm=bv.89060397,bs.1,d.eXYOh, and one more thing, since you brought it up: My references. links, citations, photographs, vidoes, names, places, backgrounds and quotes pertaining to all those supposed "angel" sightings are evidence that those supposed revelatory events were not actual peeks at angels.
**********
It's unfortunate that believer blinders are so thick that their wearers are convinced that any mention whatsoever to an "angel" is, ipso facto, proof that "angels" exist. That truly is grasping at the Holy Grail of Straws. Especially when it is done in the supposed name of "dcience," without any meaningful proof from science. After all, in the end, what's really true is unseen, invisiable, mysterious and unquantifiable.
So much, then, for that invisible, unseen, mysterious, unquantifiable "science" that seems never to be around to prove tabloidian pseudo-scientific claims. If amy's going to insist on continuing to present such nonsense on this board as being "scientific" without employing known actual scientific tools to make her case, I'll keep on challenging such believer hocus-pocus 'til the invisible angelic cows come home. Trouble is, we'll never know when those unseen and unquantifiable bovines appear, will we?
Ah, and therein, boys and girls, lies the magnificent made-up mystery of it all. :)
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2015 11:47AM by steve benson.