HC's Ancient Aliens MINDBLOWING episode "The NASA Connection".

You can add the point made much earlier in this thread by Nicolas Flamel -- the Mercury mission patch represents the astronomical symbol for the planet Mercury.

At 27:26 Bara says "If you look at the mission patches, the symbol for Mercury is really similar to the Egyptian ankh, and it's kind of ironic that you have ... Egyptian symbolism in what's supposed to be a representation of Mercury the messenger -- supposed to be a Greek mythology, rather than an Egyptian mythology."

I'd also challenge the assertion (at 26:58) that the three stars in the Apollo mission patch represent Orion. I believe they represent the three crew-members. The idea that the large A stands for Asar is, of course, utterly ridiculous but the narration didn't state that as fact, just "Researchers believe..."

Originally posted by Asertus
reply to post by ConspiracyFearist22
Sources (some cited already):

Brookings Report: Text of the report.
Apollo 11/Orion: Stellarium
El-Baz: NASA History Office
Face on Mars: Mission documentation
NASA/DoD: Text of The Space Act, contemporary reporting.
Von Braun: Biog.history.msfc.nasa.gov...
Kleinknecht: Biog www.collectspace.com...
White Sands: Official website www.wsmr.army.mil...
Kennedy speech: Rice U. explore.rice.edu...
Bara's final comment: Can't prove a negative. Trust me.

Trust you..
Like we trust our leaders.
Like we trust or parents sayin "I have no money for candy" when INFACT
they have on their bankaccount.
Like we trust the bankers.
Like we trust Big Oil companys.
Like we trust Big Pharma.

Id say Naive Thinking.

Originally posted by Miccey

Originally posted by Asertus
Bara's final comment: Can't prove a negative. Trust me.

Trust you..
Like we trust our leaders.
Like we trust or parents sayin "I have no money for candy" when INFACT
they have on their bankaccount.
Like we trust the bankers.
Like we trust Big Oil companys.
Like we trust Big Pharma.

Id say Naive Thinking.

So, trust no one except some guy on a TV show that offhandedly states """NASA's core mission was to go to the Moon and retrieve evidence that there was a prior civilization." ???

Right.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


We've not spoken before on the forum that's why you probably didn't understand why I used Drake's equation in an argument and moved to the possibility of Alien visitaion. In my previous posts (in an other thread) I've discussed that given the odds of technological advanced races in the universe their advances in technology would also change the possibility of them findind us and coming here. It's my mistake for delving in to the argument without re-stating my previous point.

And you are welcome to explain why I seem to understand the term "fact"

Is it not a fact that we don't have actual proof of E.T. visitation?
Is it not a fact that there a great deal of unexplained things which could very well be explained with E.T visitation among other equally likely theories (like weird radar recordings and pilot testimonials)?
Is it not a fact that even one of the claims of visitation is true, then it means we have been visited?

If you are offended by my "big man in the sky" comment I suggest you to watch the "Invention of Lying" by Richard Gervais. Brilliant lad.

Originally posted by bilb_o

If you are offended by my "big man in the sky" comment I suggest you to watch the "Invention of Lying" by Richard Gervais. Brilliant lad.

I don't see where he even acknowledged it, so why mention it again? Thread's not about your personal issues with religion.

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Miccey

Originally posted by Asertus
Bara's final comment: Can't prove a negative. Trust me.

Trust you..
Like we trust our leaders.
Like we trust or parents sayin "I have no money for candy" when INFACT
they have on their bankaccount.
Like we trust the bankers.
Like we trust Big Oil companys.
Like we trust Big Pharma.

Id say Naive Thinking.

So, trust no one except some guy on a TV show that offhandedly states """NASA's core mission was to go to the Moon and retrieve evidence that there was a prior civilization." ???

Right.

Harte

Uhhmm...
What?
I dont follow, do you mean that I trust the video..?!?
If so, your DEAD wrong..

Originally posted by bilb_o
reply to post by Harte

 

We've not spoken before on the forum that's why you probably didn't understand why I used Drake's equation in an argument and moved to the possibility of Alien visitaion. In my previous posts (in an other thread) I've discussed that given the odds of technological advanced races in the universe their advances in technology would also change the possibility of them findind us and coming here. It's my mistake for delving in to the argument without re-stating my previous point.

I don't think that the odds of some advanced technological alien society can be calculated.

You have to remember that species, all species, eventually go extinct.

Maybe they rose and fell before life even came about here on Earth.

Plus just because a society is advanced, that doesn't mean that they would necessarily find some means of circumventing what we know factually about speed limits in the universe.

Also, as I've pointed out many times before, even given instantaneous travel, if an alien was tooling around from star to star and only spent five minutes in each solar system to check it for life, after 650 thousand years, that alien would have visted only half of the solar systems in this particular galaxy.

Obviously, 5 minutes isn't really gonna be long enough for him to check for intelligent life, so multiply that vast amount of time by whatever number you think he would need.
I don't know about you, but this tells me that we would be quite hard to find, and almost certainly wouldn't be found randomly.

Originally posted by bilb_o
And you are welcome to explain why I seem to understand the term "fact"

For example, this so-called "fact":

There is a great deal of evidence of unknown events, encounters, physical structures which could be explained by terresterial AND extraterresterial explanations with equal probability. (meaning the explanation has an equal likelihood of being terresterial and extreterresterial = we don't know what the heck it is)

"Equal likelihood" is completely bogus. I mean, if seemingly hard to explain structures could be explained with "equal likelihood" by terrestrial and extraterrestrial explanations with equal probability for each, then you could replace "extraterrestrial" with anything you want: magic, ESP, miracles, whatever.

Since there is no evidence for any extraterrestrial intervention in the past, then you might as well say "it was done by the Loch Ness Monster." The evidence for both cases is exactly the same.
Note I'm talking specifically about intervention in the past here and not about lights some folks may or may not have seen in the sky in the present age.

Originally posted by bilb_o
If you are offended by my "big man in the sky" comment I suggest you to watch the "Invention of Lying" by Richard Gervais. Brilliant lad.

No, man, I'm not offended by that. I guess I'm a faithless heathen.

Harte

Fantastic episode@!!!! The government is pushing TV shows about UFOS to prepare us for Disclosure and it seems like it will be very very soon@

Originally posted by jpzaino
Fantastic episode@!!!! The government is pushing TV shows about UFOS to prepare us for Disclosure and it seems like it will be very very soon@

People have been saying "Any day now" for at least five years.

Some helpful information here:

99 Frequently Asked Questions [FAQs] about astronauts and UFOs
jamesoberg.com...

reply to post by Miccey


the defensiveness of those who believe in aliens may as well be that of a Christian.... that's what I mean. It's as though it's a new religion, and Steven Spielberg fuelled it!

What am I? I think therefore I AM!

reply to post by jpzaino


Huh??

The government is pushing TV shows about UFOS...

No, TV is a business designed to make money by selling advertising......and increased popularity of a program means higher fees can be charged for that advertising.

Therefore, the HC is simply capitalizing on the current frenzy in many, many forms of entertainment, and "UFO" lore.

As are many, many other Science Fiction media entertainment venues...(such as Hollywood).

Heck, I have an idea for a motion picture script involving aliens!! Now, all I have to do is learn to practice the craft of writing it!

reply to post by bilb_o


Taken from www.angelfire.com... - and written by
"To fully delve into this line of reasoning, you first need to be familiar with two related items: Drake's Equation (Greenbank Equation in Britannica) and The Fermi Paradox. Drake's Equation is a scientific way of guessing how many intelligent civilizations might exist in a particular galaxy at any one time. (I use the word "guessing" rather than "estimating", because estimating implies that different groups of people using the same starting point ought come up with answers that are close in magnitude. Such is not the case here.) The Fermi Paradox results from believing that Drake's Equation provides a solution that at any one time for a galaxy is greater then or equal to one. If even one predecessor civilization more than five or so million years older then our own had developed space travel, there would (or should) not only be abundant evidence of them in the skies, but they would (or should) physically be here by now. They are not here. That's the crux of The Fermi Paradox. If you believe that intelligent life is common, then you run into the difficult problem of trying to explain where the extraterrestrials are. Whereas the absence of evidence isn't usually evidence, the absence of evidence in this case where there should be overwhelming presence of evidence is at the least, worrisome."

Science is only 100% accurate at this moment, it can be disproven at anytime with another mathematical formula or another combination of elements will weaken today's theories in an instant. Science is theory put to practice until it can be replaced by another theory. My comment was loaded in that scientists think aliens are real, and they can be proven, thus alien worship is the religion of the moment, as science will endeavor to disprove all other religions or rather the existance of God, it has set out to prove this one thing to be true religion.

originally posted by: nitro67
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard

 

... I remember seeing the sts-48 clip debunked on a discovery channel program. The debunker proved without a shadow of a doubt that what is scene is a flash from the shuttle causing debris to quickly change direction. He showed footage beyond the small clip that is usually shown and you can see lots of other pieces of debris floating around in a similar way as the "ufo" that changes direction…

Hmmmmmm…..
Don't suppose you might be able to back up that claim?

a reply to: 1AnunnakiBastard

Great episode!

People say Edgar Mitchell is just getting his information like the rest of us and that's just not true. Mitchell can talk to people that most people can't talk to. If Mitchell called the White House, he could talk to the President. Here's Mitchell talking about this on CNN.



Again, it's just common sense that you have to give Edgar Mitchell's words more weight because of who he is. This is vs. the opinion of the skeptic. Edgar Mitchell talks to people that most people can't talk to. He said him and a Naval officer with similar accounts set up a MEETING AT THE PENTAGON WITH THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFFS CHIEF INTELLIGENCE OFFICER!!

How many people can do that? How many people can talk to him about U.F.O.'s and Aliens?

When Edgar Mitchell first started talking about this you heard things like he's a kook and a senile old man. Mitchell is talking to people who were under some kind of oath and they couldn't openly reveal what they were saying. Edgar Mitchell isn't talking about just anyone. Whoever told him these things has a lot of credibility to Mitchell. Like I said, skeptics think every eyewitness or anyone saying what they've seen and heard is equally not evidence. Where's the common sense and reason tto weigh the evidence?

originally posted by: neoholographic
Where's the common sense and reason tto weigh the evidence?

What evidence? Hearsay is not evidence. Were there any actual evidence, the scientific community would be ecstatic, but there is none.

originally posted by: thorfourwinds

originally posted by: nitro67
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard

 

... I remember seeing the sts-48 clip debunked on a discovery channel program. The debunker proved without a shadow of a doubt that what is scene is a flash from the shuttle causing debris to quickly change direction. He showed footage beyond the small clip that is usually shown and you can see lots of other pieces of debris floating around in a similar way as the "ufo" that changes direction…

Hmmmmmm…..
Don't suppose you might be able to back up that claim?

I was thinking the same.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

This flies in the face of common sense.

Let's say a former Police Chief with an impeccable record went into the Police Headquarters and said based on credible sources, I hear you might be facing a string of bank robberies in the area.

Now I go into this same Police Headquarters and say the same thing.

I will be asked about my sources and they will do all kinds of background checks to WEIGH MY CREDIBILITY.

That's just basic common sense. You can't look at Mitchell in a vacuum but it's just ignorant not to give weight to what he's saying because of who he talks to.

Like I said, he's making appointments at the Pentagon to talk to the Chief Intelligence Officer about Aliens and U.F.O.'s. Let me see you do this.

At the end of the day, nobody is saying you have to blindly accept what Mitchell is saying but you have to give it a lot of weight because who Mitchell talks to. Skeptics want to regulate what Mitchell is saying to,"No big deal." That's just a BIG LIE.

If some guy named Willie said the same thing as Edgar Mitchell, the first thing you're going to ask is."Who is Willie?" That's just common sense because you're looking for credibility. You don't have to look for credibility when Edgar Mitchell says it.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: neoholographic
Where's the common sense and reason tto weigh the evidence?

What evidence? Hearsay is not evidence. Were there any actual evidence, the scientific community would be ecstatic, but there is none.

What evidence? Mitchell said right there on camera that there was talk by the "old timers" around the area he lived that Roswell was, in fact, aliens and that he believes it. effen denier.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

And? Do you even know what "evidence" means? I'm guessing not.