Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Connection Between Disappearing Bees and Saturn? « previous next »
Page: 1 2

Skull and Bones

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23397
Online
: May 13, 2007, 10:56:27 AM

Your arguments are invalid.  There are 4 specific stars I believe rooted in the religion of ancient Egypt.  You need to read more about it.  Look more closely at the angelfire.com link.

Nasa's grand plan:  http://www.enterprisemission.com/kennedy1.html

It should come as no surprise that the brother of the head of Nasa is the head of the council of 33 degree masons.

33 is a very mystical number:  http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/13_33_freemason_sig.htm  http://home.earthlink.net/~acb_33/33facts1.html





Guest
#1 : May 13, 2007, 10:31:00 AM

I took a brief look, and that was all that was required to determine it was nonsense. First of all, they're using 33 and 19.47 degrees both above and below the entire horizon. That's a pretty big swath. Secondly, they don't even confine themselves to the particular horizon of the place where the event took place. Third, there is no specific star specified to designate an event as "significant." Pick pretty much any event in history and you will be able to find star located in one of the constellations that is located at 33 degrees above the horizon, or 33 degrees below the horizon, or 19.47 degrees above the horizon, or 19.47 degrees below the horizon, at some location on the planet that can be deemed to have some sort of connection with the event in question.

P.S. Almost forgot, they didn't even limit themselves to the horizon of this particular planet.


Skull and Bones

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23397
Online
#2 : May 13, 2007, 10:21:12 AM

about hyperdimensional physics and planetary anomalies:

http://halexandria.org/dward118.htm


http://www.mufor.org/plananom.htm


Skull and Bones

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23397
Online
#3 : May 13, 2007, 10:09:40 AM


All about 33 and 19.47:


http://www.enterprisemission.com/table_of_coincidence.htm


http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/citystars/paper.html


kapmorg

*
Starter
****
Posts : 295
Offline
#4 : May 13, 2007, 10:07:39 AM

I thought scientists were saying cell phones were causing Honey Bees to lose their sense of navigation and hence be unable to find their way back to the hive.  So what's the buzz?



ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28986
Offline
#5 : May 13, 2007, 03:52:25 AM

Any connection whatsoever between the hexagon on Saturn and the disappearing
bees, who live in a hexagon? Just thinking out loud. The Hexagon on Saturn has
been there for a long time. But maybe it's increasing in intensity recently?
Fun speculation as I listen to Art Bell & Hoagland talk about this kind of
stuff...

Apparently, the organic bees are not disappearing at all. So what does that mean
to the theories of why the bees have disappeared in such large numbers?

And the bee thing is supposedly only happening in the Northern Hemisphere...



The honeycomb-like feature has been seen before. NASA's Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft imaged it more than two decades ago. Now, having spotted it with the Cassini spacecraft, scientists conclude it is a long-lasting oddity.

* * * * *


Boid Fink

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 54702
Offline
#6 : May 13, 2007, 04:55:33 AM

I don't get it....


And you know I dig this kind of thing...


Skull and Bones

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23397
Online
#7 : May 13, 2007, 09:31:28 AM

so you know about Hoagland and 19.47 and 33 degrees?  You should do a search on Enterprise Mission's "Table of Coincidence".


ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28986
Offline
#8 : May 13, 2007, 03:49:29 PM

My hexagon on Saturn post really wasn't meant to be "got." It's nonsense. For now... :-)

I think the bees ARE disappearing in the southern hemisphere too.

And the cell phone theory is just that, a theory.

I know about Hoagland's 19.5 stuff. I'll keep my thought to myself on that. He entertains me.
The last two lectures I went to by RCH lasted 15+ hours over 3 days. And none of it was
boring. Fun stuff. Oh, those last two lectures concentrate don 2012 and not much 19.5
stuff at all.

I went to a 19.5/33 "coincidence" lecture way back in the late 90s in Brevard County. It
was another Hoagland maathon of 6 hours. It was free. Loved it.



Guest
#9 : May 13, 2007, 04:54:44 PM

Your arguments are invalid.  There are 4 specific stars I believe rooted in the religion of ancient Egypt.  You need to read more about it. 

Besides the three stars in Orion's belt and Sirius, they also use Sol, a few other stars, the moon and several comets. And that was just on the "Table of Coincidence" (which is exactly what it is). Besides the four previously mentioned angles, they also use zero degrees and fifty degrees (or anything close to them). If you make the set for qualification large enough, eventually everything qualifies. I might bother to read more about it if I had found it worth reading ...but I didn't. I did find it interesting that they continue to use the old, blurry photographs of the 'face on mars' even though there are newer, much better photos of it. The problem is that the newer photos reveal the face to be nothing more than a trick of the light. But that seems to be the purpose; to distort the facts to create a non-existent conspiracy.

 

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28986
Offline
#10 : May 13, 2007, 05:42:24 PM

. The problem is that the newer photos reveal the face to be nothing more than a trick of the light. But that seems to be the purpose; to distort the facts to create a non-existent conspiracy.

Ummm, no, the face still looks like face on the new photos. The trick of light argument
was the first argument NASA stated way back in 1976. They said something like,
"It's a curious trick of light and shadow. When Viking took another photo of the
area a few hours later, the face went away."

Only problem with that is a few hours later the face was in darkness. The photo
didn't exist.

Is it a natural object? Maybe. But the entire Cydonia artificial hypothesis is not just
based on the face. There are plenty of other objects of interest.

And by the way, I'm assuming he used the old face photos because that was what
was available when he wrote that article. Before the new photos were taken,
the predictions (if it was a face) stated that we should see nostrils or a pupil
and other details that you would expect to see in a face. Nostrils and pupil
and other details are there. Coincidence? Maybe.

I can debate all day on Cydonia but the truth is, I don't know what the objects are.
Only way to know for sure is to go there and have ground truth.

One of the more "recent" photos of Face with two adjustments for lighting and angle...

http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp



Figure 4. Left: negative of the Face as seen by the  MGS spacecraft in April, 1998. Center: Lighting source switched from SE to NW. Right: Viewing angle switched from 45� west to overhead. Click on above image to view full animation by Mark Kelly, whose web site is <www.electrobus.com>. Need an animation viewer? Click here and see link at end of page.



Guest
#11 : May 13, 2007, 05:53:07 PM

LOL, joe.



For a real close view, click here: (5.4 MB)
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/extended_may2001/face/face_E03-00824_proc.gif

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28986
Offline
#12 : May 13, 2007, 06:27:42 PM

LOL? Why would I even bother responding if that's what you're going to write?
If you disagree with what I wrote, then write that and give your reasons.

I'll try one more time:

If it is an artificial object, it most likely would be a natural object that was sculpted into
a face. Like the Sphinx. Or Mount Rushmore.

And you also have to remember that it is probably hundreds of thousands of years old
and maybe millions. Erosion would play a large part in how it looks today.

There is a long list of independent researchers who think who are very open to the
artificial hypothesis. Many of them are experts in photo analysis and/or geology.
And they have written some interest papers on Cydonia. Some in peer reviewed
journals.

With each week that goes by, more evidence shows up that Mars had water on it.
Hell, there is even evidence that water is there right now. Have you seen that?
There are also mainstream guys who think that Mars was once like Earth.
If that's the case, why is it so hard for you to fathom that intelligent life
once walked the surface of Mars? Seems to be you have your mind made
up.

My mind? Don't know. Like I said, I want ground truth.

Skull and Bones

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23397
Online
#13 : May 13, 2007, 07:04:11 PM

at least you're not the lone weirdo on the forum anymore.  I love this stuff.


ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28986
Offline
#14 : May 13, 2007, 07:13:43 PM

And in response to your PM, I just don't know. I don't spend any time on it any more.
But I'll keep listening to Hoagy.
Page: 1 2
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Connection Between Disappearing Bees and Saturn? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools