Not finding any joy with the actual launch time, 3:47 pm or 15:47, he hit on the idea of reckoning the time in London, where some sort of wedding will, I understand, take place on the same day. London being 5 hours ahead of Florida, the time will be 8:47 pm or 20:47. To Hoagland, however, the answer is 7:47 pm or 19:47 which of course is the same as 19.5. Bingo! Or rather, non-Bingo.
One interesting fact arose from the ensuing discussion. Hoagland posted as follows:
You're forgeting one important detail ... regarding "symbolic rituals":
It's NOT when they "eventually" happen ...; it's when (and how) they're first PROPOSED (birthed) that's critical. :)
He apparently didn't notice that, in that case, he should have been calculating his magic numerology based on a launch time yesterday, when the launch date of STS-134 was "birthed." But it answered a general question I posed in Part III of this analysis: Which launch time is considered "ritual"? The planned time or the actual time?
Now that we know the answer to that question, it further disqualifies the only space shuttle launch time that is claimed as "ritual" in Hoagland's 'Table of Coincidence.' That launch time is STS-88 at 03:36 EDT, 4th December 1998.
STS-88 is already disqualified on the following grounds:
- It references the planet Mars, not one of the 5 specified "ritual" stars
- The elevation is -3.33°, not one of the 5 specified "ritual" elevations
- The observation point is Phoenix, not a site associated with the launch
To that we must now add that the launch time itself is wrong. STS-88 was originally scheduled to launch a day earlier at 03:58.
Could anything possibly be MORE WRONG???
11 comments:
What struck me about last night was how unwilling Hoagland was to acknowledge the mistake (if that's what it was), and how willing he was to double down on the stupid by pushing it. It would seem to me that if you make a mistake like that, you either admit it, or go away and hope everyone forgets it. My guess is he was headed towards option 2 when "Christella" (who looks more and more like a Hoagland sock puppet) mentioned DST. He grabbed that one for all it was worth and hoped the faithful would buy it. They did apparently.
James Connannon picked up on the "at birth" thing right away, but Hoagland deleted the post as usual. Richard obviously didn't think that one through though, because it will (and already has with the OP) come back to haunt him. He just said it to confuse the issue, because the math refused to help him out. Again, the faithful seemed to buy it.
Good blog with some good questions.
It remains a mystery why Hoagland didn't fall back to 19:47 GMT or Standard Time. Since he has written about the significance of GMT and Greenwich before, it would have been the superior counter move!
The ritual alignment model seems to gravitate around "temples" by the way: the Viking 1 and 2 landing sites, the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites, and Giza and Phoenix on the Earth. Cape Canaveral is not considered a "primary temple", see
http://www.enterprisemission.com/mos.htm
As for the "5 specified ritual stars" I don't think such a narrow official list exists or at least I don't know about it. Same for the amount of significant permutations on 33 and 19.5. This is one of the problems for doing proper statistics on this by the way. But one could always select the top five for that purpose, I suppose.
Also, Mars has been used before as ritually significant heavenly body at 33 degrees, see e.g.
http://www.enterprisemission.com/table_of_coincidence.htm
Cheers!
Anon, I actually thought he would do that, but he specifically said London time. The problem with the ritual alignment model period is that there doesn't seem to be any real rules. Richard (and Bara) apparently go with whatever will fit the meme.
There are restrictive rules to the 'Ritual Alignment Model,' definitely.
Mike Bara made it very explicit, writing on p.14 of "Dark Mission" 2nd edn. "only five stellar objects ... have any significance ...: the three belt stars of Orion, ...Sirius, ... and Regulus. And only five narrow bands of stellar altitude (19.5° above and below the horizon, 33° above and below the horizon, and the horizon itself) have any significance."
I'd love to do statistical analysis but it's a helluva lot of work.
Now I'm laughing at myself for using that adjective "restrictive" -- it is, but NOT MUCH. They give themselves 50 chances at every launch. 25 as observed from the Cape, and 25 more from Houston. Same for the landings.
That's why a proper analysis would be boring as hell -- checking all 50 every time. It's also, no doubt, why Hoagland & Bara haven't done the work themselves (yet they feel free to continue to assert that NASA is "relentless" in its drive to pay homage).
I'm doing some research on Andrew D. Basgio. I'm struggling with this guy so if anyone has some context that will help. First of all he's ex govcorp/intelligence offspring and that's always a bad start. Then he always talks about his degrees. I wouldn't mind that but he doesn't actually say anything provocatively intelligent or even close to profound. Just a story about teleportation to MARS with no pics. I'd expect a decent philosophical viewpoint on the matter of free energy vs fossil fuels from an M Phil from Oxford but he just doesn't deliver. Can you help me out or is he just disinfo?
Fuhggeddaboutit!
You must have read what was written here previously. Hard Science RULES here!
Teleportation is just about the wackiest idea imaginable! I think individual Atoms have been teleported. We're One Trillion Trillionth of the way there.
Hard science doesn't need capitals in comments as it speaks for itself.
That too is a self evident truth if you were paying attention.
HOW'S THIS?
YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS ABOUT TIME-TRAVEL AND TELEPORTATION!
ONLY YOU CAN STOP CLOUD-DANCING!
All Caps Rule the Cosmos. Can you imagine the sheer chaos that would result?
Anon: In a comment you since deleted, you reference Mary Weaver's statistical analysis of the 'Ritual Alignment Model.' I remember it well.
A document whose very first words are "There are errors in this paper that I have not had time to correct" is, of course, less than inspirational -- and, as you noted, Ms Weaver has now taken it off the net.
She spent a lot of time expounding theoretical statistical method -- explaining how you estimate the probability of certain events -- but when it came to the point, SHE NEVER SAID "I examined x mission events, and y of them qualified." Instead she just wrote that the star elevation coincidences appeared to be more frequent than chance.
Mike Bara's explicit statement defining the 5 stars and 5 elevations was designed, I think, to clarify what had become a little too loose (comet Enke "witnessing" the murder of the Apollo 1 astronauts, to cite an extreme example.) The context was his re-thinking of the moment when Buzz Aldrin took communion on the Moon.
Post a Comment