Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Hubble Looks At The Moon?

Expand Messages
  • Jo Ann Schwartz
    ... Well, Steve, all I can say is you have most likely never worked for a big corporation -- especially a big corporation with deep pockets and thus likely to
    Message 1 of 81 , Nov 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- Steve Hale wrote:

      > For the record, there were six missions to the moon, with Apollo
      > Sixteen and Seventeen being the last two; memorable for lunar dune
      > buggy rides across the barren but sandy soil around a dried up
      > mariah sea. Interestingly, a reputable investigative journalist who
      > sought to corroborate Bill Kaysing's original assertions that we
      > never went to the moon, went to Grumman, the manufacturer of the
      > Lunar Entry Module (LEM), and asked to look at the design plans
      > because the compartment in which the dune buggy was stored didn't
      > match the large size of the buggy. He wanted to verify the
      > measurement of the compartment relative to the dune buggy supposedly
      > stored there for the Apollo 16 and 17 missions. He was told that
      > those plans had been destroyed because the engineering department's
      > files were overloaded, and they had to weed out old files. And one
      > of these just happened to be the design plans for the LEM. Pretty
      > convenient explanation, huh?

      Well, Steve, all I can say is you have most likely never worked for a big
      corporation -- especially a big corporation with deep pockets and thus likely
      to be sued. Most large corporations have document retention guidelines that
      *require* blueprints and other engineering documents to be destroyed after some
      set period of time -- often a very short period of time by historical

      I work in the research labs of a big three automaker. It used to be that the
      originals of all lab notebooks and internal research reports were destroyed 30
      years after the last entry / date submitted. (Which may be one reason we are
      also evaluated on outside publications? Hmmm....) Too much good stuff was
      getting trashed, so we applied for and received a new schedule mandating
      destruction after 50 years. This is for basic research -- engineering docs in
      the company have an average life of 15-20 years. (Well, they can last longer
      if they are under a "suspension order" -- that is, the topic of an active
      lawsuit or government investigation....) Copies of such documents should not
      last that long, but be destroyed once your need for them is done.

      This destruction date is pretty rigorously enforced, mostly because the
      automakers are all mindful of the fact that it was a penciled notation on some
      engineer's copy of test data that screwed GM on the Corvair. (The guy had
      written "this thing could kill someone some day!" -- his opinion -- and the
      rest is history....)

      So it doesn't surprise me in the least that Grumman got rid of the drawings.
      Inconvenient for history and conspiracy buffs, perhaps, but business as usual
      in corporate America.

      Musing one man's shit is another man's biodynamic prep....
    • Steve Hale
      Jo Ann, I think in the same sense that Peter cannot be truly understood until certain spiritual scientific facts are entertained, that the same holds for a
      Message 81 of 81 , Nov 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Jo Ann, I think in the same sense that Peter cannot be truly
        understood until certain spiritual scientific facts are entertained,
        that the same holds for a real understanding about the moon. You
        lack any knowledge on the subject, preferring to believe in the
        existence of a mechanistic-materialistic universe, which would
        support having a universe in which the laws of physics extend beyond
        the earthly atmospheric layers. So, it seems again to be a case
        where your personal convictions would subrate any desire to look
        into the spiritual scientific facts found abundantly in Steiner's
        work. I seek transparency, which is superior to dualism,
        transcendence, or immanence; for it is the dual in one, which

        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Jo Ann Schwartz
        <sr_joanna@y...> wrote:
        > Dear Steve Hale,
        > As amusing as it might be to play Dr. Johnson to your Bishop
        Berkeley, you are
        > quite mistaken when you call me a materialist. Indeed, that
        > shows your own deep commitment to dualism -- that somehow matter
        and spirit are
        > irreconcilably separate. My own view is that matter and spirit
        are one. The
        > heirarchies are not "out there" -- they are here, now, with us and
        within us.
        > Not transcendent but immanent. So there is no contradiction
        between the moon
        > as spiritual entity and the moon as physical place. And if the
        moon as
        > spiritual entity is still closed to us, that does not mean, ipso
        facto, that
        > the moon as physical place is also closed to us.
        > Even those who are primarily interested in the practical work of
        Steiner can be
        > well aware of this. I am and have been on a number of committees
        at my
        > children's waldorf school. We tend to begin and end each meeting
        by reciting a
        > verse from Steiner. (A fact my children find quite charming. ;)
        Lately, we
        > have been reciting a verse that contains the lines:
        > Apply the ancient principle
        > Spirit is never without matter,
        > matter is never without spirit!
        > Musing sometimes the answer is neither 0 nor 1 but mu (reask the
        question) ....
        > JoAnn
        > --- Steve Hale wrote:
        > > Yeah, JoAnn, I actually worked for Boeing for sixteen years; so
        > > know about archives and data retention. And this little
        > > about Grumman was designed to see if anyone could rationalize
        such a
        > > thing as weeding out the LEM design drawings, and you have done
        > > in astounding fashion. I'm still working on your conception of
        > > the "real world". Do you really believe this is it? And, if
        > > is the real world, then what stands behind it? A false world of
        > > higher beings taking us away from the real? You are simply a
        > > typical materialist who hasn't even grasped the basics of
        > > science.
        > >
        > > It is of the greatest importance for the aims of certain beings
        > > tell lies about the nature of the universe in terms of calling
        > > physical. Spiritual science students should know this, and know
        > > better. You obviously have never studied this aspect of
        > > science any more than Steiner's christology; rather, the simple
        > > practical matters available for surface consideration and
        > > application. Now, that's not to say that this isn't good. It
        > > of course, and quite good, at that. But there is more to the
        > > of human evolution, both effective and causal, and it is best
        not to
        > > choose up sides, but to accept the fact and findings of both.
        > >
        > > In short, we never went to the moon or any other place with a
        > > physically constructed machine out of the consortium of
        > > and the sooner you and the other anthropops, or spiritual
        > > students get this most important fact, the better.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.