The name of the rocket is New Shepard...not "shepherd." It is named after our first astronaut, Alan Shepard. So, those who are trying to confuse it with "shepherd" are just playing with their own ignorance.
It was named, as a production model, after Alan Shepard, our first astronaut to go into space on a ballistic shot. What is offensive about such a mission at any time of the year?
People see faces in clouds, too. Or even faces on Mars. Not real. The phenomenon is called pareidolia. I have a composite linoleum floor in my washroom, and when pondering on the throne, I can see credible faces out of the random junctions of the linoleum matrix. Are they real faces? Of course not. It is just that things can sometimes fall into unintended patterns. Especially if you are looking at everything like a Rorschach blot, finding butterflies or Baphomets according to what you want to find.
Now, if you can find the instructions given to the artist to include this and that element in the patch design---and also that it should look like a face of Baphomet when viewed upside-down---you might have an argument. But you can't, and you don't. You just have a knee-jerk axe to grind.
What "fertility ritual"? The rocket goes up and comes down, just as advertised. The passengers are all agog, as might be expected. No ritual that I've heard of or seen.
You're trying hard to reply to everyone. One day I believe you will open up. The great awakening cannot happen until people understand NASA is the biggest money laundering operation in human history. Enjoy the process!
I've spent 40 years working close to the subject. For one thing, the NASA budget is not nearly the biggest one in the general budget. For another, what they spend their budget on is subject to close scrutiny and is all out in public view. You are very misguided to think there is, or could be, much money "laundering" going in in NASA.
It's not to say they are always making prudent decisions about what to do, but bear in mind they are also the handmaidens of Congress. It is not for nothing that the Space Launch System (SLS) is also called the Senate Launch System. But disagreement over what to do is an issue of policy, not an issue of misdirected funds.
Yeah the video of the one actor-not spreading her legs for the camera and saying “my gosh! that’s amazing’ kinda gave it away too. Not sure how this dude missed it.
Suppose you tell us who? It sure wasn't Jack Parsons; he was dead 6 years before NASA was created. It's first administrator was T. Keith Glennan.
And it is a stretch to say that Parsons "started JPL" when it was other persons from the previous GALCIT organization who formed JPL. Parsons was involved in JATO rocket motor development at Aerojet. When Aerojet was sold to General Tire and Rubber, the sale was contingent on the expulsion of Parsons for his occult interests and activities.
The patch upside down was largely unintelligible. It takes a real effort to see how an upside-down rocket resembles Baphomet (which it really doesn't).
Nothing wrong with the patch rightside-up. It is a novelty ride, folks. The rocket scientists made sure it was safe to fly. They weren't invovled with the patch design.
This guy is very goofy. The New Shepard vehicle has flown many times. This latest was the 11th flight with passengers. Nothing fake about the flight. So, the capsule exit was staged for the photographers? Big deal. It was a highly-publicized flight and there was obviously going to be a photo op upon exit from the capsule. I can only wonder what you would think of the original Redstone-Mercury flights.
Calling names is not an argument. You simply have no answer to the points I made, which usually signifies your inability to have a discussion.
You want a fake event? Try the initial rollout of the Boeing 787 on July 8, 2007 (7/8/7, get it?). It wasn't even a complete airplane. The composite fuselage sections were assembled with temporary aluminum fasteners, instead of the production-required titanium fasteners (aluminum and composite have an adverse galvanic chemical reaction). I had heard there was no main deck installed, and the engines were missing. It was entirely for a PR photo op and gala celebration. They rolled it out, popped flashbulbs, rolled it back in---and took it apart. They didn't have a flyable airplane put together until 2 years later. The whole world was hornswoggled, so don't talk down to me about being gullible.
All you see is something launched up into the air and come back down. Everything else is the show. Of course something real is launched for the spacetards in physical attendance. Your response is the typical brainwashed response. They were faking space before CGI. it was analog space. I sat a mile from a shuttle launch. It is awe-inspiring. But it is just the launch. The power. The ground shaking. That does not equate to space walks and moon landings. If you ever watch, live, a real rocket launch from the Cape and viewed its trajectory you'd see. If you actually THINK about what is going on, you'd know. I remember many dozens of videos taken with rectilinear lenses such as the famous Chuck Yeager flight showing 100s if not 1000s of miles of flat horizon. They don't use rectilinear lenses anymore. Why?
All these rockets have gone where they were intended, delivering payloads and personnel. There was and is no fakery. You think something like the Space Shuttle can be launched for a fake mission? All that money, effort, and resources for the sake of....what? The space walks and Moon landings were real, involving real people, and real activities.
What exactly about a launch trajectory do you think is fake? I happen to be well acquainted with launch trajectories, and I think you are not.
What difference do rectilinear lenses make, when we have established the sphericity of the Earth through 400 years of direct land, sea, air, and space travel? Are you a Flat Earther? That is a banned topic, you know.
People keep calling Bezos out because his ship looks like a penis.
This was a fertility ritual right before Easter. Right in our faces.
Redux of Paris Olympics "last supper" filthy blasphemy. Oh how [they] hate and fear us.
Spoiler Alert: GOD WINS IN THE END
AND everyone is forgetting that name of the rocket was New Shepard... right before Easter. Cmon guys.
Did you mean to say shepherd????
Yes, I turn off autocorroect on my phone, so I spelled it wrong.
The name of the rocket is New Shepard...not "shepherd." It is named after our first astronaut, Alan Shepard. So, those who are trying to confuse it with "shepherd" are just playing with their own ignorance.
It was named, as a production model, after Alan Shepard, our first astronaut to go into space on a ballistic shot. What is offensive about such a mission at any time of the year?
Boy have you got a lot of catching up to do...
It's for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. Sadly, sometimes illuminating the truth is fruitless.
People see faces in clouds, too. Or even faces on Mars. Not real. The phenomenon is called pareidolia. I have a composite linoleum floor in my washroom, and when pondering on the throne, I can see credible faces out of the random junctions of the linoleum matrix. Are they real faces? Of course not. It is just that things can sometimes fall into unintended patterns. Especially if you are looking at everything like a Rorschach blot, finding butterflies or Baphomets according to what you want to find.
Now, if you can find the instructions given to the artist to include this and that element in the patch design---and also that it should look like a face of Baphomet when viewed upside-down---you might have an argument. But you can't, and you don't. You just have a knee-jerk axe to grind.
Well, you apparently never knew, and cannot explain why there is any offense. I don't think I am the one who needs to catch up.
I'm very grateful that you and others like you are on this forum, and I know I'm not alone with that sentiment.
What "fertility ritual"? The rocket goes up and comes down, just as advertised. The passengers are all agog, as might be expected. No ritual that I've heard of or seen.
It was Satanic but the symbolism is not for the reasons he describes (returning in a womb).
This was a
sky event.u/#q1182
Wow! The logo on the patch tho! Can’t deny it.
Pareidolia. It takes a lot of mental stretching to see Baphomet in a perspective view of the rocket and the silhouettes of the 6 passengers.
You're trying hard to reply to everyone. One day I believe you will open up. The great awakening cannot happen until people understand NASA is the biggest money laundering operation in human history. Enjoy the process!
Ukraine enters the chat
I've spent 40 years working close to the subject. For one thing, the NASA budget is not nearly the biggest one in the general budget. For another, what they spend their budget on is subject to close scrutiny and is all out in public view. You are very misguided to think there is, or could be, much money "laundering" going in in NASA.
It's not to say they are always making prudent decisions about what to do, but bear in mind they are also the handmaidens of Congress. It is not for nothing that the Space Launch System (SLS) is also called the Senate Launch System. But disagreement over what to do is an issue of policy, not an issue of misdirected funds.
Yeah the video of the one actor-not spreading her legs for the camera and saying “my gosh! that’s amazing’ kinda gave it away too. Not sure how this dude missed it.
start watching at about 50 seconds in……..😀
Give us an actual URL and not a google search for "blue origin female crew"...
Edited the link - thx.
No worries - I do that sometimes myself.
The symbol upside down was Baphomet. Did Bazos know?
If he did not, people in his circle did.
We are talking rocket scientists who take their badge seriously.
It is so fucked up.
If you know who started the NASA rocket program the patch wouldn’t be a surprise.
Yeah, the guy who started JPL was a satanist.
Suppose you tell us who? It sure wasn't Jack Parsons; he was dead 6 years before NASA was created. It's first administrator was T. Keith Glennan.
And it is a stretch to say that Parsons "started JPL" when it was other persons from the previous GALCIT organization who formed JPL. Parsons was involved in JATO rocket motor development at Aerojet. When Aerojet was sold to General Tire and Rubber, the sale was contingent on the expulsion of Parsons for his occult interests and activities.
The patch upside down was largely unintelligible. It takes a real effort to see how an upside-down rocket resembles Baphomet (which it really doesn't).
Nothing wrong with the patch rightside-up. It is a novelty ride, folks. The rocket scientists made sure it was safe to fly. They weren't invovled with the patch design.
Definite "Sunday Funnies" material.
"Still cant believe katy perry was the first woman in space. Crazy." - best comment on there... most even got the joke
Actually, Alice Kramden was the first woman on the moon
Right in the kisser
the spacecraft was called new shephard? how obvious are they making it
Named after Alan Shepard. Why don't you look him up to understand why. Then maybe you will feel a bit foolish about your comment.
Wow !
Original sauce:
https://x.com/reality_revolt_/status/1912486104592445594
This guy is very goofy. The New Shepard vehicle has flown many times. This latest was the 11th flight with passengers. Nothing fake about the flight. So, the capsule exit was staged for the photographers? Big deal. It was a highly-publicized flight and there was obviously going to be a photo op upon exit from the capsule. I can only wonder what you would think of the original Redstone-Mercury flights.
You are very gullible or a shill/bot
Calling names is not an argument. You simply have no answer to the points I made, which usually signifies your inability to have a discussion.
You want a fake event? Try the initial rollout of the Boeing 787 on July 8, 2007 (7/8/7, get it?). It wasn't even a complete airplane. The composite fuselage sections were assembled with temporary aluminum fasteners, instead of the production-required titanium fasteners (aluminum and composite have an adverse galvanic chemical reaction). I had heard there was no main deck installed, and the engines were missing. It was entirely for a PR photo op and gala celebration. They rolled it out, popped flashbulbs, rolled it back in---and took it apart. They didn't have a flyable airplane put together until 2 years later. The whole world was hornswoggled, so don't talk down to me about being gullible.
All you see is something launched up into the air and come back down. Everything else is the show. Of course something real is launched for the spacetards in physical attendance. Your response is the typical brainwashed response. They were faking space before CGI. it was analog space. I sat a mile from a shuttle launch. It is awe-inspiring. But it is just the launch. The power. The ground shaking. That does not equate to space walks and moon landings. If you ever watch, live, a real rocket launch from the Cape and viewed its trajectory you'd see. If you actually THINK about what is going on, you'd know. I remember many dozens of videos taken with rectilinear lenses such as the famous Chuck Yeager flight showing 100s if not 1000s of miles of flat horizon. They don't use rectilinear lenses anymore. Why?
All these rockets have gone where they were intended, delivering payloads and personnel. There was and is no fakery. You think something like the Space Shuttle can be launched for a fake mission? All that money, effort, and resources for the sake of....what? The space walks and Moon landings were real, involving real people, and real activities.
What exactly about a launch trajectory do you think is fake? I happen to be well acquainted with launch trajectories, and I think you are not.
What difference do rectilinear lenses make, when we have established the sphericity of the Earth through 400 years of direct land, sea, air, and space travel? Are you a Flat Earther? That is a banned topic, you know.
https://x.com/reality_revolt_/status/1912486104592445594