…and this is a 
Some crazy lady in British Columbia named either Sonia or Tanja Jensen has me on a mailing list. I'm in good company; also on the list are the president of my university, Bob Bruininks, as well as Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, the Governor of Alaska, Greenpeace, Angela Merkel, and the German Balkan Trust. Strangely, NASA is not on the list. Without exception, all of her emails are raving mad. Here's her latest, which I think is one of the finest examples of her output.
COULD NASA CAUSE THE SUDDEN DEATH OF EVERY LIVING THING ON EARTH? - "... the moon will not give its light ..." Matthew 24:27-29
DEAR NASA:
DO YOU REALIZE BOMBING THE MOON COULD CAUSE THE SUDDEN DEATH OF EVERY LIVING THING ON EARTH, INCLUDING MANKIND. YOU COULD ALSO INTERFERE WITH THE MOON'S ABILITY TO LIGHT UP THE EARTH AT NIGHT, SO DON'T COMPROMISE THE PLANETS BY RECKLESSLY BOMBING THE MOON!
I saw on the OCTOBER 9, 2009 news that NASA has been bombing the moon to see if there is water on it. You can't find water by bombing! See the article below.
I heard the bomb did not detonate and is lodged inside the moon's crater. I heard NASA sent another bomb to the moon last week (October 31), but the rocket malfunctioned.
If there is a live, unexploded bomb in the moon's crater and another bomb is driven into it, this could cause a large nuclear reaction on the moon, perhaps causing a huge chunk of the moon to dislodge and hurtle through space.
That's not a good idea, as the bomb could push the moon out of orbit and cause part or all of it to crash, with a worst case senario, to crash into the sun or the earth!
A collision of moon rock with the earth could cause such a dust cloud, that it could affect the earth's atmosphere and destroy our air supply.
NASA has an underground bunker with life support, the human race does not. Don't euthanize the human race by bombing planets!
NASA, you don't have the right to destroy the human race by driving pieces of planets into space or into the earth, affecting us all.
The Bible prophesied the moon would not give it's light at the end time at Matthew 24:27-29:
"For just as the lightening comes from the west, so shall the coming of the son of man be ... the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky and the powers of the heavens will be shaken."
Jesus said at the 'end time', mankind would be separated into the 'wheat' and the 'weeds'. In other words, if we don't repent of our reckless chicanery, we will be destroyed.
HARVEST
"Gather My Godly Ones to Me"
Psalms 50:5,6 says: "Gather My Godly ones to Me, those who have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice. And the heavens declare His righteousness, for God Himself is judge."
"Be Ashamed of Your Harvest"
Jeremiah 12:13 says: "They have sown wheat and have reaped thorns, they have strained themselves to no profit. But be ashamed of your harvest because of the fierce anger of YHWH."
"The Workers are Few"
Matthew 11:37 says: "The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field."
"Allow Both to Grow Together"
At Matthew 13:26-30, Jesus said: "But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. ... And he said to them, 'An enemy has done this!' The slaves said to him, 'Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?' But he said, 'No, for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I shall say to the reapers, 'First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn'."
"The Harvest Has Come"
Mark 4:26-29 states: "The Kingdom of God is like a man who casts seed upon the ground and goes to bed at night and gets up by day, and the seed sprouts up and grows, how, he himself does not know .... But when the crop permits, he immediately puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come."
"He Who Does Not Gather With Me Scatters"
Luke 11:23 says: "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters."
"The Crop for Eternal Life"
John 4:35-38 says: "I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields. They are ripe for harvest. Even now the reaper draws his wages, even now he harvests the crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together. Thus the saying 'One sows and another reaps' is true. I sent you to reap what you have not worked for. Others have done the hard work and you have reaped the benefits of their labor."
GATHER THE ELECT
"His Spirit Has Gathered Them"
Isaiah 14:16,17 says: "Seek from the book of YHWH, and read: Not one of these will be missing; none will lack its mate. For His mouth has commanded, and His spirit has gathered them. And He has cast the lot for them, and His hand has divided it to them by line. They shall possess it forever; from generation to generation they shall dwell in it."
"For the Sake of the Elect, Those Days Will Be Shortened"
Jesus said at Matthew 24:21,22: "For then there will be great distress, unequalled from the beginning of the world until now - and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.
"So as to Mislead, if Possible, Even the Elect"
Matthew 24:24 says: "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect."
"They Will Gather His Elect from the Four Winds"
Matthew 24:31 says: "He will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."
"Lead Astray, if Possible, the Elect"
Jesus warned at Mark 13:22: "... false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect."
"Justice for His Elect"
Luke 18:7 says: "Will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to him day and night, and will He delay long over them?"
If we bomb the moon, we could throw it out of orbit, it could terrify mankind. Luke 21:25,26 confirms this:
"Men will faint from terror ..."
Please find attached my bible summary. Please look up END TIME in my summary attached and see that Jesus, the true prophet, and our Saviour, prophesied about these things occuring over 2,000 years ago.
The Bible's message does offer hope, as at Daniel 2:44, God promised a kingdom that 'will never be brought to ruin' and that he would 'wipe the tears from our eyes' ... 'death and mourning will be no more'
Please look these scriptures up in my attached Bible summary!
God loves each and every one of us and the Bible offers hope for all!!
Let's start to follow the Golden Rule and 'love god and our neighbour'!
Here's the article about the bombing of the moon that I took from the internet:
[There was no link to any article actually included--pzm]
More topics
Home Inspector Reviews. | Permission | Spp | Space Junk | Bomb Threat
Who gave NASA permission to bomb the moon? Is it legal for NASA to bomb the moon?
It is not like their latest quest to mine for water on the moon was based on the major consensus of the American people. I think I speak for many when I say I was horrified by NASA's latest expedition.
It reminded me of the 2008 Olympic event held in Beijing, where Chinese officials strategically attempted to control the weather with cloud seeding. They had rockets filled with pellets of Silver Iodide on stand by just in case any rain clouds were to approach Beijing. If ominous weather
were to threaten the Olympic events Chinese officials would give the OK to shoot the rockets into the atmosphere in order to make the rain clouds dump out all of its precipitation before reaching Beijing. What ramifications would this have had on the atmosphere we share? How would traces of silver iodide impact our lungs, our ozone, our water, or those with sensitive respiratory ailments, etc?
U.S. flags have been emblematically planted on the Moon, although no nation can claim ownership of any part of the Moon's surface. According to the World Space Guide there are currently 11 countries sponsoring space agencies with space launch capabilities. 4 of those 11 countries have space agencies with manned spaceflight capability.
Reasonable men know it's wrong to travel to the moon, bomb it or otherwise interfere with it's orbit, as it is a lights for our night sky, influences the tides and is a valuable planet.
Let's not interfere with the ecology of the moon!
Sincerely,
Tanja Jensen
Comments
Posted by: susan | November 7, 2009 10:40 AM
You actually read that whole thing? Do you expect us to read the whole thing? I don't think so. Yechhhhh!
Posted by: CSue | November 7, 2009 10:41 AM
Wow. Apparently somebody out there thinks "Space: 1999" was a documentary.
Posted by: Steve I
|
November 7, 2009 10:41 AM
HAHAHA That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read! Forget the irrelevant bible quotes, this is my favorite part:
"If there is a live, unexploded bomb in the moon's crater and another bomb is driven into it, this could cause a large nuclear reaction on the moon, perhaps causing a huge chunk of the moon to dislodge and hurtle through space."
What accurate science!!!
Posted by: Diego | November 7, 2009 10:44 AM
That insanity is such a Carl Sagan Day buzz kill.
Posted by: Zeno | November 7, 2009 10:44 AM
As we all know, the moon is so very close to critical mass that even one additional tiny chunk of green cheese could make it all go nuclear. Boom!
I cower beneath the rock in the sky.
Posted by: detrius
|
November 7, 2009 10:45 AM
Exactly how can the moon have an ecology if there is no life on it?
Posted by: Spiro Keat | November 7, 2009 10:47 AM
That's your best "I get email" to date PZ.
Posted by: Hank Fox | November 7, 2009 10:48 AM
Thank you, dear lady, for broaching these subjects!
At last it can be said: It's wrong to travel to the moon.
(I wonder if I should have used more exclamation marks, or maybe a few more capital letters? I'm new at this nutty curmudgeon thing.)
Posted by: Paul Burnett
|
November 7, 2009 10:48 AM
Tanja wrote: "Let's not interfere with the ecology of the moon!"
As a lifeless airless body, does the moon even have an ecology?
Posted by: SpontOrder | November 7, 2009 10:48 AM
Zeno: of course if it goes nuclear, fondue for everyone.
Posted by: RM | November 7, 2009 10:49 AM
There really is no dark side of the moon.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 7, 2009 10:50 AM
Ditto!
Posted by: Sili
|
November 7, 2009 10:51 AM
At least she's discovered how to use paragraphs. But still teal deer for me.
On behalf of Danes whose distant family (even named Jensen, I think) have emigrated, I apologise.
Posted by: Lynna | November 7, 2009 10:53 AM
Wait, wait! That's *not* the whole thing. She says she attached a summary. You mean what we read here is not the whole message? That's not her summary, her summary is attached, 'cause there's even more crazy to come -- and the "summary" is even longer.
Okay. That was long enough to include the kitchen sink. But somehow, I couldn't find even a kitchen sink in there. I was impressed with the correct spelling.
Posted by: simply not edible | November 7, 2009 10:53 AM
Could anyone tell me what "our light in the night sky" was doing out at 10 AM, you know, during the daytime?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 7, 2009 10:54 AM
Jebus, when did a depleted Agena stage become anything other than a kinetic energy bomb? No explosives. Just mass with velocity hitting the surface, like a meteorite. The lunacy of it all...
Posted by: Lynna | November 7, 2009 10:56 AM
I see PZ did read the damned thing, because he noted the link Crazy Canadian referenced was missing. So, PZ, I'm sure you've already replied, asking for the missing link, right?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 7, 2009 10:56 AM
When you're all dead because NASA blew up all the water on the Moon and cause the planets to fall into the Sun, don't come whining to Tanya.
Posted by: Caine
|
November 7, 2009 10:56 AM
Holy cow, that's a boatload of crazy. About the only thing distinguishing this from a Rocky & Bullwinkle story is the lack of moon men. Perhaps they're covered by the "ecology" of the moon.
Posted by: FlameDuck | November 7, 2009 10:56 AM
No. Although I do love the way you feel you had to qualify "every living thing on Earth" with "including mankind". That's just so precious.Posted by: Tammy | November 7, 2009 10:58 AM
The moon is a PLANET? I doubt anyone's referred to it that way since Aristotle.
Posted by: Ritchie Annand | November 7, 2009 10:59 AM
She doesn't have to worry - the moon already had a nuclear explosion ten years ago, and it flew off into space, and the people on the moonbase there had many adventures.
Posted by: Tom Wood | November 7, 2009 11:00 AM
She's right though, it's wrong to bomb other planets, like the moon. And really, to put a bomb in the moon's crater is so rude. It's the only crater it has, and we put a bomb in it? Tsk tsk. If we're going to put a bomb in a planet's crater, why not Uranus? ::rimshot::
Posted by: Lukas | November 7, 2009 11:00 AM
That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. If you haven't read it because it's long, your loss! ☺
Posted by: Lauren Ipsum | November 7, 2009 11:01 AM
wait, what? it's unreasonable to travel to the moon? why? because one ounce of extra matter on one side or another will cause catastrophic orbit failure? Was there an addendum to the "Leave Europa alone" memo which included our moon along with one of Jupiter's?
And does she include Cruithne along with Luna, or does our "other moon" get a pass because it has a weird orbit and doesn't give us light we can see without a telescope?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3753_Cruithne
Posted by: 6EQUJ5 | November 7, 2009 11:01 AM
Apparently she's never looked at the Moon. Humongous things have crashed into it over eons, leaving craters that can be seen from Earth with a pair of binoculars. The spacecraft crash could barely be seen from lunar orbit.
Posted by: Dark Jaguar | November 7, 2009 11:03 AM
Apparently she thinks the moon is roughly the same size as the apparent size it takes up in the night sky. Perhaps she's unaware it's frickin' HUGE, that a bomb on it has roughly the same effect as a bomb on earth?
She seems to care far more about bombing the moon than humans bombing each other right here...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 7, 2009 11:09 AM
Is she confusing chicanery with chicory?
Posted by: Michael Dickens | November 7, 2009 11:11 AM
This is insane. At least, the first four paragraphs. That's all I read. It's too long!
What I got from it, though, is that she doesn't really get how big the moon is.
Posted by: maryanne | November 7, 2009 11:11 AM
Caine, Rocky and Bullwinkle never found moon MEN. Those were Six Foot Metal-Munching Moon Mice! (All that green cheese). It was Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, those great Mormon Profits, who said there were men dressed like Quakers on the moon. In any event, bombing the moon would certainly be a great insult to the moon Quakers and the giant mice, although their metal-munching capacity should take care of any bomb fragments. She forgot to mention the danger that insulted moon creatures would turn off the big light bulb inside the moon and leave us in primordial darkness,
Posted by: Hank Fox | November 7, 2009 11:12 AM
On a possibly more serious note ...
How do you deal with such a person? I mean, when someone is so far off in the wilds there's no map for the return trip, what do you do?
Is someone like this a write-off?
I mean, I get it that people can be ignorant. It's not exactly excusable, I wouldn't say, but it is understandable.
But when someone like this is butt-ignorant, and at the same time confident that he/she understands things so well that she's moved to teach them to others, or send out these dire warnings ...
Is that person redeemable? Reachable? Educable?
Regarding people in prison, I actually believe that most of them are both reachable and redeemable. It's why I don't like the punitive meanness that seems built into our "justice" system.
But thinking about it just now, I seem less inclined to believe that people who are ignorant and religious (or right-wing) are reachable.
How do the rest of you feel about it?
Posted by: Budbear | November 7, 2009 11:14 AM
Aaaaahhh! I love the smell of insanity in the morning. It smells like......lunacy.
Posted by: R. Schauer | November 7, 2009 11:17 AM
She left out the part about how bombing the moon was hurting the reptilian aliens who have a base on the moon to protect us through their republican helpers.
Posted by: issy53 | November 7, 2009 11:20 AM
She needs to be in an institution.
Posted by: Paul Burnett
|
November 7, 2009 11:20 AM
"maryanne" (#30) wrote: "It was Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, those great Mormon Profits, who said there were men dressed like Quakers on the moon.
See http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Moon_inhabited for a discussion of this.
The article also includes this gem: "William Herschel, the discoverer of the planet Uranus...argued "[w]ho can say that it is not extremely probable, nay beyond doubt, that there must be inhabitants on the Moon of some kind or another?" Furthermore, "he thought it possible that there was a region below the Sun's fiery surface where men might live, and he regarded the existence of life on the Moon as 'an absolute certainty.'"
As to how humans can safely land on the Sun, it's simple: They can land at night.
Posted by: Dust
|
November 7, 2009 11:22 AM
Shorter Sonia or Tanja Jensen: "Hey NASA! Get off my moon!"
Posted by: Lynna | November 7, 2009 11:22 AM
More info on the moon people, with whom we should certainly check before we go selecting a crater to bomb:
Posted by: llewelly | November 7, 2009 11:22 AM
I like the bit about "home inspector reviews permission"
Posted by: SteveM | November 7, 2009 11:23 AM
re 11:
"As a matter of fact, it's all dark"
Posted by: MikeM | November 7, 2009 11:24 AM
We need Wallace and Gromit to save the day.
So, one bomb is bad enough, but two can make a nuclear explosion. Is that right? I need someone to explain to me how that works, because right now, I don't see it.
Posted by: uppity cracka | November 7, 2009 11:26 AM
she's using science. good strategy.
the moon IS an "important planet," after all.
stupid NASA!!!!!
Posted by: raven | November 7, 2009 11:28 AM
Well this is reassuring.
False prophets are ubiquitous these days. They are all over the TV and the internet.
They have yet to show "great signs and winders". In fact, they all look like vaguely humanoid toads who just babble and lie a lot.
They have misead lots of people. They are all uneducated, dumb, and crazy idiots though.
At this rate we are good for centuries more at least.
Posted by: Caine
|
November 7, 2009 11:28 AM
maryanne @ #30:
There were moon men: Gidney & Cloyd.
Posted by: Draken
|
November 7, 2009 11:29 AM
On the one hand, she seems to underestimate the size of the moon by a factor of 10E3, and yet, she's afraid it might crash into the sun... which we know to be a giant arc lamp.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
November 7, 2009 11:32 AM
It's made out of cheese. Seriously. What the #$%& is this woman's problem? Where the hell does she think cheese comes from?
If we don't bomb the moon, Fondue Night is really going to suck!
Posted by: raven | November 7, 2009 11:36 AM
This woman is most likely schizophrenic. They are not rare, 1% of the population or 3 million in the USA.
Not quite a writeoff though. With medication the delusions and hallucinations will go way down or go away completely. But she has to take the pills and many do while some refuse to.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 7, 2009 11:38 AM
This is a precious, priceless nugget of purest 24K Internet gold.
It should be digitally framed and virtually hung in a prominent metaphorical place on every fictive wall of these tubes.
Posted by: SEF | November 7, 2009 11:39 AM
She does seem to be very concerned that NASA might smash the lunar lightbulb, putting it out! :-D
Meanwhile, given the accompanying biblical quotes, is she a rare example of a fundy who doesn't want the end times to come (in her life-time) - rather than having the bring-it-on attitude of the vocal majority?
Posted by: BicycleRepairMan | November 7, 2009 11:39 AM
"Important planet" Hahaha! instant classic. you'd think the name of "The MOON" might offer a clue to what kind of celestial body it is..
I often wonder what stone-cold crazy maniacs like this looks like, but then I remember that we already have the answer
http://godless.biz/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/raybananajpg.jpeg
Posted by: Stardrake
|
November 7, 2009 11:40 AM
maryanne @30, the only reason Rocky & Bullwinkle didn't find the Moon Men is that the Moon Men found them first!
And if NASA keeps this up, Gidney & Cloyd will return and SCROOCH US ALL!!!!111!!! OH NOES!!!!111!!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 7, 2009 11:41 AM
Nicely timed for Carl Sagan Day.
Posted by: Dianne | November 7, 2009 11:43 AM
So, is NASA doing anything, anything at all with the moon right now that might have triggered this rant or is she also stuck in the 1960s?
As far as the moon being a planet, it's my (possibly wrong) understanding that if the moon were a bit larger so that the point around which the earth and the moon orbited was outside the earth's surface, the system would be considered a double planet system rather than a planet moon system, so she's only a few million kilos or so off.
Posted by: Terence Lee | November 7, 2009 11:46 AM
She's not making sense. If NASA's actions bring about the end of the world, she should have nothing to fear... unless she's on the wrong end of god, haha.
Posted by: Will. M | November 7, 2009 11:47 AM
I'm rereading Dr. Sagan's book, The Demon Haunted World. In it he quotes Charles Darwin's introduction to The Descent of Man: "[I]gnorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." This poor lady has hit the trifecta of stupid: belief in the sky fairy, a total ignorance about the natural world, and an oblivious certainty that she's absolutely correct in her ravings. At least she's from Canada; that confirms to me that we don't have a monopoly on lunacy, as I was beginning to believe after recent tea-bagging events, G. Beck's and Limbaugh's and Dobbs' and Bachman's and Wilson's and Foxx's etc. ravings to their adoring fanatics.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 7, 2009 11:49 AM
Diane, this mission.
Posted by: Dianne | November 7, 2009 11:50 AM
Matthew 11:37 says: "The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field."
And while we're on the subject of non-sequitors, I'd like to add a couple of comments about Matthew 11:37. First, it shows the inerrancy of the Bible: The first line clearly predicts the mechanization of agriculture: the harvest is plenty even when few workers are needed to bring it in. The second line is an undeniable endorsement of open borders: Calling for workers to be allowed to go to the harvest field, even if the field is in the US and the workers in Mexico or the field in Germany and the workers in Turkey. Or wherever. There you have it Christians, support free immigration or you're going to HELL! (Muslims too insofar as Islam is based on Christianity and Judaism.)
Now I'm off to find verses that prove that Jesus wants you to support health care reform and vote Democratic. They must be there somewhere....
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 7, 2009 11:51 AM
No.
Posted by: Joel | November 7, 2009 11:53 AM
I have only three letters for that ... WTF?
Posted by: TheoDoersing | November 7, 2009 11:55 AM
Hank Fox said: "But thinking about it just now, I seem less inclined to believe that people who are ignorant and religious (or right-wing) are reachable.
How do the rest of you feel about it?"
What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Some (wo)men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here today. Which is the way she wants it- well, she gets it. I don't like it anymore than you...
Yeah, I know what you mean. She is apparently too lazy to learn any actually useful information, but has spent an enormous amount of time studying and obsessing over gibberish. She seems to have a better grasp for the english language than most lunar lunies and is capable of sending structured e-mails of crazy shit.
There is obviously no reaching some people. I wonder if there is a threshold one reaches after you've learned too much stupid. Is there no turning back after a certain percentage of your brain is filled with too much of the luminiferous ether?
People like her raise a legit question concerning what to do with people that are for all intensive purposes quite fucking nuts, but still apparently able to function somewhat and communicate somewhat socially.
Lots and lots of therapy and needs to be thrown her way as she's sitting safely in her padded cell for her own protection and the protection of others.
That's why I never wanted to be a psychologist. For every curable patient you get to help, you must waste weeks of your life trying to help people like her that probably don't think they have a problem in the first place.
Posted by: Heidi | November 7, 2009 11:56 AM
"NASA has an underground bunker with life support, the human race does not. Don't euthanize the human race by bombing planets!"
I think the more alarming matter is the collision of so many different strange conspiracy theories. You'd think with this kind of talent for frantically spreading misinformation, Tanja would have her own show on conservative talk radio.
Posted by: Stephen P | November 7, 2009 11:56 AM
I did once manage to convince someone that the alien spacecraft he was getting concerned about was actually the planet Jupiter. So not everyone is beyond help. But I don't think he was nearly as far-gone as this specimen.
I have a hypothesis (OK - wild guess) that these cranks divide into two groups. One group is suffering from a severe shortage of normal social contact. If you managed to meet them face-to-face and had time available you would stand some chance of getting through.
The other group has intensive social contact with a group that is just as short of marbles as they are. Your chance of getting anywhere with them is, I suspect, about as high as your chance of breaking into the Bank of England with a candy-floss.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 7, 2009 11:56 AM
'The Bible prophesied the moon would not give it's light at the end time at Matthew 24:27-29:
For just as the lightening comes from the west, so shall the coming of the son of man be ... the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.'
So what she 'bitchin about...jeebus is coming!
Unless she actually doubts the scuttlebutt about the rapture and is starting to realise a glimmer that life is rather precarious?
Of course her interpretation is beyond childish inanity but seemingly hailing from fundytropolis not surprising!
Posted by: Elaine | November 7, 2009 11:56 AM
OK, I have not studied astronomy since I was a teenager. I have not made any special effort to learn more about this story at all. And yet even I knew that NASA was going to shoot one small bomb into the southern polar region of the moon in order to study the plume of debris it kicked up and analyze it for the possibility of ice crystals, and that it was such a small bomb it would be less damaging than many of the meteorites that hit the moon all the time. I learned this from watching the dumbed-down cable TV news. Where does this lady get her news from, the voices that broadcast over the fillings in her teeth?
Posted by: Yelena | November 7, 2009 11:57 AM
Haven't had such a good laugh in a long time. This is precious!
Her biggest mistake was she forgot to send it to NASA. They will never find out how unthoughtful it is to bomb the moon.
Posted by: Scott M | November 7, 2009 11:57 AM
Lunacy. Sheer, complete, lunacy in every sense of the word. I really can't imagine how this person functions on a daily basis. She must spend all her time cowering in fear in her home.
Posted by: 1minion | November 7, 2009 11:58 AM
Sounds like something that ought to be at Christwire.org but all I could find there was something about NASA radiating monkeys. Darn.
Posted by: Lynna | November 7, 2009 11:58 AM
Oh, yes! Perfect description. I was looking for an apt description, but you beat me to it.
http://whtt.org/images/1294john_hagee_lg.jpg
http://www.insidesocal.com/outinhollywood/aaaaaafawell.jpg
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 7, 2009 11:59 AM
Mostly harmless (though someone said that about the Earth :) Needs more medication.
I thought the end-times were "good" and that hastening it would get everyone to heaven faster. These godbots need to make up their minds.
Posted by: ScottH | November 7, 2009 12:01 PM
@Elaine, not a bomb at all. Just a kinetic impact. There were no explosives involved in that project, except the ones required to get it off the Earth (rockets).
Posted by: edrowland | November 7, 2009 12:01 PM
What is the point of this?
I don't think reflects well upon the forces of goodness and niceness that a major spokesperson for Our Side seems to take a savage pleasure in mocking someone who clearly suffers from a major mentally illness.
Perhaps one could make an attempt to construct a mapping between the non-functional reasoning exhibited by this person and religious thinking in general.
Or perhaps one could focus attention on instances of similar reasoning that occur in media outlets with a significant audience.
Or perhaps one could make an argument that religion both permits, and encourages this type of thinking in people who would otherwise have healthy reasoning processes. That would be a dishonest argument, though. We all know that atheism isn't a cure for the disease that the author of this letter suffers from.
As is, this is a strawman argument. Holding this person up as a representative of religion is no more valid than holding up Moonwalk Conspiracy Theorists as representatives of the scientific community.
As is, this is distasteful in the extreme.
Posted by: Azrael_Rose | November 7, 2009 12:04 PM
I suppose the trigger event would most likely have been the (L)unar (CR)ater (O)bservation and (S)ensing (S)atellite mission designed to drop an expended rocket stage into the shadow of a crater likely to bear liquid water, but the impactors contained no explosives (indeed it spent a month or so in space deliberately expending all of its fuel) of any kind. It's already big enough to qualify, if it were in its own orbit about Sol instead of Earth and had cleared it's orbital path of other debris. However, the "double planet" suggestion would require it to be a multiple of its own mass rather than merely a "few million" kilograms heavier.Posted by: jolly wahlstrom | November 7, 2009 12:07 PM
I think her science fits in beautifully with the video of the woman explaining homeopathy. Maybe we could connect those two so they can write a science book together.
Posted by: wrongwayup | November 7, 2009 12:09 PM
I would have e-mailed back: tl;dr.
Posted by: Lynna | November 7, 2009 12:13 PM
On the side-topic of televangelists that Raven brought up, at least one of them has been denied tax-exempt status. Wow, a mini-victory. WCNC in South Carolina notes that the Inspirational Network corporation (CEO David Cerullo) was denied tax-exempt status by the State. Cerullo was paid more than 1.5 million in salary, his wife earned $150,00, and Cerullo's kids are also on the payroll.
Posted by: Flea | November 7, 2009 12:14 PM
Carl Sagan sent this from the afterlife, clearly.
Posted by: Ellestra | November 7, 2009 12:14 PM
@#11
Well, it's darker as there is no big, shiny Earth on the sky.
Posted by: Dianne | November 7, 2009 12:15 PM
However, the "double planet" suggestion would require it to be a multiple of its own mass rather than merely a "few million" kilograms heavier.
What's a few orders of magnitude more or less?
Posted by: Azrael_Rose | November 7, 2009 12:22 PM
In astronomy? Not so much. In particle physics? The whole frikkin' universe.I just don't want people going away with the idea that our dear Luna is such a lightweight that a few million kilos would knock her off her feet....
Posted by: The Pint
|
November 7, 2009 12:22 PM
Great. I think I just lost several dozen IQ points after reading that entire lunatic screed. Where the hell do these people come from?
Posted by: baconflavored | November 7, 2009 12:23 PM
Overheard on a city bus in Austin, Texas when I was in college. "The weather hasn't been right since they started shooting rockets into space and making holes in the atmosphere."
Posted by: reverted | November 7, 2009 12:27 PM
Well, everything about that was atrociously wrong. (Really, it's all "Not even wrong.")
I rather liked this section:
"That's not a good idea, as the bomb could push the moon out of orbit and cause part or all of it to crash, with a worst case senario [sic], to crash into the sun or the earth!"
There's just so much crazy in there, I don't even know where to start: like the required scale of bomb to get the Moon to crash into the Sun (even if it were possible, which it's not, since the Moon would be vaporized by such an explosion), especially in anything even remotely approaching time scales on the order of a human lifetime... or, for that matter, pretending that the Sun would even notice a Moon/Sun collision. Yeah, "worst case senario" my ass. LOL The Sun wouldn't even hiccup. It's like describing a mote of dust landing on your roof as a "worst case scenario".
Posted by: Kermit | November 7, 2009 12:27 PM
"DO YOU REALIZE BOMBING THE MOON COULD CAUSE THE SUDDEN DEATH OF EVERY LIVING THING ON EARTH, INCLUDING MANKIND. YOU COULD ALSO INTERFERE WITH THE MOON'S ABILITY TO LIGHT UP THE EARTH AT NIGHT, SO DON'T COMPROMISE THE PLANETS BY RECKLESSLY BOMBING THE MOON!"
I think most of you are missing the point. Not only might this have wiped out all life, but it could have also plunged us into darkness at night! I would *so hate to be dead in the dark.
I don't think that she is necessarily psychotic. Are these ideas any crazier than that of the birthers? Those folks are delusional, but surely not all of them are actually schizophrenic. They're, what, 20% or so of the US population? I think for some people reality is entirely a social construct, and looking to actual reality to determine what's real is as foreign a concept to them as ignoring the material world would be for us.
The US of A is real, right? Then so is Jee-yaa-sus. QED.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
November 7, 2009 12:31 PM
simply not edible (#15)
It was letting all the plants and animals that make up the ecology of the moon recharge so they would have enough energy to light the night for us! Duh?!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
edrowland (#70)
Oh, care to point out where PZ held her up as a representative of religion? I don't see it. Maybe the moon is beaming you special information? Oh, and your little comparison doesn't work because science has standards and safeguards against crazy whereas religion is all pulled out of people's backsides to begin with, so adding a little crazy of a different flavor doesn't do a thing to it.
Then don't look at it.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 7, 2009 12:31 PM
A little light hearted and harmless amusement. A reminder that there is a fine line between religious and insane. Because she sent this out and wanted many people to see it. As a test of how evil his phayngulites are. Because he doesn't take internet posts seriously. Because you need to know that some people can't be reached with logic.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 7, 2009 12:37 PM
You would have thought that the fact it can be difficult to tell the more extreme religious from the mentally ill would tell the religious something about the nature of their beliefs.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | November 7, 2009 12:38 PM
Lit'ry reference: No One May Ever Have the Same Knowledge Again: Letters to Mount Wilson Observatory 1915—1935.
It's a bit hasty to call this women "mentally ill," let alone "schizophrenic." Chances are she's a perfectly ordinary person, functional as any of us in everyday life. Does her job, volunteers, makes brownies for the grandkids, does the dishes, watches TV till bedtime.
That might be good news, might be bad news. There are people with this degree of misinformation all around us and all it takes to realize it is having just the (unpredictable) right conversation with them in the grocery line (where those exist) or at the laundromat or before the "on hold" music starts playing.
If only they'd change the channel now and then...
Posted by: Elaine | November 7, 2009 12:40 PM
@ScottH
Ah, see, there's the danger of getting my science news from cable idiots. They kept saying "NASA is going to bomb the moon," so I naturally assumed NASA was going to bomb the moon. But at least they made it clear NASA wasn't doing anything remotely harmful or dangerous which is better than the usual level of reporting.
Posted by: Joao | November 7, 2009 12:41 PM
"SUDDEN DEATH OF EVERY LIVING THING ON EARTH, INCLUDING MANKIND."
Which, mind you, is quite worse than killing every living thing on Earth, *except* for mankind.
Posted by: Taz | November 7, 2009 12:41 PM
I'm a little disappointed. After stating:
That's not a good idea, as the bomb could push the moon out of orbit and cause part or all of it to crash, with a worst case senario, to crash into the sun or the earth!
She explains why it would be bad if a chunk of the moon crashed into the Earth, but not why it would be bad if it crashed into the sun. My guess is, just like the bomb on the moon, it "could cause a large nuclear reaction" on the sun. Where would we be then, smart guys?
Posted by: Cruithne
|
November 7, 2009 12:43 PM
I just want to give her a cuddle and tell her it's all going to be OK. It makes me angry that religion exploits vulnerable people and preys upon their illness, making them suffer.
Posted by: llewelly | November 7, 2009 12:45 PM
We'd be in the dark, obviously.Posted by: OurDeadSelves | November 7, 2009 12:46 PM
A part of me really really really hopes this woman is clinically insane and not just willfully (and proudly) ignorant.
Posted by: Em FInn | November 7, 2009 12:46 PM
I suspect what we have here is 3 generations of home schooling.
I have a theory (casual usage, not scientific) that given the tendencies of fundies to homeschool, accept what their parents/ministers told them as absolute truth and to never admit to a lack of knowledge but rather to make up something idiotic on the spot, that the outcome (Today's PZ got mail) is almost inevitable over time frames of 3 generations.
Posted by: Keelyn | November 7, 2009 12:46 PM
I hope she sent a copy of that to Warner Brothers, too. She must be terrified of Marvin the Martian. That seems to be the extent of her mentality.
Posted by: Elf Eye | November 7, 2009 12:47 PM
edrowland @ 70
How am I supposed to tell whether someone is religious or schizophrenic? Seriously? I mean, what do you say about somebody who believes stuff like this: some being made men out of dirt and women out of ribs; some being flooded the entire earth; some being manifested itself in a burning bush; some being became its own daddy/son; some being can shrivels trees just by cursing them; some being was executed but came back to life after a few days. Even if the writer is schizophrenic, PZ may do some good by holding up the mirror to supposedly sane people whose beliefs don't significantly differ from hers but who have so far failed to perceive how loopy their beliefs appear when you stand back and look at them.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 7, 2009 12:50 PM
Damn, I see everyone else beat me to the "Space: 1999" reference (a crappy show not really rescued by the Anderson model-building).
Posted by: Elaine | November 7, 2009 12:51 PM
@ Elf Eye
Even if the writer is schizophrenic, PZ may do some good by holding up the mirror to supposedly sane people whose beliefs don't significantly differ from hers but who have so far failed to perceive how loopy their beliefs appear when you stand back and look at them.
But didn't you know that religious people are the normal ones in this culture, and atheism takes too much "faith" to be believed?
Posted by: Heidi | November 7, 2009 12:53 PM
I think she's been talking to Glenn Moon.
Posted by: Zeno
|
November 7, 2009 12:55 PM
True story (not kidding at all): Several years ago I was at my grandmother's house with a bunch of other family members. I told them about a funny letter I had seen in the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner (a pioneer in the wingnut movement) that asked whether the earth was getting heavier because of the all of the construction going on in southern California (and, presumably, elsewhere). After a hearty round of laughter from most of the attendees, my aunt plaintively asked, "Well, is it?"
She really had no idea.
If she were still alive, this "bombing the moon" story would have scared the poor woman to death.
Posted by: JiminKy | November 7, 2009 12:55 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, meet President Sarah Palin's official science adviser!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 7, 2009 12:59 PM
I think JiminKy just won the thread..
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 7, 2009 12:59 PM
@OurDeadSelves #92: Agreed. The former is at least treatable.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 7, 2009 1:03 PM
You're a prophet, JiminKy. I get email from Sonia Jensen every week or two. Here's another one:
Posted by: sasqwatch | November 7, 2009 1:04 PM
She could be right. And unless you hold a couple advanced degrees in orbital mechanics and planetary geology, you should consider yourself unqualified to hold an informed opinion one way or the other. After all, we live in a democracy; such questions should be put to a vote, as science has been a captive of the world's smarty-pantses for too long. Teach the controversy.
Posted by: Blondin
|
November 7, 2009 1:06 PM
Dear Tania,
Blow it out Uranus!
Posted by: Anri | November 7, 2009 1:06 PM
edrowland sez:
To have a laugh.
Well, good thing we're not really working all that hard to star in the My Little Pony Holiday Special. As has been noted many times, goodness and niceness only get you so far. Sometimes you just have to call bat-shit insanity "bat-shit insanity" and be done with it.
Please do so - whatever floats your boat.
Again, feel free - if that makes you happy.
Well, thank goodness PZ didn't actually make that argument, then.
Um... where was that argument made by PZ? Could you quote it for me, I can't seem to find it.
Welcome to Pharyngula. You have the right to stay, you have the right to leave, you have the right to read - or not read - any post here, and the right to make (very nearly) any comment you'd like to.
You do not have the right to never be offended.
Posted by: C.W | November 7, 2009 1:08 PM
I wish PZ would stop mocking the disabled and stick to the merely stupid. These posts leave a foul aftertaste.
Posted by: Dr. P | November 7, 2009 1:09 PM
Lynna,
Okay. That was long enough to include the kitchen sink. But somehow, I couldn't find even a kitchen sink in there. I was impressed with the correct spelling
OK, so she's a batshit insane English Teacher--wait ,how do we know she's not Virginia Foxx?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 7, 2009 1:11 PM
Whatever makes you think this person is disabled? She's literate, she uses a computer, she's able to regularly assemble these bizarre newsletters, and she freely sends them out to random people and various heads of state.
She's no more disabled than is Pat Robertson or Rick Warren.
Posted by: sasqwatch | November 7, 2009 1:11 PM
oh yeah... almost forgot. #70 edrowland... I've always wanted to say this:
"Your concern has been noted".
Posted by: The Chemist | November 7, 2009 1:13 PM
I'll have what she's taking.
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | November 7, 2009 1:13 PM
Tanja, Tonia, Sonia... Does she spell her name differently on each email? 'Cos that's just as weird as the rest of it.
Posted by: Bone Oboe | November 7, 2009 1:14 PM
Isn't that sort of how "Thundarr the Barbarian" got started? Though, instead of a rocket it was a "run away planet" that destroyed the moon.
From Retro Junk Com:
It's bad that people are getting fuel for their manias from my Saturday morning cartoons of old.
Posted by: C.W | November 7, 2009 1:16 PM
Because she sounds exactly like a schizophrenic friend of mine, when he's off his meds. Except for the Bible quotes, that is.Posted by: Brian G | November 7, 2009 1:17 PM
Could somebody give me a basic rundown of what she said? I stopped after the second sentence.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 7, 2009 1:17 PM
I will write to my congresscritter to include in the next NASA budget a line item authorizing NASA to build underground bunkers with life support for the entire human race.
Posted by: HombreMoleculos | November 7, 2009 1:17 PM
I don't think this is even worth the time it takes to cut and paste it.
Posted by: Bone Oboe | November 7, 2009 1:25 PM
Or:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZlqqO_AyYA
"...Hmm, yes. Shallow and pedantic."
Posted by: Gilgamesh | November 7, 2009 1:27 PM
I think edrowland at #70 is correct. It is a very good possibility the woman has a mental health problem.
I have seen in the comments of many blogs the herd accepting the group think set by the blog writer and the first few comments, with succeeding comments trying to outdo each other. The end result is often 'judgements with facts not in evidence' and callous unkind remarks.
I am surprised a graduate student with her own blog hasn't poped into this thread to offer her usual erudite opinion which, from her past comments, might look like: 'Fuck that crazy bitch.'
Of course I don't know if email writer is sane or not, however, since many commenters seem to think she is 'crazy' why not take the higher road and not hold her up as a object of ridicule. Is a person with physical health problems also a subject for derision?
I have a question for PZ; did you ask the woman's permission before you published her email? If not, do you follow the same policy with peers, friends, ect. that send you email?
Before I get accused of it, no I do not condemn the derision of people like Jenny McCarthy or the 'beautiful cheerleader' who did not have dystonia. The willingly exposed their situations to the public view.
Please, think for yourselves. Isn't that encouraged by the Atheist/Sceptic philosophy? Leave the shrill hooting and screeching to the godbots.
Posted by: Rob in Finland | November 7, 2009 1:29 PM
mmmm... that is some good crazy.
Posted by: Don | November 7, 2009 1:32 PM
Good thing Tanja didn't hear about this,
http://www.cracked.com/article/153_nuke-moon-5-certifiably-insane-cold-war-projects/
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
November 7, 2009 1:34 PM
A bureaucratic boondoggle like NASA? Hah! As if. Everybody who has made an impartial study of the matter has concluded that only private industry can have real global extinction capabilities.
</libertarian>
Posted by: eddie | November 7, 2009 1:37 PM
kermit @83:
It's the fluoride ;-)
PS - PZ. please accept my facebook friend request.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 7, 2009 1:42 PM
Her memory's not so good either. That was The Youngbloods.
Posted by: Draken
|
November 7, 2009 1:46 PM
Damn, you beat me to it Sven.
Posted by: edrowland | November 7, 2009 2:03 PM
Exactly.
PZMeyers says
Thought/speech patterns that are associated with schizophrenia.
PZMeyers says
Whether she's similarly disabled is an interesting topic of discussion. She's certainly more disabled.Posted by: eddie | November 7, 2009 2:04 PM
It's not inconceivable that 20% of the US population are batshit and certifiably so. Almost 50% have below average IQ. The question is; compared to what? Does the overton window apply to a standard of sanity?
Also, gilgamesh, you are beneath contempt. Go away. In answer to one point, tho, this woman put herself in the public domain when she sent out the mass mailing. Read again that but up the page where it says that such stuff may be published.
Posted by: Ompompanoosuc | November 7, 2009 2:05 PM
Finally, someone said it.
Fucking NASA.
Posted by: intothewild | November 7, 2009 2:06 PM
As someone who struggles with a mental illness, I think that this very well could be an example of psychosis or mania: sending email to world leaders, an exaggerated sense of self-importance, illogical arguments and impassioned concern about random issues. This may not be so much about religious zeal as it is about someone who genuinely needs help.
That said, I avoid religion like a plague because it opens the door for delusional thinking.
Posted by: TheoDoersing | November 7, 2009 2:09 PM
I sometimes wish PZ would move (or at least allow people to maintain) to a forum.
It would be nice sometimes to be able to have a "thanks" button or something for all of the great comments and a boo-meter or something for the annoying comments.
Oh, and a super one-upper button or bitch-button or something like what Gilgamesh (#119) seems to think we need.
An irony meter would be cool too. I know, all I keep asking for is more, more, more!
Posted by: FlameDuck | November 7, 2009 2:10 PM
Yes. Yes they are. Believing that a black man with a Kenyan father, might have been born in Kenya, all evidence to the contrary, is nowhere near as crazy as believing that a 2 ton kinetic impact at 10,000 km/h, is enough to send the moon hurtling towards the earth and/or sun. It would be as absurd as suggesting Mike Tyson could be knocked out by a snowflake. There are several orders of magnitude between the two kinds of crazy.
Information. Most of us go through lives sheltered from the kind of ignorance that exists in this world. In all my 34 rotten years, I would have never, ever imagined running into someone who would honestly believe this kind of bullshit. She seriously thinks that "bombing" the moon is going to bring about the end of days, and quotes the Bible as evidence. Think about that for a while.She's chosen to take the word of bronze age shepherds, who imagined the stars "would fall to the earth, like figs from a tree" (Revelation 6:13), against the words of the scientists and engineers, who have actually been to the moon, and come back, on several occasions, in matters regarding astronomy.
I agree that she probably is suffering from some sort of personality disorder. I call it "religious belief", because the medical society largely disagrees with my assertion that it's a personality disorder, so unfortunately there is neither a suitable diagnosis or treatment.
Posted by: eddie | November 7, 2009 2:12 PM
It's truly pathetic when today's apologists are reduced to denying the similarity of religion and other forms of mental illness. It's the 'religion is special and beyond question' shit again.
The "...apart from all the bible quotes." bit was fucking priceless.
Posted by: raven | November 7, 2009 2:15 PM
You have made the predictable No True Scotman fallacy argument.
In point of fact, her delusions are no wackier than fundie xians. The earth is 6,00 years old, countless demons roam the earth doing stuff, Noah had a boatload of dinosaurs, god loves us so much that he will show up any minute and destroy the earth and kill everyone, George Bush and Sarah Palin aren't morons, and so on. 26% of the fundies believe the earth is the center of the universe and the solar system. A few still think the earth is flat because it is in the bible. More than a few practice human child sacrifice by medical neglect.
It can be really difficult to tell mental illness apart from religions. In psychiatry, if one holds untrue and incoherent beliefs that are not the norm of a group, they are insane. If many people hold untrue and incoherent beliefs that are the norm of a group, they are given a different designation. It is known as...religion. {This isn't sarcasm or humor, this is straight mental health diagnostic criteria.}
Dumb fundie kook: As is, this is distasteful in the extreme. Your wacky beliefs are probably worse. Straight fundie delusions, refusal to think logically, plus massive amounts of hate and the desire to destroy the USA and set up a theocracy. At least this woman isn't threatening mass murder.
Posted by: Draken
|
November 7, 2009 2:19 PM
#129: sending email to world leaders
...like Dr PZ Myers. I, for one, welcome our new Cthulhian overlord.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 7, 2009 2:19 PM
You're smarter than this woman. You're also holier than Hitler and stronger than the skinny, uncoordinated kid on the playground who was always picked last for kickball teams.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
November 7, 2009 2:20 PM
"PZMeyers says"
Who?
Posted by: Torrie | November 7, 2009 2:21 PM
I bet L. Ron Hubbard is pissed this woman didn't become a Scientologist. She'd have been his best member!
Wow, this is a great example of why we must raise our children to be Atheists!
Only time can knock the nuttiness out of humans. I guess we have to relaize that modern man is not very old in universal time.
It would truly sick to be Tanja Jensen, hell i just worry about what I am having for dinner, couldn't imagine worrying about the moon and the end of life as we know it!
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 7, 2009 2:27 PM
You're also holier than Hitler - Martin Brock
Not true: Hitler was a theist, and so by definition holier than any atheist!
Posted by: C.W | November 7, 2009 2:28 PM
Really? It was? Schizophrenia is common, and there's a good chance one of your loved ones is among them. Religion may be compared to psychosis, but that's mostly rhetoric. Believers in general aren't really insane, most of them are just sheep trying to fit in.Posted by: Fernando Montelbon | November 7, 2009 2:30 PM
She doesn't have to worry - the moon already had a nuclear explosion ten years ago, and it flew off into space, and the people on the moonbase there had many adventures.
That is a pretty retro reference there. I actually liked that series to my shame... cheesy though it was.
Posted by: Crewvy
|
November 7, 2009 2:32 PM
And this gibbering idiot gets to breed and vote.
Be afraid Canada be very afraid.
Posted by: Gilgamesh | November 7, 2009 2:33 PM
@ eddie 127
Is contempt a good looking woman?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 7, 2009 2:39 PM
in that case, all of Rapture Ready is schizophrenic; they had exactly the same reaction to the moon bombingreligion and scientific illiteracy will do that to ya.
Posted by: Nes | November 7, 2009 2:40 PM
TheoDoersing@59:
It's "for all intents and purposes." This particular eggcorn is getting to be far too common. It's nearly as common as using "loose" (loose shoelaces) when "lose" (lose the game/don't lose that/lose weight) is meant. That one has become so prevalent that even I sometimes think that the correct spelling looks wrong!
Posted by: Gilgamesh | November 7, 2009 2:43 PM
@eddie 127
Eddie, are you refering to:
I did not see any threats of violence.
Posted by: C.W | November 7, 2009 2:47 PM
Agreed. Except for the mindless sheep, which is probably in the majority.Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 7, 2009 2:49 PM
Send stuff to me, I will post it if I feel like it. Unless you specifically state that you don't mind have your identity revealed, I will remove email, links, etc.
If you send me death threats, I won't do you that courtesy of removing the information that would make it possible to track you down.
Full identifying information was removed from Jensen's email, you may notice.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 7, 2009 3:00 PM
Hey Sonja Jensen, don't be askin' why!
You know you can't mess
With American Pride!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csj7vMKy4EI
Posted by: strangest brew | November 7, 2009 3:03 PM
The over focus on basically wrong science could well be a side effect of the presumed circles she dances in.
The fundy suss is not well known for accuracy...in anything!
That she also has symptomatic schizophrenic attitudes is not beyond belief.
The seemingly regular compulsions to write screeds to folks she believes are involved in the restricted view of her complaints and fears.
The compulsive obsessive desire to add scriptural notes that she thinks is relevant.
The dissociation between cause and effect.
The parody of what she thinks is vital information that she absorbs from headlines and internet sites, probably fundy orientated, which she might read but fails to comprehend, because the headline is what stays in her mind, lack of analysis forces her to add her own scenario and sub text.
The single line homilies that she got from a sentence from a pamphlet or an utterance from a another godbot, possibly church employed.
And obvious fear of things and phenomena that she fails to understand.
It seems classic, as mentioned in other posts here I know a sufferer from bi-polar/schizophrenic episodes.
It is not funny these folks are mentally tortured between the manic/stable phases.
On one of his more severe episodes he was picked up by police playing dodgems on his bike in a supermarket parking lot.
He was hospitalised in several hours, the first dept being an assessment 'lounge', unusually quick for a pick up after section request requirements are taken into consideration, must have been bad methinks!
A few of the patients in his assessment 'lounge' also had obsessive belief in scriptural and matters godly!
They were a 'type' that were regular through the doors.
They had the overwhelming need to 'preach' to anyone who was in earshot, only even slightly less coherently then the regular preachers of xian delusion.
Unfortunately it did get a little farcical not to mention hilarious when they started 'preaching' to each other at full volume.
The normal course was just flinging scriptural verses back and forth,it could and did easily escalate to fisty cuffs!
The staff had to separate them to opposite ends of the ward...it was a regular occurrence apparently.
So no change there then in the behaviour patterns amongst the truly afflicted!
And par for the fundy with a cause to pursue.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 7, 2009 3:04 PM
Knockgoats:
He was a politician who said pleasant things about religion (Christianity specifically) in public while excoriating it privately.
Posted by: Tony | November 7, 2009 3:04 PM
New favorite euphemism: "I've got a bomb lodged in my crater."
Posted by: Uncle Glenny
|
November 7, 2009 3:05 PM
She explains why it would be bad if a chunk of the moon crashed into the Earth, but not why it would be bad if it crashed into the sun.
No more tidal power generation. I assume ecological effects, also.
In Canada, she should be able to receive proper psychiatric care, right?
Posted by: Kevin Anthoney
|
November 7, 2009 3:05 PM
At least she didn't claim that the Moon bombing would interfere with her menstrual cycle!
Posted by: Wayne Robinson | November 7, 2009 3:15 PM
I was almost convinced by the random bits of scripture, and was almost thinking that she was right, until I got to the last sentence "Let's not interfere with the ecology of the Moon".
Posted by: Ragutis
|
November 7, 2009 3:25 PM
We had no choice but to bomb the Moon. It was a preemptive strike. What else were we to do when confronted with the threat of the Uranium Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator, send a wise-cracking rabbit?
We all know how that would turn out.
Posted by: raven | November 7, 2009 3:28 PM
Hitler was a Catholic who was never excommunicated. The RCC said a mass for his birthday every year and a mass for the dead after his demise.
More importantly, Hitler himself never killed anyone. It was all his willing followers, millions of good Lutherans and Catholics who did the wet work. Killing for jesus has always worked much better than killing for the numeral "zero".
Godwinned the thread already. Jeesh, at least Sonia has a good excuse for her missive and it has some pedagogical and entertainment values. I now know if the moon goes out, that god is coming any minute. NASA will put the moon out. Therefore NASA is working for god. Glad to hear it really, maybe they could ask god for an FTL drive.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 7, 2009 3:34 PM
fisticuffs ffs
Posted by: Uncle Glenny
|
November 7, 2009 3:39 PM
That one has become so prevalent that even I sometimes think that the correct spelling looks wrong!
Me too. I also developed problems with the vowels that seperate syllables in some words; it's rediculous.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
November 7, 2009 3:42 PM
@Gilgamesh #145: Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension before you decide to start diagnosing people as schizophrenic based on an email.
Posted by: FlameDuck | November 7, 2009 3:51 PM
#150. His parents were Catholic. He went to a Catholic school. He paid his dues to the Church. He considered "The Third Reich" was devised as the spiritual successor to the Holy Roman Empire, and The Roman Empire both of which were Catholic. He funded expeditions to search for relics like the "Holy Grail". How was he not a Catholic?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 7, 2009 3:51 PM
Tanya/Tanja/Sonia/Whatever is jealous because the American NASA is capable of blowing up the Moon while the Canadian Space Agency (or L'Agence Spatiale Canadienne) can't.
Posted by: TheoDoersing | November 7, 2009 4:04 PM
@Nes (#144)
Thanks for the correction. I briefly thought about that phrase and decided I was too lazy to look it up before commenting.
Now I know. And knowing is half the battle! (The other half would be getting myself to give enough of a shit to look it up so I don't look stupid.)
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | November 7, 2009 4:12 PM
You may not want to hear this, but if she needs to be institutionalized, then probably half of all people do.
She is average. This is not fringe crazy stuff, this is average.
MOST people don't understand the true relationship of the earth, moon, sun, etc. Most people won't recognize "the sun revolves around the earth" as being a false statement.
Some examples:
The mother of a friend, a functioning, working, house-owning adult once said to me "I think this funny weather and long winter is because of al those space shuttles they keep sending up."
One night, looking through my scope at jupiter's moons on a city street, the neighborhood passers-by all wanted to know what I was looking at. Some took peeks, etc.
Not ONE understood. Not ONE person could understand the concept that Jupiter was another planet, and that they were looking at a planet and four of its moons circling it. The closest anyone got was one man who told a friend that I was looking at "another moon."
The average person just doesn't have a clue, period, and that's why they believe in crop circles, think the X-Files was a documentary, go to CHURCH, think that Obama is a socialist, think that socialist is a synonym for communist, "islamofascist" and atheist, etc.
My friend whose mother I mentioned above has an average IQ, literally. 100 IQ, he showed me is test result. He has never, in his 42 years, read a book. Not one book. Ever.
The only difference between this woman and the average person is that she is literate enough to have put down her thoughts into type. You hear this kind of crazy shit every day talking to average people.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
November 7, 2009 4:17 PM
Martin Brock @ #150:
Really? So Hitler excoriated religion privately? I rather doubt that, but if true it would be interesting to know.Do you have a credible source to cite (or link to)? Or is it more like one of those churchy "I heard it from a guy, who heard it from a guy, etc." things? Like how Tanja "heard" that NASA has sent an undetonated bomb into a Lunar crater, or how NASA has secret underground shelter with "life support"?
Posted by: sasqwatch | November 7, 2009 4:25 PM
#164 Zetetic:
How do you know that Martin Brock is not, in fact, Alois Brunner?
Posted by: EMJ | November 7, 2009 4:28 PM
As a current resident of British Columbia, I just want to convey my apologies. We're mostly very sane and rational people.
Posted by: jpf | November 7, 2009 4:32 PM
The Cross on the Moon Foundation:
Posted by: Ian | November 7, 2009 4:35 PM
You know what... Scientists are always doing crazy things like blowing things up. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that they have decided to blow up the moon. Thank heavens we have scripture to save us and to tell us that blowing up the moon would have consequences. Serious consequences.
Posted by: daveau
|
November 7, 2009 4:42 PM
She spelled "its" wrong.
Posted by: jpf | November 7, 2009 4:56 PM
I wonder if Sonia's heard about professor Alexander Abian's plan to destroy the moon? Someone notify her! NASA dismissed the plan while Abian was alive, yet now they are carrying it out!
Posted by: Lynna | November 7, 2009 4:56 PM
By the logic of that last sentence, they should be funding a project to put sculptures of a lot of scientists and engineers on the moon.Posted by: Hinemoana | November 7, 2009 4:58 PM
lol. I work part ime at an observatory/planetaruim and we get letters/phonecalls/people like this coming in all the time. The really 'good' ones we stick up on the office wall to giggle at.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
November 7, 2009 5:10 PM
Gilgamesh (#119)
Yeah, let's not criticize the crazies cuz treating them like everyone else is just plain mean.
If they're also completely irrational, sure! Why not? We can be sorry for someone's misfortune at the same time we mock their foolishness.
Posted by: Porco Dio | November 7, 2009 5:33 PM
1 extra comment in this insane thread.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
November 7, 2009 5:56 PM
I think that the poor woman probably is schizophrenic or suffering from some kind of mental disorder.
And I think that not because of the actual content of her screed, but because of its presentation. The nutty ill-educated home bible-schooled morans (sic) aren't able to write with such clarity and literacy. There are only minor lapses - an "it's" for an "its".
Posted by: Ian | November 7, 2009 5:57 PM
But she at least has scripture on her side so she might be right. Besides, I think blowing up the moon is probably a bad idea, even though it would handle the lycanthrope problem. Maybe we should just let scientists know pre-emptively, so to speak that they shouldn't now or in the future plan to blow up the moon, because we're against it. Unless you're for it?
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 7, 2009 6:06 PM
If you had not had the science info you had and had heard that NASA were bombing the moon, it could well convince you that they were out to destroy the moon. She logically goes through what could happen if that occurs. The only thing wrong with her first section is that she overestimates the power of the NASA "bomb" massively (and also assumes its a nuclear device).
As far as i'm concerned, the crazy only starts when she picks up her bible. Otherwise she just doesn't know her science.
Rapture ready are much more insane than she is, so is Ray Comfort. Where are we supposed to draw the line?????? and these people think WE are the crazy ones!1!!1!!!1!!!!eleventy!!
Posted by: Nastasie | November 7, 2009 6:28 PM
@ # 144
I also love "without further adieu", which I have been seeing a lot lately. And as a non-native speaker of English, I was perplexed at first, because my knowledge of French indicated that the pronunciation of "adieu" is nothing like "ado". But then someone explained to me that that's how many English speakers pronounce "adieu".
(Btw, does this qualify as an eggcorn?)
Posted by: Const | November 7, 2009 6:30 PM
The topic described in the post is rather actual for the previous USSR countries - I think so. Any thoughts about this?
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 7, 2009 6:59 PM
I am just a bit surprised that no one quoted this yet.
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon
Posted by: DominEditrix | November 7, 2009 7:16 PM
Hey! She missed that activating the Hadron Collider will knock out the entire world for 2 minutes and 47 seconds and throw all of our consciousnesses six months into the future. I know this is true because I saw it on TV. /episode of delusion brought on by too much prime time...
Seriously, I doubt that this woman is technically nuts; she sounds like a dozen people I've heard blathering about a variety of things: Antivaxxers, birthers, deathers, they're-trying-to-make-us-commies, many of whom also quote chapter and verse as "proof" of their stands. Hell, I've got e-mail from well-educated acquaintances who buy into computer virus rumours, X celebrity is gay/getting married/getting divorced, illegal immigrants are responsible for swine flu/the recession/unemployment ad nauseam. Some folk buy into anything wacky if it is presented to them with a straight face [see "Fox News".]
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 7, 2009 7:19 PM
Janine of many names, you are our resident expert at bands and lyrics, much, much more knowledgeable than this simple scientist. I bow to expertise and knowledge. *raises libation in salute*
Posted by: Bone Oboe | November 7, 2009 7:20 PM
How about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4218R-gBmts, or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9GBn3EG2Mw?
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 7, 2009 7:23 PM
The topic described in the post is rather actual for the previous USSR countries - I think so. Any thoughts about this? - Const
Yes: you're probably as much of a fruitcake as she is.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 7, 2009 7:24 PM
"Affect"? "Air supply"? "Human race"? "Bunker", for crying out loud? A collision with the moon would fucking sterilize the whole fucking planet to a depth of several fucking kilometers into the solid fucking rock! Tens of kilometers probably!
See comment 27. I really think her estimate of the size of the moon is off by several orders of magnitude.
Precisely 50 % have below-average IQ, by definition. The other half is above the average. That's why it's an average.
But she doesn't know it's merely an impact, let alone what its size is. She doesn't even have an idea how big the moon is.
As mentioned in comment 177, this is not a matter of craziness. It's a matter of ignorance.
It's a scary tale of where the Dunning-Kruger effect can lead. It should become a textbook example.
And Ms Jensen should go back to, like, the 6th year of school.
Posted by: kyhwana
|
November 7, 2009 7:34 PM
Damnit PZ, this garbage takes up half the page!
Posted by: Bone Oboe | November 7, 2009 7:53 PM
Maybe Ms./Mrs.(?) Jensen is related to the crazy rainbow sprinkler lady.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 7, 2009 7:58 PM
Well. I guess that just about covers it. Nothing more to say, is there? This looks like a good time to take a little nap.
Perchance to dream tremulously, threateningly, terminally.
Posted by: kopd | November 7, 2009 8:17 PM
Yeah, like when someone dives into a pool and leaves a hole in the water. Some people don't think, do they? I knew a guy who blamed a local cooling trend a few years back on a satellite in orbit that was supposedly blocking too much sunlight. All I could do was smile and nod.
Posted by: AJ | November 7, 2009 8:25 PM
That's funny.
I would like to see astronauts go to the moon again (supposedly the next trip is in 2020).
Posted by: JackC | November 7, 2009 9:02 PM
Odd as it may seem, I had a friend express similar "concern" one day just before LCROSS. Yes, he is rather religious and he is also in the US South. I had a minor advantage though - being an Engineer, I could at least talk him down with math.
It seemed to work but one can never be certain.
You don't have to be mentally disturbed to come up with this stuff. just a little bit closer to normal distribution.
JC
Posted by: Akiko | November 7, 2009 9:07 PM
She is not crazy ya'll, she is just stupid. I'm not being mean here, I am just stating a fact. Stupid people believe fairy tales like this and religion. They have the intellect of a child. The scary thin is she probably has children, drives a vehicle on the roads and VOTES.
Posted by: Epikt | November 7, 2009 9:31 PM
Nonsense. The bunker's not for employees. It's where we keep all the frozen alien corpses.
Don't worry. At our branch meeting last week, we decided not to.
Posted by: Gilgamesh | November 7, 2009 10:24 PM
@ NBWW
Please reread my entry. I was trying to be careful not to say she was mentally ill as I am only a layman in that regards, although I did say say something like: "very possibly". I see many posts calling her 'stupid' and worse, yet no admonition from you.
Tell you the truth, I regret having wrote the post. It did not accomplish my desired effect - it only seemed to A Noy people maybe even PZ, although overall, I've seen posts that took a worse thrashing for less.
My reasoning (I think) was right, I was only trying to inject some kindness and civility into a blistering dogpile, but, my I guess my methods were wrong.
Posted by: FlameDuck | November 7, 2009 10:26 PM
#167 Hahah, that's hilarious! I'm wondering about one thing tho'. Why do they need science to get the cross up there anyway? Why not just build one down here, and pray for God to magically teleport or fly it to the moon?
#175 Yes. Mental disorder, thy name is Religion.
#185 Ignorance is no defense in the eyes of the law. Nor is it a defense when claiming stupid bullshit that 5 minutes worth of Googling would've set straight. I didn't know the weight or the speed of impact either. Until I looked it up. I maintain that willfully ignorant people ought to trust the scientists and engineers at NASA over a 2000 year old book of fairytales written by fisherman.
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, is a fool ... shun him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not, is ignorant ... teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows, is asleep ... awaken him.
He who knows and knows that he knows, is a wise man ... follow him.
Posted by: Jim Flannery | November 7, 2009 11:31 PM
The original of the article she quotes is here. It's even longer and stupider.
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
November 7, 2009 11:32 PM
Being British Columbian, I feel like I should apologise for this loon. I will if you'd like me to.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 7, 2009 11:42 PM
No, Rachel, no apology is necessary. We realize that cabin fever does strange things to people, even Canadians. Stan Rogers wrote a song about it: Canol Road.
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
November 7, 2009 11:54 PM
Oh no, she's even from North Vancouver! That's my home town!
I promise, most people from North Van are really normal and cool and nice!
Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | November 8, 2009 1:20 AM
There are indeed many such "English" speakers on the North American continent. They'd be the same ones who refer to that painter who cut his ear off as "Van Go". As opposed to typical UK and Oz pronunciation of "ajew" and "Van Goff", which are obviously more accurate and culturally sensitive.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 8, 2009 1:48 AM
Richard Eis @177.
I'm fully agreeing, and that was my point whit the post you quote. Ignorance and extreme religiosity can make one look like a schizophrenic, so Tanja Jensen is as likely to be schizophrenic as is the rest of the crazy fundies; and we wouldn't be able to tell from just a single e-mail.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
November 8, 2009 3:20 AM
sasqwatch @ #165:
LOL! A good point! Although my question doesn't rule out that possibility, I merely asked him for a citation.If he is Alois Brunner...well that would be even more interesting.
Aha!!! I knew it!!!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epikt @ #193:
Of course not, the Earth is where the head cabal still keeps all of their stuff. Of course after the Mars colony gets built.......;-)
Posted by: David McNerney | November 8, 2009 4:42 AM
Teach the controversy!
Posted by: Dan | November 8, 2009 5:02 AM
It's sad when religion gets hold of someone who needs treatment for mental illness. I hope she's receiving more treatment than the love of Jesus.
I pity the religious at their best, this poor girl is heart breaking.
Posted by: Ian | November 8, 2009 5:33 AM
"I was only trying to inject some kindness and civility into a blistering dogpile"
Right. Because whenever I see a blistering dogpile my first instinct is to say "It wouldn't be all that bad really if only it had a bit of kindness and civility injected into it."
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | November 8, 2009 6:10 AM
FlameDuck wrote:
She's chosen to take the word of bronze age shepherds, who imagined the stars "would fall to the earth, like figs from a tree" (Revelation 6:13), against the words of the scientists and engineers, who have actually been to the moon, and come back, on several occasions, in matters regarding astronomy.
I thought about it for a while and it's still dog bites man. Lots of people are clueless and irrational - what of it?
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | November 8, 2009 6:12 AM
Grogdammit, the second paragraph too was supposed to be inside the blockquote.
Posted by: llewelly | November 8, 2009 7:10 AM
They're not really "frozen alien corpses". That's just an expression. They're actually frozen human corpses. But each one contains a slowly maturing alien larva, which feasts on frozen human flesh as it grows ...
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | November 8, 2009 7:14 AM
I dunno how efficiently or evenly the energy would be spread, but the Moon's got enough potential energy to melt the entire crust many times over. The atmosphere and hydrosphere would just boil away.Posted by: Sili
|
November 8, 2009 7:58 AM
Only because it's distributed normally (which of course everything is in the limit of the Central Limit Theorem).But it's false in general. The median is that dividing line between the 50% above and the 50% below.
(We're 100 commenters, you have IQ 200, the rest of us 98 - average 100.)
(And just to make matters worse, I initially confused the median with the mode.)
Posted by: maryanne | November 8, 2009 8:06 AM
Caine #43,
I bow to your superior knowledge of Rocky and Bullwinkle! I had forgotten Moon Men Gidney and Cloyd . Mea Culpa.
On the subject of crazies who email and rant, they are fair game, mental health issues or not. PZ has not gone out of his way to solicit this crap just to make fun of a crazy person. When they come to you, they should expect a dose of reality.
Posted by: Bing | November 8, 2009 8:09 AM
That makes me very happy. I don't know why.
YEAH, NASA! DON'T DESTROY THE HUMAN RACE! OR AT LEAST DON'T START WITHOUT ME!!!
Come to think of it, she is fairly judicious in her use of CrAzY ChRiStIaN CaPs!!!!!1111@#11 Good on her.
HJ
Posted by: DuckPhup | November 8, 2009 8:10 AM
Re: FlameDuck @ 195...
Rubbish... such a person is not 'wise'. I know that you are quoting an old Persian proverb, and it sounds profound... but what you (they) have categorized as a 'wise man' is actually this...
It seems to me that the proverb is designed to falsely justify and legitimize priests... men who claim to know without having any valid basis for knowing. It confuses the ILLUSION of knowledge (belief) with ACTUAL knowledge... and everybody knows that even actual knowledge is 'provisional'... right?... everybody? (Never mind.)
I would suggest that that the proverb be updated with a different sentiment...
Posted by: JackC | November 8, 2009 10:32 AM
DuckPhup - you saved me some typing there. Frankly, I think I would rather pay attention to someone that "knows not and knows they know not..." seems a lot more interesting to find things out than to blindly follow someone deluded.
Nice breakdown though.
JC
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 8, 2009 10:40 AM
raven: I'm not a fundie xian or any other sort of xian or a conventional theist of any description, and nothing I've written here suggests that I am. Why leap to unwarranted conclusions?
Posted by: Lola | November 8, 2009 10:57 AM
I don't know about you, but I'm going to start dating a NASA guy asap.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 8, 2009 11:29 AM
Zetetic: You can follow the sources cited at Wikipedia. Some historians question the most famous of these statements attributed to Hitler's secretaries and their translators, but Joseph Goebbels, Albert Speer and Friedrich Hossbach all report similar sentiments independently, and all were in a position to know.
Of course, Hitler said pleasant things about the religion of his public. So did Abraham Lincoln and other politicians that the irreligious routinely claim. You'll hardly find a successful politician anywhere who didn't say pleasant things about religion in public, so these public pronouncements are practically meaningless.
I'm not suggesting that Hitler was an atheist. Humanity is not divided into evil theists and heroic atheists opposing their pernicious influence, except in the imagination of the heroic atheists. This dualistic moralizing is as silly as any other.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 8, 2009 12:38 PM
Sili:
IQ cannot be Normally distributed, because the domain of IQ is strictly positive.Everything is not Normally distributed in the limit of the Central Limit Theorem, because the theorem assumes a distribution with a definite mean and variance. Many (even "most" in a meaningful sense) distributions have no definite mean or variance. Cauchy's distribution is an instructive example.
Reality is notoriously non-Gaussian. The non-Gaussian nature of financial markets arguably explains the current financial disorder. See Taleb's book The Black Swan for example.
Posted by: Kevin Gallagher | November 8, 2009 12:49 PM
Bat shit crazy.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
November 8, 2009 3:42 PM
@ Martin Brock:
Thank you for replying.
That is interesting, although it seems (according to the Wiki entry you cited) that most of the claims for Hitler being critical of Christianity rather questionable.
The Goebbels quote seems to be the most likely to be valid, but it seems less like a condemnation of Christianity and more like a condemnation of the more peaceful and humanitarian elements in Christianity. In other words, that Hitler thought that Christianity wasn't militant enough, that it was "too soft" so to speak. The Wiki entry seems to imply that Hitler was approved of some more militant aspects of Islam and Shintoism (although it's not very clear on that point).
In fact, one of the sources of the Wiki article you cited expressly contradicts the position that Hitler was anti-Christian.
On the Trail of Bogus Quotes
Thank you for bringing it up, but the Wiki entry doesn't clearly demonstrate that Hitler was non-religious, or anti-Christian. Only that he had his own "interpretation" of what Christianity should be and disapproved of the some of the more peaceful interpretations of Christianity.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
November 8, 2009 4:42 PM
@ Martin Brock (again):
A couple last things to point out before running off to work.
You'll note that neither of the quotes listed in the wiki article actually quote Hitler directly. The quote from Goebbels, doesn't even rise to the level of hearsay since it's Goebbels expressing a personal opinion.
In it, Goebbels refers to Hitler as "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian." So here Goebbels is stating the Hitler was in fact deeply religious, but that he had problems with Christianity. It's not too clear in the Wiki article what exactly Goebbels himself meant (that's where the quote by Speer comes in).
The problem therefore is that the Goebbels quote especially can't be considered very conclusive since he wasn't even quoting Hitler directly. How much was Goebbels' opinion or personal feelings/desires? We have no way of knowing.
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 8, 2009 4:44 PM
Zetetic, If you want definitive proof that Hitler was zealously anti-Christian, after the fashion of P.Z. Meyers, I can't help you, but I've never suggested such a thing either. I only say that he was a politician and routinely spoke from both sides of his mouth about religion and everything else.
The Wiki article questions the Table Talk quotes, because some historians believe that translators could have embellished them, but multiple credible sources attest to the general sentiment, if not the specific quotations. The article is clear on this point.
"Holier than Hitler" is not a comparison of anyone to Hitler. It's like "larger than a gnat" or "quicker than a sloth". Hitler is the least holy of unholy historical icons. That's all. I'm not interested in the Us vs. Them dispute between atheists and theists. I didn't use the phrase to take sides in a sophomoric debate over whose ideological team includes Hitler.
The web is overflowing with rapture readiness, astrology and similar stuff. It's also full of pornography and pyramid schemes. Meyers could tell us what a waste of gray matter the porn sites are too, and I suppose he'd be right, but the exercise seems equally futile and hardly more intelligent than the porn sites themselves.
Posted by: BMS | November 8, 2009 5:23 PM
Dude.
It's Myers.
Posted by: James Smith, João Pessoa, Brazil | November 8, 2009 7:10 PM
Just when you think the religious reich has become as stupid and as insane as possible, someone like this comes along and show you how wrong you are. "Yes, we can be far more stupid than you thought!"
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 8, 2009 7:14 PM
You're right. It's Myers.
Posted by: Blair | November 8, 2009 8:54 PM
Carl Sagan would be dismayed to know little has changed regarding superstition and stupidity. Sonya (or Tanya) should give the lab rats a break and take their place. Then again, maybe she has already had a large blunt object inserted into her brain?
Posted by: Ates Goral | November 8, 2009 9:22 PM
Please please please tell us! Was the original e-mail in Comics Sans?
Posted by: Martin | November 8, 2009 10:47 PM
I'm pretty sure you got trolled.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
November 9, 2009 4:15 AM
@ Martin Brock:
You seem to be misinterpreting my motives for questioning your earlier statement and reference.
Knockgoats said @ #138:
Please note that Knockgoats only referred to Hitler as being religious.To which you replied @ #150:
Perhaps it may not have been your intention, but your wording strongly implies that Hitler wasn't religious at all, and that it was just a public facade.I questioned that claim since it seemed unlikely from what I knew about him (admittedly I'm no authority on Hitler) to say that he wasn't religious. Granted he probably wasn't as big on Christianity as he tried to appear to the German public, but there is a difference between making that claim that and saying that he wasn't religious in general.
The reason I pointed out the problems with your Wikipedia citation is that it actually contradicts what you had earlier said about Hitler "excoriating" religion privately. It clearly stated that Hitler had issues with some of Christianity, but there is no credible evidence that he wasn't religious. In fact the Goebbels quote specifically contradicts that claim. As for "Table Talk", it would appear that the book also doesn't contradict the notion that Hitler was religious either. Even if "Table Talk" is accepted as true, it still is primarily a criticism of Christianity, not of religion per se.
You state that you didn't want to start an "Us vs. Them dispute", but you are the one that responded to the observation that Hitler was religious, with a claim that obviously implied that he privately wasn't. I merely questioned that claim and so far the evidence to the claim that Hitler wasn't religious seems to be lacking. If it wasn't your intention to imply such a position then perhaps your earlier statement (at #150) should have been worded more clearly and avoided the confusion?
Posted by: Ian | November 9, 2009 4:17 AM
OMG, DUDE! If you read this email backwards, you can find excerpts from the Necronomicon and the Satanic Bible! Also, if you read it while you watch the Labyrinth, it sinks up... it's so eerie!
Posted by: TheThomas | November 9, 2009 6:13 AM
She seems sane enough. She seems to be speaking from inside a vacuum. She is detached from simple facts like: people already know what the bible says, and scientists don't follow scripture.
It seems to me like a very young person attaching the conglomeration of facts into a semi-coherent story. It's what we all do, but a particularly ignorant person doing it sounds like a raving lunatic.
Posted by: Stefftastic | November 9, 2009 7:02 AM
Reminds me of the rainbow lady.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8
Good luck with the crazy!
Posted by: Martin Brock | November 9, 2009 8:21 AM
Zetetic:
No. My statement says that Hitler was a politician who said different things about his religious beliefs to different people, and I explicitly note that he excoriated Christianity specifically, not religion generally, in private conversations. I don't assert the generality you attribute to me. I go out of my way not to assert it. You only want to dispute what you say I implied, so you impute it.I didn't raise the bit about Hitler's religiosity at all. I only responded to an assertion that Hitler was a theist by saying that he was a politician whose public pronouncements on religion are practically meaningless. My original statement had nothing to do with Hitler's religiosity. Others in the forum took the discussion in this direction.
No. I never say that he wasn't religious. I say that he excoriated religion (Christianity specifically) in private conversations, because credible historical evidence supports this assertion. I don't care what Hitler thought of religion. I'm not on "Hitler's team" regardless of what he thought. I'm not on Stalin's team or Pol Pot's or Jerry Falwell's or Pat Robertson's team either. The whole debate is infantile.Posted by: Lurker (Mostly) | November 9, 2009 9:48 AM
For those who care, the article she summarizes is here:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2274985/who_gave_nasa_permission_to_bomb_the.html
Posted by: Isa | November 9, 2009 11:15 AM
Ecology of the moon? Lights the night sky? Planet?
A+++++ would LOL again.
Posted by: Silena | November 9, 2009 12:48 PM
I agree...Fondue for everyone! And NASA should foot the bill, what's the cost of that to you guys? A pen design?...rofl
Posted by: Silena | November 9, 2009 12:53 PM
And if crazy lady jumps on me...It's a myth K...no pen...just a joke...and no biblical references...
Posted by: astrounit | November 9, 2009 1:04 PM
When any abject imbecile begins to talk, it doesn't take long before they turn into a liar.
Before the second syllable is uttered (or typed) the liar emerges.
They just don't know how to refrain from talking and therefore can't avoid lying.
They have a terrible TERRIBLE need to be able to speak out. Alas, as soon as they open their big mouths (or begin typing) they begin to make things up...
She "saw on the news on October 9" that "NASA has been bombing the moon" (and declares "you can't find water by bombing!")
Then she "heard" that "the bomb did not detonate and is lodged inside the moon's crater".
Presumably, that would be the one out of the humongukazillion craters of comparable size on the moon and larger. That particular one out of all those bigger than around 25 meters across.
Yeah, that was the one she probably meant.
Then she "heard" that NASA launched ANOTHER bomb to hit the same spot (on Halloween, nudge nudge)- to hit the FIRST dud bomb that lodged itself there that didn't go off as planned in the first place.
Fortunately, the second rocket malfunctioned too, so that no horrendous make-believe nuclear detonation took place, "perhaps causing a huge chunk of the moon to dislodge and hurtle through space."
That's not all.
This activity is BAAAAD. Why? Because "That's not a good idea, as the bomb could push the moon out of orbit and cause part or all of it to crash, with a worst case senario, to crash into the sun or the earth!"
That's fascinating.
If the slightest idea of the force involved to accelerate the mass contained in the Moon in one piece into a collision course with the Earth (let alone into the Sun, which is much harder to do than throwing it into interstellar space) ever entered that woman's head, she would suffer a stroke.
She explains: "A collision of moon rock with the earth could cause such a dust cloud, that it could affect the earth's atmosphere and destroy our air supply."
Feh. If the Moon ever crashed to Earth I don't think she would be much concerned with the effect on the atmosphere and her air supply while she bobbed on a global magma ocean.
Her chances would be much better if the Moon crashed into the Sun: she wouldn't notice a thing.
Then she suggests why NASA is so loose with throwing its bombs around: "NASA has an underground bunker with life support, the human race does not."
Aha! Now THAT'S really saying something.
Say, like, NASA is a selfish and completely thoughtless and incompassionate gubberment agency bursting at the seams with taxpayer's precious money, who has a nasty and nefarious habit of playing with weapons of mass destruction - and they've spent sufficiently large amounts of it to protect themselves against the consequences of their own experiments that go boom.
The firebug cowards.
Oh, and by the way: they're incredibly incompetent. Their rockets and bombs malfunction all the time. But one may rest assured their bunkers must be in nifty shape, self-contained, self-sufficient, hermetically sealed against the very most dire environmental insult.
Equipped with all the latest survival technology and the best cafeteria in the world, no doubt.
With that they could last for HOURS bobbing around on that magma ocean. Kind of like a Noah's Ark in Hell.
Of course, the imbecile must complete her treatise by delivering a strong spanking: "NASA, you don't have the right to destroy the human race by driving pieces of planets into space or into the earth, affecting us all."
Now that should put NASA in its place.
By golly gosh-darn-it.
It must obviously mean NASA is also incredibly dumb.
But, just to be absolutely sure her withering denunciation carries the appropriate weight, the spanking must be suitably leavened with supporting - uh - "evidence"...in the form of passages from scripture.
LOTS AND LOTS OF IT.
Right up the ass like an elephant enema's-worth. Near three times that of her "more pertinent" opening secular remarks.
Anybody knows that if an enema medicine exceeds the volume of the constipated crap that needs dislodging, it can't be very effective. A much lesser amount of ordinary clean warm water will be more effective.
Unfortunately, she cannot support her assertions with anything other than more crap.
She is unacquainted with the utility of clean water as much as she is factual evidence.
QED: IMBECILE.
QED: A LIAR.
Imbeciles are liars as soon as they begin speaking. Anyone can pick out example members of by far the most abundant variety very easily from their religious smell a mile away.
Hell, they recognize each other by that obnoxiously familiar stench.
An imbecile needs to talk, you see. And because she is an imbecile she needs to make stuff up. Because she needs to sound as if she is supplying reason and justification.
And they need to speak.
Why do they do that? Because they don't give a shit about anything else other than to support their solidly-encrusted world views. EVERYTHING hinges on them being able to weave a tale that coinicides with that. They totally ignore any concern that their lies may be found to be inconsistent with any factual evidence...
Because: 1. They have your ear - and in the best preacher tradition, that's all that matters; they've SEEN how effective preaching is on listeners countless times...lirterally ANY proposition can be sold to them...obviously that crap works, or it wouldn't be nearly so effective. And they love to show they can do it too.
And, 2. factual evidence can be modified to suit one's agenda; they've SEEN how to do it countless times, and it helps that an imbecile liar thinks that they are as aware of such evidence as anyone else, or even better acquainted with it. They're very well-prepared and studious, you know, so it never matters if facts get in the way. Show them any fact or evidence, and they'll smirk and sniff out what they consider to be a refutation.
Like imbeciles typically will, with LOTS AND LOTS of scripture. Elephant-Enema League. And they love to show everybody they can do it too.
Posted by: Johnny | November 9, 2009 1:20 PM
it was a kinetic bomb......Dumbasses....no explosives
Posted by: Mike | November 9, 2009 2:18 PM
Worst font in the world.
Posted by: izzy | November 9, 2009 3:32 PM
I'll keep my comment short and sweet:
LMFAO.
Posted by: Kali7 | November 9, 2009 5:59 PM
Wow. Religion and intelligence obviously don't mix - ever.
Posted by: Vlad | November 9, 2009 7:00 PM
Please PZ, tell us you didn't waste your time and energy reading the entire raving lunatic's diatribe. It was somewhat fun in the beginning, but for the life of me I couldn't get past the first damn bible quote. I wonder how does the person who wrote this survive all that concentrated stupidity...
Posted by: dorky joker | November 9, 2009 9:00 PM
What a LUNAtic!! tee hee hee
Posted by: crowepps | November 9, 2009 9:48 PM
The internet seems to have provided everyone with Hypergraphia with a ready-made audience for their compulsive composing. Fortunately, there's a delete button.
Posted by: fr33think3r.myopenid.com
|
November 9, 2009 9:57 PM
How do I get on that mailing list. (don't you dare)
Posted by: Sarmatae | November 10, 2009 3:19 AM
US flag won't be on the moon for much longer if North Korea has anything to say about it. She would probably get all apoplectic if she saw this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZIgda01k6o
Posted by: Zetetic
|
November 10, 2009 5:37 AM
@ Martin Brock @ #233:
I find it difficult to believe that even after I quoted your own line that caused the confusion, that you are still denying the implications of what you had actually typed at #150. Rather, you seem to be making assumptions about my own motives rather than simply admitting to how a badly worded phrase implied a meaning other than what you had intended.Very well then, let's look again at your comment from #150...
Please note that your sentence structure doesn't imply that he was criticizing Christianity in particular. Rather your sentence implies that Hitler said pleasant things about religion and Christianity in particular, but that he was critical of religion in general. You didn't actually specify that you meant he was primarily critical of Christianity until later at #233.Let's try an example using a similar sentence.
"Joe says lots of nice things about cars (especially Ford cars) in public while he is very critical of them privately."
For this sentence, which would you conclude?
A) Joe is specifically critical of Ford cars, but doesn't admit it in public.
B) Joe is critical of cars in general, but doesn't admit it in public.
Is it really that surprising to you if someone would conclude that the author intended to mean "B"?
Just to make my point further, at #233 you stated...
Now that statement is more along the lines of what you are now saying you had meant, and again I have no disagreement with it, but if you compare it to the earlier statement the implication changes greatly with the different wording.Since people can only try and interpret your meaning from the words you actually type in your posts, the structure of your sentence can make a big difference in the interpreted meaning. It's a common mistake that probably everyone makes now and then, and that was why I earlier pointed out that your wording at #150 implied a meaning other that what you seemed to have intended to state.
Where did I say, or imply that?It's unfortunate that we seem to have been talking past each other due to a badly typed phrase, but nowhere did I state that you were on "Hitler's team". I only questioned the specific claim that your statement at #150 had seemed to imply, albeit inadvertently. Then I later pointed out why your earlier statement had caused confusion.
Just because someone challenges a specific claim that you made (whether it was correctly interpreted or not), doesn't mean that they are trying to make broad accusations about you. I certainly wasn't, but you do seem to be making broad assumptions as to the motives of others.
Agreed, I was simply questioning a what seemed to be a specific claim that was at odds with what is known about Hitler. If there was a misunderstanding then so be it, at least now it's been cleared up.Posted by: baju
|
February 1, 2010 2:29 PM
a total ignorance about the natural world, and an oblivious certainty that she's absolutely correct in her ravings