Talk:The Spaceships of Ezekiel

Untitled

I'm curious to know if anyone actually has any evidence of Blumrich being a former NASA employee. The only information I can find out about him online relates to this book. (Weebull) 87.102.20.17 (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It is well-documented. NASA has a Technical Reports Server with a number of his articles and he obtained a number of U.S. patents that list him as being with NASA. Also, if you search newspapers (Highbeam.com, NewspaperArchive.com, News.Google.com) you will find many articles saying he was a NASA employee. 68.88.81.17 (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not A Novel

I removed a couple of references to Spaceships Of Ezekiel being a novel; it isn't, but I'm not certain what else it can be called. Non-fiction? Analysis? Theological study? Anyway, the main question is how to change the thing about it being a "novel stub", which of course it isn't. Should the stub tag be removed, or changed to something else? --Torak 22:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Belief, not theory

This in no way rises even to the level of hypothesis, much less theory. Since we are talking about a NASA scientist, it's important we use accurate words in order not to mislead readers in thinking this idea rises to the level of a scientific theory, like gravity or germ theory. Auntie E. 02:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not misleading at all. Regardless of how ridiculous his claims are, it's still called a theory. A belief means something else in the scientific world. See Ancient Astronaut Theory. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Which should be hypothesis really, not theory, no way is this a theory. Like Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis. But this book isn't science, it's about belief. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Blumrich's NASA title

I've just removed a reference [1] which was claimed to be an "on-line transcription from photocopy of article provided by NASA under FOIA request" whereas it's just a UP article on Spaceshipsofezekial.com. I note that he is not called Chief of NASA's Systems Layout Branch but "chief of the systems layout branch of the program development office at the Marshall Space Flight Center", something significantly different (and less grand). Dougweller (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The reference to the article in Impact of Science on Society, Oct-Dec 1974, p 335 calls him "chief of the Systems Layout Branch at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center" which although not as complete as the above, bascially agrees with it. On the basis of this, I'll reinstate the UPI article but without the claim about being a photocopy, and change the lead to the title given him there - it is on spaceshipsofexekial.com after all, and if there was any disagreement with it I'd expect to see that disagreement mentioned there. Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

NASA Articles by Blumrich

Here's some NASA articles by Blumrich from the NASA website: [2]Lung salad (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Vision of Ezekiel

The Vision of Ezekiel is nothing extraordinary, the animals representing Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter, inspired from Babylonian Astrology, that became transposed onto a Messianic Ideal and the Book of Ezekiel contains the lay-out prototype plan for a new Temple of Jerusalem following the Jews' liberation from Babylonian captivity by Cyrus The Great. This was when Messianic Speculation began and Apocalyptic literature took off Lung salad (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What does this have to do with this article, and what is your source for it anyway? Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Vision of Ezekiel was inspired by the Lamassu, a composite Babylonian mythological figure that included the features of a Man, an Ox and an Eagle. Sure would love to go back to those old books.Lung salad (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Just giving the origin behind the Old Testament story, as for the source - decades of reading theological/historical/archaeological books on the subject matter Lung salad (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't kept the books that I waded through in the past - a massive warehouse would be needed to accompish that, loads and loads of Biblical Commentaries - here's a very old book [3] that I think shows how old the traditional interpretation of the Vision of Ezekiel is Lung salad (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

As I hope you know, the main value of your knowledge here is your ability to find reliable sources. With 'here' meaning Wikipedia, but almost certainly not this article unless your sources discuss Blumrich's work. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I put this in the discussion page and not in the article. It's a matter of personal choice whether the interpretation of Ezekiel's Vision by mainstream historians should be included in the article. Bearing in mind most people who are interested in this book are totally ignorant of this aspect, it would not be such a bad thing (The Space Gods Revealed put things into historical context citing accurate interpretations when discussing Ancient Astronauts, and did not just provide an endless monologue of theories, which was the professional way of doing things) Lung salad (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, having the abiltity finding sources can be quite devastating Lung salad (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

C. P. S. Menon, in Early Astronomy and Cosmology: A Reconstruction of The Earliest Cosmic System; (Foreword by Prof. L. N. G. Filon, Allen and Unwin, 1932), interpreted the four beings in the Vision of Ezekiel as cherubs, quote:

"...there are the constellations associated with the solstices and equinoxes, the Lion of the summer solstice, and Bull of the vernal equinox, the Eagle, the early constellation that furnished the Nakshatras of the winter quarter, and perhaps the Babylonian scorpion-man of the autumnal equinox; in the Apocalypse of St John, the cherubs are called "living creatures" - no doubt, of the Zodiac. Similar constellations guarding the four quarters have been shown to exist in other countries."

Lung salad (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of personal choice, our policies at WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY make it clear that sources must discuss the subject. If you want to write an essay on the subject then fine, just not here. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The work by C. P. S. Menon dates from 1932, so it is not "Original Research", and the passage in Ezekiel predated the lifetime of J. F. Blumrich, and there are many articles on Wikipedia that do the same thing, compare modern gobbledygook with the original thing.Lung salad (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There are indeed many articles that don't adhere to policy. I'd love to be able to use sources that don't mention the subject to argue against the premise of the subject (or for it), but policy says we can't. Take it to WP:NORN if you want clarification. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I know what you're saying. Lung salad (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Blumrich's title

In the introdution it says; "The Spaceships of Ezekiel (1974) is a book by Josef F. Blumrich (March 17, 1913 – February 10, 2002)". However, given that it does not mention who he is, I therefore added that he was a NASA engineer, changing the sentence to reading; "The Spaceships of Ezekiel (1974) is a book by MASA engineer Josef F. Blumrich (March 17, 1913 – February 10, 2002)", however that was reverted? - Okama-San (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Okama-San:Because that sentence says "written while the author was chief of NASA's systems layout branch of the program development office at the Marshall Space Flight Center." That's more informative for a start, anything else is redundant. But go ahead and put it back if you want, but you'll need to move the wikilink to the first mention of NASA. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see that now. Strange how I did not se that sentence before. Is it recently added? Anyway, great, then I am satisfied.:) - Okama-San (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)