Vikram Ramsundar

The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place.

Bill Kaysing has claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.017 percent (1 in 6000). The source of this information is a mystery; however, it would not surprise me if some engineer, in the early days of the program, came up with these numbers. Unfortunately for that poor engineer, saying something doesn't make it true. Consider that in 1901 Orville Wright was quoted as saying "man will not fly for 50 years". Two years later he would make the first successful airplane flight at Kitty Hawk, NC. Surely, had NASA believed the odds of success were so slim, they never would have proposed a moon landing in the first place. According to my calculations, I put the odds of success at 86 percent, but I have the advantage of hindsight (6 of 7 moon landing missions were completed successfully).

Every Apollo mission before number 11 was plagued by about 20,000 defects apiece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions.

This is the claim of hoax advocate Ralph Rene. I have no clue as to the source of Mr. Rene's information; however, his assertion is clear; the early missions had so many insurmountable problems that NASA decided to abandon the moon landings and fake it. Even if the data is accurate, there is a big difference between a "defect" and a "major technical problem". None of the Apollo missions, with the exception of number 13, experienced a major technical problem that prohibited the crews from successfully completing their missions. Also, the early Apollo flights were test missions designed specifically to shake out bugs in the hardware and procedures. Finally, the moon landings were far from flawless. There were numerous technical problems but, thanks to the skill of the flight controllers, engineers and astronauts, the problems were either corrected or circumvented such that the crews were able to complete their missions with amazing success.

The poor video quality of the first moon landings was a deliberate ploy so nobody could properly examine it.

The Apollo 11 television camera was a black-and-white, slow-scan TV with a scan rate of 10 frames-per-second at 320 lines-per-frame. In order to broadcast the images to the world, the pictures had to first be converted to the commercial TV standards. In the US, this was the EIA standard of 60 frames-per-second at 525 lines-per-frame. The pictures were displayed on a 10-inch black-and-white monitor and a vidicon camera was pointed at the screen and the pictures were scanned at the EIA standard. A number of peculiar image artifacts were seen on the images. One set of artifacts was produced by sunlight reflecting off the astronauts and the LM onto the TV camera's lens. These reflections produced the ghostly effects perceived by the public. Other prominent artifacts were the result of spots burnt into the monitor screens from which the optical conversions were produced.

There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures.

Any normal film would indeed melt if exposed to a temperature of 250<SUP>o</SUP> F; however, the film used was not ordinary film, and it was never exposed to this kind of temperature. Apollo astronauts used a special transparency film designed specifically, under a NASA contract, for hostile environments like the Moon. According to Kodak, the film would at worst begin to soften at 200<SUP>o</SUP> F, and would not melt until it reached at least 500<SUP>o</SUP> F. The cameras were also protected inside a special case designed to keep them cool. The situation on the airless Moon is much different than in your oven, for instance. Without convection or conduction, the only method of heat transfer is radiation. Radiative heat can be effectively directed away from an object by wrapping it in a material with a reflective surface, usually simply a white material. The camera casings, as well as most of the astronauts' clothing, were indeed white.

Every Apollo photograph appears to be perfectly composed, focused and exposed, despite the fact the astronauts used cameras without viewfinders and light meters.

The implication is that the astronauts could not have achieved this apparent level of perfection. The obvious answer is that they did not, as is evident by this badly underexposed example [see photo]. The photos to which the hoax advocates refer are publicity photos released by NASA. Surely, NASA isn't going to release the foul-ups and blunders. Also, what appears to be perfect composition is, in many cases, the result of cropping. If all the photographs were uncropped, the number, size and pattern of crosshairs would be identical in every photo, which clearly is not the case. I don't mean to take anything away from the astronauts because they performed a remarkable job, which can be explained in three words: practice, practice, practice. Perhaps no humans have ever been better prepared for a job than the Apollo astronauts.

The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.

This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of the Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid; however, they fail to recognize the difference between "seeing" stars and "photographing" stars. The stars were certainly visible to the astronauts standing on the Moon, and they could have recorded their images by increasing exposures, but the astronauts were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon.

Bill Kaysing claims that NASA has perpetrated the lie that stars cannot be seen in space to validate the lack of stars in the Apollo photos. This assertion is utterly ridiculous; in fact, NASA has released many photos in which stars are visible. Common among these are long-exposure nighttime photographs of aurora taken by space shuttle astronauts. This example [see photo] is a four-second exposure taken from the flight deck of the shuttle Endeavour.

There are several photographs of objects that are in shadows, yet they appear lighted and with surprising detail. Objects located in shadows should appear totally black.

The problem with this statement is that it fails to consider reflected sunlight. Next to the Sun, the largest source of light on the Moon is the lunar surface itself, which reflects large amounts of sunlight (see note below). Also, the Earth is a significant light source. If we factor in size and reflectivity, the Earth casts about 70 times as much light on the Moon as the Moon does on the Earth, and we are all familiar with how bright the Moon can be. These additional light sources provide the observed illumination.

NOTE: The luminosity of the Sun is 3.827x10<SUP>26</SUP> watts. At the Sun-Moon distance of 93 million miles, each square foot of surface area receives 126 watts of solar radiation; however, if the Sun is not directly overhead, its rays will strike the surface obliquely. If we assume the Sun is 30 degrees above the horizon, the radiation per square foot is reduced by 1/2. The Moon's surface reflects about 10% of the light it receives; therefore, each square foot of surface reflects approximately 6 watts of solar energy.

In many photographs the shadow side of the astronauts appear illuminated, while the shadow side of rocks appear totally black.

This Apollo 17 photograph [see photo] is a good example of the above hoax claim. The explanation is apparent from the photo itself. Look at the astronaut's feet and you will see that the shadow in this area is just as dark as that of the foreground rocks. The lunar surface acts as a reflector to illuminate the shadow side of the astronaut. At the elevation of the astronaut's feet, and the foreground rocks, this reflector surface is mostly covered by the adjacent shadows. However, at the elevation of the astronaut's head and torso, the shadows cover a much smaller percentage of the surface. For example, on a flat surface the angular distance from horizon to horizon is 180 degrees. At an elevation of five feet, a one-foot wide shadow subtends an angle of 11.4 degrees, or only 6% of the distance from horizon to horizon. At two inches above the ground, this shadow subtends an angle of 143 degrees, or nearly 80% of the surface.

Shadows cast on the lunar surface should be parallel. Some shadows in the Apollo photos are not parallel indicating more than one light source; thus, the photos are fakes.

Again there is a sound explanation; it is a simple a matter of perspective. A photo is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional world; hence, parallel lines may not appear as such on film. We all know how lines on a highway appear to diverge as they approach the observer, yet we know they are parallel. Another important factor that comes into play here is the slope of the ground. Let's consider two shadows - one cast on an upward slope and the other on a downward slope. If viewed from the side, these shadows would appear to go off in different directions. However, if viewed from high above, they would be seen as parallel. In other words, looks can be deceiving. There is no evidence of NASA trickery here.

In this example [see photo] the astronaut on the right is standing on a small rise. The sloping ground has caused his shadow to elongate and appear at a different angle than the shadow of the astronaut on the left. Also note, if two spotlights produced the shadows then each astronaut would have two shadows.

Many Apollo photographs show lighting "hot spots", as well as a darkening of the surface toward the horizon. Sunlight should not produce hot spots, nor should the surface fade in an airless environment.

The "hot spots" are the result of the lunar soil's tendency to reflect light back toward its source. There are many reasons for this, but it is mostly due to countless tiny glass spheres found in the lunar soil, and formed by meteorite impacts. When you see a photo taken "down sun", away from the Sun, you see what looks like a spotlight around the shadow's head. This is because the light is strongly reflected back toward the Sun, so the soil around the head of the shadow looks very bright. This phenomenon also explains why the surface fades so drastically toward the horizon. It is brightest near the foreground due to sunlight being preferentially reflected back toward the camera. Farther away, the sunlight is preferentially reflected away from the camera, making the ground look dark. This phenomenon can also be observed in wet grass on Earth, as spherical water droplets act like the glass spheres. The technical term for this phenomenon is Heiligenschein, and is the result of light refraction, reflection, and diffraction on the surface of and inside the glass spheres and/or water droplets. This Apollo 11 photo is very good example [see photo] of Heiligenschein.

Only two men walked on the Moon during each Apollo mission, yet there are photos in which the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

The Apollo astronauts carried cameras that were attached to the front of their spacesuits. In this Apollo 12 photograph of astronaut Alan Bean [see photo], taken by Pete Conrad, one can clearly see Bean's camera mounted to his chest. The astronauts aimed and operated the cameras while they remained in this mounting. If you look closely at Conrad's reflection in Bean's visor, you can see Conrad's camera, which he is operating with his right hand.

In an Apollo 11 photograph of Buzz Aldrin the horizon is located at eye level; however, if the camera was mounted to Neil Armstrong's chest, the horizon should be at chest level.

The referenced photograph is the most reproduced image in the entire Apollo archive [see photo]. The claim of the hoax advocates assumes that Aldrin and Armstrong were standing on level ground; however, if Armstrong were standing on higher ground, the apparent elevation of the horizon would rise accordingly. If we look at Armstrong's reflection in the visor, we see the horizon is located at his chest [see enlargement]. This shows Armstrong was indeed standing on higher ground with his chest located in approximately the same horizontal plane as Aldrin's eyes. Given this camera position, we see the horizon across Aldrin's eyes as expected.

The hoax advocates also point out that the top of Aldrin's backpack should not be visible if the camera was attached to Armstrong's chest. Again, the hoax advocates fail to recognize that Armstrong is standing on higher ground. In addition, Aldrin is leaning forward; thus, exposing the top of his backpack to the camera. Due to the weight of the astronauts' backpacks, a slight forward lean was required to maintain balance.

There is one photograph of an astronaut standing on the surface of the Moon in direct sunlight, yet he casts no shadow, which is impossible.

The photo to which the hoax advocates refer is one of astronaut John Young saluting the Stars and Stripes [see photo]. They often reference this photo as evidence of fraud; however, they are very wrong. Young's shadow is clearly visible on the ground below him and to the right (his left). How can his shadow not be attached to his body? The answer is simple; Young was leaping off the ground and was elevated about two feet when the photo was taken. There is also some very good corroborating video of the event. This is one of the most famous of the Apollo photos and it is surprising that the hoax advocates would be unfamiliar with the story behind the photograph.

Other comments I've heard about this particular photo include (1) the flag appears to be fluttering and (2) the flag's camera facing side should be shaded from the sun. The fluttering issue I will deal with later. As for the lighting issue, it seems obvious to me that the flag is angled to the right and toward the camera. With the sun to the right, the flag's camera facing side would be sunlit at a shallow angle, which agrees with the shadows on the flag itself.

Not one still photograph matches the video footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

This statement, made by David Percy, is entirely untrue. For evidence I submit the above-mentioned photograph of astronaut John Young [see photo]. There is some excellent corroborating video of the event captured in this still photo. In the video, the TV camera is positioned behind Young and to his right. The video shows a leaping John Young, the flag (which is not fluttering) and Charlie Duke, who took the photograph. There are other examples as well.

Mr. Percey claims that the triangular shaped piece of fabric located on the top of John Young's backpack, and seen in the still photo, does not appear in the video. This is not true - the tip of the fabric can be seen when one closely examines the video. Percey's claim fails to take into consideration the relative camera angles, the fact that Young in leaning forward, and the fact the fabric is attached at the front edge of the backpack.

If Neil Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who shot the video of him descending the ladder and taking his initial steps on the lunar surface?

The TV camera was stowed in an instrument pallet in the LM descent stage. When Armstrong was at the top of the ladder, he pulled a lanyard to swing open the pallet, which was hinged at the bottom. The TV camera, which was attached to it, also swung down. Buzz Aldrin then switched on the camera from the LM cabin. The camera was pointing at the ladder of the LM so that TV pictures of Armstrong's initial steps on the Moon could be relayed to the world. The camera was later removed from its mounting and placed on a tripod some 30 feet from the LM, where it was left unattended to cover the remainder of the moonwalk.

Two photographs show an identical mountain background, yet in one the Lunar Module is present while in the other the LM is absent. The mountain scene must be an artificial backdrop.

Clearly the photos were taken from different camera positions [see photos]. In one the LM is in the view, while in the other the LM is to the left of the camera. Due to the lack of an atmosphere, distant objects on the Moon appear clearer than they do on Earth; thus, the background mountains are more distant than they appear to be. As such, the change in camera position has an unperceivable affect on the appearance of the background. The argument of different camera positions is substantiated by (1) different foreground terrain and (2) parallax effects that become evident at close examination of the photographs.

Two video clips, claimed by NASA to have been taken at different locations many kilometers apart, show an identical hill.

There's an easy explanation for this: human error. The video clips to which the hoax advocates refer are from a documentary (not made by NASA) that accidentally used a wrong clip. This was a simple mistake, but not one made by NASA. According to NASA, the photos were actually taken about three minutes apart on the same hill.

Apollo 16 photographs show a rock with a clearly defined "C" marking on it. This "C" is probably a studio prop identification marking.

I do not deny that the rock certainly appears to have a "C" on it [see photo]; however, to suggest this is some sort of studio prop marking seems a bit far-fetched. Fortunately, someone else has already solved this mystery for us. An investigation by the Lunar Anomalies Web page has uncovered that the "C" is, in fact, no more than a hair or fiber that was likely on the paper when the print was made. This print was then scanned to produce the digital image seen on this, and other, Web pages. The original negatives have been found to be "clean" with no evidence of the infamous "C".

Crosshairs, etched into the cameras, are visible in the Apollo photos; however, in some images there are objects that appear to be in front of the crosshairs; an indication that the photos have been faked.

In all the examples I've seen, the crosshairs disappeared when crossing a brightly lit white object [see photo]. What's happening here is the intense light reflecting off the white surface is bleeding in around the crosshair and saturating the film; thus, obliterating the crosshair. This phenomenon is commonplace and is in no way evidence of fraud.

Some of the Apollo video shows the American flag fluttering. How can the flag flutter when there is no wind on the airless Moon?

This I find to be one of the more ridiculous observations. It is readily apparent that all the video showing a fluttering flag is one in which an astronaut is grasping the flagpole. He is obviously twisting or jostling the pole, which is making the flag move. In fact, in some video the motion of the flag is unlike anything we would see on Earth. In an atmosphere the motion of the flag would quickly dampen out due to air resistance. In some of the Apollo video we see the twisting motion of the pole resulting in a violent flapping motion in the flag with little dampening effect.

I've heard many hoax advocates claim that some of the Apollo photos show a fluttering flag. (How one can see a flag flutter in a still photograph is a mystery to me!) I can only guess that ripples and wrinkles in the flags are being perceived as wave motion. The flags where attached vertically at the pole and horizontally from a rod across the top. On some flights the astronauts did not fully extend the horizontal rod, so the flags had ripples in them. There is much video footage in which these rippled flags can be seen and, in all cases, they are motionless.

When astronaut Alan Shepard hit a golf ball on the Moon, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right, yet a slice is caused by uneven airflow over the ball.

This comment by Ralph Rene is another example of inadequate research, as well as evidence of a poor sense of humor. Near the end of Apollo 14's second and final EVA, Al Shepard pulls a PR stunt by hitting a pair of golf balls. He drops the first ball and takes a one-arm swing, topping the ball and burying it. He takes a second swing and pushes the ball about 2 or 3 feet, mostly along the line toward the TV camera. In Houston CAPCOM Fred Haise jokes "That looked like a slice to me, Al". Shepard's third swing finally connects and sends the ball off-camera to the right. He drops a second ball and connects again. Shepard says "Miles and miles and miles", Haise replies "Very good, Al".

To reach the Moon astronauts would have to travel through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, resulting in lethal doses of radiation.

This is a claim the hoax advocates often make, but it is a gross exaggeration and simply not supported by the data. Radiation was a definite concern for NASA before the first space flights, but they invested a great deal of research into it and determined the hazard was minimal. It took Apollo about an hour to pass through the radiation belts - once on the outbound trip and once again on the return trip. The total radiation dose received by the astronauts was about 2 rem. A person will experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem, and death with a dose of 300+ rem. Clearly the doses received fall well below anything that could be considered a significant risk. Despite claims that "shielding meters thick would have been needed", NASA found it unnecessary to provide any special radiation shielding. For more information, please refer to the following documents:

The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon and Radiation Plan for the Apollo Lunar Mission.

<CENTER>https://www.cs.tcd.ie/Stephen.Farrell/ipn/background/Braeunig/hoax.htm</CENTER><CENTER> </CENTER><CENTER>DID WE LAND ON THE MOON? </CENTER><CENTER>A Debunking of the Moon Hoax Theory </CENTER><CENTER> </CENTER>

On February 15, 2001 the FOX television network aired a program titled Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon? This program showed alleged evidence that NASA faked the moon landings. This hoax theory has been around for several years, but this is the first time it has been presented to such a wide audience. Since this Website, Rocket and Space Technology, is dedicated to the men and women who brought the moon landings to fruition, I feel the time is right for me to speak out on this topic.

This TV program capitalizes on America's fixation with government conspiracies by sensationalizing the notion that NASA perpetrated a multi-billion dollar hoax on the world. In my opinion, the FOX network acted irresponsibly by airing this program. What they produced is a TV show filled with sloppy research, scientific inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. To support such a absurd theory and to cast doubt in the minds of the American public is an insult to the courage of the astronauts and the brilliance of the engineers who worked to achieve mankind's greatest technological feat. FOX is apparently only concerned with ratings while exhibiting total disregard for the integrity of America's true heroes. Some of the most prominent advocates of the hoax theory are Bill Kaysing, author of We Never Went To The Moon, Ralph Rene, author of NASA Mooned America, and David Percy, co-author of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle Blowers. These men, and other hoax advocates, usually point to alleged anomalies in the Apollo photo and video record as evidence of their claims. The FOX program featured many of these claims while providing very little refuting evidence or testimony. Below are my comments refuting both the evidence presented in the TV program and other common hoax allegations. I invite you to draw your own conclusions, but I suspect you will find the facts speak for themselves.

I have to agree with you. I'm way too judgmental. Also, I'm just way too mental.

 

I'm happy to hear you are making life better for your constituents while keeping in mind "the big picture".

 

Please forgive me my offensive, critical nature. Thank you for helping me to grow in Krishna Consciousness.

 

Also, it's not "Mr. Ivy League", it's "Mr. Ivy League who barely managed to graduate after taking no notes and doing no homework his senior year".

 

I'm certainly no paragon of virtue or shining example to anybody. You, on the other hand, just might be an avadhut!

 

Dayal Nitai!!

There was no sarcasm intended in my reply to your posts, Prabhu. I am more aware of my innumerable faults than anyone else ever could, and as I wrote previously, I don't pretend to be even one scintilla better than what I know myself to be. I too have to thank you for stopping me right in my tracks earlier on, and in retrospect, I can definitely see why you did so.

Pranam

Its very hard and frustrating to talk to someone who isn't listening is all. Be honest, you haven't read most of the posts I've written, have you? You just think I'm an extremist little banner waver who doesn't deserve to be listened to, so why talk? My point is that you've thought that from the very moment that you saw this discussion posted. You've completely ignored the parts where I have explained how and why I came to these conclusions and why I want help understanding that and, frankly, being rude to me in the hopes that I'd go away hasn't helped at all.

With all due respect, Ms. Field, Samia isn't the one who stooped to vulgarity of the basest denomination with words like f***, b**** and w****, thereby evincing to the rest of the world what cheap stuff she was made of; on the contrary, *someone else* did precisely that. All along, she was thoroughly decent and civilised.

Give it a rest, Danielle. We've witnessed your debating skills and had a glance at your mental faculties. I cannot speak for others evidently but *my* gut reaction henceforth shall be to steer clear of you, as much as is humanly possible that is. Cheers.

It is all too likely that you are profitting (directly or indirectly) from the misery of others while providing a service of questionable value.

 

Not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination, simply an observation from my end - you are way too judgemental, try to become a tad more flexible. What is wasteful or inequitable in ensuring that the buses are on schedule, the conductors helpful, polite and friendly to members of the public, the drivers careful and efficient, and steering the company finances and treasury in a managerially sound and economically viable mode?

Also, the corporation for which I work has been sort of a pioneer in Mauritius with regards to running vehicles that are compliant with the prevalent environmental standards on the question of the minimisation of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.

Danielle Field is a lowlife scumbag for daring to use the atrocious type of expletives that she came up with in her now deleted replies to Samia. She also wrote an extraordinarily hostile private message to me, which I'm way too good-mannered to reproduce here. She is the archetype of the lunatic far-left extremist, and I suggest that she goes back to where she belongs, and refrains from interacting with us decent lot here. We have already given her more than enough of our precious time. She can rot in hell for eternity. We do not care.

An experienced cheater. My suspicions are confirmed.

 

Cheers!

 

You do nothing to my blood pressure. My *kids*, on the other hand...

An experienced cheater? Why? You're speaking about how I earn my daily bread in pejorative terms, and this is not nice.

It is high time to bury the hatchet. You have your take on existence and I have mine. To each his own, with tolerance of diversity and difference being the operative idea.

Unfortunately, it is the so-called "good things in life" that often lead to needing a liver transplant or quadruple-bypass heart surgery.

Not if one acts responsibly and uses reason and moderation whilst letting their hair down. Everything in life needs to be trammelled and balanced. Just a final word from me to you.

Truly, the Internet has facilitated this "Golden Age of Quarrel". We can meet people from all over the globe and insult them from the comforts of our own homes!!

 

Is that what you're here for? Peace, peace, peace, Mr. Ivy League. Not that I am scared of taking you on, but really of what use would that be? Winning pointless cyber battles is far, far from being my aim. Let us just ignore one another's posts. That would be wisest for both parties.

Ah! The reek of predjudice. Anti semitism, Islamaphobia as well I bet and some choice opinions on people of all creeds that differ from you own sectarian interests I'll warrant. You two really are filled with fear of your fellow humans aren't you? Fear for your own lives, you wretched fools! Prabhupada didn't fear the hippies but everyone told him they were demons and that they deserved to go to hell. You will never know true love like Prabhupada taught until you learn to confront those fears. By the way Samia, where's BDM these days? Good to see you striking out on your own, or has he still got his finger on your controls?

You know what, bla bla bla, bla bla bla. I am ready to bet that I mix and mingle with a more heterogeneous posse of friends and acquaintances than you do. I treat individuals the way they ought to be dealt with, i.e. with consideration and respect. That doesn't alter the fundamental truth about how communities behave as groups. Try living in an Arab land for a while, and you'll see what it means to be female in a Mohammedan context.

On another note, the role played by Semitic intellectual villains such as the two I cited earlier in the decline and weakening of the West is undeniable. Come on, use your brains Danielle, there are only 20 million Jews in the world approximately, and that is a negligible fraction of a percent, yet they literally own and possess the world economy. Do you really think that the breathtaking power which is wielded by this most ethnocentric of peoples came about without any planning and concerted effort on their part? THINK! I have no sectarian interests, just in passing. I am an agnostic (searching for truth, admittedly), so your potshot at me is ill-advised to say the least.

The Rupanuga letter was a dated letter that pertains ONLY to the disciples of Srila Prabhupada and even then that letter has been out-dated by more recent statements of Srila Prabhupada.

 

The fact is that there are many disciples of Sridhar Maharaja, Govinda Maharaja and others outside ISKCON all over the world.

 

To publish those personal letters of Srila Prabhupada publicly on international media at this point in time is totally callous, rude and offensive to the many Vaishnavas who are not disciples of Srila Prabhupada.

 

The editor at the sampradayasun is a rascal for publishing that rubbish in 2007 and flagrantly offending so many Vaishnavas who have no connection to ISKCON.

 

These clowns will have to live with their indiscretions for the rest of their life.

They have pissed their own bed and now they must lay in it.

As an offender myself, albeit of a different breed than the ones you're chiding here, I bow down to you, Guruvaniji.

Aw, you promised not to respond to my posts. Can I not trust you?

 

BTW, your buckshot hasn't come anywhere near me yet. You see, I'm a bit of an enigma - definitely not your stereotypical religious whacko. Oh, and you might like to know: your power-tripping really doesn't make you look superior. If you impress yourself with those material qualifications, then you establish yourself as inferior in every way. Just a little FYI.

Sorry for not keeping my word, but I just had to clear your misconception about my not taking life seriously. After all, you don't know me well enough to put forward such an opinion. I would never dare venture to write something like that about someone I've exchanged five internet messages with. I'm a lot more careful than that. Maybe being an accountant, I have an instinctive tendency to be prudent.

Just so you know, I am not here to impress myself or anyone else. I also have no need to feel superior or for that matter inferior to anybody. I am what I am, whether good or bad. Being an agnostic, everyday is a new learning occasion for me. I rarely commit myself to taking positions on most issues because we thrive and fare in an environment that is mostly grey, seldom black or white.

Okay, Sir, you have the last word, if that matters to you. Now I truly won't respond anymore. Please me on the head if I do. All the best in your endeavours.

Yes. It will roughly translate to eternal religion in english.

 

It is an alternate name for Hinduism that was coined about a hundred or so years ago by some patriotic Indians who disliked the label Hindu as the term - although old - had its origin from foreign sources.

 

The name caught on and some people prefer to use this label instead of Hinduism.

 

Cheers

Good answer, Shvu. There is no name as such that the Sanskrit writings have for Hinduism, since it does not relate to a single religious system. India has no majority religion, but rather a family of faiths that share certain common characteristics together with large variations between them. Advaita Vedanta, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism are the four principal preceptorial lines that originate in the subcontinent. Another, different division which also exists is that of the six darshanas, or philosophical systems which form the substratum of orthodox Indian thought. Buddhists and Jains also share many ideas with mainstream Hindus but these two traditions are generally taken as separate, since they are not based on the Vedas and Upanishads, which are about the only ancient texts that are accepted and revered by all Vedantic sects alike.

Vikram's egotistical and disgusting diatribe.

The truth always hurts, doesn't it, Beggar Maharaj? If I am so lowly, then whatever I come up with should be of little, or no consequence. Why then all this frenzy regarding my posts? Personally, anything that anyone could throw at me here would be just like water on a duck's back. Like Guruvaniji, I have a thick skin.

Moreover, unlike too many, I carry about no pretensions to piety, humility, purity etc. I am fully human, with many plus points and an even greater number of minus points. I don't believe in denying myself the good things in life, quite rightly so. And when the time comes for me to breathe my last, I shall do so jovially indeed, irrespective of whether that moment arrives on the morrow itself. Tough, but I won't sacrifice my present, which I can live, feel and relish in flesh and blood for an unknown, dubious and questionable hereafter. It simply runs counter to my intuition to adopt such a course of action.

Will he then take life seriously

I certainly do take life very seriously, SIR, maybe just not in the same way that you do. Do you mean to say that only those who are in the same boat as you are, i.e. a teeny, tiny percentage of humanity, have fulfilled existences? If that is what is to be read and comprehended in between your lines, then you tell me who is the more conceited of us two? But hey no, you will never admit to this, since you have the chutzpah to believe that you're fit to be an instructor to the wider world. Through observation of their behaviour with the public, I had always considered Hare Krishnas to be cabal of opportunistic, money-minded, grabbing, acquisitive, self-seeking hypocrites - occasionally though, I used to call that into question and sometimes even feel guilty about it. I do have to express my heartfelt thanks to you and your few buddies who rushed to your defence for reinforcing my conviction of what I basically thought of your club.

"Faschist", eh? Very educated.

 

"Real world"? So you are a professional cheater?

 

I work for the government. Is that "real world" enough for you?

 

Despite spending way too much time trying to cast pearls before swine such as yourself, I've managed to write a new agenda creation and publishing system (with streaming audio) for our Clerk of the Board, an evidence submission and document-encryption system for our Sheriff's office, a web-scraping XML generator for our District Attorney, and I troubleshoot many of the day-to-day IT emergencies for our organization.

 

Just what are *your* credentials again?

You ask a question, you bloody allow the other person the opportunity to reply to you. I have a million occupations to attend to, and it is not practical for me to keep checking whether some good-for-nothing mindless moron is continuously responding to what I post here. I can only do so in my own time.

You wanted to know *my* credentials. I'll happily oblige. I am a Chartered Certified Accountant, which is a British equivalent to your American CPA qualification. I studied in London and equally did my practical training over there, with a firm of accountants and auditors. I now live and work in my native Mauritius as a senior finance executive in the transportation industry.

For the record, only swines are base enough to refer to others as such, and please, spare me the pearls that you think you've got. They'll come in handy for you; I hadn't realised that I was so important. My postings are really driving up your BP, aren't they?

So the world was a cheerful and there were butterflies and rainbows, then out of the darkness came an evil beast named capitalism

Man has always enslaved other men and animals, it is one of the symptoms of our diseased state. Call it whatever you want but I stand by the fact that if you blame misery on a system you are in reality to scared to confront the true source of that misery.

I am a follower of no system created by man I address misery at its true source, Other Humans. Wake up ok

Excellent. Capitalism certainly has its numerous flaws but Communism hasn't a single virtue to its merit worth mentioning. It is a perverted, utopic notion which has not, can not and will not succeed, ever. As for Marx, he was the son of a converted Jew whose prime interest lay in setting the foundations for his own people to control the political and economic instruments of the European, and predominantly Christian, societies in which they dwelled. The Das Capital was written with this in mind, much in the same way that Freud for his part came up with his bogus theories about anal fixation and potty training. This ought to be evident to anyone who has done his homework.

People who live their lives on the basis of hearsay are the most pathetic fools of all.

Agreed.

I graduated medicine in 1983. I took my post-graduate course in medicine in 1984. Before that I graduated BS in Medical Technology. I took the licensure exam for physicians in 1985 and failed. I retook it again on December 1986. I got my license to practice the art of medicine on Jan 1987.

Great to hear. And yes, I said that many, but by no means all, full-time devotees have not had formal academic training. And since you're yourself not part of that lot, it should be plain to you that we have a bunch of nincompoops around, for the most part that is.

I am sorry about being such a windbag-but no philosophy has brought as much grief to mankind as Marxism.

Well put. To any thinking person, communism is the most repressive and murderous evil in the entire history of mankind. In excess of a hundred million human beings were taken out in Central and Eastern Europe by the minions of Lenin and Stalin. I have no time or inclination to develop a lengthy thesis here but the initial motive behind Marxism of the variety espoused by Leon Trotsky and his cohorts was nothing less than the overthrow of Czarist Russia.

Socialism is passe, and is an ideology which has failed on all counts. Those are are futilely attempting to revive it from the dustbins of history are only wasting their own time.

So, why do some devotees advocate that there is more than ONE real religion in the world?

More intolerance and fundamentalism! If this is reflective of standard Chaitanya Vaishnava thought, then the greatest act of piety one could do would be to save Krishna from the Hare Krishnas.

I have to say that the responses to anything other than what this thread was intended to be about in the first instance does not floor me at all. What this does demonstrate is that most Gaudiyas who participate on this forum are not willing to expose themselves to novel concepts and independent thought. I had never realised that people could be so closed-minded and have such entrenched, fossilized beliefs. Not so bewildering when one considers that a substantial number here haven't had a proper education and gone through the hoops of academia. I can only pity them.

gHari is my Guru (siksha), and is one of the *least* hostile persons on these forums. I won't tolerate anybody abusing him.

You are not here to tolerate or not tolerate anything. In any case, I was not talking to you. I do not give two hoots about what you do, say, or think. Don't butt in where you don't belong.

Sri Rama Jaya Rama Jaya Jaya Rama

This is the mantra which is chanted by those whose ishta-deva is Ramachandraji. In our times, if you want to explore the path of Rama worship and devotion, I would suggest you become acquainted with the Ramanandis, who are a branch of the Shri Sampradaya of Ramanuja. They are widely active in most parts of India, and more so in Ayodhya, the accepted birthplace of the greenish-hued deity.

Goswami Tulsidas, the composer of the famed Shri Ramacharitamanas in the Avadhi language, was initiated in the Ramananda sampradaya. He was a contemporary of the Gaudiya abhidheya-acharya, Srila Rupa Goswamipada.

My two paisa regarding your query.

Since your primary concern is to point out that you're a non-Vaishnava, why waste time in a Vaishnava forum?

Is this a Vaishnava forum? I didn't know that. Thanks for enlightening me. I was always under the impression that this was a generic Hindu/Vedic place for the exchange of ideas. But you've burst my blissfully ignorant bubble, buddy. Cheers for that.

Just one thing, though. If you Vaishnavas consider yourselves to be a cult, separate from the mainstream Hindu populace (except for the times when you run to us shamelessly begging for funds to finance your Ratha Yatras and Janmashtami celebrations), why has Parker dedicated such a monumental part of his Indiadivine site to things distinctly non-Gaudiya Vaishnava (Maha Shivaratri, Trailanga Baba, Swami Sivananda and so forth)? It seems to me that these forums are open to everyone, and going by the many topics under discussion here, I find it more than obvious that this is NOT just a Hare Krishna spot.