Newest Rumor Nonsense

cst-landing-stripThere were some recent reports about an “Alien Space Cathedral” that Scientogists built. Now if you are a Scientologist you might laugh it off (“aliens”? “cathedral”? WTF?) but keep in mind that most non-Scientologists have no clue about Scientology and just believe about anything. So here is some information: The symbol talked about in the media is the Church of Spiritual Technology’s corporate logo.  Because the facility is in such a remote area, the only way to it is by way of a nearby airstrip.  The corporate logo is carved into the ground to help pilots find the airstrip, as there is no control tower or air traffic control.  The logo is NOT visible from space!

The full story: http://www.scientologymyths.info/aliens/alien-space-cathedral.php

Advertisements

40 Comments

  1. The losers who make up stories about a new religion are being very silly. As a long time Scientologist, I can tell you that I have never heard about Xenu or Xemu or whatever they claim is the truth about Scientology. The alien story is so far fetched that it seems desperate. I tell you, if my church was really all about this, then I would have left it a long time ago.

  2. Swim. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix_z9hkIF1o

  3. No, I wouldn’t buy any of the negative things said about Scientology or any of the sensationalistic alien stories. It just makes me laugh. Scientologists are just like you and me. They don’t believe in aliens. Lol. Give me a break. They are just normal people who are trying to survive on this planet like anyone else. Aliens, xenu….. I mean really.

  4. THIS IS A MESSAGE TO PAT

    Except, Pat, I can actually show you countless posts and thousands upon thousands of critics, former members and independant scientologists. These are actual, quanitifiable numbers which is far closer to something tangable than “I just KNOW that it works” (which I see has been pointed out to you before, and cheerfully ignored, is the exact same rationale that can be given for voodoo). So I’ll happily give you links- I can show you a list of nearly 2000 members that are speaking out against scientology; I can show you the names associated with the growing movement of people that consider themselves scientologists but reject management; I can show you forums where children that have grown up in scientology share their experiences. I can GIVE you specifics.

    But if I gave you links where people are asking these questions and discussing such things, what could would it do? You ask me to give you specifics while ackowledging that you would ignore anything that doesn’t support the view that you already have, which is the very definition of closed-minded. I couldn’t imagine if more people were that way. Could you imagine if a scientist had such a mindset? Nothing would get done! They’d frame their experiments to only consider data that supports the conclusion that they’ve already reached! How can you consider your conclusion valid if you completely ignore any data that doesn’t support your decision? That’s ludicrus.

    I see no difference- BD didn’t stop scientist from answering, but he answered to a question that wasn’t directed to him. Much like you did. You just can’t admit that, which is odd to me.

    “You’re goal here appears to be making statements. and trolling.”
    Yeah, you resort to that a lot. It must be easier, I suppose.

  5. “Yes, the airstrip is easier to see than the logo (though smaller and it could be just anything, a road, a river bed etc). But the airstrip is not on Church property, the CST logo is.”

    To a decent pilot, it is not a road or a river bed- Have you ever known any pilots?

    Your claim that the logo helps the pilots find the airstrip just doesn’t make any sense. If you were to say that it was just a pretty decoration, I could accept that, but if the official claim of scientology is that it helps pilots find the airstrip, I’m not convinced.

    • I understand you are rejecting the mere thought that Scientologists might find it important to preserve their Scriptures even in the event of a major disaster that leaves civilization without the usual “guides” like radio towers or GPS or well trained pilots. And you know what: that’s up to you. I won’t try to convince you otherwise.

      – L

      • where, exactly, do I say that?
        although now that you mention it, it seems like a lot of money to spend for such an unlikely scenario.

      • Comment 2: https://bluebird931.wordpress.com

  6. Like they shouldn’t believe everything they read on the internet. That’s been around for awhile. Before that it was newspapers. Both are still true. Scientologists know what’s true because we’ve seen it work on being applied to life.

    • I didn’t realize that you were Louanne as well, noted.

      But that’s not what you said. When you said “keep in mind that most non-Scientologists have no clue about Scientology and just believe about anything” you sound very derisive towards non-scientologists. It seems that that’s the impression that many have that you’re not exactly dispelling.

      • It appears that this is a personal feeling and that you’re trying to speak for “everyone”. it’s a generality.

      • Do you mean like you speak for Louanne by answering questions directed to her or trying to enforce her rules? (I took a moment to look at your posts and realized that you’re not her!)

        Where, please, am I speaking for anyone but me?

      • When you decide that you speak as to what non-scientologists will or do feel is an un-truth and a generality and I didn’t answer any question you directed at Louanne specifically. (I looked)

      • how does summarizing what has beeb said by many others a generality? and even if it was, how can you dismiss it as untrue outright? that makes no sense whatsoever. you can’t take rhe position that im claiming a belief for others, not when you havwnt seen the countless posta online aaying the same thing.

        now you say that you didnt answer any question directed at louanne. how do you know that the question was not directed at her? you dont; and you’re incorrect in your assumption. I replied to her post with questions about it. yet, you decided that your assumption was fact and presented it as such. do you do that often? you also seem to try and enforce her “rule” a lot- just an observation.

      • There was one question specifically directed to Louanne. I did not answer it. When you ask a question without specifying who you want to answer it is open to anyone. Claiming falsely that I answered a question to Louanne (“I must ask, Louanne, where got the information that you’ve presented. How do YOU know the reason for the symbols?”) is an attempt to undermine. I didn’t buy it.

        It wasn’t until after she answered you that I told you the data you ask for was in the blog post (http://www.scientologymyths.info/aliens/alien-space-cathedral.php).

        Again, with the generalities (“said by many others”).

        Who is “many others”? Be specific.

      • You didn’t? So when I QUOTED Louanne and asked her a direct question responding to her comment (jan 5 10:40PM), you didn’t think that I was talking to Louanne when I replied?

        Or when I asked Louanne to clarify her comment about how “most non-Scientologists have no clue about Scientology and just believe about anything” (which has since been deleted) and you answered the question, you didn’t think I was talking to Louanne, then? How on earth can you answer as to what Louanne meant, even if you somehow thought it was not directed at her? Do you know what she was meaning well enough to answer for her?

        Let’s not forget the fact that you call me on a supposed generality while defending and agreeing with hers.

        And then, even when I TELL YOU that I wasn’t talking to you, you still defend your position with an administrative requirement that I need to specify who I would like to answer a question- even after I tell you that it wasn’t directed to you, you add a requirement for my comms cycle. How strange, especially from the person that once said, “This is between me and Scientist. If you can’t respect that communication cycle, BD, then I will hereafter cease any and all communication with you.”

        Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind the conversation, I just feel that your biases are far too strong for you to honestly consider any other point of view. You’re closed-minded, which makes actual discussion difficult.

        “Who is “many others”? Be specific.”
        Can I assume that you have not read the thousands upon thousands of blog posts and discussions asking these very questions? I can link to them, but would you actually READ the complaints and concerns of the countless posters and former scientologists that are asking the very same questions?
        I’ll be specific: the questions come from me, from many former members, from several “independent” scientologists (which I assume you discard outright) and from an easily found multitude of non-scientologists.
        Have you read and considered the position of the critics?

      • OMG. You did it again. “countless”, “thousands upon thousands”. So effing what? No, I don’t read the critics. Why should i? I know Scientology works so it would be pointless. Louanne had already answered the question. That is much different than asking Scientist a question which BD answered without letting Scientist answer. You should get your data straight. To be honest, I don’t see that you have the data I’m asking for. You’re goal here appears to be making statements. and trolling.

      • Drat, my reply is in the incorrect place. Louanne, would you be so kind as to delete my other post?

        THIS IS A MESSAGE TO PAT

        Except, Pat, I can actually show you countless posts and thousands upon thousands of critics, former members and independant scientologists. These are actual, quanitifiable numbers which is far closer to something tangable than “I just KNOW that it works” (which I see has been pointed out to you before, and cheerfully ignored, is the exact same rationale that can be given for voodoo). So I’ll happily give you links- I can show you a list of nearly 2000 members that are speaking out against scientology; I can show you the names associated with the growing movement of people that consider themselves scientologists but reject management; I can show you forums where children that have grown up in scientology share their experiences. I can GIVE you specifics.

        But if I gave you links where people are asking these questions and discussing such things, what could would it do? You ask me to give you specifics while ackowledging that you would ignore anything that doesn’t support the view that you already have, which is the very definition of closed-minded. I couldn’t imagine if more people were that way. Could you imagine if a scientist had such a mindset? Nothing would get done! They’d frame their experiments to only consider data that supports the conclusion that they’ve already reached! How can you consider your conclusion valid if you completely ignore any data that doesn’t support your decision? That’s ludicrus.

        I see no difference- BD didn’t stop scientist from answering, but he answered to a question that wasn’t directed to him. Much like you did. You just can’t admit that, which is odd to me.

        “You’re goal here appears to be making statements. and trolling.”
        Yeah, you resort to that a lot. It must be easier, I suppose.

      • You do raise an interesting question though, Pat. Is the experience of a voodoo priest, who knows voodoo works because it has worked for them, as valid of that of a scientologist who can only offer the same subjective experience (ie, “it worked for me”). Is there any difference between the two?

      • And you never did tell me, as I had asked, where in the blog post my questions were answered. Louanne apparently didn’t think so either when she actually discussed the concept.

    • The “Alien Space Cathedral” claim is almost funny, if it weren’t true that some people actually believe this crap.

      • Wouldn’t you agree that people tend to fill in information when information is kept from them? There are a lot of things in scientology that is not made available to the public- if the alien space cathedral claim isn’t true, it’s really no surprise that people will come up with it to compensate for the lack of transparency.

      • Yes, I agree that this is what is happening. It is one of the reasons why I created http://www.scientologymyths.info

      • Your site is nice and all (although I find much of the information suspect and certainly biased), but it does nothing to address the lack of transparency within the organization as a whole. If you officially speak for scientology, could you at least consider being more transparent about the very things people are most curious about?

      • @appless I don’t speak officially for Scientology but I link to official information, for example on http://www.scientologymyths.info which takes up a lot of what you (or those who want to create a “story” out of thin air) classify as “secret.”

      • but your website description says “responses from the church of scientology to critical articles and media reports”. but the responses aren’t really from the church? I’m just trying to understand what I’m seeing.

        Would you classify your information as unbiased, or do you feel that you have a bias in favor of?

  7. “Because the facility is in such a remote area, the only way to it is by way of a nearby airstrip”

    What about County Road C 56 A?

    Why does scientology have such a remote facility, out of curiosity? Are members allowed to see it?

    • That’s covered in the blog post.

      • where, exactly?

    • Another thing- the facility’s only 2 miles from the 104. It wouldn’t be hard to build a road.

      If the pilots aren’t able to fly by instruments (which, if you’ve ever worked with pilots, is the sign of a very inexperienced pilot) so they need markings etched into the ground, then they should really hire more experienced ones.

      But your story really doesn’t really add up. You say that the markings help the pilots find the airstrip, but if you actually LOOK at the site (google earth: 35°31’28.56″N 104°34’20.20″W) you’ll see that the airstrip is much easier to see than the relatively thin circles.

      I must ask, Louanne, where got the information that you’ve presented. How do YOU know the reason for the symbols?

      • Yes. It doesn’t strike you as odd that a “secret” facility would have such a huge tag on it? It’s nonsense. When the vault was built in about 15 or so years ago Scientologists had regular briefings about it. It’s a storage place, one of several, to preserve L. Ron Hubbards works. The location was chosen to make sure that the material is preserved for real, no matter what happens, earthquakes, whatever. And that it can be found easily from the air.

        BTW, I have a picture of the airstrip on my website: http://www.scientologymyths.info/aliens/airstrip.php

      • I see- so you can see that the airstrip is easier to see than the symbols?

        I think the “secret” tag is coming because the contents are closed off from the public. You tell me that your founder’s works are kept in there- am I allowed to go there, or is it closed to me?

      • I am sure you won’t be allowed in there and neither would I. What’s the sense of a secure storage space when you make a “museum” or tourist attraction out of it? The sealing of it was documented and at the time I saw photographs of it.

      • Yes, the airstrip is easier to see than the logo (though smaller and it could be just anything, a road, a river bed etc). But the airstrip is not on Church property, the CST logo is.

      • “What’s the sense of a secure storage space when you make a “museum” or tourist attraction out of it? The sealing of it was documented and at the time I saw photographs of it.”

        And yet, Fort Knox and the US mint allows public tours. My only point is that you can’t have this massive, bomb-proof area and seal it away from the public and not expect them to create (or, possibly, know) stories about it. Don’t you think that’s a bit naive?

      • “Yes, the airstrip is easier to see than the logo (though smaller and it could be just anything, a road, a river bed etc). But the airstrip is not on Church property, the CST logo is.”

        Not to a trained pilot, it couldn’t. Have you ever known any? Regardless, your comment above seems to contradict your original statement that “The corporate logo is carved into the ground to help pilots find the airstrip”.

        If I may ask a very related question; do you believe that L. Ron Hubbard will ever return to earth in a physical form?

      • @appless “Comment by appless on January 6, 2013 12:41 am
        “Fort Knox and the US mint allows public tours.”

        Both are production facilities not archival sites. Does it make sense to you that an archive with the sole purpose of preservation of information for a far away future would not fulfill its purpose if people trampled over it all day?

        “My only point is that you can’t have this massive, bomb-proof area and seal it away from the public and not expect them to create (or, possibly, know) stories about it.”

        I absolutely understand your point. This story was published as a pitch for selling a book and not because of any truth in it. CST and the vault are public knowledge since a long time, for those who care to do minimal research.

        “Don’t you think that’s a bit naive?”

        No, I think “Why bother?” because jerks will always make up stories, no matter what you say. For me it is important that there are copies of all Scientology knowledge that will be available many lifetimes into the future. It’s a religious purpose, not a tabloid perishable.

        – L

      • @appless “If I may ask a very related question; do you believe that L. Ron Hubbard will ever return to earth in a physical form?”

        No.

      • my understanding is that scientologists believe that Hubbard voluntarily died to continue his research, is that correct?

      • I suppose we’re left to agree to disagree on the utility of a closed archivsl site, then :)


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed

    Hermandad del Calvario en el altar de Ánimas - Mayo 2017

    Virgen de Montserrat en la Magdalena - Mayo 2017

    Santísimo Cristo de la Conversión en la Magdalena - Mayo 2017

    More Photos