Talk:Project Blue Beam

This Conspiracy theories related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Is this really cover worthy?[edit]

It's kind of short for a cover story.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I totally support it remaining a cover article - but, no doubt, it could and should be expanded. I'll look into it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

In fact it was lengthened quite a bit in the cover story process. There is no length requirement for a cover story, and no reason to have a length requirement that this article would fail - David Gerard (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This looks about the optimum length for an RW article. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ

^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

How would this unite all religions into one religion?[edit]

I highly doubt that Paganism merging with Christianity or Christianity merging with Islam or whatever else will bring a new order. I know some people will follow more than one path but I am not sure how it changes global social structure in a short time. Plus, what would NASA gain? I am sure NASA has better things to do than making images in the sky, i.e asteroid deflection. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

More BS by atheist fundamentalists[edit]

Would you trust hardcore atheists who think their government is good and always protecting their interests?

I would not, wise up people.^{— Unsigned, by: 83.142.248.242 / talk / contribs}

How does this comment relate to the article? Who are these 'hardcore atheists' and which is their government? Anna Livia (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources???[edit]

Entire swaths of this article need to be deleted. Holy shit. My eyes. This was hard to read from all the dumbass fiction contained within to the stupidfuck logic of retard-atheists with IQ too low to even register on a chart. Do people not understand that what is said in an article is TOTAL HORSESHIT without real sources unless it is common knowledge? C'mon now "rational Wiki"—do your damned job; y'know be RATIONAL. What kind of fucking lunatic wrote this article? It's one thing to cover a topic in an opinion piece with bias but it's an entirely different animal when you're trying to write some sort of "factual" piece and have virtually no sources as well as the frothing of dipshit-lunatics.^{— Unsigned, by: 2605:6000:57ca:cd00:1ca6:4f6:87ea:228a / talk / contribs}

What the fuck are you talking about? Scream!! (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The original source book for Project Blue Beam is hard to find, I know becase many years ago I spent some time looking for it. That's not to say that there is not a lot of chat and speculation on some parts of the net about it. If our anonymous poster can get hold of the original book that would be very useful.Bob ^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 12:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This page has twenty citations. WHAT EXACT PARTS DO YOU WANT MORE CITATIONS FOR!!?!?!? Gods fucking damnit are these idiots vague. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

NASA and the New World Order[edit]

(Not being a pop group)

There is no obvious connection between the two - the most NASA would wish to do is 'coordinate with other relevant bodies' (other space agencies, Standards Agencies (avoirdupois pounds or Troy pounds, Fahrenheit or Centigrade can make a big difference), arrangements for returning astronauts and equipment landing in various places/international waters (and being retrieved by passing ships) to go home, 'Dealing with Disasters' (returning construct in space causes damage to cities etc) and similar.

The main use of PBB - as an exercise in critical thinking ('what issues can you see with the theory, why are they issues and how would you arrange matters better?). Anna Livia (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Step two[edit]

I presume [1] and [2] would be relevant (Feasibility etc). Anna Livia (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)