Talk:Project Blue Beam/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 15 April 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)


This is bringing in a lot of search engine traffic last month or so, worth expanding I think if people know about it. tmtoulouse 19:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of this before but after reading the page I think it sounds fantastic! GO PROJECT BLUE BEAM! Acei9 19:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
This site is growing rapidly! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It was made by CUR. Countdown till deletion and massive flaming.... -- (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


...what the fuck? I mean, I've heard some pretty whacked-out-insane conspiracy theories before - I once talked to a guy who thought the Pearl Harbor attack was a false flag operation by Australia - but this takes the cake. I'm tempted to call Poe on this one. I Eat Glue (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It buys into the entire conspiracy cluster. The gibbering appears quite believable as far as I can tell - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

...opinion please — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Opinion about what? If this is supposed to be some kind of "leaked" document, it is not - it looks like a scan of Serge Monast's book, or at least the text is from it. It is quoted here, for example.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There should be a warning somewhere on this page thats states the reader MUST be wearing a tin-foil hat to protect their brainwaves from Alien Nazi comboys.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 16:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thatis just lol[edit]

It's like a bad scifi— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 17:26, 15 May 2010‎ (UTC)

the reality[edit]

Notwithstanding the humor of this article, Project Blue Beam is real and existing *planned* multi-phase project.

If it weren't, there would be no significant testimony,no evidence, nor a need to publicly discredit it as a wild "conspiracy theory."

As it turns out, there is a modicum of testimony and supporting evidence.

Even if the project never actually gets completed, which of course is what the majority of humanity will aspire towards, the existence of a thorough plan should make those aware take pause.

It's worthy to note that it can take a leap of consciousness to go from being skeptical about such "wild" theories, to accepting them as at least a potential reality. Hence humor is a great way to break the ice. In this way, ironically, this article may actually increase awareness.

I recommend by starting with the original account by Serge Monast, and then branching from there for more information.

The rational person, upon reading all the information, will assess the probability of its truthfulness, and plan either way. Hence I wanted to include this perspective on rational wiki.

Thanks, and best of luck on your journey.— Unsigned, by: Drationalwiki / talk / contribs 05:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Entry point[edit]

This is bringing in search traffic, would be worth working on if anyone has knowledge/interest in the topic. tmtoulouse 17:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Did a quick polish. TinWiki has of course died, their forum has much undoubtedly useful information on it. is obviously the Canadian
BTW, how PITA would it be to put up the top search terms of each week or month regularly? - David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
They all come from reading log files, so it could be automated. I will think about it. tmtoulouse 18:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I can tell when I've been doing serious research for a RationalWiki article: I feel stupider - David Gerard (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
HA! If this is so secret how come it's not on Wikileaks?--BobSpring is sprung! 20:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Because the war in Afghanistan is a FALSE FLAG operation to DISTRACT Wikileaks with hundreds of thousands of pages of documents to go through - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Good one. Please add in some way to snartikle? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
This article I think works well just accurately describing the stupidity. I did chuck the quote into Conspiracy theory - David Gerard (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I hit French Wikipedia and cribbed from the article with the help of Google Trashlate. I can now confidently state that we have the best article on the topic and its originator in English - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I have moved the Monast bio to Serge Monast - apparently he's popular with Francophone conspiracists even if he's barely been heard of in the English-speaking world outside Project Blue Beam - David Gerard (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


I see Kenimg has volunteered to do CP's article. Can't wait to see 'Does NASA have machismo' cross-posts. I also like his self-fulfilling prophecy "I would love to see this article featured on the main page of Conservapedia." Like they'd have a choice otherwise. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I was joking when I said that. If Trent does run a regular search queries list, I predict Ken will be its most avid follower - David Gerard (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I see scope for Trent making a list of all our naughtiest articles so we can sit back and watch Ken create them over there. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Running my own crap site, I get to see all the server logs and they are quite comprehensive. It would indeed be great fun to see all RW's logs in detail, although that might divulge more personal information than we usually tolerate here. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 13:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


(moved from article)

Who is this idiot that claims almost all details of fundamentalist religion has been proven wrong. Blanket statements like that are proof that this clown just wants to mock people instead of using facts to back up this statement. Is everythiung they say true? of course not but specificsare in order needed otherwise as I stated the blanket statement means nothing except that we are probably dealing with an atheist. No big deal just showsarrogance and ignorance by making such a blanket statemenrt without suporting details so one can refute if needed.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Information on who writes our articles can be found here.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this article totally poorly written and not objective?— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

It's probably just you. Who said objectivity was a target? 22:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
If we were aiming for objectivity, the word "retarded" would be used far more often. Although it does need a little bit of polish in places. Scarlet A.pngbomination 00:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


Project Blue Beam is likely all bunk, but do we really need the snide remarks? Stick with the facts - those kinds of comments come off as immature and reduces credibility.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

See RW:SPOV. If you think that any individual example of snark is too much, please identify it.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm great at seeing correlations, how about you?[edit]

Oh, snap, I was born in 1983. I must be the simulated second coming of Jesus Antichrist! Aphoxema (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

T' web[edit]

I've noticed this getting some mention round the websphere, I wondered when there'd be some comments. 20:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Simulated second coming[edit]

I had a girlfriend like that once. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 14:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Not plausible[edit]

If the antichrist was going to use a government agency to take over the world, i really hope he would have chosen something a little more secretive and successful than NASA. I mean seriously, NASA? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

I dunno. NASA has done some pretty cool things, like landing menpeoples on the Moon and bringing most of them back alive, and those Mars robots were like totally cool and pwnsome a few years back. They also sent naked pictures of people into the near-galactic space, along with some music and instructions how to find us to destroy us. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The Mars rovers are still mostly going, too. Although I'm 80% sure Spirit is dead now, after getting stuck. And the next planned one looks awesome. Scarlet A.pngbomination 12:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
There's a live webcam in the clean room where they are assembling it:
Otherwise, BON has a point: NASA has had some management problems in the last decade (e.g. the cancelled Constellation program and, recently, the ballooning budget of the James Webb space telescope). Their chief problems seem to be political, though.
There's also the fact that for the average conspiracy theorist US citizen, spaceflight = NASA, ignoring the fact that there are private launch providers. If you really want a secret project, the military is the place to go, not NASA - it is a civilian and quite open agency. --ZooGuard (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it's all a tyop and it should be NSA?--BobSpring is sprung! 14:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Ha! NASA just want you to believe they're all cuddly and friendly. Meanwhile there's the secret launch facility in the Nevada desert, the landing site at Nazca and don't get me started on their cover-up of the massive alien bases on the moon. --Ψ GremlinPrata! 14:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
But they say the camera is down occasionally for "maintenance"... so this is when they bring the aliens into the room or load it with nuclear weapons? (Good find, BTW!) Scarlet A.pngbomination 16:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm now trying to come up with a conspiracy theory involving the TSA. (They're secretly not child molestors or something.) - David Gerard (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Rivaling Poe's Law[edit]

This is now starting to rival Poe's Law not only in terms of search engine traffic but also link ins from blogs/forums. We are now the go to site for this term, as the consistent random edits are probably showing. Anyone care enough to bump up its quality some? Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed it. There's also "Atheism FAQ for the Newly Deconverted" & "9/11 conspiracy theories". 16:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I look at icerocket on several things daily. 16:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Those do get some attention, and agree they are strong articles and placement that merit attention, however this page (for whatever reason) is pulling in significantly more traffic the last few months based on server logs. It currently ranks number three in pages that actually serve as entry points to the site. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
see #T' web above predicted from icerocket. 17:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Any suggestions on how to improve it?--ZooGuard (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea. Although perhaps assembling quotes and more primary sources. It's too unbelievable to merely report, people will assume it's parody. Scarlet A.pngbomination 01:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
While searching in Spanish I turned this up. Surprisingly it's in English but has more information than anybody would ever want. (There are quite a few references in Spanish to Proyecto Rayo azul--BobSpring is sprung! 08:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought I'd exhausted the resources without actually getting a copy of the book in French. Wow - David Gerard (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The reason we're the go-to is because it doesn't pass Wikipedia notability requirements and was deleted in September. It was a bad translation of the Romanian Wikipedia article, which is ... largely based on ours. Yay niche! (I have left a note.) Does Serge Monast get any appreciable number of hits/links? - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I just had a look through Bob_M's first link. Everything there appears to be sourced from the two English-language articles that are now found on educate-yourself. Most of the other English-language sources I can find are clearly sourced from those as well (and I suspect several of our references are redigestions of those files too). Is anyone reading this able to obtain Monast's original French language book? (Sadly not reissued by Delacroix.) 'Cos that's the only source that I know we haven't used - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

A note on sources[edit]

I've put the section on sources as the first thing after the intro, because how these things propagate is itself educational and missiony. The theory that conspiracy theorists treat sheer quantity the way altmed advocates treat tradition is my very own. And, yet again, we appear to have become the story - David Gerard (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't really see anything else to add unless we can get hold of the original book. Is it possible for this to go silver with what we have now? - David Gerard (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The punchline[edit]

Oh, good fucking Lord. Where did Monast's squirrel-infested brain get this stuff from? ... ... ... [1]. - David Gerard (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have redacted your post under grounds of SPOILER ALERT. Scarlet A.pngbomination 16:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


I can tell this is a just goddamn fantastic article because I felt stupider after working on it.

OK. What's keeping this from silver? - David Gerard (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Give it some sparkle. I'm sure it's worth it. Scarlet A.pngbomination 16:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Project Blue Beam vs. Poe's Law[edit]

We have a new contender for the thrown of RW's biggest "go to article." Project Blue Beam is slated to beat out Poe's Law in terms of search engine traffic this month. First time in years anything has been close! Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

By Goat! Scarlet A.pngbomination 18:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 :-D The hard part will be how to make it gold worthy. I don't feel it's there yet, but I can't see what to do with it. The conspiracy theorists have actually started linking to this page - I wonder if there are any other ways to make them feel silly - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed BoN edit[edit]

[Whoever edited this for sarcasm and deliberate downplaying of Monast's work is actually ignoring a body of evidence about how voice to skull broadcasts occur- the tearing apart of Project Bluebeam's assertions are intelligent but vacuous. I will return to cite some real evidence about voice to skull broadcasting] — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Him (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved from page[edit]

Added by

[Whoever edited this for sarcasm and deliberate downplaying of Monast's work is actually ignoring a body of evidence about how voice to skull broadcasts occur- the tearing apart of Project Bluebeam's assertions are intelligent but vacuous. I will return to cite some real evidence about voice to skull broadcasting]

Can't wait! - David Gerard (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Him (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
There does seem to be an echo. But anyway, I find a grand total of two google hits for "voice to skull broadcasting" so the BON's evidence should be interesting if sparse.--BobSpring is sprung! 22:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

research and the truth will present it self[edit]

i love how people read too much into it or not at all the truth is yes these so called consperices are true but we all must know that every seemingly negative event has a positive reason and that reason is growth and development (spiritual or otherwise) in this story we learn to decipher the truth. dont buy in to the first so called masslanding or areal battle or a vision of jesus,jesus served mankind and he gave us the vision that love can cure all and compasion for otherselvs is devine and we are immortal spiritual beings. yes they will come yes the were a part of our early beginings (our galactic family) and no its not to undermind religion, every religion has a small piece of the puzzle its when we finaly come together agian with our respective pieces do we realy see the whole picture all im saying is study your history in all corners of the earth you will come to the same conclusion that we have been living in a delousion but its ok some werent ready and we had to wait till there was a majority and that time is 12-21-2012 this is when we tip the scales and the truth is revealed to all in revelations gods name is the revealer of truths the liberator of secrets.

close your eyes and let the truth light your way — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

We should have a repository somewhere on the site for quotes we get left like this. - π 22:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Maybe we should start one. I must say that this page does seem to attract quite a few.--BobSpring is sprung! 22:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Something like this?P-Foster (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Love it. Scarlet A.pngbomination 00:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased Opinion[edit]

What's with the statement: "There is no evidence of deliberate fraud on Monast's part; given his head was quite thoroughly full of squirrels and confetti by this time, it's entirely plausible that he thought this was the revelation of secret information in a guise safe for propagation. Or something."? This is bunk, shouldn't there be facts and not opinions? Opinions and false information are what predicate conspiracies in the first place. — Unsigned, by: Finalchrono / talk / contribs 02:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hard to believe, but....[edit]

This artice was originally created by CUR. Almost makes me miss him. The Symphony of Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 09:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Starting one of our most viewed articles has to count for something, right? ADK...I'll masturbate your book! 09:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Space shuttle funding to Blue Beam?[edit]

An IP just added "this is the reason why NASA retired the space shuttle program; in order to redirect funding to this project." I can't find any reference to the shuttle in anything Monast wrote, nor even in secondary materials (wild-ass making up shit) on the topic. Is it there and I missed it? - David Gerard (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename section[edit]

The section "Critical acclaim" goes where it goes, and has useful stuff in it. But it needs a better name. Suggestions? (Not "Summary".) - David Gerard (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"It all fits together" perhaps? ТyNo 23:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
"Structure" and moved up - David Gerard (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair use picture allowable here?[edit]

Would a fair use picture of Monast be acceptable to the RW mob? I think we'd be OK on copyright grounds to use the fair-use pic I put on Wikipedia, but since fair-use pictures are ill-favoured on RW I thought I should check first. In this case, there are very few photos of Monast at all, and zero free-content ones. And this and Serge Monast could do with pics - David Gerard (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Who here is against genuine fair use images? I guess the problem is that a copyrighted image doesn't necessarily meet the fair use guidelines? You could try uploading it here with the same care to justification and see how it flies? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Added - David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


Was a reason ever given, or known for why the publisher has chosen to not republish the book? --Revolverman (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean, why the current reprinter hasn't reprinted it? None that I know of - David Gerard (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The question is...[edit]

... why go through all this when there are cheaper alternatives (TV, reality shows etc).

  • Stem cell technology (and the resultant organs created do not have 'humans and their lawyers' attached)
  • People have an annoying tendency 'to go and support something else even more irrational' (insert name of sports club here)
  • All the agnostics, 'broad and hazy Anglicans, atheists etc' suddenly become religious (rather than supporting the Hand of God, the FSM, Monster Raving Loonies, etc).
  • All the 'back to the hills survivalists' suddenly have a reason for existing.
  • The squirrels/gophers/rats/other animals with sharp teeth start chewing through the cables thus causing blackouts.
  • Assorted spam and computing errors glitch everything up.
  • An assortment of persons genetically incapable of receiving the radio waves
  • Areas of limited radio reception

Any more 'reasons not'?— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 14:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Another influence?[edit]

John Wynhdham's The Day of the Triffids— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 14:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Colour coding[edit]

This is Project Blue Beam

Soviet computer used.

The East is Red.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 14:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Pure brilliance[edit]

"This is a rather baffling plan as it seems to assume people will think this is actually their god, rather than the more natural twenty-first century assumption that it is a particularly opaque Coca Cola advertisement."

Pure brilliance, that line! One of the best on the site, both in terms of sheer comedy and of actual critical thinking. Kudos to the author. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 07:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

/me bows - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


... go to so much hassle?

Dress it up as the latest must-have technology object/computer game/'See the Bible Story as if You were #actually there#' etc and people will queue round the block to buy it and the New World Order will make megabucks. (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Rejection Bias[edit]

It's a concept that makes considerable sense: use technology no one knows exists to simulate an all-powerful being under human control. It's a tyrannical end-game, the only further step possible for people who already hold the most power.

The article allows itself to be side-tracked by specific guesses as to what technology would be used and how it would be done, as if this is proof against the theory. It would be contrary to the nature of such a project that any of that would be leaked.

But keep going with your mocking "rational" tone against the voraciously creative, I'm sure it will advance your position in life.

I like pie. (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Would you like t identify the positive evidence in favour of the Blue Bean conspiracy? It would be really interesting to see some.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Problems, problems[edit]

Step 1 - 'The Jesus Christ bloodline' hasn't caused mass defections from the faith(s) (Nor has fracking).

Step 3 - What will be projected at those who have 'severe hearing problems' from before they learn to speak, or who communicate only in 'very obscure languages', those who have 'the wrong sort of skulls/brains to receive the messages etc? Given the number of 'unique radio waves' which would be involved there would be major cross-bandwidth leakage causing even more problems.

The main question with PBB is 'Why?' (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

William Cooper?[edit]

An IP added to see William Cooper. It appears some conspiracy theorists think Cooper's 1991 Behold A Pale Horse (500 pages of timecubery) alludes to Blue Beam. I have downloaded the PDF, but I'm not dredging five hundred pages of this bilge for any allusions - is anyone sane here unfortunate enough to have familiarity with the work in question and know what they're on about? - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy Justin Bramah on RW FB (who risked his sanity on the audiobook version):
p180: "It is true that without the population or the bomb problem the elect would use some other excuse to bring about the New World Order. They have plans to bring about things like earthquakes, war, the Messiah, an extra-terrestrial landing, and economic collapse. They might bring about all of these things just to make damn sure that it does work. They will do whatever is necessary to succeed. The Illuminati has all the bases covered and you are going to have to be on your toes to make it through the coming years."
p180-181: "Can you imagine what will happen if Los Angeles is hit with a 9.0 quake, New York City is destroyed by a terrorist-planted atomic bomb, World War III breaks out in the Middle East, the banks and the stock markets collapse, Extraterrestrials land on the White House lawn, food disappears from the markets, some people disappear, the Messiah presents himself to the world, and all in a very short period of time? Can you imagine? The world power structure can, and will if necessary, make some or all of those things happen to bring about the New World Order."
- David Gerard (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Stanislaw Lem's science fiction novel Fiasco also involves a "global projection" technology (with a twist: it's done by Earthlings to impress the rulers of an alien planet; the projection device also doubles as a weapon of mass destruction). It was first published in 1986, and translated into English in 1988.
There's also at least one "Marian apparition" where projection may have been used: --ZooGuard (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Cover nomination[edit]

I wanna nominate this for the cover. What's slightly missing? What's seriously missing? What needs a slight polishing?

Only thing wrong with it IMO is that it isn't an epic novel in length, but I'm not sure what else there is to put in that isn't just more feverish lunacy - David Gerard (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you can't really refute this very well given that it's totally batshit insane, though I'll take a look and see about cleaning it. Scarlet A.pngtheist 08:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I did go over it last night comparing it to the original documents, i.e. the English translations of Monast's original book and tape. (Hence, e.g., moving the "Ode to Joy" bit from step 4 to step 2.) The quotes littered through the description are from one or other translation and may be slightly more insane than the original French is, but then I can't work out a non-insane way to say those things at all. If others could do a comparison too, that'd be great - there's a lot I left out, and perhaps some of that will strike others as worth quoting - David Gerard (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I ec'd and basically overwrote one or two of your edits - mostly a lot of "why this won't work" crap. I think I've re-added the parts I spotted. Scarlet A.pngbomination 08:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Nice one - there's an outside chance some of the "why this can't possibly work" may reach the conspiracy nuts ... oh, who am I kidding - David Gerard (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It could use a better lead, I think, really explaining what it is about and more importantly, what, is anything, it is based on. And more polishing of literary style ;) But I think it's headed in the right direction. Do you have an abstract sandboxed for it? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's try this again. ТyILAB 12:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, how's it stand and what's it need? - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
It seems pretty good to me, needs an abstract with a snazzy picture. ТyILAB 14:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
That shot of Monast on TV. Template:Cover abstract/Project Blue Beam - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Well then, let's wait a bit and see what's what and then add it if no-one gripes. ТyBother me 17:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well then, let's get this show on the road! ТyBother me 06:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The thing is[edit]

Most people can see the flaws (including those who have read 'The Day of the Triffids' and/or 'Tips for cult members' [2] 'When a religious artifact begins emitting light, CLOSE YOUR EYES. Thousands of cult members could be saved every year if they followed this simple safety tip'/follows Dr Who and other SF etc and will take what they see as appropriate precautions, or assume that it is 'some sort of fancy advertising campaign); and 'why go to so much trouble with prisoners, when 'stem cell grown organs' do not employ lawyers etc.' Why blue - why not 'an ancient ape-person in the heavens with one of the varieties of carbon' (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

See [3] for last reference. (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Strange sounds in sky[edit]

Is there any articles on this site about people claiming to hear trumpet sounds and low pitch sounds in the sky?--TemplarJLS (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Part 2 of Step 2[edit]

That sounds like a plot straight out of Read or Die (OVA). Just play the suicide song and get on with it. -- (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)-- (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to be confused with[edit]

...The Blue Lamp [4].

One can see why 'them in power' wish to keep 'the masses' quiet - but why not delegate provisions of the opiates (see current 'popular computer/mobile phone games). Why not go in for 'minimum wage zero hour contracts' and 'plasma screens with mind-numbing programs'? (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Other problems[edit]

1. The inherent tendency of people to #not do what they are told#.

2. The system is too complicated - and there would be leaks/documents left somewhere public.

3. Them seeking power falling out/someone deciding to do an Alexander Butterfield.

4. Providing TV-as-opiate-of-the-masses and zero hours/minimum wage contracts is #so much easier.#

5. The #real# plan 'something completely different and this is misdirection. (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

6. There are 7 billion people in the world, including those living in remote places (with some groups actively repelling outsiders), and who speak a diverse range of languages (some of which are very local or are not computer compatible - clicks, glo'al stops and intonation - mate with a 'soft t' can be a greeting/synonym of 'friend', 'bloke' or US-English 'guy'; mate with a 'hard t' can contain an implicit threat to the person being spoken to). How will everybody be numbered/communicated with?

7. 'People do speak to each other' - 'I heard Loki' 'I heard Thor' 'I heard the FSM' 'Summat weird - let's see what everybody else thinks - and go dahn the pub.' (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Assuming for the sake of argument that Blue Beam is a workable project, for 6 it would be enough for it to affect the populations of the industrialized nations - once you have a majority of those, any outliers can be dealt with. But the point does betray a certain Americentrism in Monast's thinking, if not outright racism. As for 7, the "Project" probably made more sense at the time when it originated - in a world without widespread Internet coverage and a stupendous number of mobile devices with built-in cameras.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Missionaries in remote places, Antarctic scientists, Spacestation persons (if not reverting to lizards), people down the neutron hunting mines/LHC, in the mines (including [5]).

Intended to say 'Thoth and Loki' (but any two retired gods would suffice). But with any conspiracy - there will be leaks, persons wanting their 15 minutes of fame, computers being ornery 'documents left on the train', 'Will keep the records whatever #them idiots say# - whatever happens Muggins here will not get the bucketload of blame' and all the other reasons people can think of. (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)