File talk:Xenu space plane.jpg

WIN!! As funny as this photoshop of the pic from the DC-8 article is, this is PRECISELY what L. Ron Hubbard said and what those scientology idiots believe in. epic lulz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.29.205 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bwahahaha!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This contributes much to the Xenu article Ashibaka tlk 15:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Featured picture candidate? -- Cyrius|✎ 21:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a very very amusing picture and should be featured at once!! — Trilobite (Talk) 21:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Beyond pure amusement, this is exactly what the nutty Spaceplane description is like. I love it =) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:27, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Best space plane picture... ever. -GamblinMonkey 30 June 2005 15:26 (UTC)

From http://gamers.experimentations.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=5177&view=findpost&p=67899 :

"Also, ROFL for the "space plane". I was expecting an ACTUAL artist's rendering, not a jetliner in a shitty cut-n-paste job over a background of stars. There's rampant anti-aliasing for god's sake!"

Dammit, that was deliberate - a cheesy subject deserves a cheesy picture! ;-) -- ChrisO 30 June 2005 16:55 (UTC)

That link's not taking me to that quote. -- Cyrius|✎ 30 June 2005 17:03 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. -- ChrisO 30 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)

LMAO, it has a Nasa logo and everything. This is hilarious. Some ultra-advanced mythical alien spaceship that is! 24.251.143.179 02:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is pretty funny, but I don't think its exactly NPOV. A casual reader may assume that the spaceship image is official COS canon, instead of a humorous jab. In any case, there are plenty of anti-scientology forums, but this is not one of them. I hope the facts concerning scientology may speak for themselves as to whether it's silly.

It isn't a humorous jab. It's an artist's rendition of a Hubbard description. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see Hubbard had a pretty cheesy imagination sometimes.... think about Joseph Smith and how he started a religion... Hubbard was apparently taking from the popular culture he knew - aliens and UFOs and bad psychology and airplanes and 20th century California. Likewise, Smith dreamt of Native Americans and Biblical scenes, and he took from his beloved Freemasonry and spun a grand epic of the wild North America that he saw before him. Of course, when one describes the infinite in everyday terms and use everyday objects and pop culture as mythology... his or her sacred tomes will wind up with silly special effects. 204.52.215.107 04:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading a copy of the Xenu pamphlet online and it says "(the bodies) were put into space planes that looked exactly like DC8s". So this is actually what they believe. Davidizer13 07:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLMAO, one of the funniest things ever...this would be on BJAODN, except its true...they believe that :O :) --WikiSlasher 07:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further investigation it already has been: Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Strike Back#From Xenu --WikiSlasher 07:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes...[edit]

Just what I needed for a laugh this evening! :D

Such an "exact copy" of a modern terrestrial aeroplane would disintegrate in the atmosphere, killing everyone fairly quickly and leaving only a few shards of metal hurtling to the ground, if that. There's no creativity in this concoction, it just goes to show how bad a sci-fi writer L. Ron. Hubbard™ was. Also, they would have to be huge to carry the supposed "billions" of passengers, otherwise it would take a ridiculously long time!

Damnit, I'm going to start my own website dedicated to some form of "New Age Spiritualism Mixed With Hilarious Science Fiction". Lucky b******.

OMG THIS NEEDS TO BE FEATURED NOW! Superior1 08:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean how would this even fly in space? It's not like there's lift in an environment that has no air. Good call L. Ron... also I am gonna get sued for revealing the secret mystery of space flight (non-physics). 72.208.169.2 10:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would use thrust to travel through space (from rockets or something, I don't exactly know how planes work). Due to the inertia and the lack of force being applied on it (pretty much no gravity) it would basically fly in a straight line at an almost constant speed. Oh and IANAS of course. --WikiSlasher 14:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planes use jet engines, which rely on an external supply of oxygen - something conspicuously lacking in space. Rockets take their oxygen with them in the form of liquid oxygen. But I suspect that Hubbard wasn't thinking of such mundane means of propulsion anyway. Here's what he says about these space planes (or "space wagons" as he calls them) in another lecture: "Now, science fiction writers following the cue of some chap, I've forgotten his name now, Einstein, Beinstein, something like that, who said that MC squared over C wouldn't go, man, and that the speed of light could not be excessive. And actually I was looking up some speed tables the other day, and a trillion light years per day is not full throttle on a space wagon." (ref. "The Helatrobus Implants", SHSBC-266, lecture of 21 May 1963). A trillion light years per day would be something like 40 billion light years per hour, which would require something with a lot more power than a rocket or jet engine... -- ChrisO 20:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity is still around, and quite strong in space. You never 'fly in a straight line at an almost constant speed' unless your moving near light speed, and even then gravity still effects you. Nerull 23:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, a somewhat straight line at an almost constant speed. --WikiSlasher 10:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference[edit]

Original images:

Thomas, Carla. DC-8 Airborne Laboratory in flight [1998]. NASA. Photo #EC98-44428-007. Link
Heap, Sally et al. Starfield in the large magellanic cloud [1999]. Space Telescope Science Institute. NASA and the Hubble Heritage Team. Photo #PRC-99 44. Link

--24.57.157.81 (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NASA logo on plane[edit]

Shouldn't this have a NASA tag since the plane has a NASA logo on it.

   * NASA logos (which include the current "meatball" logo, the old "worm" logo, and the seal) are copyrighted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.172.6 (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

I think this picture is a joke. Seeing the othe comments seem to confirm this. Anyone wish to have an actual rendition? The thumbnail seemed okay; but the closer look, I saw the copy and paste job done. Was this serious of a joke designed to attack scientology? IF this was an attack it should be changed as a POV violation.

And for those attacking gravity, no air, etc...umm he admits there were different engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.209.188 (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it looks like a joke, but it isn't. --WikiSlasher (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmm[edit]

"The space planes were exact copies of Douglas DC-8s." Does this mean that Scientology and these, ancient aliens lacked so much an imagination that they had to steal from NASA a plane design? It honestly reminds me of a bad Sci-Fi, the "Espinol United Stars, or the Espinol United Moons, Planets, and Asteroids: This Quarter of the Universe is Ours" honestly sounds like an attempt at HHGTTG humor rather than serious mythos.--Kahn Iceay 21:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahniceay (talk • contribs)