Bible Prophecy Research
Title: Space Shuttle Columbia
Submitted by: firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: February 1, 2003
Updated: February 16, 2003
Space Shuttle Columbia
On the Sabbath day, February 1, 2003, following a week that saw Ariel Sharon overwhelmingly re-elected although ignoring his constituents views against a Palestinian state, President Bush's State of the Union Address and coincides with the reading of Parsha Mishpatim, the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrates in the sky over President Bush's home state, not far from his Crawford, TX ranch, with the first debris being sighted in Palestine, TX. Six Americans and the first Israeli astronaut were aboard. This is a dire warning that should not be ignored—the deaths of Americans and Israelis over Palestine...this is where the MidEast Road Map will lead.
Every Sabbath the Jews read certain portions of the scriptures. The reading for the week commencing on Sunday, January 26, 2003 (they study the portion during the week) culminating in its reading on the following Sabbath, February 1, 2003 was Mishpatim which included a reference to the borders of Israel and prohibition against making any treaties with non-Jewish inhabitants of the Land:
Mishpatim (Laws), Shemos (Exodus) 21:1 - 24:18
I shall set your border from the Sea of Reeds to the Sea of the Philistines [Mediterranean], and from the Wilderness [Sinai Peninsula] until the River [Euphrates], for I shall deliver the inhabitants of the Land into your hands and you shall drive them away from before you. You shall not seal a covenant with them or their gods.
(Stone Chumash with my generalized comments in brackets)
January 28, 2003
"In the Middle East, we will continue to seek peace between a secure Israel and a
(President Bush State of the Union Address)
Saturday, February 01, 2003 Shvat 29, 5763
Powell: Bush to be more involved in
By The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Friday that President George
Bush will become more deeply involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than he was in his
first two years in the White House.
Powell said that the conflict was the most pressing problem in the Middle East.
Powell also told the Palestinians on that "they cannot get a state by using violence" and
warned that they must install a new leadership.
Appearing before a national conference of Americans interested in U.S. foreign policy,
Powell said the administration would resume its pursuit of a settlement now that Israel had
concluded its elections.
He said he had talked by telephone to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who won a new term
this week, and that the Bush administration would use the roadmap devised in partnership
with the European Union, Russia and the United Nations.
It aims to create a Palestinian state by the year 2005 carved out of land that Israel has held
for more than 35 years.
Sharon, meanwhile, spoke by telephone to Bush whose support for Israel against terror
by Palestinians was reflected in Powell's remarks.
"They cannot get a state by using violence to get a state," Powell said.
The State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, said, meanwhile, the administration
was "assessing how to proceed" with the roadmap. He said the administration would at
least wait out Sharon's formation of a new government.
But, Boucher said, "we want to make clear we want to keep moving."
Sunday, January 26, 2003
Sharon fleshes out his own `road map'
Prime minister insists on a complete termination of terror and full PA
By Aluf Benn Ha'aretz 26 January 2003
A special team from the prime minister's bureau, headed by Dov Weisglass, is
finalizing the Israeli version of the "road map" in consultation with the
Defense and Foreign Ministries. The Israeli peace plan, which Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon hopes to bring before the next government, will be Jerusalem's
interpretation of the speech made by U.S. President George Bush on June
24, 2002 and will constitute Israel's official response to the road map put
forth by the Quartet - the U.S., the United Nations, the European Union and
According to the Israeli plan, Jerusalem will not comment on aspects of the
draft presented by the Quartet but will present its own detailed proposal.
It will also initiate a rushed implementation of its plan in order to
expedite reforms in the Palestinian Authority and strengthen ties with
moderate Palestinian leaders.
One of the prime motivations behind Sharon's proposal is to create the right
conditions for a political agreement within Israel, which will enable the
post-elections Labor Party to join the Likud in a national unity government.
Sharon is also trying to counter any effort to impose on Israel an
international plan that includes aspects he finds unacceptable.
"The Bush speech is acceptable to all sides, but there is a dispute over its
correct interpretation," said a senior diplomatic source. "Our plan will
accurately reflect the president's vision," the source added.
The Israeli plan follows Bush's vision for the creation of a Palestinian
state but will emphasize several principles, in particular an absolute end
to terrorism and a broad reform including a change in leadership to
transform the Palestinian Authority into a "properly functioning entity."
Only then will Israel accede to the establishment of a Palestinian state
within temporary borders, with limited sovereignty. As a final stage,
negotiations will be held over the final status agreement.
Israel will link progress with actual developments on the ground, and not to
a fixed time table.
"The plan has two halves. In the first half, [all responsibility] is placed
on the Palestinians and only when they prove themselves in a long list of
difficult demands, it will be time for the second half," said the senior
diplomatic source. If the Palestinians fulfill their part, there will be
broad public support for the plan in Israel, the source said.
"The Bush plan was formulated in cooperation with us, and includes essential
fundamentals that we had demanded."
As it stands currently, the Quartet's plan includes the establishment of a
Palestinian state by the end of 2003 within temporary borders. Prior to
this, a cease-fire must be achieved and the PA must undergo reforms, both of
a political/administrative nature, and in terms of its various security
systems. Simultaneously Israel will freeze all settlement activities and
withdraw from all PA territory reoccupied during the Intifada. A final
status agreement may be reached through negotiations by 2005 under the
guidance and inspection of the Quartet.
The implementation of the plan is headed by a team under Minister Dan
Meridor, who is working on steps to reinforce "elements bypassing
[Palestinian Chairman Yasser] Arafat." Israel is interested creating a basis
for "the day after" Arafat.
The two teams, one for formulating the peace plan and the other for its
implementation, are working separately but share a number of members.
The international road map will be brought before the foreign ministers of
the Quartet for approval in the coming weeks. The European Union has
demanded that the final version of the plan - the third version, completed
last month - be made public immediately following the elections here to
avoid any new changes. The U.S. administration would like to postpone the
authorization of the plan until the establishment of a new government in
Israel, and to allow for changes to the final version, based on the comments
of the two sides.
EU and UN diplomats are preparing detailed proposals for the implementation
of the plan, including an international inspection apparatus on the ground,
which would evaluate whether the conditions of each stage in the plan have
been met and whether it is possible to proceed further.
A diplomatic source said that "the draft of the road map is a general plan,
and it is logical that it be developed in detail. According to the road map,
step-by-step progress will be dependent on the performance of the two sides
and clear benchmarks for evaluating the performance must be established."
Jerusalem, December 26, 2002
Is a Palestinian State within Israel a Foregone Conclusion?
Ruth Matar, Women in Green Radio Program
Arutz Sheva, December 25, 2002
Certainly not, even though our government and our media want
us to believe that it is, and try hard to suppress any opposition
to the creation of such a state.
However, most disturbing of recent events is the metamorphosis of
Ariel Sharon. What has happened to Sharon? What brought about
this change? To show you that Sharon has indeed changed dramatically,
I am just going to read a paragraph from his autobiography "Warrior",
published in 1989. I am quoting verbatim from this autobiography, page 402.
"When Begin brought the autonomy plan to the government, many
in his Herut (Likud) Party found it insupportable, a betrayal by Begin
of the Jewish claim to Eretz Israel. My own reaction was that the plan
was loaded with danger. It could easily, I said, become a Balfour
Declaration for the Palestinians and might well lead to a second
Palestinian state (in addition to Jordan), something no Israeli
with any regard for the country's safety could agree to."
Now, for an article which appeared in the newspaper "Maariv"
about a blowout which Sharon had with a very popular Likud
Knesset Member, Zahi Hanegbi, at a Likud meeting. Zahi Hanegbi
ranks third on the Likud list, preceded only by Sharon and
Netanyahu. By the way, the first ten Likud members on the list
are all against a Palestinian state, with one exception—Ariel Sharon.
At that meeting Sharon demanded that his ministers in the Likud
would show a united front and all endorse the idea of a Palestinian
state. This is a quote from the Maariv article:
Sharon says: "We should all give the same message; i.e. that
Israel would be willing to give the Palestinians a state, that not
the Turks, not the British, not the Egyptians, and not the Jordanians
agreed to give them."
When the shocked Likud ministers tried to tell Sharon that favoring
the creation of a Palestinian state was against the Likud platform,
against the Likud law, and against the decision of the Likud Central
Committee, Sharon told them to shut up, clearly saying that he will
not allow people in his government who oppose his favoring a
It is extraordinary that we allow Ariel Sharon to become a virtual
dictator. I posed the following question on my program last week:
"Is the democratic process working in Israel? Are the People
allowed to decide their own future?"
Caroline B. Glick, Deputy Managing Editor of the Jerusalem
Post answered this question as follows:
"The same people who foisted upon us the Oslo process, the
same people who brought us Arafat, and the murder of one
thousand Israelis since 1994 still determine what we can and
cannot say, and what we can or cannot discuss. Sharon himself
said in an interview in September of this year, before Rosh
HaShana, that the Oslo agreements are dead. And now
in December, he says that Israel must abide by all the
concessions that the Oslo government made from 1993 to
2000 to Yasser Arafat. To object to the establishment of
Palestine in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is illegitimate,
even though it has been proven beyond any shred of reasonable
doubt that such a state will in fact be dangerous and suicidal to the
State of Israel."
My second guest last week, Dr. Aaron Lerner, also feels that the
democratic process in Israel is not working. In May of this year,
the Likud Central Committee voted overwhelmingly against a Palestinian
state. Sharon walked out in a huff, and said that he will do what he wants.
The rank and file of Likud people are opposed to a Palestinian state.
Nonetheless, there is a massive campaign to convince the public that
a Palestinian state is a foregone conclusion. But the opposite is shown
the polls which ask any kind of detailed questions. For instance, the
Steimetz Center of Tel Aviv University found in an opinion survey
conducted two weeks ago that less than a third of Israeli Jews
polled would agree to the Palestinians having sovereignty over
even Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.
No! A Palestinian state is not a foregone conclusion. But, Sharon
is so hell-bent on creating a Palestinian state, that he even uses
ridiculous arguments like "I want to arrive at an arrangement with
the Palestinians, because that will be the only solution to Israel's
It is with great sadness that the Women in Green think back on the
days when we considered Ariel Sharon our hero. We are no longer
together in the struggle for, as Sharon wrote to us at that time, "the
legitimate rights of Eretz Israel and a United Jerusalem".
Sharon may have abandoned these goals for what he thinks is
pragmatic reasons, or because of facing unbearable pressures
from the United States. Maybe his attitude now goes under the
heading of "facing reality". Rather than falling in line with such
defeatist thinking, I would like to quote to you what Hashem
said to Joshua after Moses' death. (Joshua 1:6)
"Be strong and courageous for it is you who will cause this people
to inherit the land that I have sworn to their fathers to give them."
To all our friends, Jews and Christians, who believe in the Bible:
this should be an encouragement for all of us. We may have
many enemies, but with G-d's help we will fight together to ensure
Israel's survival. We need to be passionate! In these crucial times
we cannot afford to be complacent. The struggle for Israel's
survival should occupy our thoughts, morning, noon and night.
Continually write, fax, email and telephone your senators,
your representatives and President George W. Bush, that
the creation of a Palestinian terror state is a danger, not
only for Israel, but for all of western Judeo-Christian civilization.
Excerpts from Council on Foreign Relations magazine "Foreign Affairs" (whose logo is a man on a white horse):
The Last Negotiation
by Hussein Agha and Robert Malley
From Foreign Affairs Magazine, May/June 2002
Hussein Agha is Senior Associate Member of St. Antony's College,
Oxford University. He has been involved in Israeli-Palestinian affairs for
more than 30 years. Robert Malley is Middle East Program Director at
the International Crisis Group. Between 1998 and 2001, he was
President Clinton's Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs.
CUT TO THE CHASE
Since the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and the outbreak
of the second intifada, two propositions have gained wide acceptance.
The first is that trying to find a comprehensive solution to end the conflict
has already been attempted -- and at this point, if tried again, can only
fail. The second is that an interim solution is therefore the only way out of
the current crisis and might succeed if properly implemented. The
mounting death tolls on both sides seem to confirm the notion that conflict
management rather than conflict resolution should be the order of the
day, and that now is the time for taking incremental steps in order to
rebuild the torn fabric of trust. In fact, now is precisely the time for a
U.S.-led international coalition to put forward an end-of-conflict deal.
The idea that only incremental steps can resolve the current crisis flies in
the face of the experience of the past decade. Everything Israelis and
Palestinians have tried since 1993 has been of the interim sort -- whether
the Oslo accords themselves, the 1995 Interim accords, the 1997
Hebron agreement, or the 1998 Wye memorandum. However sensible it
may have seemed at the start, in practice the incremental approach has
demonstrated serious shortcomings.
Lacking a clear and distinct vision of where they were heading, both
sides treated the interim period not as a time to prepare for an ultimate
agreement but as a mere warm-up to the final negotiations; not as a
chance to build trust, but as an opportunity to optimize their bargaining
positions. As a result, each side was determined to hold on to its assets
until the endgame. Palestinians were loath to confiscate weapons or
clamp down on radical groups; Israelis were reluctant to return territory
or halt settlement construction. Grudging behavior by one side fueled
grudging behavior by the other, leading to a vicious cycle of skirted
obligations, clear-cut violations, and mutual recriminations.
By multiplying the number of obligations each side agreed to, the
successive interim accords increased the potential for missteps and
missed deadlines. Each interim commitment became the focal point for
the next dispute and a microcosm for the overall conflict, leading to
endless renegotiations and diminished respect for the text of the signed
agreements themselves. Steps that might have been easy to win support
for domestically if packaged as part of a final agreement were
condemned as unwarranted concessions when carried out in isolation.
Increasingly beleaguered political leaderships on both sides thus were
tempted to take compensatory actions: incendiary speeches by
Palestinians, building more settlements by Israelis, and from the two
parties, a general reluctance to prepare their people for the ultimate
compromises. Designed to placate angry constituents, these moves had
the unintended consequence of alienating the other side, making a final
deal all the more difficult to achieve. Finally, the succession of piecemeal,
incremental agreements made it more difficult to mobilize the support of
Yet another interim agreement could not cure ills that are inherent in the
culture of interim agreements. It would not rebuild trust, it would not lead
to a durable political agreement, and it would use up considerable local
and international energy in the process. The same defects plague plans
that call for the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state with
negotiations to follow over its size, prerogatives, and other final-status
issues. As for the notion of unilateral Israeli withdrawal from parts of the
West Bank and Gaza, such a gesture would only add to these problems
the real risk of emboldening those Palestinians who believe that Israel can
be forced by violence to pull out. As all of these factors suggest, the
current confrontation is not an argument in favor of acting small, but
rather a call to start thinking big.
The time for
negotiations has therefore ended. Instead, the parties must be presented
with a full-fledged, non-negotiable final agreement...A deal should not be made dependent on preexisting mutual
trust; the deal itself will create it...If they [Israelis] were presented with a U.S.-backed,
realistic, end-of-conflict agreement, in all likelihood most of them would
HOW TO GET THERE
The paradox is that, although the outlines of a solution have basically
been understood for some time now, the way to get there has eluded all
sides from the start. The lesson of the interim period, and the type of
final-status negotiations that concluded it, is that relying on the intentions
of Israeli or Palestinian leaders is a strategy with scant chance of success.
The nature of the conflict, the imbalance of power, domestic politics on
both sides, the character of the negotiators, the psychological makeup of
the leadership -- all these factors have prevented the parties from moving
toward a solution.
What is needed to overcome this deadlock is a novel process, a means
of waging diplomacy that is independent of the will and whims of the
parties' leaderships, one that does not cater to their immediate
preferences and that bypasses their immediate constraints. Achieving
such a deal will require the forceful intervention of outside actors who
can present a package that resonates with both the Israeli and the
Palestinian peoples, addressing their fears and concerns and showing that
some way out of the impasse is actually possible.
Led by the United States, the effort should involve a broad coalition of
European, Arab, and other countries and institutions capable of providing
security, as well as economic and political support, to Israelis and
Palestinians. The proposal should be sanctioned by a UN Security
Council resolution and complemented by a number of third-party
arrangements such as a U.S.-Israeli defense treaty, possible Israeli
membership in NATO, a pledge by Arab nations to recognize Israel and
move toward the normalization of their relations (a process that, to be
completed, would also require a peace deal with Syria), American and
European security guarantees to the Palestinian state, and a sizable aid
package to help build the new state's economy.
The forceful presentation by a U.S.-led international coalition of a deal
like the one outlined above would oblige the leaderships of both sides to
either sign on or defy the world -- along with large segments of their own
publics. Indeed, even an immediate negative reply from one or both sides
would neither erase the initiative nor rob it of its importance, for the very
proposal would marginalize those reluctant to espouse it and set in
motion a new political dynamic that, in due course, would force a change
of heart among the leaders -- or else a change of leaders.
Some will argue that anything coming from the outside will be viewed as
a foreign imposition and therefore be rejected. However, if the deal is
based on past and present Israeli-Palestinian discussions it will not be
viewed as imposed from outside; and if it is fair, it is unlikely to be
rejected. This would not be a case of outsiders seeking to force a
secretly concocted agreement on unwilling parties, since the core of the
agreement will have derived from the parties' own previous interactions.
Moreover, the mechanism of ratification should be predicated on popular
referenda in Israel and among the Palestinian people and should be built
into the proposal itself.
The danger is to believe that what looks practical and down-to-earth --
step-by-step rebuilding of the process, resumption of security
cooperation, gradual improvements on the ground -- is the preferable
approach. The incrementalism of the previous decade has proved
bankrupt time and again because it was based on a misunderstanding of
the nature and dynamics of the conflict. The approach did not fail as a
result of the parties' ill will or a lack of faithful implementation; rather, it
was the approach that contributed to both.
Seldom has more ink been spilled than over the issue of whether Israeli
or Palestinian leaders genuinely want or can make a final deal. These are
assumed to be the key questions, the answers to which can unlock the
door to a peaceful settlement. But they are not and cannot. The point
now should not be to accommodate the Israeli and Palestinian leaders'
limitations and shape the effort to fit their proclivities; it should instead be
to make the limitations of both sets of leaders irrelevant. As violence
continues to threaten and the outlines of a fair agreement lie idly by for all
to see, the notion of simply waiting for these leaders to finally negotiate a
deal or for the two sides to gradually regain their trust in each other is
ringing increasingly hollow. The time has come for an effort that is neither
top-down nor bottom-up, but outside-in: the forceful presentation by
external actors of a comprehensive, fair, and lasting deal.
NASA engineers have determined that
Columbia was most likely torn apart when the
shuttle's vulnerable aluminum skin on the left
wing was pierced. A tear would have allowed
scorching gas that surrounded the spaceship
during its fiery reentry to penetrate like a
blowtorch, melting the structure from inside and
destroying the ship.
(Finding on Breach Rules Out Computer or Navigation Glitch, Washington Post, 2/16/03)
Hashem has determined that Israel will be torn apart if the nation's vulnerable areas of Judea and Samaria are pierced. A tear will allow the Arabs surrounding her since her rebirth to penetrate like a blowtorch, melting her from inside and destroying her.
Labour crushed as Israel lurches to right
January 29 2003 at 07:45AM
By Howard Goller
Jerusalem - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Likud party has ridden to victory in Israel's general election on a wave of support for his tough line with Palestinians, humiliating left-wing parties that had pursued Middle East peace deals.
Greeted by flag-waving supporters who burst into song, Sharon claimed victory early on Wednesday and urged parties to join him in a broad government to meet the twin challenges of what he called terrorism and a possible Gulf war.
Labour Party leader Amram Mitzna conceded defeat in a telephone call to Sharon soon after voting ended on Tuesday. Results showed Likud storming back into power, replacing Labour as the biggest party in parliament.
'We do not intend to join'
Labour endured its worst defeat, falling to 19 seats from 25 in the 120-member parliament, reflecting Israelis' fury at the party's having put its faith in Palestinian President Yasser Arafat to make peace.
Hundreds of Israelis have been killed in scores of suicide bombings carried out by militants at the forefront of a 28-month-old Palestinian uprising.
January 29, 2003, 9:30 a.m.
Why Did Israel’s Left Lose?
By Meyrav Wurmser
Tuesday, Israelis went to the polls. The big story of the elections is the devastating defeat of the left-wing Israeli
Labor party. This is a continuation of a steady decline in Labor's fortunes that began during the elections of
1992. Labor lost between eight to ten additional Knesset mandates in each of the subsequent elections. In
Tuesday's elections the decline was so severe that, for the first time in history, the party is threatened with losing its
status as one of the two largest parties in Israel.
Likud's scandals did not translate into a Labor victory because the leading party on the
Israeli Left was still viewed as responsible for the failure of the Oslo accords and the
subsequent decline in personal security. Over the past two-and one-half years, Israelis faced
the worst terror attacks in the history of the state. For average citizens this meant changing
daily routines, avoiding public places, and living in constant state of worry over their loved
ones. But this dismal situation did not bring about a vigorous process of soul-searching or
ideological reexamination on the Israeli Left. The Left was unable to admit that the collapse
of Oslo meant that its ideas and values failed. Rather, its leadership split between those who
believed that Israel had to go back to the negotiating table despite Palestinian violence and
those who believed that violence had to cease first. The majority of Israelis, who had to live
with daily Palestinian terror, viewed this internal Labor debate about how quickly Israel
should return to the negotiating table with a mixture of anger and disbelief. Labor and its
leaders seemed more and more out of touch with the daily life of most Israelis. This was
despite the fact that since the 1999 elections Labor served as a member of Sharon's national
unity government. Although the majority of Israelis approved of the unity government,
debates within the Labor's rank and file only emphasized the party's inability to adjust to the
failure of its worldview. Even as scores of Israelis were being killed or injured by terror,
many in Labor argued that Sharon successfully turned the party into an automatic seal of
approval for his brutal policies toward the Palestinians.
... Israeli voters reacted to what celebrated author Amos Oz, himself
a supporter of the peace camp, described recently as the hatred of Israeli left-wing
intellectuals "not for the government, but for the entire self-existence. Among some of the
radical intelligentsia in Israel today I see hatred not only for the religious, but also for the
settlers, the Right, and the nationalists. I see sweeping hatred for the architecture, for the music, the folk songs, the
memories — for everything. For the streets on which people walk. For the buses on which people travel."
Israeli voters, particularly those who support the Right, are painfully aware of the Left intelligentsia's sweeping
disgust with everything that is not a part of their lifestyle or cultural preferences. Religious people in Israel, Sephrdi
Jews, settlers, and new immigrants all feel insulted by the arrogance of what has become known in Israel as the
"northies" — the left-wing intelligentsia who mainly resides in the fashionable neighborhoods of north Tel-Aviv. For
the intellectuals of the Left, the essence of Israeli society is (or should be) a combination of the Kibbutzim and the
Weidman Institute for science. But anyone who is not a WASP intellectual, a wealthy but politically correct
businessman, a member of the press corps, the Supreme Court or the universities simply does not have the right to
exist. Anyone who does not abide by the cultural strictures defined by a narrow "righteous" Left is considered an
(all links that have to do with numbers go to our online book: Number in Scripture by EW Bullinger) :
There were seven astronauts on board. On of the things (among many interesting parallels with this article) that Bullinger says about the number 7 is:
In the Hebrew, seven is (ba#$e (shevah). It is from the root (ba#$&af (savah), to be full or satisfied, have enough of. Hence the
meaning of the word "seven" is dominated by this root, for on the seventh day God rested from the work of Creation. It was
full and complete, and good and perfect. Nothing could be added to it or taken from it without marring it. Hence the word
tba#$af (Shavath), to cease, desist, rest, and tb@af#$a Shabbath, Sabbath, or day of rest...
Some things to consider:
Another meaning of the root [seven] is to swear, or make an oath. It is clear from its first occurrence in Genesis
21:31, "They sware both of them," that this oath was based upon the "seven ewe lambs" (vv 28,29,30), which point to the idea
of satisfaction or fulness in an oath. It was the security, satisfaction, and fulness of the obligation, or completeness of the
bond, which caused the same word to be used for both the number seven and an oath; and hence it is written, "an oath for
confirmation is an end of all strife." Beer-sheba, the well of the oath, is the standing witness of the spiritual perfection of the
- Israeli astronaut Ramon lived in Be'er Sheva
- Saturday, February 1, 2003 was the Chinese New Year and started the year of the sheep (the word for sheep/lamb/ram/goat are all the same in Chinese). To be specific, it started the year of the black sheep.
fullness of an oath (see Mishpatim above regarding the covenant)
- Sabbath day
Information gathered from CNN, MSNBC and Fox on the day of the disaster. Interpretation of the following, of course, is debatable but I'm just trying to put all the facts together in one place:
- Leroy Cain, Flight Director
- 28th mission for Columbia
88th mission since Challenger (see correlation between numbers 8 and 13)
- 113 total missions
in 42 years has never lost landing spacecraft
- Columbia in the dictionary = United States (Webster's)
- President Bush at Camp David
- debris being found between Athens and Rusk, TX (Athena=goddess of wisdom, Rusk=hard, crisp bread [Webster's])
- mission started January 16, 2003 at 10:39 am EST
- break-up over Texas February 1, 2003 at 9:00 am EST 16 minutes shy of touchdown, countdown clock at Cape Canaveral (cape=head/field, canaveral=canes/reeds—Cain's field/Cain's head?) runs down but should still read 16:00
- contact lost exactly 15 days, 22 hours, 20 minutes, 22 seconds after it left earth (three 16s?)
- Astronaut Ramon studying desert dust
Crew: Rick Husband, William McCool, Michael Anderson, Kalpana Chawla (from Karnal, India), David Brown, Laurel Clark, Ilan Ramon (all definitions from Webster's)
- Rick—a stack (as of hay) in the open air
- Husband—master of a house
- Will—desire; wish
- Cool—employing understatement and a minimum of detail to convey information and usually requiring the listener, viewer, or reader to complete the message
- Chaw—to grind
- Carnal—fleshly; worldly
- David—Hebrew shepherd who became Israeli king
- Laurel—a tree with foliage used by ancient Greeks to crown victors
- launch pad 39A
- three people still on International Space Station
- mission code name: STS-107
- Astronaut Ramon showed coin he was taking into space to reporter making documentary, coin from 69AD and one side read "For the Redemption of Zion"
Ramon was born Ilan Wolferman, in June 1954, in a suburb of Tel Aviv, the younger of two boys. He
changed his last name after finishing flight school (crafting it from some of the letters in Wolferman). He
was following the example of Israel's founding prime minister, who had decreed that all Israeli fighters
should have Hebrew names and changed his own from David Green to David Ben-Gurion.
wolf—a fierce, rapacious, or destructive person (Webster's)
rapacious—excessively grasping or covetous; ravenous (Webster's)
wolfer—a hunter of wolves (Webster's)
Ilan Wolferman—"member of the mission to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor before it became online" (see below)
0363 Nly) 'iylan (Aramaic) ee-lawn'
corresponding to 0356;
AV-tree 6; 6
0356 Nwly) 'Eylown ay-lone'or (shortened) Nwl) 'Elown ay-lone'or
Nly) Eylon ay-lone'
AV-Elon 7; 7
Elon="terebinth, mighty"; oak-grove
1) Hittite, father-in-law of Esau
2) second son of Zebulun
3) Zebulonite judge of Israel
4) town in Dan
0352 ly) 'ayil ah'-yil
from the same as 0193;
AV-ram(s) 156, post(s) 21, mighty (men) 4, trees 2, lintel 1, oaks 1; 185
1a) ram (as food)
1b) ram (as sacrifice)
1c) ram (skin dyed red, for tabernacle)
2) pillar, door post, jambs, pilaster
3) strong man, leader, chief
4) mighty tree, terebinth
0193 lw) 'uwl ool
from an unused root meaning to twist, i.e. (by implication) be strong;
AV-mighty 1, strength 1; 2
1a) body, belly (contemptuous)
1b) nobles, wealthy men
STS-107 Shuttle Mission Imagery
STS107-S-001 (May 2001) --- This is the
insignia for STS-107, which is a
multi-discipline microgravity and Earth
science research mission with a multitude of
international scientific investigations
conducted continuously during the planned
16 days on orbit. The central element of the
patch is the microgravity symbol, µg,
flowing into the rays of the astronaut
symbol. The mission inclination is portrayed
by the 39 degree angle of the astronaut
symbol to the Earth's horizon. The sunrise is
representative of the numerous experiments
that are the dawn of a new era for
continued microgravity research on the
International Space Station and beyond.
The breadth of science conducted on this
mission will have widespread benefits to life
on Earth and our continued exploration of
space illustrated by the Earth and stars. The
constellation Columba (the dove) was
chosen to symbolize peace on Earth and the
Space Shuttle Columbia. The seven stars
also represent the mission crew members
and honor the original astronauts who
paved the way to make research in space
possible. The Israeli flag is adjacent to the
name of the payload specialist who is the
first person from that country to fly on the
Space Shuttle. The NASA insignia design
for Shuttle flights is reserved for use by the
astronauts and for other official use as the
NASA Administrator may authorize. Public
availability has been approved only in the
form of illustrations by the various news
media. When and if there is any change in
this policy, which is not anticipated, it will
be publicly announced.
A constellation that can be seen in southern winter skies, it represents a dove with an olive branch in its mouth.
A constellation of the southern hemisphere and a member of the "Heavenly Waters" constellation family. Columba is thought to
be the dove following along after Noah's Ark.
Shadow of the Dove
As we glance into the night sky we are captivated by many of the bright constellations like Orion and Canis Major for example,
but nestled close to these lies one of our heavenly-feathered friends “Columba the Dove". In Japan Columba is known as Hato,
in Germany as Taube, in France as Colombe, in Russia as Gawloob and in Spain as Paloma all meaning ‘dove’ or ‘pigeon’.
The constellation is in a rich area of sky but is often overlooked because of some of the brighter constellations nearby. There
are many stories relating to the dove, but usually the story told today relates to ‘Jason and his Argonauts’ however the original
story relates Columba to the dove that was said to have followed “Noah’s Ark" of the Biblicists. Columba was believed to be
the dove that Noah had sent out to investigate whether the waters had receded. The dove as associated with the deluge appears
in the mythology of the Babylonians, Hebrews, Greeks and Chaldeans. Columba was also said to be the dove that Jason and
his intrepid band of Argonauts had sent forth to help guide them through the ‘clashing rocks’.
Earlier Jason had met with Phineus the old and blind king who had forewarned Jason about the rocks. Jason and his crew had
set Phineus free after being plagued by Harpies, winged creatures with hag-like features. In gratitude Phineus had advised Jason
to send a dove forth between the rocks and if it survived Jason would also endure. As Jason and his Argonauts passed from
the Aegean Sea into the Black Sea he sent out the dove to see how it would fare between the clashing rocks of the
Symplegades. The dove was to survive death and Jason ordered his crew of Argonauts to row at top speed between the
rocks. Minerva (Athene) the goddess of wisdom later elevated Columba into the sky for its good deed.
Columba is the 54th largest constellation in the sky and contains 24 stars above
magnitude 5.5. The constellation shares its borders with Caelum (the Chisel,)
Canis Major (the Greater Dog,) Lepus (the Hare,) Pictor (the Painter’s Easel)
and Puppis (the Stern.) Columba’s brightest star is Phact (alpha Columbae) a
blue white star located approximately 268 light years away. The star has an
apparent magnitude of 2.7 making the 102nd brightest star in the night sky. The
name Phact appears to translate as ‘ring dove’. The early Chinese called this star
‘Chang Jin’ which translated meant “the old folks."
Wazn (beta Columbae) is an orange giant star located some 86 L.Y. distant.
Wazn has an apparent magnitude of 3.1 making it the 190th brightest star in the
night sky. The name Wazn is taken from the Arabic ‘Al Wazn’ meaning, “weight." The Dutch theologian Petrus Plancius first
introduced the celestial dove to us in the year 1592. It later made an appearance on the stellar map of German lawyer and
amateur astronomer Johann Bayer in 1603. However, Columba wasn’t formally recognised until it was published on the chart
of French astronomer Augustine Royer in 1679. The constellation also contains a number of objects for the deep sky
enthusiast. Located some 35,000 L.Y. away from us is the globular star cluster NGC 1851. It appears to us as a 7th
magnitude object with a strong central condensation of stars. The constellation in addition contains the large barred spiral galaxy
NGC 1808 which can be seen dimly with a small telescope under dark skies. The spiral galaxy NGC 1792 can also be seen in
Columba under good skies with the use of a small telescope.
Our sun is currently heading away from Columba at great speed. Columba contains the "solar antapex" which is the opposite of
the solar apex, which is the direction our sun is headed. At present, we appear to be journeying in the direction of the
constellation Hercules. Like Jason and his Argonauts we are all on a type of voyage, but in our case a cosmic voyage slowly
leaving the dove behind. However, for millennia to come we will still be able to enjoy the wonders of our celestial dove.
Chilmead's treatise has this brief description of the stars in Columba; "of which there are two in the back
of it of the second magnitude, which they call 'the Good messengers' or 'bringers of good news'; and
those in the right wing are consecrated to the Appeased Deity; and those in the left, to 'the retiring of the
waters in the time of the Deluge'. Heis locates alpha-Phact and Beta, Wazn, in the back; in the right wing,
and nu and epsilon in the left. In China they were Sum, the Child; lamda being Tttze, a Son; and the
nearby small stars, She, the Secretions [SLM p.166].
SLM = "Starnames, Their Lore and Meaning" Richard Hinchley Allen, 1889, a reference book on the history of the stars and
constellations for astronomers, Dover Publications 1963 (more recent publications available).
The Israel Air
Force flag that Ramon took along with him to space was...found in its
entirety. U.S. President George Bush, who took part in the memorial
ceremony for the seven astronauts yesterday, approached the Ramon family
afterwards and told them [paraphrased], "Ilan blew up the Iraqi nuclear
reactor [in 1981], and I will finish the job."
Arutz Sheva News Service
Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2003 / Adar Aleph 3, 5763
Ramon: A Jewish, Zionist Astronaut
Sechbach reported that
the mood in the U.S.
today is reminiscent of
the day of the World
Trade Center attack:
"Sadness all around."
Sechbach said that after he interviewed Ilan
Ramon a few years ago, "I remember being so
favorably impressed. He was a man without an
ego, to whom it was very important that he could
connect world Jewry and U.S. citizens via his
work in space." Ramon said at the time that
though he was not a religious Jew, he planned to
represent all streams of Jewry during his trip. "He
was a source of pride for all the Jewish
communities here," Sechbach said, "and he visited
many of them a few years ago. I remember him
laughing and saying, 'I'm only 1.70 meters (5 ft. 8
in.), but soon I will be the 'tallest' Israeli in the
Arutz-7's Kobi Finkler reported other Jewish
aspects of Ramon's flight into space:
"When he circled over Jerusalem, he emailed
President Katzav that he recited the Shma Yisrael
prayer. His friends say that he was always
inspired by the Zionist dream. Eight months ago,
he and the other astronauts were asked to make
a list of personal items they would like to take
into space. Ramon chose the following:
"Because his mother was a Holocaust survivor,
he took along a drawing of Earth as it might look
from the moon, drawn by a boy who died in
Auschwitz shortly before the end of the war. As a
representative of the State of Israel, he took
along a Presidential pennant, as well as flags of
the Israel Air Force, the two cities in which he
lived - Be'er Sheva and Ramat Gan - and the high
school in which he studied. He hung a mezuzah
on one of the doors in the spacecraft; he took a
silver 'hand' used for reading from the Torah; the
world saw him proudly wave his Kiddush cup
used on the Sabbath; and in his bag was a Book
of Psalms. At every press conference he would
proudly say, 'I am an emissary of Zionism and the
During a televised video conference with Prime
Minister Sharon and other Israelis midway
through the trip, Col. Ramon showed Israeli
viewers the miniature Torah Scroll he took along
with him. During the Holocaust, Holland's Chief
Rabbi Dasberg brought the scroll with him to the
Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. There he met
a boy, Yosef Yehoyachin, to whom he gave Bar
Mitzvah lessons using that very Torah scroll - and
then charged him with the mission of surviving and
telling the story. Yehoyachin lived, arrived in
Israel - and became the Israeli scientist who
initiated the main experiment Col. Ramon carried
out in space. He also gave Ramon that same
miniature Torah Scroll to take with him into space
- so that the story Rabbi Dasberg had left with
him could be told around the world.
(Arutz-7, Feburary 2, 2003)
Israel's first astronaut - Ilan Ramon
By Ha'aretz Service
Ilan Ramon, a former fighter pilot and
weapons specialist, fought in the 1973 Yom
Kippur War and in the 1982 war in Lebanon.
In 1981, he was a member of the mission to
bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor before it
In 1997, he was selected to be Israel's first
astronaut, and began training at NASA a
year later. He was promised a launch as
early as 1999, but for several reasons, his
flight - and the flight of an atmospheric
dust-measuring experiment sponsored by
Israel - was delayed.
The son of an Auschwitz death camp
survivor, Ramon planned a tribute to those
who endured the Holocaust - he carried up a small pencil drawing titled "Moon
Landscape" by Peter Ginz, a 14-year-old Jewish boy who was killed at
He also packed a credit-card sized microfiche of the Bible given to him by
President Moshe Katsav and some mezuzahs - cases containing excerpts from
the Bible that are affixed to the door in Jewish houses.
Israeli astronaut Ilan Ramon will carry
Holocaust art into space
CAPE CANAVERAL - When Israel's first astronaut, Col. Ilan Ramon, lifts off for
space aboard the U.S. space shuttle Columbia on Thursday, he will carry a
pencil sketch of Earth, as seen from the moon, drawn by a 14-year old boy who
died in the Holocaust.
Ramon, whose mother survived Auschwitz, the same Nazi concentration camp
where the young artist, Petr Ginz of Prague, was killed in 1944, sees his flight as
the fulfillment of many people's dreams.
"I know my flight is very symbolic for the people of Israel, especially the
survivors, the Holocaust survivors," said Ramon. "Because I was born in Israel,
many people will see this as a dream that is come true."
Ramon and six U.S. astronauts will be under heavy guard until liftoff. The launch
time will not be announced until Wednesday as an additional security measure.
Ramon began training for this 16-day science flight almost three years ago,
when prospects of Middle East peace seemed much brighter. Despite the
collapse of peace talks and the escalation of violence, 48-year-old Ramon, an
Air Force colonel, is still optimistic about the meaning of his flight.
"There is no better place to emphasize the unity of people in the world than flying
in space. We are all the same people, we are all human beings, and I believe
that most of us, almost all of us, are good people," he said.
Ramon is the first Israeli astronaut but will not be the first Jew in space. That
was Judith Resnick, who later died aboard the Challenger, but made her first
flight in 1984. Other American Jews have flown since them, some making small
commemorations of their heritage while in orbit.
Ramon is garnering far more attention as an Israeli and the son of a Holocaust
Although he is not religious, he asked to take the first Kosher food into space -
NASA found an Illinois company that vacuum packs Kosher products for hikers
and campers - and he will also observe the Jewish Sabbath with ritual prayer, if
A debate has arisen among some rabbis over just how to mark the Sabbath in
space, since astronauts, speeding around the planet at five miles (8.047 km)
per second, see the sun set every 90 minutes, marking the start of another day,
according to Jewish traditions.
By that reckoning there would be at least two Sabbaths in every 24-hour period.
Ramon is expected to rely on Mission Control's clock.