Babalon, Rockets & the UFO Mythos: A Historical, Psychological & Biblical Analysis of Occult Claims in Modern Space Culture
UPDATED BY VCG ON 8/13/2026 @ 22:22 EST
I want to share a heartfelt cause with my audience. Conner Blaisdell-Greene, a brave Airforce Sr. Airman, recently lost his battle with cancer, leaving his family in financial distress. Every donation, no matter how small, can help cover his funeral costs and ease their burden during this difficult time. Please consider clicking the link below to contribute or share Conner’s story with others. Your support truly matters.
Anyone can do this, but they won’t.
ChatGPT – Library of Rickandria
I’ll treat the thread as a set of discrete claims rather than as one monolithic argument: first recover the exact text, then classify each line (fact claim, inference, rhetoric, theology, psychological framing), verify what can be verified, and finally compare its biblical claims against the KJV text supplied.
/x/ – What is Babalon’s connection to space and UFOs? – Paranormal – 4chan
The live page is much smaller than the request suggests: at the moment it contains the OP and only two replies. That is useful, because we can be exhaustive rather than selective. I’m also going to separate the real historical “Babalon ↔ space” connection through Jack Parsons and early rocketry from later UFO/occult mythology, because those are often conflated.
A key correction is already emerging: the thread mixes three different propositions that need separate verdicts—(1) “UAP reports exist,” (2) “some reports involve deception/secret programs,” and (3) “the entire UFO phenomenon is a psyop.” Only the first is plainly established; the second is historically true in some cases; the third requires evidence the reply does not supply.
Soli Deo Gloria. I checked the live thread again before finishing this. As of August 13, 2026, it contains only three substantive posts: the OP and two replies. That means we can examine essentially every claim rather than sampling the discussion. (4chan)
The most important conclusion up front is this: there really is a historically documented Babalon–rocketry connection, but the thread rapidly turns that real connection into unsupported metaphysical associations. Jack Parsons genuinely helped pioneer American rocketry and was deeply involved in Thelema; he later performed the Babalon Working. That does not demonstrate that Babalon caused spaceflight, that UFOs are manifestations of Babalon, that occult ritual opened extraterrestrial portals, or that every UFO report is a government psychological operation. Those are separate propositions requiring separate evidence. (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory)
1. Research methodology
For this investigation I am using five evidentiary layers.
First, primary-source recovery. We begin with what the posters actually wrote, not somebody’s paraphrase of it. The current thread contains posts 42819032, 42819048, and 42819075. (4chan)
Second, source-provenance testing. When a poster invokes Thelema, we check Thelemic material rather than accepting Christian polemics about Thelema. When someone invokes NASA/JPL history, we use NASA/JPL and Caltech. When someone invokes an alleged ancient Egyptian text, we investigate when that text actually enters the historical record.
Third, claim decomposition. “Babalon is connected to UFOs” is not one proposition. It can mean a historical connection, literary connection, sociological connection, psychological association, supernatural causation, or literal extraterrestrial identity. A true claim at one level does not establish the others.
Fourth, psychological analysis without amateur diagnosis. We can identify reasoning patterns—illusory pattern perception, source laundering, unfalsifiability, causal compression—without declaring anonymous posters mentally ill. Research itself cautions against simply dismissing conspiracy explanations because they are conspiracy explanations; conspiracies really can occur and claims should be assessed case-by-case. (Cambridge University Press)
Fifth, biblical analysis. Here Scripture is not treated as a miscellaneous quotation database. Explicit interpretation within the passage gets priority. Revelation 17 is particularly important because the angel himself explains what the symbolic woman represents. The KJV translators likewise encouraged searching Scripture and cautioned against dogmatizing where evidence is uncertain.
That distinction—text, history, inference, speculation, theology—is what keeps an investigation like this from becoming the very kind of associative reasoning we are investigating.
2. Executive verdict
| Thread proposition | Evidentiary verdict | Biblical correction |
|---|---|---|
| “What is Babalon’s connection to space and UFOs?” | There is a real historical connection to rocketry through Jack Parsons, and a real occult/UFO cultural connection through figures such as Maurice Doreal. No established causal supernatural connection follows. | Scripture identifies the heavens as God’s creation, not as Babalon or Nuit. |
| UFOs are entirely a “psyop” | Unsupported universal claim. Some UFO reports historically came from classified aircraft and deception/misperception; others are mundane objects; some remain unresolved because evidence is insufficient. | Scripture permits neither gullibility nor blanket dismissal: claims are to be tested. |
| Space has essentially no theological relevance | Biblically false/incomplete. Astronomy is empirically studied, but Scripture repeatedly gives the heavens theological significance as creation declaring God’s glory and sovereignty. | Gen. 1; Ps. 8; Ps. 19; Ps. 96; Deut. 4. |
| “Babalon is Nuit veiled” | Possible Thelemic interpretation, but oversimplified. Official O.T.O. commentary explicitly associates Babalon with Earth and Nuit with Heaven as related but differentiated feminine aspects. | Revelation’s Babylon is not identified as a heavenly goddess; Rev. 17:18 identifies the woman with “that great city.” |
| Looking at the sky reveals one’s goddess | Mystical assertion, not independently testable evidence. | Deut. 4:19 specifically warns against being drawn into worship of the heavenly host. |
| “ZIN-URU” comes from ancient Thoth/Atlantis | The phrase really occurs in Maurice Doreal’s Emerald Tablets of Thoth the Atlantean, but the alleged prehistoric Atlantean provenance is unsupported. Scholarship treats Doreal as part of modern occult/UFO culture. | An occult incantation gains no biblical authority by claiming antiquity; Deut. 18 expressly rejects magical/divinatory practice. |
Now the detailed examination.
3. Post 42819032 — “What is Babalon’s connection to space and UFOs?”
This is actually a useful question, provided “connection” is defined before conclusions are drawn. (4chan)
There are at least four very different possible answers.
Historical connection: yes
Jack Parsons is the crucial link.
NASA/JPL dates its origins to the 1930s rocket-propulsion work around Theodore von Kármán and the experimental rocketry group that became JPL. Caltech itself describes Parsons as having made major contributions to rocket science and having played a role in JPL’s founding while simultaneously pursuing occult religion. (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory)
Parsons was also a practicing Thelemite. In 1946 he and L. Ron Hubbard participated in the series of magical operations generally called the Babalon Working, undertaken in connection with Parsons’s Thelemic conception of Babalon. Scholarship on Western esotericism treats this as a real historical ritual episode, not an internet invention. (GUP)
That gives us this legitimate chain:
Parsons → pioneering rocketry/JPL history
Parsons → Thelema/Babalon ritual
Therefore there is a biographical and cultural connection between Babalon and early American rocketry.
But notice what it does not establish:
Babalon → supernatural origin of rocketry
That arrow is missing.
In fact, chronology makes sensational versions of the claim especially weak. JPL’s experimental rocket history reaches back into the 1930s, whereas the Babalon Working occurred in 1946. The rocket work therefore preceded the famous Babalon ritual by years. (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory)
So a claim such as “the Babalon Working opened the space age” would confuse later occult activity by a rocket pioneer with the cause of his earlier rocket research.
That is a classic post hoc problem.
Thelemic symbolic connection to space: yes, but primarily through Nuit
Here the thread brushes against something real.
Official O.T.O. commentary on Crowley’s Gnostic Mass explicitly says the Priestess displays two feminine aspects corresponding to:
Babalon — Earth
Nuit — Heaven
That is unusually useful because it prevents us from flattening Thelemic theology into “all goddesses are the same thing.” (Sabazius)
Nuit is the figure much more directly associated in Thelemic texts with the overarching heavens/infinite space. Babalon is deeply related within the same symbolic system, but official O.T.O. exposition differentiates their functions.
Therefore:
Babalon ↔ Nuit: genuine symbolic relationship.
Nuit ↔ infinite heaven/space: very strong Thelemic relationship.
Therefore Babalon = literal outer space: does not follow.
That distinction becomes important when we reach the second reply.
UFO-cultural connection: yes, but through modern occult subculture
There is another genuine bridge, and it is Maurice Doreal.
A scholarly study in the Journal of History and Cultures notes that Doreal’s occult writings became influential in the early flying-saucer subculture and incorporated supposed ancient serpent beings and secret knowledge into paranormal lore. The same study discusses his claimed Emerald Tablets of Thoth the Atlantean as part of this modern esoteric construction.
So there really is a twentieth-century occultism → ancient-secret-history → flying-saucer cultural pipeline.
But again:
A history of people combining two ideas is evidence that people combined the ideas.
It is not evidence that the cosmology they constructed is physically true.
This is one of the most important distinctions in the entire thread.
Supernatural causal connection: not demonstrated
Nothing presently in the thread establishes that Babalon is:
- an extraterrestrial intelligence,
- the source of UFOs,
- a being encountered by pilots,
- a force behind JPL,
- a power opened by Parsons’s rituals,
- or an entity inhabiting physical outer space.
Those remain theological/occult claims, not historically or scientifically demonstrated conclusions.
A good investigation must resist both extremes: “Parsons had nothing to do with Babalon” is historically wrong, but “therefore Babalon caused the space program/UFO phenomenon” is evidentially unwarranted.
4. Post 42819048 — the claim that UFOs are one giant “psyop”
The poster compresses the whole UFO phenomenon into a deliberate deception. (4chan)
There is a grain of historical truth here, followed by an enormous unsupported generalization.
What is true
Governments have operated secret aerospace programs. Classified aircraft have historically produced sightings that observers could not identify.
This is not conspiracy folklore. Declassified CIA material connects high-altitude U-2/OXCART activity with portions of the UFO-reporting phenomenon during the Cold War. In other words, someone could genuinely see something unusual, accurately report “I do not know what that aircraft is,” and still have been observing secret terrestrial technology. (CIA)
That is extremely important because it destroys a false binary:
unidentified ≠ extraterrestrial
But it simultaneously destroys the poster’s other false binary:
unidentified ≠ necessarily fake
A witness can observe a real physical object and simply not know what it is.
AARO’s current public case material illustrates exactly this. Some cases remain formally unresolved because the evidence is inadequate even though AARO assesses with high confidence that a physical object was present and that its observable behavior was unremarkable. (AARO)
So “unresolved” means:
the available information does not justify a confident identification.
It does not mean:
alien spacecraft confirmed.
And it does not mean:
fabricated event confirmed.
What current official investigations say about extraterrestrial technology
NASA and AARO have not publicly verified extraterrestrial technology as the explanation for UAP. AARO continues to state that the Department has not found evidence establishing extraterrestrial technology, and NASA likewise says available data do not establish UAP as alien technology. (AARO)
That is the careful position:
No verified extraterrestrial explanation presently demonstrated.
It would be methodologically wrong to mutate that into either:
“Therefore aliens definitely do not exist.”
or
“Therefore all UFO reports were deliberately fabricated.”
Neither follows.
Why “psyop” is a much stronger claim
A psychological operation requires intentional influence activity.
To establish that the entire UFO phenomenon is a psyop, one would need evidence showing something like:
- a responsible organization or network,
- a deliberate program,
- targeted audiences,
- intended beliefs or behaviors,
- operational mechanisms,
- and sufficient scope to account for the heterogeneous phenomenon.
The 4chan reply supplies none of that.
Historically, American intelligence officials certainly worried about the psychological and propaganda implications of mass UFO reporting. The CIA’s historical material on the Robertson Panel records concern that public fascination could overload reporting channels or be exploited by adversaries. That is evidence of government concern about UFO belief and information management, not evidence that government created every UFO sighting. (CIA)
This distinction is essential:
“Authorities tried to manage UFO narratives”
is not identical to
“Authorities manufactured the entire UFO phenomenon.”
The first has documentary support.
The second needs substantially more evidence.
5. The second half of post 42819048 — “space” and theology
The poster’s second proposition is stranger from a biblical standpoint: space is treated essentially as a scientific matter having no theological significance except that God made it. (4chan)
That drastically understates Scripture.
The Bible certainly presents the heavens as created rather than divine:
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” — Genesis 1:1
Genesis then speaks of the lights in the firmament and “the stars also.”
Psalm 8 turns contemplation of the astronomical heavens into explicitly theological reflection:
“When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
What is man, that thou art mindful of him?” — Psalm 8:3–4
So from Scripture the heavens matter theologically because they concern:
creation, divine sovereignty, human creatureliness, worship, signs and seasons, and the distinction between Creator and creature.
Psalm 96 states the contrast with unusual clarity:
“For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.” — Psalm 96:5
That verse becomes highly relevant to the next poster.
Studying the heavens is not the biblical problem.
Worshipping the heavens is.
Deuteronomy warns Israel not to see the sun, moon, and stars and become drawn into worshipping and serving them.
Therefore the biblically careful correction is:
Astronomy may investigate what the heavens physically are; Scripture addresses who created them, how man ought to regard them, and whom man ought to worship.
Science and theology are therefore answering overlapping but not identical kinds of questions.
6. Post 42819075 — “Babalon is Nuit veiled”
This sentence needs a more nuanced verdict than either “true” or “false.”
Thelemically, Babalon and Nuit certainly participate in related feminine symbolism. But an official O.T.O. commentary explicitly distinguishes them as Babalon/Earth and Nuit/Heaven. (Sabazius)
So “Babalon is Nuit veiled” is best described as an esoteric interpretive compression, not a clean definition that exhausts Crowley’s system.
There are places in Crowley’s broader corpus where deities and symbolic feminine figures are treated as mystically continuous or related. Thus I would not say the poster invented the concept from nothing.
But it is misleading if read as:
Babalon and Nuit are simply interchangeable names for exactly the same entity.
The texts and O.T.O. commentary maintain distinctions.
This matters because the reply then performs a subtle rhetorical move:
Babalon → Nuit → sky → therefore looking at the sky reveals the Goddess.
Each arrow contains an interpretive jump.
The resulting statement can feel self-evident inside the symbolic system because the system has already defined the heavens in personal/divine feminine language.
But it is not external evidence for the system.
That is the epistemological distinction.
7. “Look at the sky and see your Goddess”
This is not an argument in the empirical sense.
It functions as a mystical invitation:
- interpret the sky through a particular symbolic framework;
- experience it as the body/presence of a goddess;
- treat the resulting experience as confirmation of the framework.
Psychologically, this is potentially self-validating.
If you are told beforehand what the experience means, and the experience itself is then offered as evidence that the interpretation is true, the interpretive framework becomes very difficult to falsify.
A Christian can understand the same night sky and experience awe—yet interpret that awe as creaturely response to the Creator, not encounter with a goddess.
The experience of awe therefore does not, by itself, adjudicate between the worldviews.
Scripture gives a very specific boundary here:
“And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them…” — Deuteronomy 4:19
That is remarkably close to the theological issue in this thread.
The biblical response is not “never look upward.”
It is:
Do not mistake what is in the heavens for the One who made the heavens.
Psalm 8 says “consider” them. Deuteronomy 4 says do not worship them.
That is Scripture interpreting Scripture.
8. The Revelation problem: Babalon versus biblical Babylon
Here the correction becomes much stronger.
Crowley’s Babalon intentionally employs imagery recognizable from the biblical Babylon/Scarlet Woman complex. Thelemic material uses titles such as the Scarlet Woman and Mother of Abominations; Revelation 17 describes the woman upon the scarlet beast and gives her forehead-name:
“MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” — Revelation 17:5
But Scripture then does something conspiracy and occult interpretations often neglect:
it gives an interpretation of its own symbol.
Revelation 17:18:
“And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.”
That verse must control a Christian reading before later occult reinterpretations are imported into the passage.
There are legitimate disputes among Christian interpreters concerning the historical identification and eschatological scope of “that great city”—Rome, a final world system, Jerusalem in some readings, broader anti-God civilization, combinations of these, and so forth.
But whatever interpretation one adopts, John’s text does not say:
“The woman is Nuit.”
It does not say:
“The woman is outer space.”
It does not say:
“The woman is a benevolent cosmic goddess.”
It specifically gives city/political-civilizational imagery, bound up with kings, commerce, fornication, persecution, bloodshed, deception, and judgment. Revelation 18 develops precisely those themes.
Thus Crowley’s Babalon is not simply “what Revelation secretly meant.”
It is better understood as an occult revaluation/reappropriation of Christian apocalyptic symbolism.
That distinction is enormous.
9. The “ZIN-URU” quotation
This part contains both a factual hit and a major provenance problem.
The poster is correct about one thing:
The phrase “ZIN-URU” really does occur in the text circulated as Maurice Doreal’s Emerald Tablets of Thoth the Atlantean. The relevant portion tells the reader to utter the word to obtain power. (Zoraweb)
So the quotation itself was not fabricated by the 4chan poster.
But that only moves the question back one level:
What is Doreal’s text?
Doreal presents it as a translation of unimaginably ancient tablets associated with an Atlantean Thoth and makes extraordinary claims involving tens of thousands of years of lost history, Atlantis, Egyptian priest-kings, hidden tablets, magical knowledge and the Great Pyramid. The text itself openly labels the work a “Translation & interpretation by Doreal.” (Zoraweb)
The historical problem is that this is not the same thing as possessing an archaeologically documented ancient Egyptian tablet.
Academic discussion of Doreal treats him as a modern occult author whose alleged ancient material became influential in paranormal and early flying-saucer subculture. Jeb Card’s study specifically notes that Doreal claimed secret knowledge from the Emerald Tablets of Thoth the Atlantean and connects his writings to early UFO culture.
There is also a crucial title confusion:
The Emerald Tablet — singular — is part of the historical Hermetic/alchemical tradition.
The Emerald Tablets of Thoth the Atlantean — plural — is the modern Doreal work.
Those are not interchangeable documents. (Zoraweb)
Therefore the responsible verdict is:
The “ZIN-URU” phrase is genuinely in Doreal’s modern occult text. There is no demonstrated reason in the thread to treat it as an authenticated Atlantean or Pharaonic Egyptian formula.
That is a textbook example of source laundering through asserted antiquity:
modern statement
→ attributed to ancient sage
→ ancient attribution supplies aura of authority
→ readers forget to ask whether the ancient source ever existed.
10. Biblical correction of “ZIN-URU” and occult invocation
From a biblical standpoint, the decisive question is not whether the sound produces an unusual subjective experience.
Deuteronomy 18 explicitly prohibits Israel from practicing divination, enchantment, witchcraft, consulting familiar spirits, wizardry, and necromancy.
That means Christianity does not need to prove that every occult ritual is psychologically ineffective before rejecting its religious use.
The biblical prohibition concerns whom one seeks, what practices one adopts, and from what alleged spiritual authority one seeks knowledge or power.
There is another necessary caution, however.
It would go beyond our evidence to say:
“Anyone who pronounces ZIN-URU definitely contacts a demon.”
The 4chan thread does not establish that empirically, and Scripture does not give us a verse identifying that particular modern syllable sequence.
The sound Christian formulation is narrower:
Doreal presents it as an occult word of power. Scripture prohibits the pursuit of occult/divinatory power. Therefore a Christian has no scriptural warrant for treating it as a legitimate spiritual practice.
That conclusion is strong enough without inventing details.
11. Psychology of the thread
The interesting psychology here is not “these posters are crazy.” That would be lazy and unsupported.
The interesting issue is how a compelling story can be assembled from individually real fragments.
Consider the raw materials:
Jack Parsons really existed.
He really worked on rockets.
He really practiced Thelema.
He really performed a Babalon Working.
Thelema really has cosmic symbolism involving Nuit.
Maurice Doreal really wrote occult material about space.
Doreal really influenced UFO subculture.
Governments really ran secret aircraft programs.
Some secret programs really generated UFO reports.
Every one of those propositions can be historically investigated.
Then the mind performs the tempting operation:
Therefore they are all manifestations of one hidden mechanism.
That final step is where evidentiary discipline becomes indispensable.
Psychological research on conspiracy belief and paranormal belief has repeatedly examined illusory pattern perception—the tendency to detect meaningful connections among unrelated or weakly related events. Experimental work has found associations between illusory pattern perception and both conspiracy and supernatural beliefs. (PubMed Central (PMC))
But this needs an important qualification: pattern recognition itself is not a defect. Investigation depends on detecting patterns. Real conspiracies also exist. The epistemic problem arises when the perceived pattern outruns the independent evidence linking its components. Contemporary philosophical scholarship therefore cautions against assuming a conspiracy account is false merely because it invokes conspiracy. (Cambridge University Press)
The correct question is:
Does each asserted causal connection have independent evidence?
For this thread:
Parsons ↔ rocketry? Yes.
Parsons ↔ Babalon? Yes.
Therefore Babalon supernaturally caused Parsons’s rockets? No evidence supplied.
Doreal ↔ UFO subculture? Yes.
Doreal says ancient Thoth revealed cosmic secrets? Yes, that is his claim.
Therefore ancient Thoth actually authored Doreal’s book? Not established.
Governments hid aircraft? Yes.
Some UFO sightings involved secret aircraft? Yes.
Therefore every UFO is a planned psyop? Not established.
That is the discipline of refusing to let adjacency silently become causation.
12. Four specific rhetorical mechanisms at work
Authority by antiquity. “Thoth,” “Atlantis,” “Emerald Tablets,” and archaic-sounding prose create an impression of primordial wisdom before provenance is examined. Once we check provenance, we find a modern occult text whose alleged ancient history is itself part of the claim requiring proof. (Zoraweb)
Esoteric insulation. Statements such as “you will know” shift the burden from publicly examinable evidence to private initiation or experience. Skepticism can then be explained as failure to attain the experience, making the proposition resistant to falsification.
Associative compression. Babalon, Babylon, Nuit, sky, stars, Parsons, rockets, JPL, UFOs, Atlantis and secret government programs are drawn into one semantic field. Some connections are documented; others are merely thematic.
Totalizing explanation. “Everything is a psyop” and “everything is occult manifestation” look like opposite conclusions, but epistemically they can operate similarly: each reduces many heterogeneous phenomena to one hidden cause and then interprets contrary evidence through that cause.
The antidote is not cynicism.
It is disaggregation.
13. What the thread gets right
It would be unfair to treat everything here as nonsense.
The OP has stumbled onto a genuinely fascinating historical constellation.
There really is an unusual intersection of:
modern rocketry + Western occultism + Thelema + Babalon + later UFO/esoteric culture.
Jack Parsons sits at one intersection. Maurice Doreal sits at another. The twentieth century genuinely did see older occult categories reworked into extraterrestrial and “space brother” frameworks. Academic historians of religion and popular culture study exactly this phenomenon. (Student Affairs)
So the right rebuttal is not:
“There’s absolutely no connection.”
That would be factually weaker than the thread.
The right conclusion is:
There are strong historical, biographical, literary and subcultural connections. There is presently no corresponding evidence demonstrating the thread’s implied supernatural or extraterrestrial causal connection.
That formulation preserves everything actually documented while refusing the leap.
14. Scripture’s positive framework for the heavens
A Christian correction should not merely say “occultism bad.”
Scripture supplies a richer cosmology.
The heavens are created:
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” — Genesis 1:1
They produce legitimate wonder:
“When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers…” — Psalm 8:3
Their Creator, rather than celestial beings, is worthy of worship:
“Fear God, and give glory to him… worship him that made heaven, and earth…” — Revelation 14:7
And celestial objects themselves are not to be worshipped:
Deuteronomy 4:19 explicitly names the sun, moon, stars and host of heaven as things Israel must not worship.
This yields an elegant biblical principle:
Look upward, study carefully, marvel deeply—but worship above the creation, not within it.
That is very different from anti-scientific fear of astronomy.
It is also very different from sacralizing the cosmos as Nuit, Babalon or another deity.
15. Revelation’s own “Babalon correction”
For this particular thread, Revelation 17:18 may be the single most important verse:
“And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.”
Why?
Because when later esoteric systems take the Scarlet Woman imagery and transform her into a positive goddess, the Christian reader does not have to speculate about the immediate symbolic referent.
The angel gives one.
Then Revelation 18 expands the picture through:
kings, merchants, luxury, political power, immorality, sorcery, persecution and judgment. It even says of Babylon:
“for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.” — Revelation 18:23
Whatever one’s preferred eschatological school, the internal biblical narrative points toward an anti-God human/spiritual civilization under judgment, not toward worship of the physical night sky.
That is textual correction rather than merely denominational assertion.
16. Final reconstructed answer to the OP
If we stripped away the rhetoric and answered the OP with maximum precision, the answer would be:
Babalon’s strongest documented connection to “space” is historical and symbolic, not proven supernatural causation. The historical bridge is Jack Parsons, a major early rocket pioneer associated with the beginnings of JPL who was also a Thelemite and later conducted the Babalon Working. The symbolic bridge is Thelemic cosmology, where Nuit is strongly associated with heaven/infinite space and Babalon is a related but distinguishable feminine figure; official O.T.O. commentary actually contrasts Babalon/Earth with Nuit/Heaven. (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory)
The UFO connection belongs largely to twentieth-century occult and paranormal culture. Maurice Doreal’s supposedly ancient Emerald Tablets of Thoth the Atlantean contains the “ZIN-URU” formula and extensive cosmic occult mythology; scholarship places Doreal within modern occultism and the formative flying-saucer subculture, not authenticated Atlantean archaeology. (Zoraweb)
There is no verified evidence in the thread that Babalon literally produces UFOs, that Parsons’s Babalon ritual opened anything in physical space, or that UAP have been demonstrated to represent occult or extraterrestrial entities. Current NASA/AARO positions likewise do not establish extraterrestrial technology as the explanation for UAP. (AARO)
Biblically, the heavens are the creation of God and are to direct attention toward their Creator, not themselves become objects of worship. Deuteronomy 4:19 directly warns against celestial worship; Revelation’s Babylon/Babalon source-image is interpreted within Revelation itself as “that great city” standing within an idolatrous, persecuting, commercial-political system headed toward judgment.
So the clean verdict on the thread is:
It begins with a legitimate historical mystery, contains one partly defensible skeptical correction, then moves into Thelemic mystical interpretation and a modern pseudo-ancient occult source without distinguishing history from metaphysics. The strongest facts are fascinating enough on their own; the supernatural conclusions are not established by those facts.
And that, in my judgment, is the key methodological lesson here: we should neither dismiss strange connections because they sound strange nor accept them because they form a compelling pattern. Test every link in the chain.
4CHAN THREAD & POST BREAKDOWNS – Library of Rickandria
VCG PAPER PROJECTS – Library of Rickandria