I have written in the past about what I call “Operation Fantasy Land.” I surmised that to the extent that Intelligence has been promoting and publicizing analysis of media fakery (and even creating an entire clueless forum devoted to the topic), they are using it to misdirect. One method of misdirection is to take it too far and lead us off into fantasy land, where we throw the baby of truth out with the bathwater of lies. Once a person comes to the realization that they have been surrounded their entire lives with an endless menagerie of lies, it is easier to convince them that the Earth is flat or that rockets can’t work in a vacuum and therefore we’ve never launched anything into space.
While I personally don’t believe either of those things are true, I could not really pinpoint where the lies end and the truth begins. I’m damned certain that Space-X didn’t launch a car into space on its way to Mars, and I’m nearly certain the Apollo imagery of men walking and riding on the moon was all faked. And I’ve also seen enough analysis of some footage from ISS to know there is fakery afoot there. But does that mean, for example, that all of the ISS imagery is faked? That nobody is really up in that tin can? Does it mean that there is no ISS and the thing we can observe through our backyard telescopes zooming through the sky is an elaborate hoax? Could be. If “Operation Fantasy Land” is a thing, then it means that fake imagery can be produced on purpose even if the thing it supposedly depicts is real.
Here is how I put it in the past: “We see the same thing with faked NASA imagery. They are using that imagery (and, I now suspect, deliberately creating obviously fake imagery) in order to misdirect people into the Flat Earth fantasy land. Just because some NASA footage is faked, doesn’t necessarily mean that all footage is faked. And even if all footage is faked, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the Earth is flat or that NASA can’t even so much as launch a satellite into space. In those examples, it’s very easy to see how the conclusions do not follow from the premises. But in other cases, it isn’t because the inferential leap is much smaller and usually more logical.”
Honestly, I’ve never really cared enough about this issue to really dig in to it and try to figure out where is the frontier between lies and truth. Nor am I willing to just throw my hands up and declare it all fake. But perhaps the readers of this blog would like to take a crack at it.
There was a long discussion in the comments of the ‘Defense of Miles Mathis’ thread (I would say it kicks off right around this comment here), and so at Jared’s suggestion I decided to devote a new post for discussion about these types of issues. He is the one who created the fake space image above using compositing. Keep in mind that promotion of Flat Earth in this thread will be grounds for immediate suspension of commenting privileges.
Here I’ll paste the most recent and relevant comments related to the question of whether it is even possible to lift heavy objects (like the Hubble telescope) into space. That conversation starts here, but there is more in the comments section below that about other topics as well. At the bottom I conclude with a request and suggestion for continuing this part of the conversation.
Rolleikin:
My belief is that Hubble is just another piece of fairy tale hardware like moon buggies and Mars rovers. There are ground based photos of the heavens that rival “Hubble images” and there are also aircraft like this …
https://www.sofia.usra.edu/multimedia/about-sofia/sofia-aircraft
… not to mention good old computer generated imagery.
But, there I go starting another argument, I suppose.
Jared (in reply to Rolleikin):
We don’t really have any hard evidence that Hubble is fake, do we? I mean some technical holes, but I remain unconvinced. Why? Two reasons.
One. we have other mainstream devices and observatories spitting out tons of excellent data and imagery to compare it with. The Solar Dynamic Observatory for example – which spits out new images of the sun in every spectrum, every day, and has for eight years now. And they’re really good pictures too.
Could they just have some dudes on staff to crank out new CGI art every day? Or a complex computer program to spit it out? Maybe. But take a look at those pics and tell me what you think.
And second, because I’m in CGI, and as I mentioned above this image and most of what we see from Hubble is not remotely like what the tools allow. I do a lot of particle physics stuff (mostly to try to demonstrate Miles’ theories) too and it would take me a LOT of work to come even close to that image, and I would still be able to tell it was faked. My guess is most of you would, too. I try to hit SOME level of realism but the tools aren’t geared towards such massive space sims in that fashion. Here’s what I mean. though sure there are people far more skilled than I in the field and sure if they pay them the big bucks to slave over it, they would achieve better results since they wouldn’t have to work otherwise to make a living, but:
Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t blindly follow anything. Especially from the mainstream! But unless someone could explain how or show me where that pic above of the center of the galaxy environs was faked, I remain skeptical but content with it as data to discuss for now.
Andrea (in reply to rolleikin):
Unfortunately I agree with you. I say unfortunately because I rather would believe that all these technical achievements are true.
The Hubble is a big disappointment for me.
Mathematically it is IMPOSSIBLE to bring 11 tons into low earth orbit (LEO). I encourage you to do the math.
Allegedly, they repaired it in space sending the shuttle, which is even heavier and has to return to earth. Twice impossible!
The repairs lasted four hours in sunlight. What about the orbit? They are supposed to go from sun to shadow every hour or so, not every five. I am formulating it vaguely because NASA gives typically contradictory data (which is suspicious, if you only need to read them, but is the result of contradictions that come up).
How do they cool the instruments or the astronauts in space?
Lastly, why do you need a telescope on a plane, if you have Hubble?
Jared:
I’m confused about your information regarding Hubble and its (assumed, alleged) launch.
Hubble:
Launch mass 11,110 kg (24,490 lb)[1]
Discovery:
Payload to LEO 27,500 kg (60,600 lb)
Given the mission statements, the space shuttle DIscovery had more than enough leftover delta-V to take up Hubble AND these secondary payloads:
“Secondary payloads included the IMAX Cargo Bay Camera (ICBC) to document operations outside the crew cabin and a handheld IMAX camera for use inside the orbiter. Also included were the Ascent Particle Monitor (APM) to detect particulate matter in the payload bay; a Protein Crystal Growth (PCG) experiment to provide data on growing protein crystals in microgravity, Radiation Monitoring Equipment III (RME III) to measure gamma ray levels in the crew cabin; Investigations into Polymer Membrane Processing (IPMP) to determine porosity control in the microgravity environment, and an Air Force Maui Optical Site (AMOS) experiment.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-31#Mission_highlights
I’m not defending NASA or whatever here out of hand, but I don’t know if I’m ready to jettison the space shuttle yet. I don’t see why the Gravity Turn isn’t a viable approach to Low-Earth-Orbit, and that’s the Shuttle’s main role really. You can’t do it sooner because those boosters and tank need to drop off clean, and the best way to do that safely is still in the vertical ascent. So the Shuttle does the Turn after that, which is where it begins to outrun the Earth’s gravity.
That’s the story, anyway. The Shuttle doesn’t have to haul 12 tons up to space by itself. Most of the acceleration is still being done by the boosters, the real heavy lifting.
Andrea:
I understand your confusion very well!
Years ago I was calculating the Apollo flights to understand once and for all if it was possible or not to fly to the moon. I don’t know enough of photography to judge if the pictures are photoshopped or not, but I am an engineer by education, so numbers are my thing!
What I realized was shocking: not only it is not possible to fly to the moon, it is not even possible to send manned stations to LEO!
I started searching the internet to see if someone else had discovered the problem. And this is how I discovered Miles!!
Obviously, Miles doesn’t address the math of rockets but I found his physics stuff very interesting. Only later I looked into his „art“ papers. Since we now understand the amount of fakery, it is not that much surprising that most of nasa is a hollywood or walt disney production…
The question is finally, what is real and what not?
I think it is realistic to assume that a rocket can reach orbit or fly into the solar system. With a small cargo (one or two tons at most).
The ratio cargo to rocket should be 1,5% at most for LEO, much less for interstellar missions. All Apollo missions are thus fake, all russian, chinese, Indian missions are fake, the ISS is fake, Hubble is fake. However I assume that a few hundred small satellites are real. So they can provide real pictures.
It is not possible to come back or land on a planet or a moon or a comet. It requires even more energy. So all rovers on planets are fake. There is no doubt about that.
If someone among the readers is upset by my statements, and thinks otherwise, please provide your numbers. I will gladly tear them apart, one by one.
Russell Taylor:
Andrea…. I tend to agree after I watched a brilliant lecture showing the math behind rocket launches but as with most of the YouTube video’s I have watched on controversial subject, they no longer seem to exist. YouTube censorship in action? The man was showing the impossibility of getting those Shuttle payloads into orbit.
We have to believe the numbers NASA give for gross lift off weights and payloads as they are the ones who should know.
Believe NASA? I can’t believe I just said that!
But they lie about so many things how can we believe the numbers?
This is the description of the first Hubble servicing mission: https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/hubble/missions/sm1.html
Notice they say a few small mirrors the size of a nickel were needed, then say the thing was the size of a telephone booth. So what size was it? Tiny or huge? Maybe the booth was filled with special space engineers? Maybe it was a huge toolkit? Maybe it was a mobile canteen for the engineers to shower and get something to eat & drink?
This weapon is for use in the lower atmosphere but would be far more efficient and useful in space.
https://www.livescience.com/60029-how-futuristic-laser-weapons-use-telephone-tech.html
Jared:
I must politely disagree with both of you, and would like to see the math you’re using so we can find where it went wrong.
Orbital dynamics are about acceleration – ▲v (delta-v) or “change in velocity”. A space-launching craft’s limits are defined by its total ▲v-budget, which is a measure of its acceleration of course, but also a measure of its acceleration against its thrust-to-weight ratio since we have two MORE changes over time. First, the TWR increases dramatically as fuel is used, increasing the acceleration also dramatically.
That’s what the gravity turn is. You hit the point of diminishing returns on atmospheric escape, and you turn perpendicular to “outpace” the pull of gravity. You’re up high enough to negate most of the drag of the atmosphere when you begin the turn.
The Space Shuttle’s ▲v budget was more than enough on paper to pull LEO with 55,000 pounds of cargo.
“The Space Shuttle weighed 165,000 pounds empty. Its external tank weighed 78,100 pounds empty and its two solid rocket boosters weighed 185,000 pounds empty each. Each solid rocket booster held 1.1 million pounds of fuel.”
The combined mass fully fueled is said to be “4,470,000 lb”, or 2,070 tons. Hubble was said to be 24,490 pounds. That makes Hubble just over HALF a percent of the total weight, at .0054.
“The ratio cargo to rocket should be 1,5% at most for LEO”
So even by your own math and logic, Hubble is 1/3 of that ratio. Even with the rest of the cargo for that mission it would have been barely 1%.
Andrea:
Please find numbers in kg, m/s etc. otherwise it becomes very confusing. Nasa does it on purpose this way, you hardly find two numbers that match. Then we go over it together.
Jared:
It’s not confusing, just simple division. We don’t need velocity in these ratios at all. You said “ratio” previously so that’s what I did. It is just percentages, which are ratios. It doesn’t matter which metric you use as long as you use the same metric for your division. The ratio is the same no matter if you use pounds, grams, stones, or copper pfennigs.
Hubble mass / total Shuttle mass = .5%, or ~½ a percent.
24,490 / 4,470,000 = 0.00548
.005 = .5%
You stated previously:
“The ratio cargo to rocket should be 1,5% at most for LEO”
Thus:
.5 / 1.5 = .333, which is 1/3.
Hubble is one-third of the mass limit you defined and less than half of Discovery’s payload limit of 55,000, which is also still below 1.5%. We can check that for you as well if you like:
55,000 / 4,470,000 = 0.01230
.012 = 1.2%
So even according to your premise, the Shuttle at max payload is still well below that “ratio cargo to rocket”. The Shuttle could have carried almost 3 Hubbles, if it could have fit them in the cargo bay. This is why I was confused about your math, because it doesn’t seem like you did any when forming your premise that they couldn’t have launched it or the following repair equipment.
Russell Taylor:
The reason I tend to agree with Andrea that the figures are made up is because the person I saw a few years ago, giving the talk was highly qualified in another area, jet propulsion I believe, and just couldn’t believe the figures he was seeing in NASAs descriptions. He analysed it in the same way Miles does and proved it didn’t make sense. But then you try to find his video and it’s gone. In it’s place are several video’s showing the same disbelief but by people who seem spooky, like they are unsure of their own math, as if they are black-washing the whole idea…or to put it another way deliberately making themselves look stupid.
We never see how far technology has progressed. The stuff they show in the media is probably 10 or more years out of date. Perfect example is the F117 Stealth bomber. No one knew it existed until someone took a blurry photo thinking it was a UFO. It wasn’t revealed to the public until 10 years later but this was 20 years after it was first test flown and put into production.
So if they are showing Humvee mounted crowd dispersing microwave weapons and admitting using them in the Iraq wars, and also laser weapons shooting down full sized drone aircraft, then I wonder what else they have up their sleeves?
How far have they developed these weapons?
Over the years there have been several maintenance missions to the Hubble, to do what exactly? Its a telescope with several specialist cameras. So why the multiple multi-million dollar missions to do what….change the flippin’ batteries? Clean the lenses?
I don’t doubt they send stuff up there but to make the ISS completely believable for the continued in-pouring of tax-dollars, I believe they fudge the numbers, sending up maybe 4 ton loads not 29 tons at a time.
They did the same trick with the Apollo 11 numbers where they brought back lots of heavy rock yet used a tiny amount of fuel to push back into lunar orbit, including lining up to rendezvous with the orbiter. With about the same computing power as a ZX81.
To push the fakery a bit more, they say the thrust when landing didn’t move a lot of dust because in a vacuum the jet efflux disperses as soon as it exits the exhaust nozzle.
Pack of lies! Watch a video of the jet thrusters on the Shuttle keeping the thing flying straight.
The burnt gas can clearly be seen exiting straight out from the thrusters and continuing in a straight line. It does not disperse in the way NASA describe….not that we need to travel down that endless avenue of deceit in this thread…
They lie about everything… isn’t that what Miles says?
Andrea:
Jared, this is supposed to be fun! Before we start, think to a Las Vegas magic show. The magician will show you a lot of (irrelevant) details and conceal the trick. Nasa is doing very smart tricks. They do it under our nose, but they are smart, intelligent and experienced.
Miles showed us that most of the time the mathematicians write equations that are not properly defined in order to extrapolate whatever result they need. If I wrote „3=7 and therefore if follows…“ everyone would call the contradiction. If I hide the same equation in a very complex formula, hardly anyone will notice.
I asked you to pick your numbers and I will be very generous with the assumptions. While the correct ratio is likely more 0.5% I don’t mind if we assume 1.5% will work as well. We have to start somewhere and I am willing to agree on a lot of numbers, even though I might know better.
To begin the show we need a fully loaded cargo and assume it can reach orbit. Don’t be too impatient, the topic is complex!
Jared:
I mean the show began already and in that show, I showed the math twice and it fell well below your personal limit of feasibility at 1.5%, so I don’t know why you can’t just admit that. It was simple math, so you don’t need to hedge on this topic. I refuse to believe one simple division is beyond your capacity. You’re hedging out of pride is all. It’s okay to be wrong – I try to do it at least once a day myself, just to keep some measure of humility.
In addition, I have logged thousands of flight tests and orbital tests in the best simulator around, KSP. Most of the craft we designed failed to get to orbit, by pilot error or design error or both. But once you dial in your ▲v-budget properly and get your gravity turn right, it’s really not that hard to get into ANY orbit. I’ve done countless Hohmann Transfers, orbit-matching, and even docking procedures as well. Landed on the Mun, and other planets too, all using existing rocketry techniques. Some fiction is involved with futuristic add-ons such as the HX and OPT-Spaceplane parts, and MechJeb automation, but it’s all based on actual, real mechanics and actual, real physics. They of course don’t have the charge field and use the modified Pi just as the mainstream does, but otherwise it is dead-on accurate and easily the most accurate simulator available.
The hardest orbits to achieve are with spaceplanes, since you have to fly into your gravity turn in a different way. You have to get up fast enough and hard enough but not vertically, and hit that 2,200 m/s velocity laterally, switching between air-breathing engines and rocketry modes, and still have enough remaining ▲v to circularize the orbit once you get up there. It’s much more difficult – and this may be why there are no spaceplanes yet, in reality too. It’s MUCH more difficult to pull off.
What this means is that the math and physics for achieving orbit are real and work. Miles has added to this and fixed big parts of it, but to claim that they don’t work means one hasn’t studied the topic, and is just putting faith in… Someone else who hasn’t studied it very well.
This doesn’t mean by any stretch that everything they tell us about the space programs and satellites and telescopes and the ISS is true, it simply means that orbital mechanics are real and we can even prove it just by watching the moon for a few months. The moon orbits the Earth, remember? Real.
Andrea:
And of course we need velocities. To reach LEO nasa tells us we need a speed of 9.3 to 10 km/s. Pick your favorite. We don’t know the direction of the speed, it could be orbital velocity, or tangential velocity or a combination. From Miles paper you should know that he found plenty of problems in the definition of orbital velocity. All, that applies to small objects, applies to rockets as well. Pick your favorite again.
At start the air friction is very relevant, so rockets start vertically, then go tangential over 20-30 km, where the atmosphere is very this. We don’t at which height they turn, pick your choice.
Delta-v is an approximation without air friction, in open space. Never mind, we will just ignore friction. The logic behind the formula is that of action equal reaction. If we let a rocket engine fire in one direction, we will get an acceleration in the opposite direction. The mass of the carburant on one side times the speed is equal to mass of the rocket on the other side times another speed. The problem is more complex by the fact that the carburant is cargo at the beginning so you need to accelerate stuff that you are going to burn. Never mind, for our imaginary rocket we will assume that the acceleration is instantaneous!
This, I hope you realize it, is a great simplification. Coincidentally the same assumption is also included in the delta-v formula. In other words, if you use it you are assuming the rocket is accelerating to the final speed without air friction, in an instant. I am accepting all these parameters, but understand we are being very generous.
For our imaginary rocket we need a starting mass, a final speed, a final orbit height. Pick your favorites.
Jared:
You don’t appear to be reading my responses anymore, so I’ll go ahead and let you play your orbital mechanics game on your own, my dear.
Being able to admit when we’re wrong is the most important thing when studying and hypothesizing science. If we can’t do that, it’s going to be difficult to learn anything or teach anything, which is the point of these conversations, wouldn’t you say? Do you genuinely want to learn about orbital dynamics, or do you just want to be right about something we already showed you were wrong about? You’re misdirecting away from the simple math at this point.
From there things started to devolve into accusations. I’d like us to try not to pull off that path and stick to substance. It seems to me that Jared’s math has not been shown to be wrong. If it is, then it should be easy to show, even if the topic is complicated. Andrea, you said you already did the math in the past and found that it doesn’t work out–there’s no way they could have brought the hubble into orbit. Would it be too much for you to respond to Jared’s calculations with calculations of your own? There is no rush to provide a substantive response if you need more time.
SpaceX meets ISS:
WARNING: I believe most here agree that SpaceX is fake but I think some believe the ISS is real so those readers may experience some cognitive dissonance watching this.
LikeLike
I cannot work out how they could fake the zero-gravity in that video. Appealing to cgi monkey-work doesn’t cut it — you have to show the joins. In that video there are guys floating into the capsule, no strings attached. Surely those so-called “sick” planes cannot dive-bomb towards the earth for very long periods? Besides I didn’t see the tell-tale jerk that normally gives away the beginning of the dive, from what I remember from similar videos.
So my cognitive dissonance is not quite what I was expecting, i.e. I know Space X is fake but I don’t know how they can fake the zero-gravity so seamlessly. And so I assume we are putting people into low earth orbit. Sorry to be be so obtuse but there tis but please no linking to any stupid Big Bang Theory scenes — they always looked fake.
LikeLike
There isn’t anything in that ISS video that isn’t in numerous recent Hollywood sci-fi movies in the way of “weightlessness.”
LikeLike
You’re making a general appeal to “cgi monkey-work”. That is not a demonstration of the fakery. I honestly cannot see how they’re faking it.
LikeLike
“I honestly cannot see how they’re faking it.”
I believe you can’t.
LikeLike
The main illusion is making you think it isn’t Hollywood special effects, but they tell you right here in this making-of how it’s done. Change the lighting a little bit, take out the fancy camera angles, and it looks like a broadcast instead of cinema.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Photo of Aleppo, Syria taken in 1959 by U2 spy plane:

Modern photo of Aleppo, Syria taken “from space”:

Boy, that space program sure is money well spent! 🙂
LikeLike
Artist’s depiction of SpaceX Dragon entering space. Note the rocket exhaust ports spewing flames.
Now see video of Dragon separating after astronauts disembarked onto the ISS and just prior to the Dragon’s return.
Note at about 3:30 in the video the sparkling clean and spotless outer hull of the Dragon, even around the rocket exhaust area. Does it look like it was just blasted with thousands of pounds of thrust rocket exhaust?
LikeLike
They only burn hi-test dude!
LikeLike
Rolleiken, excuse my pedantry, but the image depicts the launch abort rockets firing. They only fire to loft the capsule to safety if one of the prior stages fail. In the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo days these motors were housed in a jettisionable ‘escape tower’. So you won’t see rocket smoke after a successful launch. This does not mean everything is real otherwise!
SpaceX seems to have two divisions: the one using half-a-century-old technology to lift military payloads into orbit, and the industrial light&magic show that is Starship. I have seen more convincing rockets in pictures taken at Burning Man. The sheetmetal on Airstream trailers is better than Starship.
LikeLike
You’re right. Those are launch abort rockets. I did some searching and found a copy of that picture with a caption explaining that it depicts an abort test. Thanks. 🙂
LikeLike
Space quackery is so silly that is not worth debate. The whole attention should be just to have fun and to feel tx God I’m no more so dumb. The biggest debunking argument -there is nothing to do there. Why don’t they make deep dive space station in Mariana trench? At least we could see some new amoebas and groundbreaking scientific cancer research at 10000psi.
LikeLike
I always have a problem with reconciling what the guy said about ‘the empty blackness of space’ in this video footage and even with the original footage of the moon landings which I watched live at the time.
Can anyone explain to me why we can see an incredibility awesome vista of stars from Earth itself on a clear night and even when cloudy, some stars can still be seen – yet – the shots of the Astronauts on the moon and views from space are always black?
I.e. no background of stars seen from any space ship old or new and, in the case of the background shots of astronauts capering around – theoretically – on the moon’s surface.
If you can sees stars with the unaided eye from Earth how come camera’s ‘theoretically’ in space, are unable to record stars in the backgrounds?
Shouldn’t camera shots be ‘overwhelmed’ with the brilliance of the stars – with absolutely no atmosphere to hinder or distort views of them?
I’m just a layman with little to no scientific knowledge – as I dropped out of high school in Australia a few months short of the end of year 3 or third form – at age 15 – so roughly equivalent to an 8th grader in the US school system.
So can anyone scientifically minded – explain this seeming anomaly to me?
LikeLike
The problem is photographing stars and foreground objects at the same time. Most photos of the night sky taken from Earth show either no Earth surface features or they are so dark as to be simply black silhouettes against the sky. And, when the camera is set to photograph those features then the sky appears black in the photo. Cameras are limited in the range of brightness that they can capture at the same time. This problem could be solved with proper lighting equipment and technique but it is seldom done.
Stars are dim. That’s why we can’t usually see them in the day time from Earth. The brightness of the sky overwhelms them.
However, once we get outside the Earth’s atmosphere, such as on the moon, the stars should appear brighter. That means the difference in brightness between them and some foreground objects might be less. But, then again, the sunlight would probably be brighter too than on Earth so maybe you’d still have the same problem.
However, that shouldn’t mean one couldn’t set a camera on a tripod, point it upward and take photos of stars as is done on Earth. To my knowledge, the Apollo astronauts did not claim to do this.
In any case, the “scientists” can say whatever they want about it and we can’t fly up to the moon and prove them right or wrong. Some pretty hard-to-believe things have been said about this subject such as that stars can’t be seen at all anywhere is space and even that the sun can’t be seen either. Apollo 11 astronaut Collins said he and the other crewmen never saw any stars on their mission. I believe this is more or less true because I don’t believe they have ever been in space, let alone on the moon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with everything Rolleikin said, and have something to add about exposure.
High Dynamic Range Imagery (HDRI) has been around for awhile, and yet we don’t really see a lot of that used by NASA or other “space agencies” and certainly not in vastly, preposterously expensive probes such as Juno allegedly was, or even in most telescopes. Effectively, the camera will take multiple exposures and overlay them as Layers in an EXR file or similar (RAW). So when you open up the image file in Photoshop, it has multiple exposures of the same snap, usually a minimum of 3 but a modern camera (not phone) can save out many more layers than that, generally.
So then you blend the exposures in Photoshop (or whatever) to try to pull out more details and less contrast, basically. To closer approximate what our eyes see or correct for over/under exposure. One problem with this is displaying the images since most of our screens are only 8-bit to begin with, and even nice graphics monitors are often only 10-but, and of course printing on paper doesn’t work well since there’s no backlight, but you can see an example result in this image:
So…
Glenn said: “Can anyone explain to me why we can see an incredibility awesome vista of stars from Earth itself on a clear night and even when cloudy, some stars can still be seen – yet – the shots of the Astronauts on the moon and views from space are always black?”
Yep, because the moon landing photos were all fake. Yes exposure can play a part but cameras weren’t that bad back then and they certainly aren’t that bad NOW. If you’re up in space with a decent phone camera, you’re gonna be able to see and photograph some damn stars. Unless you’re pointing right at the bright Earth or moon or something and washing out the exposure. We did some camera stuff much earlier in the comments but it might be pretty hard to find, now.
LikeLike
NASA’s next Mars rover carries tribute to healthcare workers fighting coronavirus
… reads this headline at space.com
https://www.space.com/nasa-mars-rover-perseverance-coronavirus-tribute.html
“It is our hope that when future generations travel to Mars and happen upon our rover, they will be reminded that back on Earth in the year 2020 there were such people.”
Here’s some music to listen to while you read the article:
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The 3-by-5-inch (8 by 13 centimeters) plate” affixed to the fake rover at the low low cost of $800,000 plus instillation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Rolleikin — Sorry for taking so long to notice your excellent background music suggestion. It reminds me of when I heard I could go back to church, provided there was NO SINGING!!! I said to my wife, surely we can at least legally do some group humming of hymns, right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Coming soon! Space tourism via balloons.
“Space tourists will soon have another option at their disposal, if all goes according to plan.
The new company Space Perspective aims to send paying customers and research payloads to the stratosphere aboard Spaceship Neptune, a balloon-borne pressurized capsule that’s scheduled to make its first test flights early next year.”
https://www.space.com/space-perspective-stratosphere-balloon-tourism-flights.html
The concept seems strangely familiar somehow …
LikeLike
I am currently reading Miles’ old paper on Stephen Hawking’s Brave New World. I haven’t read this one yet but I had already read his ones exposing Stephen “Will the real Stephen Hawking please stand up, please stand up, please stand up” Hawking as a fraud frontman.
It reminded me of one of the last movies I watched, the same “population scare” message they constantly push. At this point I’m not convinced they’re not just lying about how many people really live on this planet. It was “Inferno” starring Tom Hanks, from Dan Brown. Miles is point out it’s not exponential growth, and even in the movie the villain is giving like a fake Ted Talk which supposedly convinces this brilliant linguist surgeon woman to go along with his plan to kill off the earth’s population. He’s talking about how the planet’s population keeps doubling. Follow along here, this is how stupid they think we are.
He talks about how the earth’s population keeps doubling every 20 years or whatever it was. But in the film, the last “doubling” from 4 billion to 8 billion, took almost 75% longer than the previous doubling from 2 billion to 4 billion. That’s not what I would call regular exponential growth, it seems as though the growth rate as this Hollywood/CIA tripe is actually slowing down as far as a rate goes. I could see that just watching the film.
They thought I didn’t understand how numbers work? Fucking tripe. The “population explosion” scare is one of their longest-running ones. I guess it’s easy to convince people in cities of that as city populations grow, but if you live in the country there’s fucking oodles of land and for decades and decades nobody bothers to even develop it. Doesn’t seem like a struggle of “Where are we going to put all of these people” its a lie like everything else they come up with.
And frankly the fact that Stephen Hawking was propped up as a phony and nobody noticed for so long, it can give you so many clues. Whatever “he” pretended to promote was really what they were promoting. So that’s all bunk. You could draw up a huge list of all the bullshit he spewed and figure out how many ideas to cross out as made up scare tactics. Here’s one off the top of my head, because I read his biography before I knew he was a fake. He liked to claim how wonderful Government-run healthcare is because the English Government healthcare kept him alive for so long and how could they be bad? Well, that was obviously a cover job in retrospect, because he did in fact die in the mid-80s.
Anyway, back to the Hawking’s Brave New World paper. Hopefully comments like these aren’t too unwelcome. I’ll be happy to taper them back if that’s preferred. I just discovered all this and its wrinkling my brain.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just as a quick mini-assignment, in reading the article about the nuclear hoaxes, I saw it mentioned that NASA had “lost” and “recorded over” the original moon landing tapes.
“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes”
In an early paragraph it is claimed that a company called Lowry Digital completed a restoration of the moon walk footage in 2009 based off of Super 8 footage of a television screen. Yeah.
Anyway, following Lowry Digital takes you to their parent company, Reliance Mediaworks, and their parent company, Reliance Group, and to the chairman of Reliance Group, Anil Ambani.
On his wiki page, it is claimed he was once the 6th richest person in the world, but that he declared in Feb 2020 in front of a UK court that he was bankrupt. Yeah. Ok.
His alma mater? Wharton School at the University of Penn. Who’s he married to? An actress, of course, so he’s clearly just a front puppet like Jobs and Zuckerberg.
This bit made me laugh:
“In early 2019, a court in Mumbai held Ambani in criminal contempt for non-payment of personally guaranteed debt Reliance Communications owed to Swedish gearmaker Ericsson. Instead of jail time, the court gave him a month to come up with the funds. At the end of the month, Ambani was bailed out by his older brother, Mukesh Ambani.”
Is that supposed to be believable?
Thanks for giving such good researching tips, Miles.
LikeLike
On further digging, that brother Mukesh is listed as the richest man in Asia, worth 72 billion. His wikipedia page is a joke as well, they once again claim some kind of “attended the best universities but grew up poor” line they’re such fans of.
His timelines don’t fit as far as college either. He namedrops someone named William F. Sharpe (which sounds like some kind of a joke name related to music. F Sharp. Get it?) Sharpe is tied to Stanford as well as the RAND Corporation and (ding ding ding) is a Nobel Prize Winner. And we’re supposed to believe this poor Indian nobody was best buddies with him. Okay. Sheesh. So these are the people and the company NASA trusted to “restore” the Apollo 11 tapes.
LikeLike
Welcome to ‘the Club of wrinkled brains’ – lol.
If there isn’t one then there probably should be. 🙂
My youngest son showed me the shots of Stephen Hawking taken at various times and I have no doubts that they were not all of the original Stephen Hawking but that some were ‘stand ins’.
What is amazing is that whoever found the stand ins to replace him with – were able to find so many men with the same disability – that looked like him – that’s incredible.
LikeLike
Yes, space is purple 🙂
LikeLike
I gave Apollo the benefit of the doubt. Until exactly last week. I was not swayed by a preponderance of evidence as for instance 9/11 or al the sandy hoaxes. This one has a singular smoking gun, an out-of-place artifact that is so glaringly obviousthey should have shredded the capsules years ago: some crew return vehicles have handles on thr outside for EVA. These stand proud of the fuselage by about three inches. They survived re-entry without so much as tarnishing. Tungsten would melt at that location in the plasma envelope, yet NASA claims they are made of aluminum. It does not matter what they are purportedly made of, even Inconel that is quite happy i side a turbine engine, would have melted. And no, these handles were not replaced when these capsules were sent to the museums. There are quitea few pictures of the capsule after splashdown displaying shiny pristine handles. This is not a minor detail, this is impossible. I could see in my mind’s eye how Stanley Kubrick directs his stage hands to properly blowtorch the capsule props to get that just-right charred look.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Seems like all the musicians and actors are doing the one eye okay pose which is supposed to show that they are industry owned.
LikeLike
Good catch, haven’t heard that one before. But hard to believe it took that to bring you onboard. There are many other clues just as big.
LikeLike
Strictly speaking not my find, got it from aulus link posted here earlier. My contribution is to look at the freshly splashed down capsule to dispell any arguments about the handles being retro-fitted in the various museums. Would be funny to see them disappear from the exhibits!
LikeLike
I remember an old saying from my childhood; “Ah, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”
The webs of deception are so tangled that it would take genius – or better – to figure it all out. 🙂
What is now known as ‘fake News’ from ‘fake News media’ due in part to Donald Trump getting on board with what everyone who is able to think for themselves or ‘outside the box’ already knew about the ‘regular’ Media – is now known to us all – but the news media when 9/11 occurred were not known to be fake then and we were all blissfully unaware that the regular news media were apparently ‘in’ on the 9/11 fiasco.
That detail about the handles is seemingly just one of many ‘slip ups’ that ‘deceivers’ make, more or less – inadvertently. Attention to detail is apparently not one of their strong points. 🙂
I’m not a demolitions expert or any sort of expert for that matter – but even I could see that ‘building 7’ should not have collapsed as it did – having not been supposedly hit by any plane – that the other buildings were ‘made out’ to be.
Controlled demolitions of buildings – when performed properly – does not usually damage any other buildings in the vicinity – to any great extent – as a general rule – seemingly.
So even the two trade center buildings coming down as they did, i.e. supposedly as a result of an airplane impact – almost perfectly vertically – should not have affected building 7 to the extent that it also collapsed as if it was a controlled demolition – theoretically.
But what stunned me was the fact that one of the News media footage shots covering the events supposedly ‘live’ was the reporter announcing the building was collapsing quite a few seconds before it did start to collapse in reality i.e. It was still obviously standing when she made that announcement.
Which then made me look more closely at the Pentagon footage that didn’t show a ‘hole’ that could have been made by a jumbo jet sized aircraft and at which site should have had much more aircraft remains strewn all over the place as would be the case if an aircraft came down in a suburban crash. The wreckage that was found there is just inconsistent with what you would find in a normal crash and there should have been fire from the aircraft fuel everywhere if it exploded or more of the aircraft if it didn’t explode. The damage to the building was just inconsistent with what you would expect from a large airplane crash and aircraft fuel spilling everywhere from an explosion and subsequently causing fires – which didn’t seem to be the case – as later shots of the interior showed no appreciable fire damage.
LikeLike
Anyone seen this? Fast forward to about 59:00 and pay attention to the left screen, about half way up the engine, there appears to be a mouse that comes into view and hangs out for a bit.
LikeLiked by 3 people
LOL – can’t tell if it has a spacesuit on…
LikeLike
Maybe it’s mighty mouse.
LikeLike
Or Danger Mouse!

LikeLiked by 1 person
Poor little dude heard the poly-foil rustling in the breeze and thought it was somebody with a large bag of potato chips.
LikeLiked by 3 people
They like to stack fakery upon fakery. Since deep space radiation is one of the main arguments against any travel beyond LEO, lo and behold Chernobyl has the answer. It even ties in with micro-organisms and mutation. So a micron thick layer of bacteria derivative will achieve what inches of lead or beryllium can’t? This is chutzpah!
https://www.foxnews.com/science/chernobyl-fungus-could-protect-astronauts-radiation-deep-space-missions
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps we’ll be able to purchase giant condoms made of it to put over cell towers.
LikeLike
Astronomical Seeing
“Seeing, in an astronomical context, is a description of how much celestial objects appear to flicker due to changes in the refractive index of Earth’s atmosphere. Poor seeing results in loss of detail, particularly when observing the Moon and planets. Close-up views of these bright objects show them shimmering and pulsating quite alarmingly.”
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/what-is-astronomical-seeing/
The effects of atmospheric seeing are not always as obvious as shown in the picture above, of course. It all depends on conditions at the time of observation. The biggest and best observatories are usually placed in locations of optimal seeing but the effects are rarely completely eliminated. Close up views, such as of craters on the moon, show the effects most dramatically.
But, what of views of Earth from space? Aren’t those cameras looking through the same atmosphere that Earth-based astronomy telescopes look through? Shouldn’t there be the same sort of effect present in those views? Of course, the effect would be most apparent in video footage rather than still images but I haven’t seen anything like that in any space-based videos of Earth either. Maybe that’s why space-based views of Earth never seem to look quite right to me.
But, I’m sure scientists have an explanation for this. They always do. 🙂
LikeLike
Not a science explanation, more a common-sense explanation: Let’s say you sit in a coffee shop on a winter’s day, the windows all steamed up so you see just a ghost of the Eiffel tower in the distance. Now a paper vendor walks by, you beckon him and point to the paper. He holds it up to the window, quite close, and you can clearly see a picture of Macron and his lovely wife demonstratinh the correct wearing of a mask right there on the front page of Le Figaro.
LikeLike
Except that the object in question does not have to be as far away as the moon to show the distortion effects of the atmosphere in between.
LikeLike
My analogy still holds: that satellite is in LEO, which is about 300 km. More than 90% of Earth’s atmosphere is below 15 km, so we are still 20X closer to the ‘misty window’ than the object we are looking at. Some spy satellites modify their orbits to ‘dip’ into the upper atmosphere to get as low as 80 km to get past the refractory limitss of their optics. This requires a lot of fuel to boost back to a low-drag orbit. Maybe the X 47 is a tanker that refuels these birds. Could also have been one of the main functions of the Shuttle.
LikeLike
Your “misty window” analogy is bunk. The atmosphere is not a “misty window.” A “misty window” is clear glass with a thin layer of moisture on one side which is not analogous to our atmosphere. Light does not behave the same passing through your “misty window” as it does through the atmosphere.
“Misty windows” are also stationary while the atmosphere is not. It is turbulent with parts moving at speeds of 275 mph or more. The turbulence combined with moisture, dust, and other factors is what causes the undulating, shimmering effect that makes up the most apparent aspect of the “atmospheric seeing” effects illustrated above.
LikeLike
Is it possible that from outer space looking down you might not have as many distortions as looking up?
In other words… if you’re far away from the earth looking down, the atmosphere might not have as much distortion because of fact that you are very far away compared to looking up?
LikeLike
Whoa Rolleiken, it is just a simile(which is like a metaphor😁)
LikeLike
Steamy windows would make for a more interesting analogy…
LikeLike
“Steamy windows would make for a more interesting analogy…”
What is even better than analogies is understanding the actual idea instead of substituting something else.
LikeLike
” it is just a simile”
And a smelly simile at that. 🙂
LikeLike
I have a business acquaintance that I see from time to time. He is into conspiracy stuff and he knows I am OK to talk to about that. Almost every time I see him he has a new conspiracy he’s into. The last time I saw him was a month or so ago, and he was on about “the pandemic is a plot to kill off most of the population” and all that BS. I told him to relax, that it was just a hoax and no unusual deaths are occurring, but he didn’t believe me.
Anyway, I saw him again yesterday, and he looked very worried. I asked him what was up but he didn’t feel free to talk because there were other people around. But, I got out of him that he now believes that many asteroids are headed towards us and huge numbers of people will die. I didn’t have time to get more of this story and had to leave. I figured I’d search the net for it but I didn’t really come up with anything, so I don’t know where he got this.
But, I’ve been thinking about it and it would be something that would be fairly easy for them to fake. Random unpredictable asteroid strikes. They could do this with “smart bombs” or planted explosives and then scatter some rocks around that look like asteroid fragments, etc. It would really freak out the dopes, I’m sure, since they totally buy anything NASA tells them. And, NASA could say they didn’t see them coming because they’re too small, etc.
LikeLike
Then this is your only hope.
LikeLike
For those with reading comprehension problems, I want to clarify that I am not suggesting that any asteroids will actually strike the Earth.
LikeLike
I know you don’t.
But I know other people that do believe that.
The Superman episode might be predictive programming for all I know… and I enjoyed watching it.
Brought back memories of my childhood… take it or leave it.
LikeLike
I live in Southern California. My current home is about 5 miles from JPL. I used to live closer – about 3 miles away. At that time I lived in an apartment building and a JPL employee moved right next door. A big guy who drove a big convertible with AZ plates. He didn’t seem too bright. Not at all like the JPL people they show us on TV.
Our front doors were inches apart and my living room was one thin wall away from his. I could pretty much hear anything that went on in his place.
He had this giant TV set near that wall that he would turn up loud and play all night. He’d sit in an easy chair in front of it and fall asleep. One night his TV was blasting at 2:00 am and I knocked on his door. I could see into his place. He was asleep in that chair. I pounded and pounded on his door until he suddenly bounded out of the chair and went down to an all-fours stance on the floor. He then scampered around like an animal with his head bent back as he made loud howling noises like a hound. He gave no indication that he saw me looking in at him. Obviously, this guy was mentally disturbed or in some sort of weird seizure.
The TV continued to blast and the guy didn’t respond to my knocking so I called the cops (LA Sheriff Dept). The cops came in a few minutes and told me they could hear the TV from across the street. They too pounded on the door and shouted, “Police! Open up!”, etc. The guy inside finally noticed and sort of scampered over to the front door (still on all fours) but didn’t open it. He just peered out at the cops. He seemed to know not to open the door and the cops finally said to me, “Sorry, we can’t do anything if he doesn’t open the door” and they left.
After they left I went inside my place and the guy came out and punched my solid wood front door knocking out a hole about 12×4 inches with his fist. I could see his face through the hole. After doing that he went back inside his apartment and I called the cops again and told them what happened. They came back and again tried to get him to come out. I told them what happened and showed them the hole in my door. One cop said, “How do you know HE did it if you were inside at the time?” I said I saw his face through the hole but the cop brushed me off and they left again.
The next morning I heard the guy come out of his place and I went out there and confronted him about the door. He acted completely unaware of what I was talking about and now seemed calm and composed. I actually think he really didn’t know what I was talking about! That is, he actually seemed to have no memory of what happened the night before. I don’t think he was acting.
Anyway, a few days later I moved out of that place.
LikeLike
And this is why granny always said we don’t go looking into other peoples’ windows at night LOL…
Next time, just cut the seal and pull out his electric meter… (only kidding!)
LikeLike
This deserves its own X-files episode!
LikeLike
That is funny. It is my experience in SoCal it ia allowed to be an actor trying to “get in character”…as everyone understands that.. Maybe it is a new Netflix series about aliens at JPL
LikeLike
Whitey on the Moon
This recording came out in 1970, during the Apollo missions. I thought it was great then and I think it’s still great now.
With all the current money going into space programs and with all the financial strife of the working class, this would make a perfect anthem for BLM if it were a real movement (which it isn’t, of course) but I don’t expect to see that happen.
LikeLike
Space fakery?? Did you see JPL/caltech developed ventilators in only “37” days?? I wonder how long it took them to realize the ventilators might be killing people??? Anyway this is the age of “SCIENCE FAKERY”
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7646
LikeLike
@Everyone Thanks this forum has made this fake pandemic fascinating. I appreciate the idea of space fakery, but hey this is the age of fake pandemics, and might I suggest a “FAKE SCIENCE” thread?? How does one fake a pandemic in the age of reason and “Science”. I was walking around the CalTech campus in Pasadena yesterday, and of course what few people I saw were wearing masks. Would Richard Feymann have worn a mask?? Was he for real even or was he part of the physics project??? As today, all his enthusiasts seem to be listening to authority figures and wearing masks. In a rational world, however it should not be possible to fake a pandemic much beyond April 1. Beyond the why, HOW? Exactly what type of “scientists” have we trained?? Ones who THINK or ones who OBEY thought leaders .How can you even decide a pandemic is “fake” or real???What laws are there in Nature that define our universe and the fakery in it??.
To a chemist, it relates to an old questions, like is the universe at equilibrium and if not why not?? what will it look like when it reaches “equilibrium”??ie THERMODYNAMICS.. As all we really have is observations at one point in space (earth) and time( modern times) and critical thinking. to deduce the rest. THANKS AGAIN as overall this is a top notch forum .:)
LikeLike
Very short article by Chinese/American moon-scientists about radiation on the Moon’s surface: Galactic cosmic rays (GCR radiation) and unpredictable Solar particle events (SPE). Interesting read under title: ‘First measurements of the radiation dose on the lunar surface’. But first we must allow ourselves to ponder over results presented. What is missing in that data is SPE information, since there were no SPE’s during measurement periods. Judging by the GCR radiation, it is ‘only’ 2,6 times higher exposure then on ISS in LEOrbit, but what about when SPE happens? A factor of 10, 100, or 1000, maybe even more? Article doesn’t answer that dilemma.
–https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/39/eaaz1334.full–
Left me wondering how did those Apollo-men survive, especially with Sun’s higher activity back then. And shielding is problematic: too thin and it doesn’t shield against SPE’s, too thick (over 80 cm the same Yahoo article says) and secondary radiation (induced in the walls) increases.
Are we being told that men never walked on the Moon? Or is this article and Chinese lander mission part of ‘planned fiasco’, as I see it here
–https://cuttingthroughthefog.com/2018/08/28/space-fakery-the-final-frontier/comment-page-9/#comment-43244–
and here
–https://cuttingthroughthefog.com/2018/08/28/space-fakery-the-final-frontier/comment-page-9/#comment-40978–
But never mind radiation, we will still go to the Moon by the year 2024 (as Yahoo article assures us) and then to Mars in 2030’s, as is currently approved by ‘Space travel scenario’. Despite heightened Solar activity then.
LikeLike
I was looking into Kary Mullis and was surprised to find this Nature paper he authored as UC Berkeley Biochemistry
https://www.nature.com/articles/218663b0
Must admit I never really considered Time Reversal outside of science fiction I think they did it in Star Trek
LikeLike
Normally, the news that the Milky Way and Andromeda are going to collide is not a very headline-causing piece of information, since it is due to take place in about 5 billion years. But, new research published in the Astrophysical Journal in August this year reveals that the timeline has been somewhat revised: The collision has already started!
https://earthsky.org/?p=342581
LikeLike
From the latest Soyuz launch to the ISS on Wednesday,
Roscosmos said “a new record for flights to the International Space Station was set – the total time from launch to docking of the Soyuz MS-17 was three hours and three minutes.”
3 hours 3 minutes!
LikeLike
“Rocket Launch as Seen from the ISS”
C’mon, now … isn’t this obviously CGI?
LikeLike
Shuttle Challenger Explosion
This is a recording of the live CNN coverage of the Shuttle Challenger launch and explosion.
We watch from the ground as the shuttle rises. Then, notice at 1:35 (right before the explosion), the camera angle suddenly changes and we are looking at the rocket from a viewpoint that appears to be at the same altitude as the Challenger. How can this be? There was no 2nd rocket or other craft flying beside the Challenger. Where is this new camera located?
According to this timeline …
https://spaceflightnow.com/challenger/timeline/
,,, the Challenger was moving at Mach 1.9 at this point. Only a very high performance jet such as a fighter could go that fast and no such aircraft was reported following the launched rocket.
Also, why did this “live” broadcast just happen to change its camera angle right before the explosion?
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s also a video cut during the initial explosion. That is very suspicious. Why would they need to be cutting and splicing this? I think we know, given that all those people that allegedly died are still alive.
LikeLike
I am always amazed not at the fake moon landings, but what they say about our space program, as i doubt th
LikeLike
sorry i doubt that was just a random decision by top administrators, but really a function of our entire defense industrial programs.
LikeLike
I just saw that back in 2018 China Daily reported that most Russians don’t believe America landed on the Moon.
https://tinyurl.com/yy5q8kue
LikeLike
Funny how the American media doesn’t cover this subject, as the implications are staggering, maybe it could even define the political parties and make elections interesting. I wonder why not?? Maybe they are saving it for the Mars missions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, and that’s just Russia. I wonder what the opinion is in other countries.
LikeLike
Imagine…??? wow
http://www.stationgossip.com/2020/11/nasa-reestablishes-contact-with-43-year.html
just taking 7 years to fix that antenna!!!
LikeLike
https://www.wired.com/story/the-plan-to-turn-scrapped-rockets-into-space-stations/
I CANT WAIT FOR THE tv SERIES..”SPACE JUNKYARD JUNKIES”
LikeLike
They’re doing a fake Space-X launch on science channel in a few minutes if anybody wants to watch live and spot holes in real time.
LikeLike
I haven’t watched one of these before. It looks like a supercharged blowtorch to me basically. They added like a hissing sound effect. As if you could still hear it at 10km in the air. Don’t think so.
LikeLike
They have a strange thing on screen that says “Launch America.” Whatever that means. It definitely looks like a light bulb now with a special effect added on. They have people commenting on what it felt like over audio but of course they couldn’t show that part.
I turned it off.
LikeLike
Yeah, obviously fake, and who did they hire for narration? Some teenage girl?
LikeLike
Recent SpaceX mission to ISS,
They still can’t get the hair right.
@ 8:40
LikeLike
I know they’re fake but I still don’t know how they manage the floating aspect. For example you see the lady with the hair engaging with the hatch and going behind it then re-emerging, so that is not likely to be CGI. So where are they hiding the “strings”?
In a previous video you linked of Space X agents entering the module, I thought I had it figured out: the hatch and the top of the module were all cgi’d in, which is why that Space X man could “fly” in like superman. There was no hatch, just empty space above and green screen behind. That would allow for “strings” and things to be covered up by CGI..
But that biach with the hair ruins that theory 😉
I said before you cannot just say its fake and then link a behind-the-scenes view of Hollyweird at work — you gotta show where and how in the video you’re linking to.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what you’re asking but I don’t see anything in that video that I haven’t seen in recent Hollywood films. There really isn’t anything they can’t create and put on the screen via CGI, composites, green screen, etc. It’s not just done with wires anymore. There could be all sorts of gadgetry and gimmickry there, even strong men, moving her around that is rendered invisible in the final version.
They do give it more of a gritty “reality” than Hollywood does but I think that is intentional.
LikeLike
Blowing air moves hair.
LikeLike
No more ET radio shows??
https://www.anti-empire.com/america-allowed-biggest-radio-telescope-in-the-world-to-collapse-into-rubble/
I sure hope that NetFlix can work this into their new season lineup, as maybe the “aliens” did this to prepare for their invasion.
LikeLike
New papers up on the solar minimum:
LikeLike
If you weren’t already convinced he was a spook puppet, this Patrick Geryl (Girl?) shows up in this 2012 documentary alongside David Icke. Check the nose. After that failed prediction he went from making end times prophecies to publishing physics papers on ResearchGate. I say Miles suspicions of Geryl being a front for NASA/PN (as are the rest of the people involved in this film) is spot on. Apparently nobody in the physics/astronomy world can take on Miles, so they have to hire these bozos to misdirect.
Adrian Gilbert in the documentary also wrote a book called The New Jerusalem, which is about how the Rosicrucians rebuilt London after the 1666 fire, Freemasonry, and the British kings claiming descent from King David. Same old conspiracy tropes.
Last, were told John Major Jenkins in the documentary taught at the Esalen Institute, which Miles has outed as spook club many times. We’re also told he appointed as the literary executor for The Key to the Kalevala by Pekka Ervast, a Finnish occultist, Freemason, and Theosophist. ‘Nuff said.
A sidenote: On the Amazon page for the book, we’re given this line in the About the Author section:
“Like Tolstoy, he regarded the fourth commandment of the Sermon on the Mount, “Do not resist one who is evil,” as the cornerstone on which the whole new covenant is built. ”
A commandment as if written by the devil himself. ‘Don’t resist evil. Just be a pacifist.’ Ugh. I’ve always had a problem with the “Turn the other cheek” and “Render unto Caesar..” teachings. We can now certainly finger mindbenders like Ervast and other religious saboteurs throughout the centuries for planting these dark seeds (spiritual pacifiers as I call them) in churches everywhere. Oh how I pray for a Christian community that can actually resist the PN!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thoughts on the latest Chinese Moon mission?
LikeLike
这是假的
LikeLike
It’s only a paper moon 😉
LikeLike
I was trying to link to an image of the “papier-mâché” moon they created for the fake moon landings. A slam-dunk set of images of how they did it…
http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/
Others here originally posted that link.
LikeLike
This recent SpaceX launch shows something I often see in these launches:
The view from the ground shows the rocket going practically horizontal yet the view from the rocket looking backward continues to show it moving straight up.
If you were moving nearly horizontally and you looked backward past the rocket nozzle how could you still be seeing the location that you launched from? Wouldn’t you be seeing the horizon and lots of sky?
LikeLike
They made a grain elevator fly!
Look at the smoke and vapor trails. Not really what you expect from something traveling at high subsonic speed. Looks more like a statioonary object with whisps of smoke curling in random fashion. But the faker it looks the realer it is!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I see this a lot too. Fluttering flames and puffy exhaust like in the old Flash Gordon serials
LikeLike
Only, Flash Gordon was real, and that crap is fake…
LikeLike
Recent launch of SpaceX SXM-7 including the return landing of the first stage on a barge a few hundred miles out to sea.
Unfortunately, the camera cut out just before the first stage landing so we don’t see it (a common occurrence with these launches).
8:30 barge shown with nothing on it. A few seconds later, just before landing, we’re told “we’ve lost the feed” and that portion of the screen goes blank
9:05 she says the first stage has landed but we still can’t see it. We’re now told “we weren’t able to show the video of that (the landing) because it was over the horizon.”
9:14 Now we see the first stage sitting on the barge supposedly after it has just landed there.
But, if they couldn’t show us the landing “because it was over the horizon” how could they show us the empty barge JUST BEFORE the landing? Wouldn’t the stationary barge have been “over the horizon” then too?
LikeLike
I think you or somebody else commented on this before. So it is standard procedure. Doesn’t one of their geeks read this blog? Prop department needs a reboot. Well, that is all they do, billion dollar props.
LikeLike
This launch was just 2 days ago. I think similar comments have been made here about earlier launches.
LikeLike
Is there two space mice on the rocket now!?
LikeLike
Maybe that’s ice? It’s interesting they keep cutting to different shots of the rocket and the lighting looks different and it’s shots of the rocket at different times instead of sequentially or simultaneously.
LikeLike
Also, in the split screen views the Earth below one stage of the rocket is moving faster than the earth under the other stage.
LikeLike
I think the simple explanation is that she meant over the rainbow, not over the horizon. So easy to mix up these technical terms when you’re presenting under pressure knowing you’re expected to bullshit to Olympic standard.
LikeLike
(from above video)

Gee, I thought to get to space you go UP! But, if I didn’t know better, I’d say that thing was headed straight for the ocean.
Oh, well, I guess I’ll never be a rocket scientist 🙂
LikeLike
I do believe they launch real satellites, it is the re-using of first stages that I don’t buy. To design for multiple launches the design has to accommodate fatigue cycles, which adds weight. But it rides the recycle bandwagon.
What is up with the names of the barges? One is called ‘Of course I still love you’. Isn’t that something you say to somebody after you screwed them? Like the taxpayer?
LikeLiked by 3 people
This Soyuz launch of CSO-2 occurred today.
Notice that from 0:24 to about 0:38 the foreground foliage is moving — waving gently in the breeze.
Then the rocket ignites and from that point until the rocket rises out of the frame the foreground foliage is completely motionless as if it were a still photo layered on top of the rising rocket. Why would the breeze stop blowing when the rocket ignited? If anything, I would think the breeze would increase due to the 188,720 lbs of thrust from the Soyuz 2 rocket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz-2
LikeLike
In recent “NASA news”, their not-quite-a-billion-dollar “InSIGHT” lander (that likely never took off to begin with, much less landed on Mars) couldn’t even break through the “soil” on yon distant planet.
“NASA has waived the white flag on one of its lander projects, conceding that the Martian surface simply didn’t react to the tool as intended.
“The Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport (InSight) robotic lander launched aboard an Atlas V-401 rocket on May 5, 2018, and successfully touched down on the Red Planet on November 26, 2018.
“The probe encountered issues almost immediately, and after several starts, stops and plenty of troubleshooting, the team was ultimately unable to reach a significant depth.”
https://static.techspot.com/images2/news/bigimage/2021/01/2021-01-15-image-8-j.webp
““We’ve given it everything we’ve got, but Mars and our heroic mole remain incompatible,” said Tilman Spohn, principal investigator of the Heat Flow and Physical Properties Package.
“It is believed that unexpected tendencies of the Martian soil prevented the spike-like mole from obtaining the friction it needed to hammer itself deeper.
“The team will used the wisdom it gained from the failed mission in future objectives. InSight, meanwhile, will carry on with other science tasks, as NASA recently extended the overall mission by two additional years.”
Oh they’re gonna use the WISDOM they gained from an outright failure, calling the regolith “soil” and claiming it had unexpected tendencies. Just hilarious.
LikeLike
Thanks Jared for posting this.
1 – There is something vaguely pornographic about not getting enough friction to hammer oneself deeper — or is it just me?
2 – Tilman Spohn his wheels but got nowhere?
3 – NASA should have sent a spike protein, not a spikey mole. The former can go anywhere and do anything.
4 – Note to self – add to the list of future videos to create – new cartoon series: “Mars Vs Our Heroic Mole”
LikeLike
https://www.solen.info/solar/
They continue to severely undercount sunspots this month. Notice how they count two huge spots as two, instead of factoring up to account for the size. These big spots appeared on the left limb of the sun a few days ago, so they will be crossing the sun for the rest of the month, meaning that miscount will continue for more than ten days, then stretch into Feb, causing a total miscount of something way over 100 on just those events.
LikeLike
I wonder if that huge spot area is being ‘created’ by the Saturn-Jupiter charge ‘inflow’ via Mercury.
LikeLike
Have you seen the SILSO estimated international sunspot number (EISN)? This a daily value obtained by a simple average over available sunspot counts from prompt stations in the SILSO network.
This is the plot for 22 Jan 2021
Link to daily chart here…
http://www.sidc.be/silso/eisnplot
The way they’ve messed about with the SN over the years makes it very unreliable, IMO.
LikeLike
One small step for a man, one giant (bleep) for mankind.
LikeLike