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:
https://imgur.com/N5h6fZR
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.
suntzufighting said:
Mars. Again. Must have a lot of unused footage from the previous productions.
Why is the presenter wearing a mask? Surely they can film that person with safety protocols, I mean, it is NASA after all. They must have virus proof clean rooms or something.
Of course we know the answer: NASA produces propaganda, and this illustrates it gloriously.
LikeLike
Kevin said:
The moron next to him on the other side of the plexiglas divider is even wearing a DOUBLE snot diaper. These rocket surgeons are geniuses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
cancelled said:
I wonder why the images are in black and white? Especially since Mars is the red planet!
I fear they will use (fake) contact with Mars as an excuse for more fake viruses or other types of contamination to justify stricter controls and machinations.
LikeLike
suntzufighting said:
Compilation of SpaceX landings with convenient camera trouble just at the moment of touchdown. If Musk is such a genius that recurring problem should be trivially easy to fix.
LikeLike
Swathy Krishna said:
I showed this video to a couple of kids 8-9 years old, and they could spot the fake.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Some common video issues I see with many launches:
We’re shown a POV shot of the rocket as it rises, looking down at the ground. It shows the rocket rising straight up yet the ground camera shots show the rocket flying on a nearly horizontal path traveling across the sky.
The POV rising shots always cut to showing us the rocket in space orbiting the Earth but we never see the transition of it moving upward through and then beyond the atmosphere into space and then entering its orbit attitude. We never see how it moves from going straight up to its orbital path parallel to the Earth.
I’ve also never seen a returning capsule move from orbit in space and then entering and descending into the atmosphere without video cuts.
LikeLike
MathisderMaler said:
Rockets can’t land backwards. God do they think we are stupid.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Sure they do!
LikeLiked by 1 person
tony martin said:
Forget Mars….. I’m going to Venus where the goddess of love Aphrodite is.
I always wanted to meet her. 😍
LikeLike
tony martin said:
First-century AD Roman fresco of Mars and Venus from Pompeii
LikeLike
MathisderMaler said:
Around 100 sunspots today according to their own pictures, but they are reporting only 26. The hide continues.
LikeLike
thechemicaluniverse said:
Appologies but I began wondering how the town of Phoenix began in the Arizona desert, in the middle of no where. One of the founders was Jack Swilling, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Swilling
the son of a South Carolina planation manager and the owners daughter .He fought in the Mexican War,
Curiously Swilling wrote in 1854 that he suffered serious injuries—a broken skull and a bullet lodged in his back—in unstated circumstances. Those injuries plagued him for the rest of his life and led to a dependency on drugs and alcohol (Those broken skulls can do that) Nor did I know that he fought in the Arizona territory Civil War,(I did not even know there was a Arizona Territory Civil SWar) of course against the Apaches. those pesky natives.
When the Union Army withdrew from the New Mexico Territory at the beginning of the Civil War, the men of Pinos Altos formed a militia company they named the Arizona Guards for defense against Apache attack. The secession of Confederate Arizona from the Union was officially declared in 1861, a territory which included all of the New Mexico Territory south of the 34th parallel. Swilling was elected second-in-command of the company, or First Lieutenant, and retained that rank when the Arizona Guards were absorbed into the Confederate Army. Swilling likely fought at the Battle of Pinos Altos, a Confederate victory and a battle which killed his commander, Captain Thomas J. Mastin (1839-1861).[10] (Wow so much history and remember he had that broken skull!!)
But like a true American, following the Union’s capture of Tucson in May 1862, Swilling’s company retreated and he became a civilian employee of the United States Army, first as a dispatch rider between General James Carleton’s California Column and Union forces up the Rio Grande, and later as a scout in an anti-Apache campaign. He was involved in the campaign to take Mesilla which ended with a Union takeover of Confederate Arizona’s capital. Near the end of that employment, he encountered the Joseph R. Walker exploratory party near Pinos Altos when Swilling led the capture of the famous Apache chief Mangas Coloradas.[1(Colored Sleeves??)
No the person responsible for the name Phoenix was a French Lord Darrell Duppa!! (France Cambridge South America then Arizona??
He stated that he had been shipwrecked and wandered through South America for some time before he reached North America and Prescott, Arizona, in 1863. Imagine that a Cambridge man in our Arizona desert!! He also named Tempe Arizona
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Darrell_Duppa
Sorry but i only had Texas history in Junior High School and never knew about the Arizona territory and its wonderous history.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Fry’s Electronics closed all stores today due to the covidiocy
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
oops — wrong thread. Sorry 😦
LikeLike
thechemicaluniverse said:
For a long time I heard of “BIOSPACE”, but this covid19 finally made me appreciate the term. We are all in Biospace ..Deep Biospace2021
https://www.biospace.com/article/new-collaboration-could-help-answer-questions-about-covid-19-reinfections/?utm_campaign=BioPharm&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=112731070&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_TiScznhCkMEVBz-NU6wEUs3J5TXJmV-FbVCybV9QZex_fVNytQ4T-LzGJrlXUNU_cABt2ukmIOTY1i7yW4DmNgytjZg&utm_content=112731070&utm_source=hs_email
LikeLike
suntzufighting said:
So here is what $80 000 000 buys. That is about $40 000 per gram. The Musk clone dude again, this time visiting Jack Parson’s Laboratory. Seems he can get in anywhere. This adds to the fiction of the open societyof course.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
These guys are total bullshit artists.
Maybe they should get a fake Emmy Award like Mario Homo.. l mean Como got for his performance as …. Bullshit Artist Of The Year.
This guy looks so much like Musk they have to be related.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Here is a PBS “Nova” episode that was just released about the recent Mars Rover/Helicopter thing.
“https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/looking-for-life-on-mars/”
(posted in quotes to prevent unwanted content to be posted here)
At about 30:30 one of the JPL helicopter team says that there were naysayers at JPL that said such a copter would never fly. They never explain how they managed to overcome the physics factors making it impossible.
They only “explain” that a helicopter goes up because it pushes air down. Gosh, really? Is there anyone who doesn’t know that? But, how the hell did they make a copter fly in practically no air? No real explanation of that.
I’ve seen this show twice now and it demonstrates a marvelous knack they have for speaking in glowing terms about their alleged accomplishments without really saying much of anything. For example, they describe the meticulous lengths they went to in assembling the rover while keeping it clean of Earthly contaminants but what they show is just workers swabbing it with alcohol and Q-tips (Gosh! How high tech!). Or, they describe the “Mars Yard” where they test rovers as if it were a technical wonderland but it’s just a big sandbox with some rocks in it.
They also go to great lengths to portray the team members as young and cool and hip and dedicated and they ride scooters and own big fuzzy dogs and have beards and wear sneakers with NASA logos and are so-so-so enthusiastic about what they are doing. You can almost see wings on their backs and a halo around their heads. If you ask me, it’s really sickening. 🙂
LikeLike
Michael Deloatch said:
Well, at least we know the purpose of the gold foil now. It is to keep the magic from escaping…
LikeLike
virusmyth666 said:
I wonder if the helicopter was designed to fail (unable to fly)
on purpose in order to generate a plausible alibi that they
are “in fact” in mars. Or maybe not… we’ll have to wait and see.
LikeLike
I pass said:
“We’re sorry, but this video is not available.” Ahhh
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Still works for me. Must be a regional thing.
LikeLike
Stephen said:
It does seem to be regional – I got the same thing coming from .nl. Found what looks to be the same vid on Nova’s official youtube channel but that more specifically says “The uploader has not made this available in your country” e.g. regional thing – try a US proxy.
Can’t have those Euros poking fun at our bad science, now…
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
It’s called “Looking for Life on Mars” and is about 53 minutes long.
I can also get it on YouTube so you might try that.
LikeLike
ATallOne said:
I noticed the photo footage looks like noon with short shadows. Then any image of the sun has the sun low in the sky (so should have longer shadows).
Supposedly Mars has a tilt angle of 25 degrees (similar to earth) and the “landing” location is north of the Mars equator.
I think if a photo is taken on earth and you know the time of day you can figure out the location (latitude). So I guess there will only be footage from around noon to make it difficult to figure out where on earth they might be creating this footage. I think there are automated programs that can compare images to imagery of earth deserts to see if the shots match known landscapes on earth.
I typed in fake Mars footage and it looks like they (NASA & co) prepared other footage and labelled it fake to attract hits and dominate the search engines – saying it was old footage from curiosity rover – but we know that is also fake. The photos look like they are in some nice depression so you never see beyond the ridge. There are probably places where they test drive these rovers on earth and it may be that they use the same or nearby locations for the official footage.
I went scrolled down again and again and got nowhere. Then I remembered the flat earther Eric Dubay on YouTube. And I found he has a new clip showing some older Mars photos with comparative shots from Devon Island Canada. That is far north Canada. (See 2min 30sec the vid Mars Perseverance Rover Landing Debunked)
(I know Miles makes fun of the controlled opposition “The Flat Earth Society” but Eric Dubay is not one of them. If people are doing work to point out the flaws in storylines then I’m happy to listen to the specific evidence they have. It doesn’t mean one has to believe everything they say.
(I’m sure people have lots of better points on all this and there may even be sites out there exposing all the faked imagery. If so, pls mention the creator name or where the content can be found.)
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
I suspect the Martian landscapes they show us now are all CGI since close scrutiny of the old Devon Island photos revealed things that shouldn’t be there like the “Mars rat” gaff.
LikeLike
ATallOne said:
Good point! Thanks
LikeLike
archer-d said:
Yep, North of Canada is where they make this footage, looks just like Mars. It also explains the wood beams in some shots and the occasional rodent.
LikeLike
suntzufighting said:
I usually look for evidence not mentioned anywhere. I had a look at the hi-res footage from Mars. Any painting beginner is taught about atmospheric effe ts. Distant mountains are attenuated by thicker atmosphere, sometimes moisture or dust laden. Therefore the tonal values are lower. Things appear faint at a distance due to this effect. The distant Martian mountains should therefore still look crisp, since the atmospheric effect is a fraction of that on Earth.
There wasno mentionof a dust storm to account for this effect. Dust storms could also be much different on Mars, particles not being carried very high.
Erosion may look different. Very thin air at high velocity and low gravity should make differentripple and dune structures. For one thing, the resting angle of a pile of sand should be much steeper due to the lower gravity. Fractally it should not look like a National Geographic photo article of, let’s say, the Atlas mountains.
LikeLike
ATallOne said:
So many things to consider! Thanks
LikeLike
virusmyth666 said:
Here’s proof that aerodynamic flight is possible in mars.
Faked, but still funny…
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Yes, all this recent footage of Mars is faked. Sloppy CGI, and I don’t even think the environments are necessarily real ones either since CGI environments aren’t terribly difficult. I do them all the time, and mine are far more complex and detailed than these NASA ones.
All that said, aero flight on Mars would be just as possible as it is here on Earth – since it’s not the aerodynamics that cause lift at all, but the planet’s charge field. The sparser atmosphere would have nothing to do with lift. Mars’ emits much less charge than the Earth so you would simply have to account for that in your velocity equations. But that’s not what’s happening with their fake-ass “helicopter”, I’m just here to point out that it’s charge that causes lift, not aerodynamics.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
As further evidence against “Perseverance” we have the claim that it runs on an ancient iMac CPU from 1998. They claim that it’s solid and tried-and-true, but I call bullshit. Every cell phone available now is faster and more powerful than this entire tin can nonsense, and the claim that radiation is a factor would be no more true of the old chip than any new ones, which are FAR smaller and thus more easily shielded anyway. The same shielding they would use on the old PowerPC chip would/should/could work on any new chip, and the new chips use FAR less power as well. It’s laughable. And there’s no way to justify they COST of this fake rover, from this standpoint either. Just pathetic.
https://www.techspot.com/news/88796-nasa-mars-perseverance-rover-powered-processor-1998.html
LikeLike
virusmyth666 said:
If you watch this snippet and cannot immediately spot
something very odd, then I guess nothing can help you…
I’ve noticed that it is more convincing if you watch it
on your phone, or at least it appears to be less fake.
The bigger the screen, the more glaring it becomes.
First time I saw it was on a 60inch tv and my god,
it’s like they’re not even trying to fool us anymore.
They do it right in front of our eyes and couldnt care less.
Looks like the emperor not only wears no clothes but is
also perpetually taking an anal schwab.
LikeLiked by 2 people
virusmyth666 said:
I’ve seen starwar scenes from the 70s that were more convincing than this…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Harry's Pretzel Mug said:
It looks like the footage sequence of the rocket landing on the ground (starting at ten seconds into this video) appears to have been reversed. I assume in the original version, the rocket was actually ejecting itself from the ground and into the sky. That’s my hunch.
LikeLike
archer-d said:
Video unavailable… is it on bitchute?
LikeLike
archer-d said:
nvmnd.. i made a mistake..i am in restricted mode.
LikeLike
arborfest said:
Wow. No offense, but when I saw that I thought you must have accidentally linked to an artist’s animation of the ship. Then I sat through the official SpaceX footage of the test, and it’s all there. Unbelievable. At 11:35:
“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODY6JWzS8WU&feature=youtu.be”
This has to be a new low in the category of Shit They Expect Us To Believe.
Unless…What if they are intentionally making these images of poorer and poorer quality? What if they are calibrating the system? If they really are planning the fake alien invasion, they are going to need a ton of CGI, and they will want to know what the specs of that CGI will need to be in order to fool the majority of people. Clearly the bar is very low so far.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Yep, I can confirm it’s fake as fuck and fully CGI there. Tell-tale artifacts abound, especially the FLUID “smoke” which was done in Maya by an amateur. They didn’t even use turbulence or a high-res voxel sim for that, just the barebones fluids that come stock with Maya. It’s pathetic.
As for calibration, as you put it – that’s not necessary. So many people DO believe in this shit, including my own little brother who knows all my arguments and has watched me do similar stuff in Maya (only far better), and he’s not exactly stupid. Just GULLIBLE. They WANT to believe in this shit, and any dissent triggers their cognitive dissonance. They’ll never not believe. They have to believe it, or their world-view crumbles.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
The comments are hilarious, though!
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Like the old saying goes… There’s a sucker born every minute… and the PN know it.
P.S.
By the way I have a bridge in brooklyn for sale. I take credit cards.
LikeLike
MathisderMaler said:
I have been telling people for several years that no matter how real it looks or not, landing rockets backwards is impossible. That’s all you need to know. It was absurd in 1980 and it is even more absurd now. It is either CGI like that, or it is just a film run in reverse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
It’s pretty much part of the fake “Artificial Intelligence” project they’ve got running now, when there’s nothing even remotely closer in 2021 than there was in 1921. Machine learning isn’t AI. Programs aren’t AI. Computer-assistance isn’t AI. None of that shit is intelligent at all – not any moreso than the people programming it are, or could be.
So they present it to us as some kind of advanced form of TCS (Traction Control System, or computer-assisted braking IN A CAR) where the computers are feeding the data to the thrusters and they are adjusting pressure/thrust accordingly, essentially. I mean not just essentially – that’s the whole story, right there. Except in a car, it’s simply reading the wheel speeds independently via MECHANICAL SENSORS and applying some braking or none accordingly, so the vehicle’s velocity remains roughly constant. That kind of thing (which is actually real obviously, I mean I’ve replaced these sensors in my own Jeep wheels and they outright simply count rotor teeth ticks and brake or don’t brake) takes only the tiniest fraction of compute power to process. It’s two lines of “code”.
IF tangential velocity[wheel 1]=/=tangential velocity[wheel 2]
THEN apply brake until tv[w1]=tv[w2].
Rinse, repeat for all four wheels, with a variable for weight balance front/back perhaps. The only other variable is TOTAL vehicle speed, where all four wheels simply balance that out. That’s it. The mechanism is transparent and you can test it, fix it, and SEE it yourself on any car that has Traction Control, mine’s an ’06 Jeep Grand. It’s right there. You can see the teeth the sensor is counting, and it’s obvious how/why/what is happening. You can also see what happens when one sensor isn’t working, because it’ll either lock up that wheel unnecessarily or NOT brake that wheel at all, both of which cause obvious and expected results.
With rocketry, you have possibly dozens more variables which we could also try to list out. Why not?
total mass
vector velocity (x,y,z)
thrust magnitude (per RCS module)
thrust angle (per RCS module)
thrust cosine losses, again, PER module
torque per module
GRAVITY
charge pressure UP (which they cannot/do not concede exists)
charge pressure DOWN
wind
air pressure
inertia
aerodynamic influences (fins, stabilizers, etc., which would each require their own sensors to influence any computation on the fly)
…and the list goes on and on. In Kerbal Space Program, we have an addon called “MechJeb” which actually goes through ALL of these factors when trying to program a landing or takeoff or orbital transition or what have you. In every single event, we have dozens of variables happening all at once, strategically balancing out via CPU/GPU so that you can make things happen. Those generally occur at the “bounding box” of your craft and that inaccuracy alone can ruin everything, since it’s not accounting for actual mass differentials in the STRUCTURE but rather an imaginary cube or cylinder around the structure – even more margin for error.
And yet not one of those things is landing a fucking rocket backwards. I agree; it’s purely science fiction at this stage, and would require an actual advance in engineering instead of a fictional, CGI one to pull off. As in, not rockets. There are so many variables especially on a large craft that something is just going to go wrong, unless you’re launching and landing almost immediately. As in, liftoff, then setdown in the same FUNCTION. And even then you will crash almost every time.
And what is the compute power of these Fake-X rockets? My guess is they’re using the same iMac PowerPC chips from the fake Perseverance rover, at best. The Fake-X thing blew up, right? But I’m not even certain the explosion was real, and yet the plebs celebrated it anyway. Billions of dollars went poof and they are HAPPY about it because of CGI landing. It’s just absurd. They celebrate it as some kind of victory – even though it would have killed anyone aboard and was an absolute failure of design, even if it WERE real.
LikeLike
Raymond D. said:
Thank you Jared.
LikeLike
Graham said:
I know there are doubters out there regarding SpaceX but this is a much more convincing display of whats possible. (with puppetry)
https://www.gerryanderson.co.uk/first-look-itvs-new-thunderbirds-go/
LikeLike
Lewis Reid said:
F.A.B.
LikeLike
suntzufighting said:
That is some cinematography. I like the part where you look directly into the nozzle. Merlin’s Eye. Nice touch.
I fast forwarded through the pre-launch and saw something funny: clouds in Texas seem to keep their shape pretty well even if they are drifting. Looks almost as if somebody stretched a photoshop background to create the impression of a real backdrop, but they wouldn’t do that, would they? Watch in fast forward.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
i particularly like the fake-ass camera wobble/shake from 5:55 to 6:30 ~ish. Absolutely brilliant!! It feels like someone has actually lifted the CGI tech off his seat and is shaking him violently while he is still holding the mouse and they didn’t edit it out…
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
The dopes just can’t wrap their feeble wits around the idea that it could be fake even when they can see that it looks fake.
LikeLiked by 1 person
thechemicaluniverse said:
You never know , maybe it is super secret military grade technology that can make it look fake, SpaceX is that good?? I cant forget Joe Caesars Messiah Atkins talking bout how great his tesla was as it had “Military grade” technology. andof course there is a reason that stuff costs so much..ha ha ha I almost wanted to go out and buy a Tesla..
LikeLike
tony martin said:
By the way.. I found some secret footage of a space x construction site and I think it’s legit.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
This bozo is poking fun at those of use who question the reality of SpaceX but it is actually more of an illustration of the mentality of the idiot believers:
If you watch this on YouTube notice that he has to label this video with: “THIS VIDEO IS SATIRE! IT’S A JOKE. I KNOW IT’S REAL” due to the average IQ of SpaceX fans.
It didn’t work though as many commenters who don’t know what “satire” means still didn’t realize it was meant as a joke. 🙂
LikeLike
suntzufighting said:
That guy has neither charisma nor comic talent.
Comedy is best delivered deadpan:
A real howler about the signal interruption as the first stage lands on the barge. The sat uplink is lost due to vibrations induced by the thrust of the landing rocket. However, it tracks the satellite just fine in a rough sea state. And this video is two years old. Two years in which the brightest minds of SpaceX could not solve a triviality.
LikeLike
virusmyth666 said:
Their excuses are so pathetic… They could just record the damn thing and broadcast it a few seconds later after the rocket had landed.
It’d be no big deal for the audience since we’re already getting a few seconds in lag
from the sattelite link, even from the aledged “real time” broadcast.
Lame excuses that only the incredibly gulible people swallow…
Plus, this is just misdirection from the real matter at stake here
which is that those landings are all CGI, but I guess it’s easy to
fool millenials and gen-Z’ers that were already born into
the CGI movie age.
It baffles me that even older people are buying into it…
The lie is right in front of their faces and they keep swallowing it
and celebrating…
I wonder how far they’ll take this charade… Perhaps colonies
in mars with a million settlers wont be enough of a lie…
I guess PN is just testing the population intelect to probe
whether they’ll accept an alien invasion as the ultimate
catalytic effect that will bring forth a global government
for the good of all humanity.
LikeLike
thechemicaluniverse said:
Ha hah ha ha ha ha hahaha hah! ha HA HA HA HAHA
https://www.zmescience.com/science/physics/lunar-ark-might-store-dna-from-millions-of-species-in-moons-lava-tubes/
LikeLike
suntzufighting said:
That sounds like a business case, to be funded by the generous taxpayer, of course. As plausible as asteroid mining. We should brainstorm here and think up more, who knows they are running low on originality and would appreciate the help.
LikeLike
archer-d said:
First ever rocket landing?*
*On November 23, 2015, Blue Origin’s New Shepard booster rocket made the first-ever successful vertical landing following an unmanned suborbital test flight that reached space.
About Blue Origin > Founded in 2000 by Jeff Bezos, the company is led by CEO Bob Smith.
LikeLike
suntzufighting said:
Bezos has a better CGI crew than Musk😝
LikeLike
archer-d said:
I just find it strange that one moment in time it is impossible to land rockets and then suddenly anybody can do it…..
LikeLike
thechemicaluniverse said:
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hah
https://www.sciencealert.com/four-bacterial-strains-discovered-on-the-iss-may-help-grow-better-space-plants
LikeLike
archer-d said:
Well, that could be true, life is everywhere.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
This picture accompanies a Space.com article titled “NASA astronauts get up-close look at SpaceX’s Starship SN11 prototype (photo)” found here:
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-sn11-nasa-astronauts-photo
The “photo” is a composite paste-up as evidenced by a number of shadow errors. (If the resident trolls can’t see the errors, they should note their objections below whereupon I will give them all the attention they deserve.)
The rocket ship in the background is what SpaceX calls a “Starship” though it is only supposed to go to the moon. So, I presume that SpaceX does not know the difference between a star and a moon. But, I guess that doesn’t really matter because it isn’t really going to either.
I also presume that it doesn’t really exist (at least not full size) because why else would they have to fake a photo of it? 🙂
LikeLike
They Live said:
It’s a grain silo with a couple of fins welded on. It’s final resting place is on Bill Gates Quorn farm in Nebraska
LikeLiked by 1 person
Laurence said:
I’ve always taken the shape of rockets for granted, it’s only now that I realize that this suppository shape is an integral part of the joke: someone shoves it deep in us, at the place where the sun (a star) never shines…
LikeLike
Raymond D. said:
So that is what they mean by aiming for the moon…and the Stars aswell I suppose, the Hollyweird variety.
LikeLike
Laurence said:
Best pun ever…
How many billions did we pay for theses glycerin suppositories ?
And from Con-go, this is stroposphere 5, my favorite rocket… with a second and a third degree (of humour) :
LikeLike
Raymond D. said:
That video does not belong here: too realistic!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michael Deloatch said:
Maybe it’s already on the moon along with those astronauts after a clandestine launch and photo was taken there (a bit of low lunar orbit chemtrailing did for those clouds). After all, we know shadows work differently on the moon.
Elon the Starship name is pretentious; may I suggest S/S Alice Kramden? That scrap metal phallus is as likely to get to the moon some day as was she.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Good find Rolli, an obvious fauxtograph. They call the guy on the right Daddy Longlegs, because he’s been ELONgated.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Graham said:
Aren’t they the Fantactic Four?
That guy’s Reed Richards.
I’m surprised the invisible woman didn’t decide to fade out on such a bad hair day.
And there seem to be two Things, so maybe I am wrong.
LikeLike
virusmyth666 said:
Could you please elaborate on the shadows?
I couldnt put my finger on it, but something’s not right with
the picture, even when ignoring Mr Elastic Man.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
The fact that something’s not right about it is your first clue. It means it doesn’t quite match what you would expect to see with your eyes if all those elements were really there in front of you.
Load the image into an image editor or view and enlarge it. Look at all shadows. Body shadows, under-chin shadows, nose shadows, background object shadows. Note their direction. Also, note their relative lightness or darkness.
And, look closely around the edges of the people and compare what you see in other, similar photos that are real.
There are also image analysis tools available that can be used which I would rather not name as that might help the fakers. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
thechemicaluniverse said:
I wish we could have all along put our “world” into an image analyser. as I always had the feeling that sonething was not quite right with it, but it was not easy for children to see exactly what it was.
LikeLike
suntzufighting said:
Is the headline unintentional irony?
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-03-25-south-african-scientists-helped-forge-new-historic-black-hole-image/
LikeLike
suntzufighting said:
Oh the tangled webs we weave:
https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-apartheid-emerald-mine-myth-debunked/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Yes, Leon Skum is just one of many ‘rags to super-rich’ captains of industry who are just paid actors fronting intel funded organisations. All profits from these operations go towards funding the Global Shoah.
LikeLiked by 1 person
suntzufighting said:
Turns out nuclear blasts can be faked using chemical explosives, becaus it has been done:
LikeLike
suntzufighting said:
This man must be a god:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/06/what-are-the-effects-of-working-too-much-multitasking.htm
It reminds me of those Soviet super-workers that single-handedly shoveled thirty tons of coal per day for months, earning the Hero of Labor Order of Lenin or something. Feed the beast with your blood, sweat and tears, Elon does!
LikeLike
virusmyth666 said:
That link is broken. the right one seems to end with “.html” instead of just “.htm”
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/06/what-are-the-effects-of-working-too-much-multitasking.html
LikeLike
suntzufighting said:
Thanks VM666
LikeLike
suntzufighting said:
The scam has reached Africa, though if it looks a bit like cargo-cult science. Their arguments even sound like Musk.
LikeLike
Earthliness said:
Amazing. At least they were smart enough to figure out what a fake the entire thing was from the start. Can’t say the same of most Science-knowing first world public who fall for Tesla’s nonsense.
LikeLike
thechemicaluniverse said:
As a kid of course I was fascinated by the Moon Race and NASA. Itwas better than cartoons. Now though I wonder WTF happened?? and am not quite sure I believe NASA that gravity is the deciding factor of heart size?? I wonder what genius suggested identical twins and why did both of them have to be spooks??
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/exercise-did-not-prevent-an-astronauts-heart-from-shrinking?utm_source=Sailthru%20Email&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=dedicated&utm_content=2021-04-11&apid=32442739&rvid=09bec2938b52830926210b5a9b704bc76c83847c8e99bdba7ae76499bce6c4e3#Tracking-the-human-heart-in-space
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
This video explores a 2016 image reportedly taken on Mars by NASA’s Rover showing what appears to be a snake:
Another infamous “Mars Rover photo” is referred to as “the Mars rat” and can be easily found via search. It shows what appears to be a small animal that looks a lot like an Arctic Lemming, just like the kind that lives on Devon Island, Canada where NASA happens to have a base due to the local landscape looking like Mars (or what NASA wants us to think Mars looks like).
There are other similar photos showing animals, bones, a flower and other Earthlike objects in alleged Mars photos.
But, of course, only a conspiracy nut would think the Martian photos are faked. I mean, why would they do such a thing? 🙂
LikeLike
suntzufighting said:
The discussion of Planet of the Apes made the unfortunate connection between Musk and this delightful symian:
https://gifer.com/en/HJPR
LikeLike
virusmyth666 said:
Wow… I mean… W-O-W !!!!
Look at the fake commentator (Sergio Sacani), who by the way
works for Hallyburton…
LikeLike
virusmyth666 said:
Wow #2
Those guys have no limit to their shame, apparently…
It’s funny that in portuguese, “ingenuity” is a false cognate
to “naiveness” (ingenuidade), LOL
Sadly this fat diabetic buffoon is speaking in portuguese, so
most of you cannot appreciate the several ludicrous things
he mentions.
In the complete video here at around 31:45 they show
a graphic “demonstrating” the takeoff and the buffoon says
something like
“Take it! Right on you face! I want to see anyone saying it is CGI now!”
He’s so lame he doesnt even (or prays that his audience wont)
realize that any graphic fulfills the very DEFINITION of CGI
(computer generated imagery).
Oh Im so relieved… A graphic! We can all celebrate now!
Here the 1 minute that shows the obvious fake takeoff
and the actors celebrating in a pathetic fashion:
LikeLike
suntzufighting said:
Either I am hallucinating or someone is playing Mandela effects, but as I watched I saw the camera pan down to the lander, then up & to the left, focusing on a pair of flying birds(yes, birds), then towards the right onto a cloud. Is there an easter egg embedded in the video? Happened while watching on my phone with both videos open on the screen.
LikeLike
suntzufighting said:
The alien invasion is imminent:
LikeLike
Sven Swensen said:
Alien invasion? Ah, if we could only be so lucky.
With economic decline in the cards, I predict that the space projects will need to wrap up in the next decade or so, as the lack of ROI becomes obvious to even the most ardent supporters. I think we’ll see even more of a drop off than after the Apollo program, and maybe a few fake disasters tossed in to provide less incentive to raid the Treasuries of the world.
All of us will have other priorities anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
Watch the little building at the lower left of the rocket as the rocket lifts off.
What do you make of it?
This is Mercury-Redstone rocket launch of the early 1960s, reportedly the first rocket to carry USA astronauts such as Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom into space.
I have been trying to find this footage for years. I first saw it on YouTube some years ago and posted it on a forum. It then vanished from YT and I hadn’t able to find it until now. So, I don’t want to say where I found it and I have posted it here as a GIF.
LikeLike
archer-d said:
i’ll bite, it is part of maquette?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Yes, looks like a scale model to me. Shot in slow motion.
LikeLike
thechemicaluniverse said:
selling the illusion, the adventure!!!
https://www.rt.com/news/522007-musks-bunch-mars-colonists-die/
Can the braindead actually die more somehow??
LikeLike
oregonmatt said:
Hey, it’ll be tough, but….
“If an arduous and dangerous journey where you might not come back alive, but it’s a glorious adventure, sounds appealing, Mars is the place. That’s the ad for Mars,” Musk said.
Diamandis suggested that, regardless of this risk, Musk would likely have thousands if not millions of volunteers.
Our boy Elon sure cuts a dashing figure, doesn’t he? The intrepid, black-masked hero. Worthy to be followed anywhere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
thechemicaluniverse said:
Ha ha ha space travel is so exciting…imagine just missing a UFO!!!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9511301/SpaceX-rocket-four-astronauts-board-near-miss-piece-space-debris.html
Brace for Impact Brace for Impact!!!
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Some call the oceans “inner space” so I put this post in the space fakery thread.
The following video is passed off as genuine footage recently shot at the bottom of the Indian Ocean as part of a grand operation called “Expedition Deep Ocean” that is getting TV exposure and at least one recent book release. It is supposed to show a newly discovered sea creature.
It looks like nothing more than a cartoon to me:
LikeLike
archer-d said:
looks legit, the deep ocean is weird, saw many of that same sort of footage on discovery channel when i was young…
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Legit? Really?
It’s clearly lit from directly above. Shadows are directly underneath the objects. Where is that light coming from? No sunshine reaches the bottom of the Indian Ocean.
And, where is the “snow”? Deep-sea photos always show a constant “snow” of debris and organic material drifting to the bottom. I see none here. It is clear as can be.
And, the fish look like they are painted in, like a Disney cartoon.
“saw many of that same sort of footage on discovery channel when i was young”
Yeah, I saw men walking on the Moon on TV when I was young. 🙂
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
This is not CGI, alas. I wanted it to be but watched it a dozen times in HD on a giant Samsung LED. There are no elements of CGI involved here, and it does NOT look like a cartoon. The light from above is from a human source, obviously. The detritus is there as well, just flowing. And if you’ve never been in the ocean, there are many areas of the ocean that are very, very clear with no detritus raining down from above.
Watch the warp and woof of the creature. Its movement COULD be animated but it would take a great deal of skill in the motion curves to pull it off in such a natural manor. Notice the organic detail of the creature as well but also the noise. Sure, you COULD animate this in Maya/Houdini but at great cost. What would the ROI be, to create fake creatures?
It’s just a weird fish-creature. If you’ve never seen one before, spend some time in natural water or outside of a city and you can see all kinds of strange life forms, if you keep your eyes peeled. Go outside, visit an ocean. They’re really wonderful places, teeming with life and oftentimes you’ll see something you simply never have before, and cannot name.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
“And if you’ve never been in the ocean, there are many areas of the ocean that are very, very clear with no detritus raining down from above.”
Yes, I have been in the ocean. I have lived in California all my life and been in, on, and around the ocean many times. I have not been at the bottom of the Indian Ocean, however, as you seem to imply that you have. But, I’ve been a fan of undersea life since well before you were born and seen plenty of ocean bottom images and footage. And, it is the reality of the footage that is the issue here.
But, while you were at the bottom of the Indian Ocean, you must have noticed the clouds of silt that billowed up when your submarine arrived there and it must have taken quite a long while for that silt to settle and make the water as clear as it appears in this footage. Funny how none of that silt seems to have fallen on the skids of the sub or upon the baitfish tied to them. I would expect these areas to be covered with silt as a result of this settling but they are clean as a whistle, adding to the unreal appearance of the footage for me. And, that lighting sure looks awfully perfect, especially how they balanced out the blue cast so often seen in such footage.
OK, maybe it isn’t CGI. Maybe it is live-action with a fake animal doll and shot in a large aquarium. It is a bit odd that they cut just before the “animal” touches the skids. But, one way or another, it sure looks fake to me. If so, it wouldn’t be the first example of undersea fakery as Miles discussed in his paper on the Titanic.
LikeLike
Sven Swensen said:
What’s up with these weird video shots of the Mar’s helicopter – blurry overlays of the lander and tracks and the copter sitting away from it, and then more weird blurry video of “Ingenuity’s” shadow during flight?
Didn’t anybody tape an iPhone to the lander to actually get a decent photo?
LikeLike
Sven Swensen said:
oops. forgot to include the link to the article and pics referenced above:
https://scitechdaily.com/after-proving-flight-is-possible-on-mars-nasas-ingenuity-helicopter-has-a-new-mission/
LikeLike
Michael Deloatch said:
Fun facts on that gif file at top of your linked page, courtesy of GIMP software:
777 × 437 pixels yielding a total count of 339549 pixels
Number of unique colors: 252
Is Marvin the Martian trying to telegraph something to us?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Does this look as fake to you as it does to me?
Look especially from 0:59
This is Concorde Air France Flight 4590, July 2000.
This incident marked the end of the Concorde, the supersonic airliner. Up to this point, the Concorde was considered the safest way to fly.
The Concorde flew at an altitude of 60,000 feet, nearly twice that of normal airline jets. I can’t help thinking somebody didn’t want civilian aircraft flying at such a high altitude so they arranged this fake crash and that was the end of the Concorde.
Coincidentally, 3 months later, on Halloween 2000, the first astronauts were launched up to the new ISS and became its first residents, and the 20+ year career of the ISS began.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Phil C said:
Even though the crash scene footage was short, I didn’t see anything that resembled a concorde, or even an airplane for that matter.
LikeLike
Graham said:
I watched a fairly in depth aircrash investigation documentary of the concorde crash a few years back when I believed everything the mainstream spewed out. The only footage in that hour long show was the couple of minutes where you see it from the ground and to the side just as its taking off.
The rest looks so obviously Commodore 64 level flight sim I can’t believe anyone is expected to believe its anything other than a computer generated reconstruction of actual events.
LikeLiked by 2 people
kocotube01 začasni said:
The only original (real life), more or less pristine, footage is between:
0:0 to 0:12 (promotional footage, I guess)
0:16 to 0:22 (promotional footage, I guess)
1:15 to 1:32 (actual plane in flames footage)
1:50 to 2:09 (actual crash site footage).
All else seems to be either:
pure (game) animation or
pure CGI sequences (for the purpose of some documentary) or
composite sequences, a combination of CGI overlaid over archived footage (for the purpose of some documentary).
LikeLike
Gerard Nordskoven said:
That exploding Concorde has the exact same CGI flameout they use on FUTURAMA.
LikeLiked by 1 person
suntzufighting said:
Space Fakery is coming soon.
This is going to make NASA, SpaceX, Jaxa and ESA look like the the amateur opening acts they were surely designed to be.
https://archive.is/D7prh
LikeLike
kocotube01 začasni said:
A lot-a-fluff by mr. Elizondo.
LikeLike
Michael Deloatch said:
Oddly and by purest of coincidences I have no doubt, yesterday YT suggested the video for the Carpenters’ cover of “Calling Occupants of Interplanetary Craft” song, which weirded me out even in the 70s.
Coronald is really feeling his muse beating on his head for a new video if they keep this up.
LikeLike
Michael Deloatch said:
PS mine was a reply to Suntzufighting’s post today. This site is getting weird with its comments functionality. Beta test for shutting it down from a high level, no doubt…
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Today NASA launched a Minotaur rocket carrying three “top secret” spacecraft.
“Hey, everybody! We’re launching top-secret spacecraft here! It’s a big secret so don’t tell anybody! OK?”
Col Chad Davis, an NRO official said, “We certainly cannot get into any specifics for national security reasons, but I can tell you that there are three spacecraft that will be launched on this mission,”
The article goes on to say: “The fleet of top-secret satellites collect high-resolution optical and radar imagery of various sites around the world, eavesdrop on communications from U.S. adversaries and help track worldwide military activity.”
OK, so we know how many and when and where they were launched and any government with spacecraft tracking equipment can track them and know what places they would be monitoring and what they are supposed to do.
So, how is this a secret?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Michael Deloatch said:
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/spacewalking-astronauts-boosting-stations-solar-power-78311537
“Once anchored in place, the solar panel was designed to roll out like a red carpet.”
Is it really prudent for us earthlings to unroll a red carpet in space? Mightn’t a passing star cruiser perceive that as an explicit invitation for an admiral or emperor or something to stop by our planet?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
CNN reports that SpaceX is pissing off a lot of Texans including the local DA and may face arrest and criminal charges if they don’t knock off their illegal activities (closing beaches and chasing people off local roads, etc).
LikeLike
thechemicaluniverse said:
Wow George W, steel buildings collapsing, teror theater, The Trumpster, Fony Flu , Braindead Joe, what is next?? Maybe we are only the “ants” of the universe????
https://www.rt.com/news/527675-ufo-aliens-extraterrestrial-contact/
We are lucky we have the Air force to this time tell us the truth, at long llast (now if they only release those missing last JFK records. Ha ha Trump was too stupid to know he had too..by LAW…Lets hope Biden understands)
LikeLike
suntzufighting said:
Here is someone who sees through the SpaceX scam, even though he believes that they actually re-use the first stages. His spreadsheet looks uncannily similar to what one would expect for expendable rockets.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Richard Branson says he will fly to “the edge of space” Sunday morning along with a group of 5 others. A special airplane carrying his “spacecraft” will take off from New Mexico, fly up to 50,000 feet and then launch it upwards (it says here).
https://www.foxla.com/news/virgin-galactic-to-launch-richard-branson-5-others-into-space-sunday
LikeLike
Greg said:
From mail order to Virgin Records to Virgin Atlantic to etc, to Virgin Galactic, because that’s just how easy it is. He’s a delighted promoter of Covid, masks, the vaccines, and electric cars, so it’s up in the air, no pun intended, if they will retire him with a fake crash death at the age of 70.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lewis reid said:
A smarmy, smug sumph who deserves shooting down, when I heard he was ballooning across the Atlantic, I reached for my shotgun.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
You don’t need highly sophisticated technology to go to the moon or outer space. I saw it on TV so it must be true.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Well, Sir Richard Branson has “crossed the boundary of space” and returned safely to Earth, we’re told. I was anxious to see the view of Earth from the 53-mile altitude but, so far, I have not seen any footage showing that view (that wasn’t broken up to the point where nothing was recognizable). They do seem to have problems showing clear pictures of their space exploits at times. When they were “in space” they didn’t even show the starry sky outside their vehicle even though there was at least one camera positioned near a porthole. Maybe they will show better quality footage later. I really would like to see something that convinces me they really did go as high as they claim.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
In March 2000, Branson was knighted at Buckingham Palace.
LikeLike
suntzufighting said:
https://www.livescience.com/jeff-bezos-odds-death-new-shepard.html
LikeLike
Michael Deloatch said:
Ah, well it’s one small step for man… but a boon for mankind potentially.
If he meets an untimely fate, maybe Amazon will run a huge momento mori sale for several weeks. Buy lots of crap now before it’s too late.
LikeLiked by 1 person
oregonmatt said:
Don’t get your hopes up. Amazon can be run efficiently from the Space Station.
LikeLike