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.
Jared Magneson said:
A comment my brother made led me to research Hubble a bit further. It turns out, it appears to be based on and similar to various NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) designs from decades ago. Avid readers will recognize the NRO from Miles’ guest papers on the topic, and his own analysis where he showed that the NRO was a huge branch of intel, kept secret for 30 years, which also siphoned a budget perhaps larger even than the CIA’s budget over the years. They developed spy tech, and used it. That’s their entire real function, as the name implies.
https://imgur.com/IE8iY0b
This diagram of HUBBLE is from the Wiki on the NRO KH-11 “Kennan” satellite scope. In fact, almost every picture on that page is of Hubble, not the KH-11 series:
“It is believed to resemble the Hubble Space Telescope in size and shape, as the satellites were shipped in similar containers. Furthermore, a NASA history of the Hubble,[22] in discussing the reasons for switching from a 3-meter main mirror to a 2.4-meter design, states: “In addition, changing to a 2.4-meter mirror would lessen fabrication costs by using manufacturing technologies developed for military spy satellites.” A CIA history states that the primary mirror on the first KH-11s measured 2.34 meters, but sizes increased in later versions.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennen#Design
There’s no feasible reason I can find, aside from the secondary correctional mirror that the KH-11 series has, that Hubble couldn’t have been launched and used primarily as yet another spy sat. I have no confidence that Hubble does NOT have that secondary mirror. They wouldn’t need Hubble to do what the existing KH-11 spy sats were doing, but perhaps it was an upgraded version and serves multiple purposes, thus justifying the cost and cause in a direct and spooky way?
“The telescopes are similar to Hubble telescope, only they use a different optical technology that has 100 times the field of view compared to the civilian telescope. The specialty of the spy telescopes is that they have maneuverable secondary mirror that makes it possible to obtain more-focused images.”
https://thetechjournal.com/space/nro-donates-two-military-spy-telescopes-to-nasa-powerful-than-hubble.xhtml
In most of these articles about the two telescope assembles the NRO “donated” they stress the whole donation part, “at no additional cost” as though the same fake, pilfered taxes didn’t pay for it already. How is the NRO going to sell NASA something anyway? Who owns it? Horse shit. Poppycock.
NASA often appears to me to be just a PR-front of the NRO itself, with the mission to continue garnering grants and funding to the public – when there’s no need for that since the NRO is already stealing all the money they want, through military/intelligence budgets which have nothing to do with the NSF (National Science Foundation, in DC, where all such grants come from).
Meanwhile, they’re not wasting any time stealing even more money for the successor to the unlaunched, useless James Webb ‘scope which Miles has already battered:
“After several years of design studies, NASA announced this past week that formal work will begin on the next-generation space observatory to follow the Hubble and James Webb space telescopes: the Wide Field Survey Telescope (WFIRST).”
https://imgur.com/X8G0oeI
Just look at that piece of shit rendering. It’s labelled an artist’s rendition, but that’s the best NASA could do in 2016? That’s their “artist” involved? It’s barely even high-school level CGI – in the year 2000. Every video game on the market right now has better graphics than that. It’s the NEXT money pit.
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/nasa-unveils-wfirst-next-decade-space-telescope-02222016/
For contrast, here’s a single frame from Everspace, a fun space combat game sans orbital physics, for comparison. This is rendering at 60 framed per second (or more) at 1080HD in realtime, as opposed to that “artist’s rendition which is at garbage resolution and only a single frame.
https://imgur.com/tRup24B
NASA can’t even keep up with “Bigfish Games”, hah haa!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lewis Reid said:
NASA’s rendering looks like they’re using the same blokes that did the cgi for Babylon 5. The use of purple’s a big giveaway.
LikeLike
Lewis Reid said:
Just thought on a mo, purple = phoenician.
Babylon 5 mainman Straczynski wrote 92 of the 110 episodes (even if he borrowed heavily from the Lord of the Rings).
LikeLike
L Kinder said:
World-Wide Seven Solar Observatory Closures: What is Happening? [This is very strange with no definite answers, so I’m posting 4 links about it: solar storm? UFOs? Comment if you’ve found the answer, please.]
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys1o1d69lnQ
– https://thedivinefrequency.com/2018/09/14/world-wide-solar-observatory-closures-what-is-happening/
– http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1218292/pg1
– https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1018750/alien-conspiracy-ufo-near-sun-national-solar-observatory-fbi-investigation-new-mexico
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
I would guess that they WANT the public to think something secretive is going on. Otherwise, they’d have provided a mundane explanation like “we’re simply updating network hardware and need to shut the observatories down for a few days” and no one would think twice about it.
Perhaps this is a set-up for an upcoming psy-op of some sort.
LikeLike
Dan said:
They want us to believe it was just a janitor trying to download child porn!
http://earthsky.org/human-world/why-sunspot-solar-observatory-nm-closed-fbi
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Indeed, I’ve been following this one from the first press release and can’t really find much about it. The New Mexico site was finished in 1969 and has been running since, yet they only have five papers listed on the Wiki for “Scientific discoveries, technologies, and scientists”? And all of these are recent from the past few years, with the oldest being from 2008, so what were they doing with it for the 39 years prior to that?
We already have the Solar Dynamic Observatory (SDO) probe in space since 2010, which appears to do everything that the Richard Dunn ‘scope can do and more (and better), so why was this useless monstrosity still being operated at all? In comparison it was an archaic piece of shit, being terrestrial and stationary to begin with and HUGE.
Perhaps they are just actually shutting down these defunct tech sites and wanted to generate some news hype. Why would a Janitor need the internet at his place of work to spread kiddy-porn, anyway? The story sounds stupid. It sounds like marketing spin to me – “Hey, look at these sciency projects with cool buildings! NASA and the NSF are AWESOME!”
LikeLike
R T said:
Yeah, not to mention this story is being broadcasted on every dingy truther website on the entire internet. That is a very large red flag.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
It just seems like ALL such telescopes and observatories would be defunct compared to the SDO, up in space, which we’ve seen has daily updates on the sun in every spectrum. I’ve been looking at that site for years, even since before I found Miles. It has a higher resolution than any of these Earth-based thingamajobs AND doesn’t have to deal with any atmospheric interference.
So perhaps they’re just shutting them down for this reason, but claiming some bullshit just to get rid of janitors? I can’t figure the spin out here, but it definitely stinks.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Solar observatory closures…. I may go with the defunct hypothesis. Solar observation from space has rendered the terrestrial ones all but useless.and they must cost a fair bit to keep running but that doesn’t explain SOHO does it? …. Wait! Just screwing on my conspiracy head for a moment. Aliens? Nah…don’t be silly…unless it’s the start of a faux invasion.
All these observatories monitor the Sun in, let’s say, other than visual wavelengths. They can see changes in solar activity that visible light misses completely. They could be trying to hide the possibility that the Sun is, to quote NASA, going into hibernation. There is mention of ancient cave paintings describing a ‘dark sun’ or ‘black sun’. I’ve seen this called misinterpretation of an eclipse by certain peoples but they definitely knew the difference in the solar image during eclipses; one having a large visible corona and the other having none.
The corona shrinks during solar minimum to appear mostly around the solar equator. During solar maximum the corona can be seen all around the Sun but more extended around the equator. I have a pet theory that when ice ages begin, the solar corona disappears completely.
A large hole/gap in the corona causes a cleaner escape of solar particles from the Sun triggering significant aurora, radio blackouts and other electrical interference. The solar interplanetary magnetic field has been weakening for the past 50 years or more, since accurate observations began, which allows in more high energy particles from outside the solar system (cosmic rays). Now imagine a scenario where the magnetic field drops quickly and the corona all but disappears. The effect would be severe electrical surges in the Earth’s crust and atmosphere, causing increased volcanism and earthquakes, plus huge electrical storms with giant hail and intense rainfall or snow. Also DNA damage due to being bombarded by cosmic rays. Most survivors lived in caves for a reason and it wasn’t for warmth.
So, reluctant as I am to sound like a doom-saying conspiracy handmaid, I do take this as a strong possibility that solar changes have been observed that may sound a death knell for this latest incarnation of the human race.
We are approximately 1,000 years overdue for the next major glaciation. The average global temperature has been in steady decline for the past 8,000 years. It is cooler now than almost any other point in the last 12,000 years. Another ice age WILL begin soon, all the research on lake sediments and ice cores has given scientists a very clear picture of world temperature changes and it doesn’t look very promising.
Never mind that lake-side condo. Find yourself a cave, stock up on dried nutrients and fire-wood….and bullets!!
Unscrews conspiracy head….puts on logical head.
Of course, this could be some major software glitch…but that’s just boring innit?
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
Hi Jared,
Can i pick your brains plz? This has been annnoying me and i haven’t had the time to post in a while
Back to orbits im afraid :-O
OK so, we were talking before about how you increase your tangential velocity and that increases your distance from the earth. So in order to orbit higher you need to travel faster. But there must be a cut-off point since the moon is at a higher orbit but going a lot slower than things in Low Earth Orbits
Similarly, the other planets in the solar system must be orbiting the sun at different speeds but its seems counter intuitive (to me at least) that the further planets are going faster even though its obviously a greater distance they travel
This brought another thought into my head just then – are all our launches of stuff into space in the same direction? would the direction have a dampening effect if it were opposite to the “standard”
I think i may have asked this before actually.. hard to find stuff in this thread format – sorry if i’m re-covering old material. My work takes me away from here too often 😦
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
let me clarify that a bit – so if you are looking top down onto earth, it spins anti clockwise. When we launch stuff we launch it anti clockwise too is that right? So for geostationary orbits this is fairly obvious but do we ever launch stuff the other direction?
Given that the entire atmosphere and electric fields and van allen belts etc must all be affected by the spin, would there be a general dampening of objects NOT travelling “with” the spin? If you see what i mean?
I suppose what i’m getting at here is this:
In Space Odyssey and various other movies we are given the rotating ship thing – where the ships rotation provides centripetal acceleration (or centrifugal force – correct me if i’m wrong) to provide artificial gravity
This is always portrayed as them walking on the inside of the outer edge of that rotating circular floor.
Wouldn’t that rotating floor – in space, just rotate their feet away from them and they would float off, spinning? probably banging back into the floor and getting spun again?
For this to work – in my head any way – the floors they walk on would need to be the radials or spokes to get them artificial gravity – am i wrong here?
What provides the impetus for them to walk on the circular outside floor of the rotating section. The air in the ship rotating the same as the ships rotation?
Am i making sense? You get where i’m going?
Cheers
LikeLiked by 1 person
haggisnneeps said:
So when the astro-not floats down the central section using their hands to go in straight lines – great. Then they grab a ladder and turn themselves around and climb down the ladder – or if they’re young and cocky they will slide down – accelerated by centripetal force. But surely as soon as they get on that ladder they are going to start getting pressed against it – maybe accelerating down it i suppose like flicking a lacrosse ball or something
Then they would cross a zero g section of ship heading towards the rotating floor in s straight line now accelerating at 10 ms -ie falling – and then it would be like the wall of death where they would be stuck to the outside wall effectively (in a carnival they would be lying on their backs)
im answering my own question here i suppose the more i think about it….i just feel that they could still jump up and be in zero g again
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Well the out-vector doesn’t just disappear if you jump, really. I haven’t really studied this topic too much, and sure there’s gonna be some disorientation if you’re transferring from one vector of motion to another. Would it be harmful or bone-jarring? Maybe.
“Since the velocity vector (the direction) of a body changes when moved in a circle – there is an acceleration.”
Centripetal force (Fc = mv²/r) isn’t the same as gravity though (F=ma) since the acceleration isn’t a uniform vector and it’s divided by the radius, so we do indeed have a lateral motion involved and that’s what the r (radius) variable is telling us, just not the direction in such a simple equation? But F=ma isn’t telling us a direction either, so that’s not important in determining the magnitudes here.
I don’t know how viable it would actually be. Perhaps the centrifugal reverse force would be enough to keep one upright? Kinda like charge and gravity on Earth? I’ll run some simulations and see if I can come up with anything useful on this one, do some studying. Miles probably already answered this and I just forgot about that paper so I’ll dig around there first.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
Thanks Jared,
OK so the out-vector would be caused by the lacrosse type effect of the radial spoke pushing against you and you sliding down. when you leave the radial surface you are travelling at the same relative velocity as the last piece of the radial you were in contact with. it launches you at perfect speed across the, say, 2.5-3 meter void between the ceiling and the rotating floor.
Since the floor is rotating at the same speed you would (as measured by yourself) just land as if you had jumped down from the ceiling of your own house. There or there abouts
But the out-vector was imparted to you by the radial and that was cancelled out when you hit the floor. if you had springs on your feet you would bounce back up, surely, as there is no more impetus to give you an out vector unless it is the air in the cabin
In the films you see people jogging on jogging machines. i reckon they would just bounce off the jogging machine and float to wherever their last impulse directed them. Probably the ceiling 🙂
I just don’t get why they would stick to the floor. the floor isn’t pulling them down and nothing is pushing them down.
Also, what about particulate matter in the air. Dust. Water. The air itself – wouldn’t that co-agulate or conglomerate on the floor?Like Butane in an Oxygen environment/
Would it act like a centrifuge and gradually separate out the Oxygen and Nitrogen contents ? :-S
LikeLike
Dan said:
I found this.
It looks like they tie themselves down to the treadmill:
https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2009/hm_5.html
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
Hi Dan
That’s what they do just now. Allegedly.
I am thinking more about the films where they all.jog round the circle or have a running machine on which they run in artificial gravity
I dont think that method of artificial gravity is ever going to work for the reasons stated
The whole rotating piece would have to provide impetus by the people being on the spokes or radials rather than on the outer edge of the circle
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
That must be barf inducing in the extreme! Your skeleton is being forced down onto the treadmill, while all your internal organs are continuing to feel weightlessness. Like going over a hump-backed bridge over and over blurp and over again….Don’t tell me….they get used to it right?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I think we’re conflating the “forces” in play here a bit, so let’s review and clarify them.
https://imgur.com/8u8wgpF
“In simple terms, centripetal force is an inward force and centrifugal force is an outward force. For example, if you are rotating a stone tied to a thread, then the force that acts on the centre of the axis of the rotation is the centripetal force. Centrifugal force is that which pulls away from the middle due to the inertia of the object. Here the pull on the rope is the centripetal force. Another example that is seen in nature is the revolving of the moon around the earth. The force of gravity between the earth and the moon is the centripetal force.”
So neither force is an actual force, in the same way that gravity exerts force (F=ma, where “a” is the acceleration of gravity and “m” is of course mass) or other things exert force. Centrifugal force is called a “fictitious force”, indeed. We’re mostly focusing on centrifugal force when talking about using rotation to simulate gravity.
So let’s use the Gravitron or Death Wall ride at the fair as our example. The entire outer shell is spinning, but it’s spinning FROM the central motor pylon, correct? So there’s no actual “force” pushing you out against the wall, it’s simply that you’re being displaced laterally, and the spin is “throwing” everything “out” because your frame of reference is changing.
“Artificial gravity, or rotational gravity, is thus the appearance of a centrifugal force in a rotating frame of reference (the transmission of centripetal acceleration via normal force in the non-rotating frame of reference), as opposed to the force experienced in linear acceleration, which by the principle of equivalence is indistinguishable from gravity.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity
So in the Gravitron example, the air itself and all matter inside is spinning in the same way, in the same frames of reference. Even the charge is being spun, since all matter is being spun. This means it wouldn’t matter if you could jump – you would still be changing frames of reference and still be “pushed out”.
This would certainly work to simulate gravity, but since it’s not actual gravity and it’s rotation and vector-based, some disorientation might occur.
LikeLiked by 1 person
haggisnneeps said:
I just noticed this GIF on tt linked page. check out the motion of the ball in this. its still wrong but suggests they know this already doesnt work
The ball in the GIF travels in a parabolic curve as if the wall (well th floor technically) has gravity drawing the ball towards it
Actually each time that ball bounces it will travel in a straight line across til its next impact.
And if theres air in the cabin then we may also get a bit of curvefrom tat other effect due to rotation the ball will pick up each time it hits the side/wall/floor
But if they already know this – then they are already spending money on more shite that will never work
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
magnus effect is the effect i meant to add
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I’m pretty much with you on this centrifugal gravity topic, now. It’s not a real force, though there is a tangential acceleration imparted by the spinning “wall” below. But that’s not enough to replace gravity over any active, human interval. Some further sources:
[Janus] “When you are “standing” on the inside surface of the cylinder you share the tangential velocity of that part of the cylinder. If you jump up, you still keep that velocity. for someone not spinning with the cylinder you will travel in a straight line at a velocity due to the vector addition of your jump velocity and the tangential velocity. This straight line intersects the cylinder wall at two places, one being the point at which you jumped. The other will be some distance in the direction the cylinder is spinning.
Since the cylinder is spinning, the physical spot from which you jumped will be rotating into a new position while you are in the air. In fact, it will move to almost exactly the same point where your straight line trajectory will intersect the cylinder. To you, it appears as if you jumped straight up and came down back in nearly the same spot. (how close you come to landing in the same spot depends on the radius of the cylinder and how hard you jump.)”
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/having-a-problem-with-centrifugal-centripetal-force-in-zero-gravity.679719/
On page 2 of that thread, which is mostly a bunch of idiots, but some insight can be gleaned:
[Emily Joint] “one point to note: The force due to gravity does not require physical contact, it is a force between objects even when there is no contact. The force experienced in circular motion requires contact between the object and the wall (floor) of the space station. If the object has no physical contact with the floor then there is no force.”
[Crazymechanic] “good point Emilyjoint , that’s a distinct feature of gravity the field it has, while centripetal is rather a phenomenon of physical objects or matter to always travel in straight line and when forced to rotate in a circular path creates a pressure on the wall because it is trying to go straight.
There’s a lot of bullshit even there, though, so I would defer to Miles’ explanations of gravity and force and velocity/acceleration in all cases. As you said, there would be no “force” or vector necessarily just because of spin, and if you threw something or jumped hard enough it would not work very well at all – especially coupled with the acceleration of an orbit, such as a space station or something.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
But the only way for the rotating walkway, in the weightless environment of space, to keep pushing you outward centripetally would be if you were attached to it…..surely?
Without being attached, if you were to jump away from the walkway, you would be moving tangentially away from the walkway into weightless space again, plus some residual inertia from the fact that you were rotating to start with. But you would pass through the space inside the rotating walkway and crash into the walkway at some point other than that which you jumped from, probably head first….that’s the way I picture it.
Hang about! As you jump, would your body keep rotating at the same rotational speed as the walkway, your body would try to keep going in the direction of the walkway wouldn’t it? So as soon as you jumped, you would slam into the walkway on your side. It would be as if you jumped but instantly fell over. No wait.
The way I picture it, once you jump and leave the walkway, there is no force pushing you round in a curve any longer. Your body may well keep spinning in the same direction as the walkway but you would feel relatively weightless as soon as your feet left the walkway.
My head hurts!
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
But keep in mind this has never been used in space, that I’m aware of. Tested perhaps but nothing big enough is even up there. The ISS doesn’t appear to have any spinning false-gravity pods, for example. I’ve been studying that piece of shit more heavily the last few days, from a construction/design standpoint and analyzing every photo I can find, and I think I found a few holes we can exploit at some point. But I want to be sure, so I’m going to build the entire thing in Kerbal Space Program and see how that goes.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
So let’s use the Gravitron or Death Wall ride at the fair as our example. The entire outer shell is spinning, but it’s spinning FROM the central motor pylon, correct? So there’s no actual “force” pushing you out against the wall, it’s simply that you’re being displaced laterally, and the spin is “throwing” everything “out” because your frame of reference is changing.
Ok lets dive a bit deeper with this. Agreed – lets not get caught up in centrifugal and centripetal lables and just on the physics
The Gravitron’s or fairground ride’s external wall is only spinning because its attached by spokes or radial or the floor.
Lets call this the outer wall.
This outer wall has 2 surfaces. The internal and external.
The internal wall we will call the wall in this example
The floor of the ride is what imparts the force in the first instance. you start the ride on floor and against the wall. When the whole thing starts spinning you are essentially part of the wall so you are beng accelarated against the wall.
If, however you begin the ride NOT attached to the wall, you will be able to walk in the opposite direction from the rotation. You are in the frame of reference of the spinning mechanism and are not thrown against the wall
Similarly, if you were on a bike, your wheels would rotate and you would not move but you would not be thrown outward (maybe some small compensation for the effect of the rotating floor pushing the tyres outward)
So in space – where tho floor wouldnt exist in this scenario there would be no impetus to motion if you think about someone lying on the floor facing inwards then thats like the wall of death
if they can muster enough energy to stand up, then technically they could slow themselves down by running in the opposite direction and would gradually become lighter until they could float again
But if they never attached themselves to the wall in the first place the would have to do so and gradually become accelrated to the correct velocity. Thats gonna hurt though.
But if they were on a continuously rotating spoke its a different thing entirely. that radial is always accelarating the person as it is attached to the central pylon. the actual force generating mechanism. always accelarating upwards so the trick would be to compensate for the far smaller force that would be trying to push your feet out from under you. A spoke/radial curving out from the centre to compensate for the increased speed of rotation further from the center
The outer walls would be the external walls rather than the floor. in cross section like a turbo fan from the front but each fan the size of a football pitch and curved. 8 per central rotating engine. ill try and do a pic in visio or find one. i can see it in my head
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
I see your points Jared….but how would this affect walking or running as any deviation from straight up at 90° would introduce instability wouldn’t it? You would constantly feel you were tipping forward or backward when landing.
Also, in a corridor type situation, if you jumped, wouldn’t you hit your head on the ceiling? You wouldn’t have enough space for your body to rotate and land again because the ceiling would be in the way of your trajectory.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
or another better scenario. imagine the wall of detah or sticky wall in space with no central rotating pylon. it has rockets attched all around its external wall. you are floating in the centre of the “pipe”. the rockets start up and the whole thing starts spinning. would you suddenly be thrown against the outside wall? i dont think you would 😉
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
well maybe not better but they certainly wouldnt build the ship that way would they. where the entire exoskeleton of the ship rotates….oh…babylon5….never did see how that rotating tin can would produce gravity and they never showed any weightlessness at the center did they?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Actually I think that’s a great example, the rockets on the outer ring propelling the rotation. Honestly I don’t have a bone in this one, and just end up thinking of a merry-go-round (or the gravitron) but you might be right. I think Miles or Nevyn would know, and likely make me feel silly for not knowing (inadvertently).
So far, the only Science Fiction that really gets it right is The Expanse, where a ship is basically built like a skyscraper, with the engines at the bottom. During up-forward thrust, it mimics gravitic acceleration just fine of course. And during deceleration, it has to flip around 180° and fire the engines that way, which does the same thing. That’s really the only way to “fake” gravity – by using another acceleration of the same sort and vectors.
Of course that leaves a lot of zero-g downtime potentially, but if you’re just going from orbit to orbit it would work pretty well. Also, do NOT read those books. They aren’t safe. They really fucked me up last summer, and it’s been decades since something I read had that effect on me. Not safe. There’s monsters, and they’re of course human.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
Yeah they get the smaller spaceships right and the big sky skyscrapers. I see to play a game called elite that had the physics spot on too but even that game and the expanse get the big rotating exoskeleton space station wrong unless Tycho is constantly accelerating forward that is but that would use a lot of fuel
So you recommend the expanse books then ?? Lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
If they thought it would work, they would do it, right?
The fact they haven’t tried it must mean it doesn’t work.
Maybe they did an experiment using hamsters in a wheel, and the hamsters died?
Maybe the ISS is made of cheese?
Lets face it, it must be a great solution for future long distance space travel.
Sitting at a table eating a meal in simulated gravity must be preferable to the existing setup.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
I don’t know about that “if they thought it would work, they would do it” part. There’s the Orion spacecraft prototype, which basically spewed atomic bombs out its ass to generate thrust, for example. Many, many people thought it would work – the only problem is that atomic bombs aren’t real. So thinking something works doesn’t really equate to being able to do it, right?
I know what you meant, just nit-picking as I do. I don’t think they’ve really done much of anything in space yet, despite the claims. Gathering data from photons with probes and satellites is one thing, transferring orbits with humans onboard and huge spinning vessels is quite another matter. These clowns can’t even make it to the moon, you know? It’s rather pathetic.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
I was thinking more along the lines of a gravity chamber. A rotating drum shaped room where you could sleep or sit and eat with a similar sensation to being back on the ground. Hypothetically of course, a long trip to Mars would find this extremely beneficial and it would not add much weight to the payload, being mostly empty. It would fit snugly between the engines and the rest of the craft.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“I just don’t get why they would stick to the floor. the floor isn’t pulling them down and nothing is pushing them down.”
That is so true!
Another nail driven firmly into my Star Trek – reality versus fantasy – coffin!
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
…except we can say the exact same thing about gravity, itself. It’s not “pulling” down, nor is matter being “pushed” by it, unless we consider expansion a push from within, pushing the Earth up at us, for example.
In both situations, we have an acceleration as a result of the MOTIONS. We know what causes centrifugal “force”. We do not know what causes gravitational force, though Miles has two potent theories. I subscribe to the stacked-spin model as opposed to the expansion model, but I cannot say that I know it’s true in any real sense. I also can’t disprove it, nor expansion. It’s just a big stretch for me to claim I know the cause just yet.
There are no attractions in physics, only fields of relatively LESS repulsion to nearby fields that cause apparent potentials in the motion, maxima and minima where the fields naturally flow. Without knowing more about these fields (charge and gravity) they often appear as attractions. But they are simply motions we need to understand better, as Miles has shown extensively.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
It gets worse. I had been dipping my toe in up til now. I decided to step in up to my knees and boy did I get sucked in like quicksand. If only people actually knew this stuff.
TPTB know.They know this stuff. They know fine well its all bullship.
I came across a very useful page where ALMOST all of the above was covered in extremely good detail
Its clear there have been quite a few people looking at this principle and failing badly on all counts in all areas and in all ways. Glad I found it coz I thought I was onto something. Well the only thing I am onto is the back of other people who have had the same ideas crushed by the reality of actual physics
Biggest nail in the coffin for me so far has to be the rotational balancing. in any spinning artificial gravity situation, weight distribution changes all the time as people walk about and get on with their daily lives (hypothetically speaking of course. That sentence sounds as if we do it all the time).
All these movements generate torque and torsion and shifts in angular momentum to the point where its impossible imagining a ship being able to traverse a straight line or rotate in a single plane without any wobble, never mind dozens of Astronots whizzing left and right and changing directions grabbing ladders and anything else
I gave it a quick once over so time to give it all a proper read. But there aint gonna be any real rotating space junk happening soon y’all. Unless its CGI. But we have some secret weapons in recognising CGI in the forum already
It will be like TOWIE in space (The Only Way Is Essex) – a crap but popular program over here where rich kids get filmed …errr acting/semi acting/being prompted to have contrived conversations which are obviously never going to be real when theres like 6 cameramen all around all the time but its passed off for real life soap opera
Mix that with some CGI and we have a recipe for a 4 year series filming the beautiful people on their journey to Mars….heres a preview…
“Oh Tarquin darling! I was like going to pull this lever to make a cup of tea and Julia Smythington-Smythe said, like, I shouldn’t, like, coz, you know, like, it would, like evacuate the ship and something about getting sucked out – and she was just so, like, RUDE, about it and I felt, like I could, like cry”
“Oh hush now fluffy puffy bunny wunny if you want to go ahead and evacuate you just go right ahead coz I aint suckin anyone out tonight, again, but just remember to use a tissue to clean up coz I don’t want that stuff in my hair….”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jared Magneson said:
I mean feel free to share the link with us as well. But I think we’ve pretty much debunked rotational “artificial gravity” as untenable. It could be used as Russell mentioned, as a physical therapy device, but it would be like gravity couches where you don’t really move much, or at most, do simple exercises. It would need some torque balancing but that isn’t difficult with RCS thrusters on the outer shell or SAS or just reaction wheels, which all ships must already have anyway.
https://imgur.com/JnjKl9L
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_control_system
LikeLiked by 1 person
haggisnneeps said:
😀 yeah trying to find the link. working between two laptops and cant bloomin’ find it lol – bloody good compendium of attempts and theory of artificial gravity …. promise you ill find it
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
sorry ’bout the delay. two laptops. 3x browsers on each. memory fades in about 3 seconds
Its a big deep site with interleaving links butseems very thorough to my untrained eyes
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/artificialgrav.php#whichwaydown
Thats the intro page. This is the spin balancing page
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/artificialgrav.php#spinbalance
It starts to talk about centrifuge problems – probably quite honestly and thats when it becomes apparent this is not even at toddelr stage this technology (again to me and my untrained eyes)
Enjoy!
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Actually, spacecraft are launched in every direction. You get a slight boost from launching east, but not enough to base a mission on since you really want much higher tolerances than that. Most Israeli launches are west, so that any staging debris lands in the Mediterranean and not on Iraq or Iran onto people. Most Canaveral/Kennedy launches go east, since for the same reason the staging debris (solid boosters, rocket stages after they burn out) will land in the Atlantic and not on the populace.
And every polar orbit is launched, you guessed it, north or south! They don’t launch prograde (east) and then do a planar transfer since that is VERY expensive on fuel (delta-V) compared to just launching north or south. You can tilt your orbit like that in space (a planar adjustment but it takes a lot of burn, so it’s rarely done.
The spin doesn’t really play much part in the dynamics, since the vectors themselves aren’t spinning. Gravity doesn’t spin. Charge does, but that’s magnetics and it doesn’t really affect the vectors in this way, either. It’s 90° off, as Miles has explained and Nevyn has diagrammed. Here’s a still from his app, where I put in the blue arrows to show the vectors of magnetism in rough form:
https://imgur.com/CBQe1XL
You can see this in actual motion on Nevyn’s Labs site, it’s pretty cool.
https://www.nevyns-lab.com/mathis/app/ProtonViewer/ProtonViewer.html
The atmosphere may increase friction slightly in other orbital launch directions, but that’s about it. There’s no reason to launch on any vector other than your proposed inclination except to save people below from falling rocket stagings, really. It’s innefficient to launch any other way.
LikeLiked by 2 people
haggisnneeps said:
Thanks Jared – makes perfect sense 🙂 You know – i didnt even think about other countries launching stuff :-S What do Russia do? is Baikonur not land locked? lol dodgy place to live
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
Sorry – you are going to hate me now. I’m a pedantic git (Scottish slang for pain in the arse)
Nevyn’s animation raises a question for me. I have read every physics paper of Miles’ and most of the others too so i get that each proton ejects 19x its own mass every second as charge photons and this is essentially what the missing weight in the universe is (what they call Dark Matter though i am spitting as i type it)
So – in the animation, how do we know (or do we know?) that all the charge photons ar spinning in those directions. Wouldn’t the spin be randomized ?
sorry i know its off on a tangent from the reason you posted the animation and link :-S
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
No no, that’s a fair and perfectly valid question. Nevyn’s animation is just to show the vectors of magnetic SPIN, not the vectors of emission really. He kept it simple to avoid confusion in those spin vectors, I imagine. We have both made better apps/videos to show the actual outward emissions, of course based on Miles’ diagrams.
But they don’t really show or detail the MAGNETIC spin vectors, only the general emissions:
But let’s return to MIles’ diagram so we can talk about the magnetic vectors a bit more?
https://imgur.com/4Vq40e9
So the photons and antis emit top and bottom just above and below the equator, chiefly (~30°), and while there will be a lot of spin differentials involved the AVERAGE spin of either would be relatively coherent, magnetically. That is to say, North-emitting photons would be spinning one way (we’ll call it clockwise) and South-emitting antiphotons would be on average spinning counter-clockwise. That’s my understanding so far, but of course I’m just a student and I make lots of mistakes.
I’d love if Miles or Nevyn stepped in to correct any they see, but that’s not their job of course. I just don’t want to pretend I’m a fucking expert on these things, though I study as hard as I can and try my best to keep up with The Big Dogs. 🙂
And for a touch of mirth, here’s the same simulation only I instanced in popcorn (incoming charge) and Junior Mints for the outgoing emissions:
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Actually Russia and China don’t appear to give much of a shit about the populace, especially in Siberia or central China. I can’t remember the names of the incidents but people have died and been poisoned by the gases emitted from the detritus, which can be immediately lethal to inhale. I was talking with my brother about it last night but I can’t recall the exact missions. And Russia never gave a shit about Siberia to begin with, so them dropping stage wreckage over there wouldn’t even make news. The Cosmodrome itself has been the site of huge, toxic explosions.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“Wouldn’t that rotating floor – in space, just rotate their feet away from them and they would float off, spinning? probably banging back into the floor and getting spun again?”
Hahahaha! I never thought of it that way before. Electromagnetic boots are the answer, controlled by an inbuilt computer chip so the field would vary according to the distance from the floor. This would enable you to creep up on a Klingon with impunity.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
First, let’s talk about the orbital velocities. I may have been unclear before. The moon has a natural orbit, balanced by charge (out) and gravity (in) as Miles has shown. All natural orbits are elliptical for this reason; as they move towards the primary body due to gravity, the charge out increases and the moon or planet is pushed out more and more, until charge trumps the force of gravity briefly and “bounces” the smaller body out. At a certain distance, gravity takes hold again and begins to swing the smaller body back in, and this continues unless something else interferes, such as another moon or planet’s charge field or gravity.
So the moon orbits the center of gravity of the Earth AND the moon, which is about 3/4 of the way up from the Earth’s center to its surface. An artificial, man-made probe or ship orbits the Earth itself, so it’s speed relative to the Earth’s center is a different measurement. But that’s just an aside, as orbital velocities DO decrease as you move away from the center of a body, which I wasn’t clear about before.
Yet to GET to that orbital radius, we have to deal with accelerations during apoapsis and periapsis, the highest radius in a given orbit and the lowest. The vectors, timings, and directions of your acceleration determine a CHANGE in orbit. Say you’re orbiting at 100km and want to increase your orbit to 150km, right? You have to accelerate (burn) prograde at your periapsis. If you accelerate at your apoapsis, you increase your periapsis, and vice versa. We have two vectors to deal with since the orbit is 2-dimensional. But then you have to circularize your orbit once your apoapsis hits 150km, so you wait until apoapsis and burn prograde until your periapsis approaches 150km.
Your orbital velocity drops as your orbital radius increases, but to GET to that radius you have to accelerate in the right direction at the right time. You cannot just radially “fly out” and go to another orbiting body; you have to match its orbit (and thus its orbital velocity) and also time it so you make a closest approach or docking maneuver.
If I said that further-out bodies had higher orbital velocities relative to inner ones, I was wrong. We would have to accelerate to achieve those orbital radii, but then accelerate another direction to stay there and match its orbit, which reduces the orbital velocity to match that body’s speed. But yes, the orbital velocities drop off the further out you go.
https://www.windows2universe.org/our_solar_system/planets_orbits_table.html
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
Don’t worry – i don’t think you said that – i inferred it from the description of accelerating to go higher then applied that to the moon and then the rest of the solar system. I added 2 + 2 and got 27 🙂 < see what i did there? lol
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
It’s cool, things get dicey when you’re trying to remember it all at once! Or rather, when I do. Can’t speak for you. So I try to cross-check everything and reference it and ask a few people questions if I get stuck, myself. I very well may have conflated the orbital-change procedures with orbital velocities, previously! Hard to keep it all straight sometimes and alas, I’m not a robot yet and cyborgs aren’t real. Someday, maybe. 🙂
LikeLike
L Kinder said:
I don’t like the way the margins move farther and farther to the right in replies.
LikeLike
Josh said:
Nobody does. I’m trying a new approach to solve the issue. Let’s see if it works.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
The black hole of modern astrology deepens. It turns out that even the mainstream is now claiming that their spectrai photography is effectively an “optical illusion”, and that elemental detections from spectral imaging of distant stars has been compromised by BAD MATH.
“Mystery at the center of the Milky Way solved”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181010093625.htm
“According to the new study, the lower temperatures of the giant stars helped to create the optical illusion that appeared in the measurements of spectral lines. Specifically, it means that the electrons in the elements behave differently at different temperatures, which in turn can be misleading when measuring the spectral lines of elements in different stars.”
And get this:
“The research team has studied the part of the spectrum consisting of near-infrared light, i.e. the heat radiation emitted by the stars. The reason for this is that infrared light can penetrate the dust that obstructs the line-of-sight between us and the centre of the Milky Way, approximately 25,000 light years away. The technology for recording this light is very advanced, and has only recently become available to astronomers.”
So all of a sudden, after decades of thermal imaging, it’s now “very advanced” and “has only recently become available to astronomers”? You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.
They’re almost admitting that the charge field has trumped (and thus, distorted) all of their imaging. Of course they won’t SAY that, but that’s what I’m reading from this. That last part would have us believe nobody ever scanned, detected, or used the infrared spectrum before – which we of course know is an outright lie. Even the SDO (sun satellite) uses Infrared. Just about every major telescope or probe uses infrared, as it’s the average charge spin state and the most abundant photon.
But all of a sudden it’s “recently become available to astronomers”? Poppycock. Hogwash. They’re claiming that bullshit to offset the fact that their spectral element measurements are horse shit. It’s not just a lie, it’s SPIN.
They close with: “”We have only started to map the stellar compositions in these central areas of the Milky Way,” says Nils Ryde.”
I think it’s safe to assume they haven’t even started this mapping with any degree of accuracy. Much like exoplanets are mere extrapolations, their spectral analysis outside the solar system is pretty much just marketing hype. It gives them jobs, making pretty pictures from datasets, and requires no accuracy, precision, or real results from their fake busy-work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
DF said:
Like Air-Guitar , it’s Air-Science .
LikeLike
Josh said:
They used infrared wavelengths in 2003 to map the shape of what is called the Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy, which intersects with the far more massive Milky Way and is being “swallowed up” by it or merging with it. It seems our solar system is located at one of the areas of intersection.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Indeed, the first purely-infrared ‘scope was put up in 1983. The Spitzer “Shuttle Infrared Space Facility (SIRTF)” was sent up by shuttle, although nobody knows where that extra “T” came from until 1985 when they renamed it the “Space Infrared Telescope Facility.” It seems like they rewrote the history wrong to me for some reason. It wouldn’t have had the “T” in it prior?
“As NASA made this announcement [in 1983], the first infrared telescope was launched into space by a collaborative team of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. The Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) was an Explorer-class satellite designed to conduct the first infrared survey of the sky. The 10-month mission was a resounding success, and led to huge interest in a follow-up mission from astronomers around the world”
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/info/66-Early-History
And of course we get this beautiful fauxtrograph to go with it, complete with fake stars and the lowest resolution available:
So I don’t really know how on Earth that other article can claim infrared is new tech. It’s been around since I was a lad, and I am no longer quite a lad.
LikeLike
DF said:
Are they using ( borrowed without permission or credit given ) Mathisian Physics here ?
http://emps.exeter.ac.uk/physics-astronomy/news/title_686973_en.html
Of course they need to automatically sell it as a faster I.T. delivery .
And just on a quick search of Exeter in miles writing , I’m getting five hits .
LikeLike
ihatestarwars said:
I read the news today O boy, about a Soyuz rocket that didn’t make the grade. Well I just had to laugh, 119 seconds into flight a booster rocket fails while traveling at 47,000 mph! The cosmonaut Alexey Ovchinin, was aged 47! The failure occured during ‘staging’, for the whole world is a stage and we merely players.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
Thanks for the giggle IHSW
Those numbers hold a language all of their own….and learning their meaning isn’t rocket science is it! You just have to be brave and believe what you are seeing with your own eyes.
LikeLike
GaryRP said:
Not strictly on thread, but kind of…
On the same day I’ve come across the continued promotion of ‘Hawking’s final paper’. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/11/uk/stephen-hawking-black-hole-soft-hair-intl/index.html
Funny enough following Miles’ outing, but also for the ‘soft hair’ bit!
This reminds me – since the Hawking ‘biopic’ a few years ago, I’ve noticed a lot of Hollywood misdirection blockbusters in the pipeline, the Neil Armstrong one in the pipeline, and remakes of old spooky authors (Stephen King is back in fashion, with Pet Semetary out next year I think).
There’s also the Amy Winehouse film, and now this:
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/oct/12/amy-winehouse-hologram-tour
Is this what the dead (retired) superstars do when they get bored and miss the limelight? 😉
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
@Jared Magneson:
“Indeed, the first purely-infrared ‘scope was put up in 1983…”
Or maybe just another fake space scope, with the IR sky map coming from here…
“UKIRT, the United Kingdom Infra-Red Telescope, is a 3.8 metre (150 inch) infrared reflecting telescope, the second largest dedicated infrared (1 to 30 micrometres) telescope in the world (operation in October 1979). Until 2014 it was operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre in Hilo and located on Mauna Kea, Hawai’i as part of Mauna Kea Observatory. It was owned by the United Kingdom Science and Technology Facilities Council. UKIRT is currently being funded by NASA and operated under scientific cooperation between Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center, the University of Hawaii, and the U. S. Naval Observatory. The telescope is set to be decommissioned after completion of the Thirty Meter Telescope as part of the Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan.” (thanks go to Wiki for the text)
LikeLike
GaryRP said:
This is a good one (and by good I mean funny…), reported in London newspaper The Standard:
“China unveils ‘plans to launch artificial moon’ by 2020”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/china-unveils-plans-to-launch-artificial-moon-by-2020-a3965256.html
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Wallace & Gromit proved the Moon was made from cheese back in 1989 but everyone thought they were kidding.
That was Buzz Aldrin’s big mistake….he forgot to take the crackers!
Never forgave himself… It’s why he always looks miserable…
LikeLike
DF said:
Haha , Gromit being far more scientifically advanced than the NASA Rocket Surgeons .
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Did the Chinese mention how they plan to make their artificial moon immune to the dozens of meteor showers that occur every year? (meteors = dense iron rocks traveling faster than bullets).
Oh, wait. Meteors never hit satellites, space telescopes or astronauts. I forgot. 🙂
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Hmmmm! Your comment got me thinking (always a bad idea), about meteorite impacts. The Moon is indeed peppered with them, although we only see the larger ones. Have you noticed how symmetrical those craters are though? What this tells us is that all the meteorites hit the Moon perpendicular to it’s surface. Now what are the chances that a few million rocks, just happen to hit the Moon, from all directions, but square on, every time? So we look at the Earth. Lots of nice big craters have been found but what’s this? Apart from a couple having a slight excursion from the vertical, they are mostly spherical. If they hit at an angle, the crater would be elliptical.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Moon+impact+craters&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Earth+impact+craters&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images
Now you can knock the Electric Universe people if you wish but they do have some compelling theories about planetary markings. It makes a lot of sense to consider the craters being made by enormous electrical discharges (during heightened solar activity (Nova?)). The same cratering and other markings have been replicated in plasma labs using extremely high energy discharges, with the marks produced resembling the marks found on some of Jupiter’s moons for instance (and Earth).
The electrical discharges would by necessity come from the planet’s current sheet, high above the atmosphere, and discharge along the shortest path to earth i.e. perpendicular to the ground, producing spherical craters.
I’m not saying that all craters are made this way, but it does seem that current theory is left wanting….
The spherules and nano-diamonds associated with meteorite impacts are also produced during electrical strikes, including bog-standard lightning.
Could it be the Sun having a Nova outburst which ends the ice ages?
Or if the ice ages are a hoax, at least cause the sudden warming seen in ice core data…unless that’s a hoax?
Sun goes to sleep for 100,000 years then reawakens with a flourish?
The Carrington Event
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859
was trivial compared to what the Sun is really capable of, and when you look at the massive and very sudden temperature swings in the data, sudden solar changes do seem the most likely candidate…..
I disagree with Randall Carlson because he contradicts himself trying to shore up his own theory. He talks about a huge impact throwing up massive amounts of debris, blotting out the Sun (causing lots of fires) and causing sudden warming, that melted all the ice, and created immense floods. But if that did occur, then sunlight would be blotted out and cause rapid cooling, not warming. Any large scale fires would create even more sun blocking leading to more cooling, and for several years too. That’s how scientists describe a nuclear winter, so Carlson’s explanation makes little sense. He also points out the black mat which proves world-wide fires creating loads of sooty deposits. Well, all the billions of trees he mentions across the northern latitudes were buried under very deep ice. So a large percentage of normally combustible material wasn’t available to create the soot.
I much prefer Schoch’s theory blaming a massive solar outburst as the trigger for rapid warming and the ensuing biblical floods.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I’ve thought that before about the circular craters / perpendicular impact as well, but it’s easily countered and verified:
“The short answer is that the energy involved in an impact is so huge that when the impactor hits the ground, it explodes like a bomb, rather than just denting the surface like a rock thrown into mud. Explosions are generally symmetric, so the resulting crater from most impacts is circular. Only very very shallow impacts form elliptical craters, but they do exist!”
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/38-our-solar-system/the-earth/impacts/47-why-are-craters-round-beginner
And:
“There are some elongated impact craters, but very few, and only occur when the impact occurs at a very shallow, grazing angle – so close to horizontal that the impactor strikes the surface over an elongated range of area rather than at a single point thereby releasing its kinetic energy over that same elongated range. Imagine a glancing blow. Below is an example of an elongated crater on Mars that is 78 km long while being only 10 – 25 km wide and 2 km at its deepest:”
https://imgur.com/rvtKzY6
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-impact-craters-are-circular-and-axially-symmetric-Shouldnt-meteorites-have-more-elongated-tear-drop-shaped-craters-due-to-their-relative-horizontal-speeds
At some point I did a particle sim in Maya to demonstrate this, but it was several years back it seems and it’s probably on my work computer, and not on my Vimeo. Angle of incidence and the composition of the impactor play a role.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Jared….. but doesn’t – whatever is left from the exploded meteorite – keep going until it’s absorbed by moon-mass? Explosions seem very fast to us but still take time to actually ‘do the exploding’. Those milliseconds are what would skew the crater shape. Small or gigantic, the shapes are way too uniformly spherical for me to accept impacts.
Meteorites viewed entering Earth’s atmosphere come from all angles so the ratio of perpendicular to grazing is highly biased toward grazing. This must be the same for the Moon, in fact even more so due to the lack of an atmosphere and it’s braking effect on the meteorite, so we should see a far greater percentage of ellipses.
We can eliminate above ground explosions as there’s hardly any atmosphere to produce an air-burst type effect. This means the energy from an exploding impact would continue along the line of approach to a great extent, again creating an ellipse, as the explosion will take a certain amount of time to complete from the point of impact.
We also have to take into account that many will explode but most won’t, well, maybe shatter but not in a vapourising way; not including explosive gases for instance.
Also to be taken into account is the fact that a high percentage of impacts will hit crater walls and rocky areas without the energy absorbing effects of deep dust, and giving even more likelihood to elliptical shapes.
Its the ratio that I can’t accept.
If there were 60% ellipses I would accept the impact theory without hesitation.
That said, there will be some meteorite impacts both ellipses and spherical, but the enormous, incomprehensible electrical effects of solar outbursts should not be ignored, as the ancient glyphs show people must have witnessed them before.
Maybe every huge temperature change in the ice core data coincides with a solar flare-up. Astronomers witness stars going nova over several days to several weeks, with their brightness increasing dramatically. Our Sun may flare up in a more gentle manner, not enough to scorch the planet but enough to raise the planets average temperature by 15C in a matter of months. That’s what the data shows.
They call it a variable star, then tell us it’s remarkably stable, what, for a variable star? And what does that mean? The ice cores show it’s an ass kicking, schizophrenic star that takes no prisoners, and according to the time-line, it just ran out of medication again….!
What I want to know is how Miles’ charge field fits in with these rapid changes. Random alignments of nearby stars with the galactic centre? Probably….with the outer planets playing an important role.
A complete circuit of the galaxy takes roughly 250 million years.
The biggest mass extinction events occur around 200 million and 500 million years ago. Coincidence?
It was way warmer back then too so overall solar activity must have been much higher, and with more regular outbursts.
We are in a relatively calm period (stable?), but the Triassic Jurassic EE occurred in the middle of a very calm period.
Early warning….watch for changes in the gas giants Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, especially when they align.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Extinction_intensity.svg
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Sorry I used the Triassic – Jurassic event when I should have said the Permian – Triassic. Both big events though, with extinctions increasing in the millennia before the event, then dropping off immediately after. I guess this must show a stabilisation of the climate shortly after the main event, because although there were fewer species left, they weren’t being killed off any longer. These would have been the best suited to survive though.
The thing to take into consideration is that it is 250 million years since the last huge mass extinction the Permian/Triassic.
The Mayan told of the end of an era. What end? We are told the end of their calendar. So warnings from the past have no place in today’s sophisticated society. Just gobbledegook and mythical fairytale nonsense.
Everything is fine, and safe, and stable so go back to sleep and think of unplugging your mobile phone charger every night to save the planet ZZZzzzzzz!
Or?
We could be about to experience our very own blockbuster, planet destroying, cataclysmic event. How honoured, how pleased, how unique to be in such a position.
In the big scheme of things, very few people have actually witnessed such a thing and even if they did, probably wouldn’t have understood what they were witnessing.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
“The short answer is that the energy involved in an impact is so huge that when the impactor hits the ground, it explodes like a bomb, rather than just denting the surface like a rock thrown into mud.”
I think you’re looking at it the wrong way, Russell Taylor. Consider: it’s almost impossible for any impactor to arrive perpendicular to a body. Gravity is already in play, and charge too. The motions curve the closer you get, and the impactor is already in a curved trajectory simply by existing in the field at all – you cannot just lob a rock of any size at any speed TOWARDS a moving, orbiting body and strike it perpendicular. Relativity alone discounts that possibility; the body will not be where you were shooting at, when the impactor arrives. You could pre-calculate with relativity of course but asteroids don’t calculate at all. They don’t have that luxury.
So while I understand where you’re coming from, I think you have it backwards. All impactors (or so very close to all that we can pretty much just call it) MUST arrive at some angle or other, and with some spin. It’s only a very shallow incident angle at a very low velocity that COULD create an elongated crater. Remember, it’s not the impactor creating the crater, it’s the explosion upon impact.
I mean beyond that there’s not much more to say. If you want, I can run some physics sims to demonstrate what I mean, but I’m really not interested in convincing people of things they don’t wish to be convinced of. I’m not here to control minds. 🙂
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Again, any high-impact crater would be formed by EJECTA, not by the collision itself, which is why they’re so round. The actual impact zone is much smaller and may very well be angled and elongated, but it’s immediately detonated and tossed up, so it may be difficult to find such areas. Tunguska is a good example too here on Earth – the ejecta was found miles away, with very little indication as to the center of the explosion.
That and the core basalt is so close on this side of the moon, even many powerful detonations might not do any real, discernible damage to it. It’s already compressed and dense.We might expect to find a higher ratio of elongated craters on planetoids, moons, and asteroids that aren’t sandblasted by a nearby planet.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Jared….. I can’t remember which thread you mentioned agriculture and farming on, in relation to the end of the last ice age, and maybe beyond, but this may interest you. It certainly pushes back the time-line quite a way.
https://www.heritagedaily.com/2018/07/archaeologists-discover-bread-that-predates-agriculture-by-4000-years/120954
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
“Agriculture” has been practiced by people for hundreds of thousands of years, most likely. When people first realized the relationship between seeds and plants – which perhaps predated fire itself, really. Just a guess.
But “Totalitarian Agriculture” wasn’t practiced until relatively recently, a’ la the Fertile Crescent era, when lazy folk decided to hoard and lord the food over the people actually producing it. That timeline is still of course up for grabs, but we’re talking about roughly 8-7,000 BC give or take, sometime after the last ice age. It was a cultural shift, one which readily devoured its neighbors and eventually almost the entire world, and is still spreading. It is OUR culture. Not that we should be remotely proud of it; quite the opposite.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“Oh, wait. Meteors never hit satellites, space telescopes or astronauts. I forgot.”
Now if you posted that before the hole in the spaceship event, that would be really spooky!
Mainstream excuse? Satellites are tiny and space is vast. Likelihood almost zero.
Its a bit like standing in a field, constantly firing bullets straight up into the sky, with the hope of hitting a bird for your supper. The likelihood of hitting one is minuscule but still possible. I think starvation would occur first though.
Unless on a migration route in October with a machine gun…..there’s always a way!
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“Now if you posted that before the hole in the spaceship event, that would be really spooky!”
I did post about it before it happened. On other forums. POM maybe? Or, maybe it was here? I can’t find it now but I believe either Jared or Josh commented on my post about that as well. Something about the glass view ports vs meteors.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Did they ever get to the bottom of that mystery?
Space termites?
I read somewhere that people thought it was a fake hole done for publicity.
I go with that hypothesis…
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Yes, well a fake space station can only have fake holes. 🙂
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
So Hubble and ISS are just plastic models? Lego? The deceit does run deep, I’ll admit that…
LikeLike
ihatestarwars said:
Lunar-tics have taken over the asylum!
LikeLike
DF said:
It really is a horrible form of human self-flattery , and hasn’t nature suffered enough by us , well Them really .
How could this not adversely effect animals and plants , sheesh .
LikeLike
GaryRP said:
Exactly. I find I can only laugh at this stuff now, or else I’ll cry!
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
Speaking of craters, why are the craters on the moon so shallow in relation to their diameter? What is the NASA-esque explanation of their formation?
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
ROLLEIKIN….. Filled with fine dust, according to Apollo astronuts, as fine as flour or cement dust….but…they say that small meterorite impacts throw up dust which settles in the surrounding craters and so fills them up, yet we are also told that the Apollo 11 footprints are still clearly visible, even after being partially filled by the dust thrown up from the thrust of the ascent module; footprints maybe only 1/2 inch deep.
There is another reason though. Every time the Moon passes through the Earth’s magnetotail (it’s magnetic field pushed into a tear-drop shape by the solar wind), it’s surface is electrically charged, so much so that it creates dust storms whereby the fine dust is lifted off the surface and moves around. Think of a rubbed plastic comb picking up bits of paper….that sort of static electricity type of thing.
But we are a talking Moon / Earth phenomenon so the side facing Earth is dusty but the dark side facing away from Earth has virtually empty craters. Much less dust and much less electrical effect.
Unless it’s made of cheese, then ignore all of the above…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
The reason moon craters seem so shallow on the Earth-side is because the Earth’s charge field scrubs the moon constantly, through direct bombardment of charge photons. As Miles has said, “obliterating it down to the mantle”, I believe:
https://imgur.com/a/Bf3CKcq
The craters are much deeper on the far side. We also see this effect on many other moons, around Jupiter and Saturn especially. Enceladus is a prime example, as Miles has detailed for us previously:
https://imgur.com/gdlR5Kl
“I suggest you study that map closely. I have. Since Enceladus is in synchronous orbit, the same side is facing Saturn at all times. So if Enceladus is being sanded down by the charge field, we would expect a charge maximum facing Saturn. We would expect a smaller maximum on the far side, since the back of Enceladus would also get sanded down by charge coming in on field lines from large outer moons like Titan, Rhea and Iapetus. That is exactly what we find. On the map above, we see two big rubbing circles, as if Enceladus were made of soapstone and you rubbed in a circular motion with sandpaper front and back. We find a lesser rubbed region south and to both sides (sideways to Saturn), and a non-rubbed region to the north.”
Click to access encel.pdf
Notice how the craters are much deeper where they’re NOT being blasted by Saturn or its larger outer moons? It’s the same with our moon, Luna, but it doesn’t have large bodies near to the other side to cause such dramatic blasting.
I personally find this paper one of the strongest and most damning proofs of Miles’ charge theory. It’s elegant, simple, and makes perfect logical sense – defying the mainstream outright, who cannot explain a single fucking thing about this topic.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Russell Taylor said:
Yes, I think I remember reading something from Miles about the Earth guiding charge from the Sun toward the Moon when its phase is full.
So similar to the mainstream idea but using charge instead of just charged particles like electrons & protons. Makes more sense because there’s far more charge photons than solar wind electrons, so any effects would be greater I suppose.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I don’t recall anything about the Earth “guiding” charge from the sun to the moon specifically, just to clarify. The moon is already being bombarded by the sun constantly, except those few moments when it’s fully in Earth’s shadow really. So the solar charge is effectively the baseline, and doesn’t terribly contribute to charge erosion or “sandblasting” of the body’s surface. A bit, but not in the same way, since the solar charge-emission falloff is much greater than the nearby planet’s charge-emission falloff, simply due to radius and proximity. The sun set’s the base charge level, the distant planets and galaxy add to this, but the local system (Earth/Luna or Saturn/Enceladus/Titan-Rhea-etc.) is what causes the “scrubbing”, since it’s so much more powerful at that range.
Given his recent papers on charge boundaries, we’d actually expect a lot more ions helping this effect as well. As Earth’s charge emission reaches the moon’s charge emission, there will be many spin-ups and spin-downs and also many vector (direction) changes, but SOME greater number of electrons and positrons would be cast towards the moon than otherwise. That plus the solar wind (of ions, not just solar charge) means we’ll have some quantity of higher-mass particles which are still below the proton level but above, say, the infrared level smacking that ass. Yes, the Earth is spanking the moon. I said it.
Anyway, that should help explain why many craters on our side of the moon are shallow. They’re already blasted down to the basalt core, and the basalt wears out and turns to dust much slower than the softer crust would.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Ever see the Langley moon models from the 1960s?
More here:
http://www.laboiteverte.fr/photo-mystere-n35/?l=si5
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Imagine that.
One might argue, “Those are for research purposes…”, but why is Langley researching the moon at all? Where is that in their charter? That was always NASA’s gig and the NSF’s job to fund it, not Langley’s. The National Science Foundation doesn’t fund the CIA; that money comes out of the same cut they take for the military.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Notice the track running around the moon model’s surface. It doesn’t appear to be for walking on. It looks like it’s for something that fits the track to roll along. Like, say, a camera dolly to simulate the POV of a lunar orbiting space craft.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Isn’t it amazing? They actually show/prove to everyone that the whole thing was faked, yet the majority of people still believe it happened. The gullibility of the public knows no bounds.
DF….
We used to watch Takeshi’s Castle. What brilliant entertainment.
And how tough are the Japanese? They would slip and fall, hitting their face on a wooden walkway on the way down, then just get up and walk away smiling….and that was just the girls!
LikeLike
DF said:
That’s why it’s called Boulder Dash .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
@Jared Magneson:
“Agriculture has been practiced by people for hundreds of thousands of years, most likely…”
Back in the day. I also think everyone would grow their own and keep a few domestic animals to feed their families and trade the surplus in or close to their settlement for tools, pots etc made by local craftsmen. I think the hunter-gather meme is over emphasised and ancient populations were much larger than the mainstrea would like us to believe.
The game changer, I think, was when large cities were developed and it is in this period that the feudal system, with Lords and peasants, came into being in order to feed the city folk. Their had to be a sophisticated control system in place to be able to build large cities and their infrastructure and I suspect that this is the point at which the idea of antonymous States came into being. – group of cities combine to form a State with some sort of government.
Does anyone have any ideas about which is the oldest city in the world?
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Good Question Boris.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I agree that many ancient peoples and cultures grew what they could and hunted and gathered what they could, except of course in the case of nomadic herders. But they may have still had wild-like “gardens” at various stops and oases along their routes.
But I would disagree, Boris, with the city premise.To form cities, population growth would have had to be increasing pretty rapidly. Yet all indications I have seen suggest that the population was roughly steady for hundreds of thousands of years, prior to Totalitarian Agriculture. Around a million or so, it’s said, worldwide as an average. Natural law still held sway, and the population would swing to and fro completely modulated by natural and environmental factors – just like every other animal species on Earth.
And then people stopped living and started growing too much food. And the population began exploding, until it was doubling roughly every 35 years. And that’s where we’ve been for the past few thousand years, and still going. In my opinion that’s the only real catastrophe we should be concerned with. In a thousand years, we’ll have destroyed the entire Universe in our fashion if we every get around to developing superluminal travel, for example.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Jared…..
“Yet all indications I have seen suggest that the population was roughly steady for hundreds of thousands of years, prior to Totalitarian Agriculture. Around a million or so, it’s said, worldwide as an average.”
They can’t put an accurate figure on it but it certainly wasn’t stable.
The climate has been extremely vicious many, many times over the past million years, and decimated any human populations. The evidence for this is the demise of the most recent civilisations. These only last a few thousand years at most then wham, little ice age conditions cause widespread famine and drought, and the end result is the same every time. After the third crop failure in a row, the people begin to starve en mass. The rulers have regular sacrificial slaughter of whole families to survive through cannibalism. Graves have been found with knife and teeth marks on human bones, with the pet dog, children, elderly, the whole family eaten then all buried.together. Lots of killing and disease too. Evidence for this has been found in several digs pertaining to all the major civilisations. As the population dwindled the last hundred or so survivors left to try and find food leaving the city walls to crumble.
This is the most recent history we have any evidence for. Beyond 5,000 years it gets very sketchy because we aren’t finding anything useful.
I’m not sure how much of this I’m repeating but you made a comment about ‘not buying the scrape everything away’ ice age effect. That was only vast areas across the northern hemisphere. The droughts – famine – floods – disease would have destroyed people, homes, evidence further south. Roman artefacts in Britain are buried under 6 to 8ft of dirt. That has accumulated over just 800 years. Imagine how much sand has accumulated in the desert regions of the Middle East over the past 5,000 years, or dead trees and other detritus across vast areas of jungle in the southern hemisphere. The Sphinx was half buried in sand when modern archaeologists found it and looked as though people had been excavating it previously, so could have been completely buried at some point.
So don’t concentrate on the ice itself, as devastating as it is, but instead the overall effects of sudden and unexpected planetary cooling. It’s effects would be felt across the world and any evidence for civilisations of say 50,000 years ago would be buried under mountains of dirt, trees, sand, silt, clay etc. What ‘would’ survive and be easily found? Pyramids of course.
It is feasible that this is the largest population the world has ever known but I am quietly confident that mother nature will show no mercy when she wipes us out, and chalks us up as just another failed civilisation.
The further back we look, the less evidence we find. So until we do find something extraordinary, we can only speculate, but if the recent civilisation collapses are anything to go by, then there is every reason to assume that this cycle of growth and collapse has been going on for all of human history, the ice cores alone prove this must be the case. The massive growth we see today has taken what…a few hundred years, from horse & cart to bullet train. From sword to rail-gun. From stone castles to the Burj Khalifa.
Asteroid impact or major glaciation, we are already doomed, so please Jared, don’t worry about a Star Trek like universal take over, because that is about as likely as Elon Musk saying something sensible….
Someone posted a reply to me on another forum when I warned of the consequences of another sudden worldwide temperature drop on today’s society.
The poster was a Canadian who boasted that they have minus 50C to minus 80C every year and they cope OK. In the UK, he said, a couple of inches of snow & ice and it’s chaos.
Anyone who agrees with that statement should watch this and see how well the Canadians cope with 2 inches of snow & ice,
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I think that’s what’s fun about our conversations here; we disagree on many things but also agree on many others. When I said “roughly stable” I also said “as an average”. We don’t really know what societies were like going too far back, but what we DO know is that we got here, and are alive now, precisely because there was SOME level of natural stability in the species. This is true of every single species alive today, so it’s not a stretch at all. We also have no evidence that there were billions of humans prior to our monoculture, Totalitarian Agriculture. Quite the opposite.
I disagree about the nature of cataclysm though – we are NOT doomed as a species at all, unless we continue on the current path. Impacts, ice ages, and other catastrophes can surely wipe out many humans but not all, not with the teeming billions creeping through the mud currently. And those are just probabilities – the population growth is not a probability, it’s a certainty. Simply due to the constraints of such catastrophes being rendered far less fatal to the species as a whole, due to locale and population growth itself.
As for the Star Trek straw-man thing, that is also not terribly relevant. We don’t have to become superluminal travelers to perpetuate locusthood. If there are 7.5B people now, in 35 years there will be 15B people. That’s around 2050. In 2085, there will be 30B people at the current growth rate. By 2995, there would be 2,013,265,920
BILLION, at the current rate. So 2,013,265,920,000,000,000 fucking locust bipeds coating the Earth like a slime, basically?
Of course that’s drastic and preposterous, but I think the point should be taken to heart. Humans are far, far worse than ice ages or asteroid impacts. Why? Because humans of OUR culture kill everything, flora and fauna, and leave nothing behind but waste, poison, and garbage. We’re much worse than mere destruction. We’re horrible.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
No straw men intended Jared.
LikeLike
Josh said:
I don’t know, Russell. I agree that history over 5,000 years is even sketchier than what we’ve got since then, but my reading of ancient archaeological structures tells me that there was a vast and thriving civilization on Earth during the most recent ice age, which ended some 12,000 years ago (there is even evidence of a civilization that predates the most recent ice age). I do think there is a strong likelihood that there was a Younger Dryas impact or two or something else (like a coronal mass ejection) that had a devastating effect, partially as a result of quick temperature changes. But I have a sneaking suspicion that that the destruction of the pre-existing civilization was not directly caused by some natural cataclysm(s), though they may have played a role.
Here’s a question: why was Gobekli Teple buried by human hands? Why were the tunnels under the Bosnian pyramid likewise filled in? How many other ancient archaeological structures have been buried or deliberately hidden? I don’t know what happened (and I know there are a lot of theories out there, most of them involving aliens), but I don’t think that whatever happened to bring about the end of that civilization was due solely to natural causes, and it seems like someone has deliberately tried to erase it and keep its existence from us unknown.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
Josh & Jared….
The mainstream would have us believe that we all came out of Africa and lived like Fred Flintstone for the past million years, then something mysterious happened around 5,000 years ago…and the iphone was invented. Joking aside, if any thriving civilisation existed 2 million years ago, especially if it met a grisly and destructive demise, then what evidence would be left? Most workable metals and cements and timber would take around ten thousand years to completely oxidise and decay back into the ground. There must be some artefacts preserved somewhere but it’s a small needle in a very large haystack.
One important thing to note is that when these society’s crumbled they lost the ability to write. So short term records weren’t kept…they just stopped. Odd that. I guess once the nobility and educated were dead, there’d be no one left to record events. But these events do seem to follow the same patterns.
If every time they started to thrive, another cold spike devastated their populations, then it would take them an extremely long time to build an actual civilisation.
Takes many years to grow people but just a day to kill them all again.
“…and it seems like someone has deliberately tried to erase it and keep its existence from us unknown.”
I think there’s a lot of truth and evidence hidden from us.
So the written records abruptly stopped or maybe stolen or destroyed?
LikeLike
Josh said:
There may have been a thriving civilization 2 million years ago, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking 20, 30, maybe 60 thousand years ago. I don’t deny the possibility that there was one much older than that (and there is evidence that there was), but that’s not what I’m talking about. And actually the work I mentioned previously by Derek Cunningham points to a language or message encoded in the construction of some of these ancient sites. And Randall Carlson and others have shown quite convincingly how astronomical and mathematical and who knows what other realms of knowledge have been encoded and built into ancient sites like the Egyptian pyramids and Stonehenge. So there are messages from the past that have not been erased, but we don’t have the ability to understand it all yet.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Josh, I didn’t misunderstand you. The million years figure was plucked out of thin air to make a point. But how do you filter out the blackwashing?
Many years ago Zecharia Sitchin was been proven to be wrong and misleading on so much stuff, yet some things he talked about have been backed up folk such as Carlson. We are told the helicopter shapes in the hieroglyphs are not helicopters but are where the material has been worn away and part of another symbol is missing. Then we hear Carlson mention aeroplane shaped artefacts, but doesn’t dwell on the subject. So what do you believe? Every ancient mystery worth looking at is instantly debunked by mainstream scientists before the ink has dried.
Electricus wasn’t fully realised to exist until the late 18th century.
Just 100 years later London had a power station and an underground electric train system. From Leyden Jars to tube trains in 100 years yet when we talk of the abilities of ancient, we insist on time-lines, then dismiss them as being impossible. But our own experience of progress has proven how capable the human is over extremely short periods of time.
I too think civilisations go much further back to at least pre-ice age Josh.
Its a wild stretch of the imagination but wouldn’t those pyramid stones be much easier to carry hundreds of miles by rail? I’m not talking bullet trains just simple flat-bed wagons on a simple iron rail system. I wonder, if they spent enough time, in the right place, and dug deep enough what might they find? Pre-ice age rail system would have to be preserved for lets see…120,000 years tops? What happens to iron rails and wooden sleepers after that length of time? From the stuff I’ve read on the subject it seems it would be completely gone in 20,000. Would sand preserve the rails or speed up decay? There would be plenty of mineral rich water flooding the area and acid rain through volcanism, so plenty of corroding substance leaking down through the sand to the aquifers.
The Nile Delta has soil up to 70 feet deep. I’ll bet there are some amazing artefacts hiding under that lot.
Time Team?
Talking of Carlson, I think he has to say certain things which go against his own beliefs and theories just to keep his speakers platform, which is why he sometimes contradicts himself. He doesn’t dismiss man made climate change but instead lays it in a coffin, though doesn’t nail it shut, he leaves his options open….clever move.
But if all these people are buyable by THEM then how many can we believe? How much has Carlson been compromised? Anyone interested in looking into his genealogy? If I find out that Schoch and Carlson and West are compromised gravy-train leeches then I’m just going to ignore all this and go back to killing Orks in Warhammer Retribution. The Plasma Cannon …. useful when discussion can go no further!
LikeLike
Josh said:
Carlson is a high ranking Freemason so that’s sufficient in my book to take him with a huge grain of salt. Schoch has no credibility after his inexplicably obtuse and obstinate positions on the underwater Japanese ruins and the Bosnian pyramid, though the guy who discovered those also makes a lot of bogus claims so he’s also not trustworthy. None of them are. But I have eyes to see and a brain to think with so it’s clear to me that many of those structures were built a very long time ago with advanced technology that we scarcely understand. Beyond that it’s really very difficult to say. I’m most interested in trying to use the charge field to think through how the technology might work. Pyramids are one example.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Maybe Schoch is misdirecting away from the, ‘lets look off-shore’ hypothesis which several people have proposed, Hancock I think was one of the most vocal on that idea. It would explain his conviction of pushing back the building of pyramids to 26,000 years or more but then dismissing the off-shore find.
Maybe between them, they tell us the truth with each expert only giving a small amount but wrapping it in misdirection. So I guess it’s a matter of listen to and read them all, then try and work out the truth from the misdirection. Now who do we know who’s brilliant at that kind of sleuthery?
Was it you Josh who said that charge photons aren’t guided by magnetic fields but that the charge photons are the magnetic field?
I have trouble understanding that because how does that fit with the loops of plasma in the solar photosphere and corona which arch back toward the Sun. The shapes of the plasma curves are supposed to be showing us the complex magnetic field lines above the photosphere.
So my question is, ‘what is causing the charge photons to follow those paths’?
Isn’t that a description of the tail wagging the dog? Or am I missing something fundamental here? Maybe the curves don’t show up the magnetic field lines but if not, then what is causing the plasma to act in that manner?
There are many stumbling blocks on the way to understanding but I’m fed up of keep tripping over them. Every time I think I understand something, a bolt from the blue comes along to completely shred my understanding and I have to defrag and start again.
LikeLike
Josh said:
“So I guess it’s a matter of listen to and read them all, then try and work out the truth from the misdirection.” Yes, I think that’s what we’re left with.
“Was it you Josh who said that charge photons aren’t guided by magnetic fields but that the charge photons are the magnetic field?”
Well it was Miles who said that magnetism is caused by the spin of charge photons: http://milesmathis.com/magnet.html
Here is a paper he wrote on magnetic reconnection and coronal temperatures, which speaks to your question: http://milesmathis.com/corona.pdf
He’s got other papers explaining how charge moving between planets causes different celestial effects, like the polar aurorae: http://milesmathis.com/aurora.pdf
And here is one on the E/M fields of solar system bodies: http://milesmathis.com/venus.html
Hope it helps. No way could I explain it better than he does.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I think it’s important to distinguish between our culture, our current way of life, and humanity itself. Humans have been around for a long time, millions of years if we count the species that led directly to us or whatever (Lucy, for example). Hundreds of thousands of years perhaps as we currently appear. Sure, carbon dating and other methods have flaws but I think the timeline is still much longer than, say, just the last ice age or so. L_Kinder disagrees but I’m not convinced yet of his timeline, mostly because I need to do more research.
But OUR culture isn’t that old, and the population didn’t start exploding until it began. Otherwise we’d find remains of ancient humans all over the world, instead of finding most of them near the middle east.
So that temple at Göbekli Tepe would have been a site from before Totalitarian Agriculture, most likely. People still lived and built stuff prior to this huge cultural shift, where the greedy and lazy folk decided to subjugate everyone else. You don’t need greedy and lazy folk to have a society or a culture. It’s just the one which happens to proliferate human life most rapidly, and destroy everything in its path. Other cultures may or may not have destroyed much in THEIR paths, but I’ve never seen any evidence that there were billions of people prior to our culture. Millions, maybe, but that’s a very big difference.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Indeed, Miles has several good papers on charge recycling and paths or “propensities”, rather, since these are where the potentials go, mainly as a path of least resistance.
https://imgur.com/xVohjuw
Here’s an attempt at diagramming charge paths between bodies I made, might not be correct but hopefully Miles or Nevyn or someone would correct me wherever I’m off:
https://imgur.com/aNhmhns
And this one is a bit wider in scope, perhaps shows things a little better:
https://imgur.com/6RmpSIH
Again, these are just diagrams. Although I’m working on more videos, it’s slow going and I make a lot of mistakes, so I like to wait until Miles or Nevyn give me a “thumbs up” on a new one for the sake of accuracy. And any errors are mine alone, not errors in Miles’ theories, and are my fault if they are present. I’m studying hard but it’s a lot to take in, and most of the time we just work at the quantum level until we have that all under control. The macroscale is a lot more… Well, big. So there’s more room for error, in my understanding of it.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“I’m studying hard but it’s a lot to take in.”
I know that feeling!
The third diagram is a big help thanks.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
i believe there is an upper limit on the population. This guy explains it a lot better than i could….Hans Rosling
LikeLike
ihatestarwars said:
I see the guy who discovered Lucy in ’74, Donald Johanson, established the Institute of Human Origins in Berkeley, California which he later moved to Arizona State University in 1997, and is the nephew of wrestler Ivar Johansson. One wonders if there is a link to Scarlet Johansson (b. 11/22/84)?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Breaking News: The Hubble “breakdown” was just more stupid shit:
https://www.techspot.com/news/77085-nasa-resets-hubble-gyroscope-old-tech-support-trick.html
So they just spun the gyros and varied their speed to “dislodge” any dust? They knew how to fix it before even releasing the breakdown headlines, obviously. How could you NOT know that would work? But of course this is assuming that it ever stopped working at all. Or that it ever did.
Seeing stuff like this decreases confidence even further for me. It’s beyond belief. They only wanted to plop Hubble in the news again, so people would remember it and keep NASA relevant and stealing their money. It was a marketing campaign.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Jared, does this mean you’ve inched a little closer to my insane belief that there is no Hubble? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Actually no, because I believe in photons, lenses, and orbits. If I had the funding and support, and maybe Miles and Nevyn around to help out, we could easily design such a device and put it up. A better one, probably. I build shit for a living and design shit for my other living, so it’s not even difficult for me to conceive of a telescope and camera array that could do what Hubble does. I’d just hire real camera techs (Carl Zeiss, etc.) to help with the optics instead of those rookie-ass ones they used. Our cell phones take better pictures than Hubble, just not at the same focal length.
Do you own binoculars? Mine are 35x optical zoom, which is roughly equivalent to what Galileo used to spot Jupiter. I believe this device works, and use it often to spot birds and aircraft and such. I don’t just believe it – I know it works.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
I’ve been a dealer in photo gear for close to 40 years and I know something about telescopes and optics in general too. I also believe in photons, lenses, and orbits but I don’t believe in proven liars and hoaxers like NASA. 🙂
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
They named a station after Donald? HMMmmmm!
https://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio/headlines/46035960/on-board-the-new-jerusalem-tel-aviv-fast-train
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Just found a site which has lots of good pictures of the Langley NASA Apollo 11 moon landing set. Wonder if NASA stands for National Society of Secret Agents?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Oops, sorry. Here;s the missing link…
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Josh said:
Just scanned it quickly, but that seems like an awesome link! I had not seen any of that information before. Quick — somebody archive that site!!
LikeLike
Fuzz Aldrin said:
That link to Apollo Reality was a copy of the original site, which can be found at:-
apolloreality.atspace.co.uk
There are many other interesting links on that site. I’m surprised that you have only just discovered it, as the author has had the site up and running for over 20 years now. Over those 20 odd years it has been hosted at differing places under subdomains. However it has been at “atspace” for about 6 years now. I think it is by far the best website for exposing the fake Apollo Moon missions. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program and claim it was faked at:-
apollofeedback.atspace.co.uk
Look at the last picture on:-
apolloreality2.atspace.co.uk
and have a good laugh
Discover how USGS got involved in helping NASA to fake the Apollo Moon missions at:-
apolloinsider.atspace.co.uk
The sites are an absolute gem for anyone researching NASA’s phony Moon landings.
LikeLike
Gerry said:
That photo collection currently lives on http://nasascam.atspace.co.uk
Enjoy!
(The copy at thelivingmoon.com is an archive of the now defunct http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality, but surrounded on thelivingmoon.com with things I personally don’t believe in, like Nazi moon bases, aliens, and Apollo reaching Mars & Venus even though it’s proven to be faked on the same site.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
nada0101 said:
Amazing special FX! Mindblowing photos that prove it really does cost a lot to look that cheap. It is 9/11 all over again — real world theatrics combined with unbelievably simple (but expensive!) magic tricks.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
“The above pictures were taken by Bob Nye on June 20 1969…”
Perhaps related to Bill Nye, the really fake science hero? His father is listed as Edwin Nye. I couldn’t find any Roberts in his immediate ancestry, but it wouldn’t surprise me if someone else could.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Nye is a pretty common name. There are lots of them in the IMDB – actors and crew. Looks like over a hundred. Louis Nye was a fairly famous comedian/actor. Ben Nye was a famous makeup artist. There’s even a Bob/Robert Nye or two in there.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Sure, but I’d put money on him being connected somewhere else. Matrilinearly, most likely. Normally when thinking about stuff like this I would demand evidence, even from myself, but after all we’ve seen in Miles’ and others’ genealogy work it’s a pretty safe bet to say that anyone so popular in the mainstream is connected. Nye may be a common name, but it’s not common in the spook or NASA or science worlds. He’s gotta be propped up not by merit, but by nepotism – just like everyone else famous or heavily promoted.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“Nye may be a common name, but it’s not common in the spook or NASA or science worlds. ”
Well, I mentioned the IMDB Nyes because Hollywood IS most definitely within the spook world.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Not Any Spooks Association
No Apollo Spooks Anymore
Not Associated with Spooky Actors
LikeLike
lewis reid said:
Nazi Agents Space Abomination
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
National Advancement of Sci-fi Apologists
Notoriously Awful Script-writers and Artists
Next step Actors-guild for Sincere Astronauts
New American Space Armaments
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Not Another Silly Artifice
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
@Jared Magneson:
“…Perhaps related to Bill Nye, the really fake science hero?…”
Good catch and a very good question Jared, but perhaps they could be one and the same actor.
There’s a book called ‘The Planets: Photographs from the Archives of NASA’, by Nirmala Nataraj (Author), NASA (Photographer), Bill Nye . At the bottom of the book cover it says ‘Preface by Bill Nye’, but on the table of contents the preface says ‘You’re an Explorer by BILL Nye’! Don’t think this could be a simple typo, rather perhaps having a laugh about the dual nature of Secret Service acting role – Bill Nye the science propagandist and Bob Nye the science photo faker?
Bill (William) has a puny name (Nye = new) – New Willy (transgender joke).
You can tell Bill Nye is no scientist form the following YouTube video, where Bill is seen propagandising and refusing to give any genuinely scientific answers (~9min)…
Love to get more background info on these characters and how they appeared on the scene.
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Sorry, the YouTube link got screwed up with some strange autoplay list. Correct video with Bill Nye is here (I hope)…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
More bullshit regarding the ISS: it’s main “computer system”. I just read an article on Techspot about it, including a motherboard layout diagram which is very obviously wrong, or at least mislabeled:
https://www.techspot.com/news/77204-international-space-station-supercomputer-gets-extended-stay.html
#1: That’s not a “Tesla GPUs”, it’s a single CPU with it’s own memory modules right next to it. #1 and #3 should be swapped. The Tesla P100 looks like this:
But let’s say we can forgive that as an “honest mistake”? In the article it states that these two CPUs somehow magically “has the compute power of around 30 laptops”. So what two CPUs are they using, which are a few years old now, that are somehow faster than the newest wave of Ryzen or Intel chips?!? And they are TINY, compared to a Ryzen Epyc or Threadripper, so they certainly can’t be nearly as powerful as either of those. But even a modern laptop can rock an 8-core/16-thread chip and is far more powerful than any CPU from a few years back.
And that Tesla P100 is a few years old too, and completely dwarfed by the V100. The “P” is for the Pascal line, and “V” is for Volta, the modern release for 2018. All four of those wouldn’t even be as powerful as a single V100.
So we have mislabeled literature (from NASA, as far as I know) and bullshit propaganda, once again. That computer is a toy. There’s no way they would supply a real space station with what amounts to a nice gaming console, in my opinion.
It being launched by SpaceX is also suspect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nada0101 said:
But we agree that the ISS is real, right? So why the lie regarding the cpu tech? Are they hiding the real tech? Nevertheless, fascinating insights and knowledge; thanks for sharing with this peon at least.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
I don’t understand how I end up liking some of my comments — its retarded; its accidental but it keeps happening. Sorry about that. It is like straining my ginger juice with a sieve in a colander — its retarded; its accidental but it just keeps happening 😛
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Aha; just found out I can correct the mistake. Forget what I said about the ginger juice and colanders and all that malarkey. Just kidding; never happened. Ahem.
LikeLike
DF said:
Ginger juice technique brilliance at 2:39 .
LikeLiked by 1 person
nada0101 said:
Now that is pretty and cool.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
At this point, I really don’t know what to think about the ISS. The computer I posted wasn’t a navigation or orbital computer, it was for processing data and experiments in space, so it doesn’t really tell us much about that end of things. Also with those 4 heavy Tesla GPUs (graphics processing units), it has enough graphics horsepower to probably render everything they’ve ever shown from the ISS, right there, and really fast too. That’s a LOT of horsepower, despite having two mediocre Central Processing Units. The difference is that those CPUs have 4 to 22 cores that run pretty slow, vs. those GPUs that have 3,500 cores each, so 14,000 GPU cores vs. say 44 CPU cores. That’s a lot of power for heavy dynamics or rendering.
But if we say the ISS is fake, they wouldn’t be rendering its video up in space to begin with. They’d render it down here, in realtime, with say a dozen of those Teslas or just one or two of the newer “Volta” generation models, or a simple gaming graphics card. So if the ISS is fake, that computer and all hype around it is just marketing for HP and Nvidia. Which is possible, but…
I don’t know. I certainly think a space station is POSSIBLE given existing tech, but how much of it is just NASA hype? You know, to sell us on continued funding and milking billions from the taxpayers.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
At this point I still think there is something up there in low earth orbit. That belief is only based on the low gravity vids I’ve seen from Russia — they look convincing. That’s all the evidence I have because everything else is sourced from the mainstream, the main hub for liars. I’m not convinced those long videos are really shot within planes plunging to earth — they seem far too long for that.
So my belief that the ISS is up there is quite tenuous. I am aware that the moon space-flight fakery probably used low-earth orbit shots as part of the fraud (I’m thinking of the video supposedly exposing the Apollo crew masking the module window to set up a fake shot). Although that video could be more lies.
Professional liars 🙂
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“Also with those 4 heavy Tesla GPUs (graphics processing units), it has enough graphics horsepower to probably render everything they’ve ever shown from the ISS, right there, and really fast too.”
Like holographic images projected into the atmosphere?
Fake alien invasion?
Fake meteorite strikes to cover up the blowing up of points of strategic interest?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Hmm, point by point?
1. No, holographic images can’t be projected on the atmosphere really. That’s a completely different arena and heavy math-crunching GPUs wouldn’t help or solve the physical problems with that concept.
2. Yes, they could RENDER a fake alien invasion with the cards rather quickly, but again, still much more slowly than land-based setups. Mine are faster than this thing. But the SPEED and power doesn’t matter for something cinematic like that – the computer only renders what it’s fed to render, and the create the CONTENT for such an alien invasion is still top-tier, high-paying CGI work such as on Avatar or Prometheus or Star Wars.
That is, the computer cannot create the content on its own. It’s not an AI, and Maya and the other programs involved are far too complex for an AI to use anyway. They’re too complex for people to use, even, without constant study and training.
3. Yes, they could easily render realistic meteorite strikes with that computer. But again, it couldn’t create the files and scenes – only people can do that. But rendering meteor strikes and bollides is much easier and simpler than rendering aliens or characters interacting with a scene. I’ve done meteors myself, on my own. It’s pretty simple, compared to character creation, which is very complex.
I think them using that shitty computer is actually evidence FOR the ISS being real, but again that’s assuming it’s not just a hype-story to promote Nvidia and Hewlett-Packard, as well as Intel. The CPU company, not “intelligence” as in the CIA.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
My belief is that there is no ISS up there. Those silly videos with women astronauts and their obviously hair-sprayed coifs clinched it for me some time ago.
I do think that there are high altitude aircraft up there faking the ISS and satellites and there MAY be some “balloon satellites” in low, low “orbit” as described in the wikipedia.
Note that high altitude aircraft such as the U2, etc began at about the same time as satellites began.
And, since there has never really been a need for the USA to spy on Russia, (the cold war being a hoax) then why else would these expensive aircraft be developed? “Spying on Russia” was a perfect cover for creating these planes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
To be clear, I am not SUPPORTING the ISS bullshit here. The computer was just fishy because it was inaccurate and also rather weak even by standards a year ago. But it seems like the kind of horseshit they would pull, if for no other reason than to milk the taxpayers even more.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Miles does it again…
Grave doubts over LIeGO’s discovery of gravitational waves
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032022-600-exclusive-grave-doubts-over-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
We all know it’s a victory, but they of course refuse to credit him or link his papers. Which makes them both liars AND thieves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nada0101 said:
I didn’t bother wading through the text (which I assume is bunkum that attempts to explain why the previous bunkum is bunkum) but you’re right — the title itself does indeed signal a victory.
Perhaps they really are getting lost in their lies? Look at the Titanic stuff — they prepared minds for the lie by publishing fictional stories about “majestic” ships smashing into icebergs; then they implement the event by pretending the Titanic/Britanic/Olympic smashes into an iceberg; makes a few movies; fake a survivor who drew a picture of the ship breaking up on the surface and release this fake in the 1970s but claim is was published in 1942 but was based on a sketch from 1912….pause for breath…then fake-oh Ballard claims to use this fake to find his fake upon which Cameron bases his fake.
So, working chronologically backwards, I make that a fake based on a fake based on a fake based on a fake…based on fakes if you include the originally seeded stories. That would have to drive you nuts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
It hearkens to mind Slayer’s (amazing) song, “Circle of Beliefs”:
♫Can’t you see there’s no validity
Your way is not the only way
Slow decay spreading through your brain
Don’t you see the power of the enemy
Tyrrany total supremacy
Control the silencing of souls
Slavery within the entity
“Devastate, Dominate”♪
Don’t you see the power of the enemy? Their power is to lie. That’s it. That’s their only magic, their only power-tool. Everything else is an illusion. They aren’t all-powerful at all, they just have enough people convinced they are out of fear that if one defies them, one is dismantled or killed by cops or tossed in jail for debt.
But their only real power is the power to lie, and be believed.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Well said. Yes, a power-tool that drills into our consciousness. What gives it power is that it is always on, drilling away, and the more you believe the deeper it digs and the more power surges through it. A simple magic trick.
I don’t think the human mind has yet evolved to accept that some of our species would lie to us all of the time. We naturally look for patterns; glitches will always arouse our native suspicions — but to be saturated in a culture of lies, well then all the patterns are fake and you cannot tell up from down.
Pathological liars took control of culture-making a long time ago via their control of money-making and law-making. And all from a simple vice, the lie, that exploits a virtue we call trust. I suspect that the destruction of that innate human attribute, or its corruption, is what is destroying the Empire of Lies. They destroyed the gateway into our souls, destroying society along the way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Some excellent comments up-thread regarding the F***ing Big Object which appears to be orbiting the Earth. I’ve seen the FBO go overhead on many occasions and I think it really is a man-made body, although I’m open to good evidence that this is not so. However, I don’t believe that the FBO, or for that matter any of the previous smaller ‘space stations’, has had any human occupation since the end of construction back in 2011.
I think it more likely that it is a refuelling station & unmanned control centre for the advanced transport space-planes used by our controllers, Any other possible uses for the FBO are more than welcome.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I think that’s a pretty solid hypothesis, Boris. I hadn’t even thought of that.
I’d been working on spaceplane design last year especially, SSTO (Single-Stage To Orbit) vehicles, specifically, and no matter how efficient I could make them they still needed a refuel in orbit to go much further. I could get to the moon, but not back.
But that’s with current technology. If as Miles’ predicts, the Assholes In Power are using caesium / electron-powered technology, perhaps fuel isn’t as much an issue as resupplying the caesium? Just an idea. Perhaps it’s a caesium dump and restocking station. But that would also likely mean it had people aboard, to facilitate such an endeavor.
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
@ Jared Magneson:
“…perhaps fuel isn’t as much an issue as resupplying the caesium?…”
Yes, I too assumed Caesium 137, also. oxygen, water, food and other consumable. The station would also have to automatically re-process the CO2 scrubbing cartridges and deal with waste disposal etc.
The reason I think it is unmanned is that apart from the very high levels of solar.cosmic ionising radiation…
“National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements reported in 2009 that aircrews have, on average, the highest yearly dose of radiation out of all radiation-exposed workers in the US.”
Spacemen would have to endure ~40 days = 20 micro sieverts of radiation = current acceptable annual dose. Caesium 137 is also highly radioactive, with an ~30 year half-life, and the cost of the addition weight in shielding would make the space station too heavy to be practical. I think an automatic dispensing system would be far more efficient than trying to have all systems in place to support humans in space for delatively short periods.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
I think one thing we can consider and need to remember regarding current space-tech is that radiation should actually NOT be an issue. We can assume they’ve either read all of Miles’ papers by now and understand it as least as good as we do or they have come up with the correct answers on their own, at least enough of them to get to a certain point at least. Incoming radiation is, after all, just photons and the occasional electron or so, pushed along the charge streams at a decent velocity. They have defined and quantized spins. So shielding against them shouldn’t be much problem with a few techniques – magnetized hulls, for example, or a generated field that despins the charge or deflects it. I don’t think that presents a huge challenge to be honest – just a few tests and techniques, and those rads drop away rapidly.
If they are in fact using caesium / electron tech, there’s a good possibility they got down to the charge field level and then couldn’t make it work as propulsion yet, so they moved up to the electron. But again, this is all just conjecture. It doesn’t prove the ISS one way or another. Just trying to figure out the hows and whys.
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
I like you’re thinking Jared, I’d forgotten all about the possibility of radiation blocking using a charge field of opposite spin to reduce its energy. I wonder if it is possible that they use the Bremsstrahlung effect, employing electrons generated from Caesium 137, to produce a dense charge field with the correct spin?
They could even be using photons as the main propellant for their advanced spaceships…
Thanks to wiki for the .gif file, article on Photonic Laser Thruster here…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
The recent drama about “drill holes” being found on the ISS does increase my skepticism about the whole project. I still think it is up there but that opinion reflects a very thin membrane put up by my cognitive dissonance defense. I can see what lies beyond but I’m not ready to go there yet 😀
I’m still not convinced that you can simulate long zero-gravity videos in a plunging plane. You’d have to be plunging many planes many times and cleverly editing together all the footage into a seamless whole, without any projectile vomit being seen in the shots 😛
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“I’m still not convinced that you can simulate long zero-gravity videos in a plunging plane. You’d have to be plunging many planes many times and cleverly editing together all the footage into a seamless whole…”
There’s a brilliant clip showing how they suspend actors in a prone position over a camera to get amazing weightless shots but can I find it?
Maybe the clip was showing the public just how easy it is to fake the ISS crews in orbit so they told Y’Tube to pull the plug on those clips?
The film Enders Game 1985.
ISS first component launched 1998, last module fitted 2011.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
I don’t want to setup strawmen either, of course. They could be using advanced wiring and green screen techniques that not even Hollywood is allowed to use.
Recall the awful looking Leia in Rogue 1 and even the Tarkin model. I’ve seen better in video games. The only explanation I could come up with was that they’re holding back the technology…apart from in video games. Lol.
I dunno. I give up. I’m gonna leave this one hanging around — one-day someone might present a slam-dunk analysis.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
This is a good discussion of how they might fake zero-gravity with the “vomit comets”, including a look at alleged footage discrepancies. The comments are worth reading too, including those skeptical of this theory.
http://lifttheveil411.com/international-space-station-hoax-how-to-fake-zero-gravity/
…oops at the end of the video he asks Miles Mathis directly. Lol. I did not know this and only stumbled onto it. If it is another spooky, deliberate distraction then I apologis(z)e in advance.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Sorry, didn’t realize that Lift the Veil is a Flat Earth site. I should’ve checked the site rather than just post the video. I feel tainted now.
LikeLike
Josh said:
No worries. I’m curious what is the time stamp on that video for when he mentions Miles by name? I listened to the last few minutes and didn’t hear anything.
I remember back in early 2016 when I had stumbled onto a lot of this stuff, LTV had just gotten started. I think the most recent fake shooting event then was San Bernadoo, and he had the best videos on it. This was really early on for me, and I was having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that it was all faked. I left a comment on one of his videos about the fake triage staging area and asked him ‘where did all the victims go then?’ He answered, ‘there were no victims.’ Anyway there was a good while there where he was making good content. He has some good original stuff on the Apollo missions and also had some good stuff on Brussels. Most of those videos no longer exist on youtube and he hasn’t tried to preserve them. I think that’s on purpose.
And then… yeah. He started going off the rails. First of all, he was always upfront about struggling with a mental illness, which I respect. But later came to suspect it was a way of blackwashing truthers as insane people. And then he started flirting with flat earth, saying things like he could never really visualize or figure out how the moon has phases, etc. Then he just went off the reservation, in my opinion. I was also more sophisticated by then and it was easier to see through him. Oh well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nada0101 said:
Aye; as Miles would put it — he is black-washing any legitimate talk about space fakery. His question (or taunt?) to Miles is about 3/4 the way through. I’ll dig it out now… start listening from about 16:41…
He also dedicates a talk to addressing Miles’ paper on flat earth as a psypo, which is what sent my alarm bells ringing. I didn’t bother listening to that; just wrote off the site and plonked a warning here, although you’ve been there and done that.
Yes, I can well believe he originally posted some great analysis; definitely a good actor, if he is a spook.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
His question, or rather taunt to Miles is at 16:41…
I posted a verbose reply but tis lost in space.
LikeLike
Josh said:
OK, thanks. I remember back then posting some links to Miles’ work on his youtube page. He never replied as I recall. I’m surprised he mentions him at all. Actually there was another link on the sidebar to a discussion of Miles talking about flat earth shills. Didn’t watch the video, but in the comments section he actually has nice things to say about Miles’ work. That’s refreshing.
I should add that Nathan Stolpman (aka LtV) is Jewish, has a dad who works in government (FDA or EPA IIRC), and had a short-lived and failed go of it as an actor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Josh said:
OK, thanks. I dug your more verbose reply out of spam then approved it.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
“I should add that Nathan Stolpman (aka LtV) is Jewish, has a dad who works in government (FDA or EPA IIRC), and had a short-lived and failed go of it as an actor. ”
He’s very convincing. I’m not concerned about his Jewishness; tis his spookishness that p*sses me off 😀
LikeLike
R T said:
It’s incredible how similar our stories are, Josh. I was watching the same content, and likely would still be watching the same content if you had never linked me to Miles’ website. Thank god you did, my friend.
I was ensnared in an entire web of misinformers, disinformers, and straight up liars. All of whom kept me on their lure by dangling little bits of truth and then washing it down with pure spin.
I’m talking Molyneux, Infowars, Paul Joseph Watson, the whole freaking gambit. All the way down to folks like Mark Passio, my old personal favorite James Corbett (who in my opinion was the most tolerable) and a whole string of two-bit liars and con-artists who one way or another have made it their live’s goal to lead you down the wrong path for another decade or two until it is too late to do anything about it.
A whole network of these bit players who have thousands of hours of content for you to ingest willingly.
Then I ran into Miles website and realized anyone who is telling the truth simply will not have fancy, polished videos and millions of subscribers on a major social network. They won’t have a YouTube network with a set of videos already curated for me, and they certainly won’t be hocking their shitty supplements or gold/silver bullion or emergency ammunition. They will be relegated to their own website, and not lambasted by the current powers, but completely ignored.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Cox said:
I previously believed Trump was the original selection to be the current Puppet in Chief but after thinking about it for awhile I remember the whole libertarian/anarchist scene was turned upside down during that summer when all these controlled opposition agents were suddenly changed gears too quickly..
I feel ya. I had a special animosity towards Molyneux since I was ensnared in his net, Corbett’s and a few others. He was the most clever of that sadsack bunch but looking back on it he was only good at pretending to be smart. He actually outed himself when the Trump campaign picked up and it was like he was tapped immediately to drop the anarcho-capitalist front and be a big dump Drumpf supporter all of a sudden. Everyone with a brain could see through it (and his obvious 9/11 truth blackwashing video.. that was a great day when that video was downvoted into oblivion on YT). You could see it in his glassed up eyes he knew he was blowing his cover. There were some comment dissidents on Youtube that helped me see through Corbett as well. I think that’s when I started on the trail to Miles and never looked back since.
When they are in their ‘Gathering an audience phase’ these spooks have a dark art for skirting right above the clouds of the truth to draw everyone in. That’s why Miles papers are so revolutionary since not only does he know how out them, but by reading his papers one can start breaking out of the Animal Farm and be free from their spells.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Josh said:
I could never stand Molyneux’s prickish, patronizing attitude, so I only ever watched a video or two of his. I agree that Corbett is the cleverest, and he continues to produce some good stuff. At least they never made him go flat earth or pro-Trump. Ah well. Both surnames have made several entries in Miles’ research on The Families, so it’s hardly a coincidence to have found them on our journey up the mountain to clear the fog.
LikeLiked by 2 people
R T said:
In my opinion, the whole Trump thing has really been quite an effective attack on the truth community. Hell, visit any mainstream truther community and over half of the posts will be about Trump, his opposition, opposition to him, the election itself, or “reactions” to Trump. Whether or not these posts are artificial or that the community really has been ensnared so effectively is hard to tell, but it’s rather pitiful. We had such a strong community going around 2015, and the whole election was an impressive gambit that tore apart several online communities. It’s probably been one of the more effective arms of Project Chaos, if I had to guess.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Josh said:
I completely agree with you, RT. For so many people, the moment you try to tell them that the news is not to be believed (“fake news”) or that anything that sounds like a deep state is really running things, they immediately think you’re a trump supporter. Don’t dare to say anything about Jewish influence. And many Trump supporters (appear to) have been convinced that there is a vast conspiracy against trump. Trump recently said or implied that anti-Semitic attacks are being faked by Jews to make him look bad. So now the moment you say that the Pittsburgh shooting was fake, you are either immediately labeled as a Trump thumper or, from the other side, they say ‘yeah isn’t it a shame what they’re willing to do to take down Trump?’ (No! He’s Jewish, too.) Argh.
LikeLike
R T said:
Want to hear an interesting fact about Mr. Molyneux? You might think his favorite hobby growing up was debate team, or maybe something like that. You would assume incorrectly though — as our Mr. Molyneux has always been a fan of the dramatic arts! That’s right, in his own podcast he has detailed how growing up he always wanted to be an actor. I think that’s an obvious tip of the hat, to those in the know he is practically saying that he already is one.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
You nailed it once again, RT. Almost ANY time you post or comment any opposition to the neoliberal agendas overtaking the media, one is immediately lumped in as a Trump supporter. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so nefarious.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
That LtV guy gives me the creeps.
That is one way I detect spooks. With my creeps-o-meter. Spooks just can’t seem to hide their creepy vibes from it. Not for very long anyway. 🙂
LikeLike
Josh said:
Trusting your intuition is a good idea.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Hollywood has been realistically faking zero gravity for some years now. For example, last night I watched “The Martian” on the tube and that film has a number of scenes that look just like those ISS videos with astronauts and objects floating around inside space craft.
There was even an episode of the TV sitcom “Big Bang Theory” a few years ago that showed one of the characters floating around inside the ISS:
LikeLike
R T said:
Jesus Christ man do people really watch this garbage? It’s astonishing how awful every part of that video was.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
“It’s astonishing how awful every part of that video was.”
I couldn’t agree more. 🙂
Unfortunately, that show is the most popular in the USA right now, which gives us an idea of what we are up against in terms of average IQ.
reference:
https://tinyurl.com/y8w9fufe
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
If you can believe TV ratings, that is.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
But, in any case, I doubt they use a vomit comet for the ISS videos. I think that was done for some brief shots in Hollywood films like “Apollo 13” but now they use other means. From what I have read one technique involves the “floating” person rolling on a small wheeled platform while being filmed from above with a green screen background. Other techniques involving wire harnesses are used for the somersault actions.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Jesus, that’s horrible. At least Ender’s Game did it well, or well enough to be somewhat believable. It was also a fun story! Decent author, despite being spooky and Mormon. His other works were much better.
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Had this notification from Spaceweather…
“DID AN ALIEN LIGHT SAIL VISIT THE SOLAR SYSTEM?”
http://www.spaceweather.com
Just more hype and poor interpretation to explain the objects acceleration.
LikeLike
Philip Cox said:
That’s ridiculous. Speaking of ridiculous..
https://www.techspot.com/news/77271-elon-musk-tesla-floated-past-mars.html
“On Saturday, SpaceX shared the Roadster’s current location in a tweet, showing it had moved beyond the red planet and is on course to loop around back toward earth. It’s expected to cross our planet’s orbit in August 2019.
..
According to the website whereisroadster.com, which tracks the location of the Tesla, Starman is currently over 180 million miles from earth and 133 million miles from Mars, moving away from the planet at 21,050 miles per hour. The vehicle has traveled far enough to drive all of the world’s roads 16.5 times, and is set to orbit the sun once every 557 days.”
Hilarious.
LikeLike
R T said:
Do you think it’s a coincidence that it’s *180* miles from earth and *133*, moving away from the planet at *21,050*(adds to 8) miles per hour”? Aces, 8’s, and 33!
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
It’s also November (11).
LikeLike
bluestraven said:
I did not waste my time voting today. I have heard many people claim that Trump is the lesser of 2 evils and that voting republican is a better option. I think both sides are liars and the election is BS. I would however, really appreciate hearing what others have to say about it. Does anyone here vote?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I don’t vote either; it’s just a sport and all the elections are rigged. Honestly it’s kind of a dead topic compared to digging up new space fakeries. I wouldn’t say we’ve hit gold here but there’s a lot of good evidence and supporting theses. MOST of what they are telling us or showing us is fake. Building a stronger body of evidence is, to me, more important than political debate – in this blog post, anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Josh said:
It’s worth noting that bluestraven has never left a comment here before, but I approved it because it seemed benign. But then there was a follow-up comment, also from a new poster, which I did not approve. Here is the comment:
“So many of the candidates in these midterms are veterans or have ties to Intel. Allred has an uncle who was a former chief in the CIA. Spanberger is a former CIA operative. Max Rose is a spook from Afghanistan. All of them are Democrats. What does this mean? Why are we now forced to elect CIA and ex-military people into Congress? There’s something real big coming. It almost appears to be a hostile takeover of Congress by the military/industrial complex.”
It’s such obvious disinfo and misdirection that I’m surprised they bothered. First of all, since when hasn’t the Congress been in the pocket of intelligence and the military/industrial complex? Second of all, why the partisanship? Is it to sell us on the idea that has been promoted of late that the “deep state” only involves Democrats (and that Trump is fighting against them)? That dog don’t hunt in these here parts. As if the Republicans are a bunch of doves that have never given the military/industrial complex every last dime they asked for–and even more than that. And then the fear-mongering “there’s something real big coming.” Whatever it is, rest assured it will either be completely fake or completely controlled and manufactured. And finally, the entire comment serves to sell the myth of democracy. As if voting these admitted CIA agents into office will make some kind of difference one way or the other. So for all those reasons I decided not to approve the comment because I don’t want “Samuel Simpson” to be posting here.
Oh and by the way, Samuel has an IP address coming from France. I guess he’s a French guy who follows local races in US midterm elections very closely? And as for bluestraven, who got the ball rolling on this topic, his IP address is in Littleton Colorado, which is near Aurora and Columbine high. Go to google maps, put in Littleton, then do a ‘search nearby’ for military bases. Watch the map light up like a Christmas tree. So we won’t be hearing from him anymore, either.
LikeLiked by 2 people
rolleikin said:
@ Josh:
I propose a new term: CONSPOOFACY
A conspoofacy is when a fake conspiracy is proposed that is aimed at dispersing and misdirecting attention from actual scams and conspiracies. Conspoofacies also often contain an aspect that makes our controllers appear like good and honest people.
Example: “intel taking over congress” is a conspoofacy because, in reality, congress is already corrupt and compromised so the idea that it is being taken over by crooked spooks is laughable. At the same time it also suggests that congress is honest (the only reason it would be “taken over”).
It is a spoof conspiracy – a CONSPOOFACY (and it’s also a con with lots of poo).
“Fake news” (as used by our media) is also a conspoofacy. It is vague, undefined and laughable (since virtually all the output of our news media is fake) so it disperses and misdirects attention. It also buries real info about media fakery under piles of nonsense when one attempts to search for those two words. And, it makes the news media appear honest since they are the ones “reporting” about it.
There are many other examples in today’s news media. Conspoofacies appear to be a major psy-op technique now being used to suppress real discussions on actual conspiracies and scams perpetrated by our controllers.
LikeLike
Josh said:
conSPOOFacy. Love it. I’m stealing it, but will always remember where it came form. Two other big conspoofacies in the news lately: the whole Russian meddling in the election thing and the Khashoggi “murder.” I’m so glad I researched the Dreyfus conspoofacy. Of course I learned from Miles’ work, to whom great credit is due. But when you research something like that first hand it gives you (or at least I feel it gave me) an ability to understand and spot others like it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
bluestraven said:
Hi Josh and Jared, I am sorry if I did not stick to the topic. I was just wondering what you guys thought because I knew you would explain it in a way that I could then use to explain to others.
I should have known better than to not stick to the topic. I have been guilty of that before. I guess my rebel sides gets me in trouble. I used to comment under the name healingwithsavannah, but I set up a new account since I no longer use that blog and I guess I prefer a bit of anonymity, only because I am a private person in general.
I do live in CO, but I assure you I am innocent. I am a 53 years old female and just trying my best to understand what the heck is going on. You guys are much more informed and I only have so much time to spend on learning what is happening.
Josh, you sent me emails a while back at my blueraven gmail acct. So please know I am a trustworthy person, just a good bit behind you guys. I would be happy to further verify my identity via email if necessary. And I promise, I will stick to the topic for now on.
But please know, the responses were super helpful. I am trying to learn, but I understand that is not your job. Also, I am a big supporter of MM. I send donations here and there. I am on your side. I have not commented in a while due to person issues.
I do think the Denver, CO is a hot spot in many ways. My husband and I call it the Freemason Capital. There are various fake stories that happen here all the time. But I assure you, I am not involved in the military in any way. I am an honest person just trying to learn from you guys. You guys are my teachers. I sincerely have reverence for everyone who speaks out against the powers that be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Josh said:
Hey Blues, I don’t mind that you posted something off topic, though I do think this would be better discussed over at the big ‘defending miles mathis’ comment thread. I put your info into the ‘go to moderation’ queue because I thought you had set up Samuel for his comment, so it seemed coordinated. Though now that I look more closely, I see his comment was on the defending thread and yours was not. Anyway, my mistake. I remember you and of course you’re welcome here to comment on any topic that strikes your fancy (though please steer clear of FE and EGI, and if you don’t know what those stand for then you probably won’t be commenting on them).
As for voting: I don’t know if our votes are never counted. There may be some limited democracy. I do think there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. But it’s sort of like voting for the candidate who thinks the pig needs lipstick versus the candidate who thinks the big looks just fine the way he is. Still, if I lived in a district with a tight race, I might make an effort to get out to the polls if only because I cannot say beyond a shadow of a doubt that my vote would not be counted or would not matter. I doubt that it would, but I don’t know for certain.
Ultimately TPTB don’t care who gets elected, because their interests are looked after and protected one way or another. And of course there is the issue of selecting candidates to run, and they may put their thumbs on the scale more at that stage than others, if only because it’s easier to do. I don’t think there are any real independent politicians getting elected anywhere. There may be times when an election outcome is important to their plans, especially for big races, and in those cases I have no doubt they can intercede if need be. And I suppose they have many different ways they can do that. But do they always choose the winner in every election? I’m not sure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
bluestraven said:
Thanks Josh! I should have been more clear about my identity in this sketchy world our ours. I really appreciate your interesting reply–very helpful. Now I will catch up on your article and read what you guys have to say about your post. I hope I do not sound like a total geek, but I am a big fan of your blog : ) Be well, dear!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Josh said:
Great! No worries. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
We don’t vote because we don’t think that it has any effect on who gets elected.
I believe it simply shows TPTB an accurate breakdown of the public’s true opinions; being relatively anonymous they are more likely to tell the truth. Each political party has a list of proposals for society’s future and they are looking for a set of changes which the vast majority of the public will be happy with. Any strong disagreement can be met with the nudge factor to mould public opinion till it’s back on track with what TPTB want, ready for the next elections.
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Good catch, Josh. This is one of the oldest tricks in the book and used by our our beloved MSM every day. They try to simplify everything, no matter how much contortion is need. to paint every issue in life as being black or white. Of course, we all know that life is never that simple and we realise from an early age that all things are infinite shades of grey. An ounce of critical reasoning is usually all that’s needed to see through their ‘fake news’ rubbish, shame more people don’t take the time to learn this simple skill. If I were a professional educator, critical reasoning would be taught in all schools and given just as much priority as the three Rs get today.
@Rolleikin, love conspoofacy as a descriptor of what we see dished up by the news vendors everyday. Perhaps conspoostipation could be an ailment that afflicts people who haven’t seen through the swill being dished up to them and believe they are getting the truth?
LikeLiked by 1 person
R T said:
You’re getting pretty sick at these spook take-downs!
LikeLike
Josh said:
Thanks, RT. Just got another message from “Samuel,” this time checking in from the Ukraine:
“Thanks, Josh, for not publishing my very astute observation: Three representatives were elected to the House, and they all have direct ties to CIA and they’re Hebrew. Spanberger (former CIA Operative), Allred (Grandfather former CIA department head), and Max Rose, Army veteran from Afghanistan ((war)). Okay, Mister Israeli citizen, what’s going on? Please stop the misdirection, and explain. Miles is soiling his drawers over Metatron? When multiple Mossad Agents are creeping their way into the House of Representatives? Okay, tell me about Chris Pratt’s genealogy again. I know you shall not publish this.”
Actually, I did publish his asinine observations in their entirety, just as I’ve published this one. So there is nothing to explain. I just didn’t allow him to have freedom to comment here further. I have no problem pointing out Mossad or CIA operatives. I do have a problem when the person doing it is obviously misdirecting. But it’s OK, Sam, I know you won’t actually try to counter any of the points I raised about that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Hi Savannah, or Bluestraven or whoever you might be. I remember you.
This is Josh’s blog and he calls the topics and all that, and I too am guilty of rambling off-topic as the conversation allows, so I didn’t mean to seem critical of that. Certainly all these topics tie in together in many ways, no worries there.
Mostly I just wonder what better evidence of space-spookery can be found. Some kind of smoking gun, I mean there’s a lot here and from Miles and elsewhere already but I’m still eager for more. Perhaps it’s like blood in the water, and the scent determines my direction. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
The “ALIEN LIGHT SAIL”, got some more PR today from the BBC (Big Bulls**it Communications) would you believe. The orbit of the space rock does look puzzling at first glance, if you’ve never taken the time to read Miles ground-breaking papers on the charge field.
Found a good gif animation of the orbit on Wiki for those interested…
I find it amazing that the mainstream are still in denial about the real nature of photons, but perhaps this is just another bit of information which is too dangerous for the general public to know?
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
How dare you disparage the BBC! My God man, are you anti-British? I’ve been brainf**ked by the Beeb all my life and I’ll not have the likes of you cast aspersions on the Gatekeepers.
We the people are the great dung beetle and the Beeb is the shoveller (not “The Shoveller” from The Mystery Men, I should add) 😉
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
“I find it amazing that the mainstream are still in denial about the real nature of photons, but perhaps this is just another bit of information which is too dangerous for the general public to know?”
– Boris
@Boris: I don’t think it matters what the mainstream thinks, it matters what the PEOPLE think. And the people simply do not think.
Every time I debate photons and charge with a stranger, they immediately become hostile and angry that I’m attacking mainstream theory at all. They don’t even care about the TOPIC, they just get angry and immediately lash out, with the usual “conspiracy theorist” or (nowadays) “Trump supporter” or “conservative cuck” drivel. Even when there’s been no politics at all. Not once has anyone argued against the theory itself, or photons as charge, or anything like that. It’s always a pile of logical fallacies, chiefly straw men and bandwagoning. I feel Miles’ pain on this one because it’s just so fucking boring after the same thing hundreds of times, and no real content from the opposition.
Even when you link them to mainstream evidence (proof, really) such as the laser .GIF you showed previously, the free-range rude will balk and babble. My only success with the sharing that I’ve really felt and seen were with people already familiar with me, or already allied with me socially in some way or another. Those people eat it up just like we do here. I enjoy the discussions tremendously, but they are few and far between compared to the bullshit arguments with mainstream apologists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
@Jared:
“…And the people simply do not think…”
Most people are too busy earning a crust and being diverted by beer and circuses to have much time for analytical contemplation. Then, on top of this, the ceaseless distracting drivel from the MSM propaganda machine is added. No surprise most people follow the herd rather than think for themselves. It ever was thus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Too true – except I earn a mere crust and am often diverted by beer and (internet) circuses and still find time for analytical contemplation. The ceaseless distractions are pretty easy (and even fun!) to counter once you can spot them better, as we have all learned obviously.
But yes, it’s no surprise the teeming masses leap off the metaphorical mainstream cliffs time and time again. Lemmings can’t help it. I prefer lemurs, which are considerably cuter and less suicidal.
P.S. It turns out the lemming mass-suicides are kind of a myth too, but the metaphor is still fun to me. 🙂
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
I think that the people don’t think because they think that they don’t need to think because all the thinking that needs to be done is already being done by the world’s great thinkers. Furthermore, the uneducated ones think they’re not smart enough to think while the educated ones know they spent a truckload of money just to be told what to think and if they admit it was all hogwash it would mean they wasted their money and they’re not really any smarter than they were before, both being things they don’t wish to contemplate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Cognitive dissonance is a motherfucker. We all experience it to some degree, but knowing when it occurs I think is vital to the forensic/analytical process. It’s when we THINK we know that we’re often found lacking.
That’s why I’m loathe to just say, “I know the ISS/Hubble/Whatever is fake.” I THINK it is, to varying extents, but couldn’t prove it to myself just yet. Still digging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
NASA just released an 8K ultra high-def video they say was taken from the ISS with a new RED camera, the same type used on some Hollywood feature productions. They say the camera arrived last April via a SpaceX Dragon rocket ship and NASA provides a link so we can download the video in its full resolution.
https://tinyurl.com/y7pb7wct
Now, if you agree with Miles that SpaceX rockets are fake (as I do) and if you agree that the video is indeed 8K resolution and if you believe the ISS is real (as I don’t) then how did the RED camera get aboard the ISS?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Look at the cold steam gases at around 15 seconds in. Is that how gases behave in a vacuum? Do you see the gas rising or falling?
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
@Rolleikin:
“…how did the RED camera get aboard the ISS?”
Obviously they delivered it to the ISS Manned Module Simulator at Langley. I do think there is a large man made satellite circling, but I suspect it has nothing to do with the faux ISS Project, except to as a mask for its real purpose.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
8k resolution is just silly. How is human eyesight supposed to cope with that?
Even 4k is daft unless you have a TV screen the size of Nebraska!
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
“640×480 is just IMPOSSIBLE! The human eye can’t see at that resolution.”
– every computer user in 1985
8K is barely what our phones process anymore, just in motion. 7680×4320 = 33,177,600 pixels, or 33 Megapixels. My phone camera shoots at 41 Megapixels, at about 10 frames per second. So this RED Helium camera is shooting at a lower resolution but higher FPS, basically, which is cool but really nothing too special. This Nokia Lumia 1020 had this 41 MP camera back in 2013, so it’s more than five years old now.
As a graphics designer I can spot the difference in all these resolutions immediately. My TV-PC is a plasma, so it’s only 1280×720, and it has seriously affected my eyesight over the past few years. My main work monitors are 1920×1080 and one big curved 4K Samsung (3840 x 2160, or 4x 1080p) and I would definitely benefit by upgrading. Probably for Black(out) Friday in a few weeks, if I can convince the boss.
Just sayin’. 8K isn’t too terribly forward-reaching, it’s just more frames per second from these expensive-ass, overpriced RED cameras. They really aren’t too special.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“I would definitely benefit by upgrading.”
I suppose it’s a bit like sound. Your eyes can’t possibly resolve the detail but it looks different, dare I say ‘better’?
Vinyl lovers hated CD but warmed to it when the DAC’s became more versatile in what they did. Along come some seriously acoustic nerd audiophiles who found jitter was the biggest hurdle. Give it 20 years and digital can now blow bubbles at vinyl with a bottomless noise floor, a dynamic range to compare with nature and jitter levels which seem as likely as unicorn faeces. A basic CD has a jitter level around 35ns.
My digital player has a jitter level of 50 ps, which means its a thousand times more accurate delivering transients which makes the dynamics tighter and much more realistic. There are players available with jitter down to 2ps…yep, the best there is and their cost reflects it.
This accuracy takes away all the harshness, smearing and brittle high end that CD has. If you listened to differences in jitter is sine waves or other types of sound, you wouldn’t hear any difference. But listen to an orchestra and the difference is mind blowing.
So I guess the same thing may be happening with visual resolution. It enables a more realistic picture even though your eyes can’t separate out the individual bits on screen. Its the old “je ne sais quoi”…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
BluestRaven said:
Hi Jared, for some reason my “likes” and reply buttons do not always work, so I am replying here where it does work. I just wanted to say, thanks for your input. What you say is very impressive and helpful. I always scan for your comments among the first! My husband works in the space industry and it is not easy even for him to see the deception. The powers that be are masters at tricking rocket scientists, and the layperson (such as myself).
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
It’s okay, Savannah. Nobody is here for popularity or “Likes”, it’s just a quick way of saying one might agree with someone I suppose. I’m not impressed by myself however. I haven’t found any real “smoking guns” to share on this topic, just tidbits here and there that add up to a sketchy image of fakeries.
For example, last night while studying Miles’ paper on Voyager 1 and the Heliopause, I was able to falsify my previous claim that we haven’t sent any probes out above or below the solar plane of the ecliptic. It turns out Voyager 1 DID go up, after they spun it around Titan at Saturn, and it left the ecliptic very rapidly. So we DO have data from the north side of the solar system, as it were, since that’s where Vger-1 went and is still going, though it’s now left the heliosphere.
So given that the photos of Titan look legit, and Voyager 1 and 2 seem legit, we can thus say that probes ARE real and perhaps most of them are, if not all. Some folks have a rough time believing in simple satellites orbiting, but I’m ready to draw my line with that nonsense now. Probes and satellites are demonstrably real. The ISS, it’s real, but I’m not sure about the validity of its contents or the people aboard it, etc..
It’s hard to figure this shit out. Too much confusion from the mainstream, and lots of spooky-types here attempting to sew more. I just gotta learn to ignore them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
BluestRaven said:
Jared, I also think the ISS is real. I am not sure if it is manned. But from what I am told by my husband who works in the industry, the data coming from it looks very real and it appears to be manned. I am not here to try to convince anyone. My husband and I go back and forth on it all the time. The data he sees is very convincing, but he understands the level of deception is beyond his scope.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
“Your eyes can’t possibly resolve the detail but it looks different, dare I say ‘better’?”
@Russell Taylor: Our eyes not only possibly can, but always do. 8K resolution isn’t very high at all, given the size and distance of our displays. At 7680×4320 resolution, that’s barely 300dpi (dots-per-inch) if you translate to print. On a 28″ monitor, you’d need around 15,000 x 12,000 pixels to hit 600dpi, which is the quality of a nicely-printed photo. Modern phones are all projecting at around 450 ppi now, which is pixels-per-inch, and as you can see that’s higher than 8K resolution.
Can you tell the difference in clarity between a newspaper, a magazine, and a nicely-printed photo? Of course you can; you have eyes!
For my work, I generally render at 6600×5100, which is 600dpi for print on an 11 x 8.5 sheet of photo paper. My printer isn’t that great, but everyone can tell the difference between 600dpi, 300, 200, and 100. So for video display and motion display, basically the 8K-UHD spec is an attempt to catch up to print. It also requires a lot more processing-power for accurate playback, and our graphics cards are finally up to the task with the recent Nvidia “Volta” generation and AMD’s “Vega” generation.
I’m basically saying 8K ain’t shit. 😉 NASA and company should have had this type of camera system a decade ago, in my opinion. For their budgets?
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Well you should know having a deep knowledge of the industry Jared. All I can go on is old knowledge from amateur landscape photography and amateur astronomy over the past 30 years. I know more about sound than vision really so I’ll go with your explanations to a certain degree. But I think you’ll agree that pixels alone do not a wonderful image make? I use a reasonably powerful computer to render my photo’s and although I hate abstract, I also don’t see the point in binning a less than perfect photo, when 30 mins snerkling it in a computer programme can turn it into a masterpiece. Here are a couple of links explaining and proving the myths in photo printing resolution in a real world situation. Putting aside the problems faced by lens quality, camera shake, CCD quality and design, including individual pixel design, size and quality, there is still the problem of over half the population having defective eyesight, and not only that but the extremely narrow fovea angle of true sharpness.
Tis a complex subject but I hope you enjoy these links in this highly contentious subject:
https://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/21pogues-posts-2/
A bit out of date but still relevant
https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
We have a 43 inch HD 1980 X 1080 TV screen which at an exactly 9 feet viewing distance (just measured it) gives razor sharp, vivid pictures in HD video or film or 8mp photo’s. That resolution at what I would call a pretty normal viewing distance works out to only 46ppi, yet seems sharp. So I can only assume that a much higher resolution screen would only look sharper if one were sat much closer say, 4.5 feet at double the resolution? I just can’t see the point though when even webpage text, which at that res’ at 9 feet is pretty flippin tiny, yet still readable at a letter height of just 3mm. Things start to look a bit pixelated at about 3 feet away but who sits 3 feet off a 43 inch TV? It would almost be on your lap. Also, I have been looking at 4K TV screen in retailers alongside 1080 HD ad found the 4K to appear much sharper but as you know Jared, a slight increase in contrast can have that visual effect especially if a touch of colour saturation is added. The picture then looks more vivid and hence sharper, a simple marketing ploy. Added to the fact that the further away one sits, the less resolution is needed. It’s only when almost kissing the screen (exaggeration for closer than normal viewing distance), that the 4k would be most noticeable.
The adding of contrast and saturation is how sharpening of digital pictures works anyway is it not Jared? Correct me if I’m wrong but that’s how I always understood it to work. Comparing side by side pixels and changing their brightness to give the impression of sharpness.
Your observers are probably viewing a large computer screen from a couple of feet away to see the obvious differences you speak of. Good for 4k video gamers I guess.
Any road up….it’s interesting to read your views on the subject. There is no right and wrong…just right’ish and wrong’ish….with pretty much’ish somewhere in the middle…
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“…..simply because that’s how resolution works and also your eyes don’t have to do as much blending….”
1/ What difference does age make…age related blending.
2/ Distance means everything.
My eyes are now pretty good at blending instead of resolving, so I can only assume there’s a huge difference between the resolving power of a 20 year old compared to a 40 year olds eyes etc.
Also, I’ll bet your work monitor isn’t 9 feet away, so I guess, like the above artickles mention, you probably have to be within a foot to be able to see that 4K/8k is better.
How much does subjectivity skew our perception?
At 12 inches on my pc screen 1920x 1080 I see pixels but at 18 inches the pixels vanish. So the same res’ on the much larger tv can only be seen by moving much closer, like 24 inches, but the pixels look bigger than they do on the pc monitor.
I’m not trying to prove you wrong Jared, just trying to reassure myself after you gave my cage a rattle and got me re-thinking some of what I thought I already had nailed down.
So although the 23 inch pc monitor and 43 inch tv have the same native resolution, the way they display that resolution differs greatly. So we now have yet another criteria….actual pixel size. It seems the pc monitor already shows a resolution dpi-wise much greater than the tv and probably a lot nearer to 4k. If the tv pixels were the same tiny pin-prick size as the pc monitor, instead of looking like squares of chocolate, then you could cram one heck of a lot of pixels on that 43 inch screen. Is that all a 4k tv does? Cram a lot more tiny pixels into a given space, instead of chocolate square pixels? That might sound like an obvious statement but the two monitors are vastly dfferent in size yet have the same resolution.
Well that can’t be true can it cos the pixel sizes are different?
My head hurts!!!
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I hear you, Russell. And while your 1080-HD screen might look sweet at 9 feet, my argument would be that a 4K or 8K would look 2x or 4x (respectively) better, simply because that’s how resolution works and also your eyes don’t have to do as much blending. You may not PERCEIVE the blending at 1080, but they are.
Consider the sky, a nice partly-cloudy day. Consider the depth and detail of those clouds and the color shifts and shading, and the full resolution of “real life”. Every step up in digital resolution is another step towards “real life”, in terms of clarity. You may think this is subjective but I would disagree; the math is objective. More pixels means more photon-resolution, and our eyes have far, far higher receptor density than an 8K TV or monitory.
I mean we’re just beating this topic up but I want you to know that I appreciate you, and that you’re still wrong. 😉 ♥
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
I bow to your superior experience and knowledge. You had a very strong point when you made me aware that a single pixel can be made up of 5, 50, 500 or 5 million photons. Makes you wonder exactly what effect that pixel count has on the appearance of the individual pixel. Not just brightness. The Nikon D40 has a relatively mediocre CCD size and only 6.1mp but the individual pixel size is larger than most of the competition, which allows for more accurate colour and brightness for each and every pixel. Also gives it a one stop advantage in low light. So effectively each pixel makes better use of the photons it receives.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
@RussellTaylor:
Yes, that’s precisely how higher-resolution monitors and TVs work. As manufacturing processes get better, they increase the pixel density, in modern screens (LCDs with LEDs) by using ever-smaller LEDs. They pack more into the given area. So a 1920×1080 screen has exactly 2,073,600 of these tiny LEDs in a grid, no matter what SIZE that screen is. That’s its native resolution. My plasma only has 1280×720 = 921,600 pxiels at its native resolution, which is still good enough for movies and games but as I said, over time it hurts my eyes to type on unless I Ctrl-mousewheel zoom the screen so the text is huge.
All I’m saying is that upgrades in resolution are great, if you can afford it. Also moving to High Dynamic Range (HDR) screens and 10-bit screens for color accuracy are excellent – but that’s a relatively niche market. Still very cool.
And still, NASA should have had this tech a decade ago or more.
LikeLike
Ollie said:
I think you just confused vacuum with microgravity. Still interesting, but we don’t know what that vapor is. Is it a cold gas (like liquid nitrogen becoming gaseous again) or is that fog (moisture in the regular air that turns to fog when it clashes with the cold air from the fridge)?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I appreciate the comment, and yes I had conflated “vacuum” with gravity in this case. Of course, there’s no such thing as a contained charge vacuum (yet, anyway), so no matter what charge would come into play. But my question remains. Is this how vapors or gases look in LEO? Maybe. I am mostly curious if anyone else thinks this looks realistic; I’m very biased against it and could easily produce such a vapor effect myself using CGI programs, if someone were paying me. Not saying this footage is CGI, just being very skeptical about the ISS.
8K resolution doesn’t impress me; all our cameras go much higher than that, already. Granted the RED cameras are pretty sweet, they aren’t anything magically delicious really. I find it almost humorous that NASA doesn’t have better ones up there already. Billions invested and they can’t just make a nice space camera?
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
I would have thought the steamy gases would travel away from the container in all directions, but something seems to be drawing them around in changing directions which does seem a little odd.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
Wouldn’t the dominant factor (sans gravity) be the air and the movement of the air in the cabin? So if there are air conditioning blowers etc the air would be circulating. If you did the same thing on earth the gasses would generally fall but if you add a fan into the mix they would become dominant and blow the gasses every which way. Which would also allow that situation to be controlled in the presence of gravity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ollie said:
I think you just confused vacuum with microgravity. Still interesting, but we don’t know what that vapor is. Is it a cold gas (like liquid nitrogen becoming gaseous again) or is that fog (moisture in the regular air that turns to fog when it clashes with the cold air from the fridge)?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
It’s “frosty air… rolling off … the Minus Eighty-Degree Laboratory Freezer” according to that article in the above link.
The way it drops down it looks like it’s being influenced by gravity to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Indeed, it’s really hard for me to say one way or the other, but it SEEMS like in microgravity steam would act a bit different? I can maybe run a fluid simulation using this scene as a reference, one sim with gravity and one without? I think it’s a worthwhile endeavor, although of course with CGI it’s crap in, crap out.
Mostly I just want to see if the low-gravity simulation would look anything like this. It seems to me that it would not. A boundless vapor should be filling the container more, in my opinion, as in floating out further and perhaps encompassing the guy before dissipating.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
The thing is though that it isn’t boundless as its not a vacuum. all thats missing is the main gravity vector.I agree that in a vacuum with no gravity there would be something different. eg in actual space that vapour would have solidified. When I think of that though I imagine those big pillars of the universe pictures where there are massive clouds of gas floating around in space
Why don’t they accrete? why do we have these “clouds” in space? It doesn’t seem logical. A cloud of gas or vapour is by definition different to its surroundings so a cloud of gas in space is basically going to be tiny crystals of – maybe – the same substance that aren’t joined any more so should really act as any other small particles and accrete
Apologies if my knowledge of gaseous behaviour is a bit off but it seems logical to me we shouldn’t have “clouds” in space
But as far as this one is concerned – its in a heated non vacuum with circulating air and no gravity. Hard to replicate in the kitchen ;-)…. although I could maybe briefly simulate zero-g if I annoy the missus enough….
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
“Accretion” only really occurs when charge alignment occurs, in my opinion. It’s not based solely on gravity – there’s no glue there, with gravity-only. Consider the asteroid belt for example. Over time, they should have pulled on each other enough to form clumps, according to the mainstream gravity-only theory of accretion – or never spread out in the first place to form a “belt”. Same with all the planets – if matter was clumping due to accretion early on, in radial rings outward from the sun, then why form planets at all? We would expect to see clumps perhaps but how could one clump on one side of the sun pull on another clump on the other side of the sun, even in the same orbit? They would perhaps pull each other’s orbits lower or higher, but no mechanism exists to draw them closer together themselves. They could never “meet” if they shared the same orbit, because by definition they would be going the same speed – just like we see in the asteroid belt. Very few collisions there.
Here’s Miles’ paper on the Earth’s heat that addresses accretion pretty heavily. I wouldn’t say it is false, but accretion is a result of other forces at play when it does occur. But I don’t believe accretion causes planets or stars to form; charge pressure and gravity do that.
Click to access core.pdf
Regardless it’s a great read or re-read, and one of his most important papers. A highlight:
“This is a problem because the current theory of planetary formation for rocky planets like the Earth is a theory of accretion. Accretion is not gravitational collapse . Therefore, accretion could not possibly cause such high internal temperatures. Accretion is a slow process, and even the “runaway accretion” can last 100,000 years or more, according to the theory. In a slow process of accretion, heat easily escapes. There is no possible mechanism for trapping that amount of heat. Even if we imagine the Sun much hotter and the space around it much warmer than it currently is, accretion of a planet gives us no mechanism to trap that amount of heat, and lots of mechanisms for releasing it. Heat acts like a gas, remember, not like a solid. If you want to trap a gas inside a sphere, you have to do it fast. You can’t build your sphere one rock at a time and expect to trap anything gaseous inside it. I would think this is obvious and doesn’t need to be said, but that is not the way science works anymore. Everything is said
except the obvious.”
– Miles Mathis
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Bringing us back to the ISS for a moment, film special effects techs have said that they can and do, easily CGI whole characters by superimposing real actors faces onto CGI bodies. They do say however, that it’s cheaper to use the real actors….? Erm….come again? The money those lead actors are paid is cheaper than producing CGI figures? Give me a break!
Jared…are you a secret multi-millionaire earning all your money from CGI?
So, the actors on the ISS…if they are up there that is. Look at this technology then tell me they couldn’t reproduce the whole shooting match right here in a terrestrial studio.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/entertainment-arts-46200018/the-face-mapping-technology-raising-fears-about-fake-news
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
@ Russell Taylor
It may be true that it costs less to use the actors. High priced actors usually make a payment deal that is not based on time spent in production so they are paid the same regardless of what they do or don’t do on the picture.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Also, are we getting closer to a faked alien invasion?
Some eejut actually expects us to believe that the object that the pilots saw was a flippin meteorite. Jet speed around 600 miles per hour max. Meteorite around 600 miles per second. And it came alongside the jet then rapidly changed direction and buggered off in a northerly direction…..as all meteorites do of course!
Maybe it got caught up in the jets wing vortices?
What a load of old cobblers!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46181662
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
“Also, are we getting closer to a faked alien invasion?”
If “they” feel they have to do it then they’ll do it. They already know that a significant chunk of the population will believe anything they are told.
“Aliens? F**kin’ hell. What do we do now?”
“Al Qaeda? F**k me. What do we do now?”
😉
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Teenagers today lose 20 IQ points the moment their mobile phone crashes!
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
And the latest space-fakery to hit the media: quantum radar.
https://www.techspot.com/news/77448-china-claims-has-developed-quantum-radar-can-detect.html
“As The Drive explains, a quantum radar more or less does the same thing but uses photons that are “entangled” after a single beam of light is split in half. Only one of the split beams is sent out, the other “stays home.” Thanks to the bizarre behavior of quantum entanglement, the “at home” beam exhibits the same tendencies as the beam sent out which, in theory, would allow the system to observe what happens to the other beam without it having to come back to base.
The group claims it has been working on the technology for years and first tested it in 2015.”
First tested over three years ago? And no results published?
It’s exactly the same as regular radar – they’re just CLAIMING that the “beam” splits and half the beam transmits data down through its “entangled” pair. It’s so transparent and pathetic.
These things were always fishy before. But now that we know how photons really work, and how full of shit Quantum Mechanics is, it’s so easily pierced and answered. Any time you see “quantum” in the mainstream you can be sure it’s fake. They have no quanta and zero mechanics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ollie said:
That’s complete bogus even if you believe in mainstream quantum entanglement. The description basically suggests nothing less than instantaneous (faster-than-light) and contactless information transfer. It’s indistinguishable from proposed science-fiction ideas for FTL-communication (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fasterlight.php#id–FTL_Communication–Quantum_Entanglement). This FTL-communication is the actual implication of quantum-entanglement. But since the underlying quantum physics are flawed this couldn’t possibly work out in practice. To adress this, scientists come up with interpretations to explain why it doesn’t work out, contrary to what their own theory initially suggests.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ollie said:
btw money quote:
“Unfortunately for Einstein et al, in 1964 some clown named Dr. John Stewart Bell wrote a paper showing how to test the paradox (called “Bell’s Inequality”), and to the horror of the foes of quantum mechanics it turned out that bizarre spooky action at a distance which travels faster than light actually happens.
This saved quantum mechanics from the EPR paradox, but now all the physicists had to deal with this obnoxious FTL action at a distance. As mentioned above, physicists hate FTL because it destroys causality and thus makes the entire structure of Science collapse into a flaming ruin.
As it turns out: yes, the FTL effect is real but no you can’t use it for anything useful. Physicists heaved a sigh of relief (and science fiction writers became quite angry)”
Well, I say it’s still a flaming ruin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
Action at a distance is true. Information transfer faster than light also true. Extra sensory perception, all true. My wife can know my mood, exactly what I’m thinking, immediately, even when in the next room. What more proof do you need?
LikeLiked by 1 person
R T said:
I can’t tell if you’re being facetious, Russ.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Russ……I can’t tell if I’m being facetious!
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Hah haa!
Oh, dear sweet demilord icon, that’s rich.
But just in case any of the silent, teeming masses read this and for some ridiculous reason still believe any tenet of mainstream Quantum Mechanics still stand, be it FTL or ISP or ATM or whatever:
http://milesmathis.com/entang.html
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Remember him?
That’s Guy Laliberté, “businessman, investor, poker player, musician and co-founder of Cirque du Soleil.” He is said (per the wiki) to have a net worth of well over one billion dollars. In 2009 we’re told he boarded a Russian rocket ship which took him to the International Space Station, red nose and all. He reportedly paid 35 million dollars for the trip. (I couldn’t find out who he paid for this). Incidentally, he is also said to hold the world’s record for the most money lost at online poker (25 million).
Here we can see his first video from the ISS:
Starting at about 1:00 we can see Guy and the grinning ISS gang doing their thing. Note the “floating” electrical cords. Do they really look like they’re floating? Or, do they just look stiff and springy and TRYING to look like they’re floating?
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Maybe they have especially stiff wires so they don’t flop around an lasso the astronuts as they float by?
The more I look at that stiff hair, the more it bothers me. Just because it doesn’t sit flush to the head as it would on Earth under gravity, that doesn’t mean it should suddenly stiffen like it’s had a generous application of the gel punk rockers use to spike their hair. It flops around and bends in a breeze, so why not in zero g? There must be air-con, and people move past fairly quickly, so some movement of air ‘should’ move the hair.
Something I guess they must have worked hard to eliminate but not quite cracked it yet. Maybe use less gel?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Yes, the hair looks moussed up as on many of these ISS videos. Especially the guy in back row on right.
Notice also the man on left with folded arms. He’s got a wire held within his arms as if to keep it still. Why is he doing that? Perhaps because it looked too fake when left to flop around? And, the man in front of him is holding another wire down with his hands perhaps for the same reason?
I have suspected that some of these earlier ISS vids were actually shot with the actors suspended upside down and the camera inverted. This might be the case here. Look at the man 2nd from right in back row at about the 2:00 mark. He looks down and then up. As if he saw something that moved “upward” past him. Or, if he’s really upside down, then an object that simply fell from the inverted floor to the ceiling.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
I was on my way to bed tonight to watch some rubbish to fall asleep to when a funny thing happened. Funny strange – not funny haha
I was going to cast the shows to my telly onto Google Chrome – or chrome cast. For those of you not familiar with this device it is a wifi dongle that plugs into the hdmi port of your telly and you can watch crap all day long.
When not in use however it displays nice images and phots from various sources the world over. One of them is NASA image of the day. So I got these three pics in about a 5 picture shuffle
The first looks more like a stage set where a tri8angular door is just opening up and clouds of smoke are billowing through. It doesn’t make any sense to me as a real photo fro space. That cloud must be HUMONGOUS and seems to be lit from the star to the upper right of the unlikely-if-not-impossible triangular shaped backlit-cloud-right-angled-event which itself but be backlit by a start that should be bright enough to shine. through like the rest of them. I think a magician is about to come on stage in Vegas somewhere and Hubba Hubbba was pointing in that general direction at the time. Only explanation i can see..
Hubble’s Lucky observation of an enigmatic cloud:
Next up was this beaut…..
They actually put stars into this one but got lazy and forgot to stop at the edges of the windows so the stars continue into the ship. Zoom in. I ain’t shitin’ you. Its like someone just kept painting stars right onto the interior walls
So if you go here to the astro lab twitter site you see the same photo Tweeted form the guy that took the photo but THAT photo has the same stars on the inside of the craft
Where you also find out this happened on Nov 19 – last week. Well it couldn’t have been them that took the next photo then…coz that was in October….
So then we get this one, complete with more bedazzling star patterns added: Some red. Some blue. some yellow. all dots. The resolution of this photo is terrible. It looks like a CAD drawing floating on a background someone used a toothbrush to sprinkle paint on. And no explanation of how the photo was taken. I would assume a visiting module but haven’t had the chance to check yet:
“In this image from October 2018, the fully completed station continues its mission to conduct microgravity research and experiments — ranging from human physiology to astronomy aboard humanity’s only orbital laboratory”
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/20-years-ago-construction-began-on-the-international-space-station
Now surely this two photos taken from the same orbit should show the same curvature of the earth?? There may be some fish-eye from the one taken aboard the module as I can see some bending of edges of other stuff. Maybe fish-eye but definitely fishy….
Thought I’d share…cheers
LikeLike
ihatestarwars said:
The first ‘space’ picture resembles a nativity scene set in the heavens, just in time for Christmas! Out of this world! Cosmic! Beam me up!
LikeLike
DF said:
or a Santana album cover .
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
NASA says they just landed another rocket ship on Mars. There is a very long (4½ hours press conference about it on YT which you can see here:
I don’t have the time to watch it, especially since I don’t believe any of NASA’s space exploits, but I’m posting here for possible discussion. I will watch it (some of it, anyway) later. 🙂
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
This thing cost millions of dollars, and they couldn’t even figure out how to shield the camera lens.
https://imgur.com/julaXqN
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
‘Ang about a gawd damn minute there…..!
Mars atmosphere =
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
Therefore heat during deceleration plus a PARACHUTE?
You have to be kidding me!
With 0.6% of Earth’s sea level pressure how the fork do you get the parachute to open?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
What are all the people in this video doing? What are they looking at? Why are they even there? As the guy at the end of the video says, the whole process is automatic and based on pre-written programs and no manual control of the craft is possible during the landing due to the radio lag from 300M miles. So, why are all those people even there? What purpose do they serve just sitting there staring at screens?
Could it be that they are there to make it all look more realistic? Because, if they just had one person sitting there wearing a headset announcing each new development, it wouldn’t look real? And, because the public expects space missions to have a room full of techies staring at screens like in all the Hollywood movies? And, of course, they’re there to celebrate so the rubes at home get an emotional zap from the story.
And, that woman wearing the headset and announcing each new development – who is she connected to? Where is she getting this information from? Why don’t they just put THAT person on the camera? And, where is that other person getting THEIR information from?
But, when she says “touchdown confirmed” everybody instantly jumps up and starts celebrating. But, wait a second. Is the thing OK? Did it crash? Did it land on a rock and turn over? Did it sustain any damage? Is it functional?
Do they care? Oh, no. They couldn’t care less. They just start high-fiving each other without any information about the thing’s condition. Does that seem real?
One might argue that they know it’s OK because of the data on their screens BUT each person wouldn’t know what is on all the other screens. So, each would have to check with all the others to confirm that all was well before celebrating, wouldn’t they? For all they know the thing crash-landed and hundreds of millions of dollars and years of work just went up in Martian smoke. (As if the thing were really on Mars which it isn’t).
And then there is this pair. The camera just happened to be next to them when they did their obviously rehearsed victory dance:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
The REAL story:
And by real, I mean fake obviously. 😉
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
There were soooo many people freaking out in social media about this “event”. And why? It’s just another shitty lander, not much better than the 21 prior or the scores of probes. Yet they made a huge ordeal out of it, all for show as we now know. It’s straight theater.
Then we had Elan Mask proclaiming “there’s a 70% chance” he would die on Mars. The fuck? The guy can’t even do math, much less physically handle space travel.
https://www.techspot.com/news/77572-spacex-ceo-elon-musk-believes-there-70-percent.html
What an absolute tool. I do enjoy trashing him on Facebook tremendously, in our stupid “Really Fake Science” group (if anyone wants to join us!). But people just worship that asshole and it’s disgusting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
Speaking of faulty math, at the end of the video I posted above the guy says there is an 8 minute lag for radio communications with the lander that is 300 million miles away. But, when I divide 300M by 186K and divide again by 60 I get closer to 27 minutes. Is there something wrong with my calculator?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I don’t think you made a mistake. I also got 26.83 minutes. Of course, at 149M km from the Earth to the sun, we get 8.3 minutes to check our math. Good find, rolleikin.
So evidently they’re now using Faster-Than-Light (FTL) communication, probably through ansibles operating on philotes or some other such farcical nonsense? Horseshit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ollie said:
The 300M miles figure is wrong. Mars is currently 91.81 M miles (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Mars+current+distance+from+Earth) away. Yielding 8.2 light minutes. Close to the Earth-Sun distance, which currently is 91.71 M miles. Check a 3D-view of the solar system (https://theskylive.com/) to see that Earth is currently almost equally distant from Sun and Mars.
LikeLike
Ollie said:
btw, the 300 million miles figure isn’t entirely “wrong”. The spacecraft travelled 300 million miles on its trajectory from Earth (May 5th 2018) to Mars.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Thanks, Ollie. You’re correct of course – I just couldn’t find a realtime metric quickly and assumed that the 300M miles they were claiming was correct. Quick screenshot of Mars’ current locale from that site, tossed in some glow and arrows to make them easier to spot.
https://imgur.com/Bnh9FXv
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
OK, so, the 8 statement is OK then. Thanks, Ollie.
LikeLike
Ollie said:
As it was already said in The Simpsons: “All this equipment is just used to measure TV ratings.”
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
I still remember being so hyped up for the Titan landings — “seas of Methane” was all I could think about. And perhaps even lifeforms that could live in “liquid methane”. And so it landed and the world was presented with bizarro photos of a barren landscape with flat dark patches.
And I still remember actively convincing myself that the photographs were fantastic, “If I tilt my head and squint my eyes then yes, that is definitely the image of a vast methane lake…”. But in the end I had to eventually admit to myself that the photos were s**t and the enterprise hyped up far, far too much.
That was back then (2005?) — I still believed the official 9/11 narrative because I had yet to have that awful argument in my front room wherein an irate family member shoved a book into my chest screaming, “Read that f**king book and get real!”. New Pearl Harbor. “Those f**kers!!!!!!” was my reaction when I got to the quotes from the PNAC document.
Anyway, back in 2005 I still believed the bollox (not the WMD nonsense of course) but even a brainwashed peon like myself felt that the Titan-landing story was not only a disappointment but somehow that I had been hoodwinked. Now of course I doubt anything landed on Titan, just the usual showmanship.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
PS I basically stopped following all the “space news” after the Titan show. The so-called Mars Rovers were just background noise — I had stopped caring about exploring our Solar system. Makes you wonder if they’re deliberately making not care. I mean they present more and more pictures of more and more rocks; more and more NASA personnel are shown getting more and more excited…
…designed to p*ss off the average peon to turn off and away from Space News? Just shooting the breeze.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
I didn’t even know NASA claimed to have landed a probe on Titan until I read your post. I looked for some photos of it. There doesn’t seem to be very many. Mostly I found drawings and animations.
Here is one “photo” I found:
https://tinyurl.com/ybj67mvr
What a joke!
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Oh it was definitely a joke. These spooky capers have set back mankind by generations; in fact, we’re probably de-evolving. I think nature will have the last laugh if they think they are immune to the consequences of their cultural destruction — I expect they will be strung up for entirely different reasons; some sort of ironic ending to their pathetic lives.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Oh yes, Hugens and Cassini were a total shit-show if you ask me. So poorly done that they had to release “anniversary footage” which is (they admit) just CGI renderings done of datapoints taken by the alleged lander:
I mean this was released in 2015, and yet the CGI could have been done by anyone with a computer and like two programs back in 1999. Displacement mapping is nothing new and this is a really bad example of it on top of that.
In fact I’m almost willing to bet this was done in old-school “Mojoworld”, which was a parametric procedural world-modeling program back in the day. It was cool but only took one so far, in landscape design, so nobody really cared about it after a year or so. I could do something similar in Maya/Vray in a day or two, myself. And with all that compression noise from streaming video, it’s easy to make super-clean renderings look like absolute shit too.
LikeLike
DF said:
How about the animations of the drilling into the core BS ? What ? this space vessel carried the drilling equip. and the length of pipe sections needed to get to THE CORE OF MARS ? What ?
Now I’m hearing on the Sports talk show of all places , it’s only 16 feet to the core , ha ha ha
And being the lock-step fascist media , no one is asking any questions , like :
So this is what is happening right now this second or did it happen in the past and somehow you are learning about it now , again , how ?
Oh , right , like a space cell-phone ?
And the morrons watching the animations thinking it’s real , boy , glad they sent that second ship to film the first ship .
At least they spent some time learning the victory handshake routine .
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Anybody see a fuel tank for the 16 rockets used to slow its descent?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I’m looking this up, and it appears they used a parachute and some balancing jets (which are basically like small, vectored fire extinguishers) but I can’t find much information on the actual landing procedure or probe anatomy. “Retro-rockets” could be anything really; it’s not terribly heavy. But they did screw up their timelines it looks like on the JPL/NASA site:
“11:51 a.m. PST (2:51 p.m. EST) – Parachute deployment
15 seconds later – Separation from the heat shield
10 seconds later – Deployment of the lander’s three legs
11:52 a.m. PST (2:52 p.m. EST) – Activation of the radar that will sense the distance to the ground
11:53 a.m. PST (2:53 p.m. EST) – First acquisition of the radar signal
20 seconds later – Separation from the back shell and parachute
0.5 second later – The retrorockets, or descent engines, begin firing
2.5 seconds later – Start of the “gravity turn” to get the lander into the proper orientation for landing
22 seconds later – InSight begins slowing to a constant velocity (from 17 mph to a constant 5 mph, or from 27 kph to 8 kph) for its soft landing
11:54 a.m. PST (2:54 p.m. EST) – Expected touchdown on the surface of Mars”
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7291
That’s not a “gravity turn”, that’s just a regular turn. For Pete’s sake. Orienting up/down isn’t what a gravity turn is; that’s during launch, when you begin leaning into your orbital vector (tangential) to outrun the body below.
One would think JPL/NASA would know this?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
But I was able to locate what appear to be 6 “Vernier Thrusters” it seems like, on the underside, in an image on the main NASA page:
https://imgur.com/YBjxIyS
https://mars.nasa.gov/insight/?ref=hvper.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernier_thruster
Those would not be able to decelerate the craft rapidly, but are generally used for an Attitude Control System for fine changes in motion/vector.
LikeLike
Fuzz Aldrin said:
Makes me laugh how Apollo believers, (or should that be idiots), claim if the landings were faked someone would have spoken out. Evidently they do not research the subject at all, because if they did, they would find numerous comments from individuals who worked on the Apollo program, and claim it was faked.
apollofeedback.atspace.co.uk
LikeLike
ihatestarwars said:
Apollogists?
LikeLike
DF said:
Haha , don’t hold your breath .
LikeLike
DF said:
This was maybe a Whistleblower’s doing ? I hope it was , who maybe foiled another media hoax .
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I couldn’t find your recent linking to Miles’ paper(s) on solar cycles and whatnot, Josh, but as expected he’s added a new paper to his Science site outlining the predictions he made back in 2014, about the latest solar cycle beginning earlier than the mainstream expected.
Click to access apollo.pdf
I’d really like to track this kind of stuff with the SDO “Sun Today” imagery, but I have to figure out how to compile and animate the daily frames efficiently. Since they come in every wavelength it gets a bit tricky – but I imagine if we were to track the sun this way, it would also show (further) how Miles is right.
https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/
Honestly that satellite alone keeps me from dipping too far into the “everything is fake” stance. I’ve been using it since its inception and it seems pretty legit to me. What I don’t understand is why/how their other probes, take Huygens and Titan for example that we just discussed a bit, can take such fucking garbage pics and pass it off as technology at all. Perhaps some stuff if fake and some real? Perhaps it’s a matter of spin; discerning which is which?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
For example, if we watch today’s video for AIA 193 we can see some really cool magnetic effects, perhaps the residue of the magnetic “switch” which as Miles states marks the end of one cycle and the beginning of another:
https://imgur.com/QqlmpEr
“AIA 193
This channel highlights the outer atmosphere of the Sun – called the corona – as well as hot flare plasma. Hot active regions, solar flares, and coronal mass ejections will appear bright here. The dark areas – called coronal holes – are places where very little radiation is emitted, yet are the main source of solar wind particles.
Where: Corona and hot flare plasma
Wavelength: 193 angstroms (0.0000000193 m) = Extreme Ultraviolet
Primary ions seen: 11 times ionized iron (Fe XII)
Characteristic temperature: 1.25 million K (2.25 million F)”
I think these images and videos are legit, even as datasets rendered. They vary heavily enough and are detailed enough to be WHAT I WOULD DO if I were making a Solar Dynamics Observatory, myself. Multi-spectrum and rather detailed, as well as nice 16MP images for each wavelength represented:
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
I had a feeling Miles had hit the wickets back in 2017 with 104 days having no spots. That huge coronal hole pointing at us the past day or two, go outside and try looking at the sun. I guarantee it will seem exceptionally bright….brighter than usual. A special intensity. Always seems to have an apparent jump in brightness when a coronal hole is pointing this way. The 10cm radio flux is down to rock bottom, and considering this is the second year for very low sun-spot numbers, people who regularly get snow should prepare or despair. If we really are heading into the next little ice age cycle then sudden intense snowfall will be the order of the day. Plus 5C one day and minus 23C the next. Big swings in temperature and precipitation.
Be careful folks….very dangerous weather on the way, the likes of which haven’t been seen regularly for around 160 years.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Jared, couldn’t the SDO be based on high-altitude conventional aircraft?
NASA says they have planes that can fly at 70,000 feet which they also say is “above ninety-five percent of the earth’s atmosphere,” such as the ER-2 and the WB-57.
https://airbornescience.nasa.gov/aircraft/
The ER-2 (aka “Dragon Lady”) is an updated U-2 which first began flying in the late 1950s Sputnik era. (nudge,nudge,wink,wink) 🙂
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
The ER-2 is used to collect data from satellites and calibrate them, but it has no cameras or sensors capable of imaging the sun itself at any altitude. Photographing the sun isn’t like photographing any other body around. It requires extensive filters and a solid positioning system – something you cannot do in an aircraft, no matter the altitude.
“Every 10 seconds, the atmospheric imaging assembly (AIA) uses four telescopes to take high-definition photos of the corona.”
“…(SDO) combines the ability to take rapid-fire photographs of the Sun with the capacity to comprehensively monitor its electromagnetic activity.”
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/g309/nasa-solar-dynamics-observatory-gallery/?slide=2
I don’t know how anyone could take photos of the sun every ten seconds from an aircraft, or even two aircraft. Or how you would focus it every time with such precision. Or how you would dive so far into the E/M mapping of the surface from inside the Earth’s magnetic field. Again, I am not a NASA apologist – I just think some projects are real and some are bullshit. I don’t see any way that these solar images (and entire movies) can be faked so accurately for so long, every single day, and still correspond to all the other data we’re receiving – including Miles’ verification of the latest solar cycle.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Agreed. Its the same with ISS. It’s obviously there, which is easily verified with good binoculars and satellite tracking software.
Now whether it’s full of acrobatic scientists with bouffant hair-do’s and a healthy supply of mousse is another matter entirely.
You have to ask…well you don’t…but you should, why they’ve spent so much time, money and effort on Sun monitoring satellites lately?
Of course, many of them may well be ghost satellites simply to rake in the funding, and much of the data could be made up or exaggerated…who knows?
To keep up the AGW pretence, they need us all to think the Sun is utterly benign and the only threat to me and you is, well, me & you! So if they pretend to have hundreds of expensive satellites monitoring the Sun, their stories will hold more credence.
Mankind is awful and destructive and nature is fluffy and smells of violets.
Better tell that to the millions of species wiped out to extinction in the dozens of major catastrophe’s to befall our soggy little blue rock.
Thinking about the acrobatic orbital catwalk up there for a moment, I wonder how much their movements affect the orbit? Must take a lot of fuel to keep the thing flying straight. I’m thinking about the truck full of budgerigars. If they all take off and hover, does the truck weigh less? The ISS must be extremely lightweight, so when a 13 stone bloke starts his daily acrobatics, it must have quite a detrimental effect of the stations stability…day after day, week after week.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
The mainstream answer, and what I use in my own designs as well (RCS systems) such as the Vernier thrusters and reaction wheels:
“Both are used for attitude control. Both are heavy flywheels. Both work by creating a torque through changing their momentum.
“A reaction wheel is spun up or down to create the torque and force the vehicle to rotate. A momentum wheel is always spinning at a very high speed and that creates a stabilization of the spacecraft, making it resistant to changing its attitude.
“A control moment gyroscope (CMG) is kind of a hybrid of the two. It spins at great speed to stabilize, but it also has gimbals that can rotate the axis of the wheel to create maneuver torques.
“We use CMGs on the ISS. Hubble has momentum wheels and Kepler has reaction wheels.”
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/25658/reaction-wheels-vs-momentum-wheels
These devices don’t use fuel, only electricity. Now RCS thrusters obviously use up fuel, but those are for larger orbital adjustments and maneuvers. Reaction wheels are typically enough for balancing small motions and could easily counter human motion. Thrusters are used for docking procedures and orbital corrections, and typically have enough fuel for the life of the mission.
Directional RCS thruster:
Same thing, but built into the hull:
https://imgur.com/43MEzmg
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
InSight has just been a treasure-trove of space fakery so far. We’ve got just the shittiest renderings around popping up all over as “photographs” now. Oh, what a time to be alive!
https://imgur.com/EjfsvOu
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Having hit the rocks regarding clouds and rainfall due to finding too many differences and downright contradictions I decide to go back to basics on our planetary hydrological cycle. While looking for information about where Earth’s vast amount of water came from, I came across another dubious NASA space project, Deep Impact. No, not the 1998 sci-fi movie, where Earth gets hit by a comet, this is the movie NASA made about them hitting the 23,000mph comet Tempel 1 with a 100kg lump of copper. Here’s the nice CGi picture of the impact…
Interestingly, the story of what happened after the impact is more or less the final nail in the coffin of the ‘Dirty Snowball’ hypothesis of comets, and I’m having to look else where for the source or our huge amounts of water.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Dr Philips over at spaceweather still calls comets dirty snowballs even though he must know that NASA allegedly landed a probe on a comet and found it to be a rock, not ice.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
It’s produced in the Earth’s mantle isn’t it Boris?
The old ‘oceans came from the Oort Cloud comets’ hypothesis was thrown out with the soggy baby a long time ago, and as far as I can tell, there’s a healthy number of science types who think it must be produced in the heat and pressure of the Earth’s mantle, as are most things. Strange to think that a constant in-pouring of energetic particles and charge etc, could be creating enough electrical energy and heat for the planet to be actually making itself.
Accretion can go feck!
If your car engine can produce water from burning gases then why not?
Seems sensibubble to me….
Maybe tectonic plate boundaries are how the water eventually escapes to the surface?
https://www.livescience.com/46292-hidden-ocean-locked-in-earth-mantle.html
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1533108/vast-ocean-trapped-under-core-earth-scientists-say
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Space.com says an Elon Musk SpaceX rocket ship launched yesterday carrying a payload of 64 satellites!
I wonder: Can real satellites be launched by fake rocket ships? Beats me.
In any case, one of the 64 satellites carries “… the cremated remains of customers who paid (or whose friends or family paid) $2,490 for a “shooting star memorial” — basically, the chance for bits of yourself to be turned into meteors streaking across the sky.”
More details here:
https://www.space.com/42599-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-3rd-launch-success-sso-a.html
And, in other news … yet another SpaceX rocket ship launches today bound for that little glowing dot in the sky, the ISS, which may or may not exist (I vote not), carrying equipment and food for hungry astronauts and, I’m guessing, lots of hair mousse for the ladies.
Details:
https://www.space.com/42623-spacex-dragon-cargo-launch-crs16-webcast.html
LikeLike