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.
rolleikin said:
As told in this video, early spy satellites allegedly used film photography. After shooting their targets, they dropped the film in “buckets” which were then retrieved by planes flying below.
How these buckets coped with the heat of reentry is not explained. Wouldn’t they be traveling at 17,000 mph like the sats they came from? Nor is it explained how they reloaded film into the cameras that were still in orbit or what exact type of film was used and how it coped with increased radiation in space.
Of course, there were high altitude spy planes flying at the same time (e.g., U2, SR71) so why they were even using satellites for this purpose is also not explained.
The title of this video is, “You won’t believe how the first spy satellites worked” and they are right about that. 🙂
LikeLike
Ollie said:
Apparently, the return capsule really used a “retro-rocket” to decelerate.
There is also a heat shield and parachutes.
Early versions only carried one reentry vehicle. Later versions had two. But after the capsules where gone the satellite was practically spacejunk.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Do you believe that this system was actually used, Ollie?
LikeLike
Ollie said:
This whole thing (the machine and the necessary orbital maneuvers) seems really complex for a spacecraft that was in use only 2 years after the Soviets launched the first satellite ever. The complicated mechanisms have to withstand the vibrations and forces during the launch. And there must have been extensive testing to get the timing and the applied thrust during maneuvering right. It would really be a technological marvel of its time if it’s real.
ftp://ftp.uni-koeln.de/pc/basp/Auelmann.pdf
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Another aspect of the whole spy satellite thing came to mined.
If all the countries are in cahoots with each other and there are no real enemies …. then why would anybody need to spy on anybody in the 1st place?
They probably just said they were spying.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“If all the countries are in cahoots with each other and there are no real enemies …. then why would anybody need to spy on anybody in the 1st place?”
Exactly!
They never needed spy satellites and they never needed spy planes. For political espionage purposes, anyway.
The timelines for satellites and for spy planes are roughly the same. Spy planes began flying when satellites began orbiting. My suspicion is that “spy planes” have always been used primarily to fake satellites. That is, high altitude plane photos are passed off as satellite photos.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
I should have said “WERE passed off as satellite photos” since they can now use computer generated images instead.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
In connection with what Tony said, if the Cherokee Indians (indigenous or not?) originated from the Middle East and are of Jewish descent, then what can we make of the European invaders massacre of those peoples? If it was the rich Jewish bankers, merchants and mining company owners who originally moved in and plundered the US, destroying the indigenous population, then isn’t that a perfect example of genocide? So the whole WWII show could have more truth behind it than we think. Do the elite Jews think of themselves as being above their own Semitic people in the religious hierarchy? Do they think of themselves as Gods now?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“Do they think of themselves as Gods now?”
It appears that way to me. Or, at least, some sort of higher life form.
I think that is what all this superhero stuff coming out of Hollywood is about. Creating the idea that there are super beings worthy of being adored.
LikeLiked by 1 person
haggisnneeps said:
it has always annoyed me why people – some people anyway – like being ruled over or led or governed. Why should we feel gracious to a queen who isn’t even English? She’s German!!! WTF
its like there aren’t enough “normal”people out there. Normal people should be like ” Why the hell should she get to steal all our money and land”
All those in the peerage are aware of this “game” and it is played out in front of us on a daily basis
Why / how are there still royal families in this day and age?? UK, Monaco, Spain, Saudi to name but a few – why don’t we democratically nominate our illustrious leaders in the same way? Makes NO sense whatsoever
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Not really sure this is “Space Fakery” so much, but regarding “democratically nominate”, that’s just mob rule really. I mean, politics aside, do people really want the average idiot selecting their overlords?
Why not remove the need for overlords and proceed as nature intended?
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
lol good point well made I was just responding to that comment – maybe we need a “leadership/religion/government is bullshit” type blog too
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
While looking up information on recent sunspot activity on the SDO site, I saw this:
Makes me wonder what was happening with the sun those two years, that they’d want to “crash” or hide that data?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Also, here’s the sun today with at least two sunspots visible (this side):
LikeLike
tony martin said:
I see at least 25. Other than the 2 big ones.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Hmm, it’s hard to say now if you’re right or how exactly we define these spots. Here’s what I saw (circled in green) but I can see at least some of the spots you’re talking about (circled in blue?):
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Watching their little movie clip from yesterday we get a nice flare on the right side but it’s too short to see any sunspots. Still really cool:
https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/dailymov/movie.php?q=20190624_1024_0171
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Aren’t the blue ones sunspots?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I mean maybe they would count? But that’s just in one spectrum, 193. If we look at all the other spectra, we don’t really see much going on in those smaller (blue circled by me) areas. I’m asking YOU what you think, and maybe you’re correct?
171:
94:
193, 171 composite:
But then again if we watch the latest 48-hour video of 193, we can clearly see GREAT areas of sunspot activity – almost too many to count. So how large does it have to be TO count, you know?
https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/latest48.php?q=0193
Regardless, that’s a lot more activity than I think Miles and co. on the other forum are aware of.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
I always thought that a sunspot was any dark blemish on the sun.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
That’s the thing though – these aren’t ON the sun. These sunspots we’re seeing are way up, almost in the corona itself. And the patterns are in the extreme UV here, not in the visible range. So one couldn’t really even see these WITH a telescope, which makes me think that’s not what we’re looking for (at 193 for example).
Either way, I agree that is what sunspots are supposed to be, I just don’t know how they counted up 4 of them when it looks like a LOT more activity than that to me as well. Just not sure.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Point being, I was conflating the 193 angstrom view with actual sunspots. Now it can be affected or CAUSED by sunspots, but I think we should be looking at the photosphere itself to better identify what our eyes would see, you know?
So at 1700 angstroms:
Where: Temperature minimum and photosphere
Wavelength: 1700 angstroms (0.00000017 m) = Far Ultraviolet
Primary ions seen: Continuum
Characteristic temperature: 6,000 K (11,000 F)
And the 48-hour video of that spectrum:
https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/latest48.php?q=1700
I see no such activity at all, but is that even the right spectrum to look in? I don’t know. Maybe someone will. Meanwhile, researching the topic:
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/how-astronomers-count-sunspots15022016513/
A multi-year investigation revealed errors in our understanding of the Sun.
“..One of the things they found was an oddity in the Zürich Observatory’s sunspot index: it jumped sharply, by about 20%, in 1947. ”
1947, huh?
“The index isn’t merely a matter of good record-keeping: it directly bears on solar science. For example, one of the revelations brought about by these fixes is that, contrary to what solar physicists had thought, solar activity has been relatively steady since the 1700s. That in turn changes how we think the Sun has been influencing solar weather and Earth’s climate.”
Does it? My thinking hasn’t changed just now.
“It was a great investigation, but one that isn’t finished yet. Furthermore, not everybody agrees on the new index. Because the new version unequivocally disproves the idea that the Sun has been getting progressively hotter over time, a number of the climate-change scientists who pin global warming on a hotter Sun oppose the new index.”
Aaaaand, there’s the spin. So we’re no closer to knowing how sunspot activity is tracked, how accurate those numbers are, or what they really mean. As I’ve said before, a sunspot is a region of LESS emissions, so it seems like the more sunspots, the less overall photons reaching us. But is that true only in ultraviolet spectra?
That’s what I’m seeing here as my first-run through. If sunspots are UV-gaps in the field, we shouldn’t really mind them and they shouldn’t have much effect otherwise. I very well could be wrong.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Too bad we didn’t have a Charge-Ometer that we could just stick it in the ground and measured the charge of the earth.
We could measure gravity so why not charge?
I guess we would have to get old Nicholas Tesla on that one.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Alas, Tesla couldn’t have helped us out either. He was cool and I like the guy (though I’m ready to toss him in with the rest, if anyone bothers to research him), but he only got partway “there” and his additions to the field really weren’t that great. I mean, compared to the theory Mathis has given us. Not that it’s a competition, I just don’t idolize Tesla for failing to finish his work, or failing to identify charge. Miles has. Now we have a newer, FAR more solid theory than anything Tesla, Edison, Maxwell, or the rest have ever given us. He’s done MORE WORK.
But to respond to your suggestion, we DO have “Charge-o-Meters” already, and they come in many different forms! Charge is just photons. It’s conflated with the E/M field (but really underlies it) and also with heat (which is charge density), so we do have devices for these measurements already! Literally thousands of them:
LikeLike
tony martin said:
I always wanted one of those.
But I think those would pick up all the charge around…. even the Wi-Fi and other things like house wiring…. wiring from telephone poles etc.
I’m not saying that this story is true but I read that Nicholas Tesla had a little box that he put in a electric car and drove from New York City to upstate New York and back not changing to another box.
Was this little device (if it’s a true story) tapped into the charge of the earth?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Tesla is mostly just similar mythology, in my opinion. Though I don’t despise him like Bohr, Heisenberg, and the rest, the people AROUND him are the ones spinning him more often than not:
“In 1931, so the story goes, Tesla took his nephew to a garage in Buffalo, New York, and showed him a modified Pierce-Arrow automobile. The car’s ‘cosmic energy power receiver’ – a black box with 12 vacuum tubes – was connected to a long antenna.
The car was said to have been driven for about 80 km at speeds of up to 140 km/h during an eight-day road test. Tesla allegedly said the device would power the car forever, and also supply the needs of a household “with power to spare”.
It is a fact that in 1898 Tesla filed a patent for a “method of and apparatus for controlling mechanism of moving vessels or vehicles”.
But four major problems with the story emerge.
First, no physical evidence of such a car as described by Savo has ever been produced. Second, Tesla did not have a nephew named Peter Savo. Third, Tesla’s grand-nephew William Terbo has said the electric car story is a fabrication. Fourth, despite eight decades of progress in physics, no evidence of this ‘aetheric power’ has ever been detected. ”
https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/did-nikola-tesla-build-a-revolutionary-electric-car
Of course, they’re dead wrong on the last sentence. There were no “eight decades of progress in physics”, there’s only the last 1015, and then anything that might be considered useful before 1925. That’s over 75 years of absolute bullshit, in physics.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
I guess deep down inside we all wish that something like that is possible.
Does anybody out there think that that’s possible In the future.
It does seem like there is energy all over the place…. if you were able to capture it.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Tony:
There lies a whole ocean of confusion and misdirection.
Try this. It is so pure and delicious, it makes me shiver every time I read it.
I must be up to about 30 times now, it’s just so fascinating.
Click to access seft.pdf
LikeLike
Josh said:
I’m quite certain that people have already learned how to harness the charge field, though they don’t seem to really understand why their inventions work. That’s publicly. Whether there is deeper understanding underground so to speak is another question. There is a paper on Miles’ science site where he speculates on ‘operation ostrich.’ It’s towards the bottom of the main page.
Here’s a very interesting application for harvesting energy from the charge field, assuming it’s genuine: https://revolution-green.com/earth-engine-claimed-3-years-40-kw-mechanical-energy-production-magnets/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
Hmmmm! The problem with doing this kind of thing on Earth is gravity; especially thinking about Miles’ latest revelation about how it works. Gravity is going to be applying a constant drag to the moving magnets even in a near vacuum. Over time, this will slow the system but the production of power through induction also causes drag. I believe ‘back EMF’ in traction motors works this way. When you apply electrical power to a motor to turn it, you can only turn it slowly with the system creating it’s own electrical power. As you use more power to turn it more quickly, the motor itself starts to act like an alternator creating a lot of voltage which begins to oppose the input power. So the system becomes inefficient. New tech’ minimises this compared to 30 year old traction motors but I don’t think the problem went away.
Marketing men can sound very convincing.
Tony:
What we call electricity, ‘is’ that free energy that’s whizzing around everywhere. They found a way to harness it and a way to make you pay dearly for it.
Nothing new under the Sun!
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
From that website:
“The entire world will know of this motor soon, as a major US newspaper will publish the first story about it in April.”
It seems like the entire world missed it, and “a major US newspaper” missed it too?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Tony Martin said: “It does seem like there is energy all over the place…. if you were able to capture it.”
That’s just the thing – most people, even engineers and “scientists” – don’t even know what energy actually IS. It’s mystical to them. It’s magic, essentially, even a century after Einstein’s famous equation told us almost precisely what energy was.
E=mc². Energy is the transfer of momentum from one moving mass or body to another – that’s it. That’s all it is. There’s no “negative energy” because you can’t have a negative mass or a negative velocity. It’s always a collision of one body with another, period.
So to build a device which would harness the ambient charge, the regular ol’ photons that constantly pour through reality, shouldn’t really be TOO hard. I mean every single plant or animal already IS such a device, you know? 😉
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Maybe the story about Tesla and the car was planted there as misdirection and to blackwashe his work and to make it seem crazy and false so that nobody would think about free energy….. because it looks too stupid.
Is the story about Tesla putting light bulbs in the ground and lighting them up true?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Do you mean this story?
That’s just a scene from “The Prestige”, a movie about smoke and mirror magic tricks. I couldn’t find anything concrete about Tesla ever doing anything like this, but I didn’t dig too hard. The Zal Rule applies:
“If they’ve made a movie or major show about a topic, it’s most likely fake.”
LikeLike
tony martin said:
That’s what I mean…… they make things look ridiculous to hide the truth that he had something that actually did produce free energy.
What about the tower in Long Island?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
But IS that the truth? Or is it just more smoke and mirrors?
If Tesla were so profoundly talented with the E/M field, why didn’t he write the 300 or so papers that Miles wrote? Why didn’t he topple the existing physicist regime himself? They could not have stopped him from writing the papers, from presenting the ideas to SOMEONE in some way. From making a record of the theories and ideas.
And yet, he did not do this. Miles did.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
From Miles paper on the CIA in physics:
“So have the real physicists already discovered all the things I have written about? Maybe. I assume that all the real brains are hidden away somewhere—since they certainly aren’t in plain sight—so maybe they have already unwound everything I have and more. But possibly not. These guys are going to be kept very busy with applied physics, since it will be thought that new weapons are more likely to come out of applied physics than theoretical physics. In my experience, physicists pressed to create new hardware, software, or industrial products, including weaponry, are very unlikely to think to tear apart the old equations and start over. It probably won’t occur to them to tear apart Newton’s Principia like an old watch and rebuild it, as I have. It won’t occur to them to rebuild Laplace andLagrange, comb Relativity from the ground up, or to look for mathematical flaws in QED or QCD.After all, I have done all that and haven’t yet developed a better pop-gun, so what do they care? They would say, “Give me something I can use.” ”
Click to access control.pdf
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Of course I don’t know whether any of the stories are true or not.
But is it possible to create something or invent some device without knowing the actual physics and mathematics of it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Oh, it’s not only possible, it’s pretty much how EVERYTHING has been done, ever. Creating the bicycle didn’t require heavy physics, or the wheel, or fire, or telescopes, or almost any of our devices we use even today. The engineers still think electricity is based on electrons for cryin’ out loud – and yet, these things WORK. They’re really inefficient and ham-handed as a result but they do work!
LikeLike
tony martin said:
I’m not trying to be a pain in the ass…… and I’m not a Tesla worshipper.
But the story goes that he used to visualize things in his head in meditation or at night time in dreams and then create them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
It’s cool, I’m questioning along WITH you here, you’re not a pain in the ass at all. Or coming across as a fanatic.
I just feel more and more like Tesla’s story (probably not the GUY) is just controlled misdirection. Like the way he’s presented, and how similar some of the modern “tech gurus” are like Musk and Gates and Zucky.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
@Jared
“Like the way he’s presented, and how similar some of the modern “tech gurus” are like Musk and Gates and Zucky.”
At least Tesler really made something…… not like those schmucks!
Like the induction motor with a rotating magnetic field that made unit drives for machines feasible and made AC power transmission an economic necessity. ect.ect.
You know the thing is….. I always had a fantasy of taking my free energy device into the wilderness and just live there happily ever after.
That’s why I’m really mad if they stole that technology and hit it from humanity. 😦
PS
No one should be offended that I don’t click the like button….. I’ve just decided not to click it because I like everything actually.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Russell Taylor said:
My ‘like’ button hasn’t worked for ages; I’ve given up on it. I prefer telling someone what I think about their comment, as it gets the message across rather more accurately. To me, the word ‘like’ just means you don’t dislike. It’s a bit vague!
Tesla? The only way to be sure is to talk to someone who knew the man. That probably isn’t doable any longer as Tesla died in 1943. Are there any interviews?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Just thought I should mention that the 20th of this month will mark the 50th anniversary of the Apollo moon landing hoax, arguably the greatest space fakery event to date:
The media will be (and already is) filled with special recognition of the event so perhaps some commentary of our own would be in order?
LikeLike
Ramsay said:
Rolleikin, Love your name. I want to put an F in front of it. I play scrabble with my wife each evening. 🙂
My dad worked for JPL. I grew up with the moon landing. Reading Dave McGowan’s work on the landing was a real gut wrenching page burner. Best writing ever. Funny. Witty. Packed with dot-connects. I was so sad to read Miles out him as a controlled writer, based on his serial killer conclusions. It was Dave McGowan who alerted me to the control of high-up, Washington ‘truth-teller’ and guru, John Judge. Anyway, if anyone wants a really good read about it all here is the link to a PDF: http://www.whale.to/c/Dave%20McGowan%20-%20Wagging%20The%20Moon%20Doggie.pdf
I purchased one or two Documentaries about the making of the Apollo Lander and stuff. Hilarious. Some of the engineers were puzzled how their parts worked at all.
I recently asked an old NASA mucky muck about the Van Allen radiation belt. He acted like I said nothing. Almost like he was in a trance. Or, maybe he did not hear me. Doubt it.
I don’t remember seeing the clip you posted above. It’s a good one. I figure the pic showing NO marks of any kind on the ‘moon’s’ soft sand, under the Lander’s engine, ought to be a convincer all by itself. Kind of like Building 7 imploding at free-fall speed. Don’t need to see much else.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
I think wag the moondoggie is really pretty accurate.
But I did find one thing that I think he got wrong. He gives credit to the Soviet union’s first In space Stuff.
What he doesn’t realize (or if he does realize but is not mentioning) is the high probability that the Soviet Union was faking their own Space Crafts too!
That’s probably the answer to everybody’s question of why didn’t the Soviet Union tell the world that the US was faking the moon project. Because they were faking their own stuff.
I happen to have the list that he had. I posted it in other comments in different places.
This is his list of IMO probably fake Soviet stuff that he promotes as real.
Russian firsts in the years leading up to and during the alleged Apollo
missions:
·May 15, 1957 – The Soviet Union tests the R-7 Semyorka, the world’s first
intercontinental ballistic missile.
·October 4, 1957 – The Soviets launch Sputnik 1, Earth’s first manmade satellite.
·November 3, 1957 – A dog named Laika becomes the first animal to enter Earth
orbit aboard Sputnik 2. Unfortunately for Laika though, she isn’t booked for a return
flight.
·January 2, 1959 – Luna 1 becomes the first manmade object to leave Earth’s orbit.
·September 13, 1959 – After an intentional crash landing, Luna 2 becomes the first
manmade object on the Moon.
·October 6, 1959 – Luna 3 provides mankind with its first look at the far side of
the Moon.
·August 20, 1960 – Belka and Strelka, aboard Sputnik 5, are the first animals to
safely return from Earth orbit.
·October 14, 1960 – Marsnik 1, the first probe sent from Earth to Mars, blasts off.
·February 12, 1961 – Venera 1, the first probe sent from Earth to Venus, blasts off.
·April 12, 1961 – Yuri Gagarin, riding aboard the Vostok 1, becomes the first man
in Earth orbit.
·May 19, 1961 – Venera 1 performs the first ever fly-by of another planet (Venus).
·August 6, 1961 – Gherman Titov, aboard the Vostok 2, becomes the first man to
spend over a day in space and the first to sleep in Earth orbit.
·August 11 & 12, 1962 – Vostok 3 and Vostok 4 are launched, the first
simultaneous manned space flights (though they do not rendezvous).
·October 12, 1964 – Voskhod 1, carrying the world’s first multi-man crew, is
launched.
·March 18, 1965 – Aleksei Leonov, riding aboard the Voskhod 2, performs the
first space-walk.
·February 3, 1966 – Luna 9 becomes the first probe to make a controlled, ‘soft’
landing on the Moon.
·March 1, 1966 – Venera 3, launched November 16, 1965, becomes the first probe
to impact another planet (Venus).
·April 3, 1966 – Luna 10 becomes the first manmade lunar satellite.
·October 30, 1967 – Cosmos 186 and Cosmos 188 become the first unmanned
spacecraft to rendezvous and dock in Earth orbit. The United States will not duplicate
thi
– 57 –
·November 17, 1970 – Lunokhod 1, the first robotic rover to land on and explore
an extraterrestrial body, lands on the Moon. Twenty-seven years later, the United States
lands it’s very first robotic rover on Mars.
·December 15, 1970 – Venera 7 becomes the first probe to make a soft landing on
another planet (Venus).
·April 19, 1971 – Salyut 1 becomes the world’s first orbiting space station.
·August 22, 1972 – Mars 2 becomes the first
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
@ tony martin
Yes, McGowan was a clever spook. He gave us a little truth and a whole lot of BS.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
@ Ramsay
I’m interested in those Apollo documentaries you mentioned. Do you recall their titles?
I also found your experience with the JPL mucky muck very interesting.
I’ve read lots of McGowan’s stuff, even bought one of his books (the one about “serial killers”). But, I now agree with Miles that he was a spook. That book had me going for while until I came to realize those so called murders never happened.
The GIF I posted is from a video that, at one time, was referred to as an Apollo 11 outtake but is now very hard to find. It has supposedly been “debunked” as being a recreation and a fake but I suspect it’s actually the real thing — an outtake from the Apollo 11 “moon landing” that someone managed to smuggle out. It would be difficult and costly to actually recreate the Apollo footage so that it had the same look, with period space suit, etc. To my knowledge the debunkers offered no evidence to prove it was fake such as photos of the set, costume, props, actors, etc. or any specific information on where it was shot so it could be confirmed.
LikeLike
Ramsay said:
@ frolicking (Could not resist. It’s a cool word.)
I just found one DVD called ‘Moon Machines’. I thought I had at least a couple more. Maybe another will show up. This one has a clear pic of the gold wrenold’s wrap and HVAC duct contraption on the cover. None at http://www.SecondSpin.com, at this time anyway. On the back cover it says this: “…turn science fiction into history-making headlines.” At least someone is honest.
The NASA mucky muck I asked about the VA belt reminds me of others, in a trance about certain stuff. I could not press at the time, so his non-response was clever to shut me up. My mother in law is that way about certain things. Programmed to forget, it seems.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ramsay said:
Just discovered that all 6 segments of Moon Machines is on you tube.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
There’s a new paper on the space shuttle fraud up by Miles:
NEW PAPER, added 7/1/19, “The Space Shuttle Program was a Fraud.” Also a tack-on concerning Owen Benjamin.
Click to access shut.pdf
LikeLike
Roelf_zelf said:
Benjamin’s rebuttal. https://youtu.be/_yYaCD5bQhY
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
I could only stand 5 minutes of watching Owen’s 2¾-hour video. He is an incredibly annoying speaker and, it seems, intentionally so.
In those 5 minutes he seems to agree with the idea that the Shuttle program was fake, however. I guess that is so the idea of space fakery will be associated with his own affected jerk-ness.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
There’s something “Denis Hopperish” about the man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nada0101 said:
“Dennis”
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Dennis
LikeLike
Benjamin said:
He shouts, so he must be right. But much respect…
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Rolleikin made it much further than I did. Barely a minute.
“I actually like the guy.” As if we’re supposed to care what this guy actually likes. I don’t. And his music sucks too.
I did some animated GIFs of Miles’ example composition of the shuttle launches, perhaps it will help us analyze them further. The first is a direct line-up, as close as I could get balancing the main fuel tank and the wings of the shuttle itself:
And this one is lined up the same, but in between each of the five I’m showing the Difference between that one and the one before it. “Difference” is just what it sounds like, as a Layer Style in Photoshop. It’s the difference between one layer and another. Not the Subtraction, mind you – that’s another layer style, though they are both math adjustments. Both can be useful but here’s the Difference:
I think that we might have TWO templates here, but there’s definitely some templates involved and Miles is dead on in his premise. Perhaps they lost or botched up the first one, since this was the early 80s. But even back then we had Amigas and Corel Paint and layer styles, so one wouldn’t need Adobe’s software back then to do pretty much the same stuff. Photoshop was pretty weak in its early iterations and it wasn’t until version 5 that it really came into its own. Other programs had all its functions and Corel Painter is still better for, you know, actual digital painting to this day.
We could try to line them up further but I think this paper’s pretty solid from a graphics standpoint. I’d love for him to analyze the shuttle further and toss us some math, like we’ve done here, but that’s up to him obviously.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Jared you’re amazing.
The thing that really kills me the most are the rocket nodules or whatever their called at the bottom of the ship.
They look identical in every picture…… the angle and everything…. even some of the little gay flames coming out are the same in every picture.
LikeLike
Ollie said:
The exhaust products of the shuttle really confuse me. Most rockets have a bright fiery exhaust with visible smoke(?). But the shuttle never exhibits anything like that.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
The SRBs should be shooting out aluminum vapor, chiefly. The LFO exhaust from the shuttle’s engines should be WAY brighter, as Miles said. It should be equally bright as the SRB exhausts, if a different tone.
Here’s a shot of the Titan with its LFO exhaust easily as bright as the SRBs, for example:
And another shot of a different model Titan, using ONLY LFO as far as I know:
Then we have fakes like this, with obvious doctoring in the rocket and the side flames:
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Regarding the Soviets in space, my initial instinct was to refer to the photos from the Venera landers (Venus missions), specifically Venera 13 & 14 since they were the “successful” ones. I hadn’t looked at them fresh for a few years, since before I discovered Miles. Turns out another hero falls, at least for me.
Evidently (allegedly) in 2006 some Mitchell guy decided to reprocess the 1981 Soviet data from these landers using “modern techniques”:
“There is a little artistic license … but not very much,” Mitchell told SPACE.com. A task still ahead is color processing of the Venera imagery. “Fully accurate calibration of the color has not yet been done by anyone,” he said. Critical calibration data is coming from Russian colleague, Gektin.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14786868/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/soviet-era-venus-images-get-new-life/
So all of these pics we grew up with are false-colored, basically:
And check out the sky in these ones, hosted by NASA. Look at the horizon line, and how clean and crisp it is, as well as the resolution of the clouds. Very obviously ‘Shopped in:
And this one on PBS:
And then we go back to 1975 to Venera 9 and 10:
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/2014/0724-standing-on-venus-in-1975.html
“On October 22, 1975, Venera 9 landed on the surface of Venus and acquired a 180-degree panorama of the surface. Ted Stryk used the images in the panorama to create this artistic view of what the scene would look like if one were standing on the surface. This view was created by rectifying the individual images in the panorama to show the surface at a more natural angle, sampling each image at different distances from the lander and using image data to fill any gaps remaining after this process. The objects in the image are real, though the arrangement is not. ”
THE OBJECT ARE REAL BUT THE ARRANGEMENT IS NOT?!?
It’s supposed to have been taken from a 180º panorama. That’s barely a 40° shot, and it’s just some fucking rocks.
And these are also supposed to be “panorama” shots. Looks like these guys don’t even know what the word means:
LikeLiked by 1 person
nada0101 said:
So basically all the surface shots we have of Venus, Mars, de Moon and Titan are de bulls**t? Cool! That means there are still mysteries to be solved and wonders to witness in our little bubble of the Galaxy; and the deadening influence of our rulers is lessened somewhat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
That’s the thing – I’m trying hard to remain openly skeptical and taking things on a case-by-case basis, but as we’ve seen time and time again there’s mass fakery afoot. So what’s real anymore? It’s hard to say, but again, let’s just keep chipping away. Perhaps I’ll dig up a few that I believe ARE real and you guys can break my balls on ’em? I don’t know.
It’d be nice to find SOMETHING real, you know? 🙂
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
There is the danger that scepticism turns to dismissive contempt and then you miss something genuine. Perhaps a disgruntled spoopling releasing some real data; or the spoops broadcasting a small truth as part of their inverse-karma code. So I think your approach is right, tempted as I am to turn my back on everything as “de bulls**t!”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
I mean I still want to believe that Voyager-era spacecraft or the Messenger ones to Mercury are at least in SOME ways legit. But I’m almost afraid to open them up, you know? To find out that they too are fake…
Sometimes it just hurts. I’ve often used the Soviet Venera landers in arguments about “Global Warming” as a rebuttal, so it’s tough to lose them too. Now my arguments are effectively empty in that direction – but we have plenty more, so I’m not too sad about it. Just, it would have been nice to have ONE real thing in this mess.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
I may be wrong but I really have this sneaking suspicion that the distances are too far away for ANY kind of radio communication from wherever to the earth.
Also I have a feeling that going thru the Van Allen belt probably will fuck up any kind of electronics so that it will never work.
LikeLike
Ollie said:
There are the measurements of the Pioneer-anomaly, which were only confirmed for the Pioneer probes. If the probes were not real, then you’d have to invent the anomaly. Or the simulation software showed a systematic error (but if it’s simulated there wouldn’t be any deviation from the expected values). The anomaly wasn’t detected on other spacecraft (like the Voyagers), but that’s supposedly because the Pioneers were spin stabilized and other are three-axis stabilized, making it difficult to extrapolate actual changes in velocity.
Once again, if the Voyager probes were fake, then their data would be fake as well. That would also mean that unexpected measurements like the lack of change in magnetic field direction upon passing the heliopause would be fake. But why fake something that goes against your expectations? The LHC always confirms expectations based on mainstream models, as does LIGO.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Very, VERY solid points there, Ollie. And that kinda follows my gut on Vger especially, where we see photos like this:
That’s the “Pale Blue Dot” Earth photo. It seems untoward if they were trying to fake solar system photos to publish something soooo noisy and, well, useless. But that noise looks very real to me, coming from someone that deals with noise (both reduction and induction) in my renderings every day. A real camera isn’t very different from a virtual one – both are fed data (one as actual photons, the other as virtual photons, but essentially the same math) and noise is what you get when you can’t expose long enough or deep enough to resolve an image. We would expect a lot of noise at that distance from Vger’s camera, and a lot less near the planets since they are quite bright.
These older photos have a very different “feel” to them, in my eyes. Perhaps not all of them are legit, but some sure seem that way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
R T said:
Jared — do you think it’s possible that the reason there is a more authentic feel to the older photos has something to do with the method of fakery? I would have to imagine that the methods of splicing photos in the 60’s in 70’s was an entirely different process than the ones they use now. Maybe they had actual artists going over them with their own hands, whereas now it seems they have a bunch of drones carelessly using photoshop.
Is that a possibility?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Hmm, I rather think it’s the other way around. Though we SEE a lot of Photo-SLOP from the modern stuff they present to us as “real”, it’s actually far easier to master an image using modern tools. But they do not. They don’t do it because A) they cannot learn how to use the tools, not really, and real artists aren’t for hire for stuff like that and B) they know that most people are stupid as shit already and will believe anything they publish simply on false authority.
Almost all of the flaws we’ve seen in these fakes are things I could have fixed for them. And at the pixel level there’s nowhere left to hide, no dirt in between pixels. But they just don’t care, so they either pay nothing for the images or (more likely) pawn them off on their offspring as sort of “gifts”.
I think it’s a lot harder to fake realistic grain and noise. Back then, it would have been even harder still.
But of course i could end up being wrong on this topic as well, so I’m trying to keep an open mind. It’s just not easy sometimes.
LikeLike
Wayne G. said:
This. Although it was every bit as possible technically in the old days, it was extremely more tedious and time consuming, requiring master technicians and equipment (read: expensive). Remember also, most everything was print media oriented back then and totally analog (film based) to boot. No magic tools from a software pallet—hands on for; burns, reverses, spreads, shrinks, et al. Filters? They went on cameras!! Airbrushes for the delicate work. The process was Photoshop/InDesign/Illustrator, but manually done by hand. It was fun and because of the complexity and time consumption, all the overtime actually gave you a decent paycheck….
LikeLike
Philip Cox said:
The skies in the 2nd and 3rd pics down do look very, very photo-shopped. Looks like something I would see on amateur photoshop contests.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
Ollie said:
“But why fake something that goes against your expectations?”
Seems like this happens a lot actually. They’re always surprised at certain developments, discoveries and outcomes of their space exploits. Makes it all seem real, doesn’t it?
But, wouldn’t that in itself be reason for doing it?
If everything turned out as expected it would start to look fake but unexpected occurrences make it seem real. And, that is what fakery is all about. Making it seem real.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Etc said:
I’m a fan of Miles but I’m going to play NASA shill here.
At 9:50 in this video https://youtu.be/ShRa2RG2KDI?t=590 the shuttle engines are clearly on for lift off and at 10:12 the thrust-trails from the shuttle engines are clearly visible.
This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuYoYl5kyVE explains the plume division – there’s a barrier under the platform. The y-axis rotation of the shuttle at 1:19 is an optical illusion caused by the z-axis rotation of the fuel tank.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Yes, your take on the plume division part I agree with. It’s not an open box on all four sides under there, it’s an elongated pit called the “flame trench”.
https://imgur.com/5f1l0xw
Typically, this trench is filled with water during launch, using a “Water deluge” system designed to keep the flame trench from disintegrating:
So most of the outward, bi-directional “exhaust” we see in the launches isn’t exhaust at all, but steam from the deluge system. This is because you have to put SOMETHING under a rocket, and most materials would disintegrate and be blasted out into the air – including natural, raw rock or ground. So the flame trench and deluge systems attempt to mitigate this by using water and a big pit for it.
He makes many other good points in that paper but in my opinion it wasn’t his most solid. I think the most important part of the space shuttle fraud is explaining the fraud itself.
How can it cost on average $450M dollars per launch (mainstream numbers), with only around $7-8 million in fuel? Where’s the other $432M going? Answer: POCKETS.
LikeLike
Ollie said:
The problem is we don’t really have a detailed breakdown of the costs.
“The exact breakdown into non-recurring and recurring costs is not available, but, according to NASA, the average cost to launch a Space Shuttle as of 2011 was about $450 million per mission.”
I think a lot of what factors in are the continuing costs of just having the entire shuttle program at your disposal. Which encompasses the entire infrastructure, continuously employed personell, 5 orbiters (most of the time, which had major components disassembled and reassembled each time) and reoccuring costs for (mostly custom) spare/exchange parts. I’m not sure the 450 million are simply the additional costs imposed by making the decission to launch the shuttle and preparing for it. I mean you don’t only pay just in case you launch it, you are still paying all the time even if there are no launches. Of course the development costs are something else entirely. 450 million still seem reasonable when you consider how much maintaning or upgrading a relatively simple sea-going war ship costs. Still, the costs are always overblown which is what always happens if tax money is involved, so in last in that regard there is certainly fraud involved.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Benjamin said:
The real crime is how much money goes into the space industry at all. There are so many better uses of $450 million. Lets fix the mess up on our own planet before we bother about space. But of course they are creating the mess on purpose, and the space program is apart of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Cox said:
When I looked at the picture of all the shuttles side by side, I thought.. well they might have built only one or two of these, while still billing us for all five of them. One or two real prototypes, while the rest were phantom shuttles. They just spray-painted or gave the shuttles a CGI makeover, when they needed to make them appear slightly different from one another.
This is a common scam they run at the top I think. Makes one wonder just how many tanks, planes, and soldiers around the world’s military’s.. only exist on paper.
Also if you read about the Soviet space shuttle the Buran, they admit they successfully flew and landed the thing completely unmanned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
I rather agree, Philip. As we’ve seen time and time again, these guys use anything science-related as a money sink, to steal from the taxpayers AGAIN (since taxes were already theft as well), and all of these projects are also paid for by borrowing at interest from the actual banks and banksters as well. So we have multiple layers of fraud, sold to the public as “progress”.
I do believe in orbital dynamics and physics, so I personally believe that some level of spacefaring exists. Just, as usual, it’s not at all what we’re told.
LikeLike
elpaydoublay said:
Speaking of where does the money go, here is a link to the most recent Financial Report for NASA (2018), which may shed some light:
Click to access nasa_fy2018_afr_tagged_fixed_v3.pdf
Years ago I used to review the (CAFR) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Tennessee where I lived at the time and found it very informative, particularly noting how much surplus stuff and was available and how much money was in rainy day funds, etc. The CAFR is the 20/20 hindsight view of what was spent as opposed to the prospective Budget which is a list of wants. And they are provided free of charge by State governments to the public.
Enjoy!
LikeLike
elpaydoublay said:
Financial data starts on page 50. Its fluff up to that point.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
On page 54:
“Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting PoliciesReporting Entity The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is an independent agency established byCongress on October 1, 1958 by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.”
An independent agency. They actually have the audacity…
LikeLike
elpaydoublay said:
The “S” really should stand for Shameless Administration.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
My default reaction to anything from NASA is that it’s a lie, it’s fake, it doesn’t exist, etc. So, I believed the space shuttle was fake before reading Miles’ recent article (though I enjoyed the article anyway).
I’d just like to point out that the “space shuttle” supposedly played a major role in the building, launching and/or maintenance of other space hardware such as the ISS, Hubble, SolarMax, SpaceLab and numerous satellites. I think some members here believe that at least some of these objects really do exist out in space.
But, if they agree the shuttle is fake then what does that do to their concept of these other projects, I wonder?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Derek said:
All the evidence you will ever need to convince yourself that Apollo was one big fake, check out the websites below. Just type the name into Google search.
NASASCAM Start your investigation here.
APOLLO FEEDBACK Read what the media say about naughty NASA.
APOLLO FACTS Facts to be considered about Apollo, plus a Q & A section.
APOLLO REALITY How, and where, NASA faked the lunar orbiting, landing, and lift off videos.
APOLLO INSIDER USGS involvement in the faking of Apollo Moon missions.
APOLLO FAKE The person responsible for NASA’s fake Moon pictures.
APOLLO TRUTH The truth, and reason, why NASA faked the Apollo Moon missions.
APOLLO DATA Misleading data regarding the Apollo missions.
APOLLO FRY UP How deadly radiation in space prevents travel to the Moon.
APOLLOSCAM More of NASA’s fake Moon pictures, with added humour.
APOLLO LAUGH You’ve just gotta take the mickey.
APOLLO VIDEOS Clear cut evidence of fakery in the Apollo Moon videos.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
…or you can just select and right-click the text you want to search and pick “Search Google for…”
But regardless, some of your suggestions don’t work (though I believe you mean well, here). For example:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=APOLLO+FEEDBACK
It’s all about an Apollo Hospital. Every link but one on the first page is about hospitals or medicine, except the RV one which is about, well, Recreational Vehicles.
So perhaps your search engine is DuckDuckGo or something? Of course I could just put “launch” or something in the search, but I’m just pointing out how Google is behaving. Perhaps they’re purposely limiting any connection to the space program Apollo stuff, out of spooky hand?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
… or just click on your screen ID.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
If you traveled to another world having 1/6 the gravity of Earth, when you walked about on that world would you be moving in slow motion? If so, why?
Obviously, falling objects would move more slowly but, otherwise, I don’t see a reason for moving around as if one were underwater like the Apollo astro-nots are shown doing in all that NASA “moon” footage.
Now, if one were in an environment with no gravity at all (or nearly so), then I can understand that one would float about and would be careful about one’s movements and the result might be that one would appear to move in slow motion to some degree though one could also move very quickly too. This is how the ISS actors are presented.
But, the moon is said to have 1/6 gravity, not micro or “no gravity.” It seems to me in 1/6 gravity one would mostly move about at normal speed and there would be no “slow motion” effect except for falling motions. In other words it wouldn’t look like anything we were accustomed to seeing as far as human motion goes. Some motions would be quicker than normal, some would be the same and some would be slower. It wouldn’t look like an overall slow-motion effect as is shown in the NASA footage. I mean, why would it? If I take a step forward in 1/6 gravity what would be slowing me down?
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
Agreed. Why all the slow-mo ? in UK we are having a 50 year anniversary extravaganza of the moon landings and i have been watching it with my kids and pointing out the fake bits.
My biggest gripe is the fact that in NOT ONE SINGLE moon landing mission does it show any kind of crater under the landing vehicle or dust on the feet. Laws of physics must apply
When you point this out to people though (as i did the other night) they get all defensive and go on about all the people involved and all the different missions and how could they all be faked.
So you believe instead that the laws of physics were bypassed? Whats more likely – people lied/were fooled – or the laws of physics can be bypassed….
Having said that, something good did come out of that argument i had the other night. The guy was singing a song at an open mic night called The Intergalactic Laxative by Donovan. Well worth a listen 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Russell Taylor said:
There was a video about the Saturn 5 being launched and it said that, initially, there were buildings damaged around 3 miles away due to the sound waves. I know that a thunder-clap can set off car alarms at around 1 mile. Not sure how a Saturn 5 compares to thunder but if the Shuttle is anything to go by, then earth shattering may be a good description.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
The sound damaged buildings 3 miles away but caused no harm to the rocket itself? Hard to imagine.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Well, according to the official blurb, that’s what the water in the trench is for, to absorb the sound waves. It literally saves the concrete launch pad from being destroyed. It’s possible that the design of the trench is such that it help deflect sound away from the body of the spacecraft. Most of the structure of the spacecraft, especially the Saturn 5 was liquid too, at extremely low temperature, so this could have very good sound absorbing properties too. I’m just guessing and assuming but seems sensible. So most of the body of the spacecraft had built in sound absorption ….maybe….perhaps….probably.
Blimey! I sound like a Met Office weather forecast.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Oh, I see. The water absorbs the sound which keeps the launch pad and rocket from being damaged and then the water spits out the sound 3 miles away thus causing damage to buildings there.
That makes perfect sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
Sound pressure at that level doesn’t make much sense rolliekin.
The water absorbs lots of the sound pressure and therefore weakens its effect on the platform and spacecraft. Once the spacecraft leaves the launch pad the sound heard at a distance reaches an extreme level because the noise the rockets are making isn’t being absorbed any longer. If you’ve been to an airshow and heard something like an F15 Eagle going vertical, under full afterburner, right above you (environmentalists…feel the pain! (sarc)), then you’ll know that as the thrust is pointed at you the sound pressure increases dramatically (see proportional law below). It is probable that the damage may have been done as the spacecraft went into its first roll manoeuvre, so pointing its thrust more toward the buildings in question. Maybe it just broke a few windows but that’s understandable. A passing jet fighter going supersonic has the same effect. Two Euro-fighters were scrambled a few weeks ago and went supersonic in the UK. Several people are suing the MOD for damage to their properties caused by the sonic boom. They were just a couple of tiny jets.
But on the launch pad the sound is being produced just a few metres/yards away from the spacecraft and launch pad. Inverse square law doesn’t apply because the sound is on a focused path, so the inverse proportional law applies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jared Magneson said:
@Russell Taylor: Except the gravity turn (the “roll”) doesn’t happen until muuuuch further up into the atmosphere, generally. Much more than three miles, at 1,000mph or so. And it’s angle isn’t really enough to “focus” the sound waves at that distance, I’m thinking. I mean yeah it’s gonna be loud. But that three mile radius of alleged damage is three miles from the launch pad, yeah? The ship is nowhere near that point anymore, though I couldn’t find official numbers quickly.
You usually start your gravity turn once you’re past the thickest part of the atmosphere. Because moving laterally has its own friction, and you want to “penetrate” the denser, lower atmosphere by launching straight up to begin with. What we know (and they pretend not to) is that lateral motion is also lifted by the charge field, whereas vertical motion is only slightly affected, so the gravity turn actually serves a dual purpose – to begin circularization for an orbit AND to receive a bit of free lift from the Earth as well, though they would likely never admit that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
This is interesting. I did not know this. Seven years ago? The Mandela Effect is strong today Skywalker!
https://www.space.com/neil-armstrong-wrongful-death-settlement.html
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Oooh! my post went all weird on me.
It put in quotes and went all italic….errrrrm!
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
I see the problem. I often use inequality signs to show the beginning and end of a link.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Yeah, the formatting stuff on this site is weird for me as well! I just use CAPS for emphasis and let the reader decide if I’m just a jerk or not. 🙂
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
OK, Russell, do have any links to photos of this damage to buildings 3 miles away?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Oh, and are the electronics on the Saturn V rocket ships filled with water to prevent damage from the sound waves? 🙂
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
PS – I don’t mean to be a wiseguy, Russell, it’s just that, to me, Saturn V = Apollo = fake.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
By the way, if anyone can show me footage of a Saturn V launch that is NOT in slow motion, I would love to see it.
I mean a close view of the pad on liftoff, not a shot from a mile away and not just clouds of smoke. A good close view of the rocket lifting off in real time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
A bit more about the press building shaking violently.
I know the source is Wiki but……..
“The sound of this first Saturn V liftoff was sufficiently powerful at the Press Site to prompt CBS-TV anchor Walter Cronkite to exclaim, “Our building’s shaking here…the floor is shaking…this big glass window is shaking, we’re holding it with our hands! A ceiling tile or two were shaken loose above his head.”
Not very confident I’ll find photographic proof.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
Walter Cronkite? This is your source?
Russell , we need to talk …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
I know what you mean dude but…..
I have no reason to doubt that snippet of anecdotal evidence. My most reliable source, who recently sold a house in Florida, told me that it seems to get hold of your rib cage and shake it so violently that you can’t tell if you are breathing or not. So what does it do to glass at half that distance?
Is there no one on this blog who’s seen one take off?
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
… and the sound had no effect on the rocket’s electronics or computers because the water on the launch pad deflected it toward Walter Cronkite?
I actually don’t doubt that it was loud. Even model rockets can be pretty loud. Maybe it did shake buildings. I have experienced loud sounds that shook my innards and I know sonic booms can break windows, etc.
I just don’t believe that you can have buildings 3 miles away damaged while the rocket itself and its electronics and mechanics are left unscathed. Not to mention the 3 alleged passengers. I think the water story is just a cover for the fact that the Apollo Saturn V, as it is presented to us, is just not a feasible machine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Try as I might, I could NOT find any footage of the Saturn V that wasn’t in slow motion. To me that’s pretty damning, not even layfolk videos could I find from bystanders or whatever. I dug pretty far and came back empty.
I’m very open to the probability that MOST of those things were faked, but at the same time we have a great, great many people who have seen launches. I’ve seen them myself, and live right by Boeing and their official Museum of Flight. My roomy makes parts for their craft – though of course Boeing is aeronautics, not space. But still, the industry is very real and of course airplanes are, too.
So when it comes to NASA and rocketry, what I think is going on is that the SCALE of the fraud is what’s the ticket into the show. They tell us that it costs $_____ to launch these things, but it really costs far less and the bulk of the money is siphoned off to the Tyrants, as usual. The various space programs look like they’re meant to do two things, at their core:
Develop some (perhaps not much) space tech and research FOR the Tyrants, with only bits and pieces even shown or used for the taxpayers
Steal as much taxpayer money as possible using the guise of “SCIENCE” as the sales pitch
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Slow motion is a common cinematic trick used to make scale model action appear more realistic, that is, more like full scale action. Hollywood has been using this trick from its earliest days until CGI replaced it. I suspect the Saturn V rocket launches as well as many other launches in the 1960s-70s-80s were actually done by filming scale models in slo-mo. Most likely fairly large models – say, quarter to half scale. I used to fly RC model planes and models in the ¼ to ½ scale size can look quite realistic if the speed is kept down and the sound is controlled. (Notice that the slow-motion Saturn V launches do NOT have slowed sound, another indication of deception. They slow down the visual action but use real-time sound effects).
A casual observer could mistake such a model for a full sized one claimed to be further away. Perhaps this is what the “observers” of rocket launches are really seeing. The rocket is still quite loud so it appears realistic to observers from a distance. But, the smaller rocket is much cheaper, lighter and easier to fly successfully (into the ocean, that is).
I haven’t seen a NASA type rocket launch myself so this is my speculation.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
There is always the possibility of yet another clever fake.
Read something earlier that said that the water damping takes the 190+ db engine noise down to a more tolerable 140 db. But that doesn’t add up either because at 3 miles that 140 db would sound like a purring kitten. Imagine being 3 miles from a metal rock concert or an air show.
All very contradictory and confusing. Just like fake news stories.
Have you seen Father Ted? Well I’m starting to feel like Dougal..!
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Just came across the best launch sound yet. It’s a Falcon Heavy launch and the bass is just phenomenomenomenal..!
Great for testing your subwoofer or Hi-fi.
YouTube sound is only 128kbps but the bass frequencies should remain fairly clear. Low bitrate just smudges the highs – among other things.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
If you want a good test tone generator try this. Proves that YouTube bass is accurate even at 128kbps. Let me know what frequency you lost all the deep bass. 5hz is just a flappy sound of course with no bass tone. Whereas 25hz makes your ears bleed.
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
@rolleikin…
I think you are right about NASA using scale models, although the photo below seems to show they use much much smaller models than you propose 🙂
https://tinyurl.com/y4qonb6r
BTW, Have had troubles with my last few post not working the first time. Anyone else suffering?
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
There’s a scale model in that photo? I didn’t notice!
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
That’s hot! The engines are hot, I mean. During blast off things get hot…I’m not being figurative. I’m literally not being figurative. Ahem.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
There was something figurative about that photo but I just can’t put my finger on it.
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
She reminds me of the girl who works in my local chippy, who is often hot, sweaty and bedraggled, with her blouse covered in batter and grease – still looks drop-dead gorgeous though!
LikeLike
Smj said:
Hollywood and rockets say it ain’t so…
“Odlum was the single largest stockholder of Hearst’s media empire. He also owned banks, Paramount and RKO studios, Convair Aircraft, Northeast Airlines and in the 1950s became the largest owner of uranium mines in the world. He was a partner of other great moguls, including Conrad Hilton—Atlas Corp was the second largest stockholder of Hilton Hotels and helped take it public—and John Hertz, founder of Yellow Cab and Hertz Rent-a-Car.
Odlum and Jackie lived in a 12-room apartment in Manhattan, had a country estate in Connecticut, and a ranch in the California desert where they spent most of their years. Eisenhower was a frequent guest and wrote his memoirs at their ranch.
When the U.S. Air Force ran out of funds to build a rocket to propel America’s first satellites and astronauts into space, Odlum provided the funds—the Atlas rocket was named in his honor, not after strongman Charles Atlas!”
http://titansoffortune.blogspot.com/2012/11/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
…jack’s pa started rko with general sarnoff. Sarnoff made his bones as the radio guy during the titanic hustle; and the first nasa administrator, t. Kieth glennan, made his making soundies for paramount of course.
NASA’s rockets do have that miniature slow motion effect. They still appear to be air ships to my untrained eye. The atlas rockets were literally balloons of course…
…odlum was neck deep in the uranium(nuke hustle) tambien…
Click to access 03-Primary-Subject-Personal-history-first-days-of-Moab’s-uranium-boom.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Imagine naming oneself after hatred itself, too. Just ridiculous.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
I …..erm. There’s this ere bloke who erm. He’s got a rocket and….erm….
LikeLike
R T said:
Kid actually kind of looks like Elon, doesn’t he? I can’t be the only one who sees that.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Yes he does. I found that kinda spooky.
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Just been looking at the Apollo 11 mission patch here…
https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-mu5b6y/images/stencil/1280×1280/products/27901/59369/2982-parent__81725.1551805237.jpg?c=2?imbypass=on
…a bigger picture available on the link below…
https://tinyurl.com/y4thog6p
One obvious 11 in the mission name, 11 primary feathers on the eagle wings and 11 craters on the graphic of the moon = 33. Couldn’t be more blatant than that and the real joke is that one of the attributes of the god Apollo is that he couldn’t lie and always had to tell the truth. The spooks really enjoy rubbing our noses in their fake events, they should be ashamed as to how low they have stooped.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
The height of the Saturn V at launch is said to be 363 feet so a half scale model would be about 181 feet and quarter scale would be about 91 feet tall.
In either case, still an impressive sight on a distant launch pad.
Now that I think of it, the model could have been even smaller and still impress the onlookers.
There was a video on youtube that I’ve seen and have been trying to find for some time but it is evidently gone now. It was a video of, I believe, one of the Mercury launches. Upon liftoff a small building to the left of the rocket could be seen to completely flip over when the rocket’s blast hit it. When it flipped, that little building looked exactly like something you might see as part of an electric train setup or something similar. In other words, a scale model. 🙂
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
In Wernher Von Brain’s 1953 Book Conquest of the Moon he wrote:
”It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three. Calculations have been carefully worked out on the type of vehicle we would need for the non-stop flight from the earth to the moon and return. The figures speak for themselves: each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building (3250 feet) and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons!”
The usual arguments this raises are:
1) “Apollo didn’t go directly to the Moon. It orbited Earth a few times first.”
As if that would require less fuel than a straight shot. Duh. 🙂
2) “He was talking about a single stage rocket but Apollo was multi-stage.”
The quote in the book doesn’t say “single stage” and I think Wernher Von Braun was probably familiar with the concept of multi-stage rockets so it seems doubtful that he would ignore that possibility. The solution proposed in the book was to use a separate pre-positioned space station as a refueling relay point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Imagine being Wernher von Braun and not having an inkling of how orbital dynamics works at all. One cannot travel directly to ANYTHING in space. Relativity exists.
My guess is that if we dug into von Braun at all, we’d find just piles of fake projects, perhaps not a real one among them.
LikeLike
Ollie said:
Historians see his role in the Nazi rocket program a bit different now.
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/mondlandung/raketenkonstrukteur-wernher-von-braun-15989855.html
Wernher von Braun is regarded as the father of space travel, the ingenious designer of the rockets Americans used to fly to the moon 50 years ago. But is this legend really true? The beginning of his career provides cause for doubt.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
The fake photo of WVB posing with Nazi officers I posted in The Families’ Fauxto Album thread is not the only fake one I found of him.
Seems like fake photos of famous persons like that usually end up indicating a total fraud project, that is, the person was just an actor.
He did end up on television working with Walt Disney and other Hollywood types and the “Space Program” he supposedly fathered is full of fraudulent hoaxes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Indeed, given even a brief, cursory inspection of his statements he couldn’t even have put a satellite in orbit at all. Imagine not even knowing what relativity is and trying to achieve an orbit. Dude thought you could just fly straight to the moon – it ain’t gonna be there when YOU get there. It’s in ORBIT.
Einstein knew better, even if his math was a Swiss cheese in many ways and his theory was fatally flawed. Relativity still holds.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
About Wernher von Braun, the wiki says, “He helped design and develop the V-2 rocket at Peenemünde during World War II.”
Helped design? I wonder what that means. I had always though he was the chief designer.
So, what part did Wernher actually play in the V2 then? Did he sharpen the pencils of the real design engineers? That would be a help. Did he cook their wienerschnitzel and pack their lunches?
And, if he wasn’t the chief designer, why did he become such a prize for Project Paperclip? Why was he chosen as THE postwar bigshot rocket scientist if the V2 was designed primarily by others?
Wernher von Braun … rocket genius or flunky doofus poster boy? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Good questions, Rolleikin, and I have my suspicions that WB was in fact the man in charge of rocket hoax project, not an engineer, and that the V2 rocket never existed. Its predecessor. the Doodlebug, was just a model plane with a rocket motor attached. Too big a step for the V2 to be developed as functioning guided missile which travelled too fast to be stopped by a plane. He, of course. went on to produce the Saturn V rocket and continued the hoax right through the Goddard/NASA era. What is, is what was – unless extraordinary proof can be found to the contrary. Keep digging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ollie said:
WB was just a project manager. He was completely incompetent when it came to engineering. His graduation was probably bought as his thesis is basically rubbish (also various entrance exams were barely passed) and his father was minister of agriculture for Germany at this time. It’s fishy, how else would a mediocre 20-year-old student have managed to get an appointment with the division head of a military agency.
To further quote https://www.faz.net/aktuell/mondlandung/raketenkonstrukteur-wernher-von-braun-15989855.html
“And Braun’s dissertation? There are several inconsistencies. First of all, Braun always said that he transferred to Berlin University following his „preliminary exams“ to write his dissertation there. But the system didn’t allow for such a transfer. He was enrolled at the Technical College (TH), where students received a diploma upon completing their studies. A university degree from Berlin University was the product of a completely different study track. The preliminary examinations from the TH could only be used as part of the diploma examinations at the TH. By contrast, at least six semesters of university study were necessary before writing a dissertation.
Because Braun didn’t have that, he had his three semesters at TH Berlin and one semester at the ETH Zurich recognized as the equivalent of three university semesters. In short, Braun discontinued his mechanical engineering studies at the TH and began studying physics at Berlin University on Nov. 30, 1932 — which he concluded with a dissertation in 1934 after a year and eight months.
Braun’s dissertation, after all — just like those from others involved in rocket research on behalf of the Reichswehr — was classified. If you look at other dissertations, such as the one submitted by Kurt Wahmkes, who performed research at the Army Ordnance Office, it is clear that he turned in his work complete with its definitive title. The speed with which the dissertation was then examined is noteworthy. On Friday, June 1, 1934, the decan of the philosophy department asked the evaluators to submit a grade for the work. Schumann submitted the grade three days later on Monday, June 4. The grade from Wehnelt came on June 5, in which he joined Schumann in giving the dissertation the highest possible mark, „eximum.“
This extremely rapid evaluation process seems even more astonishing if you read the dissertation and realize that as a piece of academic writing, it doesn’t actually make much sense. It is supposed to be about the construction of a liquid propellant rocket, but it doesn’t contain any specifics. Braun did not publish any measurement results; the experiment preparation was documented only with photos and the dissertation reached no conclusion. Measured against scientific standards, what Braun described in his paper was not reproduceable. Moreover, Braun included pages of mathematical derivations copied out of textbooks that were already 10 years old at the time.
If one compares Braun’s dissertations with other dissertations written around the same time, it becomes clear that, even then, it was considered standard to use footnotes to identify sources. Braun’s dissertation, however, only includes a bibliography at the end of the text in which the books he consulted are listed, but without page numbers. Braun gave a sworn declaration that he completed his work without impermissible outside assistance, including the claim that neither the entire dissertation nor sections of it had been published elsewhere. If Braun’s dissertation is measured against his own standards, in other words, it falls short.
Against the backdrop of his dissertation and his clearly demonstrated technical shortcomings, it is difficult to understand how Wernher von Braun was able to become the technical director of the Peenemünde Army Research Center. This reading, along with the inclusion of new sources, shows Wernher von Braun in a different light. It looks as though the beginning of his career came thanks to his father’s connections and help from people at the Army Ordnance Office, who made it possible for him to produce a dissertation even though he apparently was unqualified to do so. That conclusion has far-reaching consequences for the assessment of his activities during the Nazi period as well as in the period that followed. Braun’s image changes from that of a gifted scientist to just a manager who spent most of his career working on weapons projects.
The big question is how Braun could have had such a successful career despite all of that. There is no question that he was charismatic; and due to his aristocratic heritage and class consciousness, he was also likely extremely adept in his interactions with others. All descriptions of Braun agree that he was a good listener, a person who could give others the feeling that they had his undivided attention.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
Great reference, Ollie.
It appears that Wernher was indeed a fraud and incapable of designing practical rockets. Just another spook baby.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Another thing that bothers me about space program rockets is the exhaust they produce.
I’m not a rocket engineer, of course, but I have studied physics and aeronautics and I’ve played with flying model rockets and planes. What comes out of some of these “space rockets” just doesn’t look right to me.
Here is a clip from a recent SpaceX launch:
Two things bother me here.
1) Why all the flames? The flames are longer than the rocket itself! Do jet engines produce flames like that? No. (I do know the difference but, in the end, both jets and rockets produce thrust the same way: By expelling very high velocity gasses.) The burning of fuel is supposed to occur INSIDE the rocket combustion chamber, not outside and behind. This looks more like a flame thrower than a rocket and flame throwers produce very little thrust. They work by squirting fuel and igniting it just as it exits. Many smaller rockets I’ve seen have much less burning exhaust. Very little, in fact.
2) Why are the flames undulating like that? Do high velocity gasses undulate? I don’t think so. Again, comparing to a jet exhaust, I see little or no undulation with jets nor do I see it with many smaller rockets and missiles. The wavy motion suggests to me that the exhaust is not at a very high velocity which is what you want with a rocket motor.
Here’s another view of the same rocket:
Flames have increased and they are now billowing! Very impressive, I suppose, but highly inefficient, it seems to me. The flames don’t even flow straight back. They bulge out on all sides. Is this really what super high velocity thrust-producing rocket exhaust is supposed to look like? I don’t think so. I think somebody is pulling our leg here. I’m sure there is SOME thrust and so it’s probably a real rocket technically (if scaled down) but I think somebody has rigged it so that it produces maximum visual effect to fool the rubes.
I’m sure most people look at that and think, “Wow! Look at all that POWER !” But, I look at it and think,”Look at all that WASTED FUEL !”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
Keep going dudes, you are converting me, slowly but surely, one detail at a time.
Just need to clean up a few points though.
I thought the Saturn V exhaust looked kinda weird, like too many flappy flames, when you expect a blue cone shaped efflux like an SR71 for instance. Under full afterburner an SR71’s visible exhaust flame is longer than the plane. Its not using solid rocket boosters or adding oxygen, or burning such vast amounts of fuel as the rockets are though. We have to remember, that what we see exiting the rocket is burned gases at high temperature. At lift off, these are focused to some degree by the surrounding air and the flame trench but as the rocket ascends and reaches a higher speed, the exhaust fans out, not so much due to the thinner air, this just helps defocus the blast but the effects of the supersonic wave at the back of the rocket. This pulls the blast outward making it fan shaped. You can see this effect when a jet is passing by at mach 1. There’s a conical wave of condensed water vapour following the tail of the jet. That’s the supersonic wave. The hot gases will still be visible until they have cooled enough to stop emitting visible light. The gases at the edge of the efflux will be affected by the passing cold air and made turbulent, hence the flappy flame effect.
So the actual explosive burning does take place inside the rocket engines, but we only see the exhaust gases pouring out the back. Isn’t it a common misconception that a rockets burning gases pouring out of it actually push it along, when the reality is, that it’s the explosive ignition of the gases inside the rocket motor, which cause the actual thrust. Good old Newton comes good again methinks.
So lots of flappy flames aren’t a problem for me.
That’s my take on it. Go ahead….convince me some more. You both have strong arguments.
If there’s a single immovable tenet to all this, it has to be the sound pressure. To hear around 120+db at those low frequencies, at 3 miles, you need one heck of a loud source. Also remember, that the earth shaking rumble around 16hz had to have extreme energy at the launch site, to still be felt as ‘earth shaking’ at 3 miles.
In looking up bits and bobs associated with all this I just found a wee gem in NASA’s descriptions. They talk about the water used for sound suppression, because during testing, the sound was causing damage to the thermal curtains on the SRB’s and putting stress on the wings. The water suppression cut the sound by half. Well hang about. Half? We are talking 190+db. If you reduced the sound by half the reduction would be 10db so the launch pad noise would be reduced to 180+db’s.
I think we now know why it sounds earth shattering and extremely loud at 3 miles…..
If it’s a model – and this is my main argument here so go gentle – how do they produce 180db of rocket noise from the launch site? An SR71 with full afterburner at 10 metres is roughly 140db. So if a 10db increase in sound pressure requires just over 3 times the amplitude, then doesn’t that mean we need 3x SR71’s as the sound source to hit 150db? 9 planes to hit 160db. 27 planes to reach 170db (at 10m remember). 81 planes to reach 180db and 243 planes to get up to 190db?
That’s the best analogy I can come up with. And if you tried to produce that with a PA system you would be looking at 10 billion watts and around 5 million speakers each rated at 2,000 watts. Just to give this kind of sound level some perspective you understand.
So you can see why my belief/disbelief hinges crucially on the noise level.
Also, notice how the sound level increases as the spacecraft clears the launch site. No water damping effect.
Here’s an mp3 sound recording of a Falcon 9 launch made from (allegedly) 8 miles, and it still sounds awesome! Turn the volume down near the end cos the next track is music.
Of course, none of this helps explain the ISS green-screen, hairspray and dead men walking, or the validity of many other NASA theatrics.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
@ Russell
The sound you hear in a video is the sound track of the video. The video maker can do anything he/she wishes to alter or augment it. The actual rocket may have whistled Dixie when it launched for all we know.
But, it any case, rockets aren’t propelled by sound. I know rockets can be extremely loud and I don’t doubt that the rocket I posted above is a real rocket and that it made a lot of noise. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t ALSO rigged to put on a fireworks show for the onlookers.
“We have to remember, that what we see exiting the rocket is burned gases at high temperature.”
I recommend you FORGET what you think you have to remember and just LOOK at what is there.
I’m going by what I SEE, not what I’m told. The flames exiting the rockets I posted above don’t look like burnED gasses to me, they look like burnING FUEL. They look exactly like what comes out of a flame thrower, not what comes out of any real rocket I’ve ever seen. And, their waving, undulating, billowing nature belies their supposed high velocity. I just don’t see how those lapping, flapping flames could be producing real thrust that would propel anything to 17,000 mph.
Does the SR71 produce lovely, lazy, billowing flames that lap and lick hither and thither? Does a missile? That rocket I posted looks more like something we’d see in an old Flash Gordon serial.
Anyway, that’s my take on what I see. My policy in evaluating things coming from known hoaxers is to LOOK and ignore what is SAID. 🙂
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Here’s an AMRAAM AIM-120 launch from an F-35 in flight, slow-motion in the second half of the video. Note the lack of fire, relative to the big rocket launches we’re talking about. There’s a squirt of flame and then it’s gone. This missile is a solid-fuel rocket and reaches Mach 4. Of course, it has to accelerate very fast to be effective against aircraft that are also flying beyond the speed of sound.
LikeLike
Ollie said:
Here is an SM2 Standard Missile launched from a ship.
And a P-800 Yakhont launched from land.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Not close enough to see much
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
I just wanted to point out that the evidence of von Braun being a fraud as noted above is some pretty profound stuff. I had thought of the space program as being a fake going as far back as the 1950s but now it seems the fakery goes all the way to the 1930s-40s. Or, even earlier if you count von Braun’s childhood and education. It was a project planned long in advance.
Still believe in those modern satellites? 🙂
LikeLike
Smj said:
Good question. If the shuttle is psilly what’s up with that famous telescope in the sky?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/servicing/index.html
LikeLike
Smj said:
Funny how Werner didn’t seem all that concerned about his buddy’s belts at the explorer one press conference. The igy was dreamed up in Van Allen’s basement over his wife’s chocolate cake per the narrative. Van Allen, story goes, was the baddest Geiger counter maker in murica(wild bill libby notwithstanding of course). He also worked with Byrd at the poles; and unironically enough the igy was when the braintartic was divided up amongst the players on the stage we’re taught to call the glebe, er I mean the globe. Space is show business, a cosmic journey in our heads so to type…
“The external scenes of the institution also show, in the background, The Palace of the Soviets (Stalinistic ‘wedding cake’ building with a statue of Lenin on top). The Church that once occupied this site was demolished in the late 30’s to prepare for its construction, however due to the outbreak of WW2 the building was never completed. It became “the world’s largest outdoor swimming pool” until the mid 1990’s when a replacement Church was constructed.”
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0252612/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0875042/?ref_=tt_ov_wr
Funny story. T. Keith glennan ran the underwater sound lab betwixt his paramount and nasa gigs. I do appreciate psifi though. If it wasn’t for our first psifi writer, kepler, we prolly wouldn’t even have orbital mechanics…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somnium_(novel)
…but the feckin daemons though, smh.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Yes, the status of Hubble is highly questionable in my opinion,
And, the ISS was supposedly built and, thereafter, maintained for years using the space shuttle so …
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
One night, many moons ago, I lay naked on a Devon beach with a German woman (true story) and we could see the satellites or “satellites” whizzing past. So there are things up there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
You saw satellites or you saw bright dots?
When I was a kid I saw a bright dot race across the night sky. They said it was Sputnik. Since then I’ve seen other bright dots up there that I was told were other space program hardware but they all just look like bright dots to me.
Is it just a coincidence that the development timeline of high altitude “spy” planes coincides with the timeline of satellites?
LikeLike
tony martin said:
@rolleikin
In your opinion….. how do you think satellite tv works?
High altitude planes with free energy propulsion?
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
“High altitude planes with free energy propulsion?“
My goodness! A thinly veiled insult. How quaint.
One doesn’t need to know how fakery is accomplished to know that something has been faked. No stage magician has ever really sawed a lady in half, for example, nor made anything really appear or disappear. The spectator doesn’t need to know the details to know it isn’t really magic.
A number of ground based satellite operations alternatives have been proposed by others and can be found on the internet. I don’t wish to enter into arguments about their feasibility as I am not a physicist but, given the hoaxer history of the space program in general and NASA in particular, I think the explanations would more likely be found there than on any NASA website. But, if you prefer to believe in known liars and con artists, that is your right. 🙂
LikeLike
tony martin said:
@rolleikin
I was actually serious about the free energy planes.
I think they have free energy tec.
LikeLiked by 2 people
rolleikin said:
Sorry, tony, I misread your intent. I must be getting paranoid. 🙂
LikeLike
tony martin said:
@rolleikin
The thing is…. I remember focusing my tv satellite dish in the sky at exact
coordinates back in the day.
What was I focusing on that gave me tv?
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
I don’t know. A balloon satellite? Skywave?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Unicron’s eye-lasers probably, Tony.
Wait, we probably shouldn’t believe in Unicron either, now? Everything is a LIE! Prime never even DIED!
His death was faked to sell movie tickets.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
…and to sell a new, lame range of Transformers. My younger brother was traumatized after I brought him to see the movie; I think my Mum hit me when she saw the state of him.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Of course satellites exist. The moon exists. The planets orbit the sun, and their moons orbit THEM. Of course orbital dynamics exist – and of course Miles has even corrected the physics (and theorized entirely new additions, obviously) and of course the physics are PHYSICAL.
We’ve all seen satellites from the Earth whizzing by – and of course they look like bright dots. That’s what distant, reflective things LOOK like. That’s what stars look like. That’s what planets look like as well. We’ve all seen Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and even Saturn. Of course those are real entities. Relativity exists as well, and that’s WHY orbital dynamics exist. Or rather, orbital dynamics exist and relativity explains why we see them the way we do.
Yes I believe there’s a great deal of fakery going on, all of it monetary fraud in essence – but everyone has to draw their OWN line on what they believe is real or not. I believe my eyes, I believe my experiences – and I have a great deal of experience with orbital dynamics and crafting of spacefaring vessels, and all of that is real. That is to say, the EXPERIENCE is real. Orbital dynamics are real, and we can verify this every day using only the sun and moon, at the very least. If the Earth weren’t orbiting the sun and the moon weren’t orbiting the Earth, how the fuck do they consistently and repetitively show up every single day?
NASA however… THEY exist only to siphon money from the taxpayers back up to the banksters, in my opinion, with a side-effect being a great deal of research and experiment that the Tyrants will horde and lord over us, just as they do everything else they “have”. I have no faith in them, but sorting through their stories (NASA’s) to glean fact from fiction is our task here, so let’s keep at it. SpaceX and Virgin Galactic and all the others do the exact same thing, merely rebranding the fraud and theft to better sell it to the NSF for funding, in D.C.. That’s all they exist for, to steal even MORE money.
But to do so they have to have some kind of saleable product, in my opinion. Not the kind they’re selling us, but something marketable, and we’re uncovering a lot of good stuff here. Keep up the good work, folks!
To me, it’s like forensics. It’s all about reasonable doubt – certainty isn’t really necessary. And when we don’t doubt something, we always have the option to BEGIN doubting it, shown evidence. Let’s keep looking!
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Just for the record I don’t think I’ve ever said there are no man-made satellites. But, I do strongly suspect that the ones we are told about are fake.
What do they really have up there? I don’t know. Maybe high tech or maybe low tech.
I also think it would be far more difficult to have a partially real and a partially fake space program than to simply have one that is fake.
I admit I don’t know how they fake the speed of their little fake bright dots that race across the sky. The fake ISS dot, for example, has to be traveling faster than any aircraft I am aware of. But, I do believe it is fake, whatever it is.
LikeLike
mantalo said:
i read somewhere that the aircraft technology was the only technology which didn’t evolve hugely these last thirty years… same shape, same speed, same altitude…
i’m not sharp enough to decide if this is true or not, if another technology exists that we don’t know about or not, but do you really think it would be impossible to simulate a satellite with some kind of high speed rocket at not-so-high altitude ? reflecting sun light with a mirrorlike surface ? how far from earth has an object to be to catch the sun light and reflect it ?
about TV, are we sure that we have been told the truth about waves ?
remember the PLC.
before PLC, the electric lines were only for electricity and one day, suddenly, we learned that they can also carry information.
magic !
so why couldn’t another type of waves carry the TV Signal without help of satellite ?
why microwaves don’t go out atmosphere as radio and infrared do ?
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:EM_Spectrum_Properties_edit_fr.svg
in the diagram, radiowaves do, microwaves don’t , infrared and visible do, and then, all don’t.
it’s funny, we could expect that waves go out the atmosphere until their frequency is high enough to disable it, but no… some waves do jump, other don’t, and there is no apparent link with frequency…
but, if microwaves are trap inside the atmosphere, how can they be used for satellites communication ?
may be the atmosphere acts like amplifier or mirror, and this is the reason of global warming, we are inside a huge microwave oven 🙂
to finish, we are used to think that the public beneficiates always the latest and most performing technology…
but if i was king of earth, i would keep a 50 years technological advance on my sheeps, and never bring new technology on the public market before taking at first my (big) return on every investment done on the precedent technology…
the king needs ROI 🙂
LikeLike
elpaydoublay said:
If you’re interested in the history of aircraft development and why it seemed to fall off a cliff after WW2, this book has a lot of research on “boundary layer aircraft” which was supposedly a dramatic improvement of lift for fixed wings. The tech was supposed to revolutionize air travel according to newspaper articles in the 40’s and then after the war not a peep about it anymore as the research was swept into the world of black projects. So the story goes anyway. Read it a number of years ago but as I recall it is fairly well researched with primary sources and not too badly written despite the tabloid looking cover and David Hatcher Childress’s involvement;
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Perhaps it was at this point these techs and engineers discovered that Lift didn’t come from the shape of their wings or the angle of attack or anything, and while they couldn’t crack the Charge Field like Mathis did, they knew they had SOME kind of thing going on and were not inclined to share, either by fiat from their employers or by hostile takeover from the Tyrants themselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
dennisjoyleary said:
Fake Space is receiving much attention connected with the 50th anniversary of the fake man on the moon landings. In my opinion there is another topic which deserves even more scrutiny; namely, the existence or non-existence of nuclear bombs. Space fakery makes a ton of money for the bosses but fake nukes make even more money by instilling fear in the populace all the better to rob and control them, and to force their support of endless wars and fake projects like space programs.
I concur with Miles and this blog that the first nuclear bombs and tests were faked, well proven by circumstantial evidence like fake photos and contradictory reasoning. However, I have a nagging doubt that in more recent years the lords of earth and sky may have constructed nukes for their own devious purposes. How could we prove or disprove this hypothesis?
The only way I can see how to prove the non-existence of nukes is by hard scientific physics. Yes, we can continue to pursue circumstantial evidence but that is not as convincing as real physical facts. I researched the question but could find only one man whose video distinguished nuclear weapons from nuclear reactors which he said had very different mechanisms. He conceded that it would be very difficult to construct and control nuclear weapons but did not rule out the possibility of doing so.
Miles says to this day that there are no nukes but to my knowledge nobody has shown the physics of why their actuality is impossible. I think Jared said he was working on a paper concerning nukes but nothing more specific. I may be missing something and so my nagging doubts on this subject persist which I hope can be laid to rest.
I think the existence or non-existence of nuclear weapons is the most important political and physics issue defoggers and truth-tellers face, dwarfing other issues like fake space programs, fake global warming, the cause of gravity, fake art, fake science and fake history. I think we do a disservice to ourselves and the planet if we do not tackle this issue directly in a way that ordinary citizens can understand or admit that nobody knows how to resolve the question with the evidence of physics.
In my opinion concerning realpolitik, the truth or falsity of nuclear weapons is priority # 1. It is the nucleus of art, science and history, to use Mathisian careers as an analogy. If you don’t mind, I will also post this to Current Events where I think it more properly belongs. Thank you for your kind consideration.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
My opinion:
Whether or not nukes are real and whether or not nukes are possible are two different subjects.
I for one believe nukes are fake but I also believe nukes are possible.
But, nuke fakery is off topic for this thread. Perhaps a dedicated fake nuke thread is in order.
LikeLike
dennisjoyleary said:
Thanks for the distinction of real and possible. Jared has posted detailed information at Current Events. I’ll continue the discussion there.
LikeLike
Smj said:
The nuke hoax is good stuff. Nukes as weapons were dreamt up in psience fiction and fiction often becomes fact as disney once said. All the murican nuke footage came from a movie studio. There’s a reason Floyd odlum was the atlas rocket guy, movie studio owner, and an uranium magnate of course. And don’t forget that the likes of Bohr and the inventor of the neutron himself, James Chadwick, were manhattan project bigwigs.
As far as flying particles flying about andwhatnot you need look no further than the madame mercury clan and baron Rutherford and his coat of arms with that psilly mercurius ter maximus charge on the dexter side of his eschuteon field…
skei-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to cut, split,” extension of root *sek- “to cut.”
It forms all or part of: abscissa; conscience; conscious; ecu; escudo; escutcheon; esquire; nescience; nescient; nice; omniscience; omniscient; plebiscite; prescience; prescient; rescind; rescission; science; scienter; scilicet; sciolist; scission; schism; schist; schizo-; schizophrenia; scudo; sheath; sheathe; sheave (n.) “grooved wheel to receive a cord, pulley;” shed (v.) “cast off;” shin (n.) “fore part of the lower leg;” shingle (n.1) “thin piece of wood;” shit (v.); shive; shiver (n.1) “small piece, splinter, fragment, chip;” shoddy; shyster; skene; ski; skive (v.1) “split or cut into strips, pare off, grind away;” squire.
My favorite satellite…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A
LikeLike
mantalo said:
fifty years later :
snapshot out, welcome snapchat
LikeLike
mantalo said:
fifty years later :
snapshot out, welcome snapchat
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
If all the tests are fake, and they certainly appear to be, then we have zero evidence of man-made nuclear detonations existing.
Of course one could consider the sun one giant such event, but it’s not the same thing at all. The charge input to the sun is what powers it, not explosions of mass. It’s not the ENERGY from fusion that makes the sun burn, it’s the charge field (and gravity) causing the fusion to begin with.
LikeLike
Smj said:
And since carbon 14 dating is adjusted for a bomb effect caused by fake nuclear detonations wild bill libby’s radiocarbon dating technique must be a hustle as well, no?
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Imagine if C14 is a load of codswallop!
Meanwhile there are quite a few science projects that rely on the “bomb after-effect” as a kind of datum. Oh dear. That’s a lot of bollox.
What a world.
LikeLike
Smj said:
Politics is show business fer the ugly and/or spacenuts I reckon…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut-politician
LikeLike
Enki said:
“Space program” hoax. A lot of details and math.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelw2.htm
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
Just watching FIRST MAN and although i don’t think it means to be anti moon landing, it succeeds very well in being very anti moon landing
But i would like to know this – in the film at around 1 hour 47 mins, Neil Armstrong asks the crew if anyone brought any music and throws a tape to Buzz who puts it into some kind of tape music player and spins it around a bit etc
Did we have cassette tape players with built in speakers in 1969? and pre 1969 as it didnt seem like a “new” thing
thanks
also i put a comment up a couple of nights ago and it didn’t show
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
The first compact cassette player was made by Philips and marketed in 1968.
I haven’t seen “First Man” so I don’t know if it was a compact cassette or 8-track cassette or what. Compact cassettes have been around since the early 1960s and 8-tracks since the mid 1960s.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
This is the one from 1968:
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Oops!
@ 1:45
“Here we are in 2019 and the United States actually does not yet have the ability to send people even to low Earth orbit.”
Huh? Did Elon really say that?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Talk about a slip-up…
That’s some spilt beans right there, good find!
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Are you sure it’s not just Musk’s way of talking. He is South Efriken after all.
Maybe he just meant people as in paying space tourists?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Yes, that is probably what he meant. I didn’t understand it that way until you mentioned it because he said “people,” not tourists. And, “people” would include astronauts.
I guess it can be chalked up to a “Freudian slip.” 🙂
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
He’s about as South African as we are.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Has anyone seen this site it seems interesting?
SPACE WEATHER NEWS
https://stillnessinthestorm.com/2019/08/magnetic-reversal-news-deadly-storms-forecast-s0-news-aug-11-2019-suspicious0bservers/
LikeLike
tony martin said:
http://spaceweathernews.com/
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Exploring Solar-Terrestrial Interactions via Multiple Observer
A White Paper for the Voyage 2050 long-term plan in the ESA Science Programme
This paper addresses the fundamental science question: “How does solar wind energy flow through the Earth’s magnetosphere, how is it converted and distributed?”.
(Charge field?)
We need to understand how the Sun creates the heliosphere, and how the planets interact with the solar wind and its magnetic field, not just as a matter of scientific curiosity, but to address a clear and pressing practical problem: space weather, which can influence the performance and reliability of our technological systems, in space and on the ground, and can endanger human life and health.
Much knowledge has already been acquired over the past decades, but the infant stage of space weather forecasting demonstrates that we still have a vast amount of learning to do.
( not if you talk to Miles Mathis)
We can tackle this issue in two ways: 1) By using multiple spacecraft measuring conditions in situ in the magnetosphere in order to make sense of the fundamental small scale processes that enable transport and coupling, or 2) By taking a global approach to observations of the conditions that prevail throughout geospace in order to quantify the global effects of external drivers.
(External drivers=photons)
A global approach is now being taken by a number of space missions under development and the first tantalising results of their exploration will be available in the next decade.
( Why wait that long, ask Miles)
Here we propose the next step-up in the quest for a complete understanding of how the Sun gives rise to and controls the Earth’s plasma environment: a tomographic imaging approach comprising two spacecraft which enable global imaging of magnetopause and cusps, auroral regions, plasmasphere and ring current, alongside in situ measurements.
(The next step up is to read miles’s papers)
Such a mission is going to be crucial on the way to achieve scientific closure on the question of solar-terrestrial interactions.
(I guess it’s gonna be crucial for you guys but not for us)
https://assert.pub/papers/1908.04730
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Oh, I don’t mind all those losers being well behind the curve, now. Not one bit! It’s really a nice feeling to have SOME things in the Universe actually make fucking sense, you know?
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Here’s an interesting question that I found about the sun maybe it has to do with the charge field.
Why is the corona so hot?
The corona reaches extremely high temperatures.
Astronomers have been trying to solve this mystery for a long time. The corona is in the outer layer of the Sun’s atmosphere—far from its surface. Yet the corona is hundreds of times hotter than the Sun’s surface.
The corona’s high temperatures are a bit of a mystery. Imagine that you’re sitting next to a campfire. It’s nice and warm. But when you walk away from the fire, you feel cooler. This is the opposite of what seems to happen on the Sun.
However, the corona is very dim. Why? The corona is about 10 million times less dense than the Sun’s surface. This low density makes the corona much less bright than the surface of the Sun.
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/sun-corona/en/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Here you go:
Magnetic Reconnection
and Coronal Temperatures
by Miles Mathis
Click to access corona.pdf
“Let us see if we can do some math to show the brightness effects on the planets and moons are caused by the same thing as the temperature effect in the corona. We found a temperature in the upper atmosphere of Uranus of 850K, and we find a temperature in the corona of 20 million K. What is thecharge differential of the Sun and Uranus, according to my unified field calculations? All we have todo is compare mass and density, which gives us a differential of 25,400. The Sun recycles that muchmore charge than Uranus. If we multiply that by 850K, we get 21.6 million K. We have a match. Whatever is causing the two effects causes the same size effect, following charge.
“This strongly indicates that charge is the cause, and that the two effects are related.”
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Thanks a lot!
I had a feeling it was something like that. I hope I’m starting to think like miles.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
But why do you think it’s hotter further away from the sun?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
and
(Miles’ diagrams)
Basically I think the corona is where the most charge from the sun meets the most incoming charge from the planets. It’s a sort of boundary where the densities meet, and many spin-ups and spin-downs occur. The average result of the two fields meeting is infrared, as he explained in that paper, so we get a buildup of those types of photons throughout this boundary.
For example, some amount of visible light photons will hit incoming infrared and be spun DOWN a level or two, to infrared, while the incoming photon could gain a spin or two and travel on towards the sun at a slightly different angle or bounce up or down, and in both cases we wouldn’t see or detect it from devices here on Earth or in orbit. You can’t detect a photon that isn’t striking your detector, right? It either has to hit our eyes or hit the lens of a telescope or camera to BE detected. So we don’t really know how much visible light or smaller, sub-infrared light is striking the sun or just being flung off. Anyway, that might be what happens to those incoming photons, but regardless the DENSITY at the corona of photon interactions is the heat. Heat is of course photon density in a given volume.
But as you can see from his diagrams, we also have a lot of through-charge “connecting” away from the main body (sun), and that adds to the density of photons at that distance. I imagine the effects compound quite readily.
Hope I got that right, I’m just paraphrasing Miles as best I can.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Is the outgoing charge from the sun also contributing to the heat?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Definitely. If you look at the diagram, the outgoing charge is “channeled” or loops back upon itself as the sun’s charge emissions meet the incoming planetary and galactic emission – the galaxy generally feeds the sun’s poles but some photons come from almost all angles, and you can visualize this just by looking at the night sky. MOST of the sun’s charge comes from the Milky Way band, but SOME charge is coming from all the other stars too. It’s this charge plus the planetary charge that causes that curvature and re-meeting, at some significant distance from the sun’s surface. That’s where the corona is.
So the corona is the sun’s heat PLUS extra heat gained by all the collisions with incoming, non-polar charge. Sort of a boundary, for photons. There’s enough heat there to cause fusion in some cases and Miles has hypothesized that it’s in the corona where the larger elements (Uranium, for example) are likely fused. But there’s also a lot of fission there too, and lots of ions – still far more photons but SOME amount of ions are formed there, simply because it’s so hot.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Do you think you could make an animation of miles diagram to make it a little easier to visualize then a one dimensional diagram?
If you have time of course.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Of course. I’ll try to get to it this week, just finishing up a Yellowstone scene currently and also my actual work. But a corona video might be very useful and helpful!
I’ll check with Miles first to make sure I’m on the right track, though. So until he gets back online, I probably won’t post anything like that just yet. I do NOT want to misrepresent his theories.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
This video was posted on YouTube by NASA in 2014 that purports to show
a spacewalk outside the ISS.
Note object entering lower left of frame @ 3:38 that looks an awful
lot like a moth or other flying insect. Watch as it rises and flutters away.
LikeLiked by 2 people
nada0101 said:
Yes, that’s a strange “artifact” that even has a flight path?
My problem at reaching a definitive decision regarding these space-walk shots are all the pieces of equipment that look like they are floating around. How do you fake that? I know about the “it is all shot underwater” theory and I’ve seen the air-bubbles in the Chinese footage, but the movements of the astronauts in that video do not betray underwater movement. Perhaps the footage is manipulated in other ways, e.g. speeding it up slightly?
Meanwhile, here are video shots of the stars as seen from the Space Station (at last, “Stars in Space” without the usual exposure arguments handed to us — yadayadayada — well expose them properly then and stop making excuses because every SANE human being would want to see those blazing stars in space 😀 )
Problem is these shots look manipulated to me; some look downright fake. I thought the panorama would be ablaze with stars? BUT, I am a peon in this matter and would like Jared’s expert opinion. I’ll go with that. If this footage has been posted before then I apologize for wasting everyone’s time.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
In my opinion, every second of that “star footage” from the ISS video could have been so easily faked, it’s really very unconvincing. In my experience in real life, things look WAY more… unexpected? I mean, from a small creek in spring to snow-covered mountains to every natural rock formation… I always see INTERESTING shit in nature, things I could never come up with on my own. In my artwork, there’s a vast LACK of this interesting, natural creativity – which is perhaps why I’m not a successful artist, or one of the big reasons. But all of those starfields I could have made on my own, as texture maps, in just a day or two, and at higher quality.
Granted it’s just a YouTube post and there may be a REAL video of the footage somewhere, but even cranked up to the max resolution offered (720p), it looked like shit. Also that is NOT 720p, it’s been uprezzed from perhaps half that, at best. I’m on my 720p plasma and it looks like shit. That’s not 720p native, or if it was they compressed the shit out of it, down-rezzed it, then up-rezzed it again. That’s not what my own PHONE footage looks like at 720p, and my phone goes up to 2K for video.
How does the ISS have worse cameras than our shitty, $200 phones again? Oh yeah, they won’t work up there or some shit. For “radiation” or other reasons which are negated by everything else they allegedly do up there.
I would say it’s fake, personally. Occam’s Razor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nada0101 said:
That’s a pretty damning conclusion right there. Why can’t they show an amazing video of the star field? Fine, the exposures must be different for the shots of the astronauts at work. But why not one dedicated camera for the blazing epicness of Space?
I still don’t know how they manage to get all the pieces of equipment (e.g. little strings and cords that don’t look like CGI) to float and move like they do, but I am now extremely sceptical about our manned space station. I am convinced we have satellites but this manned ISS is now on my “whatever” list.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
When it comes to the ISS, I have “reasonable doubt”, myself. We’ve found plenty of holes in the story and lots and lots of fuck-ups in the footages, etc.
My main problem with outright disbelief is that I, myself, could design and implement an entire space station – and a better on than the fucking ISS. I’ve done it several times already, in Kerbal Space Program. Now that isn’t to say I could fund or BUILD the thing, I’m just saying I can design one that should actually work. COULD work. And work better and be more useful than the monstrosity they’re selling us with the ISS.
So when it comes to disbelief, I have to hedge a bit and say, “It COULD be real, because it COULD be built like that and operated like that. But it SEEMS like the cheaper way to sell the con would be to just fake it, like they did with nukes and the moon landing and all this other shit. So I’ma go with that until tangible evidence comes along otherwise.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Cox said:
@Jared: I’m the sure the Kerbal devs have real people on their team and it’s a fine program (I never tried it), but during a break today at work I had to look up the Kerbal devs and publisher.
I will say it is super duper easy to find spooks in the video game industry. They care even less/suck more at hiding themselves, but I guess it doesn’t really matter anymore. I actually started a paper on one vidya game YT “influencer”, but I’m not sure when I’ll get around to finishing it.
The first Kerbal was devved by a team in Mexico City called Squad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squad_(company)
“The main business of Squad is to provide digital and interactive services to customers likeThe Coca-Cola Company, Hewlett-Packard, Sony, Samsung and Nissan, including creating websites, guerrilla marketing, multi-media installations, and corporate-image design.[1] They have developed software for different applications, some of which were video games.[2]”
I don’t think I ever game across a dev that was also did stealth marketing on the side. My guess Kerbal’s original intention is to help sell the space program once more, but it took off in popularity.
But the real not-so-buried-treasure is Private Division, the “indie” game studio Take Two Interactive setup and eventually purchased Kerbal Space Program from Squad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Division
Pretty explicit with that logo and name, IMHO. The found of Private Division is Michael Worosz.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelworosz
Worked for Microsoft, GE, Harvard business graduate, CBS, and last but definitely not least, US Naval Intelligence.
“During my tenure at officer in charge, my team was awarded the United States Navy Vice Admiral Rufus L. Taylor Award, the highest honor for intelligence support to combat operations during the Kosovo campaign.
From the award citation: “The Intelligence Division, Electronic Attack Wing, Aviano, Italy, is presented the Vice Admiral Rufus L. Taylor Award for outstanding meritorious service during Operation ALLIED FORCE from March to June 1999. The Intelligence Division defined the new standard for future Prowler deployments to hot spots around the world. Supporting over 90 aircrew from twelve different USN EA-6B Prowler commands, this ad hoc team of individuals from nine separate commands directly contributed to the success of 717 combat sorties over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). Supporting the largest detachment of EA-6B personnel and aircraft in history, the Electronic Attack Wing Intelligence Division selflessly executed their service to country by providing vital tactical intelligence support to Navy EA-6B aircrew for 78 consecutive days of sustained combat operations.”
Also I swear I never came across a spook at this level that also didn’t participate in charity-washing.
LikeLike
Philip Cox said:
My previous comment is caught in automod but should be posted soon.
From a commentator on reddit:
“I love KSP but after Squad was purchased by Take-2 and they decided to try and sneak the Red Shell spyware into the first game I won’t be buying this (or any product T2 has their greasy mitts on). Fuck ’em, Strauss Zelnick especially.”
Apparently they have since removed Redshell, but with now Private Division now owning them..yeah it’s going to be loaded with spyware and spookery.
LikeLike
Philip Cox said:
Bah sorry Josh and everybody. I didn’t know WordPress was going to transform the link into a huge long embedded table. Josh you might want to remove that reddit link or modify it.
LikeLike
Josh said:
No worries Philip I think I fixed it. I’m on vacation with the family on the Costa Maya of Mexico. Glorious here.
Glad to see everyone trying to help Miles. I felt like crap on Sunday night and Monday, but I think it was mainly due to Montezuma’s revenge.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
@Philip Cox: Yeah, no problems here with spyware of any sort, much less through KSP. I don’t buy games with DRM issues, and I don’t use Steam. RedShell would have been eaten alive on any of my systems including my brother’s. It’s a pretty rookie spyware, especially compared to the processor-crunching BitCoin miner viruses and trojans that hit so hard last year.
So thank you for the heads up but I assure you I’m clean!
And while a new KSP player might need to be aware of that and/or take measures (Malwarebytes or SuperAntiSpyware are free and easily digest malware/spyware like RedShell), it really doesn’t impact the game itself. I know you weren’t trying to straw man it or ad hom it or anything, just saying it’s easy to surmount such things in practice.
There’s simply no other games ever made or on the market that portray orbital mechanics as properly and cleanly as Kerbal Space Program. If one wants to learn them, and practice the physics and kinematics, that’s the way to do it. Reading and studying are fine but if you want to learn the ins and outs, that’s the best and cheapest way forward and I’d still recommend it to anyone with a decent computer and graphics card and a hunger to learn.
THAT said, I’m bored with it since other than orbital dynamics and visiting other planets, moons, capturing asteroids and stuff there’s really nothing else to DO in the game. The planets and moons are still pretty undetailed, with few biomes and too much uniformity, and the graphics themselves are about a decade behind real, modern games. So it lost its luster after I finally made several SSTO (Single Stage to Orbit) spaceplanes and built a huge, CPU-crushing space station. Once the challenging stuff was done, there was really nothing left to do – but it was still several hundred hours of fun and frustration and LEARNING for me.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Aye, that’s definitely spooky, Philip. Squad/KSP being owned and operated like that. I actually know most of the Squad guys, there’s only a few of them, and one of the main guys in charge of LIFT dynamics in Kerbal Space Program (Ferram, by screen name) developed an advanced plugin just to address this. “Ferram’s Aerospace Research”, or F.A.R..
Only problem was, he couldn’t and wouldn’t answer ANY of my questions about lift on a wing and his model was flawed. Using Miles’ paper alone, I demolished him publicly on the KSP forums. He got super mad and blocked me from posting further, after he failed to answer a single question to anyone’s satisfaction. The other folks even kept talking about it after I was post-blocked, because they too were feeling “reasonable doubt”.
Literally all the asshole had to do was include a simple charge vector UP in his math to fix things. But he wouldn’t even admit photons were real, much less any of Miles’ charge theories.
But again, the game is great, flaws and all. It definitely teaches one how to work with orbital dynamics and space flight. It’s the THEORY that’s wrong in most cases, not really the math. The math has coefficients that MIMIC the charge field, especially in orbits, as we know. But the mechanics of orbital transfer and flight are pretty much great. I’d still recommend it to anyone wanting to learn how things move in space.
But yeah, like almost everything we love from the Mainstream these days – spooky as fuck.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“My problem at reaching a definitive decision regarding these space-walk shots are all the pieces of equipment that look like they are floating around.”
Well I saw some ISS footage which showed two astronauts passing objects back and forth to each other by doing a slow-mo-throw, for want of a better term. At a couple of points there was a flicker and you could see the object disappear, then reappear but in the flicker you saw the green screen used to project the object into the video stream. The catching astronaut was seen to grab at an invisible object. I downloaded it, copied it to an external drive, which then went kaput, so I would have to search for it again. But that proved for me that there’s some funny old shenanigans going on with all this ISS footage.
So those floating objects are almost certainly green screened and someone on the ground is guiding the object into the astronauts hand. Much of this movement is computer generated to look like natural movement. The clip I watched showed how a studio could use powerful computer graphics engines and accurate tracking software to make it seem like an actors hand had actually grabbed hold of an object, when in reality ‘there was no spoon’! It’s all doable.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
I believe the astronaut also watches a monitor, so they can see where the computer generated object is relative to them. So when they catch the blob of water…..there is no spoon! The water blob is CGI. Its just a clever motion picture CGI effect that is well understood and used daily in the industry.
Just like the Mars landings. Parachutes? Are they kidding me? Mars’ atmosphere is around 100 times thinner than Earth’s atmosphere. That is the difference between sea level 1013 millibars and 10.13 millibars. There is hardly anything there for gawd sake!
How the heck can they get a flippin parachute to open with that kind of gas density? Then slow the craft enough to prevent it slamming into the surface like a man-made meteorite?
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
Yeah, I’d hate to be a paratrooper on Mars. 🙂
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
And, where’s all that space junk that’s supposed to be out there? Thousands and thousands of hunks of junk, they say, but I’ve never once seen one iota of it in all that “space” footage. Yes, I know, lots of it is small but some of it isn’t and even a small bit of metal can reflect sunlight (like the alleged satellites we see passing across the night sky) but why is there no space junk visible in this kind of footage at all, ever?
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
This footage looks pretty convincing…
Lots of editing, for sure, but it looks seamless, i.e. not multiple takes. I tried to find differencens between the close-up and distance shots but no luck.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
More importantly, though, the teacher is cute.
LikeLiked by 2 people
nada0101 said:
Okay, I tried to find some differences between some of the shots — I certainly wasn’t exhaustive and comprehensive in my “analysis”. This is my get out of jail card in case I’ve missed something embarrassingly obvious 😛
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
And don’t be fooled by the floaty people. They are facing the ground in harnesses, with the camera looking upward. All been done in films. I think they might have used that technique in the film Arrival.They become weightless as they approach the aliens up the wide tubular passageway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Jesus, my man.
I watched Arrival for the second time last weekend. What an AMAZING film! It really got me right in the feels. Soooo well done and poignant and just incredible. That’s how a fucking film is done. That’s real sci-fi, in my opinion, though I also enjoy the silly/hardcore stuff like Event Horizon or Pandorum, or the Alien movies. Whatever.
Arrival was soooooo good! Nice to see SOMEONE out there actually writing a decent fucking story.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
And all THAT said, “The Expanse” is also an amazing, powerful, magnificent tale! But I refuse to watch the TV series. The books were perfect, I don’t need any dumbing down or replacement of the characters in my mind with live actors. But it’s not for the weak-willed; there are safe stories and there are unsafe stories. It’s definitely the latter.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Jared:
Yes, I love Arrival too.
Also do you like Annihilation? A bit iffy in parts but the overall concept and pace and FX are lovely.
The Maze Runner films are okay too but I watched the latest Spiderman the other night and was almost falling asleep through most of it. Boring teen nonsense I thought. Now Green Lantern is out of this world weird and 100% sci-fi, with superb FX and a good story-line and I think it shows just how exciting a film can be if produced well.
Most Thor I can live with but it’s all getting a bit samey!
All the Spidey fans will be cursing me now!
LikeLike
Josh said:
Not cursing you but I rather enjoyed the latest Spiderman. Couldn’t help but notice that the Mysterio twist was a not too subtle nod to all the media fakery going on these days.
LikeLike
Philip Cox said:
@Josh: Wow I looked up the plot and characters on wiki and you’re right.
“A former Stark Industries employee and holographic-illusions specialist who masquerades as a superhero from Earth-833 in the Multiverse. He is recruited by Nick Fury to help Spider-Man stop the Elementals.[22][13][23] Gyllenhaal shared ideas with screenwriters Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers regarding the character’s personality. Sommers said, “[Gyllenhaal] just really liked the idea that he was manipulating everyone’s love of superheroes and that need for heroes. He also wanted to make sure that the front half of his character played as realistically as possible,” in reference to Mysterio’s fake backstory.[24] ”
Also this is not the first time Chris McKenna has written an episode about fakery. Check out the Community episode “Conspiracy Theories and Interior Design”. It was aired on November 18, 2010 and it was the 34th (close) episode.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_McKenna_(writer)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_Theories_and_Interior_Design
“Dean Pelton confronts Jeff in the study lounge, accusing him of creating both a fake independent study on conspiracy theories and an imaginary teacher, “Professor Professorson.” Jeff, however, offers to take the Dean to where he meets Professorson, and Annie, who has been working on a diorama for a class, comes along. Jeff opens the door of the supposed meeting room to reveal a supply closet, and starts to explain this must be a test when a man (Kevin Corrigan) exits from a nearby room and introduces himself as Professor Professorson, showing his official ID to prove it and saying Dean Pelton has never met him because he teaches night school. He congratulates Jeff on passing the test and leaves. The Dean is satisfied, but when Annie goes to apologize for doubting Jeff, Jeff admits that he did indeed invent the class, and has never met or seen “Professorson” before.
Later in the study lounge, Annie is telling Jeff that she’s discovered Professorson’s real name is Professor Woolley when Jeff receives a threatening call, warning him and Annie to stop investigating. When Annie’s diorama’s model car won’t start, he tackles her just before the car lets out a minor, harmless explosion of sparks. Even more determined now, the two stay late to explore the night school, which turns out to be a sham, with courses like “History of Something” and “Studyology.” When they spot Woolley he runs away, but after chasing him through the dorm-wide blanket fort that Troy and Abed have started, they catch him and he takes them to a room where a number of computers and printers have been set up. He tells them he once faked a night school course for credit, like Jeff, but then to maintain the charade he had to create the illusion of an entire night school at the college. Jeff becomes suspicious and realizes that Dean Pelton staged the whole thing to teach him a lesson. He also recognizes Woolley as Professor Sean Garrity, the drama teacher, and asks whether the theater department has prop guns.
Back in the library with Garrity, Jeff and Annie call in the Dean, pretending to have exposed “Woolley”‘s sham. Annie “shoots” Garrity, saying that he broke the rules, causing the Dean to pull out his own gun and shoot Annie, which makes Jeff shoot the Dean. Annie sits up and tries to explain to Jeff that she and the Dean set this up to teach Jeff a lesson about lying, but then the Dean sits up and Jeff reveals that they were working together to teach Annie a lesson about friendship. Annie becomes bitter towards Jeff, upset at being “buried like a shameful secret” after their kiss, and pulls out a second gun and shoots Jeff, scaring the Dean. Annie and Jeff, who is fine as it was another prop gun, point out that the Dean is quick to switch alliances, revealing that the entire ploy was a setup for him. Now that all the conspiracies have run their course Garrity starts to leave, but a security officer enters and shoots and kills him, horrifying the other three until they realize it was yet another prop gun. The officer says he wanted them to learn a lesson about the misuse of prop guns.
Later, the group is gathered in the blanket fort when Abed and Troy discover that news of the fort has been printed in Greendale’s paper, making it “mainstream.” With that, they commence Operation Omega and collapse the entire fort. “
LikeLike
tony martin said:
This shit reminds me of a magic show.
It reminds me of Cyril the completely amazing Japanese magician.
He’s so good that some people I’ve talked to actually believe that Cyril has real black magic supernatural powers.
He’s definitely the best magician in the world. Check out all his videos and you’ll see why.
If he could do it…… I’m sure NASA with billions of dollars could do it.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Not sure about the blurry bit as the coin enters the can. Did he pass the coin to the girl, who is also a magician, who then slips the coin into the can once it’s opened? The rattling is also suspect because the coin wouldn’t be able to move that quickly in the contents of the can. The rattles were just too fast. Moving the can quickly would not make the rattle more intense, just the opposite, especially when, at times, it would be trying to move flat side to the movement. The can made the same rattle when full as it did when empty. I think the coin was used by the girl to rattle the can to make it sound as if it were inside the can but was really in her hand.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Another possibility is that the coin was still in the blokes hand until he cut the can open. The girl could have been wearing a metallic false nail to expertly rattle the can while the bloke still held it in his hand. His hand movement looked suspicious after the insertion to my eyes.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Tony, I was a stage magician once upon a time in my youth and I hope this won’t make you mad at me but the above tricks were done via very normal means plus some underhanded (in my opinion) fakery that most real magicians would never stoop to.
The onlookers are “stooges,” paid actors who pretend to be audience members and feign amazement when they know damn well how the tricks are done. Camera trickery is also used (a real no-no to honest magicians). For example, the fish bowl is simply hung behind the drawing tablet when the camera isn’t looking and the card in the aquarium was already stuck to the inside of the glass before he threw the cards at it (hidden by careful camera angle placement behind the magician’s hand. Notice, also, the edits in the video at certain key moments. The aquarium is also elaborately tricked out with a sliding glass pane that has a pre-cut hole in it (notice how strange it looks with the black areas above and below?). Other tricks were done via similar means.
Didn’t it seem odd that during the sandwich trick no one tried to look behind the sign? That’s because they knew there were simply holes in the sign through which the food was passed by someone behind it.
Normally, I don’t reveal magicians’ tricks but it pisses me off when I see one that does crap like this.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
So the coin stayed in the magicians hand, who then slipped it into the cut open can?
Come on rolliekin I’m curious.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
I don’t believe that it’s really black magic.
It just shows how easily we can be deceived on video.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
@ Russell Taylor
You’re close enough.
Remember that this guy uses camera tricks and stooges and there are several edits in the video before he gets to cutting open the can. We don’t even see when he first cuts into it. He could have put a live rabbit in there and had his stooges act all amazed. 🙂
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Hollywood has been realistically faking weightlessness since at least the 1960s using various means. I can post lots of scenes from movies that demonstrate this. They use wires, green screens, CGI, miniatures, camera angles, slow-mo and other tricks. Stanley Kubrick did a convincing job in “2001” way back in the late 1960s, well before CGI and other currently used methods ever existed. The point is: Hollywood can fake anything you see in these astronauts-in-space videos.
I suggest we try to focus on one thing at a time. My post is about an object that looks, to me, like a flying insect that shouldn’t be there. So, I believe I may have caught a goof on their part and I was hoping to get comments on that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
nada0101 said:
You’re right, Hollywood can fake anything.
LikeLiked by 2 people
rolleikin said:
For those who still think the ISS might really be out there, please explain how they assembled it. Allegedly it was built mostly via the use of the Space Shuttle and Miles has shown the Shuttle program to be a fraud so how then did they build the ISS?
The same Q could be asked about Hubble which was supposedly launched and serviced by the Space Shuttle.
Or, do you still believe the Space Shuttle was as represented?
LikeLike
Ollie said:
There must be “something” at the right altitude to get the correct orbital period. And you could take a photo of it yourself:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition30/photographing_iss.html
The question is whether it’s manned or not. But it seems to have the purported size. So at the very least it consists of big empty cylinders and long outriggers. Could this be assembled by maneuvering thrusters and robot arms controlled from a ground base? Maybe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
@ Ollie
“The question is whether it’s manned or not. But it seems to have the purported size.”
The key word there is SEEMS. Closer objects SEEM larger than they would if further away. The visible “ISS” could simply be a scaled down object that is closer than its alleged altitude but has a similar shape.
LikeLike
Ollie said:
That’s true. But the “ISS” orbits the Earth every 92 minutes. At the right time you can even see it coming back after 92 minutes. Which yields a velocity of 7.6 km/s at 400km altitude. (roughly)
Here you can calculate the necessary orbital speeds and periods for different altitudes:
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/earth_orbit
100km means 86 minutes for one orbit, 200km 88 mins, 300km 90mins, and 400km 92 mins.
So if the the orbital period is confirmed, then the corresponding altitude is a given. And the size as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
Ollie, if you want to believe the ISS orbits the Earth, It’s OK with me.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
The numbers all add up, for the ISS orbital period as well as the space shuttles and Hubble. Given those numbers, these devices and craft SHOULD work how we’re told. They COULD.
The ISS could not be further away and have the same orbital period, obviously. That’s not how orbits work. If you speed up, you move OUT. If you flip around and thrust or reverse-thrust, your orbit decays; you move IN. An orbit occurs when the moving body is outrunning the gravity of another body. Orbits very obviously exist, since we have so many definite examples we can see with our own eyes. So matching these craft to the physics the sun, moon, and other planets present us really isn’t that hard. If someone doesn’t believe in orbits existing, there’s really not much anyone can do about it.
But did these craft and devices DO what they said? That’s another story. The ISS could be up there for a number of nefarious reasons, and all the hub-bub and circus show is just a diversion. But it’s definitely up there and it’s definitely in orbit. I’ll trust my own eyes, binoculars, and telescopes on that part – but what’s IN there, I couldn’t say with any certainty. Never been in there. A lot of the video stuff looks pretty fake, so they could just generate that all down here while up there it’s doing something completely different, unmanned or manned. It could be an alien vessel scanner and that’s it, for all we know.
The numbers for the shuttles and Hubble all add up just fine as well, on paper – and that’s all presented in this very blog we’re all commenting on, right at the top. It’s evidence for them existing, but again not how we’re told or not for the purpose they’re sold to us as. Can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Beware the “everything is fake and a simulation at best” project. It runneth rampant.
Being skeptical is fine and one can always change one’s mind later. But claiming one’s own eyesight betrays them leads us down the same road as the mainstream tries to take us. It has no end, and offers only illusion.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
The “ISS” is a dot that moves across the night sky. NASA tells us it’s a manned space station in orbit around the Earth but all I see is a dot that moves across the night sky. So, that is all it is for me. For my money, a dot in the sky might be something in orbit or it might not. High altitude aircraft can look like dots too but they’re not in orbit, for example.
So, that is all I know about it. If you have faith in NASA (the biggest liars and hoaxers the world has ever known) and you believe what they tell you about it and its alleged orbit then … well, okay. But, I don’t believe it and I don’t see how any intelligent person could accept anything NASA says even after it’s been demonstrated by Miles that the Space Shuttle used to build the thing is a fraud.
But, then maybe some people believe there are moths in space too. 🙂
LikeLike
Ian said:
Working on the premise that monetary gain is the motivation for running these projects, if they are going to take $196 billion (so wiki tells us) for running the space shuttle program, those shuttles better have something to do, right? Enter Hubble, the ISS and the all the rest of it. Those things then need funding too, but also some evidence for their existence and operation also has to be created, like with the shuttles themselves. What it is that represents the ISS, that is going round up there, its impossible for us to say right now. But there is something up there, even if its just an empty vessel.
So I am of the opinion that launching man made satellites into orbit is not the problem, depending on the weight of the satellite of course, the problem is coming back down again. As that Anders Bjorkman guy points out, the kinetic energy in re-entry is ridiculous.
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
@Rolleikin:
“…Note object entering lower left of frame @ 3:38 that looks an awful
lot like a moth or other flying insect…”
Good find. I blew up the tiny dot on the clearest frame and it showed a wee blury moth wearing a space suit, with its feelers poking through the top of the helmet. It had probably been hiding in the props chest for several days and was attracted towards the huge bank of arc-lights being used to simulate the sun. I hope it managed to fly back to the stage rather than being incinerated by the studio lighting.
There was another couple of dodgy bits, one when a space man appeared to let a large panel slip from his hand and it moved downwards in slow-mo. The other was towards the end and was a side shot of the ISS which was obviously CGI. Having now proved that this official NASA video wa shot in a studio on Earth, this proves that a manned ISS is a complete hoax. I wonder how Trillions they stole from taxpayers by perpetrating this fraud?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
The falling object is at ~2:30, and the CGI is at ~3:15 or so. Worth downloading this video and storing it on a USB stick.
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
My take on the ISS is that it is an autonomous fuelling station for the small fleet of advanced space craft (ASC) which are likely powered by Caesium. I think that humans can only survive low earth orbit for a very short time, as without the protection of the atmosphere, the very high radiation levels in space are suicide for our delicate DNA. So while they are useful as super fast VIP transports at the fringes of the atmosphere, they can only be operated remotely at higher altitudes, or their passengers would be killed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tony martin said:
That’s how I always figured it.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I agree in spirit, but the logic dissolves once we admit THEY are using the charge field at all. If they’re harnessing Caesium’s electrons, they are likely doing so for a reason – since we know electrons aren’t the cause of electricity, it can’t be for that. Perhaps as a propulsion system? Perhaps they’re spitting out electrons to generate a force forward?
But if they’re THAT far along, there’s absolutely no reason to believe they haven’t also developed charge-field shielding – which anyone can do, really. Take a sheet of directionalized copper, a sheet of kevlar, a sheet of paper, a sheet of satin, a sheet of whatever, add some water and glue the bitch together. Toss photons at it and test it. I’ll bet you come up with something pretty quick that blocks or redirects most photons. Lead will do so with x-rays, for example, so maybe you drop in some lead. Or uranium. Or whatever, until it WORKS.
So while I agree that the charge field beyond LEO is not what we’ve been told by the mainstream, and radiation of course is just a boogey-man in general from those assholes, surmounting charge should be pretty straightforward once one knows what charge even IS in the first place.
Another gift Miles has given us. Another thing they would have stolen immediately if they didn’t already have it, in primitive form or advanced.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
I might be wrong but wasn’t there something in miles’s papers about the pyramids charging spacecraft? Or was that someone else?
LikeLike
Etc said:
Science paper 354 on miles[no w]mathis.com/index.html is by Miles is about pyramids and lightning. Then in the guest paper NR02 on mileswmathis.com/2017.html the author and Miles’ speculate on whether UFOs use pyramids as charging stations.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I don’t think Miles ever said that, I searched his pyramid and caesium papers but the two concepts kind of oppose. If they have caesium for an electron-thrust engine, they wouldn’t really need pyramids to charge it? It would already be charged, by the caesium!
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“I think that humans can only survive low earth orbit for a very short time,”
I believe that is probably true. I suspect that space, in general, is a much more hostile environment than they would have use believe.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
… have US believe … 🙂
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Or they haven’t a f**kin’ clue because they’ve never bothered to indulge in any real exploration because they’re too busy manufacturing lies 😉
E.g. Oooh those Van Allen belts look nasty — how do we tie those into the scam?!?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
From the Wiki:
“A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles (320 by 32,190 km)) passing the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year (for comparison, a full-body dose of 5 Sv is deadly). Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.[32]
“The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[33] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. Apollo flight trajectories bypassed the inner belts completely, passing through the thinner areas of the outer belts.[25][34]
“Astronauts’ overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth’s magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[33] ”
Notice how they go from rem to rads to sieverts to mGy, all in just three paragraphs? They don’t want us doing the easy math, and I haven’t the patience at this moment to convert it. But if a satellite would take in 2500 rem per year, or 25 Sv, that’s .07 Sv per day or .003 per hour, rounding up. So 3 mSv, yes? Of the 50 per year safety standard max or whatever.
And they say the Apollo craft “rocketed through” the VA Belts, but looking up the timeline it took THREE DAYS to enter Lunar orbit. So which is it? Yes, the Belts are closer to the Earth than the moon, but even so…
And it seems to me that there would be other, perhaps more painful fields and boundaries where insolation meets the Earth’s charge as well.
3mm of aluminum foil hardly seems enough to thwart a bombardment of anything, much less quentillions of photons including x-ray energies and gammas. I mean, that’s not PROOF of anything, it just seems an insanely low number. My black garden plastic is thicker than that, and it traps and emits heat at a phenomenal rate.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
If I were to write a short story about this, I would tell a tale in which the Apollo 1 astronauts didn’t really die in a fire on the launch pad but rather during a secret launch which attempted to actually push them up into LEO. The result being roughly the same as the fire story.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“The result being roughly the same as the fire story.”
HmmMMmm!
LikeLike
tony martin said:
And don’t forget about the earth’s charge field that miles talks about that affects our energy levels.
Who knows….. maybe if you go too far away from the earth you might actually die!
Maybe we truly are in the womb of mother earth.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Jared:
“Notice how they go from rem to rads to sieverts to mGy, all in just three paragraphs?”
It’s the same with nutrition. You go down a list on an official site like the CDC or FDA and they often mix & match with mg per decilitre or milligrams per litre or micro-grams per millilitre or International Units (IUs). It’s almost as if they are deliberately setting out to confuse people who are trying to DIY their health back when their doctors have failed miserably over the past 30 years. Nutrition doesn’t earn the industry a single cent/penny.
“3mm of aluminum foil hardly seems enough to thwart a bombardment of anything.”
They can’t use lead it’s too heavy so have to dream up some special quality that aluminum has because it’s so lightweight, and just happens to be what the majority of the spacecraft is built from.
To be of any use against radiation in space the aluminum would need to be around 10 inches/250mm thick, according to a sceptical space tech.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
About 25 million meteors enter the Earth’s atmosphere each day.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast121/lectures/lec18.html
The Earth’s total surface area is about 200 million square miles.
https://www.universetoday.com/25756/surface-area-of-the-earth/
So, on average, that’s about one meteor for each 8 square miles (2.8 x 2.8 miles) per day. Of course, many don’t reach the ground but we’re not talking about the ground, we’re talking about the space outside the atmosphere.
Meteors enter the atmosphere at speeds ranging from 25,000 mph to 160,000 mph!
https://www.amsmeteors.org/meteor-showers/meteor-faq/
By way of comparison, the fastest rifle bullets travel at about 2800 mph. (.220 Swift, etc) Most rifle bullets travel at significantly slower speeds and bullets fired from handguns are slower still.
So, a meteor is a chunk of rock or iron traveling at speeds many times faster than rifle bullets.
How do space craft and satellites deal with this threat? According to NASA they use “Whipple Shielding”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris#Micrometeoroid_shielding
The wiki says this about Whipple Shields:
”… this consists of a thin foil film held a short distance away from the spacecraft’s body. When a micrometeoroid strikes the foil, it vaporizes into a plasma that quickly spreads. By the time this plasma crosses the gap between the shield and the spacecraft, it is so diffused that it is unable to penetrate the structural material below ”
Huh? Really? All they have to do is place a thin film of foil a short distance from the space craft and it protects them from objects traveling at tens of thousands of mph? Would YOU stand behind a thin film of foil while somebody shot a little rock at 100,000 mph at you? I wouldn’t and I have a really hard time believing this.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
That’s what I was thinking.
How come the space shuttle, hubble telescope,and all these space stations never get hit by anything?
I guess they’re just lucky.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Yes, and I don’t see any “Whipple Shields” on them either.
I would think the solar panels on satellites would be particularly vulnerable and you can’t shield them or they won’t work.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Maybe they really should be called “Wimpy Shields” 😁
Hey you know….. I think I’ll follow NASA’s wonderful technological achievement and make a bullet proof vest out of aluminum foil.
I’ll buy the heavy duty one of course.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71QMvzOQUlL.SX522.jpg
LikeLike
tony martin said:
amazon.com/Ultra-Thick-Commercial-Heavy-Duty-Foil/dp/B07BR29XV7/ref=asc_df_B07BR29XV7/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=242021929341&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=1750
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
This is the Solar Dynamics Observatory:
I don’t see any whipple shields on it. I hope it’s OK.
Looks like a rocket nozzle on the back end. It’s been up there for almost ten years so it must have a really big fuel tank. Too bad there’s no more Space Shuttles to fly up there and refuel it.
LikeLike
Cory W. said:
Yikes, Rolleikin further whipping away at all these proven hoaxes. Keep it up, you are on a roll (pun intended).
LikeLike
tony martin said:
The sun today.
[video src="http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/mpeg/latest_1024_0193.mp4" /]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Careful, there’s a lot of people around here who DON’T EVEN BELIEVE IN THE SUN so you’ll get a lot of backlash posting Solar Dynamics Observatory stuff since satellites DON’T EXIST. 😉
(JOKING!)
LikeLike
tony martin said:
I’m not on LSD or anything…… but I think it’s pretty cool looking at a video of the sun every day on that site.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Well I never said you WERE on drugs, silly! And I personally love the SDO imagery and footage. It is a prime example of real footage to me, of a real device really up in space doing exactly what it’s said to do – maybe more, but definitely doing its official job. There’s so much data there that it defies belief in a fakery, to me. I’ve been doing CGI for twenty years now and nobody has come close to faking the sun like that, without sourcing the actual sun for texture maps. I can’t even get close, procedurally. I’ve tried. I can do nuke explosions, waterfalls, ocean waves, and a host of other things but making realistic planets or the sun? Nope, just not that simple. Reality has a natural factor that is almost impossible to mimic. Even my nature scenes still look unnatural, despite all my efforts, the best software around, and really powerful computers.
The point where reality and fakery begin is a tough one, and we’ll all have different ideas where that point is for ourselves. And that’s fine. We’re all on different journeys, just converging here to share and critique ideas. Some will handle the critique better than others.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Oh…. I forgot you should add this music when you look at it in the morning.
LikeLike
R T said:
Interesting — the way you can see it darkens at the poles and the equator. Every real scan of the Sun is further evidence for Miles’s Charge Field. But if you ask the mainstream what is the cause of those dark spots, their answers are truly pitiful.
LikeLike