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.
tony martin said:
Has anyone seen this site?
“Truth Seekers
Fed up with the arrogance of self-anointed “authoritative” NAMELESS editors found on Jewish-owned Wikipedia who invariably ridicule alternative Medicine or Science? Turn to Natural Philosophers Wikipedia for those with a passion for TRUTH. ”
http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org
LikeLike
Philip Cox said:
Just skimming through this, founder was a John Chappell.
http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=John_Chappell
“John is survived by his sister, Sarah Chappell Trulove of Lawrence, Kansas, a niece, Ann Trulove of Burbank, California, and a nephew, Lt. Col. Paul Chappell Trulove, Ph.D., of Annapolis, Maryland.” He apparently passed away in 2002.
The CIA (Washington Post) even wrote about him:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whose-scientific-theories-are-permitted-into-the-mainstream/2017/03/17/a715293c-0725-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?noredirect=on
Most likely controlled opposition project. Honestly whenever I see a “Wiki” of anything I automatically assume its controlled op.
Actually looking up the name ‘Truelove’ I think outs it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Truelove
Red flags everywhere. Gosh he was a ‘freethinker’ AND was in a free-thinking society AND involved with the Chartists AND an Owenite.
“Whevever you go, there they are”
LikeLiked by 1 person
tonymartin said:
I just recently found the site.
Thanks for your response.
LikeLike
Philip Cox said:
Researching that site some more yields a bunch more interesting links, including a you tube channel by ‘dissident’ scientist David E Hilster:
“David de Hilster, scientist, artist, musician takes on the scientific world using something not enough people use: critical thinking. Nothing is sacred including the big bang, relativity, plate tectonics, gravity, light, quantum mechanics, intellectuals AND: the media! Check out our websites at:”
http://www.dissidentscience.com
http://www.einsteinwrong.com
https://sciencewoke.org/
http://www.dehilster.com/home/
I know a lot of people have a problem with the idea and accepting the fact of controlled opposition. I struggle with this all the time, knowing where to draw the line. There could very well be some real people involved here, like EU. I’m not a physics guy but browsing these sites it seems there’s some real people involved. But there’s lots of reds flags everywhere too. That’s just the nature of controlled opposition (or organizations in general now that the cat is out of the bag). They only need to place their people in the important control points. The rest can be filled in with real folks.
Best test is to see if they accept Miles Mathis theories on their forums and elsewhere. Miles list of accomplishments is still miles longer (pun intended) than any of these profiles I’m browsing here. Lots of EU guys involved here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
One of his videos:
“David de Hilster discusses why the photon as a concept is impossible.”
So he does not accept Miles’ theories, and obviously has never encountered them or is simply playing controlled opposition. If someone doesn’t believe they can actually see, it’s hard to take them seriously on anything physical.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Russell Taylor said:
“If someone doesn’t believe they can actually see, it’s hard to take them seriously on anything physical”
Isn’t that where the holographic universe is supposed to fit it?
I think I’m here, therefore I must be? Blame that Cartesian Descartes geezer….
It’s all in your head…..
LikeLike
lewis reid said:
Hilster? Hitlers?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
Yep.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Well, that site’s response to MM’s charge theory and his cultural observations would be the perfect litmus test to its spooky status. He does have an empty page there, with a photo and the wrong birth date, I think. The image is labelled 1954.jpg.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Actually this is the Solar Dynamics Observatory.
There’s a lot of shielding on it, though I don’t know how effective that shielding is and have already expressed my doubts. If we’re going to pick at something, let’s pick at the actual THING, not the shitty CGI of that thing we’re picking away at. The previously posted image was just an artist’s rendition – and that’s NASA tactics, not OURS.
If anyone wishes to believe that over eight years of DAILY solar data, photos, and movies are CGI of course that’s entirely up to them. As a professional in CGI, I have found no indications those photos of the sun aren’t real. There are literally thousands of them, as well as movies, in many different spectra which all match up. So if you don’t think our modern tech can photograph the sun, you can go ahead and not believe in your own computer, your cell phone, or even pixels themselves if you want. Mental gymnastics are FUN! Go right ahead.
Doubting that the sun exists is a project along the same lines as Flat Earth, reality is a Hologram, and we live in a simulation. Beware such hogwash.
LikeLike
Cory W. said:
Anyone remember the hollywood movie “Sunshine?” Particularly when the astronauts use a gold like shielding suit known as the “kenny suit.” That actually looks more believable in something that would be used to protect from the extreme environment. Wouldn’t that tech be more useful than this so called whipple shield for satellites.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cory W. said:
I don’t think any one here doubts the sun exist. Just that there is reasonable doubt to conclude that there is a satellite in space capturing these images.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
In this case, I lack reasonable doubt. I actually don’t have any doubts about the SDO. Why?
Not because of the gravity turn at launch or any editing shenanigans. Often folks who don’t understand orbital dynamics don’t understand the absolute need for a gravity turn, but even with a very efficient fuel source it is necessary. We’ve been over this before, and of course someone who’s never performed one won’t quite get it. So perform one, in simulation. We’ve mentioned multiple simulators here. KSP is the best one, but there are others too. Whatever, all of that is besides the point.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
The reason I believe the SDO to be a real device sending real images back is because the Tyrants would WANT to keep an eye on the sun – the sun is the most likely body to topple their hegemony, with a large solar burst or something similar that would disrupt their control network. The sun is the most obvious thing TO watch, and possibly the most dangerous.
That said, sizable incoming matter would be a much more dangerous thing to worry about, albeit historically more rare. So this throws us for another loop – because I mean, fuck nukes, a PURPOSEFUL, harmful use of even a small asteroid against the planet would be absolutely devastating. Far more dangerous than the sun lobbing additional smalle-scale radiation (photons) at us and potentially wiping out current communications tech.
So to go another direction, IF the powers that be had ANY real spacefaring capabilities, why have they not already weaponized nearby asteroids and also developed defenses against other “nations” doing the same? Nukes aren’t real. Asteroids are.
So in my opinion the SDO is real as far as I can tell. But much of the rest is NOT, it’s just really hard to tell where to draw the lines sometimes. I’m open to changing my mind, as should we all be. But I’m also really open to other people learning how orbital dynamics work so they can make better arguments and skip those easily unraveled.
Let’s say the SDO is not real, however. What is taking those photographs? It’s not CGI. Perhaps simply aiming a camera at a really small plasma event that changes just like the sun and rotates just like the sun and looks just like it too somehow, coincidentally I guess? Sunspots are also counted manually by a lot of people and they all line up with the SDO’s imagery, as far as I can discern going back. So we have a match there as well, but maybe they puts those fake sunspots into the little fake plasma bubble thingy too?
Farfetched, but I’m not playing Dragon’s Advocate here. The Devil tells me the SDO is probably real. I’ll ask the Dragon later and mull it over.
Also those are just metaphors. I really hope that was obvious but these days, you never know! 😉
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“….why have they not already weaponized nearby asteroids and also developed defenses against other “nations” doing the same?”
Maybe they have?
If that is true, then maybe we will get a show very soon to test the new weaponry.
Cover story?
A large meteorite about the size of Manhattan slammed into the Pacific Ocean last night with the force of 600,000 atom bombs. A 300ft tsunami is expected to slam into the California coast in a few hours. All San Francisco residents are being evacuated to higher ground…….
………or Tunguska………
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
That’s the difference though, Russell. An asteroid the size of Manhattan would destroy the entire Earth’s surface, or near enough to kill every living thing above. Wiped out. Game over.
Even a far smaller one would have devastating effects that make nukes look like little girly-toys. Tunguska is a fine example of one of the smallest such events.
We have no evidence that asteroids or meteors are being weaponized and to me that’s quite interesting. If nations were REAL and actually needed leverage against other nations (they aren’t, and don’t) instead of just fear-mongering like the Cold War, they would have done this by now in my opinion.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“An asteroid the size of Manhattan would destroy the entire Earth’s surface”
But, but, but, but, I was just throwing together a typical exaggerated news bulletin, with a lot of scare behind it. Don’t they always exaggerate to the n’th degree?
Like the story that men landed on the moon in a spacecraft made from wrapping paper and sticky tape hehehehe!
LikeLiked by 1 person
tony martin said:
If I was a betting man, and I’m not ……I think the odds are that the SDO most likely is real.
Also…. why can’t they use a giant telescope to do the same thing?
The thing is as far as satellites getting hit by space debris….. I think the odds of getting hit are pretty slim but not impossible ( I wouldn’t wanna be sitting up there) Well….. all they have to do is send up another one in place of it.
Small satellites burn up in the atmosphere and do not hit the earth. With all the money that there stealing I’m sure they could afford to put up another one.
.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Tony Martin said: “Also…. why can’t they use a giant telescope to do the same thing?”
Because of the atmosphere. But they already do have solar telescopes on the surface, they just can’t get as clear a shot and the atmosphere distorts and absorbs the various spectra. To get a good clean look at something, it’s best to eliminate as much noise as possible.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Just to clarify:
I, of course, do NOT doubt that the Sun exists and have never said any such thing.
I have never said the SDO images are CGI and do not think they are, necessarily.
However, I do believe the SDO is hoaxware and is not in space. The imagery being produced or captured by other means.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
Here is the launch of the SDO on Feb 10, 2010 from Cape Canaveral, Florida
The rocket is seen to rise straight up for a while and then curve into a level attitude. Then at about 2:00 the nose appears to begin to dip downward:
But, just a few seconds later at 2:05 there is an edit and suddenly the rocket appears much larger in the frame and is now moving in an upward angle again (?)
So, the footage shows the rocket traveling upward, then curved to level, then began to dip downward and just at that moment there was an edit and then it can be seen traveling upward again at roughly a 45 degree angle as it had done earlier in its flight.
Do rockets headed for orbit travel that way? Or, could it be that the rocket simply went up and then made a slow curve to a downward attitude just as if it was headed for a splash in the nearby ocean. And, this was covered up by cutting away just as it began to dip to earlier footage in its flight when it was still rising?
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
different cameras with different aspect ratios and planes of view. some of them ar aircraft used cameras designed to view straight ahead/down but can swivel to cover up to 180+ degrees so something travelling straight up (ish) viewed on a camera tilted at 60 or so degrees will look to be travelling at a different angle. same with the rocket launches.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
whoosh!
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
I don’t doubt they launch stuff. I was in Florida and watched a launch.they defo launch stuff. The KSP can confirm it too but like Jared says they won’t put the charge field into their equations so they’re wrong but tweaked. this is just different cameras at different angles. simples.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
don’t understand what this means. “Whoosh!” . no content. is it sarcasm? proof of something? argument? derision? no idea – sorry. please expand….
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Rolleikin is saying he doesn’t understand your point as in “it went over his head, like a plane”. The whooshing sound of a craft flying o’er head 😉
LikeLike
Smj said:
@haggis
I’ve seen NASA’s firework show from my grandmother’s place in florida when I was a boy. It was impressive seeing as we were over fifty miles away; but the chinese have been playing with multistage fireworks for at least 600 years per the narrative, so nasa better had put on a decent show 40 years ago of course…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huolongchushui
…I always wondered why the rockets took off so slow. Did you? Have you ever heard of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, the rocket equation and metal dirigibles guy?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Dear nada0101, if you’re going to take over my conversations I’d wish you’d at least get the answers right.
No, that is not what I am saying.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
So it was sarcasm?
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
So basically Rolliekin’s “whoosh” went right over our heads, like “whoosh”…
makes a gesture of a plane going over his head, or a fake satellite rocket
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
“Whoosh upon a star”?
Sorry, I couldn’t help it. Been a long but satisfying day, so I’m been playfully cheeky.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“Rolleikin is saying he doesn’t understand your point …”
No, you have it backwards. Sheesh! Is google broken?
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
That is what “whoosh” usually means in conversation, i.e. it has gone over your head. Perhaps the meaning has changed.
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
So you do understand my point then? Good. Sorted 🙂
LikeLike
tony martin said:
This seems interesting and I don’t know exactly where to post it but here it is if anyone is interested. I think that talking about charge but they don’t know it.
Density distribution of photospheric vertical electric currents
in flare active regions of the Sun
It is essential to study electric currents ( charge?) in active regions of the sun.
Solar magnetic fields determine solar activity, coronal heating, and acceleration of the solar wind.On the basis of Ampère’s circuital law, it was found that electric currents ( charge?) can flow along these tubes.
The presence of currents ( charge?) can affect the nature of propagation and dissipation of Alfvén waves in active regions of the sun, which may be important for the problem (what problem?) of coronal heating and solar wind acceleration.
Click to access 1908.09016.pdf
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Here’s something right up rolleikin’s alley!
NASA’s New Solar Scope Is Ready For Balloon Flight
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Now, balloons I believe in. 🙂
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Ah! At last, the secrets of how the SOHO and Hinode pictures and data are captured is revealed. No need for expensive satellites and equipment, although I expect ordinary tax payers have been billed an horrendous amount for these imaginary space labs. Thanks Tony for posting this, those in charge of these scams must get a real kick out of rubbing are noses in it, while feeding us all the lying PR tripe which they know we’ll eagerly swallow.
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
The question from the OP I hoped to answer in the other thread which became a bit off-topic, but what is the “general stance” here after the combined decades of research?
What is fake, until where and especially; on what basis, what is your benchmark/model/criterion?
1 – I think we can all agree that that clown show of Apollo was fake
2 – Mars rovers is also a no brainer I think
Then it becomes interesting:
3 – unmanned probes (“Voyager leaving our solar system and still working”?)
4 – LEO possible and beyond impossible?
5 – Manned space travel impossible/unmanned possible?
6 – ISS, what is it? Obviously there is a trackable observable light in the sky, but the story is that it was assembled in space by astronots (in a swimming pool), it was not launched as a whole object.
Then what is it?
And the hardest nut (at least for me it was);
7 – satellites (ergo; all space travel if you ascended the ladder)
If satellites would be real, how come we don’t have any photographs of Earth? There should be thousands of livestreams in different bandwidths showing:
– the Earth and continents in the right proportions
– the wealth of celestial light in the background
As we have never seen that, how would there be satellites? Why do all space photos look the same fakes as the proven fakes (Apollo/Gemini/etc. space “photos”)?
There are trackable, observable, predictable lights in the sky. That is a fact which would be stupid to deny.
But, there is no difference between an artificial satellite and a natural satellite;
– both work on the basis of [passive] reflected light
– both are in orbit (gravitational equilibrium)
– both are thus predictable
What makes one a “man-made satellite”? And what the other an NEO; Near Earth Orbiter?
Only because the trackers say so it must be a satellite?
We have no independent confirmation of what they are, right?
So we don’t see satellites. We see lights in the sky reflecting from objects that are sold to us as “satellites”.
By the same Paperclip and Disney guys…..
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Is it real or is it memorex?
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
It must be fake because that banjo is being played left handed and HItler wasn’t.
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Correct, Rolleikin, and although Hitler is obviously wanting to be the star of the show, nobody is looking at him.
The very low quality of the video is also a clue, as the wartime Germans had the excellent Ariiflex 16mm cine camera, a battered but working early 40’s model of which I was once lucky enough to own.
LikeLike
mantalo said:
I propose that Hitler was… a woman
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“… the wartime Germans had the excellent Ariiflex 16mm cine camera, a battered but working early 40’s model of which I was once lucky enough to own.”
I thought Arri didn’t make 16mm reflex cameras until the 50s. What model did you have?
LikeLike
Smj said:
I’ve been enjoying your recent posts although I don’t know about orbits and all that wizardly principia jazz. However, I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t try to disabuse the folks around here of their belief in satellites. I think it’s hilarious that grown men in 2019 still believe in the von Braun hustle. Little buddy, please enjoy the following comedic gold…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbs85I_AfEg
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VGEXWO8JV6k
…that shite is even funnier than the führer gesticulating about like an off-Broadway sissy in patent leather boots. I reckon we oughta start encouraging the belief in spaceships just for kicks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
nada0101 said:
My problem is I simply cannot disconnect Gaiassphere from POS. I don’t mind picking apart individual “satellite projects” (for example I now believe the ISS is an international fake) but to dismiss the whole technology as another fake doesn’t ring true.
I’ve seen the fast moving reflective objects with my own eyes and I don’t believe the Phoenies are somehow labelling naturally occurring satellites as their own creations in order to milk more money from the people. Such fast moving natural satellites would’ve been named by the Ancients long ago. They’re a recent phenomenon because I believe they are man-made.
There’s no point in coming at me with techno-babble because I’ll nay understand it 😛
LikeLike
Smj said:
It seems my little buddy just posts on pom to feck with tokarski, but if you want to run everybody’s favorite goddess off just ask where she gets her isotopes from.
I don’t know about the lights in sky. All that is over my head of course. All I know is rocks don’t fly and slow motion rockets are psilly. I can’t watch those early nasa vids without laughing. Just listen that pioneer golden probe video with the references to von Braun’s big brain and the witching hour. That’s real deal comedy. But what should we expect seeing as the first nasa administrator was a movie studio exec from paramount.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Tell you what, if someone proved to me that the Space Shuttles were fake, I would lose a serious amount of trust in everything…EVERYTHING!
I would also have to question the veracity of a very good friend.
But they look so beautiful and sound so awesome!
It’s the childhood brainwashing and Thunderbirds….thank you Mr Anderson.
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
“Tell you what, if someone proved to me that the Space Shuttles were fake”
How can they prove that to you?
What are the criteria to switch your belief system?
In order words; how do you falsify your own belief/conviction in the existence of “Space” Shuttles?
LikeLike
Smj said:
I reckon trust is the point of departure fer every hustle but I wouldn’t be too concerned about your friend’s veracity though. He prolly didn’t know no better. My father is a retired aerospace engineer that worked on some contracts that had to do with the flying brick and I can assure you he don’t know no better.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“It’s the childhood brainwashing and Thunderbirds…”
That statement may be truer than you realize. That is exactly the purpose of shows like that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
nada0101 said:
That Thunderbirds clip is funny given the context; but the point is soberingly true.
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
Great point.
And what about; they have? How would we know? Who possessed those records? Who could release them to us?
Sunspots were monitored by the Chinese for hundreds of years, I think that is pretty unchallenged history, so definitely they must have traced NEOs.
Who would notice that what was formerly “just an NEO” now suddenly is a man-made satellite?
The internet era and its military history is of course key; the trackers make the satellites. So the launches of “satellites” coincided with the growth in “registration” of them.
For me the most important part of it was answering the data; I used satellite data all my life and it is real data, not just some invented thing. There is much more under the link I gave.
I am quite disappointed by the level of depth at POM and have said so publicly, there is no secret in that. I enjoyed Josh’s and Vexman’s contributions and it’s a pity that all bursted.
I miss the weekly dose of genealogy and photo analysis (do more of that again!) by Miles Mathis. I thank him for having awoken me a huge bit on especially the historical con-text of it all. And we disagree on quite some points.
But this space thing fascinates me; where people lay the boundary and on which data they base their models.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“I’ve seen the fast moving reflective objects with my own eyes …”
So, you believe Spielberg used real dinosaurs in Jurassic Park? 🙂
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Sarcastic but illogical.
You know the story — I saw the fast moving shiny objects whizzing through the night sky whilst lying naked on a Devon beach…sorry drifted off there for a moment. They were pointed out to me by my companion and described as satellites, the man-made kind.
My point is that these phenomena are not natural (no Ancient Greek nor early modern observer has given ’em punny names) so I assume these are examples of the satellites we have launched.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
I believe that you made the assumption you described.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
It was always an assumption — I never claimed otherwise and if I did then I was wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nada0101 said:
But others see the same objects moving through the night sky. That is a fact. They are not ancient, natural objects. So I assume these are the satellites we have launched. Either way, you need a theory that explains these objects.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“Spy planes” began at the same time “satellites” began. They are fast moving, high altitude aircraft. Since “the cold war” and and espionage in general are basically theatrical activities and fodder for Hollywood movies and population control, there is no real need for one country to “spy” on others. “World leaders” are simply actors who do and say what their banker bosses tell them to do and say. So, what are spy planes really for?
Are spy planes fast enough to mimic satellites? I admit I’m not sure but I suspect they are. We don’t know the actual altitude of those bright dots that move across the sky and, although, the top speed of, say, an SR71 is published, it has also been stated that the speed is classified so we may not know how fast it really is. Or, other planes like it. Lockheed, Boeing and others have announced they have faster planes in the works and the government has been know to keep certain aircraft models secret from the public.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
I think this baby wants go sleep-sleep now.
Could all be fake I guess.
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-and-photograph-geosynchronous-satellites/
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Aye; very good point about the “spy” tech. They’re only spying on the peons, not each other. So that’s misdirection, as usual, or rather they’re telling us what they’re doing straight to our faces. Presumably they’re also greedily scouring the Earth for every last resource and piece of land to control.
And you make a good point about the timing of the “spy plane” technology. Food for thought indeed. Yes, I suppose you’d have to get an estimate of the speed and height of those things that whizz through the night sky (you can see I’m a high-tech scientist 😉 ).
I’ll also admit that those early launches are laughably fake (I said that in an earlier post that went to moderation) which begs the question: why? Still, just as I approached 9/11 or the “no nukes” theories, I’ll not believe any of it right up until I do!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
The speed is everything. For a plane to mimic the satellites, it would have to be moving at one helluva rate of knots. This would cause it to burn up. Where would it get all the thrust required to keep up that speed? To pass across the visual sky in a matter of 30 to 40 seconds, the plane would have to be travelling so fast it would melt then disintegrate. A U2 spy plane is slow moving and very fuel efficient so that design is out. An SR71 is still way too slow to pull off a show like that. If the plane was lower it would be easily photographed (cat out of bag). I just don’t see how an atmospheric object could possibly pass off as an extraterrestrial satellite. I use the word extraterrestrial in the context of ‘outside the atmosphere’. I use the word satellite in the context of an object, of any kind, which orbits the earth, either inside or outside it’s atmosphere. Any chunks of naturally occurring (very shiny) stuff orbiting this giant floating fish bowl, will eventually fall to Earth and burn up. They wouldn’t stay in orbit indefinitely. Very few would be shiny Then there are these predictable events.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare
Caesium drive, advanced aircraft I can accept but how would they travel at such immense speed to mimic a satellite unless outside the atmosphere, which seems to be the sticking point in this discussion, especially from the gaia perspective?
They would also tend to have fixed routes/flight-paths, whereas hundreds of satellites like spy satellites and the ISS and Hubble, all pass over at different angles and speeds. A high speed form of transport would not be seen passing overhead every 90 minutes 24/7 either.
Jared has pointed out more than once on this blog, that making a statement that you don’t believe something, then producing evidence is good and promotes healthy discussion. But stating that something is impossible, when the vast majority of evidence, including human witnesses, proves to be contrary to that belief, is simply pointless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Smj said:
If you assume those lights are man made satellites don’t you also have to assume the explorer and pioneer launches were legit?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
For an object to have a certain orbital period, it has to be at a certain distance. It’s literally that simple. Any other orbital period, a different distance. You cannot go out to say, 500 miles up and then speed up along your orbit. That would increase your apoapsis immediately and increase your distance from the Earth. That’s how orbits work. If you decelerate (back against your orbit), you change your apoapsis and descend. You may have the same periapsis (a non-circular orbit, an ellipse) but that’s how orbital dynamics work.
They cannot be high-altitude planes. They move too fast, have repetitive orbits easily calculated, observed, and verified.
I’ll have to admit it’s nice to see the Spooks step up their game a little bit and send another absolute normie douche in to attempt to confuse us. But let’s not give them that win.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Smj said: “If you assume those lights are man made satellites don’t you also have to assume the explorer and pioneer launches were legit?”
No, I don’t also have to. I personally thing Vger and some of the other early projects were legit, because the photos look legit to me and since I fake photography (architectural design rendering) for a living feel I’m well-qualified to say so. But that doesn’t mean I’m right, nor that you need to AGREE with me, or even agree that I’m well-qualified. I’m wrong on things all the time, not infallible.
But I also believe in physics and know exactly what it would take to achieve orbit, and even have studied it and simulated it thousands of times in several different programs. It’s the same math that describes natural phenomena, such as the planet’s orbits and the timings and positions of comets. Some of the math was compromised, and Miles fixed it. But the language of reality tells us things and I find it far more useful to listen to those things, and learn from them.
The Space Race fakeries could simply have been done for that purpose alone – to promote the brands (NASA) for massive pilfering of taxpayer money. Same with black holes. Black holes aren’t real, but gravity is. I don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
“The speed is everything. For a plane to mimic the satellites, it would have to be moving at one helluva rate of knots. This would cause it to burn up. Where would it get all the thrust required to keep up that speed? To pass across the visual sky in a matter of 30 to 40 seconds, the plane would have to be travelling so fast it would melt then disintegrate. “
Did you make calculations to arrive at this conclusion? If so, please post them.
How long would it take an aircraft to move across the sky at, say, Mach 5 @ 80,000 feet? (Mach 5 is stated as the speed of aircraft currently in development). What would be the skin temperature of said aircraft with a titanium body?
If you don’t know the answers then your statement above is just yada yada. 🙂
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
A high speed aircraft skin gets quite warm due to air friction but there’s a different kind of heating at much higher speeds, where the air becomes compressed in front of the aircraft. This is called the ram rise. RR = ram rise in Kelvin and V = true airspeed in knots.
RR = V²/87²
Take the SR71. Even at the limits of it’s maximum altitude with the very cold air temperature taken into account, it would still achieve a skin temperature of roughly 400C or 752F
That’s at just 1,910 mph only half of 3,800 mph (mach 5).
I’m not sure how you would calculate the time you could observe a mach 5 aircraft due to many problems. At that height and speed, there would almost certainly be zero contrails. The object would appear extremely small. Most military aircraft flying at that sort of altitude have in the past been matt black and anti-reflective, so it would be extremely difficult to see beyond 50 miles, even at that height. Air quality will play a huge part. Invisible at night.
Satellites on the other hand are much easier to time because they are mostly very shiny and spend a lot of time in the sun but are observable at night. Also they have fixed speeds and often fixed orbits and so are highly predictable.
An aircraft has headwinds, tailwinds, air density even at that height, differing fuel and possibly cargo loads.
A completely different set of parameters. So you can spot a satellite much earlier and at the right longitude follow it from horizon to horizon…almost.
So 30 to 40 seconds is a guesstimate based on observability.
Welcome to the yada free zone.
LikeLike
Smj said:
Jared, I think it’s awesome that you believe in the voyager missions. Carl Sagan would be proud. I don’t believe in them; butwhatever, have you ever seen the famous picture of von Braun, Van Allen, and Pickering holding aloft above their collective big brains that replica of explorer one? Well, Pickering was in the photo cause he ran jack Parson’s lab. Jpl gave us explorer one and it just so happens that jpl runs the deep space network too…
https://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/news/
…I’ve been perusing the images that the voyager missions supposedly sent back to jpl’s deep space network. It’s good stuff; I get a chelsey bonestell vibe from them but I’m no expert of course…
https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/images-voyager-took/saturn/
…it seems to me that a billion kilometers is a bit far to be sending data back and forth but I’m sure it works out in your simulation software so all is well. Bytheway, thanks for the heads-up about the absolute normie douches mucking about I’ll be on the lookout cause normies are fun. They will believe damn near anything.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Smj said: “…it seems to me that a billion kilometers is a bit far to be sending data back and forth but I’m sure it works out in your simulation software so all is well.”
But you believe in photons, yes? They move at the speed of light because they are light, correct?
We don’t need simulation software to understand how photons work, Smj. Have you ever heard of Miles Mathis? You should read some of his papers sometime, so you can catch up and understand the topic we’re discussing a bit better.
“Saturn is on average 890 million miles from Earth, and it takes around 83 minutes for radio waves to cross that distance at the speed of light, making communication difficult.”
So you believe in physical (snail) mailed letters and packages which take days to travel from one point to their destination, but not photons moving to and fro? Interesting. Also I know you don’t actually believe that, so why would you say otherwise?
I referenced the software simulations (especially Kerbal Space Program) because they are based on actual, real physics and actual, real orbital dynamics – all back-engineered by studying the actual, real solar system and the actual, real planets, moons, the sun, and other stars as we observe them. Orbital dynamics that describe and even predict the actual, real bodies in space and how the move and why. All easily testable – and where many of the old maths were wrong, easily corrected by Miles himself. But they got CLOSE. He just closes the gaps in theories and supplies new answers and more accuracy. I can’t say what Miles believes or not but it’s a safe bet he actually believes in physics, since he wrote some 300+ papers on the topic already.
It’s entirely up to everyone to decide for themselves what is believable, but you can’t straw man me with veiled insults. It’s your fault you don’t understand orbital dynamics, not mine. Learn it if you like, ignore it if you want, but since you choose the latter so far you’re not going to do well in a debate with someone who does understand the topic at hand. I didn’t come here to make friends or allies, I came here to give my take on space spookery based on years of research and testing.
Anyone muddying the waters on this topic is going to have a rough time, but I feel you’re trying to be genuine and skeptical and you were NOT the normie douche I was referring to, not at all. We’ve agreed on dozens of things before – we can disagree on this one and carry on.
LikeLike
Smj said:
Well actually, I don’t believe in onestone’s discrete packets of light(I don’t do quantum nonsense) nor do I trust arthur compton’s wave particle duality mumbo jumbo, but that is beside the point. My problem with radio wave propagation over billions of kilometers is the power it takes to generate the signal not how fast the radio wave travels. I apologize for not clarifying my point; but honestly I thought the point was pretty self evident…
“The two Voyage spacecraft certainly have had an amazing track record. They were sent to photograph planets like Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune and have just kept on going past the outer edge of the solar system. Voyager 1 is currently over 7 billion miles (about 11 billion kilometers) away from Earth and is still transmitting — it takes about 10 hours for the signal to travel from the spacecraft to Earth!
The Voyager spacecraft use 23-watt radios. This is higher than the 3 watts a typical cell phone uses, but in the grand scheme of things it is still a low-power transmitter. Big radio stations on Earth transmit at tens of thousands of watts and they still fade out fairly quickly.”
https://science.howstuffworks.com/question431.htm
…11 billion kilometers with the power equivalent of 7 or 8 aa batteries, seriously? Bytheway, are you familiar with arthur compton? If not here’s some background…
“Arthur Compton (1892-1962) was an American physicist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics. A top administrator and advisor during the Manhattan Project, Compton played a key role in the making of the atomic bomb. He headed a National Academy of Sciences committee, whose members included Enrico Fermi, Leo Szilard, and Eugene Wigner, that examined the potential use of atomic energy for military purposes — research that was already going on at the University of Chicago.
From 1942 to 1945, Compton was project director of the Chicago Met Lab, an important university outpost of Manhattan Project research and development where Chicago Pile-1, the first controlled, self-sustained nuclear chain reaction, took place. The Met Lab supported the development, construction, and operation of the reactors at Hanford and the enrichment activities at Oak Ridge. In 1945, he served on the Scientific Panel of the Interim Committee that recommended military use of the atomic bomb against Japan.”
https://www.atomicheritage.org/profile/arthur-h-compton
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
@Smj: So you’re not actually familiar with Miles Mathis or his work in physics?
Everything in your last response tells me you’ve never read his work. 300+ papers on charge, which is photons, which are particles of light and the fundamental building block of all matter.
Either photons are coming from Vger and being intercepted on Earth or they aren’t. I believe photons exist because I can see, among many other reasons. A stream of data emitted as photon patterns also exists, and I’m even using one right now to write this response. Actually using several. Wireless keyboard/mouse, plasma screen (emitting photon patterns to my eyes), Wifi to the router, then photon signals over to my ISP and out to this site. And it all happens at the speed of light, minus impedance. Amazing how easy it is to prove these things exist.
LikeLike
Smj said:
Ok. Let’s assume photons are real. What about the 11 billion kilometers with 23 watts?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Oh, you mean 1,432,316,160 kilometers? To Saturn? You first said 1 billion then 11 billion, perhaps just a type?
22 watts = 22 joules per second. That’s the RATE of energy transfer. How many photons is that? A joule of course “is equal to the energy transferred to (or work done on) an object when a force of one newton acts on that object in the direction of the force’s motion through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or N⋅m). It is also the energy dissipated as heat when an electric current of one ampere passes through a resistance of one ohm for one second.”
So how many photons is that, still? “The ampere was then defined as one coulomb of charge per second.” or often simply an ampere-second. So I don’t know exactly how MANY photons that is, but we’re talking quentillions. Not just billions. Look at a 22-watt light bulb. It’s pushing just a phenomenal amount of photons per second, in visible AND infrared.
So is 22 watts pretty weak, as a radio? Sure. But we’re still talking about an enormous QUANTITY of photons per second (radio spectrum photons), well beyond billions. Miles or others could do the actual math but the point is that these photons will not ALL make it to Earth, but many could and would. Noise plays a role in any such transmission but the photons are still moving back at light speed, and billions of them. So the PATTERN in the flickers of the emitter would still be perceptable, and it’s the PATTERN that matters and creates the image on this end of the data transfer, not the photons themselves. They aren’t beaming the image recorded on the device, they’re beaming a bitmapped grid of pixels that represents that image.
It may very well be possible that 22 watts is too weak. But my cell phone processor is only pushing 7-15 watts and it’s pretty damn amazing.
LikeLike
Smj said:
The voyager spaceships are way past Saturn now per the narrative. I mentioned the 1 billion kilometers when I mentioned the bonestell-like photos the voyager spaceship took of Saturn. Then in another reply I gave the shocking(to me least) current 11 billion kilometer number.
Well anywhoo, those photons sure are amazing; I’ll never look at a double a battery the same.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
@Smj: Don’t get me wrong, I think that’s a very valid doubt to have. I’m not CONVINCED either, but the older Vger photos to me often have that very natural look to them that you really can’t quite get with CGI. I mean, it’s possible to do NOW and many have come very close, but not across a wide array of images and certainly not in the 1970s and 80s.
My reply was me playing Dragon’s Advocate and trying to argue against myself, basically. So I still remain highly skeptical of ALL this stuff, even when I’m doing my best to counter the skepticism with data or physics.
And another angle is, “How would I MYSELF make this work, if I were designing a probe?” And I have designed quite a few, with power consumption being a very big factor. RTGs are pretty cool though, just not terribly efficient:
“Each RTG had a total weight of 37.7 kg including about 4.5 kg of Pu-238.[2] It uses 24 pressed plutonium-238 oxide spheres and provides enough heat to generate approximately 157 watts of electrical power initially – halving every 87.7 years. ”
And:
“Each Voyager spacecraft has 3 RTGs. Collectively, the RTGs supplied each Voyager spacecraft with 470 watts at launch.”
And:
“The key to receiving the signals is therefore not the power of the radio, but a combination of three other things:
“The antennas that the Voyager spacecraft use are big. You may have seen people who have large satellite dish antennas in their yards. These are typically 2 or 3 meters (6 to 10 feet) in diameter. The Voyager spacecraft has an antenna that is 3.7 meters (14 feet) in diameter, and it transmits to a 34 meter (100 feet or so) antenna on Earth.”
So I find this feasible, myself. For the most part it SEEMS like it would work. But that doesn’t mean conviction and skepticism is in order at all times with these assholes.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
This reply is to around 6 or 7 people who posted interesting comments.
One way or another, I think we can all take away something useful from this discussion.
Maintenance or a lack thereof. That is a sticking point for me too.
Amount of fuel for keeping accurate orbit over many, many years. That’s a lot of fuel and endless reliability.
Battery cells, mechanical actuators, circuitry and temperatures. That puts my head in a spin. Its easy to assume they have the technology (ahem) but as with Apollo 11, the cameras were bog standard Hasselblads with a couple of fairly standard lenses, using standard film. In broad daylight too so the results should have been stunning….but weren’t.
Horizon curvature in satellite photo’s. Woah! Way too close to flat earth there folks.
Big dishes for send and receive. I’m with you on that score JM but the inverse square law raises it’s head whenever you try to explain away vast distances and EM radiation. After travelling 11 billion km that radiation level has a lot of zero’s after the decimal point.
Mars Rover high gain antenna is rated at 100W using a 3 metre dish. Receive sensitivity has a max threshold of -156 decibels per milliwatt. That is forking sensitive. But we are only talking an average of 45-50 million miles closest approach and the receiving dish is 34 metres across.
Voyager is using Thunderbirds technology and is 6,800,000,000 miles away. It’s electronics are not only Viking long boat tech’ but have been functioning longer than recorded history (lots of sarc). The mars rover is using modern gigabyte/terabyte level tech’, not ‘tap once for yes – twice for no’ 1970s garbage.
I don’t doubt that Voyager is real, went to Joopiter, took some beautiful holiday snaps, then continued on it’s merry way. But still functioning and capable of sending back useful data? Naah! I can’t accept that. That is Marvel Comic level abilities to me.
Spiderman would be proud.
Now if I were to make a valid excuse as to how it’s possible to communicate over those distances using EM radiation, I would suggest a high frequency pulsed laser. Very accurately focused, low power use, immensely high data speed capability.
Stick a receiver on the moon or in space.
Real satellites? Yes.
As many as we are told? Probably not. GPS? Definitely.
Capabilities exaggerated? Oh yes I believe they have to be.
Mars Rover….real? Possible erm. Probable no. We can’t even get our most reliable tech to work here on our floating fish bowl.
That technology, lots of which is mechanical, has to work in these temperature extremes:
Average -60C
Poles in winter -125C
Equator in daytime +20C
Equator night time -73C
That’s a very tough environment for anything mechanical.
Probes been to Mars? Yes I have no doubt. But a probe with a thermometer, sending back around 30kb of data once in a while, isn’t a fully functioning vehicle with cameras, test equipment and computer controlled mechanics, mostly automatic, sending back high res Netflix level data streams, half way across the galaxy (sarc).
Shuttle real? Yes.
As many missions as we are told? Doubtful.
Hubble real? Yes. Function? Highly dubious.
Moon landing? Today probably possible…. 1969? Don’t be silly!
ISS green screen test facility? Yes. I have seen it pass over using a low power telescope with wide angle eyepiece. There’s definitely something up there that fits the description. Function? Highly dubious, and extremely suspicious.
Military operational base for future space based weaponry, being tested using Hubble as a cover? I think this is highly probable, and the main reason why they are spending so much effort, resources and expense on the whole mission.
So that’s where I stand.
Ooh ….. I can hear the shrapnel approaching already!
LikeLike
mantalo said:
i have one question :
do you still believe that Univers was created in a BIG BANG from a heavy and dense SINGULARITY (that nobody can explain) ?
i have think about this question and i believe now that it’s very convenient that even our Univers started in huge violence and from nowhere.
As the Unabomby… violence from nowhere, big energy from nowhere…
it’s convenient because if Univers = big bang = violence and hell, people will think it’s normal that we still live in a violent world.
If our environnement comes from violence, it’s impossible for us to believe zero-violence is possible.
it’s a way to program our minds to “necessary violence” (an excuse to wars ?) or it helps to perpetuate the myths of… Necessary Violence.
If the Big Bang is a hoax (used by the Punic Axe Powers Leading Earth, the PAPLE or la Casa de Apple), to hook the ox in fake violence, as Miles had proved, we have to find another story… with no big bang, no explosion, no extreme heat, no 300 000 years spicy soup, but something different …
We have to imagine another story… may be opposite, starting in a breath or a whisper or… a vibration…
in principio erat verbum (John 1:1)
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“….do you still believe that Univers was created in a BIG BANG from a heavy and dense SINGULARITY….”
Nope! Always existed. Creation is religious fantasy….the only thing which creates anything is the universe itself. The singularity is just a fanciful concept. Cannot physically exist, only as an idea in someones brain.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
The universe wasn’t created and didn’t create itself….it just is, and has always been, and will always be.
LikeLike
R T said:
I believe Miles has, about 100 times over, all but destroyed the ridiculous notion of a singularity. Mathematically, logically, rhetorically, and just about every other way. A point has no dimensions, no extension. A point, thus, cannot have infinite mass. It’s actually that simple. Something that is a point cannot have mass, or any other measure of extension. This also goes for the Photon — the photon cannot be a point if it has mass-equivalence. Logic abides that for it to have mass-equivalence, it cannot be a point.
LikeLike
mantalo said:
yes, but my english is not fluent enough to follow the Miles physic writings, and even if i could read these papers, my knowledge in physic will not be suffisant to understand what it is about… i’m sorry i didn’t read the 100 times Miles broke down the concept of singularity… 😦
so, there is no beginning ? no “GO” ?
no start ?
it’s difficult to believe because inside everything seems to have a start and one end…
LikeLike
Josh said:
Everything is a continuation. Where we put the ‘beginning’ and the ‘end’ are the places where we choose (somewhat arbitrarily) to mark as beginning and end.
LikeLike
Smj said:
Funny how le mâitre gave us the primeval adam, ain’t it? Who writes this shite?
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
I don’t see how someone can laugh at the early satellites yet think the current ones are any more real. IMO, all that’s improved is the methods of fakery.
Those same people might want to ask themselves what technological foundation the current satellite tech is based on? It takes lots of trial and error to advance a technology so when did satellites suddenly start being real? And, how did they get real with nothing but fakes preceding them?
“OK, guys. No more fake stuff. From now on we’re REALLY gonna start launching satellites!” 🙂 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
Smj said:
Yep, if you believe in modern satellites you gotta own that von Braun shite too.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Not necessarily. You can argue that the purpose of the von Braun fakery is misdirection, i.e. telling the world that the technology was created by those nefarious Nazis but that we were compelled to carry on the research. The real truth being that the Families who managed that war controlled all that research.
I do agree that those news reports about the early satellite launches are fake and I cannot explain the reason for their existence. So that is a point in favour of the “all man-made satellites are fake” argument.
The problem is I know there are objects up there and they are not natural phenomena. So just because I cannot fathom a reason for the early launch fakery doesn’t mean I have to agree with your theory.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Smj said:
I’m not sure what you’re getting at nada. Where would the misdirection lie? Folks like Von Braun and Willy Ley were Disney heros. Von braun even wrote elon musk’s contemporary mars mission absurdity into the narrative…
https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/06/wernher-von-braun-novel-may-have-predicted-elon-musk/
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-spacex-mars-plan-timeline-2018-10
…perhaps you’re arguing the Families were too embarrassed to take credit for all that childish spaceship nonsense? If so, I see your point. I’d be embarrassed of that shite too.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
For some reason this whole thread reminds me and sounds like the:
“Reality is not reality and everything is fake theory”
Don’t worry…… I’m not real…… and I’m not really posting this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Smj said:
who said everything is fake?
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
I’ve still got that sinking feeling that someone is going to start pushing a certain favourite theory of the Spooks 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
I disagree – Gaiasphere is her own project and uses her own brand of religious spookery to attempt to throw us off. I ran into her over at POM before Tokarski fucked up and overplayed his hand, and it was garbage over there as well.
Nobody is actually that stupid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
gaiassphere said:
The whole “Langley” trolling girls locker room level accusations aside, this so brilliantly shows you don’t know anything about me.
I know smj chuckled when he read your post.
Thank you, you made my already superb day.
LikeLike
LeakyGut said:
Well then, is that you or Kermit the frog pitying himself in the girl’s locker room?
fakeologist.com/blog/2018/09/15/fac495-ab-jlb-velocet-rollo-spiro-typo-tomd/
Skip to the 2h09min mark and cry out loud (again)… “sehewentiiieeen years”… bitching for money.
Poor thing, have a superb day at the bar!
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Wow! Is that our competition?
LikeLike
Josh said:
@LeakyGut
I couldn’t hear what you’re talking about, and I didn’t have the patience to try to parse out who was talking or what they were talking about. Honestly I don’t know how you have the stomach to listen to these people drone on for hours at a time.
LikeLike
LeakyGut said:
“I don’t answer those kinds of questions.”
LOL. So sad…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
@Tony Martin:
My default position is that everything we were/are taught and see on the MSM news is fake or spun into something that conveys the wrong information. I work on the principle of ‘same effect, same cause; unless there is extraordinarily strong evidence to the contrary’. The codicil to this is that if one single event, like the moon landings, is proved beyond reasonable doubt to be bogus, everything else to do with rockery is a fraud until proved otherwise.
This is a good method to help sort the wheat from the chaff, and rid oneself of beliefs. Getting rid of beliefs is especially important to being objective as those running the Shoah never give us complete information and rely on authority personalities and their helpers to sell their rubbish. Just like magicians they rely on slight of hand, misdirection and incredulity to stop ordinary folks seeing through their Pantomime. However, even after many years of adopting this ultra-sceptical approach, I still get suckered in once in a while and have to kick myself hard once I realised I’d been duped. It’s not easy!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Russell Taylor said:
“The codicil to this is that if one single event, like the moon landings, is proved beyond reasonable doubt to be bogus, everything else to do with rockery is a fraud until proved otherwise.”
I know it’s a typo Boris but I had to laugh. Getting one of these into space would be tricky to say the least.
This is where the seeded confusion does it’s work. I notice the word blackwashing used to be writ large even at Wiki if my memory hasn’t been Mandela’d. I tried to get a link for someone so they could see that it was an old, official term but couldn’t find a single link. How odd?
LikeLiked by 1 person
nada0101 said:
Now I might have a chance with Rockery Science. Maybe.
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Doh… 🙂
Although Elon Musk did send a car into space, allegedly, so a few rocks and dirt with a couple of scabby plants shouldn’t be too difficult – could explain the real reason for all those regular meteor showers we see!
It is strange that blackwashing turns up no information, while white-washing has become whitewashing and is used by Neolibertards to mean casting white actors in preference to black ones. Perhaps blackwashing has now become part of the lexicon of spooks and isn’t allowed for general use?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
cod·i·cil
/ˈkädəˌsəl/
noun
noun: codicil; plural noun: codicils
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
I have only one thing to say about that…..appendix!
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Yes……. But the baby in the bath water ( true reality) is the ultimate goal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Nice dream to have, but I think we are only at the beginning of the very long road to the truth, and we have millennia of untruths to deal with. Perhaps if we can cast enough doubt about many specific believed truths, more people will start to become sceptical and it will be harder for the writers of the script to stay in control. Like fairies,once you stop believing they just fade away to nothing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
While I disagree with Boris’s premise, I do agree with his methodology and feel he’s being honest about his opinions.
I believe we have NASA, fronting up mostly fake projects and siphoning as much money as they can to the Tyrants from the science angle, and then we have the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), and similar hardcore tech/military programs, who likely are in charge of all the REAL projects. The ones that promote the Tyrants’ will to perpetually dominate and get richer and richer.
What is their goal? Immortality, of course. Altered Carbon nails it right on the head. And the entire show is about the ultra-rich finally achieving this goal. I don’t think it was just good sci-fi, I believe that’s what these people hope to achieve and they will stop at nothing to do so. In the show, alien tech is discovered on another planet (the Elders) and THAT is how the ultra-rich achieve immortality. But I don’t think the Tyrants need alien tech, they think that throwing more money at a problem will solve it, likely.
From the Wiki:
“It designs, builds, and operates the reconnaissance satellites of the U.S. federal government, and provides satellite intelligence to several government agencies, particularly signals intelligence (SIGINT) to the NSA, imagery intelligence (IMINT) to the NGA, and measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) to the DIA.[5]
“The Director of the NRO reports to both the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense[6]. The NRO’s federal workforce is a hybrid organization consisting of some 3000 personnel including NRO cadre, Air Force, Army, , CIA, NGA, NSA, and Navy personnel.[7] A 1996 bipartisan commission report described the NRO as having by far the largest budget of any intelligence agency, and “virtually no federal workforce”, accomplishing most of its work through “tens of thousands” of defense contractor personnel.[8] ”
Of course, we know that 3,000 number to be an outright lie.
LikeLike
mantalo said:
troposphère V
launch from RDC
the last sentence of the video : « next time the team hopes to put a satellite in orbit »
first time i saw this video, some years ago, i didn’t know what to think … now i understand, this is a joke, they joke about space fakery 🙂
the moment they explain that they will put a rat in the rocket ! 🙂
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
@nada5:
“…The problem is I know there are objects up there and they are not natural phenomena. So just because I cannot fathom a reason for the early launch fakery doesn’t mean I have to agree with your theory.”
I’ve been a sky-gazer from the age of ten and can confirm that bright dots tracking across the early evening sky are a newish unnatural phenomena and are exactly what they are supposed to be – artificial satellites, mainly being used to push propaganda at us 24/7 and to keep a watchful eye on us at all times. I’m amazed this post has been diverted so far off track so easily, perhaps the rocketry brain-washing is very deep.
To understand how satellites are real, whilst the rocket programme is likely bogus you have to remember Mile’s papers on UFO tech, first seen by the public back in the ’40s Cape Girardeau, Missouri flying saucer crash. The rocket program is simply a cloak being used by the script writers to account for all the reflective hardware we see most nights, gliding across the star-field, while keeping the Caesium-drive craft secret. Rockets were almost obsolete before they were invented.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nada0101 said:
Nice posts.
I’m not surprised because I personally am dealing with cognitive dissonance across these subjects:
Rocket science is a fraud.and there are no man-made satellites.
2.. There are man-made satellites but rocket science is still a fraud.
Some of those satellites and some of those rockets are real? Not sure anyone here suggested that but just putting down my thoughts.
I still believe there are man-made satellites. This is based on logic and corroboration of personal experience; but now I cannot be confident about what they look like and how they got up there. Without further personal research and learning, I’m now sceptical of “rocket science”. All my mental imagery and limited knowledge is based on the phoeny MSM and thus quite suspect.
My assumptions on “rocket science” and satellites have been severely shaken. The common phrase “It’s not rocket science” now seems like another phoeny joke.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
That second paragraph got garbled. I had numbered the conflicting statements:
Rocket science is a fraud.and there are no man-made satellites.
2.. There are man-made satellites but rocket science is still a fraud.
Some of those satellites and some of those rockets are real? Not sure anyone here suggested that but just putting down my thoughts.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
WordPress aint letting me number me statements 😀
One last try…
1 Rocket science is a fraud.and there are no man-made satellites.
2 There are man-made satellites but rocket science is still a fraud
3 Some of those satellites and some of those rockets are real? Not sure anyone here suggested that but just putting down my thoughts.
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
Good you do, because it still remains unclear not only what but also why people keep believing the space travel stories.
4 Rocket technology works in the environment it has been developed for. It cannot work using the same principles without it.
“Space” (whatever it is, call it ether or charge field if you like that better) is inaccessible. Ad infinitum.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Gaispore said: ““Space” (whatever it is, call it ether or charge field if you like that better) is inaccessible. Ad infinitum.”
You don’t even know what SPACE is, and you’re here opining (poorly, inaccurately, and erroneously in every comment) about Space Fakery?
Space is NOT the ether. Space is NOT the charge field. Space is simply the gaps between particles of matter – that’s it. Space exists here on Earth right now, and we navigate it and access it constantly. You can’t NOT navigate and access space.
All of your postulates, arguments, and ideas presented here are fatally flawed since you can’t even get the most basic tenet of physics correct. You’re a spook and that’s all you are. You’re here to misdirect people and it won’t work because we’re smarter than you – AND we even know what the fuck space is.
Crawl back to Langley, clown. Tell them to upgrade your Corolla to a Camry and shut the fuck up. Tell them to send someone who knows a single thing about physics maybe – if they even have anyone who does. You’re a waste of time at best, and I won’t let you waste more of mine.
Don’t even know what the fuck space is. Jesus.
LikeLiked by 3 people
nada0101 said:
Lol. Well said.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
That was so brilliant that now I know what space is. I never really thought about it before now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
So, if part of the space program is real and part is fake, how do they organize that exactly?
Do they have one team of guys doing the fake stuff and another team that does the real stuff? And, do they keep them apart so they don’t have a chance to compare notes? Like separate restrooms and break rooms and whatnot? 🙂 🙂 🙂
Per Miles’ papers, are some of the serial killers real and some fake? Are some of the shooting incidents real and some fake? Are some famous historical figures real and some fake? Are some nuke blasts real and some fake? (And, so on and so on.)
Do you see a pattern here, folks? Hello? How many times does the man have to take your money at 3-card monte before you smell a rat?
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Mixing fakery with truth is not an usual method for the spooks. It helps trip up those trying to discern the truth. I can see that your passionate about this but I still believe there are man-made satellites up there. How they got there and what they look like, well I’m open-minded about that.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
In an office or factory setting, different departments rarely know what each other are doing, hence the constant lack of cohesion and never ending cock-ups.
The saying, “the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing”, springs to mind.
With 50 billion people working on the Apollo programme(sarc), very few people ‘needed to know’ and so on and so on. The rest all had their own little job and tool bag and canteen and never even met the people who knew how the dots were actually joined.
Just like the real world.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“In an office or factory setting, different departments rarely know what each other are doing, hence the constant lack of cohesion and never ending cock-ups.”
This doesn’t really answer the question I posed. It takes a team to design satellites and space vehicles and the team does have to communicate with fellow members. So, is there one team for the fake stuff and another team for the real stuff? Or, does one team do both? Do you suppose?
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
There are hundreds of teams, sections, departments, some are doing the fake stuff and some are doing the real stuff and I reckon none of them are aware of whether what they are doing is either real or fake. To them it’s all real.
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
“So, if part of the space program is real and part is fake, how do they organize that exactly?…”
USA/Russia/China et al use the same tech for fake space rocket projects (e.g. us Space Shuttle Program) that the military use for their top secret ballistic missiles and planes, so I would expect the faux projects to be mainly manned by spooks. Anyone with the specialist skills needed to engineer some specific equipment for the hoax would have to sign the Official Secrets act, so little or no chance of a leak.
The military and civilian satellites we see most nights are designed and manufactured by accredited defence contractors, with Boeing, Airbus Space and Lockheed Martin having the lions share. Even the non-military contractors like Space X and Oxford Uni Harwell SIC are both obvious spook operations, so the consequences for any decent person thinking about a spot of whistle-blowing are dire. Should they do decide to do it, despite the risk, they know the spook owned MSM would do a black-wash job on them to stop them being believed.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
That should say…
“Mixing fakery with truth is not an unusual method for the spooks…”
Anyway, this peon is bowing out of this one until I can add something new to the debate.
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
I think your contributions, along with a few others, have been very helpful to this debate. Often answers are not as important as asking the right questions when it comes to seeing the more important big picture. Keeping a totally open mind about the things you don’t know, whilst holding on to the bits that are evidentially true is a good approach to dealing with this minor issue and the whole plethora of other divisive issues written into the script.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Anyway… I don’t see what’s so important about debunking satellites.
There not even manned.
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
Having technology that can function
– without maintenance
– many times its mission time
– under the most extreme conditions
– in an environment with the temperature extremes
That would be quite a breakthrough. Unfortunately it’s all lies.
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
@Tony:
“…There not even manned.”
Correct. The only time man has allegedly gone into deep(ish) space was the faux Apollo Mission. So at best we’ve possibly only ever visited low Earth orbit for shot periods of time, as anything over about 2000 miles altitude is too dangerous for our biology to be able to cope with. Too much charge is just as bad as too little.
I also think the existence, or otherwise, of operational satellites is a red herring and likely controlled opposition. I’m in the same place as Jared on this one, regarding orbital timing, speed and altitude and also by personal observation of the skies over many years. No satellites in the 50’s to many today, with numbers increasing rapidly throughout this period. Only those in low Earth orbits seen, of course.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Russell Taylor said:
“so it [high altitude & speed aircraft] would be extremely difficult to see beyond 50 miles, even at that height. … Invisible at night. Satellites on the other hand are much easier to time because they are mostly very shiny and spend a lot of time in the sun but are observable at night.”
To a ground observer, wouldn’t a high altitude aircraft with a bright light look a lot like a satellite reflecting sunlight?
I’ve seen these “satellite” dots and that’s all they are — bright dots. Just like stars only moving.
Or, if there never were any real satellites, then no one would know what a real satellite would look like anyway. So, comparisons would be ludicrous.
And, how come we never see any of those thousands of pieces of space junk that are supposed to be out there? Old defunct satellites and rocket ship parts, they say. Don’t they reflect sunlight too? Could it be we don’t see them because they aren’t there?
“…30 to 40 seconds is a guesstimate based on observability.”
Thanks for the answer but, as you also say …
“I’m not sure how you would calculate the time you could observe a mach 5 aircraft due to many problems.”
… so, it’s just a guess. And, the data you’re using on skin temperature, etc comes from NASA anyway so …
Which reminds me — why is NASA publishing details about spy planes? Shouldn’t that information be classified? Even data about allegedly retired spy aircraft? I mean, the folks they are allegedly spying on have internet access too and even divulging specs on old hardware would help them extrapolate specs on current hardware, I would think.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“To a ground observer, wouldn’t a high altitude aircraft with a bright light look a lot like a satellite reflecting sunlight?”
Good point but difficult to produce a light with enough brightness, at that distance, to shine across a 160 degree cone so most ground based observers could see it clearly. Not sure about flaring which would be tricky on an aircraft, unless of course the light were made to strobe to simulate rotating in the sun. It’s all doable I guess.
Satellites would have no problem with brightness at any distance as they are reflecting the sun. A satellite needs very little fuel to correct it’s orbit occasionally when required. An aircraft travelling at that kind of speed would require a huge amount of energy and therefore fuel. Seems counterproductive somehow. Unless they use a new propulsion system. Possible. You might say that they are carrying paying passengers. I would counter with the argument that they are far too regular with fixed orbits to be of any use as a form of transport.
Why do we all point our satellite TV dishes at the same point in the sky?
If they don’t point at geostationary satellites then what are they pointing at?
“And, the data you’re using on skin temperature, etc comes from NASA anyway…”
The ram raise is a simple formula for determining the air heating effect in ballistics and military aircraft design. It’s very useful but not exclusive to NASA.
The metal alloys list I gave to show that carbon can cope with the highest temperatures but few lightweight metals could cope with re-entry at all.
Cast iron Shuttle anyone?
Where are all the old satellites? Most ‘low earth orbit’ ones will have crashed and burned by now. No orbit correction equals doom. Lots will still be up there but not all will be easy to see. Some will be geostationary and a long way off so impossible to see with the naked eye. I can only assume that any spy satellites will be dark so as to remain invisible…seems logical. That should eliminate a fair number. When I’ve been watching meteor showers, there have been lots of very faint satellites, moving across the sky slower, so probably further away, and not especially efficient at reflecting the sunlight back toward earth.
I’m not making excuses, just trying to be logical.
So along the lines of taking 20 billion dollars but only spending 10 billion on satellites and pocketing the other 10 billion….yes, I’m totally open to that being possible/probable. But I’d love to know how my phone uses GPS to get an accurate fix when I’m in a valley and nowhere near any masts, if those GPS satellites aren’t really up there. I can’t see how dozens of secret aircraft orbiting the planet inside the atmosphere are a better use of technology and resources than a few dozen satellites.
I’m all for exposing fakery but I draw the line at satellites?.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
The 30 to 40 seconds is a rough estimate of the time you can observe most satellites as they pass overhead. The ISS is fast and maybe only 25 seconds but some slower (higher?) ones can be visible for around 60 seconds. It’s not black & white.
Long time since I observed any.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“But I’d love to know how my phone uses GPS to get an accurate fix when I’m in a valley and nowhere near any masts, if those GPS satellites aren’t really up there. “
There are ground based GPS systems.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“There are ground based GPS systems.”
But aren’t they just for aviation?
Isn’t it part of that plane tracking system that proved the second 911 plane was still in the air around 45 minutes after the towers fell? Unless Mandela is messing with my memory again.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“Why do we all point our satellite TV dishes at the same point in the sky?”
My guess is those dishes receive signals bounced off the ionosphere (Skywave).
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Good logical arguments, Russell. To my mind there is little or no logic behind the idea that artificial satellites cannot exist in space, when the evidence for them can be observed by looking up to the evening sky and spending a short period of time watching them drifting across it. I’m sure that the argument that satellites are real, so rockets must be too is simply a promoted false dichotomy and I think space rockets were still born because of the successful development of the much cheaper and efficient Advanced Caesium Lifter black project – albeit it is nowhere near as spectacular as a roaring Atlas rocket.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
Just for FYI purposes:
DARPA says they have experimented with aircraft capable of Mach 20 or more and that was nearly 10 years ago:
https://www.darpa.mil/program/falcon-htv-2
I have also read of other experimental high sped craft that used water-cooling to keep skin temps under control.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
I’m not a expert accountant….. but I think the spy plane thingy would be many, many times more expensive than satellites.
Plus with the amount of ” little moving dots in the sky” we see, my guess would be that within all these years they would be dropping out of the sky fairly often!
And they can’t even burn up in the atmosphere.
Beware…… a spy plane should be dropping in on neighborhood near you!
Anyway… Could someone explain to me the purpose the controllers have for faking satellites?
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Good question,Tony. I can think of lots of reasons why they want to have working satellites, but off the top of my head I’ve no good ideas about why they would want to fake them. I’ll have a think. To me, using planes to fake satellites simply doesn’t make any sense.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“To me, using planes to fake satellites simply doesn’t make any sense.”
To me, using planes to spy on other countries doesn’t make any sense.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
“Could someone explain to me the purpose the controllers have for faking satellites?”
To create awe in the technological prowess of the government and support the reality of fake and more awesome space exploration missions.
Populations in awe of their governments don’t revolt. They pay their taxes, believe their leaders, obey the laws and do what they are told.
Awe is the ultimate and most cost effective state of mind for a slave. No whips or chains required.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
One time I said to somebody “This is not rocket science” then he set about to corrected me and said:
“Technically rocket science is not the most complicated science that there is.”
So I looked it up and that’s true….. rocket science is not the hardest science there is.
Brain surgery is way harder.
So satellites don’t inspire AWE in me…… or probably anyone else.
As far as getting in orbit, that seems pretty straightforward and easy to figure out.
Now to be fair…… I do understand about the maintenance problem of keeping them up and running.
Since we’re speculating our asses off on this thread…….. what about this?
Maybe they just lie about HOW LONG the thing is up and running before they crash and burn up in the atmosphere.
Stop and think about it…… all they have to do is send up another one without telling anybody that the fucken thing crashed!
LikeLiked by 1 person
rolleikin said:
*”Maybe they just lie about HOW LONG the thing is up and running before they crash and burn up in the atmosphere.
Stop and think about it…… all they have to do is send up another one without telling anybody that the fucken thing crashed!”*
You may have something there.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Or they just spurt a tiny LFO rocket for .1 seconds once or twice a year. All you have to do to maintain an orbit is maintain a certain velocity prograde. It’s not that hard and takes almost no fuel. It could have been automated even in the 1960s.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
To my eye, the satellite images of Earth that I’ve seen either look computer generated or they look like they could have been taken from high altitude aircraft. Many look downright phony, like paintings.
I invite anyone to post satellite images they believe were legitimaly taken from space. Even members who are “professional CGI” whatsits are included. 🙂
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Here are a few that pass my initial smell-test and could have been taken from orbit:
LikeLike
elpaydoublay said:
Regardless of provenance those are gorgeous images IMHO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
And that’s the key. Real images of real, natural, physical events have a totally different look and feel to them. We can get into subpixel analysis too if need be, but they LOOK like nature, and even the best CGI never really does. I slave to do so myself in my art and fail every time. Nature is ALWAYS prettier. Always more real-looking and always more natural like what we’ve seen with our own eyes when we travel anywhere at all.
CGI is only as strong and convincing as the people behind it. Have you ever seen a Pixar movie you thought was reality? Those guys are REALLY good, but even so they always show through. I even studied under their chief lighter, Jeremy Birn. Great guy, super helpful, and he taught me all kinds of good stuff on lighting for my personal work (architecture). But even so I can spot his work from a mile away, because he taught us what to look for.
LikeLike
Jake Taylor said:
Jared Magneson
said:
“And that’s the key. Real images of real, natural, physical events have a totally different look and feel to them.”
Maybe they have advanced secret CGI methods that you don’t; like the advanced caesium engines on their secret phoeny aircraft?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Maybe, but we have no EVIDENCE that they have bigger firepower than Maya and Houdini, the first of which is the most advanced piece of software ever written and the second is, well, a close second. Maya generates more money (via the film/television/gaming industries) than NASA ever could. Houdini is doing pretty well too, and a lot of studios are moving over to it or adding it to their pipelines. Substance Designer and SpeedTree are great too – and they are VERY natural-looking, in the hands of an adept. But you can always still tell if you know what to look for.
But regardless, the government doesn’t have better processors than we do – they have WORSE ones. Older ones. Slow ones.. The biggest, fastest computers in the world are built on the same CPUs and GPUs I use at work and at home. The Tyrants own Intel and AMD, sure, but that doesn’t mean they can break the laws of physics just by fiat and money alone.
Now of course they could have secret stuff going on we know nothing about but we have no evidence that they do, in these cases. Even the caesium tech is just anecdotal theory – we have no evidence that they have used it for anything, just a notion that they might be doing so.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
smj said:
“What about the 11 billion kilometers with 23 watts?”
See:
https://itstillworks.com/12439428/how-to-calculate-distances-of-fm-transmissions
For a broadcast of 6 watts, the transmission range will be 3 miles. At 15 watts, the range increases to 5 miles, at 40 watts to 10 miles and at 100 watts to 15 miles. The general rule of thumb is it will take four times the power to double the transmission distance.
I too am highly skeptical of NASA’s claims regarding little transmitters over enormous distances. THe Voyager is only one of many examples if this. Using the above rule of thumb I’d expect a 23 watt radio’s range to be about 6 miles which is slightly less than NASA’s millions/billions of miles, no?
Of course, some will argue that the space ship has a better antenna or something but I don’t think such things would account for the massive difference between NASA and reality.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
“I too am highly skeptical of NASA’s claims regarding little transmitters over enormous distances.”
I’m totally with you there.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
These photos were taken with high altitude balloons mostly launched by college students:
There are lots more available on the web.
A little tweaking like using a wider angle lens to give the effect of more curvature,and choosing more dramatic subjects, etc and I see little difference between these and “satellite” images.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
What’s the curavature? Measure it. What’s the altitude? The angle?
It’s really easy to conflate one circle with another. I do agree that these look very similar to other, alleged satellite images, but unless we have more data of course a circle is going to look like a circle.
And I’m not trying to straw man you here. I agree that this entire topic is fishy and needs to be explored, and hope you don’t mind an olive branch once in awhile. 🙂
LikeLike
elpaydoublay said:
Are those images from the earth to Sky Calculus site linked on Space Weather? I go back and forth believing those are real or fake because the shots of the items they sent aloft are sooo perfect. I’d like to know more about the camera and filters they use/have used because it seems like those close up images in fairly pure sunlight should be washed out, at least to some degree.
What do you think?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Benjamin said:
There’s no reason the pendant would be washed out if they exposed correctly. Also, theres not a professional image made today that hasn’t gone through digital colour correction, so any contrast difficulties could be fixed in photoshop. They aren’t high resolution enough to check for texture differences between the pendant and background, but as far as I can tell, and checking other products, it looks uniform with the background. Also, the pendant is certainly lit differently in every single photo taken, and other products are different again. To me this suggests they are not using a single stock image composited in front of different backgrounds, but that its reflecting the light of the environment.
In that sun photo, you’ll notice the sun has no detail, it’s just white, while the black sky around it IS washed out, more like a mid grey. Meaning they exposed for the pendant, which has more contrast. Actually, running my colour picker over the screen (Digital Colour Meter) there are very few pixels on the pendant in either R,G or B channel that fall below 100. So it IS washed out to some degree. (0 is black and 255 is white. 100/255 is 39%, meaning there is more than 1/3 tonal ranges in the dark end not being used. That is a low contrast/washed out image.
So I say they are legit.
LikeLiked by 2 people
elpaydoublay said:
Like this one… how can this be real:
LikeLike
elpaydoublay said:
The Antares Pendant
https://www.earthtosky.store/product-page/the-antares-pendant
LikeLike
elpaydoublay said:
Scroll over to the one with the sun right behind and above it.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Alas, your image didn’t post.
If in doubt, save it locally and post it to Imgur.com or a similar host and then repost THAT link.
LikeLike
Vexman said:
I once argued that von Braun may be a real rocket enthusiast, possibly educated enough in MS physics to be competent enough as a leader of a scientific team involved in rocket science. I wrote about it at CF and got banned from there for saying it may be something real behind all of that MS nonsense as sold to us by propaganda. Or was it arguing and proving Pi=4 in kinematic situation to Shack that got me banned? Can’t recall, but I do remember one “Vera Obscurata” a.k.a. Gaiasphere throwing loads of rubbish at Josh and me.
I’m convinced everybody here witnessed a small rocket going up in the sky and exploding at some altitude thus making a spectacular light-show. What would be any real argument against building a larger model of the same (sans explosion), but capable of maneuvering while moving? What is an argument against all modern-day missiles that are propelled in the same way? Are those faked too? Why couldn’t we aim the rocket upwards and load it with some useful load instead of explosives? I believe there is a functioning rocket science, based mostly on what I have witnessed and my experience, a science backed with technical capability to produce a relatively large rocket.
Now, where does this obvious space-flight fakery come into the picture? In my opinion, we’re clearly shown fake propaganda movies, while PTB are likely to have developed some functioning technology we’re not allowed to know about. So how far up can they really fly? Can we send a manned spaceship and travel to the Moon? I don’t really know, but I’m 100% sure we didn’t go to the Moon in that space can as propagandized. My speculation is that PTB can actually put some unmanned object into LEO or maybe even travel further.
Why in the world would I think anything like that? While saying PTB likely have some advanced tech to reach at least LEO with rocket tech, it relates to alleged UFOs in my opinion, though completely opposite of how PTB are trying to sell them to us. All those sightings of some advanced flying objects are possibly true, but that tech has nothing to do with aliens. I believe any such tech belongs to us, Earthlings, or to be exact – it belongs to some secret branch of the military owned by PTB. So I figure it may be the very same analogy as in relation to Phoenicians and our knowledge of Earth’s geography: they’ve let us know about the other continents only after a) they had local people under their control, i.e. infiltrated ranks of the local rulers and b) they amassed great fortunes. So while we think the world was getting discovered in 15th-16th century, the Phoenicians were already global, with all treasures mapped, gigantic navy ready and all big nations’ rulers in on the game. Is there any argument why it would be any different when it comes to discovering the space around Earth?
He that comes first to the hill may sit where he will…or something along that line best describes their modus operandi for ages already. While we’re contemplating what’s true and what’s fake, they have us exactly where planned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
I definitely concur that they will only trickle down to US, the layfolk, what the want us to know. Fortunately we can circumvent that filter with real physics and real knowledge, though it’s definitely not easy with so many people muddying the waters.
Once the mud clears, it’s much easier to see things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vexman said:
The default here is that one is able to de-spin and re-condition his beliefs and re-calibrate logic to facts rather than televised fiction. That alone is a huge step and all of us here are just a tiny minority, more of a statistical error within a matrix rather than any serious bug. Though as you already noticed, we’re closely watched, just like any blog/forum with progressive thought exchange. So they do give us some importance while keeping the world hegemony to themselves. That’s something to start with, because it seems we’re getting closer onto their trail.
On a side note, I feel like anyone who could tackle on Milesian physics received a divine gift. On the other hand, we can only day-dream about the tech possible to assemble with inbuilt charge features. So circumventing their filters doesn’t mean we can figure what they’re up to. That applies particularly to machine engineering, with the funds they have available for secret projects it’s quite likely they have tech that would be considered pure sci-fi, completely out of this world, like i.e. UFOs. Do they know about charge? We can only speculate at best. Maybe they don’t have the science, but have made huge discoveries with simple trial and error, which is highly effective yet time-consuming method. But why hurry, anyway? I think though we are already receiving images of those futuristic things via H-wood propaganda. I don’t like to call it programming, so I’ll call it conditioning. Flashes of future scripted reality are already in people’s subconscious mind so they’ll accept it in a more “organic” fashion when the moment is ripe. If you analyze old propaganda and movies, they were showing us tech that is a modern-day banality. The show has accelerated since, but it’s the same in essence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
mantalo said:
So its here that i can put my own small theory :
I believe the maps have been faked.
I believe Antarctic is not full covered by ice, but a very livable and nice island.
I believe the earth is governed from this Antarctic Island that we can call Atlantide for fun and by joke
(Atlantide didn’t wreck in one night, but the decision to make it disappear from the maps was tacken in one night 🙂 )
I believe these people keep a big technological advance on us… something like 50 years or 100 years
and i have other beliefs that i will not say now… because they are much border line 🙂
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
“…they’ve let us know about the other continents only after a) they had local people under their control, i.e. infiltrated ranks of the local rulers and b) they amassed great fortunes…”
Great post Vexman, those in charge are brilliant organisers and plan ahead for many centuries. If we are every going to get enough traction to have a chance to beat them we must stop playing their game.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
“….to beat them we must stop playing their game.”
The power to change the world is that dollar in your hand and where you decide to spend it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
mantalo said:
“He that comes first to the hill may sit where he will…”
In french, we have something similar, with the same meaning to be here at first
“le monde appartient à ceux qui se lèvent tôt”
translate word by word :
the world belongs to those who get up early
is’t probably full of hidden senses… as is “rolling stone gathers no moss” 🙂
Let’s see if we can know more about “those who got up early and took the world”
“se lever” or “lever” in french has given a word used only for bridges in fortified castles : the “pont-LEVIS” … 🙂
so, we found them : the levis 🙂 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vexman said:
I like this play of words as much as Gerry’s. It’s the Levis, of course. The big phoenies of this world…
LikeLike
mantalo said:
oh if you like, i have more…
for example, i now believe that even the word Phoenicians is a pun.
i think that Phoenician is the joke for Finance, because the two words are phonetically (this is the key, the phonetics, why ? because put away the T and you have phoenics…)
as in finances, put away N and E and you get
finacs… always the same sounds :
F N X or F N CS or F N C
that we find in netflix (= tele-fenix), and also in Francs (put away the R), and… the list is long
even the trigramme CNN, that we find
in CaNaaN,
in the CNN news-machine,
in some names, for example towns like aNNeCy, the Venice of the Alpes in France,
or in KeNNedy
or in ComNeNe (remember the mysterious Trump’s CoVFeFe… V and F are phonetically as close as M and N 🙂 ),
bref, this CNN can be found in fiNaNCe…
then, think about the bird (as would say Miles, he is a bird), the PHENIX, his other name in another mythology is ROCK…
as in blackrock which turn to be the black phénix or black phoenix, played by Sansa Stark, aka Sophie Turner, in the last X-MeN, where she has the power to control everything even the mind of people and the matter
or Rock as in Rock’n Roll, the rolling rock, with his babies, the rolling stones, who don’t care about gathering moss, because they Gaz-earth mountains and mountains (and hills and hills for the numerous children) of money…(= moss – ss + ney)
and between moss and money, the Rock knows what to choose…
disney 🙂
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
My point is that high altitude photos taken from non-space platforms (balloons here) are comparable to many images sold to us as satellite imagery. Even our CGI professional admitted they look very similar. One can search for ‘high altitude balloon photos’ to see lots more.
As far as I can tell these balloons reach roughly 70-90,000 feet and there are aircraft that can go that high or nearly so. A winged aircraft would permit even better images since there would be a photographer on board while the balloon images are taken without one.
Granted, the alleged satellite pics featured by space agencies are often prettier or more dramatic but the scale, curvature and apparent distance appear very similar.
The prettiness can probably be accounted for by much larger budgets affording greater quantity of pics to choose from and better photoshop enhancements.
Of course, there are alleged sat images that show the entire Earth and a balloon or aircraft can’t do that,obviously, but I haven’t seen one of those that didn’t look like some sort of computer generated or painted image.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
But just imagine even believing in balloons in the first place. Obviously they have been subverted and are impossible and if you believe in them then you are a victim of CGI lies and simulation impossibilities.
Yes, that’s exactly how naive you sound when you pop off about satellites and an utter lack of understanding about orbital dynamics. It’s the same nonsense. You’re either that stupid or you’re not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
gaiassphere said:
Good points. That is the thing; There are no photographs of Earth. “From Space”. All those balls, from “the Blue Marble” to the modern ones; they can never ever represent an image from Earth (which they even admit; it is CGI, not real photography).
How can it be we have “satellites” allegedly working in the most hostile environments without maintenance but not a single photo of the Earth and her continents in the right proportions.
Very strange indeed.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
So you don’t even believe in your own screen-name. Amazing.
LikeLike
Smj said:
I gotta shitton of respect fer rolleikin.
Just a little reminder; the rocket equation guy is also the metal dirigibles guy, the first administrator of nasa was a movie studio executive, the most famous satellite launches are obvious fakes, newton was a devout alchemist, and kepler was the first psience fiction author. I could go on of course.
The maths is cool andwhatnot, but have any of y’all ever achieved Mach 22 in real life? If so, praytell how?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Do you mean the same math one would use to calculate Mach 22? 😉
LikeLike
Smj said:
Calculating is one thing; doing is another. What do you know about Russian cosmism? Tsiokovsky’s the dude that gave you said escape velocity maths and metal dirigibles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ian said:
@rolleikin Its always good to have someone playing devils advocate with these discussions, it can move things along and open new ground, however you do seem to be pushing this man made satellite as fake a bit hard now.
I fail to see what the problem is with rocket science or man made satellites. If the maths didn’t work out, then fair enough, but actually anyone can do the maths on this themselves. There have been lies about the payload weight capabilities of rockets, but the rockets are not that much different to the rocket fireworks we have all seen or set off. As for the satellites, I think faking them, and fooling/controlling the many, many people who work in the industry would be harder than them actually being developed. Imagine faking all that data that is constantly available, a lot of it online.
Just to say, as I saw it discussed above, the expected life span of an LEO satellite is about 5 years, and 10 to 15 for a GEO satellite. The technology to launch into orbit is not the lie, the ability to re-enter and land is the lie, that is where the maths fails horribly, or rather the maths doesn’t fail but shows up the impossibility.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Ian, can you post some of this math or link it up again for further analysis?
Landing IS tough, re-entry IS a bitch, I agree. But I’d like to see more from your position if possible.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
I think that it’s incumbent upon us in the the alternative movement to be as scientifically accurate as possible…… because just like the Flat Earth and David icke reptilians’ …..if we sound to waka doodle without any real proof, we won’t make any headway into convincing anybody of anything and then we just blackwash the real truth with weird an unnecessarily totally far out theories!
I think that’s what Miles said somewhere.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Good point, Tony, but we do need to be careful when the mainstream prats are wrong on the basics and we have point out the correct physics. It;s like the endless stupid debates about high/low temperatures in space making any space travel impossible. It is the amount of energy, via the charge field, that is important and has engineering implications. Anyway the average temperature of space in low Earth orbit is 10degC, with an extreme spread from around -100 to +120degC approx. The maximum energy a LEO satellite is ~1,4 W/sq m, the huge bulk of this coming from the suns charge field. As a dabbler in engineering, I don’t think I would find it too difficult to find a way to design a satellite which could deal with this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
gaiassphere said:
Who provided you with these numbers?
And how can “Low Earth Orbit” be 170 degrees too warm?
Funny, that means you will invent new alloys that can withstand temperature extremes that none of the materials we have can live through. At near-zero temperatures metals get extremely brittle, so even if one could launch a “satellite”, it will not exist for longer than a couple of seconds.
The fantasy is strong on this one, I wonder why.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Imagine not even believing in numbers.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
I compare two sets of photos that seem similar and that makes me an idiot “with an utter lack of understanding of orbital dynamics”?
Awesome logic.
OK, my mistake. I thought this was a place to share and discuss opinions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
haggisnneeps said:
whoosh!
LikeLike
haggisnneeps said:
to be honest you can’t even comprehend aspect ratios and points of view so comparing things seems to be difficult for you
So your theory is that its is easier for the PTB to fly “not-yet-invented” technology planes to fly in Mach 22+ trajectories in a calculated pattern matching satelites they claim to have launched in order to make sure that people lying in fields (clothes or not) can see satellites passing overhead?
Occams razor would suggest what everyone else suggests that it would be easier and more possible that they can actually launch stuff that you can see orbiting
and the maths and physics support it. so does KSP and Jared.
Launching stuff is real and do-able
orbiting stuff is real and do-able
going to the moon is not real and not do-able
its not brain surgeon science!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Rolleikin, you’ve alone demonstrated over and over your absolute and fundamental lack of knowledge or study in orbital dynamics. If anyone calls you out on this misunderstanding, you deserved it by saying stupid shit over and over again. You don’t believe your own eyes, don’t believe in volcanoes, don’t believe in anything it seems, and you certainly don’t believe in orbital dynamics given the statements you’ve made here.
It’s nobody’s fault but your own that you would opine about topics without studying them, and then attempt to batter people who have. What did you think would happen? Of course you look like an idiot. You acted like one. Fuck off.
LikeLike
elpaydoublay said:
This discussion is making me dizzy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
Stop letting it. Ignore the Losers That Be. Ignore anyone trying to muddy your mind. Go back to the physics, to Miles, to the other forums that aren’t peppered by bullshit. Don’t let them win.
If it doesn’t make sense then discard it. Plot your own path, and if mine or Miles’ or Josh’s or Vexman’s or any others don’t intersect, plot it anyway. We all need you and we need you plotting your own path too. Do what YOU want and find what YOU’RE good at. Ignore the bullshit.
Battle ON.
LikeLiked by 1 person
gaiassphere said:
Back to basics; what do we actually know about Space Travel?
I think all of us here know that the Apollo “space” program (left out by Dr. James Van Allen in his 1997 publication…) was a blatant clownesque fake.
Mars rovers, asteroid landings (do it right the first time), Pluto Pluto images, never stars where they should be, the green screen show of the ISS, the list is endless.
Manned space travel would be awesome, but reading the comments here luckily nobody seems to believe those stories.
Yuri Gagarins own wife admits on camera he hasn’t been to space…
In the end there is no “conspiracy”; it is all out in the open.
Unmanned probes then?
We have the Voyager myth, that allegedly left our solar system for, what was it, Alpha Centauri?
In the 1970s photographing Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and beyond?
Seriously?
My parents couldn’t take a roll of film through the airport without destroying my baby photos, but all these fancy space thingies could just beat all physical laws and show us crystal clear photos of celestial bodies, where they, as always, forgot to capture the stars, planets, galaxies, stellar clouds andwhatnot… Hmmm..
The “Space” Shuttles (I am sure they were working planes) then? Why would that be real, and all the rest fake? But more importantly; how do they come to the ridiculous antiphysical idea of “zero gravity”??
That cannot exist. Gravity is omnipresent and omnipotent. No zero g guys, no matter you can go up and down with 9.8 m/s2.
Hubble/Kepler/Gaia (not me) maybe?
Here on Earth, our home and only home, ever, every year new ground-based telescopes are built or planned. At several locations on Earth with the most ideal atmospheric conditions for monitoring and photographing the celestial beauty.
Astrophotography is basically putting various layers of photos over each other, with different wavelengths of light and you get the wow images we see shared everywhere. Those are not (necessarily) fake, but they are composites. Nobody denies that.
What exactly distinguishes astrophotos taken by ground-based observatories (I have visited one) from the ones allegedly taken by a “space” telescope on which some white rabbits allegedly worked?
Stamping an astrophoto from Tenerife, Hawaii or the Atacama with “Hubble” and voilà, not?
If manned space travel is impossible, the maintenance was impossible, but then the Hubble is still real? How does that work?
What is left?
Satellites. The hard nut. And yes, it may sound nuts, but no, sorry, no functioning man-made satellites exist (other than balloons, but they are by definition not in space).
No single electric apparatus functions without maintenance or at least access to it. Yet, in the Magic Disneyworld of NASA, missions get multiple times extended without any problems (Mars rovers, anyone?) and none of the images can represent reality; there are not even photographs of Earth, so how can it be real?
Every object in space is either 100% at -270 C or 50% at -270 and simultaneously 50% at +300 or more (mainstream claims about the thermosphere).
Even if we forget that this object allegedly takes the sharpest photos, measures the most advanced things on Earth and atmosphere and has to keep doing that while communicating the data flawlessly to Earth, this space thingy has to survive these conditions.
We don’t have any metal on Earth that can withstand these two extremes at the same time all the time. But satellites are made of kryptonite, I guess.
GEO satellites are claimed to function right in the outer belt of the Van Allen belts, at between 32 and 36 k km. HOW? Where are all the test reports about materials, technology, batteries, solar panels, and whatnot on board of these tiny objects and how they perform under the wildest conditions? The scientific revolution would be bigger than Buzz Aldrins drinking problem.
What about the “sub Van Allen Belts”, where allegedly manned and unmanned “space travel” is booming? “Low Earth Orbit”?
How exactly did those space thingies circumvent the laws of physics? At least according to their own gravitational model.
The whole solar system, every single asteroid, ball of ice, dog-shaped planet or ring rock of Saturn is in perfect gravitational equilibrium; with forces literally juggling with planets as if it were an enormous harmonious 4D marble set, and then some Sputnik thinks it can just fly through it, with some psilly psience stories (thank you smj) about “zero gravity”, “bringing things into orbit”, “jumping orbits”, “Lissajous orbits”, “Lagrangian points” and other magical talk that literally belongs in a Disney “attraction” park (they are anything but attractive, those places)???
Incredible.
Indeed; it is not to be believed.
What is real?
The moving lights in the sky are undoubtedly real.
The data from “satellites” is also real.
Ground-based observations I consider as real, at least for the most part.
Most astronomy is based on good principles, but on a particular model that may or may not be true.
The heliocentric model might be right (I consider it the strongest), it may be Tychonian, I don’t see geocentric as viable.
I cannot say if charge or gravity makes more sense, because we cannot go into space to test it.
The question is; how can you have a different physical model of space than the people who say they went there and yet they don’t use your model and you believe them?
How can such a stance possibly logically work?
There is no discussion possible, and everybody who is in doubt (luckily nobody here I reckon) can do the Orion test; Gaia can only be a convex sphere.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Shut the fuck up, already. You’re just beyond terrible at this stuff and you don’t even know what SPACE is.
On top of that you don’t know what GAIA means, or SPHERE. You literally don’t know anything about these topics at all, from the foundations on up.
You will not find or create any allies here – and I’m not just saying that by fiat alone. You lack any and every fundamental understanding of spatial and orbital dynamics from the ground up. You don’t even believe in your own eyeballs.
You’re a waste of time. Babble on, but nobody here will take you seriously or give pause at all because you’re a fucking shill and a complete waste of time. I happen to type very fast so you didn’t waste much of mine but you’re fucking shit and haven’t a leg to stand on here or anywhere else and I’ll just hunt you down and bash you wherever you emerge from here on out. I’m better than Langley at this. You’re shit at this. Get a real job, loser.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nada0101 said:
Bravo.
LikeLike
LeakyGut said:
He obviously wrote that rubbish for his target audience of imbeciles over at “truth” zone and then just copied and pasted it in here. Waste of “space”, imo.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jim Druggins said:
Jared, 15th century astrologers know more about the universe than you. Where is Miles? He must be “in hospital”! LOL!
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Good to know. And another good thing I spend a lot of time studying them so I can at least attempt to know what they discovered. What’s your excuse, then?
Using “LOL” in 2019. Shit, son.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vexman said:
That’s the ultimate garbage of this whole thread. Did any of those guys you promote here know about the charge? Did they know about the fudges in math and physics placed there to misdirect? No, they were 2 steps behind the real physics. Just like you, but it seems you’re miles behind science or anything else. Agent provocateur best fits your character so far.
Crawl back to your boss’ cave and tell him to send in someone far better than you. Possibly versed in physics and scientific debate, if you boys have anybody alike. That should be at least some fun for us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jared Magneson said:
If they had anybody real OR good, they’d have already sent them in long ago.
https://www.intelius.com/people-search/no-results?fullname=jim%20druggins&profileid=&firstname=Jim&middlename=&lastname=Druggins&state=&citystate=
LikeLike
tony martin said:
gaiassphere said:
“We don’t have any metal on Earth that can withstand these two extremes at the same time all the time. But satellites are made of kryptonite, I guess.”
Here’s something I found if anybody is interested.
The thermosphere could have a temperature of a million degrees, and would still not heat up satellites, space stations, or space junk by more than a few degrees. At a height of 200km, it’s as near to a vacuum as it’s possible to get on Earth using the best vacuum pumps. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of molecules. Heat is the product of #molecules x kinetic energy. Too few molecules up there to hold much heat. Direct sunlight is something of a problem. The simple solution is for satellites etc. to rotate slowly to spread the heating evenly. Remember also that satellites spend 1/2 the time in Earth’s shadow, cooling down.
So how do satellites cope with the heat?
because even in Low Earth Orbit, there is a very low pressure around the spacecraft, making a smaller amount of atoms colliding with the satellite. As temperature is determined (by definition) as the measure at which atoms vibrate and collide with one another, temperature in orbit is experienced way different than it is on Earth, meaning the heating of the surface is not caused by the same processes at the Earth’s surface. Heating is by conduction is negligible, because this works with the exchange of energy between atoms around the spacecraft and the spacecraft itself by collisions. Heating by convection (warm fluids/gasses flowing to colder areas of fluid/gas) is impossible, obviously, because there is a negligible amount of gas and certainly no fluid in space. This leaves only heating by radiation (light from the sun) and internal components that produce heat.
To ensure that the spacecraft doesn’t heat up too much by solar radiation, the satellite is coated with a material that reflects lots of solar radiation, minimizing the amount of absorbed solar energy by the spacecraft itself (of course this isn’t done for the solar panels)
because at the side facing away from the sun, the amount of incoming solar energy is very low, this side cools to very low temperatures, because of the extremely low amounts of absorbed energy. As the side facing the Sun has the problem that it has to absorb less radiation, rotating the satellite slowly makes the ‘hot’ side of the satellite cool down, and the ‘cold’ side of the satellite heat up, as the spacecraft rotates. This helps in maintaining a constant temperature for the satellite.
Excess heat can be released from the satellite (or any other spacecraft), by placing radiators. These are components, placed in particularly hot sections of the satellite, which are reflecting on the outside, and transparent on the inside (just like these mirrors in stores, behind which security may reside). These make radiation from only the inside the satellite to the outside possible. These things work the same way as a window, everyone can feel the sun’s heat trough a window, imagine only that for these radiators, it works only in one direction.
The heat produced by internal components can be lost by creating a heat conducting path using a metal or liquid (thus convection) between the hot component and a radiator. Or by using pumps that pump evaporated cooling ‘liquid’ away, thus making sure that the still liquid cooling material doesn’t heat faster due to the presence of hotter gas.
This is only a short summary of the most common methods, I hope it was clear for the people who did not understand this obviously hard subject. I also hope that people understand now that there is more than meets the eye and start doing a bit of research in the subject or their question before residing to theories with arguments that are easily debunked, with proper knowledge on the subject.
LikeLiked by 2 people
tony martin said:
As others have already pointed out, the idea that objects will be heated and destroyed in the thermosphere is an insane fairy tale.
While the temperature can be very high, there is not enough atmosphere to convey any significant amount of heat. The temperature does not really start to increase significantly until you reach an altitude of about 100km. This altitude is what we generally regard as the beginning of space, and the air at that altitude is about the same as we can achieve in a pretty good vacuum chamber on earth. No chance in the world that it will melt ANYTHING!
The heating of meteors and spacecraft entering the atmosphere is TOTALLY due to heating from atmospheric friction as they reach the denser layers of the atmosphere.
The thermosphere is in no way involved in this heating!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Excellent posts Tony, and a good illustration of the point you made above about getting the science right. Trolls are a nuisance, but so are those ignorant people who parrot the rubbish they read without checking their facts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tony martin said:
Look everybody… If there’s no such thing as satellites I’m not gonna be heartbroken and I won’t be losing any sleep over it.
Another thing I forgot to say is if there using spy planes to mimic satellites…. then I am in total AWE of of their ability to keep those planes in the air all these years!
Here’s something for what it’s worth.
These images from space show the Giant storm system over the Bahamas at 31 seconds into the video.
Is this from satellites, balloons or CGI?
Only your hairdresser knows for sure.
LikeLiked by 2 people
gaiassphere said:
There are several types of “satellite” data:
Two main categories:
Dynamic Real time data
Static Surveys
The Real Time includes Global Positioning System (a military system “gifted to us” civilians) and the TV and phone signals of “satellite” TV/Phone.
This system works separately and independently from phone and internet signals. It works 24/7 and is reliable.
We have:
– undersea cables (according to some sources, which I still need to check deeper into, “99% of all communication on Earth”)
– towers (which can handle different wavelengths); I have 25 non-electricity towers in view every day; with just 4-5 phone providers?
– balloons (used for “weather” for ages, used for internet, why not for “satellite” use?)
the biggest “unvisited” part of the world covering the whole globe:
Map of shipping lane density
Note that in the green areas, where few ships fare we don’t know which vessels are there and by which owners they are sent there. The point is that few people get to see the areas outside of red and yellow.
The map of the flight paths is even more drastic. All the white areas on Earth no non-sea faring human being ever sees:
https://fsmedia.imgix.net/7f/b1/f1/dc/9fee/41a3/b761/c3599480bf69/screenshot-2017-03-06-180424png.png?rect=0%2C0%2C2054%2C1027&auto=format%2Ccompress&dpr=2&w=650
How difficult is it to have 24/7 (military) vessels stationed in the places covering the globe with tower-based signals, unseen to the public eye?
How likely is that?
We know about the many military bases on remote islands in the world:
This is only US military bases; the Azores and many other places also have bases.
There are 24/7 manned scientific research stations, weather stations, oil rigs and other places all around the world. Military is not exempt.
All inventions came from the military:
– “satellites” – NASA started off as a military organization and Lockheed Martin?
– GPS
– the internet
So they must have full control over the whole process. Satellite TV works flawlessly 24/7. Does that really exist depending on a “satellite” in fantastical orbits between 952 and 5933 km? Allegedly launched in 1962 (!) and working for 7 months? RIGHT in the heart of the Van Allen Belts??
Sorry, I wasn’t alive in 1962, but people in hot summers were barely able to keep their radio batteries running in the pre-cassette playing era and you want me to believe this story?
The Static Surveys are periodic single events, not 24/7, not real time, as the first category. This includes actually the bulk of “satellite” data, which most people don’t see. These are surveys on anything we can measure on Earth and is of importance for us as mankind. Forest fires, deforestation, CO2 levels (abused for the AGW scam, but let’s not go there here), temperatures, the weather, etc.
“Weather” balloons work for decades. Google uses balloons to send internet signals across the globe. So what stops them from using balloons for other “satellite” activities?
What I see in The Guardian video is 3 layers; the “space thingy” and the Earth in the background and the pitch black background. Of course that is not a real live recording of the Earth. What they show is a meteorological model.
NASA and NOAA closely work together, for example in
“climate change”Anthropogenic Global Warming Scam; psyop chain programming.So NASA can easily pass off meteorological models of NOAA (just two US governmental organizations sharing data, something that happens all the time, also with the USGS) as “space images”. To match the real weather as the current hurricane really razing over the Bahamas and entering Florida.
The picture of Dorian is grey.
But these are models; simulations of reality, they are by definition not representations of reality. Nobody denies that there no photographs of Earth.
(note I don’t endorse other realities than a convex Gaia)
The Celestial Beauty
As always, the skies can never be pitch black. You simply cannot NOT capture any stars/galaxies/planets/stellar clouds/etc.
The more light you get in view, the lower the amount of light captured from the skies, so with in this case like 80% of view the very bright white clouds of Earth, the amount of light from the background; space, would be low, but it cannot be zero. Ever.
That problem is visible in almost all of the images allegedly taken from space.
Take this alleged Apollo 15 rendez vous photo. The pipe and teapot are visible under very low light conditions. And we have 90% sky here. There should be an Atacama Desert beauty of the skies in the background here….
You cannot MISS that. There is no possibility you can not capture things that must be there. That is basic common sense and logic, right? And caused by physical laws of light.
LikeLike
mantalo said:
what if the van allen belt is a hoax ?
it looks like a donuts… this is a creation from the Simp-sons 🙂 ??
oh, discovered in 1958, with the help of explorer 1 and 3, the first satellites ever, by mister James Alfred Van Allen ( sound spoowish and jeky),
aka JAVA, born in Mount Pleasant, Iowa…
wiki :
“The first permanent settlement at Mount Pleasant was made in 1833…”
aïe !
wiki again :
“On December 10, 1986, Ralph Orin Davis, a resident, walked into a city council meeting and shot Mayor Edward King and two council members. Mayor King died of his wounds after being shot point blank in the head. The 69-year-old gunman had attended a couple of previous meetings, complaining about a backed-up sewer and wanting the city to pay for damages to his house. The two council members were seriously wounded. Tom Vilsack was the replacement mayor, later becoming governor for 8 years, and then Secretary of Agriculture for 8 years.”
aïe aïe aïe…
i’m not physician but from his birth your van allen smells the shrimp.
van halen should better stay a hard rock band who pretends to sing “A Different Kind of Truth” 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Smj said:
We’re told the igy was dreamed up in Van Allen’s basement over his wife’s chocolate cake. He then stuck a Geiger counter on explorer one. That’s how the narrative gave us the Van Allen belts. If Werner is a fraud then Van Allen is necessarily suscept as feck, no???
“In 1954, in a private discussion about the Redstone project with Ernst Stuhlinger, Wernher von Braun expressed his belief that they should have a “real, honest-to-goodness scientist” involved in their little unofficial satellite project (Project Orbiter). “I’m sure you know a scientist somewhere who would fill the bill, possibly in the Nobel Prize class, willing to work with us and to put some instruments on our satellite.” Stuhlinger, himself a cosmic ray researcher at the University of Tübingen under his faculty advisor, Hans Geiger, had worked with James Van Allen at White Sands with V-2 rockets, was ready with his reply: “Yes, of course, I will talk to Dr. Van Allen.”
Stuhlinger followed this by a visit with Van Allen at his home in Princeton, New Jersey, where Van Allen was on sabbatical leave from Iowa to work on stellarator design. Van Allen later recounted, “Stuhlinger’s 1954 message was simple and eloquent. By virtue of ballistic missile developments at Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA), it was realistic to expect that within a year or two a small scientific satellite could be propelled into a durable orbit around the earth.[sic] … I expressed a keen interest in performing a worldwide survey of the cosmic-ray intensity above the atmosphere.”[5]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orbiter
…dude also worked for Byrd and on the star fish prime space nuke nonsense…
“The ‘Starfish Prime’ test experimented with radiation belts in the Earth’s magnetosphere known as Van Allen belts, they consist of energetic particles located in the inner region of Earth’s magnetosphere. James Van Allen had discovered them shortly before, in 1958, and agreed to cooperate with the military in a study on how they could be disrupted by nuclear explosions.
The consequences for the magnetosphere were completely unpredictable at the time. Also its crucial role in shielding life from solar winds was not understood until later. The Starfish Prime test resulted in a temporary alteration of the shape and intensity of the lower Van Allen belt, which created artificial aurora borealis that could be seen across the Pacific Ocean, from Hawaii to New Zealand.”
https://www.ctbto.org/specials/testing-times/9-july-1962starfish-prime-outer-space
…Ernst was a Disney actor of course…
“In the 1950s, Stuhlinger, along with von Braun, collaborated with Walt Disney Pictures. Together, they produced three films, Man in Space and Man and the Moon in 1955, and Mars and Beyond in 1957. Stuhlinger worked as a technical consultant for these films.[12]
Stuhlinger played a small but important role in the race to launch a US satellite after the success of Sputnik 1. There was little time to develop and test automated guidance or staging systems, so Stuhlinger developed a simple spring-powered staging timer that was triggered from the ground. On the night of January 31, 1958, Stuhlinger was at the controls of the timer when the Explorer 1 was launched, triggering the device right on time. He became known as “the man with the golden finger.” This satellite discovered the Van Allen radiation belt through a cosmic ray sensor, a felicitous intersection with his early physics expertise, included in a science package supervised by Stuhlinger.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Stuhlinger
…Lyman Spitzer was the stellarator guru. He also invented the concept of spaceship telescopes bytheway…
“A stellarator is a plasma device that relies primarily on external magnets to confine a plasma. In the future, scientists researching magnetic confinement fusion aim to use stellarator devices as a vessel for nuclear fusion reactions. The name refers to the possibility of harnessing the power source of the stars, including the sun.[1] It is one of the earliest fusion power devices, along with the z-pinch and magnetic mirror.
The stellarator was invented by Lyman Spitzer of Princeton University in 1951, and much of its early development was carried out by his team at what became the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL).”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellarator
“Lyman Spitzer, Jr. (1914-1997) was one of the 20th century’s great scientists. A renowned astrophysicist, he made major contributions in the areas of stellar dynamics, plasma physics, thermonuclear fusion, and space astronomy. Lyman Spitzer, Jr. was the first person to propose the idea of placing a large telescope in space and was the driving force behind the development of the Hubble Space Telescope.”
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/mission/241-Lyman-Spitzer-Jr-
LikeLiked by 1 person
Smj said:
Two words sum up Van Allen and his supposed belts: starfish prime.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Smj said:
“For example, in May 1958 James Van Allen announced his finding that the Earth is surrounded by belts of high-energy particles that are held in place by magnetic fields – the so-called “Van Allen Belts.” That very same day, Van Allen signed an agreement to work with the military to test nuclear weapons high in space for purposes of studying the disruption of the belts and of military communication during the event of a nuclear war. Historian James Fleming was later quoted, “this is the first occasion I’ve ever discovered where someone discovered something and immediately decided to blow it up.””
https://paulingblog.wordpress.com/tag/starfish-prime/
LikeLiked by 1 person
tony martin said:
You know… what you propose is probably not impossible and could work the way you say.
But… I still don’t understand or get the great benefit of the whole ” We Have Satellites But We Don’t Really Have Satellites Theory”
Everything doesn’t have to be fake to call NASA out on their bullshit.
I mean technically…… if we know they lie about 90% of the stuff….. then who cares about the 10% that they lie about that are in the gray areas that could be argued forever?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Smj said:
I hope whatever clever chap that was responsible for naming the government agency that monitors sea level rise ‘noaa’ got a raise. That is good stuff.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
RIGHT?!?
LikeLike
Mindovers Platter said:
Ok. Ok! Being one of the apparently few humans who have actually seen a Bigfoot up close and also got a good look at a UFO, here is the real deal. Date…early 80’s. Location, Feather River, middle fork. Nearest town, Quincy, Ca. Description….Was watching satellite ( I thought ) except it seemed a bit lower than usual. Then the damned thing stopped on a dime for about 5 seconds. Then blasted off vertically leaving a distinct light spiral as it disappeared into the heavens. The G forces would have squished any human. I don’t care if anyone believes it, I feel just lucky to be blessed to see it with my own eyes. But it is the honest to god truth!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
I too have seen similar phenomenon with my own eyes, half my life ago. A relatively still light, some 5 miles off or so by my estimate, simply up and zoomed across the sky in about 2 seconds. No sonic boom or anything, it just took off and was gone. I was with a friend who saw the same thing and sure, it’s not PROOF of anything but it definitely has kept me open to weird stuff. I grew up around F-16s and this thing was so much faster it left a very lasting impression.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mindovers Platter said:
Yup, Whatever it was, it sure wasn’t rocket powered. It was like someone switched on a magnet. Not really sure where it was going though, but it sure as hack didn’t worry about any silly orbit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
Considering the unidentified aspect more closely, could it be an optical illusion? The actual movement I mean. Rainbows are not half way across the country when you see them. One reason why they can appear so bright. They could be, and often are, right in front of you, perhaps less than 10 metres/yards. The only way to be even roughly sure of their distance is if they intersect with something close enough for you to see whether they are in front or behind the object. And this is something close and in broad daylight. The dots are just tiny lights and in a dark sky, so distance is extremely difficult to judge…..and therefore speed.
If real, the video footage of the dark triangular craft-like object over…erm…was it Rio? Now that is what I call a sighting.
I’ll get back to you if I ever see something weird.
LikeLike
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
Saw a doozy myself just over 22 years ago, Mindovers, so seems that seeing the Advance Caesium Lifter in action is not too rare? Here’s what happened…
Clear sky, star gazing with a mate in my back garden, both watching a satellite drifting across the sky. Satellite then slowed down rapidly and stopped! It hung there for a couple of minutes, then was joined by two more ‘satellites’ coming in at an angle to the first, they also stopped at exactly the same moment, forming a small triangle of 3 bright dots behind the first. The triangular group then started to move forwards slowly, while making an ~40degree turn, just as if they were physically joined together. The group of craft then accelerated forwards with great rapidity holding perfect formation and disappeared from view in just a couple of second.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mindovers Platter said:
Yes this one also stopped for a few seconds, That’s what made my jaw open. Went straight up afterwards. Bipedal Ape theory, If many people have seen the same thing, don’t dismiss it just because you haven’t. Just have to be in the right place at the right time, and looking in the right direction. But in the scheme of things, I would put a higher value on the foo fighter than some Ape making a pass through a campground looking for marsh mellows.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Enki said:
@Jared
For a lot of info and math:
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravelw2.htm
go to chapter: 1.28 Physical reasons why human space travel is impossible
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel1.htm
go to chapter: 2.13 Braking using a heat shield
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
You know, we see a lot of these old shit-show websites in this arena. I am perusing the content, but it’s outright blasphemous that these people are so fucking terrible at web design to begin with.
“This is my incorrectual (!) opinion, based on personal research, critical thinking and common sense since 1994. July 1969 NASA presented the Apollo 11 show explained below. It was a 100% Hollywood production and Fake News! 50 years later media trumpet again and again that it was real. Unbelievable! ”
That’s supposed to be Andrews Bjorkman. In 2018, if we’re to believe the top photo. So it’s Two Thousand Eighteen and this guy’s site looks like it was last updated in 1998? Yes, it’s a straw man, but you can’t even MAKE a site that terrible in 2018, or 2012 for that matter. It’s just horrifying.
I’ll waste about five minutes digging but would prefer if you copy-pasted any relevant, pertinent stuff into your own posts here. The formatting alone is an obscenity of nature, on these old sites.
LikeLike
Rascasse said:
@Jared
It’s true what you say that the layout of Anders Björkmans site is indeed terrible. However, isn’t it what it says that is more important than the style of formatting. That site has continuously been updated and everything that has been pasted in is still there, since 1998, I think.
Perhaps there is even more than one reason why he has not changed the style of the site, my guesses is as good as anyones on that matter.
Been following the discussions here on space flights (and other matters) and have been lacking some real numbers and thought I would suggest a look at Heiwaco to see what your respons would be. Have to state that the reply to Enki is as terrible as the formatting of Heiwaco.
Do as Enki suggest, go to chapter 1.28 and then press reader view and the text will be right there. What more can you expect?
It certainly looks like he is spot on, it is possible to launch but not coming back.
I really do appreciate your contribution to this site and I am impressed over your productivity, now please, make an attempt to do Björkmans writings more readable for others and obviously for your self or debunk him and win the 1 million € he is offering anyone who is proving him wrong. Here is a link to his CV http://heiwaco.tripod.com/cv.htm
LikeLike
mantalo said:
rascasse… this is french 🙂
are you french ?
LikeLike
Josh said:
No Rascasse is Swedish
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
“It’s true what you say that the layout of Anders Björkmans site is indeed terrible. However, isn’t it what it says that is more important than the style of formatting. That site has continuously been updated and everything that has been pasted in is still there, since 1998, I think.”
Yes, very good point. I also cannot stand this horrible formatting in a time with literally a wealth of options, easy to learn, even for “the elderly” (which Anders is not).
It was back in late 2015 when I finally saw the final piece of the puzzle and resolved this uneased feeling of missing that. From then on, it started to make sense, though I struggled with satellites for like a year.
Back then I was in both public and private contact with Heiwa and that made me learn a lot. He helped me in waking up, so thank him for that.
His treatise on re-entry is excellent and his thinking sound, except for understanding the implications of the alleged crazy ass environment THEY paint of “space”.
It is an extrapolation of the atmosphere, which in my geologic and atmospheric (live) understanding makes sense; the higher you go, the less dense the atmosphere, the less particles per volume, the higher the radiation component, but the lower the convection component of heat transfer, the ambient T however keeps going down from what we can measure and radiation/Van Allen belts is a hypothesis based on real observations.
They must have measured the upper atmosphere, before their rockets would simply come down due to gravity and saw of course it was impossible for various reasons.
This was obviously not in 1958.
But the auroras are real, Van Allen was a geophysicist and I think his model makes sense. We live in an (electro)magnetic world, no doubt.
I broke one of my compasses by using a magnet on it. My first year fieldwork one, not my nicer one luckily. But a good learning point.
15 ways how to fake satellites
I don’t know what Heiwa’s vested interest is in the Ariane project, which he talks about a lot, but since when does fakery in the Guyanas not exist? Jonestown anyone?
The rocket launches are real and observed by many people.
Cluesforum attic autists who claim “CGI” need to get into the wider world. I am not saying they cannot do that, or combine it with real launches (like SpaceX; the launches are real, the landings are not), but it is important to keep a sharp eye on what is real.
Everything above the Kármán “””line””” however, is a mystery. And the point is; we HAVE to rely on data allegedly gathered by people of whom we know did lie to us, over and over again. Space.
That area, where nobody has been before, it is literally people from Atlantis for the first time reaching the surface (so from 1 medium to another; cf. atmosphere to space).
The scientific revolution wouldn’t have an end. We would need 50 years since the first rockets entering space and falling back to come up with even a plan how to tackle this. But no, it was all Disneyworld.
“We choose to go the Moon”
No, you don’t CHOOSE to overcome physical barriers, you have to do an effort to get to your goal. You cannot choose to stand on top of Aconcagua, you have to do the physical activity, stretching your own physical boundaries, but never exceeding Gaia’s laws; physics/Naturkunde and only then you can make it.
The whole history of all space travel, the whole “Space Race”, once you see it all, and have satisfactorily answered the observations we can make, data we reliably use and the historical lessons of ever-holding-hands-in-real-cases engineering and science (so real science, not scientism!) applied, you are way more at ease.
Video about the history of undersea cables. I was baffled by how early this was already the case…
LikeLike
mantalo said:
after columbu, there is now coulombi
ah ah
i like also roro-ferries 🙂
our home cleaner is also a RoRo : robot rumba, and of course Rothschild and Rockefeller are also RoRo 🙂
« …Heiwa Co is a development and consultancy agency for oil tankers, roro-ferries and safety at sea. Achievements: (1) has developed the Coulombi Egg tanker; the only alternative to double hull tankers approved by the United Nations International Maritime Organization – 1990-1997…. »
LikeLike
Josh said:
I’ve got to say I don’t think the layout of Bjorkman’s site is that awful. It’s antiquated, for sure. But when he first got it up and running, that was the state of the art, or at least very common. It’s not like the schizophrnic fever-dream you see at some of these black frosting websites like the all lies dot org site. Could he have updated the style, etc? Yes, but it would have cost money and time. Why bother? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
As for the arguments he makes…I don’t know yet what I think, but on first whiff it smells genuine even if there may be errors.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Indeed, Rascasse and Enki, there’s a LOT of good stuff on shitty sites like that. I’m not attempting to ignore the data involved, as not everyone can just use WordPress like a fucking adult yet and in many cases, it’s not the right way to go anyway. A static site is much less vulnerable to attack. A HOSTED site (such as Miles’ various homepages) is even less vulnerable, especially when posting .pdf files which are a lot harder to alter and replace.
So while I don’t see anything bad or misleading on a quick scan, that’s not to say we won’t find misleading stuff – because the guy obviously isn’t aware of the charge field and thus has missed about 15 years of physics. So he may be correct on a great many things, but anything involving gravity, repulsion, or charge he’ll likely just be incorrect on outright. Miles has supplied us with a HUGE piece of the puzzle, actually like 300+ pieces. Anyone who isn’t utilizing those pieces or addressing them is going to be at a severe disadvantage or outright wrong (like the mainstream often is).
I’ll take some time and peruse and dig further on those while awaiting Miles’ return and new papers, but I’m also busy with my own work and gearing up for the upcoming KSP 2.0, which is going to be outright amazing. After checking with the devs, it appears they’ve opened to new game up to even further add-on frameworking, and with a bit of help I’ll actually be able to insert Charge Field dynamics into the game! So I’m quite excited.
Meanwhile, keep plugging away, folks!
LikeLike
Ian said:
The Bjorkmans site linked above is an awful mess, and its tricky to read, but he makes a solid point regarding the kinetic energy of the shuttle at reentry. Using the NASA data provided about two shuttle flights, STS-1 and STS-5, we can calculate the kinetic energy at various points of decent, and we can also see where NASA has been hiding this kinetic energy. Anyone familiar with the formula for kinetic energy should realise that we will be dealing with some pretty large numbers here due to the square of the velocity. So for example, at the point of beginning reentry at 120km, at a velocity of say 7500m/s, the 78000kg dry weight shuttle (NASA figures) has:
Ke = 1/2 mass x velocity squared
Ke = (0.5 x 78000) x (7500 x 7500) = 2,193,750,000,000 Joules, or 2.19375 TJ (tera-joules). OOF! Told you it would be a big number!
NASA also hides the gravitational potential energy, and does not discuss any acceleration due to gravity. If the shuttle had docked at the ISS at an altitude of say 350km it would have the gravitaional potential energy of :
GPE = mgh (mass x acceleration due to gravity x height)
GPE = 78000 x 9.8 x 350000 = 267540000000 J or 267.54 GJ (giga-joules)
By studying the NASA data sheets we can calculate that NASA claims the shuttle is able to lose 1.4893125 TJ in its decent from 120km to 50km.
Can we say there is some reasonable doubt that the shuttle could lose 1.4 TJ whilst descending through the thermosphere and mesosphere through atmospheric braking?
For a bit of context, the theoretical minimum amount of energy required to melt a tonne of steel is 1.4 GJ.
I originally saw another guy do these calculations on the apollo command module reentry, which is even more of a joke. I will try to find the link, however he considered that the shuttle could reenter due to the fact that it was a glider??? What it is gliding on in the thermosphere and mesosphere I do not know!
There are many more holes in the shuttle reentry drama, especially the thermal protection system. If anyone wants more I can post links to the data sheets and more comments on the thermal protection system.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rascasse said:
@ Ian
Bravo. Thanks, such numbers are needed in order to settle the endless speculations. When it becomes obvious that this whole space travel charade is just a stage play (together with the fake atomic bomb) it will prove that the east west tension is nothing but a faked drama for dupes.
@ Gaiassphere
Keep on doing what you are doing, you are good at it, but I am sorry to admit that your writings doesn’t ring a bell for me, perhaps it’s because you mix too many subjects with too many postulations into your posts.
@ Mantalo
From Sweden, it’s the name of a fish a dragonfish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
mantalo said:
in french, rascasse is also the name of one mediterranean dragon fish.
i thought i have found somebody to “speak” with in french… it would be much easier for me 🙂
LikeLike
Josh said:
Mantalo, there is a growing group of French bloggers who have been inspired by Miles’ work that you can connect with. See links in the sidebar to Bistro Bar Blog by Appoline (who comments here from time to time as Helios22) and also the Canularisme blog by Thibault Erikson who has commented here in the past but hasn’t been see for quite some time. I’m afraid he may have fallen a bit too hard under Simon Ballsack’s spell. But he’s still doing some good work. But of course we’re happy to have you around these parts.
LikeLike
mantalo said:
thank you Josh,
unfortunately there are very few people commenting there, and both sites « only » translate Mile’s work in french… there is no debunking of french events, no theory, no research, nobody to speak with…
i don’t want to say anything bad about BBB and Canularisme, it was very nice to discover Miles writings in french, better than to read direct in english, but to go deeper, they are not the good places…
it’s as if nobody knows Miles in France 😦
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Good work, Ian! We definitely need more analysis of these types of things. However, I immediately found one flaw in the logic, simply by the definition of “energy” involved.
A moving vessel or mass doesn’t HAVE “potential energy”. PE is a defunct concept, post-Charge Field physics and after Miles’ vast contributions. Why do I say this? Because the moving mass has velocity, yes, and mass, yes (E=mc²) but that’s not energy – because there has to be a COLLISION for energy to occur or exist. Energy is not just the mass and velocity multiplied, it’s that number DURING an actual collision. Potential energy isn’t real, it’s a concept sure, but it’s not an actual thing.
So 2.19375 TJ (the kinetic “energy”) + 267.54 GJ (the gravitational pull “energy”) would only be fully relevant or expressed physically if the vessel collided with, say, a huge, thick, stationary steel wall stretching from the ground to the sky. It’s the same with the ISS or any other orbiting body. Yes, it has mass and velocity, but there’s no ENERGY until it impacts something.
So the incoming vessel is colliding with the atmosphere, right? I’ll give you that. But the atmosphere is hardly a steel wall, and it’s very sparce at 120km up and even at 50km up. On top of that, we have the charge field rushing up to meet the shuttle as well, providing some level of lift and it’s a lifting-body design in many ways, though not as advanced as the newer ones. So we have a pressure up, an acceleration down, and a lateral motion which is slowly bleeding off velocity via sparse, thin collisions with single atoms and molecules of gas. There’s nothing heavy enough up there to cause a full impact or collision. And the lateral motion is controlled by RCS bursts, by the lift of the shuttle itself, and by its control surfaces. It’s got elevons, body flaps, and delta wings to boot as well as the nose-mounted RCS control thrust ports to help “nose-up”. That’s more control surfaces and points than ANY airplane.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/9-12/features/F_Aeronautics_of_Space_Shuttle.html
So while those numbers look huge, consider the same numbers for a same-mass meteor. It has no control surfaces, no lateral stabilization, and no lifting-body design of course, but rather just a crusty chunk of rocky mass. It will have similar energy NUMBERS, but these numbers are expressed in a very different way, as it dives down through the sky into denser and denser atmosphere with no braking. Eventually it reaches a dense enough atmosphere that its energy can be fully expressed, exploding like the recent Chelyabinsk detonation, about 30 km up. Or like Tunguska, perhaps, which was likely much larger and/or faster. Chelyabinsk was in free-fall, the shuttles are not.
Chelyabinsk weighed 12,000-13,000 tonnes, estimated. The shuttle on return weighs about 77 tonnes, in comparison. So that’s where it got ITS energy from, you see. The shuttle doesn’t have anywhere near as much collision energy, even if it did hit a big steel wall, despite de-orbital speeds which are actually a reverse acceleration to begin with as well. To de-orbit, you must accelerate retrograde, which is a slow-down, a reversal of vector. Chelyabinsk was never in orbit so it just came right on in.
LikeLike
Ian said:
Thank you Jared for your reply, and for moving so swiftly on to Miles’ charge field theory. After all, that is why we are here right? Before I reply fully, could you please define your term ‘collision energy’ used in your last paragraph please.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
It’s not really “collision energy”. That’s redundant. Energy is only expressed DURING a collision, an exchange of momentum between two or more bodies of matter. That’s what energy is: the magnitude of this transfer of momentum. The vectors produced by the collision are another number or measurement. But the impact IS the energy.
To cut it deeper, imagine you have a single particle. Doesn’t matter which one. It’s moving through space all on its own. What attributes does if have? Mass, radius, velocity, spin. It doesn’t “HAVE” energy yet. One can say it has POTENTIAL energy but that’s just a nice way of perceiving an event that hadn’t transpired. Potential energy isn’t real. It’s not an attribute OF the thing, it’s a deduced measurement of a future event.
The collision is that future event. Without the collision, energy cannot be expressed at all. A single, moving particle doesn’t collide with itself, you see.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Here’s a video I made awhile back showing how a single photon’s energy is expressed during various collisions, and also the vector changes as a result. This one is being “spun up” here. Only certain collisions can cause spin-ups or spin-downs; most collisions redirect the particle.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Jared……….. in the light of what you’re saying do you think that the statement I posted a while back seems scientifically correct?
“The thermosphere could have a temperature of a million degrees, and would still not heat up satellites, space stations, or space junk by more than a few degrees. At a height of 200km, it’s as near to a vacuum as it’s possible to get on Earth using the best vacuum pumps. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of molecules. Heat is the product of #molecules x kinetic energy. Too few molecules up there to hold much heat. Direct sunlight is something of a problem.”
“because even in Low Earth Orbit, there is a very low pressure around the spacecraft, making a smaller amount of atoms colliding with the satellite. As temperature is determined (by definition) as the measure at which atoms vibrate and collide with one another, temperature in orbit is experienced way different than it is on Earth, meaning the heating of the surface is not caused by the same processes at the Earth’s surface. Heating is by conduction is negligible, because this works with the exchange of energy between atoms around the spacecraft and the spacecraft itself by collisions. Heating by convection (warm fluids/gasses flowing to colder areas of fluid/gas) is impossible, obviously, because there is a negligible amount of gas and certainly no fluid in space. This leaves only heating by radiation (light from the sun) and internal components that produce heat.”
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
@Tony Martin: Mostly I agree, but not with the definitions.
“Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of molecules. Heat is the product of #molecules x kinetic energy. Too few molecules up there to hold much heat. Direct sunlight is something of a problem.”
Temperature IS a measure of kinetic energy. But heat is NOT the product of molecules * energy. Heat is the density of charge photons in a given volume. Heat is FELT by molecules as charge surrounds them and pours through them, but heat is NOT the vibration of molecules. That’s the old, defunct, circular definition. We have a better one now; Miles gave it to us.
So yes, it’s the direct sunlight that primarily causes heat up there, but it rapidly escapes since there’s too few atoms and molecules to “trap” those photons for very long. Some interaction with the Earth’s charge will also occur; lots of spin-ups and spin-downs. Some of those photons will become electrons. Some will become radio photons or smaller. The average is in the infrared, though, in most cases.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Jared …..The reason why I ask is…… do you think that the cooling down of satellites is such a big problem?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I personally don’t have any problem with satellites or radiators. We use radiators in computers (for example) every day – and even in our phones. Thermal radiators aren’t that difficult to make and design and they’re very effective. For example, the stock AMD CPU fan that came with my Piledriver 8-core tops out around 80° C under full throttle, which is far too hot of course. So applying a specially-designed CPU fan/radiator drops that down to around 60° C under full load, which allowed me to increase the voltage and overclock it up to 5GHz. So it’s pretty easy to test how these things work. Here’s what I mean:
Stock 8350FX cooler:
My replacement:
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81Jh6Pn5tQL.SL1500.jpg
It’s offset from the CPU, MUCH larger, and has a bigger almost silent fan. The fins of the heatsink maximize the surface area to bleed off even more heat. And since it’s pointed sideways (out the back of the computer case), instead of straight down, the heat is REMOVED faster from the main chip below. So yes, to anyone curious, I have experience with thermals and cooling. Granted cooling a CPU is not the same as cooling a satellite, but the principles ARE the same.
Here’s an example of a milspec fluid cooling system for satellite circuitboards:
And here’s a shot from the ISS of its bigger, spreader radiators which also act as insulators or shades, allegedly:
You can read more about that here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_Active_Thermal_Control_System
Here’s another new radiator type for smaller satellites that contracts and expands to bleed heat or keep it:
I feel like ALL of these methods are easily testable using just stuff around your house, for the most part. Now does this mean all satellites are real, or the ISS is up there doing what we’re told? No, not to me. It just means that heat transfer methods exist and we can readily test them or try them in many ways. Easily testable.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Also, another fact nobody has mentioned on that topic – meteors passing by that miss the Earth narrowly do NOT burn up and/or explode that high up, right? We’ve never seen that happen. Even small metallic ones pass through all the time without burning up, so I don’t think that heat is as big an issue as people make it out to be and definitely not a barrier to vessel or probe design.
There are other, bigger fish to fry in my opinion.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Sorry, Tony, the link to my aftermarket CPU cooler didn’t post. Maybe these will work?
And viewing the base, which contacts the CPU itself (thermal silver paste applied):
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/811zTBVDeBL.SL1500.jpg
In contrast, here is the base of the stock AMD FX-series “Wraith” cooler. It’s all flat copper but has no “pipes”, and those pipes play a big role in distributing heat:
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Gah! The base didn’t post. Last try:
If THAT one works, you can clearly see where the copper base-pipes are flattened to contact the CPU. It’s actually milled REALLY flat in real life, the image is just a bit punchy or something. The silver thermal paste is just to even out micro-divets and stuff.
But my point is, there’s lots of ways and even practical ways to test and determine how heat transfers work. While I fully believe there’s some fishy, spooky stuff going on in space, I don’t really have a problem with the physics of heat transfer and don’t consider it a “smoking gun” argument.
Re-entry is similarly not very fruitful to me, in finding fakery. It should definitely NOT be impossible, given orbital mechanics, physics, and engineering. But that’s just what I think.
LikeLike
helios22 said:
Hello everyone ! I emailed once Bjorkman about one of the Miles’ papers on bombs. He replied very kindly to me, did agree with Miles and added paper’s link in his site. He lives in France as I do. So you can email him and ask what you need to know. He’ll reply.
I agree his site is a mess but there is interesting stuff in it.
Some news from Miles? No paper since 2 months now. It would be great if he comes to inform us about his current situation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Enki said:
For me, Bjorkman’ site is more than a gold mine. It’s like an old depot full of gold ingots. Yes, I have to do a little digging. I’am glad I have where to dig for gold.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
I too enjoy the mining for knowledge! I didn’t mean to look a gift horse in the mouth. Study on, and share anything and everything you find relevant with us?
LikeLike
tony martin said:
I have a hard time believing this is from a balloon.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDjJc7FW4AY0uHB.jpg:large
LikeLike
mantalo said:
3 sept 2019 15h06
3 9 3 9 1 11
18 33 11 1
18 18
9 9
18
does it happen with any date ?
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
This looks like a meteorological model, not?
This is not a photo from a balloon, no. They make the models based on balloon data, but not photos.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Here’s something that was posted a while back.
What is it that these guys are trying to focus there antenna on in the sky?
Philip Cox said:May 25, 2019 at 11:26 am
One can set up their own satellite antenna and download images directly from NOAA, etc. Decoding them is another project.
One of the commenters had a good idea setting up a raspberry pi and automating the process (setting up your own weather station)
How to Pull Images from Satellites in Orbit
tony martin said:May 25, 2019 at 5:34 pm
This is exactly how the poor people in Jamaica get free porn!
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
Thank you very much, that is nice and encouraging to hear.
And I can perfectly understand I go all over the place. I already naturally do, but a blog is not really the ideal platform to bring so many points across. I do audios to explain my views in more detail over at Fakeologist.com.
Feel free to join; it would be nice to talk!
On the Apollo 11 anniversary we did two chats, in total 10.5 hours, but you hear many points you have never heard before about Apollo and space travel fakery in general:
Paper Rockets Parts 1-3
Paper Rockets Parts 4 & 5
I covered some of the points from my posts here at the blog and at Fakeologist.com in more detail in our Space Travel Fakery chat of yesterday:
The Impossibility of Space Travel
On the Teapot and Pipe Photo (Apollo 15 rendez vous with CM, AS15-96-13040HR or as Geris from Fakeologist.com called it the Apollo Space Porn Photo)
Apollo 15
This is the histogram of whites of the “black” background of that photo. Does this look natural to anyone??
Histogram Apollo 15
This is the same histogram for one of my starry sky photos (with an amateur compact good lens camera). ALL the other photos, no matter how many stars I captured show the same distribution.
Histogram Orion
My observations:
The natural distribution is one of a bell curve of dark greys but not pitch black
This is all the light coming from the stars which is too faint for us to capture by eye from the photo, but we can by eye in reality (there were obviously way more stars visible than the photo shows). That is natural. Light. You cannot NOT capture that.
Note I don’t have the software to make it logarithmic, but then the amount of whites become visible; the line towards white contains values.
So there are not black pixels. A natural bell curve like distribution of dark greys; reality.
The Apollo 15 fakery version is one of 2 distinct “layers” (I am not an expert on this, Jared please help us out here) with a very unnatural distribution of whites
Look at the spike of blacks, that can never be real? Where is all this lack of light coming from between 10% and exactly (?) 50%??
NATURAL – bell curves of lights/whites
UNNATURAL – spikes, missing colors (0, not low), rough cut-offs, strange distributions, etc.
Another example of reality given to me, a starry night, obviously a better camera, longer exposure and better settings than my Sony Cybershot, notice the quite smooth peaks:
Histogram Starry Skies
In short:
histogram peaks look like mountains or hills in Gaia’s world
histogram peaks look like photochopped off Clown heads in the Clownworld
PS 1: I have done this test on the original Apollo 15 photo I downloaded many years ago from NASA and the version Wikipedia uses (this one) and they are identical.
PS 2: This Apollo 15 photo is part of Act 2 of the Apollo Program. It is important to know that “Apollo” is not only 1967-1972, but also the early 1990s.
To the general public (via controlled outlets as newspapers, magazines, books and certain scientific organizations, etc) a couple of hundred photos of the “Moon” were known.
Plus thousands of sample, thin section and other photos of “””moon rocks”””, that were SO alien that no new minerals were found in 25 kilos of Apollo 11 rock. Even their named mineral “found on the MOON” was found on Earth “later”…
However, most of the 25,000 (!!) photos we now have of the Apollo program were shot and released in l989 to early 1990s. If you want to be baffled by the fakery you never knew before (let’s see if you pick them up) from Apollo you HAVE TO watch: For All Mankind (1989)
In that era, they used another 2 actors to play the astronot roles in the suits. It is from this era this teapot photo stems. The signals shows this is a digital photo. This is not a scan from film, but the first digital photography, when it was still only accessible to the military and related organizations, not commercially for us yet. Think the internet, GPS, drones and other inventions “donated to us by the military-industrial complex”.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Oh but it sure is funny that you still don’t know what SPACE is, right? You don’t mind prattling on about these topics but you sure won’t and can’t answer any rebuttal thrown your way. You have one newcomer support here so far who has no idea you’re full of shit. But I’ll say it again and again until you answer my refutations.
We all already know you can’t answer me, but it sure would be amusing to watch you try.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
An incoming reader might ask, “Why the rancor, Jared? Aren’t we all on the same quest here, at least for the most part?”
And in a normal, real world I would agree. We very well MIGHT be all on the same quest, here. But when I see previously-outed spooks popping off, polluting an otherwise really decent dialogue (despite some internal, interpersonal contentions which I perfectly understand!) with nonsense, fabrication, and bullshit I’m just gonna have to return fire.
This GaiaFake person is full of shit and always has been, another Piece of Mindful leftover. She/he will give you a few decent ideas or facts and then bombard you with horse shit fakery. Arguing about satellites is one thing; postulating bullshit is a completely blatant attempt to divert divide, and distract us.
That’s my stance and nobody has to agree. In this entire thread we haven’t seen a bigger waste of time in my opinion, sans substance or reality. Sans Charge Field. Lacking the fundamentals of orbital dynamics or physics.
LikeLike
Jake Taylor said:
Jared Magneson said:
An incoming reader might ask, “Why the rancor, Jared?
You’ve always been an aggressive, twat, Jared.
I don’t think any of us expect anything different from you.
I wish you could learn to behave with a little more civility or refrain from replying to every post anyone makes, but you clearly have no life outside of online forums.
If you simply stopped and thought about what people say rather than immediately trying to make yourself feel superior, you might learn something.
How about you count to ten before posting?
And then just not post unless you have something interesting to say.
You say you’re a Mormon from the Western United States but your language indicates you’re from the UK and you don’t seem to know anything about Mormons so what gives?
Are you just a poseur?
Many have indicated that you’re an alter ego to Miles and that your choice of words seems British because he studied in Belgium but I don’t see the kindness or restraint in your words that Miles has and Dutch and French are spoken in Belgium, not provincial English.
But if you’re not Miles, he sure has trained you well to monitor this site as though you were his catamite.
Grow the fuck up.
Censorship and Bullying are not methods real truth-seekers use.
I wish you were wise enough to know this, “Jared”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vexman said:
Well, Jake Taylor, that’s some one-legged theory you’ve put on display here. You’d know how to compare and distinct between Miles and Jared better if you had exchanged any emails with them. Obviously you didn’t, that’s why you’re speculating and making an ultimate fool of yourself.
Jared uses British English? Do you actually know how to recognize a written accent? I’ve never talked to or read anything from a real, authentic Brit accented person that would resemble Jared’s style of writing. You know why? Because Jared is not a Brit, that’s why. So I reckon you’ve made an ultimate fool of yourself twice in one swing and I have to admit there are only a couple of people out of many hundreds stopping by here and doing it just like you. It deserves special commendations as outstanding.
On a side note, every single Taylor is a suspect until proven otherwise. Don’t you read Miles’ papers? Change your moniker if you want to last a bit longer around here, charlatan.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Fake Taylor said: “You’ve always been an aggressive, twat, Jared.”
Jakey, that’s the sweetest thing anyone’s said to me all WEEK! Thanks, buddy. You sure made my day. ♥♥♥
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
Josh, how do I include images on your blog? You kindly solved the links in the last post, but now I tried to html them in and they don’t show up, can you solve it again and indicate please how we include images?
Thanks and great you have such a wealth of information on this very existential topic.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Simply copy-paste the image URL, like this:
LikeLiked by 1 person
gaiassphere said:
Thank you so much Jared, not only for the tip, but mainly for the image.
I know this is from some software program, but do you see why this ridiculous representation of Gaia’s sphere is even more impossible than any of the “photos of Earth” they try to pass off as real? The “Blue Marble” joke, I am still laughing.
The text applies perfectly to the image. And to the funny “satellite” blobs too.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I know you’re not illiterate. The text applies only to YOU, which is why it says that directly.
The background image is not a photo nor is it supposed to be. It’s a map of the satellites you refuse to believe in out of pure ineptitude and ignorance, we would assume, but I’m more of the opinion that you’re just another low-level spook.
You can’t actually be that stupid and still survive in this world.
LikeLike
Smj said:
Damn that’s a lot of satellites. How do you reckon they got up there, rockets? If so, when did rockets to space tech become legit cause it sure wasn’t legit when ole Werner and his Disney cronies were mucking about?
I’ve seen the term advanced caesium lifter mentioned here recently. I had never heard of them. Is that how you reckon the satellites got up to Mach 22?
Does MM have a paper on caesium lifters you could refer me to?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Josh said:
MM speculated in his paper on the what’s behind the nuclear project that what we know as UFO’s are actually advanced aircraft used as transportation by the trillionaire families and possibly fueled by some kind of engine that uses cesium as its power source. He never referred to them as cesium lifters, as far as I know. Someone here coined that term.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
@Smj: If you don’t believe in rockets, that’s entirely up to you. I in turn don’t believe that you don’t believe in them. See how that works? You’re just testing my patience but I assure you, I have plenty.
That said, I won’t bother answering such nonsense in the future. It’s a waste of time, and that’s what Gaia and the other spooks are here to do. Waste our time.
LikeLike
Smj said:
Thank you for your patience but you didn’t answer any of my nonsense.
What type of fool doesn’t believe in self propelled projectiles? I had simply asked how all those satellites got up there in space; seeing as Werner’s handiwork is obviously absurd. Whatever the thing was that they supposedly had explorer one strapped to, it obviously didn’t go to space. It looked like a balloon with fireworks strapped to it’s ass to my untrained eye. That’s why I asked the question about the advanced caesium lifters that you didn’t answer.
I know the balloon conjecture seems absurd. But when I take into account that the rocket equation guy, tsiolkovsky, was also the metal dirigibles guy; and that the atlas upper stages were literally balloons(let’s not forget odlum owned rko as well); and that a movie studio executive was the first administrator of nasa it somehow seems less absurd to me. Apparently, I’m not the only fool that thinks the ballistic behemoths are balloons with rockets strapped to ‘em…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lz-wIaGguU0
…Butwhatever, does the explorer one launch look legit to you? If not, how do you reckon they got that famous artificial moon up there?
I do believe sounding rockets and most cruise missiles are legit rockets, but those slow motion behemoth ballistic missiles like the Juno that purportedly launched explorer one not so much. Here’s a launch by nasa of a neat little sounding rocket that I do think is legit(note the rail)…
…I really liked the forward and aft cameras. I wonder why nasa doesn’t put any on their ballistic stuff. Too bad the little sounding rocket wasn’t going nearly fast enough for your orbital dynamics to come into play but it’s still pretty cool. Not that ballistic missiles launches aren’t cool. They just look like balloons to me. Here’s my current favorite…
LikeLike
Vexman said:
There’re many of pictures linked by you quite successfully in this very thread. You know what I think you just did there? You were checking on Josh if he’s around. I’ve got my eyes on you instead, kid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
gaiassphere said:
Hi Vexman, nice to hear from you. I keep sharing your excellent work on Lockerbie, a.o. the Croatian massacre and of course the Miracle of the Andes analysis.
By the way, this I said at POM a few weeks ago, maybe you missed it:
What do you believe about “space travel”? What is real and what is not and on what basis do you make that distinctive line in your views? Isn’t that question the whole core of this blog post (see OP)?
And to test, just the image URL, that should work fine then, a dose of reality; Gaia’s world, or how “space should be”:
Now also on the renewed frontpage of Fakeopedia, where you find many links to Space fakery analysis and loads of analyses by Miles Mathis, Josh, Vexman, POM, myself and many others referenced properly in the main articles.
LikeLike
mantalo said:
did you read the news from the sky today ?
“SpaceX satellite nearly collides with ESA satellite”
https://www.cnet.com/news/esa-spacex-starlink-satellite-nearly-collides-with-european-aeolus-satellite/
I didn’t know about spaceX program Starlink…
what is this ? 12 000 small satellites in orbit to get internet from the sky ?
what do you think ? jake or real ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
An article further down the page states that soon, wireless will be faster than wired.
Not sure how that works due to the fact that electromagnetic radiation travels at c but a wired connection, theoretically, hypothetically, would light a bulb in Japan, when a switch is thrown in Mexico, virtually instantaneously. Without checking, can’t light, for the sake of argument, circumnavigate the Earth nearly 8 times in one second – just to give it some perspective?
The charge in your electrical circuit is travelling at c not electron drift speed, which is nearer to 1mph in most situations. So how wireless (photons) is any different to wired (photons) is beyond me.
I’m not entering into the debate about satellites because I think it’s silly misdirection. We’ll be hearing all about the earth being flat next!
LikeLiked by 1 person
mantalo said:
if the “wired” is optic fiber, we have a speed given at 70% of c (c vaccum),
ah, i’m far from spécialist about this, i feel not comfortable with all this stuff.
So, i think i will cancel this subject and play with words and phonetics, i’m more accurate in this 🙂
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
Again – without checking – c in an optic fibre may well be 70% of c in a vacuum but I don’t think that matters when we are talking about broadband speeds. Whether a signal takes 1/30th of a second or 1/20th of a second to reach the UK from the US I think is irrelevant. Photons still travel at c through glass fibre, the apparent slowing down is just the photons taking a meandering pathway through the medium, instead of a straight line.
They’ll use any old spewdoscience to sell a product, in my opinion.
LikeLike
mantalo said:
i agree with you until the “They’ll use any old spewdoscience to sell a product, in my opinion.” that i don’t understand…
spewdoscience ?
which product do they want to sell by putting (really or not) 12000 metal boxes in the sky ?
from musk, i understand nothing but the price of the tesla basic car : 50 k€.
expensive.
i understand also that Tesla can control the stop and the start of each tesla car.
but why make so much noise about the sky ? is this to link to what wrote one writer here about the :
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.
?
and why use the name Tesla which brings us to Nikola (free energy and anagram of A Lincoln) and electromagnetism and drugs (since 2016) ?
and the X of spaceX, why ?
Is this X a phonetic echo of the sky and what is linked with ?
or is this the mathematics letter which means “unknown” ?
and because nobody knows exactly who they are and where they come from, they pun and call themselves the “inCoNNus”, the X ?
they are the X-coMnENe 🙂
and last question, what do they want with all this noise about what happens and will happen in the sky ?
LikeLike
Smj said:
I was the skei guy. I see you enjoy etymology. Check out the etymological interplay betwixt balloon and ballistic, enjoy.
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
Don’t says its name! 😉 I think Jared is correct in stating that our visiting spooks are surely not that stupid to start pushing that topic. Oh I know they’re chomping at the bit but they’re not complete morons.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
“What do you think ? fake or real?”
Both. Elon Musk is just an actor playing the part of a super-entrepreneur, just like Gates, Jobs e.t.c who came before him. The powers that really own the SpaceX show also run the global surveillance society we live in. Unfortunately for them there are still many parts of the world where the comms network is poor and this makes 24/7 surveillance more difficult and expensive, so the Starlink constellation programme is another of their self-funding projects to put a more efficient spy network into place in a way which is self-funding. Of course this id being done at our expense, as is their usual modus operandi. Perhaps we need to re-brand them as the Despicables.
LikeLiked by 1 person
mantalo said:
I don’t understand why they need 24/7 surveillance … ??
what we do in our day doesn’t interest anybody…
or say differently : we do like everybody : “metro boulot dodo”, so no need to spy us…
we are good sheeps living as sheeps do, in their cosy sheephouses 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Boris Tabaksplatt said:
“We are good sheep living as sheep do, in their cosy sheep-houses.”
You are of course correct, but don’t forget their are always a few black sheep in any flock. That’s why good shepherds always keep a 24/7 watch over them, to keep danger away.
The main reason for this massive global surveillance program is to constantly monitor how the script is playing out in a covert way, as I don’t think those in charge can risk the chance of discovery. After thousands of years of inventing our distorted reality, they are extremely paranoid about losing control, and they want to make sure they know about any small groups of potential troublemakers so they can be infiltrated and controlled, effectively nipping problems in the bud.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russell Taylor said:
Mantalo:
An explanation.
Spewdoscience (I made it up to make a point…may already exist) as in the fake science that they spew at us while making us think it’s real. Confidence tricks. Make us believe the unbelievable by using carefully selected snippets of truth, then surround those with confusing, contradictory nonsense, while telling us that the bits that we don’t understand, are because we haven’t been educated highly enough.
Musk car in space? Possible yes. But after seeing the reasonably high res photo’s I lost my faith. If the Sun can affect plastics, paintwork and other synthetics on Earth, with the protection offered from the atmosphere, then why is the car in such perfect condition. So car in space probably not. It would also be classed as space pollution would it not, according to treaties set up to protect space from human pollution. In orbit means eventual return to Earth but sending a car off to Mars is breaking the international agreement. So lots of confusion surrounding that one event. An eccentric entrepreneur proving it can be done? Well yes. Is it really up there? I don’t believe that it is. Does this mean I don’t believe that Shuttles and satellites are up there? Nope!
Hubble up there? Yes. Possible? Yes. Probable? Yes. Taking awesome photo’s of the distant universe? Yes. Is that it’s primary purpose? I did believe that this was it’s primary purpose until the fiasco surrounding the faulty mirror. I had a friend build me a 7 inch Newtonian reflector telescope. I studied optics and astronomy, and have been an amateur landscape photographer for 30 years. So when they took up a unit the size of a phone-booth to fix the optics I was stunned. A couple of correction lenses about the size of a quarter (10p UK), could have done the job. So the phone-booth sized unit ‘must’ have had another purpose. Possibly large enough to house a powerful laser for knocking out enemy satellites? Yes. Probable? Probably.
Old, past it’s sell-by-date, and should be defunct? Yep but it’s still up there and still functioning….miraculously. Its already mapped all the visible galaxies so what’s it up to these days?
The machinery is up there. It’s true purpose is the thing I get goosebumps about.
How about a wild theory? Plenty of those around here at the moment.
Hubble. Phone-booth is a microwave device, using the telescope to focus the beam at an individual that ‘THEY’ want to eliminate. Probably only been tested up to now for future use. Its the perfect weapon for taking out heads of state or dangerous individuals or enemy satellites. About as remote as it gets so relatively untouchable. The whole planet could crash and burn but the Hubble would be fine.
The weapon? Using very high frequency microwave pulses, aimed at an individuals body could cause heart attack or brain bleeds or just multiple bleeds or embolisms, which would look, to a coroner, like a naturally occurring heart attack, stroke, clot etc.
They could have been testing it out on people for years and we would be none the wiser.
There you go. Hubble phone-booth explained. Admittedly used today? Oh yes.
I could go on but I won’t.
Click to access directed-energy-weapons.pdf
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I call bullshit, on the satellite near-collision. Satellites in the same orbit can NOT collide – they’re already in the same orbit, and to stay there they must be moving the same speed.
Only satellites whose orbits CROSS each other can collide. They can be at the same orbital distance but going in different directions. While this is possible, they didn’t say anything about that in the article.
It’s like that movie “Gravity”, which gets exactly zero things correct about orbital dynamics, much less gravity itself.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
The question still remains.
What are these guys focusing their antenna on in the sky?
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
Not to man-made satellites as they cannot physically exist.
So it becomes a bit useless to point your antenna to something which doesn’t exist. Because it cannot exist.
If anything, they are pointing to the ionosphere. Because that sphere surrounds the sphere of the Earth, where we are and cannot leave.
Antenna technology is way older than the so-called “space travel” era of course.
The base starting question, with any truth seeking, which indeed must be open minded and not led by ad hominems, thank you Jack, bound by principles (ideally real science and definitely not scientism) should be:
Can this be true?
That is the first and only question to ask. With anything really. If your friend tells you a bizarre story that question should pop up in your head right away too, right?
There is no difference in scrutiny in analyzing narratives, or at least there shouldn’t be.
That is open minded truth seeking.
The thing with the space travel myth is that the maths do add up. They made sure that that worked. But maths is nothing more than a language. One can use it they way they want, with certain axioms of course.
But what is the lesson from all the Einsteinian and other metaphysical magic? That maths can work, and it is possible to push it far beyond the boundaries a normal human being can grasp, that doesn’t mean they describe reality? It is fantasy. Magic. With magicians with special knowledge. Alchemy, almost.
What NASA cum suis do is not necessarily faking reality, but approaching it as if things work in isolation. They present us with 2, maximum 3 body problems [as that is what is at least solvable with normal maths and minds] but we are not talking about just the end of the trunk, you cannot just deny that the rest of the elephant exists. And affects you.
We are talking about million body problems here, which are unsolvable, even if it were physically possible to leave Earth.
No matter what you believe in, what I call FoC; “Force of the Cosmos”, be it gravitational, electro-magnetical, charge, ether, gods or spaghetti monsters playing spiral games, whatever, there is a force, or more, that keep(s) the whole divinely harmonious 4D marble set going; the machine with the biggest, heaviest, most electromagnetic, charged and dominant bodies we cannot imagine.
And then, suddenly, some humans [who stem from bloodlines of stage magicians] on one of these balls think they can beat that whole harmonious set, overcome the Force of the Cosmos that keeps them stored on their home planet? No, but really?
Look up Lagrangian points and SOHO, they are so funny.
“Parking places in space”, “always with a nice view of the Sun”, “missions work without any issues”, “material sciences? Nah, that’d spoil the story”.
Euro Disney was more real, really.
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
Or in other words, imagine the next situation:
“Ronny, install your antenna and point it to the unicorn in the sky”
“Eh, sorry, boss, but I don’t see a unicorn in the sky.”
“There, that point in the sky, the unicorn, point your antenna towards that”
mumbling “I don’t see no unicorn, but I will point the antenna to the point you say, 249/76 was it, alright”
starts working on the antenna
“You like your job, isn’t it, Ronny?”
“Yes, yes, very much, please…”
Do you see what I mean? And how easy it is to pull this off?
It literally is the unicorn; the antenna placement crew does not SEE the “satellite”, do they?
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Where are you getting all this stuff from? Did you work for NASA and faked your death to escape? You really don’t give a shit about that possible baby in the bath water.
Being so unrelenting strict with your theories will never convince anybody.
Occam would have a field day with you.
Occam’s razor (or Ockham’s razor) is a principle from philosophy.
Suppose there exists two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the least speculation is usually correct. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation. Occam’s razor applies especially in the philosophy of science, but also more generally.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
This translates roughly:
“More things should not be used than are necessary.”
This means if there are several possible ways something might have happened, the way which uses the fewest guesses is probably the correct one. However, Occam’s razor only applies when the simple explanation and complex explanation both work equally well. If a more complex explanation does a better job than a simpler one, then you should use the complex explanation.
Hitchens’ razor: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Josh said:
Folks, I’m here. Even when I’m not actively commenting I’m still keeping my pulse on the conversation, though I may not read every post. For example, I missed Jared telling Rolleikin to fuck off. And I just noticed Jake calling Jared an aggressive twat. I saw another fuck or two in the recent discussion. And douchebag.
Guys, let’s keep the discussion civil. Please. There really is no need for that type of language. If you feel you absolutely put someone down, try to use a little imagination and panache. I think taking a deep breath and counting to 10 is good advice. Let’s keep the blog out of the gutter.
Jake, I’m like 99.9999% sure (which is as certain as I get these days) that Jared is not Miles assuming another identity. That would be like Fight Club levels of split personality. I don’t know how anybody could have gotten the idea that Jared’s language and word choice indicates he’s from the UK. I’m curious in what form ‘many have indicated’ this is the case. Sounds like something Allan Weispecker would assert. Maybe it was on his blog?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
I’ll be the first to admit my cursing is obnoxious. I’ll save it for the RFS group, Josh. And I’ll do better about personal attacks – they don’t work on me so I shouldn’t use them on others, not in a debate forum anyway. Again, for fun elsewhere, sure. But you deserve better from me, as do our silent readers.
LikeLike
Josh said:
Thanks, Jared. I also think Rolleikin deserves better. Tomorrow I’ll post a comment where I will try to make the case that your positions are really not as far apart as it might appear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Josh said:
As for Gaiasphere:
I remember you from PoM (and according to Vex also at CF). I recall after having had quite a few interactions with you regarding Miles’ physics that you were a complete waste of time, and probably a paid disinfo agent. It’s all fine and well that you said nice things to Mark about us, but I don’t believe you said a word to him about his attempted character assassination of Miles.
When you showed up here shortly after I mentioned I was on vacation, I was none too pleased. I didn’t ban you immediately in part because I have a lot of confidence in the readership here to sort wheat from chaff and spot BS (a confidence that I know is shared by Miles). Pretty soon I got several e-mails from people asking me what in the blazes was going on with you. I said I’m familiar with your shenanigans but let’s see where this goes.
And despite the rancor I actually feel like the discussion you rekindled was constructive in a way. My thinking on the issue has definitely moved forward (and I intend to weigh in on the debate soon). However, I admit my patience is wearing thin. I think the same is true of the large majority of the readers here, or at least the active commenters. I’m not yet at the point where I’m going to ban you, but I’m getting close.
To be clear, it is not at all to do with your position that there are no satellites. it is in part due to my assessment of you in light of our past interactions; in part due to your active association with Fakeologist; in part due to some of the absurd statements you’ve made here; and in part due to the rancor that seems to have followed in your wake. I had no idea that satellites-are-fake would fuel such divisiveness, but perhaps you did…
But to answer your question, I don’t recall fixing an embedding problem with your links. I could fix them now except the URL’s you want me to embed aren’t shown at all so there’s no way for me to embed them.
I will weigh in on the debate about rockets and satellites tomorrow.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
I am probably guilty as the one who started the “satellites are fake” thing here. I had no idea it would cause such a flap and it even seems to have prompted the arrival of an unwanted visitor (who I am not in agreement with, by the way).
I thought I made it clear that I wasn’t sure how such a trick would be pulled off, if indeed that was the case. I went ahead and suggested some possible methods unaware that some members here were having a cow at the mere suggestion of satellite fakery. Then it all hit the fan, I guess.
I’d just like to point out that the idea wasn’t entirely pulled out of a bodily orifice. Miles has published several papers on space fakery including such perpetrators as SpaceX and NASA’s Space Shuttle. If the Shuttle is fake, then that seriously brings into question such things as the ISS and Hubble (which are satellites), since they were supposedly built and/or serviced by the Shuttle. It also brings into question the sats supposedly launched by the ISS. And, SpaceX being fake also raises the same questions about the satellites they have supposedly launched. I could go on.
But, yes, I know – you disagree with how far I extrapolated this. OK, already! I have dropped it. Relax. Have another beer. Go outside tonight and watch the pretty satellites. 🙂
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
If you were talking to me here, I’d really just love to bury the hatchet and move forward. We don’t gotta agree on anything or everything, we just have to keep delving and find what we can. I really don’t have any problem with you and believe you mean well and want to learn this crap just as much as I do or more!
I’ll be more respectful of our shared mission and apologize for being so harsh. You really didn’t deserve it. Kinda feel like a dick here.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
“We don’t gotta agree on anything…..”
There you go, talking like a Brit again…!
LikeLiked by 1 person
tony martin said:
Don’t worry….. the american indians already knew about that stuff a long, long time ago.
LikeLike
rolleikin said:
I accept Jared’s apology but prefer that we maintain the mutual non-reply agreement made earlier. It was working to keep the peace.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tony martin said:
I’m cool with everybody… I just thought a little levity might lighten things up a little.😁
LikeLike
nada0101 said:
I see what you did there, you spooky bastard.
It’s a joke. Fine, I’ll get my coat 😉
LikeLike
Rascasse said:
Björkman may have a shitty site layout but he is very skilled at writing and can be very funny as well. As Enki said it’s a goldmine for truth seekers. This concerns the Shuttles reentry.
According to Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskys equation, 8 ton of fuel can slow down the Shuttle by 303 m/s, that is 3,88% of its speed (see below).
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel2.htm#23
The following citation from above link comes from chapter 3.4
“Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky has established that the change in velocity, delta-v, of a spacecraft in vacuum space (no influence of gravity of adjacent planet Earth) is a function of the mass ratio (spacecraft mass before, m0 and after, m1 firing the rocket engine, difference m0 – m1 being the fuel mass ejected as exhaust gas and the exhaust velocity ve of gas leaving the spaceship rocket nozzle. The actual acceleration or delta-v vector would be found by adding thrust per mass on to the Earth’s gravity vector acting on the space craft.
Delta-v = ve ln (m0/m1)
ESAmple 3 – you want to slow down a 78.000 kg (m0) Shuttle entering the atmosphere backwards at a horisontal speed of 7.800 m/s (no influence of gravity). You have only 8.000 kg of fuel aboard and it is ejected at a velocity ve of 2.800 m/s. m1 = 70.000 kg. Delta-v is only 303 m/s! After burning all fuel your speed will be 7.497 m/s – flying backwards.”
The show must go on I suppose.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
My beef with this logic is that the author keeps stating that the atmosphere is too thin up at those altitudes for “braking”, but that it is somehow thick enough to cause a tremendous amount of friction. But I agree, it certainly seems fishy in many ways.
THAT said, I’ve pulled of countless re-entries with SSTO craft and spaceplanes in KSP and so long as the thermals and COL/COM balance is under control, it’s really not that difficult to achieve. Landing on the runway is actually harder. But I’ve also trashed plenty of craft in re-entry and it really is a matter of design mechanics coupled with proper thermals.
One thing I’m definitely uncertain about is why the (real) shuttle would be going mach 22 on insertion. You have to burn retrograde (slow down) to even de-orbit in the first place. You can’t just “fly down”, when you’re in orbit.. What do I mean by this?
The orbital velocity of the ISS is said to be 7,660 m/s. So to LEAVE that orbit, you have to either burn prograde (go higher) or burn retrograde to go lower. So there’s no way a shuttle leaving LEO even COULD be going that fast when it reaches the atmosphere. It would have to slow down tremendously to lower its periapsis just to even de-orbit to begin with.
Simply nosing down and flooring the gas doesn’t work. That only changes your normals and eccentricity, not your orbit. So there’s absolutely no way a craft could be going that speed and decrease its orbit in the first place.
LikeLike
Rascasse said:
Thanks for your answer. I am not an expert on this, but it is interesting what you point at. So you mean that the atmosphere above 10 000 meter has enough density to be used as a break power?
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
No, certainly not up that high. I mean, it IS kinda fishy, don’t get me wrong. I’m just trying to make sure we’re accurate given the numbers we’re given, so we can further dissect the theory and “get to the bottom of things” if possible.
But given the mainstream physics, mainstream numbers, and then adding IN Miles’ charge field (which gives us a sort of bouyancy/lift UP the faster you travel laterally, but also less lift the higher up you are as well), it seems like this would work to me. I’ve made it work hundreds of times in simulation (KSP), but of course that’s crap in/crap out. I don’t trust the simulation as much as it might seem, but it IS based on mainstream physics and aerodynamics. I trust the sim to be accurate to THOSE equations and numbers, generally. Of course they had to modify Pi to make things work but that’s another story.
LikeLike
Benjamin said:
@Jared
“That said, I won’t bother answering such nonsense in the future. It’s a waste of time, and that’s what Gaia and the other spooks are here to do. Waste our time.”
While I agree the spooks are here to waste our time, you’re responses certainly aren’t a waste. Some of us plebs aren’t physics masters, so its quite informative to witness a debate, and see disinfo shot down with reason. If you and others who know better weren’t here to do that, the disinfo would become prominent, and this forum would become just like any other infested place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rascasse said:
Oh dear, so you prefer not to discuss this matter and instead drivel about spooks. So why are we here? If everyone is so paranoid nothing would be discussed. Jared seems to be your preferred gatekeeper here.
By taking the stance you just did you missed that Jared actually agree with the premise that there is not enough break power to get the Shuttle into a landing attitude. When fuel is finished it will get stucked in orbit until it is sucked in by Earths gravity and disintegrated in the atmosphere.
quote: “The orbital velocity of the ISS is said to be 7,660 m/s. So to LEAVE that orbit, you have to either burn prograde (go higher) or burn retrograde to go lower. So there’s no way a shuttle leaving LEO even COULD be going that fast when it reaches the atmosphere. It would have to slow down tremendously to lower its periapsis just to even de-orbit to begin with.”
8 ton of fuel will slow the speed of 7,660 m/s by 303 m/s, and then it’s all a downhill supported by G. Please explain how such an entry is done.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
@Rascasse: Benjamin was quoting ME, saying that to another person who I felt was wasting my time. You can Ctrl-F or scroll up to catch that context. Benjamin’s reply was not in that comment-chain, so it may seem a non-sequitur. I believe he is just being appreciative in his comment just above.
@Benjamin: I am definitely NOT a physics master, but a student at best. I have studied physics my whole adult life of course but would never claim mastery – only share what I’ve learned, and a great deal of it from Miles’ papers. He re-kindled my interest in the topic and, along with the space simulator I’ve mentioned a bunch (Kerbal Space Program) made me really want to learn how orbital dynamics work and how the physics CAN work, assuming a few things like the moon exists, the sun exists, etc. 😉 Thank you for the compliment, but despite my abrasive nature I do also enjoy helping others and sharing knowledge. It’s my pleasure to spread it when I can, and also to admit when I’m wrong too. It happens.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rascasse said:
Ok, got it. I deeply and sincere apologies to all concerned.
LikeLike
Benjamin said:
Yes it was reply to Jared above. Put it in the wrong reply chain.
“Physics master,” comparatively speaking, haha. Keep doing your thing!
LikeLike
mantalo said:
8 tons of fuel to leave the orbit, then G for free falling (as a stone) until to open the (huge) parachute, that will burn at one moment, then glide around to lose speed and heigh and land like a flower.
finger in the nose, just need a good team of seamstresses…
sans stress 🙂
does somebody have access to the shuttle’s accounting ? did they buy a lot of canvas ? and kilometres of rope hanger ?
LikeLike
mantalo said:
“Free Fallin'” is the opening track from Tom Petty’s debut solo album, Full Moon Fever (1989) (18 and 18)
20 years after moon landing… happy birthday 🥳
“…The song is ranked #179 (8)on Rolling Stone’s 500 Greatest Songs of All Time.
It was featured in the film Jerry Maguire (1996) and The Sopranos episode 2.13, “Funhouse” (2000) (8).
Lou Reed selected the song as one of his “picks of 1989”.
The song was #2 on the Spotify Global Viral 50 following the death of Petty.”
we got a clue here 🙂
LikeLike
mantalo said:
Born
Thomas Earl Petty
October 20, 1950
Gainesville, Florida, U.S.
Died
October 2, 2017 (aged 66)
Santa Monica, California, U.S.
Cause of death
Accidental drug overdose
….
Spouse(s)
Jane Benyo
(1974; 1996)
Dana York (2001-x)
Petty recorded a number of hit singles with the Heartbreakers and as a solo artist.
In his career, he sold more than 80 million records worldwide, making him one of the best-selling music artists of all time
Petty was the first of two sons of Kitty (Katherine) Petty, a local tax office worker, and Earl Petty, who worked in a grocery store.
He had a brother, Bruce.
His interest in rock and roll music began at age ten when he met Elvis Presley…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Petty
…Free fallin’, now I’m
Free fallin’
I wanna glide down, over Mulholland
Wanna write her name in the sky
I wanna free fall out into nothin’
…
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
@Rascasse: That delta-v change of 303 m/s would, in theory, lower the periapsis of the shuttle enough to dive into the atmosphere. It turns around after this burn. This is where aerobraking begins to over – the shuttle is not pointed retrograde at this point, since it’s only aerodynamically stable pointing prograde. It’s not using its main rockets at all in descent, since that would only accelerate it. Once it dives in enough, it noses up, flaps and RCS thrusters take over to stabilize it, and gravity and friction do the rest. Allegedly.
We have other clear examples of this as well. Consider Magellan, orbiting Venus in the early 1990s: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=5598
” The Magellan spacecraft’s orbit was changed from widely elliptical to nearly circular by dragging it through the top of the thick Venusian atmosphere repeatedly over a period of more than 75 days.
“Magellan was the first orbiting planetary spacecraft to use atmospheric drag, or aerobraking, to change the orbit. Launched in May 1989, Magellan was placed in an orbit with a closest approach, or periapsis, of 300 kilometers (186 miles). Its furthest distance from the planet, or apoapsis, was 8,500 kilometers (5,270 miles).
“By lowering the spacecraft into the top of the atmosphere with closely controlled maneuvers, project engineers were able to lower the periapsis to about 140 kilometers (87 miles), which is just skimming the thin upper atmosphere.
“The purpose was to reduce the orbital high point, apoapsis, using the atmospheric drag to slow the spacecraft rather than use the limited fuel available for the small rocket thrusters.
“The orbit of Magellan was successfully modified from a 3 hour, 15 minute elliptical orbit to a nearly circular 94 minute orbit, about the same as orbital periods of space shuttle flights in Earth orbit. ”
Note the line, “…using the atmospheric drag to slow the spacecraft rather than use the limited fuel available for the small rocket thrusters.”
The question to me would be, “Are the heat shields of the shuttle ENOUGH to handle the friction?” My answer would be, “Yes, as far as we know.”
Endeavor:
Atlantis:
Discovery thermals:
On that last image: “This image of Discovery was captured during mission STS-119 in March, while the shuttle was traveling at three miles per second. The small triangle of red on Discovery’s lower wing (at the top of the image) was caused by the BLT experiment. The larger heating area (at the bottom of the image) came from an unexpected source.”
3mps = 4,828 m/s. So the shuttle would still have bled off another ~3K m/s in that image, from its orbital velocity in LEO.
LikeLike
tony martin said:
Here’s something from Björkman about that subject.
It does seem like coming back to earth definitely ain’t no easy thing.
The Shuttle is the heaviest spaceship – 78 000 kg – managing a reentry.
Apollo 11 had the highest reentry speed – 11.200 m/s and therefore most kinetic energy (MJ) per mass (kg) – 62.72, but the Shuttle’s total kinetic energy to transform into friction heat is the biggest – 3.159 (GJ).
Those energies would increase the temperature of any spaceship and the surroundings >19.000C due friction and turbulence!
Manned Apollo 11 and Shuttle do a reentry in about 30 minutes with a mean deceleration of 0.64-0.51g and distances travelled in atmosphere are very long 8.000 – 10.000 km (1/4 of the Earth’s circumference), while the unmanned MSL does a total reentry at Mars in ‘seven minutes of terror’ at mean deceleration 2.15g and travelling only 817 km, which is quite long too.
Apollo 11 and MSL use a heat shield to absorb the kinetic energy as friction of the order 200-250 MJ/s or less (depending on the turbulence), while Shuttle is doing acrobatic flying causing turbulence to absorb 1 755 MJ/s energy.
Little footage exists from the cockpit of a Shuttle during manual (!) reentry maneuvering (how can you film with deceleration 0.5g during 30 minutes with all crew strapped to their seats and the pilot trying to fly the Shuttle?). Existing footage seems a joke.
The Shuttle was subject to a mean brake force (due friction and turbulence) of 390 000 N during reentry or more than 10 times Apollo 11.
The MSL mean brake force at Mars was 78.228 N or more than double Apollo 11 and you wonder how it is possible in the thin Mars atmosphere. Can a heat shield produce such big brake forces? It seems NASA/JPL cannot provide any scientific evidence for it.
The Mars’ atmosphere is 100 times less dense than Earth’s with a ground pressure 60 times lower, but Mars’ atmosphere seems to be able to slow down reentry for MSL twice quicker than for Apollo 11. NASA/JPL cannot provide any scientific evidence for it.
I have a distinct feeling that all types of known US spaceship reentry to any planet, asteroid or Earth are hoaxes. The US spaceships would just burn up or break up like a meteorite or get destroyed one way or another.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Interesting that they’d get Apollo so dreadfully wrong, but you can’t have a “11.200 m/s” velocity and still lower your periapsis enough to even enter the atmosphere. So Apollo would have had to bleed off almost half that speed to even get DOWN to the Earth. That is, thrusting retrograde. AGAINST its orbit.
You can’t just “fly down” to a planet or fly up to the moon. You have to intersect your orbit by lowering your periapsis first, and to do this you have to thrust the opposite direction of your orbit. It looks like this:
Another indication that Apollo is likely fake, to me. And very likely, anything to do with Mars as well.
But he gets the rest of it wrong in my opinion. I already addressed the heat and energy topics above. I’m definitely open to suggestion and/or correction on these topics, even if I seem very certain in my writing.
LikeLike
Josh said:
I know I promised a comment on satellites. There my back out. Will get to it very soon.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
You too, Josh? Seriously?
I mean mine’s not toast again like last winter but it sure feels terrible. Can still walk for now.
I hope yours feels better, faster!
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
Heat “shields”?
The mainstream model of the Cosmos, using the gravitational model of the Cosmos as driving force is the model that needs to be followed all through in the narrative. See for that Force of the Cosmos earlier on the page.
One cannot suddenly not apply the full model when a certain narrative needs to be pushed. And that is exactly how they pulled this of.
There is no denying of reality; Gaia. The physical world; that what can proven to be real. That what is.
No matter how eagerly the Clowns want to overprint reality everywhere we look, it stays what it is. Airplanes cannot suddenly morph into buildings just because they told us a story and showed something on TV (and released 1 (!) pathetic paper where they didn’t even bother to properly apply kinetic energy, the so-called “46% that made this all happen”).
Gaia IS.
Reality says we have many rocks all around us in gravitational equilibrium (natural satellites; NEOs) and we have many rocks all around us in gravitational disequilibrium (“shooting stars”; meteors, and if they don’t burn up by the friction of the atmosphere, we find them as meteorites).
But wait a minute? We have astronots who successfully returned from their failed-but-successful Hollywood mission in just the LM… How did they manage to not burn up to dust while everyday hundreds of thousands of rocks do??? Not a speck on their shiny space thingies. Up for re-use.
Oh, but wait, they… they had… “heat shields”!?
Ok, cool story bro, but what is a heat shield?
Is that a magical device invented by never a success away NASA that suddenly stops a known physical process from happening?
Any object that enters the atmosphere from space (so is in gravitational disequilibrium), attracted by the inescapable Force of Gaia, will experience the same:
friction due to the increasingly denser atmosphere
this friction turns to heat
the heat is a problem, mainly because it burns you to dust
How do we get rid of this obnoxious heat?
What did these brave astronots and space thingies have? 50 km of the best carbon brakes as “””heat shield”””, or what was it to get rid of this Inconvenient Truth that turns you to ash when (re)entering the atmosphere??
When you see the full picture, the puzzle, and luckily I do for almost 4 years now, the silly magic becomes crystal clear.
You have to see it, to experience it.
Best of luck in that journey all.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Oh boy look, here’s a heat shield:
Can’t believe that some FABRIC would slow the transfer of heat enough to enable anyone in the entire world to pick up a hot pan out of their oven. CONSPIRACY!
And here’s an even more ADVANCED SILICON ONE, probably developed using alien technology or whatever ridiculous story you want to concoct next:
Gayassphere said: “Is that a magical device invented by never a success away NASA that suddenly stops a known physical process from happening?”
Is that a magical sentence invented by someone who doesn’t know how to form sentences?
Before NASA we didn’t even HAVE ovens or oven mitts or even FIRE. There’s absolutely no physical way to deal with heat, ever! We’re all gonna burn!
LikeLike
mantalo said:
this is a rot schild
LikeLiked by 1 person
nada0101 said:
Here’s an edited video of a Shuttle landing and it looks real to my untrained eye. It is not evidence of orbiting the earth and intercepting objects at so many 000s miles an hour, but it does seem to do the job as a glider.
Maybe they release it at high-altitude off of that plane it normally hitches a ride on. Actually is that even feasible, plonking the shuttle on the back of a 747(?) or is that a large model? Sorry if these questions haf been asked unt answered already….
LikeLiked by 2 people
tony martin said:
From Björkman:
All videos live on TV of any Shuttle coming in for landing just shows it at about 100 m/s speed for several minutes almost horizontal – nose up 1° … as an airplane … and then it touches down.
Ridiculous. Every landing was fakery!
Imagine you shall land a Shuttle in 1821 seconds starting at 120 000 meters altitude where there is on real air. The trajectory is almost 8.000.000 meters long and the average speed during landing is more than 4.400 m/s, i.e. about 15 minutes before landing your speed is still enormous (Mach 13!) … and your landing strip is maybe only 4000 meters long. It is very easy to miss it all together. If you continue at average speed, you will pass the landing strip in one (1) second.
There must be records showing how ground controllers assists the Shuttle to touch down doing turns at say 4400 m/s speed … but I doubt it.
The Shuttles we have seen landing have just been dropped off from the top of a normal jumbo jet.
Every Shuttle landing was 100% fake.
LikeLike
gaiassphere said:
The runway of the most remote commercial airport in the world is extra long, made for the “Space” Shuttle to land there. There is not much to do in Rapa Nui town, so hundreds of people have witnessed those landings.
It is an amazing place I can recommend anyone to visit one day.
The launches presented to us, with a complete “Space” Shuttle held by one or two bolts are probably faked, but that doesn’t mean these rocket-powered planes are not launched. I think they were functioning rocket-propelled planes that worked. In the atmosphere. Taking photos, flying high, doing things, testing, yes. That part seems reasonable to be true. But in the atmosphere.
Anything above the Kármán line is the domain of a select group of organizations anyway, so why even go there (if it were physically possible)?
People anno 2019 believe there is a Tesla floating around in space.
They lost all shame now.
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
That landing looks pretty real to me, but like you said, proof of nothing up in space on its own. On PAPER the thing looks like it could work. The COM/COL balance is actually pretty stupendous given the size – again, on paper.
Remaining skeptical.
LikeLiked by 2 people
nada0101 said:
Yup; that was my main point, i.e. that the landings appear to be genuine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MathisderMaler said:
Hey guys, I have been out of town for a couple of weeks but am back now. One of you (won’t say who) is sending me a laptop, but it isn’t here yet. When it gets here I will try to post all the papers I have in the can.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Grace said:
SO relieved to hear from you, Miles. You have been sorely missed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
haggisnneeps said:
Jared – yo da man as far as I am concerned with space physics n stuff so when/where/what altitude is it where you just cannot orbit any more
So for example…so say you are 50 tons and orbiting at the ISS altitude. looking down from the North Pole you are orbiting anticlockwise around earth while earth orbits anticlockwise round the sun
so for talking’s sake you are orbiting at 150 miles altitude in actual outer space. no atmosphere present
you retrograde burn for 30 seconds and that now brings you down to an Orit of 125 miles
Now you just orbit at 125 miles until you either burn retro again or turn around and burn pro to increase the altitude
where is the point where burning retro isn’t necessary any more and Gravity captures you and starts to accelerate you straight down?
Thanks
LikeLike
Jared Magneson said:
Well that’s close, but that 30-second retro burn does NOT take your orbit down to 125 miles. It takes your PERIAPSIS down to 125 miles, in your example, but if you’re in a circularized orbit your APOAPSIS, or apex if you will, would still be 150 miles. Unless you burned again to circularize that orbit, it would be rather elliptical.
From the Wiki:
“For Earth, atmospheric entry occurs at the Kármán line at an altitude of 100 km (62.14 mi / ~ 54 nautical mi) above the surface, while at Venus atmospheric entry occurs at 250 km (155.3 mi / ~135 nautical mi) and at Mars atmospheric entry at about 80 km (50 mi / ~ 43.2 nautical mi).”
So for us ‘Mericans (who write like they sound British evidently, somehow) that’s 62 miles up. To plug that into your example, you would need to lower your periapsis to below 100km to start feeling drag.
To be “in orbit” really just means that you’re moving faster laterally than the central body’s gravity is “pulling” you down. You’re outrunning your fall. It’s just like walking in that sense. So you have to go in reverse to go slower than gravity’s “pull”, for it to suck you down.
I mean if you set your periapsis to 0km altitude you’re gonna crash pretty hard. Probably not a great idea. One could still try to glide through it but going nearly straight down wouldn’t be too helpful, seems like.
LikeLike
Russell Taylor said:
So you fire boosters to slow you down, so are no longer outrunning gravity, just a bit, which, over many orbits, will cause you to fall to a lower level, closer to Earth. But there has to be a point where you can no longer outrun gravity due to your speed. Isn’t this the whole idea behind reaching a high enough speed to enter orbit in the first place? Any slower and you would soon fall back to Earth as a fireball. So you just need to slow down enough, to tickle the top of the atmosphere, the friction/drag would then negate the need for more reverse thrust, the gases doing the job for you. As the orbit starts to decay, the gas gets more dense, the drag increases, and re-entry begins.
I don’t have a problem with that. From the comments I’m reading there seems to be a sort of no-mans-land between the original orbital injection velocity and the effective (glide-path?) return velocity. So losing this speed without needing a thousand tons of fuel is the clincher…..right…..wrong….wrong bus entirely?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jared Magneson said:
That’s pretty much the re-entry process in a nut shell. Though if you lower your periapsis enough, it would only take one orbital “swoop” to get into thick enough atmosphere. That’s the theory as it stands.
LikeLike