The Van Allen Belts

The Van Allen radiation belt is a zone of energetic charged particles, most of which originate from the solar wind. The particles are captured by and held around a planet by that planet’s magnetic field. It surrounds Earth, containing a nearly impenetrable barrier that prevents the fastest, most energetic electrons from reaching Earth.

I did not understand the true nature of the Van Allen radiation belts when I dove into Dave McGowan’s Moondoggie series. They are far more than something we have to pass through on our way to outer space. If that were the case, we could merely take off from the poles to bypass them. Their true structure represents something, that when fully grasped, not only imparts the understanding that we never went to the Moon, but that even today we are bound in lower Earth orbit (LEO) in our space exploration (the reason that the Space Shuttles never went beyond LEO). This understanding comes from two sources. Here’s McGowan:

“In the very same NASA post that discusses Moon rocks being constantly bombarded with absurdly high levels of radiation, another curious admission can be found: “meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon.” Our old friend from NASA, David McKay, explains that “Apollo moon rocks are peppered with tiny craters from meteoroid impacts.” NASA then explains that that “could only happen to rocks from a planet with little or no atmosphere … like the Moon.””

NASA wants to have it both ways. On one hand they tell us that astronauts were safe from radiation and meteoroid fallout while on the planet, and on the other that pock-marked rocks are proof of the lunar origin of rocks to have been carried back by Apollo missions. I thought this a huge tell, so much so that it stands by itself as perhaps the strongest evidence that no human has walked on the surface of the Moon.

But there is more. Note in the statement under the image above (taken from SpaceCenter.org in Houston, that the belts “…[prevent] the fastest, most energetic electrons from reaching Earth.” McGowan makes the point, and finally I absorbed it, that for space travel to be real, it is not only necessary to travel through the Van Allen Belts, but to survive beyond them. The Moon exists outside the belts, and is constantly exposed to radiation and pelted with meteoroids traveling fast enough to not only penetrate an astronaut’s spacesuit, but to penetrate the astronaut. Take a look at this comment from Ayokera Kimura wherein he calculates the weight energy (Joules) of a meteoroid in a range of sizes. This is of vital importance in understanding that once through the Van Allen belts, astronauts would have been exposed to particle bombardment and radiation, and would die.

I think the idea that the Van Allen Belts serve to protect us on our planet from dangerous radiation and meteoroids traveling at speeds as high as 18,000 mph, able to penetrate our bodies and bones and our Playtex outer and underwear stands as the closest thing I have seen as “proof” that regarding the Apollo program, nobody went anywhere.

243 thoughts on “The Van Allen Belts

      1. True… unless we’re actually in a snowglobe under water. I know it sounds crazy but the more I study, the more I lean towards the snowglobe idea. The fake moonwalk is just the tip of the iceberg.

        Liked by 2 people

  1. Underwater snowglobe does sound crazy. Put some meat on those bones for us, please; we love crazy, but need more than an accounting of a single daydream. Welcome to the universe.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Hi Steve. I’m a physicist and I searched for gravity (the graviton) for a long time. Great idea, but it doesn’t really exist.

      That led me to believe that we must be in a biosphere or else we’d have no way of containing an atmosphere. You can’t hold an atmosphere in a vacuum.

      I was also interested in satellites but it turns out they are pure fiction too, unless you describe them as devices hanging from balloons.

      That led me into researching curvature of the Earth, which doesn’t exist either. I’m not a ‘flat earther’ per say, just a guy who questions the narrative.

      I think the answers are kept from us by the same people who won’t let us investigate Antarctica. If we could go there, scale the ice walls as Cook supposedly did, we’d probably find the firmament (snow globe).

      As far as the snow globe being under water, that’s from the bible and I just like thinking of it that way. I’m an atheist by the way, but the bible has a lot of good information in it, and yes, I’ve read it.

      Like

      1. You can’t hold an atmosphere in a vacuum.

        You said you are a physicist, but you misrepresent the model of space. According to the model of space it is not a vacuum, just very low pressure, and the transition from “atmosphere” to “space” is a gradual one, not some sharp boundary between pressure (atmosphere) and no pressure (vacuum). The Kármán “line” is not a line, yet a transition zone.

        Flat Earth misdirector #1

        That led me into researching curvature of the Earth, which doesn’t exist either.

        A really dumb comment, because curvature does exist and we can observe the effect of it with our very own eyes, with sunsets and -rises and moonsets and -rises, ships disappearing hull first behind the horizon, lighthouses and it is directly visible with lunar eclipses (if the curved line across the lunar surface is not the shadow of Earth’s curved surface, then how do you explain the phenomenon you see with your own eyes?

        I think the answers are kept from us by the same people who won’t let us investigate Antarctica. If we could go there, scale the ice walls as Cook supposedly did, we’d probably find the firmament (snow globe).

        You can (or could, before you needed proof of poisoned rape) visit Antarctica, with multiple cruises going there from Ushuaia in Patagonia and flyovers from New Zealand.

        And how do you explain the 24/7 daylight in the Antarctic summer (northen hemisphere winter)?

        I’m not a ‘flat earther’ per say, just a guy who questions the narrative.

        Above all you are, according to your own words, a physicist. How do you make “the snowglobe” (or Flat Earth+dome, as it would be commonly called) physically work?

        And why oh why are there no Flat Earth astronomers? People who can physically, mathematically or astronomically explain the existence of the 2 celestial poles, another piece of evidence Earth can only be a convex sphere?

        Like

        1. 1) there’s no transition zone – because that doesn’t even make sense. Also, who cares about a ‘model’ of space? We live in a snow globe. Pay attention.

          2) there’s no curvature – the sun or ship never ‘sinks’ on the horizon; what you refer to is an effect of “perspective”, which any camera can now disprove

          The rest of what you proposed are just plain nonsense and are all circumstantial or faulty reasoning. Calling any comment ‘dumb’ is a sure sign of a weak mind.

          Also, on a more personal note, don’t you think it’s sad how many “cowards” hide behind fake profiles, presenting worn-out drivel and strawman attacks that have long since been proven wrong?

          I sure as heck do.

          Like

          1. 1) there’s no transition zone – because that doesn’t even make sense. Also, who cares about a ‘model’ of space? We live in a snow globe. Pay attention.

            “there is no transition zone” – claim made based on nothing, “doesn’t make sense” how, why? No answers
            “who cares about a model of space” – showing you are not a physicist, you don’t provide anything substantial, yet reject the only thing stories can be held against
            “we live in a snowglobe” – yet another unsubstantiated claim and no answers to the questions I asked about that

            2) there’s no curvature – the sun or ship never ‘sinks’ on the horizon; what you refer to is an effect of “perspective”, which any camera can now disprove

            And the next claim, no reasoning behind it and not addressing any of the examples of the effect of curvature I listed. Throwing in the magical word Flat Earfers use, without explanation. Cameras do not make ship hulls suddenly not disappear. The only thing tools like cameras or telescopes can do is getting objects closer in view than with the naked eye. Just saying “perspective” doesn’t do anything, yes in the circlejerk environments of Flat Earthers, but nothing else.

            The rest of what you proposed are just plain nonsense and are all circumstantial or faulty reasoning. Calling any comment ‘dumb’ is a sure sign of a weak mind.

            You claim to be a “physicist”, but show no capacity to formulate an argument, substantiate claims or anything. So either you are not a scientist or you got your degree with a carton of milk.

            Also, on a more personal note, don’t you think it’s sad how many “cowards” hide behind fake profiles, presenting worn-out drivel and strawman attacks that have long since been proven wrong?

            I sure as heck do.

            Indeed, and you are a “shining” example of this.

            For a shining example how to do it right, see lumi911’s post below. He does that what you lack.

            So thank you for shooting your own foot.

            Like

    1. Important insight. I missed most of the comic superhero world. I did not see the movie Fantastic Four. I am a total outsider to this culture. Please bring me up to speed … wait … impossible … please tell me what I missed.

      Like

    1. I wonder how after this stunning and top-notch technical presentation can anyone still dare to maintain that satellites are not real.
      I watched it two times searching attentively for signs of fakery or propaganda, but was unable to spot any.
      At 15.11 “Hold. Telemeter indicated the jet vein two is deflected. What do you want to do?” after two seconds of deep thinking and precise calculations “Forget it.” “Ok, resume count.”.
      Just think about the burden on this brave man in those seconds: months of hard teamwork, loads of money spent, all the world’s watching you, the nation’s prestige is at stake, and all rests on your two seconds evaluation, but he didn’t hesitate.
      Let’s pay the due respect to those heroes.

      Like

      1. Fortunately, the merry operation of my various satellite TV sets and PCI cards doesn’t depend on the historical accuracy of the narrative in this great video. 🙂

        “I promised to the secretary of the army that we will be ready in 90 days or less. Let’s go, Wernher!” (2:00) That was the approach back in the day – no fussing around, no unamerican concerns of wokeness or whatnot.

        Like

    1. Glennan was movie studio executive of course. Do you remember the amazing starfish prime lights as well?

      Funny how van Allen nuked his own belts, ain’t it?

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Maartin, when he was here, suggested that he had heard from an authoritative source, someone military, that indeed they do use balloons, and not satellites, for all of our communications. Whatever they do, it works.

      Like

      1. Helium global supply & consumption figures must be interesting to parse. If that is the material used out of Antarctica. There is also the retrieval sortie—when gas is running low and Gigantic balloon with payload must be met mid-air and brought back to thee Edge.
        Thoughts?

        Like

    3. I didn’t know about Project Echo. Very interesting. They inflated 30 and 40 meter balloons with just a few pounds of gas in orbit. Echo 2 had improved tech to maintain shape. These satelloons were mainly known for their good visibility.

      Folks, this is how the ISS works. I just didn’t know the technology had been developed as early as 1964. But it makes a lot of sense, of course, if you think about it: weather balloons had been in use since the early 1890ies, and it was known they inflate with decreasing atmospheric pressure.

      I absolutely do not believe for a second that today, it’s passive reflectors all the way in space. There are active transceivers and all sorts of other technology on satellites in space. And it works. Both carrier and satellite technology have advanced since the 1960ies.

      Another observation:

      “The Echo satellite program also provided the astronomical reference points required to accurately locate Moscow. This improved accuracy was sought by the U.S. military for the purpose of targeting intercontinental ballistic missiles.” — Wiki article referenced above

      This is the typical parasitic nature of major hoaxes, in this case intercontinental missiles and nukes, that the controllers want to push onto everybody all the time. Like leeches, they suck onto other narratives (true or false), so that you are bound to be bothered by them even if you don’t want to.

      Great propaganda video about Project Explorer, too.

      Like

  2. I wanted to remind anybody capable of making a solid observation of the following about the radiation issue:

    There’s no way you can test your hypothesis about the extra amount of radiation being dangerous or even lethal to humans.

    What can be observed though is also a fact, that all MDs operating under Xray machines have no long-term health issues related to having their hands ezposed to hundreds of hours of focused Xray beam over the span of their careers.

    If we assume a Chernobyl accident as true (though I strongly doubt it) , you can notice the abundance of flora & fauna everywhere in the exclusion zone shortly after the accident occured. There was no nuclear winter happening and there was nothing out of ordinary in terms of proliferation of life going on at the site. Quite the contrary, actually.

    The same goes with any of their alleged “nuclear testing sites” – there’s abundance of life in general that can be noticed at each of these sites, proving that if radiation is above normal, nothing extraordinary is affecting the presence of life forms.

    I could go on, but I think you get my point. In that aspect, what is the evidence of radiation being harmful to humans? And in the same light, what is the evidence for radiation affecting electronics to a point where it becomes useless?

    No regular person has access to machinery, which would enable testing of the hypothesis about the excessive radiation being harmful to life and electronics. The consequence is that we’re stuck in the speculation zone about pretty much anything related to radiation.

    I’d remain very sceptical about this part of physics being true until proper knowledge with proper experimenting is available to general public. Mind you, the source of information about harmfulness of radiation is the same as always – mainstream physics. Nuff said, right?

    Like

    1. What I am reading elsewhere tends to support you, that Fukushima and TMI and Chernobyl left hardly anything in their wake in terms of radiation being a problem. With exposure in and beyond the Van Allen belts, I cannot say with any certainty that radiation kills, only that meteoroids appear to be an issue that would make humans walking on the moon a farce. At any rate, we never went to the moon, the Space Shuttles stayed in LEO, we seem bound here in this prison. Space travel is the stuff of science fiction.

      I have a theory about Apollo, I’ll get into it at a later time. I do not suggest it is complete fakery, just misdirection. A huge program of rocketry had a purpose, but one that had to be hidden in plain sight.

      Like

      1. I don’t think we went to the Moon, for the record here. I’m only arguing the assumption of radiation being lethal to life in general.

        Mini meteorites are likely an issue when in outer space, but how do we measure the incidence of these meteorites colliding with anything else? How many of these are present per i.e. cubic mile? The existence of mini metorites says nothing about the probability of colliding with one. Meaning we’re left only with speculations about the level of danger these flying rocks represent.

        LEO is in my opinion accessible with rocketry, I just don’t know what’s supposed to be up there or where’s any evidence for it?

        Like

        1. I would suggest that with the presence of so many pock marks on lunar rocks, small targets, that astronauts and their equipment and six separate missions were at risk. Just one incident would be enough to spoil the day.

          Like

          1. But who or what brought lunar rocks for analysis back to Earth? Since we weren’t there it’s kind of magical to think lunar rocks are actually coming from our Moon. In my view, such material can’t be accounted as an evidence since the source of these rocks can’t be confirmed beyond doubt to actually originate from the Moon. You could argue NASA had unmanned probes capable of collecting and fetching them back to Earth, but these unmanned missions are preposterous for the very same reasons as Apollo missions.

            Like

            1. Valid point … I think it a safe assumption that if the rocks were non-terrestrial, they would be subject to the same forces from any place without an atmosphere, including meteors and comets.

              Like

            2. If those 380 kg of rocks, “regolith” and shallow cores would have come from the Moon, we would expect the discovery of hundreds if not thousands of new, unique and strange minerals, as per the narrative the lunar surface had 0.7-1 BILLION years of own exposure to the non-atmospheric conditions and those rocks, especially in the mare originated from the Moon itself.

              The fact that no unique minerals were found (Armacolite named after the 3 Apollo 11 astronots has been found later on Earth and the other ‘new’ minerals can be synthesized from Earth-based ones) tells you none of those rocks came from the Moon. Compare the Vesuvius in Italy, type locality of 42 minerals, or any mine/quarry in the Pilbara, W-Aus or South Africa, it cannot be we have such diversity of unique minerals on explored Earth and NONE on the Moon (like Apollo 12, 0 new minerals discovered).

              Interesting ponder question if radiation is indeed so dangerous or not, there are several naturally occurring elevated radiation sites on Earth, from the top of my head Ramsar in Iran and a coastal batholith in Brazil, but there are more.

              I don’t think nuclear energy is real nor do I believe in LEO space travel, because the same problems apply;
              * Temperature difference between shade and sun-lit sides are impossible to deal with for any material
              * non-sensical maths of an escape velocity to overcome a gravitational acceleration
              * no stars yet a pitch black background in all photos and other footage

              That is why they could fake space travel; they know that nobody can ever get up there and prove them wrong.

              Like

              1. Speaking of Temperature…

                Different stories from different people.

                “The higher one goes, the colder it gets!!”.

                “The higher one goes, the hotter(!!) one gets!!

                So much (hotter) that “satellites” would literally melt!

                Roll your dice, take your pick. Maybe Petra can inform us all.

                Like

                1. Temperature is a property of mass. Where there is little mass, almost nothing as in space, there is little ambient temperature. If, however, a body is introduced into space and exposed to the Sun, it takes the full radiation and gets hot, a problem which may have to be solved, in the absence of a convecting medium, by (a) reflection, (b) conduction, and (c) radiation as in radiators to heat rooms or cool motors or semiconductors.

                  I discussed this with Gaia a couple months ago and we did not agree on this point. Just restating my current understanding, which I still believe to be valid.

                  Like

              2. Simplified in the extreme, radiation is charge flux, which is basically light. It’s the same fundamental particles, photons, being responsible for the effect as pretty much anything else related to propagation through the Charge field. In the case of radiation phenomenon, this relates to more focused beam of photon charge stemming from the source. Some chemical/physical elements have specific properties allowing them to recycle much more charge than other elements, which results in their specific properties. If you pile such element, like for instance Uranium, in one spot, the quantity of charge will be able to transfer charge’s energy to its surrounding. Hence the spots, such as Ramsar you have mentioned above, show elevated temperature readings – it’s charge heating up the matter.

                “Nuclear” energy is nothing more than a complicated way to explain the most basic physical property of charge recycling properties that some chemical elements possess. Uranium’s charge flux could and has been harnessed – this principle was used to heat up water, turning it to steam, which than propels the generators thus producing electricity. The same principle of heat transfer is applied and used in thermal power plants, with the difference being the source of such heat.

                Mathisian physics is definitely worth exploring. It helped me better understand this reality and how clueless mainstream physics is about pretty much anything.

                Like

            3. And then there was that vacuum accident that one time. When the trial run went sideways and this one astronaut popped a tiny rip and began to implode then was dragged out of the chamber post Pronto and resuscitated. Vacuum of “space” is a bitch.

              Like

          2. And then there was that vacuum accident that one time. When the trial run went sideways and this one astronaut popped a tiny rip and began to implode then was dragged out of the chamber post Pronto and resuscitated. Vacuum of “space” is a bitch.

            Like

      2. Mark on November 30, 2021 at 2:55 am:

        I’m not sure the version of the Space Shuttle that we saw at launch reached LEO.

        In my opinion, there were at least two versions: A completely fake shell at launch, and a clumsy glider for landing that could be piggy-backed by a 747, which is how re-entry was faked. Please look at photos of the Space Shuttle landing gear. Quite flimsy, isn’t it? Due to the “space” design, the wings barely provided any lift and couldn’t carry a proper engine. It was a low-weight clumsy glider with poor maneuverability and aerodynamics. Should have been obvious to many pilots, but most were possibly in awe to NASA’s awesomeness.

        The version we saw at launch may or may not have been carried into orbit. I don’t know. If I google “space shuttle visible from earth” I am presented with a list of the ISS visibility, which is not at all what I asked, almost suggesting the Space Shuttle was not visible with the naked eye from Earth, which would be surprising and suggest that not even a mock-up was carried into orbit. Hypothesis to be confirmed or refuted …

        Like

        1. While i wouldn’t say it’s impossible that NASA also faked the space shuttle, why spend decades into ‘researching/designing/constructing’ it if it’s a charade. NASA clearly didn’t care about the realism of the timeline with Saturn V, so why the need to play the long con this time

          Liked by 1 person

          1. They didn’t sufficiently care about the realism of the Apollo program, and that was a mistake. The Soviet approach was more realistic, but the Americans became very greedy and wanted to eat all the cake all for themselves, not realizing there wouldn’t be any cake left to continue the party.

            I don’t know how long the Space Shuttle timeline actually was and whether or not there was any need to play it like this or like that. They did what they did, and the Space Shuttle was good enough for the 80ies and the 90ies. I don’t have any insight into how they designed and developed the shuttle versions or devised the hoax logistics. I just draw my conclusions from observing the NASA gear in operation.

            I remember watching the Challenger catastrophe in 1986 live on TV after getting home from school. It was one hell of an unplanned show and I was sad for the astronauts to have perished in such a spectacular fireball.

            Note the shuttle mock-up engines do not contribute any significant thrust to the system. “Engines at 65%, three engines running normally.” Sure! All the work is done by the solid-fuel boosters. The big tank is just an empty shell, as is the shuttle, for the most part. Note the absence of a significant conflagration commensurate with the size of the big fat tank when the system comes apart. Note the NASA speaker hilariously continuing in his “nominal” script when the system has already lost cohesion. Count the seconds it takes him to finally state: “Obviously a major malfunction.” You just can’t make this shit up!

            Folks, this entire launch is just for show. Nobody went anywhere, and nothing got carried nowhere. We have two cheap solid-fuel boosters, a big fat hollow tank shell with nothing in it, and another shuttle shell with hardly anything in it but three engine mock-ups, possibly fueled by natural gas, good enough to roast some pork but definitely not for propulsion.

            Folks, this is a very cheap contraption and proposition! There is nothing of any real material value in it. They do care about their budget, which is limited. They are not only an effective, but also a very efficient propaganda agency.

            And even with this accident, what they lost in reputation, they gained in compassion.

            You simply have to give them some credit for entertaining us with a great show!

            Like

            1. One of the cruelest psyops ever, to put a school teacher on it (not real, I know) and at the same time arrange for schools all over the country to have live coverage, TV sets in the class rooms. Kids then watched her blown up. That is psychopathy!

              Like

              1. I have zero doubt the launch was meant to succeed, so I’m not sure I’d call it a psyop. Also, I think kids quickly recover from such spectacular TV catastrophes. Boys, especially, tend to be fascinated by things that go boom! 🙂

                Like

    2. Minime on November 29, 2021 at 10:31 pm:

      There is job safety regulation in place for medical doctors working with X-ray machines, at least in Germany, but I assume it’s the same elsewhere in Europa or America or the World.

      Have you ever got sunburnt? Well, that’s because of the UV, and if you move up the radiation continuum of the electromagnetic spectrum you’ll move into X-rays, and then further up into gamma rays, and they are more energetic and so more harmful to the human skin.

      Have you ever gone skiing in the mountains, at 2000 or 3000 m? You’ll notice that even in the winter, at these altitudes, you’ll need to protect your skin from the UV in the sunlight (reflection by snow being an additional factor). So we know that exposure increases with altitude.

      So we’re at least not completely stuck in the speculation zone.

      Fully agree with you on Chernobyl. The Soviets made a mistake by abandoning this city. Life could probably have gone on as usual. There may be a small zone of contamination, similar to places afflicted by toxic dust as results from DU ammunition (Iraq, Serbia), but probably much less dangerous. Same story with Fukushima. There was no need to evacuate.

      The alleged “nuclear testing sites” don’t prove anything because the entire “nuclear testing” was a propaganda charade, nukes being inexistent.

      I wouldn’t discard a theory just because it is mainstream. The technological world we live in and that allows us to exchange ideas via computers is the result of mainstream science. And isn’t it wonderful? I think it is.

      My rule of thumb is always to look for actual technological results. If there are none and it’s all just “expert talk” and “high potential” and lots of science propaganda, then I tend to discard it as pie in the sky.

      Evidence for radiation affecting electronics to a point where it becomes useless? Good question.

      Like

      1. Sun burns are just burns – caused by excessive amount of heat. By going higher and closer to the heat source, you’d eventually fire up or carbonize. The same applies to any heat source – the closer you get, the more energy you’ll receive from it. As you may know, you can get burns identical to those caused by the Sun, if you hold i.e. your hand inside the oven for an extended period of time – the very same redness and stinging pain appears, identical to that caused by the Sun. It’s kind of expected for heat to cause the same effect on human skin, regardless of the source. In the extreme, overheating our boody is lethal and what follows is thermal shock and blood coagulation resulting in multiple organ failure and death.

        But I wasn’t talking about that radistion in particular. Maybe I should’ve clarified that by radiation I was referring to the light frequencies in the upper energetic level, from UV and up. Basically, it’s about photons with additional spins carrying more energy than the visible spectrum photons. These high-energy carrying photons get to transfer their energy when they collide or on impact, which is noticed as change in the temperature of the environment / matter being hit. Basically, what’s going on is energy transform, photon’s spin momentum being transferred to another body.

        It’s not high energy photons that are lethal, it’s overheating as the effect of energy transfer that would eventually cause death.

        So the most basic questions in my view are about the composition of charge field when in space or without a gas atmosphere interfering with it. How much of these high energy photons are present in the default? What is the composition of light spectrum in outer space? Etc…

        So to bring it back home, would holding a chunk of Uranium in my hands kill me? How much exposure to Xrays will result in death?

        “…always to look for actual technological results”

        You’re assuming here that certain knowledge was released to / is present in the general public. If otherwise, you’d have no way of knowing and would eventually resort to speculations in order to somehow rationalize whatever you’re looking at. Right?

        Like

    3. “What can be observed though is also a fact, that all MDs operating under Xray machines have no long-term health issues related to having their hands ezposed to hundreds of hours of focused Xray beam over the span of their careers.”

      there has been studies a few decades back when there weren’t guidelines, and people did die more under high radiation doses, while having no effect under low doses(per the following the guidelines); of course, we never know if the studies were valid/faked, but that goes for any study. Consider if someone wanted to give the impression that radiation is dangerous, why bother to say that low dosages are safe? Conversely, if someone wanted to give the impression that radiation is safe, why bother to say high dosages are dangerous?

      Like

  3. The grant money will usually determine the “scientific” outcome.
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” … – Upton Sinclair
    Holds pretty true today, I think.

    Like

  4. Hi, I found this website while I was doing research on COVID/Li wen-liang
    Just want to say that there are scientific, photographic and historical evidence that the Apollo moon landing missions are undoubtedly fake – the radiation belts bring one of them. A lot of the evidence/arguments can be found in Aulis.com, including a 3-hour documentary “What happened on the moon” that goes through most of the arguments if you’re interested

    Like

  5. Apparently there are many (or most) here who partially believe in space travel and I wonder what makes them think that way.

    And especially what, where or when are the divisions laid by those people between fake and real space travel.

    I don’t like to assume positions, so for those who do not reject space travel as a whole, I have the following questions:

    Which part of space travel you consider real and what fake and on what basis?
    When was the first faked space travel and when was the first real space travel?
    Which space travel event is in your view “undoubtedly real” and why?

    I have a hard time understanding these half-way positions and these questions should help resolve those doubts.

    Thank you very much and Mark, please do not stretch your hand more than needed and/or look for a good speech-to-text converter that can help you out here.

    Like

    1. “Apparently there are many (or most) here who partially believe in space travel and I wonder what makes them think that way.”

      The K-8th grade then freshman-senior years in the public education indoctrination camps. The countless shows and news reports on television, and of course movies such as Star Trek, Star Wars, etc… I think space travel is real, but all I can do in my lot in life is look up.

      Like

      1. Ok, I understand the major psyops pushing space travel as real in various forms of “entertainment”, not restricted to movies and series, also games (I played Space Invaders as a kid and more recently No Man’s Sky for a while) music (not only David Bowie) and fashion (the 70s & 80s), and above all the starting psyops of the Beavers on the Moon hoax of the 1830s and Jules Verne’s books from the 1840s and after.

        But if you partially believe in space travel, what is real and what is fake and why? What is or are the discriminating factors to put things in one box (fake) or in the other (real)?

        Why are the moonlandings a hoax, but e.g. the Voyager or Mariner missions real? If that is what you believe, that is.

        Or in other words; which space travel is real and why?

        Did Yuri Gagarin go into space?
        Did NASA land a space thingy on an asteroid?
        Are there car-sized devices filled with electronics circling the Earth?
        Are there rovers on the surface of Mars?
        Is there a football field sized structure orbiting Earth roughly every 90 mins?
        Did astronauts in silly suits make funny spacewalks?

        I just wonder on what basis someone decides “this is fake” versus “this is real” on the topic of space travel.

        Like

        1. Today my Dragon NaturallyStopped working. I would love to participate in this part of the debate, but will be unable to. Thanks for the challenge, Gaia. I will be following closely.

          Like

          1. Thanks for the compliment, but if what you say is true, that “nobody is going to change their stance (on this)”, how could we have ended up here?
            (meaning going from “narrative believers” to “truth seekers”)

            Something has awoken us from a previous slumber, not?

            Like

        2. “I just wonder on what basis someone decides “this is fake” versus “this is real” on the topic of space travel.”

          That is an excellent point I’ve been wondering too for long.
          My personal answer to all the other questions is: no way.
          To me it’s pretty obvious why for technical reasons space travels are simply impossible, but I know that’s just me, nobody’s gonna change his stance on this topic. Debating is energy consuming and, more often than not, pointless.

          Like

        3. Gaia on December 1, 2021 at 4:24 pm

          “Did NASA land a space thingy on an asteroid?”

          Nobody accomplished such a feat.

          “Are there car-sized devices filled with electronics circling the Earth?”

          Yes. Ariane 5 payload is given as 6.5t, Proton payload for LEO even 21t. As you probably read German, here’s some interesting factoids about the satellite business from Bremen based satellite manufacturer OHB:

          https://www.bremen.de/wissenschaft/fragen-experten-antworten-maerz-satelliten

          “Is there a football field sized structure orbiting Earth roughly every 90 mins?”

          Not sure whether it is actually the size of a football field, but the ISS must be a large body. It is reasonable to assume it was unfolded and inflated in stages to enhance visibility during the 1990ies. And maybe it was only inflated and not even unfolded. See the Wikipedia entry on Project Echo to see how satelloons were pioneered in the 1960ies.

          “Did astronauts in silly suits make funny spacewalks?”

          Makes me want to rewatch “Gravity” (2013) tonight. 🙂

          Like

    2. Gaia yesterday at 2:52 pm:

      “Apparently there are many (or most) here who partially believe in space travel and I wonder what makes them think that way.”

      Space travel, to me, implies man in space, if not otherwise qualified. It is impossible because of unsolved problems with atmospheric reentry. Actually, the wording reentry in itself is a pretty amazing piece of disinformation. As if you reentered a building! Reentry from orbit, let alone from outside any orbit (even higher approach speed), is always destructive and catastrophic. So you can send a man into space as a payload on a rocket, but there are cheaper ways of performing an execution.

      There may be additional reasons why manned space travel is impossible for any extended period of time, due to the way our human body is made for life on Earth and not in Space, but the reentry problem is a showstopper and settles the issue for me.

      Unmanned space travel, on the other hand, is possible. But to what extent? I have no doubt about satellites up to geostationary orbit, which is 36,000 km above ground, so roughly one tenth the distance to the Moon.

      Which is why I think a Moon orbiter is also possible. Maps of the far side of the Moon have been published, and it would be foul play, in my opinion, if these maps were just made up. But I don’t currently have 100% certainty about this, and maybe I am wrong and there has never been any Moon orbiter and we don’t know what the far side looks like.

      Same story for Mars and Venus. I think orbiters are possible. But I could be wrong. It’s the very detailed maps of Mars that make me think there are orbiters. Could they have been acquired by telescopes? Possibly. I still want to believe in orbiters. 🙂

      But I do not believe in landers and rovers because there is no energy aboard the spaceprobes or even daughter vehicles to withstand the gravitational pull of Moon or Mars, and so any attempt at landing will result in catastrophic impact on these celestial bodies. Different story for Venus due to her very dense atmosphere, but same fundamental problem: no energy aboard to slow down.

      Jupiter is 5AU from the Sun, so a very long way from Earth. Would be great if it were possible to send a spaceprobe to Jupiter, but I doubt it without knowing.

      Beyond Jupiter is impossible because in their scenarios they always rely on the alleged “slingshot effect”, aka “gravity assist”, which is a fake concept where you approach a planet at a certain angle and its orbital movement combined with its gravity conveys kinetic energy to you and so accelerates you. In reality, you would be pulled towards the planet’s gravitational center and be bound for impact or captured in orbit. There is no slingshot effect. It’s Münchhausen physics.

      But I love these spaceprobe stories, probably because when I was a kid my father used to take my brother and me to the Hamburg planetarium and there would be talks about the Voyager spaceprobes and images they sent back to Earth and it was just awesome!

      “And especially what, where or when are the divisions laid by those people between fake and real space travel. […] Which part of space travel you consider real and what fake and on what basis?”

      If not answered above, ask more specifically. But I have no certainty and won’t be able or ready to defend my position in the matter beyond what I have done.

      “When was the first faked space travel and when was the first real space travel?”

      First fake Gagarin 12 April 1961, first real Sputnik 4 October 1957.

      “” Which space travel event is in your view “undoubtedly real” and why? “”

      I can see the satellites in the night sky and point my satellite dish to Astra 19.2E on geostationary orbit for satellite TV reception. I have no doubts about any satellites including geostationary orbit.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Great comment. I have come to accept that the moon landings of the 60s and 70s are fiction of course but also misdirection. I cannot imagine they invested all of that money in rocketry merely to pull a hoax. But I suspect instead they were moving hardware into lower earth orbit. Later they used the space shuttles for the same purpose and for maintenance. All of this hardware is top-secret. It is directed against us for surveillance and weaponry. That’s my view at this time. Were there manned missions? Do not know.

        Like

          1. This one picture alone says everything you need to know about NASA. The fact that many of the agency’s astronauts were (and are) Freemasons, not mention the fact that the organization uses occultic names (e.g., Apollo) and symbols (e.g., red snake tongue on their official logo), supports my hypothesis.

            Like

            1. Finally someone pointing out the obvious and most direct clue of the entire moon-landing psyop. Need I inform people here of the one thing even the best so-called ‘conspiracy theorists’ refuse to reveal (I’ll let speculation be thy guide): EVERY SINGLE ASTRONAUT WHO TOOK PART IN THE MOON-LANDING HOAX WERE 33Rrd DEGREE SCOTTISH RITE FREEMASONS!!! THE FIRST MAN TO STEP FOOT ON THE MOON WAS A 33rd DEGREE FREEMASON!!! NEIL ARMSTRONG, BUZZ ALDRIN, AND JOHN GLENN WERE ALL 33rd DEGREE FREEMASONS!!! But let’s believe Miles Mathis, MM, 1313, that Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and John Glenn are Phoenicians, an ancient group who have ruled the human race for 5000 years (he keeps changing that number each week) and are still our masters today. Miles Mathis should be nominated Master Misdirector. By the way, read any decent history of Freemasonry, and you will learn that the Ancient and Accepted Rite predates Miles Mathis’ Phonies (a truer sobriquet was never created, for they truly are Miles’ phony misdirection) by 7000 years. Yes, that’s right, Freemason trace their origins to the year 12,000 B.C. Hey, Miles, put that in your pipe and smoke it!

              Liked by 2 people

              1. I did not until this very moment understand the significance of MM. I had it wrong, thinking that it was more convoluted. So there’s Miles Mathis, Marilyn Monroe, Mathew McConaughey, Mike Myers, Mickey Mouse, Marshall McLuhan, Michael Moore …

                Like

              2. You’re warmly welcome, Walter. People don’t tend to realize that “Masons”, “Phoenicians”, “Jews”, “Jesuits”, “Illuminati”, etc. all refer to the same old ruling bloodlines that have always run the world and never lost power in any of their manufactured “wars” and revolutions throughout recorded history. While Freemasonry is not alone in the grand scheme of things, it undeniably plays a key role in controlling reality for the benefit of those running the fraternity. Hence the ongoing list of prominent people who are members of the club. Masonry is an important piece to the big jigsaw puzzle of the controllers’ machinations for continued world domination.

                Like

              3. Also, the “Phoenicians” didn’t even call themselves “Phoenicians”. That comes from the Greeks, who gave this tribe of mercantile Semites that epithet to refer to their sea trading industry (“Sea Peoples”) and their signature color: Tyrian purple. What they really were were the Caananites who worshipped dieties like Ba’al (which is also the god of Freemasonry, and which inspired the Baphomet, known commonly as “Satan”, “The Devil”, or “Lucifer”.) Purple is also extensively used in Freemasonry, for it represents the fusion of red and blue into one color, or male and female unified as androgyny. The Baphomet character is an androgynous diety, for it posseses male and female body parts on its person. And in Freemasonry, there’s also a tradition of cross-dressing practiced by some of its members. The late FBI director Hoover is a classic example of this tradition in action (he was also a pedophile, as is the case for other Masons like him). He was a Mason. The famous Freemson & spy Chevalier d’Eon was another notorious cross-dresser.

                Like

                1. So this begs the question, Harry: Why does Miles Mathis never once mention the Freemasons in any one of his many papers? How could a man of his deep knowledge not acknowledge this obvious connection. I would only slightly disagree with you in one statement above: “Phoenicians”, “Jews”, “Jesuits”, “Illuminati”, etc., to my way of thinking and research, all fall under the Masonic umbrella. But that is just my personal theory and certainly open to honest debate. I still believe the pieces of the puzzle are Freemasonic, even though each piece has its own unique moniker. However, I respect your insight. It’s quite refreshing to exchange ideas freely without creeps like Minime bandying about baseless accusations. Mark has created a wonderful forum in that respect. CTTF suffers under dogmatic tyranny, and those who even so subtly question that dogma are roundly castigated, mocked, and scorned. Quite appalling, really, But rather suggestive.

                  Like

                  1. You’ve come here by the order of your handlers, since too much is being uncovered at PoM. That’s what your Langley zealots call damage control. And that’s the only reason for your presence here. Your feinting won’t fool me, I’ve been around forums like this for too long not to recognize a rat when I smell it.

                    Lousy try, mate. You need to try harder next time. You may want to try going through the list of hundreds of compromised individuals as disclosed in Miles’ essays, regardless of what he called them or what sub-division of Intelligence they adhere to. It’s about people, individuals with names that Milea is after. Don’t they teach you how to read anymore?

                    You’re an amateur at trolling, mate.

                    Like

                    1. I’ll remind you, Minime, that Miles Mathis himself has leveled the Spook/Langley slur many times at POM and Mark. And still to this day says that POM and Mark are nefarious actors writing in the dungeons of Langley. Are you late to the game here or what? You don’t know that Miles Mathis has repeatedly accused POM and Mark of being “Langley zealots”? Yes, MiniMathis, my handlers sent me here to indicate a very simple piece of research that can be found in a five-second Google search: John Glenn is a 33rd degree Freemason. Try it yourself. Type into Google search bar “John Glenn Freemason.” But before you do that, try to answer a simple and logical question which I will pose to you here. Why have we not been taught in US History that all our Founding Fathers and all our US Presidents were 33rd Degree Freemasons? Hopefully your powers of reason will come to understand that the reason Miles Mathis never mentions the Freemasons in his papers is the same reason we were never taught about the Freemasons in US History. In fact, 99 percent of US Citizens don’t even know who the Freemasons are. And trolling? No, not really. Just here stating a simple easily found fact that the actors in the single greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the human psyche in the history of the entire world were FREEMASONS. Call me spook, call me Langley zealot, call me whatever so pleases your small and vicious ego. But I’m merely stating a simple and obvious fact that can easily be discovered with a few clicks of a button. Mark, nothing is strange here. I came to a discussion about the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the human race and I merely pointed out that the main actors were 33rd Degree Freemasons, and not mythical Phoenicians. If you believe I’m a nefarious actor, then tell me. And I shall never post here again. But is this not the same forum which posted “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Clowns.”? Am I missing something here? After the vicious slander that was leveled at you by team Mathis, I was hoping you were looking for friends. If not, tell me. MiniMathis is a typical Mathis sycophant found all over every forum on the internet in which Miles’ preposterous idiocies are so much as slightly questioned or doubted. Happy New Year to all. And may the truth set you free. God Bless freethinkers, and God Damn tyrants.

                      Like

                    2. @ all spooks concerned about PoM

                      Did I step on somebody’s tail?

                      You can echo your petty words around here forever. I couldn’t care less. Nothing’s gonna change the fact that all masonic stooges are firstly and most importantly members of peerage, that is a close circle of inter-bred families going back to time immemorial.

                      The quest about Tyrants’ identity was never about naming a group to which their members adhere to. It was always and exclusively about naming the names. If you knew how to read properly and have actually read Miles’ essays, you’d know that.

                      Mini Mathis? Your humor is really weird, to say the least.

                      @Mark

                      I’d suggest you to study the pattern of your last fallout very closely. Some bits are being repeated all over again. Please calibrate your BS and spook detectors, the threshold is seemingly set at the lowest point possible.

                      Liked by 1 person

                  2. I do find it a bit strange that Mathis does not more often extensively uncover Freemasonry in his essays, besides occasionally mentioning them when he stumbles upon Masonic connections to his topics of research.

                    This is not to say that that alone invalidates his research into a wide variety of subjects, and I understand that the current power structure extends far beyond the fraternal order. Blaming the Masons for everything is not a smart move, for they aren’t alone in all of this. Others are worthy contenders of scrutiny, too.

                    His insights on many topics alone are invaluable. He’s one of the few brilliant minds on this part of the internet that actually do serious research and utilize critical thinking to dissect whatever subject they study. But it does open up questions as to why he conspicuously doesn’t mention in great detail about the Masons besides him briefly mentioning them in a couple papers.

                    I even suspect it to be a missed opportunity on his part, because he may even discover more interesting connections between the “Phoenicians” and the Masons if he takes up the “challenge” of assiduously researching the group and publishing a detailed essay on the Masons themselves. In that way, he would be adding another piece to the puzzle. But that’s just a suggestion, hopefully one that will reach him at some point.

                    Like

      2. Thank you!

        This is the example I was looking for. Even though I have different views, you present a coherent reasoning based on consistent arguments. That is what I expect from any truth seeking effort and I am surprised you are so rare in this world of psyop research.

        Petra L. can learn a lot from your ways of breaking things down, just like snowglobers and other armwaiving armchair amateurs, like Crandew above.

        Like

        1. You’re welcome. As you see, there is a lot of doubt and uncertainty with regard to the grey zone of extraorbital unmanned space travel and the celestial bodies within current human reach. You asked good questions and so set my reasoning in motion, so thank you, too.

          Like

        2. Gaia, I’m curious if you’re familiar with, and if so whether you have any opinions about, concave earth theory, as described by Teed’s “Cellular Cosmogony”, or if you prefer German, Lang’s “Hohlweltlehre” and Neupert’s “Geokosmos”. Or, if you prefer someone a bit more recent, there’s always the YouTube videos of Steven Christopher a.k.a. Lord Steven Christ, though he’s currently allegedly incarcerated in a Texas mental health facility for making threats against the president of the United States (again). Christopher adds the fun twist of a literal glass sky located at the Karmen line, which I personally love. Turns out Chicken Little was right all along!

          If you’re not familiar, please do check it out and let us know. Personally, I’m convinced, but if there is a flaw in the theory I’d love to know what it is because I can’t find it, though I wouldn’t mind reconducting the Tamarack mine shaft experiment myself, which would be about as definitive proof as one could ask for.

          Flat Earth was surely a DBA strategy as outlined by Mathis, but who exactly are they trying to discredit? Anyone who questions NASA, obviously, but perhaps more importantly they want to discredit anyone who questions Heliocentrism. “I’m not a flat earther, but…” is right up there with “I’m not an anti-vaxxer, but…” The Flat Earth psyop clearly has had it’s intended effect of making sure everyone knows that should they dare to entertain wrongthink regarding the geometry of the Earth, they will be mercilessly ridiculed and excoriated.

          Flat Earth theory is rather easily eviscerated – after all, if Australia were truly wider than the United States, you’d think someone would have noticed by now. Concave Earth, once one accounts for the non-linear nature of light, is not so easily dismissed.

          Like

          1. I only saw this comment now.

            After analyzing first Apollo and then the other fake space travels, I looked into the various “alternative Earth models”, first Flat Earth, and after that Concave Earth and Expanding Earth.

            I made a long post at the Wild Heretic forum back then, listing the impossibilities and inconsistencies with that CE model, no attacks, nothing, just a clean overview. Promptly I was banned from that forum, for no reason whatsoever.

            The problems with the CE model are even greater than FE in the sense that all the celestial objects (stars, galaxies, planets, moons and Sun) need to fit in a sphere the size of Earth.

            That means that all those objects need to be tiny, especially Sun and Moon, and just like FE, where Sun and Moon are said to be 50 km / 30 mi in diameter and 5000 km / 3000 mi above Earth’s surface, that doesn’t fit our observations.

            The Sun when seen from different angles, e.g. at the solstices does have more or less the same apparent size, but in the CE idea, the Sun cannot be more than 1r (Earth radius) from Earth’s surface away (else it doesn’t fit inside the ” celestial sphere”, so maximum 3700 km or some 2300 miles away. Yet, the distance along Earth’s surface is already much more, because if the Sun is in zenith above Mexico, Dubai or Taiwan (summer solstice, 21 June), and that distance is 3700 km, the distance to the southernmost point of observation (Ushuaia in Patagonia) is much bigger, making the Sun 3 times further from that place, so it should look like 3 times smaller, than when seen from the tropic of Cancer locations mentioned.

            I watched some of that “Lord Christopher” clown’s stuff back then, didn’t know he was incarcerated, but like FE these psyops are created to make people crazy and start doubting where they live.

            The convex sphericity of Earth does not come from NASA and is notna modern phenomenon, yet for hundreds of years people know the Earth has to be a convex sphere.

            They are psyops because those models were presented to us, they do not stem from observations by people who use the shape of Earth everyday, like sailors, pilots, geographer map makers, geologists, climatologists, etc.

            And the same question for the lunar eclipses, if the curved shadow we observe crossing the surface of the Moon is not Earth’s shadow, then what is it?

            And how come no Flat or Concave Earther has ever achieved the easiest of predictions; lunar and solar eclipses? If those models would be correct, that should be the least to expect.

            Like

            1. various “alternative Earth models”, first Flat Earth, and after that Concave Earth and Expanding Earth

              FE and CE are obviously non-starters, but there is significant geological evidence that the Earth has gotten bigger over time by the extent of the ocean floors. This expansion must have happened in the relatively recent geological past, given the young age of the ocean floors. The process by which this has happened is unknown. I think the Earth must have increased its mass, which would account for larger plants and animals in the past, incompatible with current gravity. One of the most fascinating subjects for me.

              Like

              1. there is significant geological evidence that the Earth has gotten bigger over time by the extent of the ocean floors.

                Which “significant” geologic evidence for EE is there? The cherrypicked nonsense by that Neal Something guy?

                What about all the significant evidence to the contrary?

                How does plate tectonics work on an expanding sphere?

                Where does all the extra mass and volume come from, needed to expand the Earth?

                This expansion must have happened in the relatively recent geological past, given the young age of the ocean floors.

                The oldest oceanic crust is dated to Early Jurassic if I am not mistaken, I in common geochronology about 180 Ma, I wouldn’t call that young tbh.

                The process by which this has happened is unknown. I think the Earth must have increased its mass,

                That is the problem with those armwaiving carnies, they just throw shit at the wall and hope nobody asks critical questions. And because most don’t, they get away with it.

                which would account for larger plants and animals in the past, incompatible with current gravity.

                First you need to take note of the Fossil Hoax; so-called fossil discoveries that were outright faked. What remains of those “larger fauna” then?

                And how are larger animals or plants “incompatible” with current gravity? We have Redwood trees in California that are huge, blue whales and African elephants, anacondas and other large animals today.

                There are so many things proposed on YT and other channels that have no consistent approach. It’s no wonder you also fall for that Velikovsky clown, he did the same.

                Like

                1. Like it or not, geologically speaking, the entirety of the ocean floor is young because the scale is the assumed age of the Earth.

                  Neal Adams is also fascinated by this subject, but his videos, while nice to watch, are somewhat superficial, and there is not much attention to geology in the way he refits the continents onto a smaller Earth.

                  There is no evidence to the contrary, just a dogma that the planet must have constant mass and constant size.

                  Plate tectonics is fraught with conundrums and misrepresentations. It does not even work on our current form of the planet.

                  The extra volume would be an expression of the extra mass, the source of which is unknown. Maybe the Sun, maybe something outside the solar system that we had to get through in the past.

                  Some fossils may be faked like some of the archaelogical findings. But I don’t subscribe to the idea that the entirety of palaeontology is fake or that dinosaurs never existed (if that is what you’re implying). That said, I have never bothered to read anything about it as it seemed too extreme a hypothesis to me. You can provide a pointer to a suitable Fossil Hoax resource and I am going to look at it (but it may take a while).

                  Dinosaurs were much larger than African elephants and people have wondered how their body worked in areas such as blood circulation or static stability.

                  You are assuming that I “fall for that Velikovsky clown” but in fact, while I know that some people I respect recognize in Velikovsky an important inspiration, I do not have read his books myself yet.

                  Ever heard of the circumglobal mountain belt?

                  Like

                  1. The clown Velikovski was a highly educated man who spoke, if I remember correctly seven languages, and was a close friend of Albert Einstein’s. I have read his books, and while it appears he was wrong about there being islands of frozen mastodons up in Siberia, I don’t take him lightly. I don’t understand why all the fuss, why the coordinated attacks, other than perhaps he was an (unwitting?) participant in a psyop, or stumbled on forbidden knowledge. According to Mike Baillee, dendrochronologist and author of the book New Light on the Black Death, we average a collision with a comet or asteroid perhaps once every 300 years. This would tend to add volume to the planetary mass.

                    Like

      3. Quoting myself:

        “First fake Gagarin 12 April 1961, first real Sputnik 4 October 1957.”

        I have to correct myself. The first fake space travel must have been Корабль-Спутник 2, also known as Sputnik 5, on 19/20 August 1960, which allegedly carried two dogs into space to perform several orbits with an apogee of 324 km and then safely bring them back to Earth where the dogs (and other minor animals) were found to be alive and healthy, and later one of them had puppies, one of which was offered as a present to Jackie Kennedy. I have to say this is genius diplomacy and propaganda! A short article well worth reading:

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korabl-Sputnik_2

        Like

  6. Is Ayokera Male or Female, please?

    Just wondering, even though i spent 1.5 yrs in Nagoya….just a healthy curiousity is all.

    Arigato Goizamasu

    Like

    1. Sorry Rastus, never set foot in Japan, I’m 100% italian.
      In case anyone’s interested, the nickname comes from an old local joke that went like: “Can you guess who’s the most renowned japanese undertaker?”
      The answer is my nickname, that as you see sounds quite perfectly japanese, and incidentally in my local italian dialect it translates exactly as “I’m glad if they die”.
      The old joke came to my mind shortly after the scamdemic started, and I adopted it as it nicely describes my mental attitude towards the masked morons that I’m forced to deal with on a daily basis.

      Like

      1. Contento che muoiono / muoiano? Ayokera is obviously not related to contento or lieto, so I’m wondering what expression it is derived from. I speak Italian (studied it, actually) but hardly understand any dialects. Maybe you’re from one of the Southern regions with Greek influence and kera in Ayokera is related to xairomai (I’m happy, my pleasure) in Greek? If not, can you give me a clue so I can make another guess?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Actually north eastern Italy, Romagna, in between the Adriatic coast and the Apennines.
          The local dialect is hardly recognizable as italian, and a lot of tricky variations even locally.
          In italian the exact phrase would be “Ho piacere che essi muoiano”.
          Ho piacere che = sono lieto che, sono contento che.
          “Ho piacere che”, in english = “I have pleasure in” or “I take pleasure in”
          In Romagna dialect “Ho piacere che essi muoiano” translates as “Aiò chéra chi mùra”.
          Aiò = Io ho (I have)
          chéra (read kera) = piacere (pleasure)
          chi (read ki) = che essi (that they)
          mùra = muoiano (die)

          Hope it clarifies.
          Weird stuff anyway.

          Like

          1. Thanks a lot, that fully clarifies it! I did think of kera as derived from piacere but then discarded the idea because unpalatalized [ke] (instead of [tshe]) plus disappearing first syllable seemed unlikely to me. You simply never stop learning. Is it called romagnol or is there a more specific name for it?

            Like

              1. And I’d like to apologize for being too harsh the other day (on the other page about Noam Chomsky) when we talked about the possibility of propulsion in a vacuum. Sometimes I am not sure whether or not a commenter is bona fide and then I lose patience. I’m sorry for that. My apologies.

                Like

                  1. I don’t know if it applies, or rather, how things would have to be explained in order for what happens inside a rocket engine to fit Newtons law. The wording in this law is “corporum duorum actiones”, so the actions of two bodies, and Newton certainly didn’t have expanding hot gas in a rocket engine in mind when he phrased his law.

                    So, of course, Newton has to be venerated, right, so his law must apply, right? Well, maybe it does, but to me, considering the engine and the hot gas, it’s not a straightforward way to understand the working principle of the engine. A physician should answer that question, and I am not one. My brother, incidentally, is – I’m going to ask him, and he is not going to like it. 🙂

                    My own layman’s explanation of how propulsion works, whether in space or not, is that the hot expanding gas inside the combustion chamber exerts omnidirectional pressure, and so the engine would explode if it the gas were not allowed to escape through the nozzle. Still, the high pressure inside the chamber is maintained as long as the engine burns, and this presses, pushes, propels the vehicle forward. The word in German is Schub, pronounced shoop, meaning push (just noticed in passing: same word the other way round – nice, isn’t it), and that is exactly what happens.

                    I don’t know why some people think it wouldn’t work in a vacuum. Maybe they think the gas needs an outside medium as a repellent in order for the chain of forces to take grip and have an effect on the vehicle. But outside medium and ambient pressure don’t affect the working principle. What matters is the difference in pressure. As long as I can create pressure inside my body sufficient to generate a force to overcome the retaining forces I can ride away on it.

                    Maybe someone can explain why they think propulsion doesn’t work in space, preferably in a clean new top-level comment below.

                    Like

                    1. The wording in this law is “corporum duorum actiones”, so the actions of two bodies, and Newton certainly didn’t have expanding hot gas in a rocket engine in mind when he phrased his law.

                      This for me is the key point, and that occurred to me ad rem in a Mollycast with fellow aSHIFTer Ophallus. You can hear us in the very short and concise Molly Intro “Is he a truck driver?”.

                      Newton has never been into space, so applying his laws, derived under Earth conditions to an environment he couldn’t have been, cannot be correct.

                      Even more important; why were Newton’s laws not adjusted, or redefined in space? That is incredible and would mean that mankind had the foresight to understand space and its physical (AND chemical!) conditions before going there. And then it appeared exactly as predicted!?

                      In my view, if humans would have entered “the space realm” in 1957, we would need decades to understand this new environment and how to deal with all the new challenges that that environment brings with it. Not; ah, we enter space for the first time and bam, immediately “satellites” can be launched (without computers, as the microprocessor was only invented in 1964?!), no problems, no issues (apart from some failed launches), no questions asked.

                      Rockets have been developed in and for the atmosphere, where they do work. Assuming they would work also without the very environment they were developed in and for, is like we were Atlantis people before 1957 only living under water, and the submarines invented in the mere decades prior to ’57, would work just as fine in air (so without water).

                      It is the chemical component that makes rocketry in space impossible, given the model presented to us, because at the pressures (10^-16 bar) and temperatures (-270 C, 3 K), gas simply cannot exist. Even the two lightest elements, H and He, would be superfluids, not gases.

                      And just like the Newton’s law corruption; nowhere on Earth is it possible to simulate the conditions of space, so how even test space rockets?

                      vacuum chambers are finite (bound by the chamber walls) – space is infinite (unbound)
                      gravity acceleration ~ 9.8 m/s^2 – claimed is “0 gravity”, which is non-sensical as gravity should never be 0 in space, see how the Moon and Sun affect the Earth’s tides
                      Temperature should be BOTH very high (+300 C is claimed) AND very low (-270 C claimed), conditions we cannot simulate, let alone engineer materials for. All materials we have on Earth are either specialized for high temperatures OR low temperatures, but not both at the same time and flipping from one to the other, as an atmosphereless environment behaves

                      Like

                    2. The equation of state of a gas is PV=nRT, hence P=nRT/V.
                      The moment you open the combustion chamber to an infinite vacuum, V is also going to infinite, and P is going to zero, no matter what.
                      You simply cannot build pressure putting a finite amount of gas into an infinite volume. Pressure is a consequence of interaction, and interaction is a consequence of limited volume. If you give a gas an infinite volume to freely expand, it just keep expanding without any interaction between molecules. They just flow away undisturbed.
                      That’s why if you want to build pressure into the chamber it’s imperative to DISTURB the expanding gas with some kind of blocking resistance so that the first row of expanding molecules will be slowed down, hence slowing down the second row and so on in a cascade effect that cause all the molecules to interact creating what we call pressure.
                      When a gas expands into a resisting medium, like in atmosphere, the expansion can proceed only if the medium makes room for the new entering mass. In other word a certain amount of medium, equal to that of the incoming gas, has to be displaced from its original position. Displacing a mass is the definition of work, and work implies a force. The greater the mass of the medium displaced, the greater the resistance opposed by the medium, the stronger the force needed, and the greater the force that will be applied in the opposite direction INTO THE COMBUSTION CHAMBER, in the form of pressure.
                      If you keep increasing the mass output per time unit, you reach a point where the resistance of the external medium becomes higher than the inertial resistance of the rocket mass, so that the rocket start moving (accelerate).
                      That’s how ANY KIND of propulsion conceptually work, from row boats to cars to jet planes to rockets.

                      Like

                    3. “Down here on our flying space rock there’s no recoil without a gas seal when you fire a gun.”

                      Conceptually spot on, it’s that simple.
                      The bullet provides the sealing and the inertial resistance to the expanding gas, that in turn causes the recoil. Remove the bullet and the recoil is gone. More precisely, down here there’s still the external air resistance, but given the small amount of gas exhausted by a firearm, the recoil effect is so small to be practically negligible and undetected. Remove even air resistance and the recoil will amount precisely to zero.

                      Like

                    4. SMJ & Ayokera, I just fired an airgun to empirically confirm what I already knew: There is a recoil even with no bullet in the barrel. But this is because the airgun provides the gas seal.

                      The thing is if there is no gas seal you cannot fire anything because there is nothing to fire.

                      Recoil does not depend on gas seals or external air pressure. I am going to post an example that will hopefully make that point clear.

                      Like

                    5. Ayokera,

                      “That’s how ANY KIND of propulsion conceptually work, from row boats to cars to jet planes to rockets.”

                      It really pays off to set these very different kinds of propulsion apart. If you read up on jet engines, you’ll find that they come in various forms. The first ones developed were pure jet engines. They did outperform their propeller counterparts but were inefficient for the long run.

                      You can observe the technological progress in the development of passenger airplane engines. Back in the 60ies and 70ies, they were relatively small and stridently noisy. In a modern Airbus or Boeing, turbofans are used, where the fan produces up to 85% of the propulsion and the jet itself is of secondary importance.

                      Where we disagree is whether or not the jet depends on the ambient medium. You think it does, and I don’t.

                      For rocket engines which you want to attain very high altitudes with, the scarcity and then complete lack of oxygen becomes an issue, which means that a rocket engine must function independently of ambient oxygen, so carry its own oxygen in one chemical form or another.

                      Like

                  2. Mark,

                    “Should not the action of propulsion generate an equal and opposite reaction?”

                    I think you have figured this out by now, but talking about the “action of propulsion” is flawed thinking as propulsion is the effect of forces acting on the vehicle, such as pressure, gravity, and air resistance (if not in a vacuum).

                    Like

                    1. I am slowly getting out of the haze.

                      By the way, Gaia and I go way back, but I’ve always found him worthwhile despite the rough edges. He’s been banned on occasion, but bans here are never permanent, just to send the boxers to their respective corners.

                      Like

                1. I appreciate your sincerity, no need to apologize.
                  Just out of curiosity, what made you think I’m not bona fide?

                  Like

                  1. Well, for starters, it is hard for me to understand the proposition that propulsion does not work in space, and then I felt that you unnecessarily tried to pin the issue down to laws of physics when the working principle can be understood much more intuitively by referring to everyday experience, or let’s say by children’s birthday party experience, blowing up balloons and letting them loose. 🙂

                    As stated above, I still do not understand why propulsion wouldn’t work in space.

                    Like

                    1. I am curious what you think of my reasoning just here above. Balloons in atmospheric conditions with relatively constant temperatures and atmospheric pressures can never be an appropriate simulation for the claimed conditions in space.

                      A closer analogy would be releasing water balloons on the most sunny (relatively high sunside T) day in the coldest location (about -80 C, relatively low shade T). Which is not even close to the 550+ difference space is claimed to have….

                      Like

                    2. That’s exactly the point, blow up a balloon, let it loose in a vacuum and it’s not going to move. It just deflates instantaneously without moving, no fuss no muss.
                      The moving part is uniquely a consequence of the disturbance in the gas expansion caused by the air resistance. Remove the disturbance and the moving is gone too.

                      Like

      2. Nice (unintended pun, you’d say Nizza I suppose).

        In Spanish it would be “Ay, yo quiera que muera”, so closer to your dialect than Italian even (which I learned in school, but has been overprinted by Spanish since).

        Like

        1. Indeed, crazy how much closer my dialect is to Spanish than to Italian.
          Yes we still call it with the italian name Nizza, it has a special place in italian history being the hometown of our great “Hero of the Two Worlds”, the fake leading character of the fake italian “Risorgimento”, basically a full masonic enterprise. A forerunner of other fake heroes like Che Guevara, but that is a story for another day.

          Like

  7. I understand if sometimes difficult to discern what’s real in a conspiracy, but i think it ultimately comes down to the evidence.

    first, it must be acknowledged that there is an important distinction between an unmanned aircraft landing on the moon, and a manned aircraft landing on the moon. If we claim that the former is fake, then an alternative expansion has to be given for the (supposed) reflectors installed on the moon surface, the photography that matches ‘independent’ satellite imagery and the regoliths (the real ones, after apollo 15/16). However, if we simply question that manned Moon landing is fake, none of the above needs an alternative explanation – because the manned missions did nothing that the unmanned missions couldn’t do (save for the fake photographs)

    Like

  8. After you have duely admired Jupiter, Saturn and Venus in straight alignment in the evening sky, with Jupiter and Venus in glorious brilliance and Saturn almost perfectly in the middle, you might want to enjoy this ~40 minute video on the many conundrums of manned space travel, which, despite the (well-intentioned but misleading) title, mainly covers the International Space Station, the ISS:

    Bogus Reentry Vehicles – Science Frontier – Youtube: mt_qySI10VI

    I have posted this video before on this blog, so you might already know it.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I remember one of the arguments that people often use to “prove” the van-allen belts can be safely passed through, is that the ISS passes through the belts regularly. But if as the video argues, that manned ISS is fake; then it actually proves the exact opposite – humans cannot pass through the van Allen belts safely

      Like

  9. Part 1
    Let’s hypothesise that 9/11 only occurred now but we had all our psyop knowledge just as it is now. How long would it take to work out what 9/11 really was? Even though some people worked out virtually immediately – it only took me 13 years – that it was a psyop I’d say very few worked out it was essentially an exercise involving destruction of buildings immediately, not unless they already had some kind of versing in psyops. And, of course, some truthers, years and years and years later STILL don’t get “exercise”, they still think “inside job with real killing and injury” and some truthers STILL think real planes. That’s how well the propaganda works.

    For me now, I’d work it out in 2 minutes flat while it actually took me 13 years (psyop) + 4 years (“exercise”). Immediately, I’d look at the supposed injured and see immediately that they were “drill” injured and I’d know straightaway that they did it and everything would be fake unless they wanted it for real and that all they wanted for real was destruction of buildings.

    From 17 years to 2 mins. Bit of a difference, no?

    Now I know exactly what to do look for and don’t waste time putting my nose into things that I may not understand very well and/or are not relevant.

    Wouldn’t waste a second on the theory of 79th column giving way and girder come off its whatever it was. Wouldn’t waste time on the “special” design of the buildings that made them vulnerable to fire. Wouldn’t waste time on the faked phone calls, wouldn’t waste time on all the things I wasted loads and loads of time on when I first looked at 9/11 and was utterly clueless. Wouldn’t f0llow the numerous red herring propaganda trails that I followed because I knew no better.

    Let’s take Kyle Rittenhouse. Never look at the media and only gleaned from the internet there was a “Kyle Rittenhouse event” which I didn’t know any details of – don’t think I knew shooting was involved or anything just knew something happened but my immediate thought from the sense of 24/7 breathless reporting was, “That’ll be a psyop.” I only looked when an article was published in Off-Guardian that, unsurprisingly, accepted the shooting as real and the trial as real and only expressed indignation at the “Reaction/Solution” levels – talk of getting rid of jury trials. Why do people latch onto the Reaction/Solution levels without questioning the Problem level in the Problem > Reaction > Solution scenario? Why? It’s the PROBLEM level that people should address because when you address the fake problem the Reaction/Solution parts immediately get swept away but the designated critics of TPTB NEVER address the PROBLEM part meaning they’re part of the PROBLEM themselves.

    So I just searched for “Kyle Rittenhouse hoax / psyop” on Bitchute and Odysee and found a few choice videos – I highly recommend this video (6 mins of analysis) where the Bitchuter talks about her experience telling her classmates Santa Claus wasn’t real and how it’s a similar situation today telling adults that what mass media tell us isn’t real.
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/G1v7KSMXALwy/

    Part 2 in next comment.

    Like

  10. Part 2

    OK, so what I do now when looking at events for whether they’re psyops is look for the obvious signs of fakery … and they’re always there.

    But they’re not there in the moon landings. The obvious signs are not there. What is there instead is “consistent conformity with expectations”.

    In my opinion, what moon hoaxers do is look at things that aren’t really relevant / they don’t really understand very well just as I did when I first looked at 9/11.

    Critical thinking says you do not reject what are generally accepted as being the conditions on the moon, namely:
    — 1/6th gravity
    — virtually no atmosphere
    — black sky day and night

    When something is generally accepted as true – unless you have reason to doubt it – you accept it as true. Critical thinking says you must do that otherwise there is simply no grounding to base anything on and there’s simply no reason not to.

    There’s a set of techniques used in film-making called Day For Night where filming is done in daylight (usually more around twilight I think) and made to look like night. While Night for Day can also be done, it is ONLY done inside. You cannot make night look like day outside – or if you can now because of very bright laser lights you certainly couldn’t do it back in 1969.
    https://www.studentfilmmakers.com/lighting-a-room-night-for-day/

    The proof we went to the moon is in the evidence we are shown. What must be given priority is the evidence – which isn’t to say that purported evidence isn’t faked but then we have evidence of fakery right? The tangible artefacts are what we give priority to. Every single image we see of the moon is consistent with the expectation of bright sunlit surface with blackness all around – not just a black backdrop – but blackness all around. This is unfakeable and if it were faked we would see it somewhere and we never, ever do. The Van Allen belts are a red herring. Moon hoaxers say one thing, Apollo enthusiasts say another. There’s no tangibility to them and to me they’re a red herring. I prioritise the tangible artefacts.

    Like

  11. Just that we are on the same page, as language is not only essential, yet also a shared passion by many here, grazie Ayokera ende Danke lumi;

    a hunter is someone who hunts
    a hoaxer is someone who pulls off a hoax
    a moon hoaxer is someone who pulls off a hoax about our mysterious Moon

    I trust you adjust, Petra

    (spamming 9/11 shite, unable to answer questions and the hubris to lecture others on critical thinking, vete a la mierda timewaster, go chit chat with yourself elsewhere)

    Like

    1. reasoning on;

      someone [against all undeniable evidence] perpetraiting (no typo) a hoax, is also a hoaxer

      so you are the only moonhoaxer here, Petra Spamaroundi

      Like

      1. Please let’s not be too harsh with poor Petra.
        Inside her flimsy paper castle, armed only with a plastic cutlass like an Ignatius Reilly, she’s holding her ground alone, against an army of orks.
        That’s the mark of bravery, perhaps a bit bordering on suicidal, but bravery nonetheless.

        Like

          1. Gaia, you can all deride me as condescendingly as you like, it’s like water off a duck’s back. I know I’m right, not because I have better scientific understanding (I certainly don’t) and not because I do more research (I’m quite lazy) – it’s simply because I use the correct methodology to determine what the truth is and moon-hoaxers so very obviously do not.

            Please answer this straightforward question.

            Do you agree that a basic principle of critical thinking is to check what others say that contradicts what you believe to ensure that you can refute what they say and thus justify your belief as correct?

            If you don’t think that this is a basic principle of critical thinking, please say why.

            Like

            1. “Do you agree that a basic principle of critical thinking is to check what others say that contradicts what you believe to ensure that you can refute what they say and thus justify your belief as correct?”

              Petra, what is your explanation for why in every video footage on the moon we see the astronauts moving in slo-mo?
              Wouldn’t you expect someone to move normally or if anything faster in a reduced gravity?
              Picture yourself weighing 1/6 or 1/3 or 1/2 of your actual weight, do you think you would be moving in slo-mo? If so why?
              When they jump around they’re equally slowed down when going upwards or downwards, does that make sense to you? Given the reduced gravity shouldn’t they be moving upwards faster, then falling back much more slowly?

              My explanation is that back then they didn’t have CGI or any other fancy technology, so the only way they figured out to somehow convey the impression of a strange, non earthly environment, was to film everything in slo-mo.
              In case you don’t have a proper explanation, I remind you that the anomalies for which you don’t have a reasonable answer seem to be piling up at a dangerous fast pace.
              Maybe, just maybe, could it be it’s time to apply to yourself your recommendations?

              Like

              1. “… you don’t have a reasonable answer seem to be piling up at a dangerous fast pace.
                Maybe, just maybe, could it be it’s time to apply to yourself your recommendations?”

                I can see you take no heed of my comment Ayokera because you’ve obviously not done the due diligence I state needs to be part of everyone’s method and checked for the debunking of slo-mo. If you had, what you present for slo-mo would be in the form of a refutation rather than just coming directly from your own thoughts on the subject.

                I’d say that every general kind of claim for the moon landings being fake has been explained – and it’s up to the moon-hoaxers to refute that explanation. Your last presentation was of a single photo which may well not be debunked because the debunkers are unaware of it having been put forward as a sign of fakery. Have you approached any of the Apollo enthusiasts for an explanation?

                However, I’d already looked up the slo-mo debunking and I know there’s quite a few. So what I ask you to do is the due diligence that I endeavour to do as much as possible and come back to me with a debunking of the debunking of slo-mo. I ask that you perhaps extend your research to more than one item put forward just in case one debunking doesn’t do a very good job of it. Please make a reasonable effort to do your due diligence with an open mind.

                I look forward to reading your debunking of the debunking.

                Like

                1. I’d say that every general kind of claim for the moon landings being fake has been explained

                  mantra 1 that Ms. L. has debunked herself by her inability to answer any simple and serious questions like the excellent ones Ayokera has added to the pile.

                  Apparentamente solo in italiano, certo?

                  – and it’s up to the moon-hoaxers

                  mantra 2 proving again that Spamaroundi doesn’t read and just keeps trolling around in circles

                  QED

                  Like

                  1. Huh? As far as I recall the only question Ayokera has asked me directly is on the bootprint photo (apart from the current one which I KNOW has explanations and which I’ve asked him to do due diligence on) but he may well have asked me another question I don’t recall that I wasn’t able to answer because my scientific knowledge isn’t great enough and there is no explanation on the internet. There are however a very large number of questions that have been answered. If you go to my webpage you will find links at the bottom to a few debunking sites but there are quite a few more.

                    I seriously am at a loss at the way moon-hoaxers simply make their claims without checking to see if anyone out there in Apollo-aficionado-land has an explanation. There are so many people passionate nerds out there with detailed explanations simply tumbling out of them.

                    http://occamsrazormoonlandings.weebly.com/

                    Like

                  2. You didn’t answer my question about due diligence, Gaia. Perhaps you have an allergy to it. It’s not hard, it’s so simple but so many people jus’ don’ wanna do it, they have a massive aversion because they don’t want their beliefs to be challenged, they have attachment to their beliefs. I tend to think that attachment to belief is one of the reasons we’re in such a mess whichever way one’s beliefs go.

                    So, Gaia:

                    Do you think that a part of your method for determining the truth of something is to look for contradiction of one’s belief to see if there’s any validity in that contradiction?

                    In other words, due diligence.

                    Like

                  3. Just to add when I saw that Kary Mullis said:

                    “The aim of the scientist is to prove their hypothesis wrong,” I was like, “Bingo! that’s what I do.” I’m not a scientist but I always look for anything anyone has out their in contradiction of what I believe to ensure as much as possible that what I believe is correct. Just because there’s contradiction out there, of course, doesn’t mean it’s valid, it’s a matter of checking.

                    Moon-hoaxers don’t try to prove their hypothesis wrong in any shape or form.

                    Like

                2. Well Petra, my first and foremost due diligence is to use my brain, otherwise, how could I tell if the debunkers have a legit explanation or are just bullshitting around?
                  Your only due diligence seems to be restricted to repeating verbatim whatever the debunkers happen to say.

                  “I’d say that every general kind of claim for the moon landings being fake has been explained – and it’s up to the moon-hoaxers to refute that explanation.”

                  From one of your favourite debunking site:
                  “8.8 How come meteoroid showers didn’t kill the astronauts?
                  IN A NUTSHELL: Because big enough meteoroids are actually incredibly rare. The spacesuits and spacecraft had protective layers designed to absorb the impact of the minute specks that constitute the vast majority of meteoroids.”

                  My, already posted, refutation (that you ignored) is that, according to their own data, those minute specks actually have kinetic energy on par with or much higher than big bore firearms bullets.
                  Does it seem reasonable to you to think that spacesuits and who’s inside can cope with big bore bullets? Yes? No?
                  What is your refutation of the refutation?
                  Do you realize that without a proper alternative explanation just this single point would make walking on the moon a 100% certainty suicide mission?

                  Bonus questions
                  – If there’re better alternatives, why are the debunkers giving us such nonsense as their prime choice for a rock solid explanation?
                  – How do you simulate on earth the effect of minute specks travelling at 50,000 mph, to test the “protective layers” in order to be sure they can absorb the impact with no harm to the astronauts inside?
                  -While doing your due diligence how is it you didn’t spot the blatant inconsistency in their argument?

                  As for the slo-mo, I wasn’t able to find any debunking so I gave up after a while of searching, why don’t you just give me a refutation in your own words?

                  ps
                  And I’m not even going here to start touching on the fact that the whole space travels saga rests on impossible premises.

                  Like

                  1. Mark,

                    feliz año and how is your hand recovering ?

                    can you please make happen that
                    – Ayokera at least, but I have some cents to add, writes
                    – an own dedicated, concise pointwise collection of objections to the space travel narrative which
                    – Petra is free to take to one of her Snopes sites
                    – to consult the carnies there who have never considered the many new points they get

                    she is free to comment underneath that dedicated thread

                    Ayokera is not a podcaster, each to his own, else it would not be either Eye am Eye Radio nor aLOUD. but these more than excellent objections, well reasoned, well presented and in another language than his own deserve more than just a comment section dumped over by nitwit nonsense from the ozzie believer.

                    I can write my part as a post with too many links, if you can copy that into Ayokera’s main work, I think we can achieve something solid.

                    Gaia’s spheres do not allow for space travel
                    ever.

                    Like

                    1. The hand is in slow recovery, problems I am dealing with being pain, flexibility and scar tissue. Many weeks of rehab to go.

                      I am currently in Yucatan, and having to deal with an iPad, limited in its uses. But I do have it in mind that I want Petra to confront the full array of points raised by skeptics. As it is, she chooses to focus on one or two (dark sky absent stars and absence of a burn crater at the landing sites). McGowan, while a limited hangout, did a very good job a listing a vast array of difficulties with the official story. I am chronicling them during my times here (under the weather) and am going to confront her with a full list of problems therein. Maybe that will work out as you want within the limited utility of a blog. (It is my third time through Moondoggie, and still fun to read. I’ve suggested several times now that Petra spend some time there, to no avail.)

                      In one very brief paragraph in Part I of Moondoggie, McGowan says “In truth, the entire space program has largely been, from its inception, little more than an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry and surveillance systems.” In the fourteen-part essay he never again returns to that issue.

                      Like

                    2. Nice, and I look forward to the comptehensove list we can pile together:

                      *together
                      we matter

                      to matter
                      we master

                      to master
                      we gather

                      to gather
                      we matter

                      mind over
                      matter

                      together
                      we mind*

                      And Yucatán ??? can US humans still travel internationally without being raped, either by poisoned darts or nasally??

                      share photos please, in a separate blog post. Yout wife is two more hands….

                      Like

                    3. Currently Mexico lets us in without vax or PCR testing, which is why we are here. I was surprised that masking is universally mandated here, thinking the place a little bit saner than other places. Maybe that was the tradeoff to get tourists here.

                      Like

                  2. My apologies if I didn’t respond to one of your comments, Ayokera, I wouldn’t have seen it, I don’t ignore comments.

                    “… my first and foremost due diligence is to use my brain, otherwise, how could I tell if the debunkers have a legit explanation or are just bullshitting around?”

                    Yes, but when we apply our brains to subjects where our knowledge is limited that’s a big danger and what I try to do is avoid that. How on earth would I know if the Apollo space suit would be able to resist micrometorites? No clue. We’re told it is has 11 layers and if the dimensions are miniscule this will tend to mitigate the speed element. I think the answer is perfectly OK in the absence of an understanding of the physics of tiny particles … and in the absence of contradictory evidence that’s plenty good enough for me.

                    Similarly, while there might seem to be a logic to moving faster in lower gravity my understanding is too limited. Consider that when you lift your foot up gravity won’t pull it down as quickly on the moon – this is the thought I came up with and lo and behold, it’s the same response from space enthusiast, C Stuart Hardwicke.

                    “Astronauts on the moon are accelerated towards the surface by lunar gravity—or about 1/6th as fast as on Earth. So when they take a step, they come down more slowly.”
                    https://www.quora.com/Why-the-videos-of-astronauts-walking-on-the-Moon-seem-to-be-in-slow-motion

                    I do think it’s strange you didn’t find any responses. Perhaps if you only searched on “slo-mo” rather than slow-motion?

                    If you put in ‘apollo hoax “slow motion”‘ you will get responses although to get my response I specifically searched on site:quora.com because I tend to like quora answers and it didn’t show in the original search. I wonder why not because it’s much more relevant than a lot of the other responses.

                    As I’ve said I focus on the tangible and easily understood and if there’s enough that’s tangible that favours one hypothesis over the other I go with that. We don’t focus on what was allegedly going on in WTC-7 before it came down or what its design was, we focus on the collapse – that’s the clearly tangible and salient element and the only one that needs discussing.

                    A massive tangible is that there are hundreds of photos reflecting the completely different lunar conditions of black sky with brightly-lit surface.

                    Another massive tangible is the hours of audio with no signs of fakery.

                    Like

                    1. “Yes, but when we apply our brains to subjects where our knowledge is limited that’s a big danger and what I try to do is avoid that. How on earth would I know if the Apollo space suit would be able to resist micrometorites? No clue. We’re told it is has 11 layers and if the dimensions are miniscule this will tend to mitigate the speed element. I think the answer is perfectly OK in the absence of an understanding of the physics of tiny particles … and in the absence of contradictory evidence that’s plenty good enough for me.”

                      How is kinetic energy a complicate subject Petra?
                      Any moving object has kinetic energy, the amount depending on its mass and velocity. You can calculate it using E=1/2mv2.
                      The equation applies the same to a tiny micrometeoroid or to a speeding freight train.
                      The debunkers inform us that micrometeoroids can have velocity “up to 50,000 mph”.
                      What you seem not be getting clear enough is the HUGE AMOUNT of energy being transferred when a micrometeoroid impacts on something.
                      A 100 mg (1/10 gram) speck of rock travelling at 50,000 mph has twice the energy of the most powerful elephant rifle bullet.
                      When the speck impact another object (like e.g. an astronaut), all or a great part of that energy is tranferred to the object, it cannot just magically disappear on your protective 11 layers. With an acrobatic stretch of imagination we may concede the spacesuits might be able to stop the bullet and prevent penetration, but they cannot avoid the vast amount of energy being transferred to the astronaut. At the very best is like being hit by a huge sledgehammer.
                      Can you figure it Petra? How healthy for the astronauts to be repeatedly sledgehammered inside their 11 protective layers?
                      A 1 gram speck of rock travelling at 50,000 mph has about the same kinetic energy of a 1,000 kg car travelling at 40 mph.
                      Do you think a specesuit and 11 layer of magic NASA fabric is all you need to safely protect you if hit by a speeding car Petra?

                      That’s what I would call contradictory evidence Petra, just a bit of reasoning and common sense, it’s not so hard to do, no expertise needed.

                      Like

                    2. You speak of 100g and 1g meteorites but how do we know exactly how big the micrometeorites are and how common the different sizes are? My impression is that most are miniscule, not 1g even and 100g ones probably very rare.

                      As I say I go by the tangibles. And you’ve just added one to my list: the way they walk slowly is consistent with low gravity.

                      So what you’re perfectly OK with, Ayokera, is the perfect fakery time after time after time after time of a brightly lit lunar surface with a black sky, the perfect fakery for hours on end of audio between astronauts and mission control, the perfect fakery of astronauts walking slowly and strangely in accordance with low gravity conditions, etc. You’re perfectly happy to accept all this perfect fakery that is of course in complete contradiction of psyop MO where the fakery is always deliberately sloppy? You’re perfectly happy to accept that they went rogue with their psyop MO and decided that just for the moon landings they wouldn’t use it. They use it for hundreds of other psyops but they decided not to use that MO for the moon landings and to fake it to the utmost their ability because you believe that micrometeorites would have caused too much problem for the astronauts?

                      You’re OK to accept all this evidence which is completely anomalous to the hypothesis of the moon landings being faked?

                      Like

                    3. Just for the record Petra, I was speaking (and writing) of 100 mg (milligrams).
                      Also for the record, I never said the way they walk slowly is consistent with low gravity.

                      Like

                  3. I owe you thanks, Ayokera. I have to admit I didn’t do due diligence myself when I saw your question about slo-mo, I just saw “slo-mo” and jumped to the false conclusion that what you were saying is that to achieve the slow-moving of the astronauts they slowed the film down and I knew I’d seen a debunking of that theory so I just went to look for one. It was only when I came back after finding a link (without really looking at it properly) that I saw what your objection was – that the astronauts shouldn’t look as if they were moving in slow motion, an argument I’ve never seen before. It was only then I gave it some thought and came up with a possible explanation which, as I said, was exactly in slightly more scientific lingo what an Apollo enthusiast says.

                    But now I’m aware of this explanation it only serves to strengthen the “real” hypothesis, assuming you accept the explanation as correct. If they were faking it they would have to know that people move slower in lower gravity … and, of course, fake it without showing signs of fakery many times over, just as they faked the brightly-lit surface/black sky many times over and just as they faked hours and hours of audio with no signs of fakery.

                    Occam’s Razor?

                    My case is only strengthened. Thank you.

                    Like

                    1. “If they were faking it they would have to know that people move slower in lower gravity …”

                      Twisted logic. Complete non-sequitur.

                      “and, of course, fake it without showing signs of fakery many times over, just as they faked the brightly-lit surface/black sky many times over and just as they faked hours and hours of audio with no signs of fakery.”

                      By the same token I could argue that because your comments are so consistently flawed, twisted and ignorant, well, they must be right, or else whence the consistency?

                      Again, you didn’t address Ayokera’s very pertinent question. Your case, if it can be called such (rather seems like a mission), is not strengthened. It is doomed just as your moon hoax.

                      Like

    2. pero….pero….debes tener compassion y paciencia con esta idiota ; mira, una anciana de 60anos con nadie y nada, a menudo enfermo porque pasa demasiado tiempo enfrente la ordenador!!!….pero pero, en una palabra, elle es una cunt, tan repetitativo y estupido que ya no hay palabras de expressarla.

      Like

  12. Things that I have learned on this thread, and the one previous: 1) while I knew the moon landings were fake, it never occurred to me that they were just misdirection. It was always about the rockets and what the rockets were doing. That was the secret hidden in plain sight. 2) Space travel is possible, but only for machines. 3] rocket propulsion in a vacuum appears to me to be impossible. I am open to all arguments. 4] the international space station is a giant hoax. 5) spacewalks as shown to us on TV are actually filmed underwater.

    I am thankful to all of the commenters here who put time and effort into spelling things out so that all of us can understand what’s going on. And, without being disrespectful to Petri, as I understand human intransigence, I am reminded of the story that ends with the following six words: It’s turtles all the way down.

    I am dictating this using Nuance Dragon Naturally, and learning how to do things with my left hand. Next week I will have the oven mitt removed from my right hand and will be fitted for a splint and begin physical therapy. All things considered I have decided not to do anything with my left hand as the important thing was to get my dominant hand repaired, and I am looking forward to the new freedom I will have the five functional fingers on that hand. I will get by with a deformed middle finger on my left hand. As long as I have a functional middle finger on my right hand, I will again
    be able to navigate traffic in downtown Denver.

    Like

    1. Just for my clarification, if you think space travel is possible only for machines, but rocket propulsion in a vacuum appears to you impossible, what kind of propulsion do you suggest those machines are using?
      Best wishes for your recovery and thanks for offering us this corner of sanity where to meet and exchange ideas.

      Like

        1. Sorry Mark (apt name), which carny convinced you of “Lower Earth Orbit”, and which magical boundary is there then with “Upper Earth Orbit”, or space or whatever level you surmise then?

          Ayokera asks the right fundamental (firmamental in this case ?) questions. And has answers, he is aligned.

          what makes LEO real?

          which point of evidence have I missed in all my research ??

          Like

          1. Something like this maybe?

            There are a few videos online, which seem unedited and real, like the one above. Apparently, something went high up, possibly reaching LEO.

            Just curious, since you claim rockets don’t work in space, is a rocket able to reach upper levels of atmosphere and LEO?

            Like

            1. That certainly does look real MM.

              I was just yesterday looking at the diagram of the troposphere (lower 10 6.8 miles), the stratosphere (6.8 to 30 miles high), the mesosphere (30 to 55 miles high) and the thermosphere (55 to 70 miles high). I would consider anything within these areas of the atmosphere as being capable of providing LEO. But I’m a newbie at this, this material is all relatively new to me since I read and wrote about Moondoggie. It is still not completely clear to me that forcing gases out of a narrow opening of a large container even in zero gravity absent atmosphere would not force the container to move. Be patient please.

              Also, before reading McG I considered LEO to be anything that did not scrape the floor of the Van Allen belts.

              Like

              1. “I would consider anything within these areas of the atmosphere as being capable of providing LEO.”

                Absolutely not. There is no orbit anywhere in the atmosphere. You need to go way above the atmosphere to (a) reach a stable orbit and (b) avoid its friction and the resulting loss of momentum. The lower the orbit, the higher the speed that you need to attain. This is because the closer you are to Earth, the higher the effect its gravitational pull takes on you.

                Like

          2. Gaia, let’s have a short overview of this orbit business, but first, as it is instructive, of the atmosphere and the layers science has divided it into.

            There is the troposphere, where the air is in constant turmoil (Greek tropos = turn around), and then the stratosphere, where the air is in thermally stable layering meaning that the higher you go the warmer the air becomes. Between troposphere and stratosphere, there is a temperature minimum. Although we cannot directly see this border (named tropopause) with our eyes, it makes sense as a concept, it is based on measurements, and it has relevance for aviation, meteorology and other things.

            Similar reasoning applies for the other layers of the atmosphere.

            Low Earth Orbit (erdnahe Umlaufbahn) simply is an orbit close to Earth were satellites may run for many years without being slowed down by any remaining atmosphere. There is no magical boundary to separate LEO from other orbits.

            Things to consider for selection of an orbit are the purpose of the satellite and the cost and risk of delivery. The higher you want to go, the more expensive and more difficult the launch.

            Take a look at this table to find out what are the important launch systems by the number of orbital launches, including falied ones, as a measure of the seriousness and successfulness of the technological endeavour.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_launch_systems

            Of course, some of the payload claims have to taken with a grain of salt, for example the Saturn V or the projected Chinese 2030 rocket.

            You can also see what kind of orbits there are. For example, geostationary orbit does have a real physical definition, polar orbit has a geographical definition, but others may rather be ballpark numbers, such as LEO, which is a cost/benefit calculation.

            I realize you don’t believe in satellites but rest assured that this is not meant as a provocation but as food for thought. 🙂

            I have made an observation on people with a so-called alternative mindset, or people who adhere to alternative explanations. In making their judgments about how the world works, they remain very much attached to who says something … as if that mattered. They consequently dismiss, quite foolishly, I think, almost everything that is taught as mainstream science. Not you, Gaia, as I have seen how you applied rational thinking to take apart the chemtrail narrative and other things. So I am optimistic you will also come to grips with satellites.

            Like

        2. According to the “U.S. Standard Atmosphere 1976”
          https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html

          at 30,000 m altitude, air pressure is 85 times lesser than at sea level.
          at 50,000 m altitude, air pressure is 1,270 times lesser than at sea level.
          At 80,000 m altitude, air pressure is 92,090 times lesser than at sea level.

          Figures differ slightly from various sources, but you get the point.
          If you concur that rocket propulsion need some level of external pressure/density to work, then, ceteris paribus, lowering the external pressure must be compensated increasing the exhaust output per time unit by the same amount. Think of propelling a row boat by operating the oars in the air instead of in the water. You can still achieve the same level of thrust but, being air about 1,000 times less dense than water, you need an oar 1,000 times larger, or you have to row 1,000 times faster (as a side note, an airplane propeller is infact a fast rowing oar).
          That said, it’s easy to see how at those extremely low level of air pressure/density the sheer weight of the rocket’s fuel payload would have to be absurdly high, thus inconceivable for all practical purposes.
          Notice also in passing how NASA is instead eager to tell us that the thrust efficiency of a rocket increases by lowering the external pressure reaching maximum level in a vacuum. A word to the wise is enough.
          To summarize, either rockets work in a vacuum, or LEO is another fantasyland courtesy of we know who.
          As always, just my two cents.

          Like

          1. I am not convinced. I am not certain at all that Newton’s third law is suspended when there is no atmosphere. As I read it, “A rocket is driven forward by the pressure of expanding gases against the walls of the combustion, or thrust, chamber.” that is from a source that easily picked up on the Internet, and not authoritative by any means, as we know that people lie lie lie. But it does contradict your assumption that rocket thrust in low or no atmosphere is impossible.

            There is also the idea that a rocket or other kind of vehicle attains very high orbit after having achieved very high speed. Newton’s first law would then apply, a body in motion tending to stay in motion and in a straight line.

            I am over my head and should not be arguing these things. This is all new to me. I need more and better background.

            Like

            1. It was meant to be a reply to MT
              December 3, 2021 at 8:18 am
              “2) Space travel is possible, but only for machines. 3] rocket propulsion in a vacuum appears to me to be impossible”

              Like

        3. Mark,

          “travel in lower earth orbit. I believe there’s enough atmosphere there so that machineries can navigate.”

          As other have pointed out, there is practically no atmosphere at all in LEO (400km above ground). There is hardly any navigation possible in space to significantly alter the flight path. It is a ballistic flight accelerated such that Earth’s gravitational pull and the orbital object’s tangential velocity cancel each other out.

          There is absolutely no possiblity of any form of aerodynamic flight as shown in most American science fiction movies where spaceships have wings and fly turns.

          Like

    1. I have a new take on the Pollacio Super 8 film. Where originally I thought it was just headed out to sea to be ditched, I now think that it was on its way to LEO, probably delivering a payload. There were not, in my view, astronauts aboard.

      Like

      1. Mark, on your Moondoggie post I posed the question at least twice for your response to the explanation for no blast crater. You didn’t respond to that explanation but when I omitted that explanation in my repeated question about no blast crater you gave your opinion as to why there should have been a crater.

        Giving your opinion on why there shouldn’t be a blast crater is simply that if you draw on no particular reasons for that opinion. It’s just opinion. On the other hand, when you are obliged to refute a detailed explanation for something that requires more than simply expressing opinion so I ask you again, not for your opinion but for a refutation of the explanation for why there is no crater. Please give a refutation.

        https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-no-blast-crater-under-the-lunar-module/answer/C-Stuart-Hardwick

        Because there was no blast.

        Rocket engines are not pressure washers.

        A pressure washer will excavate a cavity quickly because it’s pumping out a needle-thin stream of water (1000 times denser than air) at 1,500 pounds per square inch or more.

        An optimally designed rocket engine pumps out a high velocity stream of vaporous exhaust at as close to ambient pressure as possible. In the vacuum of space, the ideal pressure is zero.

        The Apollo descent propulsion engine only had a thrust (at full power) of 10,125 lbf (45.04 kN) . To achieve that, it only needed a combustion chamber pressure of 100 psi (690 kPa). The exhaust exited through an expansion bell 59 inches in diameter, having an area of 2,700 square inches. Thus, at full power, the pressure of gas leaving the engine bell was only 0.037 PSI. Being in vacuum, it immediately spread out, dropping rapidly toward zero pressure.

        Furthermore, as the LM approached touchdown, the engine was operating near its minimum throttle, generating only about 10% of its rated thrust—and it was cut off several feet early to minimize disturbance to the landing site.

        Despite all this, light surface dust was scattered away, and rays can be seen where this exposed the more tightly packed regolith below.

        Like

        1. I don’t understand why they would want to avoid disturbing the landscape. That makes no sense. As we can see by the moon buggies, (as if), the surface of the moon had a great deal of soil on it. Anything landing on it would have disturbed that soil. Ergo there should have been a cloud of dirt that quickly came to rest on the lunar landing module. However, if it was put there by a crane, Which it surely was, then we have your scenario, and undisturbed landscape.

          Your views are intractable, immovable, and not rational. Even your assertion of black skies on the moon is contradicted by NASA. That agency does not make the claim that the skies are black. They only say that the aperture of the cameras in use was so small that the film used could not detect the light given off by the many thousands of stars that were in view. (As if.)

          Like

          1. By the way, Petra, this has been mentioned before. If you read all 14 sections of McGowan’s Moondoggie series, even as it is just a limited hang out, it is a good one in that it offers up 50, 60 or more objections to the notion that anyone has ever landed on the moon. Your style is to reduce all of this to one or two questions, and freeze on those questions, using them as your pivot point to be able to claim victory in your arguing. This is nothing more than a debate tactic. I’m not even sure you’re aware that you are doing it. But we do need for you to address all of the items that have been raised both by McG and all the commenters here. There is far more to it than there being no evidence of a vehicle landing on the moon, black skies, or let me think how to put this the fact (in your mind) that there are always telltale signs of a hoax, usually deliberate. That is your least persuasive argument, not that the other two have moved any minds over to your side.

            Like

  13. MiniMe, thank you very much for the “Space”/MAA Shuttle video that you shared.

    I made a nice scenario comparison on my whiteboard today, tomorrow will share the results and we all can choose what seems more likely.

    Good stuff, good night

    Like

  14. I have a scenario that fits the picture already: if space travel is somehow possible, we’ll be let to explore it after our beloved Phonies have set up everything needed to further perpetuate the status quo. If true, the history will again repeat itself as was the case with so-called globalisation and continent discoveries – we found out about them as the last guy in the queue, only after everything has been setup by Phoenies so we couldn’t disturb their “order”.

    If there’s any new discoveries to be made, they’ll keep such for themselves until firm control is established over it.

    In this view, with rockets we’re likely looking at the remnants of the most crude technology capable of traveling upwards. In the analogy, when humans began seafaring, intercontinental voyage was close to impossible for many technological reasons – ship construction, navigating issues, food and water logistics, sicknesses, etc. Eventually, they figured out everything by trial & mistake and made intercontinental voyages reality. They have also let us in the dark about it until some later point in time, for reasons known.

    If we somehow manage to leave this Earth and start exploring the space, the same principle of domination will prevail – common people will be going there as second, to a territory already claimed by the Phoenies for their private collection.

    Like

    1. Please spare us Miles Mathis’ phony nomenclature here, and please refer to our masters by their true name: The Freemasons. And instead of promulgating Mathis’ baseless and idiotic misdirection about a mythical Phoenician Navy here, try doing a little research and tell me if the astronauts who ‘supposedly’ landed on the moon were not secret members of the Ancient and Accepted Rite. The Phoenix is not the symbol of the Phoenician Navy (what utter bombastic stupidity!), but is rather the key and central symbol of Freemasonry. I’ll give you a hint, because you probably won’t find it on your own, and you will definitely not be offered it by Mile Mathis: Look to the destruction of the First Temple, for therein lies the symbol of the phoenix. Then think deeply on the cause of the Crusades, and ask yourself why the most ancient chivalric orders of medieval Europe were so deeply obsessed with conquering the Holy Land. Then ask yourself why we were never taught in US History class that all our founding fathers were Freemasons, that 41 of 46 US Presidents were 33rd degree Freemasons, that the founding of our country is synonymous with the establishment of the Freemasonic order in the Colonies. Then ask yourself why Miles Mathis has never once mentioned the Ancient Order, and palms them off as a mythical and fantastic race of ancient mariners. If you can answer all that, then you will see what preposterous misdirection MM has to offer with his phony Phoenician Phoenies.

      Like

        1. Funny. Anyone who has the audacity to challenge and refute Miles Mathis’ preposterously illogical hypotheses is a spook writing from the basement dungeon in Langley. I thank you for the compliment, but sorry to disappoint. I’m just a common man who has spent many, many years buried in the dungeon of my local college library, a two-hundred-year-old library at that. And in 25 years, I’ve managed to read most of those shelves alone in solitude. Well, with the exception of the mice scurrying behind the plaster walls. Before you toss the ‘Langley’ slur at me, why don’t you research the origins of the name ‘Langley’, and then perhaps you’ll have a slight idea of what I’m talking about. Langley was chosen as the headquarters by no simple coincidence, Minime. Hopefully you are astute enough to understand that, before you start tossing the Langley slur every which way. And if you must know, a candidate cannot darken the door of the CIA without having advanced past the 12th Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Rite. But I guess you already knew that.

          Like

  15. Here is something to ponder for Ayokera and other people who argue that propulsion cannot work in a vacuum.

    Imagine a spherical bomb of 10cm (4in) diameter, with a 5 mm iron shell. It is filled with an explosive and has the necessary ambient conditions such as interior temperature to be ignited if triggered (with a wire or wirelessly, as you prefer). It does not depend on any ambient conditions.

    Imagine this bomb suspended in the middle of a giant vacuum, let’s say a vacuum chamber of 1x1x1 km on Earth, or in geostationary orbit around Earth (provided you believe in such a thing).

    Now this bomb is triggered to explode, pressure will build up in tiny fractions of a second, the shell will fracture, and I think you will agree that the shards will fly apart (due to the kinetic energy conveyed upon them by the expanding gas) and stuff in the immediate vicinity is at risk of being damaged.

    Now imagine the same bomb in the same environment, with one modification: a hole of 1cm diameter has been bored into the shell. The bomb is ignited and what happens? The shell doesn’t fracture because the hot gases inside have an exhaust valve which they can escape through. Do you think any kinetic energy is conferred onto the shell or is it going to stay in place without moving?

    Like

    1. Hi Lumi, I’ve no objection but I’m not sure we should go on debating this topic, I think we have already stated our position at length, and it seems to me we are going round in circles. Maybe we should just agree to disagree.
      I’ve seen that example a gazillion times.
      Of course it’s going to stay in place without moving.
      I don’t see where the kinetic energy should come from.
      I think the example can be simplified and made more clear avoiding redundant terms like “bomb”, “explosion”, “ignited” “hot gas”, etc., that just don’t help.
      Basically it’s just a sealed container in a vacuum with gas inside (conceptually the pressure level inside doesn’t matter).
      The container has an openable valve to let the gas exit.
      You open the valve.
      The gas expands trying to fill the new increased volume.
      If the gas encounter zero resistance, as is this the case, it’s a free expansion, there is nothig to interact with, thus no change in molecules velocity (read, no acceleration) during the expansion, thus no force is involved.
      As the expansion proceeds undisturbed and the gas is spread over a larger and larger volume the pressure decreases uniformly inside the container (it all happens very quickly of course).
      That’s it, no fuss no muss, but I repeat myself.
      Where’s the kinetic energy?
      You’re going to say that opening the valve will create a pressure imbalance inside the chamber and in turn an unbalanced force to be applied on one side only, causing the container to move, but that’s provably wrong as it would lead to a thermodynamics absurdity.
      For a thought experiment, think of a common gasoline engine, with a cylinder, a piston and a combustion chamber. Imagine the combustion chamber is connected to an external container, but separated by a closed valve. Inside the external container there is a vacuum. The combustion chamber is filled with highly compressed air and the piston is at the maximum compression stroke point. The piston is also connected to a pressure gauge that reads the pressure inside the chamber. Now open the valve and let the air freely expand from the engine chamber to the external container (notice how this reproduces exactly the condition of the previous example in space). According to you this would generate a pressure imbalance that, in principle, could cause the piston to move inside the cylinder in the opposite direction. If the piston moves, you can see that the movement would be read by the gauge as an increase in the internal pressure.
      From a thermodynamics point of view, that would be a paradox, because after opening the valve we would have to assume that volume and pressure are both increasing simultaneously, violating Boyle’s Law PV=K.
      Repeating myself again I also want to point out that the pressure imbalance scenario is not what NASA says and is not what is normally taught in Colleges and Universities, they all talk about Newton action-reaction and conservation of momentum, and that is where the various skateboard, bowling balls and similar analogies come from.
      Regarding the airgun, if there’s any mechanical part moving when firing, that would explain the recoil, if no mechanical part is involved, I’m confident it’s due to air pressure resistance, we should try it in a vacuum.

      Like

      1. “Maybe we should just agree to disagree. I’ve seen that example a gazillion times.”

        Okay. I didn’t take the example from anywhere. It occurred to me when I read SMJ’s and your comments about firing guns.

        “According to you this would generate a pressure imbalance that, in principle, could cause the piston to move inside the cylinder in the opposite direction.”

        No. Not according to me. I do not find the piston engine to be a more suitable example than the bomb with a valve. Quite the opposite. If the piston doesn’t move at the maximum compression stroke point, then why should it move when the pressure is released through the valve? If the piston doesn’t move at maximum compression stroke point, then the motor has a very serious problem (called Kolbenfresser in German) and has to be replaced. 🙂

        This piston example is misleading because the piston engine is an engine with moving parts and so conceptually more complex than a rocket engine, which conceptually is very primitive, like a solid fuel rocket. There are no moving parts in rocket propulsion, only moving gas. In a rocket, the entire rocket is the piston, and the nozzle is what’s left of the cylinder. We can see that a rocket is very inefficient, but it is the only thing that works for certain purposes, such as carrying stuff into space.

        It is shocking news to me that colleges and universities in some countries use silly skateboard and bowling ball examples to explain propulsion. That certainly has nothing to do with rocket engineering.

        By the way, the terms “rocket science” and “rocket scientist” are very common in English, but they’re also very stupid because there is no such thing as “rocket science” and it’s all about challenges in engineering. The relevant science has been settled early on by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Hermann Oberth.

        Like

        1. Tsiolkovsky the metal dirigibles and rocket equation guy? I’ve looked into the cosmism crew and h+. It’s a hoot.

          I’ve heard of piston rings. Do nozzles have rings to trap gas?

          Like

        2. “No. Not according to me. I do not find the piston engine to be a more suitable example than the bomb with valve. Quite the opposite. If the piston doesn’t move at the maximum compression stroke point, then why should it move when the pressure is released through the valve? If the piston doesn’t move at maximum compression stroke point, then the motor has a very serious problem (called Kolbenfresser in German) and has to be replaced. 🙂”

          Ok very funny, but I was obviously using a fictional setup to conceptualize my point, in any case the answer would be simple: the piston doesn’t move because in some way the system was arranged in order to be in a perfect equibrium (e.g. increasing the friction of the piston, or whatever, it really doesn’t matter how), so that even a slight increase in pressure would break the equilibrium causing the piston to move.
          At any rate, if piston and engines don’t suit you, let’s change the setup, enter the wheel rocket.
          Now we have a sealed container in a vacuum with compressed air inside.
          The container has wheels so that it can roll on the floor (or on the table, to our liking).
          The container has an openable valve to let the air exit.
          You open the valve.
          The air expands trying to fill the new increased volume.
          My questions are:
          1) Is that a correct analogy of how a rocket works? If not please explain why.
          2) Can the expansion, in principle, cause the container to roll on the floor? If not please explain why.
          3) If the expansion can in principle cause the container to move, how is that different than causing a piston to move inside a chamber/cylinder as in my first example that you dismissed as misleading, without accounting for the issue I pointed out?
          4) If you think neither Newton action-reaction/conservation of momentum nor pressure imbalance are correct explanations for what causes the container to start moving, can you clarify to what principle the propelling force should be ascribed?

          Like

          1. 1) Compressed air cannot sustain the pressure like a rocket engine, but other than that the analogy seems correct to me.
            2) Yes, the air leaves the container, and given sufficient velocity of the air stream to overcome the friction at the wheels and inertia, the container will move.
            3) In your first example, the pressure first is insufficient to move the piston and then, when the valve is opened, decreases further to escape through the valve, so I’m at a loss as to how you would expect it to move the piston? But now, given this additional example, I understand why you posted these examples, and it makes me think.
            4) I’m not sure how best to describe the working principle in terms of physical laws. To me, the pressure imabalance makes sense as an explanation, and Newton’s action/reaction not so much because it is more abstract.

            Like

            1. “Yes, the air leaves the container, and given sufficient velocity of the air stream to overcome the friction at the wheels and inertia, the container will move.”

              The moment you talk of “velocity of the air stream” we are back into a Newtonian action-reaction scenario, that you previously repeatedly dismissed as a silly explanation.
              Unless you better clarify your position on the matter I’m afraid there’s no way we can get anywhere.
              At any rate, the velocity of the air stream per se has nothing to do with propulsion.
              The “air stream” is actually a bunch of individual gas molecules all travelling at the same velocity, dependent on the gas temperature. The key point is that, contrary to solid objects, gas molecules are in a constant state of motion. They have velocity, linear momentum and inertia of motion already inside the sealed container BEFORE the expansion. So before and after the expansion nothing has changed in the system equilibrium. Unless the molecules interact with something, the expansion doesn’t change the velocity of the single molecules and it doesn’t change the linear momentum of the system because the molecules are moving following the same path they had before you opened the door, and the only consequence of the expansion is that they now have a longer path to travel, but it doesn’t change the linear momentum of the system. That’s why the container will stay in place. Constant velocity implies no acceleration, and zero acceleration implies zero force. Bottom line, no force is involved in a free expansion, thus no force is going to be applied to the container.
              Going back to the pressure imbalance scenario, I guess it appears logical at first glance to think that the expansion would proceed symmetrically in both opposite directions, so that the “internal” side of the expansion will “push” the container, but that is a very common and deceitful misconception (what I call the Baron Munchausen effect). The expansion follows the only available direction and the only net result is an internal uniformly decreasing pressure. You instantly spotted the problem in the piston example, but for some reason seem unable to see that the same paradox applies to the container. Your remark about the pressure being “insufficient to move the piston” is irrelevant, as, I’m repeating, the system can be arranged so that it’s in a state of temporary equilibrium. The real deal is that, whatever the pressure inside, it is absurd to think that the piston will move when opening the valve, as you correctly pointed out. Yet, that’s what we should expect to happen if the toy wheel rocket has to move.

              Like

              1. Sorry for taking so long to reply. The molecules do “interact with something”, i.e. with each other, the container and the outlet. And if the air pressure inside is high enough relative to what keeps the container in place (inertia, friction) then the container will move.

                My brother (physician by education) replied and pointed me to the so-called impulse, from where I went to the article on the “specific impule” on Wikipedia and then to this one:

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Laval_nozzle

                The shape of the De Laval nozzle seems to matter a lot. The outside half is optimized for a specific ambient pressure, or for vacuum. The impulse might be conferred mostly via this outside half of the nozzle as this is where the gas stream reaches the highest speed. On the other hand, this is an optimization issue; there should be an impulse even without a properly shaped nozzle.

                The piston example is set up such that it is indeed absurd to expect the piston to move because pressure decreases and the movement is at the other end of the container. In the wheel rocket example, maybe the shape of the outlet would also play a major role for the resulting impulse.

                It really bugs me how tricky this is. I’m not sufficiently smart or knowledgeable to figure out how to remove all the uncertainties from these examples and set the matter straight. Maybe at a later time. At the moment I’m stuck.

                Like

                1. 1) Impulse is just a force over a time interval dt, but we still have to explain how the free expansion of a gas can generate a propelling force in the first place. The question we have to answer is: what is the force needed for a gas to expand against zero resistance? To have a force you need both mass and acceleration, gas molecules have mass but a resistance-free expansion cannot change their initial velocity, hence their acceleration is zero during the expansion.
                  In the realm of solid objects the concept of zero inertial resistance would ideally describe an object with zero mass, therefore the same question would be: what’s the amount of force needed to accelerate an object with zero mass?
                  Since f=ma, the answer would obviously be zero.
                  As you see, in the case of a free expanding gas a=0 hence f=0; in the case of a mass-free object m=0, hence, again f=0.
                  Adding a time interval to a non existent force is not going to change the result.
                  I know they use the concept of impulse in rocketry to calculate the propelling force in the case of a variable mass, but they are just plainly ignoring the premise fallacy.

                  2) “The molecules do “interact with something”, i.e. with each other, the container and the outlet.”
                  You need to explain how those interactions translate into a net force/propulsion. As a rule of thumb, whenever something is “interacting with itself” the net result is always zero, since obviously in the end all the forces cancel each other out. That’s why you cannot move a car by pushing on it while you’re inside, or lift yourself by pulling your hairs, unless you are the Baron Munchausen, ça va sans dire. The same reasoning applies to the molecules that during the expansion would be randomly bouncing on the container and the outlet, whatever the effects they will cancel each other out. To have a net non zero resulting effect the interaction has to occur with something external to the system.

                  3) It seems to me you keep confusing yourself by mixing problems related to basic principles with technical/efficiency issues.
                  Before dealing with nozzle’s shapes we need to address basic problems. If a free expanding gas cannot in principle generate a propelling force, adding a De Laval nozzle isn’t going to help in any way. You cannot increase the efficiency of an impossibility. In a vacuum an airplane wing simply cannot generate any amount of lifting force, no matter how you perfect and optimize the efficiency of the wing’s profile.
                  A Model T Ford and a modern F1 car are light years apart in terms of performances, of efficiency or of any other technical aspects, but they still work on the same basic principles. They still need spinning wheels and ground friction to generate propulsion. Take away the friction or the wheels and there’s no point in adding more technical sophistications to the car.

                  Like

                  1. “You cannot increase the efficiency of an impossibility”

                    Is that an Ayokera original? Can I take it home with me? Anyway, it’s a good one.

                    Like

                    1. Yes, genuine Ayokera’s impromptu writing, as far as I know.
                      You’re welcome, glad you appreciate.

                      Like

                  2. 1) “we still have to explain how the free expansion of a gas can generate a propelling force in the first place […] what is the force needed for a gas to expand against zero resistance? To have a force you need both mass and acceleration, gas molecules have mass but a resistance-free expansion cannot change their initial velocity, hence their acceleration is zero during the expansion.”

                    Not so. The pressure builds up all the same inside the combustion chamber, whether there is air and ambient pressure and resistance outside or not. Hence the acceleration of the gas molecules, the hot gas stream … and the propulsion. The gas stream is not a paddle or a propeller whose efficiency depends mainly on the density of the surrounding air.

                    If your notion of how rocket propulsion works were true, it would be the more efficient the higher the density of the surrounding gas medium. Its efficiency would decrease with altitude in the atmosphere, and yet we don’t see that. What we do see is that the rocket engine is the only engine that is still viable at very high altitudes where even the jet engine fails due to reliance on ambient oxygen, not to mention turbofan, turboprop and piston/propeller due to reliance on a certain minimum air density. If you were right about the importance of medium resistance for rocket propulsion, all rockets would falter and fail and fizzle out with altitude and never reach orbit and instead fall back on Earth, and just as Gaia claims there would be – yikes! – no satellites in orbit.

                    “an object with zero mass” – This seems to be a case of contradictio in adiecto. There is no object without mass.

                    2) The gas molecules are not attached to the container in the way Münchhausen’s hand and hair are to his body. Which is why I do not find your remark pertinent.

                    3) We agree that airplane wings are designed for air and that aerodynamic flight in a vacuum can only be seen in spaceship movies. Whereas with rocket propulsion, we disagree about the principle.

                    Like

                    1. “Hence the acceleration of the gas molecules, the hot gas stream … and the propulsion.”

                      So if I get it right you’re saying that if you have a container in a vacuum with gas inside, and open a valve letting the gas to freely expand, the gas molecules would accelerate during the expansion? In other words, their velocity inside the container (i.e. before the expansion) and outside (i.e. after the expansion) is not the same?
                      If that is what you think, can you explain what causes the change in velocity?

                      “The gas stream is not a paddle or a propeller whose efficiency depends mainly on the density of the surrounding air.”

                      That is exactly the function the gas stream performs: that of a (virtual) paddle or propeller.
                      Jet engines have been introduced because a gas stream performs the exact same function of a propeller but with a much higher efficiency, having obvious less technical limitations and constraints compared to a solid object.

                      “If your notion of how rocket propulsion works were true, it would be the more efficient the higher the density of the surrounding gas medium. Its efficiency would decrease with altitude in the atmosphere, and yet we don’t see that. What we do see is that the rocket engine is the only engine that is still viable at very high altitudes where even the jet engine fails due to reliance on ambient oxygen, not to mention turbofan, turboprop and piston/propeller due to reliance on a certain minimum air density.”

                      We do see that where, other than in NASA fake videos?

                      “If you were right about the importance of medium resistance for rocket propulsion, all rockets would falter and fail and fizzle out with altitude and never reach orbit and instead fall back on Earth, and just as Gaia claims there would be – yikes! – no satellites in orbit.”

                      That’s plain backwards logic.
                      Petra would say that if I were right there couldn’t have been the moon landings, but she knows they were real, therefore I must be wrong.

                      Like

                    2. “So if I get it right you’re saying that if you have a container in a vacuum with gas inside, and open a valve letting the gas to freely expand, the gas molecules would accelerate during the expansion? In other words, their velocity inside the container (i.e. before the expansion) and outside (i.e. after the expansion) is not the same?”

                      Yes. There would be a gas stream, the intensity of which would depend on the pressure inside, which in the case of a rocket engine is sustained by the pump injecting the reactants into the chamber to achieve a continuous reaction and constant high pressure.

                      In the case of a container, I don’t see why the gas would move as long as the valve is closed. Maybe you’re referring to the notion where the temperature is expressed as movement of the molecules (which I vaguely remember from schooldays)?

                      “If that is what you think, can you explain what causes the change in velocity?”

                      The pressure inside.

                      “That is exactly the function the gas stream performs: that of a (virtual) paddle or propeller.”

                      I think this is the fundamental misunderstanding.

                      “Jet engines have been introduced because a gas stream performs the exact same function of a propeller but with a much higher efficiency, having obvious less technical limitations and constraints compared to a solid object.”

                      Jet engines were introduced to obtain higher speed. They are more efficient than a piston engine weight-wise, but less efficient fuel-wise. They do, however, have better maximum performance characteristics, are simpler in concept, and so should require less maintenance.

                      The propeller propels, and the jet propels, but not by the same principle.

                      For clarity, the propeller may be driven by a piston engin or by a gas turbine.

                      You can see that the efficiency of the jet vs the propeller is inferior by looking at the evolution of the engines for passenger airplanes. The early ones used strident turbojets, relatively small in diameter, giving them a longish shape (Boeing 707 for example). Nowadays, turbojets aren’t used any more except for fighter jets. All modern passenger aircraft use turbofans or turboprops or piston engins for small aircraft. In a typical turbofan, the ratio of jet vs fan with regard to propulsion is 1 to 8, meaning almost all the work is done by the fan (which is just a kind of propeller inside the casing). Turbofan is called Mantelstromtriebwerk in German which nicely describes the working principle: the “mantle stream” (that doesn’t pass through the engine) is the decisive factor in propelling the aircraft.

                      As for orbits and satellites, given my limited insights as a layman without involvement in the industry, I have not been able to convince Gaia and probably won’t convince you either, so I’m not going to try any further. I have come to accept that you two sincerely believe that satellites do not exist, which would never have occurred to me to doubt. So be it.

                      Like

                    3. Here’s a good old-school educational video, briefly covering the turbofan evolution at the end:

                      Turbojet, turbofan, turboprop, turboshaft engines explained in simplified way

                      Like

                    4. Yes Lumi, no way we can change each other’s mind on this topic, we just have to get over it.
                      I know how a jet engine works internally, but it’s not relevant to the principle. Technically it’s basically very simple and no different than a car turbo engine.
                      The rotating blades of the compressor increases the air intake per time unit, so that also more liquid fuel (kerosene, gasoline, diesel oil, you name it) per time unit can be burnt and converted into high energy gaseous substances.
                      As the gaseous nature dictates, as soon as the gasses are being created by the chemical reaction they try to expand outside the combustion chamber, and this potential energy can be used to do work.
                      Both in a car turbo engine and in jet engines, part of the work is done by the exhausting gas on the turbine, making it rotate, and in turn causing the connected compressor to rotate.
                      In a car turbo engine the main part of the work is done in moving the pistons that in turn cause the wheels to spin and the car to move, whereas in a jet engine the great part of the work is done by the exhausting gas in displacing the resisting surrounding air that opposes the expansion. Since work requires a force, and since forces always act in pairs, the displacing force generates an opposite reaction force that propels the airplane.
                      The same principle applies, and the same effect can be obtained using a solid object to displace the air (or the water), like a rotating propeller, a paddle, etc.
                      Have you pondered how the thrust reversers work? What is that gives the braking effect?
                      If, according to you, the propulsion force is generated the moment the “gas stream” is accelerated exiting from the combustion chamber, via pressure imbalance or whatever, how is a later bouncing or deviating or, in general, changing in the stream direction going to affect the initial force? Do you think that in space you can brake or reverse the propulsion of a rocket by putting metal plates in front of the nozzle? I wonder why NASA hasn’t yet worked out how to use such an ingenious simple device (or have they? I have to confess Hollywood’s props might not be among my primary updating priorities).
                      Actually the thrust reversing device works by inverting the direction of the ambient air resistance to the incoming exhaust stream, reversing a previous propelling force into a braking force.
                      It’s exactly like deploying a big parachute, a big virtual parachute.
                      Or like, to the same effect, reversing the rotation of a propeller.
                      According to you jet airplane’s thrust reversers would work fine, even much better, say, at 20,000 m altitude, the more thin the air, the higher the thrust, the better they work. Taking obviously into proper account the reduced friction, ceteris paribus, the higher the altitude, the easier to slow down an airplane deploying the thrust reversers, isn’t that correct? I’d like to know some airline pilot’s opinion about that. As a matter of fact, upon thinking about it, it should be relatively simple to test that in real life. It would be great.

                      A little digression on satellites tv.
                      In ancient times, when I was a kid, here in Italy “Satellite Television Transmissions” were still kinda of a rare occurrence, used only to broadcast big events like for example the Olympics, or… the launch of the Apollo Moon Missions…
                      Our, back then only, national TV network (RAI) used to announce them with the due fanfare: “E ora, in collegamento speciale via satellite, trasmettiamo da…”. Also, during the transmission they used to frequently put up on screen “Trasmissione via satellite” to remind you that it was some kind of a very special broadcasting for an important event.
                      Given that back then, I can assure you, nobody in Italy had a dish on the roof or any other specific receiving device, and assuming for the sake of argument that satellite TV is real, it’s obvious that in the early times, contrary to what we see today, satellite transmissions were broadcasted through the standard operating TV channels, relays, antennae, etc., without the need to install roof dishes, dedicated decoders, etc., nice ‘n easy, isn’t it?
                      Thinking about it, wouldn’t it be much, much more efficient and practical to just have relatively few large uplinks/downlinks stations connected through satellites, where you can set up the best cutting edge technical facilities to amplify, correct, improve, convert, you name it, a feeble signal allegedly coming from a tiny solar powered contraption 36,000 km away? Then why not just broadcast the newly improved signal through the standard TV home devices, like back in the glorious early days of italian satellite TV? Is this another case of an amazing forever lost technology of the roaring sixties?
                      Conversely, how stupid is, or at least seems to me to be, to install millions of individual randomly located dishes, more often than not having to deal with the problem of buildings, trees and whatnot obscuring the line of sight, not mentioning the issue of weather conditions, everyone picking up its tiny portion of an already weak signal?
                      To get to my point, I know it may sound outlandish, but I strongly suspect that the massive worldwide spreading of personal satellite tv receiving sets (along with the ISS) has no actual technical reason, while having much to do with keeping the space saga hoax alive.
                      Whenever I happened to confront someone (and I mean one already somehow in the “truth” realm) about the space saga being a complete hoax, it usually goes like:
                      “the moon landings? Well, yeah, not really sure, but yeah, I agree NASA seems prone to fakery, they could have staged it, yeah”
                      “what about the NASA mars rover missions, the asteroids probes?”
                      “well, yeah, not really sure, but maybe, yeah, it could be fakery”
                      “and what about NASA satellites and LEO?”
                      “well no, of course satellite are real, how did you come up with such a silly notion? What are you talking about?”
                      “how do you know for certain?”
                      “whoa, I have a dish on my roof pointed to the sky dude, what else should I need?”

                      Yes I know, there are also bright dots moving in the night sky, but they’re still faraway tiny dots, who knows for sure?
                      But a dish in the house? Well, that’s a heck of a proof isn’t it?
                      So, what if there was no dishes on the roofs? Would it be so easy-peasy to dismiss the notion that space fakery goes well beyond the moon landings?
                      In conclusion, I have strong motives to suspect they are somehow simulating satellite tv transmissions using some kind of skywave technology.
                      Can I prove it? Nope
                      Do I know if and how that would be possible? Nope.
                      Just kinda of a gut feeling that I’d like to be able to expand on.

                      Like

  16. the Space or MAA Shuttle ?

    Like I announced, I made a simple “back of the envelope” or “napkin” scenario overview based on the “Space Shuttle launch viewed from a plane” video MiniMe shared above.

    FIRST:
    1 – I only watched the video once
    2 – on my tablet, so small and low res
    3 – I have made 3 assumptions:
    A – the moment the video starts (t0 = 0 s) launch happens
    B – the moment the shuttle is at plane altitude (t1) is at 30 seconds
    C – the plane flies at FL (Flight Level) 360, or 36,000 ft, taken as 12 km altitude

    In the first image you see these factors summarized and an approximate flight path of the Shuttle.

    The two scenarios I have chosen are

    A : the Shuttle goes to space, namely LEO = Low Earth Orbit, which according to the confusing Wikipedia page is anywhere between 400 (minimum ISS apt) and 2000 (“top of LEO”) kilometers altitude

    B : the Shuttle stays in the atmosphere, my acronym MAA = Maximum Achievable/Atmospheric Altitude, which I set at between 80 and 100 km (the latter the Kármán “line”, or the “start of space”/”top of atmosphere”)

    Many factors are unknown, but using the assumptions we can calculate Vz (vertical velocity) between t0 and t1 to be 12,000 m / 30 seconds = 400 m/s equaling (x3.6) 1440 km/h

    Then for each scenario we can calculate the necessary Vz (vertical component of the actual velocity) between t1 and te (end time, set at 2 min or 120 seconds)
    In case A, the altitude the Shuttle reaches needs to be anywhere from 400 to 2000 km (LEO)
    In case B, the altitude the Shuttle reaches is between 80 and 100 km (MAA)

    In order for A to be correct, the Vz between t1 30 sec and te 120 sec needs to be between 15,520 km/h and 22,088 km/h
    In order for B to be correct, Vz ranges from 2720-3520 km/h

    This means that in case A, the increase in Vz from t1 to te is 10 to 15 times w.r.t. Vz achieved between launch and plane altitude, so in the first 30 seconds.
    And in case B, the increase in Vz from t1 to te is 2-2.5 times

    BACK TO THE VIDEO

    Do we observe an increase in Vz in the latter ¾ of the video of 1000-1500 % ????
    Or rather a modest increase of 200-250 % ?

    Given as parameters of space (travel) are
    “escape velocity” defined by the main space carny Jules Verne at 11 km/s or 11,000 m/s equaling 39,600 km/h
    And
    g = 9.8 m/s^2 the gravitational acceleration, so increased velocity over time

    As you can see in the calculations, even if the Shuttle would reach the top of LEO, it doesn’t even reach the “escape velocity”, meaning the Shuttle cannot be in space, let alone beat the gravitational acceleration, keeping everything in the Earth’s influence, including the atmosphere.

    Also, nowhere in the video do we see a transition from atmospheric behavior to space behavior (in the exhaust gases or anything else).

    So it is funny this clip was presented as some kind of evidence the Shuttle went into space, while it does the opposite; it proves the Shuttle CANNOT HAVE GONE into space.

    Images in the next posts.

    What do you think? Where did I go wrong in my approach and does someone still maintains this video proves the “Space” Shuttle went to space??

    Like

    1. Just a few remarks:

      Escape velocity of 11km/s is understood as a velocity which would enable you to completely escape from Earth’s gravity. The gravitational force diminishes with the square of a distance from its center. To reach LEO, a rocket does not need to accelerate to 11km/s. Lesser speed is sufficient to travel upwards to a limit while reaching required orbital velocity.

      In the gas-less environment, charge field is dominating. Without accounting for Charge and its fundamental meaning, its force and omnipresence, you’re left with 95% of Universe’s mass unaccounted for. You may even believe dark matter and dark energy are true, along with the black holes.

      A true vacuum can’t be made and doesn’t exist – you just can’t extract or pull out photons from space.

      You haven’t said a word about the most important fact this video shows, if true – something went high up into the atmosphere. It may have crash landed into the ocean later, we will never know. But before it crashed, how high did it go?

      I won’t touch on your math, since you’ve not included charge into calculus. Correction would have occupied the entire thread.

      Like

      1. Escape velocity of 11km/s is understood as a velocity which would enable you to completely escape from Earth’s gravity.

        Which is impossible, see the Moon that is within Earth’s gravity, and vice versa, the tides, theorized by one of the last true scientists, 100 years before Isaac Newton; Simon Stevin.

        The gravitational force diminishes with the square of a distance from its center.

        that is big G, I used small g
        Does the g factor diminish with altitude? Can you measure that in a plane or helicopter!

        To reach LEO, a rocket does not need to accelerate to 11km/s. **Lesser speed [WHICH speed?]** is sufficient to travel upwards to a limit **[WHICH limit??]** while reaching required orbital velocity.

        Orbits are the result of natural forces, you cannot “bring something in orbit”, or ” take something out of orbit”, or “jump orbits”.

        If you think that is possible, prove it.

        In the gas-less environment, charge field is dominating. Without accounting for Charge and its fundamental meaning, its force and omnipresence, you’re left with 95% of Universe’s mass unaccounted for.

        What makes you believe we can reach a gas-less environment? Discharge or not.

        Like

  17. Gaia on December 2, 2021 at 2:34 pm

    “why were Newton’s laws not adjusted, or redefined in space? That is incredible and would mean that mankind had the foresight to understand space and its physical (AND chemical!) conditions before going there.”

    Newton’s work was based on Kepler’s work which in turn was based on Tycho Brahe’s observations of planetary movements. Tycho attained levels of observational precision that had never before been reached, and Kepler, being obsessed with mathematics, and doing an awful lot of trial and error without any computer to help him, extracted, from the movements of luminous dots through the darkness of the night sky and from numbers and formulae on paper, his phantastic insights into the workings of the solar system, which are believed to apply universally, and which still hold true today.

    You might want to read a book on classic astronomy. It is indeed an amazing and fascinating history. I read “Emerging Cosmology” (“Das unendliche Weltall” in German) by British pioneer of radioastronomy Bernard Lovell, and I can recommend it.

    “” In my view, if humans would have entered “the space realm” in 1957, we would need decades to understand this new environment and how to deal with all the new challenges that that environment brings with it. Not; ah, we enter space for the first time and bam, immediately “satellites” can be launched (without computers, as the microprocessor was only invented in 1964?!), no problems, no issues (apart from some failed launches), no questions asked. “”

    There is a prehistory of atmospheric research via weather balloons, going back to the 17th century, to Pascal and Torricelli. Instrumented weather balloons have been launched since the 1890ies.

    For the preshistory of space travel, read up on Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Hermann Oberth.

    You don’t need a microprocessor, or a computer, to launch a rocket. The A4/V2 rocket reached an apogee of 80 km on bombing flights in 1944 using analogue navigational equipment and an altitude of 175 km on experimental vertical flights also in 1944, which were the first suborbital flights.

    https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MW_18014

    “Rockets have been developed in and for the atmosphere, where they do work.”

    They also work in the atmosphere. The difference between a jet engine and a rocket engine may be phrased such that a jet engine relies on ambient oxygen whereas a rocket engine does not.

    “It is the chemical component that makes rocketry in space impossible, given the model presented to us, because at the pressures (10^-16 bar) and temperatures (-270 C, 3 K), gas simply cannot exist. Even the two lightest elements, H and He, would be superfluids, not gases.”

    Whatever the ambient conditions outside the engine: inside it is very hot. The temperature and aggregate state the exhaust gas (CO2, H2O, N2, …) will end up as will depend on the radiation. I don’t know what it will be, maybe some kind of ice?

    “And just like the Newton’s law corruption; nowhere on Earth is it possible to simulate the conditions of space, so how even test space rockets?”

    Launch and measure and learn and improve. On and on and on and on.

    “gravity acceleration ~ 9.8 m/s^2 – claimed is “0 gravity”, which is non-sensical as gravity should never be 0 in space, see how the Moon and Sun affect the Earth’s tides”

    Tangential momentum and gravitational pull cancel each other out. That’s how orbital flight works.

    “Temperature should be BOTH very high (+300 C is claimed) AND very low (-270 C claimed), conditions we cannot simulate, let alone engineer materials for.”

    We discussed this at the end of April on the “Confessions of an engineered nanoparticle” page. Search for absorption or conduction to find the exchange (me as Michael, not Lumi).

    “All materials we have on Earth are either specialized for high temperatures OR low temperatures, but not both at the same time and flipping from one to the other, as an atmosphereless environment behaves”

    Consider such an ordinary thing as the CERAN stovetops that have been deployed for I think more than 40 years in houses in Europe and probably elsewhere. This special glass gets very hot above the heating element and yet 2 cm away from it you can touch it with your fingers. Amazing, isn’t it?

    Like

    1. Newton’s work was based on Kepler’s work which in turn was based on Tycho Brahe’s observations of planetary movements. Tycho attained levels of observational precision that had never before been reached, and Kepler, being obsessed with mathematics, and doing an awful lot of trial and error without any computer to help him, extracted, from the movements of luminous dots through the darkness of the night sky and from numbers and formulae on paper, his phantastic insights into the workings of the solar system, which are believed to apply universally, and which still hold true today.

      You might want to read a book on classic astronomy. It is indeed an amazing and fascinating history. I read “Emerging Cosmology” (“Das unendliche Weltall” in German) by British pioneer of radioastronomy Bernard Lovell, and I can recommend it.

      I am quite familiar with the history of astronomy (an Earth-based science) because I dived into it, and documented, when reviewing Simon Shack’s TYCHOS book.

      I am not reading books (anymore), but my point still stands; Newton has never been into space, so his laws cannot be applied there. Simple.

      There is a prehistory of atmospheric research via weather balloons, going back to the 17th century, to Pascal and Torricelli. Instrumented weather balloons have been launched since the 1890ies.

      I know, but atmosphere =/= space

      For the preshistory of space travel, read up on Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Hermann Oberth.

      prehistory ? How did they obtain the data on which they based their ideas?

      You don’t need a microprocessor, or a computer, to launch a rocket.

      I have never claimed so.

      The A4/V2 rocket reached an apogee of 80 km on bombing flights in 1944 using analogue navigational equipment and an altitude of 175 km on experimental vertical flights also in 1944, which were the first suborbital flights.

      What makes you believe those war stories?

      They also work in the atmosphere. The difference between a jet engine and a rocket engine may be phrased such that a jet engine relies on ambient oxygen whereas a rocket engine does not.

      No, they ONLY work in the atmosphere.
      And they cannot work without the very environment they have been engineered for.

      Whatever the ambient conditions outside the engine: inside it is very hot. The temperature and aggregate state the exhaust gas (CO2, H2O, N2, …) will end up as will depend on the radiation. I don’t know what it will be, maybe some kind of ice?

      Imagining a rocket could be in space:
      whatever comes out of the nozzle INSTANTLY freezes and desintegrates into individual molecules that float away in the vast nothingness of space. It doesn’t or cannot do any work.

      Launch and measure and learn and improve. On and on and on and on.

      trial and error cannot work for an environment you cannot reach.

      Tangential momentum and gravitational pull cancel each other out. That’s how orbital flight works.

      no, that is a story you believe.

      Consider such an ordinary thing as the CERAN stovetops that have been deployed for I think more than 40 years in houses in Europe and probably elsewhere. This special glass gets very hot above the heating element and yet 2 cm away from it you can touch it with your fingers. Amazing, isn’t it?

      What has induction cooking (based on magnetism) have to do with space travel?

      Do the pans that can work with induction hold their shape when you cool them down to -250 deg C? or heated to +300 deg C? and both extremes at the same time?

      That is what we’re talking about in space (according to NASA c.s.), no red herrings about irrelevant stuff.

      (you can make proper quotes using “blockquote” between two triangles < and > to close the quote, just add a slash after the first triangle

      ” quoted text “

      remove the spaces and it works

      Like

      1. Newton has never been into space, so his laws cannot be applied there. Simple.

        He’s never been on the continent or in America either so could his laws apply there? Kepler also has never been in space and yet his laws on planetary movements still apply.

        Tsiolkovsky and Oberth probably obtained their data from measurements confirming Kepler and Newton.

        What makes you believe those war stories?

        About 1000 A4/V2 rockets were shot from Den Haag to London. That’s about 300 km as the bird flies. Do you think it is an Anglo-German conspiracy, with Germans faking the launches in your homecountry and the English faking the impacts in London? 🙂

        What has induction cooking (based on magnetism) have to do with space travel?

        You’re confusing CERAN stovetops with induction cooking. I referred to CERAN as a man-made material with stunning properties that can be found in almost every home in Germany and other European countries.

        Like

        1. He’s never been on the continent or in America either so could his laws apply there?

          Newton’s mechanical laws were developed for Earth conditions, based on experiments that can be performed on Earth. Not in space. So once man enters a new realm, there must be new laws derived. Not before the exploration, like was the case with Bertie Onestone, but after.

          Again the example of Atlantis people who for the first time learn about a realm without water (atmosphere). We’d still be scratching our heads now if space exploration were real.

          Kepler also has never been in space and yet his laws on planetary movements still apply.

          Earth-based astronomy doesn’t depend on space travel.

          Tsiolkovsky and Oberth probably obtained their data from measurements confirming Kepler and Newton.

          Or probably not. What makes you believe in their claims? What is the smoking gun in favor of “space travel” that I missed?

          My bad for the induction confusion, I have no idea what CERAN is. But if it is not a material that can withstand a temperature range from +300 to -270 deg C, it is useless as a comparison, because those are the temperatures the space promoters use.

          Like

          1. Well, quite practically, if I weren’t convinced of satellites anyway by overall civilizational circumstances, my “smoking gun in favor of space travel” are TV satellites. Have you ever pointed a satellite dish to a position in the sky and checked the signal quality on the receiver? You can look up the azimuth and elevation parameters for your geographical coordinates, and while I haven’t done any geometrical checks myself, I’m convinced the parametrical differences you would observe between two or more sites for one and the same satellite position (like Astra 19.2E) would line up to a location in geostationary orbit at 36,000 km above ground. This would be a way for you to geometrically verify the location of the TV signal source.

            As for the temperature differences in space, I did refer you to our discussion at the end of April in my comment on December 5, 2021 at 4:45 pm on this page. I am not an industry insider and do not have the expert knowledge you seem to be expect. Here is one link (in German) about how satellites are tested in so-called “Thermal Vacuum Chambers” in South-Western Germany.

            https://www.julabo.com/de/anwendungen/branchen-maerkte/temperiertechnik-fuer-die-raumfahrt

            Like

            1. So you have no evidence, the only “evidence” you see is because you can point a “satellite” dish to a certain point in the sky and then just assume that thingy in the sky is real, really hanging there at 36,000 km altitude, right in the Outer Van Allen belts that allegedly exist??

              And you expect me to take you seriously, believing in space thingies you have no proof of and even rejecting plate tectonics, only because it doesn’t fit with some fantasy idea you saw presented on YT??

              Have you ever done any geologic research? Seen seismic from both sides of the Atlantic, proving plate tectonics right in front of your eyes?

              Jesus, I can just as well have a discussion with Petra Spamaroundi or read that clown Velikovsky, that Mark also looks up to so much.

              “But… Berty Onestone was so positive about Ol’ Immanuel”

              Really? The biggest fraudster magician of the early 20th century praises someone and that is some kind of pro?

              It is a huge con, Einstein!

              Like

              1. It seems to me that you do not quite grasp that dozens of millions of satellite dishes spread in latitude and longitude over the surface of the Earth and pointed toward positions in the sky defined by azimuth and elevation according to the position on Earth do indeed constitute a geometrical proof of the source of the signal being in geostationary orbit.

                But yes, the dish and the tiny dots moving in straight lines across the night sky are my only personal empirical proof. And it is good enough for me. Not for you, okay. On the other hand, what proof can you muster to explain the origin of the TV signal received via satellite dishes?

                As for Velikovsky, as mentioned previously, I haven’t read his books yet. Even if most of his claims might be wrong he has been an important inspiration for a lot of people, so why not give him respect for his work?

                We can discuss Plate Tectonics on another page. There are problems with it that are easy to understand. For example, the problem of alleged ridge push and slab pull (at the alleged “subduction zone”) via the vector of the brittle and thin oceanic crust that is seismically dead relative to the Pacific rim (and which is actually not crust at all but the extruding mantle) … such a brittle vector cannot move continents. Instead, the movement at the ridge is up and out (expansion) because of high pressure inside, and the rest is spherical readjustment because of gravity and rotation.

                Like

                1. Atmospheric rebound, communication towers, underse cables, there are numerous Earth-based methods of communication.

                  You are starting at the end of the book without addressing the first chapter; is space travel possible?

                  because if it is not, you can point and click your dishes to whatever but it cannot be space thingies.

                  Is “being an inspiration” now suddenly enough qualitative measure to call someone legit? That is a dark degeneration to start the new year with.

                  You do know that Dolfy H. and his (ghostwritten) book also are a huge inspiration for a lot of people?

                  Does that make the nazi narrative suddenly legit?

                  Read some of that clown. Immanuel, not Dolfy.

                  Now you are talking about geodynamics, the processes behind plate tectonics.

                  In the field you can recognize the enormous basalt traps on either side of the southern Atlantic, in Brazil and Namibia, Paraná-Etendeka traps. This is just a “tiny” example of evidence for plate tectonics, indeed a whole post needs to be dedicated to it.

                  In seismic you “see” much more and it is exactly that area of the globe I have focused my last professional research on. Almost perfect mirror images on both sides of the offshore Atlantic, in Angola and Brazil.

                  Waiving away something is easy
                  Waiving something away you can seek evidence for yourself (one of the beauties of geology) is a bit stupid innit?

                  ========

                  if there are really 18,000 man-made satellites “up there”
                  let’s say 10 % so 1800 are geosynchronous / geostationary / other fantastical non-existing two body simplification foe dummies
                  and we had some 200 missions (easily) of all kinds of “space organizations” outside of that traversing the Van Allen Belts

                  then

                  why the heck are we even discussing those belts here ?
                  With 2000 + datapoints (remember; the success of ALL those missions depends on their capacity to withstand radiation or whatever those belts are) the “mysterious” Van Allen belts should not be a mystery at all.

                  can you answer to such an Inconvenient Truth (fock you Al Gore) ??

                  Like

                  1. you can point and click your dishes to whatever but it cannot be space thingies.

                    It means, occasionally after a storm, (in my case) climbing onto the roof ridge with tools and carefully turning the dish while another person checks the reception quality, and then fixating the dish in the best position. No atmospheric rebound, let alone towers or cables can explain the geometry of dish pointing. Check out one of the online dish pointer tools.

                    Basalt trapps are a geological fact but do in no way require the erroneous theory of Plate Ttectonics (mantle convection, subduction zones, mountain building). They are simply evidence for large-scale seismic activity (-> large igneous provinces).

                    Almost perfect mirror images on both sides of the offshore Atlantic, in Angola and Brazil.
                    Yes. This is evidence for mobilism against fixism, a debate that predates the formulation of Plate Tectonics. We are all mobilists today. Fixism died ~70 years ago when the Americans gave up their position and rephrased Alfred Wegener’s continental drift as “plate tectonics”, introducing the wrong notion of mantle convection.

                    traversing the Van Allen Belts

                    I haven’t made a single claim about the VAB. Let me remind you that I do not believe in the possibility of manned space travel given current technology. But I do believe in the proper functioning of TV satellites out there in geostationary orbit 36,000 km above the surface of the Earth. Whatever belts or rays are doing their business there: TV satellites cope just fine.

                    Like

                    1. you fool:

                      1 – the topic is the [modeled, gaia] Van Allen belts, see blog post title
                      2 – you believe in the narrative of “geosynchronous/stationary space thingies, even though the model of space used doesn’t allow for those to exist
                      3 – according to the narrative you believe is solid, those ” hang” 36,000 km above Earth
                      4 – according to the same narrative that is bang in the middle of the “Outer Van Allen Belts” (=model)

                      you can(‘t) behave like Ms. Spamaroundi or one of the many shills and fools I have encountered online, by just putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring the laws of logic, but that only make you sink faster…


                      talking about sinking, an analogy is that I and Ayokera are pointing out all the issues with the Titanic narrative but you maintain “it must have been true” because you have a rusty watch allegedly coming from that ship.

                      why the hell do you allow the cancer of “”” satellite””” TV in your house or mind anyway ? Nice comearound to the start of this post.

                      Like

                    2. Like it or not, satellite TV is as much a mass technological fact as the Internet. I spent some time learning how it works, mostly receiver technology and the digital aspects (MPEG), till I lost the interest to specialize further as I had everything set up to my liking. I do not have to watch the sickening propaganda on TV as I do not have to watch or read it on the Internet.

                      an analogy is that I and Ayokera are pointing out all the issues with the Titanic narrative but you maintain “it must have been true” because you have a rusty watch allegedly coming from that ship.

                      Incidentally (and besides the point, arguably flawed, that you’re trying to make), I also do not believe the Titanic narrative, being sure instead that her sister ship, the Olympic, was sunk in a mid-oceanic controlled demolition, with no iceberg and no casualties. So that might make us happy comrades in conspiracy theory again. 🙂

                      Like

  18. OK, so I know I have no credibility on this site with regard to the moon landings and my argument falls on deaf ears but regardless, arguing about it helps me refine my argument. I shall try again.

    Some questions:

    –1– Do you agree that a major 9/11 propaganda strategy is to maintain in the minds of the anticipated disbelievers of the cockamamie story the belief in real death and injury in order to hamstring them with a half-truth, making it more difficult for them to get the believers to accept that 9/11 was an inside job (with a twist)? For the believers, the two pieces of the 9/11 puzzle “inside job” and “callous killing of all those poor people in the buildings” repel each other like two positive magnets (although they’re killing people in unconscionable numbers and in an unconscionable manner in this psyop). As Benjamin Franklin said:

    ‘Half a truth is often a great lie’

    –2– Do you agree that if the moon landings actually happened, your belief that they didn’t would undermine you in trying to get the truth out about the vast number of lies governments do tell us?

    –3– Do you agree that Bill Kaysing was an agent because what he says and what we are told about him have the fingerprints of psyop all over them? For example, we’re told in Wikipedia (edited by intel) that he has a nephew, Dietrich von Schmausen, (who speaks with an obviously fake German accent), who’s an alien scientist and allegedly has the specimen of an alien brain on his desk. See YT – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2djDVQcZ0O8. We’re also told that he was Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne but when he speaks of the moon landings he says things completely at odds with what scientists say such as, “The lunar module would have made a massive crater that it would have sunk into, kicking up sand and rocks everywhere,” with no explanation why he believes it would have behaved completely differently from the way it did behave in the footage we’re shown.

    –4– If you do agree that Bill was an agent, would you allow the reason that it hasn’t been picked up is that moon hoaxers have not been diligent enough in looking at both sides of the argument? For example, I’ve looked diligently and I could tell as soon as Bill said what he said about the lunar module that he was talking nonsense – even if he believed what he said, he would have had to present his reason for believing so differently from what is recognised would have happened in relation to size of crater made by the LEM.

    –5– If you do agree that Bill was an agent, would you allow that his purpose was to persuade people who tend to disbelieve government by default that astronauts didn’t land on the moon in order to undermine their ability to get out the truth on the real lies? If you don’t agree with the purpose suggested can you suggest a purpose?

    –5– Do you agree that it’s best to focus on the most tangible relevant pieces of information we’re given about an event rather than the less tangible? (For example, when I first started looking at 9/11 I followed a number of red herrings in relation to the nature of building design and what allegedly happened inside the buildings before collapse when finally it dawned on me that to determine what caused the collapse all we had to do was look at the collapse itself and see from the manner of collapse that it was a CD.) Thus, do you agree that if every single image we’re shown is consistent with the vastly different lunar conditions* (black sky in lunar day, 1/6th gravity, no atmosphere) that that forms compelling evidence in support of the hypothesis that astronauts did land on the moon?
    * Will you allow that the conditions are as stated unless you have a good reason to say they’re not?

    –6– Do you agree that we do not see typical signs of obvious sloppiness in the moon landings that we normally see in a psyop? For example, where the planes melting into the buildings like butter is so obvious in the 9/11 movie we don’t see that kind of obvious fakery in the moon landings footage?

    Like

    1. Petra, you’re impenetrable. You’ve been presented with plenty of solid (even if debatable) evidence of a hoax, and you don’t confront it head on. Instead you fall back on these tortuous two-step logic arguments, if Bill Kaysing this this then blah blah … a simple argument for you to overcome, Playtex space suits. They would turn brittle in the extremes, falling to the ground, and shortly after the astronauts would turn brittle, forming statues of salt. Let’e not argue about it, as you’re not capable of direct confrontation of evidence. Please just give it a rest. You will have the credibility you seek when you leave your own sphere and enter those of your detractors, dealing with them head-on and forthrightly.

      Like

        1. Given the absence of atmosphere there is nothing there to moderate extremes.It is either very hot or very cold, nothing in between. I see you are choosing to ignore yet more evidence.,

          Like

          1. Mark, did you read the explanation linked to? If not, can I ask that you do and then refute the explanation. An argument doesn’t consist of one person simply putting forward what they believe and then another simply putting forward theirs. Each needs to deal with the other’s argument.

            Your notion that my eyes are influenced by authority figures in relation to fakery holds no water as I see fakery everywhere else – just not in the moon landings. I may be missing fakery but why would authority figures influence me only for the moon landings and not every other event?

            Like

            1. All space travel since the alleged moon landings has been LEO, not entering the VABs. NASA itself admits it has “lost” 13,000 reels of telemetric data. NASA itself admits it “no longer” has the ability to go to the moon. Petra, I am not going to engage you further. You see what you see using that headlight on your forehead, nothing more. You’re intractable. Though he is alive and well and living in LA, having faked his death, McGowan’s limited hangout series called Wagging the Moon Doggie is highly regarded, only selling us short in hiding the true purpose of Apollo. I suggest you read it some time, making a list of all his evidence and objections, and disputing them one by one. If you do that I will engage you once more. There’s a lot of reading there, so don’t come back this afternoon claiming you’ve read the series, and don’t insult our intelligence by claiming you’ve already done so.

              Like

              1. All space travel since the alleged moon landings has been LEO, not entering the VABs.

                A happy new year but …lolwhut??

                Space travel is not just manned space travel, there is also such a thing as unmanned space travel.

                allegedly since 1972:

                Missions to al the planets and moons with numerous missions from different countries
                Space telescopes (there are hyping up their next installment, the James Webb space telescam)
                Landings on and missions to asteroids, scooping up material and sending it back to Earth, like a Space UPS
                All kinds of space thingies “parked” in impossible to exist “Lissajous orbits”, a math trick that only works in static environments (so not space) and with 2 bodies (idem)
                Satellites, I have seen a number of 18,000, ranging from LEO up to 36,000 km, right in the alleged Outer Van Allen Belt

                so indeed my question to those still partially believing in space travel, like you seem to do still Mark:

                What makes fake space travel fake and real space travel real ?

                Like

              2. All space travel since the alleged moon landings has been LEO, not entering the VABs. NASA itself admits it has “lost” 13,000 reels of telemetric data. NASA itself admits it “no longer” has the ability to go to the moon. Petra, I am not going to engage you further. You see what you see using that headlight on your forehead, nothing more. You’re intractable. Though he is alive and well and living in LA, having faked his death, McGowan’s limited hangout series called Wagging the Moon Doggie is highly regarded, only selling us short in hiding the true purpose of Apollo. I suggest you read it some time, making a list of all his evidence and objections, and disputing them one by one. If you do that I will engage you once more. There’s a lot of reading there, so don’t come back this afternoon claiming you’ve read the series, and don’t insult our intelligence by claiming you’ve already done so.

                Like

              3. Sorry, Mark, didn’t mean to post your post back at you. I pasted it into my reply so I could easily refer to it and accidentally clicked Post.

                My response that you’re responding to is with regard to the astronauts’ ability to withstand the extreme temperatures on the moon but you move on. Will you agree to deal with one issue at at time?

                Do you have a refutation for the explanation for how the extreme temperatures were dealt with? If not, do you accept it as a reasonable explanation?

                https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-astronauts-survive-the-extreme-temperature-of-the-moon

                Like

                1. Petra, I watched Star Trek too, and wondered how it is that they while on board a space ship could go from zero movement to light speed without being thrown into the space behind them by the movement. I learned that Star Ships had on board “inertia dampers.” In other words, it was not a real problem, as the whole thing was fiction. So too is the Quora explanation. They just make shit up, and can be creative, but in the real world, making shit up does not substitute for real science. Nobody went to the moon.

                  Like

    2. Petra, I don’t know, maybe you happened to see this already, it’s image AS15-86-11670 from NASA official photo archives of the Apollo 15 mission.

      As you can see it shows a neat closeup of bootprints on the lunar surface.
      According to my personal judgement, it’s undisputably clear that those footprints cannot all have been left by the same type of boot. In addition to the obvious different orientation of the treads, there is also a conspicuously visible difference in the spacing of their solids and voids.
      Searching for the usual debunking arguments, strangely enough I found none, but if you know of any I’d be glad to take a look at it. I’m also aware that other alleged bootprints anomalies have been explained away pointing out that astronauts wore “space boots” during the space trips and “galoshes” when walking on the moon, but that has no relevance to this specific issue.
      As I see the matter, the mismatch is readily explainable simply as a photographic evidence of e.g. different kind of movie props, used during the filming on the Hollywood set, that unnoticed made its nasty way into the NASA archives. But I know that from your viewpoint the moon landings being a fake is a non starter, thus I suppose there must be in your mind a rational answer to what at first sight appears to be another irreconcilable anomaly.
      I’d be interested in knowing what would be your own favourite choice for an explanation, or alternately what seems to you the more reasonable among the following:
      1) it’s a matter of subjective perception, actually the bootprints look exactly the same to me.
      2) the bootprints are identical but appear different due to some perspective and/or lighting issues.
      3) the bootprints are identical but appear different due to some special regolith properties, electromagnetic phenomenon or some other lunar environment peculiar characteristics.
      4) the two astronauts were individually equipped with different sets of boots, or they had different treads on the left vs. the right boot (if one of this could be the case please provide some official reference from NASA).
      5) I don’t have any reasonable answer, but I’m positive there should be one, as the alleged hoax perpetrators wouldn’t have been so dumb and careless to let such an obvious giveaway slip into an official archive (or..uhmm..mumble..mumble…could it be the revelation of the method?).

      Like

      1. Ayokera, I see you come from a place near where my father came from – he was from a little village, Marradi, in the Appenines in the Mugello, Romagnan Tuscany, and spoke Romagnolo which I assume is the dialect you’re referring to in your comment.

        So let me start my answer by saying that what guides my thinking is the underlying principle that for an hypothesis to be correct every single piece of evidence must ultimately support that hypothesis and favour it over any other thus if there seems to be an awful lot of evidence supporting an hypothesis and an anomaly presents itself that supports a competing hypothesis my inclination is to think that this anomaly must be able to be explained somehow to still support the better-favoured hypothesis. It simply cannot be that we have 99% of the available information supporting one hypothesis with 1% supporting another, that’s not the nature of reality so what concerns me is: what hypothesis does the majority of the evidence favour at first sight and if an anomaly presents how is it explained? Can a single anomaly somehow push all that evidence seeming to support one hypothesis over to support a competing hypothesis? With regard to 9/11, I favoured the killed-for-real hypothesis for way too long but ultimately I could see how all the evidence that seemingly favoured that hypothesis could easily be pushed over to favour staged killing – no problem.

        Before I had a clue about psyops my sister tried to persuade me of the fakery of the moon landings at a time when I had no conviction one way or the other. She insisted that not going again was a highly persuasive argument when – although I wasn’t aware of logical fallacies and how the not-going-again argument falls into the logical fallacy of argumentum ad speculum – my feeling simply was that it wasn’t a compelling argument. She also tried to persuade me that evidence of shadows not being parallel was a convincing argument. I responded that I simply didn’t know enough about shadows to have an opinion – which I hold to this day and in any case I’ve seen compelling explanation for why shadows don’t appear parallel – elevation can affect them for one thing and if there were multiple light sources we’d expect multiple shadows which we don’t see.

        My response to the bootprints is that the difference in treads seems anomalous, however, I’d certainly allow for a perfectly reasonable explanation. Bottom line, a single anomaly simply cannot turn all the evidence around to make it support a competing hypothesis and I think there’s too much evidence that is entirely consistent with expectations of what we should see on the moon.

        One thing that came to my mind today in the never-ending moon landing argument is that moon hoaxers are rather selective in what they believe of what we are told about the moon, for example, moon hoaxers will readily believe in the extreme temperatures but then don’t believe the explanations for how those extreme temperatures can be accommodated – why believe one thing but not the other? It reminds of me of the 9/11 half-truthers in reverse. The half-truthers readily disbelieve what we’ve been told about the buildings and the planes but won’t disbelieve in the death and injury. Why disbelieve some things and not others?

        Like

        1. “Ayokera, I see you come from a place near where my father came from – he was from a little village, Marradi, in the Appenines in the Mugello, Romagnan Tuscany, and spoke Romagnolo which I assume is the dialect you’re referring to in your comment.”

          Actually I suspected that was the case because as far as I know Liverani is a surname fairly common almost only in Romagna.
          Yes I live quite near to Marradi, in the past I used to go there for the annual local “Sagra della castagna”, traveling on a lovely historic steam train “The chestnuts train” that was restored many years ago specifically for that and others local events. The location and the surrounding areas are worth of a trip anyway, especially during the foliage when our Apennines are gorgeous. Excellent food and wines are also always included, it goes without saying.
          I bet your father was a witty guy.
          Do you also speak Romagnolo? (I assume no, or else you probably would have spotted the joke in my nickname).

          About the moonlandings, nothing I can say or add to what I already said would make you change your mind so I’m going to pass on debating this time around.

          Have an happy year.

          Like

          1. Just to add (my previous comment may appear later because moderated due to links) –

            Speaking of Italian dialects I find this guy speaking Latin to unsuspecting Romans hilarious. (In the comments, a Norwegian says that if a random stranger started speaking to him in Old Norse he’d probably just think it was a drunk Dane.)

            Like

    3. -1- Yes, the alternative stories about 9/11 maintain the alleged 3,000 victims, whereas it is key to understand the building was empty, there were no people inside, and thus no victims.

      -2- This is irrelevant speculation.

      -3,4,5(1)- Refutation of the moon landing claims doesn’t hinge on any statements made by Bill Kaysing, on his alleged role as an agent, or on his existence.

      -5(2)- No, I do not agree. It’s best not to stick to any formalized methodology but instead to keep the mind open and your thoughts unbound by any artificial constraints.

      -6- That is again your claim that psyops must contain obvious signs of fakery as hints or clues to inform truth seekers. That claim is based on nothing and draws attention away from the substance of the matter to accidental meta properties. Besides, the cartoonish way the airplanes melted into the towers in the 9/11 footage was good enough for more than 95% of people, so the fakery was obvious only to a small minority of people, so the example doesn’t serve to support your claim.

      Happy New Year!

      Like

      1. –1– My main point Lumi is not that people didn’t die, that is not the main point. The point is that they directed propaganda specifically at those they anticipated wouldn’t believe their story to ensure they believed that people didn’t die as a way to hide the bigger truth of inside job – the two pieces of the 9/11 puzzle “inside job” and “callous killing by US govt” repel each other like positive magnets. The main point is to do with the propaganda strategy NOT whether or not people died.

        –2– You seem to imply that speculation of itself is irrelevant. When you try to use speculation as evidence that’s a problem as in, “If we’d gone to the moon we would have gone again,” but speculation can be useful. I think in this case it is useful. As an exposer of the truth you don’t want to be shooting yourself in the foot by promulgating a conspiracy theory that’s false so you want to make sure you’ve got it right, OK? I think it’s worth pondering because I know that I’ve been ridiculed by the words, “Oh and I suppose you think we didn’t go to the moon,” when, in fact, of course, I think no such thing.
        — The perps targeted the anticipated disbelievers of the 9/11 story with propaganda to undermine their ability to get out the truth about 9/11 (the propaganda being people really died)
        — The perps targeted the disbelievers-by-default with propaganda that we didn’t land on the moon to undermine their ability to get the truth out on other events.

        Can you see the parallel?

        –3,4,5(1)– BK’s statements mean nothing in terms of direct evidence of going to the moon or not, true, however, these things are significant:
        — there needs to be a reason for his existence. What is it?
        — no moon hoaxer picked up he was an agent. Why not?
        — what he says is ludicrous and anyone who’s looked at both sides of the argument would pick that up immediately. We can only infer that moon hoaxers simply do not look at both sides of the argument properly. Their cognitive biases blind them to the ludicrousness of what BK says.

        –5(2) — I’m not sure we need to formalise it exactly but surely we’re much more likely to be correct when we’re assessing the more tangible aspects rather than the less tangible. The less tangible the less we can be certain of our interpretation whereas the more tangible the more certain. Do you not agree, especially when there are various tangible aspects? If there’s only one then we have the problem of evidence paucity but if there are a few tangible aspects surely we should look at them first. It simply makes more sense to start with the most concrete aspects.

        –6– I don’t quite understand what you mean when you say 95% of people believed the cartoonish planes – sure, it worked for them and that’s precisely WHY they can get away with it. If they couldn’t, they wouldn’t do their psyops like that.

        Simple fact: every psyop known to man (unless you can point me to one where it doesn’t happen) apart from the moon landings (if we assume it is a psyop) contains very obvious clues. In the case of 9/11 we are given extra gratuitous clues in addition to a completely preposterous basic narrative.

        My claim that psyops always employ the revelation-of-the-method/hidden-in-plain-sight MO is 100% evidence-backed unless you can point me to a psyop where it isn’t.

        Like

        1. –1– My main point Lumi is not that people didn’t die, that is not the main point. The point is that they directed propaganda specifically at those they anticipated wouldn’t believe their story to ensure they believed that people didn’t die as a way to hide the bigger truth of inside job

          There was no such propaganda directed at doubters to convince them people didn’t die. On the contrary, all the theories propagated by the 9/11 hoax management teams implied death and victims, frequently claiming it was an inside job. You have it exactly wrong.

          In fact, almost all your statements made here are attemps at misdirecting people. Your logic is twisted, your claims are counterfactual. You do not engage in meaningful discussion, do not address objections, do not respond to questions, but instead repeat the same pointless points about “clues” and “revelation of the method” over and over and over again.

          Like

          1. “There was no such propaganda directed at doubters to convince them people didn’t die. On the contrary, all the theories propagated by the 9/11 hoax management teams implied death and victims, frequently claiming it was an inside job. You have it exactly wrong.”

            My apologies, Lumi. I meant to say exactly that but I got it the wrong way round.

            I should have said:
            “… to ensure they believed that people DIED [not “didn’t die”] as a way to hide the bigger truth of inside job.”

            But there was revelation in the method in the propaganda they pushed to make the doubters believe that people died.

            LOADS of propaganda aimed at doubters say people died BUT:
            — There is not a single convincing photo of an injured person and some such as the one in front of the Pentagon are ridiculous
            https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2021/09/10/on-911-at-the-pentagon-horrible-senseless-loss-brought-people-together/
            — The very few dead bodies are obviously fake
            — Photos of Bob McIlvaine and his alleged son, Bobby, who allegedly died in the lobby of the North tower are obviously photoshopped
            — The miracle survivor stories are ludicrous
            — April Gallop’s story of being instructed to take her baby into the Pentagon instead of to daycare makes no sense
            etc

            Please do not accuse me of trying to misdirect people. Seriously? I made a mistake and I think from the context if you’d put a little thought to the matter you might have worked out that that’s what happened – I made a mistake.

            If you have any doubt about “clues” or revelation of the method please let me know. To me they’re so utterly obvious, how could you have any doubt about them? Or do you agree they’re there but not worth commenting on? I’m not sure what your problem is.

            Like

            1. Okay, that was a mistake, not an attempt at misdirection.

              “Or do you agree they’re there [the clues, the revelations] but not worth commenting on?”

              As said a little above (January 2, 2022 at 1:48 pm), they’re accidental, not substantial. They’re also a matter of interpretation, they’re speculation about intent. That is all fine and well, but it cannot be the centerpiece as it is not substantial.

              Like

              1. “… accidental, not substantial. … interpretation, they’re speculation about intent.

                The thing is Lumi that not only do they give us the clues – and there is absolutely no doubt, there’s no speculation about intent whatsoever – they NEVER fake anything so well that anyone who believes their nonsense can brandish anything to defend their belief against the claim that it’s a psyop.

                They are, in fact, scrupulous, if that is the correct term, in undermining their narrative at every single turn, whether in deliberate clues, whether in the ludicrousness of the basic narrative to start with, whether in never faking a single, solitary thing so well that it’s convincing.

                You point out that most people swallowed the cartoonish penetration by planes of the buildings. Precisely why they can push their fakery in our faces and get away with it … and because they can, they do – it gives them a chortle and allows them to despise us.

                You must think critically Lumi critically. Please look critically at the kinds of “screwups” we see and say why you think they might be genuine as opposed to deliberate. I don’t think you’ll be able to do that. You must be able to defend your claims, not just make assertions such as “speculation about intent.” Point to a “screwup” and explain how it might be genuinely accidental.

                Like

                1. Please look critically at the kinds of “screwups” we see and say why you think they might be genuine as opposed to deliberate.

                  Why should I do that? If I did I’d find myself sidetracked into the kind of twisted reasoning apparent in your comments, like here:

                  “they NEVER fake anything so well that anyone who believes their nonsense can brandish anything to defend their belief against the claim that it’s a psyop.”

                  How would you know that? Are you omniscient? It would mean you are in a position to point out every hoax on Earth.

                  On your mission to defend the moon landing hoax, you are not even able to address the overwhelming evidence that the whole thing was faked and is technologically impossible even today.

                  NASASCAM Fake Moon Landing
                  http://nasascam.atspace.co.uk/

                  Actually, no manned space travel in any way, shape or form is possible given current technology because while you can launch a man into orbit, it is debatable whether the payload would survive that ascension, and there is zero chance of controlled non-destructive descent (funnily termed “re-entry”).

                  Like

                  1. I’m not omniscient but if you look at say 30 psyops and every single one contains obvious clues I think it’s reasonable to say that that is the MO especially when they span centuries. Obviously, they might not all contain the obvious clues but I invite you to point me to one where we don’t see obvious clues and if you can’t find one then … ?

                    I have zero interest in what people, especially those not in possession of any credentials to especially recommend them, deem to be possible and impossible when the TANGIBLE evidence in front of my face says that astronauts landed on the moon. Just because someone tells me that rockets can’t travel in space or controlled re-entry is impossible because of X, Y and Z doesn’t mean I’m going to believe them, not when I can see tangible evidence. I believe tangible evidence that is 100% and always consistent with the unique lunar conditions before claims of impossibility from people whose knowledge is limited.

                    … and then we have Billy Kaysing, agent extraordinaire, who no moon-hoaxer recognised and who no moon-hoaxer has any interest in explaining … so very unsurprisingly. But my hypothesis explains Billy absolutely perfectly: Billy’s purpose was to encourage the disbelievers-by-default to disbelieve in the moon landings in order to undermine them when they called out all the real lies. They pushed him in your faces as allegedly Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne while spouting absolute nonsense about massive craters being created by the lunar module. The perps have so got the disbelievers’-by-default number – they knew you’d swallow that shit all up … but you won’t have it that they duped you. Most people hate being duped. I don’t. I’ll wear it but most people like to think they’re too smart for that, especially moon-hoaxers.

                    Like

                    1. tangible, tangible, TANGIBLE

                      You’ve used this word three times in this comment and 22 times in your comments on this page altogether. It is a very laudable approach indeed. But we do have to understand what the word means. It means evidence you can touch. Noli me tangere! tangere, tango, tetigi, tactum. Evidence you can touch.

                      And what are you offering in terms of “tangible”? Audio recordings by an interested party in the matter (NASA, the main suspect) – laughably easy to produce, and nothing tangible at all. And photographies produced by the same interested party, which they did go to considerable length to produce convincingly and coherently, quite an effort indeed, and you gotta pay them respect for it, and in a way, it is great art, and I like it. But it’s not tangible evidence either.

                      What a pity the astronauts didn’t dance tango on the Moon.

                      Like

                  1. Lumi, I think we’re really just going round in circles here, our perceptions of what a psyop is are just too different – to me psyops are operations where they stamp their boot in our faces with their effrontery, advertising shamelessly that they’re hoaxing us and obviously that isn’t at all your perception of them. I’m going to leave off now.

                    Like

                    1. Yes Petra, we are going round in circles here because you have yet to explain in any meaningful way how hours of voice recordings or footage of silly bibendum-like clowns hopping clumsily in slomo over some grey dusty surface could be tangible proof of anything.
                      If that’s the case, I have very tangible proof of George Clooney floating weightlessly in LEO and of King Kong climbing the Twin Towers. Now debunk that.

                      Like

                    2. Yes Petra, we are going round in circles here because you have yet to explain in any meaningful way how hours of voice recordings or footage of silly bibendum-like clowns hopping clumsily in slomo over some grey dusty surface could be tangible proof of anything.

                      It’s all about consistency with expectations, AK. Because gravity on the moon is not pulling astronauts to it as forcefully as it is on earth expectations are that it is slower to move on the moon: when you put your foot down it takes longer to get to the surface because there’s less force pulling it. You can say it looks silly but what you need to identify is how expectations are not being met in the way the astronauts are moving. How do you think they would move on the moon? To me, the way they move is perfectly consistent with expectations, just as the brightly-lit lunar surface with blackness all around is exactly what is expected according to the conditions. All the imagery we’re shown is consistent with the unique lunar conditions in my opinion and if you want to say it isn’t consistent then you need to identify clearly what’s wrong and what it should look like.

                      Moreover, FAKING things to meet the conditions just seems ludicrous in my opinion. If you really wanted to try to fake things according to those conditions you simply couldn’t do it with the amount of imagery they produced. Films might fake it but they don’t produce the breadth of images that came from the moon.

                      And, of course, if you wish to argue the old chestnut, “We don’t know what the conditions on the moon are like because we’ve never been there,” well, you can’t, it’s a stupid argument. It’s a false assumption to state we cannot know about a place because we haven’t been there. You need to say what it is said what the conditions are isn’t legitimate for reasons X, Y and Z, not simply make the assertion, “We don’t know.”

                      Like

                    3. The way George Clooney and King Kong move is perfectly consistent with expectations.
                      That’s all the proof I need.
                      Case closed.

                      Like

      2. “It’s best not to stick to any formalized methodology but instead to keep the mind open and your thoughts unbound by any artificial constraints.”

        Just to add:
        I believe that sticking to the most concrete aspects is a part of applying Occam’s Razor. With OR what you want to do is shave away the less important stuff, the more fluffy stuff and focus on what can really be grabbed onto and I am a great proponent of Occam’s Razor – I think it’s the bees knees.

        Wouldn’t you agree that there’s no need to look at design of the buildings or theorise about what was going on in the buildings before they came down … which I was – and no doubt many thousands of others too – red-herring-style propagandised into doing? The evidence of CD is ALL in the collapse, we need know ZERO about what was going on in the buildings beforehand or what their design was but how much focus on those things?

        Similarly, I think it is a pointless exercise to focus on the Van Allen belts. The VABs are simply a numbers game – you say the numbers are such-and-such numbers and mean one thing, someone else says they are such-and-such numbers and mean another thing. The VABs wouldn’t physically stop spaceships from going through them in any case. Sure, the radiation levels might be so high they’d kill astronauts but to me there’s no solidity to any argument because it all exists so much at the theoretical level really.

        The images, on the other hand, are solid purported evidence. Of course, in theory at least, they could be faked but then we’d expect some indication of fakery somewhere and I just don’t see it … well, I see there’s a comment from Ayokera showing an image of mismatching bootprints which he believes suggests fakery but … well, I’ll answer that question with my thoughts on that.

        Like

        1. There it is … I’ve been working with photographic evidence for years now, and if I understand one thing, it is this: People do not see with their own eyes, but rather with the voices of authority figures telling them what they see, So I have never tried to make an argument amount the moon hoax using photographs. My eyes can see all the fakery, yours cannot.

          What you are doing is called tunneling, with a light strapped to your forehead, seeing only those things you choose to point the light at. You’re invoking Occam, weak logic. Occam does not give you permission to ignore evidence that you don’t like. He merely states that when confronted with varied explanations, most often the explanation with the fewest arguments is the correct one. I see Occam as saying that with all of the confounding evidence, including Van Allen (which right before our eyes you chose to ignore), the simplest answer that invokes the least arguments is fakery, sound stages, misdirection. Something was going on, something highly classified, but it was not Moon Doggies.

          What you are missing is called “everything.” Yours are the most illogical arguments I’ve come across.

          Like

          1. There it is … I’ve been working with photographic evidence for years now, and if I understand one thing, it is this: People do not see with their own eyes, but rather with the voices of authority figures telling them what they see, So I have never tried to make an argument amount the moon hoax using photographs.

            But, the photos (and film !) themselves aside, what we do have is statistics. I think it was Marcus Allen (not Markus Allen), a photgrapher himself, which helps in recognizing misstakes…, who brought that up.

            The amount (good typo your software made) of outstanding magazine cover quality photos in sequence is impossible for a normal human being, let one for an untrained astronot dangling from wire…. I mean bouncing around in Earth’s …. I mean 1/6th gravity.

            but again; the same problems with the photos show up in other space travel YOU believe in, how do you make that happen in your head ?

            Like

        2. Wouldn’t you agree that there’s no need to look at design of the buildings or theorise about what was going on in the buildings before they came down … which I was – and no doubt many thousands of others too – red-herring-style propagandised into doing? The evidence of CD is ALL in the collapse, we need know ZERO about what was going on in the buildings beforehand or what their design was but how much focus on those things?

          Yes the evidence of controlled demolition is in the collapse, and in order for controlled demolition to happen it must be prepared, which is many thousands hours of work of gutting the building of its interiorsssss, which means the building must have been empty for a long time before 9/11 2001, and consequently, in diametrical opposition to what you’re inviting me to agree to the design of the building and the preparatory work necessary for CD to happen are something that has to be looked at, and thus you will arrive at the conclusion, given other evidence such as missing rubble, that the building was hollow and empty on 9/11 2001, that it was a giant hoax, and that there were no victims.

          Like

          1. Original design of the buildings has zero to do with what was done prior to bringing them down except in regard to forethought with regard to eventual demolition which there well may have been but I don’t think is important – in fact, one might imagine that for every building that would need to be demolished by CD eventually, the design would cater for that eventuality. Assuming that to be the case can you see how they’re making propaganda out of the truth? – they tell us that they built the buildings with the idea that they would be demolished but that is going to apply to all high-rises, isn’t it, nothing special about built-in plan for CD of the twin towers.

            “All propaganda is lies even when one is telling the truth.” George Orwell

            WTC-7’s collapse is the epitome of truth as propaganda – its showcased demolition targeted to the anticipated disbelievers was all to distract from the much more revealing planes.
            https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/why-collapse-wtc-7-by-perfect-implosion.html

            I’m afraid I disagree with regard to focus on the buildings’ hollowness and missing rubble. Whether or not the buildings were completely empty and there was missing rubble simply is not of great importance and I think it is a red herring to go down that track. In fact, my propaganda radar twitches at the entrance to that track – it has a Dr Judy Wood feel about it to me.

            What we know is that NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF PURPORTED EVIDENCE FOR REAL DEATH AND INJURY actually favours that reality – it either favours staged death and injury or is easily accommodated by that hypothesis. Hollow buildings and missing rubbles is just an area for potential argument you don’t need to have.

            Like

            1. Petra, once you accept CD, you are already down a fixed inescapable logical track.
              if it was CD:
              a) the towers had to be pre emptied and gutted as this is of paramount importance for any CD to work correctly.
              b) the preparation for CD of such huge buildings takes months, or more likely years, hence obviously no person could have been inside the towers since very long before the actual CD.
              c) if nobody could have been inside when they collapsed, the alleged victims cannot be real.
              d) given that CD of giant buildings like the twin towers, especially in a highly sensitive environment like the center of NYC, must be a pretty challenging engineering task, requiring very precise calculations and the most accurate positioning of the charges and wirings, letting big planes crashing into the buildings and making an unpredictably mess of your calculations is a big no no. Thus all the planes images and videos must be CGI.

              Like

            2. they tell us that they built the buildings with the idea that they would be demolished but that is going to apply to all high-rises, isn’t it, nothing special about built-in plan for CD of the twin towers.

              (1) Who told us that the Twin Towers were built to be demolished? I don’t remember such statements, especially not in the aftermath of 9/11. Admittedly, I didn’t follow the subject closely from 2003 to 2015, and only checked like any other year what was new on the 9/11 truth front. If I hadn’t stumbled upon LetsRollForums at one point, my interest would have disappeared.

              (2) You’re missing the best part of the story by not thinking about what was going on in the Twin Towers through the 70ies, 80ies, 90ies. Were they ever real? Built to spec and filled with life? Or just with some alibi offices in the lower segment to simulate activity? With automatic lighting and shutter systems animating the very secretive towers by night?

              Here you have your Truth Hidden in Plain Sight – and you’re not interested? How come?

              Like

              1. I don’t see Truth Hidden in Plain Sight. Please give me some hard facts I can latch onto, Lumi. You ask the question, “What was going on in the twin towers …?” I have no idea but you’d need to give me some facts that answer that question before I got interested.

                My attitude to 9/11 and other psyops and the moon landings is that there is a SURFEIT of tangible evidence that we can work with to answer any major questions and in that case we stay with the surfeit of tangible evidence. Basic rule of thumb: ONLY move into the coulda/woulda/shoulda/musta realm when there aren’t sufficient facts to make one’s case. I’m sure every lawyer would advise that approach. Don’t get caught up in irrelevant argument. We have way more than sufficient tangible evidence to state without a shadow of a doubt that 9/11 was, in fact, a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise pushed out as a real event where the only reality of the day was destruction of buildings. Any deaths or injury would have been few and far between and there is not a single skerrick of evidence that stands up to scrutiny for either a single death or a single injury.

                We don’t need to know what was going on in the buildings beforehand – whether there was anyone at all who was evacuated or whether no one was in there to start with – it simply doesn’t matter and is irrelevant. We don’t need to know and – in fact, we cannot say with authority one way or the other – unless you can provide me with clear evidence – so we let it lie.

                If there was absolutely no one the question arises about all the other buildings at the WTC including 7. Seemingly, all the buildings were either destroyed or damaged on 9/11. Perhaps the photos we’re shown for 3-6 were actually taken after 9/11 and those buildings weren’t so badly damaged on the day but if they were as badly damaged as the photos suggest on the day then we might ask were they completely empty too? Was no one evacuated from the whole of the WTC on 9/11 because all the buildings were empty? Or did they evacuate 3-7 just not 1-2? Was the WTC effectively a ghost town? It starts to get complicated … which is why it’s always best to stick to information that is clearly of a factual nature and if that information is sufficient for your case STOP RIGHT THERE!

                Like

                1. We have way more than sufficient tangible evidence to state without a shadow of a doubt that 9/11 was, in fact, a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise pushed out as a real event

                  Anti-terrorist exercise? Kinda ridiculous as Uncle Sam himself is the terrorist. It was a psyop and an insurance fraud and, in some odd way, like Karlheinz Stockhausen said, a great piece of art.

                  AYOKERA has pointed out, in his comment on January 16, 2022 at 7:31 am, the “inescapable logical track” that leads from controlled demolition to gutted empty towers.

                  About the evacuations: There are photographs of the “evacuation” actors, quite beautiful shots in some cases, also printed in books.

                  About WTC 3-6: Good questions, but no need to strive for a definitive answer as it is a sideshow and collateral damage. Attention has been focused on the spectacular Twin Towers for obvious reasons.

                  I don’t know whether the other buildings had regular business in them or were fake as well. But I can say that I walked by the strikingly empty WTC plaza (except for a queue of tourists) in mid-September 2000 as a tourist, on a beautiful sunny workday early afternoon, on my way down to Battery Park, and what struck me was the absence of cafés and restaurants, the absence of street life around that whole area, when it should have been swarming with business people out to take a coffee or a snack as I would see in the Wall Stret area.

                  Like

  19. In reply to AYOKERA KIMURA – January 16, 2022 at 5:10 am

    (I took the liberty to replant the discussion on jets and satellites here as above it has hit maximum nesting level.)

    “whereas in a jet engine the great part of the work is done by the exhausting gas in displacing the resisting surrounding air that opposes the expansion.”

    I would say that in a turbojet, all the work (with regard to propulsion) is done by the exhaust gas stream, whereas in a turbofan (as used today), most of the work is actually done by the fan and not by the jet. And when you phrase “displacing the resisting surrounding air”, that is of course our point of disagreement. Sure, when there is air, it is being displaced; but when you take away that air the jet will still work while the fan and the propeller won’t.

    “Have you pondered how the thrust reversers work? What is that gives the braking effect?”

    “Do you think that in space you can brake or reverse the propulsion of a rocket by putting metal plates in front of the nozzle? I wonder why NASA hasn’t yet worked out how to use such an ingenious simple device”

    The gas stream is reverted into a U-turn. That causes a massive loss of energy. The resulting reverted gas stream is weaker. Yes, air resistance could be the decisive factor in the thrust reverser. You would have to test how it performs in a vacuum. Then you could see whether repulsion (reverted propulsion) or air resistance is stronger.

    Would it work in a vacuum? Yes, but it would be inefficient due to the loss of energy caused by the reversal. For practical reasons (weight), the possibilities of maneuvering in space are extremely limited. They have to hit the right trajectory (orbit) straight away, there is no second try. If they don’t the mission is lost, period. Given current propulsion technology, hitting the brake in space is impossible. Which is why non-destructive landings on remote celestial bodies are impossible.

    Anyway, it’s not a very ingenious device. It’s very crude, but has its utility, and obviously no important disadvantages if operated according to purpose and symmetrically.

    On a sidenote, I think that two flights were downed by remotely triggering thrust reversal on just one side in mid-air in recent years: Russian Kogalymavia 9268 (Airbus A-321) on 31 October 2015 over Sinai (amost all passengers Russian tourists – someone angy at Russian operations in Syria), and UIA-752 (Boeing 737-800, operated by Ukrainian Jewish oligarch Kolomoisky) on 8 January 2020 at Tehran (starboard engine reverted, in response to the anticipated Iranian retaliation for the murder of general Soleimani and his advisors – almost all passengers Iranian students; the missile story is bogus). The terrorists are the usual suspects. – Also check out Lauda Air 004 on 26 May 1991, Boeing 767, thrust reversal on the portside at 7500m altitude, aircraft stalled, tumbled, fell over, disintegrated mid-air, fin and wings broke within seconds, probably technical failure after only 17 months of operation, flawed design, possibly maintenance/management problems.

    “According to you jet airplane’s thrust reversers would work fine, even much better, say, at 20,000 m altitude, the more thin the air, the higher the thrust, the better they work. Taking obviously into proper account the reduced friction, ceteris paribus, the higher the altitude, the easier to slow down an airplane deploying the thrust reversers, isn’t that correct?”

    No, it is not. And given what I wrote above about the device and its hazards, the question doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. In general, less air density, less drag, higher speed.

    “A little digression on satellites tv.”

    Interesting reasoning. I’m going to answer this later.

    Like

    1. “No, it is not.”

      Ok, let’s just ignore the potential dangers of the operation.
      If jet propulsion (or retro propulsion for that matter, being the same thing in reverse) has nothing to do with ambient air resistance, and everything to do with the velocity of the exhausted gas stream, can you explain why IN PRINCIPLE thrust reversal shouldn’t work better when the gas stream is not slowed down by external resistance, like at higher altitudes-low air pressure? Isn’t a rocket also working better in a vacuum?
      Please let me know if the question is not clear enough.

      Like

      1. You seem to always strive for abstraction and I always go the other way.

        At high altitudes, the airplane must be faster or it must be a very lightweight plane with a lot of wing to carry it through the thin air. So I answered no, it would not be easier to slow it down.

        But in principle?

        There are at least four factors that would have to be taken into account: (1) the forward thrust produced by the engine, (2) this thrust hitting the reversion flaps, partially cancelling the forward thrust out, (3) the resulting weaker reverse thrust, (4) the turbulence and resistance created by this reverse thrust.

        I don’t know how that would work out at various altitudes. It’s a difficult question. I think it would have to be tested experimentally in a dedicated facility where the pressure can be controlled.

        Like

  20. In reply to AYOKERA KIMURA – January 16, 2022 at 5:10 am, part 2 on satellite TV:

    In ancient times, when I was a kid, here in Italy “Satellite Television Transmissions” were still kinda of a rare occurrence, used only to broadcast big events like for example the Olympics, or… the launch of the Apollo Moon Missions…
    Our, back then only, national TV network (RAI) used to announce them with the due fanfare: “E ora, in collegamento speciale via satellite, trasmettiamo da…”. Also, during the transmission they used to frequently put up on screen “Trasmissione via satellite” to remind you that it was some kind of a very special broadcasting for an important event.
    Given that back then, I can assure you, nobody in Italy had a dish on the roof or any other specific receiving device, and assuming for the sake of argument that satellite TV is real, it’s obvious that in the early times, contrary to what we see today, satellite transmissions were broadcasted through the standard operating TV channels, relays, antennae, etc., without the need to install roof dishes, dedicated decoders, etc., nice ‘n easy, isn’t it?
    Thinking about it, wouldn’t it be much, much more efficient and practical to just have relatively few large uplinks/downlinks stations connected through satellites, where you can set up the best cutting edge technical facilities to amplify, correct, improve, convert, you name it, a feeble signal allegedly coming from a tiny solar powered contraption 36,000 km away? Then why not just broadcast the newly improved signal through the standard TV home devices, like back in the glorious early days of italian satellite TV?

    Nice historical account! 🙂 Back in the day, though, you still needed the antenna for reception of the terrestric signal, which today is almost a rare sight. As everything was analog, the technology was different, and simpler.

    Why not relay the signal received via satellite by cable or terrestric antenna? Well, it still works like that today, for example, in the case of cable TV head stations that receive the upstream signal to feed their cable network with via satellite (Wikipedia: Kabelkopfstelle (de), Cable_television_headend (en)).

    Satellite TV in Germany was meant to start with TV-Sat1 in 1987, but then didn’t because the satellite was dysfunctional … so it started with TV-Sat2 in 1989. That’s what I learnt from this page in a TV forum about the history of satellite television.

    https://forum.digitalfernsehen.de/threads/sender-%C3%BCber-sat-vor-10-15-20-oder-25-jahren.168899/

    Similar page for Italy, scroll down to the comment by ZWOBOT, e poi le pagine seguenti, but it’s mostly about the content and not about the technology:

    https://www.digital-forum.it/showthread.php?32643-Un-po-di-storia

    I know satellite TV is as common and popular in Italy as it is here or in France or Spain or England or North or South America. There are pages entirely focused on the technology, on chasing transmissions not meant for public reception (feed hunting), on freaky multi sat installations, and on the sport of receiving a satellite that is barely in range, but given the right tech and clear atmospheric conditions … you get the idea.

    “Conversely, how stupid is, or at least seems to me to be, to install millions of individual randomly located dishes, more often than not having to deal with the problem of buildings, trees and whatnot obscuring the line of sight, not mentioning the issue of weather conditions, everyone picking up its tiny portion of an already weak signal?”

    But the signal doesn’t degrade with the number of receivers, unlike in the case of tree-and-branch topology cabling in a building. And if you live in a mountainous region, satellite might be the only viable option.

    Also, mass production has made satellite equipment very cheap. Compare the prices for DVB-S and DVB-C cards, or for satellite and cable receivers. Cable is almost always more expensive, and you need to pay the cable company, whereas satellite TV is free (OTA), at least in Germany, no decoder needed except for pay TV.

    “To get to my point, I know it may sound outlandish, but I strongly suspect that the massive worldwide spreading of personal satellite tv receiving sets (along with the ISS) has no actual technical reason, while having much to do with keeping the space saga hoax alive.”

    Now that’s a tall claim! 🙂 There is a saga of manned (and also unmanned) space travel, but if you don’t admit satellites what else is fake? Is the entire night sky a giant Truman Show, fooling man since the dawn of time?

    “But a dish in the house? Well, that’s a heck of a proof isn’t it?”

    Consider there are hundreds of millions of them spread out in longitude and latitude, forming a geometrical proof. The setup of the dish has to be pretty precise or else no signal or bad quality.

    “So, what if there was no dishes on the roofs? Would it be so easy-peasy to dismiss the notion that space fakery goes well beyond the moon landings?”

    Well, it does go well beyond the moon landings, which are just the prominent tip of the liesberg. Most people don’t much care about the space narratives so they don’t much care if it is fake or not, but fall back on the believers side when challenged, in due obedience to authority as they were taught from early on.

    I have often thought that the fake artists and plotters must have been very disappointed to find out that the appeal of space has quickly worn out. Football turned out to be so much more interesting.

    But the dish is certainly the common man’s link to space, so psychologically you’re right, of course. Nobody has ever been to space and I don’t think for a second that there is some technological breakthrough around the corner. I also don’t believe in various phantasy technologies invented by Tesla and “hidden in the Deep State”, withheld from sheople by TPTB.

    “simulating satellite tv transmissions using some kind of skywave technology … kinda of a gut feeling that I’d like to be able to expand on.”

    Definitely sounds like it’s about time you join the ARI – Associazione Radioamatori Italiani! First presided by none other than Guglielmo Marconi, fisico, inventore, senatore del Regno d’Italia categoria 20, cioè con i suoi meriti eminenti ha illustrato la Patria!

    Like

    1. “Back in the day, though, you still needed the antenna for reception of the terrestric signal, which today is almost a rare sight. As everything was analog, the technology was different, and simpler.”

      Simply plain wrong. 100% houses in Italy still have a terrestrial signal antenna, like 50 years ago. Additional satellite dish sets are very common but still far from even being the majority. Terrestrial signal has shifted from analog to digital long ago, it’s totally irrelevant to my point.

      “Why not relay the signal received via satellite by cable or terrestric antenna? Well, it still works like that today, for example, in the case of cable TV head stations that receive the upstream signal to feed their cable network with via satellite (Wikipedia: Kabelkopfstelle (de), Cable_television_headend (en)).”

      Great, then why not all of satellite transmissions? What are the technical advantages that justify roof dishes? What kind of plus would be missing without dishes?

      “Satellite TV in Germany was meant to start with TV-Sat1 in 1987….There are pages entirely focused on the technology…on freaky multi sat installations, and on the sport of receiving a satellite that is barely in range..”

      I know the narrative, how is that relevant?

      “But the signal doesn’t degrade with the number of receivers”

      It’s not what I said.

      “And if you live in a mountainous region, satellite might be the only viable option.”

      Italy is mostly mountainous and I’ve yet to find a place not covered by terrestrial signal.
      Anyway, are you suggesting satellite home sets were introduced to bring tv coverage to some remote locations?

      “Also, mass production has made satellite equipment very cheap.”

      No equipment is even cheaper.
      Again, what is the advantage of the dish set compared to: satellite downlink-terrestrial signal relay-home terrestrial antenna?

      “Now that’s a tall claim!…what else is fake?”

      That is more or less the standard reply when I tell a normie that virus do not exist.

      “Consider there are hundreds of millions of them spread out in longitude and latitude, forming a geometrical proof. The setup of the dish has to be pretty precise or else no signal or bad quality.”

      That’s it, you are just using “there are millions of them” as evidence of the space saga, proving my whole point.

      “But the dish is certainly the common man’s link to space, so psychologically you’re right, of course.“

      Could it be my gut feeling is right after all?
      Time will tell, maybe, who knows?

      “Definitely sounds like it’s about time you join the ARI – Associazione Radioamatori Italiani!”

      Too much of a loner to join any association, also, would the “Rocket Scientists Association” be the right place to inquire about space fakery?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s