I don’t often use this (small) forum to attack, and would not if I knew a person. With Lynn E, she comes off as pedagogical, but like some teachers we’ve all experienced, it’s about stuff we already know. They sit back in their leather chair smoking a pipe, and say “Well, you know, there is some controversy about the moon landings, but I don’t engage in conspiracy theory.” Lynn would know they were fake, but might present it to us as a new discovery.
That’s fine, I just don’t pay attention, but at Fakeologist.com, she is featured at least once a week. Ab likes her, and I would too if I needed space filler. She’s always available. Recently, she presented the Martin Luther King assassination, and in fairness I have not listened to it, but do know that she is telling us it was fake. Zounds!
Mr. Mathis wrote about this episode a long time ago, and in an “oh by the way” style, not detailing it as he did JFK or John Lennon. His piece was a bit of a drive-by, but he made his point. As MLK lay bleeding to death, people down below were going on about their business as if nothing had happened, no gunshots, nothing. I wrote about it myself (I cannot locate the piece – this is much more recent), using face chops, which Mr. Mathis abhors. But it convinced me … MLK became Don King, fight promoter with wild hair. What better disguise!
Anyway, me being me, I left a comment under the un-listened-to video. I can’t help myself.
The MLK assassination hoax was long ago exposed. Most interesting to me was the role of Jesse Jackson. As I looked at a photo of the family standing over the casket, I took note of the lack of grief, especially the kids, doing as told, shut up and look down. We’ll see Daddy later. If that was his real family.
I was only recently advised that MLK is still with us … it’s always been a curiosity what happens to people after they fake their death. Janis Joplin became Amy Goodman, Bobby Fuller Bill O’Reilly, Pete Ham Bill Maher, Stu Sutcliffe Andy Warhol, Sharon Tate and Michelle Brown Simpson merely became their younger sisters. On and on. The very prominent ones have to disappear from view, JFK, RFK, FDR … that has to be very hard for them, though FDR didn’t have long to live anyway. JFK resided for part of the time on a luxurious yacht, but even that had to grow wearisome. Anyway, I ramble … MLK became fight promoter Don King. Wild hair, wild eyes, who would’ve guessed. MLK had some very fine writers working on his words, and was an accomplished actor on stage. I don’t write any of this without some admiration. I like Tommy Lee Jones too … actors that are good at their craft are admirable.
I was sitting playing cards with relatives last week. half paying attention to the conversation, complaining about ICE and seething hatred for Trump when I came to realize they were talking about his assassination attempt, and I chimed in … “are you saying it was fake?” Yes, they said, and I said of course it was, completely taken by surprise that normies would understand such a thing. They don’t know how to follow up, of course, how the news media goes along with it, how a supposed assassination attempt would have been easily discovered had there been real security, but still, normies! It’s only hatred of Trump that allows this to happen. Had I mentioned that JFK faked his death too, I would have been ridiculed out of the room.
Trump is put there to divide us, and like MLK is one hell of an actor. I wonder if a real fake assassination awaits.
I have no problem with actors. Great Shakespearean actors don’t write the stuff, just memorize and recite it. Actors I really like, say Tommy Lee Jones or Guy Pearce, leave me in easy willing suspense of disbelief. Ronald Reagan was a great actor, as was Martin Luther King, as is Barack Obama. Is Donald Trump a great actor? No. Just middlin’. I think sometimes he’s mimicking Mohammed Ali. I know he has studied his public speaking role. He does OK.
While on the subject, the idea that a hoax like the MLK assassination can be pulled off in plain day and sold as real by our powerful national news media says something about the world we live in … it’s all fake if all you see is mass media or Facebook. All of it, the school shootings, ICE cold-blooded murders, Ukrainian war, Soviets as arch-enemy and the worry and concern about China, is manufactured by media. Just think about it – the idea that North Korea can be presented as a credible enemy speaks volumes. They have no respect for our collective intelligence. And, I would add to that, it is no fun at all having a good grasp on the fakery around us … as with the card game I mentioned in the comment above, I generally know to STFU or face loud and annoying ridicule. I cannot stand people with loud voices who dominate conversations … something about an empty barrel. Who said that? Plato, I am told by AI, or Shakespeare. I always thought it was Ben Franklin.
Piece of Mindful 
Re the moon landings
I’m the extremely rare breed of person who holds the following combination of beliefs:
— 9/11 was essentially a massive demolition job cum massive Anti-Terror Exercise pushed out as real where the death and injury were staged
— the moon landings happened BUT
—— the Challenger disaster was faked (and more than likely Columbia but haven’t looked)
—— Judith Resnik (on the Challenger) was a real astronaut but also became a law professor and followed two career paths simultaneously for a time
—— the explosion on Apollo 13 was faked
—— the explosion on Apollo 1 was faked (Gus Grissom, Freemason, didn’t die and didn’t hang a lemon on the Apollo 1 command module simulator (or if he did it was staged) – yeah, right). Items named after Gus before his “death” – a bit of predictive programming going on here? What do you think?Virgil I. Grissom Municipal Airport (1965)Virgil Grissom Elementary School, Old Bridge, New Jersey (1966)
— there is a massive anti-moon landings propaganda campaign in operation still going strong today with fakery of ChatGPT that started even BEFORE the first landing with the BBC’s 1968 News-Benders drama (supposedly giving us the eye-watering truth that the news is fabricated – shock, horror!) – as if the BBC would do such a thing without telling lies and distorting that fact beyond recognition but we could probably count the alleged 1967 Apollo 1 disaster as part of the “we didn’t land on the moon” propaganda campaign too.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/moon-landings-hoax-psyop
The reason I believe that I hold these beliefs differently from others is very, very simple:— I’m not smarter or more knowledgeable – far from itI simply respond to challenges to my thinking, I do not ignore or steamroll over them which is an essential element of critical thinking. Critical thinking demands that you do not ignore challenges to your thinking, you must deal with those challenges.Disbelievers of the moon landings have totally ignored and steamrolled over two irrefutable and highly significant facts:1. There is a very significant anti-moon landings propaganda campaign in operation that includes – but is certainly not limited to – agents, Billy Kaysing, Dave McGowan, Massimo Mazzucco, Bart Sibrel and – the latest wonder – ChatGPT faker, Signal before Silence, aka Naira. 2. This campaign has remained undetected by the disbelievers of the moon landings who are perfectly cognisant of how those in power target disbelievers of their nonsense narratives with controlled opposition and other techniques … and yet have remained completely oblivious to this massive anti-moon landings propaganda campaign.
LikeLike
Did not mean to trigger this moon stuff … but that’s OK. You’re a complex personality … I’ve been changing my mind about things my entire life, but you’ve not brought me around on this moon stuff for a reason … nothing to do with the photos or Van Allen belts or logistics, all above my pay grade, but merely the complexity of the task at hand and how everything went right the first time. Maybe 13 was done just to counter that notion.
However, something very big was going on at that time, so much so that they gave us misdirection and as you say, anti-moon propaganda, perhaps to go along with the pro-moon propaganda, so that if we argue about that we forget to ask what were they up to, really?
Involvement of McGowan is an important point in your favor. Be well.
LikeLike
Mark, how do you explain the fact that not one – not a single one – of the disbelievers of the moon landings – a reasonable percentage of whom are right up on controlled opposition and the like – detected the anti-moon landings propaganda campaign?
It’s not just Dave McGowan, OK? Not just him.
Bill Kaysing – the FIRST moon-hoaxer back in 1974
Massimo Mazzucco, Bart Sibrel and now ChatGPT faker, Signal before Silence – among others.
Don’t cherry pick the information, Mark. There is a campaign, not just the odd agent … and it started even BEFORE the first moon landing with the BBC’s the News-Benders in 1968.
” … merely the complexity of the task at hand and how everything went right the first time.”
Logical fallacy: Hypothesis Contrary to Fact
Your argument is that it would have been impossible to do it right first time. Speculation.
If the evidence says they went – and it does – then that is what we judge by not what we think would / should / must have / might have happened.
LikeLike
I don’t know the others, but know McGowan thoroughly. He faked his death 11/22/15 (note spook marker date). In Weird Scenes he displayed the true purpose of the limited hangout, this far, no further. He acknowledged that the musicians of that past era all had military connections, saying they were children of them, but they were not. He accepted all of the fake deaths as real except one (Morrison).
He also wrote about the Moon landings, but gave us nothing new. He wrote about Boston Marathon, and had access to photos of high quality obviously taken by insiders. He wrote about Lincoln, but did not discuss his fake death. I know of Sibrel and his knockout punch and kidnapping … fake fake fake.
So I know they are behind both sides of the Moon landings, just as they were behind both sides of Vietnam … this is the modus operandi. Nothing new going on. Does it speak to the reality of fakeness of the Moon landings? They’ve given us plenty to support both sides … leading me to my question: If it is all misdirection, from what? That’s my focus.
LikeLike
“I don’t know about the others.”
That’s my point – the others all tell lies that have gone unrecognised by you and all the other disbelievers … as have Dave McGowan’s lies. It’s not that he doesn’t tell us anything new, it’s that what he tells us is lies – unrecognised lies. Bart Sibrel’s punch is not the only problem – everything he says about the moon landings is lies and those lies have gone unrecognised by the disbelievers … as have all the lies of the other “we didn’t go to the moon” propagandists.
Francis O’Neill in Substack quotes Dave McGowan as if what he says is true when he’s lying big time – but his post has received 98 likes and all the comments except mine indicate approval:
https://francisoneill.substack.com/p/moon-walkers-part-1
“One of the main reasons the Soviets never made it to the Moon was because their scientists calculated that four feet of lead shielding would be required to protect their astronauts, and those same scientists apparently felt that spaceships wouldn’t fly all that well when clad in four feet of lead.”
There is no evidence that Soviet scientists calculated any such thing and, in fact, as another Dave, Dave McKeegan, tells us, the Soviets knew that humans could pass through the radiation to get to the moon as they sent the first spacecraft to go around the moon, Zond 5, containing some animals including a pair of tortoises and a mannequin carrying radiation sensors.
LikeLike
I conceded to you that McGowan and Sibrel are limited hangouts, and I don’t know the others. All that tells me is that the spooks control both sides of the debate, and that tells me that they want the debate. Why? Misdirection. They never lie! It’s not an effective tool. They misdirect.
Why? They want us to look here. Not there.
LikeLike
My point isn’t that McGowan and Sibrel are limited hangouts, my point is that in relation to the moon landings all they tell are lies – it’s not limited hangout – it’s lies, all lies – AND the lies are unrecognised by ALL disbelievers – not just you – all disbelievers.
But the lies are recognised as lies by a few believers of the moon landings (most believers just think McGowan and Sibrel have got it wrong, not that they’re actually lying).
The questions are:
Why do a few believers but no disbelievers recognise the lies of McGowan, Sibrel et al in relation to the moon landings?
How did the powers that be KNOW that the disbelievers wouldn’t recognise the lies of the “we didn’t go to the moon” propagandists?
LikeLike
“Your argument is that it would have been impossible to do it right first time. Speculation.”
True, BUT, Petra, I’m guessing that you are not an engineer, and that matters.
The massive COMPLEXITY [AND] it went right the first time.
Formula 1 (auto) is a multi-billion-dollar industry with some of the most high-tech imaginable. Mercedes, Ferrari, McLaren… DECADES of expertise and they NEVER translate the rules to a working vehicle the first time… NEVER. Here in safety and luxury and hand-picked geniuses.
I’m with Mark on that item (many more too).
LikeLike
They did a significant amount of pre “first time” preparation but it makes no difference – if the evidence says they went – and there’s mountains of evidence – that’s what is judged by. I’m not an engineer but how much do you know about the Mercury and Gemini programs and the early Apollo missions? How much do you know about the preparation they did to get to the moon?
You can’t use logical fallacies as an argument – they’re completely out – and “It would have been impossible to carry out the landing first time” is an hypothesis that ignores the evidence. You don’t know that it would have been impossible, you just think it would have been but I’m pretty sure you’re not well versed in all the preparatory work, are you? and therefore not in a good position to judge.
LikeLike
Yeah but dem’ bombs all went off first time no hitch: 3 for 3. Only America can bat 1000% right out of the box.
LikeLike
This reply is coming directly from my e-mail Inbox.
I no longer can “Like” through WordPress – no matter how I log in ro from whatever device.
Junk.
LikeLike
Can’t fix that. It does not work for me on devices, but does on desktop. Maybe I’m the only one left who uses desktop.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark you said you ran for city council or an office at one point. Can you give details on the steps you took to do that?
Maybe times were different back then but reading my city clerks description, one has to get over 1000 signatures, and….appear before a review board that will determine if a person can be a candidate. I assume they look at criminal offenses, possibly an established character profile, anything that would raise a flag, possibly internet postings. One of my city council persons was removed/fired, because he made a post on his Facebook page, making fun of Greta Thunberg. That seems kinda odd, but even at the local level the game appears to be all controlled.
LikeLike
Wow that is so soft 1984, but not surprising. When I moved to a small town in Massachusetts in 2017 that still has the old timey traditional New England Direct Democracy, I was all excited that I would be able to actually participate in town politics, and perhaps even run for town council. However, after a few town meetings I was disabused. Literally everything that came up for a vote passed at the town meeting, and the only debate was a few yahoos who knew how to get the microphone. Basically having to sit through a painful 4 hours wasting my time. Then they put up a bill/bond for a $50 million elementary school, for a town of less than 10,000 residents, so about 400 students at most. And it sailed through, and my property taxes are in the process of doubling over at 10 year period. So I quickly figured out mainstream politics is a complete waste of time to get involved with.
LikeLike
I realized the latest psyops have a bit of humor dosed in – they are Pretti, Pretti, Pretti Good.
I love the facebookers whose refrain “If you still support Trump I am disowning you forever” etc. etc. The people behind the curtain are yukkin’ it up now at the foolishness of the people, its a circular firing squad for chrissakes.
LikeLike
I ran for state legislature in Montana in 1996. As a Democrat. It did not take any deep dive … no signatures, and I just had to survive a primary, and I was the only one running.
I lost in the General, and after that the Legislature did all its business as usual, but most interesting, at the end of the session the Governor intervened and wanted a bill passed to deregulate Montana Power Company. It was completely against protocol, no hearings or markups, just vote, and it passed. They steamrolled the house and senate both, and I thought that had I won, being so inexperienced, they would have steamrolled me too. I had already decided politics was not for me, but that whole affair told me that when power wants something, power gets what it wants.
So yeah, it’s a rigged game, top to bottom. And not for outsiders.
LikeLike
incredulity is my favorite informal fallacy. It’s an heuristic that seperates mankind from the gullible ape.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If we’re not allowed incredulity – it’s a fallacy – then what, are we supposed to be like the gullible ape..?
LikeLike
Incredulity is our natural defense against gullibility. I’m all for it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is there a place for logic and reasoning? For instance, I am skeptical that the Trump assassination attempt was real, but cannot prove that it was fake. When it comes right down to it, I have no evidence. Just doubt and incredulity. Good for me. That and $4.00 will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
On the moon landings, and I repeat what I said to Petra, it is extremely unlikely in such and advanced engineering project with so much risk that they would risk human lives, and that everything would go right first time. That’s more than just incredulity, but reasoning that needs to be refuted. Saying it is speculation is not refutation. Everything for which we lack 100% certainty can be called that.
LikeLike
a probabilistic approach is quite useful. Thing is logic and reckoning are different things. You’re reckoning seems sound to me but petra can still invoke the confusion of the inverse fallacy of course.
LikeLiked by 2 people
OK, gotta look that up. Oh my. I understand it when hard drug users are usually marijuana users too, that the opposite is not true. That’s easy. But say that no aircraft or auto prototype has ever been the final product, what’s the inverse? That flipping a coin ten times and getting heads has no bearing on the odds of the eleventh toss? So what if large engineering projects are always fraught with error? This time all went according to plan. Vewy vewy weak argument!
Is excessive reliance on the skill of experts a fallacy? If so, we are up to our necks.
LikeLike
logic is about something necessarily following something else. For instance, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they strapped some hollywood walk of fame fellas to a.missile and they dead reckoned they way to the moon cause some weirdos said they didn’t on YouTube.
the inverse probabilistic thing is about nothing can necessarily follow because an event was rare or risky.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ran across this which you already know, I am sure 🤔 https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005091/bio/ 1987 – Recipient of the Martin Luther King Jr. Humanitarian Award from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference’s women’s membership.
Was a numbers runner for the Jewish Mafia in Cleveland
LikeLiked by 1 person
No offense to Lynn, she’s a feisty old bird with a lot of passion, but I can only take her in small doses.. too much shouting and interrupting, it wears thin pretty quickly. My favorite of Ab’s regular shows are Mr E and IPS/ Tim Ozman. Aside from that, I listen to the epic “audio chats,” thats just a weekend call in show with whoever shows up. Not for everyone definitely, you have to wade through some tedious terrain for occasional gems in the rough. But at least it’s very random, and free form, not like a tightly locked down AM talk show format, it can go anywhere.
LikeLike
Thanks for a better overview. I’ve never chimed in to those call-ins, as I have low tolerance for tedium. Ab took the post I linked to and wiped it clean, all comments gone, only Lynn left now. I think I might have pissed him off. I’ve done a couple of long interviews with him, and honestly, I would not listen! It’s all gone the way of baseball, a pastoral sport in an era when people don’t know how to relax and enjoy and be bored for long periods. Like me.
Which reminds me … I recently bought Air Pods, the type that helps with hearing loss. I’m a mild case at best, but they are amazing devices. DARPA, I assume, has been hard at work. Does Microsoft offer anything better? Or even equivalent? Both get their technology from the same source, worth a post by itself, this fake world of “geniuses”, Zuckerberg, Jobs, Gates, Bezos, Musk … fake fake fake.
Anyway, I put the pods on “transparent” mode, listening to music and podcasts, and when I’m at the gym often have passing conversation. If I speak, the Air Pods go silent. Conversation is normal. However, if someone speaks to me, they don’t silence my background noise.
I thought that is perfect for me! Somehow Apple knew to make a device for the person who does not listen!
LikeLike
Back when I thought that I might be able to achieve reasonable results from such devices (no longer, I now know how severe my hearing loss is), I reviewed a handful. If I remember correctly, Bose offered something excellent – including one of the most important options Noise Cancellation. Long enough ago, that I would not offer up a model number, or whatever.
LikeLike
I have tinnitus and mild hearing loss. In the recent years the gov’t has loosened up the market and allowed over-the-counter devices to be sold for hearing. However, when I went to a specialist, I was told that I had “severe” hearing loss and they wanted to book an appointment for me to come in and be fitted. I was looking at $3-6,000 and then learned about the deregulation. I took the hearing test for the Air Pods, and the result was mild hearing loss. We had dinner with music in the background with two other couples recently. I wore my Pods, and could hear everything. So unlike you, my case is mild and as always, it’s a jungle out there. Do explore and shop around, as there is much to know and a lot of dis and misinfo.
LikeLike
Bose makes good stuff. My father was head of manufacturing there a few decades ago, i did an internship in college there. A bit expensive but they have high standards.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess the appeal of the audio chats, for me, is you get to know the regulars and look forward to their updates, latest views and news.. “regular” people who are fakeologists of one flavor or another, and not “podcasters” or YouTubers etc, but just interested enough to call in to an open line show.. then too it’s just sort of low key background while doing other things, so doesn’t have to be scintillating.
Actually last night though I heard one with a lot of drama – apparently some tension had been building between a few of the regulars, and it boiled over in a big blow-up.. so I guess there’s that draw to the whole thing, drama and human relationships, etc. And occasionally some fakeo insights..!
LikeLike
Mark, there is a thing called “Science” that is only available to the Elite. The 99% have belief which they assume is the same thing. It is not. Science requires a repeatable experiment producing expected results. The 99% have neither the equipment nor the training to do these experiments so they rely on what they read, hear, see, in other words, what they believe not what they have done themselves. Those who attend university at the undergraduate level never get into real Science and those at the graduate level are tightly controlled, their efforts so focused on one tiny piece that they never see the big picture and if they do they are out: no postdoc, no professorship, no future. Not even industry. The Space Program and Nuclear Weapons fall into this category. Only the 1% can conduct the actual physical experiments to tell whether these are real or not. The 99% read the stories, watch the videos/TV, listen to the experts and that’s how they decide what’s true and false. Go through the list of famous scientists over time and you will see most of the big names come from nobility. They tell the 99% that Science has become a part of everyone’s life. It has not. Belief is what has invaded and has taken control of the life of the 99% as it always has and always will. I peruse these sites looking for places where my beliefs are incorrect, because belief is the enemy of truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes you are correct based on my experiences. Well said. Even though i have 3 degrees in the sciences, when I started questioning the moon landings (as in the excessive exposure to radiation the astronauts would be dosed with) my PhD friend said I wasn’t an expert in space radiation so I wasn’t qualified to question it. So in other words the people whose professional future depends on giving an answer are going to seriously question their field? Not likely. Although I did hear a PhD at Scripps Institute tell me over lunch several years ago the idea of going to Mars was a complete fantasy with present technology because of the incredibly high dose of radiation one would be exposed to over several months. So even the insiders can and do become skeptics, but can only expose their skepticisms in private conversations, never publicly.
LikeLike
“Thought experiments” were invented in the 1920s. This is where the forefront of Science stands now: if you can think it, it must be true, if you are smart enough. And so we are in the era of “geniuses” who tell us what’s real and what’s not without any physical evidence. Only videos. These geniuses each have their individual personality so we can attach ourselves to the one we like best and be on their team in these debates. Much like political candidates or sports teams. All fraudulently pretending to be in competition with each other when they are really competing for our attention and belief. Ask a Scientist if they can prove, via experiment, that a rocket can generate power in a vacuum and see how fast they run or attack. The basis of Science is the repeatable experiment and this is one experiment that has never been done. It only works in film, TV and video, not in real life. I was also trained in the Sciences at the graduate level and when I researched the matter I found nothing to support it, only experiments that contradict it. Yet nobody in the world of Science ever mentions this. It’s when I realized the level and depth of the fraud and the extent of the participation directly and indirectly of the “educated” populace. “We are all prisoners of our own device”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder what science is really being done anywhere. Chomsky wrote about it in a way, talking about real research, that it was expensive and most often would lead to failure, so it was left to government. That’s why they formed DARPA. Chomsky also said that if they hit on something useful, they would turn it over to the military, but in time it would be turned over the the private sector. That’s the technology behind the “geniuses” at Microsoft, Google and Apple, and even Facebook. They hire brats like Gates to front for other people’s genius. Strange world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chomsky, once again, is misleading and dishonest. The Government is a sink not a source. Things go to the Government, nothing comes from them. I worked with many ex-Scientists from JPL, Oak Ridge, Lawrence Livermore, etc… and not one of them ever questioned anything. That’s how they get and keep their jobs. Then it’s a lifetime doing busy work in the field of Science where they assume that if their small piece is legitimate then every other piece is legitimate as well. The only reason they left is to make more money in finance which is just as deceitful as to the source of it’s profits.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting comments, thanks. Your views bring to mind the book “Disciplined Minds,” which details many of the mechanisms used to constrain science and scientists. Short book, but one of the most informative and compelling I’ve ever come across. Although some of the author bio details and spooky numbers could suggest it’s a limited hangout or controlled opposition of some sort.
I’d be interested to hear a little about your science background if you care to share – private sector or public, field of research, etc.? If not, no worries, just curious.
That topic of rockets in a vacuum came up on this blog a while back and was hotly debated, with commenters on both sides who had or claimed professional credentials, and spoke knowledgeably about it. I was at first inclined to dismiss it entirely, but a defender of the idea linked to a “debunking,” which had diagrams purporting to show how rockets in a vacuum can work.. it made enough sense that I had to give up eventually and take an agnostic position, absent actually witnessing an experiment.. I don’t have enough grasp of the physics involved to say yea or nay from considering it theoretically, alone..
LikeLike
Diagrams are a “Thought Experiment” which is not Science. Unless you can do the experiment yourself and repeat the results it is not Science. For that reason Science is inaccessible to the vast majority due to lack of money, equipment, time or training. There are only two people who have done the Rocket in a Vacuum experiment: Goddard in 1915 and Chuck Yeager in 1963. Goddard claims success. Yeager, failure.
To answer your other question, I was raised with the money, equipment, time and training. Have I done the experiment? No, because there is no experiment to do. Goddard never published a paper explaining what he did and what his results were. There is no reason for me to believe in one more unproven result. I already have my six impossible things I believe before breakfast.
So why don’t I prove the negative, that it doesn’t work? That was already proven by Joule and Fireman who published the results in the Journal of Analytical Chemistry. As you can see, nobody cares so why should I be the one to change the world?
LikeLike
It is my understanding that, as soon as a [rocket] nozzle is opened (in “space”), ALL the pressurized liquid/gas should evacuate into the purported vacuum of space – nearly instantaneously – no resistance. No control mechanism possible – open the port and all gone.
LikeLike
you are correct: this called “Free Expansion (of gas into a vacuum)” It was first described by Joule (for whom the unit of energy is named). It has been experimentally confirmed by several Scientists in published papers (e.g. Fireman in a paper called “The Expansion of Gas into a Vacuum”). I would love for a Scientist to provide me with experimental proof that Free Expansion does not interfere with rockets in a vacuum but all I get are people telling me I’m a dummy for not believing what I see on TV. Another famous piece of nonsense is claiming Newton’s law holds without experimental evidence. AI tells me “Newton’s Third Law (Action/Reaction): When gas molecules collide with walls, they exert a force, and the wall exerts an equal and opposite force. It is also the basis for jet engine thrust.” However, there is nothing to collide with in a vacuum. So the second sentence does not follow from the first. The reason a rocket lifts off is because the gas collides with the launch pad. The reason a rocket can’t generate force in a vacuum is because there is nothing for the gas to collide against. So even AI is spouting nonsense. In the end, all I have to say to NASA is, show me the experiment or go peddle your wares somewhere else.
LikeLike
As much as you want to believe in your correct position on this subject, it is unfortunatelly false.
Physics doesn’t work the way you think it does.
I’ve already explained that to you a while back on this very blog, yet you’re seemingly persistant in preaching the wrong science.
LikeLike
Physics works exactly the way I think it does. There has to be real-world, physical (physics = physical = real and not imaginary) proof otherwise we are discussing theory, ideas and in this case, I fear a religious will to believe in the unproven although space travel is makes for exciting TV as does all Science Fiction.
LikeLike
Yes I would like to see the experiment. There are a lot of variables, including the gas you are using for propulsion, it’s temperature. What I would like to see is controllable rocket propulsion in a vacuum. This is similar to the wright brothers needing a demonstrate a controlled flight, and not an uncontrolled tumble. My suspicion is trying to fly a rocket in a vacuum is it might get a small amount of thrust but be virtually uncontrollable. Because of the points i discussed before, about needing drag from air and flaps to control the movement of the rocket through space.
LikeLike
@Ray
There you go:
The actual proof of Newton’s 3rd Law in a vacuum.
LikeLike
No, it doesn’t.
You’re proving me right with your answer.
The rocket doesn’t move for the reasons you mention.
The rocket moves because the momentum must be preserved.
LikeLike
In the youtube video, the small chamber fills with smoke, gas, whatever, thus it’s the chamber is no longer a vacuum. Space is vast.
LikeLike
@VOLL
You have to observe really carefully. The crucil moment is miliseconds after the ignition, before the relatively small chamber fills with gas.
You can see the measurement device registering thrust before it. That’s the crux of the discussion here.
LikeLike
I ain’t no physics PHD, however:
At the moment of firing, the vacuum is lost, gas pressure instantly building, needle moving. This is not a little wisp of smoke slowly building some mass.
Nothing is proven in this video outside of demonstrating one way to turn a small box of “vacuum” into a pressurized small box by using a “rocket” on switch.
LikeLike
@OregonMatt
A question for you Matt, and please consider this as an honest inquiry:
If we enlarge the box in this very experiment to i.e. 1000x previous volume, would it change your opinion about what you’re observing?
Because the very instant rocket engine fires, the measuring needle would again move before the pressure could build up.
LikeLike
“the measuring needle would again move before the pressure could build up”
I don’t see that demonstrated here. You can claim it of course, as they do, but what I see in the video tells me that the rocket’s ignition (prior to all the lovely visible flaming) shoots “mass” instantly into/against the launchpad effects provided by the rear and sides of the box. The needle moves.
LikeLike
I want to add the following, because I think it’s really important:
The rocket does not accelerate because the exhaust leaves;
the exhaust leaves because the rocket–gas system redistributes momentum.
The motion of the rocket and the motion of the exhaust are two sides of the same interaction, not cause → effect in sequence.
A rocket works for the same reason a person recoils when throwing a ball – momentum must be conserved, even in empty space.
If someone still argues after that, the problem is no longer physics 😌
LikeLike
If momentum is conserved then it cant be steered and is hence uncontrollable, no? Once a rocket enters a vacuum it would just fly in a straight line?
question for you minime? Do you think there’s legit space exploration going om with rockets being controlled and directed to for example the moon or Mars?
LikeLike
Theres no proof shown here the rocket is controllable especially over long distances or against rapid spinning like i said which would be instantly fatal to humans.
LikeLike
The principle of steering a rocket is the same as with its forward propulsion.
If there’s a spin, I could counteract it with the thrust in the opposite direction from the spin, therefore eliminating it. Right?
LikeLike
recoil and thrust are two different things.
LikeLike
@SMJ
You’re absolutely right, Sherlock. Recoil and thrust are different in their mechanisms, but they both rely on conservation of momentum — whether in the atmosphere or a vacuum.
The principle holds regardless of the environment.
LikeLike
@minime
so who is throwing your rockets?
LikeLike
I reckon I can walk myself thru it.
Big body throws small ball. Momentum is conserved. The small ball goes flying.
Big rocket throws exhaust out its rear.momentum is conserved. The big rocket goes flying.
LikeLike
had to change shoes after strolling down the primrose path that leads to mass energy equivalence and nukes.
LikeLike
you still out there mini miles? Typing about physics is my favorite thang.
LikeLike
Yes, I’m here.
And I did walk you through in my previous comment. You’re just being obtuse.
LikeLike
Yes based on my experience and knowledge that would be correct. I know from reading about high altitude aircraft is that they run into serious issues beyond a certain altitude, because there insufficient air to provide drag to change direction, or slow down a maneuver to an acceptable level of G forces (spin) on the aircraft and pilot. So that it is very easy to get into an uncontrollable spin motion, or tumble, because the aircrafts stability features that allow it to fly in a straight line in sufficient atmosphere can no longer work. you can think of air as just another fluid, that is much heavier and denser than one thinks. For example, try walking into a high wind – it is nearly impossible due to the massive mass transfer of air particles that have to be displaced when they collide with a body.
And my instinct says you open up a nozzle in a vacuum the mass of gas is just going to fly in all directions with no resistance to flow, which creates the thrust.
LikeLike
Think harder.
Thrust is created by the mass of the gasses being expelled.
The 2 masses in this system are a) mass of the gas and b)mass of the rocket.
The vacuum doesn’t do anything per se. It is only there, providing no work. Joules’ principle is wrongly applied in this thought experiment. I’ve already explained this a while back on this very blog.
LikeLike
so why do nozzles have a sweet spot?
LikeLike
So it can operate in optimal conditions?
LikeLike
Do optimal conditions have anything to do with ambient air pressure?
LikeLike
Apples and oranges , I’m affraid.
The nozzle sweet spot has to do with the throat design (the shape and size of the nozzle), and it’s mainly engine optimization – not atmospheric pressure.
The design of the nozzle is all about efficiency. At the starting point, it’s wider to handle the higher atmospheric pressure at sea level. As the rocket climbs, the nozzle narrows to maximize exhaust velocity and pressure, resulting in greater thrust as the atmospheric pressure decreases.
LikeLike
walk me thru the optimization process. And please type that it has nothing to do with ambient air pressure again
LikeLike
Mark, Science is discovering what exists in nature, Engineering is creating new things. In the popular culture Scientists are inventors where in reality Scientists only provide experimental proof for their discovery. A Scientist investigates the properties and an Engineer puts them to practical use. I highly doubt there are very many real Scientists any more.
LikeLike
Trying to think of a field where real science is in use … I’ll get back to you.
LikeLike
Mark, the media portrays the “brilliant” scientist as having all the answers whereas in reality the best scientists are the ones who ask the most difficult questions and then try to find the answer. Finding the answer to one of these “great questions” is what cements a scientist’s legacy.
I asked the question, “why haven’t I ever seen a model rocket flying in a vacuum on earth?” Goddard said he built such a model in 1915 in his basement. Should be hundreds, thousands of repeats of this experiment, I haven’t found any. I have been unable to locate a repeat of Goddard either in the form of a video (there is a 62 foot vacuum chamber which should be plenty of space for a small scale model) or a paper in a scientific journal describing the effects of different combinations of gasses, etc… on propulsion, control of a rocket in a vacuum. The only models I found were ones where the thrusters are fixed in place, bolted to the floor or walls, none where there is actual flight, lift, motion.
I may be completely wrong and rockets work just fine in a vacuum but it is my duty as a scientist to doubt anything unproven. If someone tells me they can turn lead into gold, no amount of diagrams or explanations will convince me. I’ll need to see the process in action, with physical proof of every step. As you can imagine, I am separated from the mainstream/core of modern Science: although I was raised in it’s bosom, I no longer suckle on it’s teat.
LikeLike
The irony is that we don’t even need an experiment to know that getting propulsion from a free expanding gas would be a violation of Newton 3. A gas expanding in a vacuum (action) encounters zero resistance, hence it requires zero force.
Newton 3 says that: Action force (= the expanding gas) must be equal to reaction force (= recoil=thrust=propulsion).
If action force =0 then reaction force (propulsion) MUST also be =0.
We can rephrase that concept this way:
The amount of force (action) you can apply to an object, and therefore the amount of opposite force (re-action) you can get, cannot exceeds the object’s resistance
or in this case
An expanding gas can give us as much re-action (=recoil/propulsion) as the resistance it encounters during the expansion.
LikeLike
Imo thought experiments or models are part of the scientific process since they are what inspire experiments – to test the model – and then are either kept or revised based on the results. I would agree that a thought experiment alone is not scientific proof of anything, just purely theoretical.
And yes, as you say, free expansion with no resistance was initially a persuasive model to me (speaking purely theoretically), until MiniMe and other commenters argued for their model. Someone, maybe MiniMe, linked to a diagram of their view at the time. I became split between the two models – I still lean toward “free expansion,” but I can sort of see the idea of how the other model might work too. Just as a theoretical matter – that’s more interesting to me anyway, trying to grasp the system properties abstractly and what would make sense.
LikeLike
Words cannot change a Scientist’s mind. Only a real world experiment. When thoughts, words and videos are the source of proof and belief you have Religion, not Science. Which is why this debate always ends up at the same place.
LikeLike
The issue here is not about the belief. It”s about the lack of understanding the basic principles of physics.
Including Joules’ law into your argument against the rocket propulsion in a vacuum, makes you look ignorant. The closed, 2-part system from Joules experiment is not applicable in the case of rocket expulsion. I’ve extensively explained all that to you a while ago, to which you have never replied to this day.
LikeLike
Ray – I noticed that too, the “pretty, pretty, pretty good” reference to Larry David (arguably.. not the main reference, so possibly unintentional, but I think likely a side reference..) Anyway – is the David catch phrase a reference to anything itself, or is it just his own little expression?
Greg – interesting story about the town council, but I wish you’d give more detail.. you’re using the passive voice – “was removed” – by who? Or the review panel – made up of whom?
LikeLike
Yes that was intentional. I was looking at a recent headline that said Pretti and Good, and I though well isn’t that Pretti, Pretti, Pretti Good of them – very funny catchphrase.
LikeLike
To clarify, I know it was intentional on your part; I meant as far as the script writers, I assume it was a side reference at least on their part.
Does anyone know if Larry David was referencing anything, or he just made it up? I guess I could search/ ask a bot..
LikeLike
Mark – Shortly before that Lynn episode, there’s one with Tim Ozman also about MLK. I’ve listened to maybe half of it so far, but you might be interested since they touch briefly on your idea of MLK to Don King, somewhat dismissively. They go on to talk about the whole premise of reassignments of actors, those they find implausible or not, and related topics –
https://fakeologist.com/fak1199-tim-ozman-was-the-mlk-assassination-a-hoax/
LikeLike
Mark, please check the comments. I sent 2 of them your way, yet they are probably quarantined.
LikeLike
Mark, I remember watching a show about the Moon Landing where they discussed the Rover, designed by the guys who ran the Cadillac division at GM. They built a radio controlled prototype and drove it into Von Braun’s office. He shot out of his chair, so excited and amazed. Now ask yourself, did they ever build a prototype rocket working inside a vacuum chamber and show it to Von Braun? Have you ever seen a video of anything flying inside a vacuum chamber? There’s an old joke about what makes something impossible fly: a child’s imagination.
LikeLike