Neil Armstrong claimed he did not see stars in space. Edgar …

Comment on New forum by ProperGander.

Neil Armstrong claimed he did not see stars in space.
Edgar Mitchell claimed the opposite.


Hard to work stars into the set I ‘d guess… Moon Landings are fake.

Recent Comments by ProperGander

Geostationary satellites
No need for satellites if the ionosphere can be used as the medium for transmission. A broadcasting tower of some sort has to send the signal to the supposed artificial satellite in the first place. Is it really out of the realm of possibility that what we consider satellite communications are nothing more than signals bounced back off of the ionosphere sans any sort of floating or embedded artificial device.

“The earth is 4,000 miles radius. Around this conducting earth is an atmosphere. The earth is a conductor; the atmosphere above is a conductor, only there is a little stratum between the conducting atmosphere and the conducting earth which is insulating. . . . Now, you realize right away that if you set up differences of potential at one point, say, you will create in the media corresponding fluctuations of potential. But, since the distance from the earth’s surface to the conducting atmosphere is minute, as compared with the distance of the receiver at 4,000 miles, say, you can readily see that the energy cannot travel along this curve and get there, but will be immediately transformed into conduction currents, and these currents will travel like currents over a wire with a return. The energy will be recovered in the circuit, not by a beam that passes along this curve and is reflected and absorbed, . . . but it will travel by conduction and will be recovered in this way. ”

[Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony, and Transmission of Power, Leland I. Anderson, Editor, Twenty First Century Books, 1992, pp. 129-130.]

“The Tesla biographer John Joseph O’Neill noted the cupola at the top of the 186 foot tower had a 5-foot hole in its top where ultraviolet lights were to be mounted, perhaps to create an ionized path up through the atmosphere that could conduct electricity.[22] How Tesla intended to employ the ground conduction method and atmospheric method in Wardenclyffe’s design is unknown.[23] Power for the entire system was to be provided by a coal fired 200 kilowatt Westinghouse alternating current industrial generator.”

Space machines do not orbit the Earth

The link above has an explanation that is seriously flawed.

Newton or at least his followers, seem to ignore inconvenient things like centrifugal (a fictional) force and ballistics and yes even the force we call ‘gravity’ itself, when it suits them.

We simply cannot replicate here on Earth the fantastic feats claimed by NASA and the like. If what they are showing us is somehow legit, which I doubt, it is using some kind of different technology and principles.

The Newtonian explanation for orbits is absurd.

“An object that falls to Earth at the same rate that Earth curves away from the object …”

It seems to confuse terms.Or concepts. One concept is velocity or speed,in fact its acceleration. The other is the fact that the Earth is a globe in this theory. The curvature of the Earth and the acceleration due to falling are two different concepts and a curvature of say 8 inches a mile does not equate to a velocity in any way I can figure. Maybe its me.

Objects fall towards the center of mass and not around the Earth. Last time I checked what went up came straight down barring wind or other unforeseen forces. Like say a bird bumping into the ball thrown up.

Ballistic physics is pretty clear and simple. The horizontal and vertical motions are figured independent of each other. All a horizontal motion means is just that- an additional direction of motion. The object still falls vertically at the same rate whether moving horizontally or not.

Centrifugal force is also simple. Take the boundary away (like losing the bonds of gravity) and the stuff in the centrifuge goes flying off in a straight line, unless effected by some other force, say the gravity of the Sun. Just like the stone being flung out of David sling at Goliath.

Once the rotation is of sufficient velocity, gravity is negated. Video on YOUTUBE of candle flames (and other things like water tanks) being spun in circles shows clearly what I am getting at. There’s a formula for this and its pretty simple.

Newton’s explanation for the celestial orbits could never be tested in here on Earth. In fact any experiment that made use of centrifugal forces and ballistics will quickly show how this idea is not grounded in empirical science other than presumptions based on viewing celestial ‘objects’.

Just read up on basic everyday engineer-able physics and consider how irrational the mainstream patch work of astrophysics actually is.

The orbital velocity needed would cause the orbiting object to be flung off into space as gravity would be negated by ‘centrifugal’ force. Any velocity less, the object falls back to Earth at that lesser rate which still ends up increasing anyway.

Energy would need to be constantly expended to maintain an orbit and I’d think the thrust would best be away from the Earth, not in a direction perpendicular to its surface.

When one gets into the mainstream concept of escape velocity, one sees how this makes even less sense as the velocity needed to escape the effect of Earth’s gravity would preclude it from being able to ever attain or maintain an orbit, unless it could slow itself down.

If somehow the ISS could be placed in an 18k mph orbit as we’ve been show, then the people on board would be subject to that illusionary centrifugal force, just like someone in a car doing circles in a parking lot. Newton’s first law applies. But hey Newton can forget his own laws when he wants.

In fact, and to repeat myself, the space station, the space shuttle and any floating astronauts would be either flung away from the Earth at some 18k mph or fall back to it since they lacked the velocity needed to escape gravity’s clutches. It cannot be both.

We are shown astronauts in a zero g environment dependent upon gravity holding them in the very circular orbit that needs a force like gravity to maintain it. It is a contradiction in logic and reasoning. It turns gravity into a magical power that can do whatever the imagination requires without medium and without any limit.

“We” can even use it to accelerate probes to even higher velocities to send them to places like asteroids and Pluto “We” simply skim them like stones off of the gravity of nearby planets. Gravity can be attractive and yet somehow act repulsive when needed to. Try to replicate this with some iron balls and magnets.

Bendy light – the evidence
Could it be the Emperor(s) simply have no clothes?

The art of deception having been developed over the course of what we understand to be human history, might just be the most powerful weapon that could ever be imagined and actualized.

Just an idea.

Hubble and the International Space Station hoax
The photos of ISS crossing the Sun are laughable. The station lacks any motion blur. The fans of such “photoshoppery” lack the critical thought needed to decipher the “tom foolery”.

When one considers exposure time and how sharp the images look, one has to come to the sane and rationale conclusion that the images of the space walking astronaut and the clearly outlined docked space shuttle and space station are fake.

Inverse square law as well as atmospheric perspective have to be taken into account. So does the loss in image quality going from telescope to camera lens and to digital compression.

We also have to ignore the fact that telescopic magnification results in a blurry image not a sharper one. The increase in the amount of light the lens allows for is what makes the image sharper not the magnification.

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.