Welcome to the International Fake Station ISS

[Hughe]

YdKE3wOIdk4

How they bring down astronauts safely from the space to the ground?
Reentry problem does not explain how much reverse force that the reentry capsule has to exert within few minutes of entry to thick atmosphere.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/6344/Spacecraft-Manned-Reentry-problems-solutions.html

Perhaps the most serious single problem encountered during reentry is the heat that develops as the spacecraft returns to the earth's atmosphere. Friction between vehicle and air produces temperatures that exceed 3,000°F (1,700°C). Most metals and alloys would melt or fail at these temperatures. To deal with this problem, spacecraft designers have developed a class of materials known as ablators that absorb and then radiate large amounts of heat in brief periods of time. Ablators have been made out of a variety of materials, including phenolic resins, epoxy compounds, and silicone rubbers.

Read more: Manned Spacecraft - Reentry Problems And Solutions - Earth, York, —the, and Moon - JRank Articles http://science.jrank.org/pages/6344/Spacecraft-Manned-Reentry-problems-solutions.html#ixzz48rFJKtT9


http://www.universetoday.com/85322/low-earth-orbit/

Low Earth Orbit is a region that includes Earth at Sea Level and up to 2000 kilometers above sea level. This region is close enough for a panoramic view of the Earth but just far enough that most space craft can stay in orbit without being pulled down to the surface by Earth’s gravitational field. However satellites at this altitude have to move at extraordinary speeds to partially escape the pull of Earth’s gravity. A satellite in low Earth orbit travels at a mean velocity of 26,000 to 27,000 km per hour or 17,000 miles per hour

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

It travels at an average speed of 27,724 kilometres per hour (17,227 mph), and completes 15.54 orbits per day (93 minutes per orbit)
Suppose the reentry capsule with rocket engine departs from the ISS in 27,000 km/h at 400 km height. It falls towards the Earth at 7,500 m/s and requires to slow down the capsule below 16.7 m/s (60 km/h) within 54 seconds for the safety of crews inside capsule.
Between 400 km to 40 km of height, air density is near vacuum ( 0.03996 at 40 km height). And the gravity of Earth constantly pulls it 9.8 m/s^2.

Average deceleration of the capsule = (7,500.00 - 16.7) / 54 = 138 m/s^2
Total deceleration force the capsule requires is 138 m/s^2 + 9.8 m/s^2 = 147.8 m/s^2
Let's convert it to unit g force (9.8 m/s^2). 147.8 / 9.8 = 15.08 G.
High acceleration over 9g is lethal. I doubt human body can't handle over 10g.

To me rocket propulsion is such absurd, primitive technology that space travel is not feasible. Rocket only provides one way trip, waste huge amount of resources too. Unless NASA or whatever secret space program uses non-conventional propulsion system, space exploration as we know is simply a day dream.

Since I convinced myself that 1969's Apollo Moon landing was a fake event, space exploration becomes elaborated scam that gullible public takes as is. Who cares anyway. USA, former Russia back then, multinational space organization nowadays. China sent a probe to the Moon? Which country will go back to the Moon? It's plain silly stuff.

Mainstream astronomers haven't solved N-body problem. Orbital motion of planets in solar system. The stupid thing is all they believe in gravitational constant G is fixed value. And they have developed powerful computer simulation hopelessly. But the real problem is the G value changes on Earth depending on height or location of measurement. Astronomers try to ignore it because G has to be constant in their dogmatic framework. I guess their pride hurts as soon as they admit serious flaws in fundamental laws in physics.

Rocket propulsion is rubbish.
Speed of light is too slow as communication.
Don't know how to predict or calculate trajectory of planets with acceptable precision for space travel.

Flat Earth believers are gaining momentum too. :hail:

[Daozen]

Yes, ISS looks fake. I think I made a thread on it too, but not as well researched. For me, the hair perms, green screens and dialogue gaffes are the biggest giveaway.

[Chip]

It doesn't look fake looking at it through my telescope, the numerous times that I was able when the conditions were right?
Flat earthers are gaining ground simply because they fail to do their own objective observations and would rather rely upon the minutiae of vomitus YouTube videos. They fail not only in their attempt at understanding the basics of the Universe but worse in that they fail to see the disinformation psyop that this whole campaign has created.
Flat Earthers have done more damage by not truly seeing "The Big Picture". They hurt everyone involved

[Inversion]

There's definitely been a pattern of lying since the creation of NASA in 1958. The fact that they are the biggest editors of Wikipedia would validate that.

http://mikebara.blogspot.com/2007/08/nasa-by-far-biggest-government-censor.html

According to an article on Govenment Executive.com, NASA is far and away the biggest Wikipedia editing source when it comes to US government agencies. A website called Wikiscanner keeps track of just who is editing what pages, and NASA is the clear winner with over 6,800 Wikipedia pages edited.

One has to wonder; why is NASA so intent on filtering the Wikipedia content that the general public has access to?

Until the Wikiscanner search for individual pages is enabled, we won't know exactly which pages they are editing, but with 6,800 edits, they must have a whole team devoted to holding the NASA party line over at Wikipedia.

[KiwiElf]

The ISS is there alright. Astronomy software like Redshift will tell you in advance when it's flying over a particular country and like Chipsam said, you can then go out & see it with a telescope on a clear night (along with all the other satellites).

The Matrix we live in is not so black & white.

(I do agree however, that rocketry is a joke and we're not going anywhere fast with it. But it too is quite real. Whatever advanced anti-grav technology that may exist behind the scenes, rocketry is still - publicly anyway - what we're stuck with :)

On a slight side note, It could be possible to fake some of the interior shots of the ISS (Capricorn 1 - style) and with a lot of CGI required to do so, but why bother? (And I'm sure some of the Moon landing footage was also faked (that doesn't make it ALL fake!, nor does it make NASA complete liars about everything they say... )

There was a brief mini-series on recently which was axed after only a short run - featuring a gigantic spacehip and it's hundreds of several-generation inhabitants, totally unaware that they weren't in space, but in a gigantic hangar on Earth - the title escapes me ;)

[Builder]

Sorry but you got your physics all wrong. Before complaining about the oh so simple rocketry, try to understand some rocket science first.

Learn the rules like a professional so you can break them like an artist...

I have met astronauts who have been on both the Mir and the ISS and I have no reason to doubt that they were there (although they may not talk about everything they have seen).

[Gerald Paris]

It doesn't look fake looking at it through my telescope, the numerous times that I was able when the conditions were right?
Flat earthers are gaining ground simply because they fail to do their own objective observations and would rather rely upon the minutiae of vomitus YouTube videos. They fail not only in their attempt at understanding the basics of the Universe but worse in that they fail to see the disinformation psyop that this whole campaign has created.
Flat Earthers have done more damage by not truly seeing "The Big Picture". They hurt everyone involved

is it possible to discuss NASAs chicanery without claiming a stance on flat earth?

[Bill Ryan]

It falls towards the Earth at 7,500 m/s and requires to slow down the capsule below 16.7 m/s (60 km/h) within 54 seconds for the safety of crews inside capsule.


Where did those numbers come from? Why 54 seconds? (And 60 km/h is about the speed you drive your car when going to the supermarket.)

Yes, the ISS is visible to ordinary folks like you and me, with telescopes, who know where to look. If a large, heavy object can reach a stable orbit up there (in LEO, or Low Earth Orbit), then so can people, who don't weigh very much. :)

[Chip]

It doesn't look fake looking at it through my telescope, the numerous times that I was able when the conditions were right?
Flat earthers are gaining ground simply because they fail to do their own objective observations and would rather rely upon the minutiae of vomitus YouTube videos. They fail not only in their attempt at understanding the basics of the Universe but worse in that they fail to see the disinformation psyop that this whole campaign has created.
Flat Earthers have done more damage by not truly seeing "The Big Picture". They hurt everyone involved

is it possible to discuss NASAs chicanery without claiming a stance on flat earth?

I was staying on topic, as he ended his dialogue with a claim that the "flat earthers are gaining momentum" which also coincided with his interpretation of ISS science and rocketry.
I'm not one to argue against NASA's dishonesty. Been at this far too long to know they definitely keep secrets and aren't exactly honest. But, mankind has the know how to build Newtonian engineered rockets to get man a short distance up and a helluva ride back down.

[shaberon]

It falls towards the Earth at 7,500 m/s and requires to slow down the capsule below 16.7 m/s (60 km/h) within 54 seconds for the safety of crews inside capsule.


Where did those numbers come from? Why 54 seconds? (And 60 km/h is about the speed you drive your car when going to the supermarket.)


It falls towards the earth constantly; that's what an orbit is, a fall with a perpendicular component to offset it; basically how a circle is drawn.

So if you say falls 7500 m/s, that corresponds to its initial velocity of 27,000 km/h; the capsule apparently has not detached from the station. I've never studied their orbital mechanics, but I'm going to guess they offset the trajectory by just a few degrees and take multiple orbits to descend; putting it this way makes it sound like it totally quits orbiting and makes a right angle turn at maximum speed. That would be dangerous.

[ThePythonicCow]

It falls towards the Earth at 7,500 m/s
When a return capsule leaves the ISS, it is initially traveling at the same speed as the ISS.

If the return capsule is crashing toward earth with a vertical velocity of 7,500 m/s at that point, then so is the ISS.

The ISS is about 400 km above the earth's surface.

If the ISS is 400 km up, and is crashing toward the earth's surface with a vertical velocity of 7,500 m/s, it will make a Big Splat (or Splash) about 400 km / ( 7500 m/s ) == 53 seconds later.

That 7,500 m/s number looks totally bogus to me. The vertical velocity of the ISS, and hence of any return capsule when it starts its return trip, is about 0 m/s, not 7,500 m/s.

Also ... I wasn't operating a space surveillance radar when the ISS was up, but I was operating one, for the US Air Force, when an earlier such orbiting space station was up. That space station looked very real on my radar scope.

Also ... as a math and physics student, with advanced training in satellite orbits for my US Air Force job, I have a pretty good grasp of these matters. As I said, that 7,500 m/s number looks totally bogus to me.

[ThePythonicCow]

but I'm going to guess they offset the trajectory by just a few degrees and take multiple orbits to descend; putting it this way makes it sound like it totally quits orbiting and makes a right angle turn at maximum speed. That would be dangerous.
They typically don't take multiple orbits to de-orbit, but they do take a substantial part of one orbit. Each ISS orbit takes about 92 minutes.

[Inversion]

The ISS travels at 4.76 miles per second and converted to meters it's 7,660. At 5 miles per second it's 8,046 m/s.

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/282-How-fast-does-the-Space-Station-travel-

[shaberon]

It is going 7500 m/s in a continuously changing direction. It is falling towards the center of the earth at the same speed it moves in a perpendicular direction to that. If it ever quit falling, it would fly away from the planet.

Taking "most" of an orbit to come down, roughly an hour for the 400km, averages to a little over 100 m/s for its descent speed. Gravity accelerates it; eventually, atmospheric drag slows it. Unless otherwise affected, it's still going quite fast in the horizontal direction.

In the 54 seconds referred to, it descends about five and a half km. Not going to combust, or crush a human with excessive g force yet; as would happen, if somehow, the 7500 m/s was purely in the downwards direction.

[Hughe]

@shaberon


I've never studied their orbital mechanics, but I'm going to guess they offset the trajectory by just a few degrees and take multiple orbits to descend; putting it this way makes it sound like it totally quits orbiting and makes a right angle turn at maximum speed. That would be dangerous.

Same here. I know how fundamental physics work. One thing for certain the laws of physics dictates reality. The ISS is peaceful scientific application not top military secret mission. If they actually have been doing it, then disclose real data so that anybody can verify transporting humans back and forth. Radar tracking data of previous reentry capsule is sufficient. I doubt they ever disclose it.

Real science deals with hard data and few laws of physics not fancy pictures and great stories. This kind of stuff insults my small brain.

[ThePythonicCow]

The ISS travels at 4.76 miles per second and converted to meters it's 7,660. At 5 miles per second it's 8,046 m/s.
That's parallel to the ground below it, not perpendicular.

[6pounder]

just to point a simple things here about the claim that the ISS is fake...
if it was a fake recording then how would one explain one simple thing that cant be recorded on such a long live interview: the free fall of the airplain to creat the no gravity effect?
if the interview lastes for about 5 minuts, how long the airplain will be in a freefall?
i was intrigued by alot of flat earth so called claim back in the day when i was believing every thing out there that was under a conspiracy tag. untill one day i decided to ask an amature astronomer on youtube (dazzathecamaraman) about some of the claims (ISS was part of them). he replayed me with a youtube video that sealed the case for me once and for all. _YzeGRFDIms
i hope this video will convince all those who are still not that flat earth is a psyop of some one out there to put a bad name to truth seekers.

[ThePythonicCow]

Miles Mathis has just published his take on all this "everything is fake" mime, in the pdf The Case for Reality (http://mileswmathis.com/real.pdf).

Here's a small snippet from it:

============


The reason they are pushing this “reality as an illusion” now as part of the continuation of Project Chaos is to prevent you from seeing all the hoaxed events. They know you have become aware of a major distortion, and they want you to think it is even bigger than it is. They know you are asking yourself and those around you if maybe the government is lying to you all the time about everything. So to confuse you, they are suggesting to you that maybe it is your senses lying to you about everything all the time. It isn't just the stories you are being told in the media that don't make sense, it is life that doesn't make sense. It isn't just Sandy Hook or the latest murder that is a hoax, it is life itself that is the hoax. It isn't just CIA-created stories that are illusory, it is existence itself that is illusory. If they can get you doubting that the snake or the rock exists, you aren't really going to care whether Sandy Hook happened. You will be so lost and confused you won't have the fortitude to question specific events. You will say to yourself, “Jeepers, if my husband and children are just figments of my imagination, I have more than enough to do in living with that everyday. That is more than enough to create a permanent never-ending neurosis, a hole in my head that cannot be repaired. Given the enormity of that, the latest government lie looks pretty trivial.”

============

He's one of my favorite commentators, though his unique perspective on things may seem odd to most readers ... he's sort of an acquired taste.

[Daozen]

ISS may well be visible through a telescope but that does not mean that some -or all- of the interior shots are not faked, as KiwiElf says. We only have NASA's word to go on, and they do not have a good track record. Flat Earth is a separate subject, IMO.

I know nothing about the re-entry mathematics, I'm looking at the badly shot interior scenes and evidence of videographic fakery.



On a slight side note, It could be possible to fake some of the interior shots of the ISS (Capricorn 1 - style) and with a lot of CGI required to do so, but why bother? (And I'm sure some of the Moon landing footage was also faked (that doesn't make it ALL fake!, nor does it make NASA complete liars about everything they say... )

Why bother? I don't know, you'd have to ask NAZA. Maybe we are living in some sort of quarantine, and they want to give us the illusion that they can go into space. It sure is an easy way to siphon off tax dollars from the economy.

Exhibit A:

Look at this lady's hair. In a real zero-gravity spacecraft, astronauts' hair goes all over the place. In this clip, it is stuck upside down like a perm. Why isn't it floating all over the place, if pens, bottles and her dog tags float freely too? Does someone want to cobble together a pseudo-scientific argument about static electricity? Please, go ahead. :waving:

Zhzjx8TsuQk

*

Exhibit B:

There is a huge smoking gun in the following video. You may be able to spot it without any help, in the first 20 seconds. It might help to watch that segment a few times. At 24 seconds, they reveal the evidence. I didn't spot it without a clue, but once you see it, it's quite a big hole in the official story.

What has been seen cannot be unseen.

AkkLO4oEQS4

[shaberon]

Just quickly glancing at standard data for Soyuz re-entry...it takes three hours to reach the atmosphere, and when it does, it's entry angle is about 1.5 degrees. Any less and it may bounce back out, any more and the g force could harm the astronauts. It uses retro-rockets almost immediately after decoupling; because this reduces its horizontal speed, it starts to descend.

[KiwiElf]

Well, compared to Black Projects, NASA's budget is pretty small! :) That aside, my point was to differentiate and allow for "some" between "ALL" or "none" - there's a grey area in there that is larger than the two extremes. (Absolutist thinking).

We've seen the kind of realistic CGI which can be achieved in movies like "Gravity" - but that's very expensive CGI. I think Paul's summary in Post #18 explains it very well. :)

(I'm almost inclined to start a thread, "What is Real?") ;)

:focus:

[Agape]

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

It travels at an average speed of 27,724 kilometres per hour (17,227 mph), and completes 15.54 orbits per day (93 minutes per orbit)
Suppose the reentry capsule with rocket engine departs from the ISS in 27,000 km/h at 400 km height. It falls towards the Earth at 7,500 m/s and requires to slow down the capsule below 16.7 m/s (60 km/h) within 54 seconds for the safety of crews inside capsule.
Between 400 km to 40 km of height, air density is near vacuum ( 0.03996 at 40 km height). And the gravity of Earth constantly pulls it 9.8 m/s^2.

Average deceleration of the capsule = (7,500.00 - 16.7) / 54 = 138 m/s^2
Total deceleration force the capsule requires is 138 m/s^2 + 9.8 m/s^2 = 147.8 m/s^2
Let's convert it to unit g force (9.8 m/s^2). 147.8 / 9.8 = 15.08 G.
High acceleration over 9g is lethal. I doubt human body can't handle over 10g.




Untested entry to planetary gravitosphere always poses a problem and i think they've been working on how to solve the excessive heat problem and deceleration for ages now ..
but where your maths goes wrong is the capsule does not 'fall back' straight like a sack of potatoes ,
precisely for the same reason, it follows carefully calculated angular trajectory ..

see here : a(max) = v2 βsinγ/ 2e

amax = vehicle’s maximum deceleration (m/s2)
Vre-entry = vehicle’s re-entry velocity (m/s)

β = atmospheric scale height, a parameter used to describe the density profile of the atmosphere = 0.000139 m–1 for Earth
γ = vehicle’s flight-path angle (deg or rad)

https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_delegations/designee_types/ame/media/Section%20III.4.1.7%20Returning%20from%20Space.pdf


The angular difference vs ballistic speed is crucial , such as ( in much smaller proportions ) you throw a ball straight against a wall or a person OR you throw a ball at a person in a curve ( upper handle ) that slows the flight and decelerates the fall .

[ghostrider]

Everything is theater, all the ptb have to do is say its truth and the world buys it... they say what ever they want and people dig no further. ..the stuff of myth and legend is truth , the truth is the stuff of myth and legend... information about space, earth's atmosphere, our sun , these things are very tightly controlled ...

[ghostrider]

All Internet goes on 18 military satellites built by Regan in the 80s , when the cold war ended,, they needed a use for all the technology, hence the world wide trap oops I mean web ... nasa, the military, the rogue government all know everything about everyone ... they have v een scaming and controlling humanity since 1913 ...

[Bill Ryan]

they say what ever they want and people dig no further

That happens in the alternative media, too. (All the time! :facepalm: )

It's a real problem. Please see my thread here (posted yesterday)... it's important.

An amendment to the new members' Welcome Message - please read (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?90689-An-amendment-to-the-new-members-Welcome-Message-please-read)

[sigma6]

The ISS is there alright. Astronomy software like Redshift will tell you in advance when it's flying over a particular country and like Chipsam said, you can then go out & see it with a telescope on a clear night (along with all the other satellites).

The Matrix we live in is not so black & white.

(I do agree however, that rocketry is a joke and we're not going anywhere fast with it. But it too is quite real. Whatever advanced anti-grav technology that may exist behind the scenes, rocketry is still - publicly anyway - what we're stuck with :)

On a slight side note, It could be possible to fake some of the interior shots of the ISS (Capricorn 1 - style) and with a lot of CGI required to do so, but why bother? (And I'm sure some of the Moon landing footage was also faked (that doesn't make it ALL fake!, nor does it make NASA complete liars about everything they say... )

There was a brief mini-series on recently which was axed after only a short run - featuring a gigantic spacehip and it's hundreds of several-generation inhabitants, totally unaware that they weren't in space, but in a gigantic hangar on Earth - the title escapes me ;)

All very good points... but re: "Why bother" because as many movies, and now television, and even tv commercials show... it is very easy to do and thus must be way more cost effective... NASA probably has a bigger staff then Disney today... ever since Stanley Kubrick showed them, just how inferior their ability to do it themselves was (at least in front of a camera) Who knows what combinations of "real" and "imaginary" they are using today... (to reiterate what you are saying...)

I am still waiting for Richard Hoagland to get the Science & Nature (?) magazine that Werner Von Braun wrote in, just weeks before he "resigned" from NASA that according to Hoagland (if I am not mistaken) provided evidence that the mass, gravity, etc of the moon couldn't possibly be what we were (are) being told... this would be right down Richard's alley... He could do a good 2-3 hour presentation... like a university professor lecture with diagrams and black board to educate the public on exactly what that was all about... It would be a classic... I think these guys, are sometimes "too smart" for their own good, and sometimes, take it for granted that the people understand all this stuff just because they mentioned it several times... which obviously isn't the case given some of the "utterly nutterly" movements out there... ;o And what a fantastic mind blowing presentation it would be!... Just a presentation on the historicity of the article and Werner, what he presented, what it would therefore imply, (and then Richard you could add your own commentary... :D I don't think anyone could do it better than he could... (the man has 'panache'... Lol...)

[KiwiElf]

Also good points you make Sigma (After I wrote "why bother?" I pondered that myself :)) Indeed, it would be easier and more cost efficient to fake it (and even during the early Moon flights, there is substantial evidence of "fakery in the cockpit" long before cgi came along ie daylight and blue skies coming through the observation port when they were supposed to be in the black of space - no cgi required - but probably needed ... oops! :)).

To clarify, "why bother?", it was on the basis that the ISS is real, and is manned by astronauts, it's pretty easy to just turn on the camera.

But yes, I'm open to the possibility that some things we are shown inside the ISS could be faked.

[Hughe]

@Agape

That's basic in physics. Whether it's 2D movement or 3D flight, the momentum an object wouldn't simply disappear.
During the returning flight path of reentry capsule, 370 km to 380 km is acceleration zone due to zero friction.
Earth is pulling the capsule faster and faster as time flows with 1 G. Each second the capsule's speed increases 9.8 m/s plus Mach 22.
By the time it reaches at 40 km height, it has little over six seconds to hit the ground. In near vacuum state, parachute wouldn't work.


A projected naval rail gun with a 2.5km/sec muzzle velocity could deliver a guided projectile with an impact velocity of Mach 5 to targets at ranges of 250 miles, at a rate greater than 6 rounds per minute.

In common sense, if a rocket goes to 100 km height, it needs to burn more fuel than it spent for safe landing in one piece on the ground in theory.
Machine can withstand few hundred Gs but human body can't take 1G. Honestly this kind of stuff insults my small brain nowadays. I admit that for the most of my life I hadn't learn how to reason even though I studied science in a college.

[Dennis Leahy]

... but human body can't take 1G. ...

Reentry is not a freefall from orbital altitude straight down toward the center of the Earth. Adjust your calculations - exponentially - and think of aiming the reentry vehicle tangentially, at above the far horizon, and coming down in an elliptical arc.

Oh, and the human body can take 1G quite easily - 7.5 billion of us are doing it right now. Supposedly, a human can train for as much as 9Gs (that's the point where most people black-out), but every astronaut endures at least 3Gs on takeoff and even more on reentry. A too-steep angle Soyuz capsule reentry in 2008 caused the crew to experience 10Gs (they probably blacked-out.)

[Bill Ryan]

Oh, and the human body can take 1G quite easily - 7.5 billion of us are doing it right now. Supposedly, a human can train for as much as 9Gs (that's the point where most people black-out), but every astronaut endures at least 3Gs on takeoff and even more on reentry. A too-steep angle Soyuz capsule reentry in 2008 caused the crew to experience 10Gs (they probably blacked-out.)

This is off-topic, but I found it interesting enough to quote and report.

From What is the maximum G force a human can survive? (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070101085015AAok4JJ)




That depends on the duration thereof. If subjected to constant acceleration, I would doubt someone could stand 9 g for more than a few minutes. After a few minutes at that rate, one faints from the lack of blood to the brain, and presumably after that, some damage will occur, like heart failure, brain hemorrhage and so on.

But for very short duration, very high accelerations can be supported, although some damage can result. Colonel John Paul Stapp of the US Air Force did several experiments, strapping himself to a rocket sled, and determined that 32 g was an acceleration someone could walk away from, which then became the acceleration used in the design of fighter jet seats. Stapp subjected himself to 45 g and above, but since he did that so often, ended up with damage to his eyes.

The British Formula One racer David Purley crashed in 1977, his car going from 173 km/h (107 mph) to 0 in only 66 cm (two feet) (which means he hit a wall and the car structure compressed to decelerate him). He broke many bones, but survived. This deceleration of 178 g is believed to be the highest ever survived by a human being.

:focus:

[DeDukshyn]

I think it prudent for those trying to convince us of far flung theories, to ensure their info and math is even in the ballpark well enough to support those theories.


Example:

" ... human body can't take 1G ... " -- I have no idea where this came from because nowhere in any in the universe is this info presented. That's how far off base it is ...

A standard off the lot sports car can pull about 1G in a corner -- last I checked, no one had any issues while driving their sports cars around a corner ... Let alone the G-forces fighter pilots have to endure.

F1 racers have to handle sustained g-forces of up to 5Gs for up to 10-20 seconds at a time on and off consistently for the duration of their race (hours). No one said F1 racing isn't tough on the body, but it certainly is no where being harmful to anyone ...(unless you crash)

Personally I need far better standards of data to even consider it a theory.

[ThePythonicCow]

In related news, from Slashdot ("News for geeks"), ISS Completes 100,000th Orbit of Earth (https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/05/16/2248235/iss-completes-100000th-orbit-of-earth):

========

The International Space Station, the space laboratory that showcases cooperation between Russia and the United States, on Monday orbited Earth for the 100,000th time (http://phys.org/news/2016-05-international-space-station-100000th-orbit.html), Russian mission control said. Traveling at an altitude of about 250 miles (400 kilometers) and a speed of about 17,500 miles (28,000 kilometers) per hour, the space station circles the Earth once every 90 minutes.

The ISS has now traveled 2.6 billion miles "or about the distance of 10 round trips to Mars," NASA said (https://twitter.com/Space_Station/status/731522844958461952) on the station's official Twitter feed. From two modules, it has grown to 15 modules, occupying a space the size of a football pitch and represents around $100 billion in investment. "Such a long lifespan of the ISS proves that mankind has the necessary technologies for constant presence in orbit, that we have the potential for further space exploration," said Matyushin.
========

[Dennis Leahy]

...

A standard off the lot sports car can pull about 1G in a corner -- last I checked, no one had any issues while driving their sports cars around a corner ... Let alone the G-forces fighter pilots have to endure.
...I think "1 G" is what we experience all day, every day, even standing still (Earth's gravitational constant.) So, maybe the sports car (and occupant) are experiencing 2Gs?

[KiwiElf]

G-Forces all fully explained here with some good examples ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force

[Daozen]

I know this is not a black and white issue. I'm sure some of what NASA releases is true. I am looking at the subject video by video.

Morning all,

May I present Exhibit C: Scuba tanks and Bubbles in space:

https://youtu.be/5e-RnKAN9qY?t=858

The video ^^^^ is cued at approx 15 minutes. The name, "ISS does not exist" is a little over-the-top, but it's an interesting watch.

[Carmody]

...

A standard off the lot sports car can pull about 1G in a corner -- last I checked, no one had any issues while driving their sports cars around a corner ... Let alone the G-forces fighter pilots have to endure.
...I think "1 G" is what we experience all day, every day, even standing still (Earth's gravitational constant.) So, maybe the sports car (and occupant) are experiencing 2Gs?

It's called a lateral G in sports cars. A side shifted G. Pushed to the side, as it were.

[Carmody]

Oh, and the human body can take 1G quite easily - 7.5 billion of us are doing it right now. Supposedly, a human can train for as much as 9Gs (that's the point where most people black-out), but every astronaut endures at least 3Gs on takeoff and even more on reentry. A too-steep angle Soyuz capsule reentry in 2008 caused the crew to experience 10Gs (they probably blacked-out.)

This is off-topic, but I found it interesting enough to quote and report.

From What is the maximum G force a human can survive? (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070101085015AAok4JJ)




That depends on the duration thereof. If subjected to constant acceleration, I would doubt someone could stand 9 g for more than a few minutes. After a few minutes at that rate, one faints from the lack of blood to the brain, and presumably after that, some damage will occur, like heart failure, brain hemorrhage and so on.

But for very short duration, very high accelerations can be supported, although some damage can result. Colonel John Paul Stapp of the US Air Force did several experiments, strapping himself to a rocket sled, and determined that 32 g was an acceleration someone could walk away from, which then became the acceleration used in the design of fighter jet seats. Stapp subjected himself to 45 g and above, but since he did that so often, ended up with damage to his eyes.

The British Formula One racer David Purley crashed in 1977, his car going from 173 km/h (107 mph) to 0 in only 66 cm (two feet) (which means he hit a wall and the car structure compressed to decelerate him). He broke many bones, but survived. This deceleration of 178 g is believed to be the highest ever survived by a human being.

:focus:

That is the same as a head on collision of two identical cars, each going 53.5mph. Just the speed part is we are speaking of, here. How much of the car crushes over what time period, and the deceleration in that time period, is key.

Highways are dangerous. very dangerous.

When one car is substantially larger and heavier than the other, then the energy transfer can be very uneven. The smaller car taking on much more of the total energy of the collision, with regard to deceleration effects.

[shaberon]

By the time it reaches at 40 km height, it has little over six seconds to hit the ground. In near vacuum state, parachute wouldn't work.


It takes over twenty minutes to descend through the atmosphere. It enters at 1.5 degrees and travels several minutes before releasing parachutes, which set its descent at thirty degrees.

It comes in at 200 m/s, and has jettisoned two stages, reducing its momentum.

[DeDukshyn]

...

A standard off the lot sports car can pull about 1G in a corner -- last I checked, no one had any issues while driving their sports cars around a corner ... Let alone the G-forces fighter pilots have to endure.
...I think "1 G" is what we experience all day, every day, even standing still (Earth's gravitational constant.) So, maybe the sports car (and occupant) are experiencing 2Gs?

Haha you are right about normal gravity being 1 "gravitation force" ... ;) My example was referring to the lateral forces that a person would endure while cornering, accelerating, braking. I guess I just went to that because it is an alternate way to experience 1G.

[Star Tsar]

On monday The ISS made its 100 000th orbit!

Personally my thoughts are in uni:sun: with Tyrell & Tabitha's:

E5NowNy5y-Y

Se4-RpKdgZc

[ThePythonicCow]

The British Formula One racer David Purley crashed in 1977, his car going from 173 km/h (107 mph) to 0 in only 66 cm (two feet) (which means he hit a wall and the car structure compressed to decelerate him). He broke many bones, but survived. This deceleration of 178 g is believed to be the highest ever survived by a human being.

That is the same as a head on collision of two identical cars, each going 53.5mph. Just the speed part is we are speaking of, here. How much of the car crushes over what time period, and the deceleration in that time period, is key.
Oopsie :).

If I was in my car going 53.5 mph, and had a head-on collision with another car like mine, going just as fast the other way, my body would go from 53.5 mph to 0 mph in two or three feet, depending on the crush zone size of my car.

That's not a 107 to 0 stop. It's a 53.5 to 0 stop.

But, since I drive a small, cheap car, and many Texans drive pickup trucks ... Avalon will be looking for a new Admin.

[Bill Ryan]

The British Formula One racer David Purley crashed in 1977, his car going from 173 km/h (107 mph) to 0 in only 66 cm (two feet) (which means he hit a wall and the car structure compressed to decelerate him). He broke many bones, but survived. This deceleration of 178 g is believed to be the highest ever survived by a human being.

That is the same as a head on collision of two identical cars, each going 53.5mph. Just the speed part is we are speaking of, here. How much of the car crushes over what time period, and the deceleration in that time period, is key.
Oopsie :).

If I was in my car going 53.5 mph, and had a head-on collision with another car like mine, going just as fast the other way, my body would go from 53.5 mph to 0 mph in two or three feet, depending on the crush zone size of my car.

That's not a 107 to 0 stop. It's a 53.5 to 0 stop.

But, since I drive a small, cheap car, and many Texans drive pickup trucks ... Avalon will be looking for a new Admin.


Hm. I very nearly posted that Carmody was right — but he'd only really be right if one car traveling at 53.5 mph crashed into a mobile wall (which doesn't crush) traveling towards him at 53.5 mph as well.

:)

[thunder24]

totally on topic... i love blueberries... and they aren't spelled with a G!
and they arn't fake!

[Carmody]

Total impact energies is the same as hitting a brick wall at 107 mph. Much depends on the crush zone and deceleration. The total impact energies of the two are the same.

Let's compare to a rubber ball. You whip it at a wall and get it to bounce back 10ft. If you throw it at the wall at half the speed but make the wall move toward the ball at half speed, then the ball will bounce back...10 ft.

So yes, an error, the one of your original speed, yes. If the other vehicle is much more massive and stiff... well, peak deceleration is not as big as it can be compared to two stiff objects on impact, but more of the energies will be absorbed by the smaller vehicle, with regard to final vector (retained energies).

If a transport at 53.5mph with a solid steel bumper and no crush zone.... is impacted by a car going 53.5mph... well.... the car gets to do all the deceleration over time of the pair's impact.... and it is akin to hitting a brick wall at 107mph. But it gets worse. The transport truck is 20x-30x as massive as the given car and is still moving into the impact, relentlessly. while the car is decelerating, the transport is doing the same, but the transport still has massive momentum and energy throughout the car's deceleration and vector change.

[ThePythonicCow]

Total impact energies is the same as hitting a brick wall at 107 mph. Much depends on the crush zone and deceleration.
Yes :).

But, in accordance with what you and Bill describe, if I'm driving an up-armored big black Knight XV (http://www.therichest.com/luxury/auto/knight-xv-the-worlds-biggest-suv/?view=all) SUV and the other guy is in a Yugo (http://www.librarypoint.org/yugo_vuic), his next-of-kin will be trying to track me down, so they can sue me, and I am going to be asking my chauffeur to clean that bug splat off the front of my SUV.

Well ... on second thought ... no ... the total energy required to de-accelerate a vehicle of a given mass, from a particular velocity to zero velocity is (1/2) * mass * velocity-squared. So for the case of a one metric ton vehicle hitting a granite cliff at 100 km/hour, converting to "mks" (meter-kilogram-second) units, that energy is computed as follows:

At 100 km/hr, the velocity is 100 km/hr * (1000 m/km) / (3600 secs/hour) == 27.8 m/s.
The metric ton mass converted to kilograms is 1 ton * 1000kg/ton == 1000 kg.
So the impact energy is (1/2) * mass * velocity-squared == (1/2) * 1000 * (27.8) * (27.8) == 386420 kg-m^2/s^2 == 386420 Joules.


On the other hand, the total impact energy of two identical one metric ton vehicles hitting each other in a head on collision, where each vehicle was traveling at 50 km/hr == 27.8/2 == 13.9 m/s, is twice the impact energy of either one of those vehicles hitting the granite cliff.

Each vehicle would absorb an impact energy of (1/2) * 1000 * (13.9) * (13.9) == 96605 Joules.
The total for the two vehicles would be 2 * 96605 == 193210 Joules, which is one-half of the 386420 Joules absorbed by one vehicle at 100 km/hr.

The key to the physics is that the energy absorbed is proportional the square of the velocity, not linearly proportional to the velocity.

The key to driving safety is that a head on collision at equal but opposite velocities, with another vehicle of the same size, is equivalent to running into a granite cliff, at the same speed. Either way, your front bumper comes to a full stop essentially instantly, and the rest of your vehicle, and your body, explore the mechanics of crush zones.

[Hughe]

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm


A re-entry is done by a spacecraft returning to Earth from space at high speed that manages to slow down and land in 10 to 30 minutes. It is suggested that when a manned spacecraft arrives at say 130 000 m altitude with speed >11 000 m/s, suddenly a big force develops out of nowhere up in the sky and slows down the spacecraft. It is suggested that this big force is due only to contact between the spacecraft and air or atmosphere but it is nonsense. It cannot happen in reality!

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/AP11re.gif

The sovuz spacecraft that is being used for the return trip from the ISS has the same reentry problem or has solved miraculously. When it's detaching the spacecraft, it is moving at 7600 m/s. As it sets descending path, the craft has to fight against two velocity, one is horizontal, the other is vertical speed caused by constant pull of Earth's gravity. 7600 m/s is Mach 22. Constant acceleration is a beast.
Each second it adds 9.8 m/s to the object, 9.8 m/s, 19.6 m/s, 29.4 m/s, ... oo

The spacecraft rocket has enough power to overcome two speeds till the Descent module separates from the service module near thick layer of atmosphere at final stage of the return trip. What's maximum speed the descent module has to drop before it releases the parachute? U.S military uses rail gun that shoots a metal slug up to Mach 5 that has huge kinetic energy, it could destroy anything it hits. The decent module with few crews inside should weigh over few tons.

I think the desirable approach speed of decent module is less than few hundred kilometers per hour. In theory suppose the Soyuz spacecraft manages extremely precise flight path and course corrections during the decent, orbiting around the Earth hundreds time, it's possible. It has a rocket on it.

Soyuz spacecraft

Descent module (B)
7 parachute compartment,
8 periscope,
9 porthole,
11 heat shield

Service module (C)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/Drawing-Soyuz-TMA-exp12.png/600px-Drawing-Soyuz-TMA-exp12.png

What's absurd situation is since the Apollo Moon mission, NASA or any space agency never disclosed real data to general public whatsoever. Individuals like me can't verify or prove which party is right or wrong.

My understanding of fundamental physics tells me that round trip to other planet or high altitude requires two powerful propulsion unit. 1969's Apollo spacecraft had to have another Saturn V rocket for the return trip to fight against Earth gravity and orbit adjustment of the spacecraft. Or twice the size of Saturn V that covers the round trip. They couldn't build it in 1960s. In 2016 it's too expensive, uneconomical to build.

One member made a comment that human body can handle 1 G acceleration. It depends what you talking about. Human body can't take 1 G impact as soon as there happens displacement. Three seconds in 1 G produces 58.8 m of displacement with 29.4 m/s (9.8 m/s, 19.6 m/s, 29.4 m/s). Imagine you fall down from five story building. A cat might walk away.

Honest mistake by not knowing something is acceptable. Delusional belief is hard to fix. Most scientists in mainstream are living in delusional land. I see this is the main reason present civilization as a whole goes down hill every day. They sincerely believe in Black Hole kind of stuff. Why Black Holes exist in theory? One simple answer is number divide by zero makes infinity. What infinity means in physical universe? Who gives a damn about it anyway.

[conk]

My curiosity is not about whether people inhabit the ISS or whether astronauts walked on the moon, but rather why NASA perpetuates so much fakery. Obvious doctoring of photos, obvious CGI, obvious Zero Gravity Plane scenes, air bubbles rising up by astronauts "space walking", all purported and presented as factual. Why does NASA do these things if everything happened as they say it did?

We can see a man in scuba gear inside an open cabin door of a craft that is supposed to be in space. We see women on the ISS with their hair sprayed stiff as a plank. Hundreds of examples of fakery. Why?

[Hughe]

K0EZOjdE4TI

@conk

The interesting pattern of NASA debunkers is most of them support Flat Earth.

[conk]

....

@conk

The interesting pattern of NASA debunkers is most of them support Flat Earth.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. This is a recent development and likely an attempt to discredit or distract us from the content that really illustrates the devious practices of NASA. Mix in a little Flat Earth and most people will discount the entire body of work, whereas they might have otherwise given it credence.

[ThePythonicCow]

But, in accordance with what you and Bill describe, if I'm driving an up-armored big black Knight XV (http://www.therichest.com/luxury/auto/knight-xv-the-worlds-biggest-suv/?view=all) SUV and the other guy is in a Yugo (http://www.librarypoint.org/yugo_vuic), ...
I owe an apology to Yugo's - there is far worse - see here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?30405-Here-and-Now...What-s-Happening&p=1069388&viewfull=1#post1069388).

[Mutchie]

I know this is not a black and white issue. I'm sure some of what NASA releases is true. I am looking at the subject video by video.

Morning all,

May I present Exhibit C: Scuba tanks and Bubbles in space:

https://youtu.be/5e-RnKAN9qY?t=858

The video ^^^^ is cued at approx 15 minutes. The name, "ISS does not exist" is a little over-the-top, but it's an interesting watch.

I watched this video and A LOT OF IT CLEARLY LOOKS AS IF IT HAS BEEN FAKED !!!!

The signs of the harness are a clear giveaway .... the more you watch the more you notice ...im not a flat earther but this stuff with nasa is strange stuff indeed

[Hughe]

NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts
NlXG0REiVzE

NASA abandoned rocket propulsion system for inter planetary probes.
I bet a manned probe to Moon or Mars will have electromagnetic drive or non-conventional propulsion system.
Rocket propulsion system is absurd technology.

It's easy to build a vehicle that goes over 100 km/L. The distance of round trip between Moon and Earth is about 800,000 km.
Fuel consumption for the trip becomes 8,000 L (800,000 / 100L). Gasoline's weight per liter is average 0.73 kg.
0.73 kg * 8000 L = 5,840 kg. The fuel weighs about six tons (6,000 kg).
Comparing this to Saturn V's weight (2,900 tons) makes 483 times light.

[Bill Ryan]

NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts


Yes, that's an interesting, contentious (and serious) issue.

Re the ISS, though, and all manned orbital missions in LEO (Low Earth Orbit), they're well below the Van Allen belts.

http://aetherforce.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/vd5479885f.png

[Nick Matkin]

So the signals from the ISS that have been received and responded to by hundreds of radio amateurs across the world on 145.8 MHz FM - what's that all about then?

They appear above the horizon as scheduled, from a point in the sky where the ISS is supposed to be, with the Doppler shift of a body moving at the height and speed of the ISS.

Is someone saying that it has all been very elaborately hoaxed? If so how the **** did they do that?

[Atlas]

NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts
Posted by NASA: http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/earth/3Page7.pdf


"Some people believe that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have been instantly killed in the radiation belts. According to the US Occupation Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) a lethal radiation dosage is 300 Rads in one hour. What is your answer to the 'moon landing hoax' believers?

According to radiation dosimeters carried by Apollo astronauts, their total dosage for the entire trip to the moon and return was not more than 2 Rads over 6 days.

The total dosage for the trip is only 11.4 Rads in 52.8 minutes [...] 13 Rads in one hour, which is well below the 300 Rads in one hour that is considered to be lethal. Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is completely harmless."

http://candorville.com/comics/2015-04-26-proof-the-moon-landing-was-faked.jpg (http://candorville.com/comics/2015-04-26-proof-the-moon-landing-was-faked.jpg)

[ozmirage]

K.A.O.M.B.N.S.O.T.Y.B.F.O.
Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.

[Hughe]

Source: http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/

This crane was purposely built in 63/64 to perfect the lunar landing as close as possible to the real thing, and used to suspend both the LM and astronauts.
http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/index_files/00af68c0.jpg

http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/index_files/010c53c0.jpg

A large helium filled balloon to take the weight of astronaut so that his feet were only just touching the ground. This was to give the impression astronaut was on the Moon, when in reality, they were acting it out at Langley Research Center Virginia.
http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/index_files/018106d0.jpg

@ozmirage

Thanks. Is there fine line between truth and delusional belief?

When the real truth hurts or make us uncomfortable, we tend to ignore it.
If the truth challenges one's belief system, the content of truth is irrelevant. Most of people start to attack the messenger or individuals. This is 21st century version of witch hunt.

One week after the 9/11 occurred, I was heading to a blood collection center for donating blood. I honestly believed in what I saw on neighborhood's TV screen. At that time they were looking for a lot of blood. It took me one year to figure it out by an accident. I learned that all the three buildings collapsed in free fall speed on Internet. I knew what's free fall in sky because I jumped out of airplane many times to learn skydiving by the time.

[Mutchie]

So much CONFUSION OF LATE i mean 1} The Flat Earth which a LOT of people are really struggling with ...one you tuber Brian Muillins is a mathematician he is doing all kinds of experiments trying to PROVE THE GLOBE but he is really struggling in certain areas and he is but one example Rob Skiba is another he is doing experiments where he can see distances which should be impossible due to curvature ... I am no flat earther but i see the questions which they pose which initially they contend is no problem but before they know where they are its all up in the air .. This subject is NOT going away !!!!

2} The Dome = Now a whole lot of people think we live in a TRUMAN SHOW type of world where we are enclosed ...they claim SPACE IS BEING FAKED

And that its all lies ... Nasa videos and nasa in general seems to get the blame for a whole lot of this - I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE DOME EITHER !!!!

These subjects burst onto the scene and if its like BILL CLAIMS "DISINFORMATION" They are sadly distracting a lot of people .....Thankfully though as Bill points out only a small amount of us here on Avalon treat these subjects seriously i think we must try to avoid the noise.

WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS I BELIEVE ....EVEN NIBIRU it never ends ... FEAR FEAR FEAR ,month after month year after year !!!!

Anyway thanks for posting this thread RANT OVER LOL :facepalm:

[Bill Ryan]

Now a whole lot of people...

No, not a lot. Maybe a very small handful (here on Avalon). But just now in the first page of the New Posts list we have not only this thread, but TWO threads on the 'Event', one on Paul Ryan as the new president, another with 'Mermaids' in the title, one claiming that nuclear explosions never happened, and even "Do ETs exist?", which was asked seriously by an intelligent member, but which most members would agree is not the most intelligent question.

Like, all at once. I mean, do we have something aimed at us at the moment? :bigsmile:

An anonymous quote literally a minute ago from one of the mods:
such flooding with gibberish is one good way to ruin a good forum:focus:

[KiwiElf]

In fairness, ONE of those was aptly put in the "Known Hoaxes" category ;)

[Atlas]

In the Shadow of the Moon: Were the Moon Landings Faked?
FmZlR7JLjuE
Alan Bean: "Some of the tabloids are saying that we did this in a hanger in Arizona. Maybe that would've been a good idea."

Michael Collins: "I don't know how I would grab someone by the collar who didn't believe and shake them and somehow change their mind."

David Scott: "Any significant event in history, somebody's had a conspiracy theory one way or the other."

Michael Collins: "I don't know two Americans who have a fantastic secret without one of them blurting it out to the press. Can you imagine thousands of people able to keep this secret?"

Charlie Duke: "We've been to the moon nine times. I mean, why did we fake it nine times if we faked it?"

Gene Cernan: "Truth needs no defense. Nobody, nobody can ever take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me."

[Mutchie]

Why are people suddenly entertaining subjects that are way way out there ? Our forum was never bombarded before with such disinfo that i can remember

Thankfully yourself Bill & the Mods are well aware of the situation.....

ps - after watching footage of the ISS it clearly looks like some have a harness on

[Hughe]

Guys,

Suppose Apollo's Moon landing was true, I have to accept the hundreds of outrageous problems in basic science and engineering. What kind world I want to live? I'm not that stupid or delusional. Real historic scientific events had to provide evidences that anybody can verify it. That's fact and how science works. When transparency, cross referencing are removed, science becomes religious practice and it damages the whole.

There are three factions in skeptics community about NASA's Apollo Moon landing.
One faction uses anomalies of visual data NASA presented to the public.
Another faction which is small number in size uses basic physics and engineering.
The third faction who identifies themselves as Flat Eathers, to me bunch of paid or gullible religious fanatics anyway, hijacked above two faction's hard works, flooded on the net since 2015. To produce five to ten minutes' video you need few hours work, skills of computer technologies. One second of video contains 20 to 30 frames and synchronized sound. Who is behind it?

So talking about NASA's Apollo Moon landing makes anybody as Flat Earther by spectators. Few members here accuse me as a Flat Earth too. It's hilarious and surreal. It's wholesale generalization tactics towards a hot subject, 21st century version of witch hunt.

NASA underestimated the potential power of Internet. They disclosed many official (?) data on their websites. As two decades has passed, skeptics use it against the NASA's stance of Apollo Moon landing. Saying the Moon landing fake as a scientist or professional probably means career ending. Most former astronomers were soldiers under military duty. Mouth pieces under the payment of NASA aren't scientists. I really love to see a physicist's authoritative explanation how Apollo spacecraft in 1969 did round trip from Earth to Moon. No physicist dare to come forward, it means the career ending and a monkey in the cage. Brian O'Leary was the living proof. He was an exceptional, genuine scientist. The US government kicked him out.

Professionals who don't have scientific background usually say "Show me the scientific proof."
The funny part is they hardly know about basic concepts in physics - acceleration, velocity, kinetic energy - even though they graduate colleges or universities. Maybe their pride hurts if they admit the lack of knowledge. If so, they should study fundamental physics during their spare time, review the claims later.

[Mutchie]

Actually Hughe see this subject I MYSELF think the footage looks FAKED especially when you clearly see signs of a harness .... im SORRY for my above post i think this subject is VALID cause the more you watch these videos the more anomalys you seem to notice OR is it just ME LOL

Lately i saw footage of the british astronaut who is supposed to be in space yet here he was in front of a grid like screen Bush snr was visiting in a wheelchair

then it showed the exact poses he made on the GRID ....on the ISS it was very strange

[Hughe]

How does TR-3B work? presented by Richard D Hall in 2014.
TR-3B in 1990s capabilities:
- anti gravity propulsion using fixed magnetic field whose strength is over 1000 Tesla
- leave Earth's atmosphere in 40 seconds.
- travel to the Moon in few hours
- travel to Mars in three weeks

I'm glad to see a intelligent research who indeed is using basic laws of physics to explain the subject.
zxEIyHlGIOI

Some EU scientists openly suggest magnetic field affects gravity. I expect for EU scientists start doing anti-gravity demonstration in major conferences soon. After spending half century scientists began to recognize anti-gravity.

Crowd funding project to build and test the Nassikas Superconducting Thruster II.
zTLkZ0jms3s

[Bill Ryan]

How does TR-3B work? presented by Richard D Hall in 2014.
TR-3B in 1990s capabilities:
- anti gravity propulsion using fixed magnetic field whose strength is over 1000 Tesla
- leave Earth's atmosphere in 40 seconds.
- travel to the Moon in few hours
- travel to Mars in three weeks

I'm glad to see a intelligent research who indeed is using basic laws of physics to explain the subject.


Actually, the physics has never made any sense to me. Read the following carefully for a moment.

If we take whistleblower Edgar Fouché at face value, he states, precisely, that classified technology reduces the TR-3B's mass by 89%.

That sounds impressive, but wait. The thing is regularly reported to be something like 600 ft per triangular side. That's MUCH larger than even the largest aircraft, and (if you think about it) must have the mass of between a naval cruiser and a battleship. Even allowing for lightweight metals, it has to weigh several thousand tons. (Work it out)

The mass remaining AFTER the supposed reduction might then be in the region of 11% x several thousand tons. That's going to be several HUNDRED tons.

Several hundred tons is the weight of a fully loaded Jumbo Jet.

And THAT is supposed to leave the atmosphere in 40 seconds, based on some powerful engines ('conventional thrusters' says Richard Hall) and mass reduction alone.

That doesn't fly. (As it were. :) )

I totally accept that the TR-3B exists, and is capable of all kinds of spectacular things (including extremely rapid UFO-style acceleration). My point is only that 89% mass reduction can't account for that at all.

I've never seen these estimated calculations (in this post) argued or pointed out by anyone.

Much more in the way of advanced technology must be in play.

(And by the way, this has nothing to do with the ISS. :) )

[Hughe]

The Physiological & Psychological Aspects of Sending Humans to Mars - an extensive research centered on the implications of prolonged spaceflight, which include radiation, the cardiovascular system in space and long-term nutritional concerns in a microgravity environment.


In addition to this, all life form on Earth have been tuned into specific electromagnetic field. Having zero-gravity near Earth would not affect human health much. Going to other planet such as Moon or Mars, the astronauts in the spacecraft will expose to totally foreign environment. Nobody knows different electromagnetic environment affects human's health.

Moon's surface emits intensive X-ray as it dose visible light spectrum.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0310/rosat_moon.jpg
Credit: J. Schmitt et al., ROSAT Mission, MPE, ESA
Explanation: This x-ray image of the Moon was made by the orbiting ROSAT (Röntgensatellit) Observatory in 1990.

The official Space programs are all non-sense, garbage to me. SpaceX is another scam to collect billions of tax money from gullible public.
Breakaway civilization or Secret Space Program are plausible to me. Because at least they don't have useless rocket propulsion. By middle of 1950s, a group of humans perfected two gravity manipulation technologies under secrecy.

Andrew Johnson's made comprehensive report about history of antigravity technology in 20th century.
http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/The%20Case%20for%20AntiGravity-booklet.pdf

@Bill Ryan

Edgar Fouche didn't tell what was the weight of TR-3B. He mentioned about it's size and other performance characteristics. Edgar Fouche said TR-3B uses rockets for propulsion. Ejection speed of rocket dictates spacecraft's speed and it waste huge amount fuel. Paul A. LaViolette suggested electromagnetic propulsion.

Ship builders can't build a airplane. Airplane builders can't build spacecraft either. What's ingenious of the Wright Brothers, they figured out fundamental aerodynamics, propulsion mechanism in the air over a thousands experiments. Under great secrecy, they probably have managed the best minds in science and engineering field to develop interplanetary spacecraft and necessary technologies.

It's known fact that mainstream science went backward since the inception of Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Every year passes, more and more scientists abandon Theory of Relativity. This is new trend in intellectual community on the net. It's possible an organization such as thunderbolt project will do public demonstration of antigravity to provide real evidence how electromagnetic field affects gravity.

Paul A. LaViolette just finished fund raising to develop a prototype EM propulsion. The two scientists are working together.

http://etheric.com/minimum-contradictions-physics-nassikas/
Nassikas, A. A

This theoretical approach together with my studies of electrostatic asymmetrical reactionless thrusters, such as those developed by T. Townsend Brown and Alexander Frolov, led me to develop a magnetic asymmetrical reactionless thruster configured as a nozzle shaped superconductor.
http://etheric.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Thruster1-300x257.jpg

Paul A. LaViolette

Nassikas’ theory envisions that quantum space-time embodies an unmanifest reservoir of energy. Similarly, in SQK, the omnipresent transmuting ether serves as the vast Prime Mover of our physical universe that sustains all physical form and is ultimately the source of all energy that manifests in our universe.


Real scientists now catching up the forbidden technology. It will be a matter of time if enough people start supporting those scientists and engineers out of practical necessities.

[Nick Matkin]

http://http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0310/rosat_moon_big.jpg

Interesting image (first one in post above). But the moon does not generate x-rays (how could it unless is was some artificial body with some huge power source ;) ). Powerful lunar x-ray emissions would be easily detected on earth. That image only represents x-rays from the sun reflected by the moon's rocky surface.

Incidentally, I read somewhere that it became apparent that an artificial Schumann Resonance (SR) was required in space craft for the well-being of the astronauts. I guess this is easy fact to check. Nevertheless, I'd be surprised if it were necessary as the SR field strength is orders of magnitude below the ambient natural and man-made electromagnetic noise, and although not a biologist, I'd expect many other fields to have more effect on human and other life.

[Hughe]

This section of Moon film clips from Apollo 8 through to Apollo 17.
Each Moon footage happened before the launches of Apollo spacecrafts to the Moon.
The video don't have sound.
E14BfsIB6YI

Call 911. The lander is burning!
-r_lcGBdPPw

[Hughe]

Re-entry problem of long range missiles.

Would any sane man even consider Apollo's Moon landing in 1969?

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1980/11/20/the-myth-of-missile-accuracy/


From the moment the missile leaves its silo, no exterior system is guiding its course. No human hand, back on the ground, can interfere or correct its flight. Nor is any piece of equipment inside the missile taking bearings from some external point of reference. The missile depends for its guidance on inertial sensing. The simplest way of understanding this is to think of yourself sitting in an airplane looking at a glass of water. The movement of the water will reflect the angular movements of the plane. All that the inertial system in a missile essentially does is to compare the movements of a more sophisticated equivalent of the water in the glass with its programmed version of what those movements should be, if the rocket is going in the right direction. Undesirable variations are corrected accordingly, up until the moment the rocket motor burns out.

Once that happens, there is nothing that can be done. The warhead can receive no signal, and contains no targeting mechanism of its own. As can be understood, everything depends on the accuracy of the programmed data in the missile’s computer. If the missile’s flight were to take place in entirely predictable conditions, the inertial system would be perfectly satisfactory and no silo would be safe. But in reality the missile’s journey takes it through forces that either cannot be compensated for, or are entirely unpredictable, or are not understood.

During the flight of the missile, from launch to target, it is under the influence of two principal external factors: the pull of gravity and the drag of the atmosphere. Since the earth is not a perfect sphere and varies in density, its gravitational field is not constant. The inertial guidance system cannot tell the difference between the effect of its own motion and the effect of gravity.

If an unprogrammed variation in the earth’s gravitational force pulls the missile fractionally down, the guidance system has no way of distinguishing that movement from an equivalent force produced by an upward motion of the missile. Detecting what it records as an unprogrammed upward motion, the system adjusts the missile’s trajectory accordingly—off course.



The atmospheric forces affecting the missile present even greater problems, which appear insuperable even on a theoretical level. Detached from its rocket, the warhead hurtles toward its target at an initial speed of some 12,000 miles per hour, descending into the atmosphere at a relatively shallow angle. The atmosphere extends upward in irregular contours to anywhere from fifty to one hundred miles above the earth’s surface. Given its re-entry angle of about 25° the warhead has to penetrate the atmosphere for a distance ranging between 120 and 240 miles. This atmosphere is far from placid, and is largely unpredictable.

To take one example, which produces some twenty possible variables: a solar flare will drastically affect the density of the atmosphere. But the effect will not be constant; it will be determined by the season of the year, whether it is day or night, whether the patch of atmosphere in question is over snow or ice, and by meteorological conditions generally. Since it is impossible to isolate the effect of one variable—the interaction, let us say, between the solar flare and a positively charged cloud—and all the other variables (day/night, etc.) which condition the effect of the flare on the atmosphere, it is impossible even in theory to construct an accurate profile of the atmosphere.

Yet such a profile is essential if the guidance system is to release the warhead at the correct instant and angle to secure the desired results. What is true of solar flares is true of innumerable other, constantly changing meteorological events: the jet streams above 30,000 feet, barometric pressure, a thunderstorm anywhere along the re-entry trajectory, and so forth.

[Hughe]

Is this sarcastic joke of the website admin?

http://apolloscam.atspace.co.uk/

No such luck, however I uncovered the picture on right which clearly shows a moggy on the Moon. The soft ash, or charcoal which they used at LRC to create the FAKE dusty Moon surface was, of course, ideal for cats. As we all know cats like a soft, fine soil to do their "turn out" as it makes it easier for them to scrap it over afterwards. The local cats near to LRC must have been in 7th heaven finding such a purrfect place in which to do their thing.


http://apolloscam.atspace.co.uk/index_files/0340ab00.jpg

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/images16.html#M106
AS16-106-17340 (OF300) (176k or 1187k)

167:37:52 John and Charlie are about halfway from the Rover to House Rock and have stopped to take a sample. This is Charlie's "locator". John is standing with his knees slightly bent and the rake in his right hand. the Rover is in the distance above John's hands, with the high-gain antenna sticking up above the local horizon.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-106-17340HR.jpg

[Rha S ananda]

i guess my folder(ISS) from nasa ftp-server i downloaded ISS images jpg/tiff 66GB 44.883 files must all be fake ehh no
till they cut the live update to their server...
2013 somewhere, (pics from 2002 to 2013)

i grabbed many over a long period a time.. qued, and also noticed sizechanged for files i allready had.. kugh lol

http://imgur.com/eZsbb8c
http://imgur.com/QZKtJQB
http://imgur.com/dYcBA23


now its just empty

FlashFXP 4.0.0 (build 1492) [RC 2]

WinSock 2.0 -- OpenSSL 0.9.8b 04 May 2006
[L] Connecting to ISS ruimte -> DNS=eol.jsc.nasa.gov IP=192.68.196.38 PORT=21
[L] Connected to ISS ruimte
[L] 220-Microsoft FTP Service
[L] 220 This US Government computer is for authorized users only. By accessing this system you are consenting to complete monitoring with no expectation of privacy. Unauthorized access or use may subject you to disciplinary action and criminal prosecution.
[L] USER anonymous
[L] 331 Anonymous access allowed, send identity (e-mail name) as password.
[L] PASS (hidden)
[L] 230-This US Government computer is for authorized users only. By accessing this system you are consenting to complete monitoring with no expectation of privacy. Unauthorized access or use may subject you to disciplinary action and criminal prosecution.
[L] You are connected to server 1.
[L] 230 User logged in.
[L] SYST
[L] 215 Windows_NT
[L] FEAT
[L] 211-Extended features supported:
[L] LANG EN*
[L] UTF8
[L] AUTH TLS;TLS-C;SSL;TLS-P;
[L] PBSZ
[L] PROT C;P;
[L] CCC
[L] HOST
[L] SIZE
[L] MDTM
[L] REST STREAM
[L] 211 END
[L] PWD
[L] 257 "/" is current directory.
[L] TYPE A
[L] 200 Type set to A.
[L] PASV
[L] 227 Entering Passive Mode (192,68,196,38,218,16).
[L] Opening data connection IP: 192.68.196.38 PORT: 55824
[L] LIST -al
[L] 125 Data connection already open; Transfer starting.
[L] 226 Transfer complete.
[L] List Complete: 52 bytes in 1,36 seconds (0,0 KB/s)

[DeDukshyn]

http://http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0310/rosat_moon_big.jpg

Interesting image (first one in post above). But the moon does not generate x-rays (how could it unless is was some artificial body with some huge power source ;) ). Powerful lunar x-ray emissions would be easily detected on earth. That image only represents x-rays from the sun reflected by the moon's rocky surface.

Incidentally, I read somewhere that it became apparent that an artificial Schumann Resonance (SR) was required in space craft for the well-being of the astronauts. I guess this is easy fact to check. Nevertheless, I'd be surprised if it were necessary as the SR field strength is orders of magnitude below the ambient natural and man-made electromagnetic noise, and although not a biologist, I'd expect many other fields to have more effect on human and other life.

Correct, the image itself proves the moon does not emit x-rays, but only reflects the sun's ... ironically :)

[SailorMoon]

Hello everyone! I posted about this topic in a UFO thread, but no one seemed to want to communicate. (Thanks for the profile visits though, guys, lol :/...) Anyway, I took some photos of the moon in October of last year. I live in Ohio, and at the time, I was living outside of the city; inside of a new house development. You know, like cookie cutter, leave it to beaver types of neighborhoods. We had no large developments near us, really just mounds of dirt in all ways, and just dim lighting from everyone's identical street lamps. Corn fields for miles elsewhere. My roommate woke me up on the evening of October 25, 2015, because there was this magnificent effect the moon was causing at 11:13 p.m. I was really in awe, because in my 34 years on Earth, I hadn't quite seen anything like it. I took a few shots of it, and then posted it to facebook when I still had it. It was really amazing looking! I have been really getting back into the moon, the UFO's that originate from this planet (which I am thinking are ALL of them) and all things within that topic. David Icke, someone I truly trust and admire, was really the starting point of all of this. I decided to look at them last night. Haven't looked at them really since I took them. Well, I started messing with the lighting and contrast, highlights, shadows... and noticed something quite peculiar. A small object, that actually looks as if it is coming from our planet, is making its way DIRECTLY to the moon.. It moves so quickly, that within one minute (which is the timelapse that my timestamps indicate) it glides LEAPS towards the moon. In fact, it looks like it was just being sucked in! I am stupefied at what I captured without even knowing it. (Hehe, something tells me that it was no coincidence.....) Is there ANYONE, who can either lead me to someone or IS someone who would be interested in analyzing these photos? I am in the awakening process, DEEP, so I have no ties to society other than work, school, and being in the public. If I sound crazy, I totes don't blame you. I feel like I am going mad sometimes!

Love and Blessing all. Stay in the light.

Peace

[Hughe]

When human leaves Earth's electromagnetic environment, various health related issues will occur.

s3qY5ewHAeo

[Flash]

Ask Mojo, a member here, he might be able to help (he is in UFO pic all over his head lol)


Hello everyone! I posted about this topic in a UFO thread, but no one seemed to want to communicate. (Thanks for the profile visits though, guys, lol :/...) Anyway, I took some photos of the moon in October of last year. I live in Ohio, and at the time, I was living outside of the city; inside of a new house development. You know, like cookie cutter, leave it to beaver types of neighborhoods. We had no large developments near us, really just mounds of dirt in all ways, and just dim lighting from everyone's identical street lamps. Corn fields for miles elsewhere. My roommate woke me up on the evening of October 25, 2015, because there was this magnificent effect the moon was causing at 11:13 p.m. I was really in awe, because in my 34 years on Earth, I hadn't quite seen anything like it. I took a few shots of it, and then posted it to facebook when I still had it. It was really amazing looking! I have been really getting back into the moon, the UFO's that originate from this planet (which I am thinking are ALL of them) and all things within that topic. David Icke, someone I truly trust and admire, was really the starting point of all of this. I decided to look at them last night. Haven't looked at them really since I took them. Well, I started messing with the lighting and contrast, highlights, shadows... and noticed something quite peculiar. A small object, that actually looks as if it is coming from our planet, is making its way DIRECTLY to the moon.. It moves so quickly, that within one minute (which is the timelapse that my timestamps indicate) it glides LEAPS towards the moon. In fact, it looks like it was just being sucked in! I am stupefied at what I captured without even knowing it. (Hehe, something tells me that it was no coincidence.....) Is there ANYONE, who can either lead me to someone or IS someone who would be interested in analyzing these photos? I am in the awakening process, DEEP, so I have no ties to society other than work, school, and being in the public. If I sound crazy, I totes don't blame you. I feel like I am going mad sometimes!

Love and Blessing all. Stay in the light.

Peace

[Star Tsar]

Hello everyone! I posted about this topic in a UFO thread, but no one seemed to want to communicate.

Ahem there is only one true Ufology thread here on Avalon! :heh: :heh:

:boink: :ufo: :loco: :star: :heart: 's

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?3596-Up-At-The-Ranch-And-Beyond&p=1105030#post1105030

:focus:

[Rha S ananda]

does anyone wanna copy archive my 66GB ISS ftp archive? incl that ship james horak showed.. talked re..
and i catch earth orbit....


as now time that ftp NASA.gov is empty and no ISS updates 24/7....

[Star Tsar]

This news surely must kill off any Fake ISS conspiracy now?


NASA

News Conference | NASA Opens International Space Station to Commercial Opportunities

Published 7th June 2019

During a June 7 news conference at Nasdaq in New York City, NASA announced that the International Space Station is now open for commercial business. A new policy provides the opportunity for up to two short-duration private astronaut missions to the space station beginning as early as 2020, if the market supports it. The policy also, for the first time, includes prices for use of U.S. government resources to pursue commercial and marketing activities aboard the station. The agency’s goal is to foster a robust ecosystem in low-Earth orbit through which it can purchase services as one of many customers. This will allow NASA to focus resources on its Artemis missions to land the first woman and next man on the Moon by 2024.

skhYJiIu0Qw

[Nick Matkin]

This news surely must kill off any Fake ISS conspiracy now?

You'd think so wouldn't you? But some conspiritards are very resilient. They'll only claim tourists are presented with some sort of elaborate simulator.