OverUnity Research

In this thread we discuss NASA's deceptions,and why they would have to do such a thing.
Also there outrageous costs in !so called! development of new toys-eg,there mars helicopter,with a cost of $80,000,000   C.C
Also some rocket science lol.

Should be a hoot.

Ok,well im going to start with the waving flags on the moon.
Now,in all cases we see the moon walker believers use the same video's to debunk those that believe it was a hoax-->as i do.
Those video's are the one's where the astronot's are driving the flag into the surface of the moon-apparently.
And of course we will see the flag flapping about when there spinning the pole back and forth trying to get it into the ground.
But the one video they cannot debunk is the one where the astronot is jumping past the flag and creates a draft that causes the flag to wave.
The question the believers cannot answer is--how exactly is a draft created by the astronot that causes the flag to wave?
Watch from 20 seconds in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oztqNgNqiR8

Clearly not an environment void of an atmosphere.
Clearly not on the moon.


Brad

Now we look at some Impossible Manoeuvres by the moon walker module

We all know how it work's-force,mass acceleration,or in this case-deceleration
Note how the module comes to a stop instantly while rotating.
We all know this does not happen when slowing a rotating mass in space.

We apply a given force to a mass(in this case the force is applied by the positioning rockets)and that mass will start to accelerate.
This acceleration is not instant. We then apply an opposite force to decelerate that mass,and this also happens over time.
But not with NASA  C.C. There rotating mass can make an instant stop in space lol.

Another the believers cannot explain,and they know they cant ,as the lays of physics says it is impossible unless that mass collides with an unmovable object.
Notice at 1:45 there floppy satellite dish nearly falls off. Bottom right hand corner of the craft.
This is such a comedy,and people actually believe this crap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2Mc4Tg-mtg


Brad

You have to ask your self-->if they can do it,why fake it ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZjNV5WRagc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZjNV5WRagc

We know it's not just a glitch with the feed,as it is only ever the objects that are moving,and the astronot's.
The inserted fixed background picture that replaces the green screen never glitches.


Brad

When the astronot's slip up on real location.

But the hair of the women on the ISS is what i love lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0zxOKCSGrA

Real hair in 0 G.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9pkjHWAZLs&t=247s

NASA ISS hair in 0 G lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIjNfZbUYu8&t=31s

Actual 0 G curly hair hair

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBrCmxPbcbM

NASA 0 G curly hair lol. Nothing like copious amounts of hair gel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv_kLaFd_F8

If ya can't make it-fake it.

Thanks to the internet,and HD,we can now catch NASA red handed at there deceptions.

First point of interest 1:49 -->Astronaot's grabbing and putting away hat's that are not there  C.C

Second point of interest 3:40 -->astronot flying around in the background,but NASA forgot to remove his harness links,both mid section,and his leg harnes straps lol.

Third point of interest 4:30--> astronot grabs other astronot's harness cable to steady him  C.C

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4p3I1lseX0

But NASA never fakes anything-right  O0

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.25, 07:02:36

The question the believers cannot answer is--how exactly is a draft created by the astronot that causes the flag to wave?
Watch from 20 seconds in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oztqNgNqiR8

Clearly not an environment void of an atmosphere.
Clearly not on the moon.

He brushed passed the flag. (Because of the lack of damping, any perturbation will last longer).

Can you see the stars when in space ?

Here we hear from NASA employees that answer that question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_fLkL_kS9U

Well that was no help,just more lies from NASA.

But we can work it out for our self--well most of us can anyway.
I wonder as to which NASA employees the believers will believe ?.

Anyway,the answer is yes,you can see trillions of stars from space,even in the middle of the day so to speak,as there is no such thing as day and night in space--that is an earth thing.
As long as you have your back to the sun,and looking into space,you can see the stars better than you can from earth on a clear moonless night. How do we know this?,well there is no such thing as light pollution in space.

Thing is,you cannot see light it self,you can only see the objects that light hits,as light is an electromagnetic wave.
As space is a vacuum,there are no objects for light to hit,such as dust or moisture particles,and so no light pollution. So as long as you have the sun behind you,and not looking in the direction of the earth or moon,then the stars would be very visible.

The same applies on the moon,as there is no light pollution on the moon,as there is no atmosphere.
So if you looked up into the night sky from the moon,you would see a sky full of stars--unless your from NASA,then you don't get to see any stars from the moon.

Here is a simple test for you.
On a dark moonless night,go and stand out in the street with a street light behind you. Now look up and see if you can see the stars,even through the light pollution of the earths atmosphere.
You will see stars with no problem at all--unless you work for NASA,although a few NASA employees have the guts to tell the truth.


Brad

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.02.25, 11:32:30

He brushed passed the flag. (Because of the lack of damping, any perturbation will last longer).

Nice try,but he is clearly 3-4 feet away from the flag

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.25, 11:42:51
Nice try,but he is clearly 3-4 feet away from the flag

How can you tell?

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.25, 07:02:36
In this thread we discuss NASA's deceptions,and why they would have to do such a thing.
Also there outrageous costs in !so called! development of new toys-eg,there mars helicopter,with a cost of $80,000,000   C.C
Also some rocket science lol.

Should be a hoot.

Ok,well im going to start with the waving flags on the moon.
Now,in all cases we see the moon walker believers use the same video's to debunk those that believe it was a hoax-->as i do.
Those video's are the one's where the astronot's are driving the flag into the surface of the moon-apparently.
And of course we will see the flag flapping about when there spinning the pole back and forth trying to get it into the ground.
But the one video they cannot debunk is the one where the astronot is jumping past the flag and creates a draft that causes the flag to wave.
The question the believers cannot answer is--how exactly is a draft created by the astronot that causes the flag to wave?
Watch from 20 seconds in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oztqNgNqiR8

Clearly not an environment void of an atmosphere.
Clearly not on the moon.


Brad

ok looks like a fake vid. I'll reserve judgement till I've read the rest of the posts

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.25, 07:19:19
Now we look at some Impossible Manoeuvres by the moon walker module

We all know how it work's-force,mass acceleration,or in this case-deceleration
Note how the module comes to a stop instantly while rotating.
We all know this does not happen when slowing a rotating mass in space.

We apply a given force to a mass(in this case the force is applied by the positioning rockets)and that mass will start to accelerate.
This acceleration is not instant. We then apply an opposite force to decelerate that mass,and this also happens over time.
But not with NASA  C.C. There rotating mass can make an instant stop in space lol.

Another the believers cannot explain,and they know they cant ,as the lays of physics says it is impossible unless that mass collides with an unmovable object.
Notice at 1:45 there floppy satellite dish nearly falls off. Bottom right hand corner of the craft.
This is such a comedy,and people actually believe this crap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2Mc4Tg-mtg


Brad

some those look they were on wires and faked. I would say I have not checked the source of these vids. To me it just looks like filming of models .

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.25, 10:04:07

But NASA never fakes anything-right  O0

In my view, wrong.

My theory is that something happened with part of a batch of film and they ended up with, possibly, insufficient exclusive shots to supply all the exclusive pics they were contracted to do. To satisfy this, they cobbled up some pics, even including one very famous iconic shot.

When it comes to the "Did they go..." issue, with around 400,000 employees involved around the world, there is no way they could have kept such a deception intact for half a century. They don't have the skill set to do so. During that time, think of all the death bed confessions that there would have been.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.02.25, 11:59:26
In my view, wrong.

My theory is that something happened with part of a batch of film and they ended up with, possibly, insufficient exclusive shots to supply all the exclusive pics they were contracted to do. To satisfy this, they cobbled up some pics, even including one very famous iconic shot.

Ah,so you admit to NASA faking !some! of there stuff?.

QuoteWhen it comes to the "Did they go..." issue, with around 400,000 employees involved around the world, there is no way they could have kept such a deception intact for half a century. They don't have the skill set to do so.

Ever heard of !a need to know !basis ?
My old workplace had just 9 employees,so you would think it easy for just 9 to know what each other is doing.
But in reality,the parts man in the parts store had no idea as to what the mechanics were doing less than 50 meters away,nor did he have any idea as to what the office chick was doing just 20 meters away. In fact,he did not even know if she was there or not.

Now we have a company with say 6000 employees spread over half the world,and you think that each and every one of them is going to know what the other is doing ? lol.

QuoteDuring that time, think of all the death bed confessions that there would have been.

I wonder how many of them had children and grandchildren ? ,if you get my drift.'
And i wonder how many of them were totally devoted to NASA and the US government ?

Example--If you once cheated on your wife during your long life together,would you tell her when on your death bed?. Would that be the last thing you say to her?. When you are totally devoted to something,and know that such words would only bring harm,you would not say a word about on your death bed. You would take it to your grave.

Quote from: JimBoot on 2021.02.25, 11:49:33
ok looks like a fake vid. I'll reserve judgement till I've read the rest of the posts

All videos are from the NASA archives.

Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.25, 07:02:36
In this thread we discuss NASA's deceptions,and why they would have to do such a thing.
Also there outrageous costs in !so called! development of new toys-eg,there mars helicopter,with a cost of $80,000,000

Independence Day - President Thomas Whitmore: "I don't understand, where does all this come from? How do you get funding for something like this?"
Julius Levinson: "You don't actually think they spend $20,000.00 on a hammer, $30,000.00 on a toilet seat do you?"

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.25, 12:58:42
All videos are from the NASA archives.

Brad

Then link to the NASA archive, not to the home of every fake in the world.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.02.25, 14:37:19
Then link to the NASA archive, not to the home of every fake in the world.

Ah,so every youtube video is a fake then?
Oh that's right. There only real when you use them .

Quote from: Cadman on 2021.02.25, 13:29:25

Independence Day - President Thomas Whitmore: "I don't understand, where does all this come from? How do you get funding for something like this?"
Julius Levinson: "You don't actually think they spend $20,000.00 on a hammer, $30,000.00 on a toilet seat do you?"

Indeed cadman.
But there are those here that actually believe NASA's budget accounting.

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.25, 14:42:18
Ah,so every youtube video is a fake then?

That is not what I said.

What is the problem with getting your videos from the source?

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.02.25, 14:53:29
That is not what I said.

What is the problem with getting your videos from the source?

So rather than spend 5 minutes using videos some one else has already found in the NASA archive,you would rather i spend 5 hours looking for a video some one else has already found.  C.C
Nice try,but no.

If you think there fake,then you have to prove they are.
So you spend 5 hours going through NASA's video's,and then feel free to post any you find showing the ones i posted being doctored in some way.


Brad.

Pictures taken from the Chinese moon rover don't show stars in the dark sky either.

https://www.space.com/42902-china-moon-far-side-rover-yutu-2-tracks.html

QuotePictures taken from the Chinese moon rover don't show stars in the dark sky either.
https://www.space.com/42902-china-moon-far-side-rover-yutu-2-tracks.html

https://www.planetary.org/articles/why-are-there-no-stars#:~:text=Photographs%20of%20the%20night%20sky,was%20a%20minutes%2Dlong%20exposure.
Why are there no stars in most space images?

Damn, that has to be some kind of record because I found a valid scientific explanation in about 20 seconds flat.

I can only think that if more people spent there time on free energy research rather than making up nonsensical conspiracy theories the world would be a better place. This is embarrassing to watch...

Regards
AC

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.25, 15:20:02
So rather than spend 5 minutes using videos some one else has already found in the NASA archive,you would rather i spend 5 hours looking for a video some one else has already found.

It is about getting a genuine video, not one with discontinuities showing it has been tampered with.

Tinman,

You are so predictable and easily triggered.  I am surprised it took as long as it did for you to start this thread.

In the years leading up to the RT fiasco, I followed along at overunity.com and gained a great deal of respect for you.  I, as I am sure others did as well, found you to be an excellent experimentalist with an open and scientific mind that was quick to devise experiments to isolate variables while making your investigations.  I watched as more formally trained individuals (.99. MH. TK, Mark (RIP), and others) helped you understand your measurements, sources of errors, etc. as you were quick to grasp and learn.  I was quite impressed.

Then, after the RT fiasco and your fake moon landing thread, it became obvious to me that there are certain subjects, three that I am now aware of, that will trigger you every time and cause you to become totally biased and unscientific.  It seems you have allowed your beliefs regarding these subjects to cloud your judgement.  It is a shame that you do not apply the objective investigative skills I once knew you to have to these subjects.

Over on the Mars nuclear war thread, you trivialize achieving Mars orbit, or indeed landing a rover, as being no big deal, its been done thousands of times.  Of course this can't include Mars, because we haven't been there thousands of times.  Mars has been tough.  Russia gave up after many failures, and the US has had quite a few failures as well, one particularly embarrassing, but the US prodded along.

It is indeed becoming easier (not easy) to get to Mars, and space in general, mainly because of NASA.  Almost without exclusion, all the data collected from every launch of a scientific package deployed by NASA (and its failures) has been placed in the public domain for scientists to use all over the world.  That ever growing knowledge base is allowing other countries and private companies to get in the space game as well.  That knowledge base came at a very high cost in terms of both lives and treasure.

Some here scoff at the $80 million dollar cost of the Mars 'copter, but will spend no time investigating why it cost that much.  In fact, that $80 million dollar project cost is actually $85 million dollars, the additional $5 million being roughly a month of operational expenses after deployment.  For sure there is some degree of bloat in the NASA budget, but, as other US budget items go, the NASA budget is one of the more transparent budgets by way of openly published data or via FOIA requests.  NASA maintains some rather costly facilities which are constantly upgraded to maintain currency.  With regard to the $5 million operating cost of Ingenuity, if a given project requires maintaining a team of Engineers, software developers, and duplicate hardware or simulators, using NASA hardware at NASA facilities, and needing bandwidth on NASA maintained deep space tracking and communication networks, that project has to share in the annual costs to maintain all those facilities and associated personnel.  Space is not cheap.  That is why up until recently, it required state sponsorship to get into space.  But, again, due to the sharing of the data gleaned from those state sponsored programs, even that is changing as private companies throw their hat in the ring. 

So, if it is becoming a trivial matter to get to Mars, as you would on the one hand have us believe, we can, primarily, thank NASA.  But, on the other hand, you also seem to think its all fakery and lies.

Now you want to throw the ISS into your fake space crap, which means you need to change this thread title from "Deceptions of NASA" to something along the lines of "Worldwide Conspiracy to Fake the ISS", because many countries have been involved with the ISS.



I read your thread this morning while having my coffee, and followed all the provided links.  At first, I found it all quite humorous and a bit entertaining.  But as my day continued I became a bit sad, considering that you, of all people, would display the degree of ignorance depicted by the following post:

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.25, 07:41:07
You have to ask your self-->if they can do it,why fake it ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZjNV5WRagc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZjNV5WRagc

We know it's not just a glitch with the feed,as it is only ever the objects that are moving,and the astronot's.
The inserted fixed background picture that replaces the green screen never glitches.


Brad

The bold portion in the above quote should have been your first clue.  Anyone with even the most basic understanding of video compression and error correction would immediately recognize these as compression and dropout related artifacts.  That these "proof of fakery" artifacts happen only, or mostly, to moving objects should have made that very obvious. 

There are now hundreds of video compression algorithms, but the most basic tenet of these compression techniques is that only those items in a given frame that change (as in "move") from frame to frame are transmitted.  In other words, any video data that does not move (i.e., is the same as in the previous frame) is not transmitted, but instead copied from the previous frame.  Only the difference between two subsequent frames is transmitted.   If a dropout occurs for some number of frames, it is only the changing, i.e., "moving" objects that are lost.

Surely you have seen similar compression/motion related artifacts from satellite TV dropouts and poorly edited (hard cuts/starts) posted videos where some amount of time is required for the entire frame to reassemble, particularly with regard to moving objects.

Anyone that is using these artifacts as proof of fakery or green screen usage is not even bothering to understand what it is they are actually seeing.

What a shame,
PW

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.25, 15:20:02
So rather than spend 5 minutes using videos some one else has already found in the NASA archive,you would rather i spend 5 hours looking for a video some one else has already found.  C.C
Nice try,but no.

If you think there fake,then you have to prove they are.
So you spend 5 hours going through NASA's video's,and then feel free to post any you find showing the ones i posted being doctored in some way.


Brad.

So you think there are not people or countries that would edit or make fake videos in order to make America look bad?    I call your posts on this subject all balderdash.   It seems for once I agree with paul-r and allcanadian  :o

The Major Powers on Planet Earth each have their own, Alien Collaborated, Secret Space Programs.

NASA and comparable other Space Agencies of other Nations are indeed Institutions of Deception.

Deception is a Top Down program.

Each of the Agencies employs good and honorable People who are intentionally mis-informed and Limited in their pursuit of Expertise.

The Secret Space Programs routinely interact with the Moon, Mars, Saturn and its Moons and other Planets.

And beyond.

Star Trek and Star Wars are not entirely Fictitious.


When it is Time ALL will be revealed.

America, as it presently exists, (Top Down) is Bad.  Very Bad.

Quote from: muDped on 2021.02.25, 19:17:15
The Major Powers on Planet Earth each have their own, Alien Collaborated, Secret Space Programs.

NASA and comparable other Space Agencies of other Nations are indeed Institutions of Deception.

Deception is a Top Down program.

Each of the Agencies employs good and honorable People who are intentionally mis-informed and Limited in their pursuit of Expertise.

The Secret Space Programs routinely interact with the Moon, Mars, Saturn and its Moons and other Planets.

And beyond.

Star Trek and Star Wars are not entirely Fictitious.


When it is Time ALL will be revealed.

America, as it presently exists, (Top Down) is Bad.  Very Bad.

If this is indeed true, then it is such a well kept secret and  well orchestrated deception by such a large group of people that we can do little but go along for the ride.

Even the hundreds of thousands of NASA employees and contractors are apparently also kept in the dark as they are forced to make "great achievements" with their crude and human engineered rockets, rovers and landers.

PW

It's not public knowledge that the US Government has their own UFO's, space bases on the moon and Mars, as well as the technology to eliminate every problem we face today.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2021.02.25, 20:25:12
It's not public knowledge that the US Government has their own UFO's, space bases on the moon and Mars, as well as the technology to eliminate every problem we face today.

But apparently, only a chosen few, such as yourself, are privy to such information...

Quote from: picowatt on 2021.02.25, 19:34:33
If this is indeed true, then it is such a well kept secret and  well orchestrated deception by such a large group of people that we can do little but go along for the ride.

Even the hundreds of thousands of NASA employees and contractors are apparently also kept in the dark as they are forced to make "great achievements" with their crude and human engineered rockets, rovers and landers.

PW

Yes, PW, and one might ask: Who pays for these alleged space programmes and how is it done?

Quote from: picowatt on 2021.02.25, 20:30:51
But apparently, only a chosen few, such as yourself, are privy to such information...

Anyone who can read can find it.

Search for things like "Secret Space Program" and "Breakaway Civilization".

Quote from: Grumpy on 2021.02.25, 22:12:25
Anyone who can read can find it.

Search for things like "Secret Space Program" and "Breakaway Civilization".

So it actually is "public knowledge"...

Make up your mind Grumpy.

PW

Quote from: Grumpy on 2021.02.25, 22:12:25
Anyone who can read can find it.

Search for things like "Secret Space Program" and "Breakaway Civilization".

If you do, you get a load of flakes who are just as insubstantial + some military stuff like the X-37B.

Quote from: PW
If this is indeed true, then it is such a well kept secret and  well orchestrated deception by such a large group of people that we can do little but go along for the ride.

While it is indeed "Secret" and "well orchestrated" it is not a large group of People.

Quote from: PW
Even the hundreds of thousands of NASA employees and contractors are apparently also kept in the dark as they are forced to make "great achievements" with their crude and human engineered rockets, rovers and landers.

Keeping People "in the dark" and confined to their "strictly limited area of research" is precisely the Function of High Control Compartmentalization.

"Crude and human engineered" is the name of the game.  It is a "Show."

Those who haven't been a part of Highly Classified Compartmentalized Programs are not able to comprehend.

In many cases "violators" are summarily executed.

"Leaks" are virtually impossible until it is time for limited disclosure.

Quote from: Paul-R
Who pays for these alleged space programmes and how is it done?

The "unaccounted for loss of Trillions" confessed to by Rumsfeld on 9-10-2001.

The day before the "evidence" was destroyed.  And the "accountants seeking answers" were killed.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2021.02.25, 16:03:35
https://www.planetary.org/articles/why-are-there-no-stars#:~:text=Photographs%20of%20the%20night%20sky,was%20a%20minutes%2Dlong%20exposure.
Why are there no stars in most space images?

Damn, that has to be some kind of record because I found a valid scientific explanation in about 20 seconds flat.

I can only think that if more people spent there time on free energy research rather than making up nonsensical conspiracy theories the world would be a better place. This is embarrassing to watch...

Regards
AC

Chem trails were also called a conspiracy theory by the !know all's!,until such time as the government came clean.
Then the Embarrassment was placed on those that called it a conspiracy lol.

Quote from: e2matrix on 2021.02.25, 19:14:56
So you think there are not people or countries that would edit or make fake videos in order to make America look bad?    I call your posts on this subject all balderdash.   It seems for once I agree with paul-r and allcanadian  :o

Well as most of the video's are from American's them self,then you have a problem.
These are not doctored video's,they are clearly the actions taken by the Astronot's.
And some of these happened on live feed's,so how exactly do you doctor those ?.

 author=picowatt link=topic=4082.msg88269#msg88269 date=1614275396]


I will try and address your concerns 1 by 1.
First--

QuoteYou are so predictable and easily triggered.

Well when it come's to bullshit,then you bet your ass i will expose that bullshit.

QuoteIn the years leading up to the RT fiasco

What fiasco ?
Why not be true and disclose exactly what happened.
You asked me to carry out some tests,which i did to your very instruction's.
It only became a !fiasco! because i got results that did not comply with your indoctrinated belief's.
Had you continued to follow the discussion about those result's,you would of understood as to what was going on. It is your's and many others belief that in order to have a device that show's such result's can't be real,as you assume energy must have been being created,which we !all! know is not possible. So it would seem that the tests you asked me to carry out were some sort of trap,some sort of means to expose my work as some sort of fraud. But when there was no evidence of that,due to me carrying out the test in one !uncut! video shot,that is when the fiasco started,and not by me. It became a fiasco only to people like you,that have this firm belief that in order for a device to produce those result's it must be creating energy,and your belief do not allow for this,and so it became !some how! a fake to those like your self,regardless of the fact that the tests were carried out under your instructions.

Here is the problem we have to this day. All those like you have determined that in order for a self sustaining device to work,that can output some degree of extra energy,it must have to create energy. Don't get me wrong here,i appreciate all that i have learned from people like your self,but you and the others were not teaching me all i needed to know. In fact,having this !theory! that the device had to created energy to be self sustaining and able to deliver some value of excess energy drummed into me by guys like you was doing more harm than good,as you eventually end up with tunnel vision that this is all that there is. But when you step away,and you start using your own brain,the world once again opens up to different possibilities. I am not constrained to your belief's,and this allows for much more than the narrow thinking you may have. You are stuck on this !OU=created energy! thing,where as i am not.
Has the thought ever occurred to you that all you have to do is to create a continual or pulsed imbalance  rather than create energy in order to have a self sustaining device ?

Quote, I followed along at overunity.com and gained a great deal of respect for you.  I, as I am sure others did as well, found you to be an excellent experimentalist with an open and scientific mind that was quick to devise experiments to isolate variables while making your investigations.  I watched as more formally trained individuals (.99. MH. TK, Mark (RIP), and others) helped you understand your measurements, sources of errors, etc. as you were quick to grasp and learn.  I was quite impressed.

But now,because i have a different view than your's on matters i think are critical,you have lost that respect and impression ?.

QuoteThen, after the RT fiasco and your fake moon landing thread, it became obvious to me that there are certain subjects, three that I am now aware of, that will trigger you every time and cause you to become totally biased and unscientific.  It seems you have allowed your beliefs regarding these subjects to cloud your judgement.  It is a shame that you do not apply the objective investigative skills I once knew you to have to these subjects.

And the very same could be said about you,where your need to believe clouds your judgement.

I am using the scientific method,like calculating how much lift the mars helicopter would have to have to fly on mars. But you think it is easily done,where a drone can produce enough thrust to lift over the needed 30 times it's own weight in order to fly in the martian atmosphere.
I carried out some calculations,and i posted the data of actual high end heavy lift drones,which exceeded that of the mars helicopter drone.
You on the other hand posted your findings on some !as you put it! quick napkin calculation's,and then posted thrust data of a plane with a 134kw engine. So i ask,who is not using the scientific method here?
Who is letting the love for NASA to cloud there judgement ?.

QuoteOver on the Mars nuclear war thread, you trivialize achieving Mars orbit, or indeed landing a rover, as being no big deal, its been done thousands of times.  Of course this can't include Mars, because we haven't been there thousands of times.  Mars has been tough.  Russia gave up after many failures, and the US has had quite a few failures as well, one particularly embarrassing, but the US prodded along.

It is the same as everything--people loose interest after it has been done.
And it is like riding a bike--the first time your parents cheer with joy,but a month later it is hardly mentioned.
https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/waning-interest

QuoteIt is indeed becoming easier (not easy) to get to Mars, and space in general, mainly because of NASA.  Almost without exclusion, all the data collected from every launch of a scientific package deployed by NASA (and its failures) has been placed in the public domain for scientists to use all over the world.  That ever growing knowledge base is allowing other countries and private companies to get in the space game as well.  That knowledge base came at a very high cost in terms of both lives and treasure.

This is what peev's me off--NASA this NASA that.
But the only reason NASA ever got into space in the first place,was all thanks to a member of the enemy--Wernher von Braun. NASA obviously did not have the brains needed to get man into space,they needed a man from the enemy-Germany.
Who put the first satellite in space?. Who put the first man in orbit ?
NASA is claimed to be so great,yet they couldn't even build a heavy lift rocket them selves.
But we are all to believe that the very same NASA put man on the moon  C.C

QuoteSome here scoff at the $80 million dollar cost of the Mars 'copter, but will spend no time investigating why it cost that much.  In fact, that $80 million dollar project cost is actually $85 million dollars, the additional $5 million being roughly a month of operational expenses after deployment.  For sure there is some degree of bloat in the NASA budget, but, as other US budget items go, the NASA budget is one of the more transparent budgets by way of openly published data or via FOIA requests.  NASA maintains some rather costly facilities which are constantly upgraded to maintain currency.  With regard to the $5 million operating cost of Ingenuity, if a given project requires maintaining a team of Engineers, software developers, and duplicate hardware or simulators, using NASA hardware at NASA facilities, and needing bandwidth on NASA maintained deep space tracking and communication networks, that project has to share in the annual costs to maintain all those facilities and associated personnel.  Space is not cheap.  That is why up until recently, it required state sponsorship to get into space.  But, again, due to the sharing of the data gleaned from those state sponsored programs, even that is changing as private companies throw their hat in the ring.

Yes,i am one of those that scoff's.
Where does this $80,000,000 come from?-->yes,the people.
It is sad when the mindset is to spend $80,000,000 on a drone that !!may!! fly,and make about 5 x 90 second flights on a planet we will not get to for at least another 50 year's,when that $80,000,000 could have been spent on saving the lives of 100's of thousand's of starving children world wide,or housed thousands of homeless people in america. But here you are,justifying the $80,000,000 spent on a worthless drone that in reality would cost about 5k today to design and build<-- and that's a fact.

QuoteSo, if it is becoming a trivial matter to get to Mars, as you would on the one hand have us believe, we can, primarily, thank NASA.  But, on the other hand, you also seem to think its all fakery and lies.

No,you can't thank NASA.
NASA couldn't even design a rocket to get man into space.
You think the mars helicopter is going to fly on mar's,then provide actual data on the power to weight ratio actually needed in order for it to achieve this.
Start here in earth conditions,and provide a link to any helicopter or drone that can lift 30 times it's own weight,as that is the value of thrust needed to achieve this flight on mars.
No point in providing the thrust of a 134kw plane engine,as we both know it would not fly on mars,not can it take of vertically.

QuoteNow you want to throw the ISS into your fake space crap, which means you need to change this thread title from "Deceptions of NASA" to something along the lines of "Worldwide Conspiracy to Fake the ISS", because many countries have been involved with the ISS.
I read your thread this morning while having my coffee, and followed all the provided links.  At first, I found it all quite humorous and a bit entertaining.  But as my day continued I became a bit sad, considering that you, of all people, would display the degree of ignorance depicted by the following post:
The bold portion in the above quote should have been your first clue.  Anyone with even the most basic understanding of video compression and error correction would immediately recognize these as compression and dropout related artifacts.  That these "proof of fakery" artifacts happen only, or mostly, to moving objects should have made that very obvious.

It is odd how the very same thing happened with me.
I too was reading your post while having a coffe,and was also saddened to see you need to believe has thrown all your common sense out the window.

You know as well as i do that any sane person would see the deception in those video's i posted.
Fact 1- in some of them,some of the actual equipment along side the astronot's also glitches,leaving the greenscreen projected background completely in tack and clear.
Fact 2- You never addressed the very clear video's showing 1 astronot grabbing the cables attached to the other astronot carrying out a somersault to stablize him.
Fact 3-You never address the astronot grabbing and putting a hat on the shelf that does not even exist.

You seem to pick and choose what you wish to address,and as always with believers like you,they only ever address what they !may! be able to explain.

Please watch this--but im guessing this is fake as well
Some one went to all this trouble to put this video together in there back room-Right?
Problem is,all those people are real,and this video is real. Nothing like a chroma key screen behind you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQC_eZPQFzI

Why have a chroma key screen behind you?

From 0:44

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnvMJckEqYE

QuoteSurely you have seen similar compression/motion related artifacts from satellite TV dropouts and poorly edited (hard cuts/starts) posted videos where some amount of time is required for the entire frame to reassemble, particularly with regard to moving objects.

Sure.
But have never seen grown men playing with invisible hats,or a need for cables to hold up astronots when there !suppose! to be in 0G.
Nor have i seen hair act like the females astronots hair in 0G-video proof  already provided for all these.

1:50 The invisible hat. That is no glitch PW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4p3I1lseX0

NASA hair v actual 0G hair

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0zxOKCSGrA

Real hair in 0 G.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9pkjHWAZLs&t=247s

NASA ISS hair in 0 G lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIjNfZbUYu8&t=31s

Actual 0 G curly hair hair

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBrCmxPbcbM

NASA 0 G curly hair lol. Nothing like copious amounts of hair gel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv_kLaFd_F8

If ya can't make it-fake it.

QuoteWhat a shame,

Yes it is. A mind as bright as yours so easily clouded with the need to believe.
NASA is like God for some,where as the need or want to believe excludes all science and common sense.


Brad

Quote from: Grumpy on 2021.02.25, 15:47:50
Pictures taken from the Chinese moon rover don't show stars in the dark sky either.

https://www.space.com/42902-china-moon-far-side-rover-yutu-2-tracks.html

Well half of NASA is lying.

To quote the first man on the moon !apparently!
0:48--> The sky is a deep black when viewed from the moon as it is when viewed within the space between the earth and the moon.

Directly after-Neil deGrasse Tyson . He is an American astrophysicist, planetary scientist, author, and science communicator.
Since 1996, he has been the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space in New York City. The center is part of the American Museum of Natural History, where Tyson founded the Department of Astrophysics in 1997 and has been a research associate in the department since 2003.

Quote: 1:05-->Since the moon has no atmosphere,then a day time picture-if your there in the day time on the moon,then you see a full night  sky full of stars,even with the sun in the sky as well (which is exactly as i said it should be a few posts back,as there is no particles in the vacuum of space to create light pollution,and you cannot see light it self).

Neil Armstrong 1:16 --> We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface.

ETC-ETC-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os3H8aWaJAo

Although there are some here that will not like this,Neil Armstrong and many other NASA employees are lying.
We know this because we know there is no such thing as light pollution in space,and as long as you are not directly looking at the source of the light,you will see a sky full of stars.
So Neil is lying when he says you cannot see stars from the moons surface or in the space between the earth and moon. The question then becomes-->if he is lying about that,then what else is he lying about?.

The believers do not like facts being presented to them,even though the truth is placed right there in front of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZUF7qgSOJM


Brad

Quote from: muDped on 2021.02.26, 02:24:01
Quote from: Paul-R
Who pays for these alleged space programmes and how is it done?


The "unaccounted for loss of Trillions" confessed to by Rumsfeld on 9-10-2001.

The day before the "evidence" was destroyed.  And the "accountants seeking answers" were killed

Where did you get this from?
Why didn't Rumsfeld stop the flkow of money?
Why did he not hand the matter over to the FBI?

There are those here that seem to think a project or hoax this large would have been found out,due to the very large number of people working on the project.

Well i give you the Manhattan Project.

QuoteAs the only person knowledgeable about the entire project, Groves stood at the pinnacle of power. He controlled the project's pace, priorities, and direction through his decisions. No one could travel from one site to another without the general's permission. Knowledge was compartmentalized. Workers were told only what they needed to know and were forbidden to discuss their jobs with anyone other than designated supervisors.
Scientists, used to the free exchange of ideas, rebelled against the compartmentalization. At Los Alamos, Oppenheimer insisted that weekly scientific colloquia and other exchanges were essential to solve difficult problems. But this openness among the top echelon of scientists at Los Alamos was an exception and was contained "inside the fence." For everyone else, it was "Stick to your knitting!"

https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/security-and-secrecy

This is how easily it can be done.
The Manhattan Project employed over 120,000 Americans,but only one person knew what the entire workings of the project was-Groves.

There has been countless projects that use these very same principals.


So if you think it impossible to keep such secrets--think again.


Brad

Wow,NASA's latest toy has touched down on mars.

So the earth is 149.6 million km away from the sun,and we know how big the sun looks from earth.
Mars is 227.9 million km away from the sun,and so the sun should look much smaller on mars than it does on earth-right?.

Below a snap shot from NASA's video,just before they cut that shot out  C.C
The parachute they used was 21 meters in diameter.
Look at the size of the sun next to the 21 meter diameter parachute  C.C :o

We also see that once again,NSAS has performed a miracle-they got a parachute to work in an atmosphere equivalent to that 35km above the earths surface.  O0

Using a calculator designed to calculate the needed size here in earths much thicker atmosphere,where i left the acceleration of G as earths,but adjusting the weight so as to replicate the mars gravitational value.We find that we need a parachute with a diameter of 34.2 meters--and that is for earths much denser atmosphere.

Then,listening to NASA's descent information on there video,we can calculate the rate of deceleration as being 13.05MPS-every second. So every second,the deceleration value increases by 13.05MPS.
Once again,we see miracles being performed by NASA  O0

Can't wait to see the helicopter zooming around taking happy snap's  O0
BTW. Did anyone else notice that in all the test flights they made(well all the ones i have seen anyway) here on earth of the helicopter,not once did they have the big solar panel sitting on top of the rotating blades  :o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4czjS9h4Fpg

Why fake all of these things? 

What's the motive?

Quote from: Grumpy on 2021.02.26, 14:26:09
Why fake all of these things? 

What's the motive?

Well there is money to be made.

For example--the apollo missions earned the government and contractors over 6 billion dollars in todays dollar value.

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.26, 16:24:54
Well there is money to be made.

For example--the apollo missions earned the government and contractors over 6 billion dollars in todays dollar value.

There's got to be more to it than that...

Quote from: picowatt on 2021.02.25, 20:30:51
But apparently, only a chosen few, such as yourself, are privy to such information...

Also see the Tom Cruise movie "American Made" which is based on a true story and person.  See Eye A drug running makes lots of $ for secret projects.   I knew someone personally who saw and confirmed this was going on.   

And what muDped said about that trillions missing Rumsfeld noted...

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.26, 11:23:46

The Manhattan Project employed over 120,000 Americans,but only one person knew what the entire workings of the project was-Groves.

He was a general in the US army, and possibly chosen because he'd make an excellent project manager. I'd be surprised if he knew enough physics to explain Newton's laws of motion.

There would have been a dozen or two who were the hub of the physics. Keeping the secret was easy; they were cut off in the desert and the imperative was obvious.

But it proves the point.

All the secrets came out and in a short space of time, the Soviets had the A bomb and an H bomb not that much later.

Another own goal, Brad.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.02.26, 18:00:25
He was a general in the US army, and possibly chosen because he'd make an excellent project manager. I'd be surprised if he knew enough physics to explain Newton's laws of motion.

There would have been a dozen or two who were the hub of the physics. Keeping the secret was easy; they were cut off in the desert and the imperative was obvious.

But it proves the point.

All the secrets came out and in a short space of time, the Soviets had the A bomb and an H bomb not that much later.

Another own goal, Brad.

The project ran for 3 year's,which is not a short space of time.
It was only disclosed after completion,as it would be a bit hard to hide a nuclear bomb blast.

As i said,you just don't read,even though i continually provide posts explaining everything i say.

But that is to be expected from those like your self--you never like clear and proven answers,or any evidence that does not suit your narrative.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2021.02.26, 17:34:20
There's got to be more to it than that...

Well the apollo missions were in the mist of the cold war,and the space race between the US and Russia
Russia got the first satellite into orbit.
Russia got the first man into orbit
And Russia got the first craft landed on the moon.

America was well behind in the space race,and at the time,Russia was in front by a mile.
Imagine if Russia was also the first to land man on the moon  :(
That would have given them clear dominance in the space realm,and i think this is something that America had to avoid at !all! costs.

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.26, 18:10:01
The project ran for 3 year's,which is not a short space of time.
It was only disclosed after completion,as it would be a bit hard to hide a nuclear bomb blast.

The point is that they kept a secret for three years. And then it got out.

NASA's preposterous secret, a thousand times more incendiary, was alleged by you to have been kept for HALF A CENTURY and continuing.

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.26, 18:18:26
Well the apollo missions were in the mist of the cold war,and the space race between the US and Russia
Russia got the first satellite into orbit.
Russia got the first man into orbit
And Russia got the first craft landed on the moon.

America was well behind in the space race,and at the time,Russia was in front by a mile.
Imagine if Russia was also the first to land man on the moon  :(

They probably would have if they hadn't sent Corolev to some salt mine or other on some trumped up charge.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.02.26, 18:18:50
The point is that they kept a secret for three years. And then it got out.

NASA's preposterous secret, a thousand times more incendiary, was alleged by you to have been kept for HALF A CENTURY and continuing.

Well that is only your view from your side of the fence(as a believer)
But on the other side of the fence,38% of Americans alone know it was a hoax.

I am currently talking to a friend that makes heaps of short films and uses green screen and AGI technology every day.
I showed him a few of NASA's ISS hoax videos,and he is working out a way to remove the green screen portion of the video for me.
I wonder what the ISS video's will look like when we use this tech on them ?  ;D
His idea is most ingenious  O0

This should be a hoot.

suippets...

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.26, 06:32:42
author=picowatt link=topic=4082.msg88269#msg88269 date=1614275396]
What fiasco ?
Why not be true and disclose exactly what happened.
You asked me to carry out some tests,which i did to your very instruction's.
It only became a !fiasco! because i got results that did not comply with your indoctrinated belief's.

[/size]

That is completely false and way more than just misleading.  Mark and I (and others for sure) assisted you with how to be certain your measurements were accurate, and once you made those measurements (using well filtered DC). both he and I were in agreement that barring any shenanigans or unaccounted for connections or circuit paths, your results were indeed consistent with achieving overunity.  How you go from that to some paranoid driven belief that we were trying to "trap you" is beyond me and, frankly, borderline psychotic.  I had a good deal of faith in both you and what you were doing.  Find a single post where I did not.  In fact, I believe you will find a post wherein I even had Mark having to admit the same thing, that barring any shenanigans or unaccounted for circuit paths, your results were consistent with overunity.  So how is it we were in any way being negative?

What made your RT a "fiasco" was that once you convinced us you had achieved "overunity", you suddenly "pulled a Mylow", so to speak, complete with "MIB", and went dark all of a sudden.  Sure, private threads moved over here, but there was both a "with Brad" and "without Brad" thread, and I wanted no part of having to hide any "talking behind someone's back" , so I just moved on.  My join date and posting history over here supports that statement.

Quote
But now,because i have a different view than your's on matters i think are critical,you have lost that respect and impression ?.

[/size]

Your "different view" is not the reason I lose respect.  Many of us followed along and tried to assist you in all your experiments leading up to the end of the RT.  As I said, you were quick to learn, a critical thinker, and I thought you were an excellent experimentalist.  I was impressed, as I am sure others were as well.

Where I lose respect for you is when you do not apply those same critical thinking skills of "Brad the scientist" or "Brad the experimentalist" to your "its all fakery and lies" beliefs. 

You present what you believe to be proof of fakery and lies, but when presented with any alternatives or benign explanations, you refuse to consider or believe those explanations, move the goalposts with another what-a-boutism, or don't even acknowledge those other possibilities.  Its a belief within you, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever change your mind.

Quote

You seem to pick and choose what you wish to address,and as always with believers like you,they only ever address what they !may! be able to explain.

[/size]
Yes, I always go for the low hanging fruit.  Why?  Because that stuff is easy.  Just like you don't waste your time actually investigating or looking for alternate explanations, I am not going to waste my time contacting people and investigating conspiracy theories when alternate and benign explanations are easily surmised and probably more likely.  But then, just like the very brief explanation regarding video compression, you will just blow any alternatives and move on.  Nothing changes.  Nothing causes you take pause and think "if that evidence I presented was easily explained, perhaps I should look at my other evidence with a bit more criticality".  Instead, its either move on to something else or believe what you want to believe anyway. 

Quote
Please watch this--but im guessing this is fake as well
Some one went to all this trouble to put this video together in there back room-Right?
Problem is,all those people are real,and this video is real. Nothing like a chroma key screen behind you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQC_eZPQFzI

Why have a chroma key screen behind you?

From 0:44

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnvMJckEqYE

[/size]

I watched the videos...

I see nothing that hints at, or provides evidence of, any form of green screen usage in the first video.  As well, the data presented in the second video, with respect to the encoded grid pattern backdrop, is inconsistent with what is seen in the first video.  The grid pattern hanging behind Tim is quite regular, and its use as a green screen would be more difficult owing to the waviness as it hangs and the inconsistent lighting from edge to edge. 

As I watched the first video above, my very first impression was that a blue backdrop with a white grid was hanging behind Tim Peake as he did his science classroom video series, so that the classrooms watching were better able to see the movement of objects in his microgravity demonstrations. 

You on the other hand see the use of some sort of green screen technology being used to perpetrate a great hoax upon humanity involving a multinational conspiracy.

It's like a belief driven form of pareidolia whereby you only allow your mind to see what you want to believe you see.

I, on the other hand, actually weigh both possibilities.  So let's see, is it a simple backdrop placed for classroom experiments, or a green screen of some sort, like none I have ever seen, being used to pull off one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated by a multi-national group of conspirators?

Given those two possibilities, and using Occam's razor, I'll go with the "backdrop for classroom experiments" as the most likely explanation.  Sure, I could be wrong, so I also assign odds, because having an open mind requires allowing for the possibility that I may be wrong.  In this case I'll go with something in the 90+ percent range with that being a backdrop for classrooms, because nothing provided is "evidentiary" to the contrary within a scientific, or even legal, sense of the term.
   

Quote
But have never seen grown men playing with invisible hats,or a need for cables to hold up astronots when there !suppose! to be in 0G.
Nor have i seen hair act like the females astronots hair in 0G-video proof  already provided for all these.
...
...
If ya can't make it-fake it.

Yes it is. A mind as bright as yours so easily clouded with the need to believe.
NASA is like God for some,where as the need or want to believe excludes all science and common sense.


Brad

[/size]

I have indeed looked at all your videos.  I see nothing that indicates or proves any sort of deception.  Just like the backdrop hanging behind Tim Peake, or the compression/dropout artifacts, I could provide you with benign explanations for all of those videos.  But it would be a waste of time.  You will believe none of it.  Even more, you will not actually take the time to investigate any of them yourself with any kind of scientific or legal rigor.

PW

 author=picowatt link=topic=4082.msg88330#msg88330 date=1614364894]
suippets...


Where I lose respect for you is when you do not apply those same critical thinking skills of "Brad the scientist" or "Brad the experimentalist" to your "its all fakery and lies" beliefs. 

You present what you believe to be proof of fakery and lies, but when presented with any alternatives and benign explanations, you refuse to see it, move the goalposts with another what-a-boutism, or don't even acknowledge those other possibilities.  Its a belief within you, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever change your mind.


Yes, I always go for the low hanging fruit.  Why?  Because that stuff is easy.  Just like you don't waste your time actually investigating or looking for alternate explanations, I am not going to waste my time contacting people and investigating conspiracy theories when alternate and benign explanations are easily surmised and probably more likely.  But then, just like the very brief explanation regarding video compression, you will just blow any alternatives and move on.  Nothing changes.  Nothing causes you take pause and think "if that evidence I presented was easily explained, perhaps I should look at my other evidence with a bit more criticality".  Instead, its either move on to something else or believe what you want to believe anyway. 



I watched the videos...

I see nothing that hints at, or provides evidence of, any form of green screen usage in the first video.  As well, the data presented in the second video, with respect to the encoded grid pattern backdrop, is inconsistent with what is seen in the first video.  The grid pattern hanging behind Tim is quite regular, and its use as a green screen would be more difficult owing to the waviness as it hangs and the inconsistent lighting from edge to edge. 

As I watched the first video above, my very first impression was that a blue backdrop with a white grid was hanging behind Tim Peake as he did his science classroom video series, so that the classrooms watching were better able to see the movement of objects in his microgravity demonstrations. 

You on the other hand see the use of some sort of green screen technology being used to perpetrate a great hoax upon humanity involving a multinational conspiracy.

It's like a belief driven form of pareidolia whereby you only allow your mind to see what you want to believe you see.

I, on the other hand, actually weigh both possibilities.  So let's see, is it a simple backdrop placed for classroom experiments, or a green screen of some sort, like none I have ever seen, being used to pull off one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated by a multi-national group of conspirators?

Given those two possibilities, and using Occam's razor, I'll go with the "backdrop for classroom experiments" as the most likely explanation.  Sure, I could be wrong, so I also assign odds, because having an open mind requires allowing for the possibility that I may be wrong.  In this case I'll go with something in the 90+ percent range with that being a backdrop for classrooms, because nothing provided is "evidentiary" to the contrary within a scientific, or even legal, sense of the term.
   



I have indeed looked at all your videos.  I see nothing that indicates or proves any sort of deception.  Just like the backdrop hanging behind Tim Peake, or the compression/dropout artifacts, I could provide you with benign explanations for all of those videos.  But it would be a waste of time.  You will believe none of it.  Even more, you will not actually take the time to investigate any of them yourself with any kind of scientific or legal rigor.


So that is it.
How much more proof do you need?
What on earth did the astronot grab and put on the shelf--there was nothing there,and the other guy still had hold of the hat. This is the blindness i was talking about-you refuse to see,even though it is clearly shown in the video. And what of the very clear cable grabbing by one astronot to steady the other astronot after performing a somersault ?--nothing there either. And then the third video showing an astronot flying from left to right in the background where it is clearly seen that he is wearing a harness and leg straps--what about that.

And what about the womens hair on the ISS.
I carried out the scientific method you so much want,by comparing the womens ISS hair with that of women on the vomit comet with the very same type of hair.

I posted 3 video's showing how both long and curly hair actually looks and moves in 0G while on the vomit comet,and then 3 video's showing how both long and curly hair looks and moves in NASA's ISS video's.
The two are vastly different,and NASA's ISS hair video's in no way resemble how hair actually looks and moves in a 0G environment. You know as well as i do that hair just does not stand straight up and remain in a fixed position to that of the head when the women move there heads. They clearly have a shit load of hair gel in there hair,as it's stiffer than a 3 day old corps.

That is the scientific method used for that point alone,but no mention from you on it at all.

I also used the scientific method when it came to being able to see stars from both space and the surface of the moon,and explained why the apollo 11 crew lied when they said they couldn't see any stars at all.
I also posted 2 video's of some NASA astronots saying you cant see stars from space or from the moon,and some saying you can-even in the middle of the day,with the sun shining bright.
Are you going to refute that some how?
If there are those in NASA that clearly lie about one thing,then they are clearly capable of lying about many things.

As i said,you only explain what can be explained,and leave the rest untouched.

QuoteThat is completely false and way more than just misleading.  Mark and I (and others for sure) assisted you with how to be certain your measurements were accurate, and once you made those measurements (using well filtered DC). both he and I were in agreement that barring any shenanigans or unaccounted for connections or circuit paths, your results were indeed consistent with achieving overunity.  How you go from that to some paranoid driven belief that we were trying to "trap you" is beyond me and, frankly, borderline psychotic.  I had a good deal of faith in both you and what you were doing.  Find a single post where I did not.  In fact, I believe you will find a post wherein I even had Mark having to admit the same thing, that barring any shenanigans or unaccounted for circuit paths, your results were consistent with overunity.  So how is it we were in any way being negative?

Oh please. Why you try so hard to discredit some one when they begin to present evidence that go's against your !need to believe! hoaxes is really sad.

QuoteWhat made your RT a fiasco was that you suddenly "pulled a Mylow", so to speak, complete with MIB, and went dark all of a sudden.  Sure, the thread moved over here, but there was both a "with Brad" and "without Brad" thread running over here, and I wanted no part of any "talking behind someone's back" , so I just moved on.  Check my join date and posting history over here, it is consistent with the above statements.

Ah,there you go again.

So there was a !without! Brad thread here was there ?
I will have to ask Chet about that,as that is something i would like,actually,need to know about,due to what is taking place ATM.
You might also like to talk to Chet about the !MIB! thing as you put it.
There was another lovely little well known person involved in the drama,and he is part reason it was halted,and the cause of Chet loosing one of his computers. There is much more to the story than you realize,but you feel you have the right to pass judgement.


You call it a conspiracy because you believe what you need to believe.
I call it a hoax,as the evidence clearly shows it to be one.
But it will be never ending,as you only choose to look at what you can clearly explain,and go no where near anything that you cannot.

But i do thank you for letting me know about the !without Brad! thread,as i need to look into that,and make sure the crew i have chosen are all on my side.  O0


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.26, 19:37:31

But i do thank you for letting me know about the !without Brad! thread,as i need to look into that,and make sure the crew i have chosen are all on my side.  O0

Brad

My apologies to all involved if I let the cat out of the bag.  After all these years, I did not realize this was not openly known info.

The truth is Brad, I was actually on your side back then, and mentioned my discomfort over the whole thing.  And walked away...
,
So now you have rewritten history as if I was somehow or in some way against you, and that could not be further from the truth.

But, as you will, believe what you want.


PW

I did find topic and PM exchanges from
Picowatt, seemed there was prior discussion between picowatt
And Brad
Info not shared publicly?

And felt possible conflict !
Topic was only active for short time ..I do believe at some point I mentioned topic to Brad as few guys trying to sort what to do...might have been after it closed ...?

Was small thread ( few members) and I see a few of those members ...very trusted members ...are now gone from planet !(Ion and Groundloop)

Very sad indeed !

Brad was sent link to that topic ( today)

This forum is dedicated to open source
Nothing happens here that is not to be shared ,
At times there have been disruptions ...From outside to hinder this open source community !
And this is one reason some things go off public page!

In this case Brad could absolutely not be involved ( his "visit" and situation mandated this)

Sad stuff to have to write here !(was horrible time for me , things happened which were
Definitely outside influence, fried computer ( still sits unusable in corner of shop) huge bills sent to me for long distance Calls I never made ...and crazy sums which nobody could explain , phone could not call out of area code !!
It all just went away ....after months of which no one could say who generated bills / invoices ?
I went right to the top of personnel in charge?
Yeah they don't want these techs open sourced ...

however now I feel it is vastly different world than 6-7 years ago
Public opinion towards planets dilemma....

Anyhow

...sad to read discord in community !!

We need each other now more than ever .....

And definitely need Open source FE

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.26, 18:37:23

I showed him a few of NASA's ISS hoax videos

...presumably from YouTube. Your work will be of no value unless you download directly from NASA archives.

Some of your so-called NASA videos from Youtube are absurd - particulalry the disappearing/reappearing blue hat.

It is as genuine as a nine dollar note.

Quote from: Chet K on 2021.02.26, 21:47:35
I did find topic and PM exchanges from
Picowatt, seemed there was prior discussion between picowatt
And Brad
Info not shared publicly?
And felt possible conflict !

Someone would have to refresh my memory on this, as I can't remember what I had for lunch yesterday.

However, if Brad told me something in confidence, it has been locked away for so long I do not recall it.

But, I surely do not recall any "conflict" between he and I at that time.  Again, you'd have to refresh my memory on this.

What I do remember is wanting to remain anonymous, and my discomfort with participating in a private thread without Brad.

In any case, I sincerely apologize to all if I have violated a trust with my recent disclosure.  Its been something like 6 or 7 years now and I thought this was all water under the bridge.

I did not intend to start something...

PW

Quote from: Paul-R
Why didn't Rumsfeld stop the flkow of money?
Why did he not hand the matter over to the FBI?

On 9-10-2001 Rumsfeld announced the discovery of missing Trillions.

Within DOD at the Pentagon an investigation into the Money Laundering Schemes and Theft Schemes was already underway.

0n 9-11-2001 the precision missile strike on the Pentagon  eliminated both the investigators and the evidence.

Other evidence at WTC #7 was also destroyed by the demolition on 9-11-2001..

Paul, you seem to have little "knowledge" about how government in America actually "works."

You must work on cultivating some "inside sources" to assist you in acquiring knowledge about how "dirty" it all is.

Quote from: muDped on 2021.02.26, 23:11:44
On 9-10-2001 Rumsfeld announced the discovery of missing Trillions.

Within DOD at the Pentagon an investigation into the Money Laundering Schemes and Theft Schemes was already underway.

0n 9-11-2001 the precision missile strike on the Pentagon  eliminated both the investigators and the evidence.

Where is the evidence for this?

I doubt the data was stored on A4 sheets of paper, punched with two holes and stowed in Eastlight ring binders.

The data will be on computer, stored locally (maybe destroyed, maybe not) and backed up in some massive facility, possibly somewhere around the Pacific rim.

More likely on a USB device in Rumsfeld's briefcase.

Quote from: muDped on 2021.02.26, 23:11:44

Paul, you seem to have little "knowledge" about how government in America actually "works."

You must work on cultivating some "inside sources" to assist you...

This works unless your inside sources are feeding you disinformation. This reminds me of :

When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's off with her head
Remember what the Dormouse said
Feed your head
Feed your head

Patience Paul!

In Due Time, when Maximum Effect is assured, ALL will be made known.

By the way;  The U.S. Secret Space Program is not a NASA program.

It is a Navy Program.

Ships whether made to sail the Seas or to explore Space are manned by the Navy including the Marine Corps.

The Unknown and "Dark" component of the Navy.

Secrets well kept.

Former participants in the "20 and Back" Program have partial memory recovery and are being permitted to make Limited Disclosure.

Full Disclosure will be made in the not too distant future.

Some who have knowledge may inquire about the Army's Nautical branch.  Yes, the Army does have a fleet of Ships and Boats.

ALL will be disclosed when it is time.

Quote from: muDped on 2021.02.26, 23:34:36
Patience Paul!

In Due Time, when Maximum Effect is assured, ALL will be made known.

By the way;  The U.S. Secret Space Program is not a NASA program.

It is a Navy Program.

Ships whether made to sail the Seas or to explore Space are manned by the Navy including the Marine Corps.

The Unknown and "Dark" component of the Navy.

Secrets well kept.

Former participants in the "20 and Back" Program have partial memory recovery and are being permitted to make Limited Disclosure.

Full Disclosure will be made in the not too distant future.

Some who have knowledge may inquire about the Army's Nautical branch.  Yes, the Army does have a fleet of Ships and Boats.

ALL will be disclosed when it is time.

I think you have a very slender grip on reality. Believing like a religious zealot doesn't make it true.

Believe what you are capable of dealing with Paul.

The "Technologies" being sought here are there.

Quote from: muDped on 2021.02.26, 23:56:05
Believe what you are capable of dealing with Paul.

The "Technologies" being sought here are there.

...but with not one shred of evidence.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.02.26, 23:21:45
Where is the evidence for this?

I doubt the data was stored on A4 sheets of paper, punched with two holes and stowed in Eastlight ring binders.

The data will be on computer, stored locally (maybe destroyed, maybe not) and backed up in some massive facility, possibly somewhere around the Pacific rim.

More likely on a USB device in Rumsfeld's briefcase.

paul rummy had to testify to congress about it. It was headlines the day before the planes hit. You should be able to find his testimony. I watched it on the evening news. I have no interest searching for it tho. Not my argument :)

Quote from: JimBoot on 2021.02.27, 04:19:23
paul rummy had to testify to congress about it. It was headlines the day before the planes hit. You should be able to find his testimony. I watched it on the evening news. I have no interest searching for it tho. Not my argument :)

What I am saying is that any evidence evidence was probably NOT lost in the 9/11 events.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.02.27, 11:47:59
What I am saying is that any evidence evidence was probably NOT lost in the 9/11 events.

I have no idea. I just remember him saying they'd lost trillions which I thought was careless.

Quote from: JimBoot on 2021.02.27, 12:21:41
I have no idea. I just remember him saying they'd lost trillions which I thought was careless.

Fair enough. We will never know. But mudped's belief that 9/11 wiped out data cannot be right because the Pentagon knows full well that they would be the No.1 target in any nuclear attack. They would have provision.

Paul,

I'm quite surprised that you know so little.

The precision missile strike on the Pentagon 9-11 was directed at the specific region of the Pentagon where the Investigation was taking place.

The whole investigative team and all of their evidence in any form was obliterated.

Those who died in the Pentagon as well as Towers #1 and #2 were Sacrifices to Baal, who is the god of the Cabal.

Several "Problems" to their (the Cabal) continued existence were "disappeared" on 9-11.

9-11 was a Very Dirty Business Inside Job.

But, yes, now we do know.

Other evidence has come to light in recent years.

It is now known by Present Investigators how the Theft and Money Laundering was accomplished.

And also the Covid-19 "connection."

This will all be made Public in due time.  Much is being done covertly.

Quote from: muDped on 2021.02.27, 21:47:38
Paul,

I'm quite surprised that you know so little.

Those who died in the Pentagon as well as Towers #1 and #2 were Sacrifices to Baal, who is the god of the Cabal.

Evidence?

There's the confirmation of your mental status - if this needed confirming.

Quote from: picowatt on 2021.02.26, 22:53:04
Someone would have to refresh my memory on this, as I can't remember what I had for lunch yesterday.

However, if Brad told me something in confidence, it has been locked away for so long I do not recall it.

But, I surely do not recall any "conflict" between he and I at that time.  Again, you'd have to refresh my memory on this.

What I do remember is wanting to remain anonymous, and my discomfort with participating in a private thread without Brad.

In any case, I sincerely apologize to all if I have violated a trust with my recent disclosure.  Its been something like 6 or 7 years now and I thought this was all water under the bridge.

I did not intend to start something...

PW

I have voiced my concerns and opinion,and now-yes,it is water under the bridge.

I also wish to convey my apologies to you PW in relations to comments i made in this thread to you.
We all have our ideal's and our belief's,but some time's i should keep them to my self.
I retract my comments about you being blind to the truth.


Brad

I don't understand the point of forming opinions on opinions on videos and other so called inside secret things.

None of us have the actual facts ,just koolaid drivel from one side and spiked coca-cola from the other .


Whatever the real case is we will never know and don't have the resources to find out with any certainty.

What we do know is that once things are politicized all bullshit meters go off the scale and they are even more confusing.

How about ..I don't know because I am relying on others propaganda?

Or its none of my business
Or so &*%^&ing what.
Or hold on to your opinions until you get real facts ... But in these cases you will never get them as history belongs to the best story teller .

Its a great waste of human en-devour to defend opinions, based on you tube hits , because that is what they are ...opinions ..not facts ..you tube is a commercial enterprise that is entertainment based . That not to say it isn't a useful tool for sharing personal curiosities  or discoveries ,which will never get a million hits 

But its a race to bottom where facts are concerned

Conspiracy theories are fun but Its astounding how many here sprout the well promoted koolaid  as knowledge ....yes some, but very few turn out to be truthful ..but then they are not theories any more .

It would be a far more useful to use Wikipedia references ,even the unverified articles are stated as such .

They are the one of the few benefactors of any spare cash I have  especially in the evolving  field of medicine .

The rest of the net is totally overrun by snake oil sales and miracle cures.

Of course this is just my opinion ,which hopefully may help others to avoid useless and irrelevant conflict.

The earth is flat anyway ....more NASA lies!!!! Look that up .https://www.overunityresearch.com/Smileys/Alive/cheesy.gif

Its sad what has happened here .
I hope we can change this  .


 

Quote from: 3D Magnetics on 2021.02.28, 11:20:47

Its sad what has happened here .
I hope we can change this  .
 

I did post a suggestion that anyone who posted as a fact should be required by the moderators to provide clear proof. But there was no response.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.02.28, 12:28:10
I did post a suggestion that anyone who posted as a fact should be required by the moderators to provide clear proof. But there was no response.

With the exception of you-hey Paul.
You don't need to post facts or truth,as everything you say is correct-hey?.

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.28, 15:10:54
With the exception of you-hey Paul.
You don't need to post facts or truth,as everything you say is correct-hey?.

Deary deary me, Brad; have I transgressed? Please let me know if I have.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.02.28, 15:30:01
Deary deary me, Brad; have I transgressed? Please let me know if I have.

No comment

I think that sort of attack goes beyond "reasonable", don't you agree Brad?

Quote from: poynt99 on 2021.02.28, 16:39:08
I think that sort of attack goes beyond "reasonable", don't you agree Brad?

No,not really when you look at what he has said to muDped in the past.
Also believe a few members sent him a PM saying he was a bit over the top.

But as it seems everyone is easily offended these day's,i retracted my comment.
So much for the tough skin hey
Must be only us aussies that have it.

Quote from: poynt99 on 2021.02.28, 16:39:08
I think that sort of attack goes beyond "reasonable", don't you agree Brad?

Is this addressed to me?


If so, Brad says of me in #73 "You don't need to post facts or truth,as everything you say is correct-hey?"

I reply with as statement to say "when and where?". What else should I say?

I go to some trouble NOT to post statements as facts unless I know where to go to substantiate. If I have failed, I say again: when and where? Tell me and I'l do my best to fix it.

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.28, 17:27:54

Also believe a few members sent him a PM saying he was a bit over the top.

Untrue. Grumage has criticised me and I took notice of him. That's all.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.02.28, 17:34:23
Is this addressed to me?

No, it was for Brad, and he changed the post (thanks Brad, and thanks for taking the higher road ).

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.02.27, 16:03:07
Fair enough. We will never know. But mudped's belief that 9/11 wiped out data cannot be right because the Pentagon knows full well that they would be the No.1 target in any nuclear attack. They would have provision.


And:
Quote from: JimBoot on 2021-02-27, 04:19:23
paul rummy had to testify to congress about it. It was headlines the day before the planes hit. You should be able to find his testimony. I watched it on the evening news. I have no interest searching for it tho. Not my argument :)

What I am saying is that any evidence evidence was probably NOT lost in the 9/11 events.

So your evidence is that it was "probably" not lost??   LOL

There is a lot of evidence if you do enough research and aren't afraid to go down the rabbit hole.   Even our own Physics Professor here has built a good case about the 911 scenario being a major cover up as to what actually brought down the twin towers.   


Beyond this I suspect as often happens around full Moon that people here and on many forums get extra agitated.   I stand back and just feel it's not worth arguing about the Moon landing as there are more important things to deal with.

Quote from: e2matrix on 2021.02.28, 18:23:51
So your evidence is that it was "probably" not lost??   LOL

I have no evidence.

But since the building would have been the Soviets No. 1 target, it seems improbable beyond measurement that the DOD would not have asumed the total destruction of the Pentagon and everytrhing within 20 miles or so.

Not wanting to get into all this except to point out just something quick I noticed Brad - you posted this video implying the hair in the ISS video is faked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIjNfZbUYu8&t=31s

Did you not notice the droplets of liquid floating up out of the squeeze pack she is putting on her hair?   They are floating .... so even if this was an inverted image they would not float but would shoot upwards (downwards if you think it is an inverted image).   It would seem your zeal for disbelief in NASA is blinding you to some obvious things.   

Quote from: e2matrix on 2021.02.28, 18:23:51
So your evidence is that it was "probably" not lost??   LOL

There is a lot of evidence if you do enough research and aren't afraid to go down the rabbit hole.   Even our own Physics Professor here has built a good case about the 911 scenario being a major cover up as to what actually brought down the twin towers.   


Beyond this I suspect as often happens around full Moon that people here and on many forums get extra agitated.   I stand back and just feel it's not worth arguing about the Moon landing as there are more important things to deal with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-GppBpUeYg

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.02.28, 08:24:19
I have voiced my concerns and opinion,and now-yes,it is water under the bridge.

I also wish to convey my apologies to you PW in relations to comments i made in this thread to you.
We all have our ideal's and our belief's,but some time's i should keep them to my self.
I retract my comments about you being blind to the truth.


Brad

Brad,
You of all people should know that I am not easily triggered.  We have both had to deal with abusive and foul mouthed posters in the past, and you know it is rare, if ever, that I allow myself to fall into any emotional rabbit holes.  However, being accused of having somehow attempted to "trap" you was a bit too much.  I used to be an ardent supporter, with high hopes for you.

So I too apologize to you if my posts were becoming a bit too personal in nature.  But please believe me, they were my responses to a feeling of disappointment and dismay, and not based on anything one might consider as anger, which is only a fool's playground.

"Ideals" and "truths" are more times than not rooted in a world based on opinions.  And although more suited to philosophers, I also allow myself to drift off into such a world on occasion,  ideally in the shade of a tree on a warm sunny day.

However, I live in a fact based reality, with facts that are derived from research, collected data, observation and experimental results.  As we are likely to never have all the data regarding any given subject, all conclusions based on a given data set are weighted for probability.  Sadly, this is my life, oft times necessary for the work or research that I am doing at any given time, but it is also a world with less clutter and noise, and without the endless rabbit holes of wild, misleading, and unsupported claims.

As but one example, you presented an old video of the LEM doing roll maneuvers.

You look at that video and say it was impossible," everyone knows there should be inertial drift!"  Therefore, its a fake and it is additional proof that "everything NASA" is somehow a lie, complete with never ending rabbit holes.  Why did they fake that?  Why did they lie?  What are they hiding?  Who would  commit such a fraud?  How large is the group of conspirators involved?  And on and on and on. 

I, on the other hand, watched that clip and got to experience a feeling of awe at what the reaction control system (RCS) of the LEM could do when servo-locked to a mechanical gyro.  The amount of engineering and development that went into developing the RCS from Mercury through Apollo was quite the achievement.  The RCS thrusters evolved over many years with various monopropellants, such as hydrogen peroxide over platinum, to hypergolic mixes such as hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide compounds being used.  But the greatest challenge was always related to precision control of RCS thruster pulse width and timing accuracy, which over the years led to incredibly precise valves and actuators.  Consider researching the system a bit, I myself lived through those times...     

In your posted video, although the actual rate (speed) may be off a small amount due to the various frame rates used during the copying to various formats, the fact that the LEM could "stop on a dime" is exactly what it was designed to do.  And it was almost exclusively achieved with analog technology.  Moreso than flying the LEM, the RCS was flying the gyro.  A command is given for x degrees of rotation at a given rate, and the RCS, servo locked to the gyro, would follow that command with extreme precision.  Why you would think that a well designed (critically damped) servo system should have noticeable undershoot, overshoot or drift is beyond me.  If you were to look into the operation and design of the RCS, servo locked to antique mechanical gyros (which were built to a precision that would still amaze anyone today), you too could allow yourself to experience a "wow moment" and an appreciation for what it took to achieve such precision.

Today, millions of servo locked systems are in operation all over the world, 'round the clock, and yet no one sees their precision as somehow being fake.  Today gain and damping are mostly all handled in the digital realm, with analog filters and non-linear gain stages replaced with digital signal processing techniques.  But, in its day, the RCS on the LEM was state of the art, and built to a mechanical and analog precision no one would bother with today.  It is much easier to reference a digital lookup table of calibration errors to get the same precision through digital means.

My disappointment and dismay arises when I see someone call out something very real, and a great technological achievement, as somehow being fake based solely on their lack of understanding of what it is they are actually watching.  It is an insult to the scientists and engineers of the past that gave their best to create the systems and technology that allow what is being watched to be accomplished.  Even more, the seemingly ever growing number of people that apparently follow along like sheep and believe these false claims of fakery, are also cheated out of a wow moment and a possible learning experience that may actually steer them toward great accomplishments of their own, instead of a bunch of meaningless and never ending rabbit holes.

In the "olden days" of my younger years, defense and aerospace companies used to auction off pallets of surplus equipment sparking the advent of surplus stores.  Some of the technology and state of the art analog components one could purchase on the cheap in those days were truly amazing.  You could buy a used, flight rated gyro for 20 bucks.  When opened, the quality of construction would amaze anyone.  The ball bearing servo pots alone, with their incredible linearity, tolerance, and low Tc were themselves a sight to behold, and a veritable work of art.  The mechanical workings of a gyro were second to none, making Swiss watches crude by comparison.  The surplus components, mechanical and electronic, from those days was truly incredible, and only further reinforced the precision and engineering of the day.  Any really old guys around here know of what I speak.  Today, almost everything is disabled, sold for scrap only, and prohibited from resale.  Bummer.

Sadly, I feel disappointment and dismay as more recent generations no longer play with the chemistry sets, tinker toys, cloud chambers, and the cast off gyros of my youth.  Its all video games, smart phones, and this damned internet nowadays.  I surely don't think people spreading false information based on ignorance and faulty logic to gullible people who find it much easier to "believe" than it is to make an effort to actually "learn", is going to somehow make the future a brighter place.

PW

Quote from: picowatt on 2021.02.28, 19:29:37

In the "olden days" of my younger years, defense and aerospace companies used to auction off pallets of surplus equipment sparking the advent of surplus stores.  Some of the technology and state of the art analog components one could purchase on the cheap in those days were truly amazing.  You could buy a used, flight rated gyro for 20 bucks.  When opened, the quality of construction would amaze anyone.  The ball bearing servo pots alone, with their incredible linearity, tolerance, and low Tc were themselves a sight to behold, and a veritable work of art.  The mechanical workings of a gyro were second to none, making Swiss watches crude by comparison.  The surplus components, mechanical and electronic, from those days was truly incredible, and only further reinforced the precision and engineering of the day.  Any really old guys around here know of what I speak.  Today, almost everything is disabled, sold for scrap only, and prohibited from resale.  Bummer.

These dealers can still be found but one needs to look further. There are people breaking sophisticated fairly recent mil aircraft for spares. You should be able to pick up a pretty neat artifical horizon although the more recent have all glass displays.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.02.28, 22:30:27
These dealers can still be found but one needs to look further. There are people breaking sophisticated fairly recent mil aircraft for spares. You should be able to pick up a pretty neat artifical horizon although the more recent have all glass displays.

That is probably so, and most aircraft have at least one artificial horizon of the "steam gauge" variety (as they are jokingly referred to) as a backup, but the mil spec through hole components are difficult or impossible to find, and nothing recent is built to the standards of the past.  The "build quality" in the analog world determined precision, so the build quality back then was pretty incredible, and readily available as surplus.

Off topic, but related to defense related high tech, anyone who hasn't read Arthur C. Clark's very short story "Superiority" should give it a read. 

http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html

PW

Cool story.  O0

What might be learned from this?

Quote from: poynt99 on 2021.02.28, 23:19:45
Cool story.  O0

What might be learned from this?

Sometimes larger numbers of low cost, low tech hardware are a better way to go than small numbers of barely affordable and unreliable high tech equipment.

And of course, the ultimate lesson, let's just not start any wars!

PW

Added:  Oh, and don't get stuck in a jail cell with someone you despise!

Yes.

And I did enjoy that twist!

...It didn't sound like that arrangement was going to last...

And perhaps one more moral of the story, the ol': No good deed goes unpunished.

Quote from: poynt99 on 2021.03.01, 00:03:13
Yes.

And I did enjoy that twist!

...I didn't sound like that arrangement was going to last...

And perhaps one more moral of the story, the ol': No good deed goes unpunished.

I read that story many years ago.  As old age continues to creep up and memory fades, I mentioned the basic story to someone while we were discussing recent defense hardware.  For the life of me I could not recall the title or whether it was Clark or Asimov.  Took me some time to find it again.

All in all, it seemed rather foretelling (and best of all, they used lots of tubes!)

PW.

OH, and don't worry, given more time and money, we can surely engineer our way out of that problem...

.99

I don't exactly know why, but I think it should be required reading.  Perhaps when teaching the KISS principle.

Good to see you climb out of your hidey hole every now and then!

PW

It's been all work and no play for a while, so nice to have a break and see what's going on.  :)

There are many, many things that we do not know to some degree or even entirely .

Some have even opined that there are some things that we will never know when referring to historical events.

But we shall indeed have all of those things made known to us.

Everything that has transpired upon Planet Earth has been recorded.

At a Future Time all of that knowledge will be made available to us.  In order that we may learn the Full and Complete Truth.

The Watchers are keeping track of every little detail.

Quote from: poynt99 on 2021.03.01, 00:43:11
It's been all work and no play for a while, so nice to have a break and see what's going on.  :)

Well it brings joy to my heart to see you "out and about"!

It's pretty much the same for me, a bit bored with work, a little bit stuck regarding one of my personal experiments, and throw in some "just coming out of winter" cabin fever, and it was time for a break.

Thought I'd peruse the forums for a spell to see what's going on.

PW

 

Quote from: picowatt on 2021.02.28, 19:29:37
Brad,
You of all people should know that I am not easily triggered.  We have both had to deal with abusive and foul mouthed posters in the past, and you know it is rare, if ever, that I allow myself to fall into any emotional rabbit holes.  However, being accused of having somehow attempted to "trap" you was a bit too much.  I used to be an ardent supporter, with high hopes for you.

So I too apologize to you if my posts were becoming a bit too personal in nature.  But please believe me, they were my responses to a feeling of disappointment and dismay, and not based on anything one might consider as anger, which is only a fool's playground.

"Ideals" and "truths" are more times than not rooted in a world based on opinions.  And although more suited to philosophers, I also allow myself to drift off into such a world on occasion,  ideally in the shade of a tree on a warm sunny day.

However, I live in a fact based reality, with facts that are derived from research, collected data, observation and experimental results.  As we are likely to never have all the data regarding any given subject, all conclusions based on a given data set are weighted for probability.  Sadly, this is my life, oft times necessary for the work or research that I am doing at any given time, but it is also a world with less clutter and noise, and without the endless rabbit holes of wild, misleading, and unsupported claims.

As but one example, you presented an old video of the LEM doing roll maneuvers.

You look at that video and say it was impossible," everyone knows there should be inertial drift!"  Therefore, its a fake and it is additional proof that "everything NASA" is somehow a lie, complete with never ending rabbit holes.  Why did they fake that?  Why did they lie?  What are they hiding?  Who would  commit such a fraud?  How large is the group of conspirators involved?  And on and on and on. 

I, on the other hand, watched that clip and got to experience a feeling of awe at what the reaction control system (RCS) of the LEM could do when servo-locked to a mechanical gyro.  The amount of engineering and development that went into developing the RCS from Mercury through Apollo was quite the achievement.  The RCS thrusters evolved over many years with various monopropellants, such as hydrogen peroxide over platinum, to hypergolic mixes such as hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide compounds being used.  But the greatest challenge was always related to precision control of RCS thruster pulse width and timing accuracy, which over the years led to incredibly precise valves and actuators.  Consider researching the system a bit, I myself lived through those times...     

In your posted video, although the actual rate (speed) may be off a small amount due to the various frame rates used during the copying to various formats, the fact that the LEM could "stop on a dime" is exactly what it was designed to do.  And it was almost exclusively achieved with analog technology.  Moreso than flying the LEM, the RCS was flying the gyro.  A command is given for x degrees of rotation at a given rate, and the RCS, servo locked to the gyro, would follow that command with extreme precision.  Why you would think that a well designed (critically damped) servo system should have noticeable undershoot, overshoot or drift is beyond me.  If you were to look into the operation and design of the RCS, servo locked to antique mechanical gyros (which were built to a precision that would still amaze anyone today), you too could allow yourself to experience a "wow moment" and an appreciation for what it took to achieve such precision.

Today, millions of servo locked systems are in operation all over the world, 'round the clock, and yet no one sees their precision as somehow being fake.  Today gain and damping are mostly all handled in the digital realm, with analog filters and non-linear gain stages replaced with digital signal processing techniques.  But, in its day, the RCS on the LEM was state of the art, and built to a mechanical and analog precision no one would bother with today.  It is much easier to reference a digital lookup table of calibration errors to get the same precision through digital means.

My disappointment and dismay arises when I see someone call out something very real, and a great technological achievement, as somehow being fake based solely on their lack of understanding of what it is they are actually watching.  It is an insult to the scientists and engineers of the past that gave their best to create the systems and technology that allow what is being watched to be accomplished.  Even more, the seemingly ever growing number of people that apparently follow along like sheep and believe these false claims of fakery, are also cheated out of a wow moment and a possible learning experience that may actually steer them toward great accomplishments of their own, instead of a bunch of meaningless and never ending rabbit holes.

In the "olden days" of my younger years, defense and aerospace companies used to auction off pallets of surplus equipment sparking the advent of surplus stores.  Some of the technology and state of the art analog components one could purchase on the cheap in those days were truly amazing.  You could buy a used, flight rated gyro for 20 bucks.  When opened, the quality of construction would amaze anyone.  The ball bearing servo pots alone, with their incredible linearity, tolerance, and low Tc were themselves a sight to behold, and a veritable work of art.  The mechanical workings of a gyro were second to none, making Swiss watches crude by comparison.  The surplus components, mechanical and electronic, from those days was truly incredible, and only further reinforced the precision and engineering of the day.  Any really old guys around here know of what I speak.  Today, almost everything is disabled, sold for scrap only, and prohibited from resale.  Bummer.

Sadly, I feel disappointment and dismay as more recent generations no longer play with the chemistry sets, tinker toys, cloud chambers, and the cast off gyros of my youth.  Its all video games, smart phones, and this damned internet nowadays.  I surely don't think people spreading false information based on ignorance and faulty logic to gullible people who find it much easier to "believe" than it is to make an effort to actually "learn", is going to somehow make the future a brighter place.

PW

Reading up on the gyro system,it would seem that it is to small to achieve the results seen,as in stopping a mass that large instantly like that. The gyro seems to be more for stabilization,not maneuvering.

Then there is also the question of being able to see stars in space and from the moon.
The video i posted has the apollo 11 crew saying that they could not see stars from the moon,nor in the space between the moon and earth. This is also backed up by other NASA employees and scientist.
In that same video,we hear from many other astronauts and scientist,and they say you can see the stars from space and from the surface of the moon -and very clearly--even during the day. Not sure how you have a day in space?.

It is hard to do things using the scientific method when you have the same group of people(NASA) telling to opposite stories.
So the other scientific method is to look at light it self,and when you do that you find that the stars should be well visible anywhere in space as long as you are not looking directly at a light source,such as the sun,as there is no light pollution in space,and light travels in straight line in the vacuum of space.

So it is hard to believe an entity where half say one thing,and the other half say the other.


Brad

NASA is an administration of the US gov...totally controlled.

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.03.01, 03:13:39
Reading up on the gyro system,it would seem that it is to small to achieve the results seen,as in stopping a mass that large instantly like that. The gyro seems to be more for stabilization,not maneuvering.

Perhaps you are confusing this gyro system with the gyros of days gone by when large, quite massive gyro rotors, were used to stabilize ships directly on a single axis via their spinning mass, or the control moment gyros on the likes of the ISS, Hubble, and many other satellites, used to control orientation via the acceleration and deceleration of a spinning mass.  These are not the types of gyros we are discussing with regard to the LEM.

The LEM gyros were fairly small, as were most aerospace, aviation, and defense related gyros of the day, and mounted in a sealed housing.  Those applications needed smaller and lighter gyros, so they used a smaller rotor spinning at rather amazing rates.  The "simple" ones I played with back then were in black crinkle painted housings 6 inches or so in diameter and about 8-9 inches high.  The end where the rotor was mounted was often dome shaped.  So, on the outside they were just black housing with a multi-pin connector for an interface.  Some of them were a bit fancier and actually used air bearings on the rotor for faster rotor spin rates, but those guys were very pricey and more complicated to play with.  They were often fed from compressed gas cylinders and most often found in missile and torpedo applications where the required run times were short but precision and small size and weight was paramount.  Many gyros also had provisions for presetting or resetting the rotor position to some starting position or to cancel out small amounts of long term drift.  Today we use laser based gyros with no moving parts.  Where's the fun in that.

In any case, the gyro was just a sensor.  All the gyro did was provide a signal based on a fixed reference in space (the spinning rotor).  The "signal" back then was just a voltage developed via the wiper of a precision servo pot attached to each gyro axis.  The pots had a fixed reference voltage across them and the wiper provided the position related voltage to the outside world.  Power for the spin motor was fed through the same connector, or through a separate connector on some models.  Inside was a marvel of precision mechanical engineering.

The LEM's RCS used an analog system which was fed the voltage from the servo pot wiper on a given gyro axis.  If a 30 degree rotation meant rotating the spacecraft until the servo pot wiper now read 5 volts, the RCS thrusters would fire away in short bursts to apply the needed torque to get the spacecraft rotating at a commanded rate, using the rate of change of the servo pot signal to determine and track the desired rate.  As the servo pot voltage indicated approach to the final position, the RCS thrusters on the opposing side would begin pulsing as the final position was approached until rotation was stopped.

What makes it look so rock solid is that all servo systems, even modern ones in robotic arms for example, have to be tuned for minimal undershoot, overshoot and drift.  There is always a bit of settling time, like a small ring on the edge of a square wave, and this must be damped and well controlled, using analog filters back then, and DSP techniques today.  The RCS managed the required precision and damping, as commanded by the analog "computer", by pulsing opposing thrusters at varying time and pulse widths to achieve very minute and precise position control.  When it was all said and done, the spacecraft always remained locked to some commanded orientation as sensed by the fixed in space rotor of the gyro.

It really was a cool system and it really could "stop on a dime" just as seen in the video, and I have just scratched the surface as to how those gyros operated.  It happens in space today as well.  What good is any RCS if it cant control undershoot, overshoot, and drift, and "stop on a dime"?  And like I said, there are plenty of Earthbound systems performing similar feats of "magic" everyday.

PW

Quote from: picowatt on 2021.03.01, 05:34:58

The LEM's RCS used an analog system which was fed the voltage from the servo pot wiper on a given gyro axis.  If a 30 degree rotation meant rotating the spacecraft until the servo pot wiper now read 5 volts...

This is very interesting.

But you are replying to someone who belives the entire space program is faked on a Hollywood sound stage with green screens.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.03.01, 10:32:06
This is very interesting.

But you are replying to someone who belives the entire space program is faked on a Hollywood sound stage with green screens.

Sorry Paul, I do tend to get a bit long winded when it comes to old analog systems, such as myself...

When skies are clear and we're under the ISS orbital path, we always go out to watch it flyover.  Got to see Elon's "string of pearls" from a Starlink launch a little over a year ago, before he modified them to reduce reflectivity at the request of Earthbound  astronomers.  It was quite the sight to see.  One of those "once in a lifetime" kinda' things.   

Great sight for finding out what there is to see on a given night:

https://heavens-above.com/

PW

Quote from: picowatt on 2021.03.01, 12:36:26
   
Great sight for finding out what there is to see on a given night:

https://heavens-above.com/

PW

It's a great site. Many years ago, I happened to glance up and saw the ISS. Then it flashed in a rather odd fashion. I checked and found the shuttle was also up there. I think what happened was the white side of it caught the sun and flashed momentarily. Also, I think it can be seen in the daytime. I once saw what looked like a tiny black wire pretzel. I reckon that was it.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.03.01, 12:46:12
It's a great site. Many years ago, I happened to glance up and saw the ISS. Then it flashed in a rather odd fashion. I checked and found the shuttle was also up there. I think what happened was the white side of it caught the sun and flashed momentarily. Also, I think it can be seen in the daytime. I once saw what looked like a tiny black wire pretzel. I reckon that was it.

I would say you seen an Iridium Flare.

But that will stop soon,as there is not many of them satellites left.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.03.01, 12:51:27
I would say you seen an Iridium Flare.

But that will stop soon,as there is not many of them satellites left.


Brad

They don't travel with the ISS.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.03.01, 12:53:53
They don't travel with the ISS.

We got to see the shuttle trailing the ISS years ago, that was very cool too.

A lot of satellites flare, but they do so unpredictably.  The Iridium satellites were cool because their flares could be forecast with great accuracy.

Although it's no longer possible to do so (they were decommissioned), we used to chase Iridium flares in our area.  We parked near a construction site one night, counting down with watch in hand and just moments to go.  A rather rude security guard approached to ask what we were doing.  I pointed toward the direction of the flare and said "wait for it".  Seconds later the flare happened and as we were getting back in the truck, he yelled out, "what was that", we replied "magic" as we drove off.

PW

Quote from: picowatt on 2021.03.01, 13:23:34
We got to see the shuttle trailing the ISS years ago, that was very cool too.

A lot of satellites flare, but they do so unpredictably.  The Iridium satellites were cool because their flares could be forecast with great accuracy.

Although its no longer possible to do so (they were decommissioned), we used to chase Iridium flares in our area.  We parked near a construction site one nite, counting down with watch in hand and just moments to go.  A rather rude security guard approached to ask what we were doing.  I pointed toward the direction of the flare and said "wait for it".  Seconds later the flare happened and as we were getting back in the truck, he yelled out, "what was that", we replied "magic" as we drove off.

PW

Lol

I would just like to rant a moment regarding the advances in technology from back in those mostly analog days of early space flight to the technologies we have today. 

Consider the evolution of analog inertial navigation systems (INS). The INS is a way of knowing where you are, and where you are going, based only on local sensors.  All inertial navigation systems require that you know where you are before you depart a given location.  By accurately sensing every directional move and change in speed that you make over a given period of time from the moment you leave that known location, you can draw your route on a map and always know where you, the direction you are traveling, and how fast you are moving.   

The challenge of a good INS is having accurate sensors.  Back in the day, analog sensors sensed rotation and acceleration with the likes of mechanical gyros and spinning cup accelerometers.  The ever present desire to reduce the weight and size of these systems produced mechanical systems designed, machined, and assembled to sometimes mind boggling precision.  If you wanted a smaller more accurate gyro, you needed to increase mechanical precision, reduce parasitic forces, and improve the resolution of rotation sensors.  There was always a march toward some level of perfection.  There were many technologies that benefited from the engineering and development of inertial navigation systems.  Everything from better bearing technologies evolving toward air and magnetic bearings to non-contact precision resolvers leading to the likes optical sensors.  Increasing precision always meant building this complex mechanical gizmo with greater and greater precision, and constantly advancing the technologies required to do so.

Like the end of the steam locomotive, these complex mechanical and analog based systems have, for the most part, been replaced with modern technologies, but the level of precision and accuracy achieved with those mechanical systems produced nothing short of man made "works of art".

Today, what once required a rack of equipment to collect and process analog INS data is available on a vanishingly small integrated circuit.  And that too, is quite amazing, and another human made "work of art".  Unfortunately these new systems are works of art at a level most will never see, or even contemplate.  You can't open an integrated circuit and "watch it work" as one could the older mechanical systems.

And now we have added GPS to our navigational needs, which, although it too is another great achievement, is made mundane through our everyday and routine use of it. 

I guess the point of this mostly off topic post is that although the technologies we have today, as amazing as they are and residing mostly in the digital realm, do not diminish the capabilities achieved in the past within the analog realm.

Although I will be the first to admit that many of these advances were driven by defense related programs, human spaceflight and the exploration of space have also played a very significant role in the evolution of many technologies we take for granted everyday.

It hasn't been all that long ago that Boeing 747 aircraft had provisions for using a sextant as a backup for navigation.

PW

Quote from: picowatt on 2021.03.02, 16:14:23

It hasn't been all that long ago that Boeing 747 aircraft had provisions for using a sextant as a backup for navigation.

It was the primary source for Apollo.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.03.02, 16:30:33
It was the primary source for Apollo.

Inertial navigation systems always have some degree of drift or accuracy limitations.  Using a sextant to verify or recalibrate an INS at routine intervals was pretty common in days past. 

Nowadays, GPS is often used to verify or reset an INS.

Look at the navigation systems you can buy today for a low cost drone.

Although a bit scarey at times, some of the technological advances achieved over the years have been truly amazing. 

PW

Does anyone know if the Navy still performs routine sextant readings?

Yes, the Navy still makes use of Celestial Navigation.

This is a skill all Sailors must possess.

All Sailors who Navigate that is.

Oh,man is going to the moon  ;D

https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-1

Quote: Artemis I, formerly Exploration Mission-1, is the first in a series of increasingly complex missions that will enable human exploration to the Moon.

Wow,one would think that what was complex back in 1969,would be a breeze today  C.C

To boldly go where no man has been before  O0

Anyone got any word on that martian helicopter yet?  ;D

Here,just whack an electric motor and a couple of batteries in this thing,and you got a lunar rover  O0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1rlyl8VZFM

Of course it will be a lot smoother on the moon,because everything is in slow motion on the moon  :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az9nFrnCK60


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.03.20, 12:32:14

Wow, one would think that what was complex back in 1969,would be a breeze today

It is; now the emphasis is about costs and loads.

With Russia's help NASA has managed to "survive."

Who has the better and more capable Space Program?

Quote from: muDped on 2021.03.20, 19:59:12
With Russia's help NASA has managed to "survive."

Who has the better and more capable Space Program?

You haven't a clue, mudped. Russia's space program died with Korolev. And why did he die? Because your chum Stalin sent him to a prison camp for sod all, and it wrecked his health. Now, all Russia is/was is a taxi firm to the ISS and probably a bit more orbital work.

Paul,

You insist upon repeatedly showing how the Mass Media Narrative has taken over your life
and how little you really comprehend about anything going on in our present chaotic
World situation. ;D

By the way, Stalin (not his real name) was neither Russian nor my "buddy." C.C

But we are seeing now as a result of the UK going full "Soviet" that your
buddy Boris is certainly an admirer of ol' Joe Stalin. :o

How does it feel now that you Brits have been reduced to a lifestyle so much
like Gaza?  Really enjoying the Pain? 8)

Fortunately there are growing numbers of Awakened Men and Women who
are bravely taking a stand for Sanity and Justice.  Perhaps they will succeed in
saving those of you who have lost your minds and wit to the Mass Media. :D

Bon Appetit! :)

Quote from: muDped on 2021.03.20, 21:47:28
Paul,

You insist upon repeatedly showing how the Mass Media Narrative has taken over your life
and how little you really comprehend about anything going on in our present chaotic
World situation.

This is what you say every time you can't provide a real answer. You are an intellectual cardboard cut out.

Quote from: Paul-R
This is what you say every time you can't provide a real answer. You are an intellectual cardboard cut out.

Typical Mass Media Narrative Programmed Response. ???

Indicative of Complete Loss of Independent Thought Process Ability. :o

Face it Paul.  You're naught more than a Robot. ???

Constantly Parroting Mass Media Talking Points. C.C

What a shame.  At some prior point in your existence you must have had some semblance of Critical Thought. :(

The Human Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste. :-*

By the way, Russia's Space Program is fully functional.

NASA is still wondering how it can revive itself.

Even China has a Space Program superior to what NASA is capable of.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.03.20, 20:48:21
You haven't a clue, mudped. Russia's space program died with Korolev. And why did he die? Because your chum Stalin sent him to a prison camp for sod all, and it wrecked his health. Now, all Russia is/was is a taxi firm to the ISS and probably a bit more orbital work.

Hard to have a space program if you can't actually get into space  O0

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.03.21, 02:51:12
Hard to have a space program if you can't actually get into space  O0

They've been able to get into space since the mid 60s. It was expensive and Russia offered a cheaper alternative.

Quote from: muDped on 2021.03.21, 01:53:37
Typical Mass Media Narrative Programmed Response. ???

Indicative of Complete Loss of Independent Thought Process Ability. :o

Face it Paul.  You're naught more than a Robot. ???

Constantly Parroting Mass Media Talking Points. C.C

What a shame.  At some prior point in your existence you must have had some semblance of Critical Thought. :(

Gaslighting

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.03.21, 11:32:22
They've been able to get into space since the mid 60s. It was expensive and Russia offered a cheaper alternative.

Ah yes.
I believe it wasn't long after they had that German rocket scientist join them  O0

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.03.21, 13:22:14
Ah yes.
I believe it wasn't long after they had that German rocket scientist join them  O0

It was before, not after.

Quote from: Paul-Walter Mitty-R
Gaslighting

In your basement hideout?

Well then, now I can comprehend.

Say "hi" to joe.

Bon Appetit!

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.03.21, 13:45:21
It was before, not after.

No,sorry,you are wrong.

Von Braun and his team surrendered to the U.S. military in 1945.
Explorer 1 was the United States' first satellite in space in 1958  O0


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.03.22, 10:46:45
No,sorry,you are wrong.

Von Braun and his team surrendered to the U.S. military in 1945.
Explorer 1 was the United States' first satellite in space in 1958  O0


Brad

This is exactly my point. Von Braun came on board with Paperclip. He was there directing from the outset. You said that he came on board after the mid sixties. In post 121, you say "it wasn't long after..."

I'm not sure how this matters.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.03.22, 10:54:59
This is exactly my point. Von Braun came on board with Paperclip. He was there directing from the outset. You said that he came on board after the mid sixties. In post 121, you say "it wasn't long after..."

I'm not sure how this matters.

muDped said-With Russia's help NASA has managed to "survive."
You said-- all Russia is/was is a taxi firm to the ISS and probably a bit more orbital work.

I said-bit hard to have a space program if you can't get into space.
You replied-They've been able to get into space since the mid 60s.
I replied-Ah yes.
I believe it wasn't long after they had that German rocket scientist join them
Meaning that without other countries or there citizens,America would have no space program,as they alone could not get into space.

You replied-It was before, not after.
And im saying that they got into space after von braun joined in-not before as you think.

Quote from: TinMan on 2021.03.22, 11:08:48

You replied-It was before, not after.
And im saying that they got into space after von braun joined in-not before as you think.

I now see what you mean and I agree with you.

A quick snap of the moon down at the beach a couple of nights ago.

Oh look,stars,regardless of the super bright moon right in the middle of the photo.



Brad

Woohoo
Won't be long now until the 80 million dollar helicopter is zooming around mars  :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSXH_3hnr6M

Reading about Elon Musk in the news again ...

As you may know Elon is a fellow Engineer and here is a very enlightening video on his approach to problems...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNnMPRcmE1I

He made the Russian's and Nasa look like amateur's with reusable autonomous self-landing rockets lowering the cost per launch by magnitudes. He also started sending up hundreds of state of the art micro-satellites which will provide global cell service and high speed internet to everyone. Like many Elon is also talking about building space stations and moon bases.

As Elon implied in the video he basically ignores all the losers who are critical of what he does because they have nothing to offer. Oh every tin foil hatter populist would probably whine about how he's doing everything wrong or it's all a fake. However that doesn't change the fact he's kicking ass on every level of things 99% of people can only dream about. There's a lesson here... don't be a loser, solve a problem, find a solution, do something real that matters.

Regards
AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2021.03.22, 20:42:56

He also started sending up hundreds of state of the art micro-satellites which will provide global cell service and high speed internet to everyone.

He has done fantastic stuff but I prefer the space tourism focus of the Burt Rutan pioneered/VirginGalactic approach. We might all live to see tickets fall to a reasonable price, if only suborbital.

The micro-satellite project is the bit i don't like. There is talk of a lot of harm to science and astronomy.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2021.03.22, 20:42:56
Reading about Elon Musk in the news again ...

As you may know Elon is a fellow Engineer and here is a very enlightening video on his approach to problems...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNnMPRcmE1I

He made the Russian's and Nasa look like amateur's with reusable autonomous self-landing rockets lowering the cost per launch by magnitudes. He also started sending up hundreds of state of the art micro-satellites which will provide global cell service and high speed internet to everyone. Like many Elon is also talking about building space stations and moon bases.

As Elon implied in the video he basically ignores all the losers who are critical of what he does because they have nothing to offer. Oh every tin foil hatter populist would probably whine about how he's doing everything wrong or it's all a fake. However that doesn't change the fact he's kicking ass on every level of things 99% of people can only dream about. There's a lesson here... don't be a loser, solve a problem, find a solution, do something real that matters.

Regards
AC

What you see is all for public digestion.  None of it is a game changer by any means.

There are all sorts of stories, films, books, etc. saying we have had superior propulsion tech since the mid 1950's.  Same for a breakaway society that dwells in space, with bases on the moon, Mars, and other planets and their moons.

Seems we are being left behind...

Quote from: Grumpy on 2021.03.22, 23:07:54
What you see is all for public digestion.  None of it is a game changer by any means.

There are all sorts of stories, films, books, etc...

Are you sure there is any reality to these? NASA was severely embarrassed by Apollo 13 and it could have ruined them. If they had had an intergalactic breakdown truck on the far side of the Moon, I'm sure something magical would have materialised.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.03.22, 23:13:28
Are you sure there is any reality to these? NASA was severely embarrassed by Apollo 13 and it could have ruined them. If they had had an intergalactic breakdown truck on the far side of the Moon, I'm sure something magical would have materialised.

No way they would reveal what they have, Apollo disaster or not.
When Elon's starfish has problems, they won't save that ship either.

Imagine a totally separate elite civilization, that doesn't give a shit about anyone else.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2021.03.23, 03:48:32
No way they would reveal what they have, Apollo disaster or not.
When Elon's starfish has problems, they won't save that ship either.

Imagine a totally separate elite civilization, that doesn't give a shit about anyone else.

I'm not saying you're wrong but you need proof.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2021.03.23, 09:43:53
I'm not saying you're wrong but you need proof.

Some things are very difficult to prove.  It doesn't matter wither way.  They are not going to share technology or help anyone outside their group in any way, shape, or form.

Grumpy

QuoteSome things are very difficult to prove.  It doesn't matter wither way.  They are not going to share technology or help anyone outside their group in any way, shape, or form.

I'm sure many governments have advanced technology buried in some classified programs in corporations. Governments found they can avoid questions and liability by contracting this work out. What are others going to do, approach a corporation and ask them to share there intellectual property?, it's laughable. Corporations are only responsible to there shareholders and no one else.

Elon Musk nailed it when he said... owning a corporation means nobody can tell me what to do.

It's also a good way to avoid all the populists and tin foil hatters who want to drag there religious and political beliefs into science. They never get to see advanced technology because there filtered out in the hiring process. I agree and would never even consider hiring any of the quacks we see here in the forums and social media.

I know many people working on advanced technologies and they are very intelligent, well spoken, mature and responsible adults. They take there work and there privacy seriously versus these quacks ranting about conspiracies on social media. They couldn't be more different than many of the people we see here.

QuoteImagine a totally separate elite civilization, that doesn't give a shit about anyone else.

I think this is incorrect, if we want to be an elite civilization we have to act like one.

Obviously believing in hoaxes and conspiracies and ranting about every little thing which triggers there emotions on social media doesn't qualify. Nor does making nonsensical bs up, having few tangible skills and denying known facts and science. So it's not about caring it's about trust and unfortunately most people can't be trusted to act responsibly.

This forum is a perfect example, we could be debating the science of Free Energy technology like mature adults but that seldom if ever happens. Instead we have religious/political nut jobs getting triggered and spamming every thread with nonsense and conspiracy theories. Where are the facts, where is the science?...

Regards
AC

NASA's Ingenuity Helicopter Dropped on Mars' Surface Ahead of Flight (https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/nasa-ingenuity-helicopter-mars/2021/04/04/id/1016262/)

This topic/thread is now closed.

It is felt by the admin (and most core members) that the forum has deviated too far off course and lost the focus from the original purpose of this forum, and that is to provide a forum for Free Energy Researchers.

Until further notice, these and any other topics of the following nature will be locked:

1) Politics
2) Climate Change
3) COVID-19
4) Religion
5) Philosophy
6) Conspiracy Theories
7) etc. etc. etc...(you get the idea)

For those still wishing to discuss these types of topics are encouraged to seek out other venues and forums to do so.

Casual non-FE topics will continue to be permitted, just be advised that any topics or posts that wade into the forbidden zone will be dealt with swiftly and firmly, and may lead to users being placed on read only access (or more severe measures taken if necessary).

Thanks.

OUR - Admin.