all 27 comments

[–]34679 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You do realize that second stage engines exist because ground level engines aren't efficient in a vacuum? Try reading a book sometime. Learning from a guy who makes internet videos instead of rockets is not going to teach you anything about rockets.

Oh, and religion is make believe.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You do realize that second stage engines exist because ground level engines aren't efficient in a vacuum?

Of course.

Unfortunately, that doesn't fix the problem, because when there is zero atmospheric backpressure the rocket efficiency is going to plunge in the same way.

The second stage rockets use the same bell shaped design, so the improved efficiency is temporary. The same problem exists for all rockets.

Some may be more efficient, but getting to 100 miles from the surface in this way is a tall order... ;-)

Oh, and religion is make believe.

It sounds like space flight is your religion, cause you'll apparently believe anything they claim. :-/

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

That's a bit weird. Second stage rockets have a different profile to keep the pressure / flame shape balanced. Which is why there is so much work on variable rocket cones.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You're correct about the improved relative efficiency of the second stage rocket. Unfortunately, that doesn't resolve the problem.

This problem will still be encountered as soon the rocket reaches a height where the atmosphere is functionality a vacuum.

All known current generation rockets depend on atmospheric backpressure for efficiency. To the best of my knowledge, anyway. If you can prove this to be incorrect then please let me know.

This is analogous to the way a gun fires a bullet. The gun barrel is similar to the atmospheric pressure, where a shorter barrel is similar to a lower atmospheric back pressure.

As the barrel length is shortened the max velocity of the bullet exiting the gun is reduced. Also, the nozzel flash increases significant. When you get to a barrel length of zero, the bullet velocity is trivial, and the nozzel flash expands in all directions.

In a vacuum a rocket is functionality useless.

Here a great example of how questioning about this issue is typically evaded...

The explanation was oversimplified and intentionally misleading.

You can imagine how effective such a rocket would be when "landing in the moon".

The result would be landing in a crater; that was newly formed by the impact of the astronauts and the landing craft.

I don't like it either. I do my best to accept hard facts, and to then realign my world view.

That's a bit weird.


[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Hard vacuum is going to be an issue, but I thought we relied on conservation of momentum one we've left orbit. Your gun analogy is good, but doesn't hold true all the way down to zero pressure. The velocity at which we expel compressed gasses allows steering.

Your spaceship has a very high velocity already. It maintains that velocity through surfing the gravity well. So the steering tubes are merely used to trim that surfing line.

The moon landing is another issue completely. I was a big NASA fan, and bought the anniversary album. And then measured the shadows. Divergent shadows make me very sad.

I guess I'm not arguing that rockets don't work in a hard vacuum, since you are correct. I've now read that link, and to me, that sums it up perfectly.

For things like the ISS, there's a smarter method,

And I'm intrigued that they use that, since I'm pretty sure its one of the random ideas I put out onto newsgroups in the early 90s. Along with sonic weapons like the LRAD.

More on CMG here:

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hard vacuum is going to be an issue, but I thought we relied on conservation of momentum one we've left orbit.

Satellites are real.

The 6 of 7 astronauts from the Challenger explosion are still alive, and approaching retirement age. Some deny this evidence, but given your responses I'm quite sure you won't.

The ISS may be orbiting the planet, but there's plenty of evidence that the videos are staged.
The Hairsprayed hair is hilarious to me.
I laughed out loud when I found this video. It's a gem.

I can't prove that no one is on the station, but they certainly haven't proven that anyone is up there.

It's all comedy. I hope you got a laugh. ;-)

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your spaceship has a very high velocity already. It maintains that velocity through surfing the gravity well. So the steering tubes are merely used to trim that surfing line.

It would need to be going near escape velocity to escape to the moon. Escape velocity is ~40,000 mph. It was my understanding that the rockets were traveling at 17,000 mph for near Earth orbit.

The additional velocity required to get to the Moon to reach the edge of the "gravity well" would be tremendous.

Also, this acceleration would need to occur within the Earth's atmosphere for the rockets to function; which is unlikely...

Significant travel beyond low Earth orbit appears to be impossible using currently known technologies.

I think we're stuck...

[–]hennaojisan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

I'm only guessing but the government could siphon off billions of dollars from the "space" budget under the guise of space stations and such. The money could then be used to line pockets and dig underground shelters.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Could be. It's tough to say what the contactors would do with it.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I honestly, think we have gone to space, we've just never gone to the moon. We will stay in low earth orbit until we figure out how to combat the harmful effects of the Van Allan Radiation belt. There's a clear distinction between low earth orbit footage and all the other footage. The difference is night and day. One looks real, the other is filled with anomalies and absurdities.

I also noticed the space station, which likely exists, is not used in LIVE footage via NASA programs. I remember an astronaut, claim she was with the ground team here. The problem was she slipped up and was suppose to be in space. For around 3 minutes she looks like she is going to cry and all the astronauts are on edge. I really think the outwardness and dream big belief of NASA is a hoax. The real NASA probably has a black budget for space weaponization and surveillance.

American Moon documentary is a great doc to watch. I highly recommend it.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

There's a clear distinction between low earth orbit footage and all the other footage. The difference is night and day. One looks real, the other is filled with anomalies and absurdities.

The low Earth orbit videos are demonstrably fake. The curvature of the Earth would be slight from 100 to 250 miles from the surface.

The visible (and significant) radial arc shown in most videos would need to be taken from approximate 4000-5000 miles from the surface.

Russian Space Walk In 2013 Proves The ISS Is Fake

This gentleman dismantles these fake videos. It's about 25 minutes long, but he's thorough. The same cannot be said if the hoaxters.

I suppose that they do deserve some credit, because maintaining the PsyOp in every aspect is an impossible task....

American Moon documentary is a great doc to watch. I highly recommend it.

I posted preview link on the 50th hoaxiversary. It's 5 hours of legit debunking. He leaves no room for debate.

The mason astronauts fell on their swords, and lived out the lie.

In the end, I feel pity for what they were put through. They really didn't have a choice.

I suspect that Gus Grissom may not have been willing to fake it, so he was killed. We'll never know for certain.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I agree, though none of this proves the earth is flat. It does however prove fakery of mass proportions. That video was very interesting unfortunately I'm not great at mathematics so I couldn't reverse engineer his hypothesis. Still, so much lies and fakery going on at NASA (Never A Straight Answer)

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm not a flat earth believer in any way.

Although, I can understand how it would be easy to go down that path if one loses enough faith in the system.

If I believed that physics was mumbo jumbo (based on my world experiences) then this would probably be a rationale (infact intellectually sophisticated) conclusion.

If it's all a lie, then nothing can be trusted that cannot be experienced/verified.

It has unfortunately come to that for some.... :-/

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If it's all a lie, then nothing can be trusted that cannot be experienced/verified.

Yes, and that's how everyone should think. But trust is important in communities.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There's a video debunking the pool theory. Clearly, it doesn't look like they're in a pool. I've seen other videos which makes it clear they are not in a pool. But the video maker does provide clear evidence that there is fakery going on.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think we're aligned in our perspective on this.

If it's not the vacuum of near-Earth orbit, then it's fake.

[–]hennaojisan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

You found it. Yes, that page was an embarrassment for me since I sent a different link on there to /u/Jesus. Just a case of too much coffee.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

What page? 153news?

[–]hennaojisan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Damn. I put your username in a PM to somebody and you got it. I was telling him that link I sent you yesterday about the oath. It had another link to stuff he might have been interested in, but he said basically it was nonsense. So one link embarrassed me two times. I was way over-caffeinated yesterday. Sunday night in the US and saidit is so dead.

Did you listen to the Rense interview with Herbert Dorsey? He made many claims about Jesuits but what should have set off my bullshit detector was his claim that Hitler and many scientists escaped to Argentina after the war and then the scientists made spacecraft that went to the moon and to Mars. I am so gullible sometimes.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I don't trust Rense at all. I have yet to watch the video. I'm still researching the oath and reading a 17th and 19th century book on its origins to get a better idea of the forgery.

The jesuit narrative, like I've said is a limited hangout. I'm researching the origins of Jesuitism and their relationship with atheistic, illuminist Jews as well as Freemasons, both of whom the Nazis persecuted. There's plenty of disinfo on the internet, that's why I won't trust a blog, I'll certainly read it, but I have to find the source and it's original origins. That makes everything go much slower but it allows for a better understanding.

[–]hennaojisan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes, I have never trusted Rense (maybe Catholics in Action Disinfo) but I fell for Lamont and somehow went with Rense and Dorsey. But really, Nazis on Mars? That is way farfetched although on the very outside of possible. Possible only if the Operation Paperclip Germans were the B Team.

However, I have seen quotes from Napoleon about Jesuits (almost certainly disinfo, where he goes on about them being power-mad) and when Napoleon calls a group power-mad, well, that is saying a lot. I was brainwashed for a couple of days there but I'm all right now.

I only have two glasses of wine a day.

Happy to make your acquaintance.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah, I read many books on the Jesuits, specifically some notable ones written by a Jewish Zionist. Problem is he sources very little and you have to take his word for almost everything. He tries to say the Jesuits were an arm of the church, but never mentions that the traditionalists loathed them.

[–]hennaojisan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Problem is he sources very little...

Like me.

Since two years after 9/11 I have been convinced that Zionists were our biggest problem but a few days of reading about Jesuits changed my mind. Now my mind is changed back again. I am so wishy-washy but I guess that is what propaganda is all about.

[–]hennaojisan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here are some quotes—and their sources—about Jesuits. Though Ignatius de Loyola's parents were Jews, there seem to be some differences between Zionists and Jesuits. For example, Jesuits were fond of poisoning their enemies. [Contains the sources for these quotes]

The Jesuits are a MILITARY organization, not a religious order. Their chief is a general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a monastery. And the aim of this organization is power - power in its most despotic exercise - absolute power, universal power, power to control the world by the volition of a single man. Jesuitism is the most absolute of despotisms - and at the same time the greatest and most enormous of abuses. Napoleon Bonaparte

“This society [Jesuits] has been a greater calamity to mankind than the French Revolution, or Napoleon's despotism or ideology. It has obstructed the progress of reformation and the improvement of the human mind in society much longer and more fatally. {Letter to Thomas Jefferson, November 4, 1816. Adams wrote an anonymous 4 volume work on the destructive history of the Jesuits}” ― John Adams, The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams

John Adams (1735-1826; 2nd President of the United States) “My history of the Jesuits is not eloquently written, but it is supported by unquestionable authorities, [and] is very particular and very horrible. Their [the Jesuit Order’s] restoration [in 1814 by Pope Pius VII] is indeed a step toward darkness, cruelty, despotism, [and] death. … I do not like the appearance of the Jesuits. If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in hell, it is this Society of [Ignatius de] Loyola.”

Marquis de LaFayette (1757-1834; French statesman and general. He served in the American Continental Army under the command of General George Washington during the American Revolutionary War.) “It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country – the United States of America – are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated MOST of the wars of Europe.”

Lord Palmerston “The presence of the Jesuits in any country, Romanist [i.e., Catholic] or Protestant, is likely to breed social disturbance.”

Adolph Hitler (1889-1945; Nazi leader and chancellor of Germany from 1933-1945) “Above all I have learned from the Jesuits. And so did Lenin too, as far as I recall. The world has never known anything quite so splendid as the hierarchical structure of the [Roman] Catholic Church. There were quite a few things I simply appropriated from the Jesuits for the use of the [Nazi] Party.” …In [Heinrich] Himmler [who would become head of the Nazi SS] I see our Ignatius de Loyola [Ed. Note: the founder of the Jesuit Order].””

Pope Clement XIV (Who had “forever” abolished the Jesuit Order in 1773) “Alas, I knew they [i.e., the Jesuits] would poison me; but I did not expect to die in so slow and cruel a manner.” (1774) [As he was dying of poisoning]

James Parton (American historian) “If you trace up Masonry, through all its Orders, till you come to the grand tip-top head Mason of the World, you will discover that the dread individual and the Chief of the Society of Jesus [i.e., the Superior General of the Jesuit Order] are one and the same person.”

Robert Jefferson Breckinridge (March 8, 1800 – December 27, 1871) was a politician and Presbyterian minister. “The Society of Jesus [i.e., the Jesuit Order] is the enemy of man. The whole human race should unite for its overthrow. …For there is no alternative between its total extirpation, and the absolute corruption and degradation of mankind.”

Edmond Paris (Author of the book The Secret History of the Jesuits.) “The public is practically unaware of the overwhelming responsibility carried by the Vatican and its Jesuits in the starting of the two world wars – a situation which may be explained in part by the gigantic finances at the disposition of the Vatican and its Jesuits, giving them power in so many spheres, especially since the last conflict.”

“The war [i.e., the American Civil War of 1861-1865] would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits.” — Abraham Lincoln

[–]hennaojisan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Don't mind me. I'm having a few goofy days.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well stay sober. A good mind, is a good thing.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's exactly what they did. Likely, the money went into space weaponization and other black projects.