July 19 - 25, 2022
Finding Fakery on SpaceX's Backward Landings
How To Find the True Solar Distance on Your Own
If you're waiting for Jesus to return, see Post-Tribulation Rapture
The Carbon War Room in the quote below is owned by Richard Branson, a topic of my last two updates.
It’s a bit of a maze, but based on the extensive ‘Ten Island Challenge Project Document’ filed with GEF/UNDP, they state that the management arrangements are the following: “The project will be executed under UNDP’s NGO implementation modality. The project will be implemented by Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)/Carbon War Room (CWR), in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE), with support from UNDP to the beneficiary countries.”
The ‘Product Document’ recognizes the following people and organizations as “The Team”:
Justin Locke, Director of Islands, Carbon War Room
Mark Grundy, Director of Communications, Carbon War Room
Roy Torbert, Manager, Rocky Mountain Institute
Kate Hawley, Senior Associate, Rocky Mountain Institute
Chad Nancarrow, Senior Program Manager, DNV GL
Blake Herrschaft, Energy Efficiency Specialist, DNV GL
Bruce Moreira, Community Engagement Specialist, DNV GL
They recognize the following as “Partners Organizations”:
United States Department of Energy
Clinton Climate Initiative
If you ask Richard Branson, it was his idea. He claims that he and José María Figueres Olsen announced the radical idea pledging to get 10 islands in the Caribbean to stop using natural gas for energy and become fossil-fuel free, at the RIO+20 conference in June, 2012.
According to the Clinton Foundation’s press release on September 1, 2015, they state that the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) is teaming up with Rocky Mountain Institute-Carbon War Room
It's been in the works for a decade now. Doesn't all that say it all on who's pushing "climate change" globally? It's the demonic underpinnings of the American government.
The author of the four-Part work makes a good point where this Ten Island Challenge seems oddly out of place dealing in green energy throughout the human-trafficking zone of islands so that, especially with Bill Clinton in the dregs of the picture, the green-energy "challenge" looks like a front for horrible, illegal activity. That's not to say the people involved in TIC are not gearing up to make a lot of money on green energy too, as they force the world to go onto it quicker than it's ready for it. The entire world needs to suffer high fuel prices just so a handful of these demons can make money on green energy. That's obviously where we're at this moment. If not mistaken, the Ten Island Challenge includes Haiti.
The question is: with Bill Clinton having met with Jeffrey Epstein many, many times, why is Richard Branson -- owning two islands near Epstein's island -- in this diabolical mix at TIC? The partnership with the U.S. department of Energy isn't fooling me. It doesn't make the TIC initiative angelic, but rather demonic. A government should not be partnered in a thing such as this. It's got forced conversion all over it, and Biden's government, run by others, not himself, is forcing Americans to convert to green energy as we speak. This is a lunatic operation of bottomless-pit greed, and most people know it. The goons are using the fantasy of "greenhouse gas" to force us onto expensive energy, some ten times more expensive than oil should be. I own solar panels, I know. You don't recover your money when going solar unless they raise fuel costs way up so that electricity goes up too, and this is what the selfish powerhouses have done to the entire world for over a decade, with no end in sight as Biden goes brazenly inhumane at the direction of his secret directors. We are being played, yet this is not a game for us. We're not having fun with this, they are.
The TIC initiative started when Hillary Clinton was Obama's State department. She was followed by John Kerry, who, under Biden's administration, has become the "climate czar." Coincidence? They are all working together to make zillions on wind and solar. But, poor slobs, they will be dead and gone before the people can afford to use this monstrosity. Al Gore was so worried he'd be dead and gone before he could see his $$$ roll in that he claimed planetary catastrophe within a few short years unless the world moved fast to adopt green energy. Why does anyone listen to these mad-howling wolves? There has been no climate change, no greenhouse effect. A teensy-weeny extra bit of CO2 from fossil-fuel consumption is insufficient to create a greenhouse ceiling. In the air at all times, there is a teensy-weeny bit of CO2 from natural processes, and the teensy-weeny additions from humans and cow flatulence together makes no difference at all. It cannot create a greenhouse tent that makes it harder for heat to escape into space. It's a self-serving lie. Ocean levels are not rising. It's a lie.
In Part IV of "Clintons Shipwrecked on Ten Islands," there is the suggestion that the Clinton crime ring working green-energy schemes are also working the hotel/tourism industry, which is Branson's bag especially. Tourism suffered a near-fatal blow during the COVID scheme, suggesting that the Clinton crime ring may not be totally on-board with the COVID scheme. On the other hand, the hotels may have the main purpose of entertaining elite pedophiles not restricted by high travel costs, and, bonus, they get to be in hotels without the middle-class low-downs spoiling their vacations.
A group of American and Canadian "tourists" booked 22 rooms in the hotel and paid for day passes for the children to use. The hotel owner stated that "the children came in dribs and drabs under a day pass." Reuters reported that in 2016, the U.S. State Department had downgraded Haiti to a tier 3 (the lowest grade), for human trafficking centers. It’s no surprise that these nine Americans and Canadians were let go and Kaliko Beach Club was exonerated.
...Another example is Wakaya Island. NXIVM leaders Clare Bronfman owns 80% of Wakaya, a private island off the coast of Fiji. Based on court documents, Keith Raniere would appear to own the other 20%. Keith Raniere is in prison awaiting trial on multiple charges of racketeering, child pornography, visa fraud, sexual exploitation of a child. Bronfman is on house arrest awaiting trial on charges as well. This is another case with many arms. The Bronfman family is no stranger to Richard Branson. He knew Clare and Sara Bronfman’s father, and hosted the NXIVM cult on his island a couple of times.
The author is suggesting that the sex-traffickers bribe the governments of the islands with "free" solar power, and she points out that even Canada supports this "challenge" with tax-payer dollars. That's how it's free to the gangsters; they get tax payers to foot the bills, and in this way, the author insinuates, the governments of the islands leave the gangsters do their thing while turning a blind eye. You and me unwillingly pay governments to turn a blind eye to the sickest corruption. In prophecy, the islands sink below water level at Armageddon. Is God aiming the apophis asteroid for the Atlantic islands dealing in sickening corruption?
Coincidentally, it was just announced on March 19, 2019 that President Trump would be meeting with five Caribbean leaders at Mar-a-Lago on Friday March 22...
Haiti’s Prime Minister Jean Henry Ceant was just fired on March 18th. Two days later, on March 20th, Senator Marco Rubio begins splashing his twitter page with photos of himself with President Jovenel Moise and other political figures in Haiti....
It’s hard to imagine discussions between Trump and Haiti on trade issues and energy investments, without resolving Haiti’s biggest issues first – drug trafficking, corrupt leaders, ongoing ties to the Clintons and Soros, and removing Kenneth Merten from the State Department. Haitians have long been protesting to remove President Jovenel Moise and other corrupt officials.
Just before this meeting took place, Bernard Sansaricq, former President of the Haitian Senate, took to Facebook showing his disdain for Jovenel Moise, as well as his shock that this known drug trafficker would be in the same room with President Trump, rather than placed behind bars. He states that the DEA and the U.S. Embassy in Haiti are very aware of Moise’s dealings, and that Moise has been seen, photographed, dealing, and protecting every known drug trafficker in Haiti...
Perhaps Trump's advisors at the time were in favor of, or even complicit with, removing Ceant for Moise.
Elon Musk is Not Our Friend
What would it take to flip an in-coming rocket 180 degrees in order to make it land backward on the legs it took off from? This is easier and cheaper than you think: just pay some teenagers to doctor lift-off videos to make them appear to land rockets backward; buy a smoke-simulation software for their use; alter toilet-flush sounds to feign rocket-engine sounds; don't show the public the flipping part accept by computer animations; don't let the public within eye-shot of the landing site because there's no rocket there landing backward.
The SpaceX rocket that lands backward in this video can easily be a video feed backward. If you think the rocket is landing backward for real, you are a part of the deception problem, unable to think for yourself, too trusting of the rulers. At 24 seconds, the rocket is coming down fast, but at 26 it slows to about half the speed even though we see no extra engine thrust, and even though the flame is not yet close enough to the ground to slow the velocity. That is proof of a doctoring job because slowing a descending rocket needs force. The laws of physics claim that this video is a fake, and if this one alone is a fake, why not the others that show the same type of landing?
When a rocket descends vertically, jets on the side of the rocket will need to spit and spit and spit, from one side, then another side, then another, to keep the rocket vertical. We should see the nose tilting one way, then another, and we should see jets correcting the chaotic tilts. I can't imagine an anti-tilt system working so well that our eyes cannot detect tilt. That is, the anti-tilt system that works so fast that it corrects tilt before tilt happens is nothing but science-fiction at this time. The military has shown nothing of this sort so that we should know better than to believe this technology exists out of the blue at this time.
The fuel power of the rocket is going to facilitate tilt because the thrust force can never shoot perfectly straight through the rocket. That's why rockets have fins, to correct the tilt caused by main-engine thrust. It's that simple. If engine thrust is perfectly centered, rocket fins would not be required. When a rocket slows, as it does at the landing we saw above, fins become less useful to correct tilt. Side jets are especially needed to keep the rocket from tilting when the flames of the engine hit the ground. That's the place where tilt is 100-percent assured, yet we see no side jets, and no tilt, with SpaceX rockets as they land. Impossible.
Sure, SpaceX pretends to crash a relatively few rockets, knowing that the public would expect it, but I say such a feat would, in the least, take decades to correct, and, besides, we have never seen one craft from any national military that lifts off straight up from upon legs, then lands backward upon those legs. NOT ONE. The only such rocket we've seen is the lunar landers, and there's no way such craft can work, especially in the early 1970s...which is how you can know that men would not be sent to the moon to try such a landing there for the first time ever.
The fact is, the U.S. government tried backward landing of rocket-like craft, but the craft crashed, which is why it stopped trying. The backward flight was beyond their abilities. They couldn't keep the craft straight up, but rather they whirled out of control. The reason the military doesn't show the public the attempts to land such craft is obvious: it will instantly kill the moon-landing hoax.
The obviously-faked video below shows a partial flip, note that the side jets are at the bottom of the rocket instead of the top. This is ludicrous because the jets now need to push the weight of the fuel and engine over in order to tilt the craft, whereas pushing the light top of the rocket would be much easier and therefore safer. It's the top of the rocket that tilts, and so you want tilt correction at the top, duh. The doctoring team decided to put the jets at the bottom, but why?
You don't want to take the chance of crashing an expensive rocket just because one jet didn't perform with power enough to correct a tilt fast enough, but that's the risk taken by putting jets at the heavy bottom of the rocket. The ill-logic of what you just saw is more evidence of fakery, and if they faked that descent-to-land, why not the others too?
In the video, they have three wee-wee jets coming forth from one side of the rocket to flip it from the horizontal to vertical position. The entire ship's weight is pressing on the air beneath it as it falls to the ground, and so the jets need to be powerful enough to overcome the air currents against the rocket. The rocket is not in a vacuum here; the rocket is not hovering. It's heavy and falling fast against the air; you need more than wee-wee-poof-poof spits of gas to make the engine rotate 90 degrees.
In this flip, the engine follows a circular path. When its circular path gets to the point where the engine is closest to the ground, no jets are seen fired from the opposite side (of the visible jets) to stop the circular path. ??? Why not??? Are the doctors just plain stupid? That's a heavy rocket being forced to rotate it's bottom end against air currents in the ballpark of 120 miles per hour, and then there's no spits of smoke seen to stop this powerful rotation of the bottom end??? Once a rotation of the craft is set into motion, something needs to stop it...because the engine is going to start going up if nothing stops it when the rocket's vertical. And we do see the engine starting to go up, though it corrects itself almost instantly without any jets being fired. In a real situation, it would be expected that they use the jets just-in-case to prevent a flop.
This faked video seems to be minimizing the importance of the side jets by showing as few as possible of them, and not showing them with much power. More smoke goes out my chimney in five minutes than is seen forcing the rocket's bottom end toward the ground.
The added curiosity is why they show no legs on this rocket. How do they expect it to land safely without legs??? One purpose of legs is to keep the main rocket as far from the ground as possible, because when the main rocket fires toward something hard, like the ground, the rocket is going to tilt and feed the tilt. This is why the military hasn't made straight-down-landing craft, because the engine, needed at the bottom, feeds a tiny tilt to make the craft tilt more. The closer to the ground one allows the main-engine burst to get, the harsher this tilt feed.
In this short video under discussion, why did they switch scenes from the instant the rocket was about to touch ground? The rocket is coming down, and just as it gets to the ground, the scene switches to an explosion of another rocket. Why didn't they just show the first rocket exploding? Who cares? It evidence of more shenanigans. If you're not looking for the fakery, you're less likely to see it.
In some videos of SpaceX rockets, you see the engine thrusters MOVING. Why are they moving? Is it because they forgot to tighten the bolts? No, it's because they neglected to put sideways jets on the early rockets, jets that are absolutely needed to correct tilt. And so, I think, they decided to put out videos with moving / pivoting engine thrusters in order to give appearances that they had anti-tilt feature all along. It's not going to be reliable to adjust the thruster a couple of degrees off-vertical. It's too hit-and-miss. Nobody's going to depend on this method of tilt control. The thrust power of the engines are going to be changed at different stages of the descent, and so to use the same engines also for tilt-control is complicated by the fact that the engine power is needed primarily for slowing the rocket for landing. The landing is itself a delicate operation so that you don't want the need for tilt control during the delicate landing. You don't want to compromise the landing to fix any tilt that may arise. You get it. That's why, in a real situation, they would make a separate tilt-control system.
It would be much easier and efficient to correct tilt with jets on the top-side of the rocket...not at all suggesting such anti-tilt would be easy to program. If you want to properly deceive the people, you put the jets at the top, but they failed to feign this because they prefer to hire teenagers at minimum wage. That's what it looks like, anyway. Engine thrusters blast fuel harshly. You don't want such harshness to control something so delicate as keeping the top end of the rocket straight. And so what SpaceX does to deceive further is to show rockets tilting by design, as if it's easy and safe to tilt them a little and not lose the rocket. It's brainwashing.
NASA is a despicable fool-tool for the devil, putting it nicely, and Musk wants skinchips in your body. Can you see where this is going? It necessitates the return of Jesus before these lunatics destroy the global population by force of their hands. Revelation 13 predicted that they would FORCE people to do their will. How did the writer of Revelation know? Why was fire from the sky, of all things available to first-century history, made the main symbol of the 666-man? His fellow beast of Revelation 13 is depicted as a war man. Don't fire from the sky and war go together these days? They didn't back when Revelation was written. Daniel 11 prophecy tends to reveal that, if the anti-Christ beast can't have his fascist way, then all the world must die. Jesus claimed (Matthew 24:22) that if He did not return at that time, no man (generality, perhaps) would be saved, suggesting nuclear weapons as the lethality.
It predicts a power on earth that will not abide by peaceful co-existence, but one seeking glory in being the Almighty Ruler even if it risks all of humanity. However, we have come to a time when it's being made apparent that they want to kill mankind off so that they might enjoy the planet's glory more to themselves. They despise the poor for this reason, can't stand to see them crowding the beaches when they themselves go to a beach, can't stand to see them filling in hotels when they go to hotels, can't stand to see them filling cities during the workweek unless they are their employees = slaves. They are environmentalists because they want to enjoy a pristine globe to themselves, and thus they hate the masses who pollute "their" earth. They have exposed themselves to the point that what I've just said can be flushed out as the absolute truth of the globalist condition today. The more we hate them, the more they hate sharing "their" planet with us.
The globalist Constitution: "We the Owners of the planet...have a right to the pursuit of happiness without the detestable poor cluttering our lives." Are they so stupid as not to understand why we hate them? YES, they are that willfully blind. Into a ditch of Hell they will walk without knowing it until they get there. This is how it will go for them, that while they think they will soon be supreme over all, yet they will find themselves in a bed of Hell, restricted in Prison, no more luxury vacations, no more private islands, no more high-class prostitutes, no more respect from their own kind. I expect NASA and the False Prophet to be on the same page, conducting false signs with video-room doctors, and they even set up an IMAGE (icon) to the beast.
If you ask google for anyone reporting that SpaceX is faked, you instead get videos of pro-SpaceX people debunking the conspiracy theorists. Also, google gave me the video below which appears produced by pro-SpaceX tools trying to make anti-SpaceX people look stupid. I couldn't watch this past three minutes, but it's worth your seeing that the enemy deceives even in this way on multitudes of topics:
Google also gives us, "SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket launch was FAKED by Elon Musk, insist Flat Earth Society conspiracy theorists". In fact, I think all the flat-earth madness that we see in social media is from the enemy because they want to make conspiracy theorists look like flat-earthers. After viewing two google pages, not one -- NOT ONE -- article or video with an intelligent treatment on SpaceX fakery. This is the way forward, not just censorship, but ridicule to those who expose the truth. See this assessment, for example, by one who believes SpaceX is fake:
The video below starts with a camera on the ground watching the ship take off. Then, at the one-minute mark, there is a new camera shot, except that it's not really a camera. Instead, they have a fake ship on the screen that never moves (much) from the same position on the screen, and they just made the clouds scroll down to give the appearance of the rocket going upward. How could the camera on a second craft shoot the rocket so that the rocket always stays exactly at the same spot on the screen? On what type of craft could the camera be on? The rocket does not stay at exactly the same spot, but nearly, for over two minutes.
I don't think the camera can be on the ground because, according to the visible angle of the rocket (almost fully vertical to the camera) at 10 kilometers high, the camera would need to be many miles away from the launch pad. The scene is so continuously filled with clouds that no camera that far away on the ground could capture this scene. If we argue that it was a perfectly blue sky, then why are the clouds continuous in the picture? Nor can this picture be from an airplane's camera, I've realized, leaving us only one other option.
Up until about 3:30, the cloud strata, moving downward, are perpendicular to the rocket length, suggesting straight-up flight. Expected. Seconds later, starting at about at 3:35, the clouds start dropping diagonally (???); the clouds are no longer perpendicular to the rocket length. How to explain this if the rocket is moving straight up? The further curiosity is that the thrusters change the flame direction to promote the idea that the rocket is starting to fly diagonally toward our right, yet that direction is away from the landing pad, not toward it. That makes no sense to me.
How can we explain the diagonal falling of the clouds? Is it to complicate anyone's mind who tries to make sense of what's happening? At about 4:08, the cloud strata are moving fully horizontal from right to left, yet the rocket remains almost vertical on the screen in a hover. This is where one can realize that the camera is not on a plane, for how could a plane capturing the scene not shoot further away from the rocket when the latter is hovering? Do they have a plane capable of hovering along with the rocket? No. Helicopters can't fly as fast as rockets, and so the only real-world option is a plane for capturing this scene, yet we just ruled it out because the rocket shape remains the same both before and after hovering. No plane has shot up higher than the rocket because the view is always from underneath the rocket. This is an animation, therefore, a cartoon made for mere kids.
I'm reading: "SpaceX's Starship is a stainless-steel rocket that stands 165 feet". The rocket under discussion is a Starship. Count the time it takes for the clouds to pass the rocket, by one rocket length, when the clouds are moving in the horizontal direction. I count about 1 second. As the rocket is 165 feet long, we know that the clouds, much further away than the rocket, are moving MORE than 165 feet per 1 second = 594,000 feet per hour = 112.5 mph. The clouds never pass in front of the rocket, so far as I can tell, and so with clouds further than the rocket, they are judged to be moving more than 122.5 mph. Hurricane winds start at 75 mph. Therefore, this animation is busted. In fact, the smoke from the hovering rocket floats along at about the same clip as the clouds appear to move so that even the smoke is moving over 100 mph in the horizontal direction. Sorry, Musk, you're employees just busted you. Your legacy: FAKE.
At 4:15, the rocket is falling straight downward, and the clouds are not moving laterally at all. What happened to the hurricane-force winds over the past few minutes? Look at how many clouds there are, so thick, and yet there's not one cloud in front of this near-black rocket ship. How'd they do that? ANIMATION by stupids. The camera is being feigned as if upon the ground because the position of the rocket is such that we see some of its belly. But if the camera is on the ground, we expect clouds between it and the rocket. Sorry, Musk you're...
Did you notice that the rocket remains essentially in the same part of the screen as it falls? How does the camera on the ground follow it so well? Easy, the rocket is just a movable cartoon on the screen, and cloud animation is added to feign rocket motion. That's why the goofs added clouds...that came round to bite you on your dirty butt, Musk.
Did you notice that the rocket is square to the camera? Yes, it's exactly 90 degrees to the camera, neither pointed away from it a little, nor toward it a little. How did they manage that perfect shot? Easy, they just didn't modify the rocket animation after choosing one. They clicked to choose it, put it on the screen, and didn't bother to make it appear at a small angle to the camera.
At 4:35, in another scene, the rocket's bottom end is spewing smoke toward the top of the screen, yet the bottom end of the rocket is not moving downward on the screen as we expect with a jet of fuel spewed toward the top. The smoke is supposedly from some jets built into the side of the rocket. In fact, the bottom of the rocket goes upward on the screen while the jets shoot smoke (no flames seen) upward, the very opposite of what's expected. Perhaps they did not have these jets in the original video. Perhaps they were added later by a tech-junky paid $12 per hour to make it look real, for the jets are not causing the rocket to perform as expected.
The rocket is made to swerve a little as it comes upon the landing pad because Musk got fried by the pubic when he showed straight-down landings. So, you see, these swervey landings are proof that the straight-down landings were faked. The landing soundtrack sounds like a stretched-out flush of a urinal.
Yet, we expect far more than a swerve when the main engines come near the ground. The forceful gases will wildly cause the rocket to tilt, and the only way to keep it from tilting under such robust power is to fire FLAMES of burnt fuel sideways, and fast, as soon as it starts tilting. They can't let it tilt too far because tilt feeds more tilt. Yet we see no such flaming jets of fuel. We see only smoke-and-poof-poof, and what looks like the flame of a kerosene lamp on the right side. The only thing missing is Bugs Bunny taking a bite out of the top of the rocket.
During the flip, one can see jets of smoke, but never a flame. You can't see any holes in the rocket's bottom side where the smoke is seen issuing. Go back to 31 seconds to see a clear shot of a jet of smoke, and note how small they make it...because they had not doctored holes in the side of this rocket for the sidejets, and are thus feigning sidejets. Those piddley-little jets of smoke at landing time are useless in correcting rocket swerve. In a real situation, they would have made large jets, with large holes visible to the eye, if indeed they were intent on correcting rocket tilt. But the holes are not there.
The two large holes, or what looks like two holes, at 28 seconds, do not show any smoke or flames coming from them at anytime. At 28 seconds, you see no black image on the bottom of the left fin, but at 31 seconds, in a new view of the fin, not only isn't one of the two holes showing where I think it should partially show, but there is a black image on the left fin. Note how the view at 31 seconds decides to show the very bottom of the craft only, as if they don't wish to reveal that the two holes are not there. Indeed, at 34 seconds, enough of the craft is showing that one of the two holes should be showing fully, but is not showing at all. They seem to be using two different rockets in portraying the one.
At 6:13, with the rocket about a kilometer high, we see all four fins facing equally toward the camera on the ground. The rocket is therefore depicted as coming straight down toward the camera. The clouds do not look like real clouds because they are not. We are not very familiar in seeing clouds when we are in the sky, and so the doctors can get away with faking clouds when pretending to show a rocket in the air from a camera in the air, but we are all very familiar with what clouds look like from eyes on the ground. This camera eye is at the ground, at the launch site, and those are definitely not real clouds we see at 6:13. They are from a computer animation of clouds.
At 6:17, the rocket is free-falling at about 120 mph, and yet five seconds later, between 6:22 to 6:25, it's moving one rocket length per three seconds = about 40 mph. That can't be reality. A rocket engine can't slow a rocket that much that fast. The rocket traveled one rocket length over five seconds to a full stop at landing, meaning that it's average speed over the last five seconds of flight was about 23 miles per hour. Not exactly a delicate landing. I put the video in slow motion to find that it did a half a rocket length in the last three full seconds from the start of 1:31 to the end of 1:33. The math: 165 feet / 2 x (60 seconds / 3 seconds) x 60 minutes / 5,280 feet = 19 mph on average. In the last second, I found that it traveled about 15 feet for an average speed of 10 mph. Did the doctoring team get this right, or is it too fast?
In the video below, one sees the jets at the top of a rocket that lands very suspiciously as though the camera is put in reverse. The jets in this video are not like smoke out an window, but more like we expect, harsh shots of lit-up blasts. Don't be deceived by the smooth talk of the speaker, or the comforting music they chose, he's a liar, and his employer is a liar:
When one rocket comes down at 20 seconds, jets of smoke-like material issue, without light, but they can be deemed fakes, either inserted into the video or installed on the rocket as a gimmick, because they shoot out even though the rocket is not leaning. I put it into slow motion, there is no tilt at all when this smoke issues out. What could possibly be the motive for showing these jets on opposite sides of one another?
As the vertical descent is about to happen, they would turn on the anti-tilt system. Let's assume the rocket has only four jets in a circle around the top. The system would be programmed so that, if the rocket tilts south-south-west, a jet on the west side, and a jet on the south side, both spit out a blast; the jet on the south side spits out more fuel because the tilt is mainly southward. The computer needs to be programmed to detect the direction of the tilt, and to seek to correct it (good luck) by the amounts of force released in the jets. After the two shots above are fired, the program then needs to ask whether the shots brought the rocket to vertical at any time, how long it took to get it back to vertical, or it may find that, no, it did not come back to vertical, and then it needs to ask where in Hell is the top of the rocket now, and in what path is it moving, and what do we do about it now, this split second, before it's too late. By the time it decides what to do, the thrusters have tilted the rocket in just the direction that is anathema to the decision of the computer at that split-second, and to make matters worse, a gust of wind comes in to make chaos of the correction to the correction. At this point, sparks and sizzle are coming from the anti-tilt brain's electronics. The military gave up on this; it was beyond the ability of humans to program it well enough to combat the nasty rocket thrust.
I stress: the rocket we see does not lean in any direction, an impossibility with the harsh blast of the main engines hitting the landing site. The rocket should lean VISIBLY in one direction to begin with. When an anti-tilt system seeks to correct this, it's not likely to correct it on the first try. The rocket will either come not far enough back to the perfect-vertical, or it will go too far and lean in the opposite direction, needing a jet shot from the opposite direction. Therefore, when any of the rockets are shown landing with a crash, we expect to see, not only the tilting, but the anti-tilt jets go into action to save the rocket from falling over. As we don't see such jets positioned all around the rocket tops, Musk is playing us for fools with simulations.
The rocket landing laughably at 30 seconds has no jet shots. It's got no tilt at all. The doctoring department pretends that the satellite feed on this rocket has been disturbed, but this is a lie. There is no reason that they cannot get a proper picture without a live feed to a satellite. Where is the non-live feed?
The speaker in the video tries to convince the viewer that they couldn't show the landing, at 38 seconds, because the live satellite feed was disrupted due to the engine blast shaking the ship upon which the rocket was landing. As some in the comments make clear, the team could have brought along a small boat from which to tape the event. Or, they could have shown us the satellite-fed taping after the shaking of the ship stopped. The shaking doesn't destroy the taping even if true that feed was disrupted. They could have sent the feed a few seconds late, BUT, OBVIOUSLY, they decided not to show the landing because it wasn't faked correctly. Someone being paid $4 per hour didn't fake it well enough for public broadcast, and rather than pay someone $8 to correct it, they just decided to say the feed was disrupted in a five-minute video.
The on-board computer needs to know, in the first place, which way is which, as well as which direction it needs to go to get to the bull's eye, and this all needs a special "eyes" mounted on the outside of the ship. I don't see any. When pressed on this matter, they might say that their special eyes work on radar from the interior of the rocket.
At 3:30ish of the video above, I kid you not, the speaker says that having a second ship to tape the landing is too costly for "JUST a few seconds of live video." LAUGHABLE. It's the miraculous landing itself, and this is passed off with "just"!? They take the public for idiots, and then put robo-comments in the video making it appear that most the public thinks this is a good excuse. Get a small, flat boat, or even a wood raft from a local tribe of savages, but to say that capturing the landing is not worth paying $2,000 for a second boat it is cake on your face, Mr. Musk. You make yourself the clown show. Who's paying you to do this? How much would it cost to fly in a helicopter for two hours to tape the event? Don't you have a rich buddy who would do this for free? It's a momentous event, but you can't figure a way to capture the landing live on tape????
At 3:43, the speaker says the live footage, which is cut out due to ship-shake, was shown to the public DAYS later. Why not minutes later? Why not send the taping to the satellite immediately after the ship-shake is over? BECAUSE, something went wrong with the fake-job landing, and Musk decided he couldn't publicize it. It's the best reasoning, anyway. So, they made another creation for the public, and that took DAYS to do.
The question is, how were they faking the landing in the first place? Was there ever a real rocket landing on a ship at sea? Of course not. They were creating that scene in a doctoring room. And once the production was completed, it was scheduled for public airing on a certain day, but then, oh-no, someone on the team catches a problem with the production, at the last moment when it's too close to the scheduled landing date, and so they decided to just cut the production, in the middle of the landing, with an excuse. We see the engine flames coming down from the top of the screen, and that's all we get to see.
Ask: why was the live feed's zoom (see 39 seconds) such that, when the rocket was fully landed, only the bottom half of the rocket would be seen? Why wasn't the camera zoomed a little so that the entire rocket could be seen landing? That's the expectation. That's the best way to do it. It is possible that the rocket, a fake rocket with only a skin and nothing inside of it but the ability to produce a bottom-end flame from hollywood, is hanging on a crane at sea, and lowered down to the ship while hanging.
At 3:40, when the speaker says the landing was "uploaded a few days later" for public viewing, we see the rocket as a weeny-little thingie from miles away, and, you guessed it, the rocket does not tilt at all, and no jet flames, not even any smoke poofs, can be seen. The rocket lands perfectly backward, explaining why google needs to hide MANY videos seeking to expose this fakery. The plan seems to be to deceive the new generation while ignoring the complaints of the old generation that clearly sees the fakery. And then they vilify those who tell the truth in order that the lie might prosper. That is the definition of Elon Musk, a soul going down in infamy.
I watched him in a news show where he explained why he chose to land rockets at sea. In the end, I think he says to the effect, it's more practice or safer. Whatever. What if Musk has created faked rocket landings as his excuse to land them at sea so that, instead of properly discarding the ships he uses to put up satellites, he lands them in the sea, and causes them to sink to the ocean floor, and nobody knows any better when he uses another rocket for the next satellite installation that isn't the one that supposedly landed at a landing pad at sea.
In that video, Musk shows he doesn't even understand gravity. He's got the Einsteinian space-time view of gravity, which is incomprehensible as a practice matter, like when scientists like to deceive the human race to place themselves on an intelligence level too high for ordinaries to achieve. Musk then makes the mistake of saying that satellites are under net-zero gravity force, which is incorrect. Instead, satellites are ever falling to gravity, and are therefore pulled FULLY by gravity. In the meantime, there is no similar force countering gravity to give satellites the status of net-zero gravity. Instead, in a perfect orbit, the acceleration of the satellites, when flung into space, causes them to continually rise from the planet by as much as gravity causes them to fall to earth.
The video below: "How SpaceX Lands Rockets with Astonishing Accuracy".
At 5 minutes of the video, the YOUNG speaker asks how SpaceX was able to improve the landing accuracy by 1000 times in just four years. The answer is clear: by fakery. They decided to fake the technology. Four years earlier, says the video, the accuracy was in the ballpark of five or even ten miles from the intended landing site. Fully expected. To go from that shoddy performance to pin-point landing requires a really good convince-job with happy-go-lucky music.
At 6:25ish, the speaker talks about a computerized system that drives the rocket automatically to the landing site. The video shows what look like antennae protruding from the rocket's skin. Later in the video, in the 9th minute, they are said to be "grid fins" that allows a pin-point landing, but the reason for using a grid-fin versus a solid fin is not explained. I see no use in using grid fins at such slow speeds as we see at rocket descents. As soon as they flip a fast-falling rocket to a vertical position, they show it slowing down almost immediately (within a few seconds) to about 40 miles per hour (this in itself seems impossible). At that speed, what good would a grid fin do as compared to a solid fin? Is the use of a grid fin (not a new invention with Musk) just smoke and mirrors?
Besides, a fin is for better maneuverability, not finding the landing pad. The speaker says that these fins are "aerodynamic control surfaces" for the "precise control of the rocket's position and orientation prior to landing." How does that find the landing pad from many miles away? It doesn't. He says there's four grid fins "responsible for the incredible ten-meter landing accuracy..." It's incredible alright, as in non-believable.
At 6:58, they show that the thrusters off the main engines can be pivoted a little, with the claim that the rocket can adjust its flight a little by computerized pivoting of the thrusters. But I say this is an inefficient way (waste of money) to control a rocket that's intended to land backward. It's fine for some directional changes, for example in doing a broad curve through the air, but at the landing pad, sidejets are far more efficient and speedy for correcting tilt. I think that, rather than bringing the tilt problem to the public mind with a circle of jets at the top of all rockets, the team just decided to feign that tilt is not much of a problem. I think they didn't want people dissecting tilt control from the top to find whether or not it's feasible.
At 7:19, a short section on "Cold Gas Thrusters" begins, where I learn that, instead of hot fuel jets, they shoot jets of cold gas sideways. If its gas, why does it look like smoke? The video says that they use nitrogen gas. But why isn't there smoke-like nitrogen seen in all the landings? Why did one rocket landing show bright light shooting sideway? Go to 1:51, see zero shots of tilt control. The fakers can now claim that they are shooting invisible gas, I suppose, for landings such as that one. They can have the choice between Smokey the bear and Casper the ghost.
At 7:30, we are told that the Falcon 9 model of rocket has eight thrusters, four in one "pod" (a hole) on one side of the upper rocket, and four thrusters in a second pod on the opposite side. See a pod at the 6:58, for two seconds only (don' blink), in the video below, where it looks like someone siliconed a white-painted, computer mouse to the rocket with four one-inch holes in it. Does that tiny-weeny thingie really have four thrusters in it??? What about a rabbit in a hat? That weeny-little hole is used to flip rockets??? Suppose you need a faster flip operation than this mousehole can offer. Suppose you need many flips per rocket flight because the rocket keeps going out of control? I can't take this pod seriously. It looks like a hoax.
The longer the rocket length, the less it needs to tilt from the perfect vertical before the upper half is brought down by gravity. THEREFORE, we should see Musk's rockets begin crashing while at a significant distance above the ground because not all rockets are going to descend to a near-vertical position. The videos deceive the people into thinking this is easy in an easier-said-than-done manner. All crashes I've seen are at the launch pad...probably because Musk won't get licenses to play rocketman if his rockets are falling out of the sky miles from the launch site. "Keep the crashes at the launch pads," he tells his doctors.
Just think of the CHAOS to any anti-tilt system when the main engines are turned on with the rocket falling at 120 mph or more in only a near-vertical position. Controlling the rocket looks simple in a simulation, of course. Reality is not so kind. Where are the military craft that can do the same? Shouldn't the military and NASA have beaten Musk to this anti-tilt punch?
In the video below, at about 21 seconds, the rocket's engine is thrusting before and during the flip to vertical, and in fact the main engines are portrayed as causing the flip because the flame shoots at a small angle upward (to the rocket's right), which supposedly causes the bottom of the rocket to do a leftward / clockwise circle. Then, after the rocket bottom circles past bottom dead-center, the same engine blast is angled the opposite way (to the rocket's left now) to bring the rocket back toward the vertical. At least they faked this correctly in theory. No significant side jets can be seen operating. This flip is supposedly taking place about 200 feet above the ground. But this is a faked landing attempt, see if you can find the proof:
As soon as the rocket lands, the scene switches to another rocket scene for the explosion. Why did they do that? Why did they make it so obviously a fake?
In all the discussion of this section, note that you never see people in the field where the rockets are sent a small way into the air to return to the ground promptly. If Musk wants to prove to doubters that his rockets land backward, all he needs to do is to invite them to come see a Grasshopper do it in a live performance before their eyes, and not five miles away, but more like 2,000 feet.
At 40 seconds of the video below, one can see that SpaceX conducted a trick in the viewer's mind. The rocket remains perfectly vertical while not climbing height at all, then starts to move back to the ground and lands vertical, making the viewer believe that it's natural for a non-rising rocket to thrust maximum energy downward while remaining vertical, the very opposite to my claim. I know physics well, and I say that no rocket can blast such power PERFECTLY upward. There will be differing levels of upward power toward the east, west, north and south. If the north gets the most power, the rocket will tilt south...if not moving through the air fast enough. Motion through the air keeps it straight. This rocket hovers 10 seconds above the ground, then falls slowly for another 10, 20 seconds in all. It should tilt sufficient at some point to fall to gravity:
The next rocket, starting at 2:00, as well as the laughable rocket after that, and even the rocket after that, do the same thing, called brainwashing. You even get hollywood sound effects for your entertainment as you allow yourself to be deceived with it. The laughable one starting about 6 minutes even tilts significantly without losing total balance just to "teach" you that rockets by nature tend to remain upright with maximum thrust downward. TRASH. Musk is a deceiver.
These are being claimed as the earliest backward-landing feats, and so you now know for sure that they used no side jets to stabilize the rocket, at least not visible jets. It thus makes sense that they pretended to have the jets later, when people pointed out their necessity. You can see two puffs of smoke on opposite sides of a rocket, at 3:20, but the problem is, the puffs come out on opposite sides when there is no need for them, arguing for fakery. You don't need to correct tilt exactly at lift-off, and two equal spits exactly opposite one another corrects nothing...but it does expose video fakery. Plus, the jets are seen exactly in the middle, between top and bottom of the rocket, where it makes a lot less sense than having them at the very top. It's a lot cheaper to fake jets and hovering rockets than to build them. This rocket (starting at 3:20) is given visible jets coming out the tip of the four legs to pretend that this is what stabilizes the rocket. But by adding these smoke jets, the animators are admitting that they are necessary, yet four of them is insufficient to ASSURE success.
We saw no further side jets in the rocket above after the two spits at lift off. It's as though the animators were just alerting the public, hey look, we do have jets, we did realize we need them. But, oops, fools, why did you only put two of them in? Nobody builds two jets alone to stabilize a rocket that can tilt in any direction whatsoever. Conveniently, the rocket that lifts off at 45 seconds, is given two puffs of smoke too (orange color) just off the screen at the top (only the after-smoke is visible, not the shoots). This time, these shoots are even lower than the mid-section of the rocket. Why do you suppose they put them so low on this rocket? Because, the video doesn't show the rocket body any higher at liftoff than the bottom third, and so I claim these two spits of gas, exactly at liftoff, were pasted to the video in order to let the viewer see them, as if Musk wanted to alert viewers, hey look, we are smart enough to add side jets. Yeah, but too stupid to add four, six or eight of them encircling the rocket.
If they didn't add the two spits of smoke, I might take these pictures more seriously because it is theoretically possible to balance a rocket by shooting jets only out the four legs, though I don't think it is very safe for saving the rocket. We ask: why didn't the militaries of the world think of such a simple solution to balance a rocket, if it indeed works? The problem lies in how much gas is spit out to correct tilt, and how forceful to spit it out at any given time. Sensitive equipment can detect when the rocket is going off-level, but trying to correct the tilt is dangerous because it's going to send the rocket top moving in the opposite direction of the tilt, which then needs more spits of gas from the opposite side to stop the correction. In other words, the correction will reach the perfect vertical and then go off to another off-vertical that itself needs correction, and this gets so complicated that it's dangerous and non-doable.
The U.S. military tried this before going to the moon, and failed. The lunar landers lost control and crashed. We saw nothing of that thing for decades after Apollo because, we can assume, the tests continued to fail. Or, the scientists knew there was no hope in such technology because it could ruin a craft at any given moment in flight. It was not fit for manned flight, and so they continued to use helicopters instead for hoverable flights and straight-up take-offs and landings. Those are the facts. Then Musk comes along and makes idiots out of the world militaries??? I don't think so.
At 2:00, oops, and again at 3:09, there is a close up of four legs. Does it appear to you that flex-pipes or hoses for tilt-correction are going into the legs? We see long black tanks, three per leg, but the piping of the gas into the legs doesn't look convincing to me. But, sure enough, at take-off, we see one leg spewing smoke. Starting at 1:41, we see how Mickey-Mouse the jet of smoke is, coming out the bottom of one leg. That jet of smoke looks about as powerful as the spit of pressure from your crock-pot.
At 1:53, the team decided to make the bottom of the leg go to flames. ??? What could be burning at the bottom of the leg where the gas ejects? Compressed gas goes cold when released into the air, and cold steel legs don't facilitate flames. Is the team trying to make the leg jets look like they spew fuel at this point of their gimmick? Note the silvery-wrapped flex-hose in the picture at 1:41, which I cannot find at 2:00. Why wrap the gas / fuel pipe in a silvery foil? Such foil is usually to keep heat out, but what's with that in this case? Is this another sign that they were faking fuel jets in the early rockets? As you watch the smoke out the legs (after 1:41), it's got no flame, nothing to indicate fuel. Are they playing for both a fuel and a gas-under-pressure scenario? Gas under pressure needs to tank / pipe wrap.
Later, we see all four legs spewing smoke continuously, which does not appear to correct anything because correction needs only one side of the rocket shooting jets of material at any one time. Four leg jets spewing simultaneously and continuously can itself put a tilt on the rocket if the jets do not put out equal pressures. Where's the equipment that controls the amount of gas spit being fed per leg? Where's the instrument that controls the opening of the gas/fuel regulator-valve? They can't shoot gas from four legs all at the same pressure. All legs separately need the ability to have different pressures and/or different volumes, otherwise it's futile to have streams of gas or fuel at the legs. That is, it's woefully insufficient to use legs to help keep the rocket erect if the legs can't correct tilt that's sure to happen from the main engine's thrust.
To put it another way, equal-force jets out the four legs could in theory, if powerful enough, keep the rocket hovering erect with the main engine is off, and only with the main engine off. Once the main engine is turned on, it's game over for the vertical position, and the legs can't correct tilt if all they do is shoot equal-force jets, especially if they have crock-pot force only. As you can see, the smoke of the jets is easily put to the side by air currents because the jets are not powerful. The gas or spent fuel does not reach very far beneath the legs. In the pictures we are seeing, the leg jets are certainly not the boss, but more like the toilet-bowl flush to a sewer pipe receiving a two-foot flood on the street. The main engine is clearly the boss here, but the engine happens to be the anti-vertical foe to defeat.
The computer system doesn't know how much force a specific amount of tilt needs. All it knows is how off-level the rocket is at any given second, and it's changing every split second. That's the kicker. The computer is only as smart as the programmer makes it, and so the computer cannot perfectly know how much force is to be applied in which way...because a rocket doesn't tilt only in one direction perfectly. It can start to tilt perfectly north-east, for example, but by the end of the tilt in that direction, it can be swaying off in a circular motion to something other than the perfect north-east, and the computer can't manage this random chaos second after second, especially as the corrective measures add to the chaos, and especially if there are only four jets surrounding the rocket for the computer to choose from. This is a total mess that SpaceX doesn't want you to think about. Instead, it's trying to make you think that balancing a rocket in a hover or backward fall is EASY.
There's a reason that NASA attaches rockets to a lift-off frame of steel. It's because lift-off has the tendency to send the rocket off of the perfect vertical. Many rockets taking off, upon leaving the steel frame, are NOT in a perfect-vertical position. The rockets need a certain level of velocity to keep as-best-as-possible in the vertical direction, but Musk's finless rockets achieve zero speed in mid-flight, are you kidding me? Yes, they are kidding me, it's fake. They put no steel frames to the rocket at take-off, a thing nobody else has done in real life.
A rocket of this size balanced on a single engine thruster, about one foot wide, is comparable to a marble being balanced on the arched head of a pin. The entire weight of the rocket must be resting on something because weight does not disappear in a rocket hover.
Where we see the legs of a rocket at 2:00 and 3:09, you can see that each leg is attached to two struts. It appears that the team covered one strut per leg with a grey wrap that is itself wrapped in tape. The purpose seems either to feign that fuel transfers through the inside of the strut, or to actually transfer fuel through the strut, even though this is a Mickey-Mouse delivery system of fuel to the leg's pad/foot. A professional would send the fuel directly in fuel pipes (not through the strut) to the jets at the foot-pads.
Perhaps they covered the struts in wrap to fool us into thinking that they have a fuel-delivery system to the bottom of the legs, for I cannot see any reason for wrapping the struts if all they have within them is fuel. My propane tank is bare steel to the sun and air, no wrap needed. The steel pipes coming out of the tanks aren't wrapped to shield from the sun or heat of the day. Why should the fuel in the struts need wrap? In fact, they even wrap 3/4s of the legs themselves in the same wrap. ??? Why would they allow the legs to become filled with fuels? Are they looking for an explosive accident with a more-the-shrapnel-the-merrier? I'm just pointing out that wrapping legs and struts is wrong unless the purpose is to show feigned evidence that they have a gas-delivery system to the legs.
At 3:28, the shadow of the rocket slants at about an 80 degree toward the right side of the screen, yet the nearby shadow of a water tower slants at about a 65-degree angle toward the left side of the screen. Such drastic changes in sun-shadow angles is wrong. As the sun is so far away, the two shadows should be parallel if they are on a flat surface, and the ground at the site is a very flat surface. Plus, the shadows of both objects look too black to me, faked. Why would they fake shadows? Because the rockets didn't land backward, and so the shadows need to be faked too. They were having fun on this one because when this rocket lands, the shadow lands on the very top of the rocket. The shadow of the water tower does not show at all at 3:54, oops, as the rocket hovers.
At :42, we see half the rocket lit up by the sun. At :45, from a different camera angle, we see three-quarters of the rocket lit by the sun. The sun is toward the right side of the screen in both cases. At :48, the rocket goes up, and we are back to the first camera showing half the rocket lit in sun. But at :53, from another camera, the whole rocket is shaded, no light at all, yet there's no sun behind the rocket as we would expect of a fully-shaded rocket. Where is this third camera with trees between itself and the rocket, and one tree in the lower-right corner. At 1:00, the rocket is again fully-shaded, and we see a tree in the lower-right corner. Why is the rocket fully shaded with no sun in the picture? At 1:08-10, the rocket is engulfed with smoke, yet on no place of the sun-lit half of the rocket does it go darker from smoke shielding at least some of the sunlight. Even very near touch-down at 1:12, where the smoke is very think, the right side of the rocket is not only lit up, but shows a strip of gleam where the sun hits it most-directly. FAKE. I call out fakery. The gleam remains even after touch-down and engine-off. At 1:16, there is only a sliver of lit-up rocket, suggesting yet another camera.
At about 2:30, the bottom end of the rocket, just before reaching a hover, tilts visibly toward the right a little, then corrects itself only slightly, but tilts again in the same direction while hovering. One can mark where at the cloud strata it first starts to tilt while still going up, but when it comes back down with the same tilt, as if the video is being played backward to feign the descent, the doctors added smoke to the scene so that we can't see the cloud strata to check whether it's just the rocket in video-reverse.
I do not believe that a rocket can hover while tilted that much. I believe that a tilted rocket feeds more tilt to a rocket because the flames are forming a harder cushion of air when a rocket either hovers or moves backward than is the case when a rocket moves forward. The cushion gets harder (to the flame) the faster the descent backward.
When a flame strikes a hard surface on an angle, the surface might push the flame upward inasmuch as the flame is a material flow. For example, if a super-fast flow of water through a rubber hose is pointed at an angle (not vertical) to a hard surface, I tend to think that the end of the hose will be forced up so that the angle of water flow becomes more horizontal. In the same way, as a rocket flows dense gas (hot gas = dense gas initially) from its bottom end against the air cushion, the bottom of the rocket is forced up so as to increase rocket tilt.
Whatever the case on that matter, once tilt is set into motion with gravity looking on with a mean grin to swallow the tilt even further, the tilt won't stop, because it has motion, unless a counter-force reverses its direction. If an unbalanced rocket flame causes a flame in one direction, it could be expected to continue tilt in that direction. Who's going to save Musk's rockets from this tilt demon if the weakish leg jets are too stupid to do it, if the leg jets are not programmed to be smart? The answer is easy. The video-room doctors to the rescue. It's cartoon time. Musk is becoming famous by deception, a great way to race to infamy if infamy is what he wants.
At 2:47, a weird-laughable thing, and a cheap-laughable thing. The team decided to show a yellow air-pressure gadget with piston, called a hydraulic cylinder. It's attached to a yellow shaft that's in turn attached to the brown thruster. The gadget pushes on the thruster to re-aim it in a slightly-different direction, though I read at wikipedia that they didn't have pivoting thrusters until the falcon series of rockets. This gadget is being shown immediately after we see the rocket tilt above, suggesting that the tilt was deliberate, to show the changing of the flame thrust from this hydraulic cylinder.
The laughable part is that there's only one hydraulic cylinder showing, which therefore allows the thruster to be re-aimed in only one direction (though both frontward and backward in that one direction), meaning that the rocket has almost zero utility for correcting tilt. You cannot build a rocket, and would not build a rocket, with tilt correction in only two directions. I think they are showing this picture to brag about what wonderful technology they have with this cylinder.
Go to about 4:00 and watch the volume of smoke from the engines fly off into the wind. This is a windy day, not the right day for balancing rockets without anti-tilt smartness built into the rocket. Watch how the volume of smoke is about ten times less on the descent than the volume of smoke at both touch-down and lift-off. Why is that? Why is there 20 times more smoke at touch-down as opposed to the hovering position? Isn't the rocket slower at the hovering position than it is at one foot above the launch pad? Yes. Shouldn't the rocket spew more smoke in the hovering position as opposed to when it descends, since less burned fuel is the very requirement to get it to descend? Yes. The launch pad is a solid piece of ground. It looks like concrete in some views. Why should there be 10, 20, or in the case of the next rocket (starts about 4:48), 100 times as much smoke when the rocket is five feet in elevation on a descent versus at hovering 200 feet in elevation? At 5:41, one can begin to see that the smoke on the ground is not coming from the engine. The smoke appears added to the picture. Why?
Some tilt in a rocket ascent can be safe from catastrophe because the upward momentum defies some gravity. But a tilt in a hover or a descent is not as safe, yet the rocket at 3:30 is tilting wildly at the hover position because the Musketeers want to brainwash you into thinking that tilt beyond the rocket's center of gravity is no problem at all. Achem, tilt beyond the center of gravity means that gravity has the power to bring that sucker down. At 6:34, the rocket is probably past the center of gravity. The center of gravity is exactly between one part of the rocket that weighs as much as the rest of the rocket.
If you have a solid pole that weighs the same in every square-inch of its body, and if that pole leans from the perfect vertical to that the top's right side is past a vertical line from the pole's bottom-left side, then the pole will fall to gravity because there's more pole material to the left of the bottom of the pole than to the right of it. Long objects can thus fall to gravity with very small tilts. When the pole tilts left, the whole weight of the pole is on the bottom-left side. If there's more weight to the left of that bottom-left side, gravity swallows the pole. Ditto for the vertical rocket. As you can see at 6:34, more than half of the upper rocket body is to the left of the rocket's left-bottom. Granted, most of the rocket's weight is at the very bottom, likely, but one pound at the very bottom has far less anti-tilt power than one pound at the very top has pro-tilt power.
The "heaviest" pound for anti-tilt power is at the center of gravity i.e. somewhere in the middle area of the rocket, not at the bottom of the rocket. It has to do with variations in leverage power. Weight at the top of a pole has more leverage power, and the top of the lower "half" of the rocket is at the center-of-gravity point. The top of the lower "half" of the rocket is the most-powerful part for correcting the tilt, and the very top of the rocket is the most-powerful part for increasing the tilt. When a rocket descends, and especially when descending slowly, the work of gravity upon it is not the same as for a free-falling rocket. A slow descent due to a power engine flame gives the rocket a "ground level" at the thruster. To be more accurate, the rocket will fall to gravity when more weight is to the left side a vertical line from one the left side of the upper part of the thruster (upon which the rocket's weight sits). The Grasshopper model of rocket we are dealing with here is 106 feet tall, about three typical electricity poles long.
The landing path of the rocket at 6:50 is very curve-like due to the drastic tilt, and is therefore laughable, because there's nothing on this rocket to correct such a tilt, and especially not in time for the perfect-vertical landing.
The going story, even according to Musk himself, is that the grid fins bring the rocket back down to the bull's eye, but we saw none on the Grasshoppers. The first we see of these fins are deployed on the similar falcon model; see 14:17. By the way, if you've lost the video, it's here. "The earliest prototype was Grasshopper. It was announced in 2011 and began low-altitude, low-velocity hover/landing testing in 2012. Grasshopper was 106 ft (32 m) tall and made eight successful test flights in 2012 and 2013 before being retired."
Things get quackery here when Musk himself claims that these grid fins, by turning as you see them turn, steer the ship to the landing pad. I think he's trying to discover how much a fool he can make of you so that he can claim similar hystericals to cheapen the $$$-line of his mission of deception even more. The magic-wand grill fins. First of all, how do they get the rockets so close to the landing pad as to make any sort of steer-fin (it's a rudder) get the rest of the job done?
If the ship is 100 feet off the vertical bull's eye at 300 feet in the air, someone needs to learn how to drive using the fin-grid rudders. Which of the four rudders will be used? How much of two or more will be turned? How much will each rudder be slanted? Who's going to learn to use such rudders? The driver can't get into a cockpit on board the rocket, so he's got to steer while looking out the camera mounted on the rocket. How many cameras are on the rocket? What if one camera can't see the landing site for steering purposes? Bottom line: there wasn't one rocket in the Grasshopper video where a rocket landed two feet too many away from the bull's eye, no thanks at all to grid fins.
They were landing the Grasshoppers without the rudders, and so how in tarnation do they explain that the grid fin rudder is vastly important for precise landing? It's fakery. People complained: "hey Musk, how'd you manage to steer the rockets to the bull's eye." Musk had no response, so he went to his team, "hey guys, we better think of a way fast on how we steer the ship to the bulls's eye." Then the fancy-rudder grid fin was appealed to, looking fancier than a solid fin so as to maybe fool the public well enough. But it was too late, for they committed themselves already to perfect landings without the fins.
I haven't come across any video talking about how the booster rockets find the vicinity of the landing sites. We are made to assume that they use geo-tracking satellite technology, but I haven't seen any details on it, perhaps because these rockets don't have such technology on-board. After all, the landings are faked, so why bother spending money on equipment working in conjunction with the rocket's steering system that together set-up pin-pointed landings?
The boosters are released above the atmosphere. The four main fins (not grid fins) can do nothing there to stabilize the rocket's position. The desired position is backward, bottom-end first toward the landing site. It's got to be positioned backward because it's screaming at many thousands of miles per hour, and the engines need to fire to slow it down. But that's the kicker, the engines need to fire, which ruins the perfect-backward positioning. You can't believe that the rocket is going to maintain a near-perfect backward position, aimed at the landing site, with rocket engines blasting, unless they add the cheap-little "pod" on the side of the rocket to convince you that it turns the rocket from any position to a backward one. And that's why they glue the pod to the side of the rocket. No bolts, just glue, because the pod was faked.
We would expect Musk to show-off the electronics of his steering system, but I've not even heard it mentioned. Something needs to make the jets inside the pod intelligent. There are supposedly four jets per pod, and so each jet fires in a different direction, we are to believe, for correcting rocket attitude at anytime. But there's nobody up in the rocket to press buttons to squirt nitrogen gas from the pods for steering the ship. It's got to be done automatically by a pre-programmed software, which itself needs to be connected physically to the gas tanks (to keep a record of gas pressure), and to the jets to open and close gas valves in cold space. It's not going to be cheap software because it amounts to an artificial brain. Musk and his backers aren't going to pay to have this made if the rockets are not landing backward at all, if the entire project is a purposeful hoax. One can glean that this is all about NASA ripping the public off on tax money for getting people to Mars and back. They seem to be trying to convince the world that these rockets can land backward, no problem at all, on a Mars landing pad.
Is it a good idea to put nitrogen gas through eight valves in cold space? By the looks of the pod, the pipes to the jets look less than a half-inch wide, suggesting that the valves are that size too. Has the team committed to claiming what the tanks contain, whether liquid or gaseous nitrogen? As we see the nitrogen jets looking like frozen air at landing sites, it argues for their decision to claim liquid nitrogen, I think, because if there was gaseous nitrogen in the tanks, it might come out invisible (nitrogen is invisible), because it might not freeze the water in the air unless it's converted from liquid to gas. I could be wrong on that. Using liquid nitrogen makes sense for at least one other reason. Might the conversion of liquid nitrogen to gas, at the valves, compromise the valves? Perhaps not above the atmosphere.
It's a little interesting that while the Fauchy surname uses a grasshopper, the Falcon surname could possibly be a Fauch / Fauchy / Fauci branch. But what could Fauiciness have to do with a faked space program? The False Prophet comes to mind as the commonality if his 666 is applied to a vaccine pass into stores and other buildings.
Here's a google-search offering to a webpage no longer active: "SpaceX GPS Satellite Launches -- https://spytec.com ...Nov 9, 2020 — A real-time GPS tracker that hardwires directly into your vehicle for long-term tracking. This tracker works with our easy-to-use mobile and..." Wow, Musk can track where you drive while you have a microchip in your skull to make you super-human. How can Musk be good for the world? He sounds as though demons sleep in his bed, like a leader to the Godless, futuristic "utopia."
Another offering: "Musk's SpaceX wins Pentagon award for missile tracking ... https://www.reuters.com ...Oct 5, 2020 — Elon Musk's SpaceX won a $149 million (£114.8 million) contract to build missile-tracking satellites for the Pentagon, the U.S. Space..." Isn't that part of fire from the sky?
The video below seems to have merit. It is a frightening video, like the devil coming out of the gate just as soon as God allows him. This video is a good one to put beside Trump's promise, this week, to drain the swamp if he becomes the next president:
As you can see, FEMA has a lot of dictatorial powers in officially-declared federal emergencies. It risks ruining the New World Order, however, if it acts harshly, unjustifiably. If the ruthless iron fist of globalism comes out punching, it should prove to be the best thing ever for this world, a New Age of Enlightenment, a New World Order in Jesus, not the rejected servant in dusty sandals, but the Uplifted King who dictates the destruction of evil everywhere. That's the sort of dictator we need in contrast with Trump the traitor. Evil will be censored. Wicked speech will be put down as it once was in my youth, and doors will remain unlocked all night long because nobody will think to harm another person, once the Teacher teaches the world anew, and sets its course on a better track like never before. So, global fist, we await your terrible move, your terrible choice; we can see that you're itching to do it, we see it clearly. And God is itching for you to make your fatal move.
In Holland, a pitchfork is being thrown to the head of the globalist prime minister. It looks like the Dutch are having a celebration in the streets.
Here's a celebration of the unvaccinated:
We have got the word from WHO that the unvaccinated will be monstrosized again this winter. It's the globalist itch. Globalist power-trippers are itching to brutalize us that we might respect them, but if this is the way they go about getting respect, then I'm afraid they are badly mistaken about their self-appraised worth. I don't see how they hope to get the world on-side with them by jailing us lest we vaccinate. Therefore, what are they up to with this silly but hurtful program? What is there, beyond $$$, in our being vaccinated to the last person? The way I see a democracy, the streets are mine, not theirs; the courts are mine, not theirs; the parliament is mine, not theirs. It's a fact of every democracy that governments are owned by the people. Therefore, globalists are disrespectful intruders, unworthy to dictate what my country, and your country, ought to do in any regard. We can call them clown acts for pretending to be democratic; we can call them stupid for thinking they can rule us in a happy deal where we submit to them, our boss; but most of all they are worms and snakes uninvited to politics by the people who own politics. The leader of a democratic country does not own politics, the people do. If even they should use the streets and the courts and the politics against us by force, we remain the majority with our sins, and they remain the minority with their greater sins.
A sin is defined as unlawfully hurtful. When we break a law of God, we hurt someone. The laws of God are made to protect people, and God, from harm. People who despise or snub God hurt God. God suffers pain due to rebellious children. The wicked offend and torment God. This is the pain that translates to Wrath. God will not assign the guilty to Hell without emotion, like a judge without a soul who merely does his duty. God's wrath is his Final Emotion released.
It is better to be on the painful end of the stick than on the guilty end, and the one who is sorry for sins and desires forgiveness is the one who lives forever, the one who gets to taunt the snakes when locked by Force in the quarantine of Hell. If the worms and snakes can lock the righteous up in prisons, then the Righteous One is justified in locking up unrepentant, lawless criminals.
I just want to warn you about a female end-time preacher at bitchute's "End Time Matters" channel. In one of her videos, her own sub-title includes: "WOMEN Who didn't SUCK DICK in the BIBLE." Consider this a stooge of the enemy trying to make Christians look bad. If she's not trying, she's succeeding anyway.
Beware teachers on end-time issues because the enemy will want to get his messages out to you, faithful ones. People who think and act loyally to God stir his emotions. God seeks pleasure in how we choose things. Everytime we choose something because we think it's what God wants of us, pleasure, and perhaps even joy, in God's heart will translate to our benefit one way or the other, just because. If the globalist worm sees the wisdom in pleasing God, and therefore shuns doing harm to God's people as planned by other globalists, then I wish that snake a speedy Cure of his venomous attitude, and moreover wish for his new man to excel in blessing God's heart.
Recently, Biden was told to tell the public that climate change is an "emergency." This sounds like we are about to learn how the global goons hope to use another emergency to dictate the way forward only to condemn themselves further. Nobody's going to agree with their climate-change plots but the fringe left. It's the media's job to make the fringe appear as the majority by hook or by crook or by election fraud.
Here's Mike Lindell talking about the Arizona law suit (not his) against voting machines, perhaps on the road to a judicial breakthrough. I feel bad for Lindell if he still supports Trump for 2024. On the one hand, I might say that Trump deserves another four years because he won the 2020 election, but on the other hand I could say that he doesn't deserve it because he became the president with key false promises and false imagery of his intentions.
A new and unexpected status for Pawlowski, and for all Canadians, this week:
I don't know why Pawlowski and/or his lawyer are ignoring the COVID scheme that was the underlying dispute, in the first place, for his arrests. He's correct in saying that the underlying (but unsaid) reason for his arrests is the fascist arrogance of his city enemy, not the dangers of COVID claimed by the city, yet, officially, he was arrested for violating the mask-and-related mandates inside and outside of his church building. Therefore, why doesn't he fight his court cases by showing the ample evidence that the restrictions on gatherings ANYWHERE (not just at church) were an unnecessary infringement? This is what the country needs most because the fascists wish to bring the mandates to us all over again. The fascists are justifying their mandates by claims that COVID is dangerous, and so we need to prove in the courts that it was never more dangerous than a regular flu, for once that's accomplished, the legs of the fascists will fall off of their bodies, and they will no longer be able to put the boot to our necks via that scheme.
I am disappointed in the churches who collectively have the money and the hefty voice to walk into courts to prove that the vast majority of people who died of what the doctors claimed as COVID died instead of old age and its many types of diseases. Moreover, the government knew this yet deceived the masses -- including church-paying Christians -- into thinking that COVID was extremely dangerous. This is how the fascists got away with arresting pastors, and yet canadian church organizations have yet to get into a court of law to argue for the truth. Rebel News seems more interested in making money on youtube begs than in going to the courts to fight against COVID traffickers. PROVE THAT COVID WAS NOT MORE DANGEROUS THAN A FLU, and thus open the floodgates for the people to sue their employers for unusual, harsh and unwarranted treatment, and to sue their doctors for negligence. Best of all, sue trudeau for being at the spearhead of the vaccine-killer agenda.
The problem has been, even the churches have bought into the freedom to choose masks and vaccines. Churches don't wish to create rifts lest people leave the church, but isn't that exactly the devil's foothold needed to start the mandates all over again? Isn't that exactly how politicians walk the fence for fear of losing voters? Are church leaders going to ape self-interested politicians? It is sinful for pastors to submit themselves to the untrue notion that COVID is unusually dangerous just to make the old folks in church happy who prefer to wear masks or take vaccines. This surrender (by churches) is now part of the cause for the mindless vaccination of children. I'm aghast. I had church leaders pegged as having strong principles not easily shaken. I had them pegged with a high level of wisdom, enough to spot that COVID is a plot to force-vaccinate, and enough to know better than to make both sides, pro-and anti-vaccine, acceptable. That's a turning of Christians into globalist cattle. That's how I see it, churches leaning toward state-churches, in quasi-partnership with the wicked state that seeks to destroy Christianity.
The canadian convoy did a great disservice to itself by surrendering to mask and vaccine choice, for this is a slippery slope to vaccine mandates. If only to relieve society of scaredy-cats who openly display themselves daily, even in July, it is imperative to convince the scaredy-cats that COVID is no more dangerous than a regular flu. Take this argument to the courts and make a stand, demand government papers that prove there was a pandemic, for the government has no such papers that were not unrightly manufactured. Chip away at what the government has for its case, and you will find a fascist emperor with no clothes.
People in canada, even, have been largely maskless for the last month or two, and there's no runaway virus pandemic. But, right now, my middle-aged, vaccinated son is in the hospital with a brain-bleed-after-seizure bout (several seizures), and in the meantime, thanks to the many voices pushing vaccine choice as though COVID "vaccinations" are acceptable, the enemy can now claim that the low numbers of virus illnesses are thanks to the vaccines. And the enemy is gearing up for spreading more false information that starts a pandemic crisis all over again. It was predicted long before now, because some of us utilize our God-given wisdom to spot what's really going on. The closer we get to winter, the more we will hear of the push to mandate all over again. The push is happening in the Australian winter right now. For a year, conservative-Christian media has been reporting that whole countries, national regions, or collective individuals not adhering to masks and vaccines did better in the illness department than those who adhered.
How am I supposed to be happy with churches and too many individual Christians taking a pro-vaccine-choice position? I get the impression that some who are afraid of vaccines are happy to push a pro-choice position if it takes the pressure off of them to vaccinate, yet makes others suffer terrible vaccine consequences. This is the compromise truckers gave canada, unacceptable to me. And when the truckers went home rather than suffer arrests, the globalists celebrated a victory and moved on to implementing a food crisis more sure that truckers will not again form a concerted protest.
Perhaps the Dutch farmers will do it correctly and spur others to doing the same. Did you know that a person can sue a government for unjustified arrest? The truckers had nothing to fear if all they did was announce that they were prepared to sue trudeau for unjustified arrests. If their protests were legal, why did they go home upon the threat of arrests and the confiscation of bank accounts? If it's unlawful to make arrests, it's also unlawful to seize a person's / company's money. So, the truckers caved even after trudeau showed his true colors. Why haven't truckers started a class-action suit for being robbed of their right to protest until the government properly acknowledged their dispute? If truckers and others truly want to fight the mandates, why don't they take the opportunities to expose the enemy naked in court? The tide has been turning slowly against mandates only because the court cases have been low in numbers.
Everytime a corrupt judge decides a case wrongfully in favor of mandates, other judges hear and become more resolved to turn the tide. Does anyone think the federal government is willing to make thousands of arrests merely of protestors? How would such a thing wash with the sane world / courts if the government also seized bank accounts? It was a bluff, and truckers caved. Valiant effort, but in the end, you caved. Try it again right next time. Be prepared to be a jail for a week, and if they detain you unrightly for more than it should take, sue them and teach them a lesson. Otherwise, they walk all over us. One can sue a federal government for more than what little pain you suffer if the government is brutal with you. The richer the organization that treats you brutally, the more money one can sue for, because the punishment needs to hurt the party that does the hurting. The punishment needs to be a deterrent, and a $500 fine is not sufficient to keep the government from doing it to others. If they dare touch your bank account under the guise of an emergency, one can sue for a million dollars or more because it is a major violation, a grand theft that leaves you unable to pay bills. If the emergency doesn't justify such action, one can sue. The government can claim to do whatever is needed in an officially-declared emergency, but one can sue for what one thinks was wrongly done. You can argue that the government did what was unjust in the emergency. You can argue that the stealing / freezing of your money to keep you from protesting lawfully again is a brutal, unjustified, and normally-unlawful action.
Here's a report from a Toronto doctor suggesting that, in canada, brain-related malfunctions are the common vaccine side-effects from the lipid nanoparticles, and I feel confident that this is what my son is being attacked with:
trudeau cannot claim proof of a pandemic just because the media says there is a pandemic. trudeau cannot offer proof that a pandemic occurred. The people who died during the "pandemic" are all recorded. We can interpret that list as to whether there was a viral pandemic or not. If, as has been made amply apparent, the vast majority of people with a virus-like infection died at the average age of 80, then a population-wide mandate of any kind, and especially vaccine mandates for everyone, start to appear criminal. And the last thing trudeau wants is to be in court trying to prove that the pandemic justifies coercing the people to vaccinate against their will when deaths and drastic side-effects from these types of "vaccines" have been monstrous as compared to any other vaccination program in history.
It perplexes me as to why the anti-vaccine forces have not simply taken a list of, say, 100 consecutive COVID-recorded deaths, to see how their doctors / hospitals determined or concluded their official COVID deaths in the first place. I would like to see such a list. It's not cherry-picking if one takes 100 names in-a-row on the list. If the list shows criminality, a second list of 100 can be scrutinized, and yet another 100 if the second list shows criminality. The Centers for Disease Control (U.S.) was eventually forced to admit that 94 out of 100 officially-recorded COVID deaths were not due to COVID, but due mainly to old-age illnesses. With this admission, coming late, the CDC exposed itself an accessory to the fright that "justifies" vaccines. And I say trudeau is guilty for concealing the real numbers of COVID deaths in order to "justify" his vaccinations for people as old as infancy. He himself is an activist vaccine pusher. He personally takes responsibility for vaccinating the nation, and therefore the crime is on his shoulders.
And so this is what I would like to know in a random list of 100 COVID deaths: 1) how many died within 14 days of vaccination; 2) did their doctors report their vaccination status and details when reporting their deaths by COVID?? The criminals have a problem hidden in plain sight due to their trying to blame as many deaths as possible on COVID. Their problem is that we can find many of the people they murdered by vaccines because they are likely on the national list of official COVID deaths, and probably on provincial lists too.
The official death list should record how the deceased was determined to be ill with COVID. How many of those people were merely framed with COVID, and how were they framed? Were they framed by a false-positive COVID test? Can the public have access to the method and result of each positive test for each COVID-caused death? If not, then force the premiers / governors to cough-up these things in court. Just apply to a judge to have the right to know the method and details for how the deceased were determined to have COVID. The justification for a common citizen to learn such details is to check-up on whether governments are rightly reporting the true nature of the pandemic. "I don't trust trudeau, your honor, in reporting the facts for COVID testing, and so I should like to inspect things for myself. May I do so, your honour, in order that I might report my findings nationwide?"
And when the media refuse to report the findings nationwide, sue the media. "Your honour, the CBC refused to publish my findings on falsified COVID testing, which reveals trudeau to be criminally-inclined, and therefore I am asking this court to judge whether the CBC is complicit with the crime of hyping the COVID pandemic for personal-gain purposes. Besides, your honour, unless you find my findings to be in error, these findings are in the national interest so that I ask you to force the CBC to publish them. After all, the CBC is a state-paid media that is responsible for the national interest, and especially is required to be concerned with national safety. Vaccines are hurting people, and these falsified COVID tests have generated the false need to become vaccinated, and have thus harmed many people and their relatives and friends unjustifiably."
It is my expectation that all positive COVID tests indicate the level of test's reliability. It has been widely reported that COVID tests are mainly unreliable. We would expect that, for every COVID test recorded by governments, there is an entry on the specific symptoms exhibited in conjunction with the positive test. How many COVID-caused deaths came with a positive test but without flu-like symptoms? The trick of medical sociopaths (no shortage of them in canada) is to report people sick with COVID even though they are not sick with any flu, just because the COVID test says so. Therefore: "Your honor, all people on the list of COVID deaths that showed no flu-like symptoms need to be taken off the list because a falsely-hyped list serves the financial interests of vaccine companies, as well as those government actors who receive benefits, and possibly funds, from their profits. In layman's terms, this is called government corruption."
A judge would expect that trudeau ordered a list(s) of COVID-caused deaths to his office desk. A judge would expect that trudeau scrutinized that list(s) for COVID-testing accuracy prior to coercing the country to vaccinate. If trudeau says in court that he did not order such a list(s) for his scrutiny, then the judge can deem him irresponsible. And if trudeau claims he did scrutinize such a list, then the judge can deem him not only irresponsible for not publicizing the potential / probable corruption inherent in the testing results and methods, but for going forward with coerced vaccinations in spite of the potential / probably corruption he witnessed in the list(s). It's not necessary that trudeau prove corruption in the lists in order for his requirement to draw-back vaccination programs; it is sufficient if there is even a good possibility of corruption blatantly evident, and there should be if the details of each person's COVID testing is a part of the lists. If they are not part of the list, trudeau knows who to ask to get such details.
In other words, the buck stops with trudeau. It is his personal responsibility to check-up on whether COVID testing was reliable, and as it's woefully unreliable, he is guilty. We may argue on what exactly he's guilty of, but I say he should be charged in everything that he could possibly be guilty of. Manslaughter, first-degree murder, destruction of peoples organs, destruction of family incomes, you name it, he should be charged for them all to let judges decide what he's guilty of. The mere law-suits will be like a shrill whistle to all corruptocrats that they could be next in court. But why are these suits not taking place? I'm aghast, help me cope with this. It has been made blatantly obvious that COVID testing was, and still is, a criminal enterprise. trudeau cannot hide behind, "I didn't know better."
As trudeau claims to be so very concerned about the safety and wellbeing of canadians, to the point of seizing bank accounts to promote safety and wellbeing (spit), that's why there should be no mercy upon him for neglecting the safety and wellbeing of canadians on the vaccine and lockdown fronts. He used an iron first to the faces of canadians in the name of safety, and thus canadians should wallop a lead fist to his face for his part in destroying the safety and wellbeing of the people. I'm not advocating tooth for tooth, but seven teeth for every one he took out, because he swung underhandedly when the people were not fighting against him. He punched them all in the face when they were guilty of nothing, when they were not even desirous of fighting against him on the COVID issue. Most of them were willing to comply with his safety measures from the start, and in the meantime he unjustifiably and knowingly killed and maimed many members of the population he's required to serve. He is gearing up to kill and maim more this coming fall-to-spring season. I pray a lead ball of God swung to his face, and a lead club to the back of his skull simultaneously from his own voting block, for he is killing and maiming his own voters too. The two-faced traitor shall be betrayed from Above and from below.
If you're gathering information to combat any possible vaccine mandate at your workplace this winter, the middle part of this video has the latest ratio of canadian hospitalizations and deaths between the unvaccinated and vaccinated, with the damage done by far to the vaccinated even though it's not likely true that most people are vaccinated. We know for sure that most children are not vaccinated, yet at 5:30 we see a chart showing that triple-vaxxed children between 10-14 years of age have experienced far more deaths (almost 140 times as many) than the near-zero of unvaccinated children. Pity the parents in denial, who slaughtered their own children but refuse to warn others not to vaccinate their children for fear of being blamed for their own childrens' deaths.
If you've seen this best-ever show on the moon-landing hoax, then see if you can't find someone else who hasn't seen it who would appreciate hours of good history education:
How to Find the Solar Distance
In about 2005, I realized a method for finding the distance to the sun, but I was wrongly under the impression that I had to use both a lunar eclipse and a solar eclipse to do it. At that time, my head was not well-adjusted to this sort of cosmic discovery, but since then, I've become familiar with what I'm doing. It's not complicated, but one needs to be careful. Late last year, I realized I don't need the solar eclipse, and this was marvelous to me. Two updates ago, I showed how NASA data on lunar eclipses can be used to find that the sun is under 20 million miles away. There is nothing wrong with my method, and nothing wrong with the math. In this update, I'm going to walk you through the method in case you tried to read two updates ago but couldn't understand the method.
One step at a time here, and it's not going to be easy for you because I have no draw package. Besides, the best way to do this is for you to draw the lines because it gets you familiar with the cosmic setting. We are concentrating on lines from earth to the sun, that is all, not complicated.
First, draw or imagine a three inch, vertical line on your page, Line A. It has a RISE of three inches. Second, have a Line B start at the bottom end of Line A, and it goes up toward the left at a 45-degree angle as compared to Line A at zero degree. This is simple. When line B has reached the same height on your page as Line A, the upper end of Line B will be three inches leftward from Line A. This is what I call line SPREAD. It's the crux of finding the distance to the sun without need of a special line-angle calculator. You need to understand what I mean by line spread per line rise, and this drawing has shown you that Line B spreads leftward three inches from Line A per three inches of rise on the page (both lines have risen three inches on the page), and therefore six inches of spread per six inches of rise, etc. Line B is longer than three inches, but it has risen only three inches in the vertical direction.
You're ready for a new drawing once you understand what I mean by line spread per line rise. This time, there will be two lines that do not begin at the same place. Draw Line A as you did before, three inches tall. Then, for Line C, it starts one inch to the left of the bottom of Line A, and it goes up at a 44-degree angle instead of 45. As the 44-degree line doesn't spread leftward, per unit of rise, as far leftward as the 45-degree line does, the two lines will meet eventually. If these, line B and C, were both at 45 degrees, they would never meet. If the 44-degree line is larger than 45 degrees, the two lines would never meet. Okay, we are done here.
We don't need a Line D to figure out the distance to the sun. We need only B and C. Line B is the solar-eclipse line, and it's always rising at a greater angle than Line B, the lunar-eclipse line. Therefore, these two lines will always meet no matter which particular lunar eclipse we use for Line C, and they always meet at the edge of the sun. To get a better idea of what the cosmic picture will look like, imagine Line B rising only 1.0 one degree from Line A, and Line C rising at .9 degree, with Line A going through the core of the earth to the core of the sun. Line B and C meet at the left edge of the sun. That's it. You have arrived to the bedrock of a method of discovering the solar distance, and this should be the method of choice for astronomers, but it isn't because the establishment wishes to hide this method from EVERYBODY.
The trick is to discover the true angles of Line B and C for any particular solar and lunar eclipse, and the great thing is, every lunar eclipse dictates the angle of the solar-eclipse line that we are to use. Therefore, when we have found the angle of any lunar-eclipse line, and because this eclipse provides a solar-eclipse line to go with it, we thus have the angles of both Lines B and C. Once we have their angles, we can easily find how far up the page they rise before they meet...at the edge of the sun. If they meet 15 million miles up from where we start on the page, then the sun must be 15 million miles away. That's the method. This method RULES. This method has toppled all astronomers in one swoop. This method has exposed them all as goofs of the crooked establishment. If astronomers (anyone of them) cannot realize this method all on his/her own, they are goofballs. It means they are traitors to their science field. "Goof" mean "go home," let someone better have the job. Where are the honest professionals?
Once we know the angle of two lines to the sun, even though the two lines don't begin at the same spot upon the earth, we can figure out how far up the page they meet. We can find how far from earth toward the sun they meet. Astronomers know this, but they are traitors to us all. The solar eclipse line starts at the core of the earth, and the lunar-eclipse line starts "one inch" to the left of it at the edge of the earth. This is why I showed you the lower end of Line C one inch over from the lower end of Line B. On the cosmic scale, this "one inch" is a distance equal to the radius of the earth, for that is the distance between the earth core and the edge of the planet.
The two lines begin at their bases 3,960 miles apart, and then their upper ends close in on one another until they meet. By knowing the distance of their leftward spread, per mile toward the sun, one can figure out how many miles of rise toward the sun there will be before the lines meet. Part of the math will include, 3,960 miles, and part will include 1.0 mile. This involves grade-7 math: find the distance by which the lines near each other per 1.0 mile toward the sun. For example, let's say that the lines near each other by two feet per one mile toward the sun. We then find how many increments of two feet there are in 3,960 miles, and finding that there are about 21 million increments, we then multiple the latter by 1.0 to find that the lines meet 21 million miles from where they began.
We can do this math only after we have found the angles of two lines to the same place on the sun, and preferably to the "same" sun i.e. the sun that is, in the case of both lines, at the same distance from earth.
On your drawing, the solar-eclipse line goes from the CORE of the planet to the left edge of the moon, and finally to the left edge of the sun. There is the shade of the moon on the right side of this line. As light travels in straight lines, the edge of the shade is a straight line. This is the solar-eclipse line, Line B. I am not using any particular solar eclipse for this method, but am using a simulated solar eclipse that ALWAYS has a solar-eclipse line starting at the CORE of the earth. ALWAYS. There is justification for using a simulated solar eclipse per any one lunar eclipse. We create our own solar eclipse because it's absolutely justified and called for, and it's wunderbar.
Make a new drawing. Put a one-inch earth circle on the lower half of the page, with a 2-inch sun circle on the upper half. Draw a line from the core of the earth to the left edge of the sun. Draw another line from the core of the earth to the right edge of the sun. No matter where you put a moon circle between these lines, make the edges of the moon contact these lines. That is, the lines pass precisely along the left and right edges of the moon circle. From an on-looker on earth, that situation is when the moon in the sky is exactly the size of the sun in the sky, during a solar eclipse. If the moon circle were not quite touching the two lines, then the moon would measure smaller in the sky, as measured by an astronomer on earth.
Per any lunar eclipse used for the solar-distance measurement, we will create a solar-eclipse situation where the moon and sun are exactly the same size. It's crucial. It's justified. Astronomers measure the size of the sun at all lunar eclipses. We can therefore make a moon exactly as large as the sun, per any given lunar eclipse, and we will use that moon size to create a solar-eclipse line because, with a moon the size of the sun, a line from earth core to the edge of the moon is EXACTLY at the angle of a line from the earth core to the edge of the sun. It's this easy to discover the distance to the sun, and while this part of the method escaped me until late last year, it cannot escape seasoned astronomers. They know this can be done, but have been hush about it. TRAITORS.
Unless we know how far the moon is from earth during a solar eclipse, we cannot know the solar distance. Astronomers know the angle of a line to moon's edge or sun's edge at any time (a line through moon core or sun core is zero degrees), but this alone is insufficient for finding solar distance. We additionally need to know the distance from earth's core to any object situated between our eyes and the sun, providing that this object has the same apparent size as the sun. We will use the moon for that middle object, and so this moon-on-sun scenario simulates a solar eclipse. That's what this is all about, making the moon the same size as the sun, because we can easily know how far from earth the moon is at any given size.
Repeat: unless we know how far the moon is from earth during a solar eclipse, we cannot use the moon to know the angle of the solar-eclipse line. AND, LOW AND BEHOLD: the astronomer knows the distance of the moon simply by measuring how large it is in the sky! He has methods to measure the moon and sun in the sky. He doesn't need to find the moon's distance by some other method; he can use the size of the moon itself as the most-reliable method, and he always knows what the size the moon needs to, be per lunar eclipse, in order to discover the sun's true distance. It needs to be the same size as the sun, per eclipse. This sheer simplicity is staggering.
Let me put it this way, that if the apparent size of the sun, during an eclipse, is .52 degree, he just puts a moon in front of the sun that is likewise .52 degree in size. This measurement is taken by making one edge of the sun/moon a zero-degree line, and then finding that the opposite edge is .52 degree. That is, he would need pivot his telescope .52 degree when its hairline goes from one edge of the sun/moon to the other. If his Line A, zero degrees, goes through the core of the sun, then Line B to the edge of the sun/moon is at an angle of .26 degree. Okay, you got it, you can grasp this.
The bad news is: unless you have a triangle calculator, or the wits about you to figure how to express .26 degree in a mileage format, you can't find the distance to the sun using .26 degree. The good news is: as .26 represents a SPREAD "distance" from moon core to moon edge, and is therefore a distance equal to the lunar radius, we can apply the method using the lunar radius in miles instead of using .26. The astronomer can say that the solar-eclipse line, your Line B, SPREADs laterally by a distance equal to the moon's radius by the time the line reaches the moon. As the astronomer has got that spread, he's got the solar-distance sandwich in his hand, because, with a moon that is .52 degree wide, he can find the distance between earth core and moon core as easily as this math: 360 degrees / .52 x 2159.26 miles / 2pi = 237,917 miles (moon is said to be 2,159.26 miles wide).
He now has the angle expressed in miles. He now knows that his simulated solar-eclipse line spreads 1,079.6 miles leftward on his page per every 237,917 miles toward the sun. He can "reduce" this to .004538 mile of spread per 1.0 mile toward the sun by simply dividing 237,917 by 1,079.6. He's got a round piece of orange cheese stuck to a round bun of the same size, and with it he's got half the solar distance figured out. The other half is figured out by finding the angle of the lunar-eclipse line. All he needs for this is the diameter of the earth's umbra where the moon enters it, and the diameter of the moon at that eclipse. If he trusts NASA's umbra size, then he can use it, but better would be to measure his own umbra.
There are multiple ways to acquire or work-out the umbra diameter, yet there's only one way to discover it in the first place, if the solar distance is not known. One may work-out the umbra diameter in miles by using its apparent diameter given for it by an astronomer, or by a NASA-eclipse page, but this gets an umbra size as correct only inasmuch as the given apparent size is correct. The only way to know the umbra diameter in miles is to time the passage of the moon through it, but this gets complicated for eclipses that are not total. An excellent total eclipse to use for finding umbra diameter, by measuring the time of the moon's passage, is the one of July 16, 2000. However, as I point out two updates ago, data on that page is faulty, and the umbra diameter comes out larger than claimed (on the page) when measuring the time of the moon's passage.
The math was shown above for finding the lunar distance though the apparent lunar size. NASA's eclipse pages give the moon's apparent size, but not its distance. You can work it out. It is necessary to know the moon's distance at an eclipse before using it to find solar distance. To make this easier to follow, we'll assume an umbra diameter of 6,000 miles, and we'll say the earth is 8,000 miles wide. In the drawing where you have the earth circle and sun circle, draw two lines to represent the umbra. Both lines go from edge of the sun to edge of the earth, and beyond to a point behind the earth. Put the moon roughly where the umbra looks 6,000 miles wide. Keeping it easy, let's say that the moon is 250,000 miles away.
Okay, so with the umbra at 6,000 miles wide, and directly beneath the earth circle of 8,000 miles wide, the umbra is 1,000 miles smaller than earth on the left side, and 1,000 miles smaller on its right side too. This means that the umbra line, which I also call the lunar-eclipse line, spreads 1,000 miles laterally per 250,000 miles toward the sun. VOILA! We now have it all. We have the angle of the lunar-eclipse line too. We don't need it in degrees, we can express it with miles laterally versus miles "rise" toward the sun. When this line meets the solar-eclipse line, that's where the sun sits during the eclipse.
Here's how to finalize the deal. We divide 1,000 by 250,000 to find that the angle of the line is .004 mile of spread per 1.0 mile toward the sun. As per the simulated solar eclipse, it was said above: "He can 'reduce' this to .004538 mile of spread per 1.0 mile toward the sun by simply dividing 237,917 by 1,079.6." Okay, just for fun, let's use the .004 and .004538 together so that you can see how to find the solar distance using a real situation. We subtract the smaller from the larger, .004538 - .004, to get .000538 mile. What does this mean? What are we doing here? It means that, as the solar-eclipse line comes nearer to the lunar-eclipse line, it does so by .000538 mile per 1.0 mile toward the sun. Anyone familiar with math knows instantly that, zikers, this can reveal the true distance to the sun, if we know how far the two lines begin at their bases, and then divide that distance by .000538.
It's like this folks. Two angled lines into the sky start three miles apart, and they come closer to each other by a half mile per one mile into the sky. How will we do the math to find how high they will be when meeting? Like this: 3 mile / .5 mile = 6 miles high. So, we find how far apart the two eclipse lines begin, and we already talked about that: they begin one earth radius apart, which we will call 4,000 miles. Therefore, the solar-eclipse line will meet the lunar-eclipse line when they are 4,000 / .000538 / = 7.43 million miles high toward the sun. You now have it all. You can figure your own solar distances using any lunar-eclipse data. You need exactly zero solar-eclipse data. You need only the umbra diameter in miles, the angular size of the moon, and the angular size of the sun. NASA gives all three on its eclipse pages.
If NASA could be trusted, which it cannot, one shouldn't need to grapple with timing the moon across the umbra. One should be able to take the apparent size (as the eye sees it from earth) of the umbra in order to convert it to miles in three steps. For example, for the July-16 eclipse above, NASA gives .6518 degree as the umbra's radius where the moon enters it, and so we need to multiply it by 2 to get the diameter, wherefore there will be 360 / (.6518 x 2) = 276 increments, each equal to an umbra diameter, in a full circle around the earth.
Step two: find the distance of the moon at this eclipse. We take the size of the moon for this eclipse, given as "S.D." = semi-diameter: 14'43.2". We then take that arcminute figure to an arcminute-to-degree converter (one degree = 60 arcminutes), finding that it's equal to .2453 degree. Double it to .4917, and use the figure to discover the distance of the moon at this eclipse: 360 degrees / .4906 x 2159 miles / 2pi = 252,140 miles.
Step three: now that the lunar distance is "known" at 252,140 miles, we multiply it by 2 to get the diameter of a circle around the earth when the moon is at that distance, and we then multiple by pi to find the length of the circle, all of which works out to 1.583 million miles. We go back to the 276 increments of umbra diameters in a full circle, and so we divide 1.583 million by 276 to find that each increment is about 5,737 miles wide by this method of discovery. That is, the umbra works out to 5,737 miles wide, which gives a solar-distance figure of 16 million miles (see "July 16" two updates ago for math details).
Here's all four Gospels wrapped into one story.
For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God.
Also, you might like this related video:
Pre-Tribulation Preparation for a Post-Tribulation Rapture