Saturday, May 2, 2015

Space machines do not orbit the Earth beyond 200 km altitude of thermosphere

If you don't know that the whole Apollo missions where a Hoax, you are not awake yet. No one had never landed on the moon.

The moon landings were hoaxed by the US government to assert their victory in the space race over Russia.

After the Apollo missions ended in the seventies, why haven’t we ever been back? 

We will explore why Humanity still imprisoned on Earth.

There are three very serious problems with the orbiting mechanism of the space machines said to whiz around the Earth. These need to be incorporated within our “reality framework” to help us determine what is actually real and what is marketing.

AS-204 saturn rocketAS-204 rocket where 3 astronauts died in a “fire” in 1967
Houston. It’s starting to get hot in here.
Negative John. You mean cold right?
No, no… it’s getting damn hot. Crazy damn hot!
Don’t worry Captain we wrapped layers of aluminum foil around your capsule. It should peel off and repel the heat.
Houston… I… Arrgh.. (choke) it’s too… much… unbearable. I ca…
Those were the last words spoken by poor Captain John Doe, guinea pig for NASA test flights as the blood boiled, his brain expanded cracking his skull open, while his body fat melted on to the red hot glowing chair. What was left of his suit combusted on the spot and then started to mix with the now molten metal of the instrument panel.
The whole rocket had exploded seconds before creating a beautiful white glow in the now 1500 degree heat. What was left of John, his suit, capsule and rocket gelled into one molten mass and fell back to earth as NASA’s first inadvertent attempt at making a man-made meteorite.

This fictitious account of early “space” travel is probably closer to the truth than NASA care to admit. There is a teensy weensy fact that makes a complete mockery of the orbiting mechanism behind any space machine whether it is the Hubble Telescope, the International Space Station, satellites or any other object which they claim orbits the earth. This fact can be summed up in one word:

thermosphereAt about 85km altitude temperatures start to rise until they hit the Kármán line which is 100km high. After this line, the heat abruptly increases rising rapidly to 200km whereby it starts to level off (100km is the very start of the radiation belts as well which become full strength at 200km funnily enough), although other sources say it continually rises. Temperatures can vary, depending on sun activity, but can reach as high as… wait for it…



I kid you not.
In case you don’t know how hot 2500°C is. Your oven in your kitchen can hit 240°C max. A ceramic laboratory oven for jewelers and dentists to melt gold can reach 1200°C. Temperatures in a blast furnace for melting iron can go as high as 2300°C.
ceramic oven
ceramic laboratory oven – 1200°C
blast furnace
blast furnace – 2000 to 2300°C
The only elements in the periodic table that can withstand 2500°C are carbon, niobium, molybdenum, tantalum, tungsten, rhenium, and osmium. Except for carbon, these metals are very, very heavy and are of course extremely conductive to heat and most are very ductile when heat treated meaning they bend and coil. Carbon even has the highest thermal conductivities of all known materials! So, if you want to cook someone very efficiently and quickly, there is nothing better than a space capsule made out of graphite.
Now, admittedly, it is not always 2500°C. In fact the temperature range is usually between a mere 600 to 2000°C! depending on sun activity and if it is day or night, with these temperatures usually reserved for altitudes of 300km and above; the upper boundary of which is unknown.
Now guess what altitude all the NASA machines are supposed to orbit Earth?
We are told most satellites orbit the Earth at altitudes of over 500km to avoid atmospheric drag, with a few circling in Medium Earth Orbit which goes up to 35,786km!

As you can see, all three objects above are in the seriously ferocious hot zone. Apart from nothing working at the minimum 600°C due to thermal expansion of the materials (iron glows red hot at 500°C), some of the electronic components like lead, zinc, and epoxy resin would not just burn out, but melt.

The solar panels which adjourn these machines would barely function even if they could keep it together long enough. A British company found a drop of 1.1% of peak output for every increase in degrees Celsius of photovoltaic solar panels once the panels reached 42°C, and of course at 1414°C silicon actually melts. But wait… the Hubble Telescope and satellites uses gallium arsenide instead of silicon which melts at an even lower temperature of 1238°C. I could go on, but you get the picture.

So how do those solar panels work? How does anything work and why do satellites, the Hubble Telescope, ISS etc. not melt during a day of high solar activity?
scene composition: litho, frame 22
NASA’s blast furnace-proof International Space Station

Aha, don’t worry, I’m sure the apologists have come to the rescue of this laugh-in-your-face contradiction; and they have, or rather have tried. Excuse number one comes from a few websites such as Wikipedia who wish to insult our intelligence to the max. Here is the main explanation for why satellites aren’t converted into man-made meteorites:
The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2500°C (4530°F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat.

Errr… wait a minute. I thought it is the sun that causes those few atoms of gas to heat up to 2500°C? Oh, it is.
Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation.

So, do you think if NASA put a Hubble Telescope up there, it also might absorb highly energetic solar radiation exactly like those few atoms of gas to a maximum of 2500°C? You think!!!!
The source of the heat of the thermosphere is not a few atoms of gas.

It is the sun!


You know, you may have heard of it, or seen it or even felt it? Ask this man if he believes in solar radiation.

radiation - sun burnt man
“Wikipedia said what?”
Even NASA themselves admit this in their question and answer session at question 3:
Heat travels through a vacuum by infrared radiation. The Sun (and anything warm) is constantly emitting infrared, and the Earth absorbs it and turns the energy into atomic and molecular motion, or heat.

So much for that excuse. They realize that there will be a few multi-cellular brained human beings out there that will see straight through this, so they’ll need reserve explanations. Enter Dr. Eberhard Moebius at question 5. who says,
…this is the second secret of the vacuum bottle (or thermos): while the vacuum suppresses heat exchanges by conduction and air convection, exchange by radiation is suppressed by the shiny metallic coating of the bottle.This shiny coating reflects the heat radiation like a mirror and keeps it either inside the bottle (if the content is hot) or outside (if the content is cold).

But none of NASA’s orbiting machines are completely covered in a layer of IR reflecting materials, only a bit of aluminum foil for the Hubble Telescope. Even if the foil could withstand 1500°C radiating heat, it certainly wouldn’t be able to stop conducting the heat from the the other materials of the telescope, especially those lovely infra-red absorbing dark areas, copper foil, plastic coated wires, and tarnished metal; and how about that same aluminum foil reflecting light back onto the telescope itself! Solar cooker anyone? There is so much wrong with the picture below that it is beyond words:
Capture
Dave, why haven’t we vaporized into white hot piles of meteoric ash?
Because we are in a swimming pool, Ivan.
Ah, for a minute there I almost forgot.


Not only that, even if the machines were hermetically sealed in IR reflecting materials, there would be nowhere to radiate this heat away as according to Dr. Christian the heat in the thermosphere is always there. There is no colder place for the heat to transfer to (second law of thermodynamics).
…thermal radiation is always there, and that is what a spacecraft uses. To get rid of heat, you can point thermal radiators at the dark sky, and to warm up you can point at the Sun or Earth. The Sun warms the Earth through radiation, not convection or diffusion.
I think it is only fair to give Dr. Christian some slack. He’ can’t be right all the time. Let’s say thermal radiation isn’t always present, even though during the day the sun is continually radiating everywhere. How cold must the other side of the orbiting machine be, and how thermally conducting its material to allow its temperature to keep a low equilibrium after one side is being blasted with a constant, say, 1200°C heat?
Quite.
bright yellow hot steel
How the Hubble Telescope would look at 1200°C!
yellow hot steel
Engineers testing an array of possible Hubble Telescopes for thermal expansion at 500 to 1000°C.
That is the end of NASA’s orbiting machines, or is it? How do we know the thermosphere exists at all? It isn’t verifiable and it isn’t observable by any means. The problem is, why would NASA lie about such a thing when it completely disproves their portrayed fantasies of the last 44 years. What’s more, why bother spending years researching, equipping and continually improving the entire body of the space shuttle with insulating tiles that can resist 1650°C? Surely, the previous Saturn rocket’s insulating technology was more than adequate, as it had sent men to the moon… ahem. The rocket’s insulation relied on a process called ablation which just means as the metal layers peeled off from the heat it released the hot gases trapped inside which cooled the rocket down… except it didn’t, as the heat is ever-present in the thermosphere.
Oops, never mind.
The shuttle is the only vehicle that can enter the thermosphere, albeit for short durations and not too high, probably not beyond 400 or 500km (part 2 shows us that the shuttle probably never really goes much higher than 100km). It’s also really risky business; lose a few tiles in one place and the show is over in one magnificent fireball finale. Ask the poor crew of Columbia.
Below is what the shuttle looks like in space as 1000°C heat is applied to it. Notice how the tile glows white.
If there are no orbiting machines in space, why bother with the space shuttle? After all, we are told its main job is to deploy satellites. Before that question is answered in part 2, let’s look at a couple of counter-arguments or “solutions” to the thermosphere conundrum.
Possible counter-arguments
1. It certainly looks like stars become invisible at high altitude. Myself and another German poster have commented not seeing stars from an airplane cabin window in the summertime (although another poster commented that he has seen stars from an airplane on the December solstice). Seeing stars above 100km seems therefore to be highly unlikely.
“Why” is up for debate, but if visible light from stars cannot be detected above 100km with the naked eye, does this mean that heat from this light is also not felt or able to manifest itself as strongly? Does this rule also apply to the other electromagnetic wavelengths such as ultraviolet light where heat is concerned? Does it also apply to the EM wavelengths emanating for the Sun? Do we still feel the same heat intensity up there? Meteorites are white hot because they often melt through the glass layer, but they have been theorized to be a tiny part of the Sun that has been ejected, and the Sun is 6000°C on the surface after all.
This may well be a possibility, but seems unlikely because meteorites and asteroids have been labelled as the same phenomenon with one orbiting the Sun, the other falling to Earth. As a meteorite melts through the glass it looks like a streaky white line and then burns in the atmosphere like a fireball. An asteroid looks like a white dot differentiated from stars because of their differing velocities across the night sky. Theoretically, it is a white dot because it is white hot. For asteroids to remain white hot whilst orbiting the Sun, the sun must be making them as such.
Another good reason against this lack of heat argument is that the higher intensity of sunlight wavelengths has also been apparently measured above the glass. How? Let’s leave that to part 2, but if the extra light intensity has been detected (not calculated), then the effect of that extra light is also present, i.e. heat.
2. The few atoms in space and the charged particles of the Van Allen Belts become very hot because of solar radiation. Due to the vast time spans of the universe and existence itself (as viewed by the mainstream) the Sun is only heating up the particles very slowly. Over time, these particles cannot radiate heat away nearly as fast enough and therefore gradually heat up. So orbiting man-made objects also heat up very, very slowly over millions of years etc.
The trouble is, we don’t know how old anything really is, let alone the “universe”. We also have no idea have fast objects heat up at a specific distance to the Sun in a vacuum, say at 400km altitude, but there is a clue here on Earth. At sea level the Sun can heat up the air very fast, depending on how high the sun is in the sky, which in turn depends on latitude and season. It takes the Sun a few months to heat up the air above the ground after winter, and that is with convection (wind) constantly taking the heat away. So how long does the Sun take to heat up a few air molecules in a near vacuum above 100km high, where the only means of heat escape is through radiation, which makes heat transfer at this altitude very low?
Quite.
Let’s look at the second piece of evidence that makes orbiting a bit of a farce.

Orbiting mechanism

Why do things float in space only 100km+ above the Earth? Does gravity magically stop affecting objects at this height? The official answer is that above 100km objects are freefalling, but if they are traveling fast enough laterally, i.e. the space shuttle, at 28000 kmp/h then this speed will cause the object to fall along the convex curve of the Earth, thereby never actually hitting the ground – hence “orbiting” (already mentioned on this blog here).
Newton developed a thought experiment (author’s note: NOT science) to demonstrate this concept. Imagine placing a cannon at the top of a very tall mountain. Once fired, a cannonball falls to Earth. The greater the speed, the farther it will travel before landing. If fired with the proper speed, the cannonball would achieve a state of continuous free-fall around Earth, which we call orbit. The same principle applies to the space shuttle or space station. While objects inside them appear to be floating and motionless, they are actually traveling at the same orbital speed as their spacecraft: 17,500 miles per hour (28,000 km per hour)!
“A thought experiment”??? supposedly conducted by a man living in the 17th century which amazingly matched perfectly with the late 20th century explanation NASA uses to explain how their machines orbit the Earth. What are the odds of Newton getting that one right, let alone knowing what gravity really is and how it works? This is at the very, very beginning of “science” if it can be called that. Newton’s thoughts verified by NASA? Or desperately used to explain away a model which does not exist.
Stranger still, that in Newton’s letter to Halley he writes that he thinks gravity is a push by “descending spirit”.
“…Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre
How does push gravity work as a property of mass, especially in the convex Earth heliocentric model with spinning globes whizzing around each other exuding their various pressures? With great difficulty, if at all. Newton agrees in a letter to Bentley.
“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
Oh dear. NASA, are you reading this? Your god Newton does not think you have a competent faculty of thinking. Are you telling big porky pies by any chance. I think you are! (Big thanks to Sandokhan).
But it gets worse… far worse. Falling is an acceleration which can be defined as an object getting faster and faster or an object at the same speed continually changing direction. That may or may not theoretically work for a convex Earth where gravity is a property of mass, but how do we know the Earth is a globe? Newton’s thought experiment can only work for a globe Earth as the Earth would be constantly dropping away beneath the orbiting object. Has the Earth been geodetically measured in order to determine its shape? Does the Earth drop away from us as we move along a straight line (convex), keep at the same distance (flat), or rise up towards us (concave)? Luckily for us, such an experiment was performed in 1897 and found that the Earth curves upwards – concave.
This was the extraordinarily thorough rectilineator experiment that was verified multiple times by several witnesses (of contrary opinions) over a period of several months. The curve upwards corresponded exactly with the curvature of the Earth as known today (but philosophically assumed to be curving the other way). A thorough examination of this experiment can be found on this blog under Concave Earth theory.
The rectilineator experiment proves that Newton’s thought “experiment”, aka “idea” is not the mechanism for man-made machines orbiting the Earth, if they are orbiting at all – so far, very doubtful. The orbiting jokers have been caught red-handed on more than one occasion. Let’s have a peek at a few examples of their blatant fakery.

Fake footage

It’s all getting a bit heavy with numbers, so to lighten it up a bit we’ll start this section with a fun quiz. There are two columns of images and/or videos below. Only one column contains footage that is likely to be real (but not necessarily genuine) – which one is it?
fish-eye
(Click to animate). An amateur weather balloon in freefall video showing us the concave/convex effects of a fish-eye lens.
astronauts around ISS
(Click to animate). Assembling the space station in orbit. Love those solar panels baby – who’s the graphic artist? Were they fired?
SRB camera freefall
(Click to animate). A NASA camera on one of the space shuttle’s SRBs after separation. Note the fish-eye lens causing concave and convex Earth horizons.
ISS flyover night
(Click to animate). ISS flyover at night – time lapse photography. Stars! And lots of them.
STS 127
Another space shuttle booster rocket video showing us the typical fish-eye lens approach (STS 127).
UFO bollocks
(Click to animate). “UFOs” buzz the MIR space station… or should that read USOs at the bottom of the seabed.
DogCam flies to the edge of space 110,000ft
(Click to animate). An amateur weather balloon video at 110,000 feet.
tate satelite 400km
From only 400km altitude, this is a live image from the Tate satellite. At 400km height horizon visibility is 2294km, which is one third the radius of the Earth only! (Cheers Saros).
space shuttle launch
continuous view of a space shuttle launch from the beginning until 2:26 min. The SRBs had yet to be jettisoned which means that the shuttle had not yet reached 46 km; although it looks as if it is about to timing-wise.
atlantis-iss-docked-robotic-arm
The view of Earth from the ISS with stars! And a permanently yellow ionosphere which in reality only becomes yellow when a fast moving object is passing through.
You’ll have already guessed that the footage in the left column is likely to be the more genuine article for the simple reason that both amateur high altitude balloon footage and NASA’s video of high altitude launches look very similar or the same. The balloon videos are the control that all other “space” footage is compared to. If the Earth is far too detailed, not occasionally glaring, looks animated, no black space (stars visible), no white glaring Sun, no continuous footage throughout, no similar atmospheric sound at stratospheric levels (like this video – although the microphone may not be on) etc. as all the non-music balloon videos show, then the footage is bogus. This is not foolproof of course. Any video could be fake. It is merely one indication.
If you don’t believe me, let’s look at some of the type of videos that suit the right column, but in more detail, and see if there have been any over-looked mistakes in post production (mostly courtesy of cluesforum.info). There are loads more on Youtube if you look for them.
Bubbles
spacewalksts118b-l
(Click to animate). One bubble from the astronaut and one from the scuba diver (with his tank visible in the hatch).
gM8g5
(Click to animate). One bubble not enough? How about lots and lots of bubbles!
chinese bubbles

(Click to animate). China also wants in on the act.
chinese bubble2

(Click to animate). The union of Chimerica is finally complete.
STS-51-A Discovery 1984
(Click to animate). At 1:23 min, the STS-51-A-Discovery-1984 shows a whopper of a bubble being ejected and then move to the side – probably really “up”. (Thanks ourjesuitpaymasters).
What’s that? Ice particles you say.
Nope. Water couldn’t exist in a solid or liquid form in the thermosphere.
Space Debris! That’s what they are.
Let’s have a real close look at a piece of “debris” and watch it being ejected from the vertical right nozzle halfway up the apparatus and travel up.
bubblesiss1-l
(Click to animate). Oh dear.
But they can’t be bubbles; some of them are traveling too fast.
Only if they are free-floating. Bubbles coming from a pressurized container/tube/cylinder/tank/apparatus travel very fast as any YouTube video of a free-flowing regulator will show you. NASA’s “practice” swimming pool is about 40 feet (12.34m) deep, with the “astronauts” probably operating at around half that depth. Here is a real world comparison of air being ejected from an underwater bubble room 20 feet (6.17m) deep.
gM8g5
(Click to animate). Lots of fast moving bubbles.

real bubbles1
(Click to animate). Lots of fast moving bubbles.
You can also tell from the astronaut’s kicks at the very beginning of the video that it could have been sped up quite a lot too.
Swimming
In fact, if we speed up another video, we can clearly see the astronauts like to swim in space; and how about a toolbox being dropped and then not dropping any further.
hubbleswimming1-o
(Click to animate). Look mom, I’m doing doggy paddle!
toolbox fail
(Click to animate). Don’t worry miss. The scuba divers will pick it upafter the show.
Wrong hair
What about the inside of the ISS? Those two lady astronauts are having a bad hair day!
strange hair1
(Click to animate). This is what happens when you use too much hair lacquer.
strange hair2
(Click to animate). Kids, don’t stick your fingers in an electric socket!
Here are two ladies on the left and probably the same light-brown haired lady in the right clip showing us what long hair truly looks like in weightlessness.
real hair2
(Click to animate). Why isn’t my hair standing on end?
real hair1
(Click to animate). Look! No fingers in electric sockets.
Wires in space
How do they fake the freefalling “floating” micro-gravity? It’s been done since 1968 in the movie “2001 Space Odyssey” right up to “Gravity” in 2013.
gravity wires
Sandra Bullock held up by wires in the film “Gravity” (2013).
hatfield harness
(Click to animate). (8:56 min) Chris Hatfield held up by wires in the movie “The International Fake Station” (21st century).
And of course, very rarely, someone isn’t fully on the ball and let’s the cat out of the bag.
Cassidy blooper
Poor Chris Cassidy must have missed his morning coffee that day – “… a little town called York, Maine across the United States from where we are talking to you right now.” Oops.
Never mind Chris. Don’t beat yourself up about it. The truth is out now anyhow.
Few “genuine” Earth globe images
(Big thanks to “Learn of the Jesuit Order“). The theoretical micro-gravity model is conclusively fraudulent. But what about orbiting further out away from the Earth? Satellites are said to “orbit” from 120km to 35,000km away. Surely there should be lots and lots of great images and video, especially modern crystal clear HD quality, beautiful footage of our “globe” Earth seen from space? You would think that right? Okay, okay, forget video. What about just basic photos? With over 1100 active and 2600 redundant satellites, over the decades (especially recently) the number of images of our magnificent “ball planet” must be staggering… except it isn’t. (This source says there have been 6,578 satellites launched into orbit since the beginning.)
All modern images of “Earth as a globe” are composites. What does that mean? Here is what an article says about a 2012 Blue Marble image:
The camera on board Suomi NPP can only photograph small sections of Earth at a time, so the image you see here is actually something of a mosaic — a patchwork piece that collects photos taken from Suomi NPP over the course of January 4, 2012 and stitches them together… Of course, when I say that Suomi photographs “small sections” of the Earth’s surface, what I mean is that they’re smaller than an absurdly hi-res photo of the entire planet.
How small? Here is an apparent sample image on the left which once put together with the rest and laid on to a globe, looks like the image on the right.
18louy998t41zjpg
At what altitude was this photo taken? 100km?
189cs2k0svipmjpg
When laid on to a globe, it looks like this.
Although the composite is said only to come from one instrument (VIIRS) on one satellite (Suomi NPP), a NASA/Sigma video says otherwise.
The Blue marble 2012 is… “a composite of data sets from several different instruments… It is Photoshopped, but it has to be.” (3:40 min).
I bet.
They removed, and then later added all the cloud cover, simulated the atmosphere and added the reflection of sunlight on water. Even after all those “additions”, they still had to tweak the image to make it look nice and lovely… apart from that, it is a genuine composite.
blue marble after
Before tweaking and After.
The same satellite was also said to be used for the Black Marble, but they have animated the images to make it look like the Earth is rotating.
This new global view and animation of Earth’s city lights is a composite assembled from data acquired by the Suomi NPP satellite. The data was acquired over nine days in April 2012 and 13 days in October 2012. It took 312 orbits to get a clear shot of every parcel of Earth’s land surface and islands. This new data was then mapped over existing Blue Marble imagery of Earth to provide a realistic view of the planet.
animated earth
An animated rotating Earth.
The only supposed series of genuine photos of the globe Earth I could find are from the Galileo satellite passing by the Earth in 1990. Again, an animation; but this time they claim this isn’t a composite, but the real deal (at least each photo is supposed to be genuine). Also, why are the thousands of shiny sun-reflecting satellites orbiting the Earth not visible in any of the series of photos below, or in hardly any photo ever? Too small? And what about all the estimated 370,000 pieces of sun-reflecting space Junk? (Obviously less junk in 1990, but still).
galileo sat
Another animated rotating Earth, but this time each photo is claimed to be real.
AEHF-satellite-728x582
There are hardly any supposedly genuine photographs of a satellite in orbit. They are very nearly all cartoons.
If those photos are genuine, why did they have to build the Blue Marble from composites 22 years later? Why couldn’t they have just put cameras on a few of their “35000 km” orbiting satellites as they supposedly did with Galileo?
Well, there are said to be two genuine full disk black and white images of cloud cover from geostationary satellites GOES-13 and GOES-14 from 35,786 km away updated every 3 hours. When colorized and superimposed with the landmasses added etc. they can look like the image below.
GOES-13 cloud cover
Actual full disk cloud cover visible light image supposedly from GOES-13.
IDL TIFF file
Now it is colourzied!
370,000 sun reflectors (space junk) still not visible at all, even when a few closer pictures of the Earth are taken from the same said geo satellite. You can get as close as you like, you’ll never see anything orbiting up there at all.
GOES-13 first supposed full globe weather image was in 2006. Sixteen years is a long time between photos. At least it is better than the moon landings yet to be repeated. Speaking of which, before the Galileo satellite, the most common “said to be real” image of the Earth globe was from those infamous 1972 Apollo 17 missions, 18 years before that.
apollo images
All the images of Earth-as-a-globe supposedly taken on the Apollo missions. (2:36 min)
blue marble 1972
The famous Apollo 17 image, continually used to this day since 1972.
Of course, the moon landings are more than a little controversial. Apart from melting in the thermosphere, common sense rules out this farce completely. Supposedly between June 28 – July 7 1969, a mere two weeks before Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin allegedly walked on the moon (July 21st), a test monkey died in “orbit” which was blamed on microgravity.
The flight subject died about eight hours after the capsule was recovered. The acute cause of death was ventricular fibrillation. At the time of death, body weight was 4.4 kg. Weight loss may have been due to the marginally palatable food pellets that had to be used to accommodate experimental requirements. Marked dehydration was evident. The cause of death is still controversial. At the time it was speculated that the changes noted in the animal were an effect of microgravity alone.
Don’t worry, we’ll send up our boys to the moon anyway. Hope we have thought of absolutely everything and our hypothetical calculations and theoretical heliocentric model are right. Pray for us Issac Newton, we are going “live” in two weeks with our very first attempt.
Shitola!
Of course some part of this story (the orbiting part) is very likely a complete fabrication, but it still doesn’t help the moon boys any. Good entertainment though.

Summary

  • After 100km altitude it starts to get very hot. At 110km it is 200°C. At 500km it is somewhere between 500°C and 1500°C or more. This is the thermosphere.
  • The cause of this heat is the extra solar radiation above the ionosphere, closer distance to the Sun, and above all the vacuum of space which doesn’t allow the heat to radiate away fast enough or allow a lower pressure differential with increasing altitude.
  • Space machines are said to orbit between 120 and 35000km+ altitude making them traveling furnaces and obviously a pure fabrication if said orbital altitudes are correct.
  • Possible counterarguments against a hot thermosphere are: 1. Invisible stars at high altitude may be responsible for lower heat at same said height; although possible white hot asteroids orbiting the Sun and the detection of the extra sunlight intensity make this unlikely. 2. Long time spans make heating objects very slow and unnoticeable; although it only takes a few months to heat up convective air on the ground from one season to another – in space heat can only be radiated away.
  • The theory used to explain NASA machine’s orbiting mechanism comes from a 17th century philosopher, who actually thought gravity was a repelling push from “descending spirit”, not an attractive property of matter.
  • This theoretical orbiting mechanism could only work for a convex Earth, whereas the Earth has been thoroughly geodetically measured to be concave.
  • The easiest way to detect fake NASA footage is to compare it to the control videos of high altitude weather balloons – if not similar then fake.
  • There are numerous red flags when analyzing space footage that is not similar to the control: 1. Conclusive bubbles in space. 2. Swimming astronauts kicking their legs. 3. Lady astronaut hair behaving in a totally different way than hair at zero gravity on an airplane. 4. Chris Hatfield caught with wires sticking out his shirt. 5. Chris Cassidy’s Freudian admission of real location.
  • There are very few genuine photos of the Earth as a globe, despite 3700 satellites having been launched over the decades (1100 still in operation, although 6,578 are said to have been ever launched into orbit). Any orbiting distance from 6200km away or more would show the whole ball Earth.
  • There is no video of the globe Earth, only animations of photo sets.
  • There are only two sets of photos of globe Earth (known to the author) said to be genuine: 1. Those taken from the Apollo missions, and 2. Those from the 1990 Galileo satellite.
  • The Blue marble 2012 globe Earth picture is a composite of much, much smaller and nearer to Earth satellite photos from various instruments, layered and tweaked.
  • The Apollo moon landings are a farce due to the thermosphere and common sense.
If there is no such thing as low-Earth orbit, does this mean that all the machines in space are fake? Not quite. For anything to reside at the very beginning of non-thermosphere space (100 to 110km altitude), there must be another mechanism besides orbiting to hold the “space” machines in place… but which machines? And what mechanism? Before I answer that question, let’s look at two of the more well-known space machines:


Hubble and the International Space Station hoax
There are three types of machines said to be in Earth orbit. We have already determined that there is no orbit. Before we look at the possible placement mechanism, let’s first look at the two most well-known machines said to be up there, and determine if they are likely the real deal.

Hubble Space Telescope

Below are two columns of pictures. One contains images exclusively from the “Hubble Telescope”, the other those from Earth-based observatories. Which column shows pictures from the Hubble Telescope?
stars observatory 1
stars
stars hubble 2
stars
observatory star cluster 6
star clusters
hubble star cluster 5
star clusters
observatory nebula 4
nebula
IDL TIFF file
nebula
observatory nebulae 10
nebula
hubble nebulae 9
nebula
observatory galaxy 8
galaxy
hubble galaxy 7
galaxy

The images in the column on the left are from observatories, whilst those on the right are from the “Hubble Telescope“.
Apart from all the images being very similar (or identical), they are often composites of 3 or more pictures each captured through a separate light filter… and then processed further. On top of that, since NASA fake stars and obviously entire images of machines orbiting space, then “processing” a “galaxy” in Photoshop isn’t exactly revolutionary.
These days, they have allowed us to use their online software to touch up raw Hubble images ourselves (cheers ICfreely). They even provide a PDF of instructions. Courtesy of their own YouTube channel, we can compare raw Hubble images and those after processing. (Thanks Godrules)
raw galaxy
Galaxy NGC 3982 – Before (0:24 min).
after hubble
After! (2:02 min).
Gosh, those images are nearly identical… not. You can even choose your own colour!
I wonder if this could be the real Hubble Telescope below? Is the movement across the sky too much for the several minutes of exposure necessary to capture images? It would seem so, although it is probably more a detector than a true optical telescope. I’d love to see how a free-falling Hubble Telescope in space stays exactly in one place to the millimeter in order to capture its long exposure times. It is supposed to be at orbital speed which is 7600 meters per second. This Earth-based motionless observatory image is a composite of three images over 12, 9, and 7 minutes of exposure. In 12 minutes the Hubble Space telescope will have traveled 5472 km – an eighth of the way around the world.
SOFIA_Boeing_747SP_1998AC0014
Sofia
800px-SOFIA_with_open_telescope_doors
The Real Hubble Telescope?
As Saros has also noted, it is odd though why they need an infrared detector at only 12km altitude. They have the Hubble Telescope much further up (559 km), and there is the ISS, and of course the 1100 active satellites littered all over the globe. Maybe they need the versatility of choosing exact locations which are not covered by the infrared detecting satellites? Perhaps there aren’t many operating scientific infrared detecting satellites up there, and those that are, can only cover a smallish localized area at one time? Or the type of technology needed is not satellite suitable because the instruments need to be changed before each operation, or are too delicate and have to be constantly maintained and tweaked? (Best guess).
This telescope is designed for infrared astronomy observations in the stratosphere at altitudes of about 41,000 feet (12 km). SOFIA’s flight capability allows it to rise above almost all of the water vapor in the Earth’s atmosphere, which blocks some infrared wavelengths from reaching the ground. At the aircraft’s cruising altitude, 85% of the full infrared range will be available. The aircraft can also travel to almost any point on the Earth’s surface, allowing observation from the northern and southern hemispheres.
Could the Hubble Telescope be placed on the glass layer 100km high? Possible. Except they say that the Hubble needs constant maintenance:
Soon after his appointment Griffin authorized Goddard to proceed with preparations for a manned Hubble maintenance flight, saying he would make the final decision after the next two shuttle missions. In October 2006 Griffin gave the final go-ahead, and the 11-day mission by Atlantis was scheduled for October 2008. Hubble’s main data-handling unit failed in September 2008,[86] halting all reporting of scientific data until its back-up was brought online on October 25, 2008.[87] Since a failure of the backup unit would leave the HST helpless, the service mission was postponed to incorporate a replacement for the primary unit… (An earlier space telescope idea): These plans emphasized the need for manned maintenance missions to the telescope to ensure such a costly program had a lengthy working life.
All Earth-based observatories have to be maintained. Even on the glass, the environment of the Hubble Space telescope would be more hostile than a telescope on Earth. Freezing temperatures and all that meteoric dust and micro-meteor bombardment…allegedly 100 tons of the stuff hits the atmosphere every day (I am doubtful it is that much). No-one can physically go up and walk on the glass unless the space shuttle stops; and then how does the shuttle get back? It can’t.
Reality verdict:
hubble-fraud
“Marketing” is code for utter shite.
I particularly love all the different altitudes and curves of the Earth in the backdrop. Can’t they even get that one straight? What a load of shit.

International Space Station

Which screenshots below of the various videos of the ISS are fake?
ISS - amateur1
1
hoax - 2
2
hoax - 3
3
ISS - 5
4
ISS - 6
5
ISS - 7
6

Answer: all of them. But officially, number 2 and 3.
There is also the problem of “to rotate, or not to rotate?” in the 2007 video below of Mike Tyrrell’s miraculous captures, aired by the BBC who at 0:38 states that “no other amateurs in the world have been able to create such stunning images”.
I bet.
ISS - not moving
Static ISS
ISS - moving
Rotating ISS

The earliest “photo” of the ISS supposedly viewed through a telescope by an “amateur” astronomer that I could find was in 2002 by Jerry Xiaojin Zhu followed by nothing until 2005/6 with Philip Masding/Mike Tyrrell’s orgy of images. The ISS had been manned since 1999, so you would have thought NASA or one of the myriad of observatories littering the globe, let alone another amateur astronomer would have more than one set of telescope images to show between 1999 and 2006; but no.
Then there is the problem of other hobbyists not being able to capture such great images. Before the 2007 barrage, other members on one forum in 2003 said things like “No details – it just looked like a fast moving star.” and “You can’t resolve any features on a satellite with amateur telescopes.”
And from 2006: “You’d have to have a ‘scope able to slew at incredible speeds.There aren’t any for amateurs, that I know of.” Even as late as 2009, one young lady said “I saw a very bright…very fast streak of light run across my vision. So fast and bright, that I couldn’t make out what it was”
But it’s not just a handful of mistaken incompetents. Amateur astronomer forums such as Amateurastronomers.net just has three PR articles and certainly no “hobbyists'” photos. Those amazingly fortunate and plucky young astronomers mostly hang around stargazerslounge.com and iceinspace.com.au with a few generously donating their incredible gifts at cloudynights.com.
The problem is we get the same amazed and incredulous comments such as “Wow!!!!!!!Impossible Job“, “I tried to track it with my little dob but only got a bright dot“, “ISS does outshine Venus sometimes. It reaches maximum brightness at a whopping -5.9 at perigee“, “getting a detailed image of something moving this fast would require a very complex setup“, “I’ve had a few tries with LX200 which is supposed to be able to track it but failed miserably“, “The two times I tried to image the station, I got blobs!”, “I only get a blur“, “I have no idea how the others have captured such detailed pictures of it!”
You get the picture (pun intended).
The last comment was made by a lady who had managed to get the bright white dot through her telescope shown in the video below on the left which looks remarkably like the black and white image of an asteroid on the right.
real ISS
An asteroid… ahem, I mean a satellite, no… er the Hubble Telescope… no, no, no, its the ISS!
asteroid
An asteroid

Gosh, it’s radiating white hot all over… what a surprise! Who would have thunk it. White hot is 1400-1600°C. That’s a hot ISS! Speaking of white hot, there are two images of the space shuttle through a telescope. With this new-found knowledge of the thermosphere, which image is likely to be correct and which one cgi?
shuttle during re-entry
Space shuttle on re-entry
shuttle-fake
Space shuttle with ISS in Thermosphere
Real amateur astronomers won’t even consider the notion, let alone speak out that these images could be fake for obvious reasons of wanting to believe… all except one however.
…directly viewing the ISS through a privately owned telescope (a Newtonian of 6 inch aperture at low magnification and using manual tracking). On every occasion I have viewed the ISS, and I am an experienced observer, a perfectly round object is revealed presenting no angular projections whatsoever.
Of course, he could only air his findings on a conspiracy forum where the defender of the realm was “astronut” aka Scott Ferguson. This man is already a dab hand at Photoshop as the signature photo on his Twitter account reveals.
astronut, scott ferguson, messierhunter
One moment I was standing next to my family.
Next minute I’m beside some dude’s telescope.
The black line, pretending to be a shadow, nearly all around his cut out makes his figure look pasted in… couldn’t be…nah. Scot/astronut/nghunter/astromut/Dr.Astro was very, very active on the “conspiracy” forums defending his ISS images while, through seamless interaction, Gate420 took over where Astronut had left off. Does an amateur astronomer spend his free time defending his images on conspiracy forums?
What about all the media attention these guys get. You may think this is nothing unusual, but today journalism is known as Churnalism where nearly 90% of newspaper articles are not original and have been written elsewhere as either pre-packaged press releases or from a news wire. That means a PR person has thought up a catchy headline, written a suitably informative article and supplied images to sway public opinion in favor of whatever it is they are selling. Would an amateur astronomer even attempt to do this, let alone have the necessary writing skills?
Hardly.
Here is a list of incredibly skilled ISS photographers and their press involvement.
Dirk Ewer – State German Television
Scot Ferguson – Discover magazine and ZME Science
Vincent Miu (aka cookie8) – Australian national newspaper
Tom Gwilym (NASA’s Solar System Ambassador) – Universe Today and NASA Science News and Komo News Network and the PR feed Newsnook
Rob Bullen – Discover Magazine and UK national newspaper and NASA and New Scientist and London newspaper
Ralf Vandebergh (Journalist for Space Safety Magazine) – Universe Today and Wired and NBC News and NASA Science News
Thierry Legault – Discover Magazine and Universe Today and UK national newspaper and NASA and more
Mike Salway (online marketeer and Ice in Space forum creator) – Universe Today
Mike Tyrrell – the BBC and NBC News and Tech News Daily

About half the authors checked made it into the media, not including Joe Ricci of Strasenburgh Planetarium or a certain Donald Thomas aka Starlightnight who loves promoting other ISS photographers (a common theme throughout) and had his images published at ESA.
A quick Google search of his name reveals an athlete, an American footballer, and… a retired NASA astronaut – come lecturer – come ISS program scientist. Nah couldn’t be, could it? There are over 3000 people with that name in the USA alone. 3000 to 1 isn’t good odds, but knowing orbiting is fake, I wouldn’t suddenly convulse in apoplectic shock if it were the case.
Traversing white dots in the sky
You are now probably thinking about those fast moving white dots that very occasionally move across the sky at night. We are told that they can be one of three objects: 1. asteroids, 2. satellites, or 3. the International Space Station. Now that we know about the thermosphere, which of the three objects fits? At those mythical altitudes, those fast moving white dots can only be white hot asteroids.
In the night sky, asteroids can move at different speeds and in any direction, which differentiates them from stars. The ISS however, only moves from west to east – sometimes from the south-west, sometimes from the north-west, but always west to east.
asteroids
Two asteroids are visible – one moving west to east, the other east to west.
ISS spotter
The ISS only moves West to East across the night sky for only a few minutes at the most before it becomes invisible.
The trouble is, the ISS has been spotted going both west to east and east to west. One Youtube User, Brain Clark, made the following observation.
I installed the NASA app on my tablet and saw that the “ISS” was due to fly overhead the last 4 nights in a row for my area (mid atlantic coastal region). I went out and observed “it” all 4 nights in a row at the direction it said and at the approx time (it seems to be a minute or 2 early).
Also, I must retract my blinking light statement, as there does not appear to be any kind of blinking light on it – and when I saw it about 2-3 years ago – I thought it was blinking – but now I’m not sure. I’ll ask my buddy if he remembers it blinking. Anyway, supposedly – what we see is the “sun” reflecting light off it. However, I don’t own a telescope – so all it is to me is a light in the sky.
The 1st 2 nights – it appeared to be waaaaay up there. Night one it came W to E. Night 2 it came E to W. Night 3 it was much lower (and brighter) and came W to NE. Night 4 (last night) – it came in a W to E (general direction) and was in view for a good 10-15 seconds – which was rather amazing since I thought the app said it would be visible for only 6 seconds??? Also interesting was that each night it fizzled out before going over the horizon. Nights 1-3 it fizzled out well before the horizon. Apparently, when it fizzles out – it means the sun is no longer reflecting off of it. Not sure if any of this is relevant.
East to West is impossible of course, unless it is an asteroid, or something else entirely. The blinking is odd too and Brian is not alone, Chrnan6710 states “I’ve seen the ISS in the sky myself, it blinks.” If it blinks, it is a airplane. Maybe they made an error that night, or perhaps we are being sold a lie.
Then there is light intensity problem courtesy of Peter Rock:
Here’s the reason I think one would need a telescope. The ISS is indeed a 100×100 meter square in size. However, the size of objects projected onto the observers view plane also obeys the inverse square law of the distance away from the observer. The ISS is 10000 meters square. At its closest distance from a terrestrial observer, the ISS is 340km or 340000 meters away. The projected area of the ISS on the observer’s view plane is 10000 meters / (340000 meters * 340000 meters), which is a dot only 8.65051903e-8 meters square. If we consider this projection as a square, the side length of this projected square is 0.00029411764 meters, or around 0.3 mm.
Now, close one eye and hold a ruler 1-meter away. Can you see a width of 0.3mm on that ruler? This is why I think one needs a telescope. The situation gets worse if the ISS is 800km away (you have to be able to spot 0.1mm on the ruler) and much worse if it’s just above the horizon (as some claim they can see with the eye), then the ISS is about 2300km away.
If it can (by some miracle) be seen on a close pass, then the observer would see a light that fades into view as it approaches the closest distance and then fades out of view as it moves past the closest distance. But your video shows a point light with a consistent intensity as it traverses the sky.
That “space station” sure looks at bit too bright for 0.1 – 0.3mm at 1m distance from your eye, let alone the camera being able to pick up.
white dot in sky
A bright white dot traversing the sky.
Science and engineering?
They love to show us how they wash their hair (with a ton of very short edits – she’s on a g-plane), squeeze water out of a medical drip bag to rounds of fake recorded studio applause – for science no less! How he brushes his teethmakes a frikking sandwichshaving their head (why aren’t the ladies’ hair shaved military style by the way to stop hair interfering with the equipment?), doing hard work deploying vital tech towards a tight deadline (sarcasm and more short edits – hint g-plane), nail clipping in space, how to puke in space and how to take a dump (I kid you not). The list of irrelevancy is endless with these bozos.
taking a dump ISS
Taking a dump is difficult in micro-gravity: 1. Stick suction hose up back passage. 2. Clench butt-cheeks really hard. 3. Don’t release until the sausage is fully extended. 4. Switch on suction (gently!) and relax cheeks. 5. Pull out hose and put it back in its holder ready for the next lucky astronaut. If only I hadn’t eaten too much of that dried “space” food.
Why aren’t they showing us the real engineering and science? Simple. These clowns belong to NASA’s marketing team, not NASA’s industrial arm.

They are selling you outer space.



That is their reason of being, and nothing more. It is pure fiction.
Quick question: Which engineer was fired for designing the ISS as a narrow long stick so that it acts like a pivot putting all the stress on the joints? Answer: No-one was fired. The International Fake Station was designed perfectly to mimic micro-gravityinside a jumbo jet. Then the marketing department helped the engineers along by rendering its solar panels… and voila, we have the ISS. (Thanks again Godrules.)
Reality verdict:
ISS-fraud
They are selling us “outer space”, not doing science and deploying useful technology.
What a load of shit.

Summary

  • Hubble Space Telescope images are identical, if not subjectively slightly inferior, to those from Earth-based observatories.
  • An image is a composite of 3 or more images and then processed using Photoshop. This turns a tiny unrecognizable black and white image into a what a graphic artist could call a painting.
  • An Earth-based motionless observatory telescope takes minutes to take an image of the night sky. How does the Hubble Space telescope do this traveling at an orbiting speed of 7600 meters per second? A 12 minute exposure over a traveled distance of 5472 km?
  • Sofia is an infrared telescope on a jumbo jet. Why do they need this if they have the Hubble?
  • The Hubble cannot be placed on the glass layer due to the maintenance needed, especially with all the micro-meteors falling down. The space shuttle would have to stop, let the astronauts out to repair the telescope, and start the shuttle again to get back to Earth.
  • The Hubble Space Telescope is merely another marketing ploy to sell us outer space. As a real application, it is unneeded and unfeasible.
  • Images of the ISS said to be taken through an amateur’s telescope cannot be differentiated from those that are known to be fake.
  • Mike Tyrrell’s 2007 images showed a still “motionless” ISS at one time; another time a rotating ISS. Does the ISS sometimes rotate?
  • Amateur astronomy forum members are in awe of those handful of other “amateurs” able to capture such clear pictures of the ISS, whereas all they can capture are glowing white hot orbs, if they are lucky enough to track it at all.
  • A glowing white ISS looks remarkably the same as an asteroid or even the space shuttle on its initial re-entry.
  • Over half of all lucky amateurs researched had very strong connections to the space media and official space organizations. The others may also have connections, but I was unable to find out.
  • The ISS has been seen moving East to West, which is the opposite direction than it should travel.
  • The sunlight intensity calculations reflecting of the said size and distance of the ISS make the it equivalent to 0.1 to 0.3 mm at 1 meter distance.
  • No science is ever shown to be carried out on the International Space Station. We are bamboozled with irrelevant videos to answer questions asked by 6 year olds.
  • The structural design of the ISS as a long stick is all wrong, putting far too much necessary stress on the joints. It would fit much better in a zero g-plane, however.
  • The International Space Station is yet another elaborate marketing gimmick to sell us outer space.
We have now reached a pretty solid conclusion that those two “space” machines are just marketing ploys as a cover for the real space industry, as well as other possible speculative reasons as why they are selling us outer space. It is now time to look at the actual industry and see if we can find things that are genuine, and how they are placed in “space”.

Space objects
The Earth and the solar system is moving, relatively to other stars, at a speed of 20km per second. To penetrate an double brick concrete, a bullet is moving at a speed of 350m per second. The force of the bullet is the mass multiply by its speed. How on space a spaceship can withstand objects moving over 50 times faster than a bullet.

A - Re-entries on Earth after a trip in space are not possible
A re-entry is done by a spacecraft returning to Earth from space at high speed that manages to slow down and land in 10 to 30 minutes. The velocity at beginning of a re-entry at top of atmosphere (altitude 120 000 meters) differs considerably depending on where the space craft comes from. It is suggested that a manned spacecraft arrive with speed >21 000 m/s, when coming from planet Mars, >11.000 m/s, when coming from the Moon or only about 8 000 m/s, when coming from Earth Parking Orbit, EPO. Reason for different re-entry velocities is that Earth gravity has accelerated the spacecrafts during different times; weeks for a spacecraft coming from Mars, days for a spacecraft coming from the Moon and hours for a spacecraft trying to descend from EPO.

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


SOLUTION
The quick way possible is to build a vertical Mag-Lev transport system supported by engines that also acts as freshwater production, transfer, distribution, recycling to power the hyperloop transport system across the planet and to lower orbit to build space colonies with thick protective shield. The project is called SEAWAPA (Click for complete studies).

In order to transport enough material to build a spaceship big enough to protect against threat from outer space and sustain live, the only possible solution is to build a vertical mag-lev linking Earth to outer space.