Elon Musk, SpaceX and PayPal

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: Elon Musk, SpaceX and PayPal

Postby animus on May 30th, 2016, 1:36 pm

Sorry, I have to take back my statement. I was under the impression that the imagery was in real time speed. Silly me, should have just read the video description or at least think for a second before posting :wacko:
(So now it's not the video being "that bad" but rather me being "that dumb"...)

I don't see much wrong with it, especially if they aren't alleging it made it to outer space beyond the Karman line.

If you can trust the displayed time window in the top right corner of the full webcast video, it was cut off at about 70km, so below the Karman line.



CluedIn wrote: Behind the Stage 1 box there is another one sticking out that says "se I Still Love You" - The first part is blocked and only shows the se.

I wanted to clear this one up: it's just the name of the autonomous spaceport drone ship, "Of Course I Still Love You"
Image
animus
Member
 
Posts: 30
Joined: February 20th, 2016, 9:13 pm

Re: Elon Musk, SpaceX and PayPal

Postby nonhocapito on June 23rd, 2016, 11:51 pm

To this list of the new fake space enterprises we must add Amazon's Blue Origin...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC8yWsWE8FM

Notice how the camera cuts at all the right moments; how the two speakers never for a moment leave their worshiping tone; how they announce that the "crew capsule" will fire a "retro-rocket system" at the last second, but then... it doesn't.

Notice how they went out of their way to give the phallic shape a new meaning.

And also: "you don't see much of a plume with this engine because the propellants are liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, so it's actually a very clean burn."

Yeah, take that Elon, you and your electric garbage! Who's clean now?

Although WIckedpedia slightly disagrees: " The new engine, the Blue Engine 4, or BE-4, is a change for Blue Origin in that it is their first engine that will combust liquid oxygen and liquid methane propellants. The engine has been designed to produce 2,400 kilonewtons (550,000 lbf) of thrust"
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Elon Musk, SpaceX and PayPal

Postby SacredCowSlayer on June 24th, 2016, 1:59 am

That video is just ridiculous. I love how they prepped us for each unbelievable moment so we could reconcile our understanding of the natural world with the imagery.

And they just can't help themselves from describing the "landing" as "picture perfect,"followed by the words "that was magic".:rolleyes:

Each "landing" was absolutely hilarious. But the best part is when he prepares us (on the 2nd one with the twin parachutes) for all the"dust" from a retro burst just a split second before the "pillow soft" landing of "only 1 or 2 MPH". :lol: That looked like a hard thud to me.

Maybe the crew was laying on 4 feet of foam pillows on impact. :P And I didn't see the last second burst of anything except lots of dust pixels.

Also, what in the world are they thinking with this whole vertical landing concept? :wacko: This thing is just a big middle finger to the world, and it represents how little credit we are given as thinking people. But maybe that's just me.
Last edited by SacredCowSlayer on June 24th, 2016, 4:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
SacredCowSlayer
Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: September 5th, 2015, 10:44 pm

Re: Elon Musk, SpaceX and PayPal

Postby SacredCowSlayer on June 24th, 2016, 3:41 am

Yes Noho, this super new and awesome clean burn significantly reduces the "plume" on blastoff, unlike the earlier rockets that were nearly engulfed by their own smoke while slowly lifting off the launch pad.

I would like to ask them how their new clean burn differs from this 1961 NASA episode (cartoon spaceship carrying Alan Shepard).

Image

It's amazing how ASStro-Not Shepard managed to rocket into space without an elaborate metal cage-like launching stucture nor any of those nasty crude fuels used by NASA in its early days. :lol:

I guess he was way ahead of his time.
SacredCowSlayer
Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: September 5th, 2015, 10:44 pm

Re: Elon Musk, SpaceX and PayPal

Postby nonhocapito on June 24th, 2016, 10:35 am

SacredCowSlayer wrote:Also, what in the world are they thinking with this whole vertical landing concept? :wacko: This thing is just a big middle finger to the world, and it represents how little credit we are given as thinking people. But maybe that's just me.


I felt exactly the same when I first saw spaceX trying out this bullshit, illogical idea: "wow, they do think we will buy anything at this point".
But then I figure this is a wise move on their part, because in a couple of decades or less they will have to sell us the Mars fable, and by then they will have invented a lot of idiotic/impossible/unexplained/mesmerizing technology to justify such an amazing feat.
They better lower the bar a lot before then, if they want everyone to believe in spaceships quietly landing with a whir like in a star wars movie.

And to the point of this vertical landing: it goes without saying that a rocket landing vertically back on earth will need more fuel than a regular rocket: the fuel to go up, plus the fuel to control the journey back and the landing. This naturally requires a larger rocket which, in turn, requires even more fuel to be piloted back to earth. In short, there was a logic to the celebration of wastefulness that was started with NASA back in the 60s.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Elon Musk, SpaceX and PayPal

Postby nonhocapito on June 24th, 2016, 1:09 pm

SacredCowSlayer wrote:Image

It's amazing how ASStro-Not Shepard managed to rocket into space without an elaborate metal cage-like launching stucture nor any of those nasty crude fuels used by NASA in its early days. :lol:

I guess he was way ahead of his time.


Wow, thank you for finding this, the naivety here is incredible. On YT I found different videos showing the same behaviour:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKFQClij1cc

where the camera really goes out of its way not to show the lack of exhaust in the closeup shots (a magical cut right at the beginning as usual)...
and this:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h31c_yfemQY

clearly showing the same wondrous engine with almost no exhaust.

Most likely the models with more powerful and impressive ferrari carburetors were not ready yet...
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Elon Musk, SpaceX and PayPal

Postby SacredCowSlayer on July 3rd, 2016, 2:50 am

Here is the laughable and oddly named Mercury blastoff that has been posted above. But I have to wonder, which one of the released "videos" is the real one? :rolleyes:

I count at least three different versions so far, all collected from a variety of NASA documentaries depicting this glorious moment in history.

Moreover, I'd like to add that the first living thing put in space by the U.S. was a chimp named Ham. You really can't spell sham without "ham". :lol:

The following clip can be seen in the NASA documentary at https://youtu.be/v5ZFT7TpYqM at the 23:33 mark.
Image

And this one with the wooden shack (prop) flipping backwards (unlike the previous one above) can be seen here https://youtu.be/KkG1WMzoikY at roughly the 8:14 mark.
Image

Then of course there is this little bit of magic. Just one minor problem that should be readily observed. Yes, the entire scene is mirrored. :wacko:
Image
Last edited by SacredCowSlayer on July 3rd, 2016, 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SacredCowSlayer
Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: September 5th, 2015, 10:44 pm

Re: Elon Musk, SpaceX and PayPal

Postby Kham on July 3rd, 2016, 9:10 am

SCS,

Holy Cow! What a super cool find of the reversing of the Mercury blastoff film.

I'm stunned it was out there to find in the first place as it is a clear indication of faked and forged imagery. Well done.

Kham
Kham
Member
 
Posts: 57
Joined: June 25th, 2015, 10:30 am

Re: Elon Musk, SpaceX and PayPal

Postby SacredCowSlayer on July 3rd, 2016, 2:58 pm

Kham wrote:SCS,

Holy Cow! What a super cool find of the reversing of the Mercury blastoff film.

I'm stunned it was out there to find in the first place as it is a clear indication of faked and forged imagery. Well done.

Kham


Thanks kHAM (sorry, I couldn't resist) :P ,

Yes, the fakery is right there for all to see. But isn't that what these psychopaths do on a daily basis? Defy reality and common sense under the guise of "news"?

In any event, perhaps some nASSa apologist can come explain the variations for us. Let me guess:

1. nASSa: the backgrounds consisted of props that were moved around from time to time between launches.

SCS: In that case- great job with switching the dirt paths and background items as well! It's truly a marvelous feat that I would only expect the great U.S. team of experts to pull off. Pardon me while I :puke: .

2. nASSa: one cameraman (a separate one of course) had some fun by filming the blastoff by pointing the camera at a mirror.

SCS: But what about the first one where the shack prop held up just fine? :angry:

nASSa: Well. . . okay so there were multiple takes of this blastoff (sometimes filming a mirror), and sometimes the prop flipped over, and other times we anchored it down. We had to test the force of rocket blasts on nearby structures to see how they would fare. There is that good enough? :D

Okay CF members, I'm truly doing my best to come up with a plausible explanation for this. These clips are from official nASSa documentaries after all. B)

I suppose a last ditch effort to save them (only after humiliating exposure of course) would be to claim (as we've heard before) that the launches and missions were all real, but they couldn't show us the real video because of national security reasons. :rolleyes:

Note to CF members and Mods:

Mods- please feel free to move this (and other posts on this point) to the appropriate NASA threads, since I've clearly (but unintentionally) derailed the original topic here.

Members- I would like to encourage/remind some(certainly not all) members to please NOT assume that everything has already been legitimately and/or thoroughly researched.

There is still low hanging fruit out there such that even I can find it.

It's clear enough to me that most faked events have their prepackaged straw men propped up to give the appearance that it has already been covered and exposed and maybe "debunked" etc. That is the MO.

In fact (just as an example) there was NO exposure or examination of the OKC Memorial (that I'm aware of) until I put on my sewage protection gear and slopped through all the roughage and posted it on this forum.

That event was more than 20 years ago, so please keep up the good work everyone. I know the task is daunting, especially considering the events are "happening" faster than we (at least me) can keep up with.

Sorry, that was a long "note", but important nonetheless.
SacredCowSlayer
Member
 
Posts: 228
Joined: September 5th, 2015, 10:44 pm

Re: Elon Musk, SpaceX and PayPal

Postby Seattle Scotsman on August 30th, 2016, 2:59 pm

Well, here's the latest nonsense from "billionaire" Elon Musk Melon; we're all in the Matrix!

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/06/elon-musk-one-in-billion-chance-we-arent-living-in-a-computer-simulation.html
Seattle Scotsman
Member
 
Posts: 19
Joined: March 8th, 2016, 4:34 pm

Re: Elon Musk, SpaceX and PayPal

Postby simonshack on September 6th, 2016, 5:56 pm

*

The SpaceX fraudsters JUST LOVE their bugs, bats, flies, bees, birds and mosquitoes

This post of mine is dedicated to those folks who (rightly) think that NASA was a fraud from start to finish - but still cannot accept that the Grand Space Hoax continues to this very day - (it has just been 'outsourced' to clowns like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos) and also includes fake (CGI-crafted) un-manned satellite launches.

So here's my simple question for everyone to muse about : if the current, purported commercial SpaceX satellite launches were real, WHY would they feature any sort of stange / bizarre / surreal oddity? To be sure, the five Space X launch clips I'm about to show you here are not only strange & bizarre - they are also SURREAL [as in optically impossible], since no camera lenses focused on a distant object (the Space X rocket in this case) can possibly resolve with any degree of detail any insect crawling upon them (or flying by at VERY close distance to the lens).

That's right, I have now collected as many as 5 SpaceX launch videos which feature, within a few seconds before / or after their purported rocket launches, some sort of winged creature passing right in front of the 'camera lens'. Here we go :

CLIP 1 : The SpaceX MOSQUITO (approx 1 minute before alleged rocket launch of May 27, 2016 - and JUST as puff of smoke bursts out of rocket tower)
Image
source: https://youtu.be/wPYOtCFSLKw?t=1188

CLIP 2: The Space X FLY (25 secs before alleged rocket launch of March1, 2013)
Image
source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... W4#t=2363s

CLIP 3: The SpaceX BAT (19 seconds before alleged rocket launch of Oct 7, 2012)
Image
source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... zXU#t=583s

CLIP 4: The SpaceX BEE (3 seconds before alleged rocket launch ofJune 4, 2010)
Image
source; http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... Hng8#t=86s

CLIP 5: The SpaceX BIRD (1 second after rocket exits lens view of alleged launch ofJune 4, 2010)
Image
source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... HrP0#t=61s

I will now appeal to the brains of all those folks (surely, MOST people of this planet!) who STILL believe that satellites are REALLY being launched by those "space companies" (such as SpaceX) - and I solemnly ask their brain matter & cognitive faculties to choose one of these two options:

OPTION 1: - All the above images of winged creatures passing in front of the camera lenses of multiple SpaceX rocket launches are JUST ENTIRELY COINCIDENTAL - and Simon Shack is just a foolish conspiracy theorist who's trying too hard to convince us that ALL space travel (including satellite launches) is fake.

OPTION 2 : - All the above images of winged creatures passing in front of the camera lenses of multiple SpaceX rocket launches are EXTREMELY SUSPECT and clearly indicate that a bunch of foolish conspirators are just trying too hard to mock us all - whilst they deceive this world's population on a daily basis.


It's all up to you. Option one - or option two ? What does it for YOU ?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6313
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Elon Musk, SpaceX and PayPal

Postby hoi.polloi on September 6th, 2016, 7:18 pm

With great respect for you Simon, I have to contend that while this footage may be false, the principle is observable in real life when shiny dome cameras are used, where there is a smooth surface a short distance from the lens itself — typically at least a couple inches, ample room to create a blurry focus.

Security cameras focused on sharp distant detail often show spiders, wasps and other strange blurry things that are attracted to the shiny domes because they are not crawling directly on the lens itself. Can we confirm, officially, what these cameras are supposed to look like? I would guess even if they are fake, they would be depicted as the CCTV/Big Brother type within domes.

Having said that, the sheer amount of interruptions seems statistically improbable to me, and it's likely they simply add these features to add a subconscious feeling of annoyance that you can't swat it away to get a good look at the CGI.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4704
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Elon Musk, SpaceX and PayPal

Postby simonshack on September 6th, 2016, 7:34 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:

Security cameras focused on sharp distant detail often show spiders, wasps and other strange blurry things that are attracted to the shiny domes because they are not crawling directly on the lens itself.


'Often', really? If this is the case, I trust that you can provide me with ONE instance of such an occurrence (of fairly sharply focused, small winged animals flying in front of - or very close to - a camera lens focusing a distant scenery). I'll be waiting for it.

The thing is, even if you can do so, you'll still have to compute the probability factor of such a rare and random occurrence taking place whilst - or within a few seconds or so of a rocket launch is being recorded on film.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6313
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Elon Musk, SpaceX and PayPal

Postby hoi.polloi on September 6th, 2016, 8:25 pm

Yes, I'd say often. Not constantly, as SpaceX propaganda would have us believe. But, sure, I'll document it next time I catch it happening and I have a camera on hand. Maybe the comparison will help because we can see a real instance versus these things, which (according to everything we know) are probably just simple composites.

In fact, if we analyzed this footage even more carefully, we could probably see signs of what we suspect. That is, the "refresh" on the bug (foreground) and the background being out of sync, as it was the case with so much 9/11 footage.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4704
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Elon Musk, SpaceX and PayPal

Postby UNreal on September 7th, 2016, 1:28 am

-
Maybe a 3d alternative ?
-
OPTION 3 : - The images of winged creatures passing in front of the camera lenses is a product of CGI enhancement meant to enhance the natural effect of the video and hence camouflage the fact that all the footage is CGI.The bugs are a proof of the mediocrity of NASA video-artists and poor 3d models.
-
The latest inventions in photorealistic rendering aims the addition of defects to surfaces and appearence such as rust, dirt, pimples, bags under the eyes etc. The effect of bugs is kind of reminiscent of the "original" moon footage where the "realness" was improved by lessening the quality of the media such static noise, BW imagery and filming the footage on a tv.
UNreal
Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 7:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests