Hi Elon (and my folks),
I haven’t received a response to my first Open Letter to you; no problem; I understand you’re a busy guy. Although my video-accompaniment to the Letter hasn’t received that many views (still under a thousand as of today), there has only been one valid argument against my hypothesis that your Falcon Heavy/Roadster images from space were in fact done in a studio right here on earth. (I have not yet argued that the launch in Florida was a fraud as well.)
This is about the altitude of the FH at apogee (3,000 miles)
A video commenter called FiveOh pointed out that the ‘sliver’ I refer to could be a strut for the GoPro on the front. He could be correct, although more research is needed here. But no one has explained the blown out (over-exposed) frame in the fairing door opening sequence, for example, and all I need is to be right once for my hypothesis to be validated. (You might look at my responses to a commenter called ‘Chris Bohannon’, who gave it his best shot then gave up.)
I used the U.S. as guide and a GoPro camera.
I have posted a new video, mostly based on photographic proofs that your space imagery was done in a studio. It also includes the observation that your Roadster stage lacks thrusters, which I have confirmed via a Popular Mechanics article (notwithstanding their 9/11 travesty, PM’s fact checking is nonpareil). This leaves no reasonable explanation for the Roadster’s steady and perfectly composed imagery, since a satellite with no thrusters will ‘wander,’ or go into a slow tumble (the slightest perturbation will cause this). The spacecraft’s wonderful, slow spin (which gives such great views) is also not explained, since the rocket’s ascent was sans spin. At completion of the final burn the orbital trajectory is defined but there is no means to control the spacecraft’s ‘attitude,’ let alone put it into that perfect spin — please correct me if I’m wrong here.
Musk’s views are almost all just ocean, which is possible only once, from here.
The common argument against my hypothesis seems to be ‘Why would he fake it?’ And ‘What’s the point?’ Various versions of this sort of thinking. I can give at least four reasons for the fakery and am working on a blog post that explains them. I would point out, however, that ‘motive’ is not requisite in a court or law (or reason) to find a party guilty of a crime. Imagine finding a body with a shotgun blast to the back of the head and saying, ‘That’s Joe. Everyone loved Joe. No one would murder Joe. Let’s move on.’
The rest of the views should show land.
I’ve taken a good look at your Mars colonization stratagem and have to say I’m shocked at some of your pronouncements and projected measures on how to carry it out; it’s obvious that neither you nor your army of physicists and engineers have thought out ‘how it would actually go.’
Where’s all the land, Elon?
But my real shock came with the realization that none of the ‘alt media’ (to my knowledge) have made public any of the information in either of my videos, notwithstanding that I’ve informed a score or more of them of the utterly obvious anomalies.
So stay tuned. I’ll be back soon with the details.
Allan
I tried to embed my new video here but it may not have worked. Click here to go there.
