1. This is the instant of stage separation. You can see the tiny space between the booster and rocket.
Those who read my last post — assuming they were paying any attention at all — will have noticed that ChatGPT (and indirectly, Spacex itself) claims that in a Falcon 9 orbital injection mission neither the spacecraft itself nor its booster (the first stage) at any time flies in a westward direction, which is strange to say the least, given that the booster is said to return to Cape Kennedy to land (at the landing pad) close to the launch pad from which it took off. (Yes, the above is actually… impossible.)
Here we will use a Spacex video recommended by ‘brian’, a commenter who disagrees with GPT, saying that the booster indeed returns westward to the Cape after stage separation, a maneuver that, according to both GPT and Spacex, takes place many miles to the east of the launch site (the exact distance depending on the parameters of the mission).
2. The ‘flip’ maneuver begins, which is supposed to turn the booster around before the boost back burn begins.
Let’s look at the flight via screen shots from brian’s recommended video and see how a ‘boost back burn’ really works.
In frame #2 we see the booster start to turn around after separation. At this time both the booster and the second stage are flying eastward at about 4,000 mph.
3. The flip continues. This is only a couple seconds after #1.
They are in a true vacuum, which means there is no air resistance to slow either section down, although the booster is no longer firing its Merlin engines, so it is not accelerating.
4. Still only a few seconds after separation the booster is still pointing up and has now lit one third of its nine Merlin engines.
In frame #3 the flip continues and the two sections separate further, the booster pointing upwards, gaining altitude but still traveling east at slightly less than 4,000, since there is no air resistance to slow it down.
5. Notice the vertical attitude of the booster: it is actually titled a bit back east.
In frame 4 the boost back burn has begun but as GPT told us in the previous post, the booster is still hauling ass eastward, since there is nothing to slow it down. What little thrust the three engines have are not doing much so far, since the booster is not pointing back west to toward the Cape. Notice we can still see the second stage and nose section in this frame; as GPT repeated many times, there is nothing propelling the booster back west, so the two stages are still close.
6. This is another cut but the angle is the same.
Frame #5 is an interesting cut, coming about three seconds after #4. This is a live stream, meaning that we have not missed anything. This is continuous action; there has been no thrust from the booster’s engines that would bring the booster westward toward the landing pad. As GPT told us, there is no westward direction to the booster’s flight from the takeoff to landing. One should be wondering at this point how the booster could possibly wind up back at the Cape.
7.
Frame #6 shows the boost back burn continuing but the tilt of the booster is the wrong way if the plan is to fly back west to the landing pad at the Cape. The air would be thickening now, which would slow its descent, but the 4,000 mph eastward direction/speed has not reversed, so it’s still headed east. What’s going on here?
8.
In frame 7 the boost back burn is shut down after a 40 second burn (since frame #4). The booster is now falling straight down, as GPT told us, not having made any westward progress at all. In fact, since the stage separation it can only have traveled further east, given the already mentioned 4,000 mph speed in that direction.
9.
A minute or so later the entry burn starts. Keep in mind that since the boost back burn there has been no means to altering trajectory at all; the fins and cold thrusters are only to keep the booster upright. From stage separation to here the flight has been ‘ballistic,’ i.e., falling like a brick, with whatever eastward momentum it still has.
Frame 9 is the entry burn, which, as GPT and Spacex tell us, is only to slow the descent; there can be no noticeable effect on trajectory.
10. How did it get here? Or, rather, what is this we are looking at?
Although GPT and Spacex tell us that stage separation can occur anywhere from 60 to 1,000 miles to the east of the launch pad (depending on the mission), since the booster has not ever turned around or made any westward progress at all, I fail to see how the last image here (#10) can be anything but a fraud.
One thing this post does is verify that GPT was correct yesterday in saying that the booster never travels westward. (That it also says that the booster somehow lands at the Cape anyway is another matter, one that OpenAI should look into.)
The following is from yesterday’s post and sums up what we have seen as succinctly as possible:
My prompt:
As anyone can clearly see from this Spacex diagram, the booster ‘lands’ (ends up) way farther east than it started. Any actual questions?
So at the beginning of the entry burn, the booster stage is actually farther east than it was at stage separation, right?
ChatGPT
1 / 1
Yes, that is correct.
I assume that anyone who still believes in Elon Musk’s space missions must do so based on ‘seeing them on a smartphone,’ or the like.
Ditto the screaming mobs they intercut to.
This is the problem.
Allan
From the stars streaks this is at least a 10 minute time lapse. Where is the flame trail of the booster that is supposed to come back and land?
Ooops!
I have to do something on Steven Greer. Anyone who doubts the PTB have the technology to fake with holograms anything they want should pay attention to Greer. If 10% of what he is saying is true… that’s all they would need. I’m viewing this now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2hk8Qp8dd0
Maria Zee covered something similar in an episode with an FBI informant ; he discussed a staged event involving extraterrestrials with holograms.He confirmed that they indeed have this technology.It was a wild thing to hear. Although I haven’t researched it myself, given the way things are going it sounds like a plausible scenario. If you haven’t seen it I can link the episode if you’d like but wanted to ask first.
Dr. Stephen Greer? A very limited hangout IMO.
Yes, but to be successful he has to tell some real truths. Have you seen his films and press conferences? Or the link I left?
Yes, I watched the You Tube video, but, almost immediately, it became tough sledding for me. Why? There are several reasons why. One of them is due to to the fact that Greer’s brand of charlatanism rests on the hoary old maneuver of: “I’m revealing deeply held secrets to you” Clearly it’s not a secret if you’re talking openly about it (and You Tube is good with it) and/or it’s simply false, or, at best, the claims are wildly exaggerated. If this weren’t the case you wouldn’t be privy to these closely guarded secrets.
So, one has to ride along with Greer selling us the “I’m an exception who is privy to top secret information that I, alone, am able to impart without fear of an unfortunate outcome for me” canard. Perhaps if had something beyond an extraordinary narrative that might be credible. How about some documents, archival photos, something?
Then we have a whole rash of other problems associated with the claims. If the military industrial complex has anything even one tenth as formidable as the tech we’re being led to believe it has, every military conflict the U.S. military has engaged in would have likely been precluded by these awe inspiring tools/weapons, or they would have been quickly prosecuted and terminated in the DOD’s favor. At the very least they would come up with better fake footage to dupe us into believing whatever narrative they were peddling. But I guess it’s just too darn good to ever actually be deployed on the battlefield. Perhaps I’m missing some subtlety that would convincingly explain that conclusion away
So, what part of Mr. Greer’s presentation am I meant to tease out as true?
Yes, for a very long time, he has been the ‘authorised’ mouth piece, and allowed to “Show off” what flash/fantastic tech and magic stuff is out out there. After all , the Cabal has no power, if no one knows anything (the sheeple slaves that is). I have NO DOUBT, that Greer is correct about all the high tech details and anti gravity craft etc. He is not allowed to go near Never A Straight Answer or FakeX , for obvious reasons.
You all might check out the photo I added at the end of the following post. I don’t know the provenance of it but the implications are that the stage separation is far far in the distance since we don’t see it here. Why someone would fake it makes no sense. It’s a good photo, the sort I might’ve taken.
(If you google ‘Falcon 9 launch’ then click ‘images’ there are many shots like this, all of them indicating that no booster came back for a landing.)
….I have fully agreed with Allan’s findings all the way – for years (SpaceX Fraud etc). Read Allan’s posts, and this time comprehend properly. If you have no IMAGINATION – which is more important than Intelligence – you have Nothing. Allan, this one sounds just like a Troll Bott.
….Denis (and Brian) – both hopeless bott’s with no imagination, no logic, and can only parrot SpaceX junk numbers.
They just won’t shut up. This is indeed a red flag.
If someone new wants to post a comment, great, please do so, but I am done with Brian and Denis. I have other work to do. This post was actually unnecessary, such is the obviousness of the hoax, so I did it for them, assuming there were more like them out there. A truly discouraging thought.
There actually is a good chance that they are AI bots: One thing we can be sure of is that we will be subjected to more and more bots and they will be more and more subtle and disconcerting. They will have the time and patience to set up being ‘reasonable’ and friendly and so on while really affecting people in negative ways. Keep in mind that for folks like us especially, it will be like the smartest, most insidious person on the planet has only one job — to gaslight us and to fuck with our minds in general. That is one thing we can be sure about with Super AI, and it might be the ‘most harmless’ of its jobs.
I know I’m off topic and you can ignore me for it, but recently I saw a presentation on YouTube called ” The Great Global Warming Swindle.” It’s worth a look>
Great movie. Highly recommend it to anyone still under the spell of the climate change fraud.
On the chance that you haven’t seen this, Allan, I think you’ll find it of interest, even if it’s not on topic for this (SpaceX) installment. https://theethicalskeptic.com/2021/02/24/the-peculiar-schema-of-dna-codons-second-letter/
That looks interesting. I will try to get to it tonight. thanks.
Hi Allan,
Are you sure Denis/Brian are even real people because it seems possible to me that they could just be A.I. bots attempting to gaslight you.
The point you are making if I am not mistaken is a simple matter of physical reality that is really not that hard to parse unless one is being or programmed to be deliberately obtuse.
Best wishes
Thanks! – and I was thinking the same. And yes, OBTUSE is the word for their description. They are still splitting hairs over numbers and pictures on paper, that simply cannot be trusted, instead of using imagination and logic.
Note from AW: One reply is enough, Denis.
Apparently, not!
Good point except they’ve been around here for a while. Plus not having gotten many positive comments… I suppose I am thinking that people don’t think, if you get my drift. I dunno. it’s discouraging. Thanks for the thought and you may be right.
What’s going on here with Denis/Brian? The rocket is flying 4,000 mph east for AT LEAST 100 miles and can not by the laws of motion stop in a few seconds and fly back west to land at the Cape. This is obvious WITHOUT any numbers. If you can’t see that then you are either lying, in staggering denial, get paid to be annoying, or are flaming idiots.
3,000 want to be my friend on Facebook (presumably b/c of my writing) and I get zero comments thanking me for enlightening them with my writing..
Is there ANYONE out there that understands that this is an important exposé? (I mean besides like three or four.) Why has not one person written that Shit, it’s actually obvious and thank you allan?
Twain said it, how much easier it is to fool someone than make him see he has been fooled.
I’m doing my part to amplify your message, but I’m not the kind of dynamic messenger you require.
You don’t have to dynamic or whatever, you just have to say something, which you have done and I appreciate it. It makes a difference with fence sitters and so on.
Allan,
You have mischaracterised me / my comments.
The spacex schematic clearly shows two important things:
1) the booster turns itself arse over tit, so that its thruster can push in the opposite direction. This, at least initially, will have a braking effect, reducing its established momentum / velocity. (If it continues thrusting for long enough, it will get the velocity down to zero and then make it increasingly negative.)
2) the booster maintains its original direction in the horizontal plane (until it falls / makes a verticle descent).
That description seems to over complicate it, but I’m just trying to establish that there is no indicated feature of its journey that could allow it to become closer to its launch site than it was at stage separation.
More simply, the schematic shows the booster as being even further to the right, at touch down, than it was at separation. The schematic is declared as not to scale, but that does not include the (bizzar) concept of being not to sign. The real life (as Musk would have it) curves might be tighter and/or gentler, but the line (path) can’t turn back upon itself.
The schematic obviously doesn’t fit the story. Maybe that is too bannal for any sensible person pass any non-vacuous comment upon!
The obvious explanations are that the schematic is wrong, or touch down is further out than stage separation. (Which is not to exclude the “whole thing is fake” explanation.) This is a point SpaceX should address, but, as you know very well, there is no-one to hold TPTB to account!
A lot of word salad then you say maybe the touch down just takes place further ‘out’ than stage separation. ‘Out’? Mmmm. You mean east, don’t you, which means the Atlantic Ocean, but why not just say that? Because we ‘see’ the thing landing on land. Is it Africa, Denis? I think we’re done with you. And meanwhile: Yes, ‘the whole thing is fake.’
Wow baby! Great critique Allan.
Also saw the Andrew Tate interview you linked to with Tucker. What a bad ass. He should be a nationwide motivational speaker. I didn’t agree with some minor things like Trump being reach and not under control, and details of mass shootings, but he knows what’s up.
Great stuff.
reach = rich… F*ing auto correction.
I agree about trump and other things. The thing went on so long he was bound to say something dumb. Still, I like the guy.
Allan,
In frame #1, booster (first stage) and second stage are pointed right and down. The down is inexplicable, for both thrust and motion, and so I can only think the camera was on quite a tilt (which is also startling). Anyway, I think we should assume right is approximately east.
In frame #6, the booster is pointed up and slightly left. If right is still east, that means the booster is pointed slightly to the west. Moreover, if we apply the approximately quarter turn counter-clockwise, that appeared to be a necessary correction for frame #1, we would perceive the booster as pointed quite close to west.
So, why did you say, “the tilt of the booster is the wrong way if the plan is to fly back west to the landing pad at the Cape”?
I’m tired Denis and really don’t see how anything you are saying changes the point that the fucking thing is hundreds of miles east of the cape when we see a pic of it landing.
So, why did you say, “the tilt of the booster is the wrong way if the plan is to fly back west to the landing pad at the Cape”?
Because Its tilted the wrong way on the way down, period. And that doesn’t even count the five decimal points of accuracy to hit the target even IF it flew the right way, which it does not.
What the fuck are you even talking about? You see the way its tilted in 5 and 6? Which way is the thrust? Up and what? TO THE EAST.
So Musk just schedules the return to launch site landings to give all us gulliable no nothings a thrill? If Musk wanted to sell us something more believable, why not just land them all on the down range barge? Why have a down range barge? You better go back to the broomstick test. At least thats something us non-rocket scientists can understand.
This is the best you can do, brian? Jesus, well at least I know you’re not a state shill. You’d have to do a lot better… it doesn’t even occur to you to try to deal with the facts?
On the other hand, maybe admitting you’re clueless IS the way to go.
Ask your chat gpt to answer this question with a yes or no answer. Does the booster fly west for a return to launch site landing.
Did you read my questions yesterday? Yes? No? Either way you are an idiot.
QED.
Ask chatgpt the yes or no question Allan, I am truly interested. I could stoop to name calling also, by the way.
Why dont you ask it? why the fuck should I? And quote it here if it’s such a big deal. You don’t answer simple questions then come up with demands that I do after all the work I’ve done. what’s wrong with you?