I just realized that the title to this post is itself nonsense on still another level. I mean, in theory, how can you correct nonsense?… think about it… wait… never mind… let’s not go there…
I try to keep an eye on the comments to my videos (while also trying not to lose my mind); rough calculations as to percentage of obvious government shills, etc., while also seeing if something ‘smart’ shows up. The latter is so rare that I’ve almost gotten to the point where I don’t pay attention at all, even if the spelling and punctuation are in order (also rare).
But then a couple people made short comments on my last video (‘The Spacex Fraud Continues‘) that were… hold on… the easiest way to do this is to paste in the comment I made and which I also put in the description to the vid. Here it is:
On what side (of the earth) is ‘deep space’? On the right, correct?
I just realized that the (2) comments that the ‘boostback burn’ is at 1:50 has an element of truth to it. A small element. That ‘burn’ lasts about one second and could not possibly have slowed Stage 1 down noticeably. Therefore it’s still traveling east — in the vacuum of space, nothing to slow it, let alone make it reverse direction and go back west toward Florida (and the ship) after stage separation — at a speed of 7,000 km per hour (4,300 mph). Anyone defending this charade must explain how/when Stage 1 changed its direction of movement from east to west (braking from 7,000 kph to 0 then speeding back up the other way), or keep quiet. The ‘drone ship’ was 300 km (186 miles) from Florida. The distance traveled east by stage 1 would have been many hundreds of miles before even the ‘re-entry burn,’ let alone ‘landing.’
However, it does look like stage 1 ‘flipped’ and may be POINTED west (at around 1:50).
Ok, now in this one, on what side is space? Explain how this could be done, por favor.
These descriptions are misleading, since IMO this is all faked. Just look at the ‘earth’ in the Stage 1 frame compared to the right side. What excuse is there for having earth a fuzzy gray with no details whatsoever? No clouds, no land, no blue sea. This given you can see all these things in the right-side frame. Answer: It would be too difficult to fake the view of earth of a ‘falling’ object. So they blurred it out, assuming we would not notice. [Note: I italicized the last sentence for you guys because I realized that the motive is pretty important and I didn’t mention it in my last post or the video. It sort of reminds me of the ‘star visibility’ issue, wherein they black out ‘Space’ in the images because it would be too difficult to fake a realistic star field. See what I mean? What other reason could there be for, in effect, blocking out the view of earth?]
Point being that their ‘forgetting’ the boostback burn is still a ‘tell’ that this ‘show’ is exactly that. The continuing NASA ‘show’, now with Musk as the ‘new face.’
The idea that you could ‘drop’ (or ‘throw’) a non-aerodynamic ‘projectile’ from 46 miles up — giving it no propulsion or ability to alter trajectory via an airfoil — and hit a bulls eye on a heaving deck (or anywhere else) is utterly impossible and an insult to anyone who actually thinks.
#
Anyway, thought you should know.
Allan
By the way, so far no one has theorized how they photographically pulled off the ‘switch’ of which side of earth ‘space’ is in the image of the upper stage (on the right). Sort of a relief that it wasn’t something really obvious and I am losing my mind… I’ll reproduce it again above, for your convenience. For me, right now, if no one can explain how and why these photos are like this, they must be a PTB ‘wink’: a way of signaling each other as to who is behind the fraud – the ‘nonsense’ of it being key – like the images of lone shoes on pavements at staged or false flag violent events worldwide.
If you know a ‘rocket scientist’ or physicist or aeronautical engineer, I ask you to show him/her my material and ask why they haven’t said anything about the fraud. If I’m wrong, let’s hear about that.
While you’re at it, show him/her the photo below, and ask this question (after pointing out how hard the wind is blowing): If a gust of wind tipped the rocket one way or the other from upright, how would it correct itself? Remind him/her that the grid fins do nothing at low speeds and the ion thrusters used in a vacuum likewise are useless in heavy air (see quote below). The answer is: Only the main engine could be used to straighten the rocket back to perpendicular. But that would make it veer off course horizontally. Wouldn’t it? Like trying to hold a broom upright in your palm. To keep it straight you have to move back and forth. Sorry, but Q.E.D.: the photo below is impossible in real life.
[Quote from Wikipedia on ion thrusters]: ‘Ion thrust engines are practical only in the vacuum of space and cannot take vehicles through the atmosphere because ion engines do not work in the presence of ions outside the engine. Additionally, the engine’s minuscule thrust cannot overcome any significant air resistance.‘ [my emphasis]
To anyone still doubtful on the Musk Space Fraud (MSF), How much evidence do you need that these images are frauds? Whether they are holograms (that can be seen ‘live’) or CGI or a combination is not my point; that’s a separate subject.
This landing is impossible via the laws of aerodynamics and physics. Get used to the fact that it’s a visual fraud.
One more thing. Watch this video then look at the ‘Tess’ launch again and explain why the special effects of earth were so different in the latter.