Last time we showed that there can be no realistic doubt that Elon Musk’s ‘Roadster in space’ imagery was done here on earth in a studio. We also asked the question, ‘Is this important?’ Today we will pursue this further by analyzing the Why? question, a.k.a. Cui bono? Who benefits? And how?
Closely related to motive is the question of Implications, in the sense of long term intended results, and unintended (known as ‘blowback’ in the intel biz).
Jarrah tells me that THIS is proof that Spacex is real. What do YOU think?
Let’s first assume that the Falcon Heavy (FH) launch of February 6th indeed occurred as was shown from earth-bound cameras. The rocket went up and eventually disappeared into space (whatever the hell ‘space’ is). We’ll also assume that the cameras strapped to the various stages showed real footage of the earth receding, etc. And the boosters landed as shown by various cameras (including those of many amateurs on the beach).
We’ve shown that from the fairing door opening on (the ‘orbital’ stuff), those images were done in a studio. (I’ll not beat this dead horse further: look at my videos – see here especially — and past few posts for proofs.)
This sounds unlikely, doesn’t it? In fact, the few emails I’ve gotten claiming the imagery is genuine go on and on about how this makes no sense and don’t I believe in satellites? and on and on but without explaining the anomalies I’ve demonstrated. (These emails invariably had a tone of outrage, i.e., reflected a dearth of critical thinking.)
At least Jarrah doesn’t use this image as ‘proof.’
To this line of reasoning I can only (well, not only) ask if the idea of a real rocket going up and fake imagery coming down sounds at all familiar? This in fact was one of the many questions I asked our buddy Jarrah White, and which was not answered. (And no, I have still not heard from Jarrah, even with my ‘gauntlet down’ Open Letter to him.)
Jarrah didn’t answer this question because he knows very well that the Apollo missions were fraudulent as well, notwithstanding that a real rocket went up… Point being we have at least one precedent.
Jarrah also knows that the images from the Mars rover missions were fraudulent. I really hope you know this also. (If you don’t, you’ll have to explain how a lemming got to – or evolved on – Mars, and that’s only one example among many. Here again, a real rocket went up…and… etc.
I know: you’ve seen this ‘Mars’ photo from NASA. I’m just really fond of it.
But if Musk (and/or whomever is running him) can launch a rocket that is now on its way to Mars and beyond, why not just open the doors and show the real view? (They would have had to install thrusters at added cost but how much could that be?) Well, in the most ‘innocent’ of my motives for the fakery (those with the least horrendous implications), the view is exactly the problem, and NASA has been struggling with it since (and even before) its Apollo frauds.
Most of you have seen my first ‘star visibility’ video (which now approaches 100k views), titled ‘Why are the astronauts (still) lying?’ (The contradictions prove the title true.) If you haven’t seen it or forget the salient points, I urge you do give it a look now. And it’s addendum, which adds pizzaz.
…back?… The ‘blackness of space’ nonsense has been going on for so long now that it’s hardly ever brought up by any alt media, limited hangout (LH) or no. As a photographer and a thinking person, the usual meme of ‘cameras don’t pick up stars because they are too dim’ is insulting to the extreme: as my video(s) clearly show, NASA astronauts (watch just the first minute) invariably (or almost) claim that they cannot see stars, no matter where the sun is. So the problem goes far beyond camera issues.
One of the many unanswered questions I put to Jarrah White was this: If it’s only the camera limitation that causes the black sky, tell me, Jarrah, if you were sitting in the dummy’s seat and looked away from the sun into the universe, what would you see?
Two questions: Where is the ‘sun’ and What would you SEE with the sun behind?
Jarrah didn’t answer because he knows that a real image from low earth orbit (no atmosphere) should show the universe in all its splendiferous glory. A view that we earth-bound mortals cannot even imagine. That Musk’s universe is jet black (nonexistent) is actually the ultimate Q.E.D.; I only mentioned it in passing in my video, such has been the success of the mainstream propaganda machine. I feared a torrent of shills, spouting their pasted in bull shit.
The reason the sky is portrayed as jet black in most NASA imagery is simply because it would be too difficult to reproduce an accurate star field in a fake image, video or still. Simple as that. Or is it? (More in a bit.)
So the Musk fakery was necessary to uphold the initial Apollo lie, as almost every astronaut has done for the past half century. That there are slip ups (or are they?) now and then is/was inevitable, as in this very short video, wherein Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins completely contradicts himself.
This of course is how it should BE, even according to Tyson.
(By the way, if you watch carefully you will occasionally see faint ‘stars’ in the Musk FH video stream. This actually only makes the situation worse (for the liars), because if you can see even one faint star you ought to be able to bring out the universe by Photoshop tweaking, which you cannot. Sorry, but Q.E.D.). If you don’t believe the photo at right, listen again to Neil Tyson.
Hollywood, too, has tried to have it both ways, as in the movie Gravity (and Interstellar too), which uses a very dim, sometimes all black, ‘star field’ – or rather lack thereof — for its space shots. I can only imagine the agonized conflict – and maybe the arguments with his NASA ‘advisors’ — the director, Alfonso Cuarón, went through over this issue. In the end, the basic ‘dim/no stars’ decision may have been best for the story-telling: showing the true universe behind them as Sandra Bullock and George Clooney went through their EVA ‘drama’ may have been too much of a distraction. Like me watching a beach scene in a movie with double overhead Pipeline going off in the back ground. What to pay attention to?
No stars in H-wood’s universe either.
Anyway, that’s one: Maintain the original Apollo lie.
Although I have no suggestion as to how the PTB could have (even over the years) solved the ‘realistic star field’ problem so they could quit with the ridiculous black space shit, I still don’t buy this as the only reason for the FH fakery. And, as mentioned in my last post, why make so many mistakes? I mean I’m fairly smart but no genius, and yet the photo and other ‘impossibilities’ jumped out at me.
I’ve suspected for a long time that many if not most of the various screw ups in the various false flag events before and since 9/11 have had a more subtle motive behind them. I’ll quote a friend who feels the same way, and who runs a hilarious website called the New World Order Reporter:
Regarding motives…
It could be some kind of desensitization process, that maybe makes the most sense to me. Gradually introduce the idea that more and more anomalies are “normal” and not indicative of anything to be suspicious of, or even pay attention to. If so, it’s been pretty effective overall. Like in this Florida event, I don’t think most people even know the evidence they are supposed to believe–the general narrative of what happened is sufficient in itself to believe it, e.g., “bad guy shot up a school and people died.”
That the PTB have for the past century and more been in the process of ‘dumbing us down’ is inarguable. I’ll leave it to you to do your own research on this; that you are reading these words at all means they have been less than completely successful with you. (My worry is about the kids growing up now…)
You wanna talk about MISDIRECTION?
Related to the above is possible motive number two: To collect more data. Those of you who have been paying attention to the growing Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) ‘business’ are nodding your heads right now… one reason for the many ‘mistakes’ in the various frauds the PTB perpetrate is to monitor who notices and who does not. And of those who notice, what do they do? Anyone who does not understand that the real purpose of A.I. is mind control/population control, has some research to do. (See my Open Letter(s) to Nick Bostrom, especially this one.)
I assume you all know that A.I. keeps records and analyzes every keystroke and every phone call you make… please tell me you know that… do you not think it’s ‘watching’ as you view the ‘Roadster in space’ Youtubes and then, especially, analyzing what you do immediately afterwards? (How much time you spend on this blog page is noted, for instance, and filed, to be correlated with your other behaviors.)
The importance of this – plus how it fits with all the ‘mistakes’ they seem to make in their frauds/false flags – should not be taken lightly.
Big Data. Motive #2.
Related to the above is the possibility that ‘Elon Musk’ actually intends to ‘build a rocket, a BFR (such a ‘regular guy!)’ and then ‘load it up with colonists’ and then ‘take off for Mars.’ The scare quotes indicate that if this appears to happen (on your screens or in ‘real life’), it will be a fraud, done with Fx, special effects, the latest generation of hologram technology.
I’m working on a video: ‘In his own words’….
Ridiculous? If the general scenario doesn’t sound like the Apollo fake, then I don’t understand what you are doing on this blog to begin with. Think about… just Apollo 13 — as I did in an email to Jarrah, who did not reply – how that farce was literally scripted and directed like a Hollywood movie – and then, to add high irony, Hollywood did make the movie! Listen to my radio interview on the subject for how Apollo 13 went.
And Apollo was half a century ago. One can only wonder what new technologies they’ve come up with to make fools of us now-a-days… They might even send useful idiots instead of lying (and/or mind controlled) astronauts… people fooled into thinking they are on a real space adventure, colonizing the solar system…
Holograms? You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet, my friend.
…anyone familiar with the Brit TV series ‘Space Cadets’ (a lovely double meaning) knows that this has already been successfully beta tested… contestants fooled into thinking they ‘went to space.’ But why do this? Off the top of my head, two reasons: Misdirection and Because they can.
My final, and most implications-laden possible motive assumes the whole Falcon Heavy mission was faked. I’m working on a video showing the anomalies I noticed in the ground-based launch coverage, the first ‘tell’ being how perfectly the two boosters landed simultaneously (within a second or two), which I consider another ‘miracle’ (if a minor one) considering the distance the boosters ‘glided’ through space then through the jet stream’s high winds and then the lower weather and other ‘chaos theory’ perturbations; the two did not even fire up their engines simultaneously on final descent… no, I don’t buy it. So I looked closer…. Hang in for the video in a future post.
The following is part of an email I sent to Andrew Johnson of checktheevidence.com, who has stated publicly that no planes were used on 9/11 and that holograms might have been part of the op:
I’ll leave you with this: As you know, no planes were used on 9/11, yet there are some images and enough witnesses to make it likely that holograms were used as part of the op. That was almost 20 years ago and the technology goes back to the early 60s (when they considered using holograms of Jesus Christ in the skies over Havana). I’ve seen enough anomalies in the FH launch itself to suspect that the whole thing might have been faked. If you’re interested I’d be happy to describe the ‘tells’. Unlikely as it may sound at first, if true it could be a beta test for something horrendous, an ‘armageddon’ or alien invasion, who knows what.
Hologram technology has no doubt improved in 20 years…
No, Andrew did not respond to my stating the above possibility (he cherry picked in response to my email) or my offer to send him the evidence (ironic given the name of his site). But more on my alt media ‘colleagues’ in future posts.
But yeah, if this heavy-weight speculation is correct, we may be in for some spectacular ‘special effects’ down the historical road… on the upside, if ‘armageddon’ or some biblical ‘End Times’ comes, it might be by the same folks who gave us Independence Day… and if you weather it out, it might be just as harmless as the movies…
Or maybe they’d do it ‘Because they can.’ What is this one, motive 3 or 4? I lost count.
Allan
This post was meant to show you that the Musk-fakery issue is important. If you agree I would ask you to forward your choice of my videos and/or posts to the alt media outlet you tend to trust, and ask if they agree with my findings. If you get nothing or bullshit back, you’ve probably found another Jarrah White.
I’m avoiding (for now) voicing the possibility that the ‘star visibility’ issue reflects something much more profound than ‘lying astronauts.’ Give me some time – and thanks for the ‘yep’s!
Another reason to forward my material is this: If I am wrong, someone will tell the world. And I want to know.
I was just about to send this out when a subscriber did some yeoman’s work and realized that the ‘missing’ telemetry data in my first video could have been due to my having screen-grabbed the video at a lower image quality. When he did it (at high res) the ‘problem’ disappeared. (But he downloaded YESTERDAY, which means Spacex could have seen their glaring error and fixed it…) In any event, I recommend my second video to be forwarded.
Addendum: Having thought this last matter over, the discrepancy was much more likely due to Spacex ‘fixing’ their ‘live’ imagery playbacks; they had in fact done this before. The simple fact is that the footage I downloaded two weeks ago has been fucked with. In a delicious bit of irony I will send you to a Jarrah White video to prove this! (This also shows how Jarrah routinely ‘debunks’ those who disagree with him: So how come he’s so quiet about ME?