Notice the timer in the upper right: it reads 0.275, and ignition is just now beginning. The engines are not yet fully lit.
You guys are keeping me awake and alert and I appreciate it. This morning while working on a post about the origins of humankind I got an email with a link to India’s supposed launch of their moon mission. It took all of about three seconds to see that the visuals (the video) is not real.
First, check out the version I first saw, from The Guardian, and see if you spot the problem (the video is less than a minute, just the launch). See how fast this multi-ton rocket came off the pad? That is impossible, by the laws of physics.
‘0.395.’ The engines are still not yet at full bore. The rocket hasn’t moved yet.
I’ll show you some freeze frames. Notice the time marker in the upper right. It counts thousands of a second. You will notice that in a few tenths of a second, the rocket goes from sitting on the planet to moving upwards. The gross weight of the vehicle, including fuel weight is said to be 640 tons, well over one million pounds.
As you can see from the freeze frames, the vehicle lifts off less than one second after first stage ignition. In fact, ignition is at 0.515 on the clock and lifts off (clearly) at 0.915, four tenths of a second after ignition. If you go about 2 minutes into this NASA video, you’ll hear them tell you that the Saturn V vehicles lifted off a full eight seconds after ignition. (Of course, this info cannot be trusted either, but even by official standards, the Indian rocket is doing the impossible.)
‘0.515.’ Look closely. After barely two tenths of a second and already there is upward movement.
You can go to about 3 minutes in to this link to see how long it takes between ignition and lift off of the Saturn V.
It should not take a physicist (a ‘rocket scientist’) to know that over a million pounds does not move upward against gravity essentially instantaneously (four tenths of a second), as the Indian moon rocket seems to do in the live video.
‘0.795.’ No question, over 1,000,000 pounds has moved upward. A miracle?
This should not come as a surprise to anyone who follows this blog. Ever since the Falcon Heavy launch in February of last year, I have been posting video proofs that have led me to believe that the only explanation for recent chemical rocket ‘feats’ by both private and government groups is that we are being bamboozled to the point where we can no longer believe our eyes. It’s not just CGI/video tricks anymore.
In a sense, they are now bragging about it. See this recent extravaganza wherein they’ve reproduced the Apollo fraud on the Washington monument. You have to see it to believe it, if that expression even makes sense anymore.
‘0.915.’ Less than four tenths of a second and we have clear lift off!
That the tomfoolery has gone international – with national governments world-wide sharing the visual technology – should not surprise anyone who has been paying attention to world history.
The question really is only this: How long have they been fooling us, not only via video special effects but with… to quote ‘Miles Mathis’… ‘holograms or something.’
And now, with their show at the Washington monument revelation of the method, they are outright telling us what they are doing.
Allan
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.’ Arthur C. Clarke
Hello Allan,
thank you for keeping me awake and alert too. I read your article several times during last days because it does not make sence to me. Today I got feeling that you were testing our attention and ability of critical thinking. I see three possible options:
1. You were testing your readers claverness. Will somebody/anybody find it out?
2. You are getting a little to much suspicious and made a mistake this time. You saw problem where is not.
3. They got you and you become limited hangout too, just joking 🙂
Liquid propelland rocket motor needs some time to reach full power. For example Space Shuttle Main Engines “were required to reach 90% rated thrust within three seconds” Regarding Saturn V start they needn’t to hurry up at all. It was show for whole world, let the audience enjoy the start.
BUT Solid-propellant rocket motor reaches wery quickly full power after ignition! Space Shuttle Boosters needed only “0.23 seconds”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle#Launch
See Space Shuttle start. Three main engines are alreagy running, SS is sitting on the pad. SS lift off starts almost right after ignition of two Solid Rocket Boosters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuYoYl5kyVE
The first stage of Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle Mark III (GSLV Mk-III) consists of two S200 SOLID motors. So the start is as expected regarding specification.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_Satellite_Launch_Vehicle_Mark_III#Vehicle_design
I just had an interesting back and forth with the guy at Forum Borealis. Go to it and scroll down to it. Pay close attention (if you can stand it) to his lengthy ‘answer’ to some questions I had. This is a perfect example of an alt media disinfo agent making the mistake of trying to misdirect. See if he answers even one of my queries (go to ‘Newest Comments’ first):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gp8NWk4lGk&list=PLqIfsK_gZ7ZHBguYs1pJhI2tfKuwwP-Ez
This site is ground zero for the Secret Space Program ‘researchers.’ They are thick as thieves with this guy. More evidence that they are all dirty.
I think I’ll have to do another Open Letter…
here’s my favourite:
Magic film? He explain fully what the problem with Apollo footage is. And he is backed up by people delivering (like Ken Johnston, who we will have on). NASA has destroyed most of the original footage, like we say in this show because it cannot be as easily faked as modern digitals photography. Fortunately much has been salvaged, and Hoagland is one of many who has released this footage.
SSP, flat Earth, Mandela, etc. are diversions/time sink traps. They’re to impede, to enthrall the less discerning/perspicacious.
You can neither rectify them, nor rescue those enthralled by them. All you can do is ignore them and move on.
Through your own perspicacity you are improving your own understanding – and rectifying the only thing you can – yourself.
Even so, as drud observes (previous post), despite recognising deceptions, you have still to explore the reason for them.
Time sink — love the phrase.
Problem is (always has been) you could be onto the truthiest truth out there and your best friend will tell you you’re wasting your you-know-what.
I would agree that these things are enthralling to the less capable among us, but would disagree that they were created for such a purpose. It is far more likely that paranoid, less sharpish tools in the drawer came up with the concepts to explain more mundane ideas, such as the revisionist way memory works, and how memories change over time is turned into “The Mandela Effect,” or how a misunderstanding of simple geometry leads to flat earther turds.
Why did the Indian woman countdown in English? You can hear during the ‘launch’ engineers/scientists/actors – whatever – speaking in Hindu. Why?
Looks like comments on the old Max Igan post are closed. So for anyone still interested in his detailed analysis of the NZ event, I’ll just put this here.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/5v9mGkT1GRg8/
Yeah, he even mentions my name, as outing him as a mole. Good heads up. He is dirty, IMO.
The rocket jets are initially complete contained by the enclosed damper – no doubt over a colossal tank of water.
It is only when the rocket has begun to rise that you begin to see the jets.
Then again, even if it’s a real rocket (and not a hologram) it is just as likely that it will never be used to go above low Earth orbit – even if they then fake its journey and lunar activities thereafter.
Yes, but that is why I pointed out the clock. That the thing moved in four tenths of a second from ‘ignition’ is proof of fakery. One million pounds does not leave the earth that fast. Look at other liftoffs (altho many may be fake as well.)
It may be fake, but it’s not slam-dunk obvious to me.
Does the rocket jet go from zero to full power in a millisecond after ignition?
Perhaps there’s a kind of ground effect enhancement where there is more thrust when the ground can be reflected against, than when higher up?
The only things that seem strange are the temporal discontinuity between the two cameras before/after lift-off (the on-screen clocks aren’t synchronized), and that the rings around the damping holes remain visible for quite some time. There’s no rocket overspill, but clouds of steam/smoke eventually hide them.
As to physics, given a constant force, producing a constant acceleration, a rocket’s vertical position is given by s=0.5*a*t^2. Thus if a=10m/s/s, then after 1 second it’d be 5m up, and after 2 secs, 20m up, 3 secs 45m, 4s 80m ,etc.
I’m not noticing the ‘obvious’ fakery.
It will take a lot more than two/four tenths of a second for the engines to get to full power and transfer their full thrust to a million pound plus dead weight. Sorry if it’s not ‘slam dunk’ like many of my other videos, but all it takes is ONE issue wherein the laws of physics are violated, to prove fraud. Why does it seem like I’m the only one paying public attention to this stuff? What does that tell you? Anything at all?
Here is another angle of the rocket launch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiIJVLNtJq8
Notice that at 00:14 the foreground with the spectators “freezes” while the rocket in the background continues to rise up.
The unbelievable thing about all these fake rocket launches is: Why does no smart engineer ever notice these basic things that Allan points out?
A friend of mine is a mathematician and university professor but no matter what “glitches in the matrix” I present him with he refuses to discuss conspiratorial explanations …
By the way, Allan, what is your opinion on David Wilcock and this whole secret space fleet story?
I should have mentioned that as far as we can see, even the last freeze doesn’t show the engine flame at anything near full bore. The million pound rocket has moved upward and I see no real exhaust plume, not compared to when they cut to a long shot.
Agreed – a multi-ton rocket takes a bit of time to get moving and is NOT instantaneous.
Further evidence showing the dumbing down of the masses. At least in the summer of ’69 they waited a number seconds of thrust to finally show some movement of the rocket. Now, the masses blindly believe ‘anything’ they see from ‘anyone of authority’ on the Tube and Internet without question.
To me personally its not worth my time to pay attention anymore… if that is the desired effect(putting me back asleep and everyone else because of shitbag overload which end result is apathy) so i just go about the daily business of taking care of self and family and awaiting surf then they have done a brilliant job- Bravo! We have become the apathetic populace they have always wanted who do not seek their entertainment nor their fake news- just good food and fellowship from like minded castaways……………… aloha Allan
Funny how the U.S. claims to have been to the moon 50 years ago, but can’t seem to find the technology to get back there. How ironic that both India and China seem to get there easily, though they’ve never been there before. Hmmm…
I know!…it’s Hilarious!! 😀 :-D. Hey would you trust that the nuts n bolts were all tight on an Indian, or especially a Chinese rocket!? Haha!! 😀
Back in my Army days during training they were still using rockets like the Little John, Nike etc. I’m still shaking my head today at how fast they shot off the launch pad and disappeared, I’m talking fractions of a second or two and it was gone, literally if you blinked you missed it and the explosion and noise… nothing like I’ve ever witnessed again and we were very very close, mind you those were relatively small.. You have to be there to understand. So just tossing that in, tech has advanced a bit in 40 years I’d say, so the launch speed is a none issue for me, the other anomalies are more viable IMO.
Did you take a moment to look at how long Saturn V burned before it moved? Isn’t this a better comparison? Do you really remember how instantaneous it was with your army rockets? Of course you will say yes, but I had to ask.
Isn’t the weight considerably different between those three rockets? Army rocket taking off instantly, Indian one slower, and Saturn V much slower, just from the amount of force needed to move each based on mass. If you were to apply immediate max thrust, it would physically rip the rocket apart (especially big ones). So you would have to apply thrust gradually, increasing it as much as you can as it takes off, but not so much the rocket is torn apart by the g-forces. After it has already taken off and is flying is when max thrust can be applied.
Also, people can only handle so much g-force, so rockets intended to carry them to space need to be especially careful about when and how much thrust can be applied, as opposed to other rockets.
Hi Alan,
Looks like you’re back on track.
Yes I watched the vid. In my day they’d fire up, build up a bit a second or two, then boom, hit the next level with a noise similar to an explosion, scared the snot right out of you, and take off and disappear so fast if you blinked you’d miss it, even if you didn’t blink you’d miss it. The rockets I was around were set on launchers angled in the direction of fire so not as much dead lift upward, more horizontal, therefore minimizing lift force but they still had a slight delay before moving, If you don’t know the real state of rocket technology (I don’t), or the tech they use to fake it (I don’t) we are in a bit of kurfuffle. As for magic, I’ve dabbled in it and lost interest because once you know how a trick works with all the gimmicks it’s depressing to know how easily one can be fooled. I’m guessing whatever they’re doing is stupidly easy, gives them a few laughs as they slog on with running the world…
Lindsay, “space is fake”? Please elaborate. What exactly is fake and what is above us if not what we call space? What did I watch yesterday if not one of Jupiter moons moving slowly over the planet (I’m in Germany, that is in Europe). As for the rockets, all launch videos seem to be fake, but that does not mean, rockets don’t work. It only mean, we don’t know how it really looks like. Satellites are above us and can be watched. Not only the fake ISS, which IMO is an empty sun reflector constructed for the only purpose to be observed. All it takes to put an object into orbit is to reach a certain speed called “mach” at the beginning. It then will reach a certain altitude and become a satellite. that was how I learned that in my youth in the early 60-s. Not that complicated, is it? I’m trying to debunk this Moonraker-Mandela Effect. I already bought a VHS tape and a DVD on Ebay, both made after 2000 and there are no braces on them. I’m looking for older material. I’m sure, Dolly had braces.
‘Rockets into Space are fake because Space is fake. Show me one photograph or video clip from .Space’ that is not fake.
That nothing has been sent from Earth beyond LEO (that operates long enough to send back any photos) does not mean that no rockets have been sent into space.
even if all the launch videos are fake, so what? We still put satellites into orbit somehow. TV-satellites are real. You even can photograph them. The ISS maybe an empty reflector but it is still a real satellite too. No airplane can fly like this and so precise on time. I even photographed the ISS myself. My pictures can be found on the cluesforum. Focusing on and analyzing details of the fake launch videos is wasting of time. On the other side, it is all connected. If they did not convince us back then, that they can fly to the moon, the nuclear threat wouldn’t work. Without the nuclear threat the cold war wouldn’t work either. They still stick to that in the same way they stick to religions. Once you admit it’s all lies, nothing else will work anymore. And they are not done with us.
‘So what’? Okay. Says it all about your view. Why bother with this blog?
sorry, I didn’t mean it that way. I just mean, once you classify a video as fake, any further looking at it becomes wasting of time. I prefer to focus on things which I could not yet classify as fake. Things like satellites for instance. I’ve been familiar with TV-satellites since the 80-s where there weren’t any other alternative technologies. Now there are antennas of every kind everywhere all connected into a network and used for any kind of telecommunication and entertainment. Back then, in the analog time, you had to use a dish to watch foreign TV channels. This satellites are real and somehow they put them into geostationary orbit. You can photograph them Allan, just point the camera to the direction the dishes in the neighborhood are pointed to, use a tripod and a zoom and long exposure time. Stars become lines and satellites will become visible as dots within lines. IMO rockets work in the same way guns do. They accelerate for a short period of time, then reach a certain maximal speed and then inertia takes care of the rest. No need for rockets in space. Communication is a different matter. Radio waves can only be send as spheres in all directions. You cannot concentrate radio waves into a laser beam. The receiving dish collects some of the weak waves, concentrates them in the focal point of the dish, where the signal is being received and further processed. There is no other way. Not on earth and not in space. the higher the frequency of the radio wave, the more information can be encoded and the shorter the distance this signal can be used. My background is in electrical engineering and I know what I’m talking about.
Would be easy to calculate – or at least to do a sanity check.
Acceleration of an object of known weight, driven by a known force (maximal thrust of the engines). Assuming constant thrust, the acceleration would be constant, and give a linear equation.
Clarke also expressed the idea thus: ‘Any smoothly functioning technology will have the appearance of magic.’
In his stories we see guys much like ourselves getting dwarfed and flabbergasted by alien tech. This can have religious overtones — magic as supernature. In Star Trek we get the twist of identifying with the tech lords. Sure Kirk & company are occasionally outgunned, but generally speaking they’re the ones way out in front of the natives. This is pleasurable. Think Kirk (Spock, Chekov) in a brick and mortar cell — if only he can reacquire his confiscated flip-phone, he’ll vanish in a twinkle and won’t the guard be surprised! Or the kick of Marty McFox bringing the dharma of 80s rock to the white sport coat and pink carnation crowd. We, at his elbow, are superior to them.
We all like a good suspension of belief — but hey, the only magic, the only tech deployed here belongs to the entertainment industry. And the monkeys are gawking at the screen.
And maybe just maybe what Clarke really means to say is that, as much as they lie behind the base carnival magician, trickery and illusion lie behind the civilian agency rocket scientist too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcOHiGonWwU
A further thought: Clarke lived fifty years in Sri Lanka, the former Serendip. That is not India but India exerts control. The inventor/father of HAL 9000 (born variously 1992 or ’97, in Champaign-Urbana) is Dr Chandra. In the film 2010 (1984) the American crew characters –like their hosts the Russian crew– are played by Jewish actors; but Chandra, before any hyphen, is Indian.
Nice post 😛 made me grin