Looks like my sorry ass life is about to change once more (after five years on the road). I will be back on the water, living in a houseboat, probably as of tomorrow. Many of you will be happy for me, others not so much. I thank the former; the latter can of course go fuck themselves.
I don’t really have time to deal with the comments from the last post, but I will say that I now completely understand why I hesitated for several years before allowing comments. Those of you whom I have been deleting, you do know, I assume, that this is my blog and your presence here (by way of comments) is a privilege I can revoke any time and for whatever reason. Which means I don’t even have to give a reason. So there!
This is the sort of neighborhood I wlll soon be cruising by.
We’ll see if life afloat affects what I write here. Water is an amazing if not flat out miraculous substance. Who knows what will happen to my critical thinking skills as result, say, of sleeping over a vast and deep chunk of it.
Allan
I’ve scanned the recent ‘Pale Blue Dot’ comments. But holy shit, some of them are head shakers! The effect of an absolutely obvious ‘plain sight’ fraud — meaning the sudden realization of such — can be truly stunning in how it brings out pure doublethink.
I just found out that Jon Rappoport’s blog has been taken down by WordPress. Although I sometimes worry about Jon not covering certain subjects, the ones he does cover (especially vaccines) are important, vitally so, and Jon does a great job. We should all be outraged. I suggest an email to WordPress from each of us, at the very least.
“…I don’t really have time to deal with the comments from the last post, but I will say that I now completely understand why I hesitated for several years before allowing comments. Those of you whom I have been deleting, you do know, I assume, that this is my blog and your presence here (by way of comments) is a privilege I can revoke any time and for whatever reason. Which means I don’t even have to give a reason. So there!…” – A. Weisbecker
Allan, you are free to do whatever you like on your blog, but the above words seem to contradict what you have said in the past about censorship, specifically Alex Jones censoring your views on his website/forum.
You describe Jones in one of your essays as a hypocrite for his censorship of your views on John O’Neill and 9/11. In your own words,
“…Jones’s censoring was unconscionable… Hypocrisy of the censorship sort is not to be tolerated by the rest of us.” – A. Weisbecker
Hmmm…
I don’t delete anyone who makes sense and whose comment is relevant to stuff we are discussing.
“I don’t delete anyone who makes sense…” – A. Weisbecker
Allan, I hear what you are saying, but have to wonder if “making sense” should be a main criteria for not censoring (deleting) the comments of others, especially for someone like yourself who proclaims to be a free thinker open to different points of view.
After all, whether or not something “makes sense” is a subjective determination, one that is very much in the ‘eye of the beholder’. Simply stated, what makes sense to one person may be construed as nonsense by another.
For example, your 9/11 views may have made no sense to Alex Jones, which is why he ignored you. If so, then you actually share Jones’ perspective on censorship – points of view that do not “make sense” should be suppressed.
However, you have criticized Jones as a hypocrite for censoring your point of view on his website/forum.
I am perplexed by this contradiction and would appreciate some clarification.
May I have a go?
Take “Sean”, for example. I am a pretty well-educated person, in science yet, and I couldn’t figure out *what* he was trying to say. Whatever it was, it was meant as contradiction to Allan, but it was a prime example of — at best — inept communication: I couldn’t have restated his argument to save my life. And the more his audience said, We don’t understand, the more jargon- and math-riddled he wrote — giving us more of what we *didn’t* get.
By contrast, I have a family member who believes the gov’t version of 9/11 for the simple reason that “they”, being human beings, are too clumsy and stupid to keep that big a secret. That makes sense. It’s wrong on several counts (for one, since the towers & Pentagon wall did collapse, *someone*, presumably human, was able to keep the plans secret), but it’s not gibberish. It even has the merit of being something we could discuss further. How big secrets get kept is pretty interesting.
“Sean” may have made sense to someone, but not to Allan, and not to me, and it wasn’t something we could discuss further. At best, “Sean” was saying, “Behold my vastly superior intellect [I can’t even think down to your level!] O ye little fools, and accept my conclusions as your gospel!” That’s IF his math & all actually did signify anything.
Allan, otoh, may be wrong, but at least he writes to be understood. And if you engage him honestly, he’ll try again, with a professional writer’s knack for gauging his audience. I think he’s wrong about Q, for example, but if I had a website that he wanted to leave comments on, and I employed his “delete nonsense” principle, I’d have to allow his comments, because they do make sense. A newbie might need him to (re)explain “subtext” — and he would, and he can, in a way “Sean” never could (or would?) explain his own stuff.
hth
Bill, explain Chomsky’s comments about the lack of any conspiracy in the murder of JFK.
“…the idea that there was any kinda of high-level conspiracy would have done any differently and the same on other issues and the assassination was a crime of an atrocity but the idea that there was any kind of high-level conspiracy behind it seems to me extremely unlikely on the basis of any evidence i can discover and I’ve looked pretty hard..”
Anyone really looking into JFK knows this is flat out false!
If you can’t see the forest thru the trees, there is no hope for you.
http://www.banditobooks.com/essay/videos/chomsky.html
Todd, as I have previously expressed on this blog, it is not up to me to “explain” Chomsky’s views on the JFK assassination. The man, arguably one of the great minds of the 20th century, can certainly speak for himself on the issue.
Here is what I recently wrote to Allan,
“It is up to Noam Chomsky (not me) to “explain” his views on the Kennedy assassination and 9/11, which he has done in his own writings and interviews. Here are some of his own words on the issue of JFK’s assassination:
http://22november1963.org.uk/noam-chomsky-jfk-assassination
The celebrated linguist’s views on the matter clearly conflict with your own grand conspiratorial views, which is fine. I do not see eye to eye with Chomsky either, at least on this issue. However, just because the man shares a different perspective than you on the aforementioned historical events does not mean that he is an “agent of the deep state…”
BTW, I don’t believe Chomsky ever flat out rejected the idea of a conspiracy to kill JFK. Rather, what he rejected is the idea of a “high-level conspiracy” of the kind imagined by Oliver Stone in his film, JFK, and other deep state conspiracy theorists.
And please, do not accuse me of not seeing the forest for the trees. I have spent most of my life on a quest to envision the forest.
Also, let it be known that ‘big picture’ thinking does not necessarily equate to ‘conspiratorial’ thinking
Bill
Appeal to authority – Chomsky will never ever admit it, of course – Like the fox guarding the hen house.
As stated, anyone really looking into JFK knows a high-level conspiracy occurred. Which Chomsky, if he was indeed on the side of all-good-human beings, should have already come forward and stated such.
I am no expert on the subject but I totally agree with Allan’s analysis of the fakery of the SpaceX rockets landing vertically.
One way to look at it is to study vertical take off and lift aircraft, they all without exception have to take off and land in a horizontal mode with multiple thrusters.
If SpaceX was a genuine programme there’s no doubt in my mind that the space vehicle would be a supersonic type jet plane that also had rocket engines for space flight.
The SpaceX rocket landing vertically is fake and is a very bad example of computer cgi tomfoolery regards James
drud wrote this in a past post:
Didn’t you ask that your readers to try to land a broom? I did. It wasn’t too hard. In fact in the video I graciously added to your blog shows even a modern day caveman can do it with his foot.
drud, i don’t see you as a fool or a liar or an ignoramus but you are being foolish or lying or ignorant here, and the proof is the video you so ‘graciously’ linked. (Graciously? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?)
You DID NOT LOWER the broom and neither did the guy on the rope. I’m asking everyone to try it. From 4 feet, mark a spot on the ground directly below it, then do it. None of you will do it. Why do you claim you did? Are you lying? No? Then what?
That you think the guy in the video did it is proof you don’t know what you are saying. Here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5y4fxjnKY0
Chime in. Did he lower it to the ground let alone to a spot on the ground? Simple yes or no will do.
no
Sorry two words, Thrust Vectoring.
Perfectly phrased, without the comma after ‘sorry.’ Those are indeed two sorry words in this situation.
Vertical take off, vertical landing:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTVL
“The technology required to successfully achieve retropropulsive landings—the vertical landing or “VL” addition to the standard vertical takeoff (VT) technology of the early decades of human spaceflight—has several parts. First, thrust must be greater than weight, second the thrust is normally required to be vectored and requires some degree of throttling.”
Thrust vectoring…
How is anything you’re saying any different from showing us fake landings? You are not explaining anything by quoting wiki or some such. My point is that we are being lied to. What is the point of repeating the lies? If you can’t lower a broom to a spot on the ground, how are they going to do it with a rocket from 60 miles in space, descending thru unpredictable 100 mph winds, and hitting a X the size of a manhole? If you can’t see this with all my videos, frankly, I don’t see the point of answering these comments.
You just cannot believe they would fake something this obvious, right? To quote you (or someone), ‘Sorry two words.’ Yes they would. Oops. Three words.
I’ll admit, I’ve never seen a vertical landing broom. Rocket boosters, sure… I’ve never even seen a broom with an engine, much less a thrust vectoring rocket engine. You got me there. Sigh.
No
I did lower the broom quite like they lower rockets. Let it drop. Makes it easier. Dude don’t take your thoughts so seriously…nor mine. Messes with life.
How about a video of yourself lowering a broom or stick to a spot on the ground from even 4 feet up. Just do it. Prove me wrong. If you can’t then admit you’re wrong.
It’s easy to land a broom. Just harder when you go slow. The broom is pretty stable till you slow it down which causes you to have to balance it. I can do it over and over again and so can you if you can squat while you lower the broom.
Nonetheless it is all mute because now we have model rockets very close to VTVL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx5zLykjKy8
Seems you erased my last comment. If you can blank out this vid and discount it I lose all hope!
‘Seems’ I deleted your last comment? No, I didn’t, unless it dumb and irrelevant. Repost it.
I refer you to my above comment about you claim that it’s easy to land a broom. Show us in a vid you lowering a broom or stick from 4 feet up to a marked spot on the ground without it falling over – it should be upright when it touches down. Just fucking do it, dude, and show us. You want to show me wrong so badly, so why not do it? I’ll send you 50 bucks if you do it and a majority here agrees you did it.
“Just harder when you go slow.” There’s the rub. If you just drop a rocket (“let it drop”, you said above), you’ll have a pile of rocket pieces on the ground instead of a, you know, rocket.
The broom experiment is much easier than a real rocket, because there probably won’t be any significant air turbulence four feet off the ground.
I understand the thrust vectoring concept. I don’t see any evidence of it happening in the Musk videos, though; did I miss it? Doesn’t the exhaust have to shimmy this way and that to keep the long-skinny-thing-with-its-center-of-mass-high-above-the-exhaust vertical? The model rocket exhaust seemed to shift about.
And, drud? could you maybe show a *successful* model rocket VTVL? “Almost” doesn’t cut it when you’re a big name like Musk and you’re (allegedly) live on tv with the world watching. Seems like VTVL would be achieved with a model first.
I did find a video claiming pre-SpaceX vertical landings. The one worth mentioning (the other was the lunar module and let’s just not go there) notably was much wider at the base — actually triangular, with a height-to-base ratio of about 3:1. SpaceX is much slimmer, at about 10:1 — much more broom-like.
Couldn’t help but notice that this model rocket landing thrust vector control near miss vid was published long after the alleged successful vertical landings by Space-X. Impressively plausible as remarked by an onboard Inertial Measurement Unit controlling two gyroscopes, and, three pyro channels, and a barometer, what is sub-textually meant by a whiteboard with a rocket drawing and Jokes written beneath? What is meant by a rocket in his room with the name Thrusty McThrustface written on it? What, for all you sleuthing for a roll back of the curtain of the occult, is CRAP, or Concerned Rocketeers Against Parachutes doing if not another Keock to the chin of the gullible? No, I’m sincerely asking.
I’m convinced that the Peety Bee will spare no expense in keeping the actual level of technical progress hidden.
Mini Musk is apparently a sincere rocketeer and it isn’t easy to locate the true motive of what is sponsoring this work. If some operators are dashing about the universe in spaceships already, then why does a genius spend so much energy and fast talking brainpower in redundantly proving a technology that is already passe? Wouldn’t we see experiments based on former successful experiments in antigravity? We see them maybe, but we live in a world disclosed by propaganda and fakery, so once observed in its enormous scope, who trusts what’s real anymore? Mission accomplished. Sorting through the CRAP they parse out is a career move.
I could be wrong. He “had an issue with re-normalizing that flight orientation quaternion which leads to nasty cross access stuff and misalignment, so,” he fixed it. However, there may be a valuable takeaway in the form of a golden crumb in his reference to Grant Sanderson at 3blue1brown. Gave it just enough attention to realize that something important is afoot here.
https://www.3blue1brown.com/
Looking forward to the first rendition of Afloatation Post !
Coming soon!
Alan, check out the book, Blue Mind, about the human connection to water, especially the ocean. Of course, all surfers (myself included) know this in a deeply intuitively way, but Wallace lends some scientific credence to such ‘knowing’.
Pax,
Bill
I’ve heard of it and may get it… just went to amazon and bought the audio version. Thanks for remind me.
Well done Allan I’m sure this decision will make for an interesting new chapter in your now Happy ass life.
Although I do sympathise with your description of your life being “sorry ass”
A number of old adages come to mind, for example “familiarity leads to contempt”. “The grass is always greener on the other side”.
I am reclining on my bed on my boat as I write this, my view is of a sloping green meadow with many buiscuit coloured sheep grazing contentedly. The bright yellow sunshine illuminating the ancient stone wall of a Georgian mansion in the far distance. Anyways am looking forward to your latest post once you’ve settled in regards James
Thanks, folks, for the kind best wishes. Sun is going down here and I am pooped, too much so to write much here. Had a great sea trial and will formalize the buy in the AM. Give me a few days to get myself together before the first Afloatation Post (did I coin a new one?).
The houseboat is going to do you good – being on the water is wonderful for the soul.
I did send a note to WordPress because of what they did to Jon, but obviously, crickets afterward.