author=picowatt link=topic=4082.msg88269#msg88269 date=1614275396]
I will try and address your concerns 1 by 1.
First--
You are so predictable and easily triggered.
Well when it come's to bullshit,then you bet your ass i will expose that bullshit.
In the years leading up to the RT fiasco
What fiasco ?
Why not be true and disclose exactly what happened.
You asked me to carry out some tests,which i did to your very instruction's.
It only became a !fiasco! because i got results that did not comply with your indoctrinated belief's.
Had you continued to follow the discussion about those result's,you would of understood as to what was going on. It is your's and many others belief that in order to have a device that show's such result's can't be real,as you assume energy must have been being created,which we !all! know is not possible. So it would seem that the tests you asked me to carry out were some sort of trap,some sort of means to expose my work as some sort of fraud. But when there was no evidence of that,due to me carrying out the test in one !uncut! video shot,that is when the fiasco started,and not by me. It became a fiasco only to people like you,that have this firm belief that in order for a device to produce those result's it must be creating energy,and your belief do not allow for this,and so it became !some how! a fake to those like your self,regardless of the fact that the tests were carried out under your instructions.
Here is the problem we have to this day. All those like you have determined that in order for a self sustaining device to work,that can output some degree of extra energy,it must have to create energy. Don't get me wrong here,i appreciate all that i have learned from people like your self,but you and the others were not teaching me all i needed to know. In fact,having this !theory! that the device had to created energy to be self sustaining and able to deliver some value of excess energy drummed into me by guys like you was doing more harm than good,as you eventually end up with tunnel vision that this is all that there is. But when you step away,and you start using your own brain,the world once again opens up to different possibilities. I am not constrained to your belief's,and this allows for much more than the narrow thinking you may have. You are stuck on this !OU=created energy! thing,where as i am not.
Has the thought ever occurred to you that all you have to do is to create a continual or pulsed imbalance rather than create energy in order to have a self sustaining device ? , I followed along at overunity.com and gained a great deal of respect for you. I, as I am sure others did as well, found you to be an excellent experimentalist with an open and scientific mind that was quick to devise experiments to isolate variables while making your investigations. I watched as more formally trained individuals (.99. MH. TK, Mark (RIP), and others) helped you understand your measurements, sources of errors, etc. as you were quick to grasp and learn. I was quite impressed.
But now,because i have a different view than your's on matters i think are critical,you have lost that respect and impression ?.
Then, after the RT fiasco and your fake moon landing thread, it became obvious to me that there are certain subjects, three that I am now aware of, that will trigger you every time and cause you to become totally biased and unscientific. It seems you have allowed your beliefs regarding these subjects to cloud your judgement. It is a shame that you do not apply the objective investigative skills I once knew you to have to these subjects.
And the very same could be said about you,where your need to believe clouds your judgement.
I am using the scientific method,like calculating how much lift the mars helicopter would have to have to fly on mars. But you think it is easily done,where a drone can produce enough thrust to lift over the needed 30 times it's own weight in order to fly in the martian atmosphere.
I carried out some calculations,and i posted the data of actual high end heavy lift drones,which exceeded that of the mars helicopter drone.
You on the other hand posted your findings on some !as you put it! quick napkin calculation's,and then posted thrust data of a plane with a 134kw engine. So i ask,who is not using the scientific method here?
Who is letting the love for NASA to cloud there judgement ?.
Over on the Mars nuclear war thread, you trivialize achieving Mars orbit, or indeed landing a rover, as being no big deal, its been done thousands of times. Of course this can't include Mars, because we haven't been there thousands of times. Mars has been tough. Russia gave up after many failures, and the US has had quite a few failures as well, one particularly embarrassing, but the US prodded along.
It is the same as everything--people loose interest after it has been done.
And it is like riding a bike--the first time your parents cheer with joy,but a month later it is hardly mentioned.
https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/waning-interestIt is indeed becoming easier (not easy) to get to Mars, and space in general, mainly because of NASA. Almost without exclusion, all the data collected from every launch of a scientific package deployed by NASA (and its failures) has been placed in the public domain for scientists to use all over the world. That ever growing knowledge base is allowing other countries and private companies to get in the space game as well. That knowledge base came at a very high cost in terms of both lives and treasure.
This is what peev's me off--NASA this NASA that.
But the only reason NASA ever got into space in the first place,was all thanks to a member of the enemy--Wernher von Braun. NASA obviously did not have the brains needed to get man into space,they needed a man from the enemy-Germany.
Who put the first satellite in space?. Who put the first man in orbit ?
NASA is claimed to be so great,yet they couldn't even build a heavy lift rocket them selves.
But we are all to believe that the very same NASA put man on the moon
Some here scoff at the $80 million dollar cost of the Mars 'copter, but will spend no time investigating why it cost that much. In fact, that $80 million dollar project cost is actually $85 million dollars, the additional $5 million being roughly a month of operational expenses after deployment. For sure there is some degree of bloat in the NASA budget, but, as other US budget items go, the NASA budget is one of the more transparent budgets by way of openly published data or via FOIA requests. NASA maintains some rather costly facilities which are constantly upgraded to maintain currency. With regard to the $5 million operating cost of Ingenuity, if a given project requires maintaining a team of Engineers, software developers, and duplicate hardware or simulators, using NASA hardware at NASA facilities, and needing bandwidth on NASA maintained deep space tracking and communication networks, that project has to share in the annual costs to maintain all those facilities and associated personnel. Space is not cheap. That is why up until recently, it required state sponsorship to get into space. But, again, due to the sharing of the data gleaned from those state sponsored programs, even that is changing as private companies throw their hat in the ring.
Yes,i am one of those that scoff's.
Where does this $80,000,000 come from?-->yes,the people.
It is sad when the mindset is to spend $80,000,000 on a drone that !!may!! fly,and make about 5 x 90 second flights on a planet we will not get to for at least another 50 year's,when that $80,000,000 could have been spent on saving the lives of 100's of thousand's of starving children world wide,or housed thousands of homeless people in america. But here you are,justifying the $80,000,000 spent on a worthless drone that in reality would cost about 5k today to design and build<-- and that's a fact.
So, if it is becoming a trivial matter to get to Mars, as you would on the one hand have us believe, we can, primarily, thank NASA. But, on the other hand, you also seem to think its all fakery and lies.
No,you can't thank NASA.
NASA couldn't even design a rocket to get man into space.
You think the mars helicopter is going to fly on mar's,then provide actual data on the power to weight ratio actually needed in order for it to achieve this.
Start here in earth conditions,and provide a link to any helicopter or drone that can lift 30 times it's own weight,as that is the value of thrust needed to achieve this flight on mars.
No point in providing the thrust of a 134kw plane engine,as we both know it would not fly on mars,not can it take of vertically.
Now you want to throw the ISS into your fake space crap, which means you need to change this thread title from "Deceptions of NASA" to something along the lines of "Worldwide Conspiracy to Fake the ISS", because many countries have been involved with the ISS.
I read your thread this morning while having my coffee, and followed all the provided links. At first, I found it all quite humorous and a bit entertaining. But as my day continued I became a bit sad, considering that you, of all people, would display the degree of ignorance depicted by the following post:
The bold portion in the above quote should have been your first clue. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of video compression and error correction would immediately recognize these as compression and dropout related artifacts. That these "proof of fakery" artifacts happen only, or mostly, to moving objects should have made that very obvious.
It is odd how the very same thing happened with me.
I too was reading your post while having a coffe,and was also saddened to see you need to believe has thrown all your common sense out the window.
You know as well as i do that any sane person would see the deception in those video's i posted.
Fact 1- in some of them,some of the actual equipment along side the astronot's also glitches,leaving the greenscreen projected background completely in tack and clear.
Fact 2- You never addressed the very clear video's showing 1 astronot grabbing the cables attached to the other astronot carrying out a somersault to stablize him.
Fact 3-You never address the astronot grabbing and putting a hat on the shelf that does not even exist.
You seem to pick and choose what you wish to address,and as always with believers like you,they only ever address what they !may! be able to explain.
Please watch this--but im guessing this is fake as well
Some one went to all this trouble to put this video together in there back room-Right?
Problem is,all those people are real,and this video is real. Nothing like a chroma key screen behind you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQC_eZPQFzIWhy have a chroma key screen behind you?
From 0:44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnvMJckEqYESurely you have seen similar compression/motion related artifacts from satellite TV dropouts and poorly edited (hard cuts/starts) posted videos where some amount of time is required for the entire frame to reassemble, particularly with regard to moving objects.
Sure.
But have never seen grown men playing with invisible hats,or a need for cables to hold up astronots when there !suppose! to be in 0G.
Nor have i seen hair act like the females astronots hair in 0G-video proof already provided for all these.
1:50 The invisible hat. That is no glitch PW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4p3I1lseX0NASA hair v actual 0G hair
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0zxOKCSGrAReal hair in 0 G.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9pkjHWAZLs&t=247sNASA ISS hair in 0 G lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIjNfZbUYu8&t=31sActual 0 G curly hair hair
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBrCmxPbcbMNASA 0 G curly hair lol. Nothing like copious amounts of hair gel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv_kLaFd_F8If ya can't make it-fake it.
What a shame,
Yes it is. A mind as bright as yours so easily clouded with the need to believe.
NASA is like God for some,where as the need or want to believe excludes all science and common sense.
Brad
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
Author
Topic: Deceptions of NASA (Read 17083 times)
