No Science here. Dogma, gospel, maths and inane theories that should embarrass a 15 year old. The universe is an energy engine, full of material. Denying that is to be a reality denier.
Great article, thanks for this and for the humour. I watched the Aldrin punch up clip and chuckled, because the only person who would punch someone when asked to swear on a bible, is a guilty one.
Thanks TM. The Sebril-Aldrin boxing match. Aldrin the atheist and town drunk admitted a few times publically that the A-11 actornauts did not arrive on the lunar surface. Most of these actors were well paid. Armstrong died with a U$15 mn estate, Shepard with $40 mn or so. I wonder how much the Orion fill-ins have made. All gone quiet with the Mini-Van expedition. The greatest voyage evah.....
I wonder where they advertise for these amazing award winning roles, maybe the local Gazette, I'll keep an eye out! If I get lucky for the next NASA adventure I'll call you from the moon and say ''hello'', hopefully my mobile won't run out of battery or network coverage.
You state that the Earth is not reflective and that the Moon is. Now obviously the Moon is reflective, we can see it, this is observed proof. But if we discount NASA's fraudulent photos there is zero evidence that the Earth is reflective other than that which we see, yet scientism states clearly that the Earth's albedo is almost exactly double that of the Moon. Were that so, during the day, at least to my simple logic, everywhere would appear almost incandescent to the naked eye. Then if you factor in the inverse square law and the supposed distance of 238,000 miles the moon would have many times the albedo of this planet, yet Google, AI et al say no, it's only half. Something doesn't add up. Again, an excellent post.
Thanks Greg. You make some very interesting points. The SM does struggle with 'albedo' and light.
1-The critique of the inverse square law the albedo narrative is based on mechanics. You are absolutely right that our perception of the Moon's brightness feels mathematically contradictory to its rather asphalt-dark 0.12 albedo.
2-The SM/Establishment will maintain that the inverse square law does apply, and they will say that the Moon's reflection or light is ~400 K times weaker than Sunlight with zero thermal energy. It looks bright because our pupils dilate in the pitch-black night to catch that faint signal. Okay, so let's accept that.
3-But....your scepticism points to the actual, physical anomaly of the lunar surface. If the Moon is a dark, low-albedo rock, how does it throw that light straight back to Earth so efficiently? Back to Saint Neil and 'reflectors'. The Moon acts as a large retro-flection unit. The light of the Moon is not scattered. Interesting that one. The glass spheres/dielectric coating catches the EM wave and fires it back to the source. It is extremely efficient.
4-If we view it this way, this massive glass retroreflector cannot be yet another accident of gravity. Something else is going on. So, the SM model once again fails.
That would make a nice addition to the post. Good one for highlighting that.
I'm determined to take a light meter and measure them both, just to be awkward. A factor of 400,000 just seems crazy even if it's generally agreed, though I'm probably wrong. But can we genuinely be sure about the composition of the Moon's surface? My mind's open but the verifiable data seems a bit thin on the ground. Excuse the pun.
Rock samples are mixed. Anhydrous from the Apollo films. Hydrous from the ESA. The Russians are in on it as well. Seems that the American and Russian programmes colluded on the rock fraud from Antarctica (1967). The moon's surface is definitely crystalline and reflective. Ours is not. So that tells you that the giant comet hit the Earth and created the lunar node theory is junk and bunk. The Earth would also not exist if that happened, a slight issue called vaporisation. Since we have never landed on the moon, its actual composition is unknown but given how it retroflects back Sunlight it can be inferred.
If the moonlight is reflected sunlight, how can it be colder than its own shadow, as can be measured?
I think the moon something entirely different. Maybe it has or is its own light source. Maybe it is a projection. It also looks transparent to the eye when seen during the day. Another weird thing btw that it seems bright even in a blue sky.
I'm not convinced that the moon's light is colder, that doesn't make sense. And, yes, I've seen the videos, too. There are too many FE ideas, part of the CO campaign by the deep state (in and of itself weird), that are being bandied about as truth and they're not. The Moon is strange, no question, but how big, how far, it's composition... pretty much impossible to tell. I do find it odd, though, that you can observe a crescent moon in bright daylight with the sun maybe only 90 degrees of arc distance, from your standing perspective - how can it be eclipsed by the Earth when both luminaries are fully visible? Maybe DFS3 will provide an answer?
There is but no dissent is allowed. The SM rejects Newtonian gravity and has settled on the warp space time geodesic model of the Messiah. As if an object 1/81 the mass of the Earth is warping, pulling, pushing anything. Barycentre is never discussed which disproves everything they mutter about. Basic maths and common sense overturn the textbook dogma. But you won't hear about it.
So I assume all the Apollo missions were fakemoney laundering opportunities, for the US government to print $$ for war machines etc?
I'm curious about the expanding universe theory and just how far the latest telescopes actually can view. Is earth and the milky way spiral Galaxy just a small minute part of the solar system like we're taught?
Oh yes, as if the peer reviewers or gatekeepers would publish it. And since you can't get dissent published the idiots will say, 'see it was not peer reviewed by the cult, so it cant be true'. The apogee in critical thinking I would say.
Well, I doubt very much if the bible could be considered the apogee of scientific discovery or realism. I was actually joking, so I apologise for not inserting a 😂 in my comment
No issues, I understood the tongue in cheek nature of the comment. But the issues around that are real. Dissenter literature, experiments, observations are not allowed to be discussed. This is the closing of 'real science'. It is akin to saying that you can only invent using one method, one set of tools, the same workbench. The Bible is remarkably prescient about fluid dynamics. 'Science' still has not caught up.
Maybe, but invoking a book written and subsequently adapted, through generations of man made cherry picking and editing, is, for me, a false starting point. Each subsequent point of editing can be punctuated with scientific discovery, as it debunked claims of explanation by a supreme being. A non existent supreme being, created by sophisticated apes, for other apes to believe, as a cult, a form of control. Unproven, unprovable. The word “Faith” itself, is a definition of “believe in this, without evidence” The same goes for all religions. Sophisticated mythologies to fool weak-minded people.
The opposite in my view is true. The mythos of the hairless ape is as irrational and anti-science as it gets. Scientism is a barren cult - atheistic, blind, egotistical, increasingly demonic,corrupt, irrational. Evil exists and the Bible is right about much that one finds in reality. Including science. Modern cults are not enlightened, nor 'progressive'.
The mental gymnastics of the indoctrinated never fails to astound me. It really is akin to the current new religion, neo-liberalism, or woke, as some describe it. Confronting those that have ingested the mind virus these ideologies are, is futile, but I have a great deal of fun doing it. Taking the piss out of a lack of critical and rational thinking is one of my favourite things to do. I deliberately put myself outside of my perceived echo chamber in order to do it.
NOT SHOUTING JUST “A STREET SIGN” HERE FOR EMPHISIS
THE EARTH THAT YOU KNOW OF IS FLAT...... NASA IS FAKE... ISS IS FAKE...... ORBITAL MECHANICS & SATILITES ARE FAKE MATHEMATICAL CONTRUCTIONS THAT ONLY WORK ON PAPER NOT IN REALITY....... HOWEVER, ANTI GRAVITY IS REAL... THE COMMING "SPACE SHIPS" WILL BE REAL BUT THEY ARE NOT ALIEN.... THEY HAVE BEEN INTENTIONALY LYING & HIDING THE BEST TECH IN PREPARATION FOR THIS COMMING EVENT FOR OVER 50 YEARS...... THEY HAVE BEEN INTENTIONALY TEACHING GARBAGE PHYSICS & SCIENCE TO KEEP THE "MONKEYS" STUPID BUT "EDUCATED" ENOUGH TO BE "USEFUL IDIOTS".
[Gravity is a vibration it is simply a Longitudinal/ scaler wave that travels through the plank - aether quantum feild @ 1x10²⁹ x C ……. At that speed it traverses any size universe “instantaniously”. The same type waves also create the pilot wave of the double slit experiment as well as the “non locality” effects of entanglement. Anti-gravity is basically just a fancy noise canceling headphones that produce a wave cancelation counter wave in a local region… no sound wave noise or no gravity …..]
THE AI & ROBOTS ARE MUCH BETTER THEN WHAT THEY SHOW IN MEDIA.
They have been intentionaly showing clunky robots all over the media last several years but that is NOT even close to what they actually have…… they do this so that when these ETs show up everyone will think they “must be” real becsuse we don't have the technology to fake that…They will seem too “life like” & “not from this world”.
They choose these forms because
a) most “common & relatable” - (historicaly seeded)
b) most compatable with what can be faked most realistically
THE BEST MAJIC TRICKS ARE "SET UP" YEARS EVEN DECADES IN ADVANCE....... THATS WHY IT WORKS
[TOTAL IMAGINARY👇 NONSENSE]
• Standard Quantum Mechanics (Copenhagen interpretation): The wavefunction is a mathematical abstraction representing probability amplitudes. It does not describe a physical wave in space but rather the likelihood of finding a particle in a given state. Particles do not have definite positions until measured, and the wavefunction collapses upon observation.
[THIS IS THE REALITY, CORRECT 👇]
• Pilot-Wave Theory: The wavefunction is a real, physical field (the "pilot wave") that exists in configuration space and actively guides particles. Particles always have definite positions and trajectories, determined by the guiding equation, which relates particle velocity to the gradient of the wavefunction's phase. Apparent randomness arises from our ignorance of initial particle positions, not fundamental indeterminacy......pilot-wave theory reproduces all experimental predictions of standard quantum mechanics, it introduces non-locality, meaning the motion of one particle can instantaneously influence others regardless of distance. ........"
FACT: "....You were taught the double slit experiment has two layers. Light is a wave. Observation changes the result. That is the complete story, according to every textbook on the planet.
In 2011, a lab at the University of Toronto traced the actual trajectories of single photons through a double slit interferometer. Eighty paths, reconstructed from forty-one imaging planes, published in the journal Science. Each photon went through one slit. Not both. One. And the interference pattern still appeared. This was named the number one Breakthrough of the Year by Physics World.
Thanks, glad you enjoy Bream. State processing. The Establishment controls everything. Dissent is not really much of an option. You will find 'Phds' who do not understand basic physics but can drown you in models. They protect a 'regressive paradigm'.
Great article, thanks for this and for the humour. I watched the Aldrin punch up clip and chuckled, because the only person who would punch someone when asked to swear on a bible, is a guilty one.
Thanks TM. The Sebril-Aldrin boxing match. Aldrin the atheist and town drunk admitted a few times publically that the A-11 actornauts did not arrive on the lunar surface. Most of these actors were well paid. Armstrong died with a U$15 mn estate, Shepard with $40 mn or so. I wonder how much the Orion fill-ins have made. All gone quiet with the Mini-Van expedition. The greatest voyage evah.....
I'm in the wrong job!
I wonder where they advertise for these amazing award winning roles, maybe the local Gazette, I'll keep an eye out! If I get lucky for the next NASA adventure I'll call you from the moon and say ''hello'', hopefully my mobile won't run out of battery or network coverage.
You state that the Earth is not reflective and that the Moon is. Now obviously the Moon is reflective, we can see it, this is observed proof. But if we discount NASA's fraudulent photos there is zero evidence that the Earth is reflective other than that which we see, yet scientism states clearly that the Earth's albedo is almost exactly double that of the Moon. Were that so, during the day, at least to my simple logic, everywhere would appear almost incandescent to the naked eye. Then if you factor in the inverse square law and the supposed distance of 238,000 miles the moon would have many times the albedo of this planet, yet Google, AI et al say no, it's only half. Something doesn't add up. Again, an excellent post.
Thanks Greg. You make some very interesting points. The SM does struggle with 'albedo' and light.
1-The critique of the inverse square law the albedo narrative is based on mechanics. You are absolutely right that our perception of the Moon's brightness feels mathematically contradictory to its rather asphalt-dark 0.12 albedo.
2-The SM/Establishment will maintain that the inverse square law does apply, and they will say that the Moon's reflection or light is ~400 K times weaker than Sunlight with zero thermal energy. It looks bright because our pupils dilate in the pitch-black night to catch that faint signal. Okay, so let's accept that.
3-But....your scepticism points to the actual, physical anomaly of the lunar surface. If the Moon is a dark, low-albedo rock, how does it throw that light straight back to Earth so efficiently? Back to Saint Neil and 'reflectors'. The Moon acts as a large retro-flection unit. The light of the Moon is not scattered. Interesting that one. The glass spheres/dielectric coating catches the EM wave and fires it back to the source. It is extremely efficient.
4-If we view it this way, this massive glass retroreflector cannot be yet another accident of gravity. Something else is going on. So, the SM model once again fails.
That would make a nice addition to the post. Good one for highlighting that.
I'm determined to take a light meter and measure them both, just to be awkward. A factor of 400,000 just seems crazy even if it's generally agreed, though I'm probably wrong. But can we genuinely be sure about the composition of the Moon's surface? My mind's open but the verifiable data seems a bit thin on the ground. Excuse the pun.
Rock samples are mixed. Anhydrous from the Apollo films. Hydrous from the ESA. The Russians are in on it as well. Seems that the American and Russian programmes colluded on the rock fraud from Antarctica (1967). The moon's surface is definitely crystalline and reflective. Ours is not. So that tells you that the giant comet hit the Earth and created the lunar node theory is junk and bunk. The Earth would also not exist if that happened, a slight issue called vaporisation. Since we have never landed on the moon, its actual composition is unknown but given how it retroflects back Sunlight it can be inferred.
If the moonlight is reflected sunlight, how can it be colder than its own shadow, as can be measured?
I think the moon something entirely different. Maybe it has or is its own light source. Maybe it is a projection. It also looks transparent to the eye when seen during the day. Another weird thing btw that it seems bright even in a blue sky.
I'm not convinced that the moon's light is colder, that doesn't make sense. And, yes, I've seen the videos, too. There are too many FE ideas, part of the CO campaign by the deep state (in and of itself weird), that are being bandied about as truth and they're not. The Moon is strange, no question, but how big, how far, it's composition... pretty much impossible to tell. I do find it odd, though, that you can observe a crescent moon in bright daylight with the sun maybe only 90 degrees of arc distance, from your standing perspective - how can it be eclipsed by the Earth when both luminaries are fully visible? Maybe DFS3 will provide an answer?
If the narrative sanctioned open challenge, it wouldn't remain the narrative for very long.
(And I so appreciate your making the effort to reply to comments.)
There's more to this than meets the eye.
There is but no dissent is allowed. The SM rejects Newtonian gravity and has settled on the warp space time geodesic model of the Messiah. As if an object 1/81 the mass of the Earth is warping, pulling, pushing anything. Barycentre is never discussed which disproves everything they mutter about. Basic maths and common sense overturn the textbook dogma. But you won't hear about it.
So I assume all the Apollo missions were fakemoney laundering opportunities, for the US government to print $$ for war machines etc?
I'm curious about the expanding universe theory and just how far the latest telescopes actually can view. Is earth and the milky way spiral Galaxy just a small minute part of the solar system like we're taught?
Thankyou
Apollo is 100% a film, so was / is the Artemis franchise (The Return of the Clean Shaven). https://unstabbinated.substack.com/p/the-apollo-moon-landings-were-thehttps://unstabbinated.substack.com/p/artemis-ii-orion-mini-van-fraud-summary?utm_source=publication-search
Universe - according to JWST - is flat, much smaller than we are told.
https://unstabbinated.substack.com/p/james-webb-space-telescope-and-its?utm_source=publication-search
https://unstabbinated.substack.com/p/james-webb-space-telescope-2024-and?utm_source=publication-search
https://unstabbinated.substack.com/p/distant-events-observations-a-small?utm_source=publication-search
I’d like to see your peer reviewed and published study on this, Doctor
Oh yes, as if the peer reviewers or gatekeepers would publish it. And since you can't get dissent published the idiots will say, 'see it was not peer reviewed by the cult, so it cant be true'. The apogee in critical thinking I would say.
Well, I doubt very much if the bible could be considered the apogee of scientific discovery or realism. I was actually joking, so I apologise for not inserting a 😂 in my comment
No issues, I understood the tongue in cheek nature of the comment. But the issues around that are real. Dissenter literature, experiments, observations are not allowed to be discussed. This is the closing of 'real science'. It is akin to saying that you can only invent using one method, one set of tools, the same workbench. The Bible is remarkably prescient about fluid dynamics. 'Science' still has not caught up.
Maybe, but invoking a book written and subsequently adapted, through generations of man made cherry picking and editing, is, for me, a false starting point. Each subsequent point of editing can be punctuated with scientific discovery, as it debunked claims of explanation by a supreme being. A non existent supreme being, created by sophisticated apes, for other apes to believe, as a cult, a form of control. Unproven, unprovable. The word “Faith” itself, is a definition of “believe in this, without evidence” The same goes for all religions. Sophisticated mythologies to fool weak-minded people.
The opposite in my view is true. The mythos of the hairless ape is as irrational and anti-science as it gets. Scientism is a barren cult - atheistic, blind, egotistical, increasingly demonic,corrupt, irrational. Evil exists and the Bible is right about much that one finds in reality. Including science. Modern cults are not enlightened, nor 'progressive'.
The mental gymnastics of the indoctrinated never fails to astound me. It really is akin to the current new religion, neo-liberalism, or woke, as some describe it. Confronting those that have ingested the mind virus these ideologies are, is futile, but I have a great deal of fun doing it. Taking the piss out of a lack of critical and rational thinking is one of my favourite things to do. I deliberately put myself outside of my perceived echo chamber in order to do it.
NOT SHOUTING JUST “A STREET SIGN” HERE FOR EMPHISIS
THE EARTH THAT YOU KNOW OF IS FLAT...... NASA IS FAKE... ISS IS FAKE...... ORBITAL MECHANICS & SATILITES ARE FAKE MATHEMATICAL CONTRUCTIONS THAT ONLY WORK ON PAPER NOT IN REALITY....... HOWEVER, ANTI GRAVITY IS REAL... THE COMMING "SPACE SHIPS" WILL BE REAL BUT THEY ARE NOT ALIEN.... THEY HAVE BEEN INTENTIONALY LYING & HIDING THE BEST TECH IN PREPARATION FOR THIS COMMING EVENT FOR OVER 50 YEARS...... THEY HAVE BEEN INTENTIONALY TEACHING GARBAGE PHYSICS & SCIENCE TO KEEP THE "MONKEYS" STUPID BUT "EDUCATED" ENOUGH TO BE "USEFUL IDIOTS".
[Gravity is a vibration it is simply a Longitudinal/ scaler wave that travels through the plank - aether quantum feild @ 1x10²⁹ x C ……. At that speed it traverses any size universe “instantaniously”. The same type waves also create the pilot wave of the double slit experiment as well as the “non locality” effects of entanglement. Anti-gravity is basically just a fancy noise canceling headphones that produce a wave cancelation counter wave in a local region… no sound wave noise or no gravity …..]
THE AI & ROBOTS ARE MUCH BETTER THEN WHAT THEY SHOW IN MEDIA.
They have been intentionaly showing clunky robots all over the media last several years but that is NOT even close to what they actually have…… they do this so that when these ETs show up everyone will think they “must be” real becsuse we don't have the technology to fake that…They will seem too “life like” & “not from this world”.
They choose these forms because
a) most “common & relatable” - (historicaly seeded)
b) most compatable with what can be faked most realistically
THE BEST MAJIC TRICKS ARE "SET UP" YEARS EVEN DECADES IN ADVANCE....... THATS WHY IT WORKS
[TOTAL IMAGINARY👇 NONSENSE]
• Standard Quantum Mechanics (Copenhagen interpretation): The wavefunction is a mathematical abstraction representing probability amplitudes. It does not describe a physical wave in space but rather the likelihood of finding a particle in a given state. Particles do not have definite positions until measured, and the wavefunction collapses upon observation.
[THIS IS THE REALITY, CORRECT 👇]
• Pilot-Wave Theory: The wavefunction is a real, physical field (the "pilot wave") that exists in configuration space and actively guides particles. Particles always have definite positions and trajectories, determined by the guiding equation, which relates particle velocity to the gradient of the wavefunction's phase. Apparent randomness arises from our ignorance of initial particle positions, not fundamental indeterminacy......pilot-wave theory reproduces all experimental predictions of standard quantum mechanics, it introduces non-locality, meaning the motion of one particle can instantaneously influence others regardless of distance. ........"
FACT: "....You were taught the double slit experiment has two layers. Light is a wave. Observation changes the result. That is the complete story, according to every textbook on the planet.
In 2011, a lab at the University of Toronto traced the actual trajectories of single photons through a double slit interferometer. Eighty paths, reconstructed from forty-one imaging planes, published in the journal Science. Each photon went through one slit. Not both. One. And the interference pattern still appeared. This was named the number one Breakthrough of the Year by Physics World.
It confirmed a prediction made in 1927……”
https://youtu.be/HNgbTWHMqKE?si=fHNOwO7tjYLpTxLd
Thanks, glad you enjoy Bream. State processing. The Establishment controls everything. Dissent is not really much of an option. You will find 'Phds' who do not understand basic physics but can drown you in models. They protect a 'regressive paradigm'.