https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/68907597

 

"John Barnett was found dead in a pickup truck in South Carolina on the exact same day he was due to conclude a closed-door testimony in a lawsuit against Boeing. "

https://english.almayadeen.net/news/miscellaneous/friends-suspect-boeing-whistleblower-s-death-a-murder--not-s?0=utm_source=ground.news&1=utm_medium=referral

@ Saneagle.....

 

Clintons!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3g8p440309o

 

 

 

"The financial cost of Liz Truss’ disastrous 2022 Mini Budget and the increased mortgage rates that came in its wake has been laid bare today thanks to new data revealing that Londoners are paying an average of £7,500 more a year for their mortgages."

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/mini-budget-fallout-londoners-paying-230150956.html

 

So much depends on status though. In August 2023 when those rates were over 6% a London friend buying a London house got a 4.5% mortgage. How come? These plus points made all the difference:

 

Previous good mortgage record.

 

He's a serving police officer.

 

Married.

 

With a primary school child.

 

All pointing to stability and reliability.

 

Compare that to me back in 1967 wanting to buy a home for myself:

 

I already had a mortgage on the home I was buying for my parents, but only so far with a short mortgage payment record.

 

Having come out of the army earlier and with only a very unstable employment record.

 

Single with no children.

 

It was a big NO everywhere, so all I could get was a commercial mortgage from the Property Owners Building Society at a swingeing 9%.

 

It didn't matter though since in those days a mortgage could be paid off quickly without paying penalties. I halved it so quickly that I was soon able to switch to a cheaper mortgage and then clear it completely so quickly that I paid very little interest in the end.

.

@ Saneagle.....

 

Clintons!!

I thought this discussion in the video below was quite interesting. I'm on the fence with this one, though I'm pretty sure all the videos of the first visits are fake and they were done in a studio, maybe because they didn't have the technology to livestream for the moon in the 1960s. In the video, they mentioned a few guys that might have been Clintoned.

 

I'm more intrigued by the story about the 1986 Challenger that blew up after take off. People have found evidence that people with very similar or identical names, who look identical to the crew and are the same sort of age, are alive and kicking and doing the sort of jobs that you might expect, considering their technical training. When you look at the side by side photos of Judith Resnik, the teeth are an exact match, and all the other guys have remarkably similar teeth. If the crew weren't actually on the spaceship, it adds a lot more credence to the fake moonlandings theory. See what you think:

I thought this discussion was quite interesting. I'm on the fence with this one, though I'm pretty sure all the videos of the first visits are fake and they were done in a studio, maybe because they didn't have the technology to livestream for the moon in the 1960s. In the video, they mentioned a few guys that might have been Clintoned.

 

Also, I'm intrigued by the story about the 1986 Challenger that blew up after take off. People have found evidence that people with very similar names, who look identical to the crew and are the same sort of age, are alive and kicking and doing the sort of jobs that you might expect considering their technical training. When you look at the side by side photos of Judith Resnik, the teeth are an exact match, and all the other guys have remarkably similar teeth. See what you think:

 

I have to go out o the Farmer's Arms for some dinner pretty soon, so I can't watch the video right now, but as for American teeth - it is my impression that people of a certain standing have pretty much all had their teeth 'done' . I don't think there are that many who have the teeth they were actually born with. They are all 'perfect'.

 

Maybe that's a mistaken impression. THat works both ways across the ocean.

I have to go out o the Farmer's Arms for some dinner pretty soon, so I can't watch the video right now, but as for American teeth - it is my impression that people of a certain standing have pretty much all had their teeth 'done' . I don't think there are that many who have the teeth they were actually born with. They are all 'perfect'.

 

Maybe that's a mistaken impression. THat works both ways across the ocean.

Look at her teeth then come back and tell me what you think.

Remind anyone of "Capricorn 1"?

 

TTFN

John.

Look at her teeth then come back and tell me what you think.

What a croc of you know what that video is.... I am saying this as politely as I can.

 

First off. What motivation could there possibly be for the American national space agency to rig up a deliberate failure of horrific proportions. WHY? Why would they do such a thing and humiliate themselves before the world? I remember very well what a source of pride their space programme was and is. We know what happened there. The rubber gasket seals which sealed sections of the solid rocket boosters made (from memory by National Firecol or did they just make the rubber and ammonium nitrate propellant - can't remember), burned through and the high temperature, ferocious rocket gasses broke through and burned a strut which supported the solid fuel booster rocket, attaching the lower part to the huge oxygen and hydrogen propellant tank of the Space Shuttle. The thing disintegrated and blew up.

 

Why would it have no crew as your presenters allege? It is mad. Totally bonkers. As crazy as the idea that the Apollo missions never took men to the moon.

 

We had a huge hoo hah to get to the bottom of the failure. I saw the slow mo videos of a high intensity flame escaping from the affected rocket section and how it burned into the support structure causing it to break and the booster to dive into the huge hydrogen and oxygen storage tank.

 

That thing blew up violently and the shuttle reusable plane was torn to shreds. The video you referenced claims this was all set up. Why? What is the gain for NASA (humiliated by the exposure of ineptitude) ? What is the gain for the United States Government? Absolutely nothing, and worse - they lost face.

 

So - next - in order for a conspiracy to work, the conspirators have to be competent enough to conceal what they did and to maintain that concealment. What are the chances that in a massive and expensive conspiracy (with no motivation to create that conspiracy) that they can keep it secret?

 

Manning blew a massive amount of documents the US government DEFINITELY didn't want to get out. Snowden likewise. A conspiracy of the sort you allege would require that a large number of low level operatives keep that secret. It could not happen.

 

So - not only do the USA have no motivation to operate this conspiracy, they would not be able to maintain it.

 

On the other hand, what do the bunch of transparent loons who made the video have to gain......?

 

Isn't it obvious? Making youtube videos about nonsense pays well if you can get enough gullible folk to watch them. Those with big followings make fortunes of money. They are paid for every person who watches, and it's probably a lot easier and a lot more fun than working for a living.

 

By the way - those presenters were transparent frauds and con men.

 

Do I believe any of it? No - not one bit.

 

Fact:

About forty percent of people are below median intelligence level of IQ100. A significant number are very far below that. These are the people who fall prey to conspiracy theories like this.

By the way - if the allegation is that the Space Shuttle didn't regularly for 25 years take people into space to do work and launch many satellites and a few space telescopes, how come we are still using the hardware that was put up there. It dominates many of our technologies from GPS to telecommunications as well as space science. This stuff is real.

 

What astounds me is that there are people who don't believe in the reality that video denies. It is insane.

https://researchinestonia.eu/2024/04/09/personality-traits-can-predict-willingness-to-vaccinate/

 

Edited May 1, 20242 yr by lenny

https://www.carverelectric.co.uk/shop

 

 

"From London to Leeds in a Carver electric tricycle"

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-yrWiHvBbA

 

Edited May 2, 20242 yr by lenny

"This increase is equivalent to a 5p rise for a typical household with one higher rate and one basic rate taxpayer, who would face a combined tax hike worth £2,882 a year."

https://www.libdems.org.uk/press/release/truss-tax-mortgage-rise-since-mini-budget-equivalent-to-5p-income-tax-hike

I'm pretty sure all the videos of the first visits are fake and they were done in a studio, maybe because they didn't have the technology to livestream for the moon in the 1960s.

https://slate.com/technology/2011/09/lro-spots-apollo-landing-sites-in-high-res.html

https://www.universetoday.com/

"In March, another Boeing whistleblower, John Barnett took his own life in the midst of a legal action against Boeing. He died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound - though his friends contested this, saying that he told them before 'if anything happens to me, it's not suicide'. "

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13375055/Boeing-whistleblower-Joshua-Dean-dead.html

 

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Travel/boeing-737-max-filter-kayak-spiked-usage-airplane/story?id=106705583

 

I'm pretty sure all the videos of the first visits are fake and they were done in a studio, maybe because they didn't have the technology to livestream for the moon in the 1960s.

"Engineers reverted to using an earlier mechanical system to produce a small, low power, robust camera. This mechanical system used Scottish innovator John Logie Baird's 'colour field sequential' technology which he first developed in 1928. "

https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/science-and-technology/first-lunar-broadcast/

https://slate.com/technology/2011/09/lro-spots-apollo-landing-sites-in-high-res.html

If I were sitting in the orbiter, I looked out of the window and saw those tracks with my own eyes, I'd say that they were probably done by humans. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might say that those tracks were added to the photo with a felt tip pen by whoever controlled them before releasing them to the public. If we were to believe that the original moon landing videos were faked, it's not a big step to believe that those photos were faked too.

 

Other countries have put various objects on the moon that can be seen by powerful telescopes and satellites, but, interestingly, none of them claim to have landed humans there.

 

On the subject of fake photos and videos, the Royal family admitted that they faked the photo and video of Kate Middleton. The conspiracy theorists are having a field day discussing the third attemp at showing her, where she sat on the bench telling us she has cancer. One thing is sure, that the video is not what it appears. She's supposed to be sitting outside with the sun shining from the right making shadows, but if you look in her right eye, there are two glints, neither of which are the sun because she's facing the wrong way. They're consistent with the typical two studio lights that they put either side behind the camera. Additional to this was this event just before all this fakery started:

"Engineers reverted to using an earlier mechanical system to produce a small, low power, robust camera. This mechanical system used Scottish innovator John Logie Baird's 'colour field sequential' technology which he first developed in 1928. "

https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/science-and-technology/first-lunar-broadcast/

Your mobile phone with modern technology can transmit a few miles. If you see an outside live BBC broadcast, they use a massive dish antenna on a truck to broadcast about 50 miles. The guys on the moon needed to transmit 1/2 million miles, and signal strength is an inverse square law, so you need 100 times the power to transmit 10 times as far. An average mobile TV transmitter uses around 8kw to transmit 50 miles. It would need 800kw to transmit 500 miles, and 800MW to transmit from the moon. Let's say, there isn't as much information in the moon broadcast as normal TV. To get it down to the level of a couple of hundred watts, which is about as much as they could spare, the information would have to be 1/ 4,000,000 of a normal TV broadcast. The antennae on the lander were about the size of a frying pan. What do you reckon?

ppls logic today is the speed of light is the time it takes to switch on a light bulb

Regarding Moon landings etc.. Call me gullible, but yes I believe they happened and I also think the photo's were taken on the moon. But do I think what we have been given as evidence has been enhanced to the extent that what are seen as errors/evidence of collusion are simply mistakes or limitations in whatever photo editor they used in the late 60's to clean them up.

 

Don't get me started on the Twin Towers though, it takes weeks of analysis to get even a 20 floor office block to come down in a small footprint. 110 floors (2 of them)? No chance, had those come down on their own they would have been spread across several blocks.

 

TTFN

John.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQkLWa6J3dM:22

 

needs more power

Edited May 3, 20242 yr by soundwave

Your mobile phone with modern technology can transmit a few miles. If you see an outside live BBC broadcast, they use a massive dish antenna on a truck to broadcast about 50 miles. The guys on the moon needed to transmit 1/2 million miles, and signal strength is an inverse square law, so you need 100 times the power to transmit 10 times as far. An average mobile TV transmitter uses around 8kw to transmit 50 miles. It would need 800kw to transmit 500 miles, and 800MW to transmit from the moon. Let's say, there isn't as much information in the moon broadcast as normal TV. To get it down to the level of a couple of hundred watts, which is about as much as they could spare, the information would have to be 1/ 4,000,000 of a normal TV broadcast. The antennae on the lander were about the size of a frying pan. What do you reckon?

"the radio strength of Voyager 1 is about 23 watts"

https://public.nrao.edu/ask/how-strong-is-the-signal-from-the-voyager-1-spacecraft-when-it-reaches-earth/

 

https://theskylive.com/how-far-is-voyager1

 

 

https://www.cv.nrao.edu/~sransom/web/Ch1.html

Edited May 3, 20242 yr by lenny

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/denying-to-the-grave/202308/personality-traits-and-conspiracy-theories

Don't get me started on the Twin Towers though, it takes weeks of analysis to get even a 20 floor office block to come down in a small footprint. 110 floors (2 of them)? No chance, had those come down on their own they would have been spread across several blocks.

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

 

"Some reports suggest he earned a degree in civil engineering in 1979"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

there is a lot to be said about older proven designs.

The same applies to bikes. The obsession with lightweight.

To save some reading, the article suggests that the WTC towers collapsed so quickly is because the steel clips that tied the concrete floors to the box frame failed.

 

Edited May 3, 20242 yr by Woosh

Your mobile phone with modern technology can transmit a few miles. If you see an outside live BBC broadcast, they use a massive dish antenna on a truck to broadcast about 50 miles. The guys on the moon needed to transmit 1/2 million miles, and signal strength is an inverse square law, so you need 100 times the power to transmit 10 times as far. An average mobile TV transmitter uses around 8kw to transmit 50 miles. It would need 800kw to transmit 500 miles, and 800MW to transmit from the moon. Let's say, there isn't as much information in the moon broadcast as normal TV. To get it down to the level of a couple of hundred watts, which is about as much as they could spare, the information would have to be 1/ 4,000,000 of a normal TV broadcast. The antennae on the lander were about the size of a frying pan. What do you reckon?

 

I'm not going to talk about Kate Middleton. Her and her family pictures matter not a bit.

 

The moon is much closer than you think. Not half a million miles, not even a quarter of a million miles.

 

Radio - you are in my area now. Forgive my corrections to some of your assertions. We are both interested in the truth I think.

 

Mobile phones have VERY compromised internal antennas. They are not pointed in the direction of the base station mast and they are shielded by the hand holding them, buildings and objects in the environment. Space comms are an entirely different world.

 

Apollo Comms were done in the S Band at 2.1 GHz uplink using dish antennas which give huge amounts of gain by beaming all the energy in a precise direction. The Uplink power was about 20KW to be received by small dish antenna on the Lunar module.

 

Downlink comms - the voice, telemetry and TV data, used only 11 watts per carrier, beamed through a small dish to earth, but received by massive - REALLY massive dishes here. The larger the radio dish, the greater the gain in signal reception. You can use the analogy of a REALLY big ear. The Goldstone DSN antenna is 70 meters in diameter. It has a gain of about 63 dbi. As an engineer you know about decibels, so you can work it out that this is a truly huge gain in signal power collected. The signal collected is 2 million times what the antenna itself would connect without that massive dish focusing all the energy it collects onto the actual antenna itself.

 

If you are interested, and I hope you are since you raised this, you can look at this fascinating page showing what the DSN (Deep Space Network) is receiving right now in each of its several large antennas in different parts of the world. You need several of them because of course, the earth is rotating in space and you need to point them at the spacecraft you want to transmit to or receive from.

 

https://eyes.nasa.gov/dsn/dsn.html

 

If you click on a particular active antenna in the left pane of the graphic and then at the bottom of the right pane, click 'More', you will get all kinds of detail on uplink and downlink power and signal strength in -dbm.

 

I like to check out the data rate and signal power received when it is communicating with the Voyager Probes of which the most distant is now 15.1 Billion miles away. They get surprising signal strength from Voyagers sent at only 23 watts from Voyager, 15 Billion miles away. The Moon is easy - a mere 239 thousand miles.

 

Another very relevant feature in calculating required signal power to maintain a radio link, is the bandwidth of the signal required. This you refer to obliquely in your post when you mention the amount of data being transmitted. The greater the radio spectrum required to carry the amount of data, the more power required to carry it. As an example - simple compressed audio like 2g mobile phone channel uses a small amount of radio spectrum and gives muffled audio, but can work effectively with much weaker signal level than 4g which has FAR better hi fidelity audio and data carrying capacity (Mbits a second). 5G (much more bandwidth) requires even higher signal strength at both receivers, which is one reason that the cell size of 5G is so much smaller. Another reason is that you get to share the same radio spectrum among more users that way (smaller cells) giving them a greater share of the available data link each.

 

The above is relevant because all of the Apollo data was low bandwidth stuff. The TV was very low quality and was transmitted, as I said, on an 11 watt carrier. The moon was so easy that some Radio Amateurs were able to receive the audio channels, and even today some Radio Amateur operators communicate with stations on earth by bouncing signals off the moon, using it as a VERY bad mirror.

 

I have a radio transmitting license, and back in the 1980s - about 1984, I was interested in space coms and I regularly received weather satellite signals and spacecraft telemetry on home built equipment. I made my own dishes out of wire mesh and dowling and built my own radio gear and a frame store to capture and display the data. Here is a picture from a newspaper article of me (beardy guy) with some Chinese officials demonstrating a setup I had built with some sixth form students. We also used to receive Russian cosmonauts talking on a 143MHZ downlink AM signal from the Mir space station. I also have a confirmation of two way communication with a Russian Amateur Radio satellite which I managed to catch in the 1980s. I transmitted in good morse code, the message: <its call sign> this is <my callsign>. It responded <my callsign> this is <its callsign>. I think there is an old radio tape of it, though I don't know where. That was done with about 25 watts uplink power and a steerable home made beam antenna on 144.621 MHZ and received on an omni directional wire antenna on 28.XXX Mhz. I can't remember the exact frequencies, now, but I remember that as well as swinging the uplink antenna with my rotator to keep the satellite in the beam, I also had to change the dial frequency to allow for the doppler shift as it was speeding towards me, over me and then speeding away. The radio frequency changes as it moves. Morse was used because it has a very low data rate and requires tiny amounts of radio bandwidth so it is comparatively easy with low equipment cost to establish a link. Morse will get through with tiny amounts of radio power and very weak signals.

 

All of that RS7 satellite link and our VHF and low microwave weather satellite reception was done before decent home computers were available and users had to calculate the satellite position from the ephemeris published in magazines for the particular satellite. It was pretty complicated. The home made chicken wire and dowling antenna in the photo was optimised for 1691Mhz. The actual antenna at the focal point of the dish was a small dipole made of stiff wire - two pieces, 59mm long.