+++

2500°C!

I kid you not.

In case you don’t know how hot 2500°C is. Your oven in your kitchen can hit 240°C max. A ceramic laboratory oven for jewelers and dentists to melt gold can reach 1200°C. Temperatures in a blast furnace for melting iron can go as high as 2300°C.



ceramic laboratory oven – 1200°C ceramic laboratory oven – 1200°C

blast furnace – 2000 to 2300°C blast furnace – 2000 to 2300°C

The only elements in the periodic table that can withstand 2500°C are carbon, niobium, molybdenum, tantalum, tungsten, rhenium, and osmium. Except for carbon, these metals are very, very heavy and are of course extremely conductive to heat and most are very ductile when heat treated meaning they bend and coil. Carbon even has the highest thermal conductivities of all known materials! So, if you want to cook someone very efficiently and quickly, there is nothing better than a space capsule made out of graphite.

Now, admittedly, it is not always 2500°C. In fact the temperature range is usually between a mere 600 to 2000°C! depending on sun activity and if it is day or night, with these temperatures usually reserved for altitudes of 300km and above; the upper boundary of which is unknown.

Now guess what altitude all the NASA machines are supposed to orbit Earth?

We are told most satellites orbit the Earth at altitudes of over 500km to avoid atmospheric drag, with a few circling in Medium Earth Orbit which goes up to 35,786km!

As you can see, all three objects above are in the seriously ferocious hot zone. Apart from nothing working at the minimum 600°C due to thermal expansion of the materials (iron glows red hot at 500°C), some of the electronic components like lead, zinc, and epoxy resin would not just burn out, but melt.

The solar panels which adjorn these machines would barely function even if they could keep it together long enough. A British company found a drop of 1.1% of peak output for every increase in degrees Celsius of photovoltaic solar panels once the panels reached 42°C, and of course at 1414°C silicon actually melts. But wait… the Hubble Telescope and satellites uses gallium arsenide instead of silicon which melts at an even lower temperature of 1238°C. I could go on, but you get the picture.

So how do those solar panels work? How does anything work and why do satellites, the Hubble Telescope, ISS etc. not melt during a day of high solar activity?

+++





NASA’s blast furnace-proof International Space Station NASA’s blast furnace-proof International Space Station

+++

Aha, don’t worry, I’m sure the apologists have come to the rescue of this laugh-in-your-face contradiction; and they have, or rather have tried. Excuse number one comes from a few websites such as Wikipedia who wish to insult our intelligence to the max. Here is the main explanation for why satellites aren’t converted into man-made meteorites:

The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2500°C (4530°F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat.

+++

Errr… wait a minute. I thought it is the sun that causes those few atoms of gas to heat up to 2500°C? Oh, it is.

Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation.

+++

So, do you think if NASA put a Hubble Telescope up there, it also might absorb highly energetic solar radiation exactly like those few atoms of gas to a maximum of 2500°C? You think!!!!

+++



The source of the heat of the thermosphere is not a few atoms of gas.

It is the sun!

+++

You know, you may have heard of it, or seen it or even felt it? Ask this man if he believes in solar radiation.

+++





“Wikipedia said what?” “Wikipedia said what?”

Even NASA themselves admit this in their question and answer session at question 3:

+++

Heat travels through a vacuum by infrared radiation. The Sun (and anything warm) is constantly emitting infrared, and the Earth absorbs it and turns the energy into atomic and molecular motion, or heat.

+++

So much for that excuse. They realize that there will be a few multi-cellular brained human beings out there that will see straight through this, so they’ll need reserve explanations. Enter Dr. Eberhard Moebius at question 5. who says,

+++

…this is the second secret of the vacuum bottle (or thermos): while the vacuum suppresses heat exchanges by conduction and air convection, exchange by radiation is suppressed by the shiny metallic coating of the bottle. This shiny coating reflects the heat radiation like a mirror and keeps it either inside the bottle (if the content is hot) or outside (if the content is cold).

+++

But none of NASA’s orbiting machines are completely covered in a layer of IR reflecting materials, only a bit of aluminum foil for the Hubble Telescope. Even if the foil could withstand 1500°C radiating heat, it certainly wouldn’t be able to stop conducting the heat from the the other materials of the telescope, especially those lovely infra-red absorbing dark areas, copper foil, plastic coated wires, and tarnished metal; and how about that same aluminum foil reflecting light back onto the telescope itself! Solar cooker anyone? There is so much wrong with the picture below that it is beyond words:

+++





Dave, why haven’t we vaporized into white hot piles of meteoric ash?

Because we are in a swimming pool, Ivan.

Ah, for a minute there I almost forgot. Dave, why haven’t we vaporized into white hot piles of meteoric ash?Because we are in a swimming pool, Ivan.Ah, for a minute there I almost forgot.

+++

always there. There is no colder place for the heat to transfer to (second law of thermodynamics). Not only that, even if the machines were hermetically sealed in IR reflecting materials, there would be nowhere to radiate this heat away as according to Dr. Christian the heat in the thermosphere isthere. There is no colder place for the heat to transfer to (second law of thermodynamics).

+++

…thermal radiation is always there, and that is what a spacecraft uses. To get rid of heat, you can point thermal radiators at the dark sky, and to warm up you can point at the Sun or Earth. The Sun warms the Earth through radiation, not convection or diffusion.

+++

I think it is only fair to give Dr. Christian some slack. He’ can’t be right all the time. Let’s say thermal radiation isn’t always present, even though during the day the sun is continually radiating everywhere. How cold must the other side of the orbiting machine be, and how thermally conducting its material to allow its temperature to keep a low equilibrium after one side is being blasted with a constant, say, 1200°C heat?

Quite.

+++



How the Hubble Telescope would look at 1200°C! How the Hubble Telescope would look at 1200°C!

Engineers testing an array of possible Hubble Telescopes for thermal expansion at 500 to 1000°C. Engineers testing an array of possible Hubble Telescopes for thermal expansion at 500 to 1000°C.

That is the end of NASA’s orbiting machines, or is it? How do we know the thermosphere exists at all? It isn’t verifiable and it isn’t observable by any means. The problem is, why would NASA lie about such a thing when it completely disproves their portrayed fantasies of the last 44 years. What’s more, why bother spending years researching, equipping and continually improving the entire body of the space shuttle with insulating tiles that can resist 1650°C? Surely, the previous Saturn rocket’s insulating technology was more than adequate, as it had sent men to the moon… ahem. The rocket’s insulation relied on a process called ablation which just means as the metal layers peeled off from the heat it released the hot gases trapped inside which cooled the rocket down… except it didn’t, as the heat is ever-present in the thermosphere.

Oops, never mind.

The shuttle is the only vehicle that can enter the thermosphere, albeit for short durations and not too high, probably not beyond 400 or 500km (part 2 shows us that the shuttle probably never really goes much higher than 100km). It’s also really risky business; lose a few tiles in one place and the show is over in one magnificent fireball finale. Ask the poor crew of Columbia.

Below is what the shuttle looks like in space as 1000°C heat is applied to it. Notice how the tile glows white.

If there are no orbiting machines in space, why bother with the space shuttle? After all, we are told its main job is to deploy satellites. Before that question is answered in part 2, let’s look at a couple of counter-arguments or “solutions” to the thermosphere conundrum.

Possible counter-arguments

1. It certainly looks like stars become invisible at high altitude. Myself and another German poster have commented not seeing stars from an airplane cabin window in the summertime (although another poster commented that he has seen stars from an airplane on the December solstice). Seeing stars above 100km seems therefore to be highly unlikely.

“Why” is up for debate, but if visible light from stars cannot be detected above 100km with the naked eye, does this mean that heat from this light is also not felt or able to manifest itself as strongly? Does this rule also apply to the other electromagnetic wavelengths such as ultraviolet light where heat is concerned? Does it also apply to the EM wavelengths emanating for the Sun? Do we still feel the same heat intensity up there? Meteorites are white hot because they often melt through the glass layer, but they have been theorized to be a tiny part of the Sun that has been ejected, and the Sun is 6000°C on the surface after all.

This may well be a possibility, but seems unlikely because meteorites and asteroids have been labelled as the same phenomenon with one orbiting the Sun, the other falling to Earth. As a meteorite melts through the glass it looks like a streaky white line and then burns in the atmosphere like a fireball. An asteroid looks like a white dot differentiated from stars because of their differing velocities across the night sky. Theoretically, it is a white dot because it is white hot. For asteroids to remain white hot whilst orbiting the Sun, the sun must be making them as such.

Another good reason against this lack of heat argument is that the higher intensity of sunlight wavelengths has also been apparently measured above the glass. How? Let’s leave that to part 2, but if the extra light intensity has been detected (not calculated), then the effect of that extra light is also present, i.e. heat.

2. The few atoms in space and the charged particles of the Van Allen Belts become very hot because of solar radiation. Due to the vast time spans of the universe and existence itself (as viewed by the mainstream) the Sun is only heating up the particles very slowly. Over time, these particles cannot radiate heat away nearly as fast enough and therefore gradually heat up. So orbiting man-made objects also heat up very, very slowly over millions of years etc.

The trouble is, we don’t know how old anything really is, let alone the “universe”. We also have no idea have fast objects heat up at a specific distance to the Sun in a vacuum, say at 400km altitude, but there is a clue here on Earth. At sea level the Sun can heat up the air very fast, depending on how high the sun is in the sky, which in turn depends on latitude and season. It takes the Sun a few months to heat up the air above the ground after winter, and that is with convection (wind) constantly taking the heat away. So how long does the Sun take to heat up a few air molecules in a near vacuum above 100km high, where the only means of heat escape is through radiation, which makes heat transfer at this altitude very low?

Quite.

Let’s look at the second piece of evidence that makes orbiting a bit of a farce.

Why do things float in space only 100km+ above the Earth? Does gravity magically stop affecting objects at this height? The official answer is that above 100km objects are freefalling, but if they are traveling fast enough laterally, i.e. the space shuttle, at 28000 kmp/h then this speed will cause the object to fall along the convex curve of the Earth, thereby never actually hitting the ground – hence “orbiting” (already mentioned on this blog here).

Newton developed a thought experiment (author’s note: NOT science) to demonstrate this concept. Imagine placing a cannon at the top of a very tall mountain. Once fired, a cannonball falls to Earth. The greater the speed, the farther it will travel before landing. If fired with the proper speed, the cannonball would achieve a state of continuous free-fall around Earth, which we call orbit. The same principle applies to the space shuttle or space station. While objects inside them appear to be floating and motionless, they are actually traveling at the same orbital speed as their spacecraft: 17,500 miles per hour (28,000 km per hour)!

+++

“A thought experiment”??? supposedly conducted by a man living in the 17th century which amazingly matched perfectly with the late 20th century explanation NASA uses to explain how their machines orbit the Earth. What are the odds of Newton getting that one right, let alone knowing what gravity really is and how it works? This is at the very, very beginning of “science” if it can be called that. Newton’s thoughts verified by NASA? Or desperately used to explain away a model which does not exist.

Stranger still, that in Newton’s letter to Halley he writes that he thinks gravity is a push by “descending spirit”.

“…Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre‘

+++

How does push gravity work as a property of mass, especially in the convex Earth heliocentric model with spinning globes whizzing around each other exuding their various pressures? With great difficulty, if at all. Newton agrees in a letter to Bentley.

“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

+++

Oh dear. NASA, are you reading this? Your god Newton does not think you have a competent faculty of thinking. Are you telling big porky pies by any chance. I think you are! (Big thanks to Sandokhan).

But it gets worse… far worse. Falling is an acceleration which can be defined as an object getting faster and faster or an object at the same speed continually changing direction. That may or may not theoretically work for a convex Earth where gravity is a property of mass, but how do we know the Earth is a globe? Newton’s thought experiment can only work for a globe Earth as the Earth would be constantly dropping away beneath the orbiting object. Has the Earth been geodetically measured in order to determine its shape? Does the Earth drop away from us as we move along a straight line (convex), keep at the same distance (flat), or rise up towards us (concave)? Luckily for us, such an experiment was performed in 1897 and found that the Earth curves upwards – concave.

This was the extraordinarily thorough rectilineator experiment that was verified multiple times by several witnesses (of contrary opinions) over a period of several months. The curve upwards corresponded exactly with the curvature of the Earth as known today (but philosophically assumed to be curving the other way). A thorough examination of this experiment can be found on this blog under Concave Earth theory.

The rectilineator experiment proves that Newton’s thought “experiment”, aka “idea” is not the mechanism for man-made machines orbiting the Earth, if they are orbiting at all – so far, very doubtful. The orbiting jokers have been caught red-handed on more than one occasion. Let’s have a peek at a few examples of their blatant fakery.

It’s all getting a bit heavy with numbers, so to lighten it up a bit we’ll start this section with a fun quiz. There are two columns of images and/or videos below. Only one column contains footage that is likely to be real (but not necessarily genuine) – which one is it?

You’ll have already guessed that the footage in the left column is likely to be the more genuine article for the simple reason that both amateur high altitude balloon footage and NASA’s video of high altitude launches look very similar or the same. The balloon videos are the control that all other “space” footage is compared to. If the Earth is far too detailed, not occasionally glaring, looks animated, no black space (stars visible), no white glaring Sun, no continuous footage throughout, no similar atmospheric sound at stratospheric levels (like this video – although the microphone may not be on) etc. as all the non-music balloon videos show, then the footage is bogus. This is not foolproof of course. Any video could be fake. It is merely one indication.

If you don’t believe me, let’s look at some of the type of videos that suit the right column, but in more detail, and see if there have been any over-looked mistakes in post production (mostly courtesy of cluesforum.info). There are loads more on Youtube if you look for them.

Bubbles



(Click to animate). One bubble from the astronaut and one from the scuba diver (with his tank visible in the hatch).



(Click to animate). One bubble not enough? How about lots and lots of bubbles!

(Click to animate). China also wants in on the act.

(Click to animate). The union of Chimerica is finally complete.

(Click to animate). At 1:23 min, the STS-51-A-Discovery-1984 shows a whopper of a bubble being ejected and then move to the side – probably really “up”. (Thanks ourjesuitpaymasters).

What’s that? Ice particles you say.

Nope. Water couldn’t exist in a solid or liquid form in the thermosphere.

Space Debris! That’s what they are.

Let’s have a real close look at a piece of “debris” and watch it being ejected from the vertical right nozzle halfway up the apparatus and travel up.



(Click to animate). Oh dear.

But they can’t be bubbles; some of them are traveling too fast.

Only if they are free-floating. Bubbles coming from a pressurized container/tube/cylinder/tank/apparatus travel very fast as any YouTube video of a free-flowing regulator will show you. NASA’s “practice” swimming pool is about 40 feet (12.34m) deep, with the “astronauts” probably operating at around half that depth. Here is a real world comparison of air being ejected from an underwater bubble room 20 feet (6.17m) deep.



(Click to animate). Lots of fast moving bubbles.



(Click to animate). Lots of fast moving bubbles.

You can also tell from the astronaut’s kicks at the very beginning of the video that it could have been sped up quite a lot too.

Swimming

In fact, if we speed up another video, we can clearly see the astronauts like to swim in space; and how about a toolbox being dropped and then not dropping any further.



(Click to animate). Look mom, I’m doing doggy paddle!

(Click to animate). Don’t worry miss. The scuba divers will pick it up after the show.

Wrong hair

What about the inside of the ISS? Those two lady astronauts are having a bad hair day!



(Click to animate). This is what happens when you use too much hair lacquer.

(Click to animate). Kids, don’t stick your fingers in an electric socket!

Here are two ladies on the left and probably the same light-brown haired lady in the right clip showing us what long hair truly looks like in weightlessness.



(Click to animate). Why isn’t my hair standing on end?

(Click to animate). Look! No fingers in electric sockets.

Wires in space

How do they fake the freefalling “floating” micro-gravity? It’s been done since 1968 in the movie “2001 Space Odyssey” right up to “Gravity” in 2013.

Green screen

Who is ISS actornaut Katie looking and waving at? The wall of the ISS? No. The wall is illusionary, made for us post-processing.

And of course, very rarely, someone isn’t fully on the ball and let’s the cat out of the bag.



Poor Chris Cassidy must have missed his morning coffee that day – “… a little town called York, Maine across the United States from where we are talking to you right now.” Oops. Are they hanging upside down? Chris looks like all the blood has rushed to his head.

Never mind Chris. Don’t beat yourself up about it. The truth is out now anyhow.

(Big thanks to “Learn of the Jesuit Order“). The theoretical micro-gravity model is conclusively fraudulent. But what about orbiting further out away from the Earth? Satellites are said to “orbit” from 120km to 35,000km away. Surely there should be lots and lots of great images and video, especially modern crystal clear HD quality, beautiful footage of our “globe” Earth seen from space? You would think that right? Okay, okay, forget video. What about just basic photos? With over 1100 active and 2600 redundant satellites, over the decades (especially recently) the number of images of our magnificent “ball planet” must be staggering… except it isn’t. (This source says there have been 6,578 satellites launched into orbit since the beginning.)

All modern images of “Earth as a globe” are composites. What does that mean? Here is what an article says about a 2012 Blue Marble image:

The camera on board Suomi NPP can only photograph small sections of Earth at a time, so the image you see here is actually something of a mosaic — a patchwork piece that collects photos taken from Suomi NPP over the course of January 4, 2012 and stitches them together… Of course, when I say that Suomi photographs “small sections” of the Earth’s surface, what I mean is that they’re smaller than an absurdly hi-res photo of the entire planet.

+++

What he means is the satellite sensors detect light from the Earth’s surface in strips as its sensor array moves with the satellite. Each sensor in the array is one pixel. Each pixel is an area of the Earth, which is 375 m2. So literally each pixel is a “photo” of 375 m2 taken over one day collated together to form the image below. That is a lot of pixels.



When the pixels are laid on to a globe model, it looks like this – very distorted.

Although the composite is said only to come from one instrument (VIIRS) on one satellite (Suomi NPP), a NASA/Sigma video says otherwise.

The Blue marble 2012 is… “a composite of data sets from several different instruments… It is Photoshopped, but it has to be.” (3:40 min).

+++

I bet. Why not cut and paste a few clouds in here and there to cover any sparse patches? They did.



A big thanks to anonjedi2 from cluesforum.info for spotting this little addition.

Gaps in viirs’ realism is artistically “filled in”.

They removed, and then later added all the cloud cover (real or not), simulated the atmosphere and added the reflection of sunlight on water. Even after all those “additions”, they still had to tweak the image to make it look nice and lovely… apart from that, it is a genuine composite.

The same satellite was also said to be used for the Black Marble, but they have animated the images to make it look like the Earth is rotating.

This new global view and animation of Earth’s city lights is a composite assembled from data acquired by the Suomi NPP satellite. The data was acquired over nine days in April 2012 and 13 days in October 2012. It took 312 orbits to get a clear shot of every parcel of Earth’s land surface and islands. This new data was then mapped over existing Blue Marble imagery of Earth to provide a realistic view of the planet.

+++



An animated rotating Earth.

The only supposed series of genuine photos of the globe Earth I could find are from the Galileo satellite passing by the Earth in 1990. Again, an animation; but this time they claim this isn’t a composite, but the real deal (at least each photo is supposed to be genuine). Also, why are the thousands of shiny sun-reflecting satellites orbiting the Earth not visible in any of the series of photos below, or in hardly any photo ever? Too small? And what about all the estimated 370,000 pieces of sun-reflecting space Junk? (Obviously less junk in 1990, but still).



Another animated rotating Earth, but this time each photo is claimed to be real.

There are hardly any supposedly genuine photographs of a satellite in orbit. They are very nearly all cartoons.

If those photos are genuine, why did they have to build the Blue Marble from composites 22 years later? Why couldn’t they have just put cameras on a few of their “35000 km” orbiting satellites as they supposedly did with Galileo?

Well, there are said to be two genuine full disk black and white images of cloud cover from geostationary satellites GOES-13 and GOES-14 from 35,786 km away updated every 3 hours. When colorized and superimposed with the landmasses added etc. they can look like the image below. However, even this image is a composite, i.e. it isn’t one photo of the Earth.



Actual full disk cloud cover visible light image supposedly from GOES-13.

Now it is colourzied!

370,000 sun reflectors (space junk) still not visible at all, even when a few closer pictures of the Earth are taken from the same said geo satellite. You can get as close as you like, you’ll never see anything orbiting up there at all. Mind you, after all that photoshopping, any and all pixels could be, and are “rectified“.

Besides the 1990 Galileo satellite, the only other modern image of the Earth that is said not to be a composite that I know of is the 2015 Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) photos on the DSCOVR satellite. The problem with their “one photo” claim is that the EPIC image of the Americas is identical in size and curve to the GOES-13 image, which is a known composite.



Image 10. of the Americas from the EPIC camera – this image has been deleted from their website.

The identically shaped GOES-13 image.

The only difference between the two is that the Epic satellite image is slightly shrunk (but it is the same size as the GOES-13 coloured image above), and the colouring, which is probably due to the different remote sensor (camera) or post-processing computer. Goes-13 is said to be 35,000 km away and DISCOVR 1 million km from Earth yet, both images stop at the + and -75/80° latitude areas north and south proving that this is not an image of a globe, but instead a limitation of the remote sensors horizon capabilities. Below is a side-view photo of a tennis ball. You can just about see from “pole to pole”.



Compare how much of this tennis ball you can see compared to the GOES-13 or DISCOVR image.

Why not go straight to the horse’s mouth and look at a model globe? Oh look, despite being at a slightly elevated angle we can still see the south pole.

The DISCOVR image is one in a series of 13 “photos” showing the “rotation” of the Earth. (There are now only 8. The skipping images have been removed hours after I made a comment on this here.)



(Click to animate). The series of 13 EPIC still images of the Earth is being used to claim rotation.

This is clearly not Earth rotation as the images skip after Hawaii/Alaska immediately to the Japan/Taiwan/Australia region. A rotating Earth would show a continually transition over the entire circumference, not miss a large chunk. Why is it missing? Because the DISCOVR mission is really a series of geostationary satellites scanning the Earth the same way GOES-13 does and there is no need for a weather satellite above the empty Pacific Ocean where there are no countries that need it. Putting a satellite up there isn’t cheap. You also have to ask why not use HD video onboard the satellite to view the rotating Earth? Why 13 still shots? Because they can’t take a video of the Earth, that’s why. It isn’t technically possible.

These supposed 2015 EPIC “one-photo” Earth shots are 25 years after Galileo. At least it is better than the moon landings yet to be repeated. Speaking of which, before the 1990 Galileo satellite, the most common “said to be real” image of the Earth globe was from those infamous 1972 Apollo 17 missions, 18 years before that.

Compare the above 1972 Apollo Earth image with the ones so far presented. The top of the Earth is Turkey (35-40° N latitude) and the bottom is Antarctica which looks to possibly show the south pole, or very near to it. Yes, the Apollo 17 missions took place in early December, but you are supposed to see a lot more than 125° out of the entire 180° from top to bottom of a globe – only two/thirds of the Earth is visible; and look at the size and curve of Africa. This image is either a complete fake, composite, or taken with a very wide angle lens at fairly low altitude (100 km?). It doesn’t show a globe.

There are also a few Earth “photos” from early missions, such as Apollo 15 and 16. YouTube user Conscious Truth increased the brightness and contrast to maximum in Photoshop which showed the Earth had been cut-out and put on to a new background. Very strange shenanigans.



Apollo 15 image with the contrast and brightness increased.

The same is done for the Apollo 16 “photo”.

Of course, the moon landings themselves are more than a little controversial. Apart from melting in the thermosphere, common sense rules out this farce completely. Supposedly between June 28 – July 7 1969, a mere two weeks before Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin allegedly walked on the moon (July 21st), a test monkey died in “orbit” which was blamed on microgravity.

The flight subject died about eight hours after the capsule was recovered. The acute cause of death was ventricular fibrillation. At the time of death, body weight was 4.4 kg. Weight loss may have been due to the marginally palatable food pellets that had to be used to accommodate experimental requirements. Marked dehydration was evident. The cause of death is still controversial. At the time it was speculated that the changes noted in the animal were an effect of microgravity alone.

+++

Don’t worry, we’ll send up our boys to the moon anyway. Hope we have thought of absolutely everything and our hypothetical calculations and theoretical heliocentric model are right. Pray for us Issac Newton, we are going “live” in two weeks with our very first attempt at landing and coming back.

Shitola!

Of course some part of this story (the orbiting part) is very likely a complete fabrication, but it still doesn’t help the moon boys any. Good entertainment though.

After 100km altitude it starts to get very hot. At 110km it is 200°C. At 500km it is somewhere between 500°C and 1500°C or more. This is the thermosphere.

The cause of this heat is the extra solar radiation above the ionosphere, closer distance to the Sun, and above all the vacuum of space which doesn’t allow the heat to radiate away fast enough or allow a lower pressure differential with increasing altitude.

Space machines are said to orbit between 120 and 35000km+ altitude making them traveling furnaces and obviously a pure fabrication if said orbital altitudes are correct.

said orbital altitudes are correct. Possible counterarguments against a hot thermosphere are: 1. Invisible stars at high altitude may be responsible for lower heat at same said height; although possible white hot asteroids orbiting the Sun and the detection of the extra sunlight intensity make this unlikely. 2. Long time spans make heating objects very slow and unnoticeable; although it only takes a few months to heat up convective air on the ground from one season to another – in space heat can only be radiated away.

Invisible stars at high altitude may be responsible for lower heat at same said height; although possible white hot asteroids orbiting the Sun and the detection of the extra sunlight intensity make this unlikely. Long time spans make heating objects very slow and unnoticeable; although it only takes a few months to heat up convective air on the ground from one season to another – in space heat can only be radiated away. The theory used to explain NASA machine’s orbiting mechanism comes from a 17th century philosopher, who actually thought gravity was a repelling push from “descending spirit”, not an attractive property of matter.

an attractive property of matter. This theoretical orbiting mechanism could only work for a convex Earth, whereas the Earth has been thoroughly geodetically measured to be concave .

. The easiest way to detect fake NASA footage is to compare it to the control videos of high altitude weather balloons – if not similar then fake.

There are numerous red flags when analyzing space footage that is not similar to the control: 1. Conclusive bubbles in space. 2. Swimming astronauts kicking their legs. 3. Lady astronaut hair behaving in a totally different way than hair at zero gravity on an airplane. 4. Chris Hatfield caught with wires sticking out his shirt. 5. Chris Cassidy’s Freudian admission of real location.

Conclusive bubbles in space. Swimming astronauts kicking their legs. Lady astronaut hair behaving in a totally different way than hair at zero gravity on an airplane. Chris Hatfield caught with wires sticking out his shirt. Chris Cassidy’s Freudian admission of real location. There are very few genuine photos of the Earth as a globe, despite 3700 satellites having been launched over the decades (1100 still in operation, although 6,578 are said to have been ever launched into orbit). Any orbiting distance from 6200km away or more would show the whole ball Earth.

There is no video of the globe Earth, only animations of photo sets.

There are only three sets of photos of globe Earth (known to the author) said to be genuine: 1. Those taken from the Apollo missions. 2. Those from the 1990 Galileo satellite. 3. Those from the 2015 DISCVR satellite.

Those taken from the Apollo missions. Those from the 1990 Galileo satellite. Those from the 2015 DISCVR satellite. The Blue marble 2012 globe Earth picture is a composite of much, much smaller and nearer to Earth satellite photos from various instruments, layered and tweaked.

The Apollo moon landings are a farce due to the thermosphere and common sense.

If there is no such thing as low-Earth orbit, does this mean that all the machines in space are fake? Not quite. For anything to reside at the very beginning of non-thermosphere space (100 to 110km altitude), there must be another mechanism besides orbiting to hold the “space” machines in place… but which machines? And what mechanism? Before I answer that question, let’s look at two of the more well-known space machines in part 2.