Highly recommend this 15m clip of film, Level with Me, provided in the comments by JamesDuff which shows two of the alleged astronauts being asked by someone about who they really are.
If I was accused all over the internet of being the same person who was supposedly dead on the Challenger I would make public an album of photos, where I lived, where I went to school with yearbook photos, xray of my dentition, maybe my DNA, maybe not fingerprints (?), to get these people away from me. I wouldn't run away from curiosity seekers, I would hand them my card with the info online. This should prove I was not on the Challenger.
👉The problem is it doesn't seem that many of these persons have done that, have they? BTW, many persons go to law school after studying something else. Science, engineering, medicine are common. These persons then become patent lawyers.
EDIT 5/5: Gratitude to commenter JamesDuff, MUST WATCH 15m clip of film, Level with Me, showing Michael J. Smith simply denying outright to a questioner that he's the same person and Judith Resnik walking away looking uncomfortable. Bookmarked to footage of them one after the other.
There is a link to the full film in the Description of the clip, however, it seems to be made by people who support Flat Earth and don't believe in space travel so I don't particularly recommend it. The 15m clip is excellent though.
-------------------------------------------
I can understand consecutive careers/academic paths but I thought hers seemed parallel which seems a bit of a stretch. However, you've prompted me to take a second look and I can see how she could have squeezed them both in. Thanks for that PM, cos that had me completely bamboozled.
She could have completed her BSc first in 1970, then her BA in 1972 (squashed 3 years into 2 is not impossible), then done her JD in 1975 and then her EE PhD in 1977 - normally you need more than 2 years for that but if she was brilliant and getting help then not impossible - and, of course, doesn't have to be 100% real in any case. And with careers, academia can be very off and on ... and possibly the same for space shuttling!
So quite possible she followed both academic courses and careers until she "died".
Judith A. Resnik (Astronaut)
Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, 1970
Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, University of Maryland, 1977
Judith Resnik (Law Professor)
Bachelor of Arts, Bryn Mawr College, 1972
Juris Doctor (J.D.), New York University School of Law, 1975
On 2nd thought, I would monetize my look-alike fame. $500 per signature, $10,000 per 1 hour online interview and I would get an agent and call myself "Judith-look alike for sale". Running away is the stupidest thing to do IF YOU WEREN'T JUDITH. Unfortunately no Proton Magics have died in space....
I think presenting her 'CV' like this is quite revealing. It suggests, like you say, she spent her entire time studying. Meaning she has fuck all real experience in any of those subjects.
My hunch is that the Law bit (2 years) is the fakery here and serves the purpose of a cover story to fill in any gaps in her bio. I would imagine she spent those 2 years doing classified stuff. And also with an intention of a future real-world cover job later (which, ironically, is strong evidence for your fake death hypothesis).
Clearly the spooks like this sort of thing for their cover stories. You'd think someone would notice though, eh. I mean, they do get a little arrogant sometimes. Doubt it would really work for proper spies though, because the other side would obviously know.
Resumes can be faked, monarch media will not suss it out.
Did any "journalist" ask how a camera could pan up to film the Apollo 17 lander take off from the moon?
Weightlessness can be achieved on the vomit comet plane for up to 7.5 minutes. I'm guessing this is how much of the space footage is achieved along with the NASA training pools.
Remember the school teacher angle, how many american school kids were watching this snuff film psyop live. Add collective trauma to the list of fucked up reasons "they" did this.
The Lusitania, The Maine, The Gulf of Tonkin. 9/11. All big events that proved to be fakes, why would the moon landing be any different. Mountains of evidence? I'm guessing the 9/11 "evidence" could fill one of the towers.
Thanks for the reminder, this is one of the most troubling psyops for me personally, I was in eighth grade when this happened, home sick, watching from the couch, believing every second of it. The fact that these folks aren't in hiding is both brazen and telling. "They" love rubbing shit in the face of those that can see.
The first question is not Why but What does the evidence say? If the evidence says they went to the moon then so be it. I've just posted an article though saying that Apollo 13 was faked - at least the emergency part was faked, I think they went to space but they acted the emergency part, so that's definitely given me some food for thought.
I never questioned the moon landing until reading McGowans Moondoggie and Miles Mathis pieces two years ago so my knowledge comes from those questionable sources along with various youtube vids. So no expert and a recent convert to this whole thing.
That being said I would encourage you to look at 2:44 of the video where they are digging to plant the flag I think? I've never been to the moon or experienced weightlessness, but is this how dirt would settle in such an environment? At 6:14 the camera appears to dolly back just a smidge prior to panning up.
Aren't they always worrying about weight on these adventures? TV cameras, battery packs, moon to earth transmitters, and rovers are heavy. Where did they store all that shit?
For what its worth I'm a no on the whole space program if for no other reason that "they" lie about everything all the time.
I've posted an analysis of Dave McGowan's Moondoggie - not a single word of truth there and it's clearly propaganda not the work of someone who genuinely doesn't believe in the moon landings. Same for Massimo Mazzucco's American Moon.
Re the digging. Yes! There's no atmosphere so we can expect the material being dug to fall straight back to the surface. That little snippet only further confirms the reality of the landings. It's certainly not falling back as it does on earth is it?
Re dolly back. Yes, it does seem a little that way but the thing is you can't say it for sure and you have to consider all the other pieces which are consistent with expectations of reality.
I know they lie about everything all the time - totally with you there - however, they even lie that what they put forward as the truth and is the truth (mostly) is also a lie. So they are in space, they did land on the moon, however, Apollo 13 was an exercise and the Challenger disaster was fake.
You always have to judge by the evidence - and they let you know when they're lying with their Revelation of the Method.
The question the disbelievers should be asking is why has not a single one of them worked out that Moondoggie, American Moon and the first guy to say we didn't go, Bill Kaysing do not have a word of truth on the moon landings between them.
I saw it differently, I was under the impression that if the astronauts hung in the air a bit while jumping that the dirt and dust would also hang a bit before settling.
There's still that weight and storage problem, fitting golf clubs and electric rovers in a foil covered shoe box. Yeah I'm stuck on this one. Will Trainspotting Dave pet his dog through an explanation. (Sorry, I could not resist.)
Totally agree to lies and truth,, being truth and lies. the fuckery as I mentioned on Apollo 13. It's to the point that I am willing to believe everything and nothing, just where they want me, confused and a bit disheartened. Questioning moon landings, vaccines, and believing in chemtrails, I felt, just a few years ago, was the realm of nut jobs. Now I'm bong hit away from believing in a flat earth.
Thanks again, PM, for your comment (now pinned although it's the first comment to appear anyway) which both pointed out the absence of expected material forthcoming to prove that those said to be the same person are not and also to prompt a second look at JR's seemingly parallel academic and professional careers which seemed such a stretch ... but in fact isn't really. I've edited the original article, Is space fake?, with reference to your comment and put a new heading in this article "EDIT: conundrum solved".
Although I'll stay on the fence for a while about whether or not it was faked, I can certainly give you a very good reason for the Challenger disaster, which applies to either a faked version, or a deliberate sabotage version - also remember putting out an idea that it was faked misdirects away from the possible sabotage explanation (see also Apollo 13).
The reason for 'space travel disasters' is to actively delay and prevent the progress of space exploration. The reason for this is because an advanced, optimistic and exciting space programme creates positive feelings in a population. It makes them look forwards to a bright future. It's very, very difficult to control such a population.
Exactly the same idea is true about the SETI conspiracy to cover up existence of ETI, and especially ETI in our own stellar neighbourhood. The Brookings Report is very accurate when it says the fabric of society (read: mechanism of social control) would break up, if such information was widely known (it would also reveal the fact that 'our leaders' are not the biggest fish, which has a profound effect on people's deference to the cabal/authority).
Remember also that better space exploration leads inevitably to stuff like a good enough space telescope to detect life at, say Alpha Centauri - leading to the above paragraph.
My understanding of physics is sufficient to tell me we should be far, far more advanced in space exploration than we are, with rotating space stations (simulating gravity etc.) and advanced propulsion systems (cf. Miles Mathis). No doubt all that stuff exists secretly, but they simply can't allow the public to experience it, because then we have optimism and demands to make the world a better place, and so on, and so on.
I'm not discounting your 'normalisation of deviance' idea (more than one explanation can often be true of course), I'm simply adding a more 'big picture' idea into the mix. Social control, is what it comes down to in the end - in a psychological way.
Following on from this I've got another one for you which I think you'll like. It's why I mentioned Apollo 13. See, originally, I didn't have a problem with the moon landings themselves but I thought there was something dodgy about 13. At that time (this was decades ago) my initial idea was sabotage. Since then I've learned a fair bit about fakery (especially from your good self) so today I lean more towards the fakery explanation. Aside from anything else you can't use the LEM as a lifeboat because you can't pressurise it properly - in a vacuum it would explode (Gene Kranz saying you could stick a pencil through it etc. - mind you, why I didn't think to apply that to the landings themselves I don't know). Anyway, regardless of that (don't get sidetracked with the landings happened thing, btw, that's not where I'm going with this. I can well buy into the idea, as I did back then, that the lunar conspiracy theory is designed to make 'conspiracy theorists' look silly (cf. CIA document 960 or whatever number it is; in the wake of JFK etc.)).
My point is that it's entirely possible to believe in the landings, but also believe that 13 was a manufactured event (whether sabotage or fakery). The reasons for faking it are the same as the ones I cited in my previous comment of course.
The crucial piece of info here is that Apollos 18-20 were originally designated as finding a place to establish a permanent base on the moon, and of course 13 provided the pretext to cancel them, thus effectively cancelling the entire human exploration of the solar system, or at least delaying it for at least 50 years (notice they then switched to the stupid space shuttle, which had the same effect).
I'm curious to know what your view of Apollo 13 is, especially in light of my reasoning. Leaving aside any discussion whatsoever about whether the other missions were real or not. To me, 13 looks like an obvious psyop combined with the pretext for delay/cancellation as I said.
As a sci-fi fan (and writer) I had always been inspired by space exploration, so for me, this constituted a heinous crime against humanity if ever there was one.
Very good point !! Ever since the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, the CIA have been launching PsyOps against not only foreigners but Americans. This is direct evidence of the fact we're in a 5th Generation War. A war launched by governments worldwide against their own citizens. The PsyOps are designed to sow confusion, discord and distractions.
Social Control Is The Primary Social “Influencer!” That And Funding/Money/ Prepping To Extend MkUltra-Monarch into a world class depopulation, one world government (Geo. H. Bush - CIA).
Physics and its weak ass explanations ( my experience - sound into light waves, toxic remediation) does not begin to answer, conclude or support a rational/common sense evaluation of these So Called Moon Landings, Astronaut Disasters, Mars Rover psycho-Social events.
Yeah, water is held upside down / sides on a round ball, rotating 1k miles an hour … WAIT, REVOLVING around the sun at … get these numbers … 66,666 miles per hour (yeah, familiar). Look the globe thingy was a brainwash beginning in schools and never made sense to 40’s common sense. More, travel on a ship or a plane, check your (always fudged, constant re evaluated courses).
Well, you can ditch the idea of rotating space stations. They have a problem of things not falling in a straight line. Pour some water from a jug and the pour will have two kinks in it or it might form a spiral. Apparently, even though it's in films, this kills people after a few weeks. Not sure why, but one can imagine it's not ideal.
I would imagine it depends on the distance from the centre point and the angular velocity. Water from a jug is not the same at all as a 76 metre diameter ring rotating at 3rpm…
You're pouring the water in a space like that. It is exactly to do with the angular velocity. Some cousin or subset of the coriolis effect. I've seen the water pouring effect but I haven't a clue why people don't thrive in that environment - or even get by.
See my reply to Proton below - IMO it's more about the distance from the centre, not the angular velocity. The further out you are (i.e. the greater the diameter) the less noticeable the coriolis effect would be. I don't know what the habitable distance from a centre point would be, but I would imagine 38 metres as in a von Braun station is probably liveable.
I once worked this out for a group of idiot flerfers. That was a huge waste of effort and time! 😂 😅 One thing I do remember from that was that 1000mph at the equator didn't make much difference to the G that you felt. About the difference between having and not having a large meal. The other point I remember was that the coriolis effect had sod all effect on a flight from Edinburgh to London. It was the equivalent of having about a 5mph crosswind, so in practice would be buried by real world conditions. I'm not going to do it again and I'm happy to take their word for it that people die in this sort of artificial gravity. This time 8 mice are enough to satisfy me.
I don't think your rotating universe gravity has much mileage (in spite of its scale). The forces need to point to the centres of mass/rotation to keep things rotating, not towards the centre of the universe, which would leave most things travelling in approximately a straight line. There are a few people who are trying to get gravity to fit in among electromagnetic and/or sub atomic forces and I suspect that's where we are going to get our answer. One of Sabine Hossenfelder's recent videos appears to cover something like this but I haven't watched it yet.
I did some more homework about the feasibility or otherwise of rotating space stations and the results were very optimistic (and revealing, actually, in an Elysium sort of way, which I'll come to).
Surprisingly there have been quite a few proper studies done on how humans fare in a centrifuge (e.g. spending several weeks at 4rpm or even higher).
Equally, apparently NASA have done low orbit experiments with astronauts in centrifuges, for example on Skylab, and with the shuttle.
The Coriolis effect seems hardly to make a difference because of adaptation. Which can take as little as an hour or so.
Anyhow, there's a sort of meta-study I found which looks at all the other ones and defines a 'comfort zone'. Obviously this is as close to 1g as you can have it. The key is rotational speed of course, and the lower the speed the more habitable (and less of a problem the Coriolis is), but the greater the required diameter (e.g. to produce 1g 895m for 1rpm, or 225m for 2rpm, as in 2001). Obviously for those huge toroidal Elysium-type jobbies it ceases to be an issue.
Anyway, the surprising thing is that a 4rpm, 56m diameter station is at the limit of comfort. And that requires a hell of a lot less resources. So here's where the cunning 'conspiracy theory' element comes in - given how many tens of trillions the cabal have at their disposal, along with various secret technologies, the idea that they don't have at least this sort of 56m space stations, maybe at Lagrange points or behind the moon, seems difficult to accept. If I were them, I'd definitely have them. Not just because they're cool, but in particular because it makes surviving a deliberately orchestrated extinction level event (or civilisation ending event, like a diverted asteroid) a lot more likely and easier (vs. superbunkers, that is). i.e. The Samson Option. Once they re-habitate the planet, they return and take control. Job done. This might explain the ultimate blackmail threat they hold over their minions.
Well, there's definitely a cool novel in there. Oh, hold on, I'm already serialising it on my Substack...
With regards to the rotating universe I was meaning the opposite, namely the forces point outwards from the centre point, not inwards. So it's a combination of spin (in the direction of initial rotation of the centre point in one axis only) and velocity away from the centre point. At a certain distance I would imagine the spiral straightens out, which is intriguing.
Likewise a parallel world is simply a different spiral arm.
Anyway, I did a little homework and turns out I should probably stand a little corrected on the Coriolis effect with regards to rotating space stations. It depends on the distance from the centre and the rotational speed, as you'd imagine, except it's higher the further out you are, not lower, which seems a little counter-intuitive to me. But anyway, a von Braun 3rpm 76m version wouldn't be suitable because of all the discomforts etc. It would need to be at least 100m diameter and not much higher than 2rpm (I'm guessing this is a little like in 2001). The point though is that it's still possible for creating habitable gravity conditions in a space environment.
Ironically, it is now time for me to start doing dishwashing. Lol.
Probably blood and lymph flow doesn't work properly leading to lymphadema, circulatory, and renal collapse. Just for starters. Probably semicircular canal ear problems. IMO.
I'm going to stick with a Miles Mathis-esque explanation of gravity, which is that it doesn't actually exist as people think it does. There's no mysterious force connecting two particles and telling them to 'go towards each other'. Because that's absurd. It's why these stupid physicists keep having to invent new particles all the time, like 'messenger particles' and rubbish like that.
Gravity, in other words, IS rotational centrifugal force. It is caused by the rotation of the universe itself, as a spiral, emanating from a centre point. The 'appearance' of gravity is simply the 'alignment' of all these particles moving in the same spiral vector away from that centre point.
Anyway, in terms of our rotating space station example, the key here is not angular velocity so much as distance from the centre. The further away from the centre you are the 'bending' (Coriolis) effect becomes less and less discernible, until it is barely noticeable. I would imagine at 38 metres away from the centre point, as in a von Braun station, it would have negligible effect on a human body.
Compare to one of those rotating test things like in Moonraker, where it is noticeable. Or a roundabout in a playground.
Anyway, that's my humble opinion as a super-advanced extraterrestrial visitor here on your forbidden planet, puny earthling.
The theory has to explain how thing rotate in different directions and how objects can fall in a straight line thru a rotational frame of reference. The universe rotating would have lots of explaining to do as things rotate toward the center not away.
Centrifugal force definition: The apparent force, equal and opposite to the centripetal force, drawing a rotating body away from the center of rotation, caused by the inertia of the body.In a rotating reference frame, the force that seems to push all bodies AWAY from the of the frame
Never underestimate the power of NDAs, Freemason oaths, and even military attachment. Of course they will deny any connection to their doppelgängers, as instructed! They face consequences if they stray.
By the way, and I might go look for this post, I found two Judith Resnicks in the Challenger photos, one professorial, the other a stunning good looking model. I saw photos of the crew with each on board, as I recall.
When there is a mass shooting or stabbing making headlines, I do not assume that mass shootings and stabbings don't happen. I assume that the event making headlines is staged. Because media, duh.
The globsters are no more interested in wild events than I am in searching the bush for wild turnips. Coca Cola makes ads in studios for many millions. It could just film people drinking Coke. It doesn't. The wild event is cheap but problematic. The confection is all.
So what about mess-ups like Katy opening the flappy door in the space porta-loo? Why did they not pre-record the whole operation? They probably did. That's right. We were probably meant to see a comedy, just like the London Bridge whale-tusk fight which ended with the corpse getting bored and sitting up. Or the Parson's Green bomb which couldn't damage itself.
The Challenger disaster? Money continues to flow for spacy stuff while expectations get lowered or pivoted, the plunder and diverting of funds go on. And space (groan) was less boring for a bit. If you know a globster insider, ask that creature for details.
So Katy Perry gets tossed under the same bus as Zelensky. Who's next? Syria's liberator who used to be a drag performer? No, wait...that was astronaut Katy! Or was it freedom fighter Zel? Yes, it was Zel.
I know we're being ridiculed along with everything else, so if any globster reads this...thanks for all the laughs. But NO.
"In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving twins, one of whom takes a space voyage at relativistic speeds and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more."
Whether it's 'on strings' or 'underwater', it is true that some of the footage of astronauts does look a bit fishy...
Mind you, way back when, I was in Austria when the Austrians sent their first cosmonaut up to Mir, and they had a livestream going on, a lot of which I watched (don't ask why!). I don't think they'd do continuous livestreams if they wanted to fake space travel (especially not in the mid-90s when this happened). You'd just get little choreographed excerpts.
Let's say they fake some of it. If whatever percentage is real then that means humans in space is a thing. That's the issue isn't it - humans in space or not ... and, in fact, we might suspect any faked footage of being propaganda targeted to the disbelievers.
I very much like your last sentence there, Petra. It applies to so many psyops. This is especially the case when we acknowledge that the fake footage (and images, for that matter) are released into the public domain by the perpetrators themselves.
The glaring example of this is the Manchester Arena incident. Then there's that London Bridge footage of the dead bloke sitting up.
I'm surprised hardly anyone notices this point, as it's crucial. You'd probably call it RoM I guess.
Got a great laugh out of the photo that was recovered in the sea after two months - just like the 9/11 passport. They love their against-the-odds recovered documents.
After leaving our Midwestern places of upbringing in the Chicago area, my cousin took up a basic and then advanced computer programming education in the area of California where all major Space Shuttle operations were based at Vandenberg AFB.
He became the backup computer programmer for all the Space Shuttle missions up to the Challenger disaster after which there was such a delay in restoring new missions for the remaining spacecraft, was compelled to move on to computer consulting in other divisions or then in private consulting before retiring in Phoenix, Az.
In the past, say, ten or so years, I have found and saved many of these investigated photos of most of the Challenger astronauts that claim the same person had taken on a new profession elsewhere, a few as teachers [The University Of Wisconsin/Madison in one case] or other fields of work.
Why NASA did not take the usual government agency steps it takes to keep such knowledge from public detection is unknown, but this could be a major slip up in their deception programs otherwise.
I may update this posting with more of the ‘before and then after’ pictures and the alternative professions where these astronauts landed up that I have on file.
Also, if this is true, the much more compelling issue of why the Challenger incident was staged exists. The one explanation advanced to me by long time NASA technician Clark McClelland is that they wanted to blame the Muslim scientists and engineers working at the Kennedy Space Center at the time of the event. McClelland went with that version…
In the US, the legal profession is a little bit more flexible than in other places. Many people enter it after studying something else and working for several years, because your expertise in other areas is valued. I went to law school at the age of 36 after working in mathematics in another country for many years. I know a Russian guy who was an engineer in Russia and went to law school in the US at age of 39. He is a law professor now.
That being said, I have always thought that Judith Resnick, the astronaut, has much bigger eyes than Judith Resnick, the law professor and that they cannot be the same person. But the images of their mouths you provided are perplexing.
It does not seem to me that the video of Judith in space is a relevant piece of evidence. Didn't Bezos just show than anyone can float in a space shuttle cabin? You do not need much preparation.
I have to say now it's pretty clear to me how she could have managed the two academic paths and the two careers. I had no doubt before because I simply assumed Judith hadn't been a real astronaut, it was only when I discovered there was compelling evidence of her in space that the pieces of the puzzle didn't quite fit ... but now they do - for me, anyway.
Me: Engineer using mostly Silicone "O" rings for 50 years. Shortly after the Challenger tragedy, I attended a meet at Boeing Seattle on the O ring problem on the Challenger. Silicone rubber is about 3x the cost of regular rubber O rings. I try and use Silicone as it does have a 150F degrees higher use range than regular rubber, but not prohibitive. There were/are synthetic materials that go much higher which should be used. As to landing on the moon, impossible today, how was it done in 1969? I have a URL where Buzz ???? is telling a 7 y.o. child it was a fraud.
What needs to be considered is the context and what also needs to be considered that it is said Buzz Aldrin is a 33 degree Mason and there is a moon hoax psyop going on so perhaps it was a wind-up from him to speak so ambiguously because I'd say his response is a little odd. However, when he says "if we want to keep doing something, we need to know why something stopped in the past if we want to keep it going,” he's obviously implying that they've been, isn't he?
Why has nobody been to the Moon in such a long time?
His answer:
“That's not an eight-year-old's question. That's my question. I want to know. But I think I know. Because we didn't go there. And that's the way it happened.
“And if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen so in the future, if we want to keep doing something, we need to know why something stopped in the past if we want to keep it going.”
NASA is a form of the HEBREW WORD NASHA...meaning ILLUSION or TRICK..."NASA"is the largest consumer of HELIUM in the world. "SATELLITES " are put up by HELIUM BALLOONS ...and maybe y'all are JUST IN A DREAM...
Normally with one eye you see the whole face with a hand covering the eye. He's a photographer so maybe the one eye is to do with that. The thing is ultimately we need to judge by what he says and everything he says as far as I can tell is very sound. The much more obvious shills by what they say - although not detected by the disbelievers on the subject of the ML at least - are our friends Kaysing, McGowan, Sibrel and Mazzucco.
Nope, there's many ways to do the one eye and pretty much every shill will do it in one way or another. Also, look at how many violent/horror/gangster etc. films start with a shot of one eye (Goodfellas, Final Destination (cleverly by showing the poster of the film Pecker), A Better Tomorrow, Nobody, etc.) and the amount of such film's film posters with one eye, and book covers, etc... the one eye is the one eye, full stop. Your first two sentences just seem like a cope to me, sorry, plus his viewpoint on everything makes it obvious to me he's a shill. After 20+ years in the game, I've seen enough to know what is what, thanks. I do appreciate your writings but I still do believe there are some barriers to thinking you need to break through, but who am I, eh? Just some randomer!
PS: Also, let's add Blade Runner to this - a blatant one eye shot, showing the uncapped pyramid building of the Tyrell Corporation, no less!
I agree what I said about seeing the whole face and covering the eye is silly, however, the eye thing is not enough to be sure he's a shill. You can't make a judgement on just one thing because as I said he is a photographer and they take photos through one eye so it's possible that could be his motivation ... regardless you cannot make a judgement on one thing because it could always be a coincidence unless it's very very specific.
"... plus his viewpoint on everything makes it obvious to me he's a shill."
Why don't you specify how that's so because his viewpoint on the moon landings and Flat Earth matches mine pretty well - he's just a hell of lot more knowledgeable.
Seen plenty of people who's profile pic is just one eye so it's not always covering one eye but hey.
I don't have the time.or inclination to defend my viewpoint re: moon landings and flat earth because if you hold an opposing viewpoint, nothing I can say will sway you. For those who have eyes to see, the one eye is proof he's a shill. That is all.
I just agreed with you on the eye thing as a definite possibility OK just not a definite thing.
I think I've looked at the moon landings sufficiently to agree that probably nothing you say will sway me but 1. I try as much as I possibly can to keep an open mind 2. I'm simply curious to know what it is about what Dave says that tells you he's a shill - we don't have to get into a discussion about it, I'm just curious to know. Can you name just one thing.
Just his viewpoint combined with the obvious one eye, that’s all. That’s all I’m willing to say. Nobody truly on our side would use the insignia of the enemy. Obviously you share his viewpoint on certain things and I very much doubt you are a shill, but it is what it is. To be honest, I’m so tired of debating things on the internet and tend to keep my opinions to myself these days in the main, as it’s too exhausting to deal with what with everything else I have to do, but I would like to say I do really like your work, even if we don’t agree about everything.
There are credible conspiracy theories and way out conspiracy theories and then there are Petra Liverani conspiracy theories. But thanks anyway for the chuckle Petra.
It's great to have a chuckle, isn't it, David? I just got a chuckle myself from this 15m video posted by commenter, James Duff, Level with Me, particularly the bit where former governor of Hawaii, George Ariyoshi, tells the remarkable tale of how Ellison Onizuka showed him a family photo that he was going to take up on the Challenger, inscribe it on its return and give it to the governor. Guess what? It survived two months at sea and Ellison’s brother Claude gave it to him. Touching, isn't it? I must say it reminds me of a particular passport story. Remind you of anything?
The thing is entering space causes the temperature to drop anyways. You can see the ice form on rockets launching sats to space. Anyways a FMEA would have been done identifying this single point of failure.
If I was accused all over the internet of being the same person who was supposedly dead on the Challenger I would make public an album of photos, where I lived, where I went to school with yearbook photos, xray of my dentition, maybe my DNA, maybe not fingerprints (?), to get these people away from me. I wouldn't run away from curiosity seekers, I would hand them my card with the info online. This should prove I was not on the Challenger.
👉The problem is it doesn't seem that many of these persons have done that, have they? BTW, many persons go to law school after studying something else. Science, engineering, medicine are common. These persons then become patent lawyers.
EDIT 5/5: Gratitude to commenter JamesDuff, MUST WATCH 15m clip of film, Level with Me, showing Michael J. Smith simply denying outright to a questioner that he's the same person and Judith Resnik walking away looking uncomfortable. Bookmarked to footage of them one after the other.
https://youtu.be/BXkt9XZ6jsA?si=h8UuEo1bwQmYNQEn&t=245
There is a link to the full film in the Description of the clip, however, it seems to be made by people who support Flat Earth and don't believe in space travel so I don't particularly recommend it. The 15m clip is excellent though.
-------------------------------------------
I can understand consecutive careers/academic paths but I thought hers seemed parallel which seems a bit of a stretch. However, you've prompted me to take a second look and I can see how she could have squeezed them both in. Thanks for that PM, cos that had me completely bamboozled.
She could have completed her BSc first in 1970, then her BA in 1972 (squashed 3 years into 2 is not impossible), then done her JD in 1975 and then her EE PhD in 1977 - normally you need more than 2 years for that but if she was brilliant and getting help then not impossible - and, of course, doesn't have to be 100% real in any case. And with careers, academia can be very off and on ... and possibly the same for space shuttling!
So quite possible she followed both academic courses and careers until she "died".
Judith A. Resnik (Astronaut)
Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, 1970
Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, University of Maryland, 1977
Judith Resnik (Law Professor)
Bachelor of Arts, Bryn Mawr College, 1972
Juris Doctor (J.D.), New York University School of Law, 1975
On 2nd thought, I would monetize my look-alike fame. $500 per signature, $10,000 per 1 hour online interview and I would get an agent and call myself "Judith-look alike for sale". Running away is the stupidest thing to do IF YOU WEREN'T JUDITH. Unfortunately no Proton Magics have died in space....
Yeah - the psychology of the reaction is all wrong. An innocent person would probably respond with a laugh, not an avoidance/flight response.
Hahahaha!!!
If you are a valuable CIA operative, you get a lot of help, I presume.
Yes and she may have had special training growing up too.
I think presenting her 'CV' like this is quite revealing. It suggests, like you say, she spent her entire time studying. Meaning she has fuck all real experience in any of those subjects.
My hunch is that the Law bit (2 years) is the fakery here and serves the purpose of a cover story to fill in any gaps in her bio. I would imagine she spent those 2 years doing classified stuff. And also with an intention of a future real-world cover job later (which, ironically, is strong evidence for your fake death hypothesis).
Clearly the spooks like this sort of thing for their cover stories. You'd think someone would notice though, eh. I mean, they do get a little arrogant sometimes. Doubt it would really work for proper spies though, because the other side would obviously know.
Without a law degree, it is hard to become a law professor.
Resumes can be faked, monarch media will not suss it out.
Did any "journalist" ask how a camera could pan up to film the Apollo 17 lander take off from the moon?
Weightlessness can be achieved on the vomit comet plane for up to 7.5 minutes. I'm guessing this is how much of the space footage is achieved along with the NASA training pools.
Remember the school teacher angle, how many american school kids were watching this snuff film psyop live. Add collective trauma to the list of fucked up reasons "they" did this.
The Lusitania, The Maine, The Gulf of Tonkin. 9/11. All big events that proved to be fakes, why would the moon landing be any different. Mountains of evidence? I'm guessing the 9/11 "evidence" could fill one of the towers.
Thanks for the reminder, this is one of the most troubling psyops for me personally, I was in eighth grade when this happened, home sick, watching from the couch, believing every second of it. The fact that these folks aren't in hiding is both brazen and telling. "They" love rubbing shit in the face of those that can see.
The first question is not Why but What does the evidence say? If the evidence says they went to the moon then so be it. I've just posted an article though saying that Apollo 13 was faked - at least the emergency part was faked, I think they went to space but they acted the emergency part, so that's definitely given me some food for thought.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/houston-we-have-a-problem-was-it
How the camera panned the Apollo 17 ascent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K67VIbfVPxY
I never questioned the moon landing until reading McGowans Moondoggie and Miles Mathis pieces two years ago so my knowledge comes from those questionable sources along with various youtube vids. So no expert and a recent convert to this whole thing.
That being said I would encourage you to look at 2:44 of the video where they are digging to plant the flag I think? I've never been to the moon or experienced weightlessness, but is this how dirt would settle in such an environment? At 6:14 the camera appears to dolly back just a smidge prior to panning up.
Aren't they always worrying about weight on these adventures? TV cameras, battery packs, moon to earth transmitters, and rovers are heavy. Where did they store all that shit?
For what its worth I'm a no on the whole space program if for no other reason that "they" lie about everything all the time.
I've posted an analysis of Dave McGowan's Moondoggie - not a single word of truth there and it's clearly propaganda not the work of someone who genuinely doesn't believe in the moon landings. Same for Massimo Mazzucco's American Moon.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/moon-landings-hoax-psyop
Re the digging. Yes! There's no atmosphere so we can expect the material being dug to fall straight back to the surface. That little snippet only further confirms the reality of the landings. It's certainly not falling back as it does on earth is it?
Re dolly back. Yes, it does seem a little that way but the thing is you can't say it for sure and you have to consider all the other pieces which are consistent with expectations of reality.
I know they lie about everything all the time - totally with you there - however, they even lie that what they put forward as the truth and is the truth (mostly) is also a lie. So they are in space, they did land on the moon, however, Apollo 13 was an exercise and the Challenger disaster was fake.
You always have to judge by the evidence - and they let you know when they're lying with their Revelation of the Method.
The question the disbelievers should be asking is why has not a single one of them worked out that Moondoggie, American Moon and the first guy to say we didn't go, Bill Kaysing do not have a word of truth on the moon landings between them.
I saw it differently, I was under the impression that if the astronauts hung in the air a bit while jumping that the dirt and dust would also hang a bit before settling.
There's still that weight and storage problem, fitting golf clubs and electric rovers in a foil covered shoe box. Yeah I'm stuck on this one. Will Trainspotting Dave pet his dog through an explanation. (Sorry, I could not resist.)
Totally agree to lies and truth,, being truth and lies. the fuckery as I mentioned on Apollo 13. It's to the point that I am willing to believe everything and nothing, just where they want me, confused and a bit disheartened. Questioning moon landings, vaccines, and believing in chemtrails, I felt, just a few years ago, was the realm of nut jobs. Now I'm bong hit away from believing in a flat earth.
Thanks again, PM, for your comment (now pinned although it's the first comment to appear anyway) which both pointed out the absence of expected material forthcoming to prove that those said to be the same person are not and also to prompt a second look at JR's seemingly parallel academic and professional careers which seemed such a stretch ... but in fact isn't really. I've edited the original article, Is space fake?, with reference to your comment and put a new heading in this article "EDIT: conundrum solved".
Thanks for your consideration Petra!
Although I'll stay on the fence for a while about whether or not it was faked, I can certainly give you a very good reason for the Challenger disaster, which applies to either a faked version, or a deliberate sabotage version - also remember putting out an idea that it was faked misdirects away from the possible sabotage explanation (see also Apollo 13).
The reason for 'space travel disasters' is to actively delay and prevent the progress of space exploration. The reason for this is because an advanced, optimistic and exciting space programme creates positive feelings in a population. It makes them look forwards to a bright future. It's very, very difficult to control such a population.
Exactly the same idea is true about the SETI conspiracy to cover up existence of ETI, and especially ETI in our own stellar neighbourhood. The Brookings Report is very accurate when it says the fabric of society (read: mechanism of social control) would break up, if such information was widely known (it would also reveal the fact that 'our leaders' are not the biggest fish, which has a profound effect on people's deference to the cabal/authority).
Remember also that better space exploration leads inevitably to stuff like a good enough space telescope to detect life at, say Alpha Centauri - leading to the above paragraph.
My understanding of physics is sufficient to tell me we should be far, far more advanced in space exploration than we are, with rotating space stations (simulating gravity etc.) and advanced propulsion systems (cf. Miles Mathis). No doubt all that stuff exists secretly, but they simply can't allow the public to experience it, because then we have optimism and demands to make the world a better place, and so on, and so on.
I'm not discounting your 'normalisation of deviance' idea (more than one explanation can often be true of course), I'm simply adding a more 'big picture' idea into the mix. Social control, is what it comes down to in the end - in a psychological way.
Just to say I don't believe in the "normalisation of deviance" idea, that's just what they put forward. Yours sounds more likely!
Following on from this I've got another one for you which I think you'll like. It's why I mentioned Apollo 13. See, originally, I didn't have a problem with the moon landings themselves but I thought there was something dodgy about 13. At that time (this was decades ago) my initial idea was sabotage. Since then I've learned a fair bit about fakery (especially from your good self) so today I lean more towards the fakery explanation. Aside from anything else you can't use the LEM as a lifeboat because you can't pressurise it properly - in a vacuum it would explode (Gene Kranz saying you could stick a pencil through it etc. - mind you, why I didn't think to apply that to the landings themselves I don't know). Anyway, regardless of that (don't get sidetracked with the landings happened thing, btw, that's not where I'm going with this. I can well buy into the idea, as I did back then, that the lunar conspiracy theory is designed to make 'conspiracy theorists' look silly (cf. CIA document 960 or whatever number it is; in the wake of JFK etc.)).
My point is that it's entirely possible to believe in the landings, but also believe that 13 was a manufactured event (whether sabotage or fakery). The reasons for faking it are the same as the ones I cited in my previous comment of course.
The crucial piece of info here is that Apollos 18-20 were originally designated as finding a place to establish a permanent base on the moon, and of course 13 provided the pretext to cancel them, thus effectively cancelling the entire human exploration of the solar system, or at least delaying it for at least 50 years (notice they then switched to the stupid space shuttle, which had the same effect).
I'm curious to know what your view of Apollo 13 is, especially in light of my reasoning. Leaving aside any discussion whatsoever about whether the other missions were real or not. To me, 13 looks like an obvious psyop combined with the pretext for delay/cancellation as I said.
As a sci-fi fan (and writer) I had always been inspired by space exploration, so for me, this constituted a heinous crime against humanity if ever there was one.
Can you point any links for more research , regarding 13 (interesting number choice)
I’ll have to get back to you on that one.
True about the number, for sure. They do like their numbers after all…
Very good point !! Ever since the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, the CIA have been launching PsyOps against not only foreigners but Americans. This is direct evidence of the fact we're in a 5th Generation War. A war launched by governments worldwide against their own citizens. The PsyOps are designed to sow confusion, discord and distractions.
Q psy op
Trump psy op
flat earth psyop
No virus psy op
Anti science psy op
The paltering operation It never ends
Social Control Is The Primary Social “Influencer!” That And Funding/Money/ Prepping To Extend MkUltra-Monarch into a world class depopulation, one world government (Geo. H. Bush - CIA).
Physics and its weak ass explanations ( my experience - sound into light waves, toxic remediation) does not begin to answer, conclude or support a rational/common sense evaluation of these So Called Moon Landings, Astronaut Disasters, Mars Rover psycho-Social events.
Yeah, water is held upside down / sides on a round ball, rotating 1k miles an hour … WAIT, REVOLVING around the sun at … get these numbers … 66,666 miles per hour (yeah, familiar). Look the globe thingy was a brainwash beginning in schools and never made sense to 40’s common sense. More, travel on a ship or a plane, check your (always fudged, constant re evaluated courses).
Well, you can ditch the idea of rotating space stations. They have a problem of things not falling in a straight line. Pour some water from a jug and the pour will have two kinks in it or it might form a spiral. Apparently, even though it's in films, this kills people after a few weeks. Not sure why, but one can imagine it's not ideal.
I would imagine it depends on the distance from the centre point and the angular velocity. Water from a jug is not the same at all as a 76 metre diameter ring rotating at 3rpm…
probably cuz THERE IS NO "SPACE"...just the FIRMAMENT!
You're pouring the water in a space like that. It is exactly to do with the angular velocity. Some cousin or subset of the coriolis effect. I've seen the water pouring effect but I haven't a clue why people don't thrive in that environment - or even get by.
They can switch to heavy water.
Very droll. 😀
See my reply to Proton below - IMO it's more about the distance from the centre, not the angular velocity. The further out you are (i.e. the greater the diameter) the less noticeable the coriolis effect would be. I don't know what the habitable distance from a centre point would be, but I would imagine 38 metres as in a von Braun station is probably liveable.
I once worked this out for a group of idiot flerfers. That was a huge waste of effort and time! 😂 😅 One thing I do remember from that was that 1000mph at the equator didn't make much difference to the G that you felt. About the difference between having and not having a large meal. The other point I remember was that the coriolis effect had sod all effect on a flight from Edinburgh to London. It was the equivalent of having about a 5mph crosswind, so in practice would be buried by real world conditions. I'm not going to do it again and I'm happy to take their word for it that people die in this sort of artificial gravity. This time 8 mice are enough to satisfy me.
I don't think your rotating universe gravity has much mileage (in spite of its scale). The forces need to point to the centres of mass/rotation to keep things rotating, not towards the centre of the universe, which would leave most things travelling in approximately a straight line. There are a few people who are trying to get gravity to fit in among electromagnetic and/or sub atomic forces and I suspect that's where we are going to get our answer. One of Sabine Hossenfelder's recent videos appears to cover something like this but I haven't watched it yet.
I did some more homework about the feasibility or otherwise of rotating space stations and the results were very optimistic (and revealing, actually, in an Elysium sort of way, which I'll come to).
Surprisingly there have been quite a few proper studies done on how humans fare in a centrifuge (e.g. spending several weeks at 4rpm or even higher).
Equally, apparently NASA have done low orbit experiments with astronauts in centrifuges, for example on Skylab, and with the shuttle.
The Coriolis effect seems hardly to make a difference because of adaptation. Which can take as little as an hour or so.
Anyhow, there's a sort of meta-study I found which looks at all the other ones and defines a 'comfort zone'. Obviously this is as close to 1g as you can have it. The key is rotational speed of course, and the lower the speed the more habitable (and less of a problem the Coriolis is), but the greater the required diameter (e.g. to produce 1g 895m for 1rpm, or 225m for 2rpm, as in 2001). Obviously for those huge toroidal Elysium-type jobbies it ceases to be an issue.
Anyway, the surprising thing is that a 4rpm, 56m diameter station is at the limit of comfort. And that requires a hell of a lot less resources. So here's where the cunning 'conspiracy theory' element comes in - given how many tens of trillions the cabal have at their disposal, along with various secret technologies, the idea that they don't have at least this sort of 56m space stations, maybe at Lagrange points or behind the moon, seems difficult to accept. If I were them, I'd definitely have them. Not just because they're cool, but in particular because it makes surviving a deliberately orchestrated extinction level event (or civilisation ending event, like a diverted asteroid) a lot more likely and easier (vs. superbunkers, that is). i.e. The Samson Option. Once they re-habitate the planet, they return and take control. Job done. This might explain the ultimate blackmail threat they hold over their minions.
Well, there's definitely a cool novel in there. Oh, hold on, I'm already serialising it on my Substack...
Not heard of her - I'll have to have a look.
With regards to the rotating universe I was meaning the opposite, namely the forces point outwards from the centre point, not inwards. So it's a combination of spin (in the direction of initial rotation of the centre point in one axis only) and velocity away from the centre point. At a certain distance I would imagine the spiral straightens out, which is intriguing.
Likewise a parallel world is simply a different spiral arm.
Anyway, I did a little homework and turns out I should probably stand a little corrected on the Coriolis effect with regards to rotating space stations. It depends on the distance from the centre and the rotational speed, as you'd imagine, except it's higher the further out you are, not lower, which seems a little counter-intuitive to me. But anyway, a von Braun 3rpm 76m version wouldn't be suitable because of all the discomforts etc. It would need to be at least 100m diameter and not much higher than 2rpm (I'm guessing this is a little like in 2001). The point though is that it's still possible for creating habitable gravity conditions in a space environment.
Ironically, it is now time for me to start doing dishwashing. Lol.
Probably blood and lymph flow doesn't work properly leading to lymphadema, circulatory, and renal collapse. Just for starters. Probably semicircular canal ear problems. IMO.
I'm going to stick with a Miles Mathis-esque explanation of gravity, which is that it doesn't actually exist as people think it does. There's no mysterious force connecting two particles and telling them to 'go towards each other'. Because that's absurd. It's why these stupid physicists keep having to invent new particles all the time, like 'messenger particles' and rubbish like that.
Gravity, in other words, IS rotational centrifugal force. It is caused by the rotation of the universe itself, as a spiral, emanating from a centre point. The 'appearance' of gravity is simply the 'alignment' of all these particles moving in the same spiral vector away from that centre point.
Anyway, in terms of our rotating space station example, the key here is not angular velocity so much as distance from the centre. The further away from the centre you are the 'bending' (Coriolis) effect becomes less and less discernible, until it is barely noticeable. I would imagine at 38 metres away from the centre point, as in a von Braun station, it would have negligible effect on a human body.
Compare to one of those rotating test things like in Moonraker, where it is noticeable. Or a roundabout in a playground.
Anyway, that's my humble opinion as a super-advanced extraterrestrial visitor here on your forbidden planet, puny earthling.
The theory has to explain how thing rotate in different directions and how objects can fall in a straight line thru a rotational frame of reference. The universe rotating would have lots of explaining to do as things rotate toward the center not away.
Centrifugal force definition: The apparent force, equal and opposite to the centripetal force, drawing a rotating body away from the center of rotation, caused by the inertia of the body.In a rotating reference frame, the force that seems to push all bodies AWAY from the of the frame
Yeah. The lymphatic system seems to be pretty much gravity driven. Actually, come to think of it, the lavatories might be somewhat hazardous. Lol.
It could work but getting in & out might be tricky.
Never underestimate the power of NDAs, Freemason oaths, and even military attachment. Of course they will deny any connection to their doppelgängers, as instructed! They face consequences if they stray.
By the way, and I might go look for this post, I found two Judith Resnicks in the Challenger photos, one professorial, the other a stunning good looking model. I saw photos of the crew with each on board, as I recall.
https://pieceofmindful.com/2018/11/09/a-very-clever-multi-leveled-hoax/
When there is a mass shooting or stabbing making headlines, I do not assume that mass shootings and stabbings don't happen. I assume that the event making headlines is staged. Because media, duh.
The globsters are no more interested in wild events than I am in searching the bush for wild turnips. Coca Cola makes ads in studios for many millions. It could just film people drinking Coke. It doesn't. The wild event is cheap but problematic. The confection is all.
So what about mess-ups like Katy opening the flappy door in the space porta-loo? Why did they not pre-record the whole operation? They probably did. That's right. We were probably meant to see a comedy, just like the London Bridge whale-tusk fight which ended with the corpse getting bored and sitting up. Or the Parson's Green bomb which couldn't damage itself.
The Challenger disaster? Money continues to flow for spacy stuff while expectations get lowered or pivoted, the plunder and diverting of funds go on. And space (groan) was less boring for a bit. If you know a globster insider, ask that creature for details.
So Katy Perry gets tossed under the same bus as Zelensky. Who's next? Syria's liberator who used to be a drag performer? No, wait...that was astronaut Katy! Or was it freedom fighter Zel? Yes, it was Zel.
I know we're being ridiculed along with everything else, so if any globster reads this...thanks for all the laughs. But NO.
"In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving twins, one of whom takes a space voyage at relativistic speeds and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more."
just sayin' 🚀
Whether it's 'on strings' or 'underwater', it is true that some of the footage of astronauts does look a bit fishy...
Mind you, way back when, I was in Austria when the Austrians sent their first cosmonaut up to Mir, and they had a livestream going on, a lot of which I watched (don't ask why!). I don't think they'd do continuous livestreams if they wanted to fake space travel (especially not in the mid-90s when this happened). You'd just get little choreographed excerpts.
Let's say they fake some of it. If whatever percentage is real then that means humans in space is a thing. That's the issue isn't it - humans in space or not ... and, in fact, we might suspect any faked footage of being propaganda targeted to the disbelievers.
I very much like your last sentence there, Petra. It applies to so many psyops. This is especially the case when we acknowledge that the fake footage (and images, for that matter) are released into the public domain by the perpetrators themselves.
The glaring example of this is the Manchester Arena incident. Then there's that London Bridge footage of the dead bloke sitting up.
I'm surprised hardly anyone notices this point, as it's crucial. You'd probably call it RoM I guess.
You ruined my favourite joke.
What does NASA stand for?
Needs Another Seven Astronauts
You owe me a joke.
How did I ruin it?
This is interesting movie Level with Me”
Addresses these Columbia astronauts who just happened to blown up mid sky all come back to live double lies.
Nasa
Not
A
Space
Authority
Another big lie!
That film is Gold! Thank you! I'll add it to my post.
BTW, Challenger not Columbia. For a minute there I'm like there were two disasters?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXkt9XZ6jsA
Got a great laugh out of the photo that was recovered in the sea after two months - just like the 9/11 passport. They love their against-the-odds recovered documents.
Thanks for the correction !!!
Passport lying on the ground
Yeah such BS LOL 😂
I've put it at the top of my post now with a little blurb.
After leaving our Midwestern places of upbringing in the Chicago area, my cousin took up a basic and then advanced computer programming education in the area of California where all major Space Shuttle operations were based at Vandenberg AFB.
He became the backup computer programmer for all the Space Shuttle missions up to the Challenger disaster after which there was such a delay in restoring new missions for the remaining spacecraft, was compelled to move on to computer consulting in other divisions or then in private consulting before retiring in Phoenix, Az.
In the past, say, ten or so years, I have found and saved many of these investigated photos of most of the Challenger astronauts that claim the same person had taken on a new profession elsewhere, a few as teachers [The University Of Wisconsin/Madison in one case] or other fields of work.
Why NASA did not take the usual government agency steps it takes to keep such knowledge from public detection is unknown, but this could be a major slip up in their deception programs otherwise.
I may update this posting with more of the ‘before and then after’ pictures and the alternative professions where these astronauts landed up that I have on file.
Also, if this is true, the much more compelling issue of why the Challenger incident was staged exists. The one explanation advanced to me by long time NASA technician Clark McClelland is that they wanted to blame the Muslim scientists and engineers working at the Kennedy Space Center at the time of the event. McClelland went with that version…
Thank you for your comment Rob. I will be in touch.
In the US, the legal profession is a little bit more flexible than in other places. Many people enter it after studying something else and working for several years, because your expertise in other areas is valued. I went to law school at the age of 36 after working in mathematics in another country for many years. I know a Russian guy who was an engineer in Russia and went to law school in the US at age of 39. He is a law professor now.
That being said, I have always thought that Judith Resnick, the astronaut, has much bigger eyes than Judith Resnick, the law professor and that they cannot be the same person. But the images of their mouths you provided are perplexing.
It does not seem to me that the video of Judith in space is a relevant piece of evidence. Didn't Bezos just show than anyone can float in a space shuttle cabin? You do not need much preparation.
Many people get a blepharoplasty in their 50s for sagging eyes, especially if you want to change your looks a little. It makes the eyes smaller.
I have to say now it's pretty clear to me how she could have managed the two academic paths and the two careers. I had no doubt before because I simply assumed Judith hadn't been a real astronaut, it was only when I discovered there was compelling evidence of her in space that the pieces of the puzzle didn't quite fit ... but now they do - for me, anyway.
It's also possible to study and work at the same time. Even in the 80s it was possible.
Me: Engineer using mostly Silicone "O" rings for 50 years. Shortly after the Challenger tragedy, I attended a meet at Boeing Seattle on the O ring problem on the Challenger. Silicone rubber is about 3x the cost of regular rubber O rings. I try and use Silicone as it does have a 150F degrees higher use range than regular rubber, but not prohibitive. There were/are synthetic materials that go much higher which should be used. As to landing on the moon, impossible today, how was it done in 1969? I have a URL where Buzz ???? is telling a 7 y.o. child it was a fraud.
What needs to be considered is the context and what also needs to be considered that it is said Buzz Aldrin is a 33 degree Mason and there is a moon hoax psyop going on so perhaps it was a wind-up from him to speak so ambiguously because I'd say his response is a little odd. However, when he says "if we want to keep doing something, we need to know why something stopped in the past if we want to keep it going,” he's obviously implying that they've been, isn't he?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4UP6nRMuGs&t=430s
Bottom line - it doesn't matter what he says, the evidence says they went. And he wrote a damn book on going for goodness sake.
https://www.amazon.com.au/Magnificent-Desolation-Long-Journey-Home/dp/1408804166
The question from the little girl was:
Why has nobody been to the Moon in such a long time?
His answer:
“That's not an eight-year-old's question. That's my question. I want to know. But I think I know. Because we didn't go there. And that's the way it happened.
“And if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen so in the future, if we want to keep doing something, we need to know why something stopped in the past if we want to keep it going.”
NASA is a form of the HEBREW WORD NASHA...meaning ILLUSION or TRICK..."NASA"is the largest consumer of HELIUM in the world. "SATELLITES " are put up by HELIUM BALLOONS ...and maybe y'all are JUST IN A DREAM...
Dave McKeegan is an obvious shill. Just look at the banner on his YouTube page... the shot of one eye tells you all you need to know
Just to add I will look a little through the one-eye lens a bit, however, I must say that Dave seems totally genuine to me.
Normally with one eye you see the whole face with a hand covering the eye. He's a photographer so maybe the one eye is to do with that. The thing is ultimately we need to judge by what he says and everything he says as far as I can tell is very sound. The much more obvious shills by what they say - although not detected by the disbelievers on the subject of the ML at least - are our friends Kaysing, McGowan, Sibrel and Mazzucco.
Let's not forget pretty much every single advert on the TV, too!
Nope, there's many ways to do the one eye and pretty much every shill will do it in one way or another. Also, look at how many violent/horror/gangster etc. films start with a shot of one eye (Goodfellas, Final Destination (cleverly by showing the poster of the film Pecker), A Better Tomorrow, Nobody, etc.) and the amount of such film's film posters with one eye, and book covers, etc... the one eye is the one eye, full stop. Your first two sentences just seem like a cope to me, sorry, plus his viewpoint on everything makes it obvious to me he's a shill. After 20+ years in the game, I've seen enough to know what is what, thanks. I do appreciate your writings but I still do believe there are some barriers to thinking you need to break through, but who am I, eh? Just some randomer!
PS: Also, let's add Blade Runner to this - a blatant one eye shot, showing the uncapped pyramid building of the Tyrell Corporation, no less!
I agree what I said about seeing the whole face and covering the eye is silly, however, the eye thing is not enough to be sure he's a shill. You can't make a judgement on just one thing because as I said he is a photographer and they take photos through one eye so it's possible that could be his motivation ... regardless you cannot make a judgement on one thing because it could always be a coincidence unless it's very very specific.
"... plus his viewpoint on everything makes it obvious to me he's a shill."
Why don't you specify how that's so because his viewpoint on the moon landings and Flat Earth matches mine pretty well - he's just a hell of lot more knowledgeable.
Seen plenty of people who's profile pic is just one eye so it's not always covering one eye but hey.
I don't have the time.or inclination to defend my viewpoint re: moon landings and flat earth because if you hold an opposing viewpoint, nothing I can say will sway you. For those who have eyes to see, the one eye is proof he's a shill. That is all.
I just agreed with you on the eye thing as a definite possibility OK just not a definite thing.
I think I've looked at the moon landings sufficiently to agree that probably nothing you say will sway me but 1. I try as much as I possibly can to keep an open mind 2. I'm simply curious to know what it is about what Dave says that tells you he's a shill - we don't have to get into a discussion about it, I'm just curious to know. Can you name just one thing.
Just his viewpoint combined with the obvious one eye, that’s all. That’s all I’m willing to say. Nobody truly on our side would use the insignia of the enemy. Obviously you share his viewpoint on certain things and I very much doubt you are a shill, but it is what it is. To be honest, I’m so tired of debating things on the internet and tend to keep my opinions to myself these days in the main, as it’s too exhausting to deal with what with everything else I have to do, but I would like to say I do really like your work, even if we don’t agree about everything.
Rob Wold can be contacted at woldrob@gmail.com or woldrob@yahoo.com. My website www.lightningonthemoon.com is down for a template change until May 10th. Sorry
There are credible conspiracy theories and way out conspiracy theories and then there are Petra Liverani conspiracy theories. But thanks anyway for the chuckle Petra.
It's great to have a chuckle, isn't it, David? I just got a chuckle myself from this 15m video posted by commenter, James Duff, Level with Me, particularly the bit where former governor of Hawaii, George Ariyoshi, tells the remarkable tale of how Ellison Onizuka showed him a family photo that he was going to take up on the Challenger, inscribe it on its return and give it to the governor. Guess what? It survived two months at sea and Ellison’s brother Claude gave it to him. Touching, isn't it? I must say it reminds me of a particular passport story. Remind you of anything?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXkt9XZ6jsA&t=559s
The thing is entering space causes the temperature to drop anyways. You can see the ice form on rockets launching sats to space. Anyways a FMEA would have been done identifying this single point of failure.