21-02-18

Waarom nog geloven in "Tesla in een baan rond de aarde" als MUSK 't zelf ontkracht?

aaaaaaaaaaa.jpgWaarom stelt niemand zich de vraag hoe men die foto's heeft getrokken?

Er zijn er een hele reeks van:
a2.jpg

De antwoorden werden geleverd door een vlammen-werper-in-de-hand-van-Elon-Musk, waarbij men in eerste instantie denkt dat de raket-uitlaat zal zorgen voor een versnelling van een echte raket...

 vl1111111.jpgZo ziet "de vlammen-werper" er in het echt uit (en Elon verkoopt er ook 10.000 exemplaren van..) 

Bovendien gaf Elon zelf toe (en dat werd ook door de VRT-journalisten overgenomen) : "De Tesla zit in een baan rond de zon (niet om de aarde) en bovendien draait ook de aarde (zoals wijzelf) om de zon... (en dus is het zelfs niet nodig dat de Tesla aan ruimtevaart doet om te voldoen aan de stelling : "Baan rond de zon"....) 

Is het toevallig dat gerespecteerde media zoals 'de Metro" spreken over dé Flat-Earth-society (en hun visie dat de "ruimtevaart van de TESLA" FAKE is en dat zij ook melden dat het een "goede (fake) reclame voor zijn wagen" was ), terwijl ze de argumenten van ELON-MUSK-himself missen én er vervolgens een bijhorende campagne wordt gelanceerd dat de aarde natuurlijk NIET PLAT is, wat ons nodeloos afleidt van de kwestie dat ook deze ruimtevaart TOTAAL FAKE is...

16:10 Gepost door Mark Peeters | Permalink | Commentaren (0) |  Facebook | |

17-02-18

Waarom wordt deze commentaar-over-SPACEX-6-2-18 geblokkeerd?

aaaaaaaaaa.jpgCITAAT uit commentaar youtube-INTERRUPTED-SPACEX-launch of 6-2-2018
 R Kroll
The landings in your previous videos have been accused of being fake because they are fake.  Unedited video of a fraudulent event doesn't make the fraudulent event valid.  

No vehicle has ever been to space and for you to repeat the nonsense that it needs to build up velocity by going downward back toward the earth's surface is nonsense.  

You better believe it's going to space because spacex, which is an arm of nasa, said it is.  

You cleared things up by confirming what you post in your videos cannot be trusted.

 COPIE van 20 commentaren van het youtube. Ik hoop dqat de originelen niet worden vernietigd
Your footage is not continuous. You show the lift-off at :30, the rocket then transitions to horizontal at 2:18, and then downward from that point until the main rocket plummets into the ocean. Nice slight of hand, and trickery, you did there.
 

2

 
 
+R Kroll That's funny, if it plummeted into the ocean, then why did the two 9's land back? And sorry, but that is still one continuous shot.
 

1

 
It's kind of like you have ADD. The main rocket had some boosters on it. The main rocket was going up, started to travel horizontally at 2:18, the boosters detached around 3:18 and you somehow followed the boosters and didn't follow the main rocket as it continued it's downward path into the ocean. When you follow detached parts of the rocket, your shot is not continuous because you seem to have forgot that you were following a rocket, not some detached parts of it. Were you paid by spacex?
 
 
+R Kroll Oh, so you're wanting magical video that somehow follows it up through space and is still following it so you know it didn't come splashing down? "Were you paid by spacex?" Nope.
 

1

 
You were zoomed into the rocket as it was traveling downward after 3:18. If you would have continued on the main rocket, it would have descended even lower and lower, and then into the ocean. It didn't go to space. Only gullible people think any vehicle has ever gone to space. Why didn't you follow the main rocket? Who or what organization created and/or provided the custom software to follow the route of travel? Who or what entity controlled the tracking content found in your video? Your entire video presentation is corrupt. In your written description, you indicated "unedited" but immediately below in your comments (just 1 day ago), you indicate there has been editing to filter audio. If you manipulated something, it's not unedited.
 
 
+R Kroll "If you would have continued on the main rocket, it would have descended even lower and lower, and then into the ocean." Sure it would have. "It didn't go to space." Why wasn't there a flat Earth tracking it and showing it directly going into the ocean? "Who or what organization created and/or provided the custom software to follow the route of travel? Who or what entity controlled the tracking content found in your video?" What? "Who or what entity controlled the tracking content found in your video? Your entire video presentation is corrupt. In your written description, you indicated "unedited" but immediately below in your comments (just 1 day ago), you indicate there has been editing to filter audio. If you manipulated something, it's not unedited." What in the world are you talking about?
 

1

 
I don't need to have video follow through with the obvious outcome. You were about 3 minutes into the flight and the course of the main rocket was obviously downward at that point. You'd be lying to yourself if you said it wasn't. There is no possible way that it's trajectory was going to all of a sudden start moving in an upward direction when it's fuel is nearly all consumed. It will naturally go where it's already headed and that is downward. Just like every single rocker prior to it. You indicate in your video description that there was ""footage tracked using custom made teletrak software". Who custom made this software to track the trajectory of this rocket for the duration of time it was tracked? You did not create this video, did you? Did you edit the audio of the video to filter out the high pitch sound from the telescope? Who created this video?
 
 
+R Kroll "I don't need to have video follow through with the obvious outcome. You were about 3 minutes into the flight and the course of the main rocket was obviously downward at that point. You'd be lying to yourself if you said it wasn't." Actually you aren't when you take a minute to understand it. " It will naturally go where it's already headed and that is downward." Cool, then where is it? "You indicate in your video description that there was ""footage tracked using custom made teletrak software"." I have nothing to do with SpaceX. "Who custom made this software to track the trajectory of this rocket for the duration of time it was tracked? You did not create this video, did you? Did you edit the audio of the video to filter out the high pitch sound from the telescope? Who created this video?" I don't understand why I have to tell you that I have nothing to do with SpaceX, are you that far down the conspiracy hole?
 

1

 
Did the angle of your camera change it's horizontal axis while videoing the rocket? Certainly the rocket is not in space. It's likely at the bottom of the atlantic ocean. Who made the custom software? Why can't you answer that? Who created this video because I don't think you did? Who edited the audio? When you don't disclose these things, your entire video becomes suspect.
 
 
+R Kroll "Did the angle of your camera change it's horizontal axis while videoing the rocket? " This isn't my camera. "Who made the custom software? Why can't you answer that? Who created this video because I don't think you did?" I never said I did. "Who edited the audio? When you don't disclose these things, your entire video becomes suspect." So are you hard of reading or what? Or were you projecting with the ADD?
 

2

 
R Kroll oh my, ok let me clear up a few things here. The footage is continuous and unedited in this video. My objective was to track the entire booster flight and landing. Those landings and my previous videos of them have been falsely accused of being fake, so this video provides unedited and complete footage of the entire event. The video does not stop becoming continuous footage simply because I did not track the portion of the rocket that you want me to track. The audio in this video was not edited at all. The audio in the second version of the video was filtered to take out the telescope slew tone, but this is the original unedited version. I wrote the software myself, no one else provided that for me. The rocket looks like it's going down and because it's going over the curvature of the Earth and it is turning horizontal to build up velocity needed to reach orbit. You can compare my video footage to simulations of the launch in programs like Orbiter 2016 and see that it matches the expected orientation and direction of the rocket which is truly going into orbit. Now it is true that the core stage of the rocket splashed into the ocean, but the second stage made it into space and was ejected from Earth orbit. I tracked the second stage using a telescope in Australia as can be seen in my video about that object.
 

8

 
The landings in your previous videos have been accused of being fake because they are fake. Unedited video of a fraudulent event doesn't make the fraudulent event valid. No vehicle has ever been to space and for you to repeat the nonsense that it needs to build up velocity by going downward back toward the earth's surface is nonsense. You better believe it's going to space because spacex, which is an arm of nasa, said it is. You cleared things up by confirming what you post in your videos cannot be trusted.
 
 
+R Kroll "The landings in your previous videos have been accused of being fake because they are fake. Unedited video of a fraudulent event doesn't make the fraudulent event valid. " Funny how you now move the goalposts. _"No vehicle has ever been to space and for you to repeat the nonsense that it needs to build up velocity by going downward back toward the earth's surface is nonsense. You better believe it's going to space because spacex, which is an arm of nasa, said it is. You cleared things up by confirming what you post in your videos cannot be trusted."_ So, what evidence do you have of this?
 

2

 
R Kroll Thx for the laugh stupid flattard:), thats one thing you are good at, making people with more than a half brain laugh, laughing is healthy :).
 

6

 
R Kroll: =sigh= Against my better judgement, I have to ask - if no vehicle has ever been to space, then how exactly does GPS work? Or DirecTV? Or weather imagery of storms across the entire continental US? Or live television broadcasts from across the Atlantic (or Pacific)? Secondly, this video shows three boosters going up and two coming back and landing - what, exactly , has been "faked" here? If you're claiming this is all CGI, then are you claiming that every other video of this event, taken by different people from different vantage points using different equipment, all showing the same sequences of events (roll, pitchover, separation, boostback, landing) occurring at the same times, are all also CGI? If so, how would those different versions of the same event have been generated? I want you to think about this for a bit - think about what you're implying. Like the old saying goes, three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead. You're making a claim that literally *tens of thousands of people* are all involved in some kind of vast conspiracy to make spaceflight look real when it isn't. That simply beggars belief. I have seen, with my naked eyes, the Shuttle and the ISS fly overhead, far, far faster than any airplane at altitude, crossing the sky in the span of a minute or so. I've seen satellites flash past in my telescope when looking at stars. These things are not flying in the atmosphere.
 

1

 
Astronomy Live That's awesome, keep it up!
 

17:52 Gepost door Mark Peeters | Permalink | Commentaren (1) |  Facebook | |

14-02-18

WETENschapsjournalist BO ruilt zijn klokken-SPEL in voor 'n SPLEET...

aaa.jpgIk geef 1.000 euro voor het eerste bewijs. WETEN=METEN.

Bovendien was ik vooral "in shock" over de on-weten-schappelijke houding van BO(de-wijn) VanSPIL-beeck die met nadruk had gezegd op 30-1-2018 dat ze "haar klokken-SPEL" zou laten vervangen door een SPELonk-achtige SPLEET en dat ze daarom de komende maanden niet meer op TV zou komen...

Dat was manifest een leugen, aangezien ze zichzelf presenteerde als dé weten-schaps-journaliste op 6-12-2018 die "vanuit de TV-studio" kon zien dat de lancering ECHT was (en langer dan 17 seconden omhoog ging, zonder een ballon te zijn in de vorm van een raket OF dat het een vertraagde film was van een vuurpijl-lancering...)

De ene leugen dient waarschijnlijk om de andere leugen te verbergen...

Zoals februari vroeger de (12de en de) laatste maand van het jaar was (en SEPTember, OCTOber, NOVEMber en DECEMber overeenkwamen met de 7de, de 8ste, de 9de en de 10de maand) zo ook kan men deze gebeurtenis op 6-2 zien als een moderne SINT-NIKlaas-verhaal van 6-12.

Daarom is het m.i. ook niet toevallig dat BO uitgerekend op de voor-avond van haar 59ste verjaardag op TV kwam en dat het eerste ruimte-ding de naam kreeg van Spoet-NIK, omdat NIKE gekoppeld wordt aan de godin van de overWINNing, waardoor ook Frank DeWINNe uit SINT-Truiden onze laatste cosmonaut was... 

De SPEL-transformatie was toen al aangekondigd bij het verslag over Frank DeWinne met de formulering ... Boudewijn VanSPELbeeck... 
Ook de wikipedia-pagina over hem/haar beschrijft het ruimte-dag-boek van Frank.

PS. Ik heb gisteren zo'n 2 uur gepraat met 3 studenten, die eerst 4.000 euro van mij eisten omdat ze vonden dat ze 4 filmpjes hadden gevonden met "een opstiging-van-langer-dan-17-seconden" , maar gaandeweg zagen ze in dat er een heleboel complicaties waren bij die beelden...

Uiteindelijk bleef er één over, die zich versprak over "1.000 filmpjes" in plaats van "4 filmpjes"... Ik bewonderde wel zijn doorzettingsvermogen en we kwamen overeen dat ik hem "50 euro" ga geven bij een volgende ontmoeting...
Ik ga zijn 4 filmpjes later in detail bestuderen...

Ik botste NU op zo'n Musk-animatie waarbij de raket-uitstoot bijna "100%" gelijkt op hetgeen er zichtbaar was bij de officiële lancering op 6-2-2018, waarbij helemaal niet voldaan is aan de voorwaarde van on-onderbroken-raket-opstijging van minstens 17 seconden.
Elon-Musk-animatie is dus NIET ECHT verschillend v/d "lancering op 6-2-18"... 

18:30 Gepost door Mark Peeters | Permalink | Commentaren (0) |  Facebook | |

31-01-18

Mijn 17-seconden-boodschap begint door te dringen

qqqqqqqqqqq.pngZoals men op zeeniveau nooit een snelheid haalt van meer dan 600km/u of 170m/s, zo ook kan men nooit langer dan 17 seconden omhoog gaan door de valversnelling van 10m/s², tenzij men gebruik maakt van de lucht in de omgeving (zoals bij een ballon of een vliegtuig...)
Daarjuist zag ik op de MOTIGO-teller dat men in België de moeite begint te doen om naar mijn site te gaan, dankzij de UA-confession-facebook-link...

20:15 Gepost door Mark Peeters | Permalink | Commentaren (5) |  Facebook | |

30-01-18

Ugent-confessions-29-1-2018

man-city-home-jersey-de-bruyne-17.jpgStel dat Marc Peeters gelijk heeft dat een raket (of vuurpijl) inderDAAD niet hoger raakt dan 2km en ook niet langer dan 17 seconden opstijgt, én stel dat niemand v/d UGent één tegenvoorbeeld kan geven, kunnen we dan niet besluiten dat het universitair ONDER-wijs (met zijn claim over "kritisch denken") één grote FARCE is, waarbij de examens alleen maar dienen om de studenten in te delen in twee klassen : "diegene die voldoende ONDERdanig zijn bij het reproduceren van allerlei deeltjes van deel-vakken" en "zij die on-voldoende ONDERdanig zijn".

Waarom deed de universiteit - tot nog toe - géén enkele kritische verificatie v/d zogezegd hoogste menselijke prestatie ooit, namelijk die van een "man op de maan", wat was aangekondigd door de Duitser Werner VonBRAUN, wetende dat de maan "400.000km" hoog/ver van ons verwijderd is?

Ligt hierin de reden dat de gewezen speler van het Duitse Wolfsburg, Kevin DeBRUYNE bij Manchester City met nummer "17" speelt én een loon heeft van 400.000 euro per week?  

18:54 Gepost door Mark Peeters | Permalink | Commentaren (1) |  Facebook | |

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Volgende