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 | |

Commentaren

Tizzier anders nogal still ze Marske!

Ik kwam daarstraks "Tyler B/Durden" tegen in Gent, en hij is nog altijd
kwaad dat ge zo weinig geld wou geven voor zijn filmke. Hij liet het
op zijne iPhone zien, en twas volgens mij wel duidelijk dat gij ongelijk had.

Waarom zou alleman een groot complot tegen u bedenken? Denkte gij
da wij niks beter te doen hebben? Gelijk mijn klit er half afvingeren
terwijl ik naar poepende neg3rs kijk! Oh ja, oh ja, oh jaaaaaaaa!

Gepost door: Mae Bie | 04-02-18

Reageren op dit commentaar

Auw moeder is een voale hoer! Ze zoog zo graag Moffenpikken af, het was niemeer schoon!

En ik will mijn geld, of ge krijgt goe wa rakken de volgende keer als hij naar dem Blandijn komt!

Gepost door: Tyler D/Burden | 08-02-18

Reageren op dit commentaar

Mark Peeters... heeft last van betweters!

MP, op de plee, doorspoelen en weg ermee!

Ik had sex met mijn professor,
en nu duik ik met hem in de koffer
zijn grijze schaamhaar staat klaar
voor mijn rode lippen, even snel wippen!

Gepost door: Dich Ter | 13-02-18

Reageren op dit commentaar

Gallo Gendrik uit Hent Gier!

Ik ben prof in Hent bij de Wiskunde en geb met mijn studente Beukje hepoept!

Daarvoor geb ik mien wuve buitengeschopt, en nu ook Beukje (op nen oude fiets kunde nie rijden). Nu hou ik aan met een andere studente!

Ben ik ni heweldig?

Gepost door: Hendrik van Maldehem | 13-02-18

Reageren op dit commentaar

EEN COMMENTAAR van bij het ON-ONDERBROKEN-filmpje van SPACEX-Elon-Musk op 6-2-2018...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59pY74ZhQ50i

Een citaat uit hetgeen volgt :
"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. "

Een 20-tal commentaren (die er NU nog staan... Mogelijk wordt het verwijdert...l

R KROLL
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.

Orthanius
5 days ago (edited)
+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
R Kroll
5 days ago
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?

Orthanius
5 days ago
+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
R Kroll
5 days ago
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.

Orthanius
5 days ago
+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

R Kroll
5 days ago
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?

Orthanius
5 days ago
+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

R Kroll
5 days ago
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.

Orthanius
5 days ago
+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

Astronomy Live

5 days ago (edited)

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

R Kroll
5 days ago
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.

Orthanius
4 days ago
+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

elonesnah
4 days ago
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

John Bode
1 day ago (edited)
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

Joshua Omer
23 hours ago
Astronomy Live

That's awesome, keep it up!
1

Jay Rich
1 week ago
Nice!!
2

Gepost door: MP | 17-02-18

Reageren op dit commentaar

Post een commentaar