I just wrote this as an update to the previous post, but I think it deserves it’s own separate place.

This was inspired by a comment about Richard Branson’s ‘launch into space’, which had me checking out a few more ‘amateur launch videos’. What I discovered was quite eye-opening….

*** More updates on Branson’s launch. Here’s how they pulled off a massive deception.***

Man, I can’t keep up with how fast all this seems to be unravelling.

So, I suddenly realised that Branson ‘Launch into space’ was from today – now.

And before it even technically finished, they already had the ‘highlights’ video up on Youtube below:

====

Me being me, I decided to slow it down, and see if I could find anything interesting.

Guess what?

I did.

Let me walk you through some screenshots, but please, please, please, do the experiment yourself and go and see WITH YOUR OWN EYES how they are flat out deceiving people.

====

Screenshot 1:

At 1.08 minutes into the video, we see that Branson’s ‘spaceship’ – between it’s two rocket propulsion systems – is at an altitude of 46,340, and is flying at 390 miles per hour, at mach 0.5. This is ‘take off’ – when the ‘spaceship’ initiates it’s own thrusters and take off into….something.

==

Four seconds later, Branson’s ‘spaceship’ is blasting off alone, altitude is said to be 46,328 feet, speed is 407 mph, mach 6:

==

The footage ‘cuts’ to the video apparently being taken onboard the spaceship, looking back at the earth:

==

We’re told the spaceship reaches Mach 1, and then it switches to another view, apparently from a different onboard camera:

Wow, I’m amazed at how ‘space-y’ that view from the spaceship already is… I mean, it already looks like it’s travelling in space.

==

Here is where the magic of space travel – or ‘sorcery’ starts.

This screenshot is at the 1.33 minute mark. The ‘spaceship’ took off 24 seconds ago, and is meant to be at an altitude of 56,895 feet, a speed of 1042 mph, mach 1.6.

Watch what happens next, on the ‘live feed’.

==

At 1:42 minute (33 seconds on the spaceflight itself), Branson and crew are meant to be travelling at Mach 2, at an altitude of 71,758 ft.

==

At 1.55 minutes (51 seconds for the spaceflight), we’re told they are travelling at Mach 3, at an altitude of 118,017 feet.

==

Here’s where the funny stuff begins.

At 1.11 minutes into the space flight, the ‘hostess’ tells us that ‘we are heading into space!!!!’ Then she says:

The passengers in the back have been told to unstrap.

Really?

The ‘spaceship’ is travelling at Mach 3, at apparently 170,000k altitude, and the ‘take off your seatbelt’ sign just went off?

It’s the small things like that, that start to tell you there is a gap between what you are being told is happening, and what is really happening.

===

At the 2.23 minute mark (1.14 seconds into the actual ‘space flight’) at 174, 775 ft, the view switches to the external camera, below.

What originally caught my eye here, and caused me to start slowing everything down, was the massive contrast between the footage apparently following the space ship from earth, which is all blue sky and sun, and then this shot across the wing a nano-second later, which is all total black and ‘space-y looking’.

It was just a very jarring contrast.

And it didn’t make a lot of sense.

Do spaceships just ‘jump’ into full blown space like that? And from bright blue, to dark black, immediately?

How high was this thing meant to be flying, at this point?

==

That’s when I started paying attention to the ‘altometer’ at the top right hand of the screen.

And that’s when I started to notice some strange things beginning around the 2.25 minute mark.

First, the altometer disappeared altogether for a few seconds.

==

 

Then, it came back with a totally different altitude:

==

So I started paying attention, and I saw it glitch again.

When the presenter says ‘welcome to space’ – there’s a ‘glitch’, and for a second, the altometer pops up with a totally different reading.

That says the plane is flying at 93,253 ft (approx 17.7 miles), at a speed of 4,338,000 miles an hour….at Mach 8000:

====

And then six seconds later, there’s another ‘glitch’:

That shows the plane is really flying at 33,882 feet.

====

And then a few more seconds later, there is yet another ‘glitch’, that shows the following:

====

Which is when I start to wonder to myself…is all this just totally made up, yet another piece of clever ‘computer simulation’ especially for us idiots watching at home?

 

In the meantime, the presenter goes for the ‘live’ interview from Branson on board his spaceship and whaddya know? It’s not working. Ah well, she says, we’ll get his ‘live words from the spaceship’ in the future, when he lands…

How CON-VEN-IE-NT.

====

I decided to stop there, and update this post.

Let me ask you something: is it really possible to take a live video of a spaceship that is meant to be 300,000 ft (just under 57 MILES) up in the sky, travelling at speeds of Mach 3?

Is it really possible, that 4 passengers, including Richard Branson, could be travelling that high and that fast, and not need to be wearing any special breathing apparatus?

That they would look so very relaxed throughout the whole flight, as though they were just cruising on a regular plane somewhere, at regular altitudes?

Really?

And how about those ‘fish eye’ windows, they all get to look out of?

====

And now, back to that update.

====

A few more basic points to help clarify things, going forward.

The EWARANON full documentary brought a clip of a team of amateur scientists who launched their own rocket ‘into space’ with a camera attached to it, to feed back the images as it flew.

When that rocket hit 70 miles – or 369,600 feet – the picture went black.

Those numbers are very interesting.

====

Nikola Tesla had a ‘Theory of the Universe’ that revolved around the numbers 3, 6 and 9.

“If you knew the splendor of the numbers 3, 6, and 9, you would have the key to the universe.” 

You can read more about Tesla’s theory HERE.

====

Point is, for this post, that if Tesla had calculated that the ‘firmament’ of a flat / dreidel earth was some 369,300 ft up (i.e. 70 miles) that would enable him to also do a bunch of other calculations about how to ‘bounce’ directed energy of that ‘roof’ so that it would hit, with great precision, a part of the world below.

Amongst other things.

We’re back to this idea of acoustics, of using the ‘cavity’, the space, to amplify the sound.

====

Modern science teaches there is no firmament = no ‘space’, in the sense of a cavity you can ‘bounce’ energy off.

But we know from the Torah that there most definitely IS a firmament…

Now, are you starting to see more of why ‘true science’, defined as a real, workable understanding of how the natural mechanisms in our world, including the harvesting and transmission of ‘free’ energy, cannot operate in tandem with the atheist world view and ‘space, the final frontier’ nonsense of NASA?

Now, are you starting to grasp how ‘flat earth’ and ‘free energy’ might go together?

And why so much effort has been put into uprooting both these ideas?

====

One last thing, for now.

Yesterday, I was being mocked by someone who wheeled out the question of ‘why don’t we fall off the edge’?

The answer is simple.

The ’round shape’ that is apparently our quarter of the earth’s surface is hemmed in on all sides – except possibly the North – by a massive wall of ice, aka ‘the South Pole’.

No-one can transverse it.

And that ice sheet continues for miles.

So, before you could get anywhere near the ‘edge’ of the world – which presumably, would also have some sort of electro-magnetic toroidal forcefield operating, as a natural ‘repulsion’ field in any case – you’d first have to spend six months slogging through the South Pole.

====

Could a plane fly there and back?

Probably, yes.

Probably, they have.

And that’s probably why they don’t let ANYONE ELSE FLY IN THE SO-CALLED ‘SOUTH POLE’, OR OVER THE TOP OF THE SO-CALLED ‘NORTH POLE.’

Don’t take my word for it.

Check it out for yourself, see what you find.

====

This is going to be quite an extended process of birur, and I for sure don’t have all the answers or anything near.

What I do have, is a desire to know the truth about our natural world.

God’s seal is truth, remember.

And wherever the truth is going to take me, that’s where, with God’s help, I’m going to go.

====

UPDATE 2:

I went looking for some clips of ‘amateur’ space rocket launches.

I found this at the top of the list:

====

I sped-watched through – and then some weird stuff started catching my eye.

Like, how come the ‘live feed’ from the rocket is cut after just a few seconds for every single launch, then ‘replaced’ by some sort of sci-fi special effects?

Like, this is meant to be the ‘live feed’ from one of the launches that then, inexplicably, starts showing ANOTHER rocket next to it, that conveniently blasts off into space…

Say what?!?!?

==

Then I went back and noticed more weird stuff, like in many of the shots of ‘planet earth’, the surface is actually convex – i.e. the edges are curving UP, not down:

Say what?!?!

==

And then, I noticed there were more ‘special effects’ going on, like this weird filter effect that shows the video is being filmed through a ’round shape’ on an angle, that distorts the view of what you’re really seeing:

The yellow arrows show the edge of the round filter.

The red arrows are pointing to the ‘equipment’ holding it in place.

You want to tell me this is just the ’round lens of the camera’ filming it, fine.

Then tell me why you don’t get this same ‘distorted round’ effect on the videos you are shooting at home, using a round lens.

==

So next, I spotted this – footage from the rocket before it takes off, that clearly shows they are filming through a ‘fish eye’ lens to distort the picture:

==

==

Hey!

That truck is parked upside down inside the crust of planet earth!!!!

What amazing technology we have today.

[Sarcasm off]

==

But really, you tell me:

Why would you be filming through a fish-eye lens to distort the view and to make a flat horizon look ‘curved’?

What possible reason is there for doing this, if we say they aren’t trying to lie about the world being a spherical shape, as opposed to a flat, wheel-like dreidel shape?

Use a regular lens and prove it!!!

==

Last, there were some weird SFX blips on some of the clips ‘in space’, like this weird, clearly animated black line.

I guess they were going to turn this into some more ‘metallic frayed rope’, or something, but someone forgot.

====

I went to look up who owns the copyright on these videos of ‘amateur rockets’ shot into space.

Whaddya know?

All the footage is licensed under NASA, and also under ‘RosCosmos‘.

This from Wikipedia:

RosCosmos: A Russian corporation that manages the country’s space industry, created in 2015 by transforming the Federal Space Agency Roscosmos.

====

Ah, isn’t that sweet!

Russia and America working together after all, to put out videos of ‘amateur’ space rocket launches that appear to be anything but ‘amateur’, and that are using fish eye lenses and bad special effects to paint a picture of our planet that is….spherical.

I think I need to give this update it’s own post.

====

Anyone else get the distinct impression we are being lied to on a grand scale?

But why would they do that?

(I mean, apart from attacking the true biblical account of creation, creating a world full of science-believing atheists who are dead from the soul up, and hiding true physics so that free energy and pollution-less travel is taken off the board, keeping their energy monopoly safe and control of the population assured…)

Why else would they lie about this?

We’ll take a look at one possible answer, in the next post.

====

UPDATE:

I decided to go take another look at the ‘story’ of Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space, apparently, from the former USSR.

This two and a half minute clip is shmirat eynayim friendly.

====

Here’s a potted history:

  1. Gargarin’s rocket, Vostok 1, apparently blasted off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in South Kazakhstan, on April 1961.
  2. Vostok 1 apparently reached up to 203 kilometers, then went into orbit for 108 minutes.

Here’s a screenshot of that clip from the above video:

====

Who took that shot of Gargarin apparently ‘orbiting’ the earth?

And why does the earth look SO WEIRD, and really nothing like the earth looks, according to modern photography and NASA?

Let’s continue with ‘the story’.

3. After orbiting for 108 minutes, Gagarin somehow manages to get his vehicle out of orbit, 203 miles above the earth, and to re-enter the earth’s atmosphere.

Which was even more of a feat than it sounds, because according to the narrator of the clip, the Vostok 1 had:

[N]o engines to slow it for re-entry, so Gagarin ejected and parachuted back to earth.

Please, just go back and re-read that sentence slowly.

====

4. Lucky, Yuri, he lands back in a potato field in Kazakhstan.

How amazing, that his ‘automatically controlled’ vehicle was able to stop at exactly the right part of the orbit – even though it was unable to slow down – to let Yuri parachute back to earth only a few short kilometres from where he blasted off from, in South Kazakhstan.

Truly, an unbelievable story.

====

Here’s another screenshot of that really bad Russian ‘model’ of planet earth, apparently taken from space.

I mean really, look closely.

What do you see?

====

Wikipedia tells us that Gargarin managed to eject from the Vostok 1 at 23,000 feet above ground, to parachute safely down to earth.

Let’s just do some maths.

203 miles is 1,071,840 feet.

That’s a very long way to ‘fall’, without any engines on board to slow re-entry.

====

Here’s where I decided to google what would happen to someone who ‘fell back to earth’ from space. I got to THIS site, and this response:

Let’s assume an astronaut on the ISS goes out for a swim.

When will he start falling ?

Actually he is already falling to earth. But he is also moving at the same speed as the ISS relative to earth (7.66km/s). To be specific, this is not called “falling” but orbiting. He never reaches the ground but just keeps turning around the earth.

However, our astronaut is very slowly losing speed, because of the very rarefied atmosphere. After months/years, he will reenter.

As our astronaut is moving slower and slower, he is also losing altitude. This is a very gradual process… Until he reaches the reentry interface, which varies by atmospheric conditions (meteo) but is about 128 km high.

At this point, he starts losing speed MUCH more quickly, and also loses height much more quickly.

So from this point, yes, you can say he is falling back to earth.

PS: Of course, our astronaut will die from suffocation in his space suit and burn up during the reentry process.

====

But apparently not in the 1960s!

I’m sure way more of you are WAY more intelligent, and ‘science’ minded than I am.

Please, go back and read these old accounts of Russian astronauts, and also of US astronauts like Alan Shepherd, with a critical eye, and then tell me how much of this is even possible, according to the known laws of physics, let alone credible.

And then share your thoughts and insights, so we can all benefit from them.

====

My best guess, at this point, is that Yuri Gagarin got blasted off in a rocket, and then ejected a couple of minutes later, at 23,000 feet, into a local potato field in Kazakhstan.

And the rest of the story of the ‘first man in space’ is exactly that: a story.

Or rather, a deceptive hoax.

And we all fell for it.

====

You might also like this article:

11 replies
  1. Shimshon
    Shimshon says:

    The highest amateur rocket launch ever done was the Go Fast 2014 launch:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAuu-Zg9ejw

    73 miles. It has gotten a lot of attention. There is no blackout in the feed, nor any cuts, nor does it look like it uses a fisheye lens or resort to CGI. At about one minute after launch, the rocket stops suddenly while you hear a “kerplunk” sound (there is audio from launch on, so it must be there is a built-in microphone in the recording equipment). At altitude, in one instant, you can clearly see the moon very far off. This is impossible on a globe, as the launch was in Nevada and the moon over Australia at the time.

    Reply
    • Rivka Levy
      Rivka Levy says:

      Interesting, thanks.

      I’m always a little wary of Infowars stuff, but this was a good overview, and covered a lot of ground in 10 minutes.

      Reply
  2. vivian corey
    vivian corey says:

    Hi Rifka I found this articlehttps://tapnewswire.com/2021/07/a-carry-on-from-weavers-jeff-bezos-video-nasa-engineer-admits-that-they-cant-get-through-the-van-allen-belts/

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
28 × 11 =


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.