One thing no one can disprove...

[zorgon]

Really now? 

Yup but if you don't believe them...  why are you even looking?


Ben told us we already have the tech to take ET home. The whole point of Pegasus is to show this tech as well as we can within the confines of National Security. There are thousands of official documents all the way up to bordering on stilll classified  I have over 6,000 in my library alone. 

I also was sent a sketch of a working space drive for 'safe keeping' that I still cannot release without getting a knock at the door

So yeah those three are telling you the truth. Boyd even showed us gravity experiments as proof on YT 

But hey....  we can speculate forever and not waste time following the trail of facts

Here... have a Mayan Alien Stone  from Klaus Donner and Nassim Haramein... never mind that they cannot tell you where the dig site is...  never mind that they don't even look Mayan...  I think I recall back on ATS that Klaus was selling some at about $75K a pop. Maybe ArMaP can find that   



I mean they have to be the real deal  because National Geographic gave Nassim the air time  and we all know National Geographic only brings us truth

[thorfourwinds]

Calling the Shadow Expert...what about it, ArMaP?

Does perception depend on the point of view of the perceiver? [Matrix bait - Hi John  ]

Does this photo suggest two light sources?

Obviously, a source cannot be starlight, as there appear to be no stars.   

Enquiring minds want to know   

Thanking you in advance,

With great respect,



tfw
Peace Love Light
Liberty & Equality or Revolution

Hec'el oinipikte  (that we shall live)

[ArMaP]

Calling the Shadow Expert...what about it, ArMaP?

I'm not an expert.

Does perception depend on the point of view of the perceiver? [Matrix bait - Hi John  ]

I think it does.

Does this photo suggest two light sources?

First of all, I don't think that's a photo but a mosaic of at least two or three different photos. And no, it doesn't suggest two lights, as two light would create two shadows for every object.

Obviously, a source cannot be starlight, as there appear to be no stars.   

The fact that we don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there, don't let your perception fool you.
But no, stars would no give enough light to be noticeable.

Enquiring minds want to know   

Now they know.

[The Matrix Traveller]

Is your sky different?

NO.

[Logos]

Putting it simply, we don't have the technology to go into space at the current time; and strapping people to what is essentially a giant firecracker is guaranteed to get at least several of them killed.

Are you sure we don't? It would be more accurate to say we don't have publicly visible technology to go into space at the current time.

The true state of science and technology on this world is at a level that far exceeds what's perceived by the public.

[Logos]

But it works.

It works where? In a dense atmosphere, yes. In a vacuum, I'd say no. I don't see how they could have done it with the technology they claim they used--and I'm just referring to propulsion. There are other problems they would have had to address.

[ArMaP]

It works where? In a dense atmosphere, yes. In a vacuum, I'd say no.

Why do you say "no"?

[Logos]

Why do you say "no"?

Because of the principle of "free expansion" of gases which states that when gases escape into a vacuum they do no work. It's standard scientific stuff one can look up and there are a number of published experiments going back to the 1800s that prove this.

I'll concede they *might* be able to get their rocket engines to ignite in the vacuum of space but they will produce no thrust, i.e., the rocket won't move. I think you'd just see a huge expanding cloud of exhaust shooting for miles in every direction. There's more to be said about this but as far as what one would see of a rocket engine in space, I think that's about it.

I'm convinced they'd have to use antigravity/electrodyne or other classified technology to move around up there. I think an inertial drive system like the Cubli could, in principle (in practice is another matter) propel something in a zero-G vacuum environment but I don't think it could propel an object at a high enough speed to get to another planet in a reasonable amount of time.

[Ellirium113]

Calling the Shadow Expert...what about it, ArMaP?

Does perception depend on the point of view of the perceiver? [Matrix bait - Hi John  ]

Does this photo suggest two light sources?

Obviously, a source cannot be starlight, as there appear to be no stars.   

Enquiring minds want to know   

Thanking you in advance,

With great respect,



tfw
Peace Love Light
Liberty & Equality or Revolution

Hec'el oinipikte  (that we shall live)

This is quite the photoshop job on this picture... notice as you look in the crater all the cross hatch patterns are off alignment and if you look really close you can see a straight line where an image was pasted in. Hard to make a call on light sourcing on a manufactured photo. heck in the dark part of the crater you can even see a 90 degree light area from a cropped picture.   

[ArMaP]

Because of the principle of "free expansion" of gases which states that when gases escape into a vacuum they do no work.

I don't remember ever reading about that principle, but I have one question: what do you mean by "do no work"?

It's standard scientific stuff one can look up and there are a number of published experiments going back to the 1800s that prove this.

I will look.

[ArMaP]

This is quite the photoshop job on this picture... notice as you look in the crater all the cross hatch patterns are off alignment and if you look really close you can see a straight line where an image was pasted in.

Yes, panoramas are (unless you use a special lens) made by joining several photos, and even when the photographer has lots of practice doing it, taking several photos without a tripod will result in photos that are not aligned.

[ArMaP]

Because of the principle of "free expansion" of gases which states that when gases escape into a vacuum they do no work.

From what I could see in Wikipedia, and although that's a subject I do not really know, I don't think you can compare the free expansion of a gas to the expansion resulting from the a chemical reaction like mixing hydrogen with oxygen.

[Ellirium113]

Yes, panoramas are (unless you use a special lens) made by joining several photos, and even when the photographer has lots of practice doing it, taking several photos without a tripod will result in photos that are not aligned.

Thought I was being observant there for a moment.

[The Matrix Traveller]

A rocket engine is basically another form of 'Thermal Converter'

But works a little different than piston engines and turbine engines, working on this principle
and do not need to push against anything other than their exhaust cones.

They work on the principle of ejecting mass at high velocities.

But you can't cross Galaxies in minutes though the application of a mechanical Fart !   

Still this is the principle of their operation...

­Wh­en most people think about motors or engines, they think about rotation. For example,
a reciprocating gasoline engine in a car produces rotational energy to drive the wheels.

An electric motor produces rotational energy to drive a fan or spin a disk. A steam engine is used
to do the same thing, as is a steam turbine and most gas turbines.

Rocket engines are fundamentally different. Rocket engines are reaction engines.

The basic principle driving a rocket engine is the famous Newtonian principle that "to every action
there is an equal and opposite reaction." A rocket engine is throwing mass in one direction
and benefiting from the reaction that occurs in the other direction as a result.

This concept of "throwing mass and benefiting from the reaction" can be hard to grasp at first,
because that does not seem to be what is happening.

Rocket engines seem to be about flames and noise and pressure, not "throwing things."

But this does NOT mean the human Primate, used such 'Tech' to get to the Moon.

Perhaps they had a little help from their friends ?   

[zorgon]

But you can't cross Galaxies in minutes though the application of a mechanical Fart !   

Oh but you CAN...  That is the one thing people forget.

IF you can Warp Space so that Point A (where you are now) and Point B (where you want to be at the opposite end of the galaxy) a simple FART is all you need to cover that distance in an instant



Now I would assume that you would need a lot of electricity to power those gravity generators to jump that far (Which is why Star Trek still requires time to get around... they do it in smaller hops) But still... simply fold space to a point where Point A and Point be are 'touching' in the next dimension and you can literally step through

Still this is the principle of their operation...

You can easily do this at home...  buy a small toy rocket... get a vacuum cleaner to suck out almost all the air in a container and ignite the toy rocket. I guarantee it will work