Since I'm a big supporter of Electric Universe and since space travel/frauds is a related matter, I have to ask if anyone here has exposed the Musk Space Fraud. Here's my latest proof. Would love to see an attempt at debunking it. If not, shouldn't we all be spreading the word that Musk is a fraud, as are his 'flights'?
If this is the wrong place to post this, direct me....
Elon Musk, Space Fraud?
- Thread starter Allancw
- Start date
Hi there, Allan, welcome back!
I've been following at least some of your videos about Elon Musk, and I do agree there's something fishy going on. I think you're right that the footage of the "Tesla roadster in space" looks like it was made with stage lights. And furthermore, it makes no sense at all that they would waste all that fuel & equipment to launch Musk's favorite antique car into space. That's just wrong on so many levels... I'm guessing there was some secret CIA or deep state cargo on board.
I also agree that the booster recovery landing images look fake. They're too perfect, with the twin boosters touching down at exactly the same moment. I can easily believe that Musk feels highly motivated to "fake it until you make it" -- otherwise the investors would panic.
And about that SpaceX -- ISS footage, something about it looks fake too. It looks just like a Hollywood CGI movie special effect would look. I can't quite put my finger on it. I'm not sure.
But... I don't agree that there's a continuity error about the robot arm. Instead I think you're misinterpreting the perspective: the robot arm is much closer to the camera than the space capsule, so much so that it never does show in the pictures taken with the other camera.
And... in this shot:
I might see four of the portholes: one at 11 o'clock, almost entirely hidden behind the folded-out nose cone; another at about 1 o'clock, half hidden; a third at 5 o'clock, covered from the inside so it looks white/opaque instead of black; and the one at 7. I'm not at all sure about the one at 11, but it might plausibly be there. And it only takes a moment to cover or uncover a porthole, so it could plausibly have happened between one live shot of the interior, and the next.
I've looked at your videos claiming that the launch footage is fake, and I just don't see anything wrong at all with those launches. Besides, the launch phase is very public, I can't believe that Musk would try to fool thousands of tourists watching with binoculars.
Last but not least, I do believe that Musk builds some very nice cars. Last time I heard from Joe Atwill, he told me that he'd purchased a new Model 3 and he's very happy with it.
I've been following at least some of your videos about Elon Musk, and I do agree there's something fishy going on. I think you're right that the footage of the "Tesla roadster in space" looks like it was made with stage lights. And furthermore, it makes no sense at all that they would waste all that fuel & equipment to launch Musk's favorite antique car into space. That's just wrong on so many levels... I'm guessing there was some secret CIA or deep state cargo on board.
I also agree that the booster recovery landing images look fake. They're too perfect, with the twin boosters touching down at exactly the same moment. I can easily believe that Musk feels highly motivated to "fake it until you make it" -- otherwise the investors would panic.
And about that SpaceX -- ISS footage, something about it looks fake too. It looks just like a Hollywood CGI movie special effect would look. I can't quite put my finger on it. I'm not sure.
But... I don't agree that there's a continuity error about the robot arm. Instead I think you're misinterpreting the perspective: the robot arm is much closer to the camera than the space capsule, so much so that it never does show in the pictures taken with the other camera.
And... in this shot:
I might see four of the portholes: one at 11 o'clock, almost entirely hidden behind the folded-out nose cone; another at about 1 o'clock, half hidden; a third at 5 o'clock, covered from the inside so it looks white/opaque instead of black; and the one at 7. I'm not at all sure about the one at 11, but it might plausibly be there. And it only takes a moment to cover or uncover a porthole, so it could plausibly have happened between one live shot of the interior, and the next.
I've looked at your videos claiming that the launch footage is fake, and I just don't see anything wrong at all with those launches. Besides, the launch phase is very public, I can't believe that Musk would try to fool thousands of tourists watching with binoculars.
Last but not least, I do believe that Musk builds some very nice cars. Last time I heard from Joe Atwill, he told me that he'd purchased a new Model 3 and he's very happy with it.
Last edited:
I hope you won't mind, I've moved this topic to its own thread. If you want to comment about Thunderbolts, please use the other thread. Thanks!
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
Here's an article discussing the Russian reaction to this event. They have different issues, with $400 million a year at stake. https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ian-critic-says-roscosmos-acting-left-behind/
If this is fake, then there is some splaining to do, including from the Russian 'saints'. "Hou-istan, we have a problemski".
Here's another view, from the link:
If this is fake, then there is some splaining to do, including from the Russian 'saints'. "Hou-istan, we have a problemski".
Here's another view, from the link:
Last edited:
Jerry, your reply is a classic! Somehow you deny the real point while looking like you're on our side. One by one so you can't cherry pick: If the double landing was fake (just that for now), why would you think any of it was real? One thing at a time.... walk us through how it would work...
What if Musk is really running some sort of top secret project that would raise strong public opposition and/or force the Russians and Chinese to respond in kind if their people knew about it? For example, a plot to put a massive array of h-bombs into low earth orbit, ready to drop from the sky and destroy any country within minutes after giving the order, and without any detectable warning signal of any kind before the bombs go off? (I'm not sure if this would work: at a minimum, it would require some sort of very robust hypersonic entry capsule.) Or a submarine detection system, or satellites that could hunt and destroy other satellites, or an attempt to get a competitive edge on 5G wireless. The list of possible reasons is endless.
Whatever it is, the deep state doesn't want us to know about it. So they've come up with this fantastic story about Musk's goal to colonize Mars, and his reusable boosters, and his little red Tesla roadster, and the docking with the ISS that's supposedly been in orbit since 1998, but might have long since crashed to earth for all we know.
At any rate, I'm trying to make sense of all the evidence. I think it's pretty clear that Musk has pulled together enormous resources and has been able to build massive factories to construct these rocket boosters, as well as hundreds of thousands of automobiles. I see Tesla Model 3's on the road every day that I go into town in little Eugene now, so they must be building a lot of them. The launch videos look real to me, and as I said earlier, I'm not buying that Musk could pull the wool over the eyes of the many thousands of tourists that turn up for each launch. There is no known technology that could project such a convincing hologram or mass delusion.
So, I believe that Musk is running a rocket program. But, I'm not buying that it's all about some plan to build Mars colonies. That part is a fairy tale for people who can't do math.
True enough. But a couple of other people left comments questioning your porthole analysis. One person agrees with me, that you can't reach any conclusions from the lack of visible stars in the images. And as always, 'flat earth' was a popular discussion topic. This online world is a bizarre place.
The interior photos only show three portholes. You're assuming that there's another one behind the camera that's providing lighting, right? But maybe they have light bulbs in the capsule? I didn't see any proof in your video that there are four portholes viewed from inside, either. And I do see at least three portholes on the outside. Evaluating the inside pictures in light of the rules of perspective, it looks to me like they're not the same distance apart.
So here's this Russian agency that's been getting $400 million a year from the US. And who's to say they're really burning up any of that money to send astronauts and cosmonauts for ISS joyrides? For all we know, every penny could be going to Euromaidan-style color revolutionaries and subversive activities against the Russian government. Or maybe Putin is using it for his dachas. This could be the secret dirt that Trump uses against Putin to keep him in line. After all, some people say that Putin goes so far to appease the Americans that he must be our puppet.
Then again, maybe the Russians are cooperating in whatever secret space venture Musk is fronting. And maybe this ISS-Dragon docking really did take place, but they had to create fake CGI footage of it because any real footage would reveal whatever the scam really is.
As an aside here, I've seen Miles Mathis's analysis of the archival footage of atmospheric atomic bomb tests, and I agree that some of the footage looks either heavily doctored, or entirely fake. But it doesn't necessarily follow that none of the tests ever happened, or that nuclear weapons don't even exist. Considering all the evidence, it seems more likely that they just decided to produce some fake footage because they're trying to hide something.
I am on your side! I'm just asking you to be more careful with your analysis, and take a broader view of what might be happening here.
Last edited:
Wow. Talk about misdirection. Nothing you wrote had anything to do with my video and what it means or ANSWERED MY QUESTION. (If you doubt there are 4 windows, just do a search for Dragon Interior, and quit with the BS. Ditto the BS about stars in space. See this is why I asked one question; so you couldn't misdirect with irrelevancies.) Jerry, you said the double landing looked fake. If it is fake, do you not see the implications? You completely avoided my question.
What is this supposed to mean?: 'I am on your side! I'm just asking you to be more careful with your analysis, and take a broader view of what might be happening here.' You are on my side? How about answering my question?
What is this supposed to mean?: 'I am on your side! I'm just asking you to be more careful with your analysis, and take a broader view of what might be happening here.' You are on my side? How about answering my question?
Hi Allan,
You didn't just ask one question. You wrote one post with one question, but then you wrote another post with another statement -- which I took as a challenge demanding an answer. I don't give a shit how many portholes there really are. I don't feel confident whether the capsule even exists in the real world, or whether it doesn't. The question is, what can we say about the portholes from the evidence you present.
As to your question about the double landing, I was doing my best to answer as thoroughly as I could. First I explained myself by saying: "I can easily believe that Musk feels highly motivated to "fake it until you make it" -- otherwise the investors would panic."
Or, to elaborate on that: Musk's entire pitch is that he can make space travel cheaper and more accessible, by saving the launchers. If that part of the pitch fails, his supporters will abandon in droves. And yet, it's a highly difficult technical problem, to make a recoverable booster. So if he can't really do that, then of course he's highly motivated to produce fake footage.
As I further explained, he may not even care about recoverable boosters. He may be running a deeper scam. He's telling a fairy tale about Mars colonization, Teslas in space, and recoverable boosters, and I don't buy a word of it. As to what he's really doing, I haven't a clue.
On the other hand, you're telling me that the launches are done with holography. What would be the point of that?? No launches, no secret payloads, no factories full of rocket engines, nothing?? How could he do that? And if he could, why would he??
Have you ever considered taking your RV out to Florida or California to see one of the launches for yourself? Perhaps you could interview some of the other tourists there, and see whether they think they might be seeing a hologram?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_launch_facilities
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
I'll bet those Jesu astronomers operating their LUCIFER telescope in Arizona can tell us what really happened out there, looking out their Mt. Graham back door. That is, when they aren't looking at all the supposed UFO's zipping around our solar system, no doubt getting ready for Space Jesus to come kick Satan's Earthly arse -- and wring in the new millennial order. (Satan and Lucifer are not the same metaphorical dudes.)
Why are Jerry and Allen so mum on all this? Hey, I didn't pull this doo, doo doo out of my arse.
But, maybe this money is going to either Ukrainian revolutionaries ... or to Putin? Really? Are you saying that if the money is going to the Ukrainians that Putin is so controlled that he wouldn't expose this? My how the worm has turned. And why did Allan let this pass?
Notice that nice touch in the article, that the Russians made the Russian cosmonaut hide in his Russian chambers.
In any case, Jerry is correct about the ISS arm. At 1:30, we are obviously looking at the arm's elbow, not it's hand. Allan should have cut this clip sooner if he wants to maintain this claim.
As for the portals there does seem to be some problems. However, we can see here that there are white 'shades' employed:
Earlier w/ no shades:
There are computer graphics which do seem to show that there should be two outboard portals, at exactly 3 and 9 o'clock. But then again, there was also a portal on the door hatch in the actual mockup that Musk personally showed off years ago.
Note that the leftmost portal is showing all black in 'contrast' to the other two. If this portal is indeed within a depression on the outer surface maybe this blackness is correct?
Note the window portal below in the videographic from here. Note the leftmost portal at 9:00 (assuming door hatch is at 6:00).
Why are Jerry and Allen so mum on all this? Hey, I didn't pull this doo, doo doo out of my arse.
...
Wond'rous apparition provided by magician.
Tambourines and elephants are playing in the band.
Won't you take a ride on the flying spoon?
Doo, doo doo.
Bother me tomorrow, today, I'll buy no sorrows.
Chorus
Forward troubles Illinois, lock the front door, oh boy!
Look at all the happy creatures dancing on the lawn.
Bother me tomorrow, today, I'll buy no sorrows.
Doo, doo dooo, ... looking out my back door.
John C. Fogerty
Ha!!! So, at least your allowing Putin's no saint. Yes, ultimately he works for the same handlers as Drumpf.
But, maybe this money is going to either Ukrainian revolutionaries ... or to Putin? Really? Are you saying that if the money is going to the Ukrainians that Putin is so controlled that he wouldn't expose this? My how the worm has turned. And why did Allan let this pass?
Notice that nice touch in the article, that the Russians made the Russian cosmonaut hide in his Russian chambers.
In any case, Jerry is correct about the ISS arm. At 1:30, we are obviously looking at the arm's elbow, not it's hand. Allan should have cut this clip sooner if he wants to maintain this claim.
As for the portals there does seem to be some problems. However, we can see here that there are white 'shades' employed:
Earlier w/ no shades:
There are computer graphics which do seem to show that there should be two outboard portals, at exactly 3 and 9 o'clock. But then again, there was also a portal on the door hatch in the actual mockup that Musk personally showed off years ago.
Note that the leftmost portal is showing all black in 'contrast' to the other two. If this portal is indeed within a depression on the outer surface maybe this blackness is correct?
Note the window portal below in the videographic from here. Note the leftmost portal at 9:00 (assuming door hatch is at 6:00).
Did you say something about diversion? Answer the question, Allan. Since you're so sure that the launches are holograms, have you gone to Florida or California to check it out for yourself?
I was being sarcastic here. What do I really know about Putin? I was only reporting what people have said in Internet chat rooms.
If we're actually back to having a serious conversation about portholes: the infographic is obviously a CGI, not anywhere near as good as the one that's supposedly a real video of events in space. It could be based on early engineering drawings that got superseded before the actual spacecraft was built (if indeed there is one.)
About the black porthole: maybe they have two different sizes of portholes, and they have a black porthole cover and a couple of white porthole covers, so that they don't confuse which cover goes with which porthole. I don't have a clue, really.
Last edited:
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
I was not really referring to the Vatican organs and their Jesuit astronomers, etc. discussing the second Second Coming of Jesus as being doo-doo, but rather the lack of attention to this approaching apocalyptic matter. Which, BTW, was preceded by the supposed visions and prophecies of Lady Fatima (aka the Virgin Mary). The second of which fed into support for Hitler and then Spelly's War, aka ..... Vietnam.
I think you should have raised the possibility that Allan is paying me to discuss and publicize his ideas. He's been complaining that no one else in the alternative media will give him the time of day.
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
OK, how do I get Allen to start paying me? I even watched all the episodes of Hamilton's Pharmacopeia for Dog? Did you Jerry? This is outrageous.
Getting easy details wrong matters. 9/11 was a very painful experience in this regard. It was bad enough that there was so much disinfo out there, but then to have deal with so much nonsense. Like people claiming that a 1960's picture of snow in the future 'bathtub' basement of the future Twin Towers was actually the melted steel post-9/11. Well, "you know", that's what molten steel looks like, right (Mr. Hoffman)?
I was hoping maybe the conversation would go better this time, but apparently Allan hasn't changed a bit. He's still convinced of the righteousness of every single thought that comes into his head. And if anyone disagrees with him, he takes it as clear evidence that the other person is on the government payroll. It's sad that the stress of being "awake" or taking the "red pill" (or, perhaps, too many other pills from the Pharmacopeia) seems to encourage such delusional thought patterns.
And it's also a shame because out of all the ideas Allan comes up with, maybe half of them are pretty good.
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
At 4:30 in Allen's video, I have found 4 'ovals' -- suspiciously where the 4 portals should be as I said if the prior posted 'videographic' image was correct. The two widest ovals can be made out be looking for the differing surface albedo.
Note that the ovals are all with different aspect ratios, with the one on the left being the narrowist and the one on the right being that fattest. Sorry they are not all round, but what can I do? Reminds me of that oval hole in the rear of the Pentagon C-Ring. The one that the round fuselage of the 757 supposedly penetrated, at an angle, and then vaporized into thin air. OMG, that's why these round portals are oval shaped!!!! (I got an A+ in Geometry) And by looking at the fin (at 6:00) the camera angle is off-center from the craft's radial axis., which is why they are all slightly different in aspect ratio appearance.
Note that the ovals are all with different aspect ratios, with the one on the left being the narrowist and the one on the right being that fattest. Sorry they are not all round, but what can I do? Reminds me of that oval hole in the rear of the Pentagon C-Ring. The one that the round fuselage of the 757 supposedly penetrated, at an angle, and then vaporized into thin air. OMG, that's why these round portals are oval shaped!!!! (I got an A+ in Geometry) And by looking at the fin (at 6:00) the camera angle is off-center from the craft's radial axis., which is why they are all slightly different in aspect ratio appearance.
This is one of those songs I've heard a million times without paying any attention at all to the words.
But now, it's like Puff the Magic Dragon all over again.
Janet says she's always known it was a song about drugs.
Joe would say it's about the Illuminati, and troubles are on their way to Illinois, bar the door.
Doo doo out the rear end? Where else but Postflaviana are you going to find that interpretation?
According to the musicians themselves, there's nothing to see here:
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
I knew it was "doot doot doo"!!!!!
Not "doo, doo dooo". Damn Internet lyric sites, now I have to take it all back.
Not "doo, doo dooo". Damn Internet lyric sites, now I have to take it all back.
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
Speaking of drugs and looking out the back door:
And then not too much earlier:
OMDG, I just realized that stoners are freemasons.
The Pentagon is reviewing Elon Musk’s federal security clearance following the billionaire’s marijuana toke on a California comedian’s podcast in September, according to a U.S. official.
Musk has refiled his SF-86 security form, which requires a federal employee or contractor seeking a clearance to acknowledge any illegal drug use over the previous seven years, according to the official, who asked not to be identified. The entrepreneur has a secret-level clearance because of his role as founder and CEO of Space Exploration Technologies Corp., which is certified to launch military spy satellites. ...
And then not too much earlier:
It's not the first time Musk has been asked about weed in recent weeks.
Some people speculated that he was high when he tweeted last month that he was considering taking Tesla private, citing his proposal of $420 a share — "420" is a reference to weed.
In an interview with The New York Times shortly afterward, Musk said he didn't smoke weed before he tweeted.
"Weed is not helpful for productivity," he told the newspaper. "There's a reason for the word 'stoned.' You just sit there like a stone on weed."...
OMDG, I just realized that stoners are freemasons.