24 Jan 2020 13:17:46 Just for my inner peace. I didn't say it WAS fake. But agreed if it is, really well done. And expensive. Why waste that sort of money?
24 Jan 2020 12:55:30 An intriguing one this, Ed. Does really look like they are hardly moving.
Could this have been faked? Possible, but expensive due to foreground running across view of plane. Less likely as a lot of seemingly individual cases of seeing this independently and on different occasions. And why would you fake so many different occasions (expense again) .
Could it be an optical illusion? Possible. But for a plane to appear stationary? at a few hundred feet? hmmm. The inside view of this happening on a high altitude flight is probably more likely to come across as an illusion, as air speed is not related to the Earth. It is the speed of air passing across/ over the wings.
But I thought these planes travel between 350-550mph, so you would need the equivalent windspeed in the opposite direction the plane is travelling to be at the planes speed. 350-550 mph jet stream I doubt it! . (without delving a little more, I am not sure how altitude effects airspeed as the air is thinner. My thinking right now is that it just allows the plane to travel faster as less resistance. The air still travels ( although less air as thinner) across the wings the same speed.
The A380 flights from Dubai to London fly directly over my house multiple times a day. They always appear slow and lethargic in the sky, and seem to fly oddly (not how you would expect, maybe because of there size?! ) but I haven't witnessed anything like what this video shows. And I do make a point of watching for odd things happening in the sky. Seen a few, but not relevant to this thread.
Is it possible, plane engineers are mistaking a mix of liquid helium and avgas as just avgas? . I know helium is only light as a gas, not a liquid, but releasing a pressurised gas (liquid) into a space where it would not be pressurised (just release the equivalent volume of uncompressed gas as a liquid), it would still become a float-able gas mixed with avgas.
I am just spit-balling to take my mind off my potentially anger inducing day. Thanks.
23 Jan 2020 21:19:09 I'm going to look in to this more. As I don't know enough about the subject to think it through properly. (I don't think being 4 hours in to " the greatest story never told" is helping my mental state right now. )
I know avgas is denser at colder temperatures maybe this could somehow effect the amount used?
This being said, Though. Prices for anything are set as high as they can in relation to what people are willing to pay. And I doubt anything would stand up in a court of law even if they were using no fuel.
23 Jan 2020 17:16:39 Not all of the fuel is stored in the wings. There are 6 other tanks in the main body of the A380 not including the wing tanks.
I get that the video was displaying it was too much fuel to fit, it was just his calculations seemed weird.
I don't remember him mentioning the other fuel tanks either?
I'm not writing off his theory. Just figuring out the if he is right.
Always thought Tesla's turbine has been very underused considering, on his deathbed, Tesla said it was his favourite invention. Maybe because it doesn't run on million year old squashed plant juice?
23 Jan 2020 16:14:26 It possible. I was trying to do some calculations on what he was saying and I am not sure what he was saying was right. Was just going to run through some bit again and now its gone, so I guess I won't be sure, now.
The answer is 7.727 . As in the Olympic pool holds 7.727 times the amount of fuel on board an A380. Not seven thousand seven hundred and twenty seven litres.
Or did I miss something here?
I did get to figure out that the pumps work out to be around 1000 litres a minute. Fuelling time (standard) is about 2 hours, so 120,000 litres of fuel. Not a full tank, but it depends on the destination. Full tank is about 8,500 miles. and would weight about 90,000kg I think (6lb per gallon is the standard pilots use).
It would have been nice to re-watch and go over things again.
22 Jan 2020 22:22:50 I didn't know that exact fact, Rian. But have been aware of the conspiracies of him not dying where and when it was portrayed. It amazing how many CIA investigations there, were trying to track him down, all the way into the 1970's.
I did watch a particularly well put together MS documentary recently called "Hunting Hitler". It was actually backed up by facts and very thorough investigative research rather than jumping to amazingly speculative conclusions from nowhere, like say " Ancient Aliens".
After 3 seasons they tracked him down to being in Argentina. It's worth a watch. Maybe he was on his way to an unknown region in Antarctica?
22 Jan 2020 22:06:24 It boggles the mind that original data from arguably the most amazing achievement the human race has ever accomplished, has been erased from history. Either lost of written over. You would imagine it being under lock and key somewhere safe. Maybe Mr Kubrick had it stashed somewhere?
22 Jan 2020 21:15:54 I haven't seen any conspiracy-type videos on this at all that I can remember. I am however aware of some visual effects of light interacting with particles either larger or smaller than the wavelength of the light called "Mie" and "Rayleigh" scattering. I think its "Mie scattering" that has an explanation. This doesn't really fit this site though. But I will add, it doesn't mean the Moon is where we are told it is. And the distance we are told is measure using mirrors put on the Moon by astronauts from the apollo missions who travelled through the Van Allen belts even though we still don't have the tech to take a human past 350 miles of low Earth orbit. If only we had the tech from back then.
22 Jan 2020 18:27:52 I can completely understand how you feel on the FE theory, AJH. I struggle with, what it would mean if true, too. Something is not right though. And I'm trying to find out with my own research. I'd be happy to admit I was wrong about something if I was proved to be so.
Its the fact that there are no real photos of the Earth in full view. They are all photoshopped and made to look how we would expect it to look. Why is that? . They send probes and robotic machines to even the farthest planets to take photographs, yet they have none of the planet we live on?
If you were on a spacecraft going to the Moon. Would the first thing you look at and photograph be the Earth? This just doesn't add up to me.
As for the 500 years of science being denied. I am just about to start, probably a life's work, to try and understand the works of A. T. Fomenko. Someone that believes "consensual history is a finely woven magic fabric of intricate lies about events predating the XVI century".
That will be after I have read: Isaac Newton - The chronology of ancient kingdoms. Who believes the same. I will share my thoughts as and when.
Just to add a little more to your responses. I don't believe everyone at Nasa knows much at all with, what is going on. It's all compartmentalised, so no one knows what anyone else is doing. And there are a lot of ex nasa people who are now flat Earthers which generates questions. It would be possible for the elite few at the top of these organisations to be the only ones in the know.
I'm not a flat earther (yet), but I am open to the possibility to it being true. You can see my journey down the rabbit hole from about 2 months ago on here. I actually said to Ed recently that, if you told me a few months ago I'd be researching the FE theory, I would have told you, you were insane!
22 Jan 2020 09:15:11 The European Space Agency are launching a new satellite soon called "Truth". To get an "absolute measurement" of reflected light off of the Earth's surface. It's to help the climate change agenda. I found this paragraph rather amusing so thought I'd share.
"The map should be of such exquisite quality that it's expected to become the standard reference against which all other imaging spacecraft will want to adjust and correct their own observations."
The first image proves we are all doomed! . The whole antarctic ice-shelf has melted away and maybe if I climbed a tree as they suggest I would have seen this coming, because a lot of ice missing = a lot of water I should be seeing?! .
But, after getting over the shock of this make believe flood from melted ice that i couldn't see, I decided to book myself on a "round-the-world flight" which clearly, by its name, means the world is a sphere. A perfect sphere as shown in all the photos. But isn't there a bulge in the middle?
Oh no wait its pear-shaped isn't it? (just take a look at the photos they show on the round-the-world flight. the one that doesn't show the black of space, has less curvature than the one lower and shows no black of space. And most people believe this crap.
21 Jan 2020 20:40:05 Kudos to you for your work today, Ed. Hope Tony spends the time reading/ watching the answers to his questions. I Hold his opinion quite highly on the MU pages and comes across as balanced and thoughtful. Be good to have another open mind on here to discuss / question the truth.
21 Jan 2020 19:34:10 Yes. That had slipped my mind, Ed. Think half my brains gone on strike today in protest of the amount of info its received of late. Poor ol' monkey can peddle fast enough. I Had a flip through the Fomenko book (more doorstop and this is just vol 1) which just turned up today, and the level of research is astounding! to the point where I am not even sure I'll be able to understand it without a lifetime of research myself.
Guess that journey starts now. I need to try and have days where i just study that and nothing else, to give myself a chance. I did note early in the book he references Newtons book "The chronology of Ancient Kingdoms". So I will delve into that first as it is a more regular sized book! haha.
P.S there are many diagrams in Fomenko's book which are not easy to interpret without reading the book (I speculate they will be easier) . But it does seem it would be possible to draw up a timeline of events once I get my head round it.
21 Jan 2020 18:04:53 When you say you saw the curvature from a plane. Did you actually make a conscious point of looking for it or was it a case of remembering that you saw it?
Only reason I ask is that once, many moons ago, I was training to be a skydiver. So throwing myself out of a plane at 5000ft+ was a normal regular occurrence back then. But I never consciously looked for a curve, I just think I remember one or even I don't recall at all (is it the mandela effect?, not sure) . So, because I am not sure, I have put it down to not seeing it and now I have to actively seek it on purpose. Hope that makes sense. Question everything including your own mind.
Also, If you have the time, AJH, this is well worth a watch. Should have most of the answers and more for you to think about.
Southern Monkey