HAPPY HOAX ANNIVERSARY!!! (Rockets can't fly in a vacuum)

Quote from: cikljamas on July 23, 2019, 04:01:45 AM

Quote from: sokarul on July 23, 2019, 03:54:49 AM

So....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?

Resistance!

Ever heard of

• "A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force."
• force = mass x acceleration or the more general case where mass might vary force = rate of change of momentum and
• "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

There's no mention if "Resistance" anywhere.

Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

”When a BODY exerts force on a SECOND  BODY” let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!


You still haven't watched this video :



No, the “second body” isnt the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

In the context of a bowling ball experiment :

The guy on a skateboard = FIRST BODY
FORCE = Motion of his arms that pushes off a heavy ball
A MEDICINE BALL = SECOND BODY

Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) enables our guy to be pushed off of a heavy ball.
Heaviness of a medicine ball (INERTIA) imitates/simulates THE AIR
Lightness of some light object (which our guy could have used in his second hypothetical try) imitates/simulates A VACUUM

Get it???

Or do i have to copy/paste this portion of my previous post (again), as well :


There is no denying that If you stand on a skate board and throw the bowling ball away, you and the skateboard will indeed move in the opposite direction to the bowling ball. This is because, by throwing the bowling ball away, you have basically pushed against a resistant object that is separate from you, (like a solid wall).

So, INERTIA (of the bowling ball) is the magic word (an explanation) that you are looking for (which is behind this fraudulent NASA's "scientific" method.

Do i have to remind you to one other equally fraudulent NASA's "scientific" method that should have looked authentic (dropping a ball in a moving train/airplane)

I destroyed (for good) this other (dropping a ball within enclosed moving object) NASA's fraudulent method by offering my own irrefutable counter-argument ("CONCORDE" thought experiment).

HERE IT IS : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78814.msg2128697#msg2128697

Now, back on the track :

Pay attention to this very important (exposing) aspect of NASA's fraudulent method (bowling ball) :
In which exact moment does our guy (on the skateboard) starts to move back (in the video posted by sokarul)



BOWLING BALL SLOW MOTION REVEALS NASA'S SCAM :


Long before he extends his arms to the full extent and even much long before he throws the ball (before the ball is fully detached from his hands).
It means that in our "balloon exhausting" kind of experiments we should expect the same result : our toy cars should start being propelled (pushed back) even before the air is exhausted out of the nozzle (drinking straw) into the surrounding environment!!!
That is to say, if we could make the ball to disappear (to vanish into thin air) in the exact same moment when our skateboard guy extends his hands to the full extent (few milliseconds before he throws the ball), he would be still pushed back to the same degree as it is shown in sokarul's video.
Now, all you have to do is to apply this same logic to our "balloon exhausting" experiments and explain to us, why this fraudulent NASA's method doesn't work the same way in both cases???

ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :
ROCKETS CAN'T FLY IN A VACUUM - 3 :

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

No, wrong-o!
Rocket = first body
Expelled gasses = second body.

Expelled gasses exit rocket nozzle at high velocity (with little mass), rocket moves in opposite direction at a lower velocity as it has higher mass.
An equal and opposite force is exerted by the rocket on the gasses, and by the gasses on the rocket.
NOTHING else is necessary - no atmosphere 'to push on', so rockets work fine in a vacuum (or in air) ...

Well, this video is utter gibberish, and (as usual with this uneducated nonsense) conflates a number of unrelated effects in a confusing manner. It's like a magic trick with a sleight-of-hand. The presenter is mixing up several unrelated ideas (which taken spearately are actually correct) and applying them in an incorrect manner. The drone flying is nothing to do with a rocket, for example, but to the untrained and non-critical thinker, this appears to make sense (whereas of course, it is total gibberish). Third law relates to mass/inertia. Throw a heavy ball in one direction - you are pushed with an equal and opposite force in the opposite direction. No other external body/atmosphere/wall is necessary ...

No, the “second body” isnt the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

Gas is gas.  It has properties of matter- mass, density, temperature, state, momentum.

It’s not a force, but can be used to apply a force.  Through pressure or momentum.

You seem to be happy for gas (atmosphere) to be the second body in the case of aircraft propellers, and even rockets in atmosphere. 

So why do you think gas is somehow a completely different thing when expelled from a rocket?  It’s still gas, no?

@ Radioflat When you learn how to think out of the box, then (and only then) you will enable yourself to figure out what kind of dystopia you are living in.

Eyes wide shut - part 0a :


Eyes wide shut - part 0b :


Eyes wide shut - part 0c :


Eyes wide shut - part 1 :


Eyes wide shut - part 2 :


Eyes wide shut - part 3 :


Eyes wide shut - part 4 :
Have you Ever seen Anything as Fake as This??? - part 2 (second attempt) :
Where are the stars?
Why cloud morphing is so drastically different in the case of Himawari 8 satellite (geosynchronous satellite) animation comparing it to earth's rotation animation allegedly created of photos allegedly taken by Galileo "spacecraft" (close pass of the earth on December 1990)?
How about two totally different rotational speeds of the earth (pay attention to the second part of the video)?
2A CGI STARS, CGI EARTH, CGI EVERYTHING :
---How about live streaming of the earth by using camera mounted on a
geostationary satellite?

Neil De Grass Tyson explains that at the edge of an atmosphere you can see stars even with the sun in the sky, doesn't it mean that when the sun is not in the sky then the view of the stars is much more spectacular (the stars are much brighter) then here on the earth. Following this logic i suppose that in space you wouldn't even have to use long exposure in order to catch the stars while taking the photo of the night sky. ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :

Some people even claim that at the edge of the atmosphere you can't see stars at all, not only that, they claim that at the edge of the atmosphere you can't even see the sun, all that you can see (according to them) is the moon and the earth. ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :

On the other hand, according to Neil De Grass Tyson when you get at the edge of the atmosphere all of a sudden the view becomes totally spectacular. So, as i already pointed out : following his (Neil De Grass Tyson) logic stars wouldn't be just a little brighter, they would be much brighter. How much brighter? It's hard to tell, but i would say : at least so much brighter as the stars are brighter when we watch them from some high mountain free of light pollution (during the clearest night) in comparison to the view of the stars as seen from some hazy hill in the vicinity of Los Angeles.

The reality is that when looking through the atmosphere you can see the stars from some hazy hill above Los Angeles, you can even catch them with your camera without applying any zoom, whatsoever (let alone, what happens when you zoom in (just a little bit)) :

https://i.postimg.cc/59qRspt1/STARS-NO-LONG-EXPOSURE-2.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/MZPyZjPV/STARS-NO-LONG-EXPOSURE-4.jpg
ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :

https://i.postimg.cc/2S4bWqwH/STAR-1-X.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/kMzcCpgW/STAR-1-X-1.jpg
ACCOMPANYING VIDEO :



On top of that :
How to Manually Focus Your Camera at Night to Shoot Stars :


The relevance here is that this guy managed to take the following photo without using long exposure technique :



So, i ask again, why we can't see any star in this video :

Quote from: rabinoz on July 23, 2019, 04:51:29 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on July 23, 2019, 04:01:45 AM

Quote from: sokarul on July 23, 2019, 03:54:49 AM

So....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?

Resistance!

Ever heard of

• "A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force."
• force = mass x acceleration or the more general case where mass might vary force = rate of change of momentum and
• "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

There's no mention if "Resistance" anywhere.

Newton's Third Law - Identifying Action and Reaction Force Pairs

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

”When a BODY exerts force on a SECOND  BODY” let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!

The second body is the tonnes of exhaust gas expelled at hypersonic velocity by the rocket.

I see nothing in "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" to exclude that!

When a bomb explodes what was originally all part of one object separates and the parts fly in all directions - surely you don't claim that a bomb won't explode on a vacuum?

Stop making up your own "laws of physics".

I asked this question earlier, perhaps you missed it.

Both my parents have worked at NASA for 20+ years. I grew up in kemah, TX. They always stirred away when I asked them about things like this. My Dad always said " quit being a conspiracy theorist " my mom always looked at me like she felt bad for lying to me. They provided me with a great life, great opportunities. But at what expense?

Right next to Johnson Space Center.   What sort of work did your parents do at NASA?

Quote from: cikljamas on July 23, 2019, 05:10:31 AM

No, the “second body” isnt the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

Gas is gas.  It has properties of matter- mass, density, temperature, state, momentum.

It’s not a force, but can be used to apply a force.  Through pressure or momentum.

You seem to be happy for gas (atmosphere) to be the second body in the case of aircraft propellers, and even rockets in atmosphere. 

So why do you think gas is somehow a completely different thing when expelled from a rocket?  It’s still gas, no?

Very good question!

It's still gas (flame), of course, however rocket's gas (flame) does it's work when expelled from a rocket, not before. Now you have to ask yourself : Why it does it's work as soon as it is expelled from a rocket, and not before (while still in rocket chamber)?

Is it because when expelled from a rocket, gas (flame) is no longer part of a rocket or is it because it exerts it's force on the second body (the air)?

Is there a spatial/physical gap between a flame expelled and a rocket?

No, there isn't, that is to say, once an expelled flame is dissipated (wasted/consumed) then (and only then) rocket gas (flame) "becomes" "spatially/physically separated" from the body of a rocket.
But what is the true meaning of this phrase (in this particular case) : being physically separated from the body of a rocket???
In this particular case it means that at this point in time there is no longer any rocket gas (flame) to which we could refer, since it's already completely gone (vanished into thin air) out of existence.
So, we figuratively say that body of a rocket becomes separated from an expelled flame, we don't mean it, literally, because an expelled flame ceased to exist at this point of time.

When a bomb explodes what was originally all part of one object separates and the parts fly in all directions - surely you don't claim that a bomb won't explode on a vacuum?

Hi Rab, I saw a post a while back 'showing' that gunpowder in a vacuum could not be ignited by a laser firing through a glass jar - so I asked would a gun not fire in a vacuum ... I didn't get a reply!

Quote from: cikljamas on July 23, 2019, 04:01:45 AM

Quote from: sokarul on July 23, 2019, 03:54:49 AM

So....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?

Resistance!

Ever heard of

• "A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force."
• force = mass x acceleration or the more general case where mass might vary force = rate of change of momentum and
• "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

There's no mention if "Resistance" anywhere.

To be fair, resistance (friction) is a force.

Quote from: sokarul on July 23, 2019, 03:54:49 AM

So....what mechanism allows a force to be transferred to the rocket from an exhaust molecule hitting an air molecule?

Resistance!

If I throw a baseball at a wall, it doesn’t propel me.

So again, there has to be a link between two molecules colliding and a rocket. What is it?

And to add an ancient question, ho much air does a 100kg rocket need to push off of?

Magellanclavicord, I say the world is made of chocolate, and so it is so! Presto! Everywhere I go, I break off pieces of delicious chocolate and eat it, drink it, sniff it, wash myself in it, and inject it. That's the thing though, the chocolate isn't brown, but it's still chocolate. Maybe I should start the chocolate earth society, ey magellanclavicord? You can bring your rainbows and lollipops.

YES! You've got it! However, I'd caution you against injecting chocolate. It can coagulate in your veins and act like a blood clot. Also, washing yourself in it might be seen as a bit kinky, so keep that in mind if you let kink-phobic people know you do that. 

Quote from: magellanclavichord on July 22, 2019, 08:12:58 PM

Which is why I don't have a model.

Yes, I know. You don't want to have a model because people can then use that to show your model is wrong.

Close, but not quite: It is premature to assert a model before you know what model really withstands the tests. For example, I do not know all the intricate details of how a car engine works. I know that it has cylinders and pistons and spark plugs, but if I tried to describe all the fine details I would certainly be wrong. So I don't pretend to have a model of a car engine. I just know the names of some of its parts, and I know that it works. Mostly. Sometimes an engine doesn't work, but mostly it does. I don't have a model of the FE because, as with the car engine, I don't know the details so if I adopted a model, or invented one of my own, it would be wrong, just as my model of a car engine would be wrong.

That's the mistake so many FEers make: They adopt a model without knowing, and try to defend that model, but they cannot because their models are wrong. I don't have a model because I don't know what model is right.

If I say I believe the earth is flat because that's what the bible says according to my interpretation,  that would be a valid worldview as any other, but then I can't say that I believe in science. That would be like saying that the earth is flat and round at the same time. It's a contradiction.

People engage in contradictions all the time. We all do it. If you were honest with yourself you'd probably find some contradictions of your own. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus said "Love your enemies." But Christians fly airplanes over their enemies and drop bombs on them. People who break traffic laws, endangering the lives of others, get mad at people who cheat on their taxes, and people who cheat on their taxes get mad at people who violate border regulations. A person who brings goods into the country without declaring them to Customs gets mad at a person who enters the country without documentation. Human beings are just a bundle of contradictions. It's a mistake to say "You cannot say both X and Y" because pretty much everything anybody ever says contradicts something else they've said.

Good thing they don't match.
They are close, but not a match.
There is nothing impossible about this. If you think there is please enlighten us all as to just what this problem is.
Don't be vague, be very specific.

The mountain backdrop top plateau in photo 2 and 4 is further to the left.
Even when you shrink the LEM in photo 3 from it's centre focal point inwards the LEM is further to the left and the mountain plateau to the right in picture 3 by a considerable margin.

What mountains are behind photo 1 ?

Furthermore NASA claims that because there is no atmosphere the distance is playing tricks with you. More detail at greater distances is available on the moon.
And the mountains are higher than they appear to be.

After going through each and every Apollo 17 photograph this night (i barely slept) it finally made sense.
They are indeed using a small area with a relative small mountain backdrop.
The backdrop mountains change their position dramatically in relation to the LEM whenever a picture was taken from a slightly different angle. Whereas in real life ,really big mountains in the far distance move much more smoothly relative to an object.

If you ever visit The Hague you should visit the panorama Mesdag and it's really small, but still giving a believeable dept illusion.
Let alone an area from a couple of hunderd yards with a backdrop.

You are having trouble visualizing a 3d system presented in 2d photos.

This might help some.Keep in mind I drew a 2d line on a 3d system.  You should be able to see how the top of the lander can line up with the mountain.

If all space missions are fake, I wonder why the Soviets never landed on the moon, after all all they had to do is a few fake pictures

You are having trouble visualizing a 3d system presented in 2d photos.

This might help some.Keep in mind I drew a 2d line on a 3d system.  You should be able to see how the top of the lander can line up with the mountain.

Only from a different angle towards the LEM....but both LEMS are viewed from approximately the same angle.

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 23, 2019, 05:52:58 AM

Quote from: cikljamas on July 23, 2019, 05:10:31 AM

No, the “second body” isnt the gases...in a rocket launch...the rocket (engine) is the “first body” applying force (expelled gases) to a second body (ground, then atmosphere).. which “pushes back” with equal and opposite force.. on the first body (rocket) forcing it to go up..
what happens in a REAL and INFINITE vacuum, where there is no “second body” to act upon???

THE ROCKET (ENGINE) = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED GASSES
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

Gas is gas.  It has properties of matter- mass, density, temperature, state, momentum.

It’s not a force, but can be used to apply a force.  Through pressure or momentum.

You seem to be happy for gas (atmosphere) to be the second body in the case of aircraft propellers, and even rockets in atmosphere. 

So why do you think gas is somehow a completely different thing when expelled from a rocket?  It’s still gas, no?

Very good question!

It's still gas (flame), of course, however rocket's gas (flame) does it's work when expelled from a rocket, not before. Now you have to ask yourself : Why it does it's work as soon as it is expelled from a rocket, and not before (while still in rocket chamber)?

Is it because when expelled from a rocket, gas (flame) is no longer part of a rocket or is it because it exerts it's force on the second body (the air)?

Is there a spatial/physical gap between a flame expelled and a rocket?

No, there isn't, that is to say, once an expelled flame is dissipated (wasted/consumed) then (and only then) rocket gas (flame) "becomes" "spatially/physically separated" from the body of a rocket.
But what is the true meaning of this phrase (in this particular case) : being physically separated from the body of a rocket???
In this particular case it means that at this point in time there is no longer any rocket gas (flame) to which we could refer, since it's already completely gone (vanished into thin air) out of existence.
So, we figuratively say that body of a rocket becomes separated from an expelled flame, we don't mean it, literally, because an expelled flame ceased to exist at this point of time.

Sorry, I don’t get the point about gaps.

The force should be applied to whatever part of engine is accelerating the gas.  In the gas of a rocket, that’s the injector plate of the combustion engine and the bell end, sorry, rocket bell

Although it’s not really even necessary to know this to look at the overall system.  You can just draw a control volume around the whole rocket, calculate the momentum of gas coming out the back, and due to conservation of momentum, that means you have to have a forward momentum on the rocket.

If all space missions are fake, I wonder why the Soviets never landed on the moon, after all all they had to do is a few fake pictures

The Chinese ''men in outerspace'' was fake as fuck.
The Americans are head and shoulders above the Chinese still when it comes to implementing believable film trickery.
The Russians were hardly capable of making a half decent movie in 1969 let alone a believable moon mission and movieset.

They are indeed using a small area with a relative small mountain backdrop.
The backdrop mountains change their position dramatically in relation to the LEM whenever a picture was taken from a slightly different angle. Whereas in real life ,really big mountains in the far distance move much more smoothly relative to an object.

Hang on.  Just to clarify, what are you proposing this “backdrop” actually is?

Are we talking paintings, projections, or a real physical body?

Quote from: dutchy on July 23, 2019, 11:03:59 AM

They are indeed using a small area with a relative small mountain backdrop.
The backdrop mountains change their position dramatically in relation to the LEM whenever a picture was taken from a slightly different angle. Whereas in real life ,really big mountains in the far distance move much more smoothly relative to an object.

Hang on.  Just to clarify, what are you proposing this “backdrop” actually is?

Are we talking paintings, projections, or a real physical body?

You should ask NASA..how should i know which combi's they used when and where ?
It looks beyond fake and rediculous compared to any photograph on earth...
But like i said the beautifull NASA ''moon conditions'' do their magic again.
Details on the moon do not fade out like on earth in the distance, because the lack of an atmosphere prevents details from washing out like on earth.
And allthaugh the mountains appear near and small , that's because it appears that way on the moon without an atmosphere.
How conveniant again....

Didn't you read the rest of my posts ?.

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 23, 2019, 12:19:01 PM

Quote from: dutchy on July 23, 2019, 11:03:59 AM

They are indeed using a small area with a relative small mountain backdrop.
The backdrop mountains change their position dramatically in relation to the LEM whenever a picture was taken from a slightly different angle. Whereas in real life ,really big mountains in the far distance move much more smoothly relative to an object.

Hang on.  Just to clarify, what are you proposing this “backdrop” actually is?

Are we talking paintings, projections, or a real physical body?

You should ask NASA..how should i know which combi's they used when and where ?

Because I thought you were well versed on “top photographers” explaining how it was all shot in a studio.

Are you saying they didn’t even go into any details on how it was shot?

Remarkable.

It looks beyond fake and rediculous compared to any photograph on earth...
But like i said the beautifull NASA ''moon conditions'' do their magic again.
Details on the moon do not fade out like on earth in the distance, because the lack of an atmosphere prevents details from washing out like on earth.
And allthaugh the mountains appear near and small , that's because it appears that way on the moon without an atmosphere.
How conveniant again....

Didn't you read the rest of my posts ?.

Yeah, dutchy.  No atmosphere on the moon.  That’s just a fact.

I’m sorry if you find it too “convenient” for us.  Is reality in on the hoax too?  Maybe God conspired with NASA?

If all space missions are fake, I wonder why the Soviets never landed on the moon, after all all they had to do is a few fake pictures

Because NASA sent Stanley Kubrick to the moon to fake the landings in the most realistic way possible. The Russians wanted to do the same thing, and Kubrick was willing, if the pay was right, but the Russians couldn't convince NASA to send Kubrick back to the moon so he could fake some moon landings for them.

Lichtenstein faked some moon landings but they released their videos on January 25, 1971, the same day Idi Amin took over the government of Uganda and the Lichtenstein fake moon landing videos never made it into the mainstream media.

Willard Gavrilovitch Finklebloggen of Pizpot, Arkensas faked some videos of himself landing on the moon but nobody took him seriously because he appeared in the videos to have used a hot air balloon to get there.

Yeah, dutchy.  No atmosphere on the moon.  That’s just a fact.

I’m sorry if you find it too “convenient” for us.  Is reality in on the hoax too?  Maybe God conspired with NASA?

Evil conspired with NASA.
What evil would give nazi rocket scientists a ''new'' life with all the ''goodies'' ?
Like a college athlete caught with murder, but let off the hook because the college team validates his sporting talents so much.

Your morals in daily life are hopefully much higher than what the USA did with their rehabilitation program.
Poor Simon Wiesenthal dedicated his life trying to catch the nazi's.

https://ips-dc.org/the_cias_worst-kept_secret_newly_declassified_files_confirm_united_states_collaboration_with_nazis/

The CIA’s Worst-Kept Secret: Newly Declassified Files Confirm United States Collaboration with Nazis
Pried loose by Congress, which passed the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act three years ago, a long-hidden trove of once-classified CIA documents confirms one of the worst-kept secrets of the cold war--the CIA's use of an extensive Nazi spy network to wage a
May 1, 2001 | Martin A. Lee

“Honest and idealist … enjoys good food and wine … unprejudiced mind …”

That’s how a 1952 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assessment described Nazi ideologue Emil Augsburg, an officer at the infamous Wannsee Institute, the SS think tank involved in planning the Final Solution. Augsburg’s SS unit performed “special duties,” a euphemism for exterminating Jews and other “undesirables” during the Second World War.

Although he was wanted in Poland for war crimes, Augsburg managed to ingratiate himself with the U.S. CIA, which employed him in the late 1940s as an expert on Soviet affairs. Recently released CIA records indicate that Augsburg was among a rogue’s gallery of Nazi war criminals recruited by U.S. intelligence agencies shortly after Germany surrendered to the Allies.

Pried loose by Congress, which passed the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act three years ago, a long-hidden trove of once-classified CIA documents confirms one of the worst-kept secrets of the cold war–the CIA’s use of an extensive Nazi spy network to wage a clandestine campaign against the Soviet Union.

The CIA reports show that U.S. officials knew they were subsidizing numerous Third Reich veterans who had committed horrible crimes against humanity, but these atrocities were overlooked as the anti-Communist crusade acquired its own momentum. For Nazis who would otherwise have been charged with war crimes, signing on with American intelligence enabled them to avoid a prison term.

“The real winners of the cold war were Nazi war criminals, many of whom were able to escape justice because the East and West became so rapidly focused after the war on challenging each other,” says Eli Rosenbaum, director of the Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations and America’s chief Nazi hunter. Rosenbaum serves on a Clinton-appointed Interagency Working Group (IWG) committee of U.S. scholars, public officials, and former intelligence officers who helped prepare the CIA records for declassification.

Many Nazi criminals “received light punishment, no punishment at all, or received compensation because Western spy agencies considered them useful assets in the cold war,” the IWG team stated after releasing 18,000 pages of redacted CIA material. (More installments are pending.)

These are “not just dry historical documents,” insists former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, a member of the panel examining the CIA files. As far as Holtzman is concerned, the CIA papers raise critical questions about American foreign policy and the origins of the cold war.

The decision to recruit Nazi operatives had a negative impact on U.S.-Soviet relations and set the stage for Washington’s tolerance of human rights abuses and other criminal acts in the name of anti-Communism. With that fateful sub-rosa embrace, the die was cast for a litany of antidemocratic CIA interventions around the world.

The Gehlen Org
The key figure on the German side of the CIA-Nazi tryst was General Reinhard Gehlen, who had served as Adolf Hitler’s top anti-Soviet spy. During World War II, Gehlen oversaw all German military-intelligence operations in Eastern Europe and the USSR.

As the war drew to a close, Gehlen surmised that the U.S.-Soviet alliance would soon break down. Realizing that the United States did not have a viable cloak-and-dagger apparatus in Eastern Europe, Gehlen surrendered to the Americans and pitched himself as someone who could make a vital contribution to the forthcoming struggle against the Communists. In addition to sharing his vast espionage archive on the USSR, Gehlen promised that he could resurrect an underground network of battle-hardened, anti-Communist assets who were well placed to wreak havoc throughout the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

Although the Yalta Treaty stipulated that the United States must give the Soviets all captured German officers who had been involved in “eastern area activities,” Gehlen was quickly spirited off to Fort Hunt in Virginia. The image he projected during 10 months of negotiations at Fort Hunt was, to use a bit of espionage parlance, a “legend”–one that hinged on Gehlen’s false claim that he was never really a Nazi, but was dedicated, above all, to fighting Communism. Those who bit the bait included future CIA director Allen Dulles, who became Gehlen’s biggest supporter among American policy wonks.

Gehlen returned to West Germany in the summer of 1946 with a mandate to rebuild his espionage organization and resume spying on the East at the behest of American intelligence. The date is significant as it preceded the onset of the cold war, which, according to standard U.S. historical accounts, did not begin until a year later. The early courtship of Gehlen by American intelligence suggests that Washington was in a cold war mode sooner than most people realize. The Gehlen gambit also belies the prevalent Western notion that aggressive Soviet policies were primarily to blame for triggering the cold war.

Based near Munich, Gehlen proceeded to enlist thousands of Gestapo, Wehrmacht, and SS veterans. Even the vilest of the vile–the senior bureaucrats who ran the central administrative apparatus of the Holocaust–were welcome in the “Gehlen Org,” as it was called–including Alois Brunner, Adolf Eichmann’s chief deputy. SS major Emil Augsburg and gestapo captain Klaus Barbie, otherwise known as the “Butcher of Lyon,” were among those who did double duty for Gehlen and U.S. intelligence. “It seems that in the Gehlen headquarters, one SS man paved the way for the next and Himmler’s elite were having happy reunion ceremonies,” the Frankfurter Rundschau reported in the early 1950s.

Bolted lock, stock, and barrel into the CIA, Gehlen’s Nazi-infested spy apparatus functioned as America’s secret eyes and ears in central Europe. The Org would go on to play a major role within NATO, supplying two-thirds of raw intelligence on the Warsaw Pact countries. Under CIA auspices, and later as head of the West German secret service until he retired in 1968, Gehlen exerted considerable influence on U.S. policy toward the Soviet bloc. When U.S. spy chiefs desired an off-the-shelf style of nation tampering, they turned to the readily available Org, which served as a subcontracting syndicate for a series of ill-fated guerrilla air drops behind the Iron Curtain and other harebrained CIA rollback schemes.

Sitting Ducks for Disinformation
It’s long been known that top German scientists were eagerly scooped up by several countries, including the United States, which rushed to claim these high-profile experts as spoils of World War II. Yet all the while the CIA was mum about recruiting Nazi spies. The U.S. government never officially acknowledged its role in launching the Gehlen organization until more than half a century after the fact.

Handling Nazi spies, however, was not the same as employing rocket technicians. One could always tell whether Werner von Braun and his bunch were accomplishing their assignments for NASA and other U.S. agencies. If the rockets didn’t fire properly, then the scientists would be judged accordingly. But how does one determine if a Nazi spy with a dubious past is doing a reliable job?

Third Reich veterans often proved adept at peddling data–much of it false–in return for cash and safety, the IWG panel concluded. Many Nazis played a double game, feeding scuttlebutt to both sides of the East-West conflict and preying upon the mutual suspicions that emerged from the rubble of Hitler’s Germany.

General Gehlen frequently exaggerated the Soviet threat in order to exacerbate tensions between the superpowers. At one point he succeeded in convincing General Lucius Clay, military governor of the U.S. zone of occupation in Germany, that a major Soviet war mobilization had begun in Eastern Europe. This prompted Clay to dash off a frantic, top-secret telegram to Washington in March 1948, warning that war “may come with dramatic suddenness.”

Gehlen’s disinformation strategy was based on a simple premise: the colder the cold war got, the more political space for Hitler’s heirs to maneuver. The Org could only flourish under cold war conditions; as an institution it was therefore committed to perpetuating the Soviet-American conflict.

“The agency loved Gehlen because he fed us what we wanted to hear. We used his stuff constantly, and we fed it to everyone else–the Pentagon, the White House, the newspapers. They loved it, too. But it was hyped-up Russian bogeyman junk, and it did a lot of damage to this country,” a retired CIA official told author Christopher Simpson, who also serves on the IGW review panel and was author of Blowback: America’s Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War.

Unexpected Consequences
Members of the Gehlen Org were instrumental in helping thousands of fascist fugitives escape via “ratlines” to safe havens abroad–often with a wink and a nod from U.S. intelligence officers. Third Reich expatriates and fascist collaborators subsequently emerged as “security advisors” in several Middle Eastern and Latin American countries, where ultra-right-wing death squads persist as their enduring legacy. Klaus Barbie, for example, assisted a succession of military regimes in Bolivia, where he taught soldiers torture techniques and helped protect the flourishing cocaine trade in the late 1970s and early ’80s.

CIA officials eventually learned that the Nazi old boy network nesting inside the Gehlen Org had an unexpected twist to it. By bankrolling Gehlen, the CIA unknowingly laid itself open to manipulation by a foreign intelligence service that was riddled with Soviet spies. Gehlen’s habit of employing compromised ex-Nazis–and the CIA’s willingness to sanction this practice–enabled the USSR to penetrate West Germany’s secret service by blackmailing numerous agents.

Ironically, some of the men employed by Gehlen would go on to play leading roles in European neofascist organizations that despise the United States. One of the consequences of the CIA’s ghoulish alliance with the Org is evident today in a resurgent fascist movement in Europe that can trace its ideological lineage back to Hitler’s Reich, through Gehlen operatives, who collaborated with U.S. intelligence.

Slow to recognize that their Nazi hired guns would feign an allegiance to the Western alliance as long as they deemed it tactically advantageous, CIA officials invested far too much in Gehlen’s spooky Nazi outfit. “It was a horrendous mistake, morally, politically, and also in very pragmatic intelligence terms,” says American University professor Richard Breitman, chairman of the IWG review panel.

More than just a bungled spy caper, the Gehlen debacle should serve as a cautionary tale at a time when post-cold war triumphalism and arrogant unilateralism are rampant among U.S. officials. If nothing else, it underscores the need for the United States to confront some of its own demons now that unreconstructed cold warriors are again riding top saddle in Washington.

NASA was one of the safe havens for evildoers and you are simply accepting it, because all of the wonderfull ''dopamine'' NASA gave you with all their spacy adventures.
Of course NASA was full of crooks knowing what propaganda was able to pull off.

But no....a snake pit full of evil doers do not fake the moonlandings, have never ever faked as much as one single Apollo picture.
They do not cheat the taxpayers, everything was well spend.
They were simply hardworking rocket engineers able to give it their very noble best for the whole world.
Werner Von Braun DID not visit Antartica to collect moonrocks just in case....
Even Nixon the crook wouldn't dare to cheat with the sacred Apollo program
All astronauts are giving their very best testimonies during interviews about their unique trip to the moon.
All moon machines worked because of meticulously testing and supreme knowledge from the NASA engineers and constructors.
All moon hazards were dealt with, meaning that batteries, air conditioning and radiation protection was spot on.
Nothing was lost or destroyed, because NASA took care of their entire legacy including petrified woodrocks.

Don't ever claim you had no clue......you choose your own reality validating all facts !!

So what is the trickery supposedly ?

Even when you claim the angle of the LEM is different than another problem occurs. The mountain top is different !

Not sure why you would be questioning these photos. They all look like what they are. Photos taken during the moonwalk and I can’t see any inconsistencies.

If they were to fake them, wouldn't They be making them look like what you’d expect them to look like?

One of the theories doing the rounds is that Stanley Kubrick was in on it and filmed fake moon scenes for NASA.

But compare the photos above with scenes from the film and you can see obvious differences as well as them being obviously studio scenes.





Including the obvious what we would expect of slow motion walking in the 2nd clip.

Compare the 2001 scenes with the Apollo film taken on the moon and the differences are obvious, especially as 2001 was released only a year before the landings.

Quote from: sokarul on July 23, 2019, 11:39:53 AM

You are having trouble visualizing a 3d system presented in 2d photos.

This might help some.Keep in mind I drew a 2d line on a 3d system.  You should be able to see how the top of the lander can line up with the mountain.

Only from a different angle towards the LEM....but both LEMS are viewed from approximately the same angle.

So we are at an agreement. Nothing is wrong with the photos.

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 23, 2019, 12:47:41 PM

Yeah, dutchy.  No atmosphere on the moon.  That’s just a fact.

I’m sorry if you find it too “convenient” for us.  Is reality in on the hoax too?  Maybe God conspired with NASA?

Evil conspired with NASA.
What evil would give nazi rocket scientists a ''new'' life with all the ''goodies'' ?

So the NAZIs are responsible for there being no atmosphere on the moon?

Otherwise what is the relevance to the conversation?

My country was a bunch of imperialist dicks when they built the first railways, but it would be moronic to suggest that railways don’t exist because they were imperialist dicks.

So are you going to explain this alleged studio setup or what?

Evil notwithstanding, Nazi scientists were a very valuable commodity. They were the "spoils of war".

They were used like the tools they were.

A force is a push or a pull that acts upon an object as a results of its interaction with another object. Forces result from interactions!

Yes, like the interaction between a rocket and the gas it creates.

”When a BODY exerts force on a SECOND  BODY” let me ask you, what is the second body being acted upon, IN A VACUUM ??!!

You sure seem to love asking questions that have already been answered.
The first body is the rocket.
The second body is the gas/exhaust.

This has already been explained to you.
Why ask a question that has already been answered as if it is a problem?

In the context of a bowling ball experiment :

The guy on a skateboard = FIRST BODY
FORCE = Motion of his arms that pushes off a heavy ball
A MEDICINE BALL = SECOND BODY

Only with reality.
Which also works for the rocket:
Rocket = FIRST BODY.
FORCE = PRESSURE OF THE GAS.
GAS = SECOND BODY.

Heaviness of a gas (INERTIA) enables our rocket to be pushed off of a gas.

see, no problem there.

Get it?

But in your delusional fantasy world the medicine ball becomes this:
The guy on a skateboard = FIRST BODY
FORCE = EXPELLED MEDICINE BALL
GROUND/ATMOSPHERE = SECOND BODY

See how stupid that sounds?
But that is what you are claiming with rockets.

Get it?

You are claiming that all that mass which is being ejected is somehow just transmitting force rather than being the second body.

Why?

Or will you claim the pure insanity of gas being massless and not having inertia?
In which case, how would it push off the atmosphere, as that has no inertia as that is a gas?
You can't appeal to the ground either, because the rockets can push sideways as well.
So then you have to explain how the rocket would work in an atmosphere where it has nothing to push off?

See, ignoring the gas doesn't help you at all. It just further destroys your credibility.

It's still gas (flame), of course, however rocket's gas (flame) does it's work when expelled from a rocket, not before. Now you have to ask yourself :
Is it because when expelled from a rocket, gas (flame) is no longer part of a rocket or is it because it exerts it's force on the second body (the air)?

So what you are saying is the gas inside the rocket is still part of the rocket, and it is only when it leaves the rocket that it becomes a second body.
Well that is pure garbage as the velocity is massively different before it leaves.
But even ignoring that, that still works:
First body - Rocket.
Second body - Gas leaving rocket.

No problems.

Is there a spatial/physical gap between a flame expelled and a rocket?

Is there a spatial/physical gap between a medicine ball and the hands?

You have already shown with your claims of NASA being a hoax that the person on the skateboard accelerates before the medicine ball is separated from him.
So that clearly isn't an issue.

Now again, why not address my very simple question that you seem to need to avoid like the plague, almost as if this single question completely destroys your argument:
What force acts on the gas to make it move in a particular direction when exiting the rocket and what body is providing this force?


If this one question is enough to bring you to your knees it shows you have no case and you know you are spouting BS.
So how about you address it?
What force causes the gas to accelerate and leave the rocket and what is the first and second body involved?

It can coagulate in your veins and act like a blood clot

That is just your model of how chocolate works.
If he wants to reject that model it should be fine right? Even though all the evidence would be against him?
Just like it is against you and FE?

Close, but not quite: It is premature to assert a model before you know what model really withstands the tests.

Not in the slightest.
It is the rational next step, at least if you care about the truth and having beliefs which match reality.
You use the available data to make a model, you then compare this model with reality to see if it works.
But as you start with the assumption that Earth is flat, that clearly doesn't apply to you.

I don't have a model of the FE because, as with the car engine, I don't know the details so if I adopted a model, or invented one of my own, it would be wrong, just as my model of a car engine would be wrong.

Your position is more comparable to claiming a car engines works using pixies. Even without a model, you are still wrong.
Even without a model, you still make a claim that still needs defending.

Also, I highly doubt that those 2 positions are in anyway alike.
You aren't coming from a position of extreme ignorance.
You are coming from a position where you know of plenty of flaws of the FE.
It is a case of you not adopting a model, because you know you can't make one that works.

That's the mistake so many FEers make

There is a much bigger mistake before that, assuming Earth is flat.
That is a mistake all FEers make.

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 23, 2019, 12:47:41 PM

Yeah, dutchy.  No atmosphere on the moon.  That’s just a fact.

I’m sorry if you find it too “convenient” for us.  Is reality in on the hoax too?  Maybe God conspired with NASA?

Evil conspired with NASA.
What evil would give nazi rocket scientists a ''new'' life with all the ''goodies'' ?
Like a college athlete caught with murder, but let off the hook because the college team validates his sporting talents so much.

Not quite.  The Nazi rocket scientists designed and built the rockets.  They didn't launch the rockets or pick the targets.  Would you call Eugene Stoner evil for designing and building the AR-15/M-16 (which has probably killed far more people than the V2)?