Moon Landings

Moon Landings Proof: LRO+
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYPmitSg268

Miles seems to feel certain that the moon landings were faked, but I think that's unlikely. I think I asked you guys on this forum maybe a year ago whether you think they were faked or not and some of you said no and others didn't reply. I think the video above is good evidence that the last landing was not faked. Miles had a paper showing that the same images of the early space shuttles were apparently identical, which I think led him to believe they were fake. He seems to think that the ISS is fake, but I doubt that too. Even if they use the same image repeatedly for different space shuttle launches doesn't mean the flights were fake. It does mean there's dishonesty, but who knows why.

I agree with you, Lloyd. I love Miles' science work, but his conspiracy stuff is less convincing to me. I for one believe the moon landings, shuttle flights, and ISS are all real. I've watched the ISS fly over exactly my area at exactly the time projected by the tracking data (and travelling much faster than an aircraft). Further, for a short time I went to church with Gene Thomas, the Flight Director during the Challenger disaster in '86. While I didn't get to know him personally, others who did said he was one of the most genuine and honest people they had ever met. It seems unconscionable that he was lying for decades about what happened (happens) at NASA.

That's interesting, John, that you knew the flight director during Challenger. Maybe I have a little stronger tendency to believe Miles' conspiracy ideas than you. In his space shuttle paper at http://mileswmathis.com/shut.pdf he showed that the images of different space shuttles taking off looked the same. Do you have an idea why that would be? Or did Miles cherry-pick the images? In that paper he referenced https://cluesforum.info/search.php?keywords=challenger%20astronauts&t=935&sf=msgonly&sid=9449901e437f5e1c9e1ae6ccd59146a6 which shows pics of people who resemble the people who may have died in the Challenger disaster. I had previously thought that that article made a pretty good case that the Challenger passengers were still alive. But on closer inspection: Claude Onizuka's ear and nose look a little different than Ellison Onizuka's; Carl McNair's mustache, teeth and head shape look different than Ronald McNair's; CEO Richard Scobee's ear and chin look different than Dick Scobee's; UW's Michael Smith's ears and nose are a bit different than NASA's Michael Smith's; Yale's Judith Resnik looks almost the same as NASA's, but her face is a bit longer and thinner, maybe a result of aging?; and the two Sharon McAuliff's are hard to compare closely. It is amazing though how similar they all are and it makes one wonder if something fishy is going on. Do you have any comments on that? Do you believe there are any major conspiracies at all? What about 9/11, or the Covid & Vax event, or the major assassinations, or wars etc? I think there's a lot of fraud involved in those and other events.

Oh, I forgot to add that it certainly seems like that the 1974 AAAS Symposium on Velikovsky was a conspiracy to remove Velikovsky as an obstacle to the apparent plan to scare people about global warming. Margaret Mead was president of the AAAS then and she was a major promoter of global warming. If too many scientists considered Velikovsky's view that Venus is a young planet, they would naturally doubt that CO2 was the cause of its high heat. So it seems to me that that's why they decided at that time to blacklist him once and for all. The Talbotts' magazine, Pensee': Velikovsky Reconsidered, was gaining popularity at that time. Maybe that's what triggered them.

PS, I found a video on Apollo missing tapes being found, which I wanted to post here, but I lost the link and can't find it back.

Yeah, I remeber the paper that showed the same shuttle. I didn't research it, but my first inclination would be to suppose one or both of those were not official from NASA, or it was a simple misalbeling of the picture. I also remener thinking that the pics of the 'older' crew were not convincing in some of the details.

9/11 was a conspiracy of some sort. Those buildings were clearly controlled demolitions. I'm just not completely convinced that GWBush knew or was involved beforehand; maybe, maybe not. But there were certainly elements of the government that were.

COVID was not the pandemic that it was widely claimed to be. Death #'s were often reported as 'death WITH COVID', instead of 'death FROM COVID' - huge difference! Ventilators were doing more harm than good, and we have DECADES of studies showing that masks only reduce infection rates in an extremely limited number of circumstances (closer than ~6 feet, for more than 30 minutes at a time, with immunocompromised people).

I'm convinced there's a lot of things that have been elevated and oversold for money and control, and governments are surely involvoed to some extent. I just don't know how far I can buy the Jew/Phoenecian Navy is behind everything tact.

I've neglected this thread for a while. I agree that the Jew/Phoenician bit seems somewhat pointless, since everyone is related to everyone, although it seems that those in power and celebrities etc seem to be closer related to each other than most of us. And the fact that world governments were all so united in imposing lockdowns, masks, vaxes etc seems to be very good evidence of a widespread conspiracy.

What about the conspiracy against Velikovsky, John? Do you agree that the purpose likely was to remove a potential obstacle to the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) scheme? I guess it could have been bigger than that, since it probably also reduced opposition to a lot of nonsense in astronomy and physics.

I have another video to link to, called Moon Landing. It's at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxW__ZtZApo . This one addresses a lot of the arguments against the moon landings. I guess Miles doesn't watch these. Or maybe Miles is a conspirator too. Some of his group accused me of being one, so it's only fair that I suspect them. But I don't actually.

ADDENDUM: Section of destroyed shuttle Challenger found on ocean floor
https://phys.org/news/2022-11-section-destroyed-shuttle-ocean-floor.html

Not sure about Velikovsky. He definitely went against the entrenched paradigm and ruffled feathers (as Miles himself does). I found copies of both Worlds in Collision and Ages in Chaos at a book fair and read both of them. They were intriguing and his theories out of the norm. And the EU group certainly 'borrowed' some of his theories to prop up their own (at least initially; I haven't checked in on them in a while, so I don't know where the current theory stands).

But the biggest difference for me between Miles and Velikovsky is that Miles is focused on actual mechanics and not just theorizing as an explanation for historical records. Mechanics is where both Velikovsky and the EU fall short IMO. Maybe it's my engineering mindset; but I have a hard time seeing how a 'mini-solar system' with Saturn at the center could sustain itself in a roughly perpendicular fashion to the ecliptic and maintain itself over enough centuries that mankind would fashion religious beliefs around it across multiple cultures.

Maybe Miles' balance of true-gravity and charge could do it; but I don't seen an EU/Thunderbolts  explanation that satisfies me. To me an interaction between a smaller Sol solar system and a mini Saturnian solar system would likely destroy both and fling planets out into the depths of space. I like the way it explains a lot of similar cultural beliefs; I don't like that the mechanics don't make sense.

You said:

Mechanics is where both Velikovsky and the EU fall short IMO. Maybe it's my engineering mindset; but I have a hard time seeing how a 'mini-solar system' with Saturn at the center could sustain itself in a roughly perpendicular fashion to the ecliptic and maintain itself over enough centuries that mankind would fashion religious beliefs around it across multiple cultures.

Do you consider Miles' mechanics to be a thorough explanation of the solar system and its formation? I don't. I haven't kept up with his newer papers for the last few years, but I read many of the earlier ones. His paper on solar system formation pointed out some things that contradict the nebular hypothesis with its gravitational collapse model. But it didn't go into detail, just suggesting that magnetic fields had some effect, as far as I recall. I find Charles Chandler's electrical model to be extremely thorough and mechanical at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031 .

What do you think of the mainstream claims about electric charge, positive and negative? I wrote up a bunch of questions for Miles that are listed on another thread, but I don't think Miles has ever answered any of them. I think I asked about the numbers of electrons and protons in the universe. The mainstream says there are equal numbers of each. I assume Miles would say that electrons greatly outnumber protons. However, Miles said electrons block charge recycling, causing molecules to become neutral, not exchanging charge with the environment. A neutral atom or molecule would require equal numbers of electrons and protons. Right? He explained the attraction between electrons and protons as being due to protons being much bigger, so the charge that's sprayed out equatorially from a proton would knock the protons back, but many of the little electrons would slip through the charge disk. I disagree and I don't see that as being a good argument. I think high and low pressure and subphotons may be a better explanation of electric charge attraction and repulsion, opposites (high and low pressure areas) being attracted and sames being repelled. Charles Chandler accepts mainstream findings on electric charge and he was able to develop very thorough explanations of the formation and features of stars, planets, galaxies etc. So I think Miles' ideas lack thoroughness.

What do you think of Charles' papers on Accretion and on Filaments? That's where he discusses electric charge at the microcosmic level, which he then develops to explain the macrocosm as well. In his paper on the Titius-Bode Law at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15369 he uses the electric charge on planets to account for the spacing between them, with gravity accounting for the closer spacing near the Sun. In the Filaments paper he shows that electric charge accounts for the linear arrangement of atoms within filaments, as one charge will tend to get an opposite charge attracted to one side and another on the opposite side (i.e. neg-pos-neg or pos-neg-pos) because it shields the repulsive forces of the same charges from each other (sam-opp-sam). If the same charges move away from a 180 degree alignment, they will begin to repel each other, which will move them back toward the 180 degree alignment. PNP or NPN will attract an N or a P to each end and will end up with long strings of adjacent opposite charges. Stars and planets appear to form within and from filaments. Charles shows how two imploding filament parts would form spherical electric double layers. These stars/planets would also have negative charge, I think, with diffuse positive charge between them. The implosion would involve the filaments of stars/planets moving linearly toward the center like letting go of a stretched rubber band from both ends, so it snaps together. As the rubber band, i.e. filament, begins to snap together, stars/planets form along segments of the filament and they continue to move linearly closer together till they get close enough to repel each other, as per the Titius-Bode Law. (The SL9 comet fragments traveled linearly toward Jupiter for 2 years before crashing into it in 1994.)

So I think the solar system filament formed the Sun and planets at great distances from each other along the filament, though the distances were shrinking due to the linear implosion. Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars and Earth formed closer together on the filament moving toward the Sun in that order. They weren't moving directly toward the Sun, but toward a point near the present orbit of Pluto or Neptune or whatever, so the line of planets spiraled inward from that initial orbital distance for some centuries until they reached near the orbit of Saturn. Saturn's motion was unstable enough to cause it to separate from the line of planets and move onto its present orbit, maybe after the orbit was originally more eccentric. The planets then followed Jupiter for perhaps a few decades, then Mars and Earth moved off of the line onto their orbits. I think Dave Talbott figured that Jupiter continued spiraling inward to Venus' orbit, where Venus left the line. It seems that Jupiter needed to escort Earth at least to Earth's orbit in order to prevent Earth from freezing over after Saturn left the line at Saturn's orbit. According to Wal Thornhill and Dwardu Cardona (also an engineer), Earth had been close enough to Saturn previously to keep the biosphere warm and healthy. Jupiter apparently would also have had enough heat to prevent freezing on Earth.

So that's an attempt to sync the mythohistorical record and star/planet formation theory. If you think it would not have been possible for planetary orbits to circularize in a short time, you may have overlooked dust and gases in the inner solar system. Saturn seems to have suffered a nova-like eruption which could have produced a great deal of dust, and possibly even many asteroids and comets. Charles Chandler explained how small stars flare or nova and become gas giant planets at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=18943 . Charles Ginenthal explained that dust in the inner solar system could have circularized orbits in a short time, but I don't have that reference handy.

Now does this seem mechanical enough for you? [I decided to copy this on the TB forum at https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=13&p=8311#p8311 ]

Miles' Followers on CttF Discussing this Forum.
https://cuttingthroughthefog.com/2018/11/09/current-events-discussion-thread/comment-page-171/#comment-221225

_Chris Ryska said: November 17, 2022 at 2:07 am
Can anyone tell me what is going on with Jared?? I really miss his posts and insight....
_Greg said: November 18, 2022 at 3:00 am
Jared and Rollie were slingin mud at each other when Miles stepped in and said they would be banned from the forum if they continued. It appears Jared decided to take a break....
_Gijs said: November 18, 2022 at 4:38 pm
He also didn’t post on https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/forum for a year now, but there doesn’t seem to be too much activity anyway there. (it’s a Forum dedicated to Miles’ science papers, also other theories)
_Lio said: November 18, 2022 at 4:49 pm
Who manages that forum? Could it not be expanded to include a section on his hoax papers as well?
_Gijs said: November 18, 2022 at 5:07 pm
I was thinking the same, but I don’t know if they would be happy for us barging in, bringing maybe all amounts of spooks and trolls and cyber-attacks and what not.
_And I don’t know who is running that place. In older pages here on CttF people refer to “Nevyn Lab,” but he quit doing that some years ago, before I was even around. Maybe these are the remains of his work, I don’t know.

I'd tell them to come on over to discuss relevant issues like this one on the Moon Landings and Saturn Theories (Miles has a Saturn Theory too, regarding Titan) if the owner of CttF hadn't banned me from posting there, because he thought I was an Intel agent or something. I'd also tell them there's still life in this forum.