Be the 1st to vote.

…and I think it is appropriate to announce this celebration on this very thread titled 0;Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth’s atmosphere?” – since it represents the logical conclusion of our longstanding investigations which, I dare say, have continuously strived to observe what we may call scientific rationality or, more simply, plain common sense. Yes, we have investigated this sorry scam for more than 10 years now on this forum – and it would seem that, thankfully, many people around the world have been

Of course, ’s Propaganda Department hasn’t been sitting on its ass this last decade – as public awareness of the GSTS slowly started sky-rocketing (just like their slow-starting rockets…): around mid-2014 or so (i.e. around the time when enjoyed its historical peak of daily visitors), the NASA Propaganda Department launched their “FLAT EARTH Programme” : this propaganda gimmick is, I must admit, a quite clever psychological operation designed to associate anyone who questions NASA with those who claim that Earth is as flat as a French pancake. The net result being that, if you now try telling to someone that NASA is a total scam, this person will most likely say: “Oh, so you must be a Flat Earther, eh?” – and thus dismiss you as a raving crackpot. I really must concede – even though it hurts – that NASA’s Flat Earth Psyop has to be one of the smartest (and evidently highly successful – internationally!) “damage-control” operation of all times. One must (reluctantly) “admire” their skills at fooling the world – much as one may “admire” David Copperfield for making the Statue of Liberty disappear in front of a large audience… The question is: HOW LONG will these magicians get away with it?

Source: Does Rocketry Work beyond Earth’s atmosphere? – Page 55 – Exposing Mass Deception

No tags for this post.

33 thoughts on “10TH ANNIVERSARY OF CLUESFORUM’S EXPOSURE OF THE GSTS (the Grand Space-Travel Scam)

  1. gaia

    The basic level of physics, and its language; mathematics, of certain people is astonishing.

    If the force that keeps us humans on our planet (?) Earth is rooted in an acceleration, one can only apply an acceleration against that to overcome it. Which rocket goes 9.84+ m/s^2. Indeed; none.

    The “escape velocity”, invented by Master Marketeer for the Magicians Jules Verne, of “11 km/s” can never trump an acceleration. Basic maths.

    Orbits ARE. They are the result of the Force of the Cosmos; whatever keeps all these beautiful celestial objects revolving around each other in their harmonious system. There is no “jumping orbits”, “parking in orbits”, etc.

    The only satellites that exist are natural satellites. Held together by whatever Force of the Cosmos exists.

    And planes, balloons, cables, towers, ships, remote islands and… a lot of bluffing psyopaths who claim grandeur where they have none. Maybe they suffer from TGS; tiny genital syndrome.

    And another TLA is NCP (not to be con-fused with NPC; non-processing capacity); Narrative Cherry Picking.

    A painful example here in believing they did not assemble the “ISS” in space, but somehow, somewhere, shot a football field sized humongous object ‘into orbit’ without human interaction in space… Rrright. If you are really whacky.

    1. smj

      Little buddy, it was konstantin tsiolkovsky, the metal dirigibles guy, that calculated the escape velocity nonsense per the narrative. Verne was just the fantastic muse…

      “It is Tsiolkovsky who first determined that the escape velocity from the Earth into orbit was 8 km/second and that this could be achieved by using a multi-stage rocket fueled by liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. During his lifetime he published over 500 works on space travel and related subjects, including science fiction novels.
      Among his works are designs for the construction of space rockets and ideas for steerable rocket engines, multi-stage boosters, space stations, airlocks for exiting a spaceship into the vacuum of space, and closed cycle biological systems to provide food and oxygen for space colonies. This is a remarkable achievement by any standards, but particularly as many of these documents were written before the first aeroplane flight and, by a man who had had to abandon his formal education at the age of 10.”

      “I do not remember how it got into my head to make the first calculations related to rocket. It seems to me the first seeds were planted by the famous fantaseour, J. Verne.”

  2. barbm124

    Cluesforum changed the layout recently. You can no longer choose to see the latest post. Because there aren’t any. Simon occasionally comments under different aliases on some posts but without any content. He probably got tired of it. It’s a dead end now. The same thing happened with Let’s Roll Forums and others. So sad. And it’s not because nobody wants to participate anymore. I tried to become a member of Cluesforum many times and Simon always blocked me.

  3. gaia

    That thread on Cluesforum is a great example of how critical minds can work together to build a strong case against a pervasive narrative.

    Great you keep it alive for all readers, Ab.

    My first post in that thread meant a change in thinking from reactive (following the mechanical-only incomplete picture the Clowns want us to believe) to taking the full chemical-physical situation into account; so involving the temperature; not a purely mechanical, but a chemical-mechanical case.

    In short; under the alleged conditions of “space” (using their own model against them), gas cannot exist; even helium and hydrogen become superfluids…

    Further elaborated on in various podcasts hosted by excellent podcast hosts and Colombia Conference of Agenda 2020 – We Are 10 Years Ahead participants, Geris and Rollo:

    1 – FRAC 13 – Paper Rockets
    2 – FART 37 – Fool Moon
    3 – FAC 602 – The Impossibility of Space Travel. Ever.
    4 – FAC 603 – Beavers on the Moon
    5 – President Camacho 00 – Selenology


  4. John le Bon

    So Simon et al are still claiming that the rise of Flat Earth was a direct response from [insert government agency] to Cluesforum’s NASA fakery revelations?

    God love ’em, but these guys are hopeless, as is every single person who still takes them seriously.

    Outer space is a hoax. Nobody died nobody got hurt. Period.

    There is no solid physical object known as the ‘moon’ to land on.

    It is a light in the sky, nothing more, nothing less.

    The People Who Run The Show are not trying to hide the deception.

    They leave clues all along the way.

    Are Simon et al still pushing their ‘outer space is real’ narrative?

    Yeah, thought so.

    Lol. The entire conspiracy subculture is a fricken joke.

    Even the brighter minds (e.g. Simon et al) are like the dull, ‘distant’ stars in the night sky.

    If you focus on them, they are visible, but in general, one takes no notice. They’re just there.

    TPWRTS have absolutely nothing to fear from CF, SS, or anybody else in this scene.

    As for Flat Earth, anybody who was dumb enough to get caught in that net, and then fail to escape, was never a threat to anybody but themselves in the first place.

    That’s all for now, cheers.

    1. barbm124

      So the Moon is just a light in the sky? How come the Moon covers bright stars sometimes (the less bright ones too but not easy to observe)? The stars disappear on the left side and come out some 1.5 hours later on the right side of the Moon. Is this a light projection? Who’s making it? Aliens or TPTB? What about the shadows of the moons of Jupiter? You ever observed them? I did. Not to mention TV-satelites which I’m familiar with since about 1985. How do you explain this? Some reflecting cloud put there by TPTB? How come, all dishes for a certain satellite point to the same direction in space within thousands of kilometers on Earth with only slightly adjustments caused by trigonometry.

            1. barbm124

              when I say “flat earther” I don’t just mean people claiming the Earth is flat. I mean all the people questioning observable things and claiming not observable things that contradict the common sense. You say the Moon is just a light in the sky without going into details which is convenient. No light without a source. What is the source of the moonshine? The moonshine correlates perfectly with the sunshine. The official explanation is: the Moon reflects the light of the Sun. That is perfectly observable which you are questioning. People claiming the Earth is flat do the same thing.

      1. gaia

        “How come, all dishes for a certain satellite point to the same direction in space within thousands of kilometers on Earth with only slightly adjustments caused by trigonometry.”

        This is, in fact, a lie, as you also have seen the photo at POM, that I took from my former balcony where you clearly see that “satellite dishes need to be exactly aligned, otherwise they don’t work” is a big phat lie.

        You believe in a physically impossible thing; ‘space travel’, so the “flat earther” (according to your own definition) here is you.

        1. barbm124

          Gaia, and I already told you many times, that there are many TV satellites and when you see dishes pointed in slightly different directions, that could be the case. Or maybe some dishes just don’t work. Photographs are not reliable as they can disturb the perspective. Just buy yourself a dish and get some experience. That isn’t something you cannot do yourself. It is not expensive. You will find your satellite, then you can drive somewhere else and the same satellite will still be at the same place. Also when put your hand in the way of reception you’ll disturb it. It’s very easy to prove it. But your are not interesting in proving anything you only want to make me look like a liar. I’m familiar with satellite TV since about 1985 which all of you every time conveniently ignore. What kind of technology was there back then which allowed us in the Eastern Germany to watch French TV programs? We now have transmitter towers everywhere and there are alternatives, yet still the “old” satellites are still at work. And they can be photographed, which everybody living in a not light polluted area can do very easily. It’s not a “rocket science” people. lol.

          1. gaia

            Artificial satellites cannot physically exist, so what you are pointing your dish to is by definition no satellite.

            You believe things you cannot even see.

            Allegedly, those “TV-satellites” are comfortably floating above one point of Earth (geostationary) – this cannot exist; there is no 2 body problem

            Allegedly those satellites exist for decades. Nothing in our world, and especially not any electronics can function for decades without maintenance. NASA however has magic electronic devices, not affected by that pesky thing called physics.

            Allegedly, those geostationary satellites are hanging at 35,748 km above the Earth (my German friend yesterday didn’t believe that; which is great because I also don’t. He is waking up big time. Confused, but open minded. You are pushing a lie. A ‘flat earther’ indeed.

            Allegedly, according to their same model of “space”, at that altitude, the strongest of the outer Van Allen belts is present. So not only do these magical artificial satellites work without maintenance, 24/7 and irrespective of “satellites”, but also their own model boomerangs them back as an Ouroboros biting his tail by positioning them in the allegedly most concentrated belt of electromagnetic and charged/ionized/radiating particles. Smart job guys!

            An electrical engineer believing in eternally working electronics in insane environments.

            I would ask my Hochschule money back if I were you.

            1. ab Post author

              I agree with Gaia. There are no satellites orbiting the earth. Satellites are simulated by ground based broadcast. As long as the dish is pointed in the general direction of the broadcast antenna, a signal will be obtained. Nothing more than that.

              1. gaia

                The only thing we can be sure of, is that the technology works. We have 24/7 “””satellite””” service in phone, internet and TV. With a different signal than our phone (‘GSM’) network.

                The thing is consistency. With every presented model or narrative. BS claims by blog posters do not escape the same scrutiny as “mainstream” ideas deserve.

                If they present us with a model, then they have to stick to that. They cannot present a story, a narrative, using a model but to push that narrative, then suddenly not follow your model. The only way is you need to follow that model. Also 24/7.

                Proposing a model, but then not sticking to it while you present artificial “satellites” to us, is anti-scientific; scientism.

                Barbara, have fun watching this, it may help you understand how they pulled this off (always go back further in time to understand things):

                “A reflective balloon called Echo-1 was launched into space August 12, 1960. It was the first man-made satellite to reflect a signal from Earth and back. President Eisenhower participated in the first test of the communications system, sending a message that was picked up loud and clear. [cf. JFKTV – the first trans-Pacific broadcast, today 56 years ago, or that phonecall Nixon made with the Moon, 50.5 years ago)”

                PS: the JFKTV essay Tyrone McCloskey wrote is imho the best about that “fatal” (impossible to (dis)prove) day.

                1. barbm124

                  Gaia, since when do you believe in NASA claims? Also the Van Allen belt was “discovered” by the same NASA which tells us what? A balloon can maybe bounce of a simple signal consisting of one frequency (I don’t believe even in that) but it will never REFLECT a bandwidth necessary for TV broadcast. Do you understand how modulation of signals work? That’s always the basis of every transmission. My background is in electrical engineering. I know what I’m talking about.

              2. barbm124

                ab, you too never used a satellite dish, did you? The dish has to be precisely pointed to one point in space. In my area it is (for the Astra satellites) about 31° over the horizon and about 170° right from the north which is actually south and only very slightly to the east) If you just touch the dish a little or put your hand over the receiving line, the signal gets disturbed. There are no visible towers in that direction. You can “see” the satellites on the geostationary orbit. Just make a long exposure picture from a tripod of the area where the dishes point in your area on a dark night. The stars will become lines and the satellites will stay visible as dots. The ISS is also a “real” satellite flying on some 400km altitude. It has reflecting wings and can also be photographed. Look for my pictures on the cluesforum. There are no humans on board of course but it still is a real satellite. No airplane flies that high and that fast. As for broadcast technology, you obviously have no idea of the limits. Only very high frequencies (GHz) allow the modulation of the necessary bandwidth. In this frequencies the signal must be undisturbed which no tower can guarantee except for very short distances. That’s why satellites work from an altitude of some 36000km. There the signal goes mostly through void space and only has to pass some 100km of the atmosphere. Heavy clouds disturb the signal, rains does too. If I move from the place I live now (Frankfurt) say to Munich (about 350km) , the coordinates of the Astra satellites would be about 34° over the horizon and still be about 170° right from the north pole. I know this because I used to live near Munich once and that’s how the dishes had to be adjusted there. Now use some trigonometry and calculate the altitude of the geostationary orbit for yourself. What you believe is of no importance. I gave you facts. Don’t ignore them.

                1. ab Post author

                  I have used a dish. I have used tv antennae. They work the same way. They grab a signal from the air. It seems magic, but it works most of the time.
                  There is no way you can see 400 km. I can barely see the Toronto skyline, lit up like a Christmas tree, from 33 km across the Great Lake. I know you are trolling here, but I enjoy others making you look and sound foolish, more than you do on your own.

                2. smj

                  By reflective wings i’m assuming you were referring to the solar panels which I also assume are light absorbers. Solar panels down here on the rock only reflect 2 to 3% of the light that reaches them per the narrative. Which begs the question of course, how can sunlight be reflected off of metal cans a few meters long and wide with light absorbent “wings” be seen on earth from clarke orbit(taking into account the inverse square law, attenuation from space dust etc., and atmospheric extinction)? By the way, have you ever noticed any pv glare when photographing your clarke orbit satellites?

                  1. barbm124

                    smj, I actually tend to think, the ISS is only a dummy designed for the only purpose to reflect the sunlight and that way to be visible. When they sometimes write that they had to correct the orbit of the ISS, they’ve simply put another one to replace the old one which probably has fallen down and burned in the upper atmosphere and the new one didn’t reach exactly the same orbit.

                  2. smj

                    What about the communications satellites in clarke orbit that you claim can be photographed?

                    And how do those satellites get up there in the first place? Do you believe the explorer 1 launch was legit?

                    1. barbm124

                      the Explorer wasn’t a satellite. Maybe we can shoot objects beyond the gravity but I don’t think, we can communicate with them then. Satellites are a different matter. They build a rocket able to carry the satellite and reach a certain maximum speed at the launch which defines the altitude the satellite needs to reach for orbiting. There are many out of order satellites which don’t orbit properly but still didn’t fall down yet. It’s probably quite easy to do. Also the costs of satellite launches are vastly exaggerated to cover the fact that they shoot satellites in orbits all the time. Rockets burn all the fuel at launch and cannot be ignited in space IMO.

                    2. smj

                      So now we can’t communicate with satellites you claim are in clarke orbit?

                      Whatever, moving on…
                      “Explorer 1 was the first satellite launched by the United States, and was part of the U.S. participation in the International Geophysical Year. The mission followed the first two satellites the previous year; the Soviet Union’s Sputnik 1 and 2, beginning the Cold War Space Race between the two nations.”

                      …Now please watch the following video and tell me if you think the launch was legit…

                    3. barbm124

                      call it clarke, if it pleases you. If an object moves in a calculable way it can be found and connected for communication purposes. At least TV satellites work fine and I know them since about 1985. You are right, Explorer was a satellite, so they claim. I mistook it for a space probe. I don’t think we can receive signals from such objects flying in space in a non calculable way. To receive the signals from a TV satellite the dish has to be oriented very exact to the point where the satellite stays in orbit. That’s because of the way the parabolic dish works. Signals from space probes can’t be very strong and had to be collected very accurately. A space probe is an object which position you can only roughly calculate. I don’t think it is possible.

                    4. smj

                      So did you enjoy the explorer 1 video? Everybody can agree that the explorer 1 launch was an undeniable fake and the story goes it was the first murican satellite of course; so when do you reckon they started launching satellites for real?

                      Spacex is launching satellites to arthur c clarke’s eponymous belt hoyendia. Are you a believer in elon “it looks so fake it has to be real” musk’s handiwork? Do you really believe there’s a tesla flying thru space?


                      …that’s one of the latest telstars going to clarke orbit thanks to pope elon. The original telstar was the inspiration for the modern soccer ball of course…


                      …It was launched on a slow motion dirigible too…


                      …bytheway, the son of the founder of rko was the first to use the magic soccer ball to talk to Europe…


                      …and I’m sure it’s a only a coincidence that floyd odlum would take over rko and would make slow motion dirigibles to launch satellites; just as it was only a coincidence that howard hughes would one day control rko and would build the first commercial comsat placed in the clarke belt. Seems to me that all this spaceship stuff is show business. The first nasa administrator was a movie studio executive ferfeckssake.

                    5. barbm124

                      all this videos are fakes. They won’t show us real launches because then we would know the limits. Satellites are real because they are there. Fake videos can’t prove a thing. Don’t watch videos, watch for satellites. Play a little with a satellite dish, if you want to know the truth. It doesn’t cost that much and is fun to find a satellite and then its programs on the receiver.

                    6. ab Post author

                      “Satellites are real because they are there”. Barb, if this is the best you’ve got, then you best give up now. No one here is buying what you’ve got to sell.

                    7. smj

                      The videos aren’t fake, the psilly-ass spaceships are; and your argument that you know spaceships are real cause your tellalievision works is akin to arguing that you know magicians walk around with rabbits in their hats cause you have a pet bunny.

  5. barbm124

    you may believe he moved the entire stage with all the crowd sitting on it and nobody registered the change in perspective and the movement but I don’t. I don’t even believe there was a real statue in there. The towers and the statue are fakes. He uses green screen and the audience are hired actors. Anyway, once you know how those tricks are being done, the magic is gone. That’s how I receive the news today. It’s all fake and scripted to me and I cannot make it undone. Knowledge is a one way street. You can only get more knowledge, you cannot go back to less knowledge.

  6. barbm124

    David Copperfield never made the Statue disappear. It was a silly special effect working only for TV watchers. All rocket videos seem to be fake and as far as I know the real rockets burn all their fuel in the first seconds of the launch. They reach a maximum speed then and this defines the maximum altitude where they start orbiting. The major problem with rocket engines fired in a vacuum would be the pressure but we can only speculate here. I’ve seen Ad Astra recently and it is so silly. Why did they make this movie in the first place? “Astronauts” wear this silly huts the Russians are wearing in their old space movies. They are racing the moon using this old “Rover” vehicles known from the Apollo hoax. And Brad Pitt buys a blanket on his way to the Moon for 180$ from the flight attendant because he wants to take a nap. I kid you not.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.