SPACE X LANDS A ROCKET - WITH AN ANTI-GRAVITY ASSIST?
Was there any anti-gravity technology involved? Updated on 12/30/2015.
On December 21, 2015 Space X stuck its landing, setting down the first stage of their Falcon 9 rocket after it launched 11 satellites into orbit. Unlike most people who watched it on TV, or even from the Space X headquarters in California, I was able watch not only the takeoff from the beach in front of our Cape Canaveral, condo, but incredibly, the almost heart-stopping landing too. If I had seen what I saw without knowing what to expect, I might have thought that ET had landed. During my life in Florida, I've seen many launches - including some of the Apollo flights to the moon, space shuttles and rockets to Mars (including the Mars Science Laboratory). I've witnessed space shuttle landings, and have heard many sonic booms associated with them. But somehow standing on the beach by my home, watching the dark sky above burst into light and finally feeling like I could almost be blown away by the power of the sonic boom that arrived where we were standing in the final second of the landing sequence seemed more thrilling than all of them. No humans had ever witnessed the return from space in this fashion before (unless they saw an alien space craft land). And while I can't be sure (yet, at least) I wonder if what I saw that night was not related to knowledge gained from a close encounter, or perhaps something related to anti-gravity that I discuss in my articles about Eugene Podletnov.
Figure 1 - The launch as captured in the Torah Code. Table Below - calculation for the statistical significance of the Space X matrix.
On Figure 1 the axis term is an ELS of SPACE X. It deployed 11 satellites (moons). The word for SATELLITE/MOON at skip -1 flows from SPACE X. TO LAND at skip +1 is four rows above axis term. On the bottom of the axis at skip +1 is ROCKET. Also on the near bottom, left side are the phrases FROM THE MIDST OF THE DARKNESS and DID BURN WIH FIRE. Figure 2 shows the blast off as seen from in front of our home.
STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF FIGURE 1. As per my standard protocol, no statistical significance is assigned to the axis term, here a transliteration of SPACE X at its lowest skip in wrapped Torah. What are the most significant terms shown? DARKNESS and ROCKET each appeared at skip + 1 against odds of about 71.5 to 1. A verb for TO LAND was found in the open text against odds of about 17.4 to 1. The odds against having SATELLITE/MOON at a special case skip (+/-1 or the absolute skip of the axis term) somewhere on the 858-letter matrix were about 1.5 to 1. However at skip -1 this find shared a letter yud with SPACE X and it only required 24 letters to show both terms. Without considering the issue of conflicting letters, the odds against getting these terms together in a 24-letter box were about 33 to 1, however for combined significance calculation purposes we will stick to the 1.5 to 1 figure. The word FIRE is not treated in accordance with my standard protocol because it is only 2 letters long in Hebrew (alef shin). That's too short for a meaningful ELS and much too easy to find internally in words or in combinations of an alef that ends one word and a shin that starts the next. Better here is to switch to English, use the King James Version on the Codefinder software and determine how many times fire in mentioned in the open text of the Torah. The number found this way was 170. Using this frequency, FIRE was found in the open on the matrix against odds of a bout 2.7 to 1. Overall the matrix was found against odds of about 351,925 to 1.
Figure 2 - Liftoff - the view from our Cape Canaveral beach condo.
Figure 3 - As the rocket booster began its return, from out of the midst of the darkness did it burn (Deuteronomy 5:23). The rocket landed east of where it took off. There was a frightening sonic boom at the moment of landing. It was expected during re-entry, but we had no idea that it would arrive at the moment of touchown. At first we though the rocket might have blown up. So did Space X owner Elon Musk. The rocket came down very fast until the last few seconds. As the map insert shows, the landing was just a bit over 6 miles from out home.
Figure 4: Elon Musk tweeted this time lapse photo of the takeoff and landing. It appears to have been taken well south of and further from the site than our home. Musk does own some units in our complex, but I haven't met him yet.
Figure 5 - SUPERFLUID is encoded with HELIUM, WEIGHT and the idea of LIFTING in the open text.
BRIEF HISTORY OF PODKLETNOV AND ANTI-GRAVITY
Podkletnov is discussed in a 737-page textbook entitled Frontiers of Propulsion Science. It was published in February, 2009 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronauts, Inc (AIAA). From hereon I shall refer to it simply as the textbook. It purports to be the first textbook in the field of Breakthrough Propulsion Physics. Podkletnov is mentioned in the index on pages xxiv, 9-10, 14-15, 237-239, and 242. On page xxiv, on Figure 1, which sums up the contents of the text, his concept is listed as having had null results or shown to be not viable. On page 10 it is stated that NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, began its own study in an attempt to recreate Podkletnov configuration. The study ran from 1995 to 2002, but was “unable to complete the needed test hardware with the resources available. Private funding supposedly did allow for a completed apparatus and published the results in 2003. “Using equipment 50 times more sensitive than available to Podkletnov, the group found no evidence of a gravity-like force.” Podkletnov then made the assertion that a force beam could be created by applying high-voltage discharges near superconductors. However, the claim is unsubstantiated according to Paul A. Gilster of the Tau Zero Foundation, who wrote Chapter 1 of the textbook. Gilster does credit Podkletvov with bringing a combination of both energy and skepticism to the subject (of antigravity). Chapter 5, written by George D. Hathaway of Hathaway Consulting Services, Toronto, Canada, has a more detailed analysis that will be discussed further below.
According to Nick Cook, much of Podkletnov's work is being done in Russia. Indeed, while Nick Cook is not mentioned in the textbook’s index, on page 19 of Chapter 1 it is stated that, “Reports in Jane’s Defense Weekly that aerospace giant Boeing was investigating superconductivity effects related to Podkletnov’s work remain unconfirmed” (Cook, N., “”Anti-Gravity Propulsion Comes ‘Out of the Closet,’” Jane’s Defense Weekly, 29 July 2002), and, I might add, un-refuted. Gilster goes on to state that, "the private nature of such potential work makes the prospects for disclosure unknown.
Chapter 5 of the textbook is entitled Gravitational Experiments with Superconductors: History and Lessons. A cursory read of it makes clear the extreme difficulty in measuring slight changes to the gravitation field when dealing with low temperatures and rapidly spinning superconductors. Podkletnov used liquid helium while some analyses by others (as the diagram on Figure 7 shows) were done with liquid nitrogen. Liquid helium is much colder than liquid nitrogen.
In Nick Cook’s book, THE HUNT FOR ZERO POINT, beginning on page 182, there is a description of a World War II German experiment with “a bell-shaped device comprising two contra-rotating cylinders filled with mercury, or something like it, that emitted a strange pale light blue” that killed five people. Eventually, between April 28 and May 4, 1945, 62 scientists working on the project were shot by the SS.
The object was worked on deep underground at a Wencelas Mine site in Poland. On page 228 of Cook’s book, he asserts that the object, not only generated a torsion field in the process of producing gravity shielding, but it also bent space-time, making it a time machine. On page 232 he describes why such a (dangerous) device would need to be buried deeply. As described above, the man who attracted a firestorm of controversy about a successful antigravity experiment in 1992 was Eugene Podketnov. PODKLETNOV is the axis term on Figure 7 where we see that at the second lowest ELS of his name in the Torah Code, the last letter of his name begins the open text statement AND YOU STOOD UNDER THE MOUNTAIN AND THE MOUNTAIN BURNED WITH FIRE UNTO THE HEART OF HEAVEN. These kinds of experiments are both dangerous and in need of great security due to the potential for use in weapons systems. They are best conducted under mountains, just as our Space Command was located for a long time under Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado.
Figure 6 (top) and Figure 7 (bottom). Figure 6 shows the relation betwen ANTIGRAVITY, TESLA, BROWN, HELIUM and UFO. Figure 7 is based on PODKLETNOV as the axis term. Both figures refer to blazing foundations or happenings under mountains. Original tests of this technology may have been done by Nazis in mines underground.
FURTHER ANALYSIS - REVELATIONS ON THE SPACE X/ORBCOMM-2 VIDEO FOR THE FULL TAKE OFF AND LANDING SEQUENCE. The link just given only gives hints about what might or might not be related to anti-gravity issues discussed above. At 13:26 there is reference to a "secret" 10th engine. At 14:14 they mention that the liquid oxygen is colder than the same material used for earlier launches. It 15:48 they refer to liquid oxygen, liquid helium, and fuel all going to the base of the second stage. They do not discuss what the liquid helium is for.
Frankly, having watched the launch and landing (which was 9 km closer to our home than the launch site), I have to say that if I had not seen the landing with my own eyes, I would have though it to be impossible. About 18 months earlier I met a Space X worker who thought it was impossible because of all the fuel required to bring it about. I think it would have been easier to accept the landing if, like the shuttle, the rocket had made most of an orbit before turning doing burns to get back to the Cape. What this supposedly involved was (1) the booster reorienting itself with Nitrogen Cold Gas Thrusters, (2) the propellant settling maneuver, a criticality in ensuring a clean re-start of the engines, accomplished by using the nitrogen thrusters to provide a small acceleration that settles the propellants in the back of the tanks so that the engines do not ingest any gas bubbles at ignition (3) a primary 30 second boost back burn to get it going around back to Cape Canaveral, (4) an entry burn, and (5) a landing burn.
Spaceflight101.com states that the boost back burn was Falcon’s first 100% boost back, reversing the rocket’s direction of travel and providing it with enough energy to make it back to the Cape after reaching a peak altitude of 200 Kilometers. They go on to state that, "Inbound for re-entry, the stage deployed its four grid-fins, each of which can be controlled along two degrees of freedom to be able to provide three-axis control once in the discernible atmosphere. The fins are an essential part in achieving the accuracy needed to guide the booster back to a landing site as the engines cannot deliver the amount of maneuvering during their short periods of operation." It seems hard to understand how fins alone can bring about such incredible accuracy so high where there would be little air for them to interact with. However NASA states of the space shuttles that, "When it is time to return to Earth, the orbiter is rotated tail-first into the direction of travel to prepare for another firing of the orbital maneuvering system engines. This firing is called the deorbit burn. Time of ignition (TIG) is usually about an hour before landing. The burn lasts three to four minutes and slows the shuttle enough to begin its descent." So this is not the first time that fins or wings have accomplished a great deal during hypersonic flight.
Spaceflight101.com states, "Re-start of a subset of Falcon’s engines occurred when about 70 Kilometers in altitude as part of a 20-second re-entry burn to a) slow the booster down for descent and b) shield the engine compartment from aerodynamic forces occurring at re-entry. After the conclusion of the burn, the stage was in atmospheric flight for 50 seconds – in this phase of the return, the hydraulic grid were employed to modify the booster’s angle of attack to control the downrange travel distance and to correct any cross-track errors to place the stage close to its intended landing burn target. The landing burn started around 33 seconds prior to touchdown as Falcon 9 lit up its center engine that was then tasked with some heavy-throttling to slow the stage down to a gentle speed under ten Kilometers per hour for a hoverslam landing. Live video from the landing site showed the booster descending in a blaze of fire before rapidly decelerating and maintaining a vertical posture for touchdown on all four legs. The phrase rapidly descending seems like an understatement. About 3 seconds before landing I told my wife that it was coming in so fast that I thought it would crash.
What about the sonic boom that arrived where we were at the time of the landing? Spaceflight101.com states, "The returning booster announced its arrival with a powerful sonic boom heard around Cape Canaveral right before the Merlin 1D engine in the center of the Octaweb engine arrangement commenced the final landing burn." How far were we from the landing site? As the map insert on Figure 3 shows, it was just a bit over 6 miles from our home, less than half the distance of the launch site. It would have taken about 29 seconds to travel from there to where we were. The boom (really a double boom with part from the bottom of the rocket and the other part from the top) originated when the rocket was just going subsonic at some altitude that just worked out right to have the sound arrive as we saw the rocket touch down.
As for how Space X really accomplished such a feat, it would appear that the major burns other than turning around were 30 seconds for boost back, 20 seconds for re-entry and 33 seconds for landing - a total of 83 seconds to get back from 200 km high to the X on the landing pad. I saw all three burns. When the rocket engines were not burning on the way down I thought that perhaps it was because the rocket was hidden by clouds. But the rocket was not hidden. From out of the midst of darkness did it burn, just as was written in Deuteronomy 5:23 in the Torah. I saw it, but I still don't believe it, not as presented anyway. If I were to make a bet, it would be that the helium on board served a function that Podkletnov understood only too well. I think that what we saw that night was not just a rocket coming out of the darkness, but the birth of anti-gravity technology that will usher in a new age.