Post your comments here on our segment with Dr. Farrell.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
March 9 Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
- Thread starter Gene Steinberg
- Start date
I like to be unpredictable.
DavidRavenMoon
anonymous anomalous
Regarding the Apollo 17 Lunar Module Ascent stage liftoff video; Dr. Farrell is forgetting about the significantly less gravity of the moon, which is 83.3% less than on Earth. The gross weight of the accent stage was about 10,300 lbs. On the moon it weighed about 1,709.8 pounds. The Thrust-to-weight ratio in lunar gravity at liftoff was 2.124. It wouldn't take much to get it up, and rather quickly. The acceleration you see with Earth bound liftoffs is the rocket overcoming gravity.
I've always said that if the US had some exotic technology from UFOs or otherwise, we would have been using it in wartime.
I've always said that if the US had some exotic technology from UFOs or otherwise, we would have been using it in wartime.
Last edited:
Are you really a luthier Dave? I'd be interested in hearing about your work in PM or new thread....
F
Fcseven
Guest
This episode needed an extra hour or two.
I hear ya!
Wade
FeralNormal master
I KNEW that you were going to say that.
Heidi Lemmer
Paranormal Adept
This will require a second listening, not because it was bad ....it was that good!!!!
nameless
Paranormal Adept
From the following transcription, see if you can match this to what point in the show I was listening to.
"yup, uhuh, ok, with you, yeah, makes sense, yup, uhuh, still with you, ok, yup, with you, yup, um, what, waahhhhat, say what now?, what, no, really? wahhht?, huh?HUH? WHAT?WTFF??"
Great show. Lots to think about and play with. A veritable Koch's snowflake of educated supposition and wildly knitted facts, Farrell bends the hell out of the rule book.
"yup, uhuh, ok, with you, yeah, makes sense, yup, uhuh, still with you, ok, yup, with you, yup, um, what, waahhhhat, say what now?, what, no, really? wahhht?, huh?HUH? WHAT?WTFF??"
Great show. Lots to think about and play with. A veritable Koch's snowflake of educated supposition and wildly knitted facts, Farrell bends the hell out of the rule book.
marduk
quelling chaos since 2352BC
I have some concerns with Dr Farrell's comments... I'm no debunker (I've seen some crazy things in my time) but I am of the rational/scientific bent.
Problem #1. Bending local spacetime doesn't necessarily impact nuclear yields. If it did, high altitude yields would be different than ground/underground yields (the earth should theoretically bend the hell out of local spacetime compared to a smallish craft using field propulsion technology)...
There is no evidence that I've ever seen to support this position. Operation Argus detonated a 1.7kt bomb at 540km. Within operational expectations. Of course, this could all be the "power elite" but remember this was a previously secret operation that has since been declassified.
Yeilds:
Test:Argus I
Time:02:28 27 August 1958 (GMT)
06:15 6 May 1958 (local)
Location:South Atlantic; 38.5 deg South, 11.5 deg. West
Test Height and Type:High Altitude Missile, 100 Miles
Yield:1.7 kt
Test:Argus II
Time:03:18 30 August 1958 (GMT)
06:15 6 May 1958 (local)
Location:South Atlantic; 49.5 deg South, 8.2 deg West
Test Height and Type:High Altitude Missile, 182 Miles
Yield:1.7 kt
Test:Argus III
Time:22:13 6 September 1958 (GMT)
06:15 6 May 1958 (local)
Location:South Atlantic; 48.5 deg South, 9.7 deg West
Test Height and Type:High Altitude Missile, 466 Miles
Yield:1.7 kt
... 3 different altitudes, exact same yields.
Operation Argus
Problem #2. "Zero-point" energy is actually the lowest energy state of the empty vacuum of the universe. Extracting energy from this low energy state requires allowing the energy to flow to an even lower energy state. This is usually impossible because it's the lowest energy state... this is like trying to extract the thermal energy from ice while being in a warm room. There is exactly one known way to do this: the Casimir effect. Basically you take two plates that are less than one atom apart, and somehow (maybe piezoelectrically) use the pressure exerted from the base energy state (essentially the creation of virtual particles around the plates) to squish the plates together. Virtual particles can't form between the plates because there isn't enough room.
The problem? Zero point energy extracted from the universe is tentative at best, and at worst is far, far less than the amount of energy in about seven hydrogen atoms per cubic meter of empty space. Since you can easily store about 40x10exp30 atoms of hydrogen in that same cubic volume of space, that's (in technical terms) a crapload more energy to pack around than empty space. Seems more efficient to directly convert mass to energy than trying to farm the nearly zero base energy state of the universe.
Problem #3. The sun doesn't emit more energy than expected. There was a problem with neutrino emission based on the standard model up until about a dozen years ago, but that has since been corrected. From wikipedia:
Problem #6: The LEM launch being "faked" or using antigravity has been debunked so many damn times I just don't know what to say. I mean just think about it. What was the whole damn Saturn V for if we had antigrav? We put less than 1% of the vehicle onto the moon and back... because the rest was basically fuel.
And watch the launch:
Then watch this launch:
It takes off slow... because it's accelerating. You start from zero.
Problem #7: The Van Allen radiation exposure wasn't a huge problem for Apollo. Because they weren't there long enough for it to be... (fun fact: astronauts in orbit actually sometimes see flashes of light when they close their eyes as cosmic rays hit the fluid in their eyeballs!) They did soak up enough for it to increase the risk of some cancers, but the risk was seen to be tolerable. Hell, I'd take the risk for a trip to Mars. This pic is pretty explanatory:
Problem #8: (I think, I'm losing count by now): A plasma scientist in the space program? Fire is plasma... and rockets use fire for propulsion... right?
Problem #9: Google's search engine is helping in the weaponization of space? Huh? My logic system just asploded.
World class research? Man, Chris, I deeply respect you. But I just don't see it.
But these would make some great movies.
Problem #1. Bending local spacetime doesn't necessarily impact nuclear yields. If it did, high altitude yields would be different than ground/underground yields (the earth should theoretically bend the hell out of local spacetime compared to a smallish craft using field propulsion technology)...
There is no evidence that I've ever seen to support this position. Operation Argus detonated a 1.7kt bomb at 540km. Within operational expectations. Of course, this could all be the "power elite" but remember this was a previously secret operation that has since been declassified.
Yeilds:
Test:Argus I
Time:02:28 27 August 1958 (GMT)
06:15 6 May 1958 (local)
Location:South Atlantic; 38.5 deg South, 11.5 deg. West
Test Height and Type:High Altitude Missile, 100 Miles
Yield:1.7 kt
Test:Argus II
Time:03:18 30 August 1958 (GMT)
06:15 6 May 1958 (local)
Location:South Atlantic; 49.5 deg South, 8.2 deg West
Test Height and Type:High Altitude Missile, 182 Miles
Yield:1.7 kt
Test:Argus III
Time:22:13 6 September 1958 (GMT)
06:15 6 May 1958 (local)
Location:South Atlantic; 48.5 deg South, 9.7 deg West
Test Height and Type:High Altitude Missile, 466 Miles
Yield:1.7 kt
... 3 different altitudes, exact same yields.
Operation Argus
Problem #2. "Zero-point" energy is actually the lowest energy state of the empty vacuum of the universe. Extracting energy from this low energy state requires allowing the energy to flow to an even lower energy state. This is usually impossible because it's the lowest energy state... this is like trying to extract the thermal energy from ice while being in a warm room. There is exactly one known way to do this: the Casimir effect. Basically you take two plates that are less than one atom apart, and somehow (maybe piezoelectrically) use the pressure exerted from the base energy state (essentially the creation of virtual particles around the plates) to squish the plates together. Virtual particles can't form between the plates because there isn't enough room.
The problem? Zero point energy extracted from the universe is tentative at best, and at worst is far, far less than the amount of energy in about seven hydrogen atoms per cubic meter of empty space. Since you can easily store about 40x10exp30 atoms of hydrogen in that same cubic volume of space, that's (in technical terms) a crapload more energy to pack around than empty space. Seems more efficient to directly convert mass to energy than trying to farm the nearly zero base energy state of the universe.
Problem #3. The sun doesn't emit more energy than expected. There was a problem with neutrino emission based on the standard model up until about a dozen years ago, but that has since been corrected. From wikipedia:
The solar neutrino problem was a major discrepancy between measurements of the numbers of neutrinos flowing through the Earth and theoretical models of the solar interior, lasting from the mid-1960s to about 2002. The discrepancy has since been resolved by new understanding of neutrino physics, requiring a modification of the Standard Model of particle physics – specifically, neutrino oscillation. Essentially, as neutrinos have mass, they can change from the type that had been expected to be produced in the Sun's interior into two types that would not be caught by the detectors in use at the time.
Problem #4: The "Nazi Bell" (one of my favourite speculations, God I wish it was true because it would be so cool!)... just has so little evidence for it I just don't know what to say. I've read the brotherhood of the bell. Sorry, there are problems. Of course the "test rig" turned out to be a cooling tower foundation. Oh, and here's the "discoverer" and only person that's actually read any documentation of the bell from wikipedia, Igor Witkowski:
In 1992 he was the Editor in chief of the monthly magazine 'Technika Wojskowa' ('Military Technology'), first published in 1991, which in 1992 became 'Nowa Technika Wojskowa' ('New Military Technology') with a new publisher, Magnum-X Ltd. This magazine includes articles on aircraft technology and historical articles on foreign and Polish Air Forces equipment. As of 2003/4 he has authored 15 books and about 100 articles on these subjects.
InThe Truth About The Wunderwaffe (2003), originally published in Polish as Prawda o Wunderwaffe (2000), Witkowski claims to have discovered the existence of the alleged German secret project Die Glocke from transcripts of an interrogation by Polish authorities of former Nazi officer Jakob Sporrenberg. Witkowski claims to have been able to read the transcripts through the help of an unnamed Polish Intelligence officer. No primary documentation, aside from Witkowski's account, exists for the weapon. Jakob Sporrenberg served in the nazi occupation regimes in Poland and Norway. He never served in a scientific or technical capacity with the SS.
A description of Die Glocke, based on Witkowski's account, is also presented in The Hunt for Zero Point: Inside the Classified World of Antigravity Technology by British author Nick Cook.
Problem #5 The "trillions" that vanished out of the economy in the economic downturn of 2008 didn't "go" anywhere... again, quoting wikipedia:A description of Die Glocke, based on Witkowski's account, is also presented in The Hunt for Zero Point: Inside the Classified World of Antigravity Technology by British author Nick Cook.
The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2006,[5] caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[6][7] The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for (lending) borrowers, overvaluation of bundled sub-prime mortgages based on the theory that housing prices would continue to escalate, questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers, compensation structures that prioritize short-term deal flow over long-term value creation, and a lack of adequate capital holdings from banks and insurance companies to back the financial commitments they were making.[8][9][10][11] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[12] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. In the U.S., Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts.[13] The U.S. Senate's Levin–Coburn Report concluded that the crisis was the result of "high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street."[14] The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded that the financial crisis was avoidable and was caused by "widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision," "dramatic failures of corporate governance and risk management at many systemically important financial institutions," "a combination of excessive borrowing, risky investments, and lack of transparency" by financial institutions, ill preparation and inconsistent action by government that "added to the uncertainty and panic," a "systemic breakdown in accountability and ethics," "collapsing mortgage-lending standards and the mortgage securitization pipeline," deregulation of over-the-counter derivatives, especially credit default swaps, and "the failures of credit rating agencies" to correctly price risk.[15] The 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act effectively removed the separation between investment banks and depository banks in the United States.[16] Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets.[17] Research into the causes of the financial crisis has also focused on the role of interest rate spreads.[18]
In other words, the money didn't "go" anywhere... the amount you borrowed against your assets (like a house) became a problem when the money you borrowed was more valuable than the asset you borrowed it against... like taking out a $200K line of credit against a house that used to be valued $300K but was suddenly worth $100K.Many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts.[13] The U.S. Senate's Levin–Coburn Report concluded that the crisis was the result of "high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street."[14] The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded that the financial crisis was avoidable and was caused by "widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision," "dramatic failures of corporate governance and risk management at many systemically important financial institutions," "a combination of excessive borrowing, risky investments, and lack of transparency" by financial institutions, ill preparation and inconsistent action by government that "added to the uncertainty and panic," a "systemic breakdown in accountability and ethics," "collapsing mortgage-lending standards and the mortgage securitization pipeline," deregulation of over-the-counter derivatives, especially credit default swaps, and "the failures of credit rating agencies" to correctly price risk.[15] The 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act effectively removed the separation between investment banks and depository banks in the United States.[16] Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets.[17] Research into the causes of the financial crisis has also focused on the role of interest rate spreads.[18]
Problem #6: The LEM launch being "faked" or using antigravity has been debunked so many damn times I just don't know what to say. I mean just think about it. What was the whole damn Saturn V for if we had antigrav? We put less than 1% of the vehicle onto the moon and back... because the rest was basically fuel.
And watch the launch:
Then watch this launch:
Problem #7: The Van Allen radiation exposure wasn't a huge problem for Apollo. Because they weren't there long enough for it to be... (fun fact: astronauts in orbit actually sometimes see flashes of light when they close their eyes as cosmic rays hit the fluid in their eyeballs!) They did soak up enough for it to increase the risk of some cancers, but the risk was seen to be tolerable. Hell, I'd take the risk for a trip to Mars. This pic is pretty explanatory:
Problem #8: (I think, I'm losing count by now): A plasma scientist in the space program? Fire is plasma... and rockets use fire for propulsion... right?
Problem #9: Google's search engine is helping in the weaponization of space? Huh? My logic system just asploded.
World class research? Man, Chris, I deeply respect you. But I just don't see it.
But these would make some great movies.
Last edited:
boomerang
Paranormal Adept
I thought it was a great interview. I don't buy everything Farrell says. But he has a way presenting his theories and assertions that invites the listener to dig in and think. Yeah, Farrell's alternative view of history is way 'out there' on some points. But it's pretty consistent. And he's articulate enough to put it across in a thought provoking way. I still think a cloud of strangeness surrounds much of the technology transfer between Nazi Germany and the U.S. at the end of the war.
I'm hoping The Paracast can have him back again sometime.
I'm hoping The Paracast can have him back again sometime.
marduk
quelling chaos since 2352BC
Ever hear of the pigeonhole principle?
Basically if the pigeons outnumber the holes, you're gonna get more than one pigeon in at least one hole.
If you throw around enough names, dates, and speculation, you're gonna find coincidences.
I love me a good story, and I went into his books and this interview wanting to listen... But being intellectually honest with myself I just couldn't.
I love the show guys and great job with the interview. Maybe I'm throwing the baby out with the bath water... But the bath waters pretty dirty.
Basically if the pigeons outnumber the holes, you're gonna get more than one pigeon in at least one hole.
If you throw around enough names, dates, and speculation, you're gonna find coincidences.
I love me a good story, and I went into his books and this interview wanting to listen... But being intellectually honest with myself I just couldn't.
I love the show guys and great job with the interview. Maybe I'm throwing the baby out with the bath water... But the bath waters pretty dirty.
ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM
Whittingham
Good interview and Mack Maloney new book which is a good read so far and stipulates think for yourself. Also like his band . Like others make up your own mind and take it some of it with a pinch of speculation unless you see it first hand. Think it's more than one post war group rather many states and private institutions funding own programs. Also think it's not all nuts and bolts technology.
Last edited:
nameless
Paranormal Adept
Some really good insights. We would all benefit from you posing some questions to him the next time he is on!
Pararescueman
Skilled Investigator
Talk about bending and stretching the truth to fit your point of view.
Has all rational people left the paranormal field? It seems everyone is trying to out do the other in absurdity. Every week seems like a game of one trying to top the other.
The interview fell off the tracks completely when he said the lunar lander used some kind of anti gravity technology. And this guy has a PH.D??
Enough with the German tech advantage from WWII, has anyone actually gone back and read the after action reports? The German made fine equipment, when it worked. German equipment was so poor at times they used captured enemy equipment due to mechanical issues in their tank corps. They had numerous issues with their Luftwaffe's aircraft. Their equipment was not superior in the leaps and bounds as some suggest.
Not on this show, but I think I have heard mention of the Horton brothers flying wing. It proved to incredibly unstable. The USAF tried this concept with YB-49, it too proved to be a beast to fly and unstable to fly. It was not till the advent of fly by wire, that designs liked the B2 Stealth bomber, the retired F117, and the ubiquitous F16, only then proved to be stable airframes. All impossible to control with the aid of computers.
Yet you are going to to tell me the Germans, created a "bell" with these amazing capabilities, sorry that is BS.
Think you should go back and study military history related to WWII before you make grandiose claims.
Has all rational people left the paranormal field? It seems everyone is trying to out do the other in absurdity. Every week seems like a game of one trying to top the other.
The interview fell off the tracks completely when he said the lunar lander used some kind of anti gravity technology. And this guy has a PH.D??
Enough with the German tech advantage from WWII, has anyone actually gone back and read the after action reports? The German made fine equipment, when it worked. German equipment was so poor at times they used captured enemy equipment due to mechanical issues in their tank corps. They had numerous issues with their Luftwaffe's aircraft. Their equipment was not superior in the leaps and bounds as some suggest.
Not on this show, but I think I have heard mention of the Horton brothers flying wing. It proved to incredibly unstable. The USAF tried this concept with YB-49, it too proved to be a beast to fly and unstable to fly. It was not till the advent of fly by wire, that designs liked the B2 Stealth bomber, the retired F117, and the ubiquitous F16, only then proved to be stable airframes. All impossible to control with the aid of computers.
Yet you are going to to tell me the Germans, created a "bell" with these amazing capabilities, sorry that is BS.
Think you should go back and study military history related to WWII before you make grandiose claims.
Last edited:
Charlie Prime
Paranormal Adept
If High-Octane Speculation offends you, don't read Farrell.
Buy yourself a subscription to Smithsonian or National Geographic magazine and be happy thumbing through the pages in your Barc-o-lounger.
They are running an 81% off sale this week. What luck!
Buy yourself a subscription to Smithsonian or National Geographic magazine and be happy thumbing through the pages in your Barc-o-lounger.
They are running an 81% off sale this week. What luck!
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
That reminds me of the guy with the economics degree translating ancient languages.
The idea that the LEM used anti-gravity is just supreme dufuss talk IMHO.
All that said, I did enjoy the episode and Farrell certainly has a ton of details that he references.
Last edited:
red_pill_junkie
Paranormal Adept
Ok, lemme throw my 2 centavos...
Re. Dr. Farrell's mention that a Japanese architecture firm wants to beam microwave energy from the Moon, I'd be cautious to take those kind of claims too seriously. You see, one thing you learn when you've worked so long in the Architecture/Design field as I have, is that architects loooooove to toy with out-there ideas, as a way to show they can think outside the box & come up with radical concepts. That's why Frank Lloyd Wright came up with his project for a mile-long skyscraper in the freaking 1950's!
And what about Bucky Fuller's dreams of domed cities?
No one denies both Wright & Fuller were architectural geniuses, but at the same time to seriously think someone --besides them, that is-- was really considering those projects to be feasible, would be something of a stretch.
But hey, it's a PR ego-driven strategy that it's still favored by many firms who want to make a name from themselves, & get a little free publicity along the way. To wit: I give you the rolling city!
Or if you want a vantage point for UFO hunting, how about an inflatable transport that looks like a fluffy cloud?
Does that mean that all radical architectural concepts are pie-in-the-sky improbable? Not at all. Sir Norman Foster --arguably the #1 architect in the world-- recently announced that his firm is studying ideas for the building of lunar habitats using lunar regolith & 3d-technologies. When someone of his caliber puts his name in such a bold claim, then it's probably because they really ARE taking the project seriously.
Or maybe Foster is in league with those darn Nazis. Who knows
Re. Dr. Farrell's mention that a Japanese architecture firm wants to beam microwave energy from the Moon, I'd be cautious to take those kind of claims too seriously. You see, one thing you learn when you've worked so long in the Architecture/Design field as I have, is that architects loooooove to toy with out-there ideas, as a way to show they can think outside the box & come up with radical concepts. That's why Frank Lloyd Wright came up with his project for a mile-long skyscraper in the freaking 1950's!
And what about Bucky Fuller's dreams of domed cities?
No one denies both Wright & Fuller were architectural geniuses, but at the same time to seriously think someone --besides them, that is-- was really considering those projects to be feasible, would be something of a stretch.
But hey, it's a PR ego-driven strategy that it's still favored by many firms who want to make a name from themselves, & get a little free publicity along the way. To wit: I give you the rolling city!
Or if you want a vantage point for UFO hunting, how about an inflatable transport that looks like a fluffy cloud?
Does that mean that all radical architectural concepts are pie-in-the-sky improbable? Not at all. Sir Norman Foster --arguably the #1 architect in the world-- recently announced that his firm is studying ideas for the building of lunar habitats using lunar regolith & 3d-technologies. When someone of his caliber puts his name in such a bold claim, then it's probably because they really ARE taking the project seriously.
Or maybe Foster is in league with those darn Nazis. Who knows