Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

55 Excellent

About Eve

Recent Profile Visitors

145 profile views
  1. I was only looking at tweets (without replies) - but this does follow the pattern; the missing "E" I was looking for. Maybe "suprise" was an honest mistake? '^^
  2. I was updating myself with the WikiLeaks twitter page, as one does, when I noticed something odd. The word "whopper" is misspelled - thank you Family Guy for constantly playing in my head anytime I'm confronted with a shy "H" hiding behind a "W". I noticed again with the word "surprise" and "algorithm". Curious that a professional group would make such elementary spelling errors. Whatever, stressful times and all - one could make a few spelling errors. But then something clicked and I started looking for more misspelled words. Our misspelled words are: Whopper - "wopper" = H Surprise - "suprise" = R Intelligence - "inteligence" = L Presumptive - "presumtive" = P Algorithm - "algorithim" = HIM Meaning the letters left out of the misspelled words are "H R L P HIM" The only hiccup in this theory is the word "surprise" - and for the life of me I tried to find a word misspelled where the "e" was the missing letter ... but there are no other misspelled words.
  3. Response: Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 14 as seeking information outside the scope of the permitted discovery in this case. The Court’s May 4, 2016 Order provides that Plaintiff is not entitled to discovery on the subject of “cybersecurity issues.” Dkt. #73, at 13. Um ... wait what? How??
  4. It's been itching at the back of my mind since I saw it, and I imagine it's just my desire to see patterns even where patterns don't exist. But why exactly $1.610,24? I immediately associate these numbers to the 24th of October, 2016. Considering the person and payment in question is associated with creating negative press for Trump, and the whole principal of this concept is to be sneaky and cover your tracks. Is there something important/big happening for or with Trump on the 24th? I assume that at this point, if there was something planned for the 24th it's probably been scrapped. But it'd be interesting if we could obtain more pay stubs for individuals in the Clinton campaign and compare them with known dates of incidents.
  5. Yes! Glad to teach anytime I have time! ^^
  6. Good questions! The answer to "swimming in space" is simply: there is indeed a reaction - but it's too minuscule to notice. For example, in the water you can propel yourself whereas you can't do that with air. In theory, a human could fly like a bird but it would require a very lightweight frame that could be controlled fluidly and easily, and also be large enough to provide lift within the first flap. Many variables help a bird fly: their bones and feather roots are hollow, their strongest muscles are found in their wings, and the rest of their body is lightweight ... etc. Once they actually begin flapping their wings, similar to an Olympic trained swimmer, their wings will cup the air downwards and cut the air coming upwards to travel with the least resistance. Plus, the oils on the feathers combined with the structure of the feather traps air on the down swing and allows air to pass through on the upswing. However, they would find that they are still far too heavy and their wings far too small to do the same in space. Space sails that rely on photon waves as a form of propulsion need sails a fraction of a fraction of a millimetre thick that are around half a kilometre to a whole kilometre wide. We can thus conclude that a bird is not built to fly in space (though that's logical, they don't need to :P ). Back to swimming in space - we'd need to design a spacesuit like a diving suit with flippers to achieve a similar ability to propel oneself. So, theoretically, what would this spacesuit look like? Probably resembling a squirrel suit that had four thin wires stretching out 150 metres or so away from each appendage, then spanning the length between each section of wire a micro thin solar film - it would look like a very large reflective square, or a space octopus. Though, it would be more like a parachute pack; easy to release, but not as easy to pack back up. Even then you wouldn't have much control on how or where you moved too. You'd also pick up momentum exponentially towards the speed of light without a method to slow you down. We could scrap the "swimming" concept, and conceptualise an Iron Man like suit that would use little jets similar to the shuttles of current, but using a propellant that was neither too hot nor too cold on conversion and produced a large amount of energy from a very small mass. It would also have to be overall extremely compact. Scientists are still a long ways away from mass transportation and there is little need for individual mobility (aside from an emergency propulsion unit designed to help an astronaut adrift). It's worth noting that being in space is neither floating nor falling but some weird state in-between.
  7. Um yes it does- er, okay yea - you're kinda right, I haven't gone in depth about the physics of rockets in space ... but that's okay! It's fun to learn. ^^ We can start by comparing jet engines from planes with rocket engines on space rockets, with the most common mistake being that they achieve thrust by "pushing back against the air". That's not true, both engines achieve thrust by rapidly firing out hot exhaust gas; for a plane it's backwards and for a space rocket it's downwards. The propulsion occurs because the hot gas pushes downwards (the action) which then propels the rocket upwards (the reaction), or for a plane: backwards. The gas isn't pushing against anything in order to move the rocket, simply the gas shooting downwards is enough energy. This is the result of the law of thermodynamics in a very concentrated form. Keep in mind, the rockets thrust must be greater than the force of gravity (weight) acting on the rocket or plane. This is what propels a plane forwards against the drag (friction of air that occurs at high speeds), allowing its wings create lift counteracting the weight of the plane. It's not that easy with a space rocket, it doesn't have wings with which to create lift; the rockets must counteract both the weight and the drag. Now planes typically don't fly much higher than 15km above the surface, they need the air for both burning fuel and keeping enough lift under the wings. Low-Earth Orbit satellites fly at around 160km above the surface with our atmosphere fizzling out at around 800km. Of course at 160km the atmosphere is too thin for planes to fly, and certainly too thin to burn jet fuel. Rocket engines are made with chambers containing a cooled and pressurised form of oxygen and propellant (compared to jet engines of a plane taking in air as it flies). It's postulated that the escape velocity is something like 7 miles per second (40.000 km/h), although that implies that the rocket is going that fast from the start - and should just be taken as an example of how much energy is needed to propel a rocket. (About 80% of what you can see on a space rocket during launch is to house the propellant and oxygen, it needs a lot!) Truly, it's not a "velocity" we're concerned about as the direction doesn't matter that much (at least not during liftoff); the only concern is the energy put into the action, thus it's more like an "escape speed". Throughout the process of making the climb, the rocket will lose parts in stages. Each stage has it's own guidance and propulsion systems and modern rockets have two to three stages. The final stage also has a guidance and propulsion system, as well as the "payload": shuttle, equipment, spare-parts, or even nuclear warheads. By the time the space rocket has left Earth's reach, it has already built up so much momentum it doesn't need to spend much more energy. At this point, any use of jets or rockets still on the shuttle are only used to maintain trajectory or for landing. Once the payload is in space, depending on where it needs to go, it'll follow a carefully charted course that will utilise mostly the gravitational pull of planets, moons, and very large asteroids to shift and slingshot the craft where it needs to go. The near vacuum of space is fairly void of friction, because of this it'll be a long time before the craft slowed down on it's own. It's at this point that scientists are trying to discover other, more efficient ways of travelling through space. The sling shot method is extremely fuel efficient, but it's not fast or direct; and currently we don't have a publicly known energy source that can produce the energy of 100 Hoover Dams but be compact and lightweight. Things like microwave drives or giant sails (yes, really) that could "catch" a radiation wave. However - even though we'll see interplanetary travel within our lifetimes, many problems are still left to be solved. We can't give birth in space, we can't even feel full bladders or stomachs, our muscles deteriorate, we lose our appetites, acid reflex, have blood pressure and heart problems, we'd be leaving the magnetic shield that protects us from the radiation, and if you're really unfortunate you may be one of the many who would experience constant space sickness (think motion sickness, but worse) - just to name a few. Hope I helped you understand rocket science a little bit better!
  8. I see we've already discussed that the "vacuum of space" is not a perfect vacuum. And underwater it would be water. The real question here - is where does the thrust come from if there is very little oxygen in space? Ah the marvels of modern technology indeed! Most of the momentum build up occurs within our atmosphere to break away from the Earth's gravitational pull. Once the shuttle is just outside of Earth's reach it'll eject it's rockets. The jets still on the shuttle are mainly used to stabilise and path correct, using the gravitational pull from other planets to sling shot the shuttle where ever it needs to go. These jets however don't rely on combustion for propulsion, but rather compressed air or water. (Realise this is all predetermined before the rocket ever leaves the Earth, and once in space it would be nearly impossible to change the flight path. This is due to a fuel and weight paradox in which the more the rocket weighs, the more fuel it needs; the more fuel it needs, the more the rocket weighs.) In fact, most of the jet fuel loaded onto a shuttle is for slowing it down and landing. Here on Earth, our number one problem with propulsion is friction. However, in the near vacuum of space, friction isn't a problem. It's like a puck on an air hockey table (in only one way: it glides easily). I know all this because I'm an alien with a major in interstellar physics.
  9. Wow. Just wow. "We already discussed Castro. Beyond that, why do you think that story [about Hillary Clinton proxies attacking Bernie Sanders] is not just a bunch of hyped up BS intended to have exactly the kind of reaction you are exhibiting?" - J. Podesta
  10. Oh goody, so I wasn't the only one who noticed that. Exactly! So how does he think getting Congress to pass legislation not in their interest is "easy"? He's already claimed that November 8th will be the new "Independence Day" and what he calls "draining the swamp" seems to be a less threatening take on systematically purging the government - not that his supporters wouldn't back him even if he did call it a "purge" ... Reading in between the lines, Trump is calling for a revolution, no matter what happens on the 8th. Which brings me to another point - The States are a representative democracy. Thus whatever happens on the 8th doesn't guarantee a win for whomever comes out on top; something seen many times. But he still chooses to emphasise that. The things he wants to achieve politically could only happen if the American government was reduced to a pile of rubble and ash, from which a new political system could be formed. But it's not like he can directly reference this idea - The UN and NATO have gotten involved with countries for less. I think Trump is planning a coup for right after the popular vote; using it to prove his following with definitive numbers. This proof wouldn't be for "we the people"; since that's already well known - it would be for Russia and China, the other two huge political powers heading The UN. All the equipment is ready: the trucks, and the warehouses, and the supplies: and the election will either prove how deep the corruption runs or that Trump has the support needed to start a coup. This is how WW3 is going to start. Because essentially it'll pit The UN against NATO. A huge portion of the American population wants it. Hillary definitely wants it; similar to Trump, the only way she can achieve what she wants now is also out of the rubble and ash. The DNC will pay people to start shit on the 8th - probably with a few different scenarios in mind. But the best for her would be the election being thrown off after the public vote: if she wins she still has fake Trump supporters incite violence and Obama can declare martial law. On the other side, Trump of course would be demanding that everything be checked out for voter fraud. Within a week we'd have two different reports saying each candidate won. The country would split. Riots would increase and martial law would begin to settle in city by city. The Dem side would declare Hillary the rightful president and despite martial law, would deem it appropriate to swear her in before the end of January 2017. However, supporters of Trump will rally behind him, saying he is actually the proper president. (Not that he needs it - but if he's smart he'll ensure people start saying this about him.) He'll act humble at first - but then with the support of half a country and probably Russia & Co. (making who knows what as promises ... ) they'll storm the streets and purge the system. Probably will look a lot like the Turkey coup ... Not that I'm calling Trump Erdogan. And if Trump wins, it'll probably be mostly an info wars at first. Lot's of talk about voter fraud and "lost ballots" and things we've seen before; all making it look really close. Then when the electoral vote occurs either [see above] or Trump wins and the Dems incite violence. Trump shows he has the support of most of the country, and makes a convincing case of the corruption in the American politics to win the support of Russia & Co. who then purge the system. The anti-Trump/Russia propaganda overseas will cause NATO to likely try and help the opposing party (not super convinced that if Trump were to win that all the Dems would run behind Hillary - I think they'd actually prefer to have Obama or Michelle). Or you know - nothing could happen. The public majority may just accept the results, and a few riots will occur here and there which will result in curfew programs for specific districts, but further things would occur just as they have in previous elections. This includes the accusations of voter fraud and lost ballots, and contesting the results of the electoral vote with the public vote. Though that just doesn't seem likely at this point - propaganda switched to divide and conquer a long time ago. This was the inevitable result of a two party system. Each party takes turns defaulting, and eventually there comes a point when there are few differences between the parties. Of course this creates discontent within the public, because they're no longer feeling represented by their party. America is a huge country, how can one expect only two parties to appropriately represent a public of that size? Which is why a candidate like Trump has done so well so far. There is still one thing left in America that serves to unite a majority: patriotism, something Trump supporters have in spades. The opposing side(s) are fractured more than a child's first piggy bank - having allowed themselves to get caught up in their very narrow and specific issues: gender, race, sexuality, personality ... The call to arms has already been made, it's just about showing up for it now. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump drop's Pence at some point for a General.
  11. The link just leads to radaronline.com now... :/
  12. https://file.wikileaks.org/file/ Such as nuclear locations: https://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-nuclear-sites-2009.pdf And plenty of Bilderberg information: https://file.wikileaks.org/file/bilderberg-history-1956.pdf This recording: https://file.wikileaks.org/file/audio-recording--secret-call-to-defeat-employee-free-choice-act-by-bank-of-america.mp3 Fraternity Secrets: https://file.wikileaks.org/file/secret-ritual-of-sigma-phi-epsilon.pdf
  13. After swearing until she turned blue that there was no sensitive data located in the emails sent and received under her private server, it turns out that a good handful of them are so sensitive that individuals handling the case must be sworn in just to view them. Charles McCullough, the Intelligence Community Inspector General, informs Mr. Chaffetz of the Congress that in order to handover the emails in question, he'd have to get permission from an unnamed agency. When asked which agency this is, Mr. McCullough replies that he cannot say - as that information is, also, classified. "So you can't even tell me which agency won't allow us, as members of Congress, to see something that Hillary Clinton allowed somebody without a security clearance, in a non-protective format, to see? [ - Mr. Chaffetz] "This is the segment of emails that - this is why my letter back to Ranking Member Cummings had to be classified because people would like to see this segment of emails, and this has been an issue - not just with you and your comity, but with several members at this point. So we have gone back to the agency that is involved, several times, and we can certainly do that again and ask permission. [ - Mr. McCullough]" Time to search the leaks for "yoga" and "wedding" to see what those code-words truly mean.
Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.