Medicine Girl: What is wrong with the idea of a semisolid plasma moonš?
Delete-o-matic maniac Medicine Girl is on the loose
āMedicine Girl and the Plasma Moonš
Enter stage left, lunartic scientist R. Foster on Medicine Girlās post here:
Image links to this must see comedic YT vid (9 min 33sec):
YT vid by ABC News show notes:
Among R Fosterās theories was that the moon was in fact made of plasma [=gas], not rock, and that landing on it would not be possible.
Note, he did not say you couldn't FLY there (which seems to me to be the truth), he says its not rock (meaning not solid) so you canāt LAND on it. A plasma (gas) moon is easily disprovable by seeing stable contours and craters using simple telescopes over many decades that look just like paintings >200 yrs old.
ā The ABC has been unable to confirm Mr Fosterās identity beyond the entry in the production notebook from 1965: āPeople ā Int Tasmanian Professor (FOSTER)ā. We have also been unable to find any documentation of his work [WTF!].
Medicine Girl is showcasing the strange concept of the moon as a gas body and a āscientistā whoās affiliations and work can not even be confirmed by the Australian Broadcasting Company Australia's principal public service broadcaster, I guess because he is an actor or a spook, or both, and she didnāt read the YT show notes.
Here is the thread where Medicine Girl seems to have gotten stuck in the mud arguing with Proton Magic. She eventually deleted the entire thread WITHOUT WARNING OR REQUEST TO EDIT IT.
šYou know I wouldnāt let a thread go without copying it for you would I? [ā¦] and grey code blocks are todayās PM commentary.
Are you trying to say the, "moon is plasma guy" is right and that's why we cant land on the moon and we've been deceived by scientists, or that he is an example of scientific confusion speak?
š What he actually does is that he mixes the truth that we've been lied to with nonsense speak. He is discrediting scientists that think outside the norm by saying strange things, thus promoting the norm which has lots of deceptions. He nearly laughs as he says some blatant BS because he is an operative of the blob.
1. The speed of light can change on earth as it travels thru the Aether because there is actually an Aether, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341219567_The_Aether
but the basic speed of light certainly couldn't have changed in many billions of years otherwise the universe would not function as we see it and we would not be here to know about it.
2. These guys know very well there is no atom bomb nor hydrogen bomb, nor is the model of a hydrogen atom correct, so he is lying: https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/spooks-with-nukes
3. If the earth's axis fell over so much like he gestures, and that the earth froze over or flooded completely sometime in the last 200 mil years, we would not be here listening to his interview. The blob loves to promote pole reversals causing world-wide floods and the like: https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/pole-reversals-coming-to-a-theater
4. Plasma is defined as a state of matter that results from a gaseous state...If you think his statement that the moon is mostly plasma and weāll never land on it because of that, but that Venus or Mars are rocks that we can land on, then I have a bunker on Jupiter to sell you.
Note that his interview was right during the space race to the moon. No we did not land on the moon, but not because it is plasma, but yes his interview was front-loading the propaganda circuit with his making moon landing deniers out to be loonies.
No, Iām not saying the moon is made out of plasma. Iām saying we canāt land on it and hereās one possibility [that it is a plasma].
How can the moon possibly be made out of plasma that will stop a lander when we can see the same surface contours over many decades even in our own lives with a high school telescope? Even if gas is someplace under the surface, the surface is still holding up mountains, it can't hold up a flimsy lunar lander? There are many blatant reasons we can not send people to the moon (all of space in the solar system is a kind of plasma from the solar wind and getting thru the thick part in the earth's magnetosphere will ruin the electronics and people, but that has nothing to do with the moon's makeup). This guy made so many nutty statements he can only be a narrative twisting agent discrediting any moon landing deniers.
I agree with you there are many problems with science, I this isn't the proper example.
šThe Apollo 11 lunar lander weighed 16,448 kg (36,260 lbs) on earth, and 2,741kg on the moon where the gravity is 1/6th of earth's. A large elephant weighs up to 6,100kg, 1,016kg on the moon. So a family of 3 big elephants would be too heavy to land on the moon if they just parachuted in. I guess a family vacation of pachyderms is not traveling to the moon. But humongous asteroids can crash at incredible speeds on the moon making huge craters? I guess they are stopped by those pesky plasma gasses.Ok, thatās your opinion. Iām not saying I agree with everything he said. I added the example to explain specifically that if the moon was a solid surface we would land on itā¦and I donāt see mountains on my telescope. I see a light illuminated from within glowing with what appears to be a reflection of the planet below. I donāt know what it isā¦solid liquid? A perfectly shaped rock floating above us? just a pinhole reflection in a firmament, a ball of plasma, green cheese? If they are actually sending anything into outer space, Why donāt they stop by the Moon on their way out and drop off a rover? why donāt they send up a rocket to crash land on it without people in it so we can all observe, but they donāt so then weāre left to guess whyā¦ which is how I figured out we are already one world government, the North Pole, convid, the Antarctic treaty and of course the moon landing if we didnāt go to the moon and no one can go to the moon then India Russia China are all working under the same ruler
sorry the example triggered you so much were just exploring ideas and possibilities
Why do you get so bogged down on what this guy says?
https://www.space.com/21183-moon-mountains-observing-guide.html
"When you look at the moon through binoculars or a small telescope, the first thing you notice is that the lunar surface is divided into two distinct forms of terrain: large dark flat plains and bright mountainous highlands. Both of these are pockmarked by an enormous number of craters of all sizes.ā
The guy is making deception propaganda to discredit any moon landing deniers, he even chuckles, it was 1965 [meaning the time was ripe to make moon landing deniers look nutty because they were about to fake it]. I did not say they were sending anything to outer space, NASA says themselves they can't get thru the Van Allen belts still, but that has nothing to do with the moon itself, only you can't begin to get there.
Heās saying you canāt ever land on the moon how is that creating more propaganda?
Because he says nutty stuff, like the moon is a plasma because it is obviously not a gas body at the surface-the contours do not change even over hundreds of years like you see them change on Jupiter or the sun in weeks or months. So he discredits anyone who will be a moon lander denier. You do know the propaganda trick of discredit by association right? That's what Alex Jones and David Icke and many others do all the time.
Of course I know, that is the entire flat earth community, as well as all of the influencers selling their brand of piss and bleach. However, you don't know what the moon is, I don't know what the moon is, we have a telescope and some ideas, beyond that?? What is wrong with the idea of semisolid plasma. Why can we see through the crescent? Can you tell me why we don't put anything on the moon? How far away is it? You tell me what it is.
Post hoc: I will explain your questions, but these donāt change the plasma issue.During its crescent phase in the twilight or dawn, you can also sometimes see the dark portion of the Moon glowing faintly in the sunlight that reflects off Earth, an effect called earthshine.
How far away is the moon? You can use parallax with other celestial objects to calculate a rough distance from earth. Because the Moon follows an elliptical orbit, the Earth-Moon distance oscillates between perigee at roughly 363,300 km and apogee near 405,500 km every 27.3-day sidereal period.
Stuff is said to be put on the moon but I suspect they are stories. Electronics can not really function after going thru Van Allen belts and NASA says so themselves. The answer to stuff on the moon or not doesnāt change the craters and ridges, ergo a non-plasma lunar surface.I just told you and so did the web site that is just stating the obvious that we, and millions of people with simple scopes, can see stable contours and highlands and craters-craters mean that large objects hitting the moon have impact onto something quite solid, otherwise there would be no crater to resist the impact. The ground there is also obviously solid enough to hold these huge contours so that saying a flimsy lunar lander that weighs 1/6 of what it would on the earth can't land will make the people think he is nuts and thus any moon landing denier. If you don't agree that is ok but the vast majority of the population would agree so that he is making crazy statements. Lots of people believe that David Icke is ok to say reptiles run human society, most think he is nuts. He has to use that to discredit all conspiracists, that's his job.
My logic here is enough to make my point, it is not worth our time to argue about the crescent or distance, and I have noted at least twice above that you can't get thru the Van Allen belts, people or ships. Putting things on the moon or not has nothing to do with the moon as plasma because you can't even get out of low earth orbit which NASA employees even say so themselves. [See here if you thought you wanted to argue this point].
SO, there are 2 issues here,
1. Is the moonās surface a plasma (gas) that you canāt land on even with a small lunar lander that weighs 1/6 of what it would on earth?, and
2. What is the social and/or journalistic rationale to delete polite and logical comments with no warning from what should otherwise be a free speech platform?ć
šI have no rationale for āherā behavior other than she got her logic tied up in knots and just wanted to erase the thread out of frustration. So I moved the thread to my SS. Happy to protect your comment section Medicine Girl because I love everybody, even you. If you had just left them on your comment section they might get a few dozen views, while my posts get a few thousand views. Math is not everyoneās forte I can empathize with that.
With binoculars, youāll still see the entire Moon at once, but now itāll have terrain. Smooth-looking patterns of gray and white resolve into craters and large mountain ridges.
Painting of the moon 1795 by john Russell
Moon photo with binoculars 2000ās. Gas planetsā shape donāt remain unchanged in shape for over 200 years, like sun spots or Jupiterās Red Spot.
āSorry honey, THE MOONāS SURFACE IS NOT A PLASMA (GAS). Plasma does not make craters on impact nor hold up mountains. That does not fit with a soft solid either. My morning jelly DOES NOT FORM CRATERS ON IMPACT nor hold itās contours over 200 years much less a few billion.
šHave a nice life and delete someone else, even yourself.
Manic deletion screen shots
By all means take a look at Medicine Girlās posts. She rarely references anything. I asked her why and she told me, āI donāt trust Journalsā. Well, suspicion is a good thing.
āBut she trusts a YT video of some scientist whose affiliations and work have no record? I guess his handlers thought they could get away with that in 1965.
āThe whole point of this fly-away-hair scientist Mr. Foster is to make our brains into mush where we will believe in anything.
Weāre indeed living in a 2+2=5 world, more of which I will report on in the next post.
All of oneās secrets are where the moon doesnāt shine
Yours Truly,
Proton Magic & Co.
ļ½You must be polite and logical to comment on this substackļ½
NOTE: THIS POST IS UNDER ATTACK-Proving that the "Plasma Moon" story is propaganda aimed at the making the moon landing deniers coming 4 years later seem nutty, making part of the masses believe in any silly thing, and discrediting the other part that knows better.
Readers have written to me in complaint that two commenters, Fiona C. Hunt and The Blue Sky Maiden have made what seems a coordinated attack on the comment section. These comments have included aggressive and rude wordage, ad hominem attacks, and repetitive comments that to me are spamming alternative cosmic narratives. They have infringed on the Rules of Commentary Engagement noted in the About page at the top of this SS in multiple ways even after multiple requests by myself to be polite and desist from rude over-commentary that was also written clearly at the end of the post, and resulted in my banning them. This is a typical kind of "make a mess of the comment section" to discredit a post that normal persons would not do. They certainly just wasted their typing time, assuming they are not AI bots.
šThese 2 accounts also then jumped onto Sharine Borslien's SS most recent post and berated her there as well. Sharine is always polite and these accounts are clearly a tandem attack. They are helping us make a who's who of spooks that populate Substack. Considering their coming out on a post that is hanging out Medicine Girl's dirty laundry, myself and others have begun to assume they are connected to Medicine girl.
Most of the craters on the moon are not impact craters, they are the result of electrical scarring. They are too circular and too shallow to be impact craters. They also have other features that do not conform to a conventional impact crater. All the features conform perfectly with electrical scarring and have been demonstrated in the lab on a smaller scale.
The same is true for the rilles (channels) which scientists also cannot explain. For years they have told us they are collapsed lava tubes. But this makes no sense. They do not flow as lava would flow. They do, however, conform perfectly to electrical scarring channels, which have also been replicated in the lab, and are also sometimes produced in the ground on Earth by lightening strikes (at a smaller scale obviously).
The moon's features are consistent with the Electric Universe model, as promoted by the Thunderbolts Project and others. In this video you can see the results of electrical scarring, which match the features seen on the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5EjXhtKagg
The dark 'seas' on the moon are consistent with expansion, an expansion which is also true for Earth and other planets. Neal Adams made some very good visualisations of this decades ago.
Here is his visualisation for the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6_9bldsaxA
Here's the Earth's expansion visualised.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ
Note that this is not a theory, it is an observation. The continental plates of Earth fit together perfectly when you remove the much younger oceanic plates (essentially stuff them back into the rift zones where they came from). HOW the Earth expanded is still in the realm of theory, but the fact that it has is beyond doubt.
If the Earth has always been the same size then we have a situation where the continental plates happen to fit together perfectly on a much smaller sphere simply by removing the much younger oceanic crust - BY CHANCE! :)
That is infinitely improbable.
The much smaller Earth (200+ million years ago) allows for a much lower gravity back then, which also explains why the dinosaurs, insects and plant life were so much bigger back then, and why all life has consistently trended down in size over the last 500 million years.
The theories of Electric Universe and Expanding Earth (and other planets) upset the applecart and lead us to a new understanding of the 'laws' of nature, such as gravity. This probably opens the door to advance technologies (anti gravity, free energy etc) and this explains why these avenues of science are being ignored - at least in the public domain - and we are being spoon fed all the boring nonsense from official gatekeepers like Brian Cox and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
For the more inquisitive types they are fed the flat Earth and 'moon made out of cheese' theories to keep them occupied.