I'd first like to begin with BroRando's statement from that post linked above.

On 6/18/2021 at 9:50 PM, BroRando said:

After Brother Russell gained discernment that the time of the Gentiles would end in Oct of 1914.  Many were thinking that 1914 would be an end all date.  Not Brother Russell, he tried to reason with such ones that 1914 would be a maker of a time of trouble that could last 120 years.

In reality Russell did think 1914 would be an end date. He predicted for many years that the year 1914 would finally see would be the "end " of the day of vengeance, etc. He had stated that point many times. In fact, he indicated that it would be the "end of the world" but not in the sense that many religions understood this. He made sure that he clarified that it would not be the so-called "burning" of the world that many expected. Even well after 1914 (and Russell) passed, Rutherford would call 1914, "the end of Satan's system."

Throughout most of his writings, Russell taught that 1914 would be the farthest limit of man's rule, and that 1914 would see the "end of the time of trouble, not the beginning" of it. But about a decade before 1914, he started to teach that the 40-year harvest work from 1874 to 1914 should go on without much interference by this time of trouble, so the time of trouble was moved from pre-October-1914 to post-October-1914. It was therefore supposed to begin in October 1914 and go on for several months, and he indicated that it would likely finish by the end of the calendar year 1915 (later changed to 1916) in a time of chaos when no more earthly governments would be in power. (Except for a Jewish based government in Palestine that would have Jehovah's blessing.)

However, there were a few months between November 1913 and July 1914 when Russell admitted that he was questioning his own expectations about 1914, and he even suggested that perhaps things could just go on for another century, and he wondered what people might think of all these predictions "100 years from now" (which would be 2014). Another time he mentioned what things might still be like if the time of trouble went on for 120 years (which would bring one to 2034).

A review of what Russell stated after the failure of all the 1914 expectations should make it clear that Russell did not really think anything specific was supposed to happen in either 2014 or 2034. Russell gave no specific significance to those periods except to make the point that he no longer had as much confidence in the 1914 date. In late 1913 and early 1914 Russell suggested that there quite probably just wasn't enough time for all these preliminary expectations to come true in the remaining few months before October 1914. He spoke about pushing the date to 1915 or even 1916, and if it didn't happen at all, wondered what things might be like a century or more from now.

Those statements should be some of the ones we look at with respect to Russell's response to failed dates and failed expectations, since Russell was already bringing up the clear possibility of their failure as early as November 15, 1913. In that context, however, Russell made it very clear that, even if 1914 failed to come true, that he would feel no reason to apologize. In fact, he happily reported about how people would still be putting just as much faith in himself (Russell) as ever, and mentioned that, even if 1914 failed, he still expected people to be reading his books with interest in 2014. 

After expressing his doubts about 1914 in the November 15, 1913 Watchtower, Russell presented this letter from someone who was responding to those doubts (in the January 15, 1914 Watchtower):

“…we passed a resolution assuring you of our steadfast faith in you and your leadings. We got the thought from reading the Nov. 15th WATCH TOWER, the article on “What Course Should We Take?” that you had almost decided that the things we have been expecting in 1914 would not come to pass on time–since you said it is possible, but not probable. Now, dear Brother, if these things do not come to pass until 2014, instead of 1914, our faith in you will be as great as it ever has been….”

Another letter about Russell's doubts was published along with Russell's answer to it in the July 1, 1914 issue. The question was about whether the WTS will continue to publish and distribute Russell's books if October 1914 failed. It even questioned whether it was right to distribute them in the midst of Russell's doubts:

How shall we do respecting the STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES after October, 1914? Will the Society continue to publish them? Will the Colporteurs and others continue to circulate them? Is it right to circulate them now, since you have some doubt respecting the full accomplishment of all expected by or before October, 1914?

Russell responded as follows:

It is our thought that these books will be on sale and read for years in the future . . . . That will be an interesting matter a hundred years from now [2014]; and if he can figure or reason better, he will still be interested in what we have presented.

Note: An entire 30-page topic about "The disgusting thing that causes desolation" was recently deleted. The topic contained hundreds of posts, and they were from most of the usual participants here. I messaged the Librarian about it and he said he didn't know anything about how or why it got deleted, but would look into it. It's possible that the person who starts a thread has the ability to delete it, which is something else he'll look into.

In that topic there were several posts concerning Charles Taze Russell brought up initially by @BroRando and commented on by @Thinking, @Srecko Sostar, @Arauna, @TrueTomHarley, @Anna, KF, Pudgy, PWfT, and others.

There were several comments I wanted to respond to, especially the idea first brought up by @BroRando that C.T.Russell (early in 1914) spoke about some kind of fulfillment in 2034, which I believe is simply not true. And I will explain in this topic.

When @BroRando brought up Russell's date references, @Thinking responded to him that she remembered reading where Russell had apologized for trying to rush Jehovah's timetable with man's timetable, or words to that effect. To that I responded that I had not remembered an apology like that. @Thinking responded that I have made many false and misleading statements about Russell. If this is true, I would like to correct those errors. Since @Thinking has not yet offered any specifics about any of those statements of mine, and because I was asked by @Thinking to look through Russell's statements myself, I have agreed to follow up on this idea.

Another point was brought up by @TrueTomHarley which partially responds to @Thinking and her point about Russell's apology. It was one example of several times when Russell was refreshingly non-dogmatic about the chronology. It was from the January 1, 1908 Watch Tower where Russell says "We are not prophesying, we are merely giving our surmises." It also highlighted the statement: "We do not even aver that there are no mistakes in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology." Of course, there were other times when Russell sounded much more sure and dogmatic, but there are enough statements on each side to give a much better picture of Russell's overall attitude toward dates, predictions, and his response when expectations failed.  I believe we are able to "reconcile" both the dogmatic and the non-dogmatic in a fair way towards Russell himself. We have to consider both Russell's personal perspective, the historical perspective of the times, and Russell's own changes and growth and influences through the period. It may help us not to give too much weight to statements on either end of the spectrum.

In any case, I'm all for giving Russell the benefit of the doubt on the question of "dogmatism," but from what I remember, some of the Russell's statements which are sometimes utilized to defend Russell's supposedly apologetic nature are quite different from what I would call an apology. Again, I can explain the results of an exhaustive search. (By exhaustive, I wish I meant comprehensive, but I only mean that I'm exhausted from so much reading.)

@BroRando had commented about how Russell made some supposedly significant comments about chronology in the year 1914, even suggesting that Russell proposed we add 120 years to 1914 which would bring us to 2034. 2034 is a date considered very significant by @BroRando. It appears to me that too much significance is still being given to Russell's dates, and judging by other comments, too much focus on the overall continuing relevance of Russell, even claiming that his work prophetically fulfilled the work of Elijah and/or John the Baptist. However, I've done a lot more reviewing of Russell's views and I'll share much of what I found because I think it answers all three of the major points I wanted to respond to:

• 1. Did Russell really think anything prophetically significant might happen in 2014 or 2034?
• 2. DId Russell apologize for stepping ahead of God's timetable with his personal views?
• 3. Can we get a more balanced view of Russell's attitude and response toward dates and expectations?

24 minutes ago, Arauna said:

The bible indicates that it was offspring of Abraham who first received this instruction to cut the foreskin. So obviously everyone was born with a foreskin.

I just read here that Moses was born circumcised, so it must be true. It's on the Internet:

https://hekint.org/2017/01/27/divine-birth-the-birth-of-moses/

16 hours ago, xero said:

But the excuse is such a wimpy-girly-man excuse.

I studied with an African-American college student who was later baptized. We studied just before the Thursday meeting and I drove him straight from the study. He had all these skin bumps on his neck from shaving "in-grown" hairs and he would quickly shave just before the meeting. He often had to switch shirts at the last minute because of the mess of blood that came from those freshly shaved bumps. If he tried shaving like that just before getting married he would have been a "bridegroom of blood."

7 hours ago, Pudgy said:

Ok Ok ... It's like trying to stop the rain with a chain link fence  roof.

Whoops. This time you forgot to do the math. It’s like trying to stop a bird from flying through a window screen. Usually works. 

4 hours ago, Pudgy said:

I think, if you visualize this, you will see that it's about as effective as trying to keep flies out of your yard ,,,,,, with a chain link fence.

That's probably not quite right, because this particular virus doesn't just fly through the air except on a droplet of moisture. It's the size of that droplet of moisture that has to get through the mask.

Note the always-perfectly-correct NIH comments here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/

On 5/21/2021 at 3:00 PM, admin said:

(I did however wear one to my recent dentist appt.)

I did too. But it was neither stretchable nor transparent enough for him to do a good job cleaning my teeth. And an even bigger mess ensued when he told me rinse out.

5 hours ago, Anna said:

Is it because of course it's bad that ANYONE should suffer the bad consequences of cultish behavior, regardless whether they are members or outsiders. Is that what you mean?

Yes. His general goal is always to minimize any negative press about NRMs. He lists "Mostly Against [Their Own] Members" as one of those minimizing factors. This is why I said:

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I don't like it that when there is violence perpetrated by NRMs, he is quick to grasp at a straw that effectively says: "Well this isn't so bad because it's usually only members of the NRM who are killed."

If in politics, for example, a dictator were to bomb or gas a part of their own population, the world would point out how terrible it was that "he gassed his own people." It would not be considered a factor that minimizes guilt.

Just a quick follow-up on the above Cesnur/Introvigne source: https://www.cesnur.org/2019/turin_introvigne_scientology.pdf

I don't like it that when there is violence perpetrated by NRMs, he is quick to grasp at a straw that effectively says: "Well this isn't so bad because it's usually only members of the NRM who are killed."

His contradiction is clear in the following arguments:

However, it was recognized that hate speech, i.e. advocating physical violence and inciting others to commit violent acts, is also a real form of violence

He usually uses this argument as a very one-sided point to say that the NRMs are nearly always victims. But note some of the following statements, such as the one that appears right next to it. Note the word "most" which I highlighted:

Above: Japan’s Shoko Asahara(1955-2018) ordered the murder of opponents of his group Aum Shinrikyo before organizing a deadly gas attack with sarin gas in the Tokyo subway in 1995, although most members of his movements ignored his criminal activities.

And elsewhere, this lame and strained "defense:"

when devotees of Osho Rajneesh (1931–1990) infected with salmonella the salad bars of local restaurants in Oregon’s Wasco County, where they had established their commune, Rajneeshpuram. Rather than mystical, the purpose was mundane, as it was aimed at preventing local voters from participating in the election, so that the commune’s own candidates would win

At least he admits the occurrences but I still find his following argument embarrassing:

Mostly Against Members

While groups such as Synanon or Aum Shinrikyo carried out murderous attacks against their opponents or society at large, looking at the number of casualties overwhelmingly the violence of certain NRMs targeted their own members

With few exceptions, members of the respective movements rather than outsiders died in the suicides and homicides involving the Peoples Temple (Jonestown, Guyana, 1978), the Order of the Solar Temple (Switzerland, France, and Quebec, Canada, 1994–1997), Heaven’s Gate (Rancho Santa Fe, California, 1997), and the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God (Uganda 2000)

... [removed the picture]...

Above: Charred remains of members of the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, a Ugandan NRM that self-destroyed itself in 2000 in a frenzy of homicides and suicides, which made more than 700 victims

As an aside, I found an interesting page on CESNUR:

https://www.cesnur.org/2019/turin_introvigne_scientology.pdf

... raids against NRMs are often conducted with unnecessary real and symbolic violence even in democratic countries –and Scientology is the most raided NRM on an international scale

...

Russia is another country persecuting some NRMs, including Scientology. In 2018, Western media reported that in St Petersburg, lawyers of incarcerated members of the Church of Scientology were given materials of the criminal investigation that included comments by the FSB investigator. The comments included: “He knows a lot, but keeps quiet –reinterrogate with an electric aid to memory.” There is no evidence that actual torture occurred, but the fact it was contemplated as a possibility is disturbing, also in view of allegations of torture by Russian Jehovah’s Witnesses

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Knowledge and research in regard to what?

I think he is generally right about the Witnesses and we will continue to benefit for as long as he is successful in his attempts to promote a more balanced view of NRMs. (And you are right, of course, that he rarely considers specific doctrines, except to tone down the more radical-sounding ones, such as "space alien" beliefs by the Scientologists to put them in a more palatable light.)

But he tends to pigeonhole all news items through the same formula or filter without considering possible contradictions. Here is an example below from the topic of "Violence and NRMs" but which he applies analogously to fake or highly biased news stories, negative news stories, propaganda against NRMs, etc. 

With respect to violence for example, he usually itemizes like this:

1. Violence perpetrated by NRMs against outsiders and their own members (and this includes sexual violence, such as by pedophile priests in non-NRMs).

2. Violence falsely ascribed to NRMs.

3. Violence against NRM's, often fueled by hate speech, which can result in both individual cases of violence against them, violence by other groups, and even state-sponsored persecution, "economic violence," etc.

Of course, #1 is always downplayed of course as the fault of individuals, not the NRM, and often compared to a greater frequency in traditional religions. #2 is always up-played, even at times when his own evidence is questionable. And #3 is usually true, but he is too anxious to accept any and all news items that fit #3 unquestioningly.

When he tries to argue that there is more violence in traditional religions, he regularly points to Islamic extremists and terrorism. But he misses a point here which is common to Westerners who love to hate Islam as a religion altogether. Hate speech against Islam as if it were some homogeneous whole is even common in American and Western media outlets.

The problem or contradiction here is expressed on a site that uses one example of Islamic extremists [emphasis mine]: https://www.radicalisationresearch.org/research/shterin-2011-reconsidering/

Secondly, in addition to the above case-study, by scholars who know the region and language well, this paper uses the above example to show how the path to violent radical behaviour cannot be explained through simplistic labelling of groups as ‘extremist’, ‘radical’, ‘Salafi’, ‘Islamist’, ‘Wahhabi’ or other similar terms which were used by the Russian government and media at the time (and indeed still are in many countries). The authors point to the need to understand the local context in which radical beliefs are developed and expressed, and the benefits of comparative studies of these details to better understand the significance of causal elements.

Thirdly, and perhaps of most interest to readers not seeking to learn more about this region of the Northern Caucasus, is how the authors demonstrate this comparative approach in practice. Drawing on a range of academic literature about New Religious Movements (NRMs) they argue that the KBJ should not be seen as indicative of ‘Radical Islam’, but rather as an example of an NRM. The authors argue that the contemporary focus on ‘radicalisation’ tends to delegitimise non-violent radical beliefs, proscribing social and political behaviour which “have long been part and parcel of the youthful desire to make a difference” in liberal democracies. The authors point to NRM studies that show that frequently members of NRMS are not victims of, but actually pro-active participants in, these movements who join out of their own choice. NRM studies also shed light on how NRMs can potentially move to violence through a cycle of reciprocal mistrust and hostile actions with the surrounding society and authorities. For such groups, violence is a relational and processual development, and understanding the context of that development could help prevent their repeat in future cases.

The authors showed that the KBJ continuously interpreted their beliefs in reaction to the experiences within the group and between it and the wider society.

Similarly, he appears to fall into his own prejudices by not considering the potential propaganda and fake news stories often promoted by the NRMs themselves. I believe that several of these have been promoted by Scientology. Personally, I believe that many politically ideological "NRMs" in many countries are exactly the same as religious NRMs, and can result in violence in the same manner, and fake news defense of that violence in the same manner. In the United States the "cult of Trump" also resulted in some violence and defense of the same.

58 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The group Introvigne heads, CESNUR, (Center for the Study of New Religions) is roughly the opposite of FECRIS, the latter which, if they had their way, would ban them all as “cults.”

I really appreciated your insights here and in several previous posts. A lot to think about. I started following CESNURs doings about 15-20 years ago. Especially when the WTS took a strong interest in them too, and when the WTS attended some CESNUR-sponsored seminars.  CESNUR definitely has offered a more balanced view to those who think every NRM will produce another Jonestown, and a view which many persons need if they are on either extreme, defending or opposing NRMs. But I have also noticed some opportunism in CESNUR, perhaps even in the hope of funding, support for favored authors and publications, etc. I have listened to some speeches and interviews with Massimo Introvigne and have respect for what he is trying to do and promote, but less and less respect for the shallowness of his knowledge and research. Although CESNUR has finally acknowledged that there are additional dangers with cults, which they barely admitted in the past, they still push a very biased agenda to defend most of them, and tend to ignore when politics and NRMs can create a lethal mix.

3 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

It must be how we really "living in The Last Days" :)) hehe

Maybe you are right:

(2 Timothy 3:13) . . .But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.

2 hours ago, TheNonstoptheo said:

gives way to this ridiculous, notion. 

It truly is a ridiculous notion, but unfortunately it also happens to be a true notion.

2 hours ago, TheNonstoptheo said:

To BAN people yes!

I have never banned anyone, nor do I wish to, nor do I have the power to do that.

2 hours ago, TheNonstoptheo said:

Does this mean, I'm Caesar, to?

No, of course not. But you are most definitely the same person who uses the account @César Chávez, @WyattEarp @Allen_Smith, @TheNonstoptheo etc., etc.

2 hours ago, TheNonstoptheo said:

the librarian, which is you.

I am not the the Librarian. I only have one account here.

BTW, In addition to the way your log-ins and log-outs show up in the "Recently Browsing" portion of the page, you also give "yourselves" away in several other ways, too.

For example, look how you spelled the word "too" as "to" just on this very same page:

2 hours ago, TheNonstoptheo said:

Does this mean, I'm Caesar, to?

4 hours ago, Real-JWinsider said:

That goes for JW’s to.

Also, note your unique style of adding a few extra, unnecessary commas, which has given many people pause in almost every one of the accounts I mentioned along with about 20 additional accounts over the past few years, too.

2 hours ago, TheNonstoptheo said:

can it be,  your powers to censure people gives way to this ridiculous,  notion. 

4 hours ago, Real-JWinsider said:

If you,  already know, how . . .

1 hour ago, Witness said:

But thank you Allen, for your condolences. 

I was tempted to say something that might clarify that @Real-JWinsider is actually just one more "troll" persona for @Allen_Smith, @Ray Devereaux, @BillyTheKid-55, @César Chávez, @Dotlizhihii Tlenaai, @divergenceKO, @Sean Migos, etc., etc., etc., & et cetera.

Several of his additional accounts have been used as nothing more than shills to up-vote his own accounts (and down-vote anything that exposes him). This doesn't mean everything he has said under those other accounts is wrong. Some of it has been useful and even insightful in my opinion.

8 hours ago, Pudgy said:

I do not remember how many GB members there were back then, as I was just a Puppy, but a 2/3 majority did not carry the day. If memory serves (?) it did pass, but one GB member went to the restroom, and when he came back, he changed his vote.

You appear to have conflated two different GB meetings. In 1980 (when there were about 15 active GB members) only 3 GB members had their names on the memo to discuss moving the beginning of the "generation that will not pass away" from October 4, 1914 to October 4, 1957. It was the "brain-child" of Bro. Bert Schroeder, and my guess is that the other two GB members whose names are on the memo were only included because Bert Schroeder was the chairman of that committee and the others (Booth and Suiter, if I recall) happened to be on the same committee. It's not like the other two signed or promoted the idea. It was just brought to the table for discussion. Bert Schroeder was serious about it, but if you knew Suiter and Booth, I don't think they would have been strong advocates of it or even had much of an opinion about it.

The idea that such things as satellites and rockets in space could be signs in heavens was already hinted at during the study of the book "Your Will Be Done on Earth."  The book was written in 1958, but it's still on the jw.org website, because that book was reprinted in the Watchtowers from November 1958 to June 1960. And those articles are on the site. But the most similar ideas to this (before 1980) were the talks that sometimes tied the verses in Luke 21 to the fear of the nuclear age and the new dangers of combining the space race with the nuclear age. Sputnik itself was usually treated in the publications as not a specific threat. Even though Sputnik was also mentioned in the same 1959 article that mentioned the signs in the sun moon and stars, below, no direct connection had been drawn from Sputnik to the "signs:"

*** w59 6/1 p. 335 par. 46 “Look! I Am Making All Things New” ***
“ [“Also, there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars] On the earth anguish of nations, not knowing the way out . . . , while men become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth.”

Nuclear fears increased in the early 1960's (e.g. Bay of Pigs, Cuba, 1961) and an even closer connection was then drawn between Luke 21:25,26 and these "signs in the heavens." But they were tied to the generation starting in 1914, of course:

*** w62 3/1 pp. 131-132 God’s New World in Our Generation ***
Today in this nuclear, space age there is indeed “anguish of nations, not knowing the way out.” There is no need for proof of this; it is apparent to anyone who observes world events.
But when did this period of distress of nations begin? With this generation! That is why the new world comes within our generation! World War I marked the beginning of worldwide “anguish of nations.”

That exact same idea was repeated in the May 15 and October 15 Watchtowers of the same year, 1962. And then again in 1965:

*** w65 5/1 pp. 261-262 Cheer amid World Fear ***
Now, too, man has succeeded in sending his space vehicles around and onto the moon, even obtaining remarkable close-up photographs of the lunar surface. The thrill of such scientific achievement, however, is not without widespread feeling of uneasiness, for it is well known that both of the great blocs of nations now confronting each other in cold-war array are planning to be the first to plant a military mission on the moon and use it to scrutinize the installations and movements of the enemy. So the moon is no longer just a gently beaming light for the night sky. It has become a cause for deepening anxiety. And what may yet be discovered, as man turns his attention to nearby planets, is likewise certain to promote the dread feeling of insecurity and uncertainty.
. . .
WORLD FEAR FORETOLD
Nineteen hundred years ago Christ Jesus foresaw this fear-gripped generation, and pointed to the immediate cause: “There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth anguish of nations, not knowing the way out because of the roaring of the sea and its agitation, while men become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.” (Luke 21:25, 26)

The material in the 1968 Truth book pointing to 1975 also brought up the connection again. After that the idea seemed to have been dropped from publications for over a decade (1968-1982).

Since 1982, it's been common to see a general connection between the signs in the heavens and military capabilities in the sky and space, but not in a way that could limit the sign to just the nuclear age or the space age. The following statement (with the inclusion of military planes and rockets) could have application to the time from about WWI to now, or even perhaps going further back in time (e.g. the rockets red glare, and bombs bursting in air):

*** w82 5/15 p. 14 par. 10 The Signs of the Times—What Do They Mean to You? ***
With the stockpiling of armaments racing beyond the control of the nations, the literal sea itself is filled with war equipment in the form of ships and submarines capable of carrying deadly nuclear warheads that can wipe out millions of people with a single missile. Indeed, the sea is roaring and ‘agitated.’ And what about the sky and space above us? True to Jesus’ words, ‘the powers of the heavens have been shaken’ in that war planes, rockets, ballistic missiles and the like, can streak through space, across oceans and continents to strike enemy targets.

5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Go play with yourself little boy, just not like JTR. You'll get in trouble.

You seem to get of having witnesses persecuted. Get your rocks off while you can!

@César Chávez You appear to have some special reason or need to respond to others with vulgarity. You've done this to several people in the past, too. If "Pudgy" had been vulgar first, perhaps I missed it. Still, considering your claims to moral superiority over everyone, it seems a bit unseemly.

This wasn't a topic under any religious heading or club, so I won't spell out Ephesians 5:3-4.

4 hours ago, César Chávez said:

animals can't act like humans.

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

According to NASA, an average of one cataloged piece of debris has fallen back to Earth each day for the past 50 years.

That shouldn't be a surprise, but it is (to me anyway). That's over 18,000 pieces of debris. Of course, most of these either burn up or land on ocean water.

On 2/20/2021 at 12:45 AM, César Chávez said:

Oh, Dear! Here we go again.

It's really a simple topic for most people to reason on, and should not really be that contentious as @scholar JW claims, and not really as complex as @xero has made it out to be in other threads/topics. Personally, I don't want to discuss it again until about 2022. But that shouldn't stop anyone else from finally trying to respond to the Biblical and secular evidence about 607 BCE, much of which has already been presented elsewhere on this forum.

18 hours ago, Arauna said:

Answer the list of questions I posted on the other thread and then we talk again.

I think the list of questions you are thinking of are in the JW Only "club." You can always copy them here, of course.

I should also mention that some of the problem could be the "cult of Elon Musk." Mr. Musk can say the stupidest things and it doesn't matter because of the personality cult around him and the technocrats who love him.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

I know you love China and defend it at all cost.

I love a few things about China, but I hate other things, and there are plenty of good reasons to criticize it.

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Maybe because, you get paid by them to hush negative news from that out of control country.

I have found that when people decide to attack a person or people they don't like or speak against a country they don't like, that facts don't always matter. For example, you said that SpaceX debris is usually controlled while Chinese debris is not. This misses the point completely about the Google query. It's about uncontrolled debris that might fall out of orbit. Reading some content from the very first returned link says this:

"It really isn't about this one rocket body … because every rocket body in Earth orbit is uncontrolled," explains T.S. Kelso of CelesTrak, an analytical group that keeps an eye on Earth-orbiting objects.

The true magnitude of the problem can be identified by a quick check on CelesTrak.

"It shows there are 2,033 rocket bodies in Earth orbit … at least those that we have orbital data for, as there may be more classified ones. Of course, every one of them is uncontrolled. Of the 2,033, 546 belong to the U.S. and only 169 belong to China. . . . But the U.S. isn't even the worst offender in terms of orbiting booster debris. That would be Russia, with 1,035 rocket bodies.

This is another common problem with a lot of "news." The title of that link is:

https://www.space.com/china-huge-rocket-falling-from-space-junk-problem

So you'd think the article will try to make the case that the biggest problem is in "out of control China." But as you can see above the article admitted (albeit far down near the end) that a bigger problem is the US (546) and an even bigger problem is Russia (1,035). This doesn't include many objects from the US which aren't included because the information is classified. I assume Russia has similar classified rocket objects.

At any rate, the question was about how easy it is to get information on the last SpaceX rocket body (booster) that actually was supposed to stay in orbit but "fell out of orbit" uncontrolled and unpredictably.

The article on the most recent bit of SpaceX debris says this:

"While we await further confirmation on the details, here's the unofficial information we have so far. The widely reported bright objects in the sky were the debris from a Falcon 9 rocket 2nd stage that did not successfully have a deorbit burn," https://www.space.com/spacex-falling-rocket-debris-light-show

What I noticed was that there were no negative articles about SpaceX. Instead of admitting "debris" about the rocket booster falling out of orbit, there is talk of a fantastic display, and a dazzling sky show.

But before Google would even put up anything (always positive) about SpaceX, it found space for 4 links to China's "problem" with falling debris, especially from the rocket booster falling out of orbit.

Also, the NYT just ran a huge story on how dangerous China's space program is.

When this type of thing happens on 95 out of 100 stories on different topics, one could get the impression it was done on purpose.😉

I recalled a report on some dangerous debris from a SpaceX launch about a month ago, and I was curious about it today. So I Googled:

"spacex fall from orbit"

People who watch this sort of thing will not be surprised, but here is a synopsis of the results. See if you notice anything odd about the results: