NASA - the tallest of all tales

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

NASA - the tallest of all tales

Postby simonshack on July 21st, 2014, 1:27 am

*

Dear Cluesforum members and readers,

I believe the time is ripe to call out NASA - and indeed the entire international space industry - for the astronomical hoax that it is, from start to finish. As we have patiently and fairly comprehensively demonstrated on this forum over the years, none of the advertised American NASA space exploits (or any other nation's) is in the least believable - for a multitude of reasons. I have personally come to the conclusion that space travel is impossible (no rockets can be propelled in the absence of air, let alone switch off their engines and keep orbiting indefinitely and "for free" around our planet at hypersonic speeds!) - and that once this insurmountable threshold of mankind's technology was discovered back in the days, the Nutwork (aka "the powers that be") decided to fool this entire world's population with their spaced-out fairy tales.

These tall tales of "space conquests" were (and still are to this day) sold to the public via mass propaganda campaigns which rely primarily on the subterfuge of feeding the TV-addicted masses with a constant flow of phony imagery, created with very real and exploitable technologies available to mankind since the early 1900's: photographic doctoring - in all of its forms, the sort of which also sold to the public - a few years earlier - the myth of the "Atom Bomb" (see our Nuke Hoax thread here).

NASA, as many of us have suspected for decades now, truly appears to be nothing but an extended "Hollywood production" sold to the public as reality. Yet, although millions of people today do not buy into NASA's purported moon landings, most will stop short of considering / or logically realizing that NASA, throughout its existence, never became a serious scientific enterprise - but has quite simply kept deceiving the public to this very day with increasingly sophisticated, fake / fictitious "Hollywood-grade" imagery.

********************************


NASA - the tallest of all tales

Part1: The First NASA Chief Administrator


Let me introduce you to the very first NASA Chief Administrator, T. Keith Glennan - who took office on Oct1, 1958:



full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic4G-8qX_bk


You may now wonder: what credentials / and previous professional experience did Mr Glennan have - so as to be chosen as the very first administrator of NASA - destined to become known as the "world's top technological enterprise" ? Let's see what NASA's official website has to say about this:

"Born in Enderlin, North Dakota, on September 8, 1905, Dr. Glennan earned a degree in electrical engineering from the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University in 1927. Following graduation, he became associated with the newly developed sound motion picture industry, and later became assistant general service superintendent for Electrical Research Products Company, a subsidiary of Western Electric Company. During his career he was studio manager of Paramount Pictures, Inc., and Samuel Goldwyn Studios, and was briefly on the staff of Vega Airplane Corporation."
http://history.nasa.gov/Biographies/glennan.html


Amazing, isn't it? Why would a former studio manager of Hollywood film companies (and a previous superintendent for a joint which made loudspeakers for the movie industry) be chosen by the US government to head the newly-formed NASA organization? Was there really no better, more qualified candidate to lead this immensely ambitious and "highly scientific" American space program? Or was Mr Greenan, with his Hollywood background, a most appropriate candidate to launch what was to become, essentially, Hollywood's longest-running "reality show"?

I will leave all readers with this thought for now, but stay tuned to this thread. It is high time for all alert, free-thinking citizens to rise up intellectually and reject / destroy the NASA myth - and its many spin-off, copycat "space agencies" around the world. All of them are, of course, government-funded / taxpayer-supported entities. And to all those 'romantic' daydreamers who loved to envision mankind's future migrations to other planets, please learn to love and appreciate the beauty of Mother Earth. It's the only place we have. All we need to do (to make it perfect) is to weed out the gang of clowns and charlatans that we have mindlessly allowed to reach the highest positions of power.


A tip of the hat goes to "smj" over at http://www.fakeologist.com - for pointing to T. Keith Glennan.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6375
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby hoi.polloi on July 21st, 2014, 7:07 am

This guy reads prompts like someone who doesn't know how to do anything except transform written words into jerks of his baby-faced head — probably something he got used to doing to his employees to seem important and intimidating. What a sad and appropriate start to the hoax. Amazing that people respected people like him enough to fall for it.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4810
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Postby CitronBleu on July 26th, 2014, 4:58 am

simonshack wrote:I believe the time is ripe to call out NASA - and indeed the entire international space industry - for the astronomical hoax that it is, from start to finish. As we have patiently and fairly comprehensively demonstrated on this forum over the years, none of the advertised American NASA space exploits (or any other nation's) is in the least believable - for a multitude of reasons. I have personally come to the conclusion that space travel is impossible (no rockets can be propelled in the absence of air, let alone switch off their engines and keep orbiting indefinitely and "for free" around our planet at hypersonic speeds!) - and that once this insurmountable threshold of mankind's technology was discovered back in the days, the Nutwork (aka "the powers that be") decided to fool this entire world's population with their spaced-out fairy tales.

These tall tales of "space conquests" were (and still are to this day) sold to the public via mass propaganda campaigns which rely primarily on the subterfuge of feeding the TV-addicted masses with a constant flow of phony imagery, created with very real and exploitable technologies available to mankind since the early 1900's: photographic doctoring - in all of its forms, the sort of which also sold to the public - a few years earlier - the myth of the "Atom Bomb" (see our Nuke Hoax thread here).

NASA, as many of us have suspected for decades now, truly appears to be nothing but an extended "Hollywood production" sold to the public as reality. Yet, although millions of people today do not buy into NASA's purported moon landings, most will stop short of considering / or logically realizing that NASA, throughout its existence, never became a serious scientific enterprise - but has quite simply kept deceiving the public to this very day with increasingly sophisticated, fake / fictitious "Hollywood-grade" imagery.

So very true Simon. And all this is needed to uncover the subterfuge is... to ask questions.
CitronBleu
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 264
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 8:45 pm

Re: NASA - the tallest of all tales

Postby smj on November 6th, 2014, 3:05 am

Our friend T. Keith is interviewed in this 25th anniversary propaganda video; the old movieman informs us that the objective of NASA in his day was "to push the state of the art as hard as you could; but don't waste your muscle."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPL4ThXYOJ4

I suggest you watch the entire hour, but if you're busy, the quote above is at the 19 minute mark.
smj
Member
 
Posts: 68
Joined: September 10th, 2014, 11:29 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby smj on November 6th, 2014, 7:16 pm

I don't know where to post this video. Its von Braun and Gen. Medaris being silly as usual; but I think the sound guy might be doing some serious reporting at the end.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRwWRLXmLzU
smj
Member
 
Posts: 68
Joined: September 10th, 2014, 11:29 pm

Re: NASA - the tallest of all tales

Postby scud on November 17th, 2014, 10:54 pm

Been thinking recently about ‘the launch’, the bit that should be visible to everyone within at least a ten mile radius around Cape Canaveral. Of course, not so much of a problem for ‘Soyuz’ and ‘Ariane’ since their inexplicably remote sites of Kazakhstan and French Guiana are less than what you might call ‘sparsely populated’...obviously not so with Cape Canaveral which also boasts a rather busy schedule... http://spacecoastlaunches.com/

So yes, here at SC we assert that the entirety of the ‘space program‘ is false yet I don’t think any of us can get away from the fact that the good residents of CC must hear and see on a fairly regular basis ‘something going up‘ even though the closest apparent view available to the general public is around 7 miles distant (discounting the VIP area’).
Agreed, that it’s more than a little strange that there are precious few ‘amateur videos’ of launches about youtube and the like (you’d think there’d be hundreds, if not thousands) and the few that do exist somehow seem compromised. Still, if I was a life time resident I’d think it very odd indeed if I and all my friends had somehow managed to miss every single launch...virtually every other month (judging by the site above) including those ‘spectaculars’ that lift off at night...

Image

Of course the best scams are those with minimal outlay for maximum return so instead of the Carl Sagan like “billions and billions and billions of light years” (dollars...actually, as has indeed been extracted out of the American public) I wondered how I might go about designing something that looked like a ‘mega-rocket’ capable of carrying man or machine to infinity and beyond but wasn’t really and on a backpackers shoestring for extra laughs.
Obviously the vehicle is not required to actually ‘reach space’...no, all it has to do is mimic closely all those TV closeups until it’s simply out of physical sight...a now very familiar MO <_<

Ok, so the following criteria had to be met:

Cheap, extremely reliable ‘off the shelf tech’ (just as with standard demolition charges).

Something that could rise slowly, then quickly gather a rate of knots to disappear from pride filled eyes.

Plenty of fire and brimstone with an accompanying thunderous sound...I came up with the SCUD UP/A YAWS mark 1 (all patents pending).

Image

1 Payload. Box of chocolates (first on the recovery scene gets to gorge).

2 GRP (glass reinforced plastic) outer-shell. Light weight and strong, with no engineering complications since strenuous aerobatics are most certainly not required.

3 Air inlets cunningly disguised as otherwise pointless ‘black graphics’.

4 Engine intake funnel.

5 RR Spey turbofan engine, thrust to weight ratio 5:1. Maximum operational altitude 60,000ft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Spey

6 Alloy engine brace to GRP body.

7 Standard fit afterburner.

8 Annular (ring doughnut shaped) kerosene tank positioned towards the base for a nice, low centre of gravity.

9 Annular diesel tank feeding an ‘after...afterburner’) for superfluous yet impressive smoke and flame.

10 Flight control surfaces, becoming effective once the up yaws reaches 100 mph or so to gently tilt her into the familiar parabolic arc.

11 De Laval-shaped ‘booster’ nozzle final exhaust exit (possibly not necessary but high street optics are becoming worryingly capable these days)

_________________________________________


I chose the Rolls Royce Spey as a power plant because it’s an old engine, going all the way back to 1954. I’d imagine that there are far better performing units available today but I wanted to see if I could get a theoretical, vertical takeoff with technology available through those early, heady days of ‘space exploration’.
Yeah, so a thrust to weight ratio of 5.1 on an engine that weighs in at 1,856 kg gives us an additional 7,462 kg to play with for the body / fuel and everything else to exactly equal the effect of gravity working against the Spey’s maximum power of 9,318 kg thrust.

As you’d imagine, turbofans aren’t that thrifty at the pump (with this particular beast guzzling around 9 liters every second at full tilt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThrustSSC ) but since we aren’t going up into space and only need to ‘put on a convincing show’ for those around the Florida coast line I’d estimate we’d need at most, three minutes worth which equals 1,620 liters about 1,300 kg.

I’ve drawn our faux rocket to scale, so the body compared with the engine measures 25 m in height by 3 m max diameter (approx the same as the Atlas LV-3B ‘kosher rocket’ shown here)..

Image

...so question is, could our tasty payload, the outer shell, air intake, engine brace, diesel fuel and other bits and pieces tip the scales at less than 6,100 kg to give us positive thrust to weight ratio at launch? I’d have thought so. Indeed, it’s exactly what we want to begin with..a very slow but noisy and spectacular climb past the launch tower, but as the fuel load is consumed the power to weight increases 9 multiplied by .817 kg per second (mass per liter of kerosene) so after just 30 seconds flight time, another 220 kg of ‘ooomph’ up the bum has effectively been added...peaking at the point where the tanks run dry by which time the awesome SCUD UP/A YAWS is 60,000 ft closer to the Almighty and far enough downrange to be over that convexed horizon. ;)

_________________________________________


Science Frontier’s excellent video.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt_qySI ... Q-DIJ3-aV2 begins by asserting that the ‘re-entry’ capsules; the truncated cone as he calls them (as can be seen atop the Atlas rocket above) wouldn’t be stable and would simply tumble every which way rather than presenting its fireproofed arse and only its fireproofed arse to the rigours of the atmosphere at tremendous speed. I agree with him wholeheartedly but I also think that huge rockets, taking off very slowly would also have a major problem with this issue. Obviously, there can be no aerodynamic control until its reached sufficient speed, so this only leaves ‘thrust vectoring’ which means gimballing the engine nozzles about to counter wayward deviations (that’s one busy pilot or ‘fly by wire’ system) . Also, these gigantic tubes are not bottom heavy which would naturally keep the nose inclined upward but rather filled pretty much entirely with fuel and liquid oxygen which despite ‘baffles‘ is going to slosh about anyway, constantly changing the centre of gravity.

Would the UP/A YAWS suffer from the same problems? No, I don’t think so. As already mentioned we’re nice and big assed (in terms of weight) but possibly more importantly we have an engine of a meter diameter with a multitude of internal compressors about a beefy central shaft all rotating at a colossal rate meaning that we have considerable gyroscopic stability as opposed to a rocket which has almost no moving parts at all.

Check out this for what’s already been tried and tested with turbofan engines..


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz6sc0bgWcM
scud
Member
 
Posts: 117
Joined: July 23rd, 2011, 6:56 pm

Re: NASA - the tallest of all tales

Postby CitronBleu on April 28th, 2015, 1:03 am

This Glennan figure is quite interesting and I had to look him up.

Employment biography of T. Keith Glennan

1935-1939 Operations Manager, Paramount Pictures, Inc.
1939-1941 Studio Manager, Paramount Pictures, Inc.
1941 Executive, Vega Airplane Corporation
1941-1942 Studio Manager, Samuel Goldwyn Studios
1942 Administrator, U. S. Navy Underwater Sound Laboratory
1942-1945 Director, U. S. Navy Underwater Sound Laboratory
1945-1947 Production Manager, Ansco Division, General Aniline and Film

http://www.case.edu/its/archives/presidents/glesummary.htm

The first administrator for the newly formed NASA worked in the Hollywood movie industry as a studio manager for nearly ten years and, after the war, for photographic film manufacturing company Ansco/GAF.

Ansco/GAF, in which Mr Glennan worked from 1945 to 1947, would in the 1970s provide the official photographic film material for Disneyland. GAF is also the producer of the popular View-Master toy line.

During his Hollywood years Mr Glennan was an executive both at Paramount and Goldwyn studios. The same Metro-Goldwyn studios later went on to produce the classic 1968 science fiction film 2001 A Space Odyssey.

As studio manager at Paramount Pictures in Hollywood, Mr Glennan was responsible for "budgeting productions, lighting, sound, set construction, wardrobe, art, and film processing. Mr Glennan provided the logistics necessary to allow the studio's creative teams to stage their productions."

"Keith Glennan is credited with important innovations in the film industry during his time at Paramount, including the creation of the first full-fledged engineering department in movie production."

http://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/110799/7/nasa-history-series-the-birth-of-nasa-the-diary-of-t-keith-glennan-the-first-years-of-americas-space-agency-eisenhower-kennedy-saturn-moon-landing-communications-satellites-nasa-sp-4105

Since I couldn't find any information online in regard to Mr Glennan’s duties, responsibilities, or associated film productions as movie studio manager in Hollywood, I sent several emails to Paramount requesting information, but received no reply.

The following excerpts are quoted from the first chapter of the book Spaceflight revolution : NASA Langley Research Center from Sputnik to Apollo by James R. Hansen and is part of the “NASA History Series.” The volume is available at :

http://archive.org/stream/spaceflightrevol00hansrich/spaceflightrevol00hansrich_djvu.txt

Image

When Eisenhower announced Glennan as his choice for the NASA administrator on 9 August 1958, people at Langley and at other NACA centers asked, who was Glennan? They learned that he was the president of Case Institute of Technology in Cleveland. Then he must be a member of the NACA Main Committee? No, he was a former Hollywood movie mogul and a minor one at that, not in the class of a Samuel Goldwyn or Louis B. Mayer.


In 1958, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was founded. NASA was largely established on the assets and personnel of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). The NACA was a US federal agency founded in 1915 and responsible for advancing aeronautical research. It comprised over 7,500 employees and $300 millions worth of facilities, including the Ames Research Center, the Lewis Research Center, and Langley Aeronautical Laboratory. These, along with some elements of the US Army and US Navy, became NASA. With the creation of (the) NASA, the NACA was dissolved. (Wikipedia)

These answers, which circulated via the NACA grapevine late in the summer of 1958, appalled some NACA employees, did not make much sense to most, and made none of them very happy.


In the morning of 1 October 1958, not a single member of the Langley senior staff was likely to have remembered ever meeting Glennan. The new NASA administrator had not yet visited Langley or any other NACA facility, at least not as the NASA administrator. However, the former Hollywood executive had appeared at Langley via motion picture. On 22 September, the NACA public affairs officer in Washington, Walter Bonney, sent copies of a short 10-minute film, "Glennan Message to NACA Employees," for immediate showing at all NACA centers.


At Langley, employees gathered in the East Area a few days later to watch the film in the air force base's air-conditioned theater. [...] From its beginning, something about the film made many people in the audience uneasy. Perhaps they were disturbed by the Orwellian undertone of the presentation, a confident and soothing "Big Brother" message coming to the people electronically from the center of government.


The establishment of (the) NASA, the agency tasked with achieving the technological endeavor of humanity’s spaceflight dream, was primarily understood by the NACA personnel, the nation’s most advanced flight researchers and engineers, as a political operation.

Most NACA employees filing out of the base theater felt positive and excited about what they had heard, but a few cynics might have wondered out loud about that last reference to Columbus: "Wasn't he headed for China? And didn't he believe to his dying day that he had landed in Asia?" Hopefully, NASA had a better idea of its destination and would know where it was when it got there.


NACA personnel continued to question the motives behind the establishment of the NASA. All those “crazy conspiracy theorists” who today question the nature of the space industry are not alone: so did most of the initial 1958 NASA staff !

According to one member of the Langley senior staff, Glennan "had so little knowledge of the organization" at the outset that he did not think its staff "had any competence." Upon seeing the huge vacuum spheres belonging to the Gas Dynamics Laboratory at Langley, Glennan allegedly remarked, "NASA doesn't have any capability to handle that kind of high pressure stuff. You're going to have to get some help from outside to do that, you know."


NACA explorers, unlike Columbus, had a good idea of where they were going. They were going into the air faster, farther, higher, and more efficiently in a modern engineering marvel that their systematic research into aeronautics over the last 43 years had helped to make possible. Aeronautics and the NACA had grown up together; the business of the NACA for its entire existence had been to see that American aeronautics continued to progress.


For NACA veterans who took Glennan's advice and read the Space Act of 1958, the time when the airways had been ruled by frail wooden biplanes covered with fabric, braced by wires, powered by heavy water-cooled engines, and driven by hand-carved wooden propellers did not seem so long ago. When 20 year-old Floyd Thompson served as a mechanic in Pensacola with the U.S. Navy's first torpedo squadron in 1918, the navy's fastest aircraft, an R6L biplane amphibian, had a top speed of 110 knots and a fuel system with a windmill on the outside to pump fuel up to an overhead gravity tank. When flight research operations began at NACA Langley a year later, NACA researchers hardly knew the principles of aeronautical engineering. Airplane design was still a largely intuitive and empirical practice, thus requiring bold speculation and risk taking.


As the federal agency responsible for the progress of the nation's aviation technology, the NACA had enough to do without getting involved in what the public considered "Buck Rogers stuff."


Note: Buck Rogers was a science-fantasy comic strip created by Dick Calkins around 1930; the comic strip remained popular until it was terminated in the 1960s. In the 1950s, it also became a popular television "space opera." As such, "Buck Rogers" significantly influenced American popular culture's attitudes about rocketry and space travel. In the late 1970s, another TV show, "Buck Rogers in the 21st Century," went on the air; however, the updated character did not bring on a similar craze.

Born in 1898, Anthony (Buck) Rogers is a veteran of World War I and by 1927 is working for the American Radioactive Gas Corporation investigating reports of unusual phenomena reported in abandoned coal mines in Pennsylvania. On December 15, there is a cave-in while he is in one of the lower levels of a mine. Exposed to radioactive gas, Rogers falls into "a state of suspended animation, free from the ravages of catabolic processes, and without any apparent effect on physical or mental faculties.” After remaining in suspended animation for 492 years, Rogers awakens in 2419. (Wikipedia)

Today we are accustomed to living in a world in which Man has reached and gone beyond the limits of outer space. But how was this belief perceived before the advent of the Space age ?

During the first four decades of NACA research station Langley's operation, the idea of working to promote the immediate achievement of spaceflight had been too ridiculous for consideration. Into the 1940s, NACA researchers were not certain that rockets and missiles were a part of aeronautics.


Langley veteran Christopher C. Kraft remembers that before the late 1950s, "space" was a dirty word: " It wasn't even allowed in the NACA library.


The prevailing NACA attitude was that space and airplanes had nothing to do with each other.


Langley veteran Ira Abbott recalled that the NACA stood "as much chance of injecting itself into space activities [...] as an icicle had in a rocket combustion chamber."


In the early 1950s, Abbott had mentioned the possibility of manned spaceflight to a House subcommittee, and one of the congressmen scornfully accused him of talking "science fiction."


There did exist a vibrant “rocket debate” in the 1940s on the feasibility of Earth orbiting satellites and their required launchers.

In 1949 a Gallup poll found less than 15% of the American public believed Man could achieve spaceflight within their lifetime (Space and the American Imagination, 2011, p 29). To the American public, "space travel was intriguing but unfeasible.”

The US Army and Navy commissioned reports on the feasibility of rockets in space and orbiting satellites.

Image

However the feasibility of functioning rockets capable of such feats was questioned at high levels of the government, including by Vannevar Bush (unrelated to the presidential family), renowned scientist, director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) and head of the NACA in the 1930s who was a vocal opponent of rockets in the armed forces.

The “debates on the prospects of long-range ballistic rockets flared up in 1945, were bitter, and lasted for several years."

http://books.google.com/books?id=2XY9KXxF8OEC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=feasibility+of+space+rocketry+CEFSR&source=bl&ots=gGDevi83ob&sig=hfpHE2OR_JN3-9TWXoM3nchGj7w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TT13VPHFLMSmgwTy4IDwCw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=feasibility%20of%20space%20rocketry%20CEFSR&f=false (p 192)

Bush was dismissive of the possibility of rockets achieving Earth orbit:

We even have the exposition of missiles fired so fast that they leave the Earth and proceed about it indefinitely as satellites, like the Moon, for some vaguely specified military purposes…

Bush, 1949
CitronBleu
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 264
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 8:45 pm

Re: NASA - the tallest of all tales

Postby simonshack on May 24th, 2015, 10:53 pm

*
Dear Citronbleu, thanks for your excellent above post, effectively confirming that T. Keith Glennan (NASA's very first chief administrator) had "HOLLYWOOD" written all over him... Also, the 'orwellian' way in which Glennan was presented to the NACA workforce (as the agency was renamed "NASA") was a mighty interesting read. We can now proceed with our methodical, step-by-step historical deconstruction of the gigantic (and still ongoing) NASA / SPACE RACE hoax which, of course, all started with the (in)famous "Sputnik" 'cold war' comedy.



************************

"THE TRAUMATIC SPUTNIK SCARE"

An essential aspect we need to keep in mind as we look back and analyze the various mega-hoaxes sold to mankind by the Nutwork clowns (aka 'the powers that be') - is that there is ALWAYS an element of fear-mongering attached to them. Today, we may easily forget and/or overlook this important angle - since NASA (and the entire space industry) now promotes / portrays its purported exploits as some noble and exciting, highly desirable advancements "for the betterment of humankind". So let us all remember that the 'SPACE RACE' hoax was, in fact, launched in the late 50's (with the active / crucial complicity of mainstream media and its formidable new weapon of mass-propaganda, TV) upon a platform of highly traumatizing FEAR - directed specifically at the American / Western-world populace.

Image

To be sure, we (or our parents - I wasn't born yet!) were basically told that "Russia now had the unique technological capability to put an A-bomb in their orbiting satellites - and to drop it anywhere in the world !!!" No wonder then that, in the 'fog' of the (phony) 'cold war' - and with the horrific WW2 (phony) tales of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still fresh in the public's psyche, the announcement of the "Russians' successful Sputnik satellite" triggered dire, traumatic fear (if not outright panic), foremostly among the American population which in those days - we may safely say - had little reason to suspect their media outlets and, consequently, believed 100% in whatever was aired on television.

It is to be hoped that this blind public trust in the mainstream news apparatus has dwindled dramatically over the years - even though, as recently as September 2001, most people fell hook, like and sinker for the television-based 9/11 hoax. Let us now take a look at what was aired on CBS back in the days - in relation to the "Sputnik" affair. Please use your critical skills to assess whether ANY of the individuals (or indeed, ANY elements of this purported "news item") featured in this 'historical' 1957 TV broadcast ring true to you in any way :


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMFvr1VwSSo
(Note: this is only one of numerous old TV broadcasts / or documentaries that you can find about Sputnik. I encourage anyone interested in the subject to spend some time looking them up - mostly on Youtube - to get a better 'picture' of this 'epochal event' which, we were told, launched mankind into the 'SPACE AGE".) Entertainment (and belly laughs) guaranteed!

Now, if after viewing the above CBS broadcast you still think that there is nothing wrong / suspicious / contrived / or phony about it, I'm afraid that there is absolutely nothing this forum can do for you. Conversely, if you (at least) share the same uneasy feelings as myself - or even my profound, itchy sensation of being shamelessly taken for a ride, I have the following questions for you :

If mankind's (purported) first-ever-earth-orbiting-satellite was an utter hoax which - we are told - triggered the 'SPACE AGE", what does this tell us about all the successive reported space exploits ? Are we to assume that, gradually or at some stage, the clowns behind this pathetic 'cold war comedy' wisened up - and started building REAL satellites (and later, manned spaceships)? Or is it possible that, seeing how the entire world fell (hook, line and sinker) for the Sputnik hoax - these international Nutwork clowns decided to build a hugely profitable (yet totally phony) space industry all around it? Think about it.


**********

SPUTNIK n°2 - featuring "LAIKA, the space dog"...

Watch and weep - at the incredible audacity of our rulers - and their (sadly effective) abuse of the public's gullibility ...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBeAZ35G4X0
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6375
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: NASA - the tallest of all tales

Postby Ataraxia on May 25th, 2015, 7:20 am

That first video is morbidly beautiful in an absurd and twisted way when you really think about it. It begins with a styrofoam-like rotating satellite directly on the set beside the reporter, and what is probably some voice actor off-stage making the whirring noise. That's all some real War of the Worlds style acting. Yet because the reporter speaks in the correct voice and because it's on tv, it becomes immediately true. Why would the satellite even make and transmit by sound in space anyways? And of course they're still on about the nuclear bomb nonsense, only now it's ISIS who are only weeks away from getting hold of a nuclear weapon.

Here's an apropos screenshot from the first video. This is what they claim the Russian newspapers were saying in celebration of the Sputnik. How much clearer can the message and purpose really be though:
Image
Ataraxia
Member
 
Posts: 48
Joined: April 17th, 2015, 2:15 am

Re: NASA - the tallest of all tales

Postby simonshack on May 26th, 2015, 12:57 am

*

THE SPACE RACE: our longest-running "TV REALITY SHOW"

By now, it should be patently obvious (to the regular readers of this forum) that the "SPACE RACE" was (ever since day one - and still to this day) nothing but a TV "reality show" and, undoubtedly, a very effective one: in fact, MOST PEOPLE on this planet still fully buy into this 'cosmic' Hollywood script - as if it represents any sort of reality. To be quite honest, I must say that it was a quite brilliant idea (on the part of the scriptwriters) to have the "Evil Russian Communists" being cast as the first "conquerors of space"...

To understand how this gigantic hoax was sold to the public, we need to keep going back and watch what was shown on TV back in the early days of this galactic scam. This is (as I see it) an essential exercise for anyone wishing to overcome their (quite understandable) disbelief as to how such a fantastic bluff was sold to this entire world's population.

Here's some more 'archive SPACE RACE TV footage" - which I think everyone should watch. It starts off with that ubiquitous "Wernher Von Braun" character whose accent, quite frankly, sounds nothing like a native German man speaking English - but rather more like some stand-up comedian (à-la-Mel Brooks') trying to imitate a germanic accent :


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkUSceAtCIE

The above video also contains that totally hilarious clip of the purported "FREEDOM 7" rocket launch which, allegedly carried...

"THE VERY FIRST AMERICAN INTO SPACE (Alan Shepard)" :
Image
(You've gotta love that little shed - at left of the launch pad - getting knocked over by the "force of the blast". Oh, the drama!- ! :lol: )

On a more technical note, you've got to wonder how the Americans - only about 3 years or so after the Sputnik launch - perfected those launch pads - making away with all that heavy steel structure sustaining the rockets before take off ! :lol:
Image < The "SPUTNIK" launch pad :lol:

But of course - and needless to say - the above 'rocket launch images' are nothing but movie-studio productions.

As I slowly / methodically go along exposing the SPACE RACE hoax, please allow me to laugh a little, now and then - even though it is pretty tragic to realize that this entire planet's population has been fooled out of their wits for over 50 years now - with this pathetic SPACE RACE scam. WHEN are we going to do anything about it? Wake up, America (and everyone else) - please.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6375
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: NASA - the tallest of all tales

Postby brianv on May 26th, 2015, 4:29 pm

Image

Lego launch pad. Model rocket.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3861
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: NASA - the tallest of all tales

Postby CitronBleu on June 9th, 2016, 9:23 pm

Hi CF members,

I've been wondering if there is a way to get more information on T. Keith Glennan, first director of NASA. I would be very interested to discover more info on his duties and responsibilities during his years as a Hollywood studio executive (would love to find out he worked on space movies ! :lol: ).

Anyone have any suggestions ? Could filing an FOIA work ?
CitronBleu
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 264
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 8:45 pm

Re: NASA - the tallest of all tales

Postby SacredCowSlayer on June 10th, 2016, 2:05 pm

Well one might think FOIA could be useful (and I sincerely applaud the efforts of others like Hoi), but it (and other Open Record Acts- at the state level) appears to be little more than a velvet covered brick to make people think the government is transparent.

The law is riddled with exceptions ("interpreted" by the government itself) and the "administration" of it is carried out with misdirection and run around tactics designed to overwhelm and exhaust the researcher.

It's possible that I'm wrong on this, but I suspect that groups like Judicial Watch are essentially shills whose purpose is to "litigate" their way into forcing "transparency" so that the television will report that XYZ has been "uncovered" by bla bla bla under FOIA.

Based on personal experience alone I have seen my own clients (on valid state based Open Record Act claims) blocked from legitimate (and honestly mundane) information needed to assist in their defense of a criminal charge. That has happened in more "high profile" (that is- highly contentious-not highly publicized) cases where the "gloves are off" (so to speak). I usually end up finding another way around it when necessary.

My point is that if it is difficult to get anything meaningful on information that isn't threatening to the government (besides relatively minor stuff re police officers, etc.) then I am beyond doubtful that "they" would ever turn over anything that will actually bring them genuine embarrassment or exposure. If I had the time and money I would explore this point more thoroughly.

The other possibility is that we could get information, but we (just me?) are essentially creating a self fulfilling prophesy whereby we don't get it because we don't try. I'll let Hoi and others who have actually put in the time and effort to set me in my place if my "cynicism" (not the way I view it-but an apt term) is misguided.
SacredCowSlayer
Member
 
Posts: 240
Joined: September 5th, 2015, 10:44 pm

Re: NASA - the tallest of all tales

Postby starfish prime on June 11th, 2016, 5:27 am

CitronBleu wrote:Hi CF members,

I've been wondering if there is a way to get more information on T. Keith Glennan, first director of NASA. I would be very interested to discover more info on his duties and responsibilities during his years as a Hollywood studio executive (would love to find out he worked on space movies ! :lol: ).

Anyone have any suggestions ? Could filing an FOIA work ?


University or government archives could be another option. They may have overlooked something seemingly "innocuous," and they wouldn't have the chance to scrub it beforehand, as with FOIA documents. Of course, that would probably involve actually visiting the relevant locations, which may not be feasible for you...
starfish prime
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: August 3rd, 2015, 5:36 am

Re: NASA - the tallest of all tales

Postby Apache on June 11th, 2016, 11:38 am

CitronBleu wrote:I've been wondering if there is a way to get more information on T. Keith Glennan, first director of NASA. I would be very interested to discover more info on his duties and responsibilities during his years as a Hollywood studio executive (would love to find out he worked on space movies ! :lol: ).


There is a very long transcript of a Glennan interview, in 3 parts, dated 1987.

http://airandspace.si.edu/research/proj ... ENNAN1.HTM

Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of detail in the transcript regarding what type of movies Glennan was involved with, but there are some film names scattered about. His most interesting admission is this one:

NEEDELL: From reading, it seems you worked more closely with the radar people in detection, under water detection work--hand in hand with the radar group in the Atlantic. Were you aware of what was going on in the development of radar?

GLENNAN: Not particularly. I was asked to come up to Harvard and become an assistant director up there. but I did not. You must understand, I'm not a scientist. I'm not even an engineer, although I did have a degree in electrical engineering.
;)
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: October 22nd, 2015, 12:02 pm

Next

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests