Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

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.

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby simonshack on April 16th, 2015, 11:07 pm

Undoctored wrote:Simon, how do you stand now?


Dear Undoctored, I'd say I stand corrected on that z-axis issue - since we'd need more POV data to compute / resolve the matter with reasonable accuracy - point taken.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6343
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby ProperGander on April 17th, 2015, 10:53 am

The International Space Station’s orbit ranges from 409 km to 416 km. The Sun is on the order of 149,600,000 km away. How can both objects be in focus? Wouldn't there be less visual information from the space station since it is the size of a football field some 400 km away, captured through the intervening layers of atmosphere? It also occurs to me that the small object in front of the huge light will tend to get lost in all the glare from the Sun. I would think that all of these conditions exist and should effect the light waves received by the telescope lens. A filter wouldn't explain much, as it cannot create visual information that simply isn't there.

A special filter is used to get the NASA like effect of the Sun 'texture'. I would assume a photographer would want to make a composite image anyway, since he had to use a filter to capture the intense light of the Sun. The filter reduces the visual range drastically or the telescope would magnify the heat and light of the Sun. This seems to me to make it near impossible to then capture the space station with the same shot.

Commercial photographs are always manipulated, why would this be any different?
ProperGander
Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: April 14th, 2015, 2:16 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby Undoctored on April 18th, 2015, 5:50 pm

ProperGander wrote:The International Space Station’s orbit ranges from 409 km to 416 km. The Sun is on the order of 149,600,000 km away. How can both objects be in focus?


Depth of field. The further away you need to focus, the greater the depth of field, or the less precisely you have to adjust the focal length to keep the object in focus. At a certain point, depending on lighting, you just dial the lens up to "infinity". Ever heard of "focusing at infinity" for distant objects? It works for mountains as well as stars so it should work on the ISS and the sun.

That said, ProperGander, you may be right about the atmosphere and glare presenting problems.

ProperGander wrote:Commercial photographs are always manipulated, why would this be any different?


Manipulated? Such an indelicate term. Image processing. It's called image processing.

Book Review: Learn from the Master with “Astrophotography” by Thierry Legault
Universe Today wrote:Also key is image processing. While Legault has provided details for Universe Today before on how not to over-process and be fooled by image artifacts, his book offers much more thorough information on how to start — as well as knowing when to quit — processing images for the best results.
Undoctored
Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: March 31st, 2015, 6:27 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby Thinktwice on April 18th, 2015, 7:48 pm

Let's say Mr Legault captured the image through a telescope... Did he capture a fast satellite hundreds of km away or did he capture a high flying plane as Simon hypothesizes? We should be able to calculate a few things about each case to see how plausible they sound.

The ISS object traveled a certain angle across our (observer's) viewpoint: from "here" to "there", which bisects a measurable angle. What is the distance to the object? And knowing the distance, how far does the object travel? What speed is it traveling? Finally, how big is the object? I found two different equations that were useful.

Quick note about conventions, something I learned is that there are 360 degrees in the sky, 60 minutes per degree, 60 seconds per minute.

How to calculate the length of the arc (reference)
s = 2 * pi * r * theta / 360
s = how far it moved along the arc
r = distance to object
Theta = the angle object moved

Turns out Legault and Simon told us what their distance values are, so we can plug those in and see how far the object traveled at each distance.

Theta = Moon or sun is roughly .5 degrees (30 minutes)
Legault r =760km
SimonShack r =20km

S = 2 pi * 760km * .5 degrees / 360 degrees = 6.6 km

Legault's sun-crossing ISS moved approx 6.6 km during that time crossing the .5 degrees of the sun at 760km away. Ignoring any motion that is moving away/towards observer, so it may be faster. May change the answer by maybe 10-50%.

With Simon's high-altitude plane crossing at 20km height it traveled 174,000 m in that time.
S = 2 pi * 20km * .5 degrees / 360 degrees = 0.174km or 174,000m

OK, now that we know the distance travelled by the satellite, we can then calculate the speed.

Let us estimate Legault total sun/moon transit at 1.8s (takes .6 secs to travel across 1/3 of the sun--honestly, it may be as low as 1.5s if it transits 40% of the sun).

For Legault's ISS, 6.6km/1.8s = 3.7 km/s, or again about half the supposed ISS speed. But the viewing angle vs. the ISS transit angle could explain that discrepancy. If it moves away at a 45 degree angle how much slower would its apparent motion be to the observer?

Simon's plane moves 0.174km/1.8s = 0.097km/s or 97 meters/s, which is 349 km/hr.
How fast do drones fly? This estimate says 104 km/hr. That seems very slow especially compared to typical commercial air flights (858km/h). So 349 km/hr seems reasonable.

----

The next calculation!

Angular diameter distance - This time we calculate the distance of the object, knowing the actual dimensions of the object, and the angle it takes up in our view. Simon and Legault told us approx what their distances are, but we can check to see how plausible they sound. This time I used this handy web calculator.

Angular Distance Calculator

Angular diameter reference values from Wikipedia
According to Wikipedia ISS is approx 1 minute across, which is 1/60 degrees across, or .01667 degrees across
According to wiki is 108.5 meters or 0.1085 km at its longest
Plugging into the equations (Angular Distance Calculator), we get 373km away. Not bad.

Incidentally In Legault's photo the ISS appears about half this large. From Simon's analysis above, we see there are approx 20 widths of the Iss in approximately 1/3 of the diameter of the sun. Therefore, the Iss takes up approx 1/60 of the width of the sun in the photo. The Suns size in the sky is approx .5 degrees or 30 minutes. 1/60 of this is half an arc minute(0.5 minute) which is half the ISS value stated on Wikipedia.

Redoing the calculation with Legault's photographic value of 0.5 arc minutes, size is 0.1085 km, we come up with an answer of 746km. Almost exactly what Legault stated.

If object was Simon's plane at 20km, taking up 1 arc minute, then length of object is only 5.8 meters.
If object was Simon's plane in Legault's image of approx 0.5 arcminute, then length of the object is half that, 2.9 meters.

--

In my opinion, these calculations check out with Legault's story. Then again, I also suggest what Simon's equivalent high altitude plane would need to look like to simulate the ISS. I also tried to suggest where my figures were approximated or needed improvement.

Incidentally, I did see my first iridium flare a few nights ago, after maybe five unsuccessful attempts. It was like a fairly bright unwavering star, moving slowly in a north-to-south direction for about 30 seconds. It was much slower and less bright than the typical ISS sightings in my area. The key to seeing it was arriving early, figuring out exactly where it will be and then just waiting and looking...
Thinktwice
Member
 
Posts: 18
Joined: March 12th, 2015, 5:46 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby simonshack on April 19th, 2015, 6:13 am

Thinktwice wrote:
Simon's plane moves 0.174km/1.8s = 0.097km/s or 97 meters/s, which is 349 km/hr.


Really? When did I ever state such a thing? You are only extrapoIating figures out of thin air.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6343
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby ProperGander on April 19th, 2015, 1:05 pm

Your explanation for focus makes sense.

I do mean manipulated. In this case the word is exactly what I mean. Of course, you can disagree. I don't mind. I'm going to try to post what I think and why as clearly as possible. I don't expect everyone to agree with everything I write. Nor do I expect it all to be 100% accurate. Just want to add some food for thought. I don't intend to quote other posters to try to play some kind of debating game. I don't think debate was ever meant to get to the truth. I look at this as bunch of us blind mice trying to figure out what an elephant is. We need to understand what each other is trying to say so we can put the puzzle together for ourselves. A new idea new tends to sound crazy at first. When one assumes they know something because they were told its true, one is most effectively mind controlled.

By the way there's little reason for a professional not to use all the tricks of the trade while crafting these works. Photoshop is not something new. Its as old as film. Let's not fool ourselves. Its all about commerce. Its when we are led to believe we should 'ask not' that we begin to be led astray. The system (world as we know it) is set up for commerce- plain and simple.

Do not believe a picture is real because words tell you it is. That is how we have been led to believe works of fiction are real. We've seen images that are heavily edited and have been given voice overs or text on screen to explain what we are seeing. We have been programmed to accept what we see on screens as reality when labeled as such. This makes us turn off our critical judgement. This is how propaganda works.
This is how human psychology works. We associate words and images. The war documentaries and NASA present us one and only one version of the narrative. I've watched hours of war and NASA footage recently. Its like a trial. A trial where there is the defense attorney, the client and the stenographer. That's it. No judge, jury or prosecutor. Just look into the history of the media. Look at who founded RCA and what grew out of it. Journalism was never about the truth. Two sources is still hearsay. If two people say something , it doesn't make it true. Civilization itself is the product of someone's imagination. Everything you see around you built by man is by definition artificial. Manipulated.

Our ancestor have always lived in this augmented reality. So have we. It is the architecture around us. The art and music and poetry and plays. The Matrix is what civilization is.

ma·nip·u·late
məˈnipyəˌlāt
verb
past tense: manipulated; past participle: manipulated
1.
handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner.
"he manipulated the dials of the set"
synonyms: operate, work; More
alter, edit, or move (text or data) on a computer.
examine or treat (a part of the body) by feeling or moving it with the hand.
"a system of healing based on manipulating the ligaments of the spine"
synonyms: massage, rub, knead, feel, palpate
"she manipulated the muscles of his back"
2.
control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously.
"the masses were deceived and manipulated by a tiny group"
synonyms: control, influence, use/turn to one's advantage, exploit, maneuver, engineer, steer, direct, gerrymander; twist someone around one's little finger
"the government tried to manipulate the situation"
Last edited by ProperGander on April 19th, 2015, 1:31 pm, edited 4 times in total.
ProperGander
Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: April 14th, 2015, 2:16 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby ProperGander on April 19th, 2015, 1:12 pm

Research how photography works for oneself. Its really that simple. Don't trust anything you see on a screen. And certainly don't trust the guy who made the picture you are looking at. The oldest art is the art of the con. Anyone who watches the passenger jets fly overhead knows that the tiny space station will be lost in all the gases and moisture in the atmosphere. Moisture, gas and dust act like tiny transformers of energy. Why things get faded in the distance.

The photo is a work of art. A filter has to be used to restrict the light and heat from the Sun. It reduces the visual range. There's the atmosphere and its effect- not on focus, but on contrast.

From wikipedia:

Aerial perspective or atmospheric perspective refers to the effect the atmosphere has on the appearance of an object as it is viewed from a distance. As the distance between an object and a viewer increases, the contrast between the object and its background decreases, and the contrast of any markings or details within the object also decreases. The colours of the object also become less saturated and shift towards the background color, which is usually blue, but under some conditions may be some other color (for example, at sunrise or sunset distant colors may shift towards red).

Would it not shift toward the bright white of the Sun? That visual information for the ISS is going to get lost.
Last edited by ProperGander on April 20th, 2015, 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
ProperGander
Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: April 14th, 2015, 2:16 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby ProperGander on April 19th, 2015, 2:19 pm

I don't think man made object can stay in orbit without constantly having to expend energy to delay the inevitable fall back to Earth. And that is all that would happen - a delay of the snowballing effect of gravity. So they cannot stay in orbit based upon the model we have been sold. Where ISS is supposed to be, gravity is still present at around 90% potency and of course its present out past the Moon.

This assumes rockets capable of the feats claimed. This also assumes that a human body can survive the forces of acceleration on the order of 18,000 mph directly against the force of gravity. I'm skeptical of these clams.

Research how hot wheel cars do the gravity defying loop on the orange track. Look into how the atmosphere effects motion and how a vacuum does not. Then look up ballistic physics. Look up what happens to candles when subjected to 'centrifugal' force. The candles or a pendulum will show you how much 'gravity is negated'. An object in motion stays in motion. If the orange track would disappear when the car was at its top- the car flies off in a straight line. This is how David killed Goliath.

The only place the experiment can be done to prove that man made objects can be placed into orbit, is in outer space. Again we have a trial, a defense attorney, the client and the stenographer. No judge, no jury and no prosecutor.

One cannot reproduce NASA's theory here on Earth. Despite what NASA claims, an object spun on the end of a string around one's head is not the same as an object in orbit around the Earth. Spin it so its perpendicular to the Earth. Or any place between. This represents the amount you have 'negated' gravity. The candle acts as if the ground is at that angle and not where it really is. The pendulum does the same. Look into this for yourselves. You can do experiments. Simple basic ones.

Somehow NASA came up with the idea an object can fall and miss the Earth. This is absurd. Its a more involved post and I suggest anyone interested in really understanding this look into what I am getting at for themselves. I'll post what I think at some point. Basically this seems to ignore 'centripetal/centrifugal' force. Instead of being pushed away from the Earth like in a centrifuge, the astronauts are shown in free fall. A direction of motion is introduced that has no basis in any kind of circular motion but makes more sense if one were falling vertically and not going around a globe.

In other words- the object in orbit has to either be moving so fast that it is subject to that push away from the Earth, like a centrifuge, or it is like a driving a car or flying a plane at a consistent height, perpendicular to the Earth and the world seems flat. It is no different. If Superman and the Flash raced around the globe and the speed they reached was high enough, they would negate gravity and be forced away from the ground. They would notice that they were on a globe as they'd have to be interacting with it in such a manner as to experience what a child does on the carnival ride or what the particles experience in the lab centrifuge. What we are being shown does not make sense, without someone telling us what to think.

Satellites getting into orbit are also problematic and that too is subject for another post. Look into the old Disney produced TV Shows about space travel.

As for how Direct TV works, the 'skywave' explanation makes sense. Research into the early days of radio and Nikola Tesla and others from back then. Lightning shows that yes there is an insulated layer of gas between the ground and the upper conducting 'ionized' layer. And what we see up there, moving about like a toroidal field of force, might just be more like a plasma discharge rather than actual objects. More like a plasma globe than round chunks of rock around an atomic furnace.

The next line of defense for the status quo is the " China did it" or "Russia went into orbit". To this I can only reply that one needs to be exposed to the concept that 'historical events' like the Communist Revoltuion have been funded and run by Wall Street. We could also dream up a super top secret space program using Tesla UFO technology. Things like this are speculative and while they might have some merit, there is nothing to examine so we cannot come to any logical conclusion about any of it.
ProperGander
Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: April 14th, 2015, 2:16 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby ProperGander on April 19th, 2015, 5:21 pm

The Equation of Time and whats called 'The Analemma' are worth reading up on. So is the sidereal day and the mean solar day. Sundials, clocks, pendulums and astronomy for navigation are other areas of study.
The heliocentric model is flawed. The fact that the axis of the Earth points to the 'distant' or 'fixed' stars while the Earth orbits around the Sun is a most unnatural model. By this I mean its very difficult to model here on Terra firma.

Try it in a 3d program, you can do it but it requires another 'force'. Study the claims of the basic hellocentric model and you will see where it is flawed when compared to observational data. The winter solstice really puts a damper on Copernicus. If you know what I mean. Its why I lean geocentric these days. But hey that's me. Your mileage may vary and if it does, its still as if the Earth does not move. As if it was protected by a forcefield that made it so it seemed like it was still. And if you think about it, mankind had always engineered its feats based on this concept.

The mechanism of the Earth's rotation around its axis at the extremely precise sidereal time is completely at odds with its ever changing day length. I am well aware that we are told the sidereal day fluctuates, but its pretty insignificant relative to the obvious fluctuations of the solar day. Further there's some other uncomfortable conclusions that might lead one to see why some do not think the Earth moves like we've been sold. And also why ISS is a fantasy.

Do not believe what I write. Nor anything a 'crafts' man tells you. Look into all of this for yourselves. If you can wrap your brain around the canard of 911 and why what we saw on TV was not real, you can see why we should question everything else in like manner, including the educational system- which is another area of research. The rise of the Jesuits and their impressive influence on the University stystem, during the release of the Bible to the public- is an interesting coincidence. As are the origins of science fiction and life on other planets. All contribute to the origin of ISIS, err ISS.
Last edited by ProperGander on April 20th, 2015, 7:23 am, edited 3 times in total.
ProperGander
Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: April 14th, 2015, 2:16 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby Thinktwice on April 19th, 2015, 5:25 pm

simonshack wrote:
Thinktwice wrote:
Simon's plane moves 0.174km/1.8s = 0.097km/s or 97 meters/s, which is 349 km/hr.


Really? When did I ever state such a thing? You are only extrapoIating figures out of thin air.


To be clear, you are correct. But I'm trying to tease out information from the ISS transit photo. Now, it very well could be not a genuine photo, of course, but for the sake of argument I'm assuming it is real. Now, that object crossed the sun in Legaults camera, and we have two theories as to how far away/what that object is. All I did was to ask, "If that object is a drone flying at 20km altitude--in that picture--how far did it travel during the time-lapse?" Then, knowing the distance, we can find out the speed. Those were the calculations I performed. I was making no corrections or claims about the drone theory, just trying to follow a forensic line of reasoning with the evidence we have. I figure, those figures may be useful to somebody else who can take the next step. Once I had performed the calculations, I did not want to bury the information, I wanted to share it...
Of course, one can assume Legault's photo is not genuine. In that case, it is possible that analyzing the photo would tease out contradictions. But if you think it is completely fabricated, and cannot be used for any useful information, well, that argument can be made. But it is not clear to me that Legault had to fake it, if he could just point his camera at whatever the ISS object is. (But then it would show the wrong shape? Possibly, but we don't have a lot of hard evidence either way...)
Do not get me wrong, I've read the entire thread and the rocketry thread, I find it hard to believe that satellites exist as we have been told, considering rockets do not produce thrust in a vacuum. But it seems these satellites and ISS can be seen with the naked eye, and like you, I am trying to investigate further.

--
edit: Or to put another way, were he to fake the image, these type of calculations would be useful to Legault when deciding how large to size his ISS objects, and how fast they move etc, when creating his composite and spinning his official story of how far away he was etc.
Last edited by Thinktwice on April 19th, 2015, 8:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thinktwice
Member
 
Posts: 18
Joined: March 12th, 2015, 5:46 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby ProperGander on April 19th, 2015, 5:36 pm

Thinktwice, I think atmospheric perspective makes it impossible. Look into this for yourself.
ProperGander
Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: April 14th, 2015, 2:16 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby Undoctored on April 19th, 2015, 8:08 pm

Undoctored wrote: Manipulated? Such an indelicate term. Image processing. It's called image processing.
Book Review: Learn from the Master with “Astrophotography” by Thierry Legault
Universe Today wrote:Also key is image processing. While Legault has provided details for Universe Today before on how not to over-process and be fooled by image artifacts, his book offers much more thorough information on how to start — as well as knowing when to quit — processing images for the best results.

ProperGander wrote:I do mean manipulated. In this case the word is exactly what I mean. Of course, you can disagree. I don't mind.

Hey, ProperGander, I agree with you entirely; my questioning of your choice of words was tongue-in-cheek. I was actually trying to support your argument that the ISS image is likely faked, by pointing out that in his Astrophotography book, Mr. Legault tells us that he uses image processing, which is just another way of saying the images are admittedly manipulated.
Undoctored
Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: March 31st, 2015, 6:27 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby Nick Java on April 20th, 2015, 12:36 am

Hi Guys,

Hopefully this graphic will shed some light on the discussion and reduce some of the flailing.
I built this using 3ds Max 2015 and I had to scale the numbers by a factor of 6 digits so the zoom would semi-function.
The software was not really intended to create universes with astronomic numbers.
The camera is positioned on the equator.

Image

Here are the numbers that I used:

Home Built Solar System Scale 1:1,000,000 (Using Internet numbers)
All orbits are on the same plane, no tilt on the Earth's axis

Distance to Earth: 149,600,000 km R=149,600 m
Sun, Diameter: 1,391,684 km R=695.842 m
Earth, Diameter: 12,742 km R=6.376 m
Moon, Diameter: 3 474.8 km R=1.737 m
distance Earth and Moon (center to center): 384 000 km. R=384 m
International Space Station, Orbit height: 400 km R= 6.776 m
International Space Station Length: 0.1085 km L=0.0001085 m

Traverse Time Based on:

Percent Along A Path(Orbit)
Cam1 ISS 1: 19.513% ISS 3: 19.3758% Difference = 0.1372%
Cam2 ISS 1: -0.0094% ISS 3: -0.0185% Difference = 0.0091%

15.54 orbits per day or 1 orbit every 92.6640 minutes / 5559.845 seconds
0.1372% x 5559.845 = 7.628 seconds
0.0091% x 5559.845 =0.5059 seconds

Feel free to correct me if I got something wrong.

When the photo was supposedly taken (time of day) may help with positioning a camera to determine the approximate alignment, which greatly affects the overall apparent scale/size of the ISS.
I would be willing to setup another camera if someone can figure out the approximate location of the purported photo(s).

Image

My personal take on these so-called captures is "logistically amazing feat" based on the claimed orbit of the ISS.

Now, as you were saying ...
Nick Java
Newbie
 
Posts: 8
Joined: March 14th, 2012, 2:18 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby ProperGander on April 20th, 2015, 7:16 am

Undoctored- I figured as much. It was a great softball remark. I mentioned to my wife that you pointed out how important that word is. ;) And of course, I didn't see that its right there in black and white in the guy's book. This is how it works. Its odd that people who defend NASA can't seem to just say things like " Of course it would be easier to engineer a special effects Hollywood production, than to actually engineer the Apollo program." If they did it would lend them some credibility.

Funny thing, the definition of the word 'manipulate' is so clear and it comes up when you search for the word's meaning. The definition I posted is prominently displayed by Google itself. The joker laughs at us. Our Eyes Wide Shut indeed. I only now just realized that 911 as we were sold is history. I don't take that event seriously anymore so its odd to think anyone else does. Our children learn that canard in school. So if that is considered valid for our educational system, one can easily see how the subject of physics can be made into a complete farce and how we need to really wonder about what our history really is.
ProperGander
Member
 
Posts: 152
Joined: April 14th, 2015, 2:16 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby simonshack on April 25th, 2015, 1:58 am

*


SAMANTHA CRISTOFORETTI - the Italian asstruenot roundly exposed


This is a quite excellent and hilarious Italian finding + Youtube video posted by one Robert Galli. To make a long story short, Galli has elegantly provided solid evidence that the latest Italian asstruenot, "Samantha Cristoforetti", cannot be what she claims to be - i.e. a graduate of the Italian Aeronautical Academy. In 2001, when she claims to have entered the IAA, she was 24 years old, whereas the admission age limit is 22 - by (military) law. Galli doesn't stop there and is quite evidently aware that NASA - and the space industry in its entirety - is a massive fraud.



full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgSF1xjb_0g


For now, and lest it be deleted by Youtube, let me just mirror this Italian text by Robert Galli (posted under his YT video) - who also points out several other problems with the officially released bio / CV of "Samantha Cristoforetti", as well as denouncing in clear terms the media and military complicity with the BIG NASA FRAUD :

Robert Galli wrote: Samant(H)a Cristoforetti, mai vista in Accademia Aeronautica. I falsari dell'ASI (Associazione Simulatori Incapaci) le attribuiscono in CV la frequenza in Accademia Aeronautica dal 2001 al 2005, dove le hanno anche inserito "una spada d'onore per il miglior raggiungimento accademico". Tuttavia, essendo nata nell'aprile del 1977, a settembre 2001 doveva aver compiuto almeno 24 anni suonati. Il limite massimo per poter essere ammessi al concorso è di 22 anni, controllate. Nessuno viene ammesso alla selezione se non ha i requisiti di legge e l'età è un requisito di legge.

Ma c'è un'altra prova evidente che la Cristoforetti non ha mai messo piede all'Accademia di Pozzuoli: il corso che avrebbe frequentato è il Borea V. I suoi colleghi del Borea quinto, la conoscono? Io dico di no, perché la Cristoforetti è un personaggio immaginario e non ha mai messo il culo su un aeromobile come pilota militare. Il gruppo del corso Borea V conta circa 87 persone, in origine sono 120 i vincitori di concorso ma un terzo si perde durante il percorso di "studio". Chi frequenta ambienti militari sa di cosa parlo; l'appartenenza ad un corso accademico non è una cosa che si dimentica e non è un evento che non lascia testimonianze e fotografie. Dove sono i colleghi di corso di questa attricetta con la puerile permanente fissa per simulare l'assenza di gravità? E dove sono le sue foto con i compagni di corso, o alla prima scuola di volo, sugli SF260? Le torte, le feste, il battesimo dell'aria, le spinguinature, non c'è nessuna traccia. Sappiamo per esempio che al corso Borea V apparteneva uno dei quattro piloti morti di recente, Mariangela Valentini, che, guarda il caso, è del 1982 e avrebbe frequentato lo stesso corso della Cretinetti avendo 5 anni meno di lei. (http://ferdinandopelliccia.blogspot.tw/ ... e-dei.html)

Un'altra ragazza che faceva parte del corso Borea V, e che per motivi diversi è comunque finita su qualche articolo di giornale, è Liliana Capano (http://www.go-italy.net/item/donne-in-c ... no/74/1444) del 1980, che nel 2001 aveva 21 anni ed aveva quindi i requisiti di legge per poter fare la domanda per partecipare al concorso.

SamantHa Cretinetti non ha nessuna foto con nessun collega, o con la mamma, o con la cagna, o con il marito, o con gli amici. No. I gestori dei suoi siti web hanno infestato la rete con una quantità impressionante di altro genere di foto, che sono tutte quelle della grafica computerizzata che passano i falsari di NASA, ASI, ed ESA, gente che nello spazio non ci è mai andata, attori falliti del cinema e della TV che hanno l'occasione di prendere qualche milione per stare nascosti in qualche laboratorio a girare video fasulli su schermo verde.

Tutti i colleghi del corso Borea V, essendo militari, non hanno nessun interesse, e probabilmente non frega loro più di tanto, ad alzare la manina e dire: "ma che palle-spaziali andate a raccontare"? Verrebbero presi a calci-in-culo, se lo facessero, perché la gloriosa Arma Aeronautica è, perlomeno qualcuno dei suoi alti ufficiali è, complice di questa truffa internazionale che serve a Frodare le casse delle nazioni del mondo di trilioni di dollari a spese delle comunità produttive. Ogni attore ha la sua fetta di mancia e tutti firmano un contratto in cui s'impegnano a non dire mai nulla a nessuno su ciò che stanno facendo, segretissimo, a prescindere da cosa sia, ciò stanno facendo.

È un giro di trilioni di dollari, una mangiatoia infinita che nutre le centinaia di migliaia di famiglie del personale che lavora per NASA e compari, le famiglie dei generali dell'Aeronautica Militare addetti alle pubbliche relazioni, i giornalisti cialtroni e ignoranti, come gli Angela e i Fenzi, i primi ministri e i presidenti delle nazioni coinvolte nella truffa, e poi tutto il personale delle attività indotte, delle riprese subacquee, delle prove in assenza di gravità con i voli parabolici, i tecnici dello schermo verde, della video-composizione, gli scrittori del social network, che riempiono tutte le caselline delle pagine web con le notizie false e le foto false.

Sì, è una truffa che dà lavoro a parecchia gente e mantiene molte famiglie. Perciò, in ultima analisi, si potrebbe anche pensare che ha una sua utilità sociale, nonostante sia basata sulle palle spaziali. Ma non è così, perché il ciclo economico dello spreco inutile, come tutta l'industria militare e come tutti, ma proprio tutti, coloro i quali sono impegnati in attività militari, direttamente o non direttamente, non producono niente. Sono cicli di spesa, di sottrazione di denaro pubblico che potrebbe essere investito nella produzione di beni e servizi utili, che si chiudono togliendo ricchezza all'economia e senza aggiungere alcunché. Questo tipo di spesa pubblica è lo spreco che serve per mantenere l'economia stagnante, per strozzare i livelli di crescita e per mantenere la presenza cronica della disoccupazione.



Here's a screenshot I made of one of Samantha's silly acting performances in what we are told is the "ISS space machine". To be sure, that bizarre 'video artifact' around her right hand is not something you will ever find in any legit/ normal video footage:

SamanthaCretinetti_GLITCH_01.JPG

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2XeSUqzpZE

I find it most encouraging that the BIG NASA FRAUD is slowly but surely being exposed - from different angles and insights - by different / independent thinkers all over the world. There is hope, folks. WE are definitely NOT the crazy ones - and reason will ultimately prevail. :)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6343
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests