Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

[fbenario]

In all four of Simon's images, the central vertical core looks pretty scary to me. In fact, when I saw them, the first thing that went through my mind were totem poles.




I then thought of Easter Island.

[nonhocapito]

"The same logic for shuttles and other spacecraft also goes for satellites. These are fake also. Big balloons with telecommunications equipment on them probably hover somehow, somewhere well below the point where meteorites burn up in the atmosphere."

Nope. Sorry.

I've had loads of experience with aiming/tuning/adjusting satellite dishes and can assure you that the phenomenon of "geostationary orbit" is very real and very reliable, even though it was supposedly predicted by the evil occultist/pedophile Arthur C. Clarke decades before its accomplishment. Wind-susceptible balloon technology, held aloft by specific-gravity differential in Earth's gaseous atmosphere, is no more a functional part of satellite communication than it was a part of the Roswell psyop.

I too am pretty sure satellites are real. Not only we see results of their existence in our everyday life (GPS, Satellite TV, Weather, etc), but they can actually be seen from the ground at night, without telescopes of sorts.
We are often told that satellites not only risk to be hit by meteorites, but they also risk to be hit by other satellites, or their leftover parts. I guess the risk is considered acceptable, considering the size of a satellite against the odds of a meteorite or anything else smashing into it.

Another issue is with the ISS, obviously, since we are asked to believe it has people on board, who could instantly die in case of such accident. One more reason to question the whole thing, especially since these guys are left up there for months at a time.
Just for the record, it is not like NASA completely skips on the issue:

In fact, the station was in little danger. "There are several hundred different shields protecting the crew and critical hardware," says Eric Christiansen, the station's Shielding Subsystem Manager at the Johnson Space Center. "The heavier shielding typically includes meteoroid/debris blankets. These are made of a ceramic fabric (NextelTM) backed by KevlarTM -- the same material found in bullet-proof vests."
The station's windows are sturdy, too. Each one consists of at least two panes -- "always with primary and redundant pressure panes," says Christiansen. "In some cases, the windows include transparent 'debris panes' specifically designed to protect them from meteoroid impacts." Others are shielded (when not in use) by metal shutters and debris blankets.
Although Leonid meteoroids travel much faster than bullets, the vast majority of them are microscopic and fragile. They make pretty lights when they hit Earth's atmosphere -- but that's all. They are not tough enough to penetrate the station's defenses.

Yet even if it was true that these covers protect from all sorts of meteorites, there is still the issue of the solar panels, that are not in any way protected against debris. Besides, it is doubtful that any sort of protective layer could withstand impacts without suffering scratches and burns. A bullet-proof window is cracked when hit by a bullet, same should happen with the ISS defenses. Instead to this day, 12+ years after ISS was put in orbit, the station still looks unscathed and clean as a whistle.

** coincidentally, Vigilant Citizen just published a page that has to do with NASA and secret satellites programs. It is based on the patches released, NASA style, for each satellite mission. Supposedly pretty much all we can know about such missions. Here's a few:



http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantrepo ... n-patches/

http://www.amazon.com/Could-Tell-Then-W ... 959&sr=8-1?

[BNSF9647]

it appears this time they at least included stars to make it look authentic. One thing to me in the second photo from the top is the light reflection on the bottom of the shuttles heat absorption tiles. if I remember correctly (or who knows better than I) that those are a composite material of carbon fiber/silicon. The luster from that material does not seem it would be able to reflect light as shown in the photo above, especially due to the wear and tear from so called re-entry of the earths atmosphere.

[nonhocapito]

it appears this time they at least included stars to make it look authentic.

It appears? What stars? I don't see any. There can't be any stars in any of these pictures. Show them once, you have to show them all the time. Like with the nonexistent Apollo blast carter on the Moon. Forget it once, you gotta forget it forever. It's not only too difficult to fake stars -- it's just too late in the game for them now.

[simonshack]

*

SOLAR PANEL RIP-OFF
Fatal blow to the ISS - and NASA's credibility

In November 2007, a gripping drama at the International Space Station kept TV-viewers glued to their TV screens. As NASA recounts :

"It was high drama on live TV. Mission Specialist Scott Parazynski worked while balanced at the end of an extended robotic arm, silhouetted against the brilliant orange glow of a partially extended solar wing. Marring the wing were two visible tears in the panels." http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shutt ... rview.html

Here, Scott is seen balancing on the robotic arm which raises him up towards the damage in the solar panel.
With the sun behind him, he and his robotic arm, naturally, cast their shadows against the solar panel :

(source: NASA) http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima ... 08937.html

Here, Scott is seen in another picture which, we may resonably assume, was shot at around the same time:


Well - we crawling earthlings probably have no clue of how shadows behave in low-orbit - so perhaps there's nothing to see here, move on folks! NASA would probably know better and have a rational explanation for astronaught Scott suddenly turining transparent (we all saw the same phenomena with Armstrong and Buzz as they hopped around on the moon, did we not?). So let's get on and check out some other pictures of the ripped solar panel incident.

I had long wished to get a closer look at these panels. Here is the first close-up photo I found in the media ( on USA TODAY - although the photo source is credited to "NASA via AP"). To be quite honest - I was a bit shocked...

"Astronauts will try to mend solar wing"
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/sp ... titialskip

Then I went to the ESA (the European Space Agency) website and checked out what they had concerning this story. I found this:

http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Esperia/SEMRHXMHE8F_1.html
I was at first fairly annoyed at the radically different tones/colors of these two pictures (published by NASA and ESA) - and reluctantly held back my obnoxious, conspiratorial nature... Of course, photographic colors/chroma levels may vary due to ... yeah - well, we all know that stuff!

That is, until I went back to Scott's pictures (as posted above) and enlarged them a little; the ripped solar panel now looked ENTIRELY different!


So then, much surprised about all this (*cough*), I hoped that the 'Scott pictures' were at least consistent WITH EACH OTHER.

Nope! Not even close! (*sigh*).

Now, I have done some hefty searching to learn more about those solar panels. This (g)ripping story was, in fact, about all I found, whereas I failed to find any answer to this basic, important question I had: "are the solar panels periodically replaced?" If anyone could kindly call NASA and ask them, I'd be very grateful. You see, I simply cannot reconcile the following three pictures of the ISS (from 2009-2010-2011). Are all the solar panels we see here supposed to be the same? Same size, color and model ? (And yes, please DO take into account all due perspective issues):



Here are 3 bigger versions of the same:







I any case - I dearly hope that the image comparisons of the 'Ripped Panel Incident' have torn to pieces whatever 'photo-credibility' NASA may still have had in the eyes of hardened skeptics. There can be no doubt that the ripped panel is MEANT to be the same in the available photos released by NASA and ESA.

Should we be outraged about such high-flying deceptions? Are we taxpayers not funding these guys to the tune of billions of bucks?
Well, according to ESA - it's not such a big deal - ya know:

How much does it cost?

The cost of the ISS, including development, assembly and running costs over a period of at least 10 years, will come to 100 billion Euros. High technology on the space frontier is not cheap.
However, the good news is that it comes cheaper than you might think. That 100 billion figure is shared over a period of almost 30 years between all the participants: the United States, Russia, Canada, Japan and 10 of the 17 European nations who are part of ESA. The European share, at around 8 billion Euros spread over the whole programme, amounts to just one Euro spent by every European every year: less than the price of a cup of coffee in most of our big cities.
http://www.esa.int/esaHS/ESAQHA0VMOC_iss_0.html

Starbucks, anyone?

[BNSF9647]

it appears this time they at least included stars to make it look authentic.

It appears? What stars? I don't see any. There can't be any stars in any of these pictures. Show them once, you have to show them all the time. Like with the nonexistent Apollo blast carter on the Moon. Forget it once, you gotta forget it forever. It's not only too difficult to fake stars -- it's just too late in the game for them now.

Yeah right on with the no stars Nonhocapito, what appeared to be stars in the background to me when I posted, was nothing more than a few pixels on my screen acting up. Why I didn't even bother to question myself before I posted that first sentence (or checking my monitor!), I should know better as I haven't seen any stars in all of NASA's studio portraits either.

[hoi.polloi]

Yes, some of black pixels in these images might default to "see through" depending on the browser and what's going on behind it - such as a video player. It has to do with refresh and how the browser program tells pixels to refresh depending on the image information. No doubt these are meant to be black, though. No "star" information.

[In] any case - I dearly hope that the image comparisons of the 'Ripped Panel Incident' have torn to pieces whatever 'photo-credibility' NASA may still have had in the eyes of hardened skeptics. There can be no doubt that the ripped panel is MEANT to be the same in the available photos released by NASA and ESA.

Sorry Simon but I have been looking at the panels you say are inconsistent and I can only agree with the radical color changes as being the most suspicious. The solid/empty circles all behave consistently in each fake "photo" if some circles are becoming "unfilled" (punched through) over time. The stringy nonsense in the last photo being the "newest" alleged picture.

I don't caution you because I think the photos are real - only that we should try to discover just what power they have to make them consistent with their official story and where they actually flubbed it. Now you are right about the circles being different (a,b,c,etc.) but I am not so sure that's a strong argument for people just yet. They will organize the pictures chronologically and declare that some circles became "unfilled" during the operation process.

I know this is frustrating, but we must leave some small room to think as if we are programmed to believe it all if we are to help people escape the lies. You have already made your conclusions, but do you want to still help people see what's happening? I think you do, which is why I advise what I do.



What you call "Scott's picture" (above) could be interpreted as skipping circles because of the undulating form of the shitty-looking foil thing. Therefore 1,2,3,etc. in the other picture do not correspond. It would be more like this:



Don't undermine your own arguments. You're on a roll. I do agree that the main tear in "Scott's picture" is all wrong compared to the other three.

[simonshack]

*
Point taken, Hoi.

However - I have more than one problem with these supposed pictures of what is meant to be the very same solar panel.

I will let everyone's eyes decide for themselves:

source: ESA
source: NASA

source: NASA


I guess it's just a case of European versus American pop-art !

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

(Edit update): I will now anticipate any further comments on my day's work by asking this series of questions - limited and confined to the pattern comparison immediately above this text. As you see, the patterns and the colors of the torn solar panel (a unique incident which allegedly occured in November 2007) as published by ESA and NASA do look, objectively speaking, rather different. So, my questions are quite simply asking whether you think these glaring discrepancies might be due to (i.e. logically explainable by):

1- Video compression/low-res versus high-res images
2- Different viewing angles/perspectives
3- Different lightings/sunlight
4- Different cameras/lenses
5- An optical illusion
6- Parallax
7- Spaceballs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceballs
8- Other reasons (please elaborate)

Thanks for taking the time addressing this specific issue.

[Terence.drew]

"The same logic for shuttles and other spacecraft also goes for satellites. These are fake also. Big balloons with telecommunications equipment on them probably hover somehow, somewhere well below the point where meteorites burn up in the atmosphere."

Nope. Sorry.

I've had loads of experience with aiming/tuning/adjusting satellite dishes and can assure you that the phenomenon of "geostationary orbit" is very real and very reliable, even though it was supposedly predicted by the evil occultist/pedophile Arthur C. Clarke decades before its accomplishment. Wind-susceptible balloon technology, held aloft by specific-gravity differential in Earth's gaseous atmosphere, is no more a functional part of satellite communication than it was a part of the Roswell psyop.

I too am pretty sure satellites are real. Not only we see results of their existence in our everyday life (GPS, Satellite TV, Weather, etc), but they can actually be seen from the ground at night, without telescopes of sorts.
We are often told that satellites not only risk to be hit by meteorites, but they also risk to be hit by other satellites, or their leftover parts. I guess the risk is considered acceptable, considering the size of a satellite against the odds of a meteorite or anything else smashing into it.

Another issue is with the ISS, obviously, since we are asked to believe it has people on board, who could instantly die in case of such accident. One more reason to question the whole thing, especially since these guys are left up there for months at a time.
Just for the record, it is not like NASA completely skips on the issue:

In fact, the station was in little danger. "There are several hundred different shields protecting the crew and critical hardware," says Eric Christiansen, the station's Shielding Subsystem Manager at the Johnson Space Center. "The heavier shielding typically includes meteoroid/debris blankets. These are made of a ceramic fabric (NextelTM) backed by KevlarTM -- the same material found in bullet-proof vests."
The station's windows are sturdy, too. Each one consists of at least two panes -- "always with primary and redundant pressure panes," says Christiansen. "In some cases, the windows include transparent 'debris panes' specifically designed to protect them from meteoroid impacts." Others are shielded (when not in use) by metal shutters and debris blankets.
Although Leonid meteoroids travel much faster than bullets, the vast majority of them are microscopic and fragile. They make pretty lights when they hit Earth's atmosphere -- but that's all. They are not tough enough to penetrate the station's defenses.

I appreciate here you are merely putting NASA 'on the record', with this quoted passage above. I would like to put this on the record. I don't see ANY material difference between NASA and DISNEY. One is aimed at 'dazzling' kids; the other is aimed at 'dazzling' adults. Adults also have to sit through NASA's flashing up of their occult symbols/secret society emblems which are there to please their dark lord and try to lock us unenlightened ones into a life of enslavement to technology.

"Dumbo's Ears are more than adequate to keep him aloft" says Jack Parsonages, Disney's Shielding Subsystem Manager at the Juniors Mind bending Center. " Now find an anagram for 'ears' kids, and find out where we want to fuck you for the rest of your technologically enslaved lives "

Quoting NASA you may as well be quoting someone from Disney about space flight.

This if from Zionapedia regarding Meteor showers..

"A meteor shower is a celestial event in which a number of meteors are observed to radiate from one point in the night sky. These meteors are caused by streams of cosmic debris called meteoroids entering Earth's atmosphere at extremely high speeds on parallel trajectories. Most meteors are smaller than a grain of sand, so almost all of them disintegrate and never hit the Earth's surface. Intense or unusual meteor showers are known as meteor outbursts and meteor storms, which may produce greater than 1,000 meteors an hour."

Even though Zionapedia says 'most' meteors are smaller than a grain of sand, I am pretty sure that the ones visible from Earth are bigger than this. Why? What we see from here are events happening 70-120 kms up in the sky. To see these LEO events,the fireballs must be at least tens of meters in diameter ( How far can you see a candle from ? 500 metres? A light house? 50 km? ) Maybe its possible a grain of material can create a fireball of huge proportions but I doubt it. There are by a factor of enormousness huge amounts of meteorites which impact with the Earth which are substantial in themselves but which are not visible from Earth.I have posted here the account of the 1966 Meteor Shower which was visible from all over N America from places which were not clouded over. I think it is possible to multiply the 40 visible meteors per sec by a factor of 10? maybe 100? to include non visible meteors from earth but which could still damage a space craft.
This 1966 Meteor shower may have been the event which turned NASA upside down and led it to realise space travel was not possible and that TV fakery was the only option to secure the dollar roll in.

Kevlar protection? A Bullet?
How do you cope with an object (perhaps several times bigger than a bullet?) which is traveling at a speed 150-200 times faster than a bullet? How do you cope with/plan for a million such objects? A million such objects a day?
Imagine taking a train trip for 45min to one hour. Imagine how far that is. This is how fast these things travel in one sec.
Are satellites/ISS/shuttle etc. encased in a kevlar jacket which is 200 times thicker than your average LAPD cop Kevlar jacket? It does not seem so?

What about the other issue in space travel even in low orbit - heat?

The ISS/Shuttle/Satellites move very quickly from extreme UV heat in front of the sun to intense shade/cold on the dark side of the Earth in a handful of mins, as they (are alleged to) swing around the Earth. 500 degrees heat flops every 20 mins? How can a metal material retain its properties and integrity over a long space of time under these conditions? How can a life support system such as that on the alleged ISS/Shuttle be so precise and swift that it may protect its charges from death by freeing or death by frying? Again how do you even test such things on Earth?
If I was an insurance agent and was asked to insure a Satellite worth one billion squid I would ask for one billion 100 squid ( 100 for admin and broadband expenses to check out cluesforum and see whats really going on)

NASA and its counterparts are illusionists not scientists who perform all their space movements in giant water tanks in the land of TV. Satellite images are easily faked with photoshop - just look at the crap Iceland volcano images. GPS etc? Who knows. Perhaps there are Satellites encased in iron in orbit or maybe there are objects which are 60 km up and beam back stuff to earth but which are out of the reach of 99.9 % of Meteorites.

I dont believe a morsel or crumb which these goons spout out.


This illusion is a reality they wish to imprint on our minds.
We can see you everywhere and zoom in on you (satellites).
We know what you are doing( telecommunication interceptions etc)
We are too big to take on and topple when all it takes is 2,000 people to sit down in a modern large city and don't get up again)

[simonshack]

Hey folks,

Please - now please do a cognitive effort to evaluate this piece published by the New York Times. As the story goes, astronaught Scott Parazynski lost a pair of needle-nose pliers while fixing that damage in the solar panels - as discussed above:

Dr. Parazynski, by coincidence, was one of the best astronauts for the unusual spacewalk. Now on his fifth trip to orbit, he has spent more time in spacewalks than all but four others in the history of the program. And, at 6 feet 2 inches, he is among the tallest astronauts and well-suited to work on the array from a safe distance.

“It’s a bit of a reach here,” he said at one point.

Ms. Melroy responded, “That’s what those monkey arms are for,” and then added, “Not many people in the office could do what you’re doing right now.”

To which Dr. Parazynski replied, “I hope they don’t have to.”

The only apparent slip-up came at the end of the spacewalk, which lasted more than seven hours. An errant set of needle-nose pliers floated away and could be spotted drifting below the station. Mission managers said the tool is not likely to pose a threat to the shuttle or station before falling back to Earth, but said they would track it on radar.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/scien ... uttle.html

Wow. So a set of pliers (according to NASA) are tracked by radar as they plummet down to Earth... But what about the ISS itself? Why does it not plummet down to Earth like this set of pliers? How does it keep aloft (speeding about at 27,700 km/h) without any sort of propulsion? Can anyone honestly answer this basic question? I'll be patiently waiting for the answer to this.

(ps: thanks, Terence Drew, for making some sense out of this nonsense.)

[nonhocapito]

But what about the ISS itself? Why does it not plummet down to Earth like this set of pliers? How does it keep aloft (speeding about at 27,700 km/h) without any sort of propulsion? Can anyone honestly answer this basic question? I'll be patiently waiting for the answer to this.

(ps: thanks, Terence Drew, for making some sense out of this nonsense.)

It is not about answering honestly, Simon: rather answering in a qualified clear manner that satisfies you. I wonder if there is one.
I imagine an orbiting object needs to get to a certain altitude with just the right amount of speed so that it doesn't fly away in a wrong orbit and it doesn't fall down. Centrifugal force, centripetal force, attraction force, that sort of thing. A vector with enough propulsion brings the object to the high orbits and kicks it into the right amount of motion. The motion is required to win the attraction force = centrifugal force.


http://my.execpc.com/~culp/space/orbit.html

As to the fact that such object keeps moving without constant propulsion, I guess this is explained with the orbiting object flying in space without air resistance, so that nothing slows it down.
The whole problem of orbits certainly has to do with how gravity works, since apparently gravity is a deformation of space induced by mass, which makes the space curve, which makes planets curve, which makes orbits curve as well.
It took humans a few many centuries to figure it out, but I suppose we can blame it all on the shenanigans at NASA

Bottom line, certainly physicists can explain it much better, or even better a divulge book can, but of course we can always decide not to believe it. If we decide that all the scientists in the world are a fraud, that all the calculations are imaginary, that all the universities teach only how to lie; if we decide that certain things of which we have a vague idea of cannot work because we cannot imagine how they would: then it becomes completely rhetorical and redundant to ask for "scientific explanations".

As to Satellites. So you guys are convinced satellites aren't real because they could be hit by asteroids. I don't think you take into account just how vast is the surface area around earth compared to a tiny satellite crawling around it.
So they risk to be hit. To prove satellites aren't real we need a stronger argument than this.

Whenever I have a chance to look at a starry sky, I see at least one or two of these lights going by in different directions. They look a bit like stars, points of light that go by very quick. They certainly aren't airplanes. If they are not satellites, what are they? And how do they not fall down?

[simonshack]

Hello ! What's going on here?

I asked a simple - but very important question (it cannot get more sraightforward than this):
Why does NASA and ESA publish totally inconsistent pictures of the "Ripped Solar Panel" incident ?



Please provide a rational explanation to this. Thanks.

[nonhocapito]

What's going on here? I asked a simple - but very important question (it cannot get more sraightforward than this)

I think silence is agreement here, Simon. Me I don't have any explanation except blatant fakery.

[reel.deal]

[simonshack]

I see you're havin' fun and keepin' humorous, dear valiant researcher-colleagues...And I don't blame you, because...


THIS ISS A FRIGGIN JOKE!

I am shocked. This is what I found today on the NASA website. Yes, the two pictures I used to make the gif below are - believe it or not - from the NASA website (check it out for yourself - lest you think I have gone mad). Please DO verify that I'm not kidding you - and please click on these 5 NASA 'photos', read their captions and note that they are all dated "December 2003"(???). This is of course absurd in itself - since at the time the ISS was (according to NASA history) nowhere near this advanced stage of completion. Note also that nowhere does NASA mention that these are artist impressions of the ISS - although they are posted in the NASA photo gallery section among plenty of real-looking photos : http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima ... page4.html


*By Jove!... Stars - at last !*

Now, I trust you can all easily see that these are - without any shadow of a doubt - computer graphic images.
Ok - so now take a good look at this very recent (2011) 'photograph' allegedly snapped by Italian ESA astronaught Paolo Nespoli:



Hey - this is supposedly snapped with Nespoli's NIKON camera. Caption for this" Nespoli picture":

"First Ever Portrait of the International Space Station and docked Shuttle Endeavour from Soyuz capsule
This image of the International Space Station and the docked Space Shuttle Endeavour, flying at an altitude of 220 miles was taken by Expedition 27 crew member Paolo Nespoli from the Soyuz TMA-20 following its undocking on May 23, 2011 (USA time)."
http://www.universetoday.com/86369/nasa ... o-nespoli/

Yeah - rrrright! Smile to the camera. Say 'cheesy'.

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


http://esamultimedia.esa.int/multimedia ... x_pop.html



I don't know about you - but I really do think this iss all a big joke... Ok - so I won't call it 'game over'. But I am rather speechless..