ENDEAVOUR - the 30-year Space Shuttle hoax

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: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby Terence.drew on Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:05 am

Excellent work Simon on the ball messi style!

Why does NASA need to fake just about everything it does?

This writer now believes even low earth orbit flights (100-1000miles above the surface of the Earth), like those flown by the shuttle are impossible.

As an analogy take an F1 race .

With each completed lap a layer of rubber is left on the road which has been deposited there by all those smoking tyres.

With each lap around the sun, comets and asteroids leave huge trails of dust and debris as they are accelerated and heated up; zillions of particles of dust, frozen ice, rock and base metals break off from the body of the comet or asteroid and leave a trail of cosmic 'rubber' along the path of the comet/asteroid. These trails are millions of miles wide and are as long as the orbit of the comet/asteroid. They build up over millions of years. Meanwhile the Earth, traveling at 67,000 miles an hour, takes several days to pass through one of these enormous dust and debris clouds. Shooting stars are the resultant spectacle as the earth's atmosphere slows these particles traveling at incredible speeds and they are vaporized.

Spacecrafts are the ant attempting to cross the road after an F1 race only to get stuck and die in the still hot rubber left there by the cars.

The combined speed of the Earth and the meteors can be incredible fast.

The slowest speed is about 11 km per second while the fastest speed these things come in at is 72 km per sec(Leonids). Yes folks that is 162,000 miles per hour!!
Double dare any of you to be hit on the arse by a grain of sand traveling at that speed ! Now imagine something the size of a pebble?

The major meteor showers are the following (but the earth is continuously passing through loads of particle matter in space)
Jan 3-4 Quadrantids
Apr 21-22 April Lyrids
May 4-5 Eta Aquarids
Jul 28-29 Delta Aquarids
Aug 12-13 Perseids
Oct 21-22 Orionids
Nov 3-13 Taurids
Nov 16-17 Leonids
Dec 13-14 Geminids
Dec 21-22 Ursids


How can NASA or any other 'space' (vacuous) agency know that their tin can in the sky will not be struck?
They cannot.
They cannot model it.
They cannot predict it.
They cannot protect against it.

All NASA can do is lie about it and skirt the issue.

http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/17may_issmeteors/

Listen to this crock of shit from the NASA website.

"Millions of people saw the show, but only three of them -- the ones on board the space station -- saw it from above. "We had to look down to see the meteors," says Culbertson. "That's because the atmosphere (where comet dust burns up) is below the station."

"A typical Leonid disintegrates about 100 km above Earth's surface," explains NASA scientist Rob Suggs. "The ISS is much higher than that. The station (like the space shuttle) orbits our planet at an altitude of about 350 km." Suggs is the leader of the Space Environments group at the Marshall Space Flight Center; he helped organize the crew's observations of the Leonids.

"I had seen [meteors] on shuttle flights before," continued Culbertson, "but when the Leonids happened it was supposed to be one of the best showers in a long time, so we stayed up late to see them. Mikhail Tyurin and I were inside the Pirs docking compartment, which had the darkest windows." (Pirs is one of the Russian-built parts of the ISS; it serves as a docking port for visiting Progress supply ships and Soyuz crew capsules.)
"

We are asked to believe that the ISS was safe from the Leonid particles because the particles disintegrate at a lower altitude than the orbiting ISS? The particles are only dangerous when they are actually glowing below ?

We are asked to believe that the 162,000 miles an hour particles diverted and went around the ISS, orbiting the Earth every hour, for the couple of days the earth (and ISS and any other space ships) passed through this millions of miles wide cloud?

A Rain of fire from the sky.....

"The appearance on November 17, 1966, provided the highest known rate of any meteor stream ever recorded. An approximate rate of 40 meteors per second (144,000 m/hour), was seen for about 1 hour as viewed from the western portion of North America, and the Pacific. Unfortunately, the east coast and Midwest were enveloped in clouds that night, disappointing a lot of amateurs and professionals alike."
http://www.amsmeteors.org/meteor-showers/meteor-faq/#7

Image

Further we are asked to believe that sellotape and a paper substance is adequate protection from this cosmic rain of fire..(image is a detail from the group of images Simon linked to earlier from the STS 134 NASA website...http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-134/html/s134e007314.html)
A little homage perhaps to the Eagle's 'lets make shapes with teacher but be careful the scissors doesn't hurt you' look .


My guess is that this was all known in the early 60s. Pushed around and bullied by a sense of 'duty', astronauts were asked to go along with fakery as them playing their part in the winning of the cold war. Astros who didn't go along may have ended up on fire if the Apollo 1 story is to be believed.

Its funny also that Mr. Bart Sibrel, Mr. fanatical Moon truther, pushes the story of the capsule actually orbiting the earth to the nth degree. Thus, he buttresses this side of the story while playing with people's skepticism about the actual moon landings. Same tactics are employed all the time with the 911 story.

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.

Perhaps when Von B talked about spaceships going to the moon needing to be the size of Skyscrapers he was thinking about the following:
1. the shielding needed to protect the spacecraft from 72km per second meteor strikes
2. the shielding needed to protect real astronauts from cosmic radiation and being literally fried to death
3. the huge amounts of water needed to cool astronauts down while on the moon (there is no direct heat transfer in a vacuum) ..resulting in incredibly heavy spaceships needing oceans of fuel to get them out of the Earth's orbit.

Now imagine the American (and Russian etc.) tax payers asked NASA and the other 'space' agencies for all the money back spent on these hoaxes over the last 50 years?
In the 1960s in the US between 10 and 15% of GDP per year was spent on the Apollo missions - on Sellotape and Scissors.
Last edited by Terence.drew on Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Terence.drew
Member
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby fbenario on Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:39 am

Terence.drew wrote:Perhaps when Von B talked about spaceships going to the moon needing to be the size of Skyscrapers he was thinking about the following:
1. the shielding needed to protect the spacecraft from 72km per second meteor strikes
2. the shielding needed to protect real astronauts from cosmic radiation and being literally fried to death
3. the huge amounts of water needed to cool astronauts down while on the moon (there is no direct heat transfer in a vacuum) ..resulting in incredibly heavy spaceships needing oceans of fuel to get them out of the Earth's orbit.

I think you are accurate on the totality of what you propose, especially this quoted paragraph.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: ENDEAVOUR - spaced-out

Unread postby guivre on Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:03 am

reel.deal wrote:* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
QUESTFORSTARS.COM :P


Student Balloon Photographs Shuttle Endeavour's Launch Into Orbit

SPACE.com Staff
Date: 16 May 2011 Time: 04:38 PM ET


How similar are these photos to the one I linked on the first page? Was that released by a 'citizen journalist' for better press than a boring student balloon?
guivre
Member
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:48 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:09 am

Brilliant analysis Terence. I am majorly LOLing here.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby simonshack on Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:24 pm

*

Today I received a mail by someone concerned that the little white blob (as pointed out by my blue arrows in these 8 launch pictures) can be easily explained; he rightly observed that the blob is at the exact same height as the water sprinkler - visible to its right:
Image

So I went back to take a closer look at the original launch videos. Here are two gifs I made (from STS125 and STS132):

Image
STS125 launch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtrB9bELGSY

Image
STS132 launch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jma7ZjZbwsY

As you can see, the 'blob' is in fact what I had suspected it to be (or to be meant to be): a tiny spray of pressurized steam/flame (?) or whatever you wish to call it, apparently exiting from those tubes lining the rocket cones. The point is, spray N°3 (the first to appear in every video) always starts precisely in that very same video frame (of which we have 8 versions of - featuring the split-second appearance of three white triangular 'condensation cones'). Moreover, the leftmost rocket cone (nearest to the viewer) always vibrates equally, while the two others, soon after, converge towards each other. These exact same patterns replicate reliably, without any random variation, year after year:

Image

My point remains, of course: are we to believe that these ignition dynamics replicate with utmost precision for each and every engine ignition, without any discernable physical/visual variation, year after year? Or is it more plausible that we have been offered, year after year, the very same video animation - only minimally modified (just cropped and re-rendered) and passed off as many different Space Shuttle launches?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby repentantandy on Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:22 am

"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.
repentantandy
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:17 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby simonshack on Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:05 am

*

THE MAGIC CAMERA FILMING THROUGH SMOKE

This is the lift-off imagery of STS129: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKzi8dj-qAs

In this particular lift-off imagery, the camera filming the close-up ignition phase of the Shuttle engines appears to be placed in an unusual position (compared with most other launch videos, as illustrated in my previous post above). I have tried to locate its approximate location:

Image
It doesn't really matter whether the camera is meant to be precisely in the 'box' indicated with the blue arrow. Even if it's further back from the launch pad (somewhere in the middle of the bushes ?), it's viewing angle must be approximately as indicated by the yellow vector.

Now, here is a side view of the launch pad - the view we will have as the Shuttle lifts off.
Surely, my approximation of the camera's location shouldn't be too far off the mark:
Image

So here's the problem: the animated gif loop below shows the (of course unedited) lift-off sequence: it starts with a close-up shot of the engine ignition (SHOT1) and switches immediately to that side view(SHOT2). Yes, we can see a puff of smoke (drifting to the right) in SHOT1 - but the camera is certainly never engulfed in smoke until the end of that shot. How can this be?
Image

Please choose your favorite answer:
1: The smoke plume somehow fails to obscure the camera view (at the end of SHOT1).
2: This video sequence cannot represent reality.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:29 pm

I would choose option 1 for now, though option 2 is plausible.

Launch witnesses: how do they do it?

I think - because all the launch witnesses are forced to be far, far away from the actual launch sites - they fire up some kind of rocket using a lot of fuel igniting with a bright glow; I presume for the sake of slowing my radicalism that it is the shuttle - or at least a shuttle-shaped projectile.

This is because I have two friends who have been to see the rocket launches and from what they describe they need binoculars to make out more than a plume of smoke rising up into the stratosphere. So I am pretty sure - though not 100% - they are sending something up. The question is - what? And where is it going?

Probably it remains in close L.E.O. to shield itself from deadly radiation and debris, perhaps even taking "astronauts" (aka helpless NASA passengers) around the Earth a few times, dropping satellite junk in the sky and then retreating back down discretely somewhere. Perhaps the launches only last a day, the shuttle comes down, and the astronauts go into hiding for extended periods of time while they are meant to be "orbiting the Earth" or perhaps they actually live in space for a while?

What do we know that might help us nail down what is actually happening?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby BNSF9647 on Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:23 pm

While we are on the topic of the Shuttle program here is a link to a guys flickr page. He reports himself to work at Edwards AFB. Anyhow its a few photos of the shuttle landing at Edwards I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with southern California. Edwards is in the western portion of the Mojave desert surrounded by other DOD(Department of Defense) sites such a China lake naval weapons center, also the Fort Irwin training center.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmandswmake3/704666845/in/photostream/
BNSF9647
Member
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:18 am

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby simonshack on Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:18 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:
This is because I have two friends who have been to see the rocket launches and from what they describe they need binoculars to make out more than a plume of smoke rising up into the stratosphere. So I am pretty sure - though not 100% - they are sending something up. The question is - what? And where is it going?


Dearest Hoi,

While I am fairly sure - just as you - that they do send something up in the sky from KSC (to entertain the Florida crowds, that is), it has become increasingly evident to me that NASA is but an ongoing circus show - and an outrageously costly one, all at the expense of the American (and European) taxpayers. I have also become gradually confident that what lifts off at KSC are not the vessels we see in the NASA videos. In fact, I would not have thought that - considering what has been progressively expounded in this thread - the possibility of the Shuttle imagery being entirely fabricated would now seem to be far-fetched at all.

I understand the caution we must observe in making hasty conclusions about even more 'TV fakery' - especially concerning something as long-lasting as the 30-year-old Space Shuttle program. However, so far I have not seen any evidence to the contrary. Not only are the available images replete with inconsistencies and aberrations - but the basic technical aspects/specs of the Shuttle itself (aerodynamic/mechanical/aeronautical) all appear to be highly improbable to me. I have oft humbly stated that I'm no rocket scientist and will listen to any engineers willing to clear up the questions I have raised so far, questions spurred by plain common sense and my limited experience in the aforementioned fields.

Few if any answers have been forthcoming, so I will take a short break from the Shuttle - and take a look at its purported lower-orbit destination: the wondrous 'ISS'. Of course, if the Shuttle turns out to be a full-fledged hoax, there logically follows that the International Space Station must be yet another fantasy concocted by NASA (a totally discredited entity ever since its inception, btw). The inescapable fact is that, having duped the world for 42 odd years with their ridiculous Moon Landing fables, there is little logic in believing that NASA suddenly 'wisened up' in the 70's and became a serious space exploration hub: where on Earth would their know-how to build the (almost flawless) manned Space Shuttle have come from?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby fbenario on Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:33 am

nonhocapito wrote:[Image

That's a pretty strange name for a mission. How odd.
The Latin words “melior diabolus quem scies” are inscribed on the patch. This roughly translates to mean “the devil you know,” as in the phrase “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know.”

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1437/1
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sun Jun 26, 2011 3:34 pm

As long as people believe the 'goons' the 'goons' will be given time to make some of their lies a reality.

At first the satellites were not real. Now they are. After a lot of time. Possibly, manned space travel is just too far fetched and will never happen but as long as people believe them and follow their crafty stories it doesn't have to be real. It's "real" enough in the minds of the hypnotized.

I don't see ANY material difference between NASA and DISNEY.


Incidentally, is that a proud giant Mickey Mouse in the sunny highlight of the smoke in this picture?
Image

Probably not, just my imagination ... but the NASA/DISNEY comparison is apt.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

spaced-out NASA-DISNEY

Unread postby reel.deal on Sun Jun 26, 2011 10:54 pm

* * * * * * *

I don't see ANY material difference between NASA and DISNEY... :rolleyes:

Image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8or3kWdkhVw&feature=channel_video_title

:P
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am

spaced-out NASA

Unread postby reel.deal on Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:29 pm

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

*NO STARS WARS II - EPISODE FAIL*

**THE ENDEAVOUR'S SKY'S BLACK**
*****HAN SOLO AT STARS'END******


starring........................ NO STARS as
'STARS'

Image

Image

Image

Image
;)
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am

Re: SOYUZ - and the spaced-out SOVIETS

Unread postby reel.deal on Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:38 pm

Image
...gotta love it !!! ...Mickey even brought his own stars !
:P
Last edited by reel.deal on Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:15 pm, edited 4 times in total.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest