ENDEAVOUR - the 30-year Space Shuttle hoax

[simonshack]

I cannot make up my mind about what the viewfinder shows
(...)

Really? I can - and thank you for making it clearer with this higher quality clip:
The relatively stable images seen in that widely moving camera cannot represent reality. That's all I needed to make sure of - thanks!

The shot is a typical, not-so-subliminal message [ "Look-look, people! There were onlookers!" ] to the TV viewers - much in the same vein as the 9/11 imagery was composed. Of course, such 'eyewitness-shots' were absolutely ESSENTIAL on 9/11 - and effectively implanted in the TV viewers' minds the impression that "millions of eyes saw it all firsthand - from the street". And the same brain-conditioning tricks were used for the Space Shuttle imagery, it seems:

1st "Columbia landing" - 1981 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJiFVYoJo88

"Loook! Look! We are all looking and ogling and watching and filming"

[nonhocapito]

OK, about the shadows in these two videos:

video 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6QP84GIlMg
video 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73MOV63HA7g

the part of video 2 you made the gif from is around mark 0:23 -- but if you want to compare it to the sequence of video 1 around mark 1:03 and 1:06 like you said, you should consider sequence of video 2 around mark 0:16, not 0:23 -- it seems the same shadow to me, only rolled at a faster speed.

screenshots with timestamp:
video1:

video2:

[simonshack]

-- it seems the same shadow to me, only rolled at a faster speed.

Yes yes yes - nonho,

But what is the deal with these 'superfast timelapse' videos IN THE FIRST PLACE? Can't you see they are meant to psyop you?

-And can't you see how "Hollywodish" the lighting is?

- And do you think shadows really work out that way?

BOTTOM LINE; Do you believe you are looking at real images of the roll-out of STS 134 ? (which, according to the lady TV anchor, lasted for about 8 hours??)

[nonhocapito]

-- it seems the same shadow to me, only rolled at a faster speed.

Yes yes - nonho,

But what is the deal with these 'superfast timelapse' videos IN THE FIRST PLACE? Can't you see they are meant to psyop you?

Hey, I'm all with you. The amount of propaganda and mass psychology in these sequences is astounding. I have no doubts that, whatever is the nature of these projects, NASA is using them to deceive, hypnotize and hide secrets from the people.

I will say this once again: can you please consider that all I'm doing is discussing this or that proposed clue to see if they hold to scrutiny (from my fallacious point of view of course), not trying to defend NASA against you?

[simonshack]

*

THE WONDERBOLT (what's in a screw?)



Walt Disney laughing loud in his grave

Just in case you missed this fascinating article:
The Brown Duo Walt Disney and Wernher von Braun Spreading Moon Fantasy with Science Fiction Films
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/a ... -ENGL.html

[Alef]

[fbenario]

Awesome.

So, where's the ignition switch? Endeavour's mind-boggling cockpit controls revealed in all their glory

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... glory.html

[simonshack]

Awesome.

Yes - awesome indeed. However, you should have posted this artful 'landing shot', Fbenario.
They're really shameless, they are. Anyone unable to see that this is a cartoon (NOT a real picture) should immediately take a crash course in photography...
(Or, alternatively, reduce their daily intake of LSD)


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... glory.html

REUTERS?! Aren't Reuters in the business of real-world, news photography?

[SmokingGunII]

Simon - I have little time to contribute currently, but still make this site a must read every evening. I sensed you were on to something early on with this thread even though I have previously called for some restraint in claiming "fakery" towards every news item we are dealt.

You make some excellent observations within this thread and anyone who cannot see that the image shown in the viewfinder is fake really shouldn't be here. There's space (pun intended) for them at let's troll.

PS. That last image looks remarkably like an owl.

[AlexJones]

Its always bothered me that the Space Shuttle glides on landing, what a poor design flaw. It seems to be very dangerous just to have one go at landing. I was trying to think of a reason the other day why they would not have jet engines built in. I also have a hard time with its speedy entry, it doesn't look to be designed very well to be moving at supersonic speeds unless in a meteoric type crashing maneuver

NASA calls the space shuttle 'the white elephant' because of its cost but really its there cash cow because its a light weight prop thats bolted to a large rocket or possible photo shopped in

I've just been watching the landing footage again, and you get the feeling its under power, not gliding like what NASA say, maybe it takes off like a plane from one undisclosed airfield get up some hight and cameras roll for the landing. I can see how this could work and they would want everyone to think its a glider. One thing I learned about aerodynamics is a good glider will not make a well behaved speedy plane and opposite is also true due to drag, a fighter plane is very streamlined to remove most of the drag so it moves through the air a supersonic speeds. The early days of trying to get the speed record explained what happens to badly designed planes trying to break the sound barrier they lost control and crashed. Now we have to believe this odd shaped craft can do this and more without a streamlined body and heatproof tiles and the extra weight, it makes you scratch your head.

In essence what NASA are trying to sell us is the reentry and landing is nothing more than a controlled crash to earth with nothing but control surfaces to guide it to a standstill, except a parachute on the landing field. My word they would never get me to go for a ride

[simonshack]

Its always bothered me that the Space Shuttle glides on landing, what a poor design flaw. It seems to be very dangerous just to have one go at landing. I was trying to think of a reason the other day why they would not have jet engines built in. (...)

Here's a glider for you:



That huge wingspan is necessary to keep a super-lightweight tube (with a single pilot ) in the air - for any amount of time. Without being aeronautical engineers - we know at least that much. As far as I can gather (again, without being an expert) a jet plane full of passengers (such as Flight 1549 who allegedly 'glided' and water-landed safely into the Hudson) would plummet to the ground like a dead duck - in the event of BOTH engines failing.

As for the Space Shuttle, well, just look at its wingspan/surface. Imagine its weight-to-wingspan ratio. Now, look at some NASA Space Shuttle landing videos and listen to the commentaries - such as this woman's:
STS131 LANDING http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k70hn4-ffc
"A good view of Discovery here...still 73 miles away from Kennedy Space Center...and 15 miles up...travelling 1700 miles per hour...with 6 minutes to go "

So the thing is smoothly travelling in the Earth's atmosphere at well over the speed of sound - gliding like a glider and with no jet propulsion???

I mean, plueeeeze !

[AlexJones]

a jet plane full of passengers (such as Flight 1549 who allegedly 'glided' and water-landed safely into the Hudson) would plummet to the ground like a dead duck - in the event of BOTH engines failing.

As for the Space Shuttle, well, just look at its wingspan/surface. Imagine its weight-to-wingspan ratio. Now, look at some NASA Space Shuttle landing videos and listen to the commentaries: "the shuttle is currently travelling at twice the speed of sound. It is expected to touch down 9 minutes from now".

I mean, plueeeeze !

I agree the flight 1549 after both engines failing would be a large brick and would have seconds to crash land. emphasis on crash part, it all depends on hight and speed at time of problem.

The Space Shuttle you imagine would be all over the place in its descent just by looking at the shape of the thing. I'm thinking a real flying plane for a prop at the moment, that flies slow in the sky and would never make it anywhere near supersonic speeds. On the ground a prop is used on the rocket luncher platform, NASA have got more than enough money to make one I think, it could be launched and jettisoned like the tank. It just needs some Hollywood editing and for the public to be three miles away from the prop so to not get a good look to be able to get away with it, and then edit all the footage and then NASA have got what they need.

If you look at the three rocket assembly on the platform ready for launch, the Space? Shuttle looks out of place, a tagged on extra not the main machine. What if it really is only a prop and the two rockets really do all the lifting and the whole thing never sees space but crashes down range in the ocean, and is collected for the next blast off a truly reusable prop. I know it sounds crazy but it could be done because that is how they meant to reuse the solid busters anyway. I'm just thinking aloud but we never thought that NASA would use a prob in the desert and say they went to the moon, and notice they reused the prop on every one after, and just to show how tight fisted they are they used the same one for the museum exhibition.

[RoyBean]

*

QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS...

Bear with me, folks: I'll just keep asking questions in the following days. Everyone is welcome to help - always in serious fashion. Thanks!

SEQUENTIAL CLIPS
Please understand that all I am showing below are short excerpts of the LIVE TV broadcasts of the various shuttle launches. Those animated gifs show unedited, sequential and adjacent shots.

QUESTION A: Here we see two cameras switching from one angle to another of the shuttle's ascent. Where were these two cameras? Do they appear to catch the same event? Do the rocket boost trails seem consistent with each other? Can all this be ascribed to/explained by the different vantage points of the cameras? And does only NASA have such extraordinary lenses (telescope-cameras?) which can follow the shuttle in such smooth, stabilized, close-up fashion?

STS-107 COLUMBIA's final launch (January 16, 2003) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSkPDc0gMr8

QUESTION B: Again, where were these two cameras? And why does one show a bright blue sky/ and the other a pitch black sky?

DISCOVERY STS-121 Space Shuttle Launch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH8Oq0PuIU8

Same thing seems to be happening here with the 86 Shuttle Disaster
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkwfG-4D7Jo (at 0:37>)

[RoyBean]

-

Ok...so, as far as the shuttle disaster’s different angles shots, evidently there were multiple cameras set up to capture the event ( V.A.B, Front Cam, TV Van#2-from Landing Facility, TV-3) and CNN switched between the feeds. I guess that might account for the different hues and tones. I just find it interesting how CNN conveniently captures a close 2 second shot of the explosion before switching back to what appears is the front cam again then quickly back to the VAB shot, etc.



I mean wow...those shots were really well directed, huh? Live & sensational. But apparently it's standard practice to have several cameras set up for these launches/flights and during live broadcast switch back and forth like that. Reminds me of ya'll know what

Front Camera
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDnABgxU ... re=related
VAB Camera (vehicle assembly building)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fz8v9vh5mE&NR=1
TV Van #2 (Shuttle Landing Facility)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrnSHS9l ... re=related
TV 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K7qWDSQaWU

[simonshack]

Reminds me of ya'll know what

Uh - I presume you are referring to that little incident back in 2001, September 11 ?

Indeed - a growing number of aspects related to the Space Shuttle are reminiscent of 9/11. Let me submit a few more, at this point. As you know, the 9/11 imagery is in 'a class of its own', in the sense that it contains a series of unique and recurring oddities, apparent rendering glitches and assorted photographic aberrations. Many of these unique features are to be found in the Space Shuttle imagery as well. For instance:

1. FANCIFUL CHROMATICS
This sort of 'color psychedelia' is reminiscent of the 9/11 imagery:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUxWasHntgw

2. "PUZZLING PIXELCRASHES"
This sort of pixel disasters are reminiscent of the 9/11 imagery (jettisoned main tank 'breaks up' in mid-air):


The 1st Columbia Shuttle (STS1) 'pixelcrashes' for a few video frames: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJiFVYoJo88



Here is a similar 'phenomena' to be found in the 9/11 imagery:


3. INEXPLICABLE ARTIFACTS
The only possible explanation for this 'string' hanging under the shuttle is: 'animation graphics gone wrong':


4. ASSORTED MYSTERIES AND SILLINESS
-Mystery wide black object at left running up the runway - stopping and turning thin
-Silly drag chute reflection in (dry) tarmac
-Silly seagull flapping around over the scene (flying away at supersonic speed)

ATLANTIS LANDING http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJKUCg_Bra8

( To be sure: Plenty of silly birds on 9/11... ):


They just love those birds - for a reason, I guess: they add that little touch of 'reality' to their lifeless animations - and you know, at least they can FLY convincingly - in the real world, that is. However, we also know they can punch holes in aircraft - but see, NASA has alll those dozens of expendable shuttles and astronaughts - so they just don't give a bird's sh*t about birds:


**********

5. RESHUFFLED/REMIXED STOCK/ANIMATION SEGMENTS/TEMPLATES
It would appear that all the imagery of the many Shuttle launches were put together by simply remixing/reshuffling a series of stock/template shots. I have already pointed out a few clues as to this hypothesis - and more time will be needed to determine this in a comprehensive manner. Stay tuned.