Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception

Great job, Simon

What else is there really left for me to add? If I say I've witnessed some sort of space vehicle launch into the air from Cape Canaveral with the eyes that have been in my head since birth am I debunking anything in particular? Yeah Simon I live about 2 1/2 hours away on the west coast and yes there's a limit on how close you can get to the launch pad..

*

"Hoisting Harmony to the Heavens"


Who writes this stuff? Please just listen to the intro bla bla for this lift-off ("Discovery" 2007).
The NASA writers sure have a way with words : "Hoisting Harmony to the Heavens - and opening new gateways for international science".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rrWBZYL ... ure=relmfu

First off Simon I know you know that these observations of mine are not meant to get in the way of your work. I will be the first to recognize when they (my observations) become irrelevant -- you let me know if I am being pedantic.

1

simonshack wrote: Shaky Tank: how can only the main fuel tank vibrate? Isn't the camera attached to it?

Maybe the camera is attached to the beams that hold the shuttle to the tank (one is visible in picture number 3 below), and maybe those absorb the shaking?

EDIT: actually (and connected to question 3 below), what is shaking is possibly an external pipe attached to the tank. See picture below:

the camera isn't shaking because it is probably embedded in the gray connector thing.

2

What absorbes this brutal torque ? (note: side-rocket does not tilt/move)

Maybe it's just me but I see the orange tank slightly move, and even the rocket, if you look at the higher black line.

3

This is a real head-scratcher: are we even looking at the same spacecraft?

I seem to remember reading that the tank, because of the nature of the fuel, gets frozen passing through high altitude during launch. Maybe that's what causes the change in color and surface texture. [EDIT: if you were referring to the sheer presence of the pipe, I seem to understand that there is only one of those big pipes, located asymmetrically to the right of the of shuttle]

4

Question: why would these rockets not continue straight on - since they are still thrusting?
We are supposed to be in orbit for Heaven's sake!
Air resistance cannot account for these apparent, aerodynamically induced deviations.
And what causes that huge burst of smoke just as the rockets separate from the craft?

It is possible to imagine they designed a detaching system that deliberately pushes the rockets away from the shuttle, for security. That's what the burst of smoke could be?

...

As to all the "cloned" imagery of the launches, they are puzzling. They don't feel as copy-paste jobs to me, but they certainly make you wonder as to why the powerful propaganda machine of NASA should offer such limited, repetitive imagery of the launches.
I am not yet persuaded that the shuttle launches aren't real, but I am glad that you are guiding us to the uncovering of their contemporary hoaxes, Simon. Nothing would please me more than to see the pricks at NASA put to shame like they deserve.

(...continuing from post above) For example it is puzzling that you can have pictures of the lift off from all sorts of angles, and pictures of the cabin too, but not on video. Why?

STS-134 image gallery: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shutt ... index.html

featuring pictures like these:






each of these pictures would make an excellent point of view for an alternative video of the lift-off. Should I write NASA and suggest it?

and BTW, where the photographer was standing when he took this picture?

Thanks nonhocapito - and let me say this again: I truly appreciate any help here and hope we can walk through the many issues together. Let me propose we uphold a dialogue as we proceed with this matter. For your next response, you can just copy/paste this post of mine and respond to my answers as we go along, ok? So I have labelled "NONHO" and "SIMON" our respective responses below.

1
-SIMON: Shaky Tank: how can only the main fuel tank vibrate? Isn't the camera attached to it?

-NONHO: Maybe the camera is attached to the beams that hold the shuttle to the tank (one is visible in picture number 3 below), and maybe those absorb the shaking?

-SIMON: My point was not so much about the camera - I should have worded this differently, I guess. My main problem I had with the shaking main was how it could be shaking at all. I now see that the camera is fitted over that pipe, so I guess that's cleared up now. Damn, that reminds me that I too have a loose pipe in my house. I should fix it before it bursts and floods my bathroom! As for the icing - I don't think NASA can blame (what our eyes can see in the shot below) on ...ice!


2
-SIMON: What absorbes this brutal torque ? (note: side-rocket does not tilt/move)

-NONHO: Maybe it's just me but I see the orange tank slightly move, and even the rocket, if you look at the higher black line.

-SIMON: Yes, the orange tank tilts - but not the rocket (watch the base of it). The impression that it moves too is given by that (unfortunate) zoom out motion which starts just at the end of that gif loop.

3
-SIMON: This is a real head-scratcher: are we even looking at the same spacecraft?

-NONHO: I seem to remember reading that the tank, because of the nature of the fuel, gets frozen passing through high altitude during launch. Maybe that's what it is.

-SIMON: My question mark (?) on the white tank was not so much referring to its color - but to the very aspect of the whole : please compare it with the new, crisp stills that you just posted above: does it all add up to you? Look at the beams that hold the shuttle: are they not firmly attached to the tank? So what is that white 'panel' we see shaking? It simply makes no sense at all.

4
-SIMON: why would these rockets not continue straight on - since they are still thrusting?
We are supposed to be in orbit for Heaven's sake!
Air resistance cannot account for these apparent, aerodynamically induced deviations.
And what causes that huge burst of smoke just as the rockets separate from the craft?


-NONHO: It is possible to imagine they designed a detaching system that deliberately pushes the rockets away from the shuttle, for security. That's what the burst of smoke could be?

-SIMON: Well, that's why I hoped we had a rocket scientist on board... However, the sheer size and apparent violence of that puff of smoke (more like a blast, actually!) looks terribly wrong to me. I'm no rocket scientist, of course, but I cannot imagine such a mechanism would have such a visually dramatic explosive force - risking to blow a hole in the shuttle itself!

-NONHO: As to all the "cloned" imagery of the launches, they are puzzling. They don't feel as copy-paste jobs to me, but they certainly make you wonder as to why the powerful propaganda machine of NASA should offer such limited, repetitive imagery of the launches. I am not yet persuaded that the shuttle launches aren't real, but I am glad that you are guiding us to the uncovering of their contemporary hoaxes, Simon. Nothing would please me more than to see the pricks at NASA put to shame like they deserve.

-SIMON: They don't? (feel as copy-paste jobs to you). Well, I guess we may debate whether this is more of a physics-related issue - or a photographic one. When I first started comparing the various shuttles' ignition imagery, I was puzzled to see such consistency in what is, after all, a random heat/combustion sequence. Again, a rocket scientist may perhaps tell us that "the shuttle rockets are such precision-crafted, sophisticated pieces of machinery that each and every time that they ignite, the exact same dynamics and condensation patterns will be observed". From a photographic standpoint, however, we can observe a series of details in these clips which can hardly be ascribed to happenstance. Over to you, nonho!

Simon, I was editing my post while you were answering to it.
Sorry about it, I have the bad habit to edit my posts too long after I have posted them.

Anyway, about the appearance of the tank and the shaking of the camera, I'll re-post this picture that I think explains much of it:

...my guess is that this external pipe -- only located asymmetrically to the right -- is what's shaking. The camera does not shake because it is embedded in the gray connector at the end of the pipe.

you are probably right about the blast that (supposedly) pushes the rockets away. It is difficult to judge for me. On top of it we are supposed to be in a very rarefied atmosphere where probably blasts appear differently.

On one hand it is obvious we would need the word of a rocket engineer on this and many other issues... on the other hand engineers are not known to be a category of people that easily think outside of the box and are generally capable to imagine forgery behind scientific data. All engineers I have known (including my father) are very mainstream when it comes to "scientific truths".
If we had a rocket scientist explaining to us the nature of these images, I am sure he would have all sorts of "obvious" explanations that we would just have to trust -- which is not ideal.
The not too deep point I am making being that this technical stuff is always an hazardous ground...

brianv wrote: Then there's Challenger also! Both worth having a look at when you get time!

Indeed, Brian...

Here's, for starters, a comparison btw what it looked like on TV - and what's depicted in an "amateur video" (released...*cough cough* - 24 years later!):

Upper picture source: Challenger Space Shuttle Crash http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_10T4UYpzV8
Lower picture source: New Video of Challenger Disaster Surfaces After 24 Years http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41jq_5ltkno




All perspective issues/different vantage points considered, I fail to reconcile these two images. Both can't be authentic.

OK so NOW there's gonna be a discussion on the Challenger crash being Fake and none of those Astronauts dying? PLEASE Don't even!!

*

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

"ARTIFACTS"
Most people are not too concerned about video artifacts, thinking that they might just occur due to TV transmission issues/or video conversion glitches/degrading and such. However, some video artifacts cannot be ascribed to such issues. Let me use two examples to illustrate this notion.

Here, we have a section of the video (a pipe which runs up the length of the shuttle) which has turned completely white. This cannot be ascribed to random artifacts caused by TV transmission glitches or video compression issues. A lighting issue, perhaps? Such as very strong sunlight? No: such glare would affect the entire shot - not the pipe only. The only rational explanation for this is: we are looking at a flawed rendering of some computer-generated imagery. If this explanation is not satisfactory to you, please submit your own - but make sure it makes sense and stands up to collective scrutiny:


Here, we have what appears like a string hanging down from the shuttle. As you can see, it follows the shuttle in its motion across the frames - as if actually attached to the shuttle. This cannot be ascribed to random artifacts caused by TV transmission glitches or video compression issues. The only rational explanation for this is: we are looking at a flawed rendering of some computer-generated imagery. If this explanation is not satisfactory to you, please submit your own - but make sure it makes sense and stands up to collective scrutiny:



QUESTION C: Does it seem likely to you that these formidable NASA cameras captured as many as 4 different shuttles
- in different years/different weather conditions/different times of the day, JUST LIKE THIS ?
1___________________________________________________2


3___________________________________________________4

Please note: ALL four shots depict the shuttles in pretty much similar flight attitudes (pitch, yaw and roll), all 4 following a similar arc/trajectory ('turning slightly right'), and all 4 are framed pretty much equally in the 'camera lenses'. And as you saw in the previous shots (see question "A" above) the shuttles are also depicted from diametrically opposed angles.

So the question again is : WHERE ARE THOSE SPECIAL NASA CAMERAS PLACED? AND HOW MANY OF THEM ARE THERE?

And on a ''personal' level: Have you ever tried to point your camera at an airplane in the sky? Do you know what it takes to keep it stabilized in your lens view? NASA tells us these shuttles travel at something like 11.000mph (or whatever - they supposedly slow down and speed up all the time during the ascent...duh!). Btw, do we ever hear a sonic boom as they reportedly break the sound barrier early on in the ascent? I'll stop here - and let you all process these thoughts in tranquil fashion.

Here are the source-references for the 4 shots above:
shot1: ENDEAVOUR (STS111)- june 5, 2002: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rufssJ5jeQk
shot2: ENDEAVOUR (STS127) - july 15, 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJp-aQYJfGU
shot3: DISCOVERY (STS 121) - july 4, 2006 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0TPpFEV8_g
shot4: DISCOVERY (STS 133) - february 24, 2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gpuIcwWezQ

The spacecraft disintegrated over the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of central Florida, United States, at 11:38 am EST

11, 3+8

ssdi listing for the Challenger Crew

Michael J. Smith, Date of Death Feb 1986 - Your search returned no matches.

Richard and Dick Scobee DOD Feb 1986 - Your search returned no matches.

Ronald McNair DOD Feb 1986 - Your search returned no matches.

Ellison Onizuka DOD Feb 1986 - ONIZUKA, ELLISON 24 Jun 1946 Jan 1986 age39 Last Address(not specified) Last benefit (none specified) Hawaii ssn: 576-48-9990

CHRISTa McAuliffe DOD Feb 1986 - Your search returned no matches.

Gregory Jarvis DOD Feb 1986 - Your search returned no matches.

Judith Resnik DOD Feb 1986 - Your search returned no matches.

brianv wrote: Ellison Onizuka DOD Feb 1986 - ONIZUKA, ELLISON 24 Jun 1946 Jan 1986 age39 Last Address(not specified) Last benefit (none specified) Hawaii ssn: 576-48-9990

Oh well, Brian: you well know that the Hawaii census is famous for keeping better/more reliable people's records than mainland USA.

You have proved nothing!

simonshack wrote:

brianv wrote: Ellison Onizuka DOD Feb 1986 - ONIZUKA, ELLISON 24 Jun 1946 Jan 1986 age39 Last Address(not specified) Last benefit (none specified) Hawaii ssn: 576-48-9990

Oh well, Brian: you well know that the Hawaii census is famous for keeping better/more reliable people's records than mainland USA.

You have proved nothing!

Let me run "Columbia" through again and see what's what!
...

Rick D Husband DOD Feb 1 2003 - HUSBAND, RICK D 12 Jul 1957 01 Feb 2003 (P) 45 (FO) (none specified) Texas 461-11-1763 We're looking good! T minus 6 and counting...

William C Mc Cool DOD Feb 1 2003 - Your search returned no matches. Notify the Tal site, there may be an abort!

Michael P Anderson DOD Feb 1 2003 - ANDERSON, MICHAEL P 25 Dec 1959 01 Feb 2003 (P) 43 (FO) (none specified) Washington 531-70-2569 - Houston we're looking good!

David M Brown DOD Feb1 2003 -BROWN, DAVID M 16 Apr 1956 01 Feb 2003 (P) 46 (FO) (none specified) Virginia
226-88-7509 - We are now at T minus 1

Laurel Clark DOD Feb 1 2003 - CLARK, LAUREL B 10 Mar 1961 01 Feb 2003 (P) 41 (FO) (none specified) New York 112-48-8681 Liftoff!

2 non-americans were also on board.

If my memory serves me well, this is showing better than the last time I looked!

Some Texas residents recovered some of the debris, ignoring the warnings, and attempted to sell it on the online auction site eBay, starting at $10,000. The auction was quickly removed, but auctions for Columbia merchandise such as programs, photographs and patches, went up dramatically in value immediately following the disaster, creating a surge of Columbia-related listings.[21] A three-day amnesty offered for looted shuttle debris brought in hundreds of illegally recovered pieces.[22] There were approximately 40,000 recovered pieces of debris that were never identified. The largest pieces recovered include the front landing gear,[23] a window frame, and a large section of the nose cone.[24]

Despite some initial fears[37] after announcement in the news that Columbia suffered an explosion over Palestine......Texas and that the addition of the first Israeli astronaut to the crew had made the Columbia a more likely target for terrorists, there is no evidence to support any theory that terrorism was involved.

Brutal Metal wrote:OK so NOW there's gonna be a discussion on the Challenger crash being Fake and none of those Astronauts dying? PLEASE Don't even!!

uh? Why not?

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

These last questions are too hard for me to properly answer to.
The following clues didn't convince me (which doesn't mean I am convinced of the videos being real, only that the clues were not decisive for me -- as you know I am kind of slow):
Where the cameras were placed? (Why not somewhere on the ground?)
Do such lenses or programmed-moving telescopes exist (well, if they do, NASA should be able to afford them, or design them, I guess)
Does it seems likely that they filmed the ascent of the shuttle always the same way? (No -- but I don't know enough -- Maybe the shuttle does ascent always the same way)
Why one shot is darker and the other is brighter? (I don't know. Just to break balls, I could say that it could happen if the camera faces a portion of the sky to the west rather than the east. After sunset the sky is often dark on one side and brighter on the other. Maybe a telescope accentuates the effect)

The video with the vertical line in the middle i find more convincing of manipulation or rendering... As to the pipe turning all bright, I submit to your proven knowledge of videos, Simon, if you say it is impossible.
I am way in the back but still very curious to follow this all the way.

As to the challenger disaster, I am sure it is a classic of fakery. So much so that maybe we should move it to a dedicated thread...?