Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception

warriorhun wrote:Dear simonshack, nonhocapito and all,

While we are at it, what is the score on the 1986 Challenger explosion?
I was a little kid in '86, but I still remember the day.
It was transmitted live only on CNN, and we know CNN probably did not start media fakery on 9/11...

Here is a video from youtube on the Challenger tragedy from CNN(sorry, very poor quality):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4JOjcDFtBE

There were horrified witnessing crowds scenes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd7dxmBL ... re=related

And amateur video surfacing later:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41jq_5lt ... re=related

What do you think?

i've been thinking about this too. i was 14 and watched it live in class. knowing what i do today i have to believe it was fake.

*

"WONDER BOLT" - the movie



(All above photography courtesy of NASA)

Folks, I think I'll start a Heiwa-style $1 million-challenge for the engineers of this world - to this effect:

"Provide an academically sound safety/reliability report to prove convincingly that:
- To guarantee that (all the) Space Shuttles' front ends hung onto the main fuel tank, only one (remotely-controlled) bolt would have sufficed.

(Footnotes to your study should ideally include interviews/testimonies of Space Shuttle astronauts and their families as to their thoughts/opinions/worries/prayers concerning the solidity of that bolt.)

Official NASA video of 'WONDER BOLT' being remotely unplugged from the ENDEAVOUR SPACE SHUTTLE:
Believe, believe!

Yes - you're fully entitled to think that this is the most stupid screw you have seen in your entire lifetime.
Quite honestly now, dear fellow researchers: if this simple but fundamental issue gets somehow dodged or sidelined - I'll go and comfort Father Wiliam of Ockham - as he must be painfully rolling around in his grave. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

As someone who has been called 'mad' a little too often, I hereby take the liberty to call 'mad' any individual who thinks that the entire Space Shuttle program (as sold to us by the real madmen of this world) could have possibly relied on ONE SINGLE BOLT to ensure the safety and success of 30 years of space travels.

- "Over and out, Houston!"
- (*buzzzzzz*...*crackle*)...."Happy!"

-'This is one small bolt for man. One giant screw for mankind.'

Unbelievable work again Simon and co.
Imagine the multitudes who must have been
in on this 'out of this world' con over the years.
Keeping 9/11 under wraps must have been a piece of cake after this.
There truly is nothing sacred left.

Beam me up and away Scotty.

*crackle* there could some kind of expanding thing that is put inside the tank with a mechanism. (Hhhheeeiiiii !) When you see the bolt pulled out, the expanding thing contract; and I would put in something that push out the expansion-plug from the seat. (Hhhheeeiiiii !) what? Yes, a circle of fixed teeth, that go into the socket would strengthen the mechanism, as the expanding-thing then only has to hold for forces perpendicular to the tank surface.

Note that vibration (during take-off) increase the strength requirement (compared to without vibrations) with approx 3x or 4x or similar. Note that, during take-off, the force increase due to acceleration. The mass of the Tank cannot be argued; the fuel is in the tank!

(Hhhheeeiiiii !) No? sorry, you will have to orbit a while unattended, we have a party to attend on Wednesday 1/6.
Yes? In the 60:s, when all tape-recorders where unstable it make good sense to include a tone generator into the voice broadcast. Do they still use it ?

warriorhun wrote:Dear simonshack, nonhocapito and all,

While we are at it, what is the score on the 1986 Challenger explosion?
I was a little kid in '86, but I still remember the day.
It was transmitted live only on CNN, and we know CNN probably did not start media fakery on 9/11...
(...)
There were horrified witnessing crowds scenes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd7dxmBL ... re=related

And amateur video surfacing later:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41jq_5lt ... re=related

What do you think?

Dear Warriorhun,

Earlier on in this thread, I posted an 'explosion plume' comparison - between the one seen on TV and the one proposed in that 'amateur video' (released 24 years later...). Check it out: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 1#p2353941

As for that CNN video with the horrified witnesses (nice find, btw!) - let me explain:
See, that woman in the centre of this shot is horrified because a giant, brown cockroach keeps clamping onto her nose.
The ugly insect then leaps right onto the nose of the man who takes his hat off - and then hops onto his wife's nose ! Yeech!


Now - if you watch the full video with attention, you'll see that the camera pans over to another grandstand area to the right of the cameraman; but those people are staring up in the sky in a wholly different direction! Anyways, yes - It would certainly appear that the 'Challenger disaster' was yet another hoax to "rally the American hearts around their President - and the heroic NASA endeavours". As you can see, it is emerging, ever more clearly, that NASA is nothing but a Great Hoaxing Enterprise deceiving the world on a daily basis since its very inception.

Here, Dan Rather at play: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec-zLmO2 ... re=related
Wow!...534,900 exploding US gallons of Liquid Oxygen/Hydrogen fail to destroy this Solid Rocket Booster! NASA sure builds tough shit !!!


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

pshea38 wrote: -'This is one small bolt for man. One giant screw for mankind.'

Lol. Perfectly put!

pshea38 wrote: Unbelievable work again Simon and co.

On behalf of all contributors, thanks! I trust/hope you really meant the contrary, though...

pshea38 wrote: Keeping 9/11 under wraps must have been a piece of cake after this.

Indeed!...

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

Tufa wrote:*crackle* there could some kind of expanding thing that is put inside the tank with a mechanism. (Hhhheeeiiiii !)
(...)
(Hhhheeeiiiii !) No? sorry, you will have to orbit a while unattended, we have a party to attend on Wednesday 1/6.

Really enjoying this thread! Thanks for keeping spirits high in the face of unspeakable mass deception!

Challenger and Columbia NASA = Need Another Seven Astronaughts
Seeing this NASA = Need Another Seven Actors

pshea38 wrote: - 'one small bolt for man. One giant screw for mankind.'

Space Shuttle Booster Rocket Test Fire -


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovmdOYb7i64

NASA TEST-ROCKET 2010 VS NASA MO0N-ROCKETS 1971/'72


NASA - Methane engine test fire -

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjoY_cSmQ70


Apollo 15 lifts-off from the Moon - ...@ 00:52 >

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMBcLg0DkLA

Lunar module blast off and leaves the Moon (Apollo 17) -

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obd_jTO66-0

brianv wrote:

Challenger and Columbia NASA = Need Another Seven Astronaughts
Seeing this NASA = Need Another Seven Actors

In the illuminating light of the revelations of this thread,
Cockroach nose lady's reaction is akin to some football fans reaction,
whose sides striker has just missed a sitter.

'For shits sake--he was in the clear--he had the whole goal open before him--(n)as(a)shole.'

Vender in the stands--'Ham anyone. Get your Ham.'

simonshack wrote:Now this is a truly priceless one ...

My opinion (right now, that is!) is that one or two of you might got into orbit on a rather weak evidence! So, I will try to make a contribution, and I am so very sorry that I cannot offer more that my "common sense" (?). Unfortunately, Simon & friends have run up 6 pages. I hope to generate counter-arguments; we find more, new, and better facts; we look on the matter from different views; we see how we evaluate the Evidence in the end. Agree??

A lightning strike is, obviously, something that have the potential to mess up a space flight. I far as I can recall, a lightning strike into a normal commercial air-plane is not dangerous. It is also rather obvious, that suitable counter-measures has been taken. A lightning strike is also (normally) concentrated to the highest object in the area. In the picture, above, the strike take place behind the tower, and it is very far behind! It is not at all close! It is just merely a cool picture! It is even possible, that it is real!

I don't find it suspicious or strange (... we are talking American engineers, here!) that a little bad weather delay the launch.

simonshack wrote:Wow! NASA probably has a camera on a tripod just standing there, year after year !
So then I got really curious - wondering what the Apollo11 launch site looked like back in 1969 (42 years ago):

Yes, I think there is! I also think that the lunch-pad might be managed by some Apollo-loony, who don't like changes or improvements on the launch-pad. So it just stay just the same! 40 years is a bit, but not that much.

simonshack wrote:*
So I looked up what the 2011 Endeavour launch looked like. I found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YBWaFIs1Rc
2011 ENDEAVOUR
Wow! NASA probably has a camera on a tripod just standing there, year after year !
So then I got really curious - wondering what the Apollo11 launch site looked like back in 1969 (42 years ago):

Amazing, isn't it?

How about this: Is it possible to compare the relative sizes of the rockets with the relative sizes of published physical dimensions?

Tufa, I will let you know that in 6 pages there was not agreement on every clue submitted, on the contrary. Please read through before complaining about a plebiscite that isn't there. The research is at an early stage and understandably not all clues encountered favor. Normal collective research paths. So why complain?

As to the sizes of the rockets, in this admittedly rudimentary image scaling (1 pixel = 1m) the sizes seem to be way off. As saturn V is 110 pixels long -- solid rocket booster should be 45 pixels, not ~35.

Tufa wrote:A fun thing, here:
If we go back to this link Space Shuttle Endeavour/STS-134's final roll-out to the launch pad of space-travel preparation... You may compare this version of moon-rocket start.

This comes from David McGowan, Wagging the Moondoggie.

"Woman in the moon"... great link!

The German feature film, released by filmmaker Fritz Lang in 1929, provided the blueprint for the heavily ritualized launch procedures that were adopted for the Apollo program. As can be seen in the screen caps below, all of the elements were there: the unnecessary vertical construction of the spaceship in a specially built hangar; the grand opening of the massive hangar doors; the excruciatingly slow roll-out of the upright rocketship from the hangar to the launch pad; the raucous crowds watching the spectacle live; the now ubiquitous countdown; even the shedding of two stages of the ship. In other words, the only elements of the performance that the public ever actually witnessed were all lifted directly from a forty-year-old silent film.

As the pirate bay is forbidden in italy and other countries (no comment there), here is an alternative link to that torrent: http://www.demonoid.me/files/details/1132929/21207159/

Anyway GREAT NEWS, as I just noticed that David McGowan has published a brand new chapter of the "Wagging the moondoggie" series (May 12, 2011)!
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo14.html
(and also added a chapter to his captivating Laurel Canyon installment, here: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr110.html)

simonshack wrote:Well, let me say this once again: I am only asking a few questions, allright?

And simon continue -- We see this picture:


With reference to this film, we see that after approx one minute the altitude would be about 6.5km. I then estimate the camera elevation based upon the flag and the flag pole. The elevation angle of the picture seems to be lower than 45 degrees, possibly about 3/4 or 37 degrees. In that case the camera would be approx 11 km away from the rocket. It is a clear, sunny morning, and we obtain a good picture of the rocket from a distance of 11 km.

Now, the height of the rocket would be 110.6 m (363.0 feet) That will give us a view angle of 110.6m/11000m, and if I now estimate that the flag is approx 10m from the camera, as an example ... ehh .... well... the height of the flag seems to be equal to the size of the rocket. And so I get that the height of the flag, if it is at 10m ... ggg-- 0.10m or 4 inches. Right.
They have glued in the flag!
I'll guess that most of you known that from the start, didn't you? You could also imagine aiming for this photo, 10m away from a 4 inch flag. Position your camera exactly. The speed of the rocket is 300m/s, or 2.7 length of a rocket each second, so you better practice the shot in advance -- Use a film camera!
So, the picture is a "poetic composition" of a rocket and a flag. A nice picture. Very Patriotic. I Love it!

[EDIT] Ohhhnoooo! OK, on the Rocket, the light is coming from the right. But on the top of the flagpole, the light reflection is to the left.