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.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by reel.deal »

yeah. ...which is also why you cant see any stars from the moon !!!

* * * * * * *

Patrick Moore asks the alleged Apollo 11 crew could you actually see the stars

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyjppxh2-C0
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Psychotic apollo11 press conference RKO

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifx0Yx8vlrY
:P
astronut
Banned
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:49 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by astronut »

reel.deal wrote:yeah. ...which is also why you cant see any stars from the moon !!!
The lunar surface is quite bright, you can't get dark adapted at all unless you make a deliberate effor to shield yourself from all the indirect light reflected by the moon's surface. Some astronauts took time to do just that, others did not. Nonetheless, short exposures of daylit objects will not show stars. Even images of ISS from the ground do not show stars.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by simonshack »

Dear Astronut,

( You are kindly required to introduce yourself here: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=838 )

1: Firstly, I notice that you're seriously fond of the word "seriously":
Astronut wrote:

"You're seriously suggesting the space shuttle is fake and the landings are somehow digitally created?"

"Did you seriously not notice how the shuttle's three main engines are offset from the center of gravity?"

"I seriously can't even believe that anyone would think this sort of thing was impossible or unusual."
I will spare you my thoughts regarding the use of such a word - in the context of NASA's activities. <_<

2: Secondly, your lame and tiresome justification (stubbornly proposed by NASA and their apologists for over 4 decades) of why stars are not seen in the NASA imagery is quite frankly excruciatingly silly. No one buys that shit anymore. Everyone owns a camera today - and stars WILL be captured even by cheap ones - notwithstanding brighter light sources.

3: Thirdly, why did you start off here by quoting several previous posts/pictures of mine - without even addressing their contents? As it is, your first post quotes the following issues: "PUZZLING PIXELCRASHES" and "INEXPLICABLE ARTIFACTS". Can you provide an explanation for these two photographic anomalies?

4: Fourthly: Please know that I am willing to consider that SOME SORT OF MOCK-UP SHUTTLE-LOOK-ALIKE/ROCKETS might have been launched from the Kennedy Space Center during the last 30 years. What happened next - as they rose up to the skies and disappeared from view - is an entirely different matter.

The point I have been making in my Space Shuttle (and ISS) research is that NASA keeps showing us countless absurd imagery which anyone equipped with a functional brain cannot fail to question. I actually appreciate your coming here and try to offer rational explanations for all of this. Let us take it step by step and proceed (as you should appreciate) in a SERIOUS manner, ok?

You may start by properly responding to point 3 - as expounded above.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by reel.deal »

astronut wrote:
The lunar surface is quite bright...
i know... those 500 watt 10000 lumens halogen bulbs are dazzling,
last ones i bought weighed in at around a hefty £20 a pop...
great for illuminating big dark exhibition spaces though,
only need 2 or 3 to floodlight 200m sq floorspace...

:)

the power of the sun in the palm of my hand

;)
astronut
Banned
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:49 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by astronut »

simonshack wrote: 1: Firstly, I notice that you're seriously fond of the word "seriously":
I don't care.
simonshack wrote: 2: Secondly, your lame and tiresome justification (stubbornly proposed by NASA and their apologists for over 4 decades) of why stars are not seen in the NASA imagery is quite frankly excruciatingly silly. No one buys that shit anymore. Everyone owns a camera today - and stars WILL be captured even by cheap ones.
Strawman argument, cost has nothing to do with it. Exposure length does. The exposure required to record daylit objects is far too fast to record stars. For the same reason, images that properly exposure ISS even with telescopes on the ground still do not show stars.
simonshack wrote: 3: Thirdly, why did you start off here by quoting several previous posts/pictures of mine - without even addressing their contents? As it is, your first post quotes the following issues: "PUZZLING PIXELCRASHES" and "INEXPLICABLE ARTIFACTS". Can you provide an explanation for these two photographic anomalies?
You ridiculously claim that the things you call "pixel crashes" are evidence of a hoax. You seem to be obsessed with digital stream corruption as being evidence of a "hoax," but I already know for a fact that it's not a hoax because I saw it with my own eyes.
simonshack wrote: 4: Fourthly: Please know that I am willing to consider that SOME SORT OF MOCK-UP SHUTTLE-LOOK-ALIKE/ROCKETS might have been launched from the Kennedy Space Center during the last 30 years. What happened next - as they rose up to the skies and disappeared from view - is an entirely different matter.
Yet you claimed the landings were somehow faked and that digital corruption was evidence of that, which is absolutely absurd since people like me were there in person and saw it with our own eyes. Furthermore, I tracked the shuttle and ISS in orbit, long after the launch was completed. I've personally witnessed the launches themselves as well, which again you ridiculously claimed were faked somehow, but the evidence you present only demonstrates your own ignorance and flies in the face of the things I myself have seen.
simonshack wrote: The point I have been making in my Space Shuttle (and ISS) research is that NASA keeps showing us countless absurd imagery which anyone equipped with a functional brain cannot fail to question.
There's nothing absurd about it. Again, my own images of ISS show no stars. Why do you think that is?
astronut
Banned
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:49 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by astronut »

reel.deal wrote:Image
Exposure Time: 300/10 sec.
Yup, long exposure. Thanks for proving my point!
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by lux »

When one has a monopoly on space “science,” one can “scientifically” explain anything -– even men flying to the moon in a tinfoil spaceship with a hull so thin a man could poke his finger through it.

And, when holes are found in their explanations, they simply invent more "science" to explain them.

It's an endless, bottomless pit of circular arguments and lunacy (pun intended). :lol:

My suggestion:
Image
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by simonshack »

*

Dear Astronut,

I kindly asked you to introduce yourself here: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=838
Please do so - as every new member is required to give a minimum of background of him/herself. Thanks.

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

To keep saying that stars will not be captured on camera due to lens-aperture issues will only make you sound like a fool. A fool? Well - perhaps worse: how about a NASA apologist-infiltrator?

Now, since you have opted to dodge issues such as the point 3 (mentioned in my post above) - I will ask you to hold my hand as we go through a series of questions. Are you ready? Anyway, here goes QUESTION 1:

Can you explain how the front end of the Space Shuttle could possibly rely on ONE SINGLE BOLT to be attached on its fuel tank?
Image

See. I have worked for many years in Formula 1 motor racing circles - and had the opportunity to visit state-of-the-art wind tunnels, where qualified engineers test the structural resistance of the bolts used to secure the rear (and front) wings of those racing cars. Of course, they do all this very expensive research in order to make sure these wings/spoilers DO NOT DETACH FROM THE RACING CAR - thus causing almost certain death to their racing drivers. Now, these racing cars only travel at a speed of about 200mph - while the Space Shuttle reportedly travels (through the atmosphere) at - reportedly - over 10 times that speed. To be sure, none of these racing car wings are secured by ONE SINGLE BOLT. In fact, they are secured by many titanium bolts (on the carbonfibre wings) but they still occasionally get ripped off - if exposed to exceptional stress.

So - do you SERIOUSLY believe that NASA has relied on ONE SINGLE BOLT to launch scores of astronots up in the sky - for thirty-odd years (135 missions) - and not ONCE has that bolt sheared off and sent the astronots to Heaven/or Hell?
astronut
Banned
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:49 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by astronut »

simonshack wrote:*

Dear Astronut,

I kindly asked you to introduce yourself here: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=838
Please do so - as every new member is required to give a minimum of background of him/herself. Thanks.
There. Told you all you need to know.
To keep saying that stars will not be captured on camera due to lens-aperture issues will only make you sound like a fool.
What part of "exposure setting" do you not understand? I've been doing astrophotography for over 10 years, I know what it takes to record stars and I know for a fact that stars will not show up in the short exposures required to properly expose ISS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E6bQcvT9W4
A fool? Well - perhaps worse: how about a NASA apologist-infiltrator?
You know someone has gone off the deep end when they have to start accusing regular amateur astronomers of being "government agents."
Now, since you have opted to dodge issues
I've done nothing of the sort, why have YOU chosen to dodge a direct question? I will ask you again, why do stars not appear when taking pictures of ISS using telescopes on the ground? This is now the second time I've had to ask you.
Can you explain how the front end of the Space Shuttle could possibly rely on ONE SINGLE BOLT to be attached on its fuel tank?
There are three attachment points, one forward and two aft. It worked, I saw it work for myself.
So - do you SERIOUSLY believe that NASA has relied on ONE SINGLE BOLT to launch scores of astronots up in the sky
Why are you lying? There were three attachment points and the two aft attachment points used both bolts and frangible nuts. Why do you lie?
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1292
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by reel.deal »

Astronut, these are some great photos you linked, & if they're yours; respect.
either way, you obviously know your stuff...


Waxing Gibbous Moon - 5/13/08
Taken with a Canon XTi at the prime focus of an 8" LX200 Schmidt-Cassegrain
Telescope at f/10. 22 images stacked in Registax.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/astropics/ ... otostream/

M3 - 5/13/08
Globular Cluster of 500,000 stars in the constellation Canes Venatici.
5x120 sec unguided exposures at ISO 800. Taken with a Canon XTi at the
prime focus of an 8" LX200 Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope. Drago tonemapped
with Qtpfsgui.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/astropics/ ... otostream/

IRIS Filtered Orion Nebula (3-8-08)
I went back and used IRIS (http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/us/iris/iris.htm)
to filter out the ambient light from my latest Orion Nebula image, which
allowed me to bring out more nebulosity without bringing out too much noise.
10x90 sec unguided exposures at ISO 1600. Taken with a Canon XTI at the prime
focus of an 8" LX200 Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope (F/10).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/astropics/ ... otostream/

22 images stacked in Registax./ 5x120 sec unguided exposures at ISO 800./
10x90 sec unguided exposures at ISO 1600.


i like it.
if this is what it takes to authentically replicate what the naked eye sees...
then why are NA$A too dumb to EVER do it themselves ?!?

why cant NA$A stack long exposures to replicate the authentic EARTH IN SPACE WITH STARS view ?

where is THE 1 AUTHENTIC LOOKING IMAGE OF EARTH FROM SPACE ?!?
The composite with EARTHS AUTHENTIC STELLAR BACKDROP ?!?


Earth @ Night/Earth 1/2 Day-1/2 Night - "SIX HOURS" - STARS DONT MOVE ?!?!?
Image
http://www.visualphotos.com/artist/2x10490/nasa__noaa

Africa at night. Satellite image of the Earth at night, set against a background of stars, centred on the continent of Africa. North is at top. City lights (yellow) show areas of dense population.
RF Image no. F0010403

Africa, night-day satellite image. This composite image of the Earth is set against a background of stars, and is centred on the continent of Africa. North is at top. The left-hand half of the globe is at night.
RF Image no. F0010410


Photo by NASA / NOAA / Science Photo Library RF (click to view more images of this artist) :huh:
load of shit...

NA$A/Apollo/HiRISE etc etc has NO REAL PHOTO OF EARTHS' ACTUAL REAL STELLAR BACKDROP ?
NASA has 'artists composites' ?!?

so, NA$A cannot produce a single photo or composite stack of photos that show the Earths true stellar backdrop ?
far beyond the bounds of truly pathetic, & into the hyperspace realms of the idiotic & psychotic...

NA$A say the MOON LANDINGS are mans' greatest achievement,
THE LACK OF A REALISTIC IMAGE OF EARTH IN SPACE SURROUNDED BY CORRECT STARS IS MORE STUNNING BY FAR.

show us, amateur astrology photographer, NA$As' photo/photo-composite of the Earth with the Earths true backdrop;
google dont have one...
nor do NA$A,
nor do anyone...

it dont exist !!!

:o

HOW MANY NA$A TRILLIONS DOES IT TAKE TO COMPOSE AN AUTHENTIC PHOTO/COMPOSITE OF EARTH IN SPACE AMONG STARS.
NONE. THEY "DIDNT BOTHER". EVER.
NOT EVEN CLOSE !!!
"UNREAL !!!"

ever wonder what the Apollo crews saw when they looked back at the Earth, on the way to the moon ?
FORGET IT !!!
ever wonder how amazing the Earth looks swathed with dazzling Nebula Galaxies, The Milky Way, Orion's Belt ?
YOU'RE HAVING A LAUGH !!!
ever wonder what Earth among the Stars really looks like, to the naked eye ?
DREAM ON, SUCKER !!!
KIDS... THERE IS... NO REAL PHOTO OF THE 'WHOLE FULL' EARTH AMONG STARS. :huh: :blink: :o
:(
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by lux »

reel.deal wrote: ever wonder what the Apollo crews saw when they looked back at the Earth, on the way to the moon ?
This?
Image

:lol:
astronut
Banned
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:49 pm

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by astronut »

whatsgoingon wrote: The one or three tiny bolts
The bolts are anything but tiny (and actually there were more than just three bolts, there were also frangible nuts at the aft attachment points). Ever seen them in person? I have. Ever watched them actually work at keeping the shuttle attached to the external tank and likewise keep the SRBs strapped to the ET until separation? I did. Guess what? They worked!
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by fbenario »

Well, this is just about as believable as everything else they announce.
NASA discovers World of Work

"SCIENTISTS have discovered the World of Work, previously believed to be just a phrase used by politicians and careers advisors.

The World of Work, also known at JG1214B, is an Earth-like planet whose several billion residents not only enjoy full employment but also seem to really like their jobs.

A NASA spokesman said: "This is a huge boon for both the careers industry and parents whose bong-addled children have no aspirations beyond being in Rizzle Kicks.

"The World of Work is proof that there are jobs out there in the universe, albeit several million light years away."

Inhabitants of the World of Work - dubbed Workians - attend well-designed, airy offices for 40 hours per week, where they do interesting things on Mac-like computers.

In their spare time they visit Earth-style leisure complexes where they buy soft furnishings and watch films starring a being who looks like Adam Sandler.
...
Cosmologist Roy Hobbs said: "Although initial impressions are positive, it's unclear whether inhabitants of JG1214B actually have any real fun, ever.

"It seems their leisure activities may simply be ways of temporarily obliterating the tedium which dominates their weekly routine. Also, in conversation the Workians are quite dull.

"I mean, it's not like any of them are in cool bands or really good stuff like that."

He added: "We may, in time, be forced to consider whether the World of Work is actually rather shit."

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/scie ... 202234931/
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by simonshack »

ADMIN NOTICE: I have moved two posts by our member "reeldeal" to the Moon Hoax thread- as they were more pertinent to that topic.

I have also made a post over at the Moon Hoax thread - which I hope our new member 'astronut' will care to respond to. Thanks!
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Unread post by fbenario »

NASA Announces Future Shuttle Launches Will Be Sudden And Without Warning

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin announced during a press conference Thursday that the space-shuttle program would address criticisms about delays and setbacks by placing the shuttles on unannounced and impromptu missions. "Those who believe we lack initiative will be happy to learn that, from now on, we go at the drop of a hat," Griffin said. "Whatever experiments are on board when the engines start, those are the ones we do. Astronauts will be permanently quartered in the ready room, and will be notified when they hear the countdown start at, say, 20. It's part of NASA's exciting new..." The rest of Griffin's announcement was inaudible in the overwhelming sound of the Shuttle Discovery, whose crew decided to launch during his speech.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/nasa-a ... -sud,5125/
Post Reply