ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

[I@N]

Nice picture from Bryan Rapoza.


The bad thing is that people believe it's a real picture...

Here's the description of how he made it in three steps in his blog.
http://www.bryanrapoza.com/blog/2011/09 ... ht-launch/

[simonshack]

*

Hmm... So the other day, I stumbled upon this comment from a GOOGLE EARTH user:

"Here is the kennedy space center. There's apparently a space shuttle parked outside - but if you zoom in, it's clearly been digitally edited on the map. The aircraft has significantly more resolution than the surrounding area. I wonder what the policy is on editing the map? I wonder how much of the other areas are edited? Food for thought."

http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.p ... mber=13193

"Food for thought?" So I decided to look it up - but alas, I didn't find the "space shuttle parked outside".
However, this is what I found by navigating the GOOGLE EARTH imagery around the Kennedy Space Center:

The KENNEDY SPACE CENTER:


THE SPACE SHUTTLE LAUNCH PAD (1):


THE SPACE SHUTTLE LAUNCH PAD (2):


Food for thought...indeed.

[reel.deal]

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-265xTz2zA


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qwaOB74an8

[astronut]

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)

You're seriously suggesting the space shuttle is fake and the landings are somehow digitally created? Let's start with these last three comments of yours. First of all, there are many support vehicles that drive up to the shuttle as it lands. They start moving towards it even before wheel stop just in case there's an emergency and they need to get the astronauts out quickly. That's not a mystery. The drag chute reflection is due to a mirage on the hot runway, you've seriously never seen an inferior mirage before? And lastly, your whole gif animation is sped up from the real speed seen at landing, thus the seagull appears to be flying faster than normal. I've been to the landings, I've seen them with my own eyes, they're not fake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4QmSMOhWPs

[astronut]

Dear all,
QUESTION 3: And this one is for the rocket scientists on board: what sort of thrust/physical forces make it drift sideways? My common sense suggests to me that this is a little strange; I would have thought that, with all that horsepower in the butt, the ENDEAVOUR would lift off in a perfectly vertical trajectory.

Did you seriously not notice how the shuttle's three main engines are offset from the center of gravity? Yes, it will induce an initial lateral motion. Ultimately this lateral force becomes a vertical force once the shuttle pitches over and rolls into a heads-down position.

[astronut]

Maybe they have some telescope with the path already timed in so that it automatically follows the rocket.

You're getting warmer. It's called video tracking, even amateur equipment these days is capable of doing it:
http://www.optictracker.com/Home.html
I seriously can't even believe that anyone would think this sort of thing was impossible or unusual. A camera that uses a permanent mount like the ones at the pads (yes, the mounts are permanent and just sit there year after year) will always see the same angle of the shuttle when it's launched to the same target, namely ISS on its ascending node.

The lack of amateur imagery is always puzzling.

What lack?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/astropics/ ... hotostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/astropics/ ... hotostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/astropics/ ... hotostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/astropics/ ... hotostream
Also, in response to claims that the images of the shuttle or other spacecraft lifting off sometimes show darker skies than what really should be seen, that is an effect of the focal length, focal ratio, and exposure settings of the camera. The last image I linked to there is from STS-119, which despite not actually being a night launch ( http://spacecoastblogger.com/wp-content ... -119_1.jpg ), looked quite dark in my images due to the long focal length telescope I was using to photograph it and the exposure setting used to capture the brightly lit shuttle. The end result is a very darkened sky in my images compared to widefield shots.

[astronut]

THE NEBULOUS MILKY WAY IN ALL ITS DAZZLING GLORY...


PRACTISING WITH THE ALL-IMPORTANT 'STAR-CAPTURING' NIKONS...

Short exposures required to capture daylight bright objects like the shuttle and ISS do not show stars. This is true even when tracking ISS from the ground. The short exposures needed to properly expose ISS do not show stars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E6bQcvT9W4
In order to capture stars along with the shuttle, ISS, and/or earth, they have to take the picture on the night side of earth and use long exposures.

[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


Psychotic apollo11 press conference RKO

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifx0Yx8vlrY

[astronut]

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]

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]

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]

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

I don't care.

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.

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.

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.

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]

Exposure Time: 300/10 sec.

Yup, long exposure. Thanks for proving my point!

[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).

My suggestion:

[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?


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?