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.

Re: ENDEAVOUR - & other modern NASA efforts

Postby simonshack on May 27th, 2011, 3:43 pm

*

A FEW TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

I would now like to make some considerations of non-photographical nature. So far, I have submitted a series of questions, mostly concerning imagery oddities and aberrations, most of which are still unsolved. But if we are going to entertain a serious, no-nonsense discourse about this 'marvel of modern engineering' known as the Space Shuttle, we should also look at some technical aspects that we can - without being rocket scientists - easily assess and evaluate. As nonhocapito wrote, debating technical aspects is hazardous ground for non-engineers (although I believe we have a few on board this forum) but that cannot stop us from using our grey matter to assess certain issues which require only the application of logic and common sense. I don't think we should entirely shy away from technical considerations just because we don't have NASA qualifications - and stay frozen in awe at what we imagine must be the top engineering hub on this planet. I mean, for Heaven's sake, THIS THING is what NASA and their engineers purportedly pieced together to send to the moon:

Image

For all of 42 years, NASA has been telling us that this ridiculous piece of 'engineering' went to the moon and back (well, to be precise, the top part of this contraption supposedly ignited some rockets and went back to the Apollo command module orbiting the moon - allegedly piloted by Michael Collins). A bit like this :

(Official NASA "footage" of the Apollo 17 returning to the Command module orbiting the moon):
Image



Most people on this planet have bought this excruciatingly silly and outrageous lie - uncritically accepting it at face value. And they did all this with FAKE IMAGERY - I hope we can all agree with this. My point here should be clear: as we now take a due, critical look at the Space Shuttle program, let's keep in mind that we are dealing with a sorry gang of shameless, manic-compulsive liars. And since they faked the moon landing AND 9/11 with counterfeit imagery (as demonstrated by September Clues) - are we to be blamed now for verifying whether they might have kept staging further 'Hollywood' deceptions?

Now, I am not going to boast of any particular engineering qualifications of mine, but I spent several years in close contact with the motorsport arena, visiting Formula 1 factories, wind tunnels and so forth. As you may know, Formula 1 research and development is a hugely intensive, state-of-the-art engineering affair, a constant tech-race to stay ahead of the opposition; some of the foremost research areas in F1 are, of course, aerodynamics and mechanical design - with ever more refined and sophisticated materials/composites/carbon fibres/titanium/etc being employed to build ever lighter, stronger and performing racing cars. One thing you can count on is that, whenever the aviation/space industry comes up with some new technological advances, you will see it applied in Formula 1 - faster than you can say "snatched". However, for all the top-notch technology employed - and under the stress of speed (aerodynamic forces) and vibrations (mechanical forces), Formula 1 cars will break apart, bolts will come loose and ailerons will, now and then, shear off. So let's just keep this in mind and proceed.

So, the first Space Shuttle design issue I would like to address - and it's something which has long been nagging me - has to do with aerodynamics and mechanical/structural design. One aerodynamic notion we can learn from Formula 1 racing is that, in order to increase the downforce of a racing car (so as to make it 'stick' to the race track), you need to have a so-called venturi tunnel underneath it. Basically, it is like an inverted airplane wing: instead of generating lift, it generates downforce by creating an area of low pressure under the car. Here is an illustration of such a design:

Image

Now, in the Space Shuttle design and its placement on top of the big fuel tank, there is nothing to suggest such downforce being generated. On the contrary: the shuttle's underside is basically a flat area - and its pitch is slightly tilting upwards. Moreover, of course, the shuttle has wings just like an airplane which certainly generate lift - not downforce:

Image

It is therefore easy to imagine what sort of massive aerodynamic lift forces, at Mach+ speeds, must be withstood by the anchoring of the shuttle on its fuel tank. And, with all due caution, I would submit that the brunt of these lift forces are withstood by the two frontal anchoring rods.

Or more precisely, by THIS lone WONDERBOLT: :o

Image

Quite honestly, this particular - uh - engineering solution to keep the shuttle from detaching itself from the tank during its 10.000+ mph ascent, offensively defies whatever humble notions of mechanics/aerodynamics I may have (correctly or incorrectly) assimilated in the course of my lifetime. The pull forces exerted on that single, lone bolt must be phenomenal; to make matters worse, not only do we have one single bolt 'securing' the front end of the Shuttle - as well as the lives of these astronaughts and the success of all these shuttle launches, it is also a moving part ! (a fact which, notoriously, makes it even more vulnerable to disfunction/breakage - titanium or not titanium).

I'll stop here my technical considerations for now, but allow me to add just one more which dawned upon me as nonhocapito helped me understand what THIS alarmingly bobbing/shaking object is (supposed to be).
Image

Well, it is clearly supposed to be that pipe over which the 'on-board camera' is meant to be placed:

Image

But then again, we are dealing with FAKE IMAGERY - and I submit that this next gif conclusively settles the matter.
ONLY the pipe ring is moving here - NOTHING else. And no - no changes in focal length/zoom settings of the 'camera lens' are observed:
Image
(Tip: just put your cursor over any given area of the picture. Check it out. Note: The two frames are of course, taken from the same shuttle launch video.)

I have now done my fair share of work to understand what the Shuttle program was/is all about. Whatever rockets have been witnessed shooting up in the Florida skies cannot be the same as those shuttles aired on TV - this much is clear. All other considerations are now open for debate - as to the possible alternative scenarios that might have played out. I am going to take a short break - (off to the beach!) - and hope this discussion will evolve and be enriched with new discoveries.

Happy digging - and warm hugs to all valiant researchers !

Simon Shack
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6431
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - & other modern NASA efforts

Postby simonshack on May 27th, 2011, 5:00 pm

*

Oh, before I go - here is the 7th shot I've found showing identical ignition dynamics (this one from 'Columbia, in 2003):

Image
(The question mark is meant to say: "can you believe they would send up a shuttle in a state of disrepair?")

Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6431
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - & other modern NASA efforts

Postby nonhocapito on May 27th, 2011, 6:08 pm

simonshack wrote:Now, in the Space Shuttle design and its placement on top of the big fuel tank, there is nothing to suggest such downforce being generated. On the contrary: the shuttle's underside is basically a flat area - and its pitch is slightly tilting upwards. Moreover, of course, the shuttle has wings just like an airplane which certainly generate lift - not downforce (...)
It is therefore easy to imagine what sort of massive aerodynamic lift forces, at Mach+ speeds, must be withstood by the anchoring of the shuttle on its fuel tank. And, with all due caution, I would submit that the brunt of these lift forces are withstood by the two frontal anchoring rods.


The first thing I am capable to add here is that I have read or heard that during the re-enter the Shuttle acts like a glider, not as an airplane. In other words it comes down without engines, and for this reason, the captain is given a choice between a number of landing locations within the range of the shuttle, that he can reach depending on the winds etc (if the home base is unreachable, the shuttle is later mounted on the jumbo jet and brought back in that fancy).
So I am guessing that the belly of the shuttle is so designed (flat and as wide as possible) to allow for gliding, and also, supposedly, to allow for re-entering the atmosphere and the dissipation of heat that this requires...

The fact that a single bolt holds the shuttle to the tank is certainly astonishing considering what you write, Simon. Even though there are probably bolts in the back too, no doubt the front bolt holds the most pressure.

About this gif:
Image
Do the two shots come from the same video and represent the same flight? Because there is another thing in the back that appears in the tail... If these are two different flights, maybe two different tanks and shuttles (Apparently there are three tanks that are alternatively used, dropped destroyed and put back together after every launch) it is conceivable (albeit unlikely) that the two pipes were not identically designed?
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - & other modern NASA efforts

Postby simonshack on May 27th, 2011, 7:41 pm

nonhocapito wrote:
The first thing I am capable to add here is that I have read or heard that during the re-enter the Shuttle acts like a glider, not as an airplane. In other words it comes down without engines, and for this reason, the captain is given a choice between a number of landing locations within the range of the shuttle, that he can reach depending on the winds etc (if the home base is unreachable, the shuttle is later mounted on the jumbo jet and brought back in that fancy).
So I am guessing that the belly of the shuttle is so designed (flat and as wide as possible) to allow for gliding, and also, supposedly, to allow for re-entering the atmosphere and the dissipation of heat that this requires...


Yes, nonho - that is one of the many incredible (or rather, 'uncredible') features of the shuttle. Listen to the woman in this Shuttle landing-video at 1:00 : "The shuttle is currently travelling at 2 times the speed of sound".

Wow! :lol:

STS-129 HD Landing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rfmb3uuLE8

(p.s. : yes, that gif is from the same shuttle launch video, nonho. Will source it for you as I get back from the beach :) )
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6431
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - & other modern NASA efforts

Postby fbenario on May 28th, 2011, 1:35 am

Brutal Metal wrote:"I believe I saw something??" Man that's funny :P Don't personally care if you believe I watched a vehicle designed for space travel launch from a pad in Florida, yeah every resident of this state is in on it, it's all a Big Sham!!
...
just simply stating I've lived here since 1989 and I've seen launches along with a million other people.

I'm hazarding a guess that you don't believe the huge number of eyewitnesses in NY who claim to have seen the 9/11 attacks personally, so why bring in the same red herring/straw-man of "millions of Florida sheeple who all 'saw' launches"?

And why are you ignoring that this forum deals with the veracity of images/videos, and for the most part couldn't care less about 'eyewitness' reports by sheeple?

As you know, vague skepticism just wastes everyone's time, and has no place here. You think Simon's off-base in any way? PROVE IT.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2182
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: ENDEAVOUR - & other modern NASA efforts

Postby simonshack on May 28th, 2011, 6:20 pm

*
KAREN'S HANDHELD FALLING PENIS SHOT
""filmed from the flight deck window" of Discovery -STS124!)
ImageImage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_L._Nyberg

See it to believe it ! - it's ... unreal! <_<
watch the endless 5minute-long 'handheld pan shot'
here >>>>>> "EXTERNAL TANK HANDHELD VIDEO" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J_e9WLqxMY

I elect this NASA/DISNEY animation to the Oscar award of "most ravingly stoopid of all times" (moonhoax included).

"Filmed from the Space Shuttle's flight deck window" - yeah, rrright! :lol: :lol: :lol:


Image

If you have problems to process just how dreadfully silly and unrealistic this 'falling penis' shot is - remember that:
- The shuttle is supposedly travelling at 11.000 miles per hour - or whatever...( btw, its rockets officially burn "11.000" pounds of fuel per second. :rolleyes: )
- The tank is supposedly falling away from (and behind) the shuttle - towards the ground...
- Nonetheless, Karen (supposedly) not only captures it smoothly - during an over 5-minute-long pan shot, but she somehow gradually zooms in on it, masterfully - to keep the falling penis from diminishing in size in the lens-view! Wonder woman!

Still don't get the point? Ok, so have you ever been sitting by an airplane window, looking out, and seeing another plane zooming by in the opposite direction of your flight? Well, I have - and I can tell you that it takes only a few seconds before I can't see it anymore. Now, imagine a tank attached to your flight which gets jettisoned BEHIND your aircraft. And this time, you are travelling at Mach 5 or more. What chances for you and your camera to film a steady, five-minute-video of its descent?

Let me tell you: ZERO chances. None, nada, zilch. The truth here is that NASA has been psy-opping all of us for years with the help of DISNEY/HOLLYWOOD imagery. That's what.

And as you see in the gif loop above, some frames of the tank images sometimes 'glitch' or 'shear'...

IN THIS WAY:__________________________________OR IN THIS WAY
ImageImage

Now, don't let anyone tell you these are normal/typical video artifacts. Because they are not. Instead, they bear a striking resemblance to other faked video material - such as the dreadful imagery we were offered - for instance - on 9/11. <_<
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6431
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - & other modern NASA efforts

Postby simonshack on May 30th, 2011, 3:09 am

*

The Wonder Bolt... ;)


Image

Indeed, the Space Shuttle supposedly relied on this single bolt to keep its front end attached to the main fuel tank...
Sleep on it, folks - sleep on it.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6431
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - & other modern NASA efforts

Postby nonhocapito on May 30th, 2011, 4:38 am

simonshack wrote:Now, don't let anyone tell you these are normal/typical video artifacts. Because they are not. Instead, they bear a striking resemblance to other faked video material - such as the dreadful imagery we were offered - for instance - on 9/11. <_<


This falling penis undoubtedly looks funny -- and of course the numbering in '11' is really the cherry on top of the cake...

but I don't think the shot is supposed to be depicting the tank flying away at that speed, as much as the tank flying along the shuttle, in a lower orbit. The detachment in fact, judging from the videos, seem to happen when the shuttle reaches the final orbit and not during the ascent: after the detachment I guess the tank might fly in a slow descent orbit below the shuttle for a while.

About the bolt holding the tank: not only a bolt seem to be holding most of the shuttle to the tank, but somewhere, maybe through the main bolt itself, the tank also provides the shuttle with the necessary fuel until the shuttle reaches the orbit. So we must imagine that at he moment of detachment not only the two parts are separated, but the pipes connecting the respective tanks are detached too. I don't see any spills. Pretty wild engineering right there! -- then again, detachment happens in a very rarefied atmosphere, with little or none resistance on the parts. It is really beyond my ability to judge what can go on there.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - & other modern NASA efforts

Postby simonshack on May 30th, 2011, 7:19 pm

*
THE ITALIAN ASTRONAUGHTS EXTRAORDINAIRE


Mr. Paolo Nespoli and Mr. Roberto Vittori are the proud Italian astronaughts who have, reportedly, hopped from one Soyuz mission to another Space Shuttle mission - and have even got to play in the ISS (the "International Space Station") in a spirit of scientific brotherhood between Russia, Europe and the USA.

Here's Mr. Nespoli (centre) performing scientific spin-experiments in the ISS:
Image

MR. ROBERTO VITTORI_______________________MR. PAOLO NESPOLI
ImageImage

Just today, Vittori's imminent return from the ISS was announced for this coming wednesday! This mornng, the largest Italian newspaper even posted this short but fascinating NASA video of the undocking of the Space Shuttle from the ISS: http://tv.repubblica.it/tecno-e-scienze ... ref=HREV-3

"THE VIEW OF THE ISS as the Space Shuttle undocks from it!:
Image

The SPACE SHUTTLE "ENDEAVOUR" returning to Mother Earth:
Image

Here in Italy, of course, we can't wait to hear from Vittori's own voice about his gripping spatial adventures. B)

The other day, Mr Paolo Nespoli (calling in from the Houston Space Center) told this touching and endearing story to an Italian radio station: http://tv.repubblica.it/tecno-e-scienze ... pagefrom=1
" My little daughter, as she saw me on TV, wanted to embrace me on the screen but...of course, she couldn't. Then she looked at me with some suspicion when...uh...when we finally met each other yesterday morning - and she said: ' But aren't you that man who lives inside the TV set? What are you doing here, in person?' However, after a few minutes she jumped in my arms and we started playing together."

Hey Daddy - are you for real? :o
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6431
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - & other modern NASA efforts

Postby simonshack on May 30th, 2011, 9:10 pm

*

A FEW MORE SHUTTLE CLUES - and some historical perspectives

Dear all,

I have now spent ten days or so watching/analyzing a great deal of Space Shuttle imagery. The prevailing impression so far, as partially illustrated earlier in this thread, is that the many Shuttle launch images appear to be a batch of video templates (mostly showing near-identical perspectives - ever since the 80's) re-assembled and re-mixed year after year, with some minor changes applied from time to time (croppings / rotations/ colorings / mirrored views / etc ). I understand that the current counter-argument to this, as nonhocapito has hinted, is that the shuttle program might have followed, for all of these 30 years (the first STS was launched in 1981 - on the 20th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's 'pioneering space exploits'), a set series of criteria and constrictions.

However, I beg to differ to that view, since to espouse such logic would imply accepting all of the following:

1- The shuttle trajectories are always similar/identical (due to some kind of obligatory 'highway' to outer space?)

2- The shuttle rockets always ignite in the visibly same, dynamic fashion (due to NASA's engineering excellence, solidly established and unchanged/undeveloped since 1981?)

3- The shuttle design itself does not evolve one bit for 30 years (due to the fact that the first 1981 Columbia shuttle worked fine - so there's no need to upgrade it? In 30 years?)

4- The TV cameras are always placed on tripods positioned at the same exact locations - (due to..uh...well, perhaps to keep TV viewers pleased, a bit like sitcom writers sticking to predictable and comfortable storylines for commercial reasons?)



In any case, I am presently cautiously but eagerly pursuing this new NASA research which has my curiosity pumping at 11.000 beats a minute (hehe). Before I submit further image analyses of mine, let me recommend you a little reading and viewing. Firstly, check out Michael Palomino's writings - he has some very interesting historical facts revising the entire Space Race as we know it. Please check out at least some of his work (I know, the English translations of his articles are not always perfect - but don't let that bother you ):

The Gagarin fake as "first man in space" - wrong radio communication - no camera
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/a ... -ENGL.html

Also, make sure you read his writings about Wernher Von Braun and Walt Disney:

The Brown Duo Walt Disney and Wernher von Braun Spreading Moon Fantasy with Science Fiction Films
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/a ... -ENGL.html

Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6431
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby simonshack on May 30th, 2011, 11:40 pm

*

CAPE CANAVERAL'S STATIC BUSHLAND

So here we have 5 comparisons of various Shuttle launches in 2001, 2002, 2007, 2009 and 2011:

Image
2001: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cco0http ... JPAhH8pFRg

Image
2002: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rufssJ5jeQk

Image
2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPAoymsl ... ature=fvwp

Image
2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJp-aQYJfGU
2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBDD3s1YJPA

Yes - of course there are a few (slight) differences in these wild, bushy vegetations. But the question here is: would you reckon those differences are plausibly consistent with a TEN YEAR timelapse? If you have ever tended to your garden (and owned a bush or two), you should be able to grasp the absurdity of those 5 bushy, 'timelapsed' Florida marshland sceneries.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6431
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby nonhocapito on May 31st, 2011, 12:15 am

simonshack wrote:Yes - of course there are a few differences in these vegetations.
But the question is: do you reckon those differences are compatible with a TEN YEAR timelapse?


Totally agreed, the vegetation consistency over ten years is hard to comprehend and stinks... they seem to be top of trees growing in an area along a river (not in a garden) so free to grow the way they like. Unless we have to imagine that teams of tree climbers trim the trees to allow the unmovable cameras of NASA to film the lift offs. :)

BTW very interesting link to those pages about Disney and VonBraun (Kubrick is the only one missing in the story, even though the models of his space stations are obviously VonBraun's). Instead I find quite embarrassing the pages of Michael Palomino about 9/11, still proposing the "Qur'an 9,11" and the "Q33 NY in microsoft word" urban legends as actual elements of proof in the understanding of 9/11... :rolleyes:
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby simonshack on May 31st, 2011, 1:30 am

*

Ehrm... how could this possibly be? :huh:

Image

Watch the original video of the STS 129 being launched:
STS 129 - "ATLANTIS" (November 16, 2009) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsJpUCWfyPE

Does any of the two SRB's (Solid Rocket Boosters) have BLACK tips?
Is anyone now going to say this was;
- An optical illusion?
- The tip turned black during the ascent?
- A video artifact?

:rolleyes: Gimme a break - thanks!
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6431
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby simonshack on May 31st, 2011, 1:53 am

*
Now this is a truly priceless one:

BBC reporting on the VERY FIRST Space Shuttle launch ("STS1" - on April12, 1981) : Watch and weep - HAPPILY ! :lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y2eIIfd0PQ
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6431
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: ENDEAVOUR - and the spaced-out NASA efforts

Postby warriorhun on May 31st, 2011, 4:58 pm

Dear simonshack, nonhocapito and all,

While we are at it, what is the score on the 1986 Challenger explosion?
It was transmitted live only on CNN, and we know CNN did not start airing fake imagery on 9/11...

Here is a video from youtube on the Challenger tragedy from CNN(sorry, poor quality):


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4JOjcDFtBE


There were horrified "eye-witness" crowd 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?
warriorhun
Member
 
Posts: 514
Joined: January 10th, 2011, 10:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests