JPL was mentioned on C2C last night with George Noori in the context of a haunted bridge, of all the crazy nutty things.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2012/08/10
According to Lennon, Jack Parsons, founder of Jet Propulsion Laboratories and a Crowley disciple, conducted rituals at Devil's Gate with Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard to summon an entity called Babylon. They may have punched a hole into another dimensions as several mysterious disappearances have occurred there since that time, he noted.
Ron Hubbard? Entities? Forum participants here, trying to look at the Mars mission as a hoax, may not think that this history has anything to do with the hoax itself but I would beg to differ. The origin of JPL is, itself, mired in this type of strange angle. Given the size of the hoax being perpetrated here, I would say that we should take this origin into account since the hoax consists of, arguably, mind control and brainwashing through TV pictures, photoshop and paid or blackmailed actors. In effect, we could be dealing with what could simply be called "evil" on an unimaginable scale.
Simon pointed to the failure of the Morpheus lander earlier in this thread, and Noori features it as a headline today....
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/n ... er-crashes
I did not realize, when Simon pointed to it, that it was just this past week that that failure occurred. Stunningly, that failure occurred basically only a few days after the purported successful robotic landing of Curiosity, yet neither the AP article I read in yesterday's paper, nor Noori's article notes the irony-- that has risen now to a paradox-- that being-- how is it possible that one lander can fail so spectacularly, and another succeed spectacularly? I'll look for an article that acknowledges this paradox.. this contradiction.
Here are the Google results simply for morpheus and curiosity today...
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl= ... 5Rd8q1YCTg
Here's a typical article, this one from Slate.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense ... deos_.html
Morpheus is being built to run on cleaner fuels than most of NASA’s spacecraft and could someday carry a robot like Robonaut to the lunar surface.
So Morpheus is the newer lander... and runs different fuel. That would explain the crash, I guess. But what did the test of the Curiosity look like? Amazingly, JPL has a Youtube channel with lots of video we haven't looked at yet, here in Simon's forum...
http://www.youtube.com/user/JPLnews?feature=watch
From that site, we see this posted video of a "drop test" for the lander... again from a crane. The sequence strikes me as bizarre, you'll see why.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YasCQRAW ... r_embedded
Earlier in this thread, I said that I'd like to see an x-box video game that programs in all the parameters of the Curiosity so that we could prove to young people that you simply cannot land this thing on the planet given the situation as NASA defines it. As it turns out, I found a video on the JPL site that introduces such a video game. One of daughters of an Apollo astro"not" demonstrates the Curiosity video game lander. I had a hard time keeping my eyes on the game however... and preferred to watch something else.. you'll see what I mean when you watch this 4 min video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wnECM1a ... ature=plcp
From this point, I reshuffled my priorities, becoming more interested in Danielle Roosa...
Danielle's parameters could very well be 34-26-34, although precise measurements are not yet available.
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SkgdkfRwAgM/0.jpg
Here she is posing in the NASA parking lot...
https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/23 ... /image.jpg
Enough about Roosa's grandaughter-- let's review her grandfather's realistic-looking fake mission to the moon in 1971... since deception seems to be a family affair... here's a 10 min video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1NGXL3wc0M
It's interesting to note that you just saw a 4 legged lander touch down on the moon... the last quote of the rate of descent was 3 feet per second... which strikes me as a hard landing. The liftoff seems badly done since the quick ascent would probably exert such g-force that they wouldn't be able to talk so casually. The needed electrical power to transmit colour photos over 240,000 miles always struck me as a problem too. What power, in watts, would be needed to actually transmit full color pictures like that over that distance?
At 4:50, we see a problem with the latch. They had problem latching which reminds me of the connection bolt on the shuttle that Simon pointed to earlier in this thread. At 7 min into the video, they reprogram the computer to override an abort. You can see a lot of gum chewing and cigarette smoking in his hoax-movie-- signs of the era. If we view it with Simon Shack's awareness of fake-video, it's instructive.
At 10 min we see the landing of the 4 legged lander-- in 1971-- yet just a few days ago, the morpheus lander crashed. Presumably, we mastered this 40 years ago, and can't yet demonstrate it. The Curiosity's landing was said to be perfect, but the only demos on the JPL site are with cranes.
At 13:15 we're told there is a small nuclear generator to power the science array. Is there such a thing? Can there be a nuclear generator that small? The google results indicate these are powered by plutonium. Here's a brief history of plutonium powered devices in space...
http://stardate.org/radio/program/martian-nuke
In the meantime, nuclear powered devices in space seem to be only a future consideration, recently as in this article...
http://news.yahoo.com/suitcase-size-nuc ... 00915.html
Satellites are said to be powered by plutonium generators, in this case up to 15 watts.
A satellite is powered by a small nuclear generator that put... More ...
http://www.chegg.com/.../satellite-powe ... puts-15-w- matter-converted-energy-10-year-life-s-q2740006 - Cached
A satellite is powered by a small nuclear generator that puts out 15 W. How much matter is converted into energy over the 10 year life span of the generator?
Enough about Roosa-- and the Apollo review. Let's relate what we've just seen to the power systems that use plutonium to see if it makes sense. Here's a 2 min video about MMRTG, the Multi-Mission Radioiostope Thermo-Electric Generator that is pointed to by the narrator as having been used on the Apollo missions. It is said the generator produces 100 watts to continuously charge the batteries. If this is a hoax, what degree of evil is required to create such an elaborate and intricate scientific sounding hoax? Is the plutonium oxide a hoax, for example?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JOPW8aAcgE
Idaho National Lab apparently was the center for development for the radioisotope power system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbCbqpTKXt8
INL's homepage.
https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server ... unity/home
INL seems to be under DOE and is operated by something called Batelle Energy Alliance. Kelly Lively (lively?)... was in charge of the 65 scientist team who created the Curiosity battery.
A team of about 65 scientists and technicians spent six years developing, building and testing the power source. Six years of weekends at work, Christmas breaks away from family and pizzas delivered to the site will soon pay off, said Kelly Lively, who supervised the project as manger of the Radio Isotopes Power Systems Department.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/08/0 ... qus_thread
Here's a local news channel in Idaho where Kelly Lively is interviewed along with other technicians.
http://www.kpvi.com/mostpopular/story/I ... N4jNQ.cspx
Kelly doesn't bafflegab us with any technical mumbo jumbo as I would have expected but instead tells us that going to college in Idaho, she never expected her career would lead her to this point. Really. And here I thought highly advanced careers required forethought and planning. Fancy that! Kelly just somehow ended up here! She lucked out!
https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server ... ther_7.jpg
For the Curiosity to be a hoax, wouldn't these people have to be in on it--- or would they be dupes of the hoax who only work with an isolate part of the hoax-- the legit part having to do with the radioisotope battery? These power specialists, for example, might not know how parachutes work or care about the neccessary braking speed.
https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server ... =DA_584674
Here's her LinkedIn page.
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id ... _name_link
Here's a guided tour of the INL power systems facility where the directors narrates the creation of the battery for curiosity. See if you can detect anything that doesn't make sense.
http://www.inl.gov/marsrover/radioisoto ... stem.shtml
Here's the 7 minutes of terror JPL video again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9 ... ature=plcp
Earlier, we looked at deceleration required but going from 12,000 mph (6000 m/s) to 0 in 7 minutes is something we can look at simply in terms of the speed by itself, in this case reverse speed. How speedy was the braking? I thought about this in terms of the speed of light, since I had heard on Noori from Hoagland that it was like stopping a car going 60 in a split second. In the case of Curiosity, it went from 12000mph or 12,000/60 = 200 miles/minute / 60 = 3.3 miles per second. The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second and so 3.3/186,000 is about 2% of the speed of light.
Here is JPL's cartoon landing of the craft.. virtually admitting it's impossible by doing nothing but a cartoon... as if being lighthearted about it covers for their lack of a real demonstration of powered landing of a craft prototype on earth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syA7ml64 ... ature=plcp
This next short cartoon says you need skill and hard work to land on Mars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-X8acD_ ... ature=plcp
Cartoon explains how to get to Mars. 1 min. JPL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nAhag_i ... ature=plcp
Captain Kirk in short 4 min. video on Curiosity landing. He should know, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bck1XwxNiyo
Captain Kirk on why we take risks... why had Apollo and went to Mars and could equally apply to the hoax of Curiosity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ErkeFA-QWk
Trek New Generation's Wesley Crusher tries his hand at explaining the descent of the Curiosity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... p_L9E&NR=1
Captain Krik and Wesley, both famous actors, read the same script. Why?
Here we see MRO cameras recorded Curiosity's descent...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJOY7nB1 ... el&list=UL
I suppose this might be construed as proof that the Curiosity was actually there. They've been putting this imaging sequence together since March. The female technician, Sarah Milkovich, in this conference seems really nervous but tells us what we can see "without saturation", including the cables of the parachute. Her voice is quivering yet she manages to deliver the punch line where everyone laughs... "this is the coolest one" she says. That was the cue for laughter.
Her bio is here...(scroll down about a dozen bio's)...
http://madscientist.org.uk/bios.html
Ken Edgett, in conference, actually breaks down and begins to cry...
http://www.globalnews.ca/nasa+rover+sen ... story.html
His main responsibilities during 1998–2006 centered on targeting and review of the more than 240,000 images acquired by the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC). Now he is involved in selecting targets for the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) Context Camera (CTX) and he is the Principal Investigator for the 2011 Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI) investigation.
[/quote]
http://www.planetary.org/connect/our-ex ... dgett.html
Was Ken Edgett laughing uncontrollably over his hoax, or crying for some reason? Was he embarrassed about having to perpetrate fraud, under some sort of Illuminist threat? Here is an article that shows that Ken's first photo from the Curiosity is overlaid on a computer simulated surface of Mars.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/07 ... um=twitter
How would the compositors of the fake background konw what the background looks like? Did they just make it up? How do we know that Ken's photo isn't a squared off area of a simulation? It certainly doesn't look any different other than the colour. Why is it sand coloured? Ken seemed to have trouble in his conference, just like the Apollo 11 astronauts had trouble in their conference when they got back from the fake moon trip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo6 ... ults_video
Observers of this video have called is psychotic. There are obvious signs of distress among these astronauts and I'm wondering if the psychology of Ken Edgett in his interview above on that local news report. Note that they cut that news report off-- which disappointed me. Here is facial expression of a liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCTU1eLT ... re=related