ENDEAVOUR - the 30-year Space Shuttle hoax

[reel.deal]

Astronaut Photography of Earth - Display Record
ISS006-E-28028


http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/Phot ... -28028.htm

Don Pettit used his “Barn Door Tracker” and a digital camera to get astounding views of the heavens
(see http://science.nasa.gov/ppod/y2003/10apr_barndoor.htm).

Page Not Found
Unfortunately, the page you were trying to view no longer exists on http://science.nasa.gov/ or it was moved.
Try the Homepage
You can visit the NASA Science homepage.
Search
Search NASA Science to locate the information you want:
10apr barndoor
Go >

ISS006-E-28028, 21 February 2003
The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth, http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov

Server: 1
This service is provided by the International Space Station program and the JSC Astromaterials Research & Exploration Science Directorate.

Recommended Citation:
Image Science and Analysis Laboratory, NASA-Johnson Space Center. "The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth."
Crew Earth Observations NASA meatball <http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/Phot ... -28028.htm> (09/09/2011 04:29:02).
Send questions or comments to the NASA Responsible Official at [email protected]
Curator: Earth Sciences Web Team
Notices: Web Accessibility and Policy Notices, NASA Web Privacy Policy
Last Update: 09/09/2011 04:29:02


http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/camera/IS ... -28028.txt

Image Description:
Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Model: NIKON D1
X Resolution: 300/1
Y Resolution: 300/1
Resolution Unit: inch
Software: Ver.1.05
Date Time: 2003:02:21 10:32:19
YCbCr Positioning: datum point
Exposure Time: 300/10 sec.
F Number: 0.0
Exposure Program: manual control
Exif Version: 2.10
Date Time Original: 2003:02:21 10:32:19
Date Time Digitized: 2003:02:21 10:32:19
Components Configuration: YCbCr
Compressed Bits Per Pixel: 4.0
Exposure Bias Value: 0.0
Max Aperture Value: 0.0
Metering Mode: center weighted average
Focal Length: 0 mm
Maker Note: exists but is not expanded by this program
User Comment:
Subsec Time: 36
Subsec Time Original: 36
Subsec Time Digitized: 36
Flash Pix Version: 1.00
Color Space: sRGB
Exif Image Width: 2000
Exif Image Height: 1312
Exif Interoperability Offset: exists but is not expanded by this program
Sensing Method: 1 chip color area sensor
File Source: digital still camera
Scene Type: the image was directly photographed
CFA Pattern: horizontal repeat pixel 2 n, vertical repeat pixel 2 m, blue green green red

so... thats a '30 second exposure', steady as a rock, of THE MILKY WAY !!!... 'from the ISS', in 2003.
and now TODAY, we have 'THE STARS', in a '1 second exposure' of the INDIA/PAKISTAN BORDER.
PLUS, those 2 other 'shuttle-docking' with stars in background.
4 pictures. WITH 'REAL' STARS.
1 SECOND EXPOSURES.

NA$A, IS THAT IT ? ...FOUR (4) 'REAL STARS' 'PHOTOS' ???
W... T... F... ???




fuck it! ...LOVIN' THE 'PHANTOM' 'DEATH STAR', ANYWAYS... !!!

EPIC LONG-EXPOSURE CAPTURING THE LUMINOUS RADIANT BEAUTY OF THE X-FIGHTER & DEATH STAR & FAR-AWAY GALAXIES FROM
"NO-STARS WARS II" - THE ENDEAVOURS SKIES BLACK.


THE AWESOME POWER OF 'THE FORCE' IS FULLY REVEALED IN THIS BRIGHTNESS/CONTRAST ADJUSTED DETAIL...
THE PHANTOM DEATH-STAR, THE DEATH-STAR, AND THE X-FIGHTER ALL DESTROY EACH OTHER WITH LASERS
SIMULTANEOUSLY IN A PERFECT ISOCELES TRIANGULAR CO-ORDINATE TRIPLE K.O. EXTINCTION-MOMENT.




http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011 ... is/100111/

* * * * NO-STARS WARS * * * *

starring ...Samuel L Jackson as 'R2-D2'
..............Rotating White Dots as 'STARS'
& introducing........Space as 'THE GALAXY'

[simonshack]

ughh, more details.
again

Since you mention it, Jonathan - can you explain this detail - as per my previous post?

Also, sometimes a single tiny detail can raise a lot of questions. Here's an example:

[fbenario]

Nice headline.

NASA’s Cassini orbiter snaps unbelievable picture of Saturn

Science fiction movies have spoiled us on high definition views of our planetary neighbors, but real-life photographs with equal jaw-dropping potential are exceedingly rare. That's what makes NASA's awe-inspiring snapshot of Saturn (hi-res version here) such a stunning piece of eye candy.
...
The Cassini probe was launched in 1997 and took a further 7 years to reach Saturn's orbit. The total cost of its overarching objective of studying the ringed planet stands at a staggering $3.26 billion.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology- ... 33480.html

[Maat]

Great stuff, reel.deal & Simon

Yeah reel, they should have used music from Moonfaker or Kubrick's 2001 Space Oddyssey! Using the late John Barry's beautiful theme from Out of Africa was a bit off, especially as that was at least a movie based (albeit very loosely) on real events in a real person's life (Danish writer, Karen Blixen [Isak Dineson])

I was amused by the constant contradictions in their propaganda efforts with the JAXA-SELENE cartoon farce they tried on 3 years ago. Per my comment on Jarrah White's excellent exposé of it in his video:
MoonFaker: Clementine, SELENE & Telescopes. PART 1



"Nice headline", indeed fb!

NASA’s Cassini orbiter snaps unbelievable picture of Saturn

Good grief, do they really think that stupid graphic of Saturn looks real?

I've always been amazed how no one apparently questioned the cartoony painted 'Blue Marble' Earth "from space" pics either. Since the full moon, presumably just grey-brown dust & rocks, reflects sunlight so brightly we can even see by it, then the Earth with its oceans, atmosphere & clouds should be glowing like a neon light at that distance!


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... istory.php

[reel.deal]

^ ...True, true...

DARK SHUTTLE ILLUMINATED...

[Jonathan]

...
"Nice headline", indeed fb!

NASA’s Cassini orbiter snaps unbelievable picture of Saturn

Good grief, do they really think that stupid graphic of Saturn looks real?
...

True for the earths image.
Not that easy for the Saturn-picture.

The headline distorts it a bit like ohh so often.

But they tell how it was done

Whether thats all or partly true is another story.

[reel.deal]

NA$A's_New_Space_Program

[simonshack]

*

Giant Spider Terrorist Attacks NASA - news report


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siOvY8jUkU4

I thought this was seriously funny... that is, until I found out that NASA apparently DID air this spider-shot-crawling-on-lens on LIVE TV.
Tell me it ain't so ! Please, please! Anyone over in the USA remember watching this creepy crap on LIVE TV ?

Comments on Youtube:- http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=fSI5jIY0Zk4

"lol. I watched this on TV the day it was scheduled to launch."
HermitGuy101 1 year ago

"OMG I watched this live on tv in a hospital lobby where my dad works... "
Unknown409 2 years ago

Comment on "MY TV MOMENTS" website - http://www.mytvmoments.com/view.php?v=107434
"STS-122 The space shuttle Atlantis will not launch until the new year. A fuel tank glitch forced mission controllers to delay the launch. And, fuel sensors weren't the only problem. The shuttle was also attacked by a giant spider. Well, at least that's how it looked on NASA's camera, walking right over a live picture of the launch pad."

Good grief...

[Maat]

*

Giant Spider Terrorist Attacks NASA - news report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siOvY8jUkU4
I thought this was seriously funny... that is, until I found out that NASA apparently DID air this spider-shot-crawling-on-lens on LIVE TV. Tell me it ain't so ! Please, please! Anyone over in the USA remember watching this creepy crap on LIVE TV ?

Comments on Youtube:- http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=fSI5jIY0Zk4

"lol. I watched this on TV the day it was scheduled to launch."
HermitGuy101 1 year ago

"OMG I watched this live on tv in a hospital lobby where my dad works... "
Unknown409 2 years ago

Comment on "MY TV MOMENTS" website - http://www.mytvmoments.com/view.php?v=107434
"STS-122 The space shuttle Atlantis will not launch until the new year. A fuel tank glitch forced mission controllers to delay the launch. And, fuel sensors weren't the only problem. The shuttle was also attacked by a giant spider. Well, at least that's how it looked on NASA's camera, walking right over a live picture of the launch pad."

Good grief...

But of course, what better way to 'prove' and convince viewers they had a real camera trained on the live launch site, and not just broadcasting canned stills &/or video footage, eh?
Guess that confirms the shuttle wasn't even on the launch pad

What cunning webs of deceit they weave

[lux]

RE: the NASA spider gag -
This photo was taken by me with a DSLR & zoom lens set at 100mm which was focused on the palm tree about 1 block away:


The barely visible blur in the lower left of the photo is my left index finger. More than 1 inch of it was held directly in
front of the lens in lower left. As you can see you can't even tell what it is -- there is no recognizable detail or outline
visible at all. The blurry plant stems on either side are about 5 feet away.

Here is the very same set up but with the zoom set at 300mm:


My finger is in the same position as above but you can't really see anything at all of it in the photo.

Nothing surprising here. You can't focus a conventional lens at both infinity and at near-zero distance
and expect to see detail in both at the same time. Only a pinhole lens (which is no lens at all, just a
very tiny hole) could possibly focus at both distances enough to see detail. I doubt that broadcast
TV cameramen are using pinhole lenses on their cameras.

The spider gag had to have been intentionally faked in my opinion -- probably overlaying one image
atop another.

[simonshack]

Nothing surprising here. You can't focus a conventional lens at both infinity and at near-zero distance
and expect to see detail in both at the same time.

Absolutely correct, dear Lux.

Here's another impossible shot. The people behind these farcical images have either:
1- No clue about optical/photographic realities.
2- A wicked urge to test the limits of the public's gullibility:




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

In fact, the 9/11 imagery is replete with such impossible shots - suggesting that the same idiots behind the NASA fakery were behind the 9/11 hoax:


(From the "DEBUNK A SEPTEMBER CLUE" thread ) http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... &start=225

[lux]

You know, the faked helicopter shots make me wonder why they would want viewers
to be convinced they were looking at footage taken from a helicopter when that is
what most people would assume anyway.

Were they really NOT taken from a helicopter? If not, what then?

[simonshack]

Dear lux,

let me try and address your 2 questions (even though we are going a bit off-topic on this NASA thread):

You know, the faked helicopter shots make me wonder why they would want viewers
to be convinced they were looking at footage taken from a helicopter when that is
what most people would assume anyway.

Of course, they could have opted to show us normal-looking aerial shots (without those stupid chopper skids swivelling in front of 'the camera'). But I guess the less-than-genius-B-movie producers of the 9/11 movie-for-TV felt the need to make really, really, really sure that television viewers got the impression of seeing the 9/11 events from above - as if they were there themselves, hovering in a TV chopper. As I have often asked in the past, why should we assume that the depraved maniacs behind this heinous hoax were supersmart and infallible?

As for your second question:

Were they really NOT taken from a helicopter? If not, what then?

From a special fx video editing software, perhaps?...

[Maat]

*
Can a brick fly?

I've only started catching up on this NASA "space shuttle" topic, having been preoccupied with the Arizona & Norway PsyOps, and just realized that not only is the entire shuttle fleet and ISS a sham, but the Challenger "disaster" and Columbia "accident" had to be hoaxed!

Funny thing is, NASA's claim that the shuttles actually "glide" to land had always struck me as preposterous, having flown real gliders, but I never pursued the thought or examined it further since I presumed there must have been something else they just weren't telling us, with all that American 'rocket science' and government secrecy type of stuff (duh!). It was only when I started looking at everything else propagated by the same apparatus that pulled off the "moon landings" and 9-11, did I begin to consider the entire "Space Program" equally bogus.

It stands to reason that, having already faked it with the moony toons, there's no way they would have suddenly gone legit and thereby proved they really weren't that 'advanced' after all. So, how they began was the only way they could proceed without admitting they'd hoaxed the "moon missions", and that no vehicle yet invented could sustain and protect real astronauts from the radiation or projectile hazards of space.

It is therefore also highly unlikely that the Apollo 11 crew were even sent into Low Earth Orbit at all; movie makers never risk the life of their cash-cow stars either — it's made more doubtful still by the controlled opposition's practice of reinforcing that assumption, e.g. Bart Sibrel (And remembering Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey had a very convincing 'floating pen' in 1968 too)

But to convince people a "brick" can fly is quite a feat! There's just not enough wingspan to body ratio in the "shuttle" to provide the required lift, it would drop like a stone! Hughs' huge "Spruce Goose" flew (albeit briefly) because it had the necessary wingspan, just as 747s can. Sure, there are oddly shaped bodies in nature that can fly, like a duck or a goony bird — but this "shuttle" thing is a penguin!

Here's a particularly stupid shoop job of it supposedly "gliding" in to land (also note opposing shadows of the sims & vehicles):

Atlantis-shuttle-5-26-2010.jpg (33.76 KiB) Viewed 3857 times

*"Space shuttle Atlantis glides by rescue vehicles before landing on Kennedy Space Center's runway 33 Wednesday, May 26, 2010 in Cape Canaveral, Fla. (AP Photo/Terry Renna)"
@ https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texa ... 615206.php

For comparison, the old Grunau Baby glider (designed in 1931) is a dumpy looking thing compared with modern high performance, aerobatic ones, but it flies just fine (my father built one of these for himself):


Even the heavier, partially aluminum-skinned Blanik 2-seater (that I learned to fly in), can go long distances cross-country:



Well, whatever they might launch rockets for, if anything, Simon's exposure of the same faked launch shots they've recycled year after year was enough to confirm the "space shuttle" story busted to me, never mind the magical "bolt" that can withstand massive G forces with nothing to keep it aerodynamically stuck to its giant gas tank.

That's my 2 cents. Let your con-science be your guide...

[lux]

Of course, they could have opted to show us normal-looking aerial shots (without those stupid chopper skids swivelling in front of 'the camera'). But I guess the less-than-genius-B-movie producers of the 9/11 movie-for-TV felt the need to make really, really, really sure that television viewers got the impression of seeing the 9/11 events from above - as if they were there themselves, hovering in a TV chopper. As I have often asked in the past, why should we assume that the depraved maniacs behind this heinous hoax were supersmart and infallible?

Yes, I see what you're saying. They think it looks more "cinéma vérité" and therefore more "real" and less staged to have little "errors" like a shaky camera or chopper-skids-in-the-shot. Same with the spider-on-the-lens "error" I suppose. Makes sense to me.

Of course, those who know what's really going on also know that when they see tricks like that it's all the more reason to believe that it IS fake.