How many organizations are lying? (or: it's time to update the wiki)

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2013, 01:07:51 PM

Quote from: Levi Dettwyler on April 08, 2013, 12:11:30 PM

It sounds like you're agreeing with me.  Like you said: "Do you think some entrepreneur invested billions of dollars in a rocket company in hopes of selling services to NASA? No way."  This means Elon Musk and SpaceX are LYING, and thus, as you so eloquently put, part of the conspiracy.  Look at this twitter message: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/307958110474104832

Elon Musk and SpaceX must be part of the conspiracy, according to the FE hypothesis.  You seem to be agreeing with me.  So when does this get put on the wiki?

It's not so much that SpaceX, Lockheed, Grumman, etc. are part of the conspiracy, so much as they ARE the conspiracy. NASA literally would not exist without them. The only people who work for NASA are Managers, Security Personnel, and some Pilots. There is no such thing as a NASA Engineer. There is no such thing as a NASA Data Tech. There is no such thing as a NASA Flight Mechanic. All of that is done through government contractors, entities which the government agencies set up themselves for reasons of liability/bureaucracy.

The government partnered with Elon Musk to give SpaceX more credibility. Musk's SpaceX management team may play a part in negotiating contract rates and searching for people on monster to send to the government for interviews, but as far as actually managing space technology, that is the government's venue. SpaceX is just like any other government contractor. As an engineer you wake up, drive into the government research facility, and do what your government managers tell you to do, perhaps working on a single small component which is eventually passed off to another team. Every two weeks you get a check from "SpaceX". A few years ago that name on your check might have been "Lockheed Martin" or "Northrop Grumman Corporation".

You do realize most of SpaceX's engineers are in California? And work at the large SpaceX facility there?

The facility at 1  Rocket Rd, Hawthorne, CA is a former Boeing facility... which is... a government contractor. They were already working on rockets there, hence the name of the street. The contract to build government rockets changed from Boeing to SpaceX and they merely hung up a new sign.

Quote from: Ironscotsman on April 08, 2013, 01:19:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2013, 01:07:51 PM

Quote from: Levi Dettwyler on April 08, 2013, 12:11:30 PM

It sounds like you're agreeing with me.  Like you said: "Do you think some entrepreneur invested billions of dollars in a rocket company in hopes of selling services to NASA? No way."  This means Elon Musk and SpaceX are LYING, and thus, as you so eloquently put, part of the conspiracy.  Look at this twitter message: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/307958110474104832

Elon Musk and SpaceX must be part of the conspiracy, according to the FE hypothesis.  You seem to be agreeing with me.  So when does this get put on the wiki?

It's not so much that SpaceX, Lockheed, Grumman, etc. are part of the conspiracy, so much as they ARE the conspiracy. NASA literally would not exist without them. The only people who work for NASA are Managers, Security Personnel, and some Pilots. There is no such thing as a NASA Engineer. There is no such thing as a NASA Data Tech. There is no such thing as a NASA Flight Mechanic. All of that is done through government contractors, entities which the government agencies set up themselves for reasons of liability/bureaucracy.

The government partnered with Elon Musk to give SpaceX more credibility. Musk's SpaceX management team may play a part in negotiating contract rates and searching for people on monster to send to the government for interviews, but as far as actually managing space technology, that is the government's venue. SpaceX is just like any other government contractor. As an engineer you wake up, drive into the government research facility, and do what your government managers tell you to do, perhaps working on a single small component which is eventually passed off to another team. Every two weeks you get a check from "SpaceX". A few years ago that name on your check might have been "Lockheed Martin" or "Northrop Grumman Corporation".

You do realize most of SpaceX's engineers are in California? And work at the large SpaceX facility there?

The facility at 1  Rocket Rd, Hawthorne, CA is a former Boeing facility... which is... a government contractor. They were already working on rockets there, hence the name of the street. The contract to build the rockets changed from Boeing to SpaceX and they merely hung up a new sign on the building.

That Boeing facility was used to build 747 bodies. Hardly rocket science. Hardly the same engineers. And quite demonstrably real. Even to you.

I don't know, but I would imagine the road was renamed after SpaceX bought the facility.

That Boeing facility was used to build 747 bodies. Hardly rocket science. Hardly the same engineers. And quite demonstrably real. Even to you.

I don't know, but I would imagine the road was renamed after SpaceX bought the facility.

The facilities were used to build 747's a long time ago. When SpaceX took over Boeing was building rockets.

Here's a bio of someone who works at the SpaceX Hawthorn facility:

"Prior to joining SpaceX, Tim was the test project manager for Boeing's Delta IV first stage. His experience includes structural testing of the LH2 and LOX tanks, engine section, interstage and nosecone, as well as analysis and verification of the booster and stage separation systems."

Was he working on some other Boeing facility for rockets in Hawthorn, CA? No. He is working at 1 Rocket Rd, right where he always was.

Boeing makes the Delta IV in Alabama.

Boeing makes the Delta IV in Alabama.

But where did they design and test it?

I find this US-centric discussion rather amusing. All I hear is NASA, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, SpaceX. We get it; US defense companies are big baddies in cahoots with the US governemt. I also understand that NASA plays a big role in the Conspiracy; hell, the wiki page on the motive of the Conspiracy mentions no one but NASA.

However maybe it would be worth looking beyond the US from time to time. The US is not the only country that claims to have a presence in space.

Countries that have build rockets claimed to be capable of putting a payload into orbit, in order of achievement:  Soviet Union, United States, France, Japan, China, United Kingdom, India, Israel, Russia and Ukraine (with capability inherited from the USSR), Iran, North Korea, South Korea.

Countries with satellites, in order of achievement:  Soviet Union (Russia), United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, France, Australia, Germany, Japan, China, Netherlands, Spain, India, Indonesia, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Mexico, Sweden, Israel, Luxembourg, Argentina, Pakistan, South Korea, Portugal, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Malaysia, Norway, Philippines, Egypt, Chile, Singapore, Taiwan, Denmark, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Algeria, Greece, Cyprus, Nigeria, Iran, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Mauritius, Vietnam, Venezuela, Switzerland, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Belarus, Sri Lanka, North Korea, Azerbaijan, Austria.

Also, with the discussion seemingly revolving around Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, or SpaceX, there seems to indicate a lack of acknowledgement that there are dozens of companies (at least) with some involvement in space tech that are not American, including industry giants like EADS, BAE Systems, Finmeccanica, Mistubishi, Thales or Safran.

This Conspiracy is a fantastic piece of international cooperation.

P.S. What's also interesting is that the FES wiki page I linked above makes a big point of Lyndon Johnson's resolution to establish NASA in 1958, seemingly implying the Conspiracy began with NASA. However it was the Soviets that first claimed to put a satellite in space in 1957, when NASA didn't even exist yet.

Is it the Soviets that initiated the Conspiracy, then? Did the US merely go along with it?

I find this US-centric discussion rather amusing. All I hear is NASA, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, SpaceX. We get it; US defense companies are big baddies in cahoots with the US governemt. I also understand that NASA plays a big role in the Conspiracy; hell, the wiki page on the motive of the Conspiracy mentions no one but NASA.

That's because US defense companies are NASA. If NASA fired all of their contractors they would be firing something like 95% of their workforce. When we reference NASA we are referencing those US defense companies.

This Conspiracy is a fantastic piece of international cooperation.

Most of those countries put up satellites through US defense contractors. NASA entities have putting up satellites for foreign countries from day one. In reality the "satellite" is probably a high altitude dirigible known as a Stratellite.

Boeing, for example, claims to have giant sea platforms from which it launches rockets conveniently out of sight of the world, taking orders from international clients to put up "Satellites".

P.S. What's also interesting is that the FES wiki page I linked above makes a big point of Lyndon Johnson's resolution to establish NASA in 1958, seemingly implying the Conspiracy began with NASA. However it was the Soviets that first claimed to put a satellite in space in 1957, when NASA didn't even exist yet.

Is it the Soviets that initiated the Conspiracy, then? Did the US merely go along with it?

They were likely separate conspiracies. The competition started in 1951 when the US NAVY unsuccessfully tried to reverse engineer one of Hitler's V2 rockets and send it into space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_in_spaceflight

As you can see the American rockets were mostly failures, while the Russian rockets were mostly successes. Over the span of 7 years of competition the Americans lagged behind in Russian claims. When Russia claimed to put up Sputnik into orbit late 1957, and thus able to reach America with its rockets, it was a breaking point where the US realized it needed to do something drastic, such as start a phony space program early the next year.

Don't you think it's convenient that the US launched a successful satellite in under 3 months after Russia's satellite, despite 6 years of failure?

All this and no evidence of the conspiracy. Just some photos of disputed veracity. Amazing.

All this and no evidence of the conspiracy. Just some photos of disputed veracity. Amazing.

So, the Russians launch Sputnik and the Americans then quickly organize a space program and launch a successful satellite in under 3 months, despite many years of failed effort. Doesn't sound too legitimate to me.

Quote from: Rama Set on April 08, 2013, 03:04:41 PM

All this and no evidence of the conspiracy. Just some photos of disputed veracity. Amazing.

So, the Russians launch Sputnik and the Americans then quickly organize a space program and launch a successful satellite in under 3 months, despite many years of failed effort. Doesn't sound too legitimate to me.

I am not sure you are qualified to say that, unless you are a rocket scientist?  Regardless, a suspicious (to you) timeline is NOT evidence.

I am not sure you are qualified to say that, unless you are a rocket scientist?  Regardless, a suspicious (to you) timeline is NOT evidence.

Why isn't that evidence? If two country's militarily programs have been neck and neck an an attempt to invent time travel for the last 10 years, pouring billions of dollars into the venture and Country A suddenly claims to invent time travel, with Country B coming in less than 3 months later with claims that they also invented time travel, it sure looks suspicious to me.

Quote from: Rama Set on April 08, 2013, 03:36:56 PM

I am not sure you are qualified to say that, unless you are a rocket scientist?  Regardless, a suspicious (to you) timeline is NOT evidence.

Why isn't that evidence? If two countries are neck and neck an an attempt to invent time travel for 10 years, pouring billions of dollars into the venture and Country A claims to invent time travel, with Country B coming in to claim to invent time travel less than 3 months later, it sure looks suspicious to me.

Circumstantial evidence. FET social proof.

Quote from: Rama Set on April 08, 2013, 03:36:56 PM

I am not sure you are qualified to say that, unless you are a rocket scientist?  Regardless, a suspicious (to you) timeline is NOT evidence.

Why isn't that evidence? If two country's militarily programs are neck and neck an an attempt to invent time travel for 10 years, pouring billions of dollars into the venture and Country A claims to invent time travel, with Country B coming in with claims that they also invented time travel less than 3 months later, it sure looks suspicious to me.

All that that evidences is that one was faster than the other. There could be a lot of things that explain it. A conspiracy is one of the possibilities, but nothing about the circumstances favors a conspiracy over say, an American spy stealing the Soviet specs for the satellite.

That and the fact that anyone with eyes can actually see the ISS, and anyone with a simple telescope can see its shape and take pictures of it. There are entire fora dedicated to amateur astronomers photographing it. Here are some amateur photos, I have seen the ISS with my own eyes just like this:

http://weinterrupt.com/2009/03/the-international-space-station-as-seen-from-earth/

When is this circus going to end? The only thing FET has going for it at this point is the disarray of this forum that causes these Groundhog day esque discussions.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2013, 03:50:38 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 08, 2013, 03:36:56 PM

I am not sure you are qualified to say that, unless you are a rocket scientist?  Regardless, a suspicious (to you) timeline is NOT evidence.

Why isn't that evidence? If two country's militarily programs are neck and neck an an attempt to invent time travel for 10 years, pouring billions of dollars into the venture and Country A claims to invent time travel, with Country B coming in with claims that they also invented time travel less than 3 months later, it sure looks suspicious to me.

All that that evidences is that one was faster than the other. There could be a lot of things that explain it. A conspiracy is one of the possibilities, but nothing about the circumstances favors a conspiracy over say, an American spy stealing the Soviet specs for the satellite.

The Sputnick's rocket was the two stage R-7 Smyorka  liquid rocket and the Explorer-1's rocket was the three stage Jupiter-C solid rocket. These are two entirely different technologies. How would stolen Russian rocket specs allow Americans to build the Jupiter-C? 

Once again, we concentrate on the US and we ignore the rest. Even if most of those countries put up satellites through US defense contractors... "most" is certainly not "all".

A (possibly incomplete) list of countries whose first satellites weren't launched on US rockets: Soviet Union (obviously), France, Japan, China, India, Bulgaria, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Israel, Luxembourg, Pakistan, South Korea, Portugal, Turkey, Ukraine, Malaysia, Philippines, Egypt, Chile, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Kazakhstan, Mauritius, Vietnam, Switzerland, Hungary, Romania, North Korea, Azerbaijan, Austria. That's 32 countries, if I counted correctly; more, if the list is incomplete.

Perhaps I'll do some research, when I have the time, to compile a list of who launches what satellites these days (though it would probably be a futile exercise). In the mean time, here's a breakdown that I have on hand of launches, for the year 2006, by country:

Deep space launches: US - 2;

Geosynchronous satellite launches: France - 5, Zenit Sea Launch - 5 (owned at the time by companies from Russia, US, Ukraine and Norway), Russia 5 (1 failed), US - 3, China - 2, Japan - 1, India - 1 (failed).

Manned missions & ISS supply launches: Russia - 5, US - 3;

Military satellite launches: Russia - 7, US - 5, Japan - 1;

Low Earth Orbit, non-military satellite launches: Japan - 6, US - 5 (1 failure), Russia - 5, China - 4, Ukraine - 2 (1 failure).

Total launches by country:
Russia - 22
US - 18
Japan - 8
China - 6
France - 5
Sea Launch - 5 (using Ukrainian/Russian rockets)
Ukraine - 2
India - 1
(I hope I added them up correctly)

It seems that in the year 2006, beyond the expensive Space Shuttle launches and the two deep space probe launches, the US was actually less than dominant. Particularly in terms of lucrative launches of commercial geosynchronous and low Earth orbit satellites.

Also, the giant sea platforms that Boeing claims to have are only one in number - the Odyssey. More importantly, the Sea Launch company is currently owned by Russian company RSC Energia (actually 95% of it, to be precise). Boeing never had more than a 40% share. The launch vehicles have always been Zenit rockets, made by Yuzhnoye in Ukraine, with an upper stage built by Energia. Boeing only contributed the payload fairing. The ship used for sea launches, the Odyssey, is a converted drilling rig originally built in Japan. The facts regarding Sea Launch are less extraordinary than Tom Bishop let on.

OK, so we've been able to establish that when you say "NASA," you actually mean "every single company in the U.S. that has ever received a contract from NASA," rather than just the government agency, which is what most people think NASA is.  This should probably be clarified on the wiki.

So… when SpaceX gets around to opening up its commercial-only launchpad, why would they have done this?  Why get other private companies interested in space involved in your huge billion dollar conspiracy when you don't need to?  Doesn't that seem a little risky?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#New_commercial-only_launch_site (read the references if you don't like Wikipedia).

In addition, should we also include companies like Garmin, DeLorme, TomTom, etc. that manufacture and sell GPS units (claiming that they use satellites) as part of the conspiracy as well?  It really seems like we should.

... and every person that gazes into the night sky and takes a photo of the ISS flying by are also immediately indoctrinated via x-ray, as I was just prior to claiming that I saw the ISS myself.



That's not me by the way.

NASA spends as much as it takes in, making it a terrible "conspiracy"
Now organized religion...they take in 100x more than NASA and give out less.

The Sputnick's rocket was the two stage R-7 Smyorka  liquid rocket and the Explorer-1's rocket was the three stage Jupiter-C solid rocket. These are two entirely different technologies.

For crying out loud Tom, read your Th*rking sources before you comment on them. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter-C#Description

Each vehicle consisted of a modified Redstone ballistic missile with two solid-propellant upper stages. The tanks of the Redstone were lengthened by 8 ft (2.4 m) to provide additional propellant. The instrument compartment was also smaller and lighter than the Redstone's. The second and third stages were clustered in a "tub" atop the vehicle.

Quote from: Rama Set on April 08, 2013, 04:14:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 08, 2013, 03:50:38 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on April 08, 2013, 03:36:56 PM

I am not sure you are qualified to say that, unless you are a rocket scientist?  Regardless, a suspicious (to you) timeline is NOT evidence.

Why isn't that evidence? If two country's militarily programs are neck and neck an an attempt to invent time travel for 10 years, pouring billions of dollars into the venture and Country A claims to invent time travel, with Country B coming in with claims that they also invented time travel less than 3 months later, it sure looks suspicious to me.

All that that evidences is that one was faster than the other. There could be a lot of things that explain it. A conspiracy is one of the possibilities, but nothing about the circumstances favors a conspiracy over say, an American spy stealing the Soviet specs for the satellite.

The Sputnick's rocket was the two stage R-7 Smyorka  liquid rocket and the Explorer-1's rocket was the three stage Jupiter-C solid rocket. These are two entirely different technologies. How would stolen Russian rocket specs allow Americans to build the Jupiter-C? 

Nice attempt at diverting from what my point was.  How does a plane fly from Honolulu to Sydney in 10.5 hrs if it cannot travel at supersonic speeds Tom?  Still waiting for that answer...

all gelogists especialy ones who specilise in seismic tomography

no, they work diligently and sincerely, on the 100% pasteurized data, courtesy of the funnel called usgs.

oh of course there is the very different, and im sure entirely independent, egs.

just like the esa, they get the reduced acronym and the stooge status, standing nervously watching their crazy partner spouting gibberish - and seemingly unable to stop.

after seeing the crowds duped for so long, and so easily, they eventually develop their own compulsion to ramble; and occasionally scream, cheer and jump around.

the full control of the source data was established before the rolling out of the current shakey (seismic) science bandwagon.

look back through, unless you recall from memory, the increase in media delivery of what would previously have been ignored geological events, and developments (usually of vague predictions) in associated fields.

while the most mainstream of media-informed population get the straight jab of mundane contrived fiction, those who think they feed for information in some mythical genre of the media that provides 'secret' or hidden' information, to those who seek truth, feel the right hook that is the haarp contrivance (among various other varieties of widely disseminated 'secrets');
watching the data provided by the same establishment that is suspected of numerous strategies to tectonic-ally molest the hapless wobbling spheroid earth, a truly hopeless endeavor. 

with the inclusion of a newly discovered (made up) fault (that is coincidentally deep under the water so not required to actually be visible - unless the latest nasa technology could be used, a rv that can go deep enough, that can be fitted with a camera that has a resolution low enough, that is), and even a 9/11 tie-in via judy woods energy weapons, the disinfo combo scores a knockout.

with the immediate task of arguing about the real, true, honest to goodness meaning of the suddenly well promoted data stream, the need to decipher absorbs most to the extent that more profound dishonesty is obscured completely.

the uber user friendly "situation room" style websites, showing supposed 'live' updates of various categories of impending disaster, all sprang up around this time, all translating the same source data of course.

the two main themes of these doom-watch (one may even have been titled such) portals was geological and meteorological.

so the other shared data feed was from weather satellite info, as in space.

well, its a small world. allegedly.

not only are most people forced to fly through the vast void (or is that now dense dark matter soup?) of an expanding universe (expanding into?) while spinning furiously around and around, and so soon after the introduction of pronounced wobbling as well; these people, that are already coping with such hardship, must now include 'shaking around' among their many woes.

Sorry I'm not reading that. I know it's gonna be drivel.

I read it.  You are right.  Soemthing about boxing and a long diatribe about how information is funnelled.  In the end, I think I can sum up his viewpoint this way, "Geologists are fed data by the conspiracy."

Quote from: Pythagoras on April 08, 2013, 10:25:32 AM

all gelogists especialy ones who specilise in seismic tomography

no...

So why dont they realize the earth is flat?

I read it.  You are right.  Soemthing about boxing and a long diatribe about how information is funnelled.  In the end, I think I can sum up his viewpoint this way, "Geologists are fed data by the conspiracy."

Thanks for that. I was worried I might have to read through it. I'll be relying on your for the abridged drivel in future

So… when SpaceX gets around to opening up its commercial-only launchpad, why would they have done this?  Why get other private companies interested in space involved in your huge billion dollar conspiracy when you don't need to?  Doesn't that seem a little risky?

The Conspiracy already operates Satellites for commercial clients. However, the devices they deploy are not in orbit around the earth, but are kept aloft at the edge of space by what are known as Stratellites.

If SpaceX starts a commercial Satellite program, they will just use the same technology which has been in use for the last 40 years.

In addition, should we also include companies like Garmin, DeLorme, TomTom, etc. that manufacture and sell GPS units (claiming that they use satellites) as part of the conspiracy as well?  It really seems like we should.

Why would they need to be in on it? They are receiving a publicly available, government funded, signal from the sky. The signal doesn't even need to be broadcasted through a Stratellite. It may very well be land based. The direct precursor to GPS was LORAN, which is a world-wide network of navigational towers. The latest version of LORAN, eLORAN, is interoperable with GPS. The technology for navigation towers already exists, and has existed for some time.

OK, so we've been able to establish that when you say "NASA," you actually mean "every single company in the U.S. that has ever received a contract from NASA," rather than just the government agency, which is what most people think NASA is.  This should probably be clarified on the wiki.

I'm talking about the contractors who temp out employees to work on government bases as engineers. The ones who make up NASA's core operations, such as Northrop and North American Aviation. There are really only a few of those.

The external contractors who are contracted for operations outside of government facilities, such as Plantronics who designed a radio for NASA on their own facilities in Santa Cruz, CA., would not be in on it.

Contractors who build rockets are likely building real rockets, and do not need to be in on it.

Even the core operations contractors can be largely ignorant. During the Apollo Missions on the Lunar Lander project the Grumman contractors NASA brought in could have simply been told that they were building prop models of the Lunar Lander for display at museums. The NASA manager just has to tell the Grumman contractors that "oh you're on the B-Team making the models, sorry." The supposed A-Team making the real deal doesn't exist.

A trip to the junk yard, a stop at the stationary store, and a weekend of binge drinking, and we have a genuine bona fied Lunar Lander ready to take on the moon.

... and every person that looks at the sky at night and decides to take a photo of the ISS flying by...

... and every person that looks at the sky at night and decides to take a photo of the ISS flying by...

They have a photo of it flying by.