Wednesday, August 15, 2012

The NASA Curiosity Space Mission: Are We Being Conned Again?

I had promised during my latest rant on Sunday, August 12th, 2012, that I would be putting up an article as soon as possible explaining why I do firmly believe that just like they did with the fraudulent Apollo missions to the moon, NASA is again conning the world when it comes to their latest endeavor, the "Curiosity" mission to Mars.

First, I must say that years ago, I believed originally that the NASA Viking missions to Mars were real.  But after coming swiftly to the conclusion that Apollo's missions to the moon were faked back in 1979, it was not too long before I thought that NASA was also conning the world when it came to the Viking missions to Mars.

A few years back, when NASA was about to land their "Phoenix" space probe near the Martian north pole, a great video producer, Jarrah White, who showed the world the fraudulent Apollo missions through his fabulous "Moonfaker" series (still available over Youtube), brought forward a very interesting video that showed some very strong evidence that we were being conned yet again by NASA's missions to Mars..I want to present that very important video here called "Marsfaker: Phoenix Rising" in its entire two parts, for everyone to view for themselves:

Part I:



Part II:



Next, I came across a most interesting article just at the end of last week, by Morgan Reynolds, from the website: Lew Rockwell, at www.lewrockwell.com, entitled: "Moon Dust, Rocket Engines, And NASA", that asks some very hard questions about the method of the so called "Curiosity" landing that NASA claims, comparing it to the (totally fraudulent -my own note) Apollo landing on the moon.   I have that article here for everyone to view for themsleves right here:

Moon Dust, Rocket Engines, and NASA

by Morgan Reynolds


At 12:31 a.m. central time August 6 NASA will bless us with its latest extravaganza, a multi-billion-dollar, decade-long effort to launch a six-wheel rover dubbed ‘Curiosity’ on the red planet 154 million miles from home. Reading the newspaper one morning, I was amused to learn about the Rube Goldberg "braking" system invented to control landing on Mars. A huge parachute is supposed to slow the craft despite an atmosphere only one percent of the earth’s, followed by freefall, then eight rocket engines ignite and lurch the craft out of the path of the trailing parachute somehow previously jettisoned, followed by a second freefall episode beginning at 66 feet altitude followed by a ‘sky crane’ lowering the rover as it unfurls its wheels, capped off by pyrotechnic charges that send blades to cut the nylon tethers. Oh my.

The rationale for this dubious landing system? "In theory, the rockets could provide a gentle enough landing to finish the job. But in practice, they would kick up such a dust storm that it could ruin the rover." Ah yes, I agree the inevitable dust storm would be a big problem. Engineers must design around that. But why wasn’t a dust storm a formidable problem on July 20, 1969, the occasion of man’s "greatest technological achievement," landing a man on the moon and returning him safely via Apollo 11? The moon is plenty dusty too.

Dust, or lack of same, is one of many puzzles about the Apollo missions NASA showed us over four decades ago: how the heck could there be no surface disturbance below the lunar module (LM), no crater blown out by the LM’s rocket engine? All six moon landings NASA "conducted" (Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17) showed the same ‘no hole’ below the LM. No disturbance whatever (notice no stars in the background too?). If we trust the NASA-generated "real time" broadcast, Neil Armstrong called the surface "fine and powdery" and continued: "Okay. The descent engine did not leave a crater of any size. It has about one foot clearance on the ground. We’re essentially on a very level place here."

 
 Click on image to enlarge. Source: NASA

How fortunate. And impossible, well, impossible if the landing was real. There was no dust on the LM support legs or leg pads either and no sign the engine nacelle or ground below it was burned, singed or melted. How could that happen? A 10,000 lb. thrust engine, even if throttled back to 3,000 lb. must blow out a crater, down to bedrock for heaven’s sake, making a landing treacherous because of virtually zero visibility and unknown terrain exposed. The motor would generate heat of 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit and even if throttled back to, say, 3,000 d.F., only 1,300-2,400 d.F. is required to melt and fuse rock. None of what we expect happened.

Despite a rocket descent engine allegedly working hard a few feet below Armstrong and Aldrin, incredibly, and I do mean incredibly, Apollo 11’s moon landing was remarkably quiet beneath the voices of astronauts and Houston control. It should have been loud as all-get-out, around 140 dB. The engine displayed admirable noise-vibration-harshness properties too, setting off no shake, rattle and roll aboard the flimsy craft, no heat problem, in fact, no problems of any kind. Oddly, Armstrong did not hover like a helicopter pilot does during landing, despite the difficulty of controlling an LM in a vacuum versus earth atmosphere. It was the first time anyone had landed a LM yet reverse thrust control went flawlessly, like everything else with Apollo. By contrast, Armstrong was nearly killed when he could not control the LM simulator on earth in May 1968 but for a timely ejection.

Abundant evidence proves NASA never pulled off the moon landings back in the slide-rule days of the 1960s. The biggest obstacle remains the lethal radiation unprotected astronauts must encounter above low earth orbit from three sources: the Van Allen radiation belts, galactic cosmic rays, and solar particle events, aka sun flares. Radiation makes manned deep space travel impossible to this day. Dr. James Van Allen, credited with discovery of the radiation belts, knew it full well and in 1970 courageously supported U.S. Senator William Proxmire (D, WI) and three other Senators in their attempt to eliminate NASA’s manned space flight program.1

Neil Armstrong could have said, "One small step for man, one giant leap of faith for mankind," injecting a note of honesty into this governmental swindle. The moon fraud will bite the dust eventually, of that there is no doubt, if only because it failed to sprinkle enough moon dust out from under the Lunar Module as well as into our eyes.
  1. Mary Bennett and David S. Percy, Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle Blowers, 1999, pp. 310-11.
August 4, 2012
Morgan Reynolds [send him mail] is professor of economics emeritus, Texas A&M University, and a former chief economist in the U.S. Department of Labor. Visit his blog.


NTS Notes:  I of course, want to thank Morgan Reynolds for pointing out some of the inconsistencies of the Curiosity, and the Lunar missions...Now for the hard questions that many will be asking themselves about the Curiosity probe....

First I have had a real hard time with the aerobraking necessary to slow the Curiosity probe in the almost vacuum high altitude Martian atmosphere, and the claims by NASA that they modified the trajectory of the probe's entry in such an atmosphere to compensate for its ultra thinness.... It is shocking that people are not aware that Mars' atmosphere is some 0.4% of Earth's at ground level (Just for comparison, note that Mars surface air pressure is equivalent to Earth's air pressure at approximately 120000ft altitude) .  At higher altitudes it would be extremely thinner, and actually very much a vacuum as compared to Earth's atmosphere at the same altitude!


NASA claims that they ejected the Curiosity probe from its orbiter and it began its entry into the Martian atmosphere at approximately 350,000 ft altitude, travelling at about 15000mph.   It was to use a trajectory that creates the friction necessary from gas particles within the extremely thin Mars atmosphere to slow it down from that speed to some 1500mph.  This is the "Seven Minutes of Terror" that NASA talks about during Martian atmospheric entry before deployment of its "parachutes"....

What is really startling to me is that when you read the "Wikipedia" entry on the Curiosity mission, and how it was slowed  down through the Martian atmosphere, NASA claims that they gained the appropriate knowledge of the telemetry needed for atmospheric re-entry from "The Apollo missions" (!)   Seeing this, a red flag went up with me right away knowing that those Apollo missions were totally faked, and in fact ALL of the telemetry from  the Apollo missions went missing years ago.... AND to top that all off... They are talking "telemetry" from the so called Apollo command modules re-entering EARTH's atmosphere, which is a whole different planet than Mars, because Earth has a much thicker atmosphere.  Because of the incessant lies by NASA, I seriously doubt this method of re-entry would ever work, because the speed that they claim was attained from slowing due friction and drag through an almost vacuum Mars atmosphere was impossible....The craft would in fact be going a lot faster than they claim!

Second...It must be noted that Ralph Rene's original statements about the parachute landing on Mars being impossible is true for all conventional parachutes...NASA claims that the chutes used for the Viking mission, and subsequent missions, were a radical design called "supersonic parachutes" that used higher drag and could be deployed in thinner atmospheres and at higher velocity.   But the velocity for deployment of such supersonic parachutes is limited to somewhere around Mach 2 maximum.. which is 1500mph.... As in my previous paragraph, I seriously doubt the craft was going that slow, and therefore deployment was impossible...

Third... They claim that the "supersonic" chutes were able to "slow" the craft (again in an almost vacuum atmosphere?) to a point where it would be floating (?) some several hundred meters above the Martian surface.   At that point the chutes were ejected (no explanation how...), the probe's protective covering removed, and an enclosed so called "Skycrane" was deployed with the Curiosity rover hanging by cables below it.  The Skycrane supposedly then fired its 8 hypergolic fuel powered rocket engines on board (which were same type of engines that were used in the fraudulent Apollo missions) and began its slow descent to the Martian surface... Again, another red flag should be going up: Even as Morgan Reynolds shows in the article above,  I have long wondered about how this "Skycrane" was able to vector its retrorockets towards the Martian surface, with the "Curiosity" probe dangling below it, to allow for proper descent?   I wish someone would seriously ask NASA that important question....

One thing that has bugged me about this "Skycrane"... Has anyone seen NASA, or JPL, or any subcontracting company, show evidence that they even built and actually tested such a device here on Earth?  I find reports of "computer simulations" run on how this "Skycrane" works... But where the hell are the preliminary tests that should have been done here on Earth to prove it works? It appears that just like the fraudulent LEM built by Grumman Aerospace for the fraudulent Apollo missions, we are left with a machine that seems to work so magically, and the first time ever, on the surface of an alien world some 150 million miles away, without being tested fully first here on Earth.  Isn't that amazing?

Now, continuing with the landing on Mars using the Skycrane system.... Using its 8 hypergolic fuelled retrorockets, it supposedly very gently approached the Martian surface (while pouring gas down onto, and kicking up Martian dust and rocks all over the Curiosity probe dangling below it),  until the Curiosity probe made contact with the surface. Then it fired off explosive charges (?) to release the cables that connected Curiosity to it (Note no evidence of such an explosive release, by physical remnants of any blown cable, or blown off attachment pieces, in any of the newest Curiosity pictures from Mars). After Curiosity was released,  the Skycrane lifted off, and flew away to crash some 250 meters away from the Curiosity probe... Simply amazing.. and to me, absolute BULLCRAP!

So many questions, and again we will never get a straight answer from NASA (Many say NASA stands for "Never A Straight Answer").   I do believe that the criminals at NASA want the American public to swallow this complete bullcrap without asking the real hard questions and question their "science"....

The question that everyone should be asking themselves then... Where exactly is the Curiosity probe right now?   Most probably at a government run secure desert area somewhere in the continental United States....

OK, Now for the real purpose of this "Curiosity"mission.... Simple, really... NASA is almost flat broke... Since the discontinuation of the Shuttle space missions, there has been no real purpose for NASA, and there was even talk about cutting its budget even further, or scrapping the organization all together.   I will say it,.. The people at NASA knew their days were numbered, and they needed something spectacular and quick to keep the organization alive, and to keep the money coming in.....

So... NASA sends this fake "Curiosity probe" to "Mars", and I can guarantee that very soon, probably within the next few months, they will magically inform the entire world that they found "evidence for life" on Mars!!!!   Suddenly, the whole world gets renewed interest in space travel, and there will be the immediate push for MORE robotic missions to Mars... NASA's monetary woes solved instantly...  I can also see the possibility of a future "manned" mission to Mars that will cost trillions of dollars, and be just as faked as the Apollo missions were, as well....

As with the faked Apollo missions, when it comes to this latest Curiosity Mars landing fraud, there is a sucker born every minute..

More to come

NTS


9 comments:

BuelahMan said...

As I mentioned in the email, Morgan is a "baby eater" (a person so detached from the realities of the American poor, that he embraces the lies of Ron Paul (and austerity, or as I coined it, "Paulsterity").

He is quite smart, to say the least.

When I saw he had written this, I knew it was right up your alley, even tho he eats babies.

The video was excellent and helped explain the discrepancies in a way I could understand it quite clearly.

This entire subject is wild and cool. Thanks for enlightening me.

Bengt said...

Thank you for this enlightenment.

You have been commenting a whole lot of articles on this Apollo Moon Landing Hoax and although I find it very convincing myself I'm having a hard time to introduce and convince other newbies on this subject. Even though Moonfaker.com and AULIS contains several thoroughly investigations I lack a shorter summary to educate and convince someone in a matter of some 30 minutes. I would like someone like you with all you experience and knowledge to summarize this whole subject into one longer article or some 10 page document containing the most obvious facts and contradictions.

What do you think about that? Most people are to lazy to spend hours investigating something this.

Northerntruthseeker said...

I have not the time to do a full 10 page document. Instead, I have already done an overall analysis of Apollo several years back, by my "What Were They Thinking" reports, as well as tackling the issues of Apollo as more information becomes available.

You just explained the simplicity of peoples' thinking processes today in that they cannot focus on anything that takes longer than 30 minutes to read...

bhar zul said...

Brilliant contradiction..never thought that somebody will goes to the length of comparing Mars naked bed rock exposed by Curiosity Skycrane 8's retrorocket trust and those of Apollo 11 Landing Module which barely 1 foot from the ground level but never leave a mark whatsoever..amazing! Another thing, upon touching the ground, it appear that 4 nylon tethers fell on top of Curiosity.Does it not entangle with the Rover 6's wheel? I failed to locate that tethers around/nearby the landing site. Can anyone enlighten me?

Northerntruthseeker said...

bhar zul... I am glad you are not swallowing the massive contradictions put out by the criminals at NASA... I am glad that there are those such as yourself that are actual critical thinkers that are now noticing the impossibilities of NASA and their mission to Mars....

Keep on asking questions, and do not fear those who are living their lives with blinders...

Yes, the cables over the rover and the landing of the skycrane does not make any sense... As I also show in other articles, where the hell are the SPECIFICATIONS for this miraculous "skycrane" and when the hell was it ever tested on Earth? NASA has never tested this device on Earth and there are NO actual pictures of this "skycrane" anywhere, other than in computer simulations!

Anonymous said...

the moon has enough less atmosphere that thrust from the rocket motor does not behave the same in a vacuum

Northerntruthseeker said...

Actually, anonymous.. there is almost NO atmosphere at all on the moon (total weight of atmosphere on the moon has been estimated to be around a few tons total at best).. making the moon a near perfect vacuum.

Mars, however, does have a slight atmosphere (surface pressure is around 0.005 BAR maximum.. Earth being 1 BAR), but the real problem is not the atmosphere but gravity.... and of course the fact that we have this so called fraud "skycrane" that nobody had ever heard of before this Curiosity rover, and nobody has ever heard of since....

It is now what? Almost a year since Curiosity "landed" on "Mars" and we have yet to see any specifications for this "skycrane"??? Come on, people.. Wake up and smell the stench of the liars from NASA!

Anonymous said...

I'm not buying it. Stop being like a creationist. Also, noting that comment moderation has been enabled, you probably just remove all the comments that don't agree with you.

Anonymous said...

What you need to ask yourself is why? You will find the answer at: aliensrevealed.blogspot.com