The Black Vault

Don't sweat it, even the greatest of the greats wore blinkers. No shame in that!




Cole

Thats the problem, your theories lack any gettyup, and why the little jockey is whipping him to go faster, from behind the blinders.

I'm a skeptic I have no theories, only questions. Now let's not pack up and run. Look at the link I provided. Is it possible that NASA faked the landing and duped even those claiming to be closest to the project itself.? Or is the guy pushing the faked photo angle full of bologna?

When it comes to certain issues.. the info which if good enough for the goose should also be good enough for the gander, but in these cases that logic doesn't exist. I wonder why. Some call that brainwashing but I think it's akin to something I posted on another thread.

Stick to the script and continue along the party line, toe that mark at all costs so you don't get shunned, reprimanded, or worse, kicked to the curb all together.

Please tell me. Do you ever question things based solely on logic and common sense. Take Bonds for instance: Any chance it was that special diet and weights like he keeps spewing? How about Klintoon~~~any chance he was telling the truth when he said: " I did not have sexual relations with that woman "? or when he said~~ " I smoked but I didn't inhale "

How about the saying: If it sounds too good to be true it usually is! Anything~~anyone.

When people speak of the technology the conversation is usually mere speculation simply because most of the stuff in questions was or still is classified, that's if it was developed, so how can it be common knowledge. Oh they had stuff way ahead of the private sector, Really now, how do you know for sure.

1918 was a long long time ago, soon it'll be 100 years or a century if you will and here we are 100's of billions of dollars spent/wasted and years and years of technological advances and we still can't kill the FLU BUG! Wonder why that is Big Pharma wouldn't have anything to do with it now would they Gee Wally this things just keeps mutating, it just morphs, never mind we know how to grow it, control it, release it, weaponize it, just move on nothing to see here you conspiracy nutball

True, so true it's comical.

How is it that NASA didn't give that small briefcase sized hole in the heat shield more consideration? What advanced technology went a miss that day? Either they missed it, couldn't detect it, or flat out gambled based on the data/science that someone probably ran some stupid model on.

I guess it's better than the alternative, after the fact alternative that is: Lawyer~~~ah on behalf of the families involved what went wrong here? NASA~~~Ah well we're not sure, we don't know.

Cole

I'm a skeptic I have no theories, only questions

Doubt and reasonable doubt have legal definitions. When you want to raise doubt, a simple question is not proof, and requires a step by step senerio to become reasonable doubt. I've looked at many ideas on this board and when they lacked any viable explanation of how some wild idea could have been done, the burden of proof is on you.

greeney2 wrote:

I'm a skeptic I have no theories, only questions

Doubt and reasonable doubt have legal definitions. When you want to raise doubt, a simple question is not proof, and requires a step by step senerio to become reasonable doubt. I've looked at many ideas on this board and when they lacked any viable explanation of how some wild idea could have been done, the burden of proof is on you.

greeney, Cole is only interested in asking questions it seems, not in any answers

Cole_Trickle wrote:Research, what.. data and info put forth by NASA signed off on by certain Governmental agencies as a means of making sure that it's fit for public consumption. Once classified material, you know do to cold war stuff.

Typical conspiracy paranoia. Presented with evidence, or in this case just the suggestion of such presentation, you immediatly claim dis-info. In other words you will not take the word of the people who where there and created the material, instead prefering information from any source that disagrees with the 'official' history.

Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers – Aulis Book
http://aulis.com/nasa3.htm

I own a copy. Pick a topic in it.

.

This is where all this business of technology gets a bit dicey. If you can read a license plate from space, how is it that you can't see the significance of the damage to the wing of this craft and consider an alternative and possibly saving 7 lives?

Actually a satellite cannot read a license plate, unless the car happens to heaed down a steel hill or the plate is lying flat on the ground. That is a journalistic balls-up of what was said. The idea is that it can resolve items as small as a license plate lettering. , not that it can essentially see around corners.
Yes it was revealed later that there are ground based optics that can also resolve items that small in low Earth orbit. However, it was a military system, not a NASA system and NASA did not request this scrutiny in the past. Thus Columbia was not looked over prior to its re-entry.

(oops, Cole probably has no idea what the concept of 'resolution' is)

I repeated that which Greeney first brought up, the license plate thing. Must you be so direct or is that a reflection of your brain process. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, must be a duck~~but only if it turns around and smiles, I mean QUACKS! Come on fellas you guys split more hairs than a drunk one armed barber.

What are you trying to do~~~INSULT ME Resolution smezalution~
Whatever

was there an answer in there anywhere?
How can a simple question label one Paranoid?

Cole

How is it that NASA didn't give that small briefcase sized hole in the heat shield more consideration? What advanced technology went a miss that day? Either they missed it, couldn't detect it, or flat out gambled based on the data/science that someone probably ran some stupid model on.

I guess it's better than the alternative, after the fact alternative that is: Lawyer~~~ah on behalf of the families involved what went wrong here? NASA~~~Ah well we're not sure, we don't know.

Cole, You have no idea what you are talking about, with your ideas of how the space progam works. The tiles on the shuttle have been a known problem since the first flight, and are a primary part of critical monotored risks. There are many systems on the shuttle that can result in loss of crew and orbitor, that have no redundant back up. Space flight is not without risk. Every single tile is different, and every single tile is inspected tile by tile, in a painstaking and very long process every turn around. Every single tile is numbered and unique to the spot is is on, its shape, and critical loss of orbitor location. many many people work whos only task is these tiles. Many many engineers of varios kinds work on these tiles. They are untouched by human bare hands. Extensive data is kept and compiled from every single flight, to every tile, much the same as identified internal engine issues inspected extensively every time. If you don't think every single tile does not have extensive data and fully documented you are wrong. Collected data from every previous flight is added and the compiled data to decide what is expected, and what possible risk it means. Thry didn't just make some snap decision and play russian roulette with them. Engineering data and the past 100 flights all let them believe a foam strike would not be flight critical.

Yes a mistake was made, and a mistake was made on Challenger flying at too cold of temperatures, but if you decide to make some blanket statement, you should characterize it with the truth, not your armchair boloney. Thats the same thing you do with some of your other theories, I mean questions!

answer;
Yes it was revealed later that there are ground based optics that can also resolve items that small in low Earth orbit. However, it was a military system, not a NASA system and NASA did not request this scrutiny in the past. Thus Columbia was not looked over prior to its re-entry.

Did you want to know why it wasn't done before?
Because it was a mistake not to.
As greeney said, mistakles get made. They get made for a varity of reasons, sometimes its a matter of cost, other times its a mistaken calculation of risk, and there are other reasons as well..
Both of the above were in play for both Columbia and Challenger. Both are likely in play for every car that gets recalled, or laptop battery that catches fire. It was in play with the design of the 'unsinkable' Titanic as well, (or the unsinkable 'Molly Brown''s predeccessor that G.G. was in) and there are a myriad of other examples. Given the dangers and enviromental challenges of space, its a tribute to NASA and other country's space programs that so few missions have gone bad.

Oddly, I have use the 'looks like a duck...' with others of your ilk. Seems that for you if "it looks like a duck, and swims" it must be a platypus.

Now me being the 'direct' and literal person that I am,,,, do you contend that the shuttle is also a hoax? I may have lost sight of why you even bring it up here.

Thanks Jaydees! Life everyday has risks, and everyday humans make mistakes, they miscalculate, and misjudge many things. If we all had hindsite, life would never have downfalls. Engineers have made mistakes, but we do not live in a country, that sends astronaunts up on suicide missions. Cole should look at the disasters in the Russian space program. He should look at the learning curve of spaceflight itself. Only a few years ago about 30 people died on a test stand accident in South America trying to test a rocket, when an exposion occured I think in Brazil. They have been racing the Indy 500 for almost 100 years, and people still die becasue it is still not risk free, even with all the multimillion dollar technology.

You do not work in that industry, and have no idea the level of safety and precautions that are a daily part of every division, making approximatly 1 million parts, that potentially can generate at loss of vehicle and crew. You Claim the moon landing being fake, becasue you can not comprehend the effort of 100,000 plus people in the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo, or the task of 30 years of the Shuttle Program. Not only is it insulting to those who know they put men on the moon, it is also a testimony for your lack of faith in fellow Americans, who dedicated a lifetime to something, he thinks could be faked.

Just like your rediculas idea explosives were planted in the WTC, with no explanation how such a vast undertaking was done, is the same rediculas claim of a faked moon landing, with no exlaination of how it was done. Oh! Lets not forget the Astronauts that would have all been lying everyday of their lives. Or that someone would have spilled the beans to sell a book. Positively rediculas, and you joke with a horse having blinders on about me. Anyone who believes the hoax theory without an shread of idea how it was done, is pretty gullible.