It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA we have a problem?

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity


Essentially, what we have here is some very sad person on a website who has found some people of the same age and looking vaguely like these poor dead astronauts and with the same name (not very difficult out of millions of people) and has started a conspiracy theory that these poor astronauts are not dead.

For some reason.

What a steaming pile of BS, and disrespectful too. Shameful and pathetic.




posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Simple question...WHY?

What purpose would this grand conspiracy serve? That MT and NASA officials really didn't screw the pooch by green-lighting the launch on that fateful day after all???

I'm confused.

/sarcasm



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

what " facts " ?



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape


Fact= A statement which is true.



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: ignorant_ape


Fact= A statement which is true.


No-one is denying what a fact is, what is being denied is that the OP video contains any.



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


Why? unites a nation in mourning. Takes the nations consciousness off of something else.. emotion does that. To prove if they can do this they can do anything, at least in the minds of the public. More funding? the Space program is mostly Defense.



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: anonentity

Simple question...WHY?

What purpose would this grand conspiracy serve? That MT and NASA officials really didn't screw the pooch by green-lighting the launch on that fateful day after all???

I'm confused.

/sarcasm

It is at the core, why? Several possibilities...

1. The Crew were in fact on the shuttle, and the escape pod did work. 1 fatality.
2. It was a classified unmanned mission that needed a cover story, and cover people. No one was on the shuttle.
3. It was intended to explode. Insurance, or extra funding required.
4. It was destroyed by forces unknown who made a previous warning. It was a test flight.
5. Possibly a multiple causation of the above.

It is "rumored" that NASA was warned not to come back to the moon. Maybe there was more to the warning, and more to the Challenger mission 10.

To settle it, you need more testimony from people who might have handled the bodies who are willing to make a statement. Other Family members, spouses, etc.



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: All Seeing Eye


Here we have some facts, which NASA said they died instantly, when they were alive , and the crew cabin was intact after the explosion



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

What escape pod? The shuttle crew escape system required the crew to put parachutes on and slide down a pole that allowed them to clear the vehicle.

Columbia and Enterprise were the only two with any kind of crew escape system (both had ejection seats for two crew members). Columbia had them removed by the fourth or fifth flight
NASA installed the crew escape system after the Columbia accident.
edit on 3/23/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

That's why you have investigations. It was initially assumed they died instantly. It wasn't until they recovered their bodies and the crew cabin that they found they survived until impact. I haven't seen an accident investigation yet where the final report completely agreed with the initial facts.



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Well here we have a error in what was perceived to be true and what were the actual circumstances. They were still in the strongest part of the plane , they were in space suits. I don't know what the free fall terminal velocity would have been, but its assumed to be 150 mph with a human body in freefall, guys have jumped out of Spitfires without chutes and lived to tell the tale. Could it be that they might have survived, and since the whole world assumed they were dead, it was just left that way? crazier things have happened.
edit on 23-3-2018 by anonentity because: (no reason given)


Or if you want your mind blown this guy jumps without a chute into a net from 25 thousand feet.

edit on 23-3-2018 by anonentity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

The crew compartment fell something like 65,000 feet and hit the water at 200 mph. At least one member of the crew was dismembered, with a portion of their remains found in their helmet. The impact with the water caused major damage to the crew cabin, and would have killed them instantly.



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Look up how the astronauts died!
most lived to be very very old.
Very few died of cancer ! ? Look it up!
so must for space radiation!!!

NASA,"The Van Allen belts are a collection of charged particles,
gathered in place by Earth's magnetic field. They can wax and
wane in response to incoming energy from the sun, sometimes
swelling up enough to expose satellites in
low-Earth orbit to damaging radiation."



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: buddha

And the astronauts don't go into the Van Allen Belts. Exposure to radiation doesn't mean you're going to get cancer. You should also look up how many have developed cataracts and other health problems.



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


One member, so that leaves six .



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

They were all killed on impact. That's merely the one that was cited in an interview with a Coast Guard member of the recovery team. This was a non survivable accident.
edit on 3/23/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Did anyone of the relatives see their bodies.?



posted on Mar, 23 2018 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

No. They were all dismembered, and there was no way they were going to show them to the family. Accidents like this don't leave bodies, they leave pieces. There was no possible way of surviving this accident. It was estimated that at the time of the breakup of the vehicle, they were subjected to between 12 and 20Gs. They went to freefall, then impacted the water at an estimated 200Gs. You don't survive that, and bodies don't remain intact through that.

As for your video of the guy jumping from 25,000 feet, he landed in a net. It was designed to stop his fall safely. Try jumping from 25,000 feet and landing in water and see what happens.



edit on 3/23/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/23/2018 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2018 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: All Seeing Eye


Here we have some facts, which NASA said they died instantly, when they were alive , and the crew cabin was intact after the explosion

More facts!!! Guy in this video calls it a "Parachute", and videos its decent. Oh, MY........ Another inconvenient fact.

So who started the "UFO" BS LOL LOL LOL




posted on Mar, 24 2018 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: anonentity

Simple question...WHY?

What purpose would this grand conspiracy serve? That MT and NASA officials really didn't screw the pooch by green-lighting the launch on that fateful day after all???

I'm confused.

/sarcasm

It is at the core, why? Several possibilities...

1. The Crew were in fact on the shuttle, and the escape pod did work. 1 fatality.


There wasn't one.



2. It was a classified unmanned mission that needed a cover story, and cover people. No one was on the shuttle.


It was not unmanned. The shuttle's procedures did not allow for it to be used that way. All you have to do for a cover story is provide one, not blow up an expensive spacecraft.



3. It was intended to explode. Insurance, or extra funding required.


The money had already been spent. Insurance might have covered a payload, not the vehicle. The cost of the disaster far outweighed any funds they got. No replacement shuttle arrived.



4. It was destroyed by forces unknown who made a previous warning. It was a test flight.


The only warning was about the safety of the O ring. It was not a test flight, there had been plenty of those already.


5. Possibly a multiple causation of the above.


Or it was destroyed when a faulty piece of rubber didn't work well in freezing conditions and safety warnings were ignored.



It is "rumored" that NASA was warned not to come back to the moon. Maybe there was more to the warning, and more to the Challenger mission 10.


By rumoured you mean "completely fabricated by people with too much time on their hands, an overactive imagination and an absence of evidence".

There was no warning. There was nothing more to the mission.




To settle it, you need more testimony from people who might have handled the bodies who are willing to make a statement. Other Family members, spouses, etc.


There is a vast amount of testimony out there. Inquiries were conducted and reports made. What's missing here is people's desire to actually read it and look at bogus nonsense that confirms their prejudices and feeds their fantasy world. The family members watched them die and attended their funerals. Go ask them.

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

www.gpo.gov...
edit on 24/3/2018 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: re-wording for clarity







 
30
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join