TRUE CONSPIRACY in the making!!! Wiki Leak vs NASA!

What I'm having a tough time biting on; that somehow a video no matter the importance is going to Jeopordize the Launch of a COUNTRIES SpaceCraft!!!!

Now that implies insanity just to stomach this.....

Absurd, irrelevant, obtuse, for anyway shape or form, that a video on Wikileaks, Jeopodizes the lives of seven astronauts aboard the Space Shuttle during Launch.

Fiction......

I believe ther would be 10,000 plus other relevant concerns that would be "issues" to the spacecraft, but not a stupid video from wikileaks.

As someone who's seen a shuttle launch in person, I have to say that this theory is highly implausible.

The shuttle launch I saw (STS-127) was last year. The launch suffered numerous delays. Some pushed it back for 24 hours, while the largest delay pushed the launch almost a month behind.

In other words, the likelihood of launching on April 5th, no matter what may or may not occur on that date, is low.

If the weather at Kennedy Space Center or any alternative shuttle landing sites is unsuitable, then there will be no launch. That's without even considering that there may be technical issues on the launch pad.

NASA doesn't kill their astros. I know some out there think poorly of this organization, and even I don't agree with everything they've done, but they wouldn't knowingly kill their own people.

Thanks for reading.

Excellent post my "Brotha from Anotha Motha"!

I personally think you've saved lives my friend - and to make sure that I've done my part - I'm going to let NASA know that WE'RE WATCHING....

S&F for you!

I guess people are choosing to be ignorant here huh?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you are uber paranoid you could consider that they are retiring the shuttles soon anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal to cause an accident that caused it to explode on the launch pad or something like that...if they are being decomissioned soon it won't hurt to lose one right?

That's a very big card to play though, and I doubt "they" would waste it just to distract from the video being released In these times of people having multiple PCs in their house, smartphones, etc, I would imagine it is hard to wag the dog since pretty much everyone multitasks, even their attentions, so they don't just stay glued to one tv channel or one MSM web site.

reply to post by Chadwickus


Not chosing to be, yet have been guilty of reading only a few post then replying, in which you answered the same things that I did, yet earlier than I.

Has nothing to do with ignorance, more so patience.

Sorry, Chadwickus!

Originally posted by Chadwickus
I guess people are choosing to be ignorant here huh?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Something I just noticed–“two previous shuttle accidents were at launch as well.”

Wasn't Challenger at launch and Columbia at re-entry?

reply to post by Pauligirl


Ha.

Yes you're correct, my bad.

But still, for an accident to occur, it is going to have to be on the 5th, the same day as the video is released, not a few days later.

So my point of creating the accident at launch is still the same.


Thanks again.

[edit on 28/3/10 by Chadwickus]

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Pauligirl

 

Ha.

Yes you're correct, my bad.

But still, for an accident to occur, it is going to have to be on the 5th, the same day as the video is released, not a few days later.

So my point of creating the accident at launch is still the same.


Thanks again.

[edit on 28/3/10 by Chadwickus]

Oh, I agree with you. I just wanted to make sure my time line hadn't shifted. You never know around here.

Real simple - Wiki pulls the ol' switcharoo and comes out a day or two early.

This isn't really rocket science, here.

Wait a minute.... sh*t

reply to post by imeddieone4202003


Did they ever give an asnwer to what happend to that money?

reply to post by theability


Hello theability,

Thanks for your reply.

To start off, don't shoot the messenger ok? I'm not saying i think anything is going to happen to the shuttle or not, i'm simply pointing out a logical set of facts, as i see them.

Look, if you don't happen to agree with what i say, that's completely fine with me. I'm not a Nazi mate!

The more complex the system, the easier that system spots TROUBLE!

Not so (in my opinion), for the reasons i have already explained at length. But hey, if that's what you think, and are sticking with come hell or high water...right on!

Do you take time to study, read because they have tens of thousands of Procedures to launch, just so they can spot exaclty what your talking about, SABATOGE!

Honesty, no i don't read about every subject i post on, sometimes i do if the subjects is of a highly technical nature, and i want to get the basics right, or if there is a subject i'm interested in but know little about, then i will too, but other than that i use my own views and logic.

Tens of thousands of procedures prior to launch eh? Just so they can spot sabotage?
Don't know about anyone else, but that tells me NASA thinks sabotage to the shuttle and it's systems is a likely or possible scenario then really doesn't it?

You're kind of arguing against yourself there my friend.

We agree the shuttle and it's systems are complex. However, you maintain it is safer from covert manipulation simply because it is more complex, and has a lot of personnel working on and having access to them.

If the complexity and many personnel adds up to a safer system versus a simpler system with less personnel, why the need for tens of thousands of procedures and checks against sabotage?

You see what i mean i hope?

Although frankly, the thousands of procedures and checks are more to do with equipment and component failure and fault finding checks than anything else.

Why do you think the shuttle has Five Major Computers on voting logic?? They can cut-off other computers if acting weird or outside flight parameters, and believe me they do!

The main computers are a potential target, but i'd be surprised if a target would be the main systems, for the reasons of redundancy you have given.

A more likely target of a computer orientated attack, would be subsystems.

Remember i said 'sophisticated technology facilitates sophisticated attacks'?
Do you think it implausible then, that a computer couldn't be programmed to feed positive responses to the main bus and to the control computers on the ground?

You don't imagine that a system could be programmed to give 10 positive or otherwise perfectly normal and expected responses to a query, during the checking phase and initial flight sequence, but then carry out what the saboteur wanted it to do later?

The nature of the complexity of the machine, the thousands of parts and myriad systems, opens a greater opportunity (not certainty btw) for an attack on any one of those parts or systems, at any step along the manufacture, supply, installation, maintenance chain...even at the time of security checks of the systems.

The shuttle isn't built and maintained by one company. There a myriad companies involved in manufacture, supply and maintenance of parts and equipment, even security for the shuttle and it's systems. This also makes it less secure.

A much LESS complex system, with much less access, either personally or electronically would suffer MUCH less chance of this hypothetical sabotage happening. Surely you can see that?

By the way have you seen the Kennedy Tactical Teams, The Special Forces of Cape Cannveral? These guys are armed to the HILT, machince guns, helicopters and the United States Military Just a call away.

Machine guns and guards are pretty effective against a nut running towards the shuttle with a bomb strapped to his or her guts, not so effective against electronic sabotage or covert manipulation or planting of explosives in routinely inaccessible areas, are they?

So don't think that its so simple to go screw with a Shuttle launch, obviously you think these Ph.d's are stupid and haven't a clue. Sabatoge has been around for centuries, especially state sponsored. Again you don't think they have thought about GRU or KGB agents infiltrating as employee's and causing havoc?

If it was a simple system, then yes, as i say the hypothetical attack would more often than not follow a simple strategy, whereas a complex system would obviously necessitate a complex and sophisticated strategy. So no, i don't imagine it would be 'simple'.

I think NASA and the military have some VERY intelligent people working for them...alas they don't have ALL of the intelligent people working for them.

As for NASA and the military having thought about GRU or KGB agents causing havoc, i could write all day on the amount of American double agents and KGB agent infiltrations of the US over the years. Google it, and you'd be surprised at how many were successful during the cold war.

You don't agree the same could happen again? You think that political or religious groups don't have their own double agents and sympathisers?

WOW sometimes I wonder about people....

Me too mate, me too.

I've gone to the point of boring you and other readers to death trying to explain myself here, if you still don't see where i'm coming from, that's ok with me...but do me a favour, if you don't agree, don't attack me for it eh?

Cheers.

reply to post by ucalien

Wow people, you are pushing too far now. I doubt NASA would sabotage a launching, killing astronauts...

Hmm...two things to say about that;

Apollo one.

Ok, i know you said only to stop a video leaking, but if that video exposes a massive lie, then perhaps they would, as many suspect had happened with Apollo one.

reply to post by ucalien


Whoa there..not case closed by a long chalk.

Nothing in propaganda circles is black or white.

Has anyone considered this 'video' is simply a ruse to get NASA or some other agency to show it's hand?

For, if Wikileaks didn't have a video at all, but convinced NASA and others it had in it's possession a piece of video or film that contained information SO damaging and of such importance, that it would bring down the whole house of cards and expose one of the biggest lies in human history...and then NASA or another agency took the bait and acted on it, by obvious means, wouldn't people then begin to question exactly why NASA and others may have been SO worried about this video in the first place?

TPTB are the first to shout "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" when talking about phone taps and surveillance on it's people..the same would apply to them wouldn't it?

Just another angle to consider.

reply to post by spikey

To start off, don't shoot the messenger ok? I'm not saying i think anything is going to happen to the shuttle or not, i'm simply pointing out a logical set of facts, as i see them. Look, if you don't happen to agree with what i say, that's completely fine with me. I'm not a Nazi mate!

I understand the messenger part, but what you suggest is quite serious!

[theability quote] The more complex the system, the easier that system spots TROUBLE!

[yours....]
Not so (in my opinion), for the reasons i have already explained at length. But hey, if that's what you think, and are sticking with come hell or high water...right on!

The System Complexity of the Shuttles is to PIN-POINT TROUBLE by Isolating the issues, with extreme precision and speed, to advert disaster, and make sure the machine is capable of carrying out the mission. There are so many logic sequnces that look for signal issues alone, There are thousand upon thousands of sensors, that must all get along in order to play: a Launch, On orbit operations and landing sequences. Having just one of the Tens of thousands of senors out of tolerance, would show, on someones screen somewhere!

[My quote theability]
Do you take time to study, read because they have tens of thousands of Procedures to launch, just so they can spot exaclty what your talking about, SABATOGE!

Sabotage can have two sides, inadvertant, making a mistake, or down right destruction of systems on purpose.

Tens of thousands of procedures prior to launch eh? Just so they can spot sabotage?
Don't know about anyone else, but that tells me NASA thinks sabotage to the shuttle and it's systems is a likely or possible scenario then really doesn't it?

There are approximatley 5000 pages [FIVE THOUSAND PAGES!] of Procedures during the countdown Phase of the mission. With so many systems that are needed to FUNCTION correctly, how could they not spot issues with tampering here? Seriously sabatoge would show directly somewhere, unless, thought beyond reality that someone just planted a bomb, that had nothing to do with the Shuttles systems.

You're kind of arguing against yourself there my friend.

How am I aurguing against myself?

We agree the shuttle and it's systems are complex. However, you maintain it is safer from covert manipulation simply because it is more complex, and has a lot of personnel working on and having access to them. If the complexity and many personnel adds up to a safer system versus a simpler system with less personnel, why the need for tens of thousands of procedures and checks against sabotage?
You see what i mean i hope?

You seem to forget that this is a military operation, these Ph.d's that are working upon this craft, just didn't respond to a craisglist add, and start working on shuttle systems yesterday!

Although frankly, the thousands of procedures and checks are more to do with equipment and component failure and fault finding checks than anything else.

AHHHHHH finally the MOTHERLOAD, COMPONET FAILURE AND FAULT TOLERANCES, either a componet could be just bad, or physical damaged, through accident, or sabatoge, RIGHT??????
WOW THE MOTHERLOAD maybe he see's it! FINALLY HE SEE'S WHAT PROCEDURES ARE FOR!!!!!!!!!

[theability]
Why do you think the shuttle has Five Major Computers on voting logic?? They can cut-off other computers if acting weird or outside flight parameters, and believe me they do!

[yours....]
The main computers are a potential target, but i'd be surprised if a target would be the main systems, for the reasons of redundancy you have given. A more likely target of a computer orientated attack, would be subsystems.

Wouldn't it be the function of the computers to oversee and report the status of ALL SUBSYSTEMS AND COMPONETS? I'd say umm
yeah, I'd think so!

The nature of the complexity of the machine, the thousands of parts and myriad systems, opens a greater opportunity (not
certainty btw) for an attack on any one of those parts or systems, at any step along the manufacture, supply, installation, maintenance chain...even at the time of security checks of the systems.

If you change the dynamics of a particular system, before flight, that system would AUTOMATICALLY SENSE THE OUT OF TOLERANCE ISSUES and say "HEY, Computer I got a major issue"! I am not working RIGHT!!!

Like that helium valve.....

[theability]
Your not going to change the entire shuttles programming to sabatoge it, and the chips to go with it that look for this type of thing, out of toloerance issues, require, investigation and would ground the Shuttle till resolved.

[yours]The shuttle isn't built and maintained by one company. There a myriad companies involved in manufacture, supply and maintenance of parts and equipment, even security for the shuttle and it's systems. This also makes it less secure. A much LESS complex system, with much less access, either personally or electronically would suffer MUCH less chance of this hypothetical sabotage happening. Surely you can see that?

I don't remember the shuttles still being BUILT, I thought that they'd been built and have been flying for decades. The only thing they go through is orbitor processing, which in done my the same company for decades!
Again the design of the shuttles, no matter what you think, would report anything outside the normal parameters of flight, the computers on board, don't negotiate, they report readings that aren't RIGHT, period!

I am sorry for seeming like I was attacking you. The situation you perpose, is beyond just simple plant a bomb, screw some wiring, hack a computer, or any number of things. My guess is there are 25-50,000 sensors on the shuttle, maybe evern more.

The attacks you state, if were so easy, they'd been done already.

Ohh yes maybe they tried, and failed horribly due the the effiecency of the systems I descibed. You right, what you say is able to happen, I believe its nothing but fiction and fantacy.
The most likely cause of a shuttle failure, an engineering defect, not sabatoge. Unless they Shot it out of the sky.

Ok?

[edit on 29-3-2010 by theability]

reply to post by SquirrelNutz


Was going to say exactly the same. In fact, why not release the video - with copies to every major news agency on the planet - right this minute?

What possible reason could there be?

reply to post by theability


For reasons best known to yourself, you seem to be deliberately missing or ignoring the point i'm presenting. You also seem to think debating is taking my rebuttal and using it back at me after rearranging it into your own words!?

For example, first you say; (and i will be repeating myself, so it will be difficult for you to misunderstand)

Do you take time to study, read because they have tens of thousands of Procedures to launch, just so they can spot exaclty what your talking about, SABATOGE!

Then i answer and point out that if an act of sabotage upon a space shuttle is such a ridiculous and far fetched notion (according to you), why then would YOU say NASA performs tens of thousands of procedures "just so they could spot SABOATGE" as you put it?!

You're arguing the very notion of potential sabotage is beyond belief, yet you say NASA performs tens of thousands of procedure searching for that same sabotage that is according to you, virtually impossible!!

Make your mind up, either it is possible to nobble the shuttle or it isn't.

N.B. If you don't understand the point of what i've just said, you may as well quit reading now, because you won't get the point further down.

I then point out that NASA does NOT perform these procedures for the reasons you originaly gave ("just so they could spot SABOATGE"), rather the checks are to ensure all components and circuits are operating and reporting nominal, and not suffering a fault.

A fault or component failure, as you may be aware, is something that happens to high technology quite often and is perfectly normal and not necessarily suspicious, hence the checks to identify a failing or defective component before it could potentially endanger the crew and mission (and civilians below).

It is NOT the same as a component or circuit FALSELY reporting nominal as part of an act of COVERT sabotage, when said components are queried during a checking routine.

In your 2nd reply, you have changed your mind, and agree with my assertion that the thousands of checks and procedures are NOT for the express purpose of identifying sabotage;

The System Complexity of the Shuttles is to PIN-POINT TROUBLE by Isolating the issues, with extreme precision and speed, to advert disaster, and make sure the machine is capable of carrying out the mission. There are so many logic sequnces that look for signal issues alone, There are thousand upon thousands of sensors, that must all get along in order to play: a launch, On orbit operations and landing sequences. Having just one of the Tens of thousands of senors out of tolerance, would show, on someones screen somewhere!

Flattering that you would take my answer and try to make it your rebuttle, but it does nothing to strengthen your argument. And also not accurate. If the attack is sophisticated enough, with the right personnel and the right tools, ANY electronic system can be compromised.

And i'm certainly not sure why, in echoing my answer, you felt the need to reiterate that the shuttle is a complex machine, considering it was one of the pivotal points of my original post.

The shuttle and it's systems are necessarily complex in order to achieve design function. I'm not arguing otherwise..quite the opposite in fact.

So yes, we're agreed..the shuttle is a complex bit of kit.

You also appear to think the word or the act of 'sabotage' means something other than it actually does.

YOU SAID;

Sabotage can have two sides, inadvertant, making a mistake, or down right destruction of systems on purpose.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Definitions of sabotage

1. [n] - a deliberate act of destruction or disruption in which equipment is damaged.

2. [v] - destroy property or hinder normal operations.

Here's a few synonyms of the word sabotage.

Weaken, subvert, counteract, undermine.

NOTHING in the word sabotage or it's definition even suggests an inadvertent act or to describe an error or mistake.

Therefore you are wrong.

You don't want to concede anything do you, so you're essentially arguing for the sake of it..i've no time for that kind of thing.

Here's a really, really simple analogy.
Forget the shuttle for a moment, and concentrate on this;

A wooden abacus versus an electronic calculator.

The abacus is the least complex of the two devices, and the electronic calculator is the most complex, yes?

Hypothetically, if someone resolved to commit a COVERT act of sabotage (read definitions of both the words sabotage and covert), in other words an act of sabotage that the saboteur(s) wished to remain hidden or undiscovered, (as OPPOSED to an OVERT act of sabotage such as taking a hammer and smashing them to bits) on which device do you think it would be harder to recognise the covert tampering?

On a simple wooden counting device with an analogue construction and all parts visible and accessible, or on the more complex digital calculator with many more complicated and routinely inaccessible parts, firmware and software to discreetly have a go at?

This is the WHOLE and ONLY point of my original post.
That a simple device is HARDER to COVERTLY nobble than a complex device.

IOW, it's far easier to spot tampering in a simple device, therefore harder for the sabotage to go UNDETECTED, than it is in a complex device.

If you cannot (or will not) appreciate the point i'm making here, then we're both wasting our time, and frankly i've devoted too much time explaining this already.

reply to post by theability


Anything CAN BE sabotaged if the perpetrators are skilled enough and want it bad enough. More often than not its an *inside job* rather than al-queda, the KGB or Mossad.

I have no way of knowing IF the shuttle will be sabotaged and will assume it won't because killing 7 people and destroying a billion dollar system is not an easy decision to make, even by ruthless killers within our government, however nothing can be rulled out.

I see no reason to attack posters that disagree with your "the shuttle is perfectly invincible" non-sensical argument(s) and spikey is correct stating "the more complex a system is, the easier it is to be covertly sabotaged" as well as "small unseen failure(s)" causing/escallating to major failure(s).

Simpler is ALWAYS better! Let that sink in properly...........

reply to post by spikey


Procedures to follow for flying the shuttle, would be for one thing,

REPORT EVERYTHING the whole picture of the flight, what the heck is going on!

Procedures would be the the analoge version of a flight data recorder, very encypted to say the least.

Anyway, I am sure they spend alot of there budget to minimize the possibility of what you suggest, and have been doing so for decades.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Actually I might want to bring up one thing about what I believe about the reliability.

1:57.4.....isnt that the odd's?




[edit on 29-3-2010 by theability]