SPACE - The Final Frontier Witho

SPACE - The Final Frontier Without Truth? Or - The REAL NASA You Don't See...And How Things Really Work

By Ted Twietmeyer
tedtw@frontiernet.net
2-8-4

IS NASA A CIVILIAN OR A MILITARY AGENCY ?
THE TRUTH ABOUT SECRECY- A PRIMER

NASA-SPEAK AND NASA CULTURE AND ANOMALIES
COVERUPS, BLUNDERS AND JUST PLAIN BAD ENGINEERING

DON'T GET SICK WHILE AT THE PAD ON LAUNCH DAY
THE GOLDIN MAN
NEW ADMINISTRATOR- STATED HE WAS AMAZED WE GOT TWO OUT OF TWO ROVERS

MARS PICTURES AND HIDDEN CENSORSHIP
WILL THE REAL COLOR PLEASE STAND UP

ARTIFACTS ON MARS TODAY
NASA- THEATER AND DRAMA TO IMPRESS THE MASSES

COMPETENCE IN FUTURE NASA MISSIONS
TO THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVEN'T BEEN LAID OFF YET

THE WAKEUP ALARM HAS BEEN SOUNDED TWICE

My Rebuttal To Mr. Oberg's Comments

Just a warning. If you want to remember NASA as:

* The agency that has the nice bleach-white uniformed people, that help astronauts and gave the world Velcro

* Watching them in the "white room" endless times on TV assisting the helpless astronauts strap into the shuttle...

* Vehicles are not built by the lowest bidder...

* When you grow up you want to go into space and hopefully come back alive...

If this is the vision you want to keep of NASA, then click the BACK button now.

Don't say you weren't warned. Remember, sunlight is still the best disinfectant. You will read facts in this article that you have not heard before. Everything is 100% true and as accurate as I can state it here. No embelishments or literary license. Just the plain truth. I'm expecting great trouble for bringing this out, but it was high time for it. After the assault on me a few days ago (described below) there appears to be little time. I must thank Kudos to Jeff for publishing this account, and for all the thankless hours he spends reading hundreds of emails every day, for the past ten years.

WHAT INSPIRED ME WHEN I WAS YOUNG...

Back in elementary school in the sixties, I looked forward to those assemblies as we called them, when the NASA representative came to the school. He would bring liquid nitrogen and show what happens to flowers and rubber balls, or a Van DeGraff to demonstrate what high voltage would do to human hair. It was an honor to me to help him load everything back into his station wagon when it was over as he prepared to visit the next school. How I loved those days ! Watching John Glen on TV, the inspiration was so great I immediately went to the basement to see how I could build a rocket. I was only about 8 years old, but that didn't stop me. Eventually my hobby became model rocketry among other things. Dreams often consumed me of being a part of the space program. Soldered a safety pin to the back of a small sheet metal Star-Trek icon I made, so it could attach to my shirt to go to school with. Yes, I was laughed at but that didn't stop the dreams of one day being a part of the space program. It was in my blood. And one day, as fate would have it that wish would come true, by working for a small defense contractor that provided systems for NASA and other agencies. This article is my story about the dream being shattered with the truth about what they are, and how they operate. And I give this to you with a tear in my eye.

IS NASA A CIVILIAN OR A MILITARY AGENCY ?

Many readers already know that the american space journey began in earnest with Nazi scientists under Operation Paperclip. These fine german specimens came here and were treated as royal scientists. I was always amazed that Werner VonBraun or one of the others didn't get a Nobel Prize for their work. Why ? Not because his work was about peace or space exploration. In the beginning as it is now, it is not. NASA is, and has always been, part of the Department of Defense. Its in blue printing on their letterheads, and I have several of them from past correspondence. Back before email replaced letters. And by that definition, even NASA is now under the great Homeland Security umbrella. There is no way around that fact. Just because they don't speak of this in the press, it doesn't mean this is not true. I'll share with you some of the 20+ years of 100% successful NASA (and military) contracts in this article. There were a number of occassions when NASA didn't have the technical capability to actually test system performance to what they specified for the system they purchased. And these were the same people who wrote the specifications. They had to be shown how to perform the acceptance test. Pathetic is the only word for that.

THE TRUTH ABOUT SECRECY- A PRIMER

One of the greatest misconceptions people have about government secrets, is that the govt. can't keep a secret. Nothing is further from the truth. Even this email has been read before Jeff received it. And if I was to reveal something against the oath I took, not only would Jeff never get the email, but I would just disappear. With Patriot Act 1 and 2, its "no more Mr. Nice Guy." Now Uncle Sam has a bad case of permanent PMS when it comes to people that love truth. I know this, as the recipient of an assault just the other day by a high powered laser that went through my heavy winter coat. Seems that some people have nothing better to do on government payrolls than to harass people. But that's a subject for another time.

The government wants you to just shutup and listen only to one of the five big networks. THEY know what's best for you. Like one of Fox's slogan, "All the news you need to know." Should we thank them for deciding for us ? And for secrecy, just remember the Manhattan Project, SR-71 and many other projects. You heard about them only when they were either completed or become obsolete like the SR-71. The government employs literally thousands of people to "keep the lid on." This is how they have operated for almost 100 years. Even before the Roswell incident. Why ? The internet has given them great headaches about this matter. But once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't stuff it back in...

Alien technology is a gold mine of unlimited proportions. Its true they usually have no idea how these devices work, but they still want them anyway. They will go to any length to get them. Much of the alien technology is like the madness of putting a loaded handgun with the hammer pulled back, in the hands of a child. God help us all. Military use of technology is, and always will be, the main reason they refuse to answer people like Dr. Greer of C-SETI and the public about the "UFO Problem." They want it all for military use. The UFO problem is only a problem because the government has made it one, as a distraction.

World domination is a better way to put it. And the current administration has publicly stated this is the end goal, now calling the united states the "American Empire." Meglomania strikes again.

Many of the NASA missions are classified to this day, sending satellites into orbit bristling with antenna farms. Satellites sensitive enough, to pick up the radio frequency emissions of almost every electronic device in your home. Satellites also watch WHAT and WHO is visiting the earth. Yes, they are indeed out there and come and go. Almost like earth is a cosmic Grand Central Station. But, you don't need to know anything about it since it has been decided for you that "it's not your problem" and you can't handle the truth. Or, is it ? Few people took notice when the airforce announced many years ago, the formation of the Air Force Space Command based at Vandenberg AFB. These are the people that fight the deep black (classified) covert war to defend the planet.

Later on, I'll describe one of the vehicles they have used for this. But first, lets lay the groundwork for some truth here, and familiarize you with how things really work at the one of the biggest agencies in the US govt. They have done one hell of a PR job, which for the most part has worked well for them. Like all the other non-intelligence agencies, once a year they go beg for "scraps from the master's table" in Washington, in front of a finance committee. This is the time for the director to be in the spotlight, to put on the appearance and air of accountability.

In this paper you will see how this affects the success or failure of NASA missions. We have yet to hear from anyone on a WA, DC finance committee, say to any NASA director "can't you do that mission cheaper ?" No one is stupid enough to want to endanger a mission, especially a manned mission. No one that is, except a former scientist-turned-administrator who took over in the 80's. And many missions paid the price for this.

NASA-SPEAK AND NASA CULTURE AND ANOMALIES

NASA-SPEAK and ANOMALIES

NASA has an acronym for every aspect of the space program. More alphabet soup than you could ever imagine. They speak to each other in sentences peppered with acronyms. Sometime if you don't mind being bored out of your mind, tune into a live mission on the NASA channel. They don't do that very much now since they have a new administrator.

Since he took over, now they are big on new education movies (brainwashing the school children to want to work for them one day, with classroom-oriented short videos for teachers to use.) Gone are the wonderful days of visiting schools and getting children interested in science. Watch them live at mission control, and you'll see people actually tossing wads of paper into trash cans over and over, striving for that three-point shot. They are aware there are cameras in the corners of the room, but they don't care. I've always wondered if they did computer simulations striving for that perfect wrist action...

NASA has VERY thick notebooks that cover all their acronyms. Astronauts must learn them all. And you thought memorizing the multiplication tables or lists of pronouns in school was bad. We're talking about 1,000 of these, just for one space mission.

ANOMALIES

First, lets look at the definition of an "anomaly". We hear this term often in NASA-speak on TV. What is it ? Simple- its more often than not, in plain language its a SCREWUP. NASA slaps the "anomaly" label on to make something terrible look like it isn't their fault. Now you know what that really means when you hear it. To understand them, its no different than listening to a stock broker, a doctor or an auto mechanic. You have to know the jargon to make sense of it. Most professions hide behind jargon. So when you drive off the road and into a ditch because of tire failure, caused by not checking the pressure regularly you can tell the insurance company (and the cop writing the ticket) that there was an "anomaly" with your tire. Disclaimer- always check your tire pressure and don't drive off the road. Do you think they may have earned the nickname "Never A Straight Answer" ? Is it no wonder, that the expression "Houston we have a problem" has found its way into mainstream america ?

THE CULTURE

The NASA culture in the 60's was white shirt, tie and dark pants. It was the NASA uniform. For decades you could go through engineering buildings and past office after office, and often see them toiling away at drafting boards, or in meetings. NASA loves meetings. Lots of them. Now its become more relaxed. So relaxed in fact, that they literally publicly express amazement when a mission doesn't fail. They don't hesitate to tell the public about how amazed they are.

COVERUPS, BLUNDERS AND JUST PLAIN BAD ENGINEERING

APOLLO 204 FIRE

At NASA, they are proud to tell you everything is carefully "planned." In past manned space missions, they boast about it. And the failures are hidden whenever, and wherever possible. Lets look back 40 years, to Apollo. Remember the men that died on the pad in a training excercise ? What were you told ? Several electrical arcs caused the fire according to NASA at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollo204/find.html

But wait a minute, did they not also mention that it was an oxygen rich atmosphere ? Didn't anyone know how explosive that is ? Of course they did, but in typical NASA smugness it was blamed on an electrical short or static. Isn't this about the same stupidy, as using a cigarette lighter to look into your car's gas tank ? Now, they couldn't hide this foolish decision to use pure oxygen because three astronauts DIED. Very inconvenient for their security people. Not much to work with. Even worse, NASA had information that in russia, another oxygen fire killed the crew of an earlier Soyuz mission. Did they learn anything from that ? Apparently not. In the government's own words at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollo204/ Werner VonBraun, spaceflight veteran was alive and part of the space program at the time.

Why did he allow a oxygen rich environment in the command module with ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT ? Could Dr. VonBraun have been that stupid ? We may never know. Full report at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollo204/content.html

APOLLO 13

Apollo 13 became famous only because Ron Howard made a film about it. It was indeed amazing that he actually got the cooperation of the agency. Why ? Because it was a trade- NASA could "help" edit plot and technical content in return for giving rides to the film crew on the "vomit-bomber"- the padded, no seat plane that NASA uses to train astronauts with approx. 30 seconds of zero G. The plane is an empty, padded jetliner that does fast climbs and free-falls. Plane's nickname as you can imagine, was readily accepted by those who had to ride on it.

What you may not know about Apollo 13, was the stupidity of how the CO2 scrubbers in the Lunar Lander were square, and those in the command module were round. And even worse, how there were NO SPARES carried aboard. The all-important scrubbers purify air, the same way your kidneys filter your blood.

CHALLENGER

Let's move forward in time to the ill-fated Challenger.

Before its terminal flight in 1986, it had other problems. For example, STS-51F had an early main engine shutdown that resulted in abort to orbit. You can read this at http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-f/mission-51-f.html

Did this make any real news ? They had to abort to orbit, because they could not land the vehicle. There is a "gray zone" where they cannot successfully land it back on the KSC runway, and the only thing they can do is attempt to reach orbit. If that failed, it would have "landed" in the Atlantic ocean. They were lucky.

I was a project manager at a company that built switching systems. We had won a contract in 1984 with NASA, to build two systems for LC (Launch Complex) 39. All space shuttles are launched from there. The system was part of the Pad Measurement System (NASA didn't want to change those PMS initials to something else. They liked it.)

There are temperature sensors, accelerometers and other transducers all through the pad. After processing by the PMS, digital signals are sent via underground cables to the Launch Command Center (LCC) four miles away. The system is installed inside the blockhouse. This is actually partially underground, and is the very long, angled concrete structure you see from the rear of the pad on TV. Few camera pictures on television are taken from that side. Entry to the pad is via the flame pit. There is a road that allows you to drive down into it. Its just like driving down into a Walmart parking lot, but larger. Lined with concrete and firebrick.

DON'T GET SICK WHILE AT THE PAD ON LAUNCH DAY

The building is sealed with a thick steel door, plus a heavy concrete door from the outside about 4 hours before launch. This is a ritual that dates back to the days of heir VonBraun, and is exactly like what the germans did in their rocket program.

Inside the blockhouse, in the hall bolted to the floor are chests. These are marked with black and yellow safety tape. Why ? Because that yellow smoke you see produced during the lift off phase is from burning hydrazine. Inhaling it results in death. If you're caught on the toilet when takeoff is about to begin, you have a very short time to get out in the hall (hopefully you have your pants pulled up by then) and into one of the environmental suits stored in the chest. There is enough oxygen to last a few hours. When the fumes clear after liftoff, the ground crews come back and re-open the blockhouse. Launch of the vehicle results in a red dust everywhere. The subsonic vibrations will shake you to your very soul. When I was there in August of 1985, even though there wouldn't be a launch for months I was still nervous. And I didn't have Montezuma's revenge (yet.) That came later that night from the terrible "drinking" water they had there. Didn't understand at lunch why people looked at me funny when I had my midday drink of water. But I understood it later.

Challenger's last flight was from LC-39, Pad B. And because of tampering with the PMS, no data at all was obtained during the launch phase of Challenger. This too, was not mentioned in the Rogers Commission report.

Note in the Rogers Commission report on the accident, Vol II Appendix I that none of the pre-launch operations are available on-line. Most of the other launch operations are listed as clickable links in the report's table of contents:

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission /table-of-contents.html

Now you know how NASA earned the nickname "Never A Straight Answer."

However, it was on that ill-fated morning that an engineer from a well known aerospace company went inside the pad, and "twiddled" with controls on many systems, including the PMS. Then he left. I know because of a phone call I received shortly after the accident about it. His actions caused that important piece of equipment to be disabled, so that the LCC could no longer monitor launch pad stresses. Now you ask, "as big as KSC is (at least 25 miles across) how did they know who it was ?" Very simple- the pad had a 12ft high chainlink fence around it topped with razor wire, and, has its OWN GUARDHOUSE. They know exactly who it is. And I do mean "he." Because he had to sign in at the gate, just as I did when I went down there in August 1985 to oversee the PMS installation project. The PMS was installed up on the second floor of the block- house, in the first computer room on the right.

We heard endlessly about O-Rings, over and over in the press. Great distraction and something to blame. Morton Thoikol covered themselves well and told NASA not to launch that morning. But as usual, no one was listening at the KSC and insisted on launching anyway.

Redesigned solid rocket booster info here at: http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_asm.html

Just like they didn't listen to me either, when I told them NOT to put a remote/local selector switch on the front panel of the PMS during a design review. They refused to listen. My suggestion to allow the LCC to take control of the system was rejected. So I designed in a high quality air-craft style switch on the front panel of the system. It has a lighted upper and lower half with a legend. The top is "LOCAL" and the bottom one is "REMOTE.". To change this, you must lift the clear window and then press the button. This made it impossible for someone to accidentally bump it. Even hitting it with your fist won't affect it. But on that fateful morning, that engineer did lift the cover and press the button.

Now think about this- tampering with launch pad equipment just before launch. Who wouldn't call that "sabotage ?" Again, according to the Rogers Commission Report, nothing like this happened accordning to the report's Table of Contents at

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission /table-of-contents.html

There is just one sentence in that report that even remotely touches upon this subject which is:

"No evidence of sabotage was found."

And it gets even better. In the Table of Contents for the report, all phases of operations at Pad B are covered. These are shown as clickable links so you can go right to the section about it. What about pre-launch operations that this incident happened under ? This section is NOT AVAILABLE to the public for reading. Again, you need to understand that you are the unwashed and don't need to know these things. But the pre-launch operations are listed in the Table of Contents. What does that tell you, loud and clear ? And another incident happened that morning- soviet fishing trawlers that usually came in close to shore to watch the launch, went far out to sea an hour before. What did they know that you and I didn't, and how did they know it ?

And finally others are beginning to talk. This article dated May 2nd 2003 illustrates how far back the coverup on the shuttle goes, incredibly all the way to Nixon. It is titled "Thirty Years of Fudge": http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-03p1.html

If the truth cannot be found in the Challenger Rogers Commission Report, are we likely to find truth in the Columbia Commission Report ?

A description of Launch Complex 39 (as complete as it gets anyway) can be found at http://science..ksc.nasa.gov/facilities/lc39a.html

THE GOLDIN MAN

With nothing to do with a James Bond movie, it was in the 1980s that a new administrator took the helm. In the corporate world, he would be called a "hatchet man." For those that don't know what this is, this is a person who is hired to "take the blame"- he walks down through an office area, and just points at who will be fired. Hence the name. Big companies like Xerox have used these unsavory people in the past to "clean house."

The loss of Challenger eventually led to the top. A new administrator had to be found. And there he was- Dr. Daniel Goldin, darling of the zionist elite of Washington. A real showman without doubt. A scientist-turned-hatchet man with a flare for the dramatic. He actually made it a point in his first year in office, to go around and visit ALL the NASA facilities. Most people don't know that NASA has numerous facilities in Maryland, Virginia (Langley Research Center) Florida of course, Alabama, Ohio, Texas, Misissippi, California (JPL) and others. Was this to make employees feel good ? It was not to be as we shall see. It was a blood hound mission.

Daniel Goldin hammered into the heads of every single employee at NASA, THEE motto: "SMALLER-BETTER-FASTER-CHEAPER" while he was busy handing out pink slips. He was trying to apply factory business principles to the work of science. It couldn't be done then, and it can't be done now. All it results in, is wasted money and no results. You can't strip but so much meat off a bone. But apparently he continued to do so, long after it was picked clean. Good people at NASA who loved their work, FEARED Lord Goldin's next layoff announcements. I was down at the NASA Wallops Island Facility a few years ago during his reign. My wife and I were sitting in a restaurant, and I casully picked up a table newsletter. There was the headline again- "NASA announces another 4,000 to be laid off." Note the word "another." And this was just one of many facilities. (NASA-WALLOPS does studies of the upper atmosphere and into low earth orbit, 90 miles up. They also manage rocket launches from Wallops into the northen lights from Norway, Alaska and the Antarctic to study the impact on weather and communications by this phenomena.)

In the Apollo days of NASA, they had the best of the best in technical talent. I've been priveleged to know some of them from the Apollo days. Walking through office buildings up until the early 80's, you would see the white shirt and tie types in meetings, and people busy in offices. Not any more. It is because all the veteran engineers and program managers who knew what they were doing have left, and that has caused so many missions to fail. What should be done, is for every mission that fails, drop everyone's pay at NASA by 10%. As the old expression goes, "hit 'em right in the wallet, where it hurts." You can bet we would start seeing 100% success rates.

Daniel Goldin would do well in industry. He didn't lay off a few here and a few there. Or even a hundred. His layoff announcements, several a year, were ALWAYS in the THOUSANDS. Watching him go in front of the budget committee on C-band dish at home back then was real performance. He would boast and brag to them about an upcoming budget that was often more than one billion (or more) LESS than the year before. Yes, you read that right. A billion dollars in cuts. Now what was the result of all this ? NASA became known throughout the space industry as the biggest brain drain ever known. And it still is.

NEW ADMINISTRATOR- STATED HE WAS AMAZED WE GOT TWO OUT OF TWO ROVERS

I watched in a sickened nauseated state, as the *new* administrator O'Keefe spoke on the NASA channel recently. He's one of those down-to-earth types. Doesn't wear a suit. Makes the natives-feel-good-type-guy.

What does he say about the two rovers on Mars ? "We got two out of two, and we didn't expect that." What many can't understand, is that with so many structures (links given below) and other oddities on Mars, WHY would they care about looking for water or hematite ? Richard Hoagland studied NASA's own photos four years ago, and they clearly showed water leaking from a crack in the side of a crater (you'll see that link to the photo below.) That's like going to Hawaii, just to look at the asphalt on the road instead of going to the beach. But maybe thats really the idea here- to distract people and avoid anything whatsoever that might mean life was on Mars, or still is. After all, the world has been brainwashed into thinking that NASA scientists always know what's best for the masses.

WHAT is NASA saying ? In the 70's we landed TWO Vikings on Mars. And they BOTH WORKED. We sent TWO Voyager spacecraft out in 1976, and they are both STILL TRANSMITTING after they left the solar system. NASA stopped monitoring them about two years ago. Only pictures of stars are transmitted now but no one is listening. At least not publicly.

MARS PICTURES AND HIDDEN CENSORSHIP

Now flip your calendar ahead to the Mars Global Surveyor mission. With this mission, they contracted Malin Space Science Systems (known as MSSS.) That company was run by one Dr. Richard Malin at that time (and may still be.) For reasons yet unknown, that company became the censor for ALL the pictures from Mars. Here is how it worked: Pictures from Mars are received by one of the very large dishes around the world, such as the one in Canberra, Australia. This is part of the deep space network as its know in NASA. The digital pictures and science data are then uplinked to one of the infamous NASA TDRS satellites. TDRS stands for Television Data Relay Satellite.

Side note: TDRS satellites were originally launched for space shuttle support. The shuttle communicates to mission control by a self-tracking small dish antenna in the payload bay, which tracks the nearest satellite. (There were three of these in geostationary orbit. This means they appear to be stationary relative to the earth.) One of the early TDRS birds was a payload on-board the terminal flight of Challenger.

The pictures from Mars, in digital form were sent back to earth and received at JPL in Houston. These signals were piped into Dr. Malin's office. Nowhere in the signal chain between Mars and JPL have they been viewed. In fact, no other scientists were allowed to view them, until Dr. Malin a pproved them for viewing. Yes, it sounds crazy but it is true. He would decide what pictures were released. This as you might expect, it caused a howl to come up from the scientific community and the public. But the noise fell upon deaf ears.

And periodically, Dr. Malin would make staggering statements like:: "I just found another 25,000 pictures we didn't know we had." Now think about how much data space 25,000 science quality pictures require. It would fill magnetic tapes or hard drives. Remember these are uncompressed images. Many times larger than the biggest JPEG photos you may have downloaded from the web or your camera. This was on May 22, 2000.

And Dr. Malin didn't know they had these images ? So how does one misplace a HUGE database like that ?

Even worse, this happened OVER AND OVER again:

06/07/2000 27,500 images were suddenly released

10/19/2000 30,000 images were suddenly released

One must ask- why did they keep these pictures so long ? Altogether Lord Malin has on his website, more than 130,000 pictures. Why were they not released to the public that PAYED for them AS THEY CAME IN ? This question was never answered. It is believed by many, that this suspicious activity was the result of time required to examine the pictures for "unacceptable artifacts." Like plant life, UFOs, buildings etc... What other reason could there be to keep control of them for months on end ? But they didn't catch it all. On the enterprisemission.com website you can see these astounding images courtesy of Richard Hoagland, dedicated scientist and researcher and winner of the Angstrom Science award. In addition to the famous face and pyramid on Mars, here are more images:

Plant life: http://www.enterprisemission.com/mpl.htm

Leaking water from the side of a crater found on July 18th 2000 in NASA photos by Richard Hoagland http://www.enterprisemission.com/kelp.htm (At the time, NASA denied this)

Tetrahedra structure: http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/mars/tetra.jpg

Unexplained "punched dome": http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/0339214.jpg

And what was the source for these amazing images ? On MSSS.COM website of course- the site run by Dr. Malin. But wasn't it the american taxpayer that paid for this mission, not Dr. Malin ?

And censorship didn't end there. Time after time, many asked him to image the famous Cydonia area of Mars. It contains many different kinds of structures, both natural and clearly some are artificial. Dr. Malin actually repeatedly turned the camera OFF when it went over that area. That is, until a fax campaign was instituted through a grass-roots movement. Then images were taken with astounding results. The letter on 3/24/98 that NASA released after considerable public pressure was placed upon them, is at http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/98/cydonia.html

When you examine the photos and see GEOMETRIC STRUCTURES on Mars you realize why they dragged their feet. Yet in the press release, they insist that everything on Mars is of "natural origin." Of course it is- including the D & M pyramid at Cydonia there. Natural geologic processes always create pyramids like the Giza Egypt structure, right ?

But this saga had a somewhat happy ending. After countless faxes and being interrogated by Senator John McCain, Malin released MORE images of the infamous Cydonia region. Wasn't it public funding that paid for this mission in the first place ? Sure fooled millions. You can read it here at http://www.enterprisemission.com/skull.htm

WILL THE REAL COLOR PLEASE STAND UP

Now we move to the present. As pointed out in other articles here on rense.com very clearly, first NASA will show it red, then in another picture show it with tan rocks and blue sky. Which one is right ? What is NASA talking about when they state "its very hard to get the colors right on Mars." NONSENSE. The correct way to do it, and the way it was done 30 years ago with the Viking spacecraft, is to have a COLOR CHART attached to the side of the rover. For Viking it was attached to the side of the housing for the electronics. The camera which is remote controlled, is aimed at the chart. The colors are then adjusted as required so the color chart looks the SAME as it did on earth. That's all there is to it. No magic required. No meddling to make it look like a red planet. Many have seen the live NASA panel discussions, just a week ago where they were switching between images with a red sky and red earth and a blue sky and tan earth. The latter looks almost exactly like the desert in southwestern united states.

ARTIFACTS ON MARS TODAY

Now, with the rovers we can see details never imagined before. Each one carries state of the art science cameras. This permits anyone to enlarge distant images, with little loss of clarity. And interesting discoveries from this have already been made, in just the month that these rovers have been operating.

Here is one of my favorite pictures, straight from the JPL website unchanged. Its amazing that with all the dust and dirt on that planet, yet these objects have almost nothing on them. Square rocks are everywhere, right ? Or is it a fragment of an unnatural object ?

NASA- THEATER AND DRAMA TO IMPRESS THE MASSES

Watching a NASA launch, is like going to the movie theater. Both are fiction. The reason is, that NASA doesn't want to tell you the reason for their existence, nor how and why their "disasters" happen. Its not the people that work there. They are in the dark as you were, before you read this article. Its the power people at the top, and in the government. Those who are behind the scenes. They call the shots.

The US Space Command has technology now that Gene Roddenberry couldn't imagine. But one quickly learns that its really all about sandboxes and toyboxes. Just like when you were a child. Remember that kid next door, that didn't want to share anything he had ? Well, thats just how it is between NASA and the Air Force. The TR3 is very advanced, almost completely silent and can take off and land vertically. It makes the new "space plane" an antique, before it flies the first mission. Did you say that the government can't keep a secret ? Many thousands have seen these vehicles, and they are called the TR3 series, aka the Black Manta. The infamous "Black Triangles."

Do they exist ? Yes they do, and in the UK it is against the National Secrets Act there to talk about one on TV, radio or in the press. It is a punishable offense. But of course, you know you are part of the unwashed masses, and therefore for your own good you must be kept in the dark and fed BS. Otherwise known as the Mushroom Treatment.

COMPETENCE IN FUTURE NASA MISSIONS

Today, you can walk through many NASA facilities and find endless darkened and locked offices. Its quite disconcerting to see this, when you hear about failed missions. Engineering is an art, and people either have that skill or they don't. One can be book smart, and pencil stupid. And just as bad, is that in colleges and universities the skills required to design for space missions are rarely taught, if at all. Much of the knowledge to make missions go well in space, was lost during the countless layoffs in the post-Apollo years. The new director O'Keefe seems like a sincere man, but then so did Daniel Goldin. I always wondered if Goldin received a commission for every person he laid off, all the while CONSTANTLY hammering the slogan to employees "smaller-better-faster-cheaper." How did he sleep at night ? All I can say, is that if they don't start a space technology college (described below) to teach the art of engineering for space, I deeply fear for the life of the next manned missions. Forget about going to Mars- even a moon mission won't go well.

NASA needs to create a COLLEGE, initially staffed with former NASA veteran engineers as faculty to TEACH the ART and SCIENCE of space travel and spacecraft design. To send the rovers to Mars without more than one processor (known as "redundancy" in space jargon) was irresponsible. All the other older missions like Voyager and Viking ALL had backup processors. Even the system I designed to monitor the launch pad (the PMS) which never left earth was REQUIRED to have a "hot standby"and redundant power supplies. And then we hear NASA engineers state in press briefings that "space travel is difficult and very hard." As the entire world has always known this, why did they sent the single-processor rovers to Mars without backups for anything ?

And even worse- running immature software like Java scripts on a computer 140 million miles away ? Haven't you seen java script errors on your computer before ? Everyone has. It defies common sense to anyone to comprehend this stupid thing to do. Did they *think* that they would be immune to such errors just because they are NASA ?

Another sickening moment came in another recent NASA panel press conference, when one of the NASA engineering people made the incredibly stupid "we're not to blame statement" by making the comment that, "its not possible to fully test all the software on earth." That is another lie. It came shortly after she announced that "we discovered we didn't have enough RAM on the rover, for the Flash memory file system." This too, is another lie that "they didn't know" it would not be enough RAM.

I can atest to the fact they CAN write software that doesn't crash, and can be fully tested on earth. The switching systems we did for numerous NASA facilities were well tested, and to this day are ALL running V1.0. They don't ever crash and freezeup, because of thorough testing. In fact, some of these systems are in use at The Boeing Company in Seattle for flight testing of every single plane that comes off the production line, both when the engines are fully assembled for mounting to the plane, and also for real-time flight testing. All of these systems too, are running V1.0 software. Anyone that states software cannot be fully tested on earth, is lying.

To make things even worse, they have just 128MB of RAM and 256 MB of Flash memory on each rover. You probably have more RAM than that in the computer you are reading this on. An 800 MILLION dollar mission, and that's all the RAM they could put on-board ? What's wrong with that picture ? Even worse, NASA has bragged about using a "1991 Power-PC chip that runs at 20Mhz." This is so pathetic it doesn't even deserve a comment. But this again demonstates that they NEED the space engineering college to teach the real art of spacecraft design.

TO THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVEN'T BEEN LAID OFF YET

My heart goes out to you good people still at the agency, who don't deserve the mushroom treatment, or being asked to explore space on a shoestring. And if you work there right now and are reading this, and see the coverup going on, SPEAK OUT as I have here. Look at it this way- if you have become privy to knowledge like this and they know it, your days are already numbered. And even if they don't know it, IT IS YOUR DUTY AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN to speak out about it. It is NOT someone else's problem. You're either part of the problem or part of the solution. If you work there, you cannot sit on the fence. And those people drafted into the coverup positions in NASA, have an unsafe and often short future. Remember- sitting on information is often more dangerous than bringing it out into the light of day. Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.

I also pray that the airforce will start sharing their toys (which I still doubt will happen) so REAL space exploration can begin. Everyone knows that because of interplanetary and interstellar distances, rockets are worthless for exploration. We don't need the theater of burning poisonous hydrazine fuel in Florida to impress taxpayers and the world. Rocket science is now obsolete and we need to move forward. The much-touted "spaceplane" is also another step backwards, and is only happening because of the TR3 coverup. How can they spend BILLIONS to develop that plane, that in reality they don't even need ? When will it end ?

THE WAKEUP ALARM HAS BEEN SOUNDED TWICE

When I first went public many years ago about Challenger, I pleaded on national radio for people to wake up. I said clearly that my reason for going public, was so it wouldn't happen again. And on that day last year February-first sitting in a restaurant I head about Columbia, I stood up and embarrased my wife when I yelled out that "dammit, they did it again." Why ? Because they KNEW Columbia had a problem, and again, covered it up. This time it was done so there wouldn't be any cameras around. Only the high altitude cameras they have ALWAYS used to look at the shuttle, while its in orbit. The airforce high-powered cameras on the ground can see the tiles. Spy satellites can see them, too. And ALL shuttle missions, carry at least one EVA suit and a special repair kit to go outside in space to replace a missing tile. But you aren't supposed to know that either. You may ask, "what's in common between those two missions ?" The answer is a simple one:

Each mission was the first time an Israeli national was to fly in space.

But of course, this is just a "coincidence."

It will be REAL high technology like the gravity field driven TR3 that will take us to planets in record time. Also, I ask Sean O'Keefe, the new leadership, to take stock of his agency. Its a chance to begin anew, without the endless lies. The american people are a far different people, than they were back in the innocent days of Watergate. Now more than 75% polled believe in life elsewhere. The excuse to coverup the evidence of life on Mars is now obsolete.

A door of opportunity is opening with O'Keefe the new administrator, and may he have the good sense to step through it into a new era of exploration AND TRUTH. Time proves out all things. But can we wait that long ?

Ted Twietmeyer

My Rebuttal To Mr. Oberg's Comments

From Ted Twietmeyer

tedtw@frontiernet.net 2-11-4

JO: NASA (and NACA before it) has always been an independent federal agency. I'd be curious to see jpgs of these alleged letterheads, or better yet, the originals before photoshop was applied to them.

TT: For those that don't think NASA and the DoD are connected, I submit below more proof of this from their websites:

I do not have a scanner here for the letterhead. However, listed below are a sample of joint DoD/NASA projects. Its quite obvious that NASA is no longer an autonomous agency. It may be that the project I did a switching system for, was at the time a permanent project. I was quite amazed to suddenly see a joint DoD/NASA (in that order) contract on my desk.

Defense data network notice about a worm in 1994. NASA is mentioned in this as "NASA Automated Systems Incident Response Capability:" http://cs-www.ncsl.nist.gov/secalert/ddn/1994/sec-9414.txt

The Boeing Co. Construction project blank agreement form for Dod/NASA: http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/canoga/library/a-r8d/r107-b-1.pdf

SSTO X vehicle joint project (to replace the space shuttle): http://www.hvcn.org/info/a2s2/dod.html

DoD/NASA experiments- scroll down to "Box 389" in this file: http://www..hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/nara/e386-391.html

Expendable launch vehicle in joint NASA/DoD program: http://www.ostp.gov/other/launchts.html

From the NASA website below, here is an excerpt: Deliverables of the project directly support joint warfare capability objectives in the areas of precision force, information superiority, and joint readiness and logistics. Examples of DoD systems that can be positively impacted by CFD-4 software can be seen by... http://rotorcraft.arc.nasa.gov/cfd/CFD4/New_Page/Home.htm

Further, the Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville Alabama is an army base, and NASA has a communications and tracking facility there. One of the first switching systems I was involved with back in 1980 was designed and installed in that NASA facility. It replaced a manual patch panel system.

TT: "And by that definition, even NASA is now under the great Homeland Security umbrella. There is no way around that fact. Just because they don't speak of this in the press, it doesn't mean this is not true."

JO: No, it's not true for another reason: there's no evidence FOR it, and all documented evidence is AGAINST it.

TT: I've defended my statement with the proofs given above.

TT: "World domination is a better way to put it. And the current administration has publicly stated this is the end goal, now calling the united states the "American Empire." Meglomania strikes again." JO: Paranoid delusions strike again -- unless TT can produce a citation where the current administration has publically stated the goal is 'American Empire'. He's only dreamed this, and forgotten how to see the line between dream and reality.

TT: Members of the current administration have made statements about world domination, in the "project for a new american century" mission statement at http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm The website has Dick Cheney and other names on it as members, and it also explicitly states increasing the size of the military.

The Dilemma of Sustaining an American Empire (January 1, 2003) Andrew J. Bacevich, a former US officer, discusses the dilemma of sustaining a �US empire,� stating that the Bush administration�s present combination of tax cuts and massive military spending would be unsustainable if the economy falls into a recession. (Financial Times)

Bush and his administration have worked tirelessly to expand the powers of the presidency at the expense of the other branches of government and the Constitution. Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution says explicitly, "The Congress shall have the power to declare war." It prohibits the president from making that decision. The most influential author of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote in 1793, "In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not the executive department. . . . The trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man." Yet, after September 11, 2001, President Bush unilaterally declared that the nation was "at war" more or less forever against terrorism, and a White House spokesman later noted that the president "considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason."

TT: "Many of the NASA missions are classified to this day, sending satellites into orbit bristling with antenna farms. Satellites sensitive enough, to pick up the radio frequency emissions of almost every electronic device in your home. Satellites also watch WHAT and WHO is visiting the earth." JO: And just which NASA missions, which launches fall into this category? None to my knowledge, not one. If TT had any evidence, he would name specific missions. And not DoD missions -- he said these were NASA missions.

As proven above, the DoD and NASA do many projects together of all kinds. The K series of satellites is a good example. There are many classified launched from the shuttle that were announced to the public as "classified" or "military." We have all heard about them. Mr. Oberg, you DO listen to news, right ?

TT: "Few people took notice when the airforce announced many years ago, the formation of the Air Force Space Command based at Vandenberg AFB. These are the people that fight the deep black (classified) covert war to defend the planet." AF Space Command HQ is in Colorado. True, it also begins with the letter 'C', so perhaps TT's confusion is excusable.

When it was first formed Mr. Oberg, it was out at EDWARDS AFB. I know, because of seeing documents for procurements back in the 80's for systems there. When I say "based" I'm referring to where launches come from, not where the desks and chairs are.

TT: "APOLLO 204 FIRE -- ...But wait a minute, did they not also mention that it was an oxygen rich atmosphere ? Didn't anyone know how explosive that is ? Of course they did, but in typical NASA smugness it was blamed on an electrical short or static." JO: The spark set off the fire, and the oxygen made it worse. Nobody ever made any secret of this.

I never once claimed it was a secret. Its an incompetent engineering blunder.

TT: "Even worse, NASA had information that in russia, another oxygen fire killed the crew of an earlier Soyuz mission. Did they learn anything from that ? Apparently not. In the government's own words, Werner VonBraun, spaceflight veteran was alive and part of the space program at the time. Why did he allow a oxygen rich environment in the command module with ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT ? Could Dr. VonBraun have been that stupid?" JO: TT is on a roll here -- three falsehoods in a single phrase. NASA had no information about Bondarenko's death because I had not published it, from Russian sources, until the mid-1980s. (see www.jamesoberg.com on 'Dead Cosmonauts'), and the Russians had never mentioned it to anyone before then. #2, it wasn't "the crew", it was one guy in a ground test, and #3, it wasn't Soyuz, it was the Vostok program. One, two, three strikes, TT is OUT. And if there's any doubt, strike FOUR is the von Braun reference -- he was in charge of the Saturn rocket program in Alabama, not the Apollo command module being built in California and launched from Florida.

NASA did have knowledge of this, and it was in a documentary on Discovery Channel about a year ago. They showed the proof, and people involved with the early NASA programs did acknowledge the accident and gave testimony about it. It was through the intelligence network this information was learned here in america. Sorry you missed that on your website Mr. Oberg. The flames did engulf the entire pad, and the special showed never-seen-before russian film footage about it. It was a fire caused by a leaking liquid fuel line to fill the vehicle, and the technician made the terrible mistake of putting a rag on it. As for Von Braun, he was brought over here under Operation Paper clip as well as with some of his cohorts. He was involved with the american space program for a long time. Sorry Mr. Oberg, you need to update your database.

TT: "We may never know." JO: The truest statement is this whole essay -- TT and anyone foolish enough to think he's a trustworthy source of reliable historical evidence sure WILL never know the truth.

Mr. Oberg, perhaps you should not be so smug about your *knowledge* base. New information comes out all the time, as well as information from what was the iron curtain countries. Time to retire your IBM-XT ?

TT: "Apollo 13 became famous only because Ron Howard made a film about it. It was indeed amazing that he actually got the cooperation of the agency. Why ? Because it was a trade- NASA could "help" edit plot and technical content in return for giving rides to the film crew on the "vomit-bomber"- the padded, no seat plane that NASA uses to train astronauts with approx. 30 seconds of zero G." JO: The aircraft is sometimes called the "vomit Comet", only reality-challenged memory-deficient confabulators call it "vomit bomber".

OK Mr. Oberg. I'll take your word about the correct name for it. BUT, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE ? You still get airsick. I noticed you didn't challenge the remainder of my description of it. Remember: "A rose by any other name is still a rose."

TT: "What you may not know about Apollo 13, was the stupidity of how the CO2 scrubbers in the Lunar Lander were square, and those in the command module were round. And even worse, how there were NO SPARES carried aboard." JO: So they used duct tape and made them work. As for SPARES, when would they have been useful -- if they had detoured to Mars? Missions usually carried a few extra days of supplies ("spares") in case of delays in orbit, but every ounce was precious.

TT: Yes, weight is precious. So they told us over and over. As I recall Apollo had a launch pad weight in the order of a 5 million pounds. So a few pounds is a big issue ? Hardly. Lets assume the canisters weighed in at 3 lbs. That would be 0.0000006 percent of the entire vehicle's weight. Just some light turbulence or head wind could consume far more fuel than it would take to launch that spare life-saving cannister into orbit. They may not be going to Mars, however at the slow velocities of going to the MOON 250,000 miles away, it might as well be Mars if you RUN OUT OF OXYGEN TO BREATHE. Mr. Oberg, would you remove the radiator overflow tank from you car to save fuel ? Or that "useless" windshield washer tank to save weight ? Or take the aircleaner out of your car to save weight ? Perhaps you have already...

TT: "Let's move forward in time to the ill-fated Challenger. Before its terminal flight in 1986, it had other problems. For example, STS-51F had an early main engine shutdown that resulted in abort to orbit. ... They had to abort to orbit, because they could not land the vehicle. There is a "gray zone" where they cannot successfully land it back on the KSC runway, and the only thing they can do is attempt to reach orbit. If that failed, it would have "landed" in the Atlantic ocean. They were lucky." JO: All shuttle launches also have the TAL capability, "Trans-Atlantic Abort Landing" (note the word, L-A-N-D-I-N-G), at airfields in North Africa and Spain. Next was the capability of an Abort-Once-Around (A-O-A) to fling the shuttle on an arc that returned to Earth over New Mexico, where there was an emergency strip at White Sounds, again for L-A-N-D-I-N-G. As you get farther and farther along the ascent, the possible abort profiles change. Because the crew had already reached the point where one engine out (using all fuel throught the two remaining engines) would take them into a safe orbit, they selected that option, as trained. And the mission proceeded successfully. Unlike TT's mnemonic processing.

There is a gray zone NASA has spoken of in the past. Its a narrow one but it does exist. For example, if there is not sufficent thrust to turn the vehicle around it cannot land at the cape, and certainly cannot attain orbit. You are making statements that ASSUME there IS enough thrust to reach an alternate landing site. Can you state categorically this could never, ever happen ? No. And- thankyou for showing me you learned how to spell landing. The only error you made with that word, is that you don't spell it with hyphens in it. Go back and read your dictionary and you'll get the idea.

TT: "I was a project manager at a company that built switching systems." JO: I have no idea if this is true or not. Sounds authentic.

Iron proof for your hard head Mr. Oberg: The company was Information Transfer Industrial, Inc. and was in existence for more than 20 years. It was founded by former crossbar switch engineers. I became involved with them to bring microprocessors into matrix based systems. The company I owned began in 1993 that did systems for NASA and the US Navy, and for US Army at Huntsville, AL was called Optrax. You can verify my name with the state of NY. And, here's a website NASA has that shows two of our switch models in Svalbard, Norway's unmanned tracking station. (I like the polar bear in the picture): The website shows that my systems are STILL THERE in operation after almost 10 years now.

http://www.wff.nasa.gov/~ats/index.html#Installation

TT: "The building is sealed with a thick steel door, plus a heavy concrete door from the outside about 4 hours before launch. This is a ritual that dates back to the days of heir VonBraun, and is exactly like what the germans did in their rocket program." JO: I presume he's referring to Herr von Braun.

Aw shucks, I made a linguistics error. Put it in the NY Times. You finally found something relevant ! I'll be sure to write down "herr" for my next article.

TT: "... that yellow smoke you see produced during the lift off phase is from burning hydrazine. Inhaling it results in death." JO: It is indeed nasty stuff, and even getting it on your skin can do serious harm. But the shuttle doesn't burn any -- it burns liquid hydrogen, with a clear flame, along with the solid rocket boosters and their gray-white smoke. I don't ever recall seeing 'yellow smoke' during shuttle launches, but there could be some because hydrazine is also used in the hydraulic units to generate pressure to move the aerosurfaces and gimbal (rocker) hinges for the engines. But it isn't 'burned' -- it's passed over a catalyst bed to release heat to drive the hydro turbines and the fumes are pumped overboard.

Actually you missed my mistake ! The nasty yellow smoke is from the boosters. It was Monday morning after I sent the essay to Jeff, that I woke up and realized someone would see that. Sorry, but it wasn't you to see that. Yes, the smoke does come out often to the "left" of the vehicle. The entrance to the shuttle pad is also on the same side as the road that leads down to the flame trench and "blockhouse" entrance. See the LC-39 pad link I provided in my essay for more details. Did you read that ?

TT: "Challenger's last flight was from LC-39, Pad B. And because of tampering with the PMS, no data at all was obtained during the launch phase of Challenger. This too, was not mentioned in the Rogers Commission report." JO: I don't know anything about this. What is TT's suggestion for motive here?

Mr. Oberg, say it isn't so ! You don't know about THIS ? But it did happen. I won't endanger the source of the information, as he worked for a large prime at KSC and is a good man. Now, for motive I think its related to the demand to launch against Thiokol's recommendations, don't you ? Now I still can't imagine how or why the trawlers went out to see, but eye-witness testimony given to me is credible. Perhaps others reading this that live in the Titusville area near KSC can contribute to this.

TT: "They know exactly who it is. And I do mean "he." Because he had to sign in at the gate, just as I did when I went down there in August 1985 to oversee the PMS installation project. The PMS was installed up on the second floor of the block- house, in the first computer room on the right." JO: I don't understand what 'blockhouse' is supposed to mean, because the Launch Control Center, an annex to the VAB, was three miles away from the pad, well outside the fenced pad enclosure. That's where people directed the launch, not from some concrete-armored structure close in to the pad (as had indeed been the case with earlier, less powerful rockets). The entire pad area was totally evacuated for launch -- nobody was in the offices and workshops there.

The term "blockhouse" here, is a collection of workshops, restrooms and equipment rooms deep inside the pad. This is an integral part of the pad, and not seperate as it was in the good-ol' days of "launch and blow 'em up." Most people recognize the term "blockhouse" and when I was down there in 1985, they still used that term. When you look at the pad from the rear, you'll see a very long concrete structure that runs almost the entire length of it. This houses the blockhouse. I runs all the way to the flame trench arches. Who knows what its called now. And like I said, it is connected to the LCC four miles away, supposedly outside the blast zone "in case something goes wrong." One other note to add here- the new "escape system" for the astronauts while the vehicle is *still on the ground* is a joke. They have a very long run down catwalks to get to the free-fall cable system and release it. Its become a quite joke at KSC, because everyone there (and the public) knows it is worthless. What will they do if they have a fire and the shuttle is lifting off ? Use a LADDER ? A ROPE? Or a FLAME-PROOF PARACHUTE to exit ? LOL

TT: "And another incident happened that morning- soviet fishing trawlers that usually came in close to shore to watch the launch, went far out to sea an hour before. What did they know that you and I didn't, and how did they know it ?" JO: This was indeed a rumor at the time -- and was checked out, and found to be fictitious.

If you say so Mr. Oberg. Of course its ficticious. Just like the aerospace engineer meddling with the PMS. That didn't happen either, of course...

TT: "THE GOLDIN MAN -- ...it was in the 1980s that a new administrator took the helm. In the corporate world, he would be called a "hatchet man." " JO: Goldin took office in 1992, according to all records (and memories) I have access to. Have they been modified, do you suppose, or is TT just guessing wildly once more?

Mr. Oberg, if you say so. But does it matter WHEN he took over ? He decimated the agency with endless layoffs and singlehandedly created the biggest brain drain every, perhaps in the history of the government. THAT is the point I'm making. "A rose by any other name, is still a rose."

TT: "The loss of Challenger eventually led to the top. A new administrator had to be found. And there he was- Dr. Daniel Goldin, darling of the zionist elite of Washington." JO: Oops, you slipped up, TT, with that 'zionist' label. What's lurking in the back of YOUR brain these days? Not historical facts, to be sure -- the head of NASA during Challenger was a recent-appontee named Graham, and he was shortly replaced by a former NASA Administrator, Fletcher, brought back from retirement to clean house. HE was the guy who later, when the agreed-on short term ran out, was replaced by Dick Truly, a former astronaut, and HE was the one replaced by Goldin. But TT never seems to have noticed ANY of this reality.

Again, Mr. Oberg, you miss the point.Did you not see I stated "eventually ?" I'm not writing a history of the agency as you want to. That's not the focus of the essay. I'm not out to bore the reader, are you ?

TT: "WHAT is NASA saying ? In the 70's we landed TWO Vikings on Mars. And they BOTH WORKED. We sent TWO Voyager spacecraft out in 1976, and they are both STILL TRANSMITTING after they left the solar system. NASA stopped monitoring them about two years ago. Only pictures of stars are transmitted now but no one is listening. At least not publicly." JO: The Voyager missions were launched in 1977 (not 1976), and both are still actively monitored by JPL (see their home page). No images of anything are transmitted -- takes too much power and bandwidth --and besides what would they show? But critical data about the boundary with galactic space is being relayed. Scientists write and speak about it all the time. Just that TT brags that his own ignorance of this, is proof it isn't happening.

Mr. Oberg, you can read but you don't get the point, even after 17 pages. I'll explain it so you can understand it. The point is, that 30 years ago we DID ACTUALLY MAKE IT TO MARS AND BEYOND. AGAIN, WE MADE IT TO MARS AND BEYOND. The people at NASA never expressed the kind of doubt and fear they do today. Again, we need the SPACE COLLEGE. Would you go be the first student please ?

TT: "And on that day last year February-first sitting in a restaurant I head about Columbia, I stood up and embarrased my wife when I yelled out that "dammit, they did it again." Why ? Because they KNEW Columbia had a problem, and again, covered it up. This time it was done so there wouldn't be any cameras around. Only the high altitude cameras they have ALWAYS used to look at the shuttle, while its in orbit. The airforce high-powered cameras on the ground can see the tiles. Spy satellites can see them, too. And ALL shuttle missions, carry at least one EVA suit and a special repair kit to go outside in space to replace a missing tile. But you aren't supposed to know that either." JO: I covered the Columbia disaster for NBC News and my interviews and articles are on my home page (www.jamesoberg.com). You can see the horrible over-confidence that persuaded managers they did NOT have a problem. As for cameras looking at the shuttle in orbit, they can only see the side facing the camera -- and for independent good reasons (thermal balance), shuttles as a rule fly top-to-Earth, so the damaged tiles under the left wing leading edge wouldn't have been visible. All shuttle missions carry TWO suits (for station assembly, sometimes four), but there's no tile repair kit -- yet -- and never has been, and TT is mixing fantasy and fact again, for maybe the fortieth or fiftieth time so far.

Oh- I'm impressed you commentated for NBC. Let me bow in front of my computer and pay homage. But did you know, they can actually ROLL the shuttle while its in orbit ? They are called "maneuvering thrusters." We'll be talking about them on the first day at Space College, so get enrolled now. Actually, I learned from those INSIDE NASA (not someone in a booth with a microphone) that a repair kit WAS BEING DEVELOPED. And probably after Columbia, it might already be done. The concept was to have several general tile shapes and an adhesive that could be put on in space during an EVA. And that comment about and TT is mixing fantasy and fact again, for maybe the fortieth or fiftieth time so far - are you telling me, and the world, that you don't even have an exact count of what you *think* are errors ? Hmmm...

TT: "You may ask, "what's in common between those two missions?" [Challenger and Columbia] The answer is a simple one: Each mission was the first time an Israeli national was to fly in space. But of course, this is just a "coincidence." " JO: If something is "first", it can't happen twice (somebody teach TT how to count). American Jewish astronauts have flown on numerous missions, before and after Challenger, but the first Israeli citizen was indeed on board Columbia last year. What is TT trying to suggest here?

I'm not trying to tell people anything. I give them facts, and let them draw their own conclusions, balanced with statistical probability in the case of the Israeli astronaut. Who has it for the Israelis ? Hard to tell- look at how happy they make people in the middle east bulldozing homes with people in them, gunning people down, building "security fences" etc... Think any of that might have something to do with it ? Naw.....

TT: "Time proves out all things. But can we wait that long ? Ted Twietmeyer" JO: Don't hold your breath.

Mr. Oberg, I answered every single item you contested and acknowledge that perhaps I made two errors in the essay, that really have NO bearing at all on the overall point being made. What I do see from you, is a vindictive, angry and condescending attitude. Is this supposed to make me tremble in fear ? I don't think so. Unfortunately, you don't even come close to the nasty people I've had to deal with.

My question to Mr. Oberg, is who's payroll is he on ? What's his function, to undermine those that come forward and to cut them down ? Sorry Mr. Oberg, its back to Disinfo 101 for you. Nice try, but no cigar.

We'll be expecting you in class on the first day of the first semester of Space College. I'm sure you'll pass this time. We use a sliding scale...

You read all 17 pages and missed the entire point of my essay ! Now THAT takes skill. This certainly was worth staying up until 4AM to write ! Thanks for the great time Mr. Oberg. "Closing Channel B Mr. Sulu..."

Comment
From James Oberg
joberg@houston.rr.com
2-11-4

At first I didn't take these ravings seriously, but it seems a large portion of your target audience is intellectually defenseless when "truth" buttons get pushed. So here's a miscellaneous collection of what I know is true, as opposed to what Twietmeyer is imagining is true.

SPACE - The Final Frontier Without Truth? Or - The REAL NASA You Don't See... And How Things Really Work

http://www.rense.com/general49/SPACEthefinalfrontier.htm

By Ted Twietmeyer tedtw@frontiernet.net 2-8-4

TT: "You will read facts in this article that you have not heard before. Everything is 100% true and as accurate as I can state it here. No embelishments or literary license. Just the plain truth. I'm expecting great trouble for bringing this out, but it was high time for it."

TT: "NASA is, and has always been, part of the Department of Defense. Its in blue printing on their letterheads, and I have several of them from past correspondence."

JO: No, it's not true for another reason: there's no evidence FOR it, and all documented evidence is AGAINST it.

JO: Paranoid delusions strike again -- unless TT can produce a citation where the current administration has publically stated the goal is 'American Empire'. He's only dreamed this, and forgotten how to see the line between dream and reality.

JO: And just which NASA missions, which launches fall into this category? None to my knowledge, not one. If TT had any evidence, he would name specific missions. And not DoD missions -- he said these were NASA missions.

AF Space Command HQ is in Colorado. True, it also begins with the letter 'C', so perhaps TT's confusion is excusable.

JO: The spark set off the fire, and the oxygen made it worse. Nobody ever made any secret of this.

JO: TT is on a roll here -- three falsehoods in a single phrase. NASA had no information about Bondarenko's death because I had not published it, from Russian sources, until the mid-1980s. (see www.jamesoberg.com on 'Dead Cosmonauts'), and the Russians had never mentioned it to anyone before then. #2, it wasn't "the crew", it was one guy in a ground test, and #3, it wasn't Soyuz, it was the Vostok program. One, two, three strikes, TT is OUT. And if there's any doubt, strike FOUR is the von Braun reference -- he was in charge of the Saturn rocket program in Alabama, not the Apollo command module being built in California and launched from Florida.

TT: "We may never know."

JO: The truest statement is this whole essay -- TT and anyone foolish enough to think he's a trustworthy source of reliable historical evidence sure WILL never know the truth.

JO: The aircraft is sometimes called the "vomit Comet", only reality-challenged memory-deficient confabulators call it "vomit bomber".

JO: So they used duct tape and made them work. As for SPARES, when would they have been useful -- if they had detoured to Mars? Missions usually carried a few extra days of supplies ("spares") in case of delays in orbit, but every ounce was precious.

JO: All shuttle launches also have the TAL capability, "Trans-Atlantic Abort Landing" (note the word, L-A-N-D-I-N-G), at airfields in North Africa and Spain. Next was the capability of an Abort-Once-Around (A-O-A) to fling the shuttle on an arc that returned to Earth over New Mexico, where there was an emergency strip at White Sounds, again for L-A-N-D-I-N-G. As you get farther and farther along the ascent, the possible abort profiles change. Because the crew had already reached the point where one engine out (using all fuel throught the two remaining engines) would take them into a safe orbit, they selected that option, as trained. And the mission proceeded successfully. Unlike TT's mnemonic processing.

TT: "I was a project manager at a company that built switching systems."

JO: I have no idea if this is true or not. Sounds authentic.

JO: I presume he's referring to Herr von Braun.

TT: "... that yellow smoke you see produced during the lift off phase is from burning hydrazine. Inhaling it results in death."

JO: It is indeed nasty stuff, and even getting it on your skin can do serious harm. But the shuttle doesn't burn any -- it burns liquid hydrogen, with a clear flame, along with the solid rocket boosters and their gray-white smoke. I don't ever recall seeing 'yellow smoke' during shuttle launches, but there could be some because hydrazine is also used in the hydraulic units to generate pressure to move the aerosurfaces and gimbal (rocker) hinges for the engines. But it isn't 'burned' -- it's passed over a catalyst bed to release heat to drive the hydro turbines and the fumes are pumped overboard.

JO: I don't know anything about this. What is TT's suggestion for motive here?

JO: I don't understand what 'blockhouse' is supposed to mean, because the Launch Control Center, an annex to the VAB, was three miles away from the pad, well outside the fenced pad enclosure. That's where people directed the launch, not from some concrete-armored structure close in to the pad (as had indeed been the case with earlier, less powerful rockets). The entire pad area was totally evacuated for launch -- nobody was in the offices and workshops there.

JO: This was indeed a rumor at the time -- and was checked out, and found to be fictitious.

TT: "THE GOLDIN MAN -- ...it was in the 1980s that a new administrator took the helm. In the corporate world, he would be called a "hatchet man." "

JO: Goldin took office in 1992, according to all records (and memories) I have access to. Have they been modified, do you suppose, or is TT just guessing wildly once more?

TT: "The loss of Challenger eventually led to the top. A new administrator had to be found. And there he was- Dr. Daniel Goldin, darling of the zionist elite of Washington."

JO: Oops, you slipped up, TT, with that 'zionist' label. What's lurking in the back of YOUR brain these days? Not historical facts, to be sure -- the head of NASA during Challenger was a recent-appontee named Graham, and he was shortly replaced by a former NASA Administrator, Fletcher, brought back from retirement to clean house. HE was the guy who later, when the agreed-on short term ran out, was replaced by Dick Truly, a former astronaut, and HE was the one replaced by Goldin. But TT never seems to have noticed ANY of this reality.

JO: The Voyager missions were launched in 1977 (not 1976), and both are still actively monitored by JPL (see their home page). No images of anything are transmitted -- takes too much power and bandwidth --and besides what would they show? But critical data about the boundary with galactic space is being relayed. Scientists write and speak about it all the time. Just that TT brags that his own ignorance of this, is proof it isn't happening.

JO: I covered the Columbia disaster for NBC News and my interviews and articles are on my home page (www.jamesoberg.com). You can see the horrible over-confidence that persuaded managers they did NOT have a problem. As for cameras looking at the shuttle in orbit, they can only see the side facing the camera -- and for independent good reasons (thermal balance), shuttles as a rule fly top-to-Earth, so the damaged tiles under the left wing leading edge wouldn't have been visible. All shuttle missions carry TWO suits (for station assembly, sometimes four), but there's no tile repair kit -- yet -- and never has been, and TT is mixing fantasy and fact again, for maybe the fortieth or fiftieth time so far.

JO: If something is "first", it can't happen twice (somebody teach TT how to count). American Jewish astronauts have flown on numerous missions, before and after Challenger, but the first Israeli citizen was indeed on board Columbia last year. What is TT trying to suggest here?

TT: "Time proves out all things. But can we wait that long ? Ted Twietmeyer"

JO: Don't hold your breath.

Comment

From Jim Mortellaro

Jsmortell@aol.com

2-9-4

To begin, I was a feisty, young engineer in 1969. I palled around with people I loved and respected and who respected and understood me. Hank Courten. Carl Sagan. Hal Ranzenhoffer, Bob Rennie. All of whom belonged to the OAO engineering team and all assigned by OPG&C, Optics, Power, Guidance and Control section of Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation. All with the exception of Sagan. But even Sagan was 'tuned in' to the average Joe on our program.

Palled around is a good turn of the phrase. Courten, Sagan, Rennie, I and an engineer named Bob Brown used to visit East Baltimore Street's strip clubs after chowing down at what was then the most famous restaurant in the country, or at least one of the most famous ... Hausner's. Wall to wall artwork and just about any game on the planet served up to your liking.

In those times, I was the sort of 'fall guy' for the OPG&C group. Full of piss and vinegar, I was given the tough jobs no one else wanted. I did them and did them well. At the same time I was learning and loving the job.

One day I was looking at the RAPS prints. RAPS stood for Rate and Position Sensors. That system was a complex one, connected to the platform thrusters and inertia wheels via stellar tracking, gyros, magnetic and gravity detection. All to make that platform stable for pointing the instrument packages. I needed the detail circuit drawings because I was assigned as the engineer responsible for integrating all the equipment on board the flight article. A big job for a little guy. But then again, I may have been a little guy, short on experience, but I was also called "Little Hitler" because I was a tiger when it came to doing what was RIGHT regardless of who was wrong. Even NASA.

On looking at the prints while in the control room, with the OAO flight article in the clean room, I saw that there was unfortunately, a catastrophic failure modality which would take the spacecraft into an irretrievable, out of control condition. A simple Darlington Pair, if failed, would cause OAO to go spinning off in orbit. Never again to work.

Funny thing, Flight One was launched before I was employed by Grumman and failed the same way. Out of control, high and low thrusting dry nitrogen jets gone berserk. Inertia wheels out of control. Everything ... acting the same way it would have acted if this Darlington Pair went south.

So I wrote a memo to NASA. No response. I won't bore you with the detail, however it came to pass that one day I was asked to attend a meeting at GSFC (Goddard Spaceflight Center) in Greenbelt Maryland, hosted by program management at NASA. Attending was Grumman OPG&C and Grumman Management. Also there was Kollsman Instruments and General Electric out of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania whose motto was, "If it works, don't change it!"

OK fine.

Anyway, I had by then written many memos, sought the assistance of many at GAEC and NASA, had called in all my markers but to no avail. No one would come to my aid in spite of the fact of the possible failure of another spacecraft. I could not understand it or them. Until some years later. Everyone not only wanted a job and wanted it to continue, but they also wanted the program to have as many launches as possible. And that included NASA.

Imagine!

But I wasn't buying. So when the program manager got up and began his pitch, mentioning nothing about this failure modality, I asked him. His answer was equivalent to something like this, "Well, Chevrolet Coupe" and Delores Del Rio but only during the waxing gibbous phase of the moon." Well, may as well have said that.

On completing his epistle, he stood down and asked the audience if anyone had any questions. I raised my hand. He acknowledged me. I asked him, "Sir, what is the temperature of the sand?"

He looked rather incredulous and made some funny remarks to my bosses before saying to me, "Son (that was his second mistake) what sand?" and had a smirk the size of Lubbock Texas on his face.

I then said, "Sir, the temperature of the sand you have your head buried in."

Rather than kick me out, GAEC kept me on. In fact, I was given a promotion. However I was not ever invited to one of those meetings again. No, never again.

Scrolling forward, I would ask you what your take on the next launch might be. Yes, we launched. Yes, the spacecraft failed the same way. But this time the program was canceled. In it's place was the Lunar Landing Equipment which included Rover. I was not involved. I had already resigned to take a better job.

But there is never a better job. Unless it has something to do with death and destruction. My next assignment was on Polaris Poseidon. The star tracker which acquired a star so that it could stabilize it's platform and aim many nuclear tipped missiles at many cities.

I resigned that one too. I suppose I just can't take it. Lies that is. Other people's lies are one thing. But when the lies affect me, I leave. And there is a funny thing about lies. When one repeats the lie to one's self long enough, the lie becomes your truth. And who may naysay a man who really, passionately believes the lies he has convince himself of?

"Who?" you ask? Well, look at yourselves and answer. If you can be honest with yourselves and even remotely recall your doing the same thing, that would be to believe your own lies, lies told for revenge, profit or whatever, then you are among the liars who are the worst liars in the world. You have become a sociopath. As a Christian I can and do forgive you. But I don't forget. For I cannot forget the truth being denied.

Can you?

Jim Mortellaro, Ph.D.

http://www.rense.com