From: eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up #3
Date: 22 Dec 1992 05:12:09 GMT
Organization: CERFnet Dial n' CERF Customer Group
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.cerf.net

Posted by Jon Volkoff, eidetics@cerf.net

Thanks to the people listed in this article for their replies.  Thanks also
to R.E. McElwaine for his added comments in the last letter.

smb@research.att.com (Steven Bellovin @ AT&T Bell Laboratories) writes:
>In article <1h3059INNq8n@news.cerf.net>, eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l) writes:
>> 8) One source that you may want to use for your research is "Aviation Week and>    Space Technology".  This weekly industry journal has reported every shuttle>    flight in great detail.  They go to great lengths to find and report on
>>    secret or classified data.  You will find not a hint about the secret flight.
>> 
>>    THEY ARE EITHER IGNORANT THEMSELVES, OR AFRAID TO SAY ANYTHING.
>
>Umm -- have you ever read it?  If so, you'd know that neither alternative
>makes any sense at all.
>

Yes, I have read it.  I see nothing to preclude the above possibilities.  You
know, if Av Week were half as good as what some people think they are regarding
revelation of truly sensitive and classified projects, they would be regarded as
security leaks by the Federal Government, and no doubt they would be having a
lot more problems than they are.  As it is, the stuff they reveal is child's
play compared to what is really going/has gone on.

>Before I engage in further debate, let me ask just one question:  what
>evidence will persuade you that you're wrong?  I'm perfectly serious --
>you have a theory, which virtually everyone else here disagrees with.
>Clearly, either you're wrong or we are.  But for every objection that's
>been raised here, you say that either people are lying, or covering things
>up.  So -- what would it take to convince you?
>
>To be fair, I should answer the same question.  I'll find your story credible
>if any of a number of things happen.  (a) Someone publicly demonstrates any
>one of the technological miracles you've described (cosmospheres, electro-
>gravitic whatsits, cloned or otherwise-replicated people, etc.)  (b) an
>official who was involved in the coverup or the plot admits it publicly,
>and produces some documentary evidence.  (c) the release, via the Freedom
>of Information Acts, of substantive documentation of any of this; (d) photos,
>from a lunar orbiter, of (the wreckage of?) military bases on the moon.
>
>You're asking us to prove a negative, a notoriously difficult task,
>especially when you reject any and all evidence.  We're asking you to
>prove a positive, which is much easier.  Do you have any hard evidence?
>(References to previous issues of the AUDIO LETTER aren't evidence, of
>course.)

I do not make a habit of rejecting real evidence.  I am just aware of various
techniques used by cover-up artists to put forth falsified evidence of what
they want the public to believe.  They know well that "seeing is believing",
and plausible evidence such as that is usually enough to convince most people,
who will not search deeper and ask questions about what they see.

I can tell you that cosmospheres (floating platforms) were mentioned in Design
for Survival by General Thomas Power, former head of the Strategic Air Command,
published in 1965 by Coward McCann, New York.  On pages 243 and 244 he refers
to them as follows:

"An aggressor would make the fullest use of the element of
surprise.  This would apply to the timing of the attack as well
as to the employment of some radically new weapon or technique
for which we are not prepared...It is quite possible that the
Soviet surprise weapon would be an offensive space system, but
beyond this assumption we can only speculate.  For instance, it is
conceivable that we may wake up one morning and find a number of
Soviet satellites floating in stationary orbits over every part of
the United States...We certainly must anticipate such a contingency
which is by no means farfetched or far in the future, and make sure
that we have operational defensive systems or measures to cope with
it."

As for genetic replicas, you may want to read the old standby Future Shock by
Alvin Toffler (1970, Random House), the Dynamics of Change by Kaiser Aluminum
and Chemical Corporation (1967, Prentice-Hall), and The Biological Time Bomb
by Gordon R. Taylor (1968, The New American Library).

I personally do not know the right people or have the right connections to be
able to put forth the kind of proof you request.  This can only be done in
cooperation with others in positions to do this.  But I think there are enough
inconsistencies and things that don't add up put forth by Dr. Beter in Audio
Letter #64 to at least warrant a serious investigation of the matter.  I have
yet to hear answers to those on sci.space.shuttle, or from the readers of any
newsgroup.  Until I do, I will remain unconvinced.

I will suggest this starting point, though, for an investigation.  If any one
of you out there can tell me where to find file films of STS-1, please do so,
because then I can show you the inconsistencies and strange views that Dr.
Beter talked about.  Once I have the tape(s), I can give you exact frame
number citations and whatever else you may need to see these things for
yourselves.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOLLIS@TITAN.KSC.NASA.GOV writes:
>Greetings and Salutations:
>
>O.K.. I will try one more time to convice you (although at this point it
>seems fruitless) that Dr. Peter Beter is either a paranoid schiziophrenic
>(I know, I probably spelled it wrong) or he is a VERY inventive (and time
>consuming) hoax.
>
>Enterprise was built with no MPS (Main Propulsion System) lines in the
>aft.  The engines were essentially blocks of correctly placed weights that
>SIMULATED what the engine mass would weigh.  The ONLY fully operational
>mechanical system on Enterprise was the APU / hydraulic system.  It
>is obvious from all of the drop tests for those that work on the vehicle
>that the engines are fake.

     THE ENGINES, MPS LINES, ETC., COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN ADDED *AFTER* THE
DROP TESTS WERE COMPLETED, AT WHITE SANDS.  THE CLONED ENTERPRISE REPLACEMENT
COULD BE MADE *WITHOUT* THAT EQUIPMENT.

jv> That's exactly what I was saying in follow-up #2.  Just because a number
jv> of us saw Enterprise without these things doesn't mean they could not have
jv> been added later behind our backs.

>I know this for a fact about the one and only Enterprise.  It cannot and
>will not ever fly, and you can see it in mothballs at Dulles Airport
>in Washington D.C.

jv> At the library the other day, I ran into an interesting book called
jv> Enterprise by Jerry Grey (1979, Morrow).  I looked in vain for any trace
jv> of evidence that Enterprise, Orbiter 101, was never originally intended
jv> to fly as you say...quite the opposite.  In the chapter titled "Development"
jv> you will find the technical characteristics of a hypothetical space shuttle
jv> flight.  Enterprise is described in the same breath as having, at least on
jv> paper, the same needed characteristics as the other four orbiters, with no
jv> qualifications at all.  Of course, those who modified the craft later at
jv> White Sands knew that it could only be used for sub-orbital missions as
jv> modified, as the cargo bay was taken up by rocket fuel tanks.
jv>
jv> Again, all you are really saying concerning the lack of MPS lines and
jv> engines in the publicly seen and acknowledged versions of 101 is that
jv> these things were never publicly added.  With this I agree.  The planners
jv> could probably not chance to have it publicly done.  There would be too
jv> many questions asked.  I am not saying that several thousand people were
jv> wrong about what they saw and did to Enterprise or Columbia, but they
jv> quite possibly were wrong about what they did being the only things ever
jv> done to these crafts, and/or that they were working on the real Enterprise
jv> or Columbia.  They are not expected to know those parts; after all, they
jv> as well as us are supposed to be the ones taken in by all this.

>I cannot convince you in words or memories that I have that there is, and
>never has been more than, one Enterprise, one Columbia, etc.
>
>That is my attempt at the truth.  Take it for what you wish.  If you feel
>that Dr. Beter is correct, and that several thousand people who worked on
>Enterprise and Columbia through the years are wrong, then let it be so.
>
>By the way.  A little known fact is that some technicians stowed dollar
>bills away in places they (and only they) knew where they were hidden.
>After the flight of STS-1 (Columbia) they retrieved thier prizes.  If the
>original Columbia had been blown up as you say, they wouldn't have gotten
>their prizes back.

     I NEVER HEARD THIS BEFORE.  THERE WOULD BE *NO* BENEFIT FOR TECHNICIANS TO
DO SUCH A THING; THEY WOULD HAVE *NO* WAY TO PROVE THAT THEIR DOLLAR BILLS HAD
BEEN IN SPACE; BRAGGING ABOUT IT COULD GET THEM *FIRED* BECAUSE OF SAFETY
HAZARDS THAT THEY MIGHT CREATE.  THE STORY WAS PROBABLY *MADE-UP*.

jv> I agree.  I'm sure it's just another story cooked up to distract us from
jv> the real issues.
jv>
jv> To me, there are just too many inconsistencies in STS-1 to just brush them
jv> off as nonsense or ravings.  They have never been addressed at all by
jv> anyone on this newsgroup, and I think they warrant a serious investigation.
jv> Will they ever be addressed?
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:13349 talk.politics.misc:65077