The Challenger - details covered up for decency?

Overheal

http://gawker.com/thirty-years-ago-the-challenger-crew-plunged-alive-and-1755727930

30 years ago, the Challenger Disaster ocurred.

What is public of course now, and not then, was that the crew did not die mercifully in an instant. In actuality, the cabin never lost pressure, and is estimated to have climbed 3 miles higher into the atmosphere before beginning a long drop into the Atlantic. All evidence leads to the fact the crew was likely alive and cognizant, with no means to escape their fate.

This information was kept secret from the public.

Added to NASA’s silence was the unofficial policy of lying when necessary, says Simpson. He offers as an example the crew cabin debris discovered on Jan. 29 by a Coast Guard vessel. “It included notebooks, tape recorders, all stuff from the crew compartment,” Simpson remembers. It also included an astronaut’s helmet, largely intact, containing ears and scalp. “I was supposed to go on television and discuss the search and recovery. I got up at 4 a.m. and was told about the cabin debris, which was found the night before. The public affairs guy at NASA didn’t know about it until I told him—his own people didn’t even tell him. He said, ‘You’re not going to mention this on TV this morning, are you?’

“I told him that if I was asked about it, I certainly would. I said, `The Coast Guard has no interest in going on national television to tell lies to protect you.’”

Finally, NASA’s Astronaut Office contacted Simpson.

“I was told the families hadn’t been told yet, even though the debris had been found the night before,” he says. “I didn’t want them to hear about it on television. So I lied on television. I still feel bad about that.”

Not all coverups are, evidently, for nefarious means either.

But the myth of instantaneous and inevitable death won out. That was the story NASA wanted told, the story it was safe to tell the schoolchildren who’d watched it happen.

pueblo

NASA lying??? Blow me down with a feather..

SNAKEDOC

In fairness the whole country had just watched on live tv 6 astronauts and a school teacher die including all their families and friends and countless school children. Do you blame nasa for forgoing the details of what must have been an absolute terrifying death for those people and to broadcast details of it on tv again for papers to recirculate day after day. The details wouldnt help in this case however the facts sid not get lost and what happenes was documented so as lieing goes i think its defo not the worst. Consider the fact that when colombia came down they knew the heat shield was damaged yet told the crew come on home. Thats culpable homicide as american justice is concerned. If they were concerned they could have launched an emergency shuttle mission thats what thw blasted thing was made reusable for.

ScumLord

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

If they were concerned they could have launched an emergency shuttle mission thats what thw blasted thing was made reusable for.

Just because it's reuseable doesn't mean it can take off like any other plane. There's still months of planning and building before the shuttle could safely return to space. As far as I know the shuttle requires significant maintenance to get them back to a standard where they're ready to go back into space. The booster rockets are basically empty shells when they come back and need major refitting to be turned back into useable rockets.

Sending another crew up in a hastily prepared shuttle launch would have just risked more lives.

seamus

At the time of Challenger, NASA's support was waning. The Cold War was basically over. Man had stood on the moon, numerous times. They needed something new to keep the public interested. The Simpsons basically parodied it.

Certainly in the immediate aftermath, the concern was for sensitivity. A nation was practically grieving. There was no sense in compounding that grief by revealing (or even speculating) that they may not have died instantly. A comforting lie is more desirable than a painful truth, and this is especially true after a tragedy - "He went quickly", "It was painless", "She died in her sleep", etc etc.

Nobody wants to imagine their loved ones screaming in panic at the moment of their death. Which is one of the reasons why 9/11 hit so hard on Americans. That ugly truth couldn't be avoided - those people died screaming in fear.

In the long-term aftermath though, it served NASA's purposes to avoid becoming any more revealing about what happened. The illusion of a safe space program needed to be maintained if they were to keep their funding and keep public interest. Hold the truth back for long enough and when it does come out it will have little impact.

The same story played out with Columbia. The craft broke up on re-entry, the astronauts were surely instantly killed in the intense heat and forces involved.
But we know now that in fact at least one of them spent a number of minutes attempt to wrestle control over a flight deck that was unattached to the rest of the craft, before "probably" succumbing to hypoxia.

SNAKEDOC

ScumLord wrote: »

Just because it's reuseable doesn't mean it can take off like any other plane. There's still months of planning and building before the shuttle could safely return to space. As far as I know the shuttle requires significant maintenance to get them back to a standard where they're ready to go back into space. The booster rockets are basically empty shells when they come back and need major refitting to be turned back into useable rockets.

Sending another crew up in a hastily prepared shuttle launch would have just risked more lives.

I appreciate that yes it was more of a servicable than a reuseable craft but they had four for a reason so to expedite a launch if necessary and a shuttle was always available for launch while one was in orbit. I dont mean sitting on a launch pad but capable of being readied and launched far quicker than the months it took to service a returned shuttle. The engines alone require a complete rebuild and a fresh heatshield but consider that when columbia was in orbit the shuttle atlantis was nearing launch readyness for its mission a couple of months away. the invistigation board states had mission control hit the panic button atlantis would have launched five days before supplies ran out on columbia because they were carrying an extended duration orbiter package for their mission. A rescue mission would have then allowed mission control to deorbit columbia remotely however that would have ended in splashdown in the pacific as mission control did not have the capability to remote land an orbiter. but we'll never know if it would have worked

Dohnjoe

seamus wrote: »

In the long-term aftermath though, it served NASA's purposes to avoid becoming any more revealing about what happened. The illusion of a safe space program needed to be maintained if they were to keep their funding and keep public interest.

The shuttle blew up, no illusions there. I would have thought it was in everyone's interest not to publicly release gory details of passenger/crew deaths in any air crash accident investigation if their deaths were unrelated to the cause

Master of the Omniverse

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The shuttle blew up, no illusions there. I would have thought it was in everyone's interest not to publicly release gory details of passenger/crew deaths in any air crash accident investigation if their deaths were unrelated to the cause

I'm going to look for a YouTube video I watched recently.all the crew are alive and most of them in teaching jobs.

Thargor

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

I'm going to look for a YouTube video I watched recently.all the crew are alive and most of them in teaching jobs.

No they're not.

Pegmatite

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

I'm going to look for a YouTube video I watched recently.all the crew are alive and most of them in teaching jobs.

If that exists is in pretty poor taste.

Richard Feynman who was part of the panel investigating the disaster did write years later. That he belived NASA tried to cover up the cause of the disaster. Apparently they were well aware of the possibility of a failure due to the O RINGS. But were under so much pressure to meet launch deadlines that the couldn't delay the launch.

I understand that the O Ring failure only gets a brief mention in the offical reports appendix as well.

Feynman wanted to further investigate the culture within NASA and why this was allowed happen. But was blocked.

Master of the Omniverse

Thargor wrote: »

No they're not.

OK.my mistake,6 are still alive.check out nicholson1968 challenger hoax on YouTube.there are many exposes on this.

Pegmatite wrote: »

If that exists is in pretty poor taste.

Richard Feynman who was part of the panel investigating the disaster did write years later. That he belived NASA tried to cover up the cause of the disaster. Apparently they were well aware of the possibility of a failure due to the O RINGS. But were under so much pressure to meet launch deadlines that the couldn't delay the launch.

I understand that the O Ring failure only gets a brief mention in the offical reports appendix as well.

Feynman wanted to further investigate the culture within NASA and why this was allowed happen. But was blocked.

You need to understand the foundations of NASA.when ww2 came to an end america brought over Nazi scientists to start up NASA.they have been bull****ting us ever since.NASA is a Freemason organisation and has been stealing american tax dollars for their phony space programmes ever since its inception.

Thargor

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

OK.my mistake,6 are still alive.check out nicholson1968 challenger hoax on YouTube.there are many exposes on this.

Exposes posted by imbeciles with zero evidence. What possible reason could they have for faking their deaths and moving on to careers as teachers?

Master of the Omniverse

Thargor wrote: »

Exposes posted by imbeciles with zero evidence. What possible reason could they have for faking their deaths and moving on to careers as teachers?

Did you watch the video?

Overheal

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Did you watch the video?

Can you answer the question?

Master of the Omniverse

Thargor wrote: »

Exposes posted by imbeciles with zero evidence. What possible reason could they have for faking their deaths and moving on to careers as teachers?

The world is full of deception.why would the space program be any different? There is always an agenda.we could examine NASA and mars,for example.NASA,mars,fake global warming,Hollywood,carbon tax,all moving us towards global control and the nwo.but first we need an open mind.its because most people are not open-minded that the deception is so easily carried out.

Overheal wrote: »

Can you answer the question?

Yes,but I can't take you to Z when you haven't investigated A B and C ... first. can you prove that the crew even boarded? If you all are serious about this thread then I urge you to look at the puzzle from every angle.

ScumLord wrote: »

Just because it's reuseable doesn't mean it can take off like any other plane. There's still months of planning and building before the shuttle could safely return to space. As far as I know the shuttle requires significant maintenance to get them back to a standard where they're ready to go back into space. The booster rockets are basically empty shells when they come back and need major refitting to be turned back into useable rockets.

Sending another crew up in a hastily prepared shuttle launch would have just risked more lives.

So the booster rockets are empty shells and they come back down to be reused

seamus wrote: »

At the time of Challenger, NASA's support was waning. The Cold War was basically over. Man had stood on the moon, numerous times. They needed something new to keep the public interested. The Simpsons basically parodied it.

Certainly in the immediate aftermath, the concern was for sensitivity. A nation was practically grieving. There was no sense in compounding that grief by revealing (or even speculating) that they may not have died instantly. A comforting lie is more desirable than a painful truth, and this is especially true after a tragedy - "He went quickly", "It was painless", "She died in her sleep", etc etc.

Nobody wants to imagine their loved ones screaming in panic at the moment of their death. Which is one of the reasons why 9/11 hit so hard on Americans. That ugly truth couldn't be avoided - those people died screaming in fear.

In the long-term aftermath though, it served NASA's purposes to avoid becoming any more revealing about what happened. The illusion of a safe space program needed to be maintained if they were to keep their funding and keep public interest. Hold the truth back for long enough and when it does come out it will have little impact.

The same story played out with Columbia. The craft broke up on re-entry, the astronauts were surely instantly killed in the intense heat and forces involved.
But we know now that in fact at least one of them spent a number of minutes attempt to wrestle control over a flight deck that was unattached to the rest of the craft, before "probably" succumbing to hypoxia.

NASAs support was waning,they wanted to keep the public interested,and more importantly they wanted to keep their funding.

So we have booster rockets that return to earth.public support waning(tax dollars) ,a need to maintain funding,do you see where I'm going with this?

OK.you all had the pieces to the puzzle all ready in the thread but you refuse or can't see.its o.k.

endacl

Thargor wrote: »

No they're not.

That's a fact. So won't matter...

Master of the Omniverse

Empty booster rockets that return to earth.or did they have 7 seats in them?

SNAKEDOC

The conspiracy goes that they never boarded the shuttle instead pulled a capricorn 1 job on it and blended back into society with no one the wiser except for a few conspiracy folks that is.

Master of the Omniverse

Did they even board in the first place?

Master of the Omniverse

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

The conspiracy goes that they never boarded the shuttle instead pulled a capricorn 1 job on it and blended back into society with no one the wiser except for a few conspiracy folks that is.

Thank you snakedoc,your post is the short and sweet version.

SNAKEDOC

i find it hard to believe nasa would fake the deaths of seven people just for a popularity contest. It could have had catastrophic consequences for the shuttle program and nasa as an organisation. It would have been way to risky and then to go and put the seven astronauts into what witness protection with new identitys and jobs thats the mosts risky part. They were famous as of the second the shuttle blew up. Everyone knew their names and faces. Would have been safer and easier to kill them on the shuttle for real. For me its a none starter

Overheal

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

i find it hard to believe nasa would fake the deaths of seven people just for a popularity contest. It could have had catastrophic consequences for the shuttle program and nasa as an organisation. It would have been way to risky and then to go and put the seven astronauts into what witness protection with new identitys and jobs thats the mosts risky part. They were famous as of the second the shuttle blew up. Everyone knew their names and faces. Would have been safer and easier to kill them on the shuttle for real. For me its a none starter

Cold War USA had nothing to gain from it, other than to look weaker against the USSR. There is no benefit I can think of to faking the whole incident.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Would have been safer and easier to kill them on the shuttle for real.

Mayne they did... :eek:

Master of the Omniverse

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

i find it hard to believe nasa would fake the deaths of seven people just for a popularity contest. It could have had catastrophic consequences for the shuttle program and nasa as an organisation. It would have been way to risky and then to go and put the seven astronauts into what witness protection with new identitys and jobs thats the mosts risky part. They were famous as of the second the shuttle blew up. Everyone knew their names and faces. Would have been safer and easier to kill them on the shuttle for real. For me its a none starter

Funding,funding,funding.deception,Freemasons.check out nicholson1968 challenger hoax,YouTube,its all there, NASA gets billions every year,if somebody watches it and posts their view on it then I will shut up and stop annoying you all.you need to view the problem from all angles to truly understand it

Overheal

If funding is the reason, it makes no sense: the USAF was competing with NASA to get satellite launches. blowing up a shuttle all but ensured that NASA did not get that funding. That's even in the official story of things. So how would they get more funding by blowing up a shuttle and killing 7 astronauts?

Master of the Omniverse

Overheal wrote: »

If funding is the reason, it makes no sense: the USAF was competing with NASA to get satellite launches. blowing up a shuttle all but ensured that NASA did not get that funding. That's even in the official story of things. So how would they get more funding by blowing up a shuttle and killing 7 astronauts?

Official stories are just that.stories.and death equals public sympathy.public sympathy means let's get NASA back on her feet .money money money.let's rebuild .better even than before.we can rebuild her.look.at the video,when you understand how Freemasons and the illuminati work then this deception is in keeping with their practices.the worlds perception is manipulated according to their agenda.and its never good.they never killed.the crew.watch the vid and tell me what you think

Master of the Omniverse

Listen,I can't prove what really happened.however I've been looking into this type of stuff for a good while and I'm not surprised by anything anymore.we are bull****ted from.every angle by every organisation 24/7 ,every government every politician,its all.a fix,everything.its all.a lie.people dont want to believe this because they want to think that the world is good and that people are honest and good like they themselves.**** just ain't like that .sad but true.

Overheal

Master of the Omniverse wrote: »

Official stories are just that.stories.and death equals public sympathy.public sympathy means let's get NASA back on her feet .money money money.let's rebuild .better even than before.we can rebuild her.look.at the video,when you understand how Freemasons and the illuminati work then this deception is in keeping with their practices.the worlds perception is manipulated according to their agenda.and its never good.they never killed.the crew.watch the vid and tell me what you think

the charge just doesn't make sense: they wouldn't have to get the program "back on its feet" if they didn't blow up a shuttle that today would cost about $43bn ($8bn at the time). It's a very basic charge that holds no merit. Is that all your video alleges?

Master of the Omniverse

You think "The Matrix" is just a film? Its the most accurate portrayal of the human condition. Perception and deception.What we perceive only comes about through the information that is presented via the five senses. Our eyes particularly.A classic example is entering a dark room and mistaking a coil of rope for a snake.Our eyes tell us that the crew entered the challenger,yet how do we know that they didn't just walk out the other side and down a ladder ,stopping off at the coffee machine on the way .this is where the deception comes in.

Master of the Omniverse

Overheal wrote: »

the charge just doesn't make sense: they wouldn't have to get the program "back on its feet" if they didn't blow up a shuttle that today would cost about $43bn ($8bn at the time). It's a very basic charge that holds no merit. Is that all your video alleges?

It shows six crew members ,their photos of later years,their new jobs.when I said previously that I cannot get you to Z without you investigating A B and C first ,what I meant by this is you have to understand the bigger picture to realise what is going on.not just NASA ,but all the deceptions,then it makes sense.its not just about money.its about controlling our perception.

endacl

OK. I watched it. My view? It was drivel.