Get Your False Memory On

The Space Shuttle Program was a Fake

by Miles Mathis 

First published June 30, 2019

The Mandela Effect project is now really blowing up in their faces, since the last thing they wanted me (or anyone else) to do is look closely at the Space Shuttle program. But by including Moonraker in their list of Mandela Effects, they led me into this one themselves. In researching my recent paper on that, I had to go to YouTube and watch the official theatrical trailer from 1979. And of course that reminded me that this Bond film was made to sell the Space Shuttle program going online in those years. So one fraud keyed me into another.

I have no intention of showing that Space Shuttles never existed, or only existed as holograms or something, from a parallel universe. That is not what I mean by fake. The planes certainly existed: I saw one being carted around on a 747 in Texas back in the 1980s. What I mean is that the planes were another massive fraud upon the taxpayers, doing nothing taxpayers wished to see done, little or nothing that needed to be done, and few or none of the things we are told they did. They were supposed to help launch various satellites, but we now launch satellites quite easily without them, and much more cheaply. Each shuttle launch cost almost $2 billion in today's dollars, which is no bargain. Over $200 billion was spent on the program over three decades, and what do we have to show for it? Some museum pieces. A handful of chubby planes that never got out of LEO (Low Earth Orbit) and that haven't morphed into more useful tech.

We now know that the Apollo program was an even more massive fraud, and that no one ever went to the Moon. That is what I would call common knowledge, although the governors wish it weren't, and pretend it isn't so. They are still trying to sell it, but have very few buyers outside of their government, university, and military hires. We also know the more recent SpaceX launches are fraudulent. They are so poorly faked even school children can see the seams. They have rockets flying backwards and landing on tiny spots in the ocean, while paid crowds of college students, meth heads, and gangbangers cheer and high-five. We also know—courtesy of Simon Shack at Clues Forum—that the Challenger astronauts, who are supposed to be dead, aren't. That "tragedy was another bold fraud, and I suppose it was pulled to make the project look real. A fail now and then adds to the perceived reality of the show.  People will think, "They aren't going to blow up a fake Shuttle with people onboard!" No, and they aren't going to blow up a real one, either. But they did blow up a fake one with no one onboard, since that would kill several birds with one stone. To start with, tragedies act as the greatest confirmation of projects, since they are unanswerable. They defy analysis and questioning, since(almost) no one wants to question a tragedy. It can so easily be dismissed as heartless that no one wants to go there. [Fortunately, many of us outgrew that trick after 911, and many more after Sandy Hook. The fake tragedies eventually became so transparent, the "heartless" slur no longer held any water.  But at the time of the Challenger event, that wasn't yet the case. Analysis was still verboten.] Such tragedies also draw attention from real things at the time, that should be in the news but aren't. They also help the governors control us, by creating a false sense of community. In tragedy, people come together, and this gives the hoaxing governors the opportunity of joining the hug fest, and profiting from it. Plus, if you think a Shuttle has been destroyed, you won't complain when they spend your tax dollars to replace it with yet another one. It's all about spending, as you should know by now. Billing you for new expensive stuff every year, and delivering none of it.

Given that, I went to the Wiki page on the Space Shuttle expecting the worst. I was not disappointed. As usual, all I had to do is read for a few moments with my eyes open and the whole con job immediately collapsed like a house of cards. The collapse began with the photos posted, as is usually the case. Study the photo under title. My entire thesis could rest on that (though it won't).  Just ask yourself this: isn't it an amazing coincidence that all five still photos (allegedly taken from films of the launches) would be taken at exactly the same angle? In other words, there is way too little variation between the five photos to indicate they are real. If you photographed or filmed five different launches with five different shuttles and five different rockets on five different days, you would expect far more variation. Instead, we see carbon copies, with a few slight differences edited in. They have changed the names, the color of the sky, the color of the central pod (external tank), and a few other lines here and there. But it isn't convincing, since they forgot to change the template.

You will say they just shot this from the same camera on the same spot at the same exact split second of launch: the shuttle and rockets hadn't changed much, so of course we get carbon copies. But that is disproved by the photos themselves. This can't have been at the exact same moment of launch, since the tower (scaffolding) is different in three of them. That is one of the differences they edited in. But that was a mistake, because it shows up the fake. If these aren't from the exact same moment in the launch, there is no way to explain the match-up of all the lines and angles in the five photos. Just as one example of many, look closely at the horizontal lines on the near rocket. The curvature of those lines tell you the angle you are looking up at this launch. And the angle tells you the height of the launch at that moment. They are identical in all five photos, telling us we are at the precise same moment of launch. So we should either see the scaffolding in all five, or not see it all five.

Also, if we accept that these photos were taken from the same camera in the same place at the same locale, then why is the sky five different shades of blue, from near-white to deep blue? Sure, we would expect some variation based on cloud cover, time of day, pollution levels, and so on. But would we expect that much variation? I wouldn't. The Shuttle itself is nearly the same shade of white in all five,with only a small amount of variation. So we shouldn't see that much variation in the sky. The first picture is the most suspicious, since we would only expect the sky to be that dark at dawn or dusk. But at dawn or dusk the Shuttle would not be that bright-white. Another thing you can look at is the lines where the rockets (SRBs) meet the external tank. Imagine you are drawing this on a sheet of paper, copying those external lines. Everything is eerily the same, down to the gaps between the objects. That is showing up the template used here.

You can also go to Wikipedia and study the largest copies of this. Notice how crisp the line is between the rockets and the sky. It looks unnaturally sharp, doesn't it? Especially the edge of the external tank. It looks like you could cut yourself on it. But since it is curved all round, it shouldn't look like that. Curved objects don't have sharp edges like that in photos or films, proving this is a paste-up on a sort of green screen, or blue screen.

It may be even easier for you to spot the fake in the short film of the lift-off of the last Shuttle in 2011, near the bottom of the Wikipedia page.  I encourage you to watch it over and over. It is a very obvious fake, the quality not even matching the current Star Wars CGI.  It does however look a lot like the SpaceX fakes, indicating they are coming out of the same place. But I guess Elon Musk's answer would be, "The faker it looks, the realer it is!"

Notice how they have inserted a pointless platform near the bottom. We don't remember anything like that from the older launches like Apollo. What would be the purpose or function of such a large plat form? I will be told it is the crawler, which moves the assembly into place. Yes, but once the assembly is in place, the crawler should move away, otherwise it will get scorched. The tower is then holding the tech in place, so the crawler isn't necessary. I will tell you why we see the huge crawler in this fake film: it obscures the blast fire, which they seem to be having trouble faking here. The small part of it we can see looks comically flat, weak and unconvincing. I especially like the little flames coming out of the Shuttle itself, like pilot lights on your stove. Huge problem there, because those rockets should be firing full force as well. The Shuttle rockets are supposed to be working in tandem with the two other rockets, supplying nearly 1/3rd of the total boost at lift-off. That's what the huge external tank is for: it is filled with super cold liquid fuel for the Shuttle engines. That is admitted on the Wikipedia page itself. Someone forgot to tell the guys faking this film that, I guess.

It's funny, because this fake film isn't even as convincing as the old Apollo fake films. In those we see a lot more creativity and panache. They used a lot of cutaways to people's faces, multiple camera angles, multiples takes, and some pretty clever studio tricks to make it all seem real.  Now, with CGI, they have gotten lazy. They just let the computer do all the work, and computers aren't creative.  They don't know how to manipulate your emotions. The techies just assume you have been partially blinded by your high intake of fluoride, aspartame, valium, rogaine, and viagra, and that your brain is too fogged to notice the obvious. And if you do notice, they don't give a shit. You are just a write-off.

For instance, I encourage you to watch the original TV footage of the Apollo 11 launch. It is on YouTube, of course. Notice that they start by filming from across a lake, about a half a mile away. Where you can't see jack. This despite the fact that we find out later—from watching promotional film of the launch—that they allegedly had cameras all over the tower and even down in the well under the blasts. We even get an overhead view (see minute 4:00), and I can't figure out how that was shot. We see the top arm letting go of the rocket, so where is the camera perched? You would have to have a helicopter up there, zooming in, but there was no copter there. Plus, the two films contradict one another. In the promotional film, we see many arms letting go of the rocket. But in the official film aired on TV, we don't see any arms letting go (see minute 11:50).  Right after that we get a very strange cut (minute 12:00), where one second we see the rocket engulfed in smoke, and the next second we cut and all smoke is conveniently moving left and right. Ask yourself how that can be. The rocket and nozzles are circular, so how can they be pushing all smoke in two directions only? Besides, at T=0, the rocket is directly in front of the tower, and we see a huge cloud moving toward us and a slightly smaller one moving to our right. But at T=+1, we switch to a second camera 90 degrees away: the tower is now to our left, and to the left of the rocket.  Somehow the big cloud in that direction has completely dissipated in under one second. Our view is unobstructed.

Please go to Updates to read the entire essay.
________


If readers of this essay would like to know where all this money came from and where it went to, this discussion may be helpful even though its creator has come into question in an essay off Miles Mathis's website.

DARK JOURNALIST & CATHERINE AUSTIN FITTS: THE MISSING MONEY DEEP STATE FASAB 56 REVEALED!

FASAB Statement 56: Understanding New Government Financial Accounting Loopholes

Ground Control to Major Tom 

 

David Bowie - Heroes