🚀 go-pugleaf

Posted by Jon Volkoff, eidetics@cerf.net

Before anything else, I'd like to thank Brad Mears (bmears@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.
gov) and Brian Thorn (BrianT@cup.portal.com) for their well-thought-out
responses.

Thanks also to R. E. McElwaine (mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu) for adding in his
comments in the first letter.  Mine are prefixed by "jv>".

>From bmears@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov Thu Dec 17 07:49:57 1992
Received: from ames.arc.nasa.gov by nic.cerf.net (4.1/CERFnet-1.0)  id AA21542; Thu, 17 Dec 92 07:49:55 PST
Received: from gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov by ames.arc.nasa.gov with SMTP id AA17641
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <eidetics@nic.cerf.net>); Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:48:01 -0800
Received: from goldman.tech.lab by gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA06817; Thu, 17 Dec 92 09:47:27 CST
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 09:47:27 CST
From: bmears@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Brad Mears [BARR])
Message-Id: <9212171547.AA06817@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov>
Received: by goldman.tech.lab (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA08119; Thu, 17 Dec 92 09:47:27 CST
To: eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l)
Reply-To: bmears@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up
Status: RO

I'm glad you are going to the library to check things out for yourself.  A few
things to consider when you do your research include :

1) John Young had flown in space either 2 or 3 times before STS-1 (Apollo
   and maybe Gemini, I forget).  He had plenty of experience in space.  I
   *think* that Bob Crippen also had previous experience in space.  So the
   need for a sub-orbital, practice flight is non-existent.  Particularly if
   you consider that a sub-orbital flight has approximately the same level
   of danger as orbital flight.

   SUBORBITAL FLIGHTS ARE *LESS* DANGEROUS BECAUSE THERE IS *NO* CHANCE OF
BURNING UP ON RE-ENTRY.  EXPERIENCE IN ONE TYPE OF VEHICLE IS *NOT* MUCH HELP
WITH A NEW AND DIFFERENT ONE.  ROCKET LAUNCHES DO *NOT* REQUIRE A PILOT, NOR DO
PARACHUTE LANDINGS.

jv> Yes, John Young was a space veteran from two Gemini missions, was the Apollo
jv> 10 command module pilot, and walked on the moon as the Apollo 16 commander
jv> in 1972.  But Robert Crippen had spent eleven years in simulators, and had
jv> yet to make an actual flight into space, according to the April 13, 1981
jv> issue of Time, page 87.  So he needed even more preparation than Young.
jv> What better way to practice piloting the shuttle and landing it than some
jv> suborbital missions from the colossal White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico,
jv> launched from a 747 at 40,000 feet?

   However, if the argument supporting the need for practice flights still
   rings true to you, extend the logic a little further.  Did we need secret
   practice flights for Apollo?  Gemini?  Mercury?

   MERCURY WAS PRACTICE FOR GEMINI, WHICH WAS PRACTICE FOR APOLLO.  EACH APOLLO
MISSION WAS PRACTICE FOR THE NEXT.

2) A shuttle launch is a big, spectacular event.  It is not possible to
   hide one from the public.  Besides the light and noise, the number of
   people involved insure that there would be a leak if such a cover-up
   were attempted.

   NO SHUTTLE GROUND LAUNCHES WERE SECRET.  LAUNCHES FROM A 747, AT 35,000 FEET
OR SO, WOULD *NOT* BE EASY TO SEE.

   If that is not sufficient to convince you that there was no secret mission, 
   then go ask non-U.S. sources.  Certainly the Russians, French, Japanese,
   and others would have tracked such a flight on radar.  A large number of
   ham radio enthusiasts constantly monitor military radio frequencies.  They
   would very likely have figured something out.

   ONLY THE RUSSIANS KNEW.  RADIO TRANSMISSIONS FOR SECRET MILITARY MISSIONS
WOULD CERTAINLY BE *SCRAMBLED*.

jv> I might add that White Sands is so huge that it is possible for such
jv> practice flights, even suborbitals, to be conducted entirely inside it and
jv> never have the outside world know a thing.

3) You said :
  "It would also seem strange to me that Dr.
   Beter, considering his background, could go into such an elaborate, non-
   contradictory discussion, expanding on capabilities of the Enterprise that
   did not exist, unless there was something to it."

   Why does it seem so strange?  People do this every day.  Maybe he is just
   incorrect.  Maybe he has a particular reason for concocting such a story.
   One that comes to mind is profit and/or fame.  By telling such a story on
   his radio show, he gets people talking about him.

   DR. BETER WAS A MILLIONAIRE BEFORE STARTING HIS AUDIO LETTERS, AND WAS NEARLY
BROKE WHEN HE DIED.  HE WAS FULLY AWARE THAT RECORDING THEM WOULD BRING LIKELY
DANGER TO HIM AND HIS FAMILY BY THOSE WHO WERE MAKING THE TROUBLE HE WAS
REPORTING.

jv> Also, I said "considering his background", it seems strange.  He was not
jv> just some Joe off the street.  The man was internationally known and
jv> respected, in Who's Who and what not.  He did not start the Audio Letter to
jv> gain fame, but to put out critical information that he felt people should
jv> know.  In fact telling some of the things he did caused him to lose
jv> subscribers, and he knew it and acknowledged he would even before revealing
jv> them.  Apparently the information on his background was not read.

   As far as being non-contradictory, I think you miss the point.  His story
   contradicts every piece of evidence you can find.  Simply because a story
   is *internally* consistent does not make it true.  I'm sure that you can
   weave a complex, fictional story that is internally consistent.  Science
   fiction writers do it all the time.

   SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IS *LIKELY* TO BE HARD TO FIND WHEN COVERED UP BY SUCH
POWERFUL PEOPLE.

jv> Also, official government stories should not be confused with evidence.
jv> I would submit this as evidence, though.  There were many things about STS-1
jv> that did not quite add up, as well as the other early missions, if one looks
jv> for them.  Like the fact that in alleged orbital transmissions from the
jv> shuttle the two pilots were not moving their lips?  Like the unexplained
jv> early landing of the STS-1 shuttle by six minutes?  Like the abnormal
jv> energetic behavior of Young and Crippen when they exited the shuttle, after
jv> supposedly being weightless for days?  And so on...

4) You asked if BrianT@cup.portal.com or shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov had
   actually seen the lack of engines or the missing tiles.  I can't speak
   for them, but thousands (millions?) of people have seen Enterprise.
   When it was under construction, undergoing flight tests, and now that it
   is on static display at the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum.  

   THE ORIGINAL ENTERPRISE *DID* HAVE REGULAR ENGINES UNTIL ITS DESTRUCTION
DURING STS-2.  SO DOES ITS CLONE.

   The number of technical reviews and the amount of paperwork involved in
   putting engines on a shuttle is enormous.  If you were aware of just how
   many people are involved with the development of the shuttle, I think that
   you would be convinced of the errors in Mr. Beter's claims.

jv> OK, so I guess all we are saying here, and the evidence appears to point
jv> in this direction, is that the SSMEs and tiles were never added to
jv> Orbiter 101 in full public view, at the normal, better-known orbiter
jv> processing facilities.  It is apparently true that the SSME mockups were
jv> present and no tiles bonded on in the deadstick free-flight landing tests in
jv> 1977; the photographs and descriptions I was able to find cause me to agree.
jv> But this, to me, does not preclude the possibility that it could have been
jv> fitted with SSMEs and tiles, not to mention changing the name on the side to
jv> "Columbia", at a site such as White Sands, possibly under military control.
jv> It would be a lot easier to hide the work there.  Certainly it was resting
jv> there long enough in the hangar, along with three other orbital-rated
jv> shuttles besides the real Columbia.

5) If nothing else convinces you, take a look at NASA's budget for the years
   in question.  Recently we've seen how good the media is at digging up
   budget information on programs that are truly top-secret (stealth fighter,
   stealth bomber, Aurora).  If this can be done for programs that are under
   strict military control, think how much easier it would be for a civilian
   project like the shuttle.

   THERE IS A CIA FUND FOR SECRET PROJECTS.  ALSO, DUPLICATE HARDWARE IS OFTEN
FINANCED BY "COST OVER-RUNS".

jv> I also think the capabilities of the media are greatly overestimated here.
jv> If they really wanted to keep these things totally secret I think they
jv> could.  (The stealth program included, which is another story in itself.
jv> Why would the government be talking about it back in 1980 if it was so
jv> secret?)  Remember the Manhattan Project and how that was managed?  Congress
jv> didn't even know about the money being spent on that.  Although thousands of
jv> people worked on it, fewer than 100 knew what it was really all about.  It's
jv> been done before, why not again?

6) Find any person that worked on the shuttle program and will substantiate
   the claim's that Mr. Beter makes.

   SUCH A PROGRAM IS TOO BIG FOR ONE PERSON TO KNOW ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT GOES
ON.  THOSE WHO DO KNOW HAVE TO PROTECT THEIR SKIN.

7) The argument about whether a shuttle took off due-east, north-east, south,
   or whatever is completely irrelevant.  All missions from the cape will be
   in a generally easterly direction.  This can range from south-east to north-
   east.  The exact direction will depend on which portions of the earth they
   want to fly over, payload weights, etc.  Simply because a shuttle flew 
   north-east means very little.

   A NORTH-EAST LAUNCH IS *REQUIRED* IN ORDER FOR ITS ORBIT TO FLY OVER THE
HIGH LATITUDES OF RUSSIA.

jv> AbsoIutely.  I will talk more about this one later in Brian Thorn's
jv> response.

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.

jv> See above comment about secret projects.

I personally believe that Mr. Beter is either deliberately lying or has
an extremely bad case of "conspiracy theory".  The claims he makes are
absolutely bogus and without substance.  I don't expect you accept my
opinion, because by definition, I am part of the cover-up.  I will make
this offer though - if you manage to substantiate any significant portion
of this incredible story, I will publicly apologize and express my support.

   PART OF THE REASON THAT CONSPIRATORS CAN GET AWAY WITH SUCH THINGS IS THAT
THEY KNOW THAT MOST PEOPLE WOULD NEVER BELIEVE IT--THEY HAVE BEEN PROGRAMMED BY
THEIR TEACHERS, PREACHERS, NEWS MEDIA, GOVERNMENT, ETC, TO HOLD ONTO ONLY AN
ORTHODOX BELIEF SYSTEM.

jv> I do not think, by the way, that Brad Mears is part of the cover-up.  It's
jv> only a select few highly-placed people at NASA that are/were.

-- 
Brad Mears
bmears@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov                      No disclaimer, no quote

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

From BrianT@cup.portal.com Fri Dec 18 17:57:31 1992
Received: from nova.unix.portal.com by nic.cerf.net (4.1/CERFnet-1.0)  id AA26932; Fri, 18 Dec 92 17:57:29 PST
Return-Path: <BrianT@cup.portal.com>
Received: by nova.unix.portal.com (5.65b/4.1 1.183) 
	id AA22437; Fri, 18 Dec 92 17:55:35 -0800
Received: by portal.unix.portal.com (1.405) 
	id AA00746; Fri, 18 Dec 92 17:55:32 -0800
Received: by hobo.corp.portal.com (4.1/4.0.3 1.43) 
	id AA08653; Fri, 18 Dec 92 17:55:31 PST
To: eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l)
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up
Lines: 1760
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 17:55:30 PST
Message-Id: <9212181755.1.7992@cup.portal.com>
X-Origin: The Portal System (TM)
Status: RO

>Posted by Jon Volkoff, mail address eidetics@cerf.net
>
>As there have been a fair number of comments concerning the Dr. Beter Audio
>Letter #64 transcript which was posted here in sci.space.shuttle by my
>"co-conspirator", R.E. McElwaine, concerning who Dr. Beter is/was and why "Jon
>Volkoff" posted it, I decided to come out, show my face, and take my lumps.
>
>1) Who is/was Dr. Beter?
>   See attached.
>
>2) No, Audio Letter #64 was not posted for entertainment.  I scanned/transcrib
e
>d
>   it, but did not generate its posting in this newsgroup.
>
>3) Dr. Beter never worked as a consultant to the National Enquirer, but was in
>   fact an internationally-known legal and financial consultant.  Not exactly
>   the normal raw material from which cranks and prophets of doom are made of.
>
>4) If you are feeling malicious, feel free to send me back this whole post wit
h
>   just a comment or two at the end.  I know how to save mail and use the UNIX
>   tail command, so it really shouldn't affect me too much.  (Better yet, mayb
e
>   I should just delete the message...just a thought.)
>
>5) A number of interesting comments were made concerning the Enterprise.  The
>   impression seems to be firmly fixed in people's minds that it was nothing
>   more than a glider trainer for use in landing practice.  This is not
>   surprising considering that there has been an effort since the late '70s
>   by NASA to cover up the full capabilities of this ship for reasons detailed
>   in #64.  I am curious, what is the source of BrianT@cup.portal.com's and
>   shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov's claim that the Enterprise has no engines, tile
s
>,
>   and would not be capable of sub-orbital flights?  Have they seen these thin
g
>s
>   for themselves, or was this second-hand information?  It would, to my mind,

  Yes, I saw it for myself, in April of 1979 when Enterprise was the
  first shuttle to arrive at Kennedy Space Center. I still have photos,
  it was a very big event at the time. The mockup engines that Enterprise
  carried in the ALT program and facilities check-out duties bear only
  a superficial resemblance to the real SSMEs. For starters, they were
  shorter. Second, they had none of the external ribbing and plumbing
  lines clearly visible on TV during any shuttle launch.

jv> See my comment above concerning the secret adding of SSMEs and tiles to 101.
  
>   seem strange to send Young and Crippen in STS-1 up in space without previou
s
>   preparation in sub-orbital practice missions or similar.  Are you guys sure
>   we're getting the full story?  It would also seem strange to me that Dr.
>   Beter, considering his background, could go into such an elaborate, non-
>   contradictory discussion, expanding on capabilities of the Enterprise that
>   did not exist, unless there was something to it.
>
>   Really now, I don't want anyone to think I'm accusing anyone of distributin
g
>   false information knowingly.  I'd like to get to the bottom of this myself,
>   and I'm heading for my public library the next couple of days to see what
>   I can dig up in the archives about the exact capabilities of the Enterprise
,
>   both real and advertised.  If I find anything worth posting I will do so.
>
>6) BrianT@cup.portal.com says he saw STS-1 flying due east instead of northeas
t
>.
>   I checked on my atlas concerning how the line connecting Cape Canaveral and
>   Bermuda deviates from due east, which is where #64 says the shuttle flew.
>   Actually it is closer to due east than northeast, and I would call it
>   "north-east-east."  So do you suppose this direction could be mistaken for
>   due east?  In any event, don't most launches of this nature get launched
>   toward the southeast, toward the equator?  Did STS-1 really do this?

  Okay, not PERFECTLY due east, but pretty close. In any case, it
  was much, much different than the direction taken by Shuttles flying
  into the northeast. Shuttle's heading into equatorial orbit arc across
  the sky as seen from the public viewing areas, and just about anywhere
  in Brevard County. Launches to the northeast fly directly away from
  the viewing sites, and you're looking more or less straight up the
  SRB plume. This doesn't sound like strong evidence against your theory,
  but you'll have to take my word for it that there is no comparing
  the two launch trajectories.
  In fact, when STS-41G Challenger became the first Shuttle to fly in a
  northeast trajectory (57 degree orbit) it was so different that many
  people called the local newspapers and TV channels asking if something
  had gone wrong. Nobody had seen that before.

jv> Few people seem to remember that, officially according to NASA, the orbit
jv> chosen for STS-1 was 44 degrees.  Looking again at the April 13, 1981 issue
jv> of Time, page 87, this can be seen from the diagram titled "Possible
jv> Landing Sites."  If you compare the northernmost and southernmost points of
jv> the orbit depicted for the shuttle with an atlas, it is close to 44 degrees
jv> north and south.  Furthermore, the initial launch path from Cape Canaveral
jv> is distinctly shown to be in a northeast direction.  So what is being said
jv> here about STS-41G being the first northeast trajectory orbit contradicts
jv> NASA's own official story of the mission.  The orbit actually planned by
jv> NASA, by the way, was 69 degrees, and the landing site they had in mind was
jv> the Great Sandy Desert of Western Australia.  They planned on acheiving
jv> this high-inclination orbit by the shuttle making a wide sweeping turn into
jv> the north about 2-1/2 minutes after launch, after it was out of camera
jv> range.
jv>
jv> I might also mention that STS-2 and STS-3 were also launched in northeast
jv> directions, and had Rota, Spain designated as the trans-Atlantic abort
jv> site (shown in the "Possible Landing Sites" diagram in Time, above).  STS-4
jv> was the first shuttle to orbit equatorially, having Dakar, Senegal, as the
jv> new trans-Atlantic abort site, close to the equator, and that was because
jv> the military wanted to place a cryogenic, infrared detection satellite in
jv> geostationary orbit.  The shuttle could not take it all the way into this
jv> kind of orbit, so they had to load an extra rocket into the shuttle while it
jv> was on the launch pad to carry the satellite the rest of the way.

  The account described in this thread does make interesting reading,
  but anyone even remotely connected to, or knowledgable of, the
  Shuttle program knows it's all a bunch of hooey.
  
  I strongly support your right to print/publish this material, but
  perhaps one of the 'creative' sections is more approapriate.
  
  -Brian S. Thorn,
   Merritt Island, Florida
  
>That's all for now.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-