Edit: Removed "pretty good" from the description of the snopes debunking, it isn't very thorough either.
Snopes does has a debunking of this, with as much effort as the person who put OP's link together.
TL:DR; Two of the "doppelgangers" are brothers and I don't find it hard to believe siblings resemble each other.
If you look into the other people's backgrounds you see that they have a paper trail of public profile jobs and/or education records. Sure those could be faked by the government, but why go through the effort? Their resemblence doesn't really hold up under a closer look at some key features.
There is not really an explanation offered for why whoever "planned" this wanted to fake the astronauts deaths and blow up the shuttle, and if anyone can come up with a why for the shuttle needing to be destroyed, why would those responsible for it go through the trouble of saving them?
Wouldn't it have just been easier to sabotage the shuttle, any clandestine operation would likely consider the astronauts as expendable.
Snopes doesn't do a convincing job in debunking this theory for me. On the other hand I still fail to see a motive on why bother with such a huge deception.
The disaster resulted in a 32-month hiatus in NASA’s shuttle program and the formation of the Rogers Commission, a special commission appointed by then President Ronald Reagan to investigate the accident. The commission found NASA’s organizational culture and decision-making processes had been key contributing factors to the accident.
What were the consequences of the Rogers Commision? What changed at NASA that needed such a huge cataclysm to make it happen?
Well they completely redesigned the solid rocket boosters (the ones witht he faulty o-ring) used in the shuttle program.
They created a Safety and Quality Assurance office which made minor changes to the administrative structure of NASA.
Funding increased by 0.1% of GDP in 1988 and another 0.1% in 1989, from 0.76% GDP from 1985 through 1987 to 0.99% in 1990, as well as a temporary renewed interest by the public when the program started back up in Sept. 1988.
I'm certainly not saying that the event didn't have consequences and results, I just don't know who would have benefited enough to offset the loss of the shuttle and the program's setback for almost 3 years.
Snopes doesn't completely debunk it but as I said they put as much effort as the original article linked, that is to say a cursory look at it and some ancestry and SSID research. Other than tracking down evidence and testimony from colleagues and university peers for those involved I don't know what else they could do to debunk what is already fairly tenative "proof".
view the rest of the comments →
Dantethebald ago
Edit: Removed "pretty good" from the description of the snopes debunking, it isn't very thorough either.
Snopes does has a debunking of this, with as much effort as the person who put OP's link together.
TL:DR; Two of the "doppelgangers" are brothers and I don't find it hard to believe siblings resemble each other.
If you look into the other people's backgrounds you see that they have a paper trail of public profile jobs and/or education records. Sure those could be faked by the government, but why go through the effort? Their resemblence doesn't really hold up under a closer look at some key features.
There is not really an explanation offered for why whoever "planned" this wanted to fake the astronauts deaths and blow up the shuttle, and if anyone can come up with a why for the shuttle needing to be destroyed, why would those responsible for it go through the trouble of saving them?
Wouldn't it have just been easier to sabotage the shuttle, any clandestine operation would likely consider the astronauts as expendable.
Zinnsee ago
Snopes doesn't do a convincing job in debunking this theory for me. On the other hand I still fail to see a motive on why bother with such a huge deception.
What were the consequences of the Rogers Commision? What changed at NASA that needed such a huge cataclysm to make it happen?
Dantethebald ago
Well they completely redesigned the solid rocket boosters (the ones witht he faulty o-ring) used in the shuttle program.
They created a Safety and Quality Assurance office which made minor changes to the administrative structure of NASA.
Funding increased by 0.1% of GDP in 1988 and another 0.1% in 1989, from 0.76% GDP from 1985 through 1987 to 0.99% in 1990, as well as a temporary renewed interest by the public when the program started back up in Sept. 1988.
I'm certainly not saying that the event didn't have consequences and results, I just don't know who would have benefited enough to offset the loss of the shuttle and the program's setback for almost 3 years.
Snopes doesn't completely debunk it but as I said they put as much effort as the original article linked, that is to say a cursory look at it and some ancestry and SSID research. Other than tracking down evidence and testimony from colleagues and university peers for those involved I don't know what else they could do to debunk what is already fairly tenative "proof".