The theory that the International Space Station is fake

[Cosmored]

There seem to be some anomalies in the International Space Station footage.

Fred Astaire and the ISS
https://www.brighteon.com/e641f208-b2d5-4e13-b6c2-e4e7b7cbe2da

The International Space Station is Fake!!! NASA Lies!! NEW
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=fake+space+station&&view=detail&mid=76DBD7B706CEF61D9D2276DBD7B706CEF61D9D22&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dfake%2Bspace%2Bstation%26FORM%3DHDRSC3

NASA ISS FAKE - 1
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=fake+space+station&ru=%2fvideos%2fsearch%3fq%3dfake%2bspace%2bstation%26FORM%3dHDRSC3&view=detail&mid=73444F2CCBF2822972D873444F2CCBF2822972D8&&FORM=VDRVRV

The International Space Station Is Fake
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Space+Station+Fake+Special+Effects&&view=detail&mid=20926042FFE3B912385D20926042FFE3B912385D&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DSpace%2BStation%2BFake%2BSpecial%2BEffects%26FORM%3DVRIBQP

How NASA fakes the International Space Station (ISS)
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Is+the+Space+Station+Fake&&view=detail&mid=5F2F689B998B01F12E055F2F689B998B01F12E05&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DIs%2Bthe%2BSpace%2BStation%2BFake%26FORM%3DVDMHRS

ISS Hoax - The International Fake Station
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=International+Space+Station+Is+Fake&&view=detail&mid=A086FA232DA9C131F57BA086FA232DA9C131F57B&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DInternational%2BSpace%2BStation%2BIs%2BFake%26FORM%3DVDMHRS


I always figured that zero-gravity could only be faked in a diving plane for about thirty seconds. There seems to be footage of zero-G that lasts much longer.

Il buono dei lipidi nel menu della Stazione Spaziale Internazionale
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uRtsZR0nkk

Discovery Crew Enters International Space Station
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4


Maybe they're faking some of it to save money even though it's real.

I'm sitting on the fence on this one.

[palehorse]

If it is fake, then it would also prove that we are living under a dome of some sort, because what else could explain that it is not possible to reach outer space?
Here is some old news from 1907, HAWAIIAN GAZETTE, there is an old model of earth, resembling the cow's land ;)
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/data/batches/hihouml_cardinal_ver01/data/sn83025121/00294552492/1907011101/0369.pdf
Edit: Here is the link just in case, this PDF is not rendering in the page, at least for me.
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/data/batches/hihouml_cardinal_ver01/data/sn83025121/00294552492/1907011101/0369.pdf

--
Page 371 is about the flat circular earth
Page 391 (Sokaku's globe and his image of the world)
Page 392 SKETCH OF AN INSTRUMENT OF THE BUDDHIST IMAGE OF THE FLAT EARTH) OF 1814.
Page 434 converting of globe maps into flat maps

Here is the PDF, it is too big for embed here https://press.uchicago.edu/books/HOC/HOC_V2_B2/HOC_VOLUME2_Book2_chapter11.pdf

At some point every Buddhist will hear about Mount Sumeru, dig enough you will see what it is all about. It is an imaginary world (Loka) that only those who archived nirvana and became Arahant will be able to enter, AFTER physical death.

[Cosmored]

If it is fake, then it would also prove that we are living under a dome of some sort, because what else could explain that it is not possible to reach outer space?
Here is some old news from 1907, HAWAIIAN GAZETTE, there is an old model of earth, resembling the cow's land
That sounds kind of far-fetched to me. It's possible that it was being used during the first few years and then a meteor hit it, or there was some kind of major accident that made it unusable. Instead of coming clean with the public, they faked it from then on. There are lots of plausible scenarios.

[Bill Ryan]

Here's the Occam's Razor question. Why should the ISS be "fake", when we know the technology exists for it to be real?

It's a little like claiming that no-one's ever climbed Mount Everest, and all the photos and reported accounts are hoaxes. Few if any of us know anyone who's been there, and no Avalon member has climbed it.

But we have every reason to believe it's possible, with no real reason to doubt what we've heard or read. Some mountaineers have faked their claims — see this post (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?108602-All-Sports-All-The-Time&p=1394470&viewfull=1#post1394470) — but that doesn't often happen!

Sometimes, just sometimes, things are exactly as they're reported to be. :)

[Cosmored]

Page 371 is about the flat circular earth
You don't really believe that, do you? Watch a few of these videos.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Rocket+Cam

Once you get high enough, you can see that the Earth is a sphere.

[Cosmored]

Why should the ISS be "fake", when we know the technology exists for it to be real?
The problem of micrometeorites might be worse than they're telling us, or space radiation might be worse than we think. I doubt that it's impossible but I'm not ruling it out yet.
Let's talk about the alleged anomalies? There seems to be some fakery in the footage. Is it real fakery?

[palehorse]

Page 371 is about the flat circular earth
You don't really believe that, do you? Watch a few of these videos.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Rocket+Cam

Once you get high enough, you can see that the Earth is a sphere.

of course I don't.
quoting my own post "At some point every Buddhist will hear about Mount Sumeru, dig enough you will see what it is all about. It is an imaginary world (Loka) that only those who archived nirvana and became Arahant will be able to enter, AFTER physical death."

I am just comparing the idea of conspiracy about ISS with flat earth like minded people, because the two things goes pretty well hand by hand.

[Bill Ryan]

I am just comparing the idea of conspiracy about ISS with flat earth like minded people, because the two things goes pretty hand by hand.Yes, they do. :)

[Nick Matkin]

I guess those who think it's fake don't know that the ISS has an amateur radio transmitter on board where you can actually have a two-way conversation with an ISS radio operator. But that is only possible for the few minutes the ISS is over the horizon in your location. Not only that, but they do slow-scan TV transmissions from inside the ship. These signals can be heard/seen by ANYONE on 145.8 MHz FM. Frequency modulation (FM) is used for all these transmissions becasue Doppler shift due to the ISS speed at about 7.7km/s renders other forms of analogue communication impractical.

If anyone can explain how that can be faked, please let us know here. It will make fascinating reading...

[Cosmored]

I guess those who think it's fake don't know that the ISS has an amateur radio transmitter on board where you can actually have a two-way conversation with an ISS radio operator. But that is only possible for the few minutes the ISS is over the horizon in your location. Not only that, but they do slow-scan TV transmissions from inside the ship. These signals can be heard/seen by ANYONE on 145.8 MHz FM. Frequency modulation (FM) is used for all these transmissions becasue Doppler shift due to the ISS speed at about 7.7km/s renders other forms of analogue communication impractical.

If anyone can explain how that can be faked, please let us know here. It will make fascinating reading...
I don't have any background in this but how do we know the signals are coming from the space station?

The main issue here is the alleged anomalies. If it's real and there's no monkey business going on, there shouldn't be any anomalies.

Have you looked at any of the videos in my first post? Maybe they can all be explained and they're really not anomalies. I haven't formed a firm opinion on this. I'm not someone who simply believes the ISS is fake.

[Ultima Thule]

I guess those who think it's fake don't know that the ISS has an amateur radio transmitter on board where you can actually have a two-way conversation with an ISS radio operator. But that is only possible for the few minutes the ISS is over the horizon in your location. Not only that, but they do slow-scan TV transmissions from inside the ship. These signals can be heard/seen by ANYONE on 145.8 MHz FM. Frequency modulation (FM) is used for all these transmissions becasue Doppler shift due to the ISS speed at about 7.7km/s renders other forms of analogue communication impractical.

If anyone can explain how that can be faked, please let us know here. It will make fascinating reading...
I don't have any background in this but how do we know the signals are coming from the space station?


I suppose that one would have to make a device or a "station" if you will, that would revolve around the earth to be available in such a manner for short durations only. As it would have to be manned, then it might be perhaps thought of as a fake ISS? It looks like it, works like it and travels where the real one is supposed to travel and with the speed of it.

Sorry about my sarcasm.. :focus:

UT

[Nick Matkin]

I guess those who think it's fake don't know that the ISS has an amateur radio transmitter on board where you can actually have a two-way conversation with an ISS radio operator. But that is only possible for the few minutes the ISS is over the horizon in your location. Not only that, but they do slow-scan TV transmissions from inside the ship. These signals can be heard/seen by ANYONE on 145.8 MHz FM. Frequency modulation (FM) is used for all these transmissions becasue Doppler shift due to the ISS speed at about 7.7km/s renders other forms of analogue communication impractical.

If anyone can explain how that can be faked, please let us know here. It will make fascinating reading...
I don't have any background in this but how do we know the signals are coming from the space station?

The main issue here is the alleged anomalies. If it's real and there's no monkey business going on, there shouldn't be any anomalies.

Have you looked at any of the videos in my first post? Maybe they can all be explained and they're really not anomalies. I haven't formed a firm opinion on this. I'm not someone who simply believes the ISS is fake.

We know the signals are coming from the space station because they have all the properties of coming from an object in orbit. Anyone can check the transmission schedules and orbit positions on various websites. On a clear night you can see it, and if it's scheduled to have a 145.8 MHz transmission you can hear it at the same time as it goes overhead. The signal footprint, speed and Doppler shift cannot be reproduced by an aircraft - just in case anyone was thinking along those lines!

Not having a detailed understanding of a subject is fine, but shouldn't propel anyone into finding an alternative explanation in woo. We all have the opportunity to discover and understand the science for ourselves. Most people just don't bother...

[Cosmored]

I suppose that one would have to make a device or a "station" if you will, that would revolve around the earth to be available in such a manner for short durations only. As it would have to be manned, then it might be perhaps thought of as a fake ISS? It looks like it, works like it and travels where the real one is supposed to travel and with the speed of it.
As I said before, I have no background in this but couldn't there be a string of transmitters every few hundred miles along the surface below where the station is supposed to orbit?

Has anybody looked at the supposed anomalies in the footage? It looks to me like something fishy is going on. I just want to figure out what the truth is. I won't be disappointed if the anomalies are explainable and everything is real.

[Nick Matkin]

As I said before, I have no background in this but couldn't there be a string of transmitters every few hundred miles along the surface below where the station is supposed to orbit?

Why would anyone do that? How would you achieve the transmission footprint? The Doppler shift? The orbit changes slightly daily. Do you have teams of people moving the ground-based transmitters to follow each change in orbit?

It's obvious if a signal is coming from a moving object above, or a fixed location on the ground. Anyone with even basic knowledge of space communications would know if the ISS signals were fake. And there are a lot more of us than you might think.

And why anyone would promote videos of ISS activity as a hoax is very odd. Like I said, just becasue someone doesn't understand something why fabricate a conspiracy? Who would gain? And why?

[lyn joshua]

I agree it's a possibility scenario! It's possible it's being faked!
There is also the possibility that it existed!!

[Bill Ryan]

I agree it's a possibility scenario! It's possible it's being faked!
There is also the possibility that it existed!!And some possibilities are more possible than other possibilities. :)

[TargeT]

I saw it pass over my house several times when I lived on St Croix... seemed pretty real to me (and very fast)

[Cosmored]

Has anyone seen the anomalies described in the videos? That's the main issue here.



We know the signals are coming from the space station because they have all the properties of coming from an object in orbit. Anyone can check the transmission schedules and orbit positions on various websites. On a clear night you can see it, and if it's scheduled to have a 145.8 MHz transmission you can hear it at the same time as it goes overhead. The signal footprint, speed and Doppler shift cannot be reproduced by an aircraft - just in case anyone was thinking along those lines!
This doesn't make the anomalies go away.

[Nick Matkin]

Has anyone seen the anomalies described in the videos? That's the main issue here.



We know the signals are coming from the space station because they have all the properties of coming from an object in orbit. Anyone can check the transmission schedules and orbit positions on various websites. On a clear night you can see it, and if it's scheduled to have a 145.8 MHz transmission you can hear it at the same time as it goes overhead. The signal footprint, speed and Doppler shift cannot be reproduced by an aircraft - just in case anyone was thinking along those lines!
This doesn't make the anomalies go away.

No it doesn't, but it strongly suggests the anomalies are not anomalies, just misperceptions and misunderstandings by those of us who have not been on the ISS, or any orbiting space craft for that matter!

[Cosmored]

Ok. Let's talk about some specifics. Go to the 2:30 time mark of this video.

ISS Hoax - The International Fake Station
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=International+Space+Station+Is+Fake&&view=detail&mid=A086FA232DA9C131F57BA086FA232DA9C131F57B&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DInternational%2BSpace%2BStation%2BIs%2BFake%26FORM%3DVDMHRS

The guy goes backwards and stops his backward movement with his feet and his upper body stops too. Wouldn't he have to grab something with his arm to stop his upper body from continuing to move as is pointed out in the video? This looks like a real anomaly to me.

[DeDukshyn]

I watched two of the videos linked in the OP -- very poor analysis on the two I watched - really weak points attempting to be made.

The idea "people in a harness on earth tilt their head upward, and 'sometimes' so do the astronauts, therefore its fake" is ridiculous. Could it not be that they are on camera talking to an audience and are trying to orient their heads to the camera?

I have never seen any actual compelling evidence that the ISS is fake - and I have seen it orbiting the earth. It would seem like an awful lot of cost and work to put it up there, just to make fake footage here on earth ... lol.

[seehas]

Thinking out of the Box is a good thing but that doesnt mean dont question any theory they put out there - question everything but please use your brain

just grab yourself a binocular and a clear night - check your smartphone satelite-tracker app and you can see the ISS yourself



im getting a little offtopic here right now but star-gazing with binoculars is real fun just got back into it :o:heart:

[Cosmored]

The idea "people in a harness on earth tilt their head upward, and 'sometimes' so do the astronauts, therefore its fake" is ridiculous. Could it not be that they are on camera talking to an audience and are trying to orient their heads to the camera?
I consider that to be weak too. But it's suspicious.

What about the anomaly I referred to in my last post?
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1408659&viewfull=1#post1408659

I don't think that one is weak.



I have never seen any actual compelling evidence that the ISS is fake - and I have seen it orbiting the earth. It would seem like an awful lot of cost and work to put it up there, just to make fake footage here on earth ... lol.

There being some faked footage doesn't necessarily mean that there's no station. I put forth a possible scenario in post #3.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1408552&viewfull=1#post1408552


edit
--------------------------


just grab yourself a binocular and a clear night - check your smartphone satelite-tracker app and you can see the ISS yourself
See post #3.

[DeDukshyn]

The idea "people in a harness on earth tilt their head upward, and 'sometimes' so do the astronauts, therefore its fake" is ridiculous. Could it not be that they are on camera talking to an audience and are trying to orient their heads to the camera?
I consider that to be weak too. But it's suspicious.

Not really suspicious, because there is a simple explanation that completely makes sense.



What about the anomaly I referred to in my last post?
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1408659&viewfull=1#post1408659

I don't think that one is weak.

It didn't look odd to me. he is moving very slowly, he grabs something to brace himself and slows his linear movement to almost a stop, most of the remaining motion is turning, not linear, his feet are braced on something, and he could be using the object he set against the wall also as a brace. What I did notice though is that the content creator sped up the video, to make it look more convincing that he shouldn't be able to have stopped himself. Wonder why he felt the need to do that? Wasn't quite convincing enough without the sped up part?





I have never seen any actual compelling evidence that the ISS is fake - and I have seen it orbiting the earth. It would seem like an awful lot of cost and work to put it up there, just to make fake footage here on earth ... lol.

There being some faked footage doesn't necessarily mean that there's no station. I put forth a possible scenario in post #3.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1408552&viewfull=1#post1408552

What would be the motivation for abandoning it, then pretending it wasn't abandoned? Remember the ISS isn't owned by NASA but rather was built by 18 countries, and is supported by many more -- each country would have to be in on this conspiracy. That would be a pretty hard secret to keep.

All the evidence is weak in my opinion. While searching through a bunch of weak evidence might be lead to stronger evidence, so I'm not saying weak evidence shouldn't be considered, but a big pile of weak evidence on its own is just a big pile of weak evidence.

[Strat]

I saw it pass over my house several times when I lived on St Croix... seemed pretty real to me (and very fast)

Ditto. This will pop up on the news occasionally.
https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/tracking_map.cfm

[Hughe]

Real space starts from altitude at 20,000 km above the Earth's surface. ISS is not a space station but near earth orbital station. Did the Space Shuttle ever left Earth's gravitational well? None! It was a near earth shuttle that went up to few hundred km in atmosphere and came back.

Who is creating the confusion and hoax at the first place? NASA.

The condition of real space:
Temperature fluctuation is between negative 200 Celsius and positive thousands Celsius
High energy particles and X-ray and gamma-ray is filled the space, which are lethal to any life form. To shield these tiny particles and waves are very hard.
Tinny meteorites less than few mm in travels speed of mach 20+. When these hits metal, it explodes or punch holes. Do humans have shielding technology to deflect these? Invisible force field or layer of plasma around the space craft are needed.
Foreign electromagnetic environment affects every cell of life form, including human. Life form on Earth has been tuned in, optimized to the specific, delicate electromagnetic field.

To me real space travel is to like putting the fish on the ground using technology to protect the fish and keep it alive in the air.

[Cosmored]

It didn't look odd to me. he is moving very slowly, he grabs something to brace himself and slows his linear movement to almost a stop, most of the remaining motion is turning, not linear, his feet are braced on something, and he could be using the object he set against the wall also as a brace. What I did notice though is that the content creator sped up the video, to make it look more convincing that he shouldn't be able to have stopped himself. Wonder why he felt the need to do that? Wasn't quite convincing enough without the sped up part?
I watched it several times at slow-speed and when he attached the object to the wall, he didn't seem to be using it to stop himself. I did notice the bottom of his shirt though. It seemed to be floating. If he were on a wire, it wouldn't be floating. That part did convince me. I suppose you're right.



What would be the motivation for abandoning it, then pretending it wasn't abandoned? Remember the ISS isn't owned by NASA but rather was built by 18 countries, and is supported by many more -- each country would have to be in on this conspiracy. That would be a pretty hard secret to keep.
That is pretty strong but it is circumstantial. We don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

I haven't formed a firm opinion on this. I just wanted to talk about it. That's why I didn't give the the thread the title, "The ISS is Fake".


I'm going to watch that video again. If I see anything questionable, I'll post it so we can talk about it.

[DeDukshyn]

...


What would be the motivation for abandoning it, then pretending it wasn't abandoned? Remember the ISS isn't owned by NASA but rather was built by 18 countries, and is supported by many more -- each country would have to be in on this conspiracy. That would be a pretty hard secret to keep.
That is pretty strong but it is circumstantial. We don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

...

While we don't know, we can use our imaginations - mine's pretty good. The thing is I can't really imagine a scenario where I feel that they would need to hide this fact and then pretend they are still doing space missions to it years later, rather than tell us something much more simple.

For example, let's say the ISS got contaminated with alien goo that was highly pathogenic - that might be a reason to abandon it. But wouldn't they just take a sample (of course) and then destroy the station and blame it on a meteor hit? Keep it out of "enemy hands" so they can "weaponize it for themselves" --- or whatever; this is all just super speculation but it has to be to try to imagine reasoning for abandoning it and the lying to people - one needs to build speculation on top of speculation and when that happens there's nothing to keep the theory grounded.

Its a fun idea to explore though, but when the evidence bears little in the way of fruit, sometimes our resources are best spent exploring a new great mystery, only returning at the introduction of new evidence to look at.

[Cosmored]

Real space starts from altitude at 20,000 km above the Earth's surface. ISS is not a space station but near earth orbital station. Did the Space Shuttle ever left Earth's gravitational well? None! It was a near earth shuttle that went up to few hundred km in atmosphere and came back.

Who is creating the confusion and hoax at the first place? NASA.

The condition of real space:
Temperature fluctuation is between negative 200 Celsius and positive thousands Celsius
High energy particles and X-ray and gamma-ray is filled the space, which are lethal to any life form. To shield these tiny particles and waves are very hard.
Tinny meteorites less than few mm in travels speed of mach 20+. When these hits metal, it explodes or punch holes. Do humans have shielding technology to deflect these? Invisible force field or layer of plasma around the space craft are needed.
Foreign electromagnetic environment affects every cell of life form, including human. Life form on Earth has been tuned in, optimized to the specific, delicate electromagnetic field.

To me real space travel is to like putting the fish on the ground using technology to protect the fish and keep it alive in the air.
Only the insiders of space agencies know how bad it really is and we can't just take their word on anything. The only thing we have is the physical evidence. If there's some clear footage of obvious zero gravity that lasts for more than forty five seconds, that would settle the whole issue and all the suspicious stuff and circumstantial evidence would become moot. Can anyone find some clear footage of zero-G that lasts more than about forty five seconds? I posted some stuff that looked like it in post #1 but I was still a little doubtful as to whether it was fakable.

[Cosmored]

What about the alleged sound of jet engines?

ISS Hoax - The International Fake Station
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=International+Space+Station+Is+Fake&&view=detail&mid=A086FA232DA9C131F57BA086FA232DA9C131F57B&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DInternational%2BSpace%2BStation%2BIs%2BFake%26FORM%3DVDMHRS
(4:45 time mark)

You can hear it here.
Station Tour: Harmony, Tranquility, Unity
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Station+Tour%3a+Harmony%2c+Tranquility%2c+Unity&docid=608048038407375165&mid=3389A796E0508B5F03923389A796E0508B5F0392&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

Also, her hair looks like it has something in it to make it stiff. I know there are going to be sounds of machines humming which would explain the noise, but her stiff hair is suspicious.

[Harmony]

What about the alleged sound of jet engines?

ISS Hoax - The International Fake Station
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=International+Space+Station+Is+Fake&&view=detail&mid=A086FA232DA9C131F57BA086FA232DA9C131F57B&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DInternational%2BSpace%2BStation%2BIs%2BFake%26FORM%3DVDMHRS
(4:45 time mark)

You can hear it here.
Station Tour: Harmony, Tranquility, Unity
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Station+Tour%3a+Harmony%2c+Tranquility%2c+Unity&docid=608048038407375165&mid=3389A796E0508B5F03923389A796E0508B5F0392&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

Also, her hair looks like it has something in it to make it stiff. I know there are going to be sounds of machines humming which would explain the noise, but her stiff hair is suspicious.

I just had a look at the second link you posted. I agree if you just look at her hair it looks quite unusual, but when you look at the wires moving and her necklace moving, or the neck opening of her shirt and even the strings holding the space bed in place, they move in a way that suggests no gravitational force is present.

[Cosmored]

I just had a look at the second link you posted. I agree if you just look at her hair it looks quite unusual, but when you look at the wires moving and her neclace moving, or the neck opening of her shirt and even the strings holding the space bed in place, they move in a way that suggests no gravitational force is present.
When I first started taking a serious look at this theory, the first thing I thought was that there was a mixture of anomalies that point toward a hoax and proof that it was real. I wondered if NASA was doing this deliberately to muddy the waters. They're having a problem because lots of people are learning that Apollo was a hoax and an atmosphere like this will make it more difficult for the truth about the Apollo hoax to take hold in the public mind. This is only a theory mind you but I can't think of another reason for there being a mixture of anomalies and proof that it's real.

I think it's plausible that a public-relations agency came up with the idea of intentionally putting some anomalies in the ISS footage that can be "debunked" by the proof being shown. The public-relations agencies might have even been the ones that made some of those videos. I don't think that's such a crazy theory.

[palehorse]

I saw it pass over my house several times when I lived on St Croix... seemed pretty real to me (and very fast)

Ditto. This will pop up on the news occasionally.
https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/tracking_map.cfm

It just passed over Thailand, but I couldn't see anything from where I am due to clouds and my geolocation which won't allow to see the horizon line, so many trees and builds on the way.

[Builder]

I have talked to astronauts who were on Mir as well as the ISS,
but I am so glad to learn the truth in an online forum!!

Sorry, couldn't resist a little bit of sarcasm ;-)

Get out of the basement, study reality, talk to people who have been there...

[Cosmored]

talk to people who have been there...
If you talk to Aldrin, he'll tell you he went to the moon.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100303-Did-we-really-go-to-the-Moon&p=1395658&viewfull=1#post1395658

[The Moss Trooper]

The problem with wrestling a bear is,........ it doesn't stop when you get tired, only when it gets tired

[ExomatrixTV]

Flat Earthers do NOT represent sane Conspiracy Researchers ... I Created The Ultimate Cure for Flat Earthers being a victim of very sophisticated #FlatEarthPsyOp see: http://goo.gl/VZZXJS it has 325+ content based replies and 120,350+ views! ... Most do not dare to study it, but lower themselves to misrepresent, whining about the featured video & post predictable F.E. BS memes all are debunked anyway!

cheers,
John Kuhles

[Cosmored]

Flat Earthers do NOT represent sane Conspiracy Researchers ... I Created The Ultimate Cure for Flat Earthers being a victim of very sophisticated #FlatEarthPsyOp see: http://goo.gl/VZZXJS it has 325+ content based replies and 120,350+ views! ... Most do not dare to study it, but lower themselves to misrepresent, whining about the featured video & post predictable F.E. BS memes all are debunked anyway!

cheers,
John Kuhles

Thanks for starting that thread. I posted it here.
https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487&page=211&p=10336917&viewfull=1#post10336917

The internet is full of paid sophists*. That's their latest strategy. They try to associate me with flat-earthers sometimes. They haven't tried it again since I posted that thread of yours. They're afraid I'll link to it again and they don't want the viewers to see it.


Here's another good video to show the viewers when the sophists try to associate the conspiracy theorists with wackos.

provocateurs,shills and disinfo agents
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYedTmaHt1A

They usually don't even try to obfuscate that one. They know they'll just end up looking like horses' a---s. I put it on these two threads.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/9-11-was-an-inside-job.114344/page-68#post-3661147
http://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/summary-of-proof-that-the-us-government-planned-and-carried-out-the-9-11-attacks.20568/

The sophists won't even touch those threads.


*
https://www.clubconspiracy.com/counter-intellegience-tricks-and-techniques-t4702.html

[syrwong]

Scientific truth is discovered through anomalies. All anomalies must be addressed, not explained away or pretending they do not exist, or saying that the established theory is so consistent with all observations except that damn anomaly.

I think the tilted head anomaly here is a genuine observation that needs to look at seriously. It may not constitute a NASA conspiracy, but it certainly does not deserve any degree of ridicule.

An explanation I can think of is that the astronauts could see themselves on some screen and they played clever to tilt their heads so that the viewers would feel more comfortable. Am I convinced of this, no.

[ExomatrixTV]

When I film a normal Boeing 'Jumbo Jet' 747 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747) in the sky ... I noticed you also see "anomalies" due to CCD Chip in your camera ... try filming it when it goes behind washing-lines or tree-branches or other objects ... depending on your type camera & camera settings I guarantee you ... it can show some weird "anomalies" ... when you analyze it carefully (slow motion and frame by frame) ... I used over 10 different cameras last 30 years and KNOW about: lens-flares, CCD chip anomalies, video-artifacts, decompression artifacts on and on and on.

If I use the same "logic" (rhetoric) as the space deniers I can "proof" Jumbo 747 jet is "fake" lol ... due to the "anomalies" I can show! (am being sarcastic here).

How hilarious exited some people can get when they think they found something "special" not understanding all kinds of stuff cameras can do to give you an illusion of something "special".

As a UFO researcher for 30 years people have send me camera footages for me to analyze and been on TV explaining why some are legit and some are aberrations easy to explain.

cheers,
John Kuhles aka "ExomatrixTV'
February 7th, 2021

[Nick Matkin]

How hilarious exited some people can get when they think they found something "special" not understanding all kinds of stuff cameras can do to give you an illusion of something "special".



Yes, with you on that. But if everyone here had even a fundamental understanding of lenses, cameras, atmospheric physics, meteorology, astronomy, space flight, aviation, RF technology, geophysics and psychology, these pages would be virtually empty, leaving us with only genuine mysteries to explore!

[Cosmored]

Hey ExomatrixTV...

On this thread you said that Jarrah White* believed the Earth was flat.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113927-New-Mars-pictures-from-NASA-clouds-and-not-as-red-as-usual


That's obviously not true.

Jarrah White: "Go away, Flat Earthers & Space Travel Deniers!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbQTD6QOanE

Jarrah White's response to Flat Earthers and Space Travel Deniers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwBvzkTCYZ4&t=109s


Where did you get that idea?



*
http://www.moonfaker.com/videos.php

[Hughe]

@Nick Matkin

Are you serious?

I suspect you are a believer of Black Holes. Because scientists who are smarter than you have been said over decades.

[DeDukshyn]

@Nick Matkin

Are you serious?

I suspect you are a believer of Black Holes. Because scientists who are smarter than you have been said over decades.

Of course black holes exist ... their existence isn't a theory anymore but an observable phenomenon. The debatable part, that is still only theoretical, is what exactly a black hole is ... this part is still only theorized.

Just because the electric universe theory seems to hold some weight, doesn't mean that what we observe which we call a "black hole" suddenly ceases to exist ... only the theory behind what they actually are.

[Old Student]

Wouldn't he have to grab something with his arm to stop his upper body from continuing to move as is pointed out in the video?

Have you heard of bones and muscles? On the moon, you can jump very high in the air without expending much effort. That's 1/6g. This is zero g. It doesn't take very much to hold still.

[Cosmored]

Have you heard of bones and muscles? On the moon, you can jump very high in the air without expending much effort. That's 1/6g. This is zero g. It doesn't take very much to hold still.
He's referring to this.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1408659&viewfull=1#post1408659
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1408750&viewfull=1#post1408750

That doesn't have anything to do with inertia. Holding still isn't the same as stopping. If something with a lot of mass is moving, it takes a lot of force to stop it from moving no matter how much gravity there is.

The bottom of his shirt seems to be in zero-gravity. That's what shows they're in zero-gravity. The fact that his upper body doesn't keep moving still bothers me though.

As I said in post #32 I see a mixture of proof that they're in zero-gravity mixed with anomalies. They might be creating the anomalies on purpose because NASA wants to cause confusion because lots of people are learning that Apollo was a hoax* and an atmosphere like this will make it more difficult for the truth about the Apollo hoax to take hold in the public mind. This may sound silly but it occurred to me. What if they stopped that guy's upper body movement with a wire?


Look at this alleged anomaly at the 1:38 time mark of this video.

Fred Astaire and the ISS
https://www.brighteon.com/e641f208-b2d5-4e13-b6c2-e4e7b7cbe2da

That doesn't look like something that would occur in real zero-gravity. I think the most likely explanation for there being both anomalies and proof that they're in zero-gravity is that the space station is real and they're creating these anomalies on purpose to cause confusion.

What does everybody think about that theory?


*
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100303-Did-we-really-go-to-the-Moon&p=1395658&viewfull=1#post1395658

[Nick Matkin]

@Nick Matkin

Are you serious?

I suspect you are a believer of Black Holes. Because scientists who are smarter than you have been said over decades.

What are you on about lad? So what's your training? University of YouTube?

[Journeyman]

Look at this alleged anomaly at the 1:38 time mark of this video.

Fred Astaire and the ISS
https://www.brighteon.com/e641f208-b2d5-4e13-b6c2-e4e7b7cbe2da

That doesn't look like something that would occur in real zero-gravity.
That clip is very interesting. His analysis and explanation for the movements seems credible. When he rotated the image and replayed the movement it did seem consistent with a slip in gravity conditions.

I watched on a little and the second clip did look like there was more than one video layer.

Food for thought certainly...


I think the most likely explanation for there being both anomalies and proof that they're in zero-gravity is that the space station is real and they're creating these anomalies on purpose to cause confusion.

What does everybody think about that theory?The difficulty is that once you accept there's been deception. I think most would concede there's been fakery or 'enhancement' of images from NASA over the years, see the differences in their globe pictures of earth for instance, then one has to look critically at anything the organisation does. That's where I'm at. I don't give them a free pass any more.

With that in mind. The deliberate confusion hypothesis does explain why they'd allow the video layering footage to be released.

Do you think the space station is there and in zero G but the astronauts aren't?

Oh and apologies if this next part is too down the rabbit hole for a 'science' thread....

Are they allowing video layering evidence footage to escape for the same reason that they allow evidence of 9/11 and other actions? Are they trying to game the karmic laws in a 'revelation of the method' scam? To link to the people not actually being there, is there a clue in the words?

Astronaut
Cosmonaut

Nautes: None: Phonetic Spelling: Parts of Speech: now'-tace: Noun Masculine : Definition: a sailor, seaman, mariner. NAS Word Usage - Total: 3: sailor 1, sailors 2

naught nôt►
n. Nonexistence; nothingness.
n. The figure 0; a cipher; a zero.
pro. Nothing.

[Mashika]

Page 371 is about the flat circular earth
You don't really believe that, do you? Watch a few of these videos.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Rocket+Cam

Once you get high enough, you can see that the Earth is a sphere.

of course I don't.
quoting my own post "At some point every Buddhist will hear about Mount Sumeru, dig enough you will see what it is all about. It is an imaginary world (Loka) that only those who archived nirvana and became Arahant will be able to enter, AFTER physical death."

I am just comparing the idea of conspiracy about ISS with flat earth like minded people, because the two things goes pretty well hand by hand.

Mount Meru? The one that the Indian culture says it has 450 thousand kilometers of altitude?

And the one that is called Kailás, which hosts 35,000 gods in that mountain top?

Wouldn't it, just starting on a mythology like that one, immediately turn into "this is very unlikely"?

;/

[palehorse]

Page 371 is about the flat circular earth
You don't really believe that, do you? Watch a few of these videos.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Rocket+Cam

Once you get high enough, you can see that the Earth is a sphere.

of course I don't.
quoting my own post "At some point every Buddhist will hear about Mount Sumeru, dig enough you will see what it is all about. It is an imaginary world (Loka) that only those who archived nirvana and became Arahant will be able to enter, AFTER physical death."

I am just comparing the idea of conspiracy about ISS with flat earth like minded people, because the two things goes pretty well hand by hand.

Mount Meru? The one that the Indian culture says it has 450 thousand kilometers of altitude?

And the one that is called Kailás, which hosts 35,000 gods in that mountain top?

Wouldn't it, just starting on a mythology like that one, immediately turn into "this is very unlikely"?

;/


It is indeed ancient Indian cosmology, Buddhism in particular adds the approbatory prefix su- to give the idea of excellence, also you will find texts with reference to Mahameru where the suffix maha is being used. I was just making a comparison of such absurdity in our physical world materialistic world.
That's what a cosmology is, right?

[Cosmored]

Do you think the space station is there and in zero G but the astronauts aren't?
That thought has occurred to me but its shape clearly shows that it had to be constructed somehow.

Jarrah White's response to Flat Earthers and Space Travel Deniers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwBvzkTCYZ4&t=109s
(3:30 time mark)



Are they allowing video layering evidence footage to escape for the same reason that they allow evidence of 9/11 and other actions? Are they trying to game the karmic laws in a 'revelation of the method' scam? To link to the people not actually being there, is there a clue in the words?

Astronaut
Cosmonaut

Nautes: None: Phonetic Spelling: Parts of Speech: now'-tace: Noun Masculine : Definition: a sailor, seaman, mariner. NAS Word Usage - Total: 3: sailor 1, sailors 2

naught nôt►
n. Nonexistence; nothingness.
n. The figure 0; a cipher; a zero.
pro. Nothing.
I'd never thought about that before. Maybe they feel a little guilty and clues such as that make them feel better. Or maybe that's their way of toying with the sheeple to get a few laughs (of course I'm thinking about Apollo when I say this).


edit half an hour later
-------------------------------------------------------

This video...

Wet Washcloth In Space - What Happens When You Wring It? | Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMtXfwk7PXg


...and the two at the bottom of post #1 seem to show continuous zero-gravity which can't be simulated in a diving plane.

[Hughe]

There are too many dumb down professionals - medical doctors, school teachers, engineers, scientists, and etc. All of them share one characteristic, which is they can not create new thing or formulate own idea. They keep just repeating old theories mindless like a tape recorder. If you are a believer of Black Holes, you haven't studied fundamental physics hard enough.

Here is an excellent video which debunks Black Holes.

What are Black Holes? Science or Science Fiction?
cHGT0DgvhNM

[Strat]

Here is an excellent video which debunks Black Holes.

cHGT0DgvhNM

I'm not Nick's biggest fan but you succinctly just proved his point. I don't pretend to be educated but I do believe it's time to back off youtube and rediscover books and the library.

[DeDukshyn]

There are too many dumb down professionals - medical doctors, school teachers, engineers, scientists, and etc. All of them share one characteristic, which is they can not create new thing or formulate own idea. They keep just repeating old theories mindless like a tape recorder. If you are a believer of Black Holes, you haven't studied fundamental physics hard enough.

Here is an excellent video which debunks Black Holes.

What are Black Holes? Science or Science Fiction?
cHGT0DgvhNM

The video supported exactly what I stated ... the problems with black holes is understanding what they are and how they are formed, - this is what the video was arguing, not their existence. We observe phenomenon that pulls in and bends light with extreme gravitational forces while ejecting gamma rays at its poles - are we supposed to look away and pretend these things do not exist just because the math behind how a black hole might be formed is problematic? That's absurd.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Poor Stephen Hawkins turning in his grave, after a lifetime of work.

Here's a bit of trivia to lighten things up a bit, although these days such is not fair with google at the fingertips. Notwithstanding, does anyone know what the word 'ylem' refers to?

[Nick Matkin]

There are too many dumb down professionals - medical doctors, school teachers, engineers, scientists, and etc. All of them share one characteristic, which is they can not create new thing or formulate own idea. They keep just repeating old theories mindless like a tape recorder.


Yeah, that's right. Flight, internal-combustion engines, antibiotics, radio, electricity, semi-conductors, the internet, oh - and tape recorders (!) all just suddenly appeared because scientists and engineers just repeat their old mindless theories.

Hughe - you're sharp as anything. Thanks for your insight man! Keep it coming.

[The Moss Trooper]

Poor Stephen Hawkins turning in his grave, after a lifetime of work.

Here's a bit of trivia to lighten things up a bit, although these days such is not fair with google at the fingertips. Notwithstanding, does anyone know what the word 'ylem' refers to?


Something to do with primordial matter? I dunno....... I know what Xylem is though, is that close enough??


I once had a p*ss that extended 3.7mtrs from my vertical plane (true story) .......... Do I win???

And........ I've been knocked-out by a donkey (also true).......... That's gotta be worth something, surely.

[Cosmored]

Here's something I just came across.
https://www.aulis.com/apollo-soyuz.htm

https://www.aulis.com/apollo-soyuz_contents.htm
https://www.aulis.com/apollo-soyuz1.htm


I haven't read all of it but I'm posting it anyway.

[Kowolski]

Ok. Let's talk about some specifics. Go to the 2:30 time mark of this video.

ISS Hoax - The International Fake Station
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=International+Space+Station+Is+Fake&&view=detail&mid=A086FA232DA9C131F57BA086FA232DA9C131F57B&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DInternational%2BSpace%2BStation%2BIs%2BFake%26FORM%3DVDMHRS

The guy goes backwards and stops his backward movement with his feet and his upper body stops too. Wouldn't he have to grab something with his arm to stop his upper body from continuing to move as is pointed out in the video? This looks like a real anomaly to me.

This is very simple to explain. The ISS has grab handles all along top and bottom of the compartments. The astronauts learn very quickly to curl their feet into them to stop themselves colliding with the walls - one reason they don't wear any shoes. Most of the claims concerning sudden stops and balances are all explained by this. I've also seen some pointy pieces on shirts that is claimed are wires being pulled - but once again very simple to explain. The shirts are packed and prepared on the ground - they are folded into sealed plastic . All we are seeing is the folds on the shirt - there isn't any gravity so a thing called shape memory is more obvious.

Let me know if you have any more you need explaining - cool thread, but consistently wrong on the observations. I've seen most of them.

[Bill Ryan]

...but consistently wrong on the observations.Yes, you can say that again.

I'll say this directly to Cosmored. You don't really want answers to your questions. You're trying to preach your belief, all in disguise. All you're actually doing is irritating people with your intransigence and wafer-thin, cosmetic reasonableness.

The smart thing for you to do, and the only thing that might earn the respect of many readers, might be to say: "Hey, thanks, I understand it better now."

[Cosmored]

I'll say this directly to Cosmored. You don't really want answers to your questions. You're trying to preach your belief, all in disguise. All you're actually doing is irritating people with your intransigence and wafer-thin, cosmetic reasonableness.

The smart thing for you to do, and the only thing that might earn the respect of many readers, might be to say: "Hey, thanks, I understand it better now."
Did you read what I said in post #46?
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1409567&viewfull=1#post1409567


I think the most likely explanation for there being both anomalies and proof that they're in zero-gravity is that the space station is real and they're creating these anomalies on purpose to cause confusion.


There are still a few things that look like anomalies to me such as that woman astronaut's hairdo that I mentioned in post #30.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1408765&viewfull=1#post1408765

Her hair looks stiff. It looks like they're trying to simulate the behavior of hair in zero-G but there are also long segments of footage that are obviously in zero-G.

I don't think the idea that NASA is trying to cause confusion is such a crazy idea. Lots of people are finding out about the Apollo hoax so it's natural that NASA will try to create confusion. A lot of people who have started saying that the Earth is flat are also saying that Apollo was a hoax. There seems to be a campaign to muddy the waters and discredit Apollo hoax-believers. Putting some anomalies in the space station footage will cause confusion and help their cause.


edit an hour later...
-------------------------------------------

(from post #59)

I've also seen some pointy pieces on shirts that is claimed are wires being pulled - but once again very simple to explain. The shirts are packed and prepared on the ground - they are folded into sealed plastic . All we are seeing is the folds on the shirt - there isn't any gravity so a thing called shape memory is more obvious.
That's a possibility. Another possibility is that they put those pointy pieces there to cause confusion. There will probably be debates on this between people who maintain that this is proof that the ISS is fake and those that maintain that it's real. A third position is that the ISS is real and they put in those anomalies to muddy the waters. I don't think that's a wacky theory. I think that possibility shouldn't simply be dismissed as wacky. Knee-jerk dismissal is not the scientific method*.


*
https://www.google.com/search?q=scientific+method&rlz=1C1AWFC_enES882ES884&oq=scientific+method&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.6411j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[DeDukshyn]

...
...

There are still a few things that look like anomalies to me such as that woman astronaut's hairdo that I mentioned in post #30.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1408765&viewfull=1#post1408765

Her hair looks stiff. .

Have you ever gone weeks without washing your hair, then filmed your hair in a zero G environment? If you even spend a small amount of time thinking of how something might be true over how something must be wrong, you tend to look like you aren't actually remotely thinking about or considering things with logic and reason.

Just seriously imagine ... you haven't washed your hair in weeks and are putting "no rinse" shampoo in it without rinsing, its stiff with grease and/or whatever the "shampoo" is made of, and there's no gravity to pull on it, so any inertia that might act on it does so without gravity acting as the catalyst.

Again, the answers are so easy to come by if you just consider how it might be true, instead of not considering that and thinking only of how it might be false - for any reasonable critical thinking on the topic one MUST consider these things from both sides of that coin. This is why Bill is saying that you are throwing away simple reasoning ... because you are ... its kinda obvious.

[Cosmored]

Have you ever gone weeks without washing your hair, then filmed your hair in a zero G environment?
My hair gets oily when I do that.


I made it clear that I'm not sure and I just want some feedback. You act as if that were something bad.

(post #13)
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1408571&viewfull=1#post1408571

I just want to figure out what the truth is. I won't be disappointed if the anomalies are explainable and everything is real.

[DeDukshyn]

Have you ever gone weeks without washing your hair, then filmed your hair in a zero G environment?
My hair gets oily when I do that.


I made it clear that I'm not sure and I just want some feedback. You act as if that were something bad.

(post #13)
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1408571&viewfull=1#post1408571

I just want to figure out what the truth is. I won't be disappointed if the anomalies are explainable and everything is real.

All my point is that try to factor in how things might be true, just as strongly as how much the might be false. If I am trying to get to the root of an issue, I often spend more time thinking how I might debunk myself, than I do spending time trying to make myself right, that way, I can get to base level conclusions before asking for assistance on my views, or trying to proclaim them. That's my only point.

[Cosmored]

All my point is that try to factor in how things might be true, just as strongly as how much the might be false. If I am trying to get to the root of an issue, I often spend more time thinking how I might debunk myself, than I do spending time trying to make myself right, that way, I can get to base level conclusions before asking for assistance on my views, or trying to proclaim them. That's my only point.
I pretty much felt like I'd gotten to a base level when I started the thread. I figured it was time for feedback. I didn't have any conclusions. I only had hypotheses.

What do you think of the idea that the ISS is real and some of the anomalies are bogus and planted by NASA to muddy the waters? Do you think Apollo was a hoax?
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100303-Did-we-really-go-to-the-Moon&p=1395658&viewfull=1#post1395658

[Cosmored]

I'd like to hear some feedback on the idea of green screens which is explained here.

Fred Astaire and the ISS
https://www.brighteon.com/e641f208-b2d5-4e13-b6c2-e4e7b7cbe2da
(4:13 time mark)


I know nothing about the tricks that can be played in photography so from my perspective, it may turn out that there are no green screens in the footage and it may turn out that NASA is using some green screen footage even though the ISS is real because it will cause debates which will contribute to the environment of confusion which NASA wants.

[DeDukshyn]

All my point is that try to factor in how things might be true, just as strongly as how much the might be false. If I am trying to get to the root of an issue, I often spend more time thinking how I might debunk myself, than I do spending time trying to make myself right, that way, I can get to base level conclusions before asking for assistance on my views, or trying to proclaim them. That's my only point.
I pretty much felt like I'd gotten to a base level when I started the thread. I figured it was time for feedback. I didn't have any conclusions. I only had hypotheses.

What do you think of the idea that the ISS is real and some of the anomalies are bogus and planted by NASA to muddy the waters? Do you think Apollo was a hoax?
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100303-Did-we-really-go-to-the-Moon&p=1395658&viewfull=1#post1395658

Well you might want try for a more solid base level.

On your question, I haven't seen any anomalies that aren't easily explainable, only resistance to the acceptance on how easily explainable they are. That's the main anomaly I have seen so far.

[DeDukshyn]

I'd like to hear some feedback on the idea of green screens which is explained here.

Fred Astaire and the ISS
https://www.brighteon.com/e641f208-b2d5-4e13-b6c2-e4e7b7cbe2da
(4:13 time mark)


I know nothing about the tricks that can be played in photography so from my perspective, it may turn out that there are no green screens in the footage and it may turn out that NASA is using some green screen footage even though the ISS is real because it will cause debates which will contribute to the environment of confusion which NASA wants.

My friend ... at around 4:00 the narrator claims that she "must be swinging in a harness because how else could she move like that?" - Her foot is in a foot holding device put there and she is moving based on that ... seriously, this is kid level stuff, again its about how is this true before ever asking how is this false. Seriously ...

And just because movies can make superman "fly" by using a green screen doesn't mean green screens are used. Are we also supposed to assume that birds use green screen and can't really fly but its all just video trickery? Maybe we should start that as the next great conspiracy theory?

"Birds don't really fly! Its all green screen trickery!"

"Bird use harnesses to fake flight! Proof in head tilting behaviuors!"

"Bird flight is fake! Its all NASA deception designed to make us believe that birds can fly!"

Why not that? Sounds legit, right? Or does it sound completely stupid? Think about it.

[Kowolski]

Her hair looks stiff. It looks like they're trying to simulate the behavior of hair in zero-G but there are also long segments of footage that are obviously in zero-G.

Hair Gel. It's very inconvenient to have hair flapping in your face. It's mainly the girls who do this. No big conspiracy, dead simple.


I don't think the idea that NASA is trying to cause confusion is such a crazy idea.

It sure is. The simple explanations work here, not the crazy conspiracy ones. Most of the claims are quite daft to be honest - just because the person making them has no idea what they are talking about.


Lots of people are finding out about the Apollo hoax

Whoah there with your craziness. Apollo was not hoaxed - it's one of the most heavily documented series of events in history. The ones that went to the Moon and didn't land have something like 4000 hours of dialogue alone - that is some seriously crazy work right there. If anyone hears it, is the most natural "acting" possible. Don't take this thread off topic please.


so it's natural that NASA will try to create confusion.

That's circular logic. NASA have demonstrated the total opposite of confusion.


A lot of people who have started saying that the Earth is flat are also saying that Apollo was a hoax.

There's no accounting for ignorance at any level.


There seems to be a campaign to muddy the waters and discredit Apollo hoax-believers.

Not to me. Besides, you don't need any campaign to discredit the already fully discredited hoax of Apollo. Keep to the OP discussion.


Putting some anomalies in the space station footage will cause confusion and help their cause.

Circular logic. Let's go through ISS anomalies one by one if you like. You tell me which ones you don't believe and we can discuss it.



"I've also seen some pointy pieces on shirts that is claimed are wires being pulled - but once again very simple to explain. The shirts are packed and prepared on the ground - they are folded into sealed plastic . All we are seeing is the folds on the shirt - there isn't any gravity so a thing called shape memory is more obvious."

That's a possibility. Another possibility is that they put those pointy pieces there to cause confusion. There will probably be debates on this between people who maintain that this is proof that the ISS is fake and those that maintain that it's real. A third position is that the ISS is real and they put in those anomalies to muddy the waters. I don't think that's a wacky theory. I think that possibility shouldn't simply be dismissed as wacky. Knee-jerk dismissal is not the scientific method*.

Your "possibilities" are quite absurd. For one thing, having wire supports in an enclosed cabin is simply not practical as they move around with no visible mechanism to move the wires. Seriously obvious stuff like that doesn't seem to occur to doubters.

You didn't address the other issue I explained, why is that? The grab handles all around the cabin.

[Cosmored]

And just because movies can make superman "fly" by using a green screen doesn't mean green screens are used. Are we also supposed to assume that birds use green screen and can't really fly but its all just video trickery? Maybe we should start that as the next great conspiracy theory?

"Birds don't really fly! Its all green screen trickery!"

"Bird use harnesses to fake flight! Proof in head tilting behaviuors!"

"Bird flight is fake! Its all NASA deception designed to make us believe that birds can fly!"

Why not that? Sounds legit, right? Or does it sound completely stupid? Think about it.
If that were all there was, I wouldn't have any nagging doubts. There's other suspicious stuff.

Look at the alleged slip here at the 6:28 time mark.

Fred Astaire and the ISS
https://www.brighteon.com/e641f208-b2d5-4e13-b6c2-e4e7b7cbe2da

Mind you I'm not saying this is proof that the ISS is fake. I'm saying that NASA might be intentionally putting anomalies in the footage to muddy the waters.


There seems to have been a lot of fakery in the space program so in this atmosphere it's normal to want to analyze every piece of alleged fakery.


I got banned at these sites for being too inquisitive. If you get too close to the truth, they get rid of you somehow.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/184980-is-nasa-faking-spacewalks-too/
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?169361-The-Chinese-spacewalk-was-faked-in-a-water-tank
https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1149.0

There are a lot of sophists* trying to control the damage.
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html

They must have government salaries.


I don't have a foregone conclusion on the alleged fakery in the ISS. I'm just trying to figure out what the truth is.


You never said whether you thought that the Apollo moon missions were faked.



*
https://www.clubconspiracy.com/counter-intellegience-tricks-and-techniques-t4702.html

[Cosmored]

Go to the 19:35 time mark of this video.

ISS Hoax - The International Fake Station
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=International+Space+Station+Is+Fake&&view=detail&mid=A086FA232DA9C131F57BA086FA232DA9C131F57B&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DInternational%2BSpace%2BStation%2BIs%2BFake%26FORM%3DVDMHRS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmj_SdBURX0


It looks like there's a bubble there. Is that really footage from the ISS? This may turn out to be footage from the training. If it turns out to really be from the spacewalk, this isn't something to simply dismiss.


Watch the part about the women's permed hair at the 20:25 time mark.


Both of those alleged anomalies would make an objective person suspicious.


edit
--------------------------

At the 39:13 time mark the guy says something really silly. He says that the sun and the stars can't be seen in space. That makes me wonder if someone is trying to cause confusion. There seems to be serious research mixed with silliness in that video.


edit
-------------------------

An anomaly is pointed out at the 25:13 time mark of this video.

NASA ISS FAKE - 1
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=International+Space+Station+Is+Fake&ru=%2fvideos%2fsearch%3fq%3dInternational%2bSpace%2bStation%2bIs%2bFake%26FORM%3dVDMHRS&view=detail&mid=73444F2CCBF2822972D873444F2CCBF2822972D8&&FORM=VDRVRV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOa1Zv7nvbc

The wires are in obvious gravity.

[Kowolski]

If that were all there was, I wouldn't have any nagging doubts. There's other suspicious stuff.

Look at the alleged slip here at the 6:28 time mark.

Fred Astaire and the ISS
https://www.brighteon.com/e641f208-b2d5-4e13-b6c2-e4e7b7cbe2da

You are quite annoying! I just gave you a large response and you just ignored it! You also made no reply to the point I have made about the foot and hand grabs on the cabin walls.

I have watched that "anomaly" over and over and am mystified how you think there is a problem. Looks perfectly ok and the insane claim she is "undoing her harness" is hardly a valid observation.



I'm saying that NASA might be intentionally putting anomalies in the footage to muddy the waters.

You've already said that several times and it was ridiculous the first time. The simplest explanation works. The people analysing the footage are ignorant of all the details concerning space travel.



There seems to have been a lot of fakery in the space program so in this atmosphere it's normal to want to analyze every piece of alleged fakery.

There has not been any fakery in the space program. Using one crazy theory to bolster another doesn't work for most people.



I got banned at these sites for being too inquisitive. If you get too close to the truth, they get rid of you somehow.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/184980-is-nasa-faking-spacewalks-too/
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?169361-The-Chinese-spacewalk-was-faked-in-a-water-tank
https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1149.0

Hmmm, maybe this explains why:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn41RM-x4wA



There are a lot of sophists* trying to control the damage.
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html

They must have government salaries.

That is ad hominem arguing. You need to address their content. Notwithstanding your personal claims they are "sophists" are nothing more than your opinion on the matter. It doesn't look good that every time somebody offers you a conclusive argument that you labelk them as "shills" or "sophists". The simplest explanation is that they know far more than you do.

BTW, that blog you pointed to, it kinda tears you a new one.



I don't have a foregone conclusion on the alleged fakery in the ISS. I'm just trying to figure out what the truth is.

It certainly appears that you do - you are digging your heels in on really dead simple stuff. When I see the claims being made by people, I generally laugh at them and wonder how they can be so clueless about really obvious stuff. You should try it instead of believing such nonsense.


You never said whether you thought that the Apollo moon missions were faked.

Thanks for the reference to that blog, I have bookmarked it. There is no valid reason for you to ask this question unless (from that blog - header page (http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)):

"6. Credibility Test: "This calls for a credibility test. XXXXXXX maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real and not faked in a water tank. Do you agree with him?

This is where the spammer uses one of his pre-determined idiotic conspiracies or erroneous claims as the yardstick for a credibility test. He is the arbitrator of its provenance therefore anyone who disagrees with it can now be referred to as "discredited" and all their rebuttal can be ignored."

[Cosmored]

Spam is unwanted advertising in emails. The sophists have co-opted the word "Spam" to describe anything that goes against the official version of things.

If you look at those threads, you'll see that I discussed the topic until the discussion played out, or I got banned. Moderators were either tying my hands so that I couldn't make my case, or banning me so I got a little angry and declared war on the establishment. How else are we supposed to get around the censorship? This seems to be the only way to spread the word.


There has not been any fakery in the space program.
So you maintain that Apollo was real...
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100303-Did-we-really-go-to-the-Moon&p=1395658&viewfull=1#post1395658

...and that the Chinese spacewalk was real. Let's talk about the details on another thread.


What do you think of this alleged anomaly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOa1Zv7nvbc
(25:13 time mark)


That looks like gravity to me.



You are quite annoying! I just gave you a large response and you just ignored it! You also made no reply to the point I have made about the foot and hand grabs on the cabin walls.

I have watched that "anomaly" over and over and am mystified how you think there is a problem. Looks perfectly ok and the insane claim she is "undoing her harness" is hardly a valid observation.
At the top of post #70 I pointed out the astronaut's alleged slipping. Take a look and tell me what you think.

[Kowolski]

Go to the 19:35 time mark of this video.

ISS Hoax - The International Fake Station
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=International+Space+Station+Is+Fake&&view=detail&mid=A086FA232DA9C131F57BA086FA232DA9C131F57B&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DInternational%2BSpace%2BStation%2BIs%2BFake%26FORM%3DVDMHRS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmj_SdBURX0


It looks like there's a bubble there. Is that really footage from the ISS? This may turn out to be footage from the training. If it turns out to really be from the spacewalk, this isn't something to simply dismiss.

It's space debris. There are numerous items on the outside of space crafts that don't like zero pressure in a vacuum. It's usually fragments of ice.

I don't know if you have actually been in a scuba kit before, but in all my years I have never ever seen a single bubble. It is absolutely absurd to suggest one single tiny bubble would be all that you'd get.



Watch the part about the women's permed hair at the 20:25 time mark.

That is the delightful Suni Williams. It is hair gel, as I pointed out in my post above that you completely ignored!


Both of those alleged anomalies would make an objective person suspicious.

No they would not! They are exceedingly daft. An objective person would use their intelligence and work out the simple reasons behind them.


At the 39:13 time mark the guy says something really silly. He says that the sun and the stars can't be seen in space. That makes me wonder if someone is trying to cause confusion. There seems to be serious research mixed with silliness in that video.

No, the person making this is quite clueless. I find it just a little absurd, that you choose to highlight a really daft comment by the person making the video and instead of using as an indicator of their poor grasp of reality, you suggest they are some sort of deliberate "confuser" for some bizarre reason.


An anomaly is pointed out at the 25:13 time mark of this video.

NASA ISS FAKE - 1
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=International+Space+Station+Is+Fake&ru=%2fvideos%2fsearch%3fq%3dInternational%2bSpace%2bStation%2bIs%2bFake%26FORM%3dVDMHRS&view=detail&mid=73444F2CCBF2822972D873444F2CCBF2822972D8&&FORM=VDRVRV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOa1Zv7nvbc

The wires are in obvious gravity.

Anomaly? He is anchoring is body as I told you they do, using the toes curled under one of numerous grabs, then curving his body up so that he is better orientated for the camera.


I insist you start responding to the points I am making!

[Cosmored]

Anomaly? He is anchoring is body as I told you they do, using the toes curled under one of numerous grabs, then curving his body up so that he is better orientated for the camera.


I insist you start responding to the points I am making!
Not the man, the wires that are attached to the wall. They fall when he moves his foot away from the wall. Please address that.

[Kowolski]

Spam is unwanted advertising in emails. The sophists have co-opted the word "Spam" to describe anything that goes against the official version of things.

Absurd. Forum spam is what is indicated. And once again you are labelling people who object to your claims as "sophists" when they are clearly giving you educated and informed responses that make a mockery of your arguments.


If you look at those threads, you'll see that I discussed the topic until the discussion played out, or I got banned. Moderators were either tying my hands so that I couldn't make my case, or banning me so I got a little angry and declared war on the establishment. How else are we supposed to get around the censorship? This seems to be the only way to spread the word.

I have no intention of going to other forums to see where you are behaving. There appear to be hundreds of them! You are not being censored, you are not answering things properly and doing the same thing here.

GO BACK and answer all my posts properly. I am giving you clear help with your "confusion" and you are not even acknowledging it.


There has not been any fakery in the space program.
So you maintain that Apollo was real...
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100303-Did-we-really-go-to-the-Moon&p=1395658&viewfull=1#post1395658

...and that the Chinese spacewalk was real. Let's talk about the details on another thread.

You want me to move to another thread to answer things when you aren't even doing me the curtesy of answering things in THIS thread?


What do you think of this alleged anomaly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOa1Zv7nvbc
(25:13 time mark)


That looks like gravity to me.

Answered already in post above.

I don't know what the rules are regarding honest debate and replying properly, but if you are objective and a truth seeker, then you should have no issue doing so!

[Kowolski]

Anomaly? He is anchoring is body as I told you they do, using the toes curled under one of numerous grabs, then curving his body up so that he is better orientated for the camera.


I insist you start responding to the points I am making!
Not the man, the wires that are attached to the wall. They fall when he moves his foot away from the wall. Please address that.


Be more clear in your claims. Go to 25.00 and put it on slow. You can see that the wiring is stiffened and not very flexible. He pushes it in, it merely bounces back to its original position. It's largely to do with shape memory.

[Kowolski]

At the top of post #70 I pointed out the astronaut's alleged slipping. Take a look and tell me what you think.

She has her right foot in a fixed leather harness. What we see is her pulling her right foot out of the harness whilst her left foot is anchored on one of the floor grabs. This is ridiculous.

[Cosmored]

(from post #74)

It's space debris. There are numerous items on the outside of space crafts that don't like zero pressure in a vacuum. It's usually fragments of ice.

I don't know if you have actually been in a scuba kit before, but in all my years I have never ever seen a single bubble. It is absolutely absurd to suggest one single tiny bubble would be all that you'd get.

I can't identify any force other than buoyancy that would make that object move in that direction at that speed. What is the force that made it start moving?


edit
---------------------------------


Be more clear in your claims. Go to 25.00 and put it on slow. You can see that the wiring is stiffened and not very flexible. He pushes it in, it merely bounces back to its original position. It's largely to do with shape memory.
The nature of the movement is totally consistent with its being in gravity. It falls and hangs. Do you think this is just a coincidence?

[Kowolski]

I can't identify any force other than buoyancy that would make that object move in that direction at that speed. What is the force that made it start moving?

You are still avoiding points I am making. Why should I continue replying to you?

Is hair gel and wayward hair explained satisfactorily? If not, why not?
Are the various movements and grab handles sufficient to help you understand this basic problem? If not why not?
The wiring is stiff/ shape memory, does that explain the issue? If not why not?

Now forces in a vacuum. What is your education on this matter and physics specifically? The reason I ask is that if you don't know something it is not reason for suspicion, it is reason to get educated on the matter. In space, water, condensation, pain flakes etc. are all subject to infrared from the Sun. It will heat an object's facing surface and not its opposite surface. In terms of motion, a particle of ice will sublimate in a vacuum. The surface facing the Sun will begin turning to vapor first and right there is one force - it creates a little jet effect, it also accounts for various direction changes. More to consider are the various mechanisms where the ISS vents CO2 into space to purify the internal breathing gases. The CO2 will freeze into small flakes in a vacuum and then depending on its purity may or may not sublimate to vapor.

http://www.scienceiq.com/Facts/DryIce.cfm

[Kowolski]

The nature of the movement is totally consistent with its being in gravity. It falls and hangs.

"He pushes it in, it merely bounces back to its original position. It's largely to do with shape memory. "

It is NOT consistent with being in gravity. The cables are stiff and have shape memory they are merely springing back to their natural positions. For someone not committed, you sure appear to be digging your heels in against the blindingly obvious.


Do you think this is just a coincidence?

It's either what I said or magic, because he is weightless.

One reason the astronauts find it hard to stay stationary is not just because they are weightless but also because of the air currents produced by the ventilation system. Ordinarily air wouldn't affect a person, but when they have no weight it can make small movements all the time. The noise "anomaly" is where the camera is located near a vent or a circulation fan.

[Cosmored]

(from post #71)

Go to the 19:35 time mark of this video.

ISS Hoax - The International Fake Station
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=International+Space+Station+Is+Fake&&view=detail&mid=A086FA232DA9C131F57BA086FA232DA9C131F57B&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DInternational%2BSpace%2BStation%2BIs%2BFake%26FORM%3DVDMHRS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmj_SdBURX0


It looks like there's a bubble there. Is that really footage from the ISS? This may turn out to be footage from the training. If it turns out to really be from the spacewalk, this isn't something to simply dismiss.
(from post #79)

I can't identify any force other than buoyancy that would make that object move in that direction at that speed. What is the force that made it start moving?

(from post #80)

Now forces in a vacuum. What is your education on this matter and physics specifically? The reason I ask is that if you don't know something it is not reason for suspicion, it is reason to get educated on the matter. In space, water, condensation, pain flakes etc. are all subject to infrared from the Sun. It will heat an object's facing surface and not its opposite surface. In terms of motion, a particle of ice will sublimate in a vacuum. The surface facing the Sun will begin turning to vapor first and right there is one force - it creates a little jet effect, it also accounts for various direction changes. More to consider are the various mechanisms where the ISS vents CO2 into space to purify the internal breathing gases. The CO2 will freeze into small flakes in a vacuum and then depending on its purity may or may not sublimate to vapor.

http://www.scienceiq.com/Facts/DryIce.cfm


The trajectory that the object took was one hundred percent consistent with its being buoyant. Wouldn't the jet effect make it go in a random direction?


I'm kind of busy now so I'm just dealing with the most obvious anomalies. I'll eventually get to everything.


edit
------------------------------------------------

Is the footage at the beginning of this video really of a spacewalk, or is it from a training session? It may turn out to be from a training session which would explain the alleged bubble.

Space Station Hoax -Air Bubbles Rise- Space Walks Simulated in A Massive Water Pool
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38ynHKGzplQ

[Kowolski]

The trajectory that the object took was one hundred percent consistent with its being buoyant.

You seem to be seeing what you want to see. Can you explain to me why you choose to ignore most of what I am explaining to you? I have never seen any video of anyone underwater expelling a single white bubble. Have you? But weirdly, the ISS-fake crew seem to find a never ending bunch of clips with single "bubbles".


Wouldn't the jet effect make it go in a random direction?

Random to what? It goes where the force takes it. If it is expelled CO2 ice, it goes away from the ISS. If it's a piece of ice expelled from EVA it goes in whatever direction that is. If it is sublimating ice, it will do just about anything, straight, curved, back and forth, whatever shape it is and whatever way the ice turning to vapor makes it go.



I'm kind of busy now so I'm just dealing with the most obvious anomalies. I'll eventually get to everything.

Ok, well they've all been debunked. None of them are anomalies.



Is the footage at the beginning of this video really of a spacewalk, or is it from a training session? It may turn out to be from a training session which would explain the alleged bubble.

Space Station Hoax -Air Bubbles Rise- Space Walks Simulated in A Massive Water Pool
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38ynHKGzplQ

It isn't a bubble - it is almost certainly condensation frozen in vacuum just peeling off his suit. Why do you choose the most ridiculous claim instead of the most obvious? Edit: why the heck is he using such rubbish video, most of these are transmitted in HD!

You had time to type up yet another claim but not to answer my outstanding posts - I'm not hanging around much longer to educate you if you aren't courteous enough to reply properly.

[Cosmored]

You seem to be seeing what you want to see. Can you explain to me why you choose to ignore most of what I am explaining to you? I have never seen any video of anyone underwater expelling a single white bubble. Have you? But weirdly, the ISS-fake crew seem to find a never ending bunch of clips with single "bubbles".
The chance that a piece of debris would take exactly the same trajectory as a bubble is probably a billion to one. Your explanation ignores that. I might as well say it. You're not to be taken seriously. Also, the fact that you say that believe Apollo was real and the Chinese spacewalk was real is very telling.

I'm not sure what's going on with the ISS but something is fishy.


I've read part of this and it makes sense.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1410354&viewfull=1#post1410354


I watched this about eight years ago and I remember that it talked about possible fakery in some American space missions.

MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlKooAbKpM


I don't remember the details. I'm going to watch it again.

It has twenty four parts. You'll have to do searches on the titles on some of the parts. Bing is better than YouTube.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=MoonFaker%3A+Radioactive+Anomaly.+PART+1.&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=moonfaker%3A+radioactive+anomaly.+part+1.&sc=0-39&qs=n&sk=&cvid=94988D3487D14638ABEC941DB2E870CF

[Strat]

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what you call a monologue. Not to be confused with a dialogue.

[DeDukshyn]

And just because movies can make superman "fly" by using a green screen doesn't mean green screens are used. Are we also supposed to assume that birds use green screen and can't really fly but its all just video trickery? Maybe we should start that as the next great conspiracy theory?

"Birds don't really fly! Its all green screen trickery!"

"Bird use harnesses to fake flight! Proof in head tilting behaviuors!"

"Bird flight is fake! Its all NASA deception designed to make us believe that birds can fly!"

Why not that? Sounds legit, right? Or does it sound completely stupid? Think about it.
If that were all there was, I wouldn't have any nagging doubts. There's other suspicious stuff.

...

And each of those is being proven as ridiculous ... if you take ridiculousness and keep making a bigger and bigger pile of ridiculousness, it adds up to less legitimacy ... not more - the more individual turds you add to a crap pile, all you get is a bigger, stinkier pile of crap ... I kinda stated that already, you seem to not be able to grasp this.

Look, the only reason people are still responding is because you claim to want the truth ... you don't. So stop the charade and take this discussion to somewhere where your ego can be satisfied by the responses you are looking for.

[Cosmored]

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what you call a monologue. Not to be confused with a dialogue.

And each of those is being proven as ridiculous ... if you take ridiculousness and keep making a bigger and bigger pile of ridiculousness, it adds up to less legitimacy ... not more - the more individual turds you add to a crap pile, all you get is a bigger, stinkier pile of crap ... I kinda stated that already, you seem to not be able to grasp this.

Look, the only reason people are still responding is because you claim to want the truth ... you don't. So stop the charade and take this discussion to somewhere where your ego can be satisfied by the responses you are looking for.
I've got nagging doubts. What do you two think of the alleged bubble? What do you think of Kowolski's explanation for its movement?

[Kowolski]

The chance that a piece of debris would take exactly the same trajectory as a bubble is probably a billion to one.

I've heard of exaggeration but that is ridiculous. If you placed the object in a vertical corridor of say 6 degrees, that amounts to 1/60 of a 360 circle and therefore 60 to 1. I'm talking about the ISS object through a window, the white twinkling lone "bubble" - are we on the same page here? Now if you want to talk about chance, using your formula what is the chance one lone bubble would escape and what is the chance all the world's experts (millions?) would fail to agree with you?



I might as well say it. You're not to be taken seriously. Also, the fact that you say that believe Apollo was real and the Chinese spacewalk was real is very telling.

If ever a person was not to be taken seriously fella, it's you. Remember that blog link you gave me?
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com
"6. Credibility Test: "This calls for a credibility test. XXXXXXX maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real and not faked in a water tank. Do you agree with him?

This is where the spammer uses one of his pre-determined idiotic conspiracies or erroneous claims as the yardstick for a credibility test. He is the arbitrator of its provenance therefore anyone who disagrees with it can now be referred to as "discredited" and all their rebuttal can be ignored."

Do you think the internet may just be on to you?



I'm not sure what's going on with the ISS but something is fishy.

The first part of your sentence is correct, the second part is not.



I've read part of this and it makes sense.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1410354&viewfull=1#post1410354

And there was you telling me I'm not to be taken seriously.



I watched this about eight years ago and I remember that it talked about possible fakery in some American space missions. .

That is the Australian guy Jarrah White? I always wondered what made him so made with America that it blinded his intelligence. A man called Phil Webb made a whole series responding directly to him - I'm sure as a truth seeker you have watched them all. Makes Jarrah White look rather silly. Here's one of his playlists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wokRKCKueLY&list=PL6E14DF880C26441F

You've got it bad by the way. You should take a break and find something else to do, this business is rotting your mind. I'm sure underneath this all, you're quite a normal and likable person, but this gibberish has got you in a trap. If you want me to continue to help with your confusion, apologise for your statement above about taking me seriously - otherwise I can't really bring myself to engage with somebody who behaves in this way.

[Denise/Dizi]

I believe we have a space station, it just isn't the satellite we see zipping across the sky. I believe that is merely a regular satellite. Why would I say that? Well, we have Bigelow aerospace. I doubt Mr. Bigelow is wasting his fortune building additional units to enlarge nothing...

I also believe that the cargo hold on the original space shuttle could indeed hold up to 200 people as it has been suggested in the 80's. A "Shuttle" by definition, is a vessel that shuttles people, supplies, etc.... to SOMEWHERE...

Given that NASA has even suggested recently that the Moon is still within our own atmosphere? I would tend to believe that we have a vastly large space station out there somewhere, just beyond our view. Seems most of the "Modern technological breakthroughs" in aviation, pretty much stopped appearing when the SR71 and stealth were retired, it tends to lean towards forcing an assumption they have much better, and they don't even want to bother with filling in the blanks with what they showed decades ago, versus what they have now.

As for the space station footage we see now? I suppose to me, it doesn't really matter. Like the Moon footage, it could be fake.. But I do believe we are up there, and they just don't want to show us the real stuff that they were planning all those decades ago.. Like the spinning wheel for gravity, etc. I think it's all been built, and long ago... And by the time we see it, that will be considered ancient technologies as well.

[Cosmored]

the fact that you say that believe Apollo was real and the Chinese spacewalk was real is very telling.

If ever a person was not to be taken seriously fella, it's you. Remember that blog link you gave me?
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com
"6. Credibility Test: "This calls for a credibility test. XXXXXXX maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real and not faked in a water tank. Do you agree with him?

This is where the spammer uses one of his pre-determined idiotic conspiracies or erroneous claims as the yardstick for a credibility test. He is the arbitrator of its provenance therefore anyone who disagrees with it can now be referred to as "discredited" and all their rebuttal can be ignored."

Do you think the internet may just be on to you?

Why don't you come over to this thread. We can talk about the details.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?114021-The-Chinese-spacewalk-Shenzhou-7-was-faked-in-a-water-tank

[Kowolski]

I believe we have a space station, it just isn't the satellite we see zipping across the sky. I believe that is merely a regular satellite.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2927b4987df9570246cc8f0951388f19.webp

You can actually zoom in and see it from the ground - ISS no doubt


I also believe that the cargo hold on the original space shuttle could indeed hold up to 200 people as it has been suggested in the 80's. A "Shuttle" by definition, is a vessel that shuttles people, supplies, etc.... to SOMEWHERE...

Absolutely. The figures could probably accommodate 300 200lb people. But you'd need suits and seats, so 200 sound easily possible. What to do with them though, when there isn't a "Moonraker" space station.


Given that NASA has even suggested recently that the Moon is still within our own atmosphere?

That was based on the gravitational field of the Earth and the presence of gases. It is a real stretch to call that atmosphere.


I would tend to believe that we have a vastly large space station out there somewhere, just beyond our view. Seems most of the "Modern technological breakthroughs" in aviation, pretty much stopped appearing when the SR71 and stealth were retired, it tends to lean towards forcing an assumption they have much better, and they don't even want to bother with filling in the blanks with what they showed decades ago, versus what they have now.

I can't in all honesty see that as likely. You can see objects as far as geostationary orbits - small satellites - so the big stuff will be really visible - especially if we are putting 200 people onboard.


Like the spinning wheel for gravity, etc. I think it's all been built, and long ago... And by the time we see it, that will be considered ancient technologies as well.

The problem with the spinning wheel is the energy to get it moving and the problems of getting such a large thing up into space. If they could do this easily, I'm sure the ISS would have something like it already.

[Kowolski]

Why don't you come over to this thread.

If you want me to continue to help with your confusion, apologise for your statement above about taking me seriously - otherwise I can't really bring myself to engage with somebody who behaves in this way.

[Cosmored]

If you want me to continue to help with your confusion, apologise for your statement above about taking me seriously - otherwise I can't really bring myself to engage with somebody who behaves in this way.
Translation:

The proof that the Chinese spacewalk is so clear that I'll just end up looking silly if I try to obfuscate it so I'd better avoid discussing the details.


You said the jet effect would make the object rise at the same speed and trajectory that a bubble would take. That was really lame. You destroyed your credibility when you said that. You can rant and obfuscate all you want. This is simply too clear.


edit
--------------------------------------------------

I started a thread where we can discuss the Apollo hoax if you want to.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?114033-The-Apollo-Moon-Missions-Hoax

[DeDukshyn]

Anomaly? He is anchoring is body as I told you they do, using the toes curled under one of numerous grabs, then curving his body up so that he is better orientated for the camera.


I insist you start responding to the points I am making!
Not the man, the wires that are attached to the wall. They fall when he moves his foot away from the wall. Please address that.


Be more clear in your claims. Go to 25.00 and put it on slow. You can see that the wiring is stiffened and not very flexible. He pushes it in, it merely bounces back to its original position. It's largely to do with shape memory.

Any person with even an iota of intelligence understands that cables and wires have a tension level. The guy very obviously pushes the cables against the wall against their tension, and as you say just spring back to their exact original position. How anyone can not understand this before reaching to some wild exotic explanation is beyond my wildest imagination. Extremely troubling is the sheer lack of intelligence and reasoning skills and/or a basic lack of any understanding the world around them. Such a person has no business even trying to conduct honest research - they are not capable of understanding the most basic fundamentals of reality - and with that how can their ideas be expected to be taken seriously? They can't ...

Its that simple. I'm sorry but I am literally laughing out loud about this one. This isn't weak evidence. its no evidence - its a blatant turd. My 12 year old kid could figure this out in an instant. And with every turd that chosen to be added to the pile, these claims just become a stinkier pile of turds.

Cosmored if you are going to present so called "evidence", try to present actual evidence. This is getting silly ...

This discussion is no longer worth my time. Kudo's to you Kowolski for trying ...

[Cosmored]

Cosmored if you are going to present so called "evidence", try to present actual evidence. This is getting silly ...
Tell us what you think of the alleged bubble. Watch this from the 19:35 time mark to the 20:25 time mark.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=International+Space+Station+Is+Fake&&view=detail&mid=A086FA232DA9C131F57BA086FA232DA9C131F57B&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DInternational%2BSpace%2BStation%2BIs%2BFake%26FORM%3DVDMHRS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmj_SdBURX0

[Kowolski]

Translation:

No translation is needed. I have gone to great lengths to explain dead simple things that quite frankly are an embarrassment for anyone to believe. The fact that you dig your heels in on things that schoolchildren would have no trouble understanding speaks volumes about the kind of person you are. You have failed miserably to answer at least 90% of the things I have written and have insulted me with your puerile "credibility test". You have the audacity to claim that I am not to be taken seriously when you are responsible for littering hundreds of forums with the same identical and absurd nonsense. A casual search reveals countless previous threads all over the internet where you have had a completely and humiliating public mauling.

So forgive me if I don't wish to add to the list of people who waste endless hours on your obvious trolling.



The proof that the Chinese spacewalk is so clear that I'll just end up looking silly if I try to obfuscate it so I'd better avoid discussing the details.

The proof that the ISS is not faked is so obvious, has been clearly and patiently pointed out to you and yet you have no problem yourself looking way more than "silly" with your stubborn refusal to accept the blindingly obvious. What world of confusion do you live in that makes it hard for you to understand that you will exhibit the same identical behaviour with yet another stupid thread? How many is that now?


You said the jet effect would make the object rise at the same speed and trajectory that a bubble would take.

Quite unbelievable dishonesty. I said nothing of the sort!

"The surface facing the Sun will begin turning to vapor first and right there is one force - it creates a little jet effect, it also accounts for various direction changes."



That was really lame. You destroyed your credibility when you said that. You can rant and obfuscate all you want. This is simply too clear.

You are like a comic book with your cut and pasted spam responses. You aren't qualified to assess anyone's credibility, especially when "This isn't weak evidence. its no evidence - its a blatant turd."- DeDukshyn.

What makes me laugh about you is that you actually referenced a page that completely annihilated your claim and didn't even bother to address any of it.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-2.html

I await your rebuttal on your spammed thread for just those two links.

It is obvious that you are deliberately baiting me to get me to post further in this thread.

The following needs no translation:

If you want me to continue to help with your confusion, apologise for your statement about taking me seriously - otherwise I can't really bring myself to engage with somebody who behaves in this way.


EDIT!


Tell us what you think of the alleged bubble. Watch this from the 19:35 time mark to the 20:25 time mark.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=International+Space+Station+Is+Fake&&view=detail&mid=A086FA232DA9C131F57BA086FA232DA9C131F57B&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DInternational%2BSpace%2BStation%2BIs%2BFake%26FORM%3DVDMHRS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmj_SdBURX0

That is NOT the first instance you directed me to. I watched an ISS video and responded to that! This is completely off topic. I believe you have had this answered many times before:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M1LRSF62cc

[Cosmored]

I have gone to great lengths to explain dead simple things that quite frankly are an embarrassment for anyone to believe. The fact that you dig your heels in on things that schoolchildren would have no trouble understanding speaks volumes about the kind of person you are. You have failed miserably to answer at least 90% of the things I have written and have insulted me with your puerile "credibility test".
You people have put forward alternative explanations for the alleged anomalies and then just considered them to be debunked. That's not debunking. Now we have two possible explanations for an an anomaly. It may turn out that the conspiratorial one reflects reality. You people don't use the scientific method*.

Regarding the alleged tilted head anomaly.

The International Space Station is Fake!!! NASA Lies!! NEW
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=fake+space+station&&view=detail&mid=76DBD7B706CEF61D9D2276DBD7B706CEF61D9D22&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dfake%2Bspace%2Bstation%26FORM%3DHDRSC3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBIKSsb9Zzs
(5:34 time mark)

(from post #21)

The idea "people in a harness on earth tilt their head upward, and 'sometimes' so do the astronauts, therefore its fake" is ridiculous. Could it not be that they are on camera talking to an audience and are trying to orient their heads to the camera?

DeDukshyn has the attitude that he totally debunked this. All he did was provide an alternative explanation. The other one may turn out to be true.


Regarding the alleged anomaly of the wire behaving the way it would in gravity.

NASA ISS FAKE - 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOa1Zv7nvbc
(25:13 time mark)

(from post #77)

Be more clear in your claims. Go to 25.00 and put it on slow. You can see that the wiring is stiffened and not very flexible. He pushes it in, it merely bounces back to its original position. It's largely to do with shape memory.
The same as the above. This is just an alternative explanation. You have the attitude that you totally debunked this. You haven't. The conspiratorial explanation may still turn out to be true. It remains to be seen.

To me it looks like the way the wire moves is consistent with gravity. It seems to fall and hang. There seems to be a definite up and down. This is far from being debunked.


Regarding the alleged slip.

Fred Astaire and the ISS
https://www.brighteon.com/e641f208-b2d5-4e13-b6c2-e4e7b7cbe2da
(6:28 time mark)


I have watched that "anomaly" over and over and am mystified how you think there is a problem. Looks perfectly ok
You never addressed this actual anomaly.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1410513&viewfull=1#post1410513

I think that slip is one of the stronger pieces of evidence that something is fishy.




What makes me laugh about you is that you actually referenced a page that completely annihilated your claim and didn't even bother to address any of it.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-2.html

I await your rebuttal on your spammed thread for just those two links.

The first anomaly pointed out in this thread pretty much makes everything else moot.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?114021-The-Chinese-spacewalk-Shenzhou-7-was-faked-in-a-water-tank

That particular anomaly is simply too clear to obfuscate and he made a fool of himself trying to obfuscate it over on this forum.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?forums/moon-landing.72/

He looked so silly that the moderator deleted it.

Go over to the Chinese spacewalk thread and we can talk about the actual details instead of just making general statements.



You have the audacity to claim that I am not to be taken seriously when you are responsible for littering hundreds of forums with the same identical and absurd nonsense. A casual search reveals countless previous threads all over the internet where you have had a completely and humiliating public mauling.
It wasn't hundreds. I'd say it was less than a hundred. Here's one of them.
https://www.giraffeboards.com/showthread.php?t=31034

Would you say those pro-Apollo posters gave me a mauling?

The moderator closed the thread and blocked me from posting. He changed the name of the thread.
https://www.giraffeboards.com/showpost.php?p=1626539&postcount=561


Here's where I started posting on this thread. I'm FatFreddy.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-never-went-to-the-moon.145207/page-3

Those pro-Apollo posters were looking so silly that the moderator closed the thread. If you look at the first two pages of this section, you'll see that he closed all the Apollo hoax threads.
http://www.sciforums.com/forums/conspiracies.106/

He closed this one and put it in the Cesspool section.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-in-a-studio.109609/

Now there's no place to put new Apollo hoax evidence there. Anyone who actually takes the time to look at those threads will see that the pro-Apollo posters were getting the mauling. It's amusing that they have the attitude that they're winning the whole time they're losing.


If you want to discuss the actual anomalies in the Apollo missions, come over to this thread.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?114033-The-Apollo-Moon-Missions-Hoax


*
https://www.google.com/search?q=scientific+method&rlz=1C1AWFC_enES882ES884&oq=scientific+method&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.6891j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[DeDukshyn]

Birds use green screens to fake flight in videos.
Birds tilt their heads because they are in invisible harnesses.

Now we have two alternative theories on bird flight as recorded in video. No proof of either.

Cosmored, do you believe that birds flight recorded on videos are fake and that they tilt their heads because of the invisible harnesses that they wear? Give me your thoughts. I think this is pretty solid. Let me know what you think.

[DeDukshyn]

Hey cosmored, the earth is flat - I think this one is pretty solid too, don't you? Give me your take on the topic. Let me know if you think this is true or not and if not, let me know why you think its not flat.

[Cosmored]

Hey DeDukshyn

Tell us what you think of the alleged bubble anomaly.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1410856&viewfull=1#post1410856

Tell us what you think of Kowolski's explanation for it's speed and trajectory which looks one hundred percent consistent with the way a bubble in a water tank would move.

[DeDukshyn]

Hey cosmored.

Answer my questions. Let's get to the root of this.

[DeDukshyn]

It looks like you have beating the same drum and ignoring the same logical explanations that a plethora of people having been trying to relay to you for at least 19 years straight, based on a little research on you.
"Duplicate posts over hundreds of forums" .. and this was in 2012, Where we can see the same explanations have been relayed to you over and over and over and over again - you admit yourself you have had threads closed and been banned from multitudes of forums. For over 19 years you have been ignoring the reasoning and logical explanations? Can this be true? Is this really who you are?

Now, please ... answer my questions that I have proposed to you.

[Cosmored]

Answer my questions. Let's get to the root of this.
Regarding post #98.
If you insist on playing games, my answer is that's a silly comparison and it doesn't debunk what I said in post #97.


Hey cosmored, the earth is flat - I think this one is pretty solid too, don't you? Give me your take on the topic. Let me know if you think this is true or not and if not, let me know why you think its not flat.
I've already addressed that.

(post #5)
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1408555&viewfull=1#post1408555


You're behaving like a checkmated sophist*. When sophists are checkmated, they try to muddy the waters instead of modifying their opinions.


*
https://www.clubconspiracy.com/counter-intellegience-tricks-and-techniques-t4702.html

[DeDukshyn]

Answer my questions. Let's get to the root of this.
Regarding post #98.
If you insist on playing games, my answer is that's a silly comparison and it doesn't debunk what I said in post #97.


Hey cosmored, the earth is flat - I think this one is pretty solid too, don't you? Give me your take on the topic. Let me know if you think this is true or not and if not, let me know why you think its not flat.
I've already addressed that.

(post #5)
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1408555&viewfull=1#post1408555


You're behaving like a checkmated sophist*. When sophists are checkmated, they try to muddy the waters instead of modifying their opinions.


*
https://www.clubconspiracy.com/counter-intellegience-tricks-and-techniques-t4702.html

Is it silly? I think birds on green screens with harnesses that explain their head tilting behavior is solid evidence. Please share why you think its silly. Maybe present us some evidence as to how you can explain this is not true? Please.

Just because the earth looks like sphere doesn't mean its a sphere. Its just a circle as seen through a fish-eye lens - everything looks spherical through a fisheye lens. Is that really the only evidence you have for a sphere earth? Looks like you've been duped. Or do you have any other evidence to present.

[Cosmored]

It looks like you have beating the same drum and ignoring the same logical explanations that a plethora of people having been trying to relay to you for at least 19 years straight, based on a little research on you.
"Duplicate posts over hundreds of forums" .. and this was in 2012, Where we can see the same explanations have been relayed to you over and over and over and over again - you admit yourself you have had threads closed and been banned from multitudes of forums. For over 19 years you have been ignoring the reasoning and logical explanations? Can this be true? Is this really who you are?
If you want to discuss the actual details, we can do so on these threads.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?114033-The-Apollo-Moon-Missions-Hoax
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?114021-The-Chinese-spacewalk-Shenzhou-7-was-faked-in-a-water-tank

[DeDukshyn]

It looks like you have beating the same drum and ignoring the same logical explanations that a plethora of people having been trying to relay to you for at least 19 years straight, based on a little research on you.
"Duplicate posts over hundreds of forums" .. and this was in 2012, Where we can see the same explanations have been relayed to you over and over and over and over again - you admit yourself you have had threads closed and been banned from multitudes of forums. For over 19 years you have been ignoring the reasoning and logical explanations? Can this be true? Is this really who you are?
If you want to discuss the actual details, we can do so on these threads.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?114033-The-Apollo-Moon-Missions-Hoax
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?114021-The-Chinese-spacewalk-Shenzhou-7-was-faked-in-a-water-tank

I want you to answer my questions.

The earth obviously looks spherical because space cams only use fisheye lenses. Is that really the only reason why you believe it is a sphere "because it looks like one"? Really? Don't you have any better evidence that the earth isn't flat? Any better logic or reasoning at all?

Explain to me why birds on video tilting their heads not being because they are in invisible harnesses is silly ... I'm still waiting for you to provide me evidence that I am wrong ... you seem to be pretty convinced of any evidence you find, please share this with me.

[Cosmored]

Is it silly? I think birds on green screens with harnesses that explain their head tilting behavior is solid evidence. Please share why you think its silly. Maybe present us some evidence as to how you can explain this is not true? Please.

Just because the earth looks like sphere doesn't mean its a sphere. Its just a circle as seen through a fish-eye lens - everything looks spherical through a fisheye lens. Is that really the only evidence you have for a sphere earth? Looks like you've been duped. Or do you have any other evidence to present.
I think the best thing for me to do is just wait for a serious poster to respond before I continue posting.

[DeDukshyn]

Is it silly? I think birds on green screens with harnesses that explain their head tilting behavior is solid evidence. Please share why you think its silly. Maybe present us some evidence as to how you can explain this is not true? Please.

Just because the earth looks like sphere doesn't mean its a sphere. Its just a circle as seen through a fish-eye lens - everything looks spherical through a fisheye lens. Is that really the only evidence you have for a sphere earth? Looks like you've been duped. Or do you have any other evidence to present.
I think the best thing for me to do is just wait for some serious poster to respond before I continue posting.

I am dead serious. Answer my questions.

Why is it silly that birds are using invisible harnesses? Let me hear your reasoning and evidence?

Tell my why you believe the earth isn't flat. What, are you afraid to assert that it isn't? "It looks spherical" isn't anywhere near good enough due to the fish eye lens explanation. Give me more if you truly believe its not flat. You must have lots of evidence and research - you are a serious researcher aren't you? .. or? no?

Are you afraid to engage these questions? Well I guess the earth is flat then and birds use invisible harnesses - obviously - look at how their heads tilt all the time.

[DeDukshyn]

You seriously cannot explain why birds in videos aren't using harnesses and green screens? The same harnesses that cause them to tilt their heads? You really cannot explain why the earth isn't flat? You say one is silly and assert the other is not true ... yet you cannot give me any good evidence?

You silence is speaking volumes ... answer my questions. They are very simple questions; I think my children could give me better explanations than "silly" and "it looks round" ... you must be able to answer them. After all - the evidence you present holds weight and is valid, so this should be easy for you. Or do you not believe that birds in harnesses are silly and that the earth is a sphere?

[Kowolski]

Is it silly? I think birds on green screens with harnesses that explain their head tilting behavior is solid evidence. Please share why you think its silly. Maybe present us some evidence as to how you can explain this is not true? Please.

Just because the earth looks like sphere doesn't mean its a sphere. Its just a circle as seen through a fish-eye lens - everything looks spherical through a fisheye lens. Is that really the only evidence you have for a sphere earth? Looks like you've been duped. Or do you have any other evidence to present.
I think the best thing for me to do is just wait for a serious poster to respond before I continue posting.

Translation:

The proof that the Birds tilting their heads is so clear that I'll just end up looking silly if I try to obfuscate it so I'd better avoid discussing the details.

[BoR]

I might have missed it, but I have not yet read a response to the very fundamental question Bill Ryan asked: (in my own words, not quoting): why should the ISS be fake?

This is a very good question to ask before adopting the belief an accepted truth by the majority is fake.

To the questions:

- Why would very rich and influential people conspire to take maximum advantage of people by planning to enslave them?
- Why would they use a false flag operation?
- Why would the government cover up alien visitations?

...you can give an explanation that can make sense (to people who think out of the box and don't resist having their world view being shaken) .

I can't see how inventing a space industry (including ISS), round earth and inventing a thing called space would benefit The Powers That Be in such a way that all this effort to cover up a lie this big would justify their goal. Sounds like far, far, far too much trouble to go through, just to...yes, to have what accomplished exactly?

In all the discussions about fake space (industry)/ flat earth, I saw this question come along many times. Never have I read a response that answers that very important question.

I can tell you this: if the earth was flat, and I had been taught about this in school instead of (supposedly) being lied about it, I don't see in what way that would make me more free or be in a better position in my life than I am now, convinced the earth is round and space is real (including the ISS).

[Cosmored]

I might have missed it, but I have not yet read a response to the very fundamental question Bill Ryan asked: (in my own words, not quoting): why should the ISS be fake?
If there are clear anomalies, our not knowing why something is being faked doesn't make the anomalies go away. I can't think of a reason for their wanting to fake it and I'm still not sure that it's fake. As I pointed out before there seems to be a mixture of proof that it's real and anomalies that point to its being faked.

I said this in post #61.

I don't think the idea that NASA is trying to cause confusion is such a crazy idea. Lots of people are finding out about the Apollo hoax so it's natural that NASA will try to create confusion. A lot of people who have started saying that the Earth is flat are also saying that Apollo was a hoax. There seems to be a campaign to muddy the waters and discredit Apollo hoax-believers. Putting some anomalies in the space station footage will cause confusion and help their cause.

I haven't formed a firm opinion. All I can say is that something is definitely fishy.

In post #1 I posted some videos that show continuous zero-gravity which can only be faked in a diving plane for less than a minute. I don't see any signs of splicing different footage together. It all looks continuous. Also, it can be seen and it's too big and complicated to have been put there by unmanned robotic craft. In spite of that there are anomalies that seem to point to fakery. The bubble*, the astronaut's slipping and the wire that seems to drop and hang** are too clear to simply be dismissed.

Your post is a little bit vague. Tell us whether you think the Apollo moon missions*** were faked.


*
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1410856&viewfull=1#post1410856

**
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1410953&viewfull=1#post1410953

***
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?114033-The-Apollo-Moon-Missions-Hoax

[Ammit]

Hi all,
If I had a garage with lots of nice cars in but did not want to showw them as some cheeky bugger might try and pinch them, I would use another garage and use the green board to project things you would expect to see onto the back ground. I imagine this type of projection could have strange results if I passed in front of it.

Just my pennies worth

[syrwong]

I might have missed it, but I have not yet read a response to the very fundamental question Bill Ryan asked: (in my own words, not quoting): why should the ISS be fake?

This is a very good question to ask before adopting the belief an accepted truth by the majority is fake.

To the questions:

- Why would very rich and influential people conspire to take maximum advantage of people by planning to enslave them?
- Why would they use a false flag operation?
- Why would the government cover up alien visitations?

...you can give an explanation that can make sense (to people who think out of the box and don't resist having their world view being shaken) .

I can't see how inventing a space industry (including ISS), round earth and inventing a thing called space would benefit The Powers That Be in such a way that all this effort to cover up a lie this big would justify their goal. Sounds like far, far, far too much trouble to go through, just to...yes, to have what accomplished exactly?

In all the discussions about fake space (industry)/ flat earth, I saw this question come along many times. Never have I read a response that answers that very important question.

I can tell you this: if the earth was flat, and I had been taught about this in school instead of (supposedly) being lied about it, I don't see in what way that would make me more free or be in a better position in my life than I am now, convinced the earth is round and space is real (including the ISS).

I can think of some reasons they may want to fake videos of the station. While the station is real, it is doing unspeakable things, not simple science experiments for the kids. They may be unethical experiments, dangerous tests, and using the station for the military destruction of enemy states. Any sort of things they don't want you to know. They have to show the earth people that some advances have been made in space technology so that the matrix can carry on logically into the far future. So they show you just the tip of the iceberg and hiding the great secrets underneath.

Think of yourselves as already slaves. Why should they be candid about everything?

[Cosmored]

Hi all,
If I had a garage with lots of nice cars in but did not want to showw them as some cheeky bugger might try and pinch them, I would use another garage and use the green board to project things you would expect to see onto the back ground. I imagine this type of projection could have strange results if I passed in front of it.

Just my pennies worth
I have no background in film-making so all I can do is post stuff that I see on the subject of green screens and ask people for feedback. I entered "Space Station green screen" in https://www.bing.com/ and a lot of stuff came up.

This video seems to show an anomaly.

PROOF the International space station is FAKE? #ISSFakery
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Space+Station+Interior+Greenscreen&ru=%2fvideos%2fsearch%3fq%3dSpace%2bStation%2bInterior%2bGreenscreen%26FORM%3dVDMHRS&view=detail&mid=110CD98821857B48E4C3110CD98821857B48E4C3&&FORM=VDRVRV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf99TLfxCUQ

[Ammit]

Well Cosmored, Not saying it dont exist, I know something does as it often goes over my house and is confirmed by the iss website. Maybe they do show us it but not the real one?

[Cosmored]

Well Cosmored, Not saying it dont exist, I know something does as it often goes over my house and is confirmed by the iss website. Maybe they do show us it but not the real one?
Something seems to be up there.

Jarrah White's response to Flat Earthers and Space Travel Deniers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwBvzkTCYZ4&t=109s
(3:12 time mark)


Yet, there are anomalies in the footage. I'm trying to figure out what the truth is. That's why I started this thread. I was hoping for some feedback from some objective people. I knew the sophists* would be all over this. They always are. Dealing with that is just part of talking about NASA lies on the internet.

As I said before, all I can say right now is that something is fishy. I don't know exactly what's going on.


*
https://www.clubconspiracy.com/counter-intellegience-tricks-and-techniques-t4702.html
(excerpts)
------------------------------------------------------
Planting of provocateurs (and sleeper agents, etc.). These people will vary from the posters who suddenly show up one day under an alias attacking regular posters, to people who seem like regular posters themselves. They may work in teams, supporting each other and giving the illusion of popular support on the net. (Remember, net IDs are basically free, and one person can have many.) As cointelpro showed, there is little that is more poisonous to an organization than to have it tear itself apart from the inside with accusations of moles. (The CIA knows all about this from its own mole hunts.) Moles love to accuse others of being moles; then again, there are real moles. You have to judge for yourself who to listen to or what to believe.
------------------------------------------------------
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
------------------------------------------------------
Distraction by voluminous postings with no information by blowhards and empty name-callers. (Can be hard to distinguish from genuine blowhards.) People who wallow in the mud do not need to outdebate you; they only need to drag you down there with them. Kill files can help if your newsreader has them.

[Cosmored]

I can think of some reasons they may want to fake videos of the station. While the station is real, it is doing unspeakable things, not simple science experiments for the kids. They may be unethical experiments, dangerous tests, and using the station for the military destruction of enemy states. Any sort of things they don't want you to know. They have to show the earth people that some advances have been made in space technology so that the matrix can carry on logically into the far future. So they show you just the tip of the iceberg and hiding the great secrets underneath.
Now this is feedback from an objective person. Maybe the inside of the real space station looks quite different. Thanks syrwong.

[BoR]

I might have missed it, but I have not yet read a response to the very fundamental question Bill Ryan asked: (in my own words, not quoting): why should the ISS be fake?

This is a very good question to ask before adopting the belief an accepted truth by the majority is fake.

To the questions:

- Why would very rich and influential people conspire to take maximum advantage of people by planning to enslave them?
- Why would they use a false flag operation?
- Why would the government cover up alien visitations?

...you can give an explanation that can make sense (to people who think out of the box and don't resist having their world view being shaken) .

I can't see how inventing a space industry (including ISS), round earth and inventing a thing called space would benefit The Powers That Be in such a way that all this effort to cover up a lie this big would justify their goal. Sounds like far, far, far too much trouble to go through, just to...yes, to have what accomplished exactly?

In all the discussions about fake space (industry)/ flat earth, I saw this question come along many times. Never have I read a response that answers that very important question.

I can tell you this: if the earth was flat, and I had been taught about this in school instead of (supposedly) being lied about it, I don't see in what way that would make me more free or be in a better position in my life than I am now, convinced the earth is round and space is real (including the ISS).

I can think of some reasons they may want to fake videos of the station. While the station is real, it is doing unspeakable things, not simple science experiments for the kids. They may be unethical experiments, dangerous tests, and using the station for the military destruction of enemy states. Any sort of things they don't want you to know. They have to show the earth people that some advances have been made in space technology so that the matrix can carry on logically into the far future. So they show you just the tip of the iceberg and hiding the great secrets underneath.

Think of yourselves as already slaves. Why should they be candid about everything?

That is not the question I asked. The subject of this thread is that the ISS could be fake. In your answer you point out you think it is real.

[BoR]

I might have missed it, but I have not yet read a response to the very fundamental question Bill Ryan asked: (in my own words, not quoting): why should the ISS be fake?
If there are clear anomalies, our not knowing why something is being faked doesn't make the anomalies go away. I can't think of a reason for their wanting to fake it and I'm still not sure that it's fake. As I pointed out before there seems to be a mixture of proof that it's real and anomalies that point to its being faked.

I said this in post #61.

I don't think the idea that NASA is trying to cause confusion is such a crazy idea. Lots of people are finding out about the Apollo hoax so it's natural that NASA will try to create confusion. A lot of people who have started saying that the Earth is flat are also saying that Apollo was a hoax. There seems to be a campaign to muddy the waters and discredit Apollo hoax-believers. Putting some anomalies in the space station footage will cause confusion and help their cause.

I haven't formed a firm opinion. All I can say is that something is definitely fishy.

In post #1 I posted some videos that show continuous zero-gravity which can only be faked in a diving plane for less than a minute. I don't see any signs of splicing different footage together. It all looks continuous. Also, it can be seen and it's too big and complicated to have been put there by unmanned robotic craft. In spite of that there are anomalies that seem to point to fakery. The bubble*, the astronaut's slipping and the wire that seems to drop and hang** are too clear to simply be dismissed.

Your post is a little bit vague. Tell us whether you think the Apollo moon missions*** were faked.


*
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1410856&viewfull=1#post1410856

**
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1410953&viewfull=1#post1410953

***
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?114033-The-Apollo-Moon-Missions-Hoax

My post is a little vague?

I ask a logical question....

I give up.

But my point is made: again no answer to the most asked question, but talking around it. I have seen this countless times before, and here it is again.

[Cosmored]

My post is a little vague?

I ask a logical question....

I give up.

But my point is made: again no answer to the most asked question, but talking around it. I have seen this countless times before, and here it is again.
In post #111 you said this.

inventing a thing called space

What did you mean by that? And please tell us whether you think the Apollo moon missions were faked.

[syrwong]

That is not the question I asked. The subject of this thread is that the ISS could be fake. In your answer you point out you think it is real.

I think more in terms of probability now. Yes. I think it is 95% real and they are doing something up there, but I also think that the videos may not be genuine. We have been lied to on so many things. People believing in different lies tend to argue with each other that their version of lie is true, and this is their success.

[DeDukshyn]

Ok so here is my evidence the space station is fake ...

Here, in this video you can see that the floating water bubble is attached to a harness. At the 20 second mark, the bubble starts to tilt, exactly like how floating water bubbles attached to a harness tilts. We have no other choice but to conclude that this footage is fake and the water bubble, along with the actors, are using invisible harnesses and a green screen.

If someone else can come up with another theory, well then that's two theories of equal value we would have, but I'm pretty sure its invisible water bubble harnesses.

jJ081ZH6eAA

[DeDukshyn]

In this next video, you can clearly see there is an edit at 49 seconds ... NASA is clearly editing all their videos because they have to because the space station is fake.

Also note that the microphone tilts its head at 1:10 in the video -- this is evidence of using a microphone harness to simulate zero gravity. Clearly a harness. If you go to 1:42, you will notice that Chris Hadfield's head is tilted slightly to the left. This is due to the harness he is wearing and the actual up direction is to the right, causing the water to flow downward under earth's natural gravity (because they're not in space - ISS is fake).

At the 1:45 mark if you look carefully, you can see tiny cables suspending each of the water bubbles, making it look like they are floating away from the cloth ...

At 2:50 you can see that the water is sticking to his hand, but this has nothing to do with the physical properties of water surface tension in a zero G environment, but his hand is actually a water magnet causing it to stick.

o8TssbmY-GM

[DeDukshyn]

Here in this video at 1:25, nasa has employed the new super duper magical tangle free harness - never tangles, spins on any axis at all and needs no space to operate, and constructed out of new, high tensile belief! Spin an infinite number of times and it never tangles! New and improved!

GPnLShiJ-t4

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Wow I can't believe I found such good evidence the ISS is fake. What do you think of these Cosmored? Pretty good eh? I'll keep looking for more ... I've totally changed my mind -- you were right, how silly of me not to see all this blatant evidence!

[BoR]

My post is a little vague?

I ask a logical question....

I give up.

But my point is made: again no answer to the most asked question, but talking around it. I have seen this countless times before, and here it is again.
In post #111 you said this.

inventing a thing called space

What did you mean by that? And please tell us whether you think the Apollo moon missions were faked.

I'll be glad to tell you after you answered Bill Ryan's question, which I asked again. You try to go around it by asking other questions and make me explain my words as a diversion, so you can then go into whatever I will respond.... so you can avoid the question. I don't take the bait.

[Cosmored]

I'll be glad to tell you after you answered Bill Ryan's question, which I asked again. You try to go around it by asking other questions and make me explain my words as a diversion, so you can then go into whatever I will respond.... so you can avoid the question. I don't take the bait.
I think my response in post #112 answers it. The theory put forward in post #114 is also plausible. It's probably both things.

[Denise/Dizi]

I believe we have a space station, it just isn't the satellite we see zipping across the sky. I believe that is merely a regular satellite.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2927b4987df9570246cc8f0951388f19.webp

You can actually zoom in and see it from the ground - ISS no doubt

* I would agree it is the "ISS..." And perhaps there are people aboard it... But I suppose my suggestion was, there is something bigger out there somewhere... I have seen the ISS fly over my house for many years, when it's orbit is in my area.. There is no doubt it is there, and that it is a real and solid object... At least not in my mind...

I once saw it light up so brightly that it appeared as if they were correcting the orbit of it. It was later suggested that they were testing some new form of lighting.. I just know it was bright!... I have seen some things that defy logic and reason in the aerospace industry, that absolutely imply that we have mastered gravity. To think they're not using it in space already would be ridiculous. I remember watching videos and there was some that suggested that we have built labs up there, out much further than low Earth orbit, and that they are able to manufacture parts to such precise measurements that we cannot do here on the Earth, as there isn't the force of gravity to work against. Such as making metal bearings, etc... Where their nature is to want to be truly round... etc...It seemed very realistic to me that this would indeed be the case, and the detail in the interview and statements, were so defined and detailed I had remembered thinking, it surely would have been a lot of forethought to even consider such things for a bogus interview...


I also believe that the cargo hold on the original space shuttle could indeed hold up to 200 people as it has been suggested in the 80's. A "Shuttle" by definition, is a vessel that shuttles people, supplies, etc.... to SOMEWHERE...

Absolutely. The figures could probably accommodate 300 200lb people. But you'd need suits and seats, so 200 sound easily possible. What to do with them though, when there isn't a "Moonraker" space station.

* Perhaps there is? And it is hiding behind the Moon? Or perhaps the stories are true, and they are being sent to Mars, or other places? I tend to believe that the cigar shaped "Ufo's" that people are seeing, are actually parts being built, in sections and then taken into space.. Like submarine sections... They can then be docked, much like we do with capsules to the ISS, to build a larger station. I firmly believe with the cloaking tech we have here on Earth, they could easily hide platforms right above us...


Given that NASA has even suggested recently that the Moon is still within our own atmosphere?

That was based on the gravitational field of the Earth and the presence of gases. It is a real stretch to call that atmosphere.

* I would agree that it isn't an atmosphere as we know it to be... But it does suggest that perhaps the Moon isn't as difficult to get to as we have been led to believe... I have seen some videos of the "Craft" flying over the surface of the Moon as well, and if I am to take those seriously? I don't think the Moon is as large as we believe it is either... I believe it is closer and smaller.... But these are my opinions...


I would tend to believe that we have a vastly large space station out there somewhere, just beyond our view. Seems most of the "Modern technological breakthroughs" in aviation, pretty much stopped appearing when the SR71 and stealth were retired, it tends to lean towards forcing an assumption they have much better, and they don't even want to bother with filling in the blanks with what they showed decades ago, versus what they have now.

I can't in all honesty see that as likely. You can see objects as far as geostationary orbits - small satellites - so the big stuff will be really visible - especially if we are putting 200 people onboard.

* Again, we could be shuttling them to other planets... Or the Moon as the claims have suggested. Mr Bigelow is making things that are to be used for something.. He makes "Space Station Modules"... Given that the space Station that we know of, isn't changing out their modules weekly... And that he didn't just make a handful and call that project "Completed".. I suppose my mind immediately seeks the obvious.. He is building them for A SPACE STATION... Not necessarily the ISS... Or perhaps MANY space stations. I do believe that we have Solar Warden, and even possibly Radiant Guardian.. And that they have been using discs on this planet within the human population since at least the late 1800's. I do not know when they mastered the tech, perhaps in Germany in the late 30's or early 40's, but I do know there was a society that was playing around with such things at that time.

While I cannot confirm publicly that I have been told certain things, and shown certain things, I did believe those things when they were confirmed for me... I have had 2 anti gravity craft hover over my own home twice, for long durations of time. When speaking to others in the aerospace industry, about some of the more notable craft like the TR3B's and the Aurora project, I was never told they do not exist, and in fact got a nod that they were aware of such things. Given they're not flying around completely in our air space, I am assuming they are going off into space as well...


Like the spinning wheel for gravity, etc. I think it's all been built, and long ago... And by the time we see it, that will be considered ancient technologies as well.

The problem with the spinning wheel is the energy to get it moving and the problems of getting such a large thing up into space. If they could do this easily, I'm sure the ISS would have something like it already.

I think the ISS is too small for them to bother with, with that kind of technology. But it was discussed, models and specs were built. And it wouldn't take much to build those in sections, and "Shuttle" those up as well.... The spinning motion would be as easy as the magnetic levitation train systems we have here on Earth and have had at Disneyland entertaining humans for decades. One only need look at what we already have here to see that there could easily be other uses for such technologies... I wouldn't rule it out merely because the ISS isn't using it. That would be like saying that we don't have a cure for polio, merely because someone never had access to the vaccine. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist..

I suppose I just cannot believe that such things absolutely could be, and more than likely are true, merely because someone has yet to come out and suggest that it is indeed absolutely true. One can go online today and find shoulder patches for the Space Force.. Retired ones.. Subdued.. Means they have already been worn and they are the old ones. We have had a space force for a very long time... I believe they haven't been flying or piloting these craft under our military monikers, as those would require that they have some accountability, I believe they subcontract out the military best and brightest for such programs.. It happens all the time.. And I hope that someday soon, they will begin to show some of the wonderful accomplishments that many men and women have acheived since the days when Nasa did the whole moon walk footage. So many generations of hard working men and women, not being able to be recognized for their accomplishments, due to the classifications system, and black projects.

These are just my opinions.. I like to think bigger than what we have been told, to consider what I would try to do if I had such technologies, etc.. And I love to ponder such things. Does it make it real? No, but I believe I would be a fool to not believe they haven't developed such things, if I myself would have tried, given the resources they have had through the years.

[BoR]

I'll be glad to tell you after you answered Bill Ryan's question, which I asked again. You try to go around it by asking other questions and make me explain my words as a diversion, so you can then go into whatever I will respond.... so you can avoid the question. I don't take the bait.
I think my response in post #112 answers it. The theory put forward in post #114 is also plausible. It's probably both things.

"If there are clear anomalies, our not knowing why something is being faked doesn't make the anomalies go away. I can't think of a reason for their wanting to fake it and I'm still not sure that it's fake."

I mistakenly read 'can't' as 'can' the first time. My mistake, and I apologize. Ok, so if there is no reason to fake it and it costs a lot to fake it, it probably is not fake.

Now to answer your questions:
Video's can indeed be faked or tempered with. I don't know about the ISS video's, because I have never been in space to compare any said anomalies with my own experience and I am not an expert in physics.

About the Apollo missions: I think they went to the moon, but the video footage of Neil Armstrong is fake. I have seen compelling evidence and arguments that the images are not taken on the moon but in the desert. The material by Jay Weidner, where he points out the images are filmed by Stanley Kubrick, was pretty convincing to me. The waving flag gave a lot away.

If you ask the question: why would they fake these images of the moon? My answer would be: because they needed proof for the public they really went there, but they couldn't provide that compelling proof, because old fashioned film could not stay intact because of the conditions in space. That was wrong in my opinion. Very wrong, but it happened, and they chose never to acknowledge this later. And it is also possible the real mission failed, but there is no way for anyone to be sure.

But they do go into space, and indeed I agree there is more that they hide from the public. But I do not believe the ISS and satelites are fake.

[Cosmored]

But I do not believe the ISS and satelites are fake.
I've been in the forest far from big cities. At night satellites look like stars that move. Satellites are real.

All the Apollo footage was filmed either in a studio, or in the desert with a filter on the camera.

It seems that the space station is really there. It looks like the footage they show the public is mainly bogus. I still don't understand the footage that is obviously in zero-G that lasts for several minutes. It doesn't look like it's been spliced but I have no background in this.

Post #114 makes sense. The inside of the real space station probably looks very different. I wonder what they might be doing in there. If the Russians are there too, it looks like the narrative they give us about what's happening between Russia and the US is bogus.

This info here is old but if the were able to lie then, they still can.
http://libcom.org/history/1940-1989-the-cold-war
https://www.bing.com/search?q=chomsky+cold+war&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=chomsky+cold+&sc=0-13&qs=n&sk=&cvid=39F7E9E8783E4E9FBCD0FBFACF2A73F6

I still haven't formed a firm opinion.

[DeDukshyn]

Here in this video at 1:25, nasa has employed the new super duper magical tangle free harness - never tangles, spins on any axis at all and needs no space to operate, and constructed out of new, high tensile belief! Spin an infinite number of times and it never tangles! New and improved!

GPnLShiJ-t4

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Wow I can't believe I found such good evidence the ISS is fake. What do you think of these Cosmored? Pretty good eh? I'll keep looking for more ... I've totally changed my mind -- you were right, how silly of me not to see all this blatant evidence!

Ok Guys, I found the ultimate smoking gun ... the actual harnesses used by the NASA special effects team to fake all these videos ... and this is the same harness kit they use to harness up all those little water bubbles to make them float - says so right on the box (indicated by yellow markup - click image for larger view)

If this isn't proof, I don't know what is ... what do you think cosmored? This must be how they do it. We're starting to get quite a large pile of evidence, you and me, eh?


46102

[Ernie Nemeth]

There are space movies made all the time that look very realistic. How do they do that? I think there is no question that it could be faked if they want it to be. But that still does not disprove the fact that the ISS does exist in low earth orbit. It does make a convincing story of conspiracy if that is one's inclination and could be confused inadvertently with the facts.

No one likes their pet beliefs messed with. I certainly don't. Sometimes, however, it is just more genuine to admit being wrong - or at least stop publicly defending a strongly contested stance. Most people would consider that a sign of good intentions and a real yearning for truth.

It is the hallmark of credibility for the truth seeker to correct or modify their own views and beliefs, given new data that contradicts their pet beliefs.

What is more important - truth or being right?

[DeDukshyn]

There are space movies made all the time that look very realistic. How do they do that? I think there is no question that it could be faked if they want it to be. But that still does not disprove the fact that the ISS does exist in low earth orbit. It does make a convincing story of conspiracy if that is one's inclination and could be confused inadvertently with the facts.

No one likes their pet beliefs messed with. I certainly don't. Sometimes, however, it is just more genuine to admit being wrong - or at least stop publicly defending a strongly contested stance. Most people would consider that a sign of good intentions and a real yearning for truth.

It is the hallmark of credibility for the truth seeker to correct or modify their own views and beliefs, given new data that contradicts their pet beliefs.

What is more important - truth or being right?

Perhaps the thread title should be modified? Because this thread as put forth by the OP is about the ISS being fake. If this is no longer cosmored's argument I'd love to hear him say it, then have him request to the mods for a title change.

[Cosmored]

Perhaps the thread title should be modified? Because this thread as put forth by the OP is about the ISS being fake. If this is no longer cosmored's argument I'd love to hear him say it, then have him request to the mods for a title change.
You're trying to mislead those viewers who've only scanned this thread and haven't been following it closely. I've seen this tactic before. Sometimes I have to keep setting the record straight to thwart that tactic.

(post #27)
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1408750&viewfull=1#post1408750

[Antagenet]

If it is fake, then it would also prove that we are living under a dome of some sort, because what else could explain that it is not possible to reach outer space?
Here is some old news from 1907, HAWAIIAN GAZETTE, there is an old model of earth, resembling the cow's land ;)
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/data/batches/hihouml_cardinal_ver01/data/sn83025121/00294552492/1907011101/0369.pdf
Edit: Here is the link just in case, this PDF is not rendering in the page, at least for me.
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/data/batches/hihouml_cardinal_ver01/data/sn83025121/00294552492/1907011101/0369.pdf

--
Page 371 is about the flat circular earth
Page 391 (Sokaku's globe and his image of the world)
Page 392 SKETCH OF AN INSTRUMENT OF THE BUDDHIST IMAGE OF THE FLAT EARTH) OF 1814.
Page 434 converting of globe maps into flat maps

Here is the PDF, it is too big for embed here https://press.uchicago.edu/books/HOC/HOC_V2_B2/HOC_VOLUME2_Book2_chapter11.pdf

At some point every Buddhist will hear about Mount Sumeru, dig enough you will see what it is all about. It is an imaginary world (Loka) that only those who archived nirvana and became Arahant will be able to enter, AFTER physical death.

I've often thought that there is no damn secret space program, but the the elites have a path through antartica to get to those other continents, those hidden ones that they wont let us know about. They are probably pristine too. Makes me furious.

[DeDukshyn]

There are space movies made all the time that look very realistic. How do they do that?...

As someone who is fairly proficient with effects in software, and knows how it is done, I have to point out a couple things. First thing is that movies and movie scenes are first designed, then edited with the special effects in mind - in order to hide as many flaws as possible - because flaws are absolutely everywhere in CGI and other special effects in movies. The have the luxury of editing to pull a viewer's attention far away from the flaws using various techniques.

Special effects in movies don't have to look real - they just have to look believable for the couple seconds that the specific element or scene is showcasing it. That said the amount of work that goes into some special effects scenes in movies, covers multiple studios, the best talent on the planet, 1000s of man hours to produce, and months to render --- just for certain scenes even. And these scenes again, just have to look "believable" within the context of a movie story, characters, etc. and not have to pass the scrutiny of looking "realistic" - those are two different things.

Most CGI effects in movies - that we would call "realistic" are some fantastical effect or item, where there is little to no reference for comparison - that makes them more "believable". Making an entirely CGI scene that is supposed to represent a reality that we are all 100% familiar with (or close to it) is another thing entirely.

Over 100 million dollars was spent on the CGI budget for "Avatar", and does it look realistic? No ... Does it look believable enough to be an entertaining movie? Yes.

There's scores of videos on youtube where movies that we all deemed had "realistic" CGI are put under scrutiny by VFX artists, and the flaws are really easy to point out when studied carefully. There's no movie that is reliant on heavy CGI that doesn't suffer from notable problems - far more than what has been presented in this thread -- and this is with full designing and editing with the CGI in mind, attempting to hide the flaws, and within the context of usually some fantastical situation to which our brains have little or nothing to hold in comparison, usually for a few seconds at a time.

I'm not saying that the very best studios, working with the very best talent, with 10s or 100's of millions of dollars and years to work on a project couldn't do something spectacular and difficult to discern ... I am just pointing out that its not as easy as you might think.

[DeDukshyn]

Perhaps the thread title should be modified? Because this thread as put forth by the OP is about the ISS being fake. If this is no longer cosmored's argument I'd love to hear him say it, then have him request to the mods for a title change.
You're trying to mislead those viewers who've only scanned this thread and haven't been following it closely. I've seen this tactic before. Sometimes I have to keep setting the record straight to thwart that tactic.

(post #27)
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1408750&viewfull=1#post1408750

You say I'm trying to mislead viewers ... now that's a pot calling the kettle black wouldn't you say?

Is the topic supposed to be about the ISS being fake or not? Its that simple. You're theory is that it is fake, yes or no? Hence why you you are unwilling to change the title to consider that maybe even just some of the nonsense you have put forth might be wrong. Go read Ernie's post again. That applies very aptly here. What is "my" tactic again?

[Ernie Nemeth]

By the way, I've seen the space station with my own eyes more than once while camping far away from city lights. It is easily recognizable from other satellites because it is so BIG! But I digress, and I've been paid to say that...

[Cosmored]

You say I'm trying to mislead viewers ... now that's a pot calling the kettle black wouldn't you say?

Is the topic supposed to be about the ISS being fake or not? Its that simple. You're theory is that it is fake, yes or no? Hence why you you are unwilling to change the title to consider that maybe even just some of the nonsense you have put forth might be wrong. Go read Ernie's post again. That applies very aptly here. What is "my" tactic again?
What's the point of misrepresenting my position of the viewers can go back and see what it really is?



By the way, I've seen the space station with my own eyes more than once while camping far away from city lights. It is easily recognizable from other satellites because it is so BIG! But I digress, and I've been paid to say that...
You seem to be implying that I disagree with that.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1411051&viewfull=1#post1411051

You seem to be trying to misrepresent my position too.

[DeDukshyn]

You say I'm trying to mislead viewers ... now that's a pot calling the kettle black wouldn't you say?

Is the topic supposed to be about the ISS being fake or not? Its that simple. You're theory is that it is fake, yes or no? Hence why you you are unwilling to change the title to consider that maybe even just some of the nonsense you have put forth might be wrong. Go read Ernie's post again. That applies very aptly here. What is "my" tactic again?
What's the point of misrepresenting my position of the viewers can go back and see what it really is?

...
.



Perhaps the thread title should be modified? Because this thread as put forth by the OP is about the ISS being fake. If this is no longer cosmored's argument I'd love to hear him say it, then have him request to the mods for a title change.
You're trying to mislead those viewers who've only scanned this thread and haven't been following it closely. I've seen this tactic before. Sometimes I have to keep setting the record straight to thwart that tactic.

(post #27)
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1408750&viewfull=1#post1408750

Is you're position that the ISS is fake or not? That is the topic of this thread as per the title that you gave it, and when I suggested, at the idea that maybe it was just specific small items here or there that were in question, we change the title, you claim I am "misrepresenting your position".

Is your position that the ISS is fake or not? If yes, stand behind your beliefs and say it. If not, then the thread title should be augmented. You seem to be suggesting not, as indicated here:



By the way, I've seen the space station with my own eyes more than once while camping far away from city lights. It is easily recognizable from other satellites because it is so BIG! But I digress, and I've been paid to say that...
You seem to be implying that I disagree with that.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1411051&viewfull=1#post1411051

You seem to be trying to misrepresent my position too.


... so please PM the mods and request a thread title change.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

And yes it is very big ... you can easily make it all out its entire silhouette with a pair of $100 binoculars.

But they only spent 28 years to design and build it with the help of multitudes of space agencies across 18 countries, and spent over $150 billion dollars so they could abandoned it right after being built and make pretend videos with green screens and harnesses and bubbles. That's the reason why they built it ... to trick people so they might think its real. A very important thing for them to ensure.

I can see it now ... 35 years ago they hatched the plan in a secret room somewhere ... "For national security reasons, we need to find a way to trick people with fake space videos ... this is of the utmost importance, and we need to get this done at any and all costs! First, we build a giant station over 28 years, such a monumental task that we'll elicit the help of as many countries and agencies that we can muster, even if it costs hundred of billions!

And then, we'll buy a green screen, a couple cameras and a harness, and make fake space videos! The perfect plan!! Muwahahahah!!!"


http://giantgag.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/how-bout-no-dr-evil-meme.jpg

[DeDukshyn]

 
What you are doing here is called marketing. Its blatant marketing. Marketing is one directional communication intended to announce or sway an audience, that does not allow feedback or discussion in any sense. You do this marketing under the guise that you are not marketing and that you just want to discuss some theories and learn the "truth". Bill's post alludes to you not wanting to hear or listen to the feedback - its obvious to any reader of this thread.

You have been doing this for over 20 years across "hundreds of forums", "duplicating" the same "theories" and the same responses and the same questions. You have been given the same answers and explanations over and over and over again, yet you still claim to the most outlandish and ridiculous of them, as this thread is testament to - even after 20 years of people explaining the same things, in the same ways to you. This is marketing. You are doing nothing but marketing your theory that the ISS is fake, and marketing yourself. The fact that you still are using the same username you were using 20 years ago in the same discussions elsewhere on the internet says a lot as well.

And you accuse me of misleading readers?

But now you are choosing Avalon to conduct your personal advertising and to spam yourself and your "theories". What do you have to say to that? Over 20 years of nothing but the exact same advertisement and spam ...

From 2011 -- someone goes over almost all the points you present here and more ...

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-2.html

[Bill Ryan]

But now you are choosing Avalon to conduct your personal advertising and to spam yourself and your "theories". What do you have to say to that? Over 20 years of nothing but the exact same advertisement and spam ...

From 2011 -- someone goes over almost all the points you present here and more ...

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-2.html

Okay, we're going to blow the whistle here. I think this needs to stop. :)

The mods have been watching this with amused interest for a while now. New member Kowolski (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/member.php?47633-Kowolski) = retired member BETAMAX101 (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/member.php?47417-BETAMAX101), and he's on a multi-year, continual, compulsive stalking of Cosmored (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/member.php?27883-Cosmored), on every forum he moves to.

Why, is beyond our limited understanding. One would think there might be more productive things to devote one's life to!

Cosmored may have some of his facts and logic all inside out, but at least he's honest. :) Watching Kowolski pretending to be someone else has been entertaining.

But this Tom-and-Jerry cartoon chase must stop. We do adhere to the sometimes hopeful principle that fact-based, referenced, open discussion is valuable, as it makes good ideas better and bad ideas go away. Or, at least, it's supposed to!

All too often, however, people holding positions to which their ego and sense of identity is attached just become more entrenched. In a real conference room (or a sitting room or a good coffee shop!), maybe with a tolerant third party to preside over the debate, resolution, respect and friendship might be restored. In social media, that's often almost impossible.

But this thread stands (as do many others), because for those wanting to read from a neutral standpoint, learn and think, all this has some use. But there really is something happening here to do with beating long-dead horses — on both sides.

:focus:

[Cosmored]

retired member BETAMAX101, and he's on a multi-year, continual, compulsive stalking of Cosmored, on every forum he moves to.
Betamax destroyed his credibility a long time ago by saying some pretty lame things. Here's his latest attempt at sophistry.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/gene-cernan-jump-proves-they-are-on-the-moon.580330/

Post #9 is mine.


The last time that Betamax tried to obfuscate the proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked he looked so silly that the moderator deleted the whole thread. I started a new one about a year later.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-chinese-spacewalk-was-faked.578673/

He won't dare post on it.


I'd like to hear everybody's opinion on the Chinese spacewalk as the official NASA position is that it was real. I don't think that's off-topic here because this thread is about NASA's credibility.

Do it on this thread if it's considered to be off-topic.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?114021-The-Chinese-spacewalk-Shenzhou-7-was-faked-in-a-water-tank


I'd really like to hear what you people think about the Apollo moon missions too. You can do so on this thread if you want to.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?114033-The-Apollo-Moon-Missions-Hoax

[Denise/Dizi]

But I do not believe the ISS and satelites are fake.
I've been in the forest far from big cities. At night satellites look like stars that move. Satellites are real.

All the Apollo footage was filmed either in a studio, or in the desert with a filter on the camera.

It seems that the space station is really there. It looks like the footage they show the public is mainly bogus. I still don't understand the footage that is obviously in zero-G that lasts for several minutes. It doesn't look like it's been spliced but I have no background in this.

Post #114 makes sense. The inside of the real space station probably looks very different. I wonder what they might be doing in there. If the Russians are there too, it looks like the narrative they give us about what's happening between Russia and the US is bogus.

This info here is old but if the were able to lie then, they still can.
http://libcom.org/history/1940-1989-the-cold-war
https://www.bing.com/search?q=chomsky+cold+war&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=chomsky+cold+&sc=0-13&qs=n&sk=&cvid=39F7E9E8783E4E9FBCD0FBFACF2A73F6

I still haven't formed a firm opinion.

Some of the images from the Moon were taken in Hawaii at the Nasa training facility. The backgrounds match up perfectly... (The hills and such). And there is a photo of Buzz Aldrin visiting that site in photographic record more recently that compares the Nasa Moon images and the Hawaii images side by side. There is no mistaking the images are taken in the same location. Given the site is so remote, I am assuming they never thought anyone would compare them..

Why they faked the footage, well, that is anyone's guess really. One could say it is because of what they found, one could say it is because the film wouldn't survive... But what gets me is when the president apparently made a phone call to the Moon HAHAHA. We didn't have cell phones at the time, and that would have had to have been one helluva long phone cord for Nixon to use to call the Astronauts...

Now, given the phone call was fake, and the footage faked.. That leaves the astronauts. If they were able to receive this call, that would suggest they absolutely were not anywhere near the Moon at the time... So this would also call into question whether they ever went, regardless of the film..

I suppose until we get the truth from those involved... We will never have all the answers. I do believe we are out in space, that they found a way to get there. Or that we found something else that they're deferring the vast resources to.. We will probably never get the truth in this lifetime.

[Cosmored]

Some of the images from the Moon were taken in Hawaii at the Nasa training facility. The backgrounds match up perfectly... (The hills and such). And there is a photo of Buzz Aldrin visiting that site in photographic record more recently that compares the Nasa Moon images and the Hawaii images side by side. There is no mistaking the images are taken in the same location. Given the site is so remote, I am assuming they never thought anyone would compare them..
Here's the photo you're referring to.
http://epiphanyoftruth.com/the-hawaiian-moon-mountain-and-picture-frenzy/


Here's some more stuff about the Russians.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1410354&viewfull=1#post1410354

I never heard any comments about this anomaly.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1411043&viewfull=1#post1411043

[Ernie Nemeth]

You know how this thread makes me feel?

Like trying to convince my parents not to take the shot for the virus.

Futility and disbelief.

[Cosmored]

You know how this thread makes me feel?

Like trying to convince my parents not to take the shot for the virus.

Futility and disbelief.
I'd like to hear your opinion of the alleged anomaly in post #115.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1411043&viewfull=1#post1411043

I'd also like to hear Kowolski's and DeDukshyn's opinions.

[Kowolski]

odd duplicate half way through posting

[Kowolski]

You know how this thread makes me feel?

Like trying to convince my parents not to take the shot for the virus.

Futility and disbelief.
I'd like to hear your opinion of the alleged anomaly in post #115.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1411043&viewfull=1#post1411043

I'd also like to hear Kowolski's and DeDukshyn's opinions.


Yeah sure. I figure that you being the "honest" poster :facepalm: you're bound to understand it.

Take a look at the edges of the cabin before he disappears - as he goes around the corner. Then take a look the split second he is gone.

See anything? Of course you don't. The problem with you it seems, is that every single claim made that falls into the category of "conspiracy" is never checked by you. Then, like all the other times in this thread where you are given pretty much the perfect explanation, you label all those opposing you as "sophists" - what are you afraid of here? I mean, it's obviously not fake - it takes dedication along the lines of flat earth belief to actually not see that.


Ok, the "anomaly". It's a cross fade. Simple. One piece of footage faded into another, BUT, can we prove this? Why, yes we can. We take a screen print from just before he disappears and one a split second after he does. Then make a back and forwards animation -

https://s2.gifyu.com/images/Animation116cbc29576a63fab.gif

[Kowolski]

Some of the images from the Moon were taken in Hawaii at the Nasa training facility.

Here's the photo you're referring to.
http://epiphanyoftruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Moonmountain.jpg

I've inserted the Hawaiian image which is supposed to be identical to the South Massif, though quite how the Hawaiian peopel failed to notice the LM and astronauts gallivanting around is mystifying :facepalm:

https://thehiddenmission.com/Ahiddenmission/a17pan1230624.jpg

Identical - errr well maybe not huh?

[DeDukshyn]

You know how this thread makes me feel?

Like trying to convince my parents not to take the shot for the virus.

Futility and disbelief.
I'd like to hear your opinion of the alleged anomaly in post #115.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1411043&viewfull=1#post1411043

I'd also like to hear Kowolski's and DeDukshyn's opinions.

Well cosmored, let me let you in on the fact that I have many years with videographer experience and have used green screens many times myself. I also do all the editing for the videos I have created, and understand exactly how to use a green screen, and how to edit for them, and all the anomalies and problems that come with using one. I also understanf light physics and how it relates to the intricate workings of cameras.

However, It won't matter to you at all what I say; you won't believe it. You will toss out my expertise on the subject just like you have tossed out pretty much every single obvious explanation given to you by people much brighter and having stronger critical thinking skills, experience, reasoning etc. So what's the point? I highly doubt you would care at all what I would have to say.


But in case people reading this thread may be tempted to be bamboozled by for silly suggestions, I will break down that video for them.

Here is the video in question:
rf99TLfxCUQ

Fallacy #1
First of all, the main premise here is once again that the figure is on a harness. That would mean that the support cables have to be running vertically up. and tensions of the weight of say a 170 lb man these would be very taut and of course could not bend at all. At what point is the harness attached to the man?

How is it possible that his body parts can pass through a taut cable that is supporting his weight. Look at in slow motion. Try to imagine a perfectly straight line, supporting his weight that does not have some part of his body pass through it - not possible. Unless you are suggesting that either the harness is magically intangible, or that the astronaut is, the idea that the man is on a harness is debunked right there. Since the entire premise of the claim hinges on the fact that this man is suspended by a harness, this is done. But allow me to continue on ...



Fallacy#2
The claim is that the editor has applied a "transition" or a "fade" effect just as the man is exiting the immediate area. When you are editing for green screen your are using raw footage. There are no transitions or fades in raw footage - that's not how video production works. If a transition is required, it is for the purpose of moving from one scene to another scene. So where is this other scene? What motivation would an editor have for purposely adding in a transition effect there? Unless you are suggesting that transitions in editing software just magically adds them in and its up to the editor to remove them and he somehow missed this one?

Or might you be suggesting that he spent forethought, time and the actions needed on the software to add it in even though there would be absolutely no reason to do it? Not even the worst amateur video editor in the world goes around spending time adding transition or fade effects where they are not needed - that's a stupid idea to think and would be a requirement to support the premise here. There would have to be a need to add it. If there isn't one, it won't be added ... pretty frickin' simple. Again, we now have more than enough to toss this idea in the trash, between the harness problem, and this editing problem ... but let me continue on even further ...



Fallacy#3
Green screens are used to add in a background image that doesn't exist. The assumption in the videos claim requires that a green screen is being used in the background - and that is why he can be seen "fading". Please do note that there is equipment in the foreground, in front of the actor at parts, and some apparatus that he obviously grabs which we can see he causes to move about a little, and then you can see him move off to the behind some pipes and wires and stuff -- so the foreground stuff is real.

For an actual movie set, the foreground and intermediate elements would be part of a real set - to allow physical interactions (as we see here between astronaut and the environment), the shadows, ambient occlusions, global illumination etc, to interact properly with the "actor" in terms of accurate lighting. lack of subtle accurate lighting and shadowing is the biggest give-away, hence why movie set designers try to only rely on cgi for backgrounds and where absolutely needed - because getting the subtle lighting effects adds a lot more time, and money. Use a good studio set for as much as you can, use CGI for what you can't build into a set is the general rule.

So there's obviously a physical environment - that the astronaut is even seen physically interacting with. Now look at the back wall - the backgound - the part that is being claimed a green screen is being used for. Why the **** would someone build an elaborate physical set, then green screen the simplest part of the video? That's a hilarious proposition! "Ok guys, we spent the entire $5000 budget on the foreground and the boss says he won't spend another $10 for the back wall, so I guess we have no choice but to set up the green screen." :facepalm:

Without the green screen, the theory of fakeness here doesn't exist as that is the premise being put forth by the claim ... Pretty funny stuff ... but wait, There's more!



Cameras and shutter speed:
I can tell by looking at this video that the camera used to capture the footage is using quite a low shutter speed. Without trying to train you on the detailed world of how cameras, let's just say that the lower the shutter speed the less amount of light per each frame gets to the film or CCD in the case of all digital cameras. The CCD in a camera is the part that collects light over x amount of time to form the image. Photons need to be collected and time is needed to form an image. The amount of time is a variable, that is influenced by several factors the amount of light in the scene, sensitivity of the film or CCD, and shutter speed.

One of the effects of a low shutter speed is motion blur. If you look at his left arm in slow motion just past the 1:02 mark, you can see that his arm actually appears to disappear for a moment. This is because under faster movement with the slow shutter the CCD cannot collect enough photons to create a coherent image -- the result is that the moving part loses details, and becomes transparent.

Even human eyes have the same issue -- just go into a low light area, and move you finger really fast back and forth in front of your eyes. It loses all detail, becomes blurry and you can see through it pretty easily.

With a slow shutter that is lower than framerate, when an object is slow moving, there's enough time for the CCD to collect enough photons to make a coherent image, when the object is moving faster the CCD doesn't have enough time to collect enough photons, but what is collected begins to be overlayed on the contents of what was captured before -this leads to the effect seen in video in question.


Look at this still image -- notice how the girls arm is "transitioning" away? Perhaps the editor added a fade effect right there? Proof of green screen usage? NOPE! Just a regular image of how a low shutter speed affects the resultant image -- something that everyone who is half decent with cameras knows about ...

46107

From this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y24i7V6jkV4


If it's still not clear, watch this video: UPPSdCrqcFQ


So there we have it. Not one, not two, but three major fallacy's with the premise that this is a man on a harness in front of a green screen, and an explanation for why the guy appears to "fade-away" - as simple as understanding camera frame rates and shutter speeds.

[DeDukshyn]

You know how this thread makes me feel?

Like trying to convince my parents not to take the shot for the virus.

Futility and disbelief.
I'd like to hear your opinion of the alleged anomaly in post #115.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1411043&viewfull=1#post1411043

I'd also like to hear Kowolski's and DeDukshyn's opinions.


Yeah sure. I figure that you being the "honest" poster :facepalm: you're bound to understand it.

Take a look at the edges of the cabin before he disappears - as he goes around the corner. Then take a look the split second he is gone.

See anything? Of course you don't. The problem with you it seems, is that every single claim made that falls into the category of "conspiracy" is never checked by you. Then, like all the other times in this thread where you are given pretty much the perfect explanation, you label all those opposing you as "sophists" - what are you afraid of here? I mean, it's obviously not fake - it takes dedication along the lines of flat earth belief to actually not see that.


Ok, the "anomaly". It's a cross fade. Simple. One piece of footage faded into another, BUT, can we prove this? Why, yes we can. We take a screen print from just before he disappears and one a split second after he does. Then make a back and forwards animation -

https://s2.gifyu.com/images/Animation116cbc29576a63fab.gif

I thought about that before I posted my post above (EDIT: before seeing yours - I didn't see it until after I posted mine) -- I don't think that's it --- he grabs onto that white box thingy as he moves, and jostles it out of position, it then wobbles a bit before settling back into place. The other items on the left moving are attached to it, hence their movement (it appears to actually move - not fade from one position to another). The thing on the right could be moving for any other reason - maybe there's another astronaut there that bumped it ... I don't know.

[Kowolski]

You know how this thread makes me feel?

Like trying to convince my parents not to take the shot for the virus.

Futility and disbelief.
I'd like to hear your opinion of the alleged anomaly in post #115.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1411043&viewfull=1#post1411043

I'd also like to hear Kowolski's and DeDukshyn's opinions.


Yeah sure. I figure that you being the "honest" poster :facepalm: you're bound to understand it.

Take a look at the edges of the cabin before he disappears - as he goes around the corner. Then take a look the split second he is gone.

See anything? Of course you don't. The problem with you it seems, is that every single claim made that falls into the category of "conspiracy" is never checked by you. Then, like all the other times in this thread where you are given pretty much the perfect explanation, you label all those opposing you as "sophists" - what are you afraid of here? I mean, it's obviously not fake - it takes dedication along the lines of flat earth belief to actually not see that.


Ok, the "anomaly". It's a cross fade. Simple. One piece of footage faded into another, BUT, can we prove this? Why, yes we can. We take a screen print from just before he disappears and one a split second after he does. Then make a back and forwards animation -

https://s2.gifyu.com/images/Animation116cbc29576a63fab.gif

I thought about that before I posted my post above (EDIT: before seeing yours - I didn't see it until after I posted mine) -- I don't think that's it --- he grabs onto that white box thingy as he moves, and jostles it out of position, it then wobbles a bit before settling back into place. The other items on the left moving are attached to it, hence their movement (it appears to actually move - not fade from one position to another). The thing on the right could be moving for any other reason - maybe there's another astronaut there that bumped it ... I don't know.

Look again slowly - set video speed slow, sure he disturbs that area as he goes past, but if you look really carefully as the video fade over occurs, the apparatus jumps slightly - it's unmistakeable.

The weird thing about it is that the crazy hoax claims just look for something without thinking of any logical reason why that proves it is faked. He does go around the corner, unless they are mad enough to think THAT is faked, so we are trying to explain how his back end fades. two pieces of video merged. Note the major problem with these claims, they NEVER provide the source of the video, so that you can see the follow up footage.

[DeDukshyn]

[QUOTE] You know how this thread makes me feel?

Like trying to convince my parents not to take the shot for the virus.

Futility and disbelief.
I'd like to hear your opinion of the alleged anomaly in post #115.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1411043&viewfull=1#post1411043

I'd also like to hear Kowolski's and DeDukshyn's opinions.


Yeah sure. I figure that you being the "honest" poster :facepalm: you're bound to understand it.

Take a look at the edges of the cabin before he disappears - as he goes around the corner. Then take a look the split second he is gone.

See anything? Of course you don't. The problem with you it seems, is that every single claim made that falls into the category of "conspiracy" is never checked by you. Then, like all the other times in this thread where you are given pretty much the perfect explanation, you label all those opposing you as "sophists" - what are you afraid of here? I mean, it's obviously not fake - it takes dedication along the lines of flat earth belief to actually not see that.


Ok, the "anomaly". It's a cross fade. Simple. One piece of footage faded into another, BUT, can we prove this? Why, yes we can. We take a screen print from just before he disappears and one a split second after he does. Then make a back and forwards animation -

<...trimmed...>

I thought about that before I posted my post above (EDIT: before seeing yours - I didn't see it until after I posted mine) -- I don't think that's it --- he grabs onto that white box thingy as he moves, and jostles it out of position, it then wobbles a bit before settling back into place. The other items on the left moving are attached to it, hence their movement (it appears to actually move - not fade from one position to another). The thing on the right could be moving for any other reason - maybe there's another astronaut there that bumped it ... I don't know.

Look again slowly - set video speed slow, sure he disturbs that area as he goes past, but if you look really carefully as the video fade over occurs, the apparatus jumps slightly - it's unmistakeable.

The weird thing about it is that the crazy hoax claims just look for something without thinking of any logical reason why that proves it is faked. He does go around the corner, unless they are mad enough to think THAT is faked, so we are trying to explain how his back end fades. two pieces of video merged. Note the major problem with these claims, they NEVER provide the source of the video, so that you can see the follow up footage.

No the apparatus on the right definitely moves - it moves in "chunks" (noticeable in slowmo) because of a rolling shutter effect with the camera - either way it has to be moving or else a transition wouldn't pick up a different position of it. I can't say 100% that there is no transition as well, there might be, but there would have to be a reason why - (and for the record, cosmored, using a green screen or a harness is not any reason to add a transition, lol) - I agree its frustrating when source video is never linked to - and that type of obfuscation is always suspect in itself ...

If there is a transition (crossfade) there could be many reasons for adding one, but if the clip actually ends there, I don't know why they would use it there - there would be no point at all. If the original clip is longer, a reason may become obvious - for example, if there is more to the video, let's say he then reappears through where he exited, clipping extra footage for the sake of brevityat that spot and using a crossfade between the two clips does indeed make sense.

Like you said, whenever someone clips some tiny part out of context - it is usually done on purpose, for example if someone could not possibly believe the space station is real, they might purposely try to eliminate any context that might go against that belief, as we may well be seeing here.

Either way, there is exactly zero evidence of the ISS being fake or that this video is faked using harness and a greens screen - but there is plenty of evidence there is no harness and no need for a green screen. The premise as put forth that this is fake holds as much water as a sieve.

I wonder if the original footage can be found?

[Cosmored]

I don't have the technical background to know if you two are objectively explaining, or obfuscating but Kowolski ruined his credibility a while back by saying that the jet effect would make a piece of debris follow the same path and speed as a bubble...
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1410619&viewfull=1#post1410619

...so I still have doubts. Anyway, if your analyses turn out to be valid, there's still the anomaly of the bubble which seems to be too clear to obfuscate.

This is why I like to give objectivity tests. Some highly technical posters who explain highly technical stuff also say lame things when asked to explain something that's so clear that a sixth-grader could see it's false such as the anomalies in the Chinese spacewalk.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?114021-The-Chinese-spacewalk-Shenzhou-7-was-faked-in-a-water-tank

A paid sophist on the internet who has to agree with everything NASA says will try to avoid discussing these anomalies or he or she will end up looking silly like Betamax did. Most of the discussions on the Chinese spacewalk over at Political Forum got deleted because Betamax was looking like a horse's a-s when he lamely tried to obfuscate the clear anomalies. This one survived the deletions.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/man-has-landed-on-the-moon-july-20-1969-sir-questions-sir.211182/page-5#post-4764783

I'd like to hear DeDukshyn's and Kowolski's opinions of the Chinese spacewalk. Just say yes or no for now. Do you two think it was faked in a water tank, or real?

Paid sophists usually avoid answering with a lame excuse such as, "That's off-topic".

[DeDukshyn]

I don't have the technical background to know if you two are objectively explaining, or obfuscating ...

Yeah I have nothing better to do than to spend an hour writing a post to try to trick you into believing that fake things are real. Like I predicted, you don't care to hear my expertise. You asked me for my opinion for what reason again? Maybe merely to pretend to look like you really care? Your comment shows you really don't give to hoots about any explanation that is ever given to you, no matter how well laid out, how reasonable, how logical, and with what expertise. That is because you balk at reason, logic and expertise, as you have been doing for over twenty years and frankly it is insulting to people with intelligence. You don't care to learn, you don't care for the truth ... I'm beginning to think you have something seriously wrong with you, perhaps a handicap of some sort, and to that, I apologize for giving you a run earlier.

Take care cosmored, may one day you find, or by God's grace, accept, that which you are looking for ...

[TargeT]

 
What you are doing here is called marketing.

I was going to go with "idiocy"...

Look, I love the compassionate empathetic tilt to this forum... but sometimes you just need to "nip it in the bud"... and that is NOT a friendly empathetic act..........

extrapolate.




Take care cosmored,


Hmm... you as well... don't fall for energetic traps ;) (they are often so irresistibly designed)

[DeDukshyn]

I don't have the technical background to know if you two are objectively explaining, or obfuscating ...

Yeah I have nothing better to do than to spend an hour writing a post to try to trick you into believing that fake things are real. Like I predicted, you don't care to hear my expertise. You asked me for my opinion for what reason again? Maybe merely to pretend to look like you really care? Your comment shows you really don't give to hoots about any explanation that is ever given to you, now matter how well laid out, how reasonable, how logical, and with what expertise. That is because you balk at reason, logic and expertise, as you have been doing for over twenty years and frankly it is insulting to people with intelligence. You don't care to learn, you don't care for the truth ... I'm beginning to think you have something seriously wrong with you, perhaps a handicap of some sort, and to that, I apologize for giving you a run earlier.

Take care cosmored, may one day you find, or by God's grace, accept, that which you are looking for ...

BTW I did find out that the fading at the end is indeed due to an edit - transition (as kowolski rightly claimed) as this video was originally part of a music video montage that had been put together. So there was more footage after what is shown in the video presented which 100% perfectly explains the cross fade, and why it was put in.

Some dumbass has taken a clip from the video entirely out of context for the purpose solely to try to convince the weak minded and gullible of such nonsense. I am truly sorry that cosmored has been taken for a ride and has become become a victim to the extreme of such irresponsible (or nefarious) nonsense. It is really disgusting trapping and coercing the weak minded by making such terrible hoax videos.

[Richter]

So... If the International Space Station is fake, the Earth is flat, but if the ISS is for real, the Earth is a sphere.

[Cosmored]

Yeah I have nothing better to do than to spend an hour writing a post to try to trick you into believing that fake things are real. Like I predicted, you don't care to hear my expertise. You asked me for my opinion for what reason again? Maybe merely to pretend to look like you really care? Your comment shows you really don't give to hoots about any explanation that is ever given to you, no matter how well laid out, how reasonable, how logical, and with what expertise. That is because you balk at reason, logic and expertise, as you have been doing for over twenty years and frankly it is insulting to people with intelligence. You don't care to learn, you don't care for the truth ... I'm beginning to think you have something seriously wrong with you, perhaps a handicap of some sort, and to that, I apologize for giving you a run earlier.

Take care cosmored, may one day you find, or by God's grace, accept, that which you are looking for ...

I expected you to avoid the issue of the Chinese spacewalk. An objective person would simply say that it was faked in a water tank. Your refusing to comment on the Chinese spacewalk is very telling.

It may turn out that you two are right about the fading but there are three other anomalies that pretty much show that something is fishy.

(post #112)
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1411021&viewfull=1#post1411021

If the official version of the ISS were totally true, there wouldn't be any anomalies.


Kowolsky also hurt his credibility with this post...
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1410553&viewfull=1#post1410553

There has not been any fakery in the space program. Using one crazy theory to bolster another doesn't work for most people.

...so why would an objective truth-seeker take him seriously when he explains such high tech things that only an engineer would understand them?

It's so clear that Apollo was faked that it makes a good objectivity test.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100303-Did-we-really-go-to-the-Moon&p=1395658&viewfull=1#post1395658

[DeDukshyn]

Hmm... you as well... don't fall for energetic traps ;) (they are often so irresistibly designed)

I fed the troll ... ;) Shame on me ...

[TargeT]

Hmm... you as well... don't fall for energetic traps ;) (they are often so irresistibly designed)

I fed the troll ... ;) Shame on me ...

that's the worst part about it... that **** is SOOOOOOO alluring


BTW, 9 pages?

I mean... if we can't get on the same page when considering topics that are (IMO, VERY OBVIOUSLY) agreed on, then how do we continue the dialogue....


I'm not the best at this, but some of us are far worse.

[DeDukshyn]

Hmm... you as well... don't fall for energetic traps ;) (they are often so irresistibly designed)

I fed the troll ... ;) Shame on me ...

that's the worst part about it... that **** is SOOOOOOO alluring

Well I thought maybe, just maybe, there wasn't really a troll there and someone really wanted the truth. As they say, you can't fix stupid.

EDIT: I still think we may dealing with an actual handicap or unwellness of some sort, and I am sorry for not recognizing that possibility sooner.

[Cosmored]

Kowolski's blunder makes a good objectivity test.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?113913-The-theory-that-the-International-Space-Station-is-fake&p=1410604&viewfull=1#post1410604


Hey DeDukshyn

Kowolski says that the the alleged bubble in the spacewalk is a piece of debris being propelled by the jet effect. He doesn't think it strange that a piece of debris being propelled by the jet effect would take the exact same trajectory that a bubble would take. Do you agree with him?


Also, do you think the Chinese spacewalk was faked, or real?
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?114021-The-Chinese-spacewalk-Shenzhou-7-was-faked-in-a-water-tank

[Kowolski]

Kowolski's blunder makes a good objectivity test.

Blunder?

"You seem to be seeing what you want to see. Can you explain to me why you choose to ignore most of what I am explaining to you? I have never seen any video of anyone underwater expelling a single white bubble. Have you? But weirdly, the ISS-fake crew seem to find a never ending bunch of clips with single "bubbles". It goes where the force takes it. If it is expelled CO2 ice, it goes away from the ISS. If it's a piece of ice expelled from EVA it goes in whatever direction that is. If it is sublimating ice, it will do just about anything, straight, curved, back and forth, whatever shape it is and whatever way the ice turning to vapor makes it go.

Space Station Hoax -Air Bubbles Rise- Space Walks Simulated in A Massive Water Pool
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38ynHKGzplQ
It isn't a bubble - it is almost certainly condensation frozen in vacuum just peeling off his suit. Why do you choose the most ridiculous claim instead of the most obvious? Edit: why the heck is he using such rubbish video, most of these are transmitted in HD!"

Where's the blunder, I just educated you on why things move about in space - you asked me about a sequence suggesting it was a training mission.


Kowolski says that the the alleged bubble in the spacewalk is a piece of debris being propelled by the jet effect.

That's the third time you have made that lie. I identified this possible movement made from sublimating ice particles. I suspect they are moving from collision or vented ISS gases.


He doesn't think it strange that a piece of debris being propelled by the jet effect would take the exact same trajectory that a bubble would take.

Putting words in my mouth and begging the question. By "the exact same trajectory" you mean vertical and we already established that it is all relative to any observer in space and about 60-1 odds. BUT the bubble in the Chinese footage doesn't go vertical, it goes angled and gets 400% bigger in less than two metres of ascension.


Also, do you think the Chinese spacewalk was faked, or real?

Anyone who believes it to be faked in water has no grasp of reality and/or has never been in water with any loose clothing. Your ludicrous credibility test based on YOUR failed observations? How can you be so unable to grasp the circular nature of this?

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com
"6. Credibility Test: "This calls for a credibility test. XXXXXXX maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real and not faked in a water tank. Do you agree with him?

This is where the spammer uses one of his pre-determined idiotic conspiracies or erroneous claims as the yardstick for a credibility test. He is the arbitrator of its provenance therefore anyone who disagrees with it can now be referred to as "discredited" and all their rebuttal can be ignored."

ALL: Cosmored says this is a "bubble" -

https://i.ibb.co/sQ5xm0B/notabubble.gif

It's white, jagged, rotating and obviously a small chunk of ice. It moves diagonally and gains 400% more size in the width of the footage, at most 2 metres - that alone is impossible.

Why are you afraid to admit things that are obvious to everyone else? You are right in one aspect, the Chinese Spacewalk is a good objectivity test - it proves you aren't.

[Bill Ryan]

Avalon is not the platform for immature Punch-and-Judy shows like this.

You're both as bad as each other. There's something wrong with both of you. I mean what I say there.

This is barely important in any way compared with a myriad of other global issues that really do concern us all. And it's not enlightening, inspiring, pleasant or even remotely entertaining to read. It's just trivial, like children squabbling over something truly tiny.

The thread is closed.