Is the Internatiomnal space station actually within an ordinairy airplane..

There are dozens of posts on the ISS Facebook page too, from people who see it, latest ones are coming from all over Europe.

Last time I saw it a few weeks ago, I popped on the page and there were posts from both sides of Australia.

Must be a really high flying plane!

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

No, the guy in the vid is clearly claiming that footage of the inside of the ISS is shot in a plane doing parabolic flight. This is exactly what I was refering to.

I didn't watch the whole vid since this became clear in the first minute.

He doesn't say that the object you see is a plane.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

THE CLAIM :

"ISS crew footage is shot in a plane "

fails on 2 counts :

1 - unedited footage length [ the ISS crew footage is availiable in unedited , continuous clips that last far longer than a plane in a parabolic descent could achieve ]

2 - single take clips of astronauts moving from one module to another [ as many of the USS modules are mounted at 90 degrees to each other - the clips of people preforming a 90 degree turn to move from one module to the next cannot be preformed in an airfraft as none have the fuselage width to allow 2 " ISS sets " to be mouted at 90 degrees to each other ]

next ?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I get the feeling that none of you actually watched the video, or understood it if you did.

1 - unedited footage length [ the ISS crew footage is availiable in unedited , continuous clips that last far longer than a plane in a parabolic descent could achieve ]

The guy in the vid has a compelling argument for that. In the extended version they seem to be suspended and it looks way different than the shorter clips which are (supposedly) shot during parabolic flight. You can even hear what seem to be jet engines in those clips.

2 - single take clips of astronauts moving from one module to another [ as many of the USS modules are mounted at 90 degrees to each other - the clips of people preforming a 90 degree turn to move from one module to the next cannot be preformed in an airfraft as none have the fuselage width to allow 2 " ISS sets " to be mouted at 90 degrees to each other ]

Show me an example.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

I take your point, but this is what the video description says:

The International Space Station, just like everything else brought to us by NASA, is a Freemasonic hoax, a complete fabrication done with special effects, models, pools, zero G planes, and various camera tricks. The following video exposes key points of evidence for the hoax and breaks down exactly how the illusion is created and maintained.

and his opening comment:

Not even low earth orbit is possible, that the international space station is a hoax and all manned space travel is faked

So again, if LEO is impossible, what did I photograph?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

I don't know, I think it is possible though.

The point is, that he never claimed that what you see is a plane. He is claiming that some of the footage is shot in a plane during parabolic flights.

See this is what annoys me lately, threads with misleading titles that influence the focus of a thread right from the start.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

1 - i actually watched it and understood it to be utter bollox

further - special plead much ?

2 - be carefull what you ask for :

a reply to: ignorant_ape

1 - i actually watched it and understood it to be utter bollox further - special plead much ?

I think it presents a valid counterargument against your point of the extended videos, which just look akward.

2 - be carefull what you ask for :

At what time in the vid is the unedited 90 degree turn?

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

you accuse others of not watching vids - then pattently dont watch the rebuttals yourself - well done you hypocrite

PS - the first occurs in the first minuite

a reply to: zatara

YouTube is full of these guys and they're pretty good at slapping on the doubts...especially to doubters. I thought the early piece with Hadfield and the 'upticks' was well spotted and shows the uploader has put in the effort to make their case.

For me, I wondered what was more likely? Harnesses or Hadfield had an object in his back pocket?

Later on near the five minute mark, he's talking about the noise levels. At that point, he's using pure incredulity and offers nothing to support his disbelief beyond saying, "Not even an office air conditioner is that loud." He should have compared the military submarine environment (example) where sound energy is a crucial part of stealth and a consideration of the workplace environment. The ISS has no defensive need for dampening sound and the cost of soundproofing is prohibitive after a certain level. As long as the occupants have a working environment with acceptable noise levels there'd be no further incentive to have the luxury of quiet.

For me, I wondered what was more likely? Stage sets on airplanes or climate systems working to maintain temps, pressure and clean air?

The footage chosen by the uploader to illustrate his point about noise seems to contradict his claim of harnesses when we see Sunita Williams floating through two sections. At that point, he'd probably say they use 'vomit comet' planes to create weightlessness through parabolic arcs. It's doable and a good day out for people with money to spend. What the uploader calls 'full motion mode' is something we use to rule his objections out.

Weightlessness in those conditions lasts for less than thirty seconds. This means any footage of people floating for longer than that should kill his argument. I looked for the same stock he'd taken his clips from and quickly found Sunita Williams doing a filmed show-around.



Straight away, there's a two minute, unedited segment with Sunita showing the sleeping quarters. She enters/exits five different areas and the person filming is right above her which would make harnesses impossible. From 15:11 onwards, she floats down the ISS in one continuous tracking shot ('full motion mode')that takes her down to the Soyuz module. Again, given the direction of her travel, and how confined the environment, it's hard to contrive a way for her and the camerman (Kevin A Ford) to do all that with harnesses.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

you accuse others of not watching vids - then pattently dont watch the rebuttals yourself - well done you hypocrite

What because I asked you for a specific scene you are refering to in an half hour vid? Get a grip.

PS - the first occurs in the first minuite

Again, can you specify the scene, cause I don't see any shots that could not have been made on a plane? What's the problem?


Btw, if you you look from 5:20 in that vid, the woman seems to be wearing the same harnas around her waist, under her sweater, that the guy from the other vid was talking about in other cases. Look for yourself.

a reply to: zatara

Sorry, not enough evidence to be 100% sure unless you can see them walking aroundf in there. Don't get me wrong, for now my heart is with those astronauts on the ISS but my mind is screaming for the truth.

But you have seen them, not walking, but floating, in videos many times.

It seems to me that there is no answer valid for you really, sadly you will never, ever know the truth, because you simply cannot believe anything you haven't yourself experienced.

No lemonade for you, think about that.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

oh dear - you had no problem demanding that people watch a 1 hour vid - the hypocrisy is unending


no harness visible - just yuour delusions

ETA : the problem with the size of the alledged " set " is that you clearly have no idea what will actually fit inside a plane capable of preforming a parabolic dive

What hoax claimants are very good at is taking small segments of something without giving it proper context or explanation and ignoring everything that disproves their point.

Take the video posted above. It's all very well trying to find a way of proving that Sunita Williams was not on the ISS by looking at the movement of her hair or clothes or looking for harnesses or evidence of green screen, but the fact is that her transport and arrival at the ISS were well documented public events.

Like her launch from inside



and out



and docking:



And all the other footage and photographs that exist of her publicly documented time there.
Since the retirement of the shuttle they can't even claim it has anything to do with NASA - its all done via Russia. The ISS is not owned or run by NASA, nor is it manned solely by NASA personnel. Every part of the launch and docking process is broadcast publicly.

Claiming LEO is not possible isn't just denying NASA, it's denying the laws of physics and demonstrating that educational tax dollars were a waste of money, and also makes life difficult for everyone trying to see UFOs in every speck of dust filmed from it.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

oh dear - you had no problem demanding that people watch a 1 hour vid - the hypocrisy is unending

Right, this whole thread is filled with replies to something that wasn't even said. I didn't demand anyting, just pointing out that if you watch the video you will see what was really said.

You made a very specific claim and posted that video to back up your claim. I asked you to guide me towards the scene(s) that prove the exact point you are making because I can't find them.

Apparently you refuse to do so but choose to go off on ad hominum attacks and accusations of me not being willing to consider your vid.

no harness visible - just yuour delusions

Well, it sure looks like there is something around her waist, and it is consistent with other vids with other astronauts.

ETA : the problem with the size of the alledged " set " is that you clearly have no idea what will actually fit inside a plane capable of preforming a parabolic dive

What is the largest width you see in the vid?

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Rather than play games, why don't you tell us what you would consider proof.

The ISS is so large that it needed to be launched in pieces and put together in space by astronauts. That size has been documented by people on the ground with telescopic camera. If astronauts are not able to get to low Earth orbit, then who put it together?

a reply to: DJW001

Rather than play games, why don't you tell us what you would consider proof.

You mean that rather than pointing out my observations I should play a game with you. No I don't have to do that.


[SNIP]

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

If you have no criteria for proof, there is no point in anyone trying to prove anything to you. You are playing games. (And making yourself look foolish.)

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: charlyv

None of this really proves that the ISS as we know it is a real functioning space station with people on it.

If large pieces of equipment such as the space shuttle and the space station (both of whose path through the sky can be tracked by amateurs on the ground) can be shown docking in space from cameras on earth, then why not go the extra step and put people on those large pieces of equipment?

Or are you saying there is no such thing as the space shuttle, or any manned LEO flights whatsoever?


[image source: Thierry Legault