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

a reply to: DJW001

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.)

But I wasn't asking for proof, I was pointing out some observations, and pointing out that certain arguments are not direct proof.

I am not playing games at all. Most other posters here don't even seem to get what the op is actually about.

a reply to: Kandinsky

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.

This would be shot n parabolic flight. I don't see anything that would not fit in an Airbus, it's not like you see 30 yard tunnels branching off in all directions.

What is your estimate of the biggest width you see in that vid?

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

The length of time in that unedited footage precludes the parabolic flight explanation.

a reply to: Kandinsky

The length of time in that unedited footage precludes the parabolic flight explanation.

Yes I know I mixed things up.

You don't get to see her floating from one segment into the other though.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

The reason I chose those two unedited segments was because they show her executing moves that can't be done through parabolic flights, harnesses or blue screens.

The reasonable explanation is that she was in nearly zero gravity and the ISS does indeed exist.

originally posted by: donktheclown
a reply to: roadgravel

And how were they told to add the new satellites, etc. Now an even biggest conspiracy.

How the hell did you get so far off track? Nobody was saying it's real or a conspiracy. It was just a proposed scenario.

Try to use your imagination instead of blowing out your o-ring right off the bat.

Maybe use your mind for something more worth while than trying to revert to the dark ages.

Pointing out the flaws would be part of a discussion, with rational people. lol.

Sorry I hurt your feelings.

a reply to: Kandinsky

The reason I chose those two unedited segments was because they show her executing moves that can't be done through parabolic flights, harnesses or blue screens.

I know, but I don't know if I agree with the arguments you use for saying harnesses are impossible. At no point do I see them in a postion that would block a suspension.

originally posted by: donktheclown
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

There are also amateur "satellite hunters" who take pics of satellites.

I believe that but, what if we live on a domed flat world which uses said dome to project down on the restless natives, sights befitting a make believe "space?" Also, naturally, the Sun and Moon. How hard would it be to add satellites, or anything really, to the "show?" I can honestly say, at this point, I have no idea what the Eff we are living on.

By the way, the dome stuff was posted by you...Who was off topic?

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

There are several examples where it wouldn't be possible to use harnesses.

She's floating through hatchways after walking down corridors in unedited footage. The hatchways are small, she's not unhooking any harnesses and the camera man is following directly. In the first example, he's completely overhead and she's still fully in-shot. These are in segments lasting several minutes with no edits.

You seem to have side-stepped the parabolic explanation.

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: Kandinsky

The reason I chose those two unedited segments was because they show her executing moves that can't be done through parabolic flights, harnesses or blue screens.

I know, but I don't know if I agree with the arguments you use for saying harnesses are impossible. At no point do I see them in a postion that would block a suspension.

The first 2:30 of the vid showing Williams going in and out of the sleep stations was done with wires and a harness? Really?

Why is LEO impossible? That's the first thing I hear in the OP vid. Something better than the conclusion of the uploader, Eric Dubay, would be required by any reasonable person.

Instead of us getting proof that there are astronauts on ISS, which if anyone has a brain wouldn't argue with why don't you give us some proof that these planes are

1. Large enough on the inside to have a full scale mock up of the insides of the ISS but at the same time also despite carrying all this extra weight can perform the menouvers a plane has to do to replicate zero G

2. Planes can be tracked, show us the evidence that these planes exist and show us how on a daily basis that they are taking off performing zero G menouvers. Where are the planes taking off from? Where are they doing the menouvers?

Until someone has presented me these answers I WILL NOT watch two Videos from YouTube (that has God knows how many hoaxes and BS videos) claiming the ISS does not exist nor is it empty.

When a Soyuz capsule returns with astronauts and cosmonauts (a capsule that has a reentry that can be seen and tracked), where did it come from if not the ISS?

If you say it came from orbit (meaning that people and spacecraft can go into orbit), and there is a thing that looks like the ISS that can be seen in orbit by normal people from the ground (meaning it is possible to have large equipment in orbit)...

...then why don't you think we have the capability to put those two ideas together and just build a space station that can house people?

a reply to: Kandinsky

In the first example, he's completely overhead and she's still fully in-shot.

You mean the camera is overhead. Why would it block a suspension per se?

She's floating through hatchways after walking down corridors in unedited footage.

Not sure if it's semantics, but it's strange that she is walking down corridors in zero gravity.

Can you give a specific example?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I think the name of the game here is to argue the counter and offer scenarios whereby the footage can be hoaxed. So it could be asked, 'How do we know the Soyuz leaves earth? How do we know there are even people aboard? How do we know the Soyuz that went up is the same one that came down?'

The uploader covered his bases enough to retain the element of doubt for those who enjoy the sport of mendacity or those who genuinely want to believe it's all fake.

a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

1. Large enough on the inside to have a full scale mock up of the insides of the ISS but at the same time also despite carrying all this extra weight can perform the menouvers a plane has to do to replicate zero G

I have asked multiple times for people to post their estimate of the maximal width they see in the video. Extra weight opposed to what?

2. Planes can be tracked, show us the evidence that these planes exist and show us how on a daily basis that they are taking off performing zero G menouvers. Where are the planes taking off from? Where are they doing the menouvers?

As far as I know ESA uses an A300 to do zero gravity exercises.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

If you follow the tracking shots, there's no reasonable way she was harnessed up.

I've been around long enough that I'm not playing fetch the ball for you. The video is there for you to search and I included times already.

The game here is stick to the 'hoax' scenario whilst members run around for sources and you sit tight. I've seen it before and it bemuses me why people go out their way playing fetch

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

The first 2:30 of the vid showing Williams going in and out of the sleep stations was done with wires and a harness? Really?

I don't know if it would be impossible, maybe it would be possible with a combination of suspension and moving the structure around her.

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief

I have asked multiple times for people to post their estimate of the maximal width they see in the video. Extra weight opposed to what?

And you can't do this yourself because...?

As far as I know ESA uses an A300 to do zero gravity exercises.

Then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to get the information you need to prove whatever point it is your making.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to get the information you need to prove whatever point it is your making.

I already did and already said that I don't see any shot that wouldn't fit in the plane. People responded saying that it doesn't fit. My logical response is then tell me how wide you think the widest shot is in the vid.

a reply to: Kandinsky

I've been around long enough that I'm not playing fetch the ball for you. The video is there for you to search and I included times already.

So I should play fetch for you. You mentioned from 15:11 on. Quite some time later she decsends down a space as if she is being lowered in, is that what you refering to?