There's something fishy going on in the International Space Station

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by Scott, Feb 24, 2021.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Descartes

    Descartes Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    422
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Scott, why don't you get back on topic before the moderator shuts this thread down. It would be a shame since the ISS anomalies are worthy of a good discussion. If you want to talk about the Chinese spacewalk, why don't youi do it in the appropriate thread. Don't fall for Beta's diversionary tactics. That's his goal.
     
  2. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I invited him to go to that thread but he refused.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...l-space-station.585456/page-2#post-1072478165

    Ok Betamax. If you want to respond to my last post, please do so on this thread.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...e-spacewalk-was-faked.578673/#post-1072487987
     
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.

    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.

    There's also this plausible scenario.
    (from post #1)
    -----------------------------------------------------
    There's a theory that the real inside of the ISS (International Space Station) is very different than what we're being shown and that they're doing a lot of military-related stuff there so they have to show us a fake scenario of what is going on there so that part is being faked.
    -----------------------------------------------------


    *
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ers-are-corrupt.441261/page-2#post-1072215068
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2021
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The reverse is true. Did you send out for reinforcements?

    Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)

    12. Credibility Referbacks: When this hopeless individual has no answers he often resorts to just one liners concerning previous bullshit "Credibility Tests".

    "You've already said some pretty lame things so your judgement is obviously flawed."

    "....said the Man who tried to obfuscate the clear evidence of the Chinese Spacewalk"

    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.


    When somebody like you makes such claims They can be dismissed. Somebody who resorts to complete gibberish to explain away the unexplainable, somebody who raises thread after thread on forum after forum and ignores every single response, all whilst maintaining that, as a layman, ignorant in every single thing they discuss for some reason they must always be correct. Your observations and replies are feeble cut and pasted spam.
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A quite ludicrous suggestion. The actual real situation wasn't even considered by you. There are no anomalies, these are the observaations of extremely ignorant conspiracy theorists - most of whom do this because they are Flat Earth lunatics who want to disprove space travel.

    No matter how many times it is pointed out, NASA do not control the ISS, it is owned by numerous countries who operate it in unison as a scientific environment.

    No they aren't. Apollo wasn't a hoax.


    Truly idiotic circular reasoning. Normal people who have such thoughts quickly dismiss them as nonsensical. You spew them out as though they have some sort of merit.

    The "anomalies" which aren't anomalies are all easily debunked, showing they weren't anomalies in the first place. Only the incredibly foolish find "anomalies" and these foolish people already believe that NASA is the source of all evil.

    Really it is. I wonder what makes your brain work, that is so absurd it is the sort of gibberish that people snigger about behind your back.

    Nothing you have ever postulated falls into the "plausible" category.

    One of the dumbest theories ever made. None of the "fake" crap stands up to scrutiny.

    ISS - International Space Station - Inside ISS - Tour - Q&A - HD - YouTube
    ONE OF THE MOST DETAILED ISS TOUR!!! - YouTube
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2021
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You ridiculous joke.

    Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)

    5. Miscellaneous: ".anyone who sees it will see that he's just a paid sophist."

    This is probably the worst one of all. For this enormous diversionary statement, he gets to ignore every single thing written by an expert in almost every aspect of the Apollo Missions. He gets to ignore a concise website detailing debunks for almost all his total crap. He gets to ignore every post made where he always get his ass handed to him. The basis for this is his "credibility test".

    Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)

    12. Credibility Referbacks: When this hopeless individual has no answers he often resorts to just one liners concerning previous bullshit "Credibility Tests".

    "You've already said some pretty lame things so your judgement is obviously flawed."

    You really are so terribly afraid to answer posts and debate honestly. What a pathetic response with your repeated spam cut and post responses.
     
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's an old video I'd forgotten about.

    Why Are Astronauts (still) lying?


    We never see stars in footage of spacewalks. I don't know anything about photography but there are contradictions in what astronauts say. Some say they don't see stars and some say they do. Start listening at the 4:45 time mark.
     
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Get a life.

    Are you suggesting we should? Would you like this idiotic claim explained yet again?

    Then google it!

    No there are not!

    Some have not dark adapted, have light in their near field, far field, peripheral vision, have highly reflective surfaces in their vision, have a great big Earth-shine in their DIRECT vision!

    Find me the source for that quote. It isn't impossible if he does it quickly before the Earth light swamps his retina.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2021
  10. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's some more.

    Astronaut visits SA after SpaceShipOne trip
    http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Astronaut-visits-SA-after-SpaceShipOne-trip.html
    (excerpt)
    --------------------------------------------------------
    "Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch-black and seeing stars appear while it is day time is absolutely mind-blowing."
    --------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to NASA scientists,
    Astronauts Can See Stars!

    http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Astro-Nuts-see-stars.html


    Some astronauts say they've seen stars and some say they haven't.
     
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Moronic. Twenty years of this incredibly ignorant garbage. Nothing whatsoever to do with the ISS. I mean this isn't even a thing. Different conditions, different intent, just pure hogwash. None of the astronauts say they didn't see stars. Just not at times when conditions weren't favorable!

    Find me the source for that quote. It isn't impossible if he does it quickly before the Earth light swamps his retina.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2021
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This guy is a pro-Apollo sophist. Evidently they weren't very organized when they were preparing their sophistry.

    Can you see stars from space and the moon?



    NASA's Big Lie: You can't see stars in space
     
  13. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't even try to obfuscate this Betamax. It's simply too clear. You might as well try to convince people that a picture of a chicken is really a picture of a giraffe.

    Dr.Edgar Mitchell sees STARS Apollo Moon Trip




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

    Here's another.

    Astronaut James Reilly Describes Seeing Stars in Space
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2021
  14. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OMG, this crap has been obliterated countless times.

    Summarizing the points raised in your first 2 batshit videos:
    1. deGrasse Tyson is correct. Stars are visible from the lunar surface in daylight.
    2. Armstrong was not lying when he said they were never able to see stars on the surface.
    3. The ISS are perfectly correct, stars would be clearly visible looking out from the Earth.
    4. There are 2 MASSIVE differences between orbit and the lunar surface - the damn lunar surface reflecting Sunlight and Earthlight, and the wearing of triple visors.

    Key problems viewing stars from the Moon on Apollo 11 involved:
    1. Intent to do so. This was a totally task driven single EVA almost down to the minute, there was no time for star gazing.
    2. Major light reflections from the surface, the LM and the other astronaut.
    3. Three layers of visors, including the gold visor which would block every star completely on its own.
    4. The astronauts spent almost the entire EVA (apart from when in the LM shade) with their gold visors down - and busy.
    5. To view stars in those circumstances requires shading the eyes (including peripheral light) for several minutes to dark adapt the eyes, raise the gold visor and you would then see stars.

    There is no "obfuscation" going on here, you have the logic of a child! You aren't the spokesperson for "people" and they are perfectly able to understand that variable circumstances and intent are the issue.

    Summarizing the points raised in your second 2 batshit videos:
    1. Mitchell is correct. Stars are visible from the Command Module window - they used the damn things to navigate corrections!
    2. He says quite specifically, when the Sun, the Moon and the Earth are not in view every couple of minutes, they are quite a spectacle(28 seconds on the video).
    3. He says he had time on his hands on the way back - leading to the conclusion that he had intent to view the stars and dark adapt his eyes accordingly (maybe even with the cabin lights dimmed to augment this).
    4. There is no contradiction from the ISS astronaut, stars are perfectly visible on the ISS - in the right circumstances (dimmed light and away from Earth glare).
    5. FFS - he even fills in the gap for the hard of understanding! At 48 seconds on a spacewalk, "you have that 1 or 2 opportunities where you can let your eyes adjust".

    This is just pathetic.

    Find me the source for that Russian quote! It isn't impossible if he does it quickly before the Earth light swamps his retina.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2021
  15. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2023
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "I haven't had time to watch any yet but I'm posting them anyway. There might be some straw man arguments in there."

    Has anyone heard anything more foolhardy than that? Basically, "oh look, I found more batshit". No science, no method, no commentary, no rebuttal.
     
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's another video in which a method of faking weightlessness is described. It's alleged that it's being used to make us think those people we are told are in the space station are really on Earth.

    NASA and Augmented Virtual Reality
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are we done with the debunked-to-death "stars"?
     
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Uhuh. Do you think this is what they are doing?



    Watch it give it careful thought. Now seriously are you suggesting that is "augmented virtual reality"? Are you!?
     
  22. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That footage looks like it was taken in real zero-G but there seem to be some clear anomalies in other footage. That's why I entitled this thread,
    "There's something fishy going on in the International Space Station" instead of, "The international Space Station is Fake". Please address the alleged anomalies in the video in post #94 including the one at the end where the astronaut seems to be handling an object that isn't there.
     
  23. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've explained previous "anomalies" and you have totally ignored them!

    I am not going to address his bare assertion waffle! The ISS has been operating with this same streaming capability, long before these technological advancements!

    Number 1: She grabs a soft toy from "nowhere". The suggestion about the "only way" this can be done is a ludicrous lie. Unless one is living in pre-digital era, this is childs-play! It is so simple it is unfathomable how you cannot know it. The live stream puts a simple overlay / masking section in, that is the area where the toy is located, then streams the area without the toy, adds a flashy effect and then they remove it. It was always there! It's no different to all the live writing on news transmissions or the little symbols that pop up.
    Watch THIS for 20 seconds.
    Number 2: Is a pathetic claim about a "missing finger". This is a digital glitch, these weird things occur all the time on TV and often have select people bloviating about it. This is caused by any number of reasons, google it if you need to understand - digital artifacts.
    Number 3: Just nonsense about her thin necklace. CLEARLY this is not crisp HD. This is a heavily compressed piece of footage and it is an issue relating to definition!
    Number 4: "Hands fused" same as number 3! How can anyone not see this?
    Number 5: This is pathetic, a screen message says he is wearing "V.R. contacts"! Quite clearly he is making this crap up. The footage is not even close to HD, this is blurred undefined and caused by compression.
    [​IMG]

    But let's do another screenshot just after showing his total deception! ow the eyes look much more normal albeit still BLURRED!
    [​IMG]

    Number 6: "Software glove" - bare assertion nonsense! It's a digital artifact. If anyone thinks this is a glove(below) then there is no hope!
    [​IMG]

    Number 7: Tim Peake's hand. Bare assertion lie - digital artifact.
    Number 8: Tim Peake's hand/microphone. Bare assertion lie - digital artifact.
    Number 9: A bubble. This one is really quite annoying where this youtuber says "now we have the technology to do this" on a piece of footage from 2015! It is an absurd claim in its own right. There are other pieces of footage massively more complex and longer with water bubbles. Nothing to address!

    Number 10: Some crap about a royal screwup where one of the astronauts is simply pulling THE SHIRT (not an invisible wire)! to assist his colleague. In zero g it is easy to move in an unwanted direction and in this case he is very slightly drifting off camera. I find this one particularly pathetic.
    Number 11: Astronaut goes by in the background, narrator adds the lie that his "harness hasn't been masked out". That would be an absolutely ludicrous place to put any harness for starters.
    Number 12: Now this one disproves number 11, since we see the same astronaut go by the opposite way but with the same "masking malfunction"? Yeah right!

    The final clip has the narrator giving his deceptive description and intro to what you are seeing, paving the way for the auto-suggestion to those who are easily led. He loops a section of the video out of context and fails to show the whole section.

    So what is really happening here? I have no idea. I do know this, the idea being presented to you is idiotic conjecture that makes no sense at all. I also know this, the deceptive youtuber has failed to give a single link and time stamp to his video sources, making it nigh on impossible to go find the original transmission clip and look for some context!
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2024
  24. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @Scott I spent 30 minutes looking at your useless video. I itemized the issues and explained what each were. You have failed to even acknowledge my response.

    Why should anyone ever respond to you when you continue to do this?
     
  25. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They look like real anomalies to me but I'm just a layman. I'm just posting stuff so it an be discussed.

    The viewers can watch the video in post #94 and your analyses of the alleged anomalies and come to their own conclusions.
     

Share This Page