What did we get from the Space Shuttle?

[alexis1111]

If I recall the hype back in the days when they were launching the first shuttles they were supposed to open the doors of deep space for mankind and by implication become the foundation of space colonization efforts.

They were to ferry materials and business interests back and forth to near-earth space platforms from where deep space transports would relay traffic from there.

We have seen nothing of this.

People were predicting space shuttle launching pads in most countries of the civilized world. The only other country to seriously undertake a shuttle program were the Soviets who canned theirs after an unmanned maiden voyage.

The whole program smells of fraud.

Where is the compelling evidence that any space shuttle ever flew into space? How do we know if they did not secretly land at a remote location? How do we know for sure that the arriving shuttles are not coming from the back of a jetliner instead of space.

All the interior scenes of the so-called astronauts floating about in space aboard the shuttle could have been simulated with a zero g aircraft and filmed there instead.

How useful was the shuttle if they can close it down and not cause a bottleneck in commercial activity somewhere? If they were really using them to launch satellites then who picks up the slack? If they were so great and efficient and useful how could they possdibly close it down?

I think the digital age has given rise to a new breed of skeptics with the means to uncover these huge lies so better to consider their lucky multi-billion-dollar gains and get out of Dodge so-to-speak. Slowly get us accustomed to the fact they have known from the start that we can't travel into deep space.

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by alexis1111

If I recall the hype back in the days when they were launching the first shuttles they were supposed to open the doors of deep space for mankind and by implication become the foundation of space colonization efforts.

They were to ferry materials and business interests back and forth to near-earth space platforms from where deep space transports would relay traffic from there.

We have seen nothing of this.

We were also promised jetpacks & that everyone would be wearing tinfoil suits by 2001, that never happened either. The near earth platform is the ISS, and people and things have been ferried there by the shuttle.

People were predicting space shuttle launching pads in most countries of the civilized world. The only other country to seriously undertake a shuttle program were the Soviets who canned theirs after an unmanned maiden voyage.

Anyone can build a space programme. They just need the money. People like you have been whining for decades about the cost of it & you're annoyed because it didn't do more expensive stuff?

The whole program smells of fraud.

Getting to space is expensive. If you know a cheaper way to get there, call NASA.

Where is the compelling evidence that any space shuttle ever flew into space? How do we know if they did not secretly land at a remote location? How do we know for sure that the arriving shuttles are not coming from the back of a jetliner instead of space.

ffs. Really?

You could watch the shuttle launches live from on board cameras. You could track them in the sky using amateur equipment. There are hundreds of launch videos, like these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qWWgvzWHUs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qWWgvzWHUs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY-5nqCplg8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY-5nqCplg8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhuGwQq7qZk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhuGwQq7qZk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwfsFtpACFw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwfsFtpACFw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W4cfIyNvts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W4cfIyNvts

etc etc etc

All the interior scenes of the so-called astronauts floating about in space aboard the shuttle could have been simulated with a zero g aircraft and filmed there instead.

Nope, they couldn't. Just wrong. The most you get from a zero g aircraft is about 20 seconds. there are hours of uninterrupted footage from the shuttle and the ISS of zero g/micro-gravity footage.

How useful was the shuttle if they can close it down and not cause a bottleneck in commercial activity somewhere? If they were really using them to launch satellites then who picks up the slack? If they were so great and efficient and useful how could they possdibly close it down?

Hubble. Countless satellite emplacements. Satellite repairs & re-emplacements. Scientific experiments. GPS, communications & weather satellites all used it. Where would this place be without all those "UFO filmed from space shuttle" videos to debunk?

They were great and useful, but the re-usable part was the downfall. it cost so much to go through and check every part that it became totally uneconomic. Or you could not bother with all those checks and just pay for funerals. You choose. In the end it just cost too much so they canned it. You should be happy about that.

Who picks up the slack? The technology that has carried on doing things all along - single use rockets with a payload. NASA launched the JUNO probe heading for Jupiter this week on an Atlas rocket. The French, Chinese & Russians, Japanese and even India all have active space programmes that launch satellites & probes on a regular basis.

I think the digital age has given rise to a new breed of skeptics with the means to uncover these huge lies so better to consider their lucky multi-billion-dollar gains and get out of Dodge so-to-speak. Slowly get us accustomed to the fact they have known from the start that we can't travel into deep space.

I think the digital age has opened up tremendous libraries of information that are accessible to millions instead of just a few people at academic institutions. It's also allowed any moron with a webcam and a keyboard to not bother checking any of that information and just post their own badly researched bullshit to credulous fuckwits.

[alexis1111]

Originally Posted by moving finger

We were also promised jetpacks & that everyone would be wearing tinfoil suits by 2001, that never happened either.

The limitations of jetpacks have been known from the start. Anyone predicting widespread use of these for personal transportation was not realistic. Why would people be wearing tinfoil suits in 2001? You have a strange sense of humour.

The near earth platform is the ISS, and people and things have been ferried there by the shuttle.

Have you been there? Did you personally inspect the cargo bays of the rockets or vehicles said to be ferrying materials and personel to ISS?

Anyone can build a space programme. They just need the money.

Governments are not ordinary citizens. They print money, right? They are endlessly finding new cons to justify printing more. Try cashing in on a fake shuttle program without building some kind of facade to hide the con behind.

People like you have been whining for decades about the cost of it & you're annoyed because it didn't do more expensive stuff?

Actually I would be the whiner not content with the return on the investment. Isn't that the whole idea, spend to stimulate commerce and self sufficiency?

Getting to space is expensive. If you know a cheaper way to get there, call NASA.

Nasa did find a cheaper way, film studios and doctored pictures and testimonials. Problem is the saving of faking the space program did not come back to those paying for them.

You could watch the shuttle launches live from on board cameras.

Easiest thing to fake.

You could track them in the sky using amateur equipment. There are hundreds of launch videos, like these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qWWgvzWHUs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY-5nqCplg8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhuGwQq7qZk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwfsFtpACFw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W4cfIyNvts

etc etc etc

None of these videos prove that the space shuttle went anywhere beyond low earth orbit.

Nope, they couldn't. Just wrong. The most you get from a zero g aircraft is about 20 seconds. there are hours of uninterrupted footage from the shuttle and the ISS of zero g/micro-gravity footage.

They can take the zero-g plane into as many parabolic arcs as they need. What is this bs about limitations on time? "Uninterrupted," lol, how would you know?

Hubble.

I dont believe they ever put the Hubble into orbit. They are simulating its exploits with gigantic mountaintop-based high-tech optical telescopes.

These lying elites have all the money-grubbing imagination they need to note the improvements in earth based optical telescopes and fake a space based billion dollar bs super-telescope to take the credit for it's (mountaintop telescope actually capturing the images credited to Hubble) abilities and pay off bigtime for them to-boot. These liars know how to milk a scam for every opportunity angle.

Countless satellite emplacements.

Launched using conventional rockets.

Satellite repairs & re-emplacements.

BS top to bottom. Satellites are lanched in pairs because they cannot service them. When they get off course they are corrected by telemetry signals to small retro boosters.

Scientific experiments.

Name one that was a godsend to humanity. Just one.

GPS, communications & weather satellites all used it.

Thats what they say. Truth is they lied about the delivery vehicle.

Where would this place be without all those "UFO filmed from space shuttle" videos to debunk?

I have no time to waste on those deceptions. So obvious. If we cant go through the earth's magnetosphere they can't get in either.

They were great and useful, but the re-usable part was the downfall. it cost so much to go through and check every part that it became totally uneconomic.

Nasa has never been concerned about economics. They are a bottomless pit continually sucking public treasure into its vortex of lies. World-calss grifters that depend on the public schooled dumbed down masses to pull off their multi-billion dollar grifts. They made everyone dumb so they could appear smart.

Or you could not bother with all those checks and just pay for funerals. You choose. In the end it just cost too much so they canned it. You should be happy about that.

They canned it because it was getting too hard to keep a lid on the fallacy of the whole thing.

Who picks up the slack? The technology that has carried on doing things all along - single use rockets with a payload.

Since the delivery markets have been quiet on the issue sounds to me like the shuttle program closing is having no effect at all. Like it never did what they claimed.

NASA launched the JUNO probe heading for Jupiter this week on an Atlas rocket. The French, Chinese & Russians, Japanese and even India all have active space programmes that launch satellites & probes on a regular basis.

And public schools are running full speed across the planet removing kids from parents that dare spare their child the ordeal and lies. I see a connection there. The grifter that has a foothold on the body and minds of his marks to start with. Delivering BS to conditioned masses like those is the ultimate cakewalk.

I think the digital age has opened up tremendous libraries of information that are accessible to millions instead of just a few people at academic institutions.

The digital age has also ushered in near-magical means to fake stuff in the virtual mediums we consider reality these days.

It's also allowed any moron with a webcam and a keyboard to not bother checking any of that information and just post their own badly researched bullshit to credulous fuckwits.

Couldn't help yourself, eh? You almost composed a completely civilized post.
You need a human nature reality check. People lie, that is a fact of life. Big lies, I am told, are even easier to con people with.

I think you are suffering from the selective curiosity syndrome. Its common among plants and shills.

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by alexis1111

The limitations of jetpacks have been known from the start. Anyone predicting widespread use of these for personal transportation was not realistic. Why would people be wearing tinfoil suits in 2001? You have a strange sense of humour.

And you don't have one at all. Have you not seen 2001?

Have you been there? Did you personally inspect the cargo bays of the rockets or vehicles said to be ferrying materials and personel to ISS?

Have you? Have you personally been into space to prove what you're saying? Do you have any evidence at all to support what you're saying?

Governments are not ordinary citizens. They print money, right? They are endlessly finding new cons to justify printing more. Try cashing in on a fake shuttle program without building some kind of facade to hide the con behind.



Actually I would be the whiner not content with the return on the investment. Isn't that the whole idea, spend to stimulate commerce and self sufficiency?

Whether it was ever a valuable return on the investment is never going to be answered. For my money, it's worth it just for the photographs. TO call it fraud is to argue that there was nothing given in return. That isn't true.

Nasa did find a cheaper way, film studios and doctored pictures and testimonials. Problem is the saving of faking the space program did not come back to those paying for them.

Can you prove that? I'd bet my house that you can't. Speculation based on prejudice.

Easiest thing to fake.

Oh really? GO on then. How? Now prove that they actually were.

None of these videos prove that the space shuttle went anywhere beyond low earth orbit.

I never said they did and no-one has ever claimed that the shuttle ever went anywhere else. The shuttle is a low earth orbit craft, and was never meant to do anything else.

They can take the zero-g plane into as many parabolic arcs as they need. What is this bs about limitations on time? "Uninterrupted," lol, how would you know?

And how would you know? How many 20 seconds clips, with perfect continuity, would they need to fake a zero/micro-g environment? How did they do the space walks (don't embarrass yourself by saying it's a pool). Most people throw up. Find the aircraft they used with all the equipment set up, find the cameramen and the film editors.

I dont believe they ever put the Hubble into orbit. They are simulating its exploits with gigantic mountaintop-based high-tech optical telescopes.

These lying elites have all the money-grubbing imagination they need to note the improvements in earth based optical telescopes and fake a space based billion dollar bs super-telescope to take the credit for it's (mountaintop telescope actually capturing the images credited to Hubble) abilities and pay off bigtime for them to-boot. These liars know how to milk a scam for every opportunity angle.

Yeah whatever. Hubble takes photographs they can't on earth because of the limitations of our atmosphere and the fact that we're on a rotating planet. You're making the evidence fit your theory. You've decided the shuttle never left earth, so therefore the hubble never went there.

Launched using conventional rockets.

Many were. Many were also launched by the shuttle.

BS top to bottom. Satellites are lanched in pairs because they cannot service them. When they get off course they are corrected by telemetry signals to small retro boosters.

BS from top to bottom. They can service them and they have. They can be corrected by telemtry, but not if something needs fixing. Again, Hubble.

Name one that was a godsend to humanity. Just one.

Why does something have to spectacular to be important? Who knows what will be important in the future. Knowledge is important for its own sake, and anything that fills in a piece of the jigsaw is important. Just because the shuttle never invented velcro or teflon doesn't mean the scientific research into the behaviour of biological organisms and fluids in micro-g won;t be important at some point.

Thats what they say. Truth is they lied about the delivery vehicle.

Again, prove it. I have videos, photographs and mission reports to support my case. What do you have?

I have no time to waste on those deceptions. So obvious. If we cant go through the earth's magnetosphere they can't get in either.

Firstly, we can, and secondly, you have no sense of humour/

Nasa has never been concerned about economics.

Show me a government department that is, other than the one paying the bills. NASA's remit is to explore space. It wants the best budget it can to do that. "Hi, I'd like to explore space please, but really, I don;t want much money even tho it's really expensive, thanks".

They are a bottomless pit continually sucking public treasure into its vortex of lies. World-calss grifters that depend on the public schooled dumbed down masses to pull off their multi-billion dollar grifts. They made everyone dumb so they could appear smart.

NASA's responsible for Americans being stupid? I thought they did that all by themselves.

They canned it because it was getting too hard to keep a lid on the fallacy of the whole thing.

Whatever. Wrong. There was other stuff that the post didn't. I can't be bothered to rebut it. It's just paranoid drivel..

Couldn't help yourself, eh? You almost composed a completely civilized post.
You need a human nature reality check. People lie, that is a fact of life. Big lies, I am told, are even easier to con people with.

I think you are suffering from the selective curiosity syndrome. Its common among plants and shills.

Aaah the old shill bullshit. Always the first resort of someone who can't comprehend someone else's arguments. I come up with evidence, you come up with a load of invective and spleen about your tax dollars and assuming I'm an agent of your stupid bankrupt government. I love it when people call me that, it just confirms my opinion of them. I'll make the same offer to you as to every other one who's thrown that at me: you can have my house and all my money if you can find one shred of evidence that I am one. Go ahead. Knock yourself out.

You need a reality check - not everything out there is made up, you are in charge of your own destiny and it isn't anyone else's fault that you are sat at home pouring out bile on the internet instead of being in charge of something important. Selective curiosity is exactly the opposite of what I am suffering from. You're the one who doesn't want to open the box and look at the proof that will show you that your own arguments are wrong.

You're posting conspiracy by numbers. You don't like NASA, for some reason they are responsible for everything that's wrong with the world, and that means that anything they ever do must be bad. Don't worry about checking the evidence, or producing facts, gut feeling circular logic and intense paranoia will do just fine.

[alexis1111]

Originally Posted by moving finger

And you don't have one at all. Have you not seen 2001?

Makes no difference whether I saw 2001 or not the fact remains your so-called unfulfilled predictions analogy is defective.

Have you? Have you personally been into space to prove what you're saying? Do you have any evidence at all to support what you're saying?

The only ones that need to prove anything are the ones making the space shuttle claims.

Whether it was ever a valuable return on the investment is never going to be answered.

If the track record is any indication that question has been answered fully. Worthless BS.

For my money, it's worth it just for the photographs. TO call it fraud is to argue that there was nothing given in return. That isn't true.

You still have not provided us with the reasons you believe the photos said to have come from Hubble were not rather coming from mountaintop observatories on earth. You have never told us why you believe the earth telescopes incapable of taking those pictures.

Can you prove that? I'd bet my house that you can't. Speculation based on prejudice.

See my sig line. All I need to do is point out my belief that the original claims are bogus. Up to Nasa to back their claims not me.

Oh really? GO on then. How? Now prove that they actually were.

Film and Video fakery is as old as film and video.

I never said they did and no-one has ever claimed that the shuttle ever went anywhere else. The shuttle is a low earth orbit craft, and was never meant to do anything else.

In order to achieve low earth orbit they need an effective way of dissipating the heat of re-entry. The method they would have us believe they are using to sink all that heat in such a short re-entry interval is ludicrous. The craft would simply burn up. Also, air conditioning does not work in a vacuum to dissipate built up heat. There are so many things wrong with the shuttle claims.

And how would you know? How many 20 seconds clips, with perfect continuity, would they need to fake a zero/micro-g environment?

When you realize that it can be done you also realize the unlimited number of times you can do it.

How did they do the space walks (don't embarrass yourself by saying it's a pool).

You just embarrassed yourself by refuting that possibility.

Most people throw up.

For a while, They get over it.

Find the aircraft they used with all the equipment set up, find the cameramen and the film editors.

The "vomit comet." Equipping those with the necessary hardware is a no-brainer.

Yeah whatever. Hubble takes photographs they can't on earth because of the limitations of our atmosphere and the fact that we're on a rotating planet.

The earth based mountaintop observatories are located on mountaintops to defeat the lion's share of the artmospherics. Hubble is said to be in orbit meaning it rotates too. Are you claiming it is stationary?

You're making the evidence fit your theory.

Actually I am letting the government's knack for big lies set the groundwork as far as credibility goes and the contradictions within the claims take care of the rest. If it fits the theory its because the truth always makes more sense. Face it, the governing elites including your heros at Nasa are pathological liars and cheats.

You've decided the shuttle never left earth, so therefore the hubble never went there.

I believe the shuttles were lifting off unmanned by remote control and returning to a secret location before getting anywhere near space.

Many were. Many were also launched by the shuttle.

Now, how do you prove that?

BS from top to bottom. They can service them and they have. They can be corrected by telemtry, but not if something needs fixing. Again, Hubble.

I am familiar with those bogus claims. You still have not provided us with compelling reasons to believe a single word of the claims in that regard. Just you and Nasa saying so.

Why does something have to spectacular to be important?

Because the investment was spectacular.

Who knows what will be important in the future.

Certainly not those believing every fairy tale concocted by the grifters at Nasa. I see ocean colonization where Nasa worshippers wait for the fulfillment of Nasa's promise to open the doors of space to the ordinary man.

Knowledge is important for its own sake, and anything that fills in a piece of the jigsaw is important.

Knowing man's ability to lie bigtime is important for it's own sake too. The lies leave us with many puzzle pieces that dont fit.

Just because the shuttle never invented velcro or teflon doesn't mean the scientific research into the behaviour of biological organisms and fluids in micro-g won;t be important at some point.

How long do you plan on waiting, another 50 years, lol?

Again, prove it. I have videos, photographs and mission reports to support my case. What do you have?

I have elementary physics. Elementary physics tell us that photos and videos can be doctored and that air conditioning does not work in a vacuum.

Firstly, we can, and secondly, you have no sense of humour/

What do you mean? I'm laughing as I post. I crack up watching nearsighted blind faith fools defend the ludicrous claims of Nasa.

Show me a government department that is, other than the one paying the bills. NASA's remit is to explore space. It wants the best budget it can to do that. "Hi, I'd like to explore space please, but really, I don;t want much money even tho it's really expensive, thanks".

Even if you had the money you would not be allowed to launch. The feds would invoke national security protocols to keep your two feet on the ground. They can't afford people discovering what happened to the first Soviet cosmonauts launched into low earth orbit. None came back alive. Roasted in their capsules when the air conditioning failed.

NASA's responsible for Americans being stupid? I thought they did that all by themselves.

You think Americans attend public schools voluntarily? They attend on the threat of termination of parental rights. Thats how bad people like Nasa and her tribal affiliates need to keep the human cattle ignorant and buying every bread or circus out there.

Whatever. Wrong. There was other stuff that the post didn't. I can't be bothered to rebut it. It's just paranoid drivel..

But you can be "bothered" enough to tell us you can't be "bothered." Always time for the trivial and gratuitous characterizations though, eh?

Aaah the old shill bullshit. Always the first resort of someone who can't comprehend someone else's arguments.

Could also be the truth. Ever contemplated that possibility?

I come up with evidence, you come up with a load of invective and spleen about your tax dollars and assuming I'm an agent of your stupid bankrupt government.

What evidence? You would have us believe humans went into low earth rbit without airconditioning or the means to dissipate the enourmous heat of re-entry. Tell us how you came to believe the claim that Nasa had solved the heat problems of re-entry with special heat tiles. Tell us why you believe the coolant onboard would not be overwhelmed in microseconds of re-entry sinking the heat experienced by the tiles.

I love it when people call me that, it just confirms my opinion of them.

I love it when people believe Nasa claims because it demonstrates my point about why public schools were designed and how well they are doing their job of making hopeless deep space romantics of the masses. The age of the critical mind suppression.

I'll make the same offer to you as to every other one who's thrown that at me: you can have my house and all my money if you can find one shred of evidence that I am one. Go ahead. Knock yourself out.

I take it you hear the accusation often. I have read a few of your posts. You cant be that rich if you need to shill the shuttle to make ends meet.

You need a reality check - not everything out there is made up, you are in charge of your own destiny and it isn't anyone else's fault that you are sat at home pouring out bile on the internet instead of being in charge of something important.

Most stuff can be verified in person. Try that with the claims of Nasa, good luck. Just like any court of law that decides cases without having witnessed the incident first hand we must also weigh the evidence and draw the appropriate conclusions. The main question to ask about Nasa claim is how can anything so contradictory possibly be true.

Selective curiosity is exactly the opposite of what I am suffering from.

You dont seem too curious about heat dissipation in a vacuum and you never once invoked the Soviet Buran shuttle to make a point. Could that be because Buran is a prime example of the uselessness of a fake space shuttle.

You're the one who doesn't want to open the box and look at the proof that will show you that your own arguments are wrong.

I have done my homework. Why dont you go do yours now?

You're posting conspiracy by numbers.

If that was true you would not give me itemized answers my posts. You would laugh and walk away.

You don't like NASA, for some reason they are responsible for everything that's wrong with the world, and that means that anything they ever do must be bad.

I dont hate Nasa, I pity them. Just like I pity those that throw their kids on the curb at five years old so the worst scum on earth can pick them up and recycle their minds and destroy their bodies.

Don't worry about checking the evidence, or producing facts, gut feeling circular logic and intense paranoia will do just fine.

You sure know how to ramble on without saying much to support your beliefs. Just blind faith invitations to believe photos and videos cannot be altered convincingly and of course the standard "Nasa is too cool to lie about anything" idolatry.

[octopus]

Watch this documentary (Weaponization of Space) to find out what the space programme is really about:

UFO Documentary Weaponization of Space Part 1.mp4 - YouTube

UFO Documentary Weaponization of Space Part 1.mp4 - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uycv8XawbNk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uycv8XawbNk

[octopus]

The space shuttles have been very useful indeed - but unfortunately not for us mere mortals:

Dr. Bernhardt has pioneered the use of chemical releases to study the ionosphere. His ionospheric modification experiments have been monitored with Incoherent Scatter Radar (ISR) systems around the world and with in situ plasma probes provided by NRL's Plasma Physics Division. The 1992 NRL Ionospheric Focused Heating (IFH) experiment, combined chemical release and high-power radio wave technology to produce the highest level of plasma turbulence ever measured with the Arecibo ISR. Dr. Bernhardt has conducted over eight experiments from 1985 to the present, using the Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuver Subsystem (OMS) engines, to modify the ionosphere with high-speed exhaust injections into the upper atmosphere. The results of these dedicated engine burns have been recorded using the VHF and UHF radars at Arecibo, Puerto Rico; Kwajalein, Marshall Islands; Millstone Hill, Massachusetts; and Jicamarca, Peru. Currently, Dr. Bernhardt is the principal investigator for the Charged Aerosol Release Experiment (CARE) program, designed to study the scattering of radar from electrons in the vicinity of charged particulates that form artificial "dusty plasmas."

http://www.nrl.navy.mil/pao/pressRel...=2006&R=17-06r

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by alexis1111

They can take the zero-g plane into as many parabolic arcs as they need. What is this bs about limitations on time? "Uninterrupted," lol, how would you know?

Do you know what a parabolic arc actually does when they induce zero-g?

The payoff is on the dives and rises, they pull 1.8-2.0 times gravity. Pretty noticeable when filming a 30 minute ISS weightless sequence, don't ya think

The limitation on the weightless time is caused by the maximum curve possible given the speed of the ascending craft, 25 seconds at most. At the end of the weightless curve, everybody is pulled down at almost twice their normal weight, in a non 'ISS floating' way.



Whoops, there goes another crackpot theory down the bog.

[alexis1111]

Originally Posted by truegroup

Do you know what a parabolic arc actually does when they induce zero-g?

The airplane reaches a zenith in it's climb and starts arcing back down creating the artificial weightlessness. Pretty straight forward. So, the plane goes up and down all day filming weightlessness until the planes must start climbing again to film some more. Clips are seemlessly joined to create what appears to the untrained eye to be a continuous uninterrupted film.

The payoff is on the dives and rises, they pull 1.8-2.0 times gravity. Pretty noticeable when filming a 30 minute ISS weightless sequence, don't ya think

They dont film during rise times and fall times. The interval between weight and weightlessness is the time filmed.

The limitation on the weightless time is caused by the maximum curve possible given the speed of the ascending craft, 25 seconds at most. At the end of the weightless curve, everybody is pulled down at almost twice their normal weight, in a non 'ISS floating' way.

At the end of weightlessness they are no longer filming, the camera is paused and filming resumes at the zenith of the next climb and arc. You actingh dumb on purpose?

Whoops, there goes another crackpot theory down the bog.

More like another attempt at defending the indefensible by redirecting with irrelevant blather.

[alexis1111]

Originally Posted by octopus

The space shuttles have been very useful indeed - but unfortunately not for us mere mortals:

"Dr. Bernhardt has pioneered the use of chemical releases to study the ionosphere. His ionospheric modification experiments have been monitored with Incoherent Scatter Radar (ISR) systems around the world and with in situ plasma probes provided by NRL's Plasma Physics Division. The 1992 NRL Ionospheric Focused Heating (IFH) experiment, combined chemical release and high-power radio wave technology to produce the highest level of plasma turbulence ever measured with the Arecibo ISR. Dr. Bernhardt has conducted over eight experiments from 1985 to the present, using the Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuver Subsystem (OMS) engines, to modify the ionosphere with high-speed exhaust injections into the upper atmosphere. The results of these dedicated engine burns have been recorded using the VHF and UHF radars at Arecibo, Puerto Rico; Kwajalein, Marshall Islands; Millstone Hill, Massachusetts; and Jicamarca, Peru. Currently, Dr. Bernhardt is the principal investigator for the Charged Aerosol Release Experiment (CARE) program, designed to study the scattering of radar from electrons in the vicinity of charged particulates that form artificial "dusty plasmas." "


http://www.nrl.navy.mil/pao/pressRel...=2006&R=17-06r

Two important things missing here: why you dont believe that experiment was pure BS and why do you believe the only delivery vehicle to perform the task could only be a space shuttle.

In other words where is the compelling evidence in your post?

[alexis1111]

Originally Posted by octopus

Watch this documentary (Weaponization of Space) to find out what the space programme is really about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uycv8XawbNk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uycv8XawbNk

I dont see a thing in that video that compels me to believe the space shuttle was anything more than another billion dollar ripoff. Can you elaborate and expose the portion of that video in your own words that confirms to you the authenticity of the space shuttle program?

[alexis1111]

PSNs (pro shuttle nutters) will tell us that the films of the astronots in the shuttle are "uninterrupted" and therefore authentic. What they never tell you is that within this "uninterrupted" film there exists many scene perpective switches. Meaning that within the "uninterrupted film there are many times when the viewer is switched between perspectives of a given scene. These would be perfect transitions to seemlessly paste together all the zero-g moments filmed in the zero-g simulator plane.

So, the zero g plane reaches the summit of the arc and filming starts. As they approach the end of the arc the film is paused. Gravity comes back and the actornauts remain in their positions to resume filming on the next arc. Simple as pie. They have shown us convincing weightlessness scenes in hollywood movies portraying space travel. No interruptions there either. Seemless transitions.

[pri01]

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=935

Link to very informative forum where individual researchers show remarkable similarities between apparent shuttle launches over the years.

[alexis1111]

One of the rarest moments of truth in the entire space programs of the world:

The Soviets admitting that the space dog Leica's air conditioning had failed.

Confirming that air conditioning does not work in a vacuum.

[alexis1111]

Originally Posted by pri01

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=935

Link to very informative forum where individual researchers show remarkable similarities between apparent shuttle launches over the years.

In my estimation the US masses are being charged billions for unmanned empty shells that look like a space shuttle mounted onto a set of delivery rockets that will take it into the uppermost reaches of the atmosphere to be burned up on re-entry. The returning shuttles are no doubt launched from the back of a 747 airliner and many are probably the same ones used over and over to simulate the return from space.

At least the Soviets ripped off the masses over there for a space shuttle program that ended with an unmanned maiden voyage and the whole show was shut down. They robbed the treasury of the Soviet Union and could not be bothered pretending it works.

The space shuttle is an elaborate set of rockets with a sexy shaped winged craft designed to be launched once and burn up in the atmosphere. The exhausted rocket shells are dumped in the ocean and recycled.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by alexis1111

Clips are seemlessly joined to create what appears to the untrained eye to be a continuous uninterrupted film.

Yeah, seamlessly to not just your 'untrained' and highly suspect eye, but to trained eyes and every single normal rational human being without a tin foil hat!

Spot the non-join!

Discovery Crew Enters International Space Station - YouTube

Discovery Crew Enters International Space Station - YouTube

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

You actingh dumb on purpose?

You can talk. This is one of THE most stupid conspiracy theories imaginable. Every single person who has ever been on board, every piece of video, every photograph, every experiment, every piece of footage with lengthy periods of weightlessness shot onboard a craft way bigger than a frickin' airplane., every technical person who built the things, every person who was involved in it, the team who built the 'pretend' ones, the team who dropped the 'pretend' ones. There's more, so much more.

Headachingly moronic.

More like another attempt at defending the indefensible by redirecting with irrelevant blather.

No, your theory is shite. You need to get out more.

You are in good company though, one of the other DIF members did a thread similar at JREF, even he admitted it was a bit crazy. But you, defending it as though you have the slightest clue what you are suggesting??

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=209184



Laters - away from the mad thread.

[alexis1111]

Originally Posted by truegroup

Yeah, seamlessly to not just your 'untrained' and highly suspect eye, but to trained eyes and every single normal rational human being without a tin foil hat!

Spot the non-join!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

What part of "can't see the transitions with the naked eye" dont you get? You put up a video to make my point.

You can talk. This is one of THE most stupid conspiracy theories imaginable.

I see you haven't lost your knack for civilized dialogue.

Every single person who has ever been on board, every piece of video, every photograph, every experiment, every piece of footage with lengthy periods of weightlessness shot onboard a craft way bigger than a frickin' airplane., every technical person who built the things, every person who was involved in it, the team who built the 'pretend' ones, the team who dropped the 'pretend' ones. There's more, so much more.

Drop the drama queen act, the whole industry is tightly compartmentalized and all working within are bound to secrecy via draconian national security protocols. The hoaxster's paradise in fact.

Headachingly moronic.

The headache you feel is your subconscious mind rejecting the scripts you have agreed to play out online.

No, your theory is shite. You need to get out more.

How is getting out more going to give me access to Nasa installations to make an independent audit of the scams spawned there? Until then the contradictory claims will be the best argument against the claims. Elementary physics can be examined with books and the internet. No need to go anywhere to smell the rat in Nasa claims.

You are in good company though, one of the other DIF members did a thread similar at JREF, even he admitted it was a bit crazy.

Knee-jerk controlled opposition. People pretending to agree with a basic tenet but discrediting themselves publicly.

But you, defending it as though you have the slightest clue what you are suggesting??

I am not defending it I am exposing it. Repairing damage done by public school consentration camps. What about you, believer in anything proven pathological liars claim, what's your excuse for being so trusting in world-class bullshitters like those? I dont think a brainwashed drone of your caliber will ever be cause for me to reverse a well researched conclusion. You dont do in-depth research. Your form of misdirection has a very narrow bandwidth.

Laters - away from the mad thread.

Madness is paying billions and getting nothing in return. Public school-induced madness. Divide, dumb-down and conquer maxim at its most glorious hour.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by alexis1111

What part of "can't see the transitions with the naked eye" dont you get? You put up a video to make my point.

Errrr, the bit where we see significantly more than 25 seconds of weightlessness - hmmm - 8 minutes 30 seconds continuous weightlessness with no splits and no 2g from exiting a parabolic arc. You are totally clueless.

Maybe you didn't even watch it.

Point out the splits for everybody, why don't you?

The headache you feel is your subconscious mind rejecting the scripts you have agreed to play out online.

Nope, it's your crushing inability to see reality.

Knee-jerk controlled opposition. People pretending to agree with a basic tenet but discrediting themselves publicly.

Haha, Anders? Did you here that? Somebody thinks you are an agent of disinfo

I am not defending it I am exposing it.

No. Really you aren't. You are demonstrating the worst side of this forum, where you pluck something from your backside and put another ridiculous conspiracy theory on the table.

[alexis1111]

Originally Posted by truegroup

Errrr, the bit where we see significantly more than 25 seconds of weightlessness - hmmm - 8 minutes 30 seconds continuous weightlessness with no splits and no 2g from exiting a parabolic arc. You are totally clueless.

Maybe you didn't even watch it.

Point out the splits for everybody, why don't you?

That one looks like the wires were blue screened out of the shots. Naturally you think faking zero-g in the parabolic arc eliminates the need to use wires for other fakes. Holywood also have simulated zero g in their films and many surpass the parabolic arc durations you put up from wiki. You saying the actors really went into deep space to film those shots because cutting and pasting videos is too hard? Because wires are too obvious?

Nope, it's your crushing inability to see reality.

Reality includes the explicit understanding that deception is a very human trait and reality is acknowledging the existance of global affiliations of affluent liars that have honed their skills of deception for centuries. In this respect you are alienated from that reality. You have an unjustified faith in every word pronounced by leagues of powerful liars. Crushed under layer upon layer of blind faith. You cant even roll up your sleeves and tackle the most fundamental flaw in your belief, the flaw of non-existant air conditioning in space. Why dont you explain how that works.

Haha, Anders? Did you here that? Somebody thinks you are an agent of disinfo

Anders is not dysinfo. He just hasn't got enough sensation in his legs from sitting on the fence so long to come down on either side

No. Really you aren't. You are demonstrating the worst side of this forum, where you pluck something from your backside and put another ridiculous conspiracy theory on the table.

Pretty wild imagining the same people capable of lying for just about anything else also telling lies about the space shuttle. Everyone knows the governing elites have limits to the numbers of big lies they can tell and get away with, right?

They lied about the Nazi holocaust, they lied about commercially-viable nuclear energy production, they lied about national sovereignty and wars, they lied about atom bombs and moonlandings and every deep space exploit but they would never dare lie about space shuttles, no siree.

[alexis1111]

Recap:

spacewalks can be filmed in swimming pools
space cockpit and capsule weightlessness can be simulated using wires and blue/green composite or by filming in the zero-g aircraft and assembling the perspective shots into one "uninterrupted" video.