Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Is NASA Faking Spacewalks Too?


Cosmored
 Share

Recommended Posts

In these two videos what looks like air bubbles can be seen rising.

Go down about a third of the way in this link...

http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo3.htm

...to where it says, "APOLLO 9: Dave scott performs Extra Vehicular Activities LAVA # : LV-1998-00030.mov

The astronaut is unusually flexible compared to today's shuttle astronauts on EVAs; the Apollo suit does not appear to have bearings at the joints like the space shuttle extra vehicular suits. The experimental thermal samples flutter and follow non-linear curved paths, as if under the influence of or affected by atmospheric drag and turbulence. ".

That looks pretty suspicious.

I have to post this in segments as there's a special restriction on my account.

continued...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Waspie_Dwarf

    3

  • the_UNKNOWN_DEAD

    6

  • Agent X

    6

  • Cosmored

    5

...continued

I've seen long footage of zero-gravity so I don't doubt that they've acually made it into low earth orbit. Maybe they're faking some of this stuff to save money. I wonder if they fake space walks because of micro-meteorites.

The Chinese obviously faked their spacewalk...

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE

continued...

Edited by Cosmored
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think every piece of debris that floats around during a space walk is an air bubble?

If space walks are faked, how was the Hubble telescope repaired? Or are all the astronomers using it in on some vast hoax?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as the Hubble telescope because we don't have the technology to make such a thing.

/sarcasm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as the Hubble telescope because we don't have the technology to make such a thing.

/sarcasm

Where did those damn pictures come from then lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did those damn pictures come from then lol

Aliens, fcol.

:devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the Apollo suit does not appear to have bearings at the joints like the space shuttle extra vehicular suits.

...and that is, of course, incorrect, but your on a roll, so why stop now? :)

edited to add clavius link...

Edited by the_UNKNOWN_DEAD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was looking through my telescope the other night when this none existant big thing went past SUPPOSEDLY called the ISS which cant be there at all as its faked and with no spacewalks it couldnt of been made so it must of been a conspiracy weather balloon in the shape of the ISS to fool people and to it is strapped jets to make it go really fast ............................................. oooooooooo crap im watching satalite TV how as if by magic as there is no satalites.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhh come on us humans being so curious would not not do a spacewalk this is just silly water in zero g turns into globules and out in space it turns to ice so water vapour floating around would look like bubbles, anything liquid that turns to ice would look like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheesh... next thing you know someone will be saying that huge tanks filled with superfluid helium were used to "fake" the spacewalks... :unsure2:

:rolleyes:

Cz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jarrah White discusses a possible fake spacewalk in this video at the 4:45 time mark.

He discusses another one in this video at the 7:45 time mark.

I watched the whole thing a year or so ago and there is more stuff scattered throughout the series about fakery in earth orbit. I wish I'd saved the time marks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just found this. It looks like the Soviets may have been doing some faking too.

Start watching at the 6:48 time mark.

This continues into part 11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to point out the obvious; Saying that something "looks faked" because you believe it's faked doesn't cut the mustard (ie, such is not actual evidence).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jarrah White

I stopped reading your post right there.

Anyone ignorant enough to actually think Jarrah White is a valuable source of credible information is not worth the time it will take to read the rest of the post or watch the video and is either:

A: brain damaged (and I don't really think you are, although I admit I have been wrong about things like this before)

B: even more ignorant about the subject matter than Jarrah White has been proven so many times to be

In this case, I'm leaning more towards the B option, based solely on the fact that you have a tendency (oh, alright, we'll call it what it really is, an obsession) to provide absolutely NO credible information based on nothing but misunderstanding, supposition and apparently crappy sources, have consistently shown little to no understanding of the topic, and constantly demonstrate completely undeveloped debate skills.

So just that we're clear... I don't think you're brain damaged (yet), nor am I saying that you are, but I do think you just don't have enough knowledge about this subject to know that Jarrah White has had every single one of his ludicrous claims debunked, and it has been shown that he is willfully ignorant to an extreme, and is definitely NOT a credible, reliable or even believable source of information.

Cz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

CZ, whilst I understand your feelings on Jarrah White, your post is perilously close to a personal attack or can be interpreted as a comment designed to provoke, bait or annoy. If you continue to walk a tight rope eventually you will fall off. For your own sake I suggest you return to level ground in future posts. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cosmored...will you be admitting the mistake I pointed out to you, or will you simply ignore and "press on".

Not that it matters one way or the other...just curious to see if you can take responsibility for your errors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounded weird first but now I am thinking about it…there are possibilities…any thing can be faked in hidden orbits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

…any thing can be faked in hidden orbits.

Just how do you "hide" something that is in orbit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to point out the obvious; Saying that something "looks faked" because you believe it's faked doesn't cut the mustard (ie, such is not actual evidence).

I say something similar to anybody who claims that something is a fake.

For example, people who claim the Patterson (bigfoot) film claim it's a fakes just because it looks like one.

IThe claim of fakery needs to be examined as closesly as the claim of it being real. NBecausel just making a claim of fakery is just a cop out.

Not, that doesn't mean the subject in question is not a fake of some sort or is automatically real. It's just that the same standards of examining evidence should be applied to all claims.

Edited by Agent X
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the same standards of examining evidence should be applied to all claims.

Once again, (say it all together now), this is just another transparent attempt to shift the burden of proof. There is a reason that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be considered a mainstream idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it is not.

Claim of a fake without evidence that is is just another claim.

And anybody who makes a positive claim has to back their assertions up with hard evidence.

Otherwise, you've got nothing but a claim. And all positive claims are like elbows.

It does not automatically say that the subject in question must be real if the claim of fakery is not.

And a claim of any certain subject being a fake is also an extraordinary claim.

For example, the moon landing is a hoax thread. That's an extraordinary claim and is no different than something like a Bigfoot film must be a fake just because it looks like one.

Those claims are no different.

And are both just cop outs.

For example of the Patterson film, in order to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is faked, you must have the Bigfoot suit in question and there must be DNA evidence inside from a human to prove that it was worn by a human.

But hey, if it looks like a fake it must absolutely be a fake.

So I guess because The Hubble Telescope looks like a fake it must be a fake.

Edited by Agent X
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously NASA (The USA Space Agency) Jaxa (The Japanese Space Agency) ESA(The European Space Agency), ISO (The Indian Space Agency), ect, are all faking all of their space missions and we actually do live on a flat disc with heaven above, and turtles below.

They artificial satellites you can view with your naked eye, or viewed in better detail with a telescope are actually planes flying over head, which then drop down as they approach the edge in order to appear to disappear below the horizon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess because The Hubble Telescope looks like a fake it must be a fake.

Are you actually comparing a known technological achievement...the Hubble space telescope, with a supposed animal for which there is absolutely no evidence for it's existence, ie. bigfoot?

Bruuhahahahaha.

Thought for a moment there we were going to have a rational discussion. I now see that I was in error.

You can believe what ya want, and you can misrepresent how the burden of proof actually "works", but be aware that you are fooling no one but yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The error is indeed yours and you're bordering on a personal attack.

It's called "after all the evidence has been examined, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". Regardless if you want to believe it or not.

And the claim of "it's got to be a fake just because it looks like one" is just a ridiculous regardless of which subject it is applied to.

It is nothing more than intellectual laziness brought on by people who can not believe in the possibilities, regardless of what they claim if that possibility bit the on the butt.

You can believe whatever you want to but you're just fooling yourself.

And if this establishes me on the order of HBers and the like, of which I am not, then so be it. It just shows their true colors.

And also, the phrase itself, "It's a fake" is a positive claim and not a default position.

The difference is it's an active claim.

The default would be "I don't believe it's real."

And therefore because it is an active claim, it must also be corroborated with evidence to show that it is a true statement.

It's like saying "God exists so you must believe" vs "I just don't believe God exists".

Edited by Agent X
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The error is indeed yours and you're bordering on a personal attack.

I'm not going to argue with you. You simply do not understand how the burden of proof applies here. That is in no way a personal attack, but a simple statement of fact.

If you don't agree, be my guest, and report me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.