[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

An important addition to the worldview.

Knowledge, understanding, awareness - three levels of comprehension of the meaning of something. Dynamic balance of opposites: + - at a specific moment in time, and strictly 50/50 at infinity (in time). A very important criterion for the truth of many things and phenomena, one of the fundamental properties of the Universe, the realization of which is the key to understanding a lot of things - the Law of Conservation of Energy - it's some kind of (like the third) Law of Thermodynamics. In my interpretation, it looks like this: Nothing appears out of nowhere, and does not disappear into anywhere, but only redistributes and / or transforms from one state to another.

A very important consequence of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Destruction, preservation and creation are types of transformation. Something can be "created" only from something, it means not to create in the full sense of the word, but to transform something into something. In short. Nobody created the universe, and there are no creators as such, in principle, there are transformers of different levels, orders, opportunities and responsibilities.

Nobody has ever created anything.
Creation, preservation and destruction are varieties of transformation. In Hinduism, Rama (creator), Vishnu (keeper), Shiva (destroyer) is the personalization of the transformation varieties. The Christian “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is a complete amen and hallelujah in oil, or just a set of masculine words.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

Here is a link to a video with a selection of episodes in which astronauts were hanging on ropes, and an animation of one of the episodes.
Hidden ropes on ISS.



For some reason, astronauts on the ISS are hanging on ropes - this is a fact. The ropes are hidden by video editing, that is, they tried to hide it - this is a fact. Why would they?

My version. I think that there are no people on space stations due to the likelihood of being destroyed by a meteorite or space debris at any time. Such a probability, although negligible, but given the complete absence of any protection against destruction by a meteorite, it makes no sense, both the stay of people in the earth's orbit, and the colonization of space (Moon, Mars ...) in principle.

[Iceman]

Now show us the wires that control them when they live stream a guided tour through the ISS' multiple components, or live stream a q&a where Hadfield wrings a wet towel out on his hands and the water pools onto and around his hands while hes floating (or suspended by wires).

[macattack]

Here is a link to the Canada Arm2 taking damage from an unknown object. There are risks being in space, from man-made junk or meteorites.
You know they do live interviews with astronauts.
https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2021/06/01/space-debris-damages-canadarm-2-space-station/5288632001/

[scomato]

The notion that ISS astronauts are hanging from ropes is the worst conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

Proof positive that there are no strings creating the illusion of zero gravity. If they were truly strung up by strings in an otherwise 1G environment they would look like ridiculous puppets or like Peter Pan stage acts.



Is there any sense to this thread at all? Or are we just spectating some poor guy's schizophrenic delusions just because they are funny?
Surprised this thread doesn't get locked by Pete considering how it doesn't stand up to an iota of the rigorousness demanded by the moderators.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

Proof positive that there are no strings creating the illusion of zero gravity. If they were truly strung up by strings in an otherwise 1G environment they would look like ridiculous puppets or like Peter Pan stage acts.
Departing Space Station Commander Provides Tour of Orbital Laboratory
(YouTube video title)

I do not know where and how they are filming it, but the stay of people in space stations in orbit is unreasonably risky, and therefore pointless.

Judging by the video (Departing Space Station Commander Provides Tour of Orbital Laboratory), "on the ISS" is constantly quite noisy:
1) Perhaps the episodes "from the ISS" are filmed on Zero-G planes, and the suspension of the "astronauts" on the ropes is needed for safety reasons.
2) Astronauts supposedly live "on the ISS" for several months, but hardly anyone would have endured the constant noise like in the video (Departing Space Station Commander Provides Tour of Orbital Laboratory) even for several days.

Do you know in what conditions (supposedly) they live on the ISS? What kind of effort is it worth taking a shower or just going to the toilet? Look closely at the photo (500 days in space). The astronaut is neatly shaved, trimmed, and even has a professional manicure. Who's lying about space? Permanent risk of vital equipment breakdown, collision with space debris or meteorite. Permanent risk to life. Life in a small confined space with a whole bunch of everyday inconveniences and other difficulties. At the same time, all astronauts are constantly cheerful and smiling.

https://www.roscosmos.ru/25021/

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

Maybe someone will be interested in recalculating the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment with a much smaller Earth orbit, and the speed of the Earth (approximately as in the schematic image below). Perhaps that experiment proved the existence of the aether, but was incorrectly interpreted as wrong due to the false parameters of the earth's orbit and the speed of the Earth in space.

The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity. (Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887)

[stack]

Proof positive that there are no strings creating the illusion of zero gravity. If they were truly strung up by strings in an otherwise 1G environment they would look like ridiculous puppets or like Peter Pan stage acts.
Departing Space Station Commander Provides Tour of Orbital Laboratory
(YouTube video title)

I do not know where and how they are filming it, but the stay of people in space stations in orbit is unreasonably risky, and therefore pointless.

Climbing Mount Everest is unnecessarily risky and many people have died attempting it. Perhaps that endeavor is pointless as well depending upon your perspective. But people still do it. So, based upon your logic, has no one ever really climbed Mt. Everest?

Judging by the video (Departing Space Station Commander Provides Tour of Orbital Laboratory), "on the ISS" is constantly quite noisy:
1) Perhaps the episodes "from the ISS" are filmed on Zero-G planes, and the suspension of the "astronauts" on the ropes is needed for safety reasons.

Zero-G planes (Vomit Comets) give you max 30 seconds of weightlessness. So the plethora of unedited hour-long tours and such through the ISS aren't vomit comet simulations. As for ropes and cables and specifically the gif you posted, the vertical line seen at the "tug" is actually a line as part of a graphic on the hatch behind them, if that's what you think the "cable" is:



And I'm not sure how to pull off a cable trick with something like this:



As for a cgi argument, (and/or vomit comet argument and/or cable argument), there's skylab footage of weightlessness that goes beyond the 30 second max and obviously predates CGI tech that looks seamless today and again, I'm not sure how you would pull this off with a cable gimmick:

2) Astronauts supposedly live "on the ISS" for several months, but hardly anyone would have endured the constant noise like in the video (Departing Space Station Commander Provides Tour of Orbital Laboratory) even for several days.

Ummm, there's some noise in some parts of the station and then in other parts there isn't, if you watch the video all the way through. Your argument is that there is noise sometimes and that means it's fake because humans couldn't stand it? Seriously?

Do you know in what conditions (supposedly) they live on the ISS? What kind of effort is it worth taking a shower or just going to the toilet?

Yes:

Look closely at the photo (500 days in space). The astronaut is neatly shaved, trimmed, and even has a professional manicure.

I'm not sure how you determined a professional manicure, but here's how one shaves on the ISS:

Who's lying about space? Permanent risk of vital equipment breakdown, collision with space debris or meteorite. Permanent risk to life. Life in a small confined space with a whole bunch of everyday inconveniences and other difficulties. At the same time, all astronauts are constantly cheerful and smiling.

Navy sailors live on subs in close quarters undersea for weeks, months on end. So what? That's what they are trained to do. Just because the living environment is not optimal to your standards, it can't be real? The risk of danger, life threatening means it can't be real. Does no one risk such things in other aspects of life? That is hardly an argument against anything. People risk their lives all the time for endeavors that you or I would choose not to be a part of. Again, so what?

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

Who iss Lying? - Astronauts: Stars In Space - Contradictions!
Are the crew members of 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger still alive?

[scomato]

Who iss Lying? - Astronauts: Stars In Space - Contradictions!
Are the crew members of 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger still alive?

To suggest that the seven who died in the Challenger disaster faked their deaths for no reason, traumatizing their families and loved ones as they all watched them die in real time, for ..... no reason - is the most disrespectful thing I ever heard.

[jinx]

There's a secret project. A space shuttle is going to leave for Mars in two weeks. Are you into it?

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

The Michelson-Morley experiment is extremely complicated and multifactorial. As far as I understand, it does not take into account one significant factor in the official model of the Universe - the speed and direction of the Sun as part of the galaxy (that is, the speed and direction of movement of our galaxy in space).
But on the basis of my model of the Universe, I assume the absence of the above-mentioned factor in reality, and different parameters of other significant factors. I do not have sufficient mathematical knowledge, so I suggest to those who are interested - to recalculate the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, taking into account the much smaller Earth's orbit and the speed of the Earth along it. Considering the movement of the Earth and the Sun around the common center of mass as in the animation below (Earth is larger), as well as the assumption that the Oort Cloud is the boundary of the Universe with a diameter of about one light minute. The value of the experiment is enormous. Data on it should be publicly available.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

The Michelscon experiment (or the Michaelson-Morley experiment) is a complex multifactorial experiment to prove the existence of the ether, which was carried out many times from 1880 to 2015.

The bottom line is brief. Deflection of light (electromagnetic and radio waves) during the movement of the Earth. The main factor is the speed of the Earth's flight in space. This factor was used to calculate the expected result of the experiment, which turned out to be significantly less (expected). The result was attributed to errors. The existence of the aether is allegedly not proven.

But if we take a much smaller length of the Earth's orbit according to my model of the Universe, then the speed of the Earth's flight in such an orbit will be much lower. The experiment has been carried out several times. The data is there. It remains only to recount them correctly. This will prove: 1) the existence of a medium for the propagation of light (electromagnetic and radio waves) - aether; 2) my model of the universe.

After the publication of this information, I was banned immediately and almost simultaneously MORE on two scientific English-language sites (space.com and thenakedscientists.com). At the same time, they removed all my topics and arguments on the new model of the Universe, which had been there for about six months.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

Michelson–Morley experiment is a complex and extremely important experiment that has been refined and repeated since 1881. Its task is to prove the existence of a medium for the propagation of light and radio waves - ether. The main factor of this experience is the speed of the Earth's movement in space (the length of the Earth's orbit). The received data turns out to be much less than expected. In my model of the Universe, the length of the Earth's orbit and the speed of the Earth's movement are much less than the official ones ... It has already been experimentally proven: 1) the existence of ether; 2) my model of the Universe.

Ordinary waves have a medium - water.
Sound waves have a medium - a gas (atmosphere).
Do light and radio waves have a medium? The ether has not yet been officeally proven.

The aquatic environment is inhabited.
The gaseous environment (atmosphere) is inhabited.
Is the ether inhabited? Where do UFOs come from? Where do the “aliens” (angels / demons) live?

[Dr David Thork]

To suggest that the seven who died in the Challenger disaster faked their deaths for no reason, traumatizing their families and loved ones as they all watched them die in real time, for ..... no reason - is the most disrespectful thing I ever heard.

Challenger ... 1986 ... 35 years ago. At what point is it ok by you to discuss things that may have lead to people's deaths? Can we discuss Vietnam? WW2? Would you be upset if someone suggested Julius Caesar faked his own death?

Thanks for dropping by with your faux outrage. Always goes down a storm here at tfes. 

[stack]

To suggest that the seven who died in the Challenger disaster faked their deaths for no reason, traumatizing their families and loved ones as they all watched them die in real time, for ..... no reason - is the most disrespectful thing I ever heard.

Challenger ... 1986 ... 35 years ago. At what point is it ok by you to discuss things that may have lead to people's deaths? Can we discuss Vietnam? WW2? Would you be upset if someone suggested Julius Caesar faked his own death?

Thanks for dropping by with your faux outrage. Always goes down a storm here at tfes. 

It's not just "discussing" Challenger like one might "discuss" Vietnam or WWII. It's akin to discussing whether anyone really died in the Vietnam war or WWII or not. Or saying that the little kids killed in Sandy Hook here in the States were actually actors and are still alive or that no one really died in the planes on 9/11. Yeah, I would say besides being insanity, it's disrespectful.

[Dr David Thork]

It's not just "discussing" Challenger like one might "discuss" Vietnam or WWII. It's akin to discussing whether anyone really died in the Vietnam war or WWII or not.

So what? I mean, its not like no one has ever questioned the scale of the holocaust?

Or saying that the little kids killed in Sandy Hook here in the States were actually actors and are still alive

children ... nice strawman

or that no one really died in the planes on 9/11.

You don't think people should question if their government might have staged a false flag against the country? You think everyone should just accept whatever your god-forsaken administration tells you? Jesus Christ, no. Don't ever ever stop asking those psychopaths questions. They won't leave a creature to draw breath or a blade of grass unscorched.

Yeah, I would say besides being insanity, it's disrespectful.

I couldn't help notice you dodged my Julius Caesar analogy. This suggests there is a time frame in your mind.

So ... 1997 - Diana dies in a tunnel ... I'm guessing you think is too soon to wonder if the Queen had her popped orf?
You don't like WW2. What about WW1?
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the Napoleonic wars is fair game to you.

Fee Fi Fo Fum,
I smell the blood of an Englishman
Be he alive, or be he dead
I'll grind his bones to make my bread.

^Every English child knows this. Now, at first glace, it's a silly poem in a child's story about a giant and a big beanstalk. But its not. The reason that bit is the poem bit, is that's the bit to remember. It's a reference to the Napoleonic wars and a cautionary tale to every child not to join the British Army.

The blood of English men ... the dead from the battle of waterloo
Alive or dead ... they didn't even bother with the wounded. They just put many of them out of their misery after the battle.
Grinding bones to make bread? What the fuck is that about? <--- This is the dark part.

They took the bodies of those young men (8 million gallons of them), and rather than bury them, they ground them up and turned them into fertiliser. They then sold that fertiliser back to the British farmers. They literally sold them their sons to fertilise the fields ... hence grinding bones to make bread ... to grow the wheat.
https://www.growlikegrandad.co.uk/allotment/soil-nutrients/bone-meal-gruesome-fairy-tale-fertiliser.html
^ Can we discuss whether this happened or not? Is it too soon?

[stack]

It's not just "discussing" Challenger like one might "discuss" Vietnam or WWII. It's akin to discussing whether anyone really died in the Vietnam war or WWII or not.

So what? I mean, its not like no one has ever questioned the scale of the holocaust?

I didn't say anything about "scale". The equivalence would be to say that the holocaust didn't happen at all and no one was killed.

Or saying that the little kids killed in Sandy Hook here in the States were actually actors and are still alive

children ... nice strawman

How is it a strawman? It's an equivalent example, regardless of the age of the individuals involved. We have people running around this country saying that no one died and that they were actors. A) Insane, B) Disrespectful.

or that no one really died in the planes on 9/11.

You don't think people should question if their government might have staged a false flag against the country? You think everyone should just accept whatever your god-forsaken administration tells you? Jesus Christ, no. Don't ever ever stop asking those psychopaths questions. They won't leave a creature to draw breath or a blade of grass unscorched.

Nope, I never said people couldn't question. But seriously, Challenger a false flag? What would be the motive? What was to be gained by faking the explosion and faking the deaths? It makes no logical sense. Crackpots literally hound the living people that that they think are the astronauts. There's a video on YT of some random guy walking up some Professor's driveway, the Professor that these people think is STS-51 Pilot Michael Smith. and asking him a whole bunch of questions about how he is actually the astronaut. It's insane.

Yeah, I would say besides being insanity, it's disrespectful.

I couldn't help notice you dodged my Julius Caesar analogy. This suggests there is a time frame in your mind.

So ... 1997 - Diana dies in a tunnel ... I'm guessing you think is too soon to wonder if the Queen had her popped orf?

I didn't dodge the question, I just ignored it because the analogy is stupid and irrelevant. Caesar doesn't have any relatives or friends still around that were devastated by his death. And there aren't crackpots running around saying some farmer in Kansas is actually the living Julius Caesar and hounding him.

As for Diana, the equivalence would be that she didn't really die and is alive and well secretly living her life in Monaco. Not that the Queen gave the kill order.

You don't like WW2. What about WW1?

No, I don't like WWII or I. Do you?

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the Napoleonic wars is fair game to you.

Are you saying no one died in the Napoleonic wars and it was faked, a false flag?

Fee Fi Fo Fum,
I smell the blood of an Englishman
Be he alive, or be he dead
I'll grind his bones to make my bread.

^Every English child knows this. Now, at first glace, it's a silly poem in a child's story about a giant and a big beanstalk. But its not. The reason that bit is the poem bit, is that's the bit to remember. It's a reference to the Napoleonic wars and a cautionary tale to every child not to join the British Army.

The blood of English men ... the dead from the battle of waterloo
Alive or dead ... they didn't even bother with the wounded. They just put many of them out of their misery after the battle.
Grinding bones to make bread? What the fuck is that about? <--- This is the dark part.

They took the bodies of those young men (8 million gallons of them), and rather than bury them, they ground them up and turned them into fertiliser. They then sold that fertiliser back to the British farmers. They literally sold them their sons to fertilise the fields ... hence grinding bones to make bread ... to grow the wheat.
https://www.growlikegrandad.co.uk/allotment/soil-nutrients/bone-meal-gruesome-fairy-tale-fertiliser.html
^ Can we discuss whether this happened or not? Is it too soon?

I have no idea what all this has to with anything. But it is interesting. The Brothers Grimm fairytales are really dark when you think about them too.

[Dr David Thork]

Nope, I never said people couldn't question. But seriously, Challenger a false flag? What would be the motive? What was to be gained by faking the explosion and faking the deaths? It makes no logical sense.

Makes plenty of sense. By 1986 the American public had become very bored with the space program. Viewing figures were down and it was getting more and more difficult to justify spending $billion tax payer dollars on a rocket program. Stick a few civilians in there and blow it up and suddenly space is exciting again. Its dangerous. The astronauts are brave and the missions nerve racking.

Caesar doesn't have any relatives or friends still around that were devastated by his death.

What do you suppose the probability of Challenger relatives (many of who are now dead or very elderly) coming to tfes.org to read this thread?

As for Diana, the equivalence would be that she didn't really die and is alive and well secretly living her life in Monaco. Not that the Queen gave the kill order.

Oh, the conspiracy theory has to be the exact same. Fine, then Challenger astronauts are all dead, but they were killed because they were civilians who could never have been trusted to maintain the space hoax. Better?

Are you saying no one died in the Napoleonic wars and it was faked, a false flag?

I'm asking WHEN can we talk about Challenger? How long before you are suddenly not overcome with outrage?

I have no idea what all this has to with anything. But it is interesting. The Brothers Grimm fairytales are really dark when you think about them too.

Not a lot. It's there because it is interesting.

[stack]

Nope, I never said people couldn't question. But seriously, Challenger a false flag? What would be the motive? What was to be gained by faking the explosion and faking the deaths? It makes no logical sense.

Makes plenty of sense. By 1986 the American public had become very bored with the space program. Viewing figures were down and it was getting more and more difficult to justify spending $billion tax payer dollars on a rocket program. Stick a few civilians in there and blow it up and suddenly space is exciting again. Its dangerous. The astronauts are brave and the missions nerve racking.

So the conspiracy now is not that the Challenger astronauts are still alive it's that we blew them up to get TV ratings? If anything, NASA's lax engineering and hubris led to a darkening of their reputation and calls from the people and legislature to defund NASA rather than bolster it. If it was a conspiracy to destroy 100's of million dollars of gear and kill 7 people, the opposite of the effect you mention occurred.

Caesar doesn't have any relatives or friends still around that were devastated by his death.

What do you suppose the probability of Challenger relatives (many of who are now dead or very elderly) coming to tfes.org to read this thread?

No, I don't expect them to come here. And your argument about dead relatives is just plain stupid & ill-informed.

- The one “civilian”, McAuliffe, the teacher, had a husband and 2 kids age 6 & 9

- Challenger commander Francis “Dick” Scobee had a wife and two kids.

- Challenger pilot Michael Smith had a wife and daughter

- Astronaut, engineer Ellison Onizuka had a brother, two sisters, a wife and 2 daughters

- Astronaut and physicist Ronald McNair had two brothers, a wife and 2 kids

- Astronaut and payload specialist, Gregory Jarvis had a wife & 2 brothers

- Astronaut Judith Resnik had a sister & husband

As for Diana, the equivalence would be that she didn't really die and is alive and well secretly living her life in Monaco. Not that the Queen gave the kill order.

Oh, the conspiracy theory has to be the exact same. Fine, then Challenger astronauts are all dead, but they were killed because they were civilians who could never have been trusted to maintain the space hoax. Better?

Yes, the conspiracy has to be at least relatively the same. Why would you think otherwise? That's weird.

I guess it depends on how you define civilian. There was only one "civilian" on board, the teacher. And yeah, great conspiracy theory you just made up out of thin air. What's your source?

Are you saying no one died in the Napoleonic wars and it was faked, a false flag?

I'm asking WHEN can we talk about Challenger? How long before you are suddenly not overcome with outrage?

Outrage? Hardly. Just pointing out poor taste all to manufacture some conspiracy without evidence. And like I mentioned, because of the silly "The Challenger Astronauts are still Alive" bullshit, these doppelgängers get literally stalked and hounded by nutjobs. So yeah, that's not ok.

I have no idea what all this has to with anything. But it is interesting. The Brothers Grimm fairytales are really dark when you think about them too.

Not a lot. It's there because it is interesting.

I can now see why you guys aren't so fond of the French.