Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

[HonestlyNow]

Eighter ... you know ... one or the other ...
and neighter does he.

(spelling lesson) either . . .neither

don't focus on one unexplained feature -

If the picture was an animation/fabrication meant to demonstrate the stacking of images, he should have said so.

[Jonathan]

If the picture was an animation/fabrication meant to demonstrate the stacking of images, he should have said so.

That's not what I said nor is it what I meant, see first post on this page.
I was pointing to the context he used it in.

"whatsgoingon" wrote "ether" and I didn't know what was meant.

I guessed between "eighter" when I actually meant "either"
and "aether" - which I myself was spelling wrong too as "ether" just as he did.
It was actually "aether" I was talking about. I'll correct that by editing the post.
Sorry for the confusion due to spelling! The only excuse I have is that english is not native to me. It sure is tricky and critical sometimes.

[simonshack]

The only excuse I have is that english is not native to me. It sure is tricky and critical sometimes.

Jonathan, English is not native to me either. It sure is tricky sometimes, as you say.
As far as I can tell, 'aether' is just a variant spelling of 'ether'?

Anyway, here's from the Free Dictionary:

ether
n.
1. Any of a class of organic compounds in which two hydrocarbon groups are linked by an oxygen atom.
2. A volatile, highly flammable liquid, C2H5OC2H5, derived from the distillation of ethyl alcohol with sulfuric acid and used as a reagent and solvent. It was formerly used as an anesthetic. Also called diethyl ether, ethyl ether.
3. The regions of space beyond the earth's atmosphere; the heavens.
4. The element believed in ancient and medieval civilizations to fill all space above the sphere of the moon and to compose the stars and planets.
5. Physics An all-pervading, infinitely elastic, massless medium formerly postulated as the medium of propagation of electromagnetic waves.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ether

Aether
n.
- Greek Mythology : The poetic personification of the clear upper air breathed by the Olympians.
- a variant spelling of ether
1. Aether - personification of the sky or upper air breathed by the Olympians; son of Erebus and night or of Chaos and darkness.
Greek deity - a deity worshipped by the ancient Greeks
2. Aether - a medium that was once supposed to fill all space and to support the propagation of electromagnetic waves
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aether

Thanks for not starting squabbles (with fellow forum members) grounded in ... ether.

[Q_prime]

Who took these pictures? From where?

[anon1911]

Dear whatsgoingon,

you say:

Are Satellites real? Don't really know. My feeling is that a lot gets done with balloons.

In opposition to your feelings, the work done by NASA is of scientific value.

They publish their findings and it's free to be verified by other scientists. Well, most of it probably hasn't been verified by now due to the lack of money and technology available to others.


To your balloon-theory:
Please tell me a rational explanation why they would use balloons instead of satelites?


Once again about the ISS imagery:
I'd like everyone that doubts the idea that you can see street- and citylights from space to reproduce this little expirement (at night of course)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfgOYsWnisk

Lets see your results then

[simonshack]

*

I remember you calling me a liar, a few days ago.

Yes, and at the time it seemed mysterious why you would lie about the number of attachment points between the shuttle and external tank. I think I have a better understanding now of why.

Dear Astronut,
I will ask you to go back to the post I made about the bolt - and read it carefully anew: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 3#p2365523

This is how I worded my question to you:

Can you explain how the front end of the Space Shuttle could possibly rely on ONE SINGLE BOLT to be attached on its fuel tank?
(...)
So - do you SERIOUSLY believe that NASA has relied on ONE SINGLE BOLT to launch scores of astronots up in the sky - for thirty-odd years (135 missions) - and not ONCE has that bolt sheared off and sent the astronots to Heaven/or Hell?

As you can see, I specifically mentioned in the first part of my question that I was questioning the bolt securing the front end of the shuttle. For you to say that "I lied about the number of attachment points" is therefore perfectly spurious. In the second part of my question, it was clearly implicit that I was referring to that "ONE SINGLE [front end] BOLT" as being vital to secure the 135 Space Shuttle missions. Never did I imply that the entire shuttle was attached on the main tank with one bolt only. For your reference: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 6#p2353976

However, please accept my apologies for returning the accusation to the sender yesterday - it was out of character of me and I certainly do not wish to go about our discussions with such tit for tat. I wish that you, in turn, will kindly retract your calling me 'a liar' too. This would be much appreciated - and I hope you will stick around here and supply rational answers to a number of nagging questions I have for you regarding the (now defunct) Space Shuttle program - and the ISS.

As a sign of good will - and for the sake of maintaining a civil level of discourse - I will for now suspend my disbelief of you having authored genuine images of the ISS (with the docked shuttle) in broad daylight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgoVGWazev8



******************************************************

Who took these pictures? From where?

Dear Qprime,

Those images are credited to Italian Paolo Nespoli, who allegedly shot them in 2011 from the Soyuz module (pictured below) as it detached from the ISS for atmosphere re-entry and be parachute-landed down in Siberia.



(Paolo Nespoli is the astronot at far right)

[whatsgoingon]

a

[anon1911]

I beg you if you happen to know of these scientific discovering to shine the light on this matter and lift me to the heavens. Thanks.

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2011 ... ff2011.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=123

http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/rparchive/index.php



????????????????????????????

[simonshack]

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2011 ... ff2011.pdf

????????????????????????????

Wow - that's quite some achievement, Anon! So NASA actually helped making video enhancements - which were instrumental in capturing kidnappers and identifying Saddam Hussein "in footage sent back from Iraq"! I don't think I have ever laughed as loudly as tonite! Thanks, Anon1911 - great find!


http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2011 ... ff2011.pdf

[Makkonen]

[anon1911]

Wow - that's quite some achievement, Anon! So NASA actually helped making video enhancements - which were instrumental in capturing kidnappers and identifying Saddam Hussein "in footage sent back from Iraq"! I don't think I have ever laughed as loudly as tonite! Thanks, Anon1911 - great find!

As soon as you're done with laughing we could come back to topic and to the fact that there are thousands of papers of scientific value released by NASA.

[simonshack]

As soon as you're done with laughing we could come back to topic and to the fact that there are thousands of papers of scientific value released by NASA.

So you are actually serious about this? Good Heavens, anon - I thought you were joking! How dreadfully disappointing!

[lux]

... there are thousands of papers of scientific value released by NASA.

[hoi.polloi]

Yes but the fact is NASA - which is clearly beholden to a corrupt scientific psyop propaganda division of the government - is doing research a well-funded organization could probably do. Why should it be NASA?

We should can them for corruption and have others get funding for publishing useful scientific papers.

[nonhocapito]

As soon as you're done with laughing we could come back to topic and to the fact that there are thousands of papers of scientific value released by NASA.

When someone becomes a "researcher" for an institute, an agency, the university or a similar institution, this person has to produce a number of papers every year to justify his presence, his income, the funds for his department, the need to further his career etcetera.

There is no doubt that universities alone produce thousands of completely useless or repetitive studies every year that are only meant to sustain the researchers for the reasons above mentioned.

You posted a few links to scientific papers published by NASA. Have you the knowledge to verify if those papers are genuine, describe real discoveries or accomplishments, are not variations of other studies or are really meaningful at all?
Back in the day we were told that the Apollo missions "gave us the invention of the microchip". Now, are we really sure that it was "NASA" to invent the microchip? Or maybe they borrowed this invention from some other research lab? And even if they did invent "the microchip", following all the billions of dollars of investment rained on them, would this give any credit to the Apollo mission and subsequently to this agency?