International Space Station Hoax | Does Gravity Exist?

A presentation about zero gravity, microgravity, orbital physics and Gravity itself. I’m going to be asking questions about our common understanding of each item.

75 thoughts on “International Space Station Hoax | Does Gravity Exist?”

  1. “I don’t believe what I see when it is “by NASA”…..I have no reason to give them any credence whatsoever.”

    Okay. I am interested in what is your definition of proof? Is proof an impossibility? Because if any one, FE member or not, were on an ISS mission and said that it is real, the earth is round, wouldn’t the the rest of the FE members just say you’ve been coerced? You’ve been brain washed, or bribed?

    Is there any cluster of presentations that aren’t “fake”?

    My personal experience of the earth only makes sense in globe theory. Flat doesn’t match my observations.

    So, what would be proof? Outline a course of action that would prove anything and not just be fake.

    Japan sends a satellite around the moon and takes photographs of the Apollo landing sites. “Fake”. Well, what would it take?

    Russians had a manned space station in orbit. And it became obsolete. So they forced it to re-enter and burn up. Not proof that it was there?

    Russian and NASA are co-conspirators? School teacher is on the ISS. But she’s been hacked. And now continues the lies. Is there something that you could embrace? Or can proof never be achieved? And therefore nothing is true. Nothing. Not the sun. Definitely not the earth. Flying over the South Pole has been done, but that’s not good enough. It’s faked.

    By what chain of mathematics do you present rebuttal?

  2. There have 224 people that have been on the ISS. They’re from 10 space agencies, and 18 countries.

    As conspiracy theories go, that’s a lot persons and countries propogating an elaborate lie.

    How do you get such a unified cover up? That’s a lot of opportunity for leaks. And no incentive to participate in a fake ISS. And the video feeds never display a 1g environment. If they were staging on a jet aircraft, for every zero g there is a significant time until a next parabola, and zero g is preceded by greater than 1g when climbing.

    So much fun, but the argument of “fake” isn’t an argument.

    1. In no way should any nations’ space program be considered free and independant. NASA has executed the legislative mandate given it by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 to preserve “the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof,” and in so doing has established a formula that all world space agencies are induced to follow. If you may be skeptical that unallied or sometimes opposing nations can enter into agreements with one another for mutual benefit, some research on the Antarctic Treaty will provide enlightenment. In 1959 (one year after NASA was born), at a time when many countries were engaged in “cold” wars with one another, a group of seemingly clashing nations co-created the Antarctic Treaty. This was done in order to jointly claim, explore and control the resources of the Antarctic. Two superpower members of this 12-country collaboration were the US and the USSR, most notable at the time as the main adversaries in a “Cold War” that would not end until three decades later. During this period, the majority of world citizens were unaware of this cooperation or the establishment of this treaty. Today, relations between nations are less hostile than during these prior periods, so it should not be a stretch of the imagination to envision that similar or more intimate agreements could be ongoing between these apparently independent nations. Coincidentally(???), similar techniques, strategies and patterns manifest themselves time and time again across every space program, despite cultural, technological, linguistic and other variations in host nations.

  3. Hello,

    I don’t believe what I see when it is “by NASA”. These are magicians, witches, and they practice illusion. So, I agree with other comments that I don’t know that it is water. I don’t know that it is not CGI. I don’t know anything about it. So, to begin “troubleshooting” assuming that we have seen something real and know what it is made of… I cannot. I think it is no different than watching a “magic trick” on television where a man pulls on scarves… and there are more scarves!! It’s a trick. It’s an illusion. It’s not real.

    I have no reason to give them any credence whatsoever.


  4. This is kind of goofy, but isn’t there anything besides zero gravity that would cause water bubbles to act that way? How about water bubbles in a thick liquid like propylene glycol? We don’t even know if the water bubbles are water. Would some other liquid or gas be more readily explicable– without recourse to zero gravity? Is there a liquid or gas that responds to magnetism? Then gravity could be offset by magnetism, just as acceleration offsets it in the airplane example.

    If the ONLY longer-term examples of zero gravity are the water bubbles phenomenon then look for a hoax concerning the water bubbles experiment, or its photography.

    btw, do we know that the young woman w the shellacked hair is official footage that hasn’t been altered?

    1. I bet it’s ” all of the above” but there is an ISS and fkers taking video from there. So basically none of this proves anything. We agree with the fakes, we agree with the true stuff. Question remains.

      1. Plz let me know how to edit my misspells and mistakes, grammatical errors, etc……without sign-ups and logins. Thx Lift.

        1. I don’t know how. I was actually going through some of my settings now for other reasons but I don’t know what I can do to allow that. I can delete a comment if you want.

  5. Don’t know what you mean “Earth is falling away from the satellite, which is under effect of Earth’s gravity, but since Earth’s falling away at the same rate that the satellite is falling towards Earth the satellite’s in stable orbit.” (paraphrase)

    Earth can’t be falling away from many satellites simultaneously since they are on opposite sides of the earth.

    I don’t know anything about it but isn’t orbit achieved when equilibrium is reached between gravity and the inertia of motion in space?

    1. Gravity is what allows something to orbit, otherwise the Moon would just fly into outer space. When I say Earth is falling away, I mean that the curvature makes it seem that way, not that the Earth is actually moving the other direction.

      1. Dude, please study more astrophysics, before coming back to things like this, do more current events stuff, made more sense.

  6. OK OK. Now I’m getting really confused. We all agree SpaceX is fake.

    The question is what is the Earth and the Sun? Do we not believe they are as depicted by scientists because they are obviously in the pay of the elite or is it they have to tell us the truth now and again?

    Is the Earth flat and we will all fall of the edge. Is the Earth a hologram and we are just part of a computer program? Is it all faked by NASA?

    In my working life I was a regional manager for an international airline and I flew all over the World and it sure seemed like a ball to me. My son is a captain flying large passenger aircraft and he seems to be able to handle the fact that theEarth is a ball. So if it’s not please do tell.

    1. I don’t know what it is. It seems clear to me that our perception of Earth from Earth is that it’s flat. It also seems completely flat from high enough altitude that you should see the curvature. On the other hand, there are a lot of ways it behaves as if it’s a ball, particularly in regards to satellites. I also can’t figure out a way to explain lunar eclipses in a flat Earth model.

      I’m planning to respond to Mathis’ accusations and address Flat Earth theory in terms of the arguments for it and the questions that would need to be answered to make it a complete model. I don’t think the Earth is flat. In fact, I think it’s possible the “shape” of it is something that would be at the limits of the human mind to conceptualize. I’m always thinking about it though…

      1. As you said, you can’t figure out why somethings act as if round and somethings as flat earth. Well there’s one set of laws of physics that solves moon orbit, satellite orbit, eclipses, Gravity (throw a ball, fire a cannon, launch a rocket, or bounce on trampoline). And there’s a lot of observation on the earth that returns globe shape. 6 months of no sun at the poles, different lengths of shadows at different longitudes on a given time on a given day. So, it’s a mature science. You can’t figure out why eclipses happen? I don’t think I could’ve by myself. But, add up human observations of sun and moon, at different locations, on different dates, over the millennia and only on set of formula governs. Those rules discover over 200 hundred years ago. Nothing to observed to say “no they have to be wrong because I just don’t get it.”

        You only appear to be either misinformed, or feigning disbelief in things that have been experienced, documented, and figured out, for personal gain. The FE society isn’t applying repeatable observations and math. Just saying “no, fake”. Planes fly south over the pole and north over the pole and never hit an edge. Satellites that fall short of their critical velocity due to technical malfunction, fall back to earth. Sometimes right away, sometimes months later, because of velocity. Too fast and they are in a higher orbit. One set of rules that govern the fall of A bullet, a pendulum, and celestial orbits.

        Use a GPS receiver and all of those laws of physics, produce location and distance, and speed. And those data can be checked against other technology proving GPS. So, that’s a current technology that can only work on globe earth. And 14″ artillery hit their targets using the laws of gravity and globe earth. Even a sundial respects and only works on globe earth. Your creativity is poorly served by continually discounting physics and math, and describing phenomenon in ways that don’t relate to the observation.

        1. Sorry dude, I’m doing the best I can with the tools I have. Haven’t figured out how to make editing comments a thing. I’ll keep trying for you.

    2. Hello,

      You are asking if he earth is a hologram and we are just part of a computer program. We are sentient beings. We feel real feelings. What is the Genesis creation? I will tell you. The answer is theological. The earth is a matrix of redemption for lost souls. Briefly stated, the story begins in Heaven above us where God created the company of angels. 1/3 fell. Heaven was above. Hell was below. Hell was generated in their fall: the darkness. The fallen angels were trapped in the darkness. If you want the answer… there is the answer. God is Love. Had God left His fallen sons in their fall then hell would have gone on for time unending. God said, “Let there be light.” What God did is marvelous. God created a secondary creation that is a mirror and replication of the First Estate of Heaven. God put a foundation of Light into the darkness and brought all angels into the Genesis creation and made them human. God can redeem humans. God could not redeem angels. And there is the mystery solved. God made angels humans and God Himself was made a man.

      We are in a matrix that is the duplicate of the Heaven above us that brought darkness into it for destruction of darkness. God willed to destroy hell and bring home His prodigal sons the fallen angels. So, God made this temporary matrix. And in the end, all darkness is destroyed and the secondary matrix (which is a realm of incarnation) becomes the First Estate of Heaven reconstituted and repopulated with it’s original population.

      And we all become angels again.

      We are spirits inside temporal human bodies in a temporal matrix that was generated for our redemption and return to Heaven.

      We are angels in earth suits.

      And God our Father loves us all.

      And is willing that none should perish.

      He made angels human because He could not redeem fallen angels. But He can redeem humans in a temporal human body in a temporal matrix of redemption.

      Isn’t it sweet that God brought fallen angels out of hell and brought them into this reproduction and mirror of Heaven (even though doing so necessitated there would be pain and sorrow here due to their evil in fall in ruin they brought with them into this realm)??

      Good news. Hell is not eternal.

      And we are all angels.

      And we are going home again one fine day to a City of Angels: New Jerusalem made of gold and gems and our Father on the Throne there.

      It’s a lot like the beauty of this matrix… except it is perfect and there is no darkness there… nor shall there be here… and no pain nor sorrow… soon.

      The redemption and recreation is in process.

      That is the true answer to your question. And of course the answer is God. 🙂

      Love in Jesus,

      Laura Lee

  7. As always Nathan, interesting points your have here. ISS always looked odd to me. The stations itself seems soo poorly constructed for flying in a dangerous environment such as space, let alone living in there.
    What caught my attention on this topic is that NASA actually posted some ,,realistic” looking tour videos of ISS for example this one:
    This tour lady can easily float or levitate for more than 20s in so called zero gravity and video itself seems fairly realistic for the people whose eyes and ears are closed and who are willing to believe NASA statements. I myself have the same point of view as you that if NASA showed fake videos before then there is no point in believing that the other videos are real. But then again, what trickery is this? Is this all floating phenomena just video edited?
    Now another thing which bothers me with this whole ISS hoax is that NASA is not the only space agency related to ISS. There are also russian, european and japanese space agencies as well so how come they all follow the same agenda of fakery? It would interesting to hear your thoughs on this.

    1. Arthur, forgive my butting in, but I don’t see any problem w accounting for many govts conspiring to mislead the public. (or being bullied by the US) Examples: The Hoax that Syrian govt is the bad guy, or that the US, Britain & Turkey aren’t supporting ISIS, al qaeda, etc. The general falsehood of the media regarding so many things: harmful effects of vaccinations, fluoride, GMO foods. No MSM has debunked the many “terrorist” incidents or even 9-11. Statistical studies have proven fraudulent vote counting in the Democratic primary, but no MSM coverage in any of the countries who may be lying about the Space Station too. election fraud.

      1. The misleading is going on on a national level. And only in cases that actually require it. Nobody’s hiding anything from us, other that what might be a potential advantage in geo economical ecological military – > political struggles.

        But let’s not forget, as long as there is geography, there is a cold war, if not an actual one.

        1. But Mike the only way to mislead nationally is to mislead internationally– or the truth would leak. Your idea that they only deceive where “necessary”?? As a child you may have had the experience of trying to tell just a small lie, but under questioning the lie had metamorphosed to an entire story. Also, unless we know all their purposes I don’t see how we can intuit whether lies are “necessary” regarding a particular issue. See what I’m getting at? We can’t really say, “They wdn’t have any need to lie to us about this, so this must be true.” We’ve simply insufficient knowledge of what they judge they “need” to lie about.

          1. There are two doctrines that we have here in Russia. КОБ and ДОТУ – Conceptual ideological studies and theories, the first one is Concepts of Social Security (not the SS you got in the states) and the second one is the Theory of Government (not what they teach you in politics class, governing rather). Simple stuff, but once read there is nothing anywhere that can mislead you in any way, them “lies” you don’t even pay attention to anymore, stuff is just naturally filtered before even reaching your brain. Rather, it is interpreted as a move on a chessboard, you see the move you see the purpose. A century ago it was important for people to know how to read and write, count, do simple math etc, nowadays it is important for people to filter all the garbage is forcefully being shoved into our heads. People do not manage. “brain-rape”

      1. If it’s real and there are really humans in it that we see on TV, then why are so many of those videos obviously faked or altered? I contend that it is unreasonable to come to any other conclusion after watching just a few decent videos on YouTube, so I’d be curious what your answer is to that.

        1. In this video, her limbs are not all in view of the camera. The ISS has footholds all over the interior and astronauts routinely tuck their feet into them to not float away. Since you can’t see both her feet, you can’t conclude that she’s undergoing unnatural relative motion. Here’s a video that has a good 2 minutes of continuous weightless footage (minus the small reboost driven acceleration) I’d like anyone here to explain how this was faked as it is well beyond the capabilities of aircraft to do such a long parabola in the atmosphere. Also, I’d like for anyone here to explain how we can take pictures of a fictitious space station from the ground and have its apparent orbital motion as measured from the ground exactly as NASA says it is.

  8. I’m still worried you are a “flat-earther” but hopefully you are not so here is another way of creating a ‘micro-gravity’ environment.
    Drop a large sealed capsule from an aircraft at a great height and let it free fall. Eventually braking the fall with parachutes. You could probably get a zero gravity effect for about 60 seconds.

    1. It is correct that there is no actual weightlessness in those types of aircraft, but an illusion. The participants are actually in a state of uniform acceleration, negative during the first half of the parabola, positive during the second.

      Nice observation of the different lengths in time of these parabolas, the conventional ones are 25-30s long according to most sources. The difference in speeds makes the most sense for the 40s video. The “illusion parabola” isn’t just stretched along the x-axis though, but along the y-axis as well (height). Basically the shape of the parabola doesn’t change, but due to the increased speed, it’s just scaled in proportion (to the initial speed).

      Regarding the bubble, water tension play a part in it all, but during an acceleration, all points of the object in question experience the same forces. So the bubble (ball) of water holds it’s natural shape, especially since the material’s density is constant (mass density). And if by any chance you’re thinking (don’t believe you are) of the shape that drops of water take on during freefall, that’s mostly air resistance deforming the droplets.

      1. I am just having trouble figuring out how Gravity is actually a force when a force is something you feel and generally involves something pushing you. We don’t feel Gravity and I contend that it doesn’t act like a force at all. Besides accelerating towards Earth, I just am not sure anymore that it’s a thing.

        What I didn’t bring up is how humans perceive long-term “zero-g”. If you are only under the force of Gravity pushing you towards Earth but are in a simulated “zero-g” environment, do you have a perception of up and down if you’re wearing a blindfold? If there is a force against you, then I contend you should be able to “feel” up and down. I’d have to ask an actornaut, but I’m guessing you wouldn’t know your orientation. That argues against Gravity being a force.

        1. Look wider, trillions of tons in mass revolving, shaping, pulling towards and apart the different objects in our solar system. How does that not prove anything? Thing is, dynamic theory (masses, speeds, distances), is always followed by electrodynamics (quantum relations between subatomic particles add “substance” itself). That’s 1st year physics, you say you’re physics educated, you should know all this, the ‘mini’ proves the ‘maxi’ and vice versa.

          1. I threw everything out to make this. It’s based on a practical feel of physics rather than what’s in books. I intentionally didn’t look to verify if anything I said was supported by our conventional understanding of physics. I just have come to doubt the “force” we call Gravity. In my mind if you can’t feel it, then it’s not a force. If you can’t see the result of the force except when measured in acceleration towards Earth, I’m not sure it’s a force. A force needs to be applied. Why is Gravity the only exception?

        2. But a force isn’t something you necessarily feel. People don’t feel anything just from carrying their cell phone, but in fact low-level microwave radiation produces quite dramatic, visible effects on the blood cells. Scroll down to the pictures of the blood cells.

          You don’t feel X-rays, but surely they are a force. If your legs are paralyzed you wouldn’t feel a flame burning them. The fact that something isn’t sensorily obvious or perceivable at all doesn’t make it nonexistent.

          I’m baffled that you find something doubtful about gravity. Do you doubt magnetism cuz you have to get out a magnet, etc to demonstrate it? How about static electricity?

          I really don’t consider it a rational view to doubt the standard view of the solar system unless you have some actual evidence of its falsity or an alternative model. Consider all the astronomers, professional and amateur, who have made observations which cohere w the standard solar system model across a century and more.

          If you think that the curvature of the earth ought to be visible at a lower altitude, do the math and demonstrate it. To express doubts w/o evidence doesn’t increase your credibility.

          1. I think it’s okay to express doubts without evidence. I’m pretty good at math, but I don’t use it much for my understanding of the way the Universe works. I spend most of the time trying to destroy my own credibility, so increasing my credibility wasn’t one of the goals in the first place.

          2. I should have said that I don’t believe X-rays are a force and in any case I am referring specifically to an accelerative force. The only way to make something accelerate is with force, except in the case of Gravity apparently. So it’s pretty interesting to think about in my opinion.

        3. Just that that bubble of water doesn’t prove or challenge much man

          can’t help you with that

          that being the only argument? cmon son, do better jk

      2. I didn’t bring it up in the flow of the presentation, but there is actually a full 1:30 clip of the stable water sphere. I think they’ve gotten a pretty sophisticated plane, perhaps even supersonic.

        1. I have said before that such anti-grav centers exist on earth, and you pointed out the Bitter-module, nobody ever, anywhere is disputing that. Still makes it an assumption, unfortunately. more proof of “IRL” stuff than of their “CGI”.

        2. Do a yt on that.

          Please, though, make an edit option on your site. I drink, I make mistakes. Proofreading doesn’t always help.

  9. Dear Nathan one of your comments startled me. Yes… startled! You said you dispute the shape of the Earth. What do you mean? Please don’t tell me you are a “flat earther”.

    I cannot see the problem with the water bubble. If you dropped water from a high enough tower it would soon coalesce into a perfect sphere as long as there was not an opposing force like air braking the fall. If it was falling inside a cylinder (even filled with air) the environment inside the cylinder would be static so the perfect bubble could form. If you are flying in a passenger aircraft and are served mashed potato it doesn’t act differently to the same mashed potato served on the ground. They are both in a stable environment.

    1. I agree, but why don’t you see any evidence of the so-called gravitational force? Besides accelerating towards Earth, I don’t think there is evidence that Gravity is a force at all. I don’t think the Earth is flat. There isn’t a chance in heck that it’s a ball spinning around the Sun.

      1. Btw they already know how to make the graviton. Even though it’s a theory, but the Higg’s boson was also a theory and they managed to create it. The graviton being the one of the last, but probably the most important particles we haven’t discovered yet. Those things, theory concretely proves that it’s there and everything’s correct, it’s just a matter of time till it happens. Same as a spectrometer can indicate what elements can be found on or around a cosmic object, but we can’t prove it until we go there and gather some of it for actual analysis.

        PS: looking for a function to maybe edit my posts, preferably without any extra sign-ups and logins etc…

        Enough examples of proof of gravity available, and don’t limit yourselves with apples and such falling on Newton’s head.

        1. I don’t know how to do it, it’s an annoying part of this platform I guess. I still think it’s miles better than YouTube comments though. I think it’s a WordPress thing.

      2. That’s a relief because I think the flat-earth meme is a psyop used as way of discrediting other valuable information by association.

        Here is a good take on Solar system:-

          1. That’s funny. He watches my videos and now he thinks I’m a shill. That’s how this business works, unfortunately. I wonder what he thinks I got right.

        1. I am always absolutely amazed when I see theories such as this vortex voyage we human are supposed to be going thru at speeds of hundreds of thousands of miles per hour, for how long now? thousands of years and yet absolutely ZERO cosmic parallax. Simply amazing.

      3. “I don’t think the Earth is flat. There isn’t a chance in heck that it’s a ball spinning around the Sun.”

        The way I see it is that everything in existence perceives itself as being at the center of the universe, right down to sub-atomic particles. For all intents and purposes we perceive the Earth as essentially flat from our vantage point at ground level and more curved the further we distance ourselves from the surface. And you’re right, the Earth isn’t a ball spinning around the Sun either; the Solar System is “spinning” around the Earth; the Galaxy is “spinning” around the Solar System; and the Universe is “spinning” around the Solar System.
        I dare say gravity is a consequence of the relativity of everything to everything else since mass is a product of the spinning of subatomic particles. Celestial bodies orbit one another due to the fact that their subatomic particles are constantly re-orienting themselves to maintain themselves at the center of their universe.

        Love your stuff. Keep it up.

        1. Should read: “If anything, the Solar system is spinning around the Earth…”
          Should read: “and the Universe is spinning around the Galaxy.”

    2. I dont see anything wrong with him desputing the shape of the earth. Him being an advicate of truth and investigation i can understand why he would doubt its shape. Since all we get is way to much fake footage and to this day no real image of the earth that is not a rendered or composited and that has been copied and pasted relentlessly. but were not here for this endless debate, just to seek the truth. Does Nasa and SpaceX lie? YES, is the earth flat? Maybe idk…

  10. The space station fakery has been addressed many times. Nice to show the 28 sec periods next to eachother. And of course her hair gives it away already. Be interesting who that lady is and weather she uses her real name when she is an astronaut.

    1. The Earth is round, you were taught well in school. Stop this FE nonsense plz thx. Go ahead and question it. But stop “proving” it yea.

  11. I daresay it has something to do with the fact that every thing in existence either has its own inertial frame of reference or assumes the inertial frame of reference of its host.

  12. There are videos on youtube demonstrating parabolic flights. its crazy how people dont realize “zero gravity” is actually the same thing. You really had me laughing with the circus music and the crazy hair lady haha. Anyways, i have to say i officialy look forward to your thought proviking videos more than any other channel. Keep it up!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *