International Space Station Hoax | How to Fake Zero-Gravity

I don’t think the ISS is real, but I have a hard question for the truthers too. Let’s get to the bottom of this.

46 thoughts on “International Space Station Hoax | How to Fake Zero-Gravity”

  1. Hello Mr “lifttheveil”

    First I am french so I have poor english, sorry….

    Well, you’re asking a very good last question in your video…. “stable environement” “how they doing long video ?” it can be explain by a new plane who can fly out the atmosphere… in low space….for a quick time but more than the actual method.

    But you have messing 2 things for us: tell us the time of the “long video” and tell us the maximum time in plane for a free fall zero gravity effect…. if the “long video” make more time to make, you have the possibility for a “raccord ” (connexion) of 2 different videos in one … (in movies or tvseries they’re do this.)

    Salutation et bon courage

    look my web site and french/english links of electric theory of univers, thank’s

  2. If you also look at the pen that strangely floats off, you notice the object, next to it on the left, from stationary position does the same as the pen

    1. I seen that…looks like the Vomit Plane had to go back
      I ask U how did the do the Launched New Plastic $5.00 Bill.. From our Very Own Ass,tro,nut…

  3. To answer your question about how they make zero g environment, i suggest you watch david copperfield tricks, i dont know how it works even we the magician still cant hackle that.

  4. The long history of photo fakery and Hollywood special effects easily explain NASA’s fakery. No vomit comets needed! They use a variety of Hollywood special effect techniques. You’ve seen it all on film before. Hollywood has long had things like machine controlled cameras that allowed multiple passes of a scene to be shot with a moving camera. The sets can be moved as the actor hangs suspended by wires that will be painted out later. There are many combinations of techniques that can be used.

    The interviews that the NASA astronauts do with the “NEWS” are pre recorded edited productions. The major NEWS is and always has been state run.

    for more see:

  5. Here’s a recent ISS interview:

    Notice the microphone twirling around the 17 minute mark and of course Kate’s hair throughout the interview.

    19 minutes with no cuts. Seem like a this length of microgravity would be impossible to produce in an airplane flying parabolas… I used to do it for fun in a Piper Cherokee, but could only get a few seconds at a time. Even NASA’s vomit comet gets well less that a minute at a shot.

    1. I’ll look at it but I’ve seen similar video and am equally perplexed. It has been shown that they use harnesses and rigged props quite a bit rather than actually creating a “zero-g” environment for the actornauts, so that could explain a lot of what we’re seeing in longer videos. I’ll have to look and see what I think of that particular video. Cheers.

      1. I would suggest…
        The extended time showing the large water sphere surely is just more fakery. It’s really that simple, because to propose technology to provide real zero g thus would be both unlikely and very expensive compared to that old faithfull – CGI ! Otherwise one might also ask ” how did Sandra Bullock orbit the Earth in the film Gravity?”.
        They spliced short vomit comet time lapses together seamlessly in the same miraculous way Photoshop can do with photos these days with the click of a menu.
        As a rule of thumb, having established the ISS as a hoax to my satisfaction, the more credible and thus puzzling video footage is explained by CGI.

  6. Mr. Lift the Veil – I am sorry I don’t know your name – and others here interested on this discussion, with all due respect, I am going to capitalize some words and perhaps sentences in order to give emphasis to the message I am trying to convey so please don’t think I am yelling.
    Humans CANNOT GET OUT of the dome we call Earth. It’s impossible. Never mind the rocketry or the propulsion system used. Vacuum is EXTREME PRESSURE similar to what one experiences the further one dives to the bottom of an ocean. Between ocean and space there is a difference however as to how the pressure is applied. In the ocean the pressure is consequence of the WEIGHT of the ocean itself coming from all directions “on top of you” so to speak. Have you seen what that kind of pressure does to objects that are not completely solid or are not designed and shaped within certain mechanical parameters? IT CRUSHES THEM. It OBLITERATES THEM. Keep that in mind.
    Now, the vacuum in outer space is the absence of ANY atmospheric properties. No oxygen, nitrogen or carbon. NO AIR. You can’t have a flame on a vacuum. It doesn’t ignite. You can’t have a burning chamber inside of a rocket AND AT THE SAME TIME have an opening for the exhausts to come out. It doesn’t work, period. You can have electrical events occur BUT NOT consequences from events related to burning or propelling material gases in the form the I see now lots of people assume Nasa does.
    PRESSURE is the keyword here, folks. Now what this little clip and see what pressure does to the marshmallows and please tell me if humans can tolerate that. Never mind the suits astro-nuts wear. Humans would be completely crushed just like the marshmallows. NO ONE GETS OUT!
    This whole thing is HUGE comedy joke and fantastic game of deception that has costs trillions in dollars and precious true science researches.

    1. I’m Nathan and thanks for the comments. I was just trying to stick with generally accepted physics in the presentation to show that the SpaceX feed doesn’t conform with that either. I have the same concerns about anything burning in space, even with liquid oxygen, but I don’t know the physics or the chemistry well enough to say it can or can’t happen. It sounds like you might though. Cheers.

      1. Thanks for your response Nathan. I watch your videos and I clearly see your concerns with this whole space travel agenda , which is nothing but that, an agenda. Social engineering to maintain the fabricated lies of our human history, social engineering for profit and government power, created in the basis of deceptive human potential to convince us that we are superhuman and can be like gods and conquer the universe when none of this is true. Cheers.

      2. “The vacuum of outer space” could be chicken soup for all we know : we only have the testimony of Space Agencies!
        It’s probably water per flat earth theory.
        Debunking globe theories about space I begin to find boring when too much conjecture is introduced. Gravity itself is unproven and the stars move and the earth is stationary: these seem relevant when pondering the properties of Space vacuum, thermosphere, planets and other astronomical nonsence seem only good for arguing with individuals that will never change their heliocentric belief system.

        The earth seems flat. I thought that was how we all got here- got to a fake ISS, fake Hubble, fake satellites …face outer space with fake ( the lies about) solid planets and stars.

        Idk – seeing mountains in their entirety from their base at cross- ocean distances of over 100 miles…’s flat!

        Earth orbiting objects that NASA presents require the globe and sufficient and perfect speed to use centri fugal force to balance gravitational forces. To orbit a flat earth would be a flat latitudinal circumnavigation and require considerable propulsion as seen in aircraft and *not* seen in any alleged satellite be they GPS,TV,ISS,Hubble…

  7. Someone mentioned thrusters, I have a question. Everyone knows how thrusters work here on Earth. Very simple principle; burn something, exhausts come out of a nozzle at high speed, encounters the density and the atmospheric pressure of the environment around like a wall, and forces the kinetic energy to be directed it in the opposite direction the nozzle is pointing thus propelling the object in that direction. Kids rocket science 101.
    My question is what makes someone think that the same principle can be applied in an environment which when I last checked it was supposed to be a vacuum and zero G?

    1. The principle is different. Exhaust doesn’t need to encounter any “resistance”. This is Newton’s 3rd law (high school level mechanics, as I’ve said): you push the exhausting gases one way, and they push you the other way. So you’re propelled in the opposite direction with respect to the gases. Just the same as if you’d be propelled on the boat in the middle of a lake if you’d throw something really massive really fast (e.g. shooting a cannon).
      BTW, you’re not alone in this ignorance – New York Times once (sometime in 20’s) “disproved” Goddard’s work on that very basis.

      1. DIfferent reaction in a vacuum. Vacuum exactly means absence of atmospheric pressure, barometric pressure, air density, lack of oxygen and nitrogen etc therefore you have nothing to push against. Besides there is no ignition in a vacuum. you cannot even light a simple match on a vacuum chamber. You can send an electric spark thru it but that’s about it.
        And by the way, what your language with the ignorant bit. Stick with the facts.

        1. You push against the exhausting gases (CO2 and H2O). The ignition is not in a vacuum, but in a combustion chamber, where there is a mixture of a fuel with oxidizer (for example, liquid hydrogen or kerosene and liquid oxygen) at high temperature (enough for a chemical reaction to start).
          Is that too complicated for you?

          1. This is a lively discussion, but let’s keep it civil. I agree with both of you. Eugene is right that in a vacuum you don’t need to push against anything. You simply send force (or mass) one way and you go the other way. In fact, you could eject fuel (or anything of mass) without lighting it on fire and you would travel in the opposing direction with the same force used to eject it. So why do they still burn the fuel? I assume it’s because that’s the fastest and most forceful way to eject it.

            That said, I don’t know if I believe in space. That’s just the way things would work if “outer space” is real and if it’s is a vacuum like we’re told.

          2. Those mixtures you mentioned are related to solid and liquid fuel discharge, but only within the atmosphere.
            The reason why I ask all these questions about propulsion is because back in Israel in the mid 70s I participated in some experiments with a vacuum chamber, pretty decent size and very efficient. We done all kinds of experiments but mainly about propulsion. One of them was to disperse colored gas thru a nozzle. When the gas hits the vacuum it quickly breaks up in tiny little particles, fly in every direction and get stuck to the chamber walls. You can’t achieve linear or directional exhaust propulsion.
            I think you are regurgitating the same bullshit the the Nasaholes like to put out there. Add if this thing about jet propulsion in space, whichever method they use, including the atomic energy these douchebags also claim to use, ever worked without any doubts, the whole trip to the moon conundrum would have not being the farce that it is and none of us would have to be here.
            These people have genuine question about these deception, and I am sure of other deceptions too.
            You are a shill and you talk like an arrogant asshole. Shut up and go away.

          3. With manners like this, mr. Salgado, it’s no wonder you’ve had troubles with experiments. You probably had troubles with just about anything requiring the use of higher mental activity.
            Why is the atmosphere required for a chemical reaction? Is it a catalyst or something? CH4 cannot burn in O2 without the atmospheric nitrogen around it or what? Or maybe argon or CO2 is required for the fuel to burn? Kind of ridiculous.
            In real world you just mix O2 and CH4 at certain pressure with enough energy (~ temperature) and the reaction occurs. Same with other fuels and oxidizers.
            As for the direction of propulsion – there is a brilliant invention called nozzle. It does exactly that: sends the exhausting gases in the needed direction.
            Indeed you might use not just the chemical reaction to speed the exhausting matter up, but you might use other sources of energy: electromagnetic field (plasma/ion/Hall thrusters), nuclear (or thermonuclear) reaction and maybe some other forces, which we haven’t yet discovered. Ion engines are very popular today because of their high specific impulse (they require much less fuel for the same momentum change – in other words, they are very effective). A lot of geostationary satellites are equipped with them, as well as some interplanetary missions (Dawn mission to Vesta and Ceres being a very prominent example). The only drawback is very low thrust, so in order to achieve the needed velocity change for interplanetary transfer you need to keep it working literally for a couple of years instead of a few minutes burn of a chemical engine.

  8. I think the “turbulance” you refer to is a planned manuver to keep the station in orbit. The station acceleratied and the pen appears to move backward, but it is actually in the same trajectory but the station moves “forward” in relation to the pen/pencil.

    1. Not only does the station has thrusters (mostly on the Russian segment), it also has a huge set of gyroscopes and flywheels (mostly on the American segment) and both of those regularly work to keep the station’s orientation in LVLH system (they rotate the station to be constantly oriented with respect to the local horizontal plane, which changes with the period of roughly 90 minutes; so the ISS makes a “somersault” with a period of an hour and a half). And every now and then even the docked ships (like “Progress”) lift the station up with a thruster acceleration, keeping its orbit from degrading and falling out of the sky back into the Earth’s atmosphere.

  9. We have quite a big amount of photos (maybe even videos) of ISS (including the ones where it docks to other spacecraft) taken by amateurs from Earth. And we have quite a big amount of photos and videos taken from orbit – either from ISS itself, or from the other stations/craft. Hundreds of thousands (or maybe millions) of people involved in the project (including a couple of hundreds of men and women who’ve actually been there), dozens of scientific experiments, real-time live feed etc. Just what other kind of proof of its existence do you want?
    Are the other stations fake too? Is Mir station fake? Skylab? Tiangong?
    Your version of reality is far more complicated than the one where all of those are genuine. You have to invent some unknown technology to fake microgravity on Earth, while only the high school level of mechanics expertise is enough to explain what we see and know from the data on ISS that we have. On top of that, you have to suppose an existence of conspiracy involving millions of people. It is not reasonable to follow this line of thought.

  10. 1 – They now have a lot more sophisticated planes, larger crafts with tremendous amounts of high end avionics. They climb higher, have a much steadier and smooth parabolic flight and that also increases the fake zero gravity time. I called them, puke palaces
    2 – You said you believe in satellites. Ok. Explain to us than why it that 95% plus of communications, especially the ones from country to country and continent to continent are done thru undersea cables spread millions and millions of miles just about over the entire globe? Look it up.
    3 – You say you were amazed by the behavior of the big water bubble and the horse syringe trick. Well, a) what makes you sure that that’s the way a water behaves when you blow on it with a syringe? the water behaves just like as when you throw a pebble on the pond. it comes back at the source of impact. Is that how is suppose to behave in zero G? we don’t know. b) that sequence could very well be a digital animation. I happen to be a digital graphics artist for a living and that is a piece of cake to create in Cinema 4d or 3D studio Max etc. Takes longer to render than to set up the scene.
    I like your videos, keep it up. Cheers!

  11. Apparently, matter behaves this way under the influence of extreme pressures, as (possibly mistakenly) explained by a certain Ass-trow-not whilst a crew of 3 is filmed in a capsule in the ocean deep. My theory on the water is that, just because we see a clear liquid does NOT mean that it is water. It may well be H3O — highly-deuterated water. After all, how many of us know of its actual properties when 70 years on, there STILL exists a tightly-held, secretive element of certain processes specific to the nuclear industry? (not just the little-known fact that they regularly vent the core into the atmosphere of its build-up of radioactive noble gases over the surrounding residential neighbourhoods..) The ‘water’ is being held in a conductive-looking loop of metal, yet we cannot see any RF / magnetic (water is paramagnetic, H3O even more so,) or electrostatic / pressure / specific-gravity, etc. influences of how this ‘holder’ of the ‘water’ is functioning.
    On the topic of trickery, remember how that British creep “proved” to a caller that he was ‘on the isis’ by doing that awkward and incomplete-looking front-flip? Look at the video again: all the blood rushed to his face, proving that he was being suspended – and a little closer to Earth than what they were portraying! Bloody liars — and extra-creepy, right-glancing, perpetually-smiling ones at that – I am NOT fooled!

  12. as far as being up there and the engines cooling , its supposedly 2000 decrees C up there , what is keeping the ISS COOL ??? and as far as objects moving in the control room shots ect … Jeranism of GlobeBusters exposed more than a few ISS shots with clear post production CGI things floating around … not to mention all the faked fish eye curve selfies … AND THE KICKER … why for all the decades … have the vid cameras on the space walks NEVER do a 180 turn , showing a wide area … much less do a full 360 … EVER … WHY … statistically it would have happened all ready , WTF ?

  13. great episode dude , the vomit comet , bah haw hahahaha , ive heard that , you get like a few seconds of 0 G than you ralph , some band … OK-Go … I think … filmed a music video in sections on that plane and linked it all together to appear to have the illusion of being one continuous shot ( the music video whole ) yet it was filmed in like two hundred 30 second chunks … lol … the band said all they did was puke

    1. The first video is definitely a fake, those reduced-flights’ parabolas provide 25-30s of weightlessness, exactly what you have in the video.

      For real short videos we have ground-based free-fall centers.
      Also could be the ISS and modules’ thrusters which there are a ton of up there, which have a force of 15 to 300kgf (used to raise the altitude), combined with the massive speed of the ISS, lots of stuff could happen. Then again they don’t use them that often, but still could be some coincidence.

      Also don’t forget that there is tons of man-made and cosmic sh*t flying around up there, there are systems to avoid that stuff too (don’t forget the speeds and the relative speeds of objects).

      Imo 3rd video seems totally genuine.

      Available info from publicly accessible sources provide enough information to withstand the criticism you formulated in this particular video.

      Btw, if you believe that there are satellites up there, why do you question the ISS? The diameter of the Earth is almost 13000km, it’s atmosphere is 100km thick, satellites fly around at about that altitude, ISS at 400km. Analyze the proportions, get the largest apple you could find (not those grapefruit giant mutant ones), with the thinnest apple skin, well that apple skin would be the altitude of them satellites, ISS not being far from there.

  14. Hi Nathan,
    I can’t answer your anti-gravity stable environment but I think I know someone who can. He is a mechanical scientist and he proposes that spaceflight is (as we know it now) impossible. Here is his detailed explanation
    I’ll post your video on his Facebook page and see if he comes up with a solution

    1. The Juri Gagarin space trip 1961 started the hoax with humans in space. JFK, USA, NASA just copied the communist nonsense. Humans cannot travel in space because they cannot come back and land on Earth.

  15. “Did they get hit by an asteroid?” hahahahahahahahahahahaha. This is very good food for thought. Quite disconcerting they’ve figured out a way to elongate the zero gravity effect (and that they’re letting such a creeper play around with it).

  16. I apologize for giving you the wrong link. Here is the correct link ( You will find that the comments on the first video from some of the folks state that the footage is not shot in one take but multiple times to make the length of the video, due to the short time zero g can be obtained. Also, there seems to be some sort of apparatus around the bubble which many explain some continuity issues? Just guessing on my end idk.


  17. Just wanted to answer one of your questions about whether or not NASA has anyone in space allowing them to perform “Zero G” stunts like the water bubble experiment….they don’t and they never will. See the following link which many very well enlighten you.
    It took me a long time to research the lies being told by our government. I had to weed through many resources to find what I felt to be the truth. Captain Obvious is a very good YouTube resource; you many find him enjoyable – I did 🙂

  18. As for your question about simulating a zero g environment. I’m not sure, but I have heard that they can do this in small areas within a strong magnetic field. i have seen this done with a mouse before or was it a frog? The following link may be very interesting.

  19. Nice to see another video on NASA. All I will say is the weather forecasts have not improved since the introduction of the alleged satellites (they said it would revolutionise forecasting) so either they don’t exist or there just useless.

  20. I like the space program/moon scam topics you’ve covered. Basically, I follow all your work, but I believe these are the core of the grand deception they’ve perpetrated on us for decades. Your analytical approach draws me in and keeps my attention. Not sure if you’re 100% right in all the conclusions, but you need to concentrate in this area, and dig deeper – show us more.
    If a lot of this is correct, it has to collapse under the weight of itself – (but why hasn’t it…are THEY that good?)

Leave a Reply

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