Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby Nick Java on September 11th, 2017, 9:17 pm

Excuse my Canadian :)

It's a smokey moon tonight.

Friendly fire! Oh Fuh ...
Down; in the trenches.
Wounded and bloodied.
Comrades? Homies? Anybody?
Nope, abandoned in this perniciously perditious mud,
Picking perfidious shards from my flesh,
Dragging my way to higher ground,
So many rabbit holes ...

My apologies (because that's what Canadian's do; apologize) to all for the length of this post. If you have a bandwidth budget you may want to turn off images. Some large images further down.

Originally I was planning on posting a brief addenda showing the "moon's shadow" as the sun diminishes in size (scroll down) but thanks to the hack job by agraposo I have a lot of flack to address.

That move, by the way, intentional or not, is straight out of the Divide and Conquer Strategies Handbook.
Full-on bull-dog instead of a couple of corrective comments.
A casual dismissal and a passive-aggressive smiley.
Negative instead of positive input.
What up? Did I strike a nerve?

Demean a member, demean the team.
Let's keep our eyes on the common goal.

Or, we can play a game, I like games, how about "Mole or Troll?"?
Haven't heard of it? That's because I just made it up.
There are no rules...

(I can hear the moderators bitchin' already, "no rough-housin' in the the forum".) ...

"Why, in the first place, do you try to debunk a video taken from a camera 1,000,000 miles away "

Wasn't trying to debunk the video.
I was curious as to what shadow the 3d software would produce based on a recent comment by Hoi, but when I plugged in the provided numbers, I was surprised to see it was even less pronounced than NASA's rendering. And, in the process, I ended up counting the frames in the eclipse animation and noticed a discrepancy.
Btw, do you think it's harder to debunk because the camera is 1,000,000 miles away?

While we're on the topic of debunking, I thought I'd throw in another observation.
It appears that the Earth in the video has a nice specularity and also no atmosphere.
Clouds, yes, atmosphere, no. And not a solitary twinkling star.
I guess there are no stars in that direction or they just, believably?, aren't bright enough for EPIC's 30.5 cm dia. f9.38 lens at 40 ms exposure on its 2048x2048 CCD downsampled to 1024x1024.
How big is a resampled star vs how big is a pixel?
The website says "the short exposure times will render points of starlight invisible."
And yes, it doesn't prove anything.
But the specularity is a nice touch and really adds to the realism/plausibility of the image.

"You should first ask yourself these questions:"

Yeah sure, OK, but before I do I have a few questions of my own.
Can I just ask them or do I have to answer them too?
Who made you a deputy of the Research Police?
What are you trying to accomplish?
What's your agenda? Let me see your badge.
Is there a book or website that lists all the questions I should ask first?
Are these the only questions I should ask first?

"- how did the spacecraft arrive there? (L1 Lagrangian point)"

I didn't put the camera at the Lagrangian point, someone else did.
Why do I have to answer that? Maybe Elon Musk would be a better target, he's the one with the paycheck.
Btw, looks like NASA hired a new animator.

Animation of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy three core launch

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elk4935gFdA

But I digress, back to: "how did the spacecraft arrive there?"
How about a rocket? To be precise, a Falcon 9 v1.1 rocket.


It just flew there and stopped at "the neutral gravity point between Earth and the sun".
Then I guess it had to start orbiting the sun at the same relative speed as Earth so it could stay focused on the target.
Maybe a better question is:
How does it locate and stay focused on Earth with it's 10,000 mm (equivalent) lens in all that solar wind?
Or, does it have to turn around to scan the sun?
And does the solar data slow down the earth data, can it stream simultaneously?

Oh, and what happened to the Falcon 9?
Did it drop off the EPIC and return the reusable parts, (the word "reusable" is reused/referenced 31 times on the Falcon 9 wikipedia page; seaching its derivative "reus" reveals 50 hits) or, did the EPIC, like a butterfly, shed it's Falcon 9 cocoon, and emerge as a glistening geo-stationary telescope?

"- how does the spacecraft circuitry is shielded from space radiation?"

is magic space-age materials?


"- how does the signal from the spacecraft reach the Earth?"

maybe UPS has a secret telegraphic Stellar Delivery Service?

"all your simple trigonometric/euclidean calculations are wrong."

and you know this because? ...
No, let me guess, you know what it looks like because you've seen it yourself.
You know, or maybe you don't,
sometimes simplicity adds clarity.
Ever heard of the KISS method?
Did you even take the time to wrap your head around the point I was trying to make?

"As everybody knows, in outer space the space-time is curved, the light bends and the time dilates, according to relativity."

Personally I haven't been there so I didn't know that. So, I guess I'm not everybody.
Just out of curiousity, how much does the light bend in the relatively short distance between the sun and the earth?
What's bending it?
Is it a uniform bend?
Or do some rays bend more than others?
I'll try to factor that into my next flawed observation. :P

I also didn't factor in the diffractive properties of the thin film of air encompassing the planet.
Here I created a 200 km optically dense object representing the atmosphere, and all it did was slightly darken the earth and diffuse the shadow even more. IOR values, Vacuum: 1.0, Air: 1.000029, Water: 1.33, Glass: 1.517. [https://docs.chaosgroup.com/display/VR2R/Refractive+Materials.]

"Do you think that NASA would be so stupid? [...] The time cadence will be no faster than 10 spectral band images every hour."

Thanks for pointing that out.
That's quite the way you introduce semi-valid information.
Sorry I didn't research the document you linked to. I didn't get that deep into EPIC.

Obviously something is hinky.
10 spectral bands per hour should result in 40 images over a four hour period, not 13, which is 3.25 per hour.

But, how many spectral bands make an "image"?
According to the last line (actually, the only line on page 2) in the pdf you quoted "To increase the downlink cadence of retrieved 10-channel image sets, the resolution will be averaged on board to 1024x1024 pixels resulting in spatial sampling at 17 km from pixel to pixel [...] The time cadence will be no faster than 10 spectral band images every hour." Or, one spectral band image set per hour. So, EPIC functions no faster than 10 spectral band images every hour.

"That same error ("once every two hours") is repeated in the official NASA Goddard's YouTube video"

And, once every two hours? "Error"?
That number is quoted at least twice in the video I watched. At 1:18 it's a qualified "EPIC takes at least 1 set of images about every two hours" and at 1:55 "although the view from EPIC is once every two hours". Then twice again on the Deep Space Climate Observatory page, first in the 2nd paragraph "It takes full-Earth pictures about every two hours" and again at the article's end "At least twelve images are released each day at regular intervals". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory] While we're at it, let's not ignore this authoritative site: [https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/199754-new-epic-camera-to-photograph-earth-in-a-way-it-has-never-been] "it will send back images of the sunlit face of the Earth every 110 minutes, in each of the 10 wavelengths it can see."

This is a classic example of obfuscation. [see DCSH]

So which is it?
Let's go with the tech sheet and dismiss the narator, who claims to be Jay Herman, the EPIC lead scientist for the DSCOVR mission. But, don't you think the lead scientist on a project would know his specs better? Kind of like the lead engineer of a Formula 1 race engine manufacturer claiming that their new engine (capable of 20,000 rpms) will achieve at least 2,000 rpms, failing to mention that if you step on the gas it will go a lot faster. Where's the pride?

Now all we have to do is figure out how they obtained 3.25 images per hour from a 1-image per hour camera. My guess is, like I said earlier, "burst-mode". Just press turbo but don't hold too long, the CPU might overheat.

Or, here's the real turbo 'out', and it's dirty.
So roll up your sleeves and put your gloves on.
Here's a bone to chew on.
Only scan the rgb bands successively, and skip the others and there you go, 3.33 images per hour. Boom! I saw mention of RGB filters somewhere but they also mentioned a time-shift problem due to capture rates of ~5 minutes per band, and I see a specularity, but I don't see a time shift, and for the life of me, I can't find the link. Sorry.

If someone sees it let me know, I'll add it here. It's got a picture with cascading RGB channels on the page.

In full-disclosure, I just discovered the wikipedia Deep Space Climate Observatory page says "The animation was composed of monochrome images taken in different color filters at 30 second intervals for each frame, resulting in a slight color fringing for the Moon in each finished frame. "

It looks like someone's already done the math but with a slight embellishment. So now we're back to burst-mode. How does a 10 image per hour camera, that's 6 minutes per image, suddenly work at 30 second intervals? Why don't they do it all the time?

And what about those other 7 channels?
When do they get their turn again?
How long can they stay off-line?
There must be a record of when they switch to 3 channel mode.
You'd think they would talk about it like it was some special feature but I haven't run across a single reference to a 3 spectral band image set. Maybe you can find one. Also it would be nice to see a data stream log for the event. I bet Elon's working on it right now.

Distance the Earth travels at the equator over 12 minutes:
Circumference of the Earth: 40,075 km times (12 minutes/60/24=0.00833333333333333) or 333.958333333333 km. (12 minutes is 2-6 minute cycles to capture 3 images)

Quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Spac ... bservatory "resulting in spatial sampling at 17 km/pixel". That would be an equatorial 19.64 pixel overall rotational shift which should be noticeable especially in "original" offerings. But of course, they would have time-shift correction software that no one talks about.

Looks like someone didn't read the EPIC Instrument Info Sheet:


And here's a link to the DSCOVR: EPIC Slideshow:
It seems to currently be stuck on September 1st. 10 days later. I guess things don't change that much in a week or two ...

Forgive me for switching horses in mid-stream, sometimes it just happens, from EPIC to VIIRS, all this overhead technology.

Let's take a quick look at the daily snapshot from VIIRS.
I copied and rotated the image and then shifted the result sideways so the all the edges meet in the middle of the "butterfly" image.


While perusing the VIIRS wikipedia page I ran across a simple elementary school level geometry problem.
We can leave Euclid out of this one.
2 circles, 2 sight lines, not an angle to calculate.
I'm hoping that a light bending expert can help me understand how VIIRS can scan pole to pole.
Warning: This is a trick question.


The answer, if you were wondering, is in the system name.

While we're on the topic of VIIRS lets take a quick look at a Raytheon offering.


Here's a riddle for all the no-satellite folks.
I've been working on it for a a few days and I have a few theories but I haven't come up with a plausible sollution.
If there are no satellites where does the undeniable satellite data come from?

What is Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS)?

Wikipedia tells us that:
[it is] a sensor designed and manufactured by the Raytheon Company
[it was] launched on October 28, 2011
VIIRS is a whiskbroom scanning radiometer
VIIRS has a swath width of 3060km at the satellite's average altitude of 829km
The VIIRS instrument can collect data in 22 different spectral bands of the electromagnetic spectrum.
The average orbit power for the instrument is 200 watts. In total the instrument weighs 275kg.
VIIRS data sets will allow for the assessment of how climate change has effected the earth's surface over the past ~20 years.

But it doesn't tell us how fast it's going. We're going to have to go somewhere else for that. So, here's two sources that kind of corroborate each other:



"Twice a day" and "every 14 hours hours"

So now we can make some calculations.

The circumference of the Earth: 40,075 km divided by 3060 (swath width) equals 13.1 passes for complete coverage in 1 rotation.
1 orbit takes 110 minutes
orbit diameter: (839 + 6371)x2= 14400 km
orbit circumference = 14400 x pi= 45,238 km
45,238 km times 13 passes = 588106 km Total distance travelled for one complete scan
588106 divided by 14 hours equals average speed
speed: 42,007 km/hr or 26254 mi/hr

According to wikipedia Escape Velocity is:
40,270 km/h or 25,020 mph at the surface.

Just a quick aside,
Airspeed record:
Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird: 3,529.6 km/hr, 2,193.2 mph
28 July 1976,
Capt. Eldon W. Joersz and Maj. George T. Morgan
SR-71 pilot Brian Shul reported in The Untouchables that he flew in excess of Mach 3.5 on April 15, 1986, over Libya, in order to avoid a missile.

Was that missile a rocket?

Never mind, let's check out 1 - AMS 2016 Puschell.pdf from Raytheon [http://www.jpss.noaa.gov/assets/pdfs/ams/2016/presentations/1%20-%20AMS%202016%20Puschell.pdf]
where we are inundated with a bunch of dumb-down graphics including this informative explanation of technology and innovation including a mystical Blackbody.

Further down the page we run into this description of a VIIRS swath width and a new feature that has no gaps over equatorial regions!
So nicely airbrushed to indicate ... swath paths?


And then, on the DSCOVR page, I ran across this technical gem illustrating the illuminating powers of the moon:

So, let's take a look at some VIIRS imagery.

A quick search on youtube found this awesome video showing what the students, faculty, and researchers from a couple of universities experienced while participating in polar field exercises. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIV9KHbR-0A&t=17s


I did some more "bean counting" and everything seems to check out with the numbers above. Did I find any magic beans while I was counting?
In a seven day window we get about 40 images so that works out to just under 6 images per day.


Slightly under the expected average of 13/2= 6.5 allowing for day/night (assuming the region is in every scan swath).

Now that could be because, as we learn in Beginner’s Guide to VIIRS Imagery Data:
"However, the satellite orbit is not a circle, the Earth is not a sphere and the satellite does not travel at constant speed."
Wow, that raises a lot more questions. Here's one: "Is it because it has to slow down for corners that the satellite does not travel at constant speed?"

Here's what a scan set looks like:


And here's what another (partial) scan set looks like (minus the overlays):

The originals are greyscale 9281 x 7712 pixels. I downloaded them from:

Does it look like an overhead scan or more forward and off-to-the-side?

I put these alternating images:


on a sphere and rotated it 360°. Then I rotated an approximated "scan swath" a total of 13 times (4680°) to give a perspective of VIIRS purported activity.


Here's a look at how the 3d program renders the North pole.


On the Raytheon website they have a SPINNING MARBLE APP. You can download it here:

Here are a couple of captures of Data viewed in SPINNING MARBLE APP.

South Pole

North Pole
Kind of looks a cotton ball on the North Pole. It also looks like a map wrapped on a sphere. Of course; it's an app, probably using game engine technology, just a guess.

There's another app you can download: McIDAS-V.

The following images are captures of Data viewed in McIDAS-V:

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite
"The GOES system uses geosynchronous satellites that, since the launch of SMS-1 in 1974, have been a basic element of U.S. weather monitoring and forecasting."
The procurement, design, and manufacture of GOES satellites is overseen by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

This one is from GOES West 0.62 um Visible on September the 9th.Image

This particular data set is updated every half hour and looks like it has been wrapped onto a distorted sphere for visualization purposes.

This is also captured from McIDAS-V
GOES East/West VIS Composite
(It also looks like the data has been wrapped onto a distorted sphere.)

What's with all the data gaps near the pole?

Below are captures of Polar Data viewed in McIDAS-V:

Polar Operational Environmental Satellites
The POES program will be superseded by the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS).

Antarctic 2017-08-10

What I'm noticing is the shape of the scans in the composites. There really doesn't seem to be any consistency as far as regularity goes considering the data is coming from an orbital scanner.



It becomes even more apparent when viewed as a 24 hour animated snapshot.

Antarctic 17-08-10

Here's a couple more from a month later. Things don't seem to improve.

Antarctic 17-09-07

I added a red highlight to one frame to draw attention to a large composite layer under the sporadic swaths. And the first image has a red line to indicate shape of a scan. For a polar orbiting scanner there seems a dearth of over-the-pole scans.
Also, I'm noticing that the snapshots are updated hourly, sometimes every half hour. How do they do that? Oh right, I remember reading geo-syncronous somewhere. Geo-syncronous or Orbital? It's so hard to keep track. [ed. it's not geo-syncronous.]

Let's take a look at the North pole. Maybe it's different.

This is a compilation of 2 days worth of scans at 1 hour intervals taken on September 6-7, 2017.

Arctic 2017-09-06-7

I'm sure there's a logical explanation for what appears to be a hodge podge of random scan swaths and why it's so difficult to make a composite of either pole with readable information. It's more like a pole-dancer skirting center-stage than a polar-orbitter . You'd think a program with a name like 'Polar Operational Environmental Satellites' would be more interested in detail regarding the poles of the planet.

Some of the sweeps look more like flight paths on a parallel as opposed to meridian.

So let's take a look at how the 3d program would wrap a rectangular swath produced on a "parallel" path near the pole.


Enough looking at satellite images, time to get back to matters at hand. I'll leave it to some one else to pick up the mess.

For the time being, I stand by my :P

Now to the point I was planning making more than a week ago.

I did come up with another solution to the "believeable shadow" conundrum.

If the results don't match expectations and we really don't care about "geometric integrity" how about we just change the size of the sun in the model just before we hit the render button?

How would YOU like the shadows to appear based on your superior knowledge?
This is what the ray-tracer in the 3d program thinks the shadow looks like using figures gleaned from wikipedia:


It's not wrong. It may not be 100% accurate, but it's not "wrong". It is what it is, a sun sized light shining at an earth sized sphere with a moon sized shadow-casting sphere directly between at proportional distances using a ray-tracer to calculate the shadow. If you don't like the results, I challenge you to find or build a more accurate renderer, then we can compare results. Who knows, maybe the renderer just can't deal with the astronomical numbers or I keyed in dyslexic numbers. If I did, let me know, and I'll re-assess the situation.

And this is what decreasing the size of the sun produces:

More useless bits of information:
The heaviest non-Catadioptric telephoto lens for civilian use was made by Carl Zeiss and
has a focal length of 1700 mm with a maximum aperture of f/4,
implying a 425 mm (16.7 in) entrance pupil.
It is designed for use with a medium format Hasselblad 203 FE camera and weighs 256 kg (564 lb) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephoto_lens

Deep Space Climate Observatory:
Spacecraft properties
Launch mass: 570 kg (1,257 lb)[2]
Dimensions: Undeployed: 1.4 × 1.8 m (54 × 72 in)[2]
Power: 600 W
Launch date: February 11, 2015, 23:03:02 UTC
Rocket: Falcon 9 v1.1
Launch site: Cape Canaveral SLC-40
Contractor: SpaceX


Oh look, it's time for an internet quiz.


Sorry if you clicked, just a prototype :)

Anyways, I've spent way more time than I ever planned looking at satellite imagery and satellite tech data, so let me remind you of the riddle that arose: If there are no satellites where does the undeniable satellite data come from?

Maybe someone out there knows.

So, do I think
"that NASA would be so stupid?"

What I think is I think that's a question better answered by you.

And, agraposo, I hope I answered your questions satisfactorily.

Regarding people "using the capabilities of their brains" [http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1968&sid=0738997ba7acd4211b28604f14809947#p2404130], instead of sniping the site, please check the settings on your WrongBrush, I believe it needs recalibrating. It's a bit wide.
And if, after re-calibration you still believe I'm wrong then please be more specific with your corrections.

Also, I do have one final task for you, intrepid research critic.
I'd like to see 2 successive "3 image sets" or 1 "10 image set" containing 3 1/3 successive RGB scans all properly time-stamped at 30 second intervals and another random standard "10 image set" for comparison. Good luck on that.

Positive feedback is always welcome. Thanks Hoi, for your encouragement!

A gauntlet has not been dropped.
And I'm sheathing my pen/sword for now, except for this excerpt from the DCSH:
"Diversionary Tactics: A diversionary activity is one intended to attract people's attention away from something which you do not want them to think about, know about."

Was the diversion successful?
I'll let you, the reader determine that.
I took 10 personal chair days out of my ever-shortening life to compose this reply,
when I could have been working on something else.
I hope it was worth the effort.

Nick Java's Conspiracy Theory of the Day

Oh, one more thing before I go.
There's an old saying, 'curiosity killed the cat'.
I suspect that cat's and their mind control* decided to rid the planet of the demon "Curiosity", by building an efigy and relegating it to the moon. "No, not far enough, a far, far away planet, Mars. No mice there."
"Curiosity to Mars?"
"Yeah, and we'll call it Rover."
"Like the dog?"
"Yeah, like the dog."
"Heow, heow, heow."
"Get the humans to build a rocket and we will rid ourselves of the blight. No more curiosity, no more death."
And that's what happened to curiosity in America. Hey, and what a coincidence, Elon Musk has a new cat.**
... and a new space suit.

As we celebrate, maybe a turkey dinner and a glass of wine, the 16th anniversary of 9-11, let's not forget all the people who died:


And let's remember,
not a single warrant,
not a single arrest,
no serious investigation into the theory of collapse physics.
Either our "custodians" are asleep at the wheel or they're too busy eating hand-pealed grapes.
The time for answers is: Now!
"They" are retiring and dying,
and as almost "everyone knows" dead men tell no tales, true or false.

Is there such a thing, in the pool of 323.1 million (2016) American citizens,
as one lawyer with the balls, or lips, to challenge NIST?
Maybe an insurance company? Like the one financing the rebuild.
Where's Ban Ki-moon when we need him?

My apologies, one last time, I didn't mean to turn this into a platform.

I''m going to close with the last hymn of the day sung by a group of 20th century space pilots.
Let's work together.

Canned Heat - Future Blues Cover 1970

Canned Heat - Let's work together

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hom0fYd5uX4

or, if the dancing girls are too much for you, here's the same song but it only has lip-synced guys in it.

Canned Heat - Let's work together

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWY1rdp2XG4

As always, keep up the good work. ...

Mole or Troll? Anyone? ... ... Anyone?

Peace. Harmony. Owwwwmmmmmm.

Nick Java.
Over. and Out.
Nick Java
Posts: 15
Joined: March 14th, 2012, 2:18 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby Flabbergasted on September 12th, 2017, 8:36 pm

Nick Java wrote:I took 10 personal chair days out of my ever-shortening life to compose this reply, when I could have been working on something else. I hope it was worth the effort.

I wish I could answer in the affirmative. It wasn´t overly useful if measured against the time and space invested.
Posts: 671
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby Nick Java on September 14th, 2017, 2:41 pm

It wasn´t overly useful

Thanks Flabbergasted for your frank and fair assessment.

Sometimes when you go searching for diamond rings in a public park, if you're lucky, you might find a garnet or a tarnished silver coin. Success really depends on many factors. The documented quest I was tasked with and the path I took may not have unearthed a diamond, it was not an endeavor that I would naturally have taken on.

Please allow me to review the items that appear relevant to me from my walk in the park.

1. I am not convinced that the poorly researched statement "The time cadence will be no faster than 10 spectral band images every hour" is a valid point. It ignores the differentiation of synonyms. Clearly ignoring the implication of 1 complete image every hour. Not 10. That's redirection.
When is a channel an image? And what is a spectral band image?
My supposition is that 'a spectral band image' is a component, or channel, of a "10-channel image set". Most RGB images contain at least 3 channels yet when have you ever heard someone refer to a blue channel as an image, or a JPG as a "3-channel image set" or a PNG as a "4-channel image set"? That's because the channels have already been combined into a single file.

And the comment "Look at the end of this document" shows that was not sincerely done, or not understood, by the poster. Intentional, or not, it was obfuscation; or in layman's terms, muddying the waters.
And all I found was evidence that "that same error" is not an error at all, but NASA reality. Cherry-picking is not proof of anything and yet it was used to discredit the discrepancy that I noticed.

2. Polar satellite data is abysmally deficient, erratic and inconsistent, at least the publicly accessible stuff.

3. Unless my math is wrong, according to the information I could glean from the internet, it looks like VIIRS is travelling about 1000 mph faster than escape velocity, so it shouldn't be orbitting the planet, it should be on its journey to some distant galaxy.

4. The initial point that I was making was that the moon's shadow in the EPIC video does not look like a shadow created in a 3d program using current ray-tracing technology and common astromonical figures, but I was able to find a solution. I don't know if the 3D renderer is anatomically correct or not, but if the EPIC imagery is computer generated and they obtained similar results then there are workarounds to make it more plausible to the unwashed masses. A slight darkening of the planet? Bang for buck. It doesn't 'pop'.

5. The riddle "If there are no satellites where does the undeniable satellite data come from?" is a serious question. It would help me (and I am certain many others) immensely if someone could come up with a plausible answer. It's not a demand, it's a plea.

And, before I go, if you were an art director for a sci-fi movie that included a scene with an eclipse event, would you go with A, B, C, or something in between?

Nick Java
Posts: 15
Joined: March 14th, 2012, 2:18 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby pov603 on September 14th, 2017, 3:33 pm

Posts: 734
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby agraposo on September 14th, 2017, 3:53 pm

Nick Java,

this is the 88th page of this thread, in case you haven't noticed. If you still think there are cameras in outer space it's your problem. There is a lot of NASA bullshit to watch, why do you post such dizzying gifs?
Posts: 251
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 10:48 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby simonshack on September 14th, 2017, 11:22 pm

agraposo » September 14th, 2017, 2:53 pm wrote:If you still think there are cameras in outer space it's your problem.

Indeed. Well said, Agraposo - I couldn't have put it better myself.

Nick Java, I must say your stance on the existence of man-made satellites is extremely blurry (and so are your posts here). Can you please clarify in (very) simple words your stance on this? One single sentence may suffice, thanks.
Posts: 6409
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby Nick Java on September 18th, 2017, 8:20 pm

Thanks pov603!

simonshack » September 14th, 2017, 10:22 pm wrote:in (very) simple words your stance on this? One single sentence may suffice, thanks.

From my understanding of rocketry, a rocket works by creating a continuous external localized high-pressure 'bubble' in the atmosphere, at its posterior end, displacing it in an upward direction through progressively thinner air which decreases "traction" resulting in exponential decelleration until it either runs out of fuel or the atmosphere is too thin to support its weight on the pressure bubble and gravity pulls it back down.
60 miles up there is nothing to press against. Atmospheric support is close to zero, Gravity is still almost 100%.
So, using that logic, the existence of any geo-synchronous, orbitting, or wandering man-made sattelite doesn't make sense because: gravity.
Nick Java
Posts: 15
Joined: March 14th, 2012, 2:18 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby agraposo on September 18th, 2017, 10:34 pm

Nick Java » 18 Sep 2017, 21:20 wrote:So, using that logic, the existence of any geo-synchronous, orbitting, or wandering man-made sattelite doesn't make sense because: gravity.

So you agree that the images of the Earth from space are a complete joke, no?

I have always thought that the Earth is like a black hole, in the sense that no objects with mass can escape out of the atmosphere. Only radiation could possibly escape, if the atmosphere allows that. The atmosphere is the key, there is life in the Earth due to the atmosphere. No atmosphere, no life. Look at the moon. Only an explosion from the inside could liberate such energy to permit, for instance, that a rock of the size of a mountain could escape to outer space (and become an asteroid).

In my opinion, NASA has created herself a very big problem with satellites and space debris. If satellites don't fall in spite of gravity, then the space debris can also stay around the Earth. They can't say there is no space debris, due to gravity, because then satellites could not exist, due to the same reason.
Posts: 251
Joined: June 10th, 2011, 10:48 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby Nick Java on September 19th, 2017, 10:23 pm

agraposo » September 18th, 2017, 9:34 pm wrote:So you agree that the images of the Earth from space are a complete joke, no?

Yes, no.
I guess we could call it a joke. A pretty expensive joke. It has many comedic moments, but it's a joke that most folks take pretty seriously. And I'm not sure what the punch line is. So, it's a bad joke because no matter how it gets told, no one ever laughs (because it's really not that funny).
Nick Java
Posts: 15
Joined: March 14th, 2012, 2:18 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby NotRappaport on October 9th, 2017, 8:21 am

hoi.polloi » September 29th, 2016, 8:55 am wrote:I still wonder about the "slow clap" and the appearance of "currents". I could be imagining it. Watch for yourself. Might they be wired up in some way? Yeah! Is it expensive and annoying to edit out these things? Yes, we can be sure they do their damnedest to avoid any need for touch ups.

My sense is that they use underwater filming for scenes where they are in the spacesuits ("space" walks and such). Indoors, they are hung by harnesses, either upside down or, in some cases, directly above the camera.

Little details like the floaty watches, microphones, dogtags, and the flute are all CGI-inserted props that the actornots pantomime as if they were actually holding. Once you zoom in on one of these videos you can really see just how deliberately grainy or pixelated it is in close-up. The easiest way to do these effects would be to film in high definition, insert the special effects and erase any remnants of the wire rigging, then degrade the picture to a lower definition to eliminate the detectable artifacts of compositing.

The fact that they are pantomiming the interactions with weightless objects becomes obvious when you consider that anything they hold or twirl around seems to have absolutely no "heft" to it; their hand motions are fluid and don't show signs of actually working with something that has mass. They also use loose open grips, with fingers delicately "grasping", when they hold something like a microphone. If they tried to pantomime holding a microphone with their fingers wrapped around it, like a slightly open fist, it would be much more difficult to composite in the CGI microphone, especially if their fake grip was tighter than the width of the item they are supposed to be holding.

Also notice that when she holds the flute, she is careful to only use one hand, and when she plays it with two hands, it is angled away from the camera.

"Hold the pretend mic while I get my pretend flute!"

"Better give me the pretend mic back so I only have to hold the pretend flute with one hand!"

"There's no getting around needing to use two hands to play it, so let me give you the mic back

"I'll angle the flute away from the camera so they can't see my fingers pretend to press the keys on my pretend flute!"

"Fooled the TV-watching idiots again! Hahaha!"
Posts: 103
Joined: October 3rd, 2017, 10:01 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby NotRappaport on October 10th, 2017, 5:45 am

This is the worst one I've ever seen!

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrHMvlxYGf0
Space Station Crew Members Discuss Life in Space with Utah Students, Officials posted by NASA on May 19, 2017

Is there anyone who can look at this and NOT realize "Flight Engineer Jack Fischer" is hanging upside down???

Look how obvious it is when you rotate the picture 180°

Collar hanging upward, shirt riding up to his jaw, the skin on his face drawn upward...

I mean, obviously "Commander Peggy Whitson" is too wrinkled and saggy to hang upside down without it looking freakishly wrong, but why on Earth did NASA have one person upside down next to someone rightside up where the contrast is so glaring?

Hey NASA, I thought there was no "up" or "down" in space! :lol:
Last edited by NotRappaport on October 10th, 2017, 7:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Posts: 103
Joined: October 3rd, 2017, 10:01 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby hoi.polloi on October 10th, 2017, 6:16 am

Good points, NotRappaport. And besides all your messages here being food for thought, you are totally right about the ridiculous 180. It is completely laughable! Well spotted.
Posts: 4857
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby NotRappaport on October 10th, 2017, 7:13 am

Thank you, hoi polloi :)

I ran across that video in the course of doing a bit of research on space agencies' methods of deception and just had to share it right away because it was so ridiculous!
Posts: 103
Joined: October 3rd, 2017, 10:01 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby pov603 on October 10th, 2017, 7:09 pm

:lol: nice find!
Posts: 734
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby NotRappaport on October 22nd, 2017, 11:39 pm

Here's a quick demonstration of how easy it is to make "weightless liquid" effects. In the GIF below, I used Blender 3D rendering software (free) and GIMP image editor (free). Took about 10 minutes and I barely know how to use these tools.

Ernest In Spaaaaace!

I used a still picture ("Ernest P. Worrell" for you American folks who were around in the 1980's) but it could just as easily be a film strip. A still image helps keep the file size relatively small.

This is why those "liquid in space" effects don't impress me. Especially since we never got to see them, except for brief sequences obviously taken aboard parabolic flights in "reduced gravity aircraft" (aka "vomit comets"), until after the age of digital 3D rendering. Hollywood movies in the early 1990's could create these effects.
Posts: 103
Joined: October 3rd, 2017, 10:01 pm


Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests