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 simonshack on May 22nd, 2018, 8:22 am

*
Dear Thisisunreal,

Yes, this is unreal. -_- (said by an ex semi-pro photographer who, admittedly many years ago, worked with several pros who were all totally obsessed / paranoid about keeping their expensive and delicate equipment out of harm's way. As it is, a mere scratch on those telephoto lenses would be disastrous - yet they let them float around the ISS like children's party balloons?... ).
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6519
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby thisisunreal on May 23rd, 2018, 6:04 pm

Normal laws of photography do not apply

Space is a fascinating frontier for photography. It was only when I started looking at the new unofficial official ISS photographer, Thomas Pesquet, I noticed that the basic ‘laws’ of photography do not apply in space. The EXIF data (the data attached to each image) are also interesting as in a sense they are they ‘key’ to the photo.

Pin Sharp Night Shots whilst speeding by? No problem!

On earth, a minimum shutter speed required for a good sharp photo is said to be the reciprocal of the lens length (as a minimum). So, if you have a 400mm lens, the minimum shutter speed should be 1/400th of a second. Common sense would also suggest that if you are moving at 17,000mph whilst floating over a spinning earth, you might want to increase that a touch! Let’s have a look.

Image

Nice crisp image then taken at…….1/20th of a second!

Image

We’re now down to 1/15th of a second and still reasonable! No discernible blur.

Image

Curious that this photo is not significantly darker than the last two given that the ISO value is set to zero. Perhaps this is another anomaly caused by space photography! Roughly 2.3 miles are covered in the duration of the shutter being open and still no blur!

Image

So….we’re now down to 0.3 of a second and still no discernible blurring! And why is the value expressed differently in the EXIF data? This is not the only anomaly! Curious. Moreover, we’re using a 28mm lens, a perfectly ‘terrestrial’ wide angle lens to photograph the earth from 200 miles up! In addition, the low shutter speed plus insanely high ISO could / should give massive overexposure according to earlier variables on the photos above, but no! It looks great.

No monopod? No problem!

This is how monopods (a single legged tripod) are used in conjunction with a telephoto lens on earth. I know what you’re thinking…….they don’t need one the ISS because it’s a weightless environment? Partly correct. The monopod also absorbs or prevents the natural shake from the body that transmits and amplifies down the length of the telephoto barrel, which can cause blur.

Don't spare a thought for the movement of your body, the camera, the ISS hurtling by at 17,000mph and the spinning earth below. Just float and snap away with a focal length up to 1100mm!

Image

Image

Image

Image

ISS style photography. No bracing of the camera, monopod. Just good clean floating photography!

Blurring the boundaries

Image

Image

“Houston. We have a problem”! It’s the old different pylon structures again (first called out by Simon in this thread). Still unashamedly being touted around the place.

Can anybody honestly say that that represents a ‘real’ photography and not ‘digital imagery’?

However, because you see thousands of photos that look ‘correct’ your brain will not call out the anomaly and say,

“Hold on…...what on earth is that”?

If we eventually cannot discern the difference between a photograph and composite or pure digital imagery then we have very big problems indeed. The lie hides in plain sight and the intention I feel is to completely blur those boundaries in order that our perceptions are completely fooled to the point that we remain passive, completely uncritical. This means that future psyops can be less and less impressive with more and more discontinuities, poor storylines, obvious media assets and contradictions and yet…….we will never raise a murmur. I mean look at those arrays! They're absolutely mind numbing.

A photo too far

Incredibly foreground sharpness combined with terrific earth detail also, using the classic photojournalists lens (24-70mm) set to 36mm! Possible? Doubtful.

Image

No wonder Nikon are the official choice for NASA if they can produce imagery like this! Given the competitive nature of Nikon and Canon cameras, it surprises me that Nikon doesn't make more of this incredible relationship between NASA and themselves! It’s almost as if they play it down! Curious.
thisisunreal
Member
 
Posts: 25
Joined: July 26th, 2016, 11:20 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby thisisunreal on May 23rd, 2018, 6:25 pm

simonshack » May 22nd, 2018, 7:22 am wrote:*
Dear Thisisunreal,

Yes, this is unreal. -_- (said by an ex semi-pro photographer who, admittedly many years ago, worked with several pros who were all totally obsessed / paranoid about keeping their expensive and delicate equipment out of harm's way. As it is, a mere scratch on those telephoto lenses would be disastrous - yet they let them float around the ISS like children's party balloons?... ).


Yes indeed Simon, I quite agree. I cannot accept this at all. I find it offensive. I mean......where does it end? Next they'll be doing it with videocameras :o

Image
thisisunreal
Member
 
Posts: 25
Joined: July 26th, 2016, 11:20 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby Altair on June 15th, 2018, 7:24 am

You're probably aware of the recent government change in Spain. What has this to do with the ISS? Very simple: the new minister of Science and Technology is no other than... Pedro Duque, the Spanish 'astronaut' who purportedly spent some days in the ISS.
Wrote something about him here. Curiously enough, the YT vids I linked have been removed.
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=720&p=2402835&hilit=pedro+duque#p2402835
Altair
Member
 
Posts: 46
Joined: February 2nd, 2017, 3:05 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby brianv on June 15th, 2018, 2:33 pm

Truly painful to see you guys floundering in moronic nonsense.

Scratched lenses my arse. There are no Cameras or anything else.

The ISS is a VR and Augmented Reality....dare i say Shack, no Shed will do.

Watch this video, yes it has "Flat Earth" in the title, a broad church as far as I can tell. And don't start questioning me about my beliefs, I don't have any.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knrh5PYDwKI

And in case you are interested, I have done what one of the commenters has mentioned. You all know I study C++ for a past-time, I have done this AR/Optical Flow tutorial with a Webcam and a Command Prompt. Watch!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNtzgoEGC1Y

Scratched Lenses. :lol: :lol:

And eveything else on this site has gone the same way.

Last Post Ever.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby Observer on June 17th, 2018, 6:12 am

simonshack wrote:Yes, this is unreal. -_- (said by an ex semi-pro photographer who, admittedly many years ago, worked with several pros who were all totally obsessed / paranoid about keeping their expensive and delicate equipment out of harm's way. As it is, a mere scratch on those telephoto lenses would be disastrous - yet they let them float around the ISS like children's party balloons?... ).


brianv" wrote:There are no Cameras or anything else.

The ISS is ... VR and Augmented Reality

Watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knrh5PYDwKI

Scratched Lenses. :lol:


BrianV, you deserve serious respect as you were the first to fully realize all 9/11 "footage" was 100% faked (the plane images *and* the building images *and* the "victim" images, all of it faked, just as you always had been saying all along.)

Please allow me to remind you as a fellow human, that sometimes we humans have been known to get a little overly drunk (with alcohol, or with anger at the perpetrators of the fakery, or with anger at the large percentage of humans who currently haven't reached the appropriate level of full-fakery-admittance.)

The point is, when drunk on alcohol or anger, sometimes we don't realize how very close in thoughts and words and deeds our goods friends sitting next to us are. For example, if you re-read Simon's post in the morning with a clear head, probably you now can see Simon was and is saying the same thing you are here:

Yes BrianV, you are (and have always been) absolutely correct about this vital point: all purported "footage" of "supposed humans in the supposed ISS supposedly 400km in space" are absolutely 100% faked: you and Simon are in full agreement on this very important point, an agreement point which is a lovely uniting bond to be cherished for life, seriously, since it is very rare to find a fellow human with the appropriate level of full-fakery-admittance which you and Simon whole-heartedly share.

In the above example, Simon was once again agreeing with you BrianV, that these faked "photos" and faked "videos" purporting to show "supposed humans in the supposed ISS supposedly 400km in space" are totally impossible, and pointing out how illogical it is for the fakery perpetrators to depict the camera-props and videocamera-props "floating around the ISS like children's party balloons" since in real life a mere scratch on those telephoto lenses would be disastrous. Thus, Simon is agreeing with you 100% BrianV, by saying in reality: NASA has ZERO lenses floating around like those fake images depict.

This is just another of literally thousands of points of agreement which you and Simon share, about the total fakery of all 9/11 images and all NASA images (and all Nuclear Bomb images and all media-pushed images in general.) If you'll look closely at Simon's fine agreement post there, it is sandwiched between two fine posts by ThisIsUnReal, which (admittedly belatedly, but appropriately fully) agree with your absolutely correct stance BrianV, that all those NASA images are totally faked (in this case the evidence points being added on the already ample pile are: the "photos/videos supposedly taken of Earth BY supposed humans supposedly in the supposed 400km ISS" are proven faked images viewtopic.php?p=2405863#p2405863, *and* the "photos/videos supposedly taken OF supposed humans supposedly playing with those camera-props/video-camera-props in the supposed 400km ISS" are also proven faked images viewtopic.php?p=2405877#p2405877 .)

And those most recent posts on this thread are merely in addition to the thousands of evidence points already shown here at CluesForum, by Simon and BrianV and Hoi and many other fine posters whose evidence contributions over the years/decades have proved NASA's total image fakery, so please don't mistakenly think Simon would ever be implying actual "camera-throwing-humans 400km up there risking the scratching of lenses". Simon was and is saying: the number of "camera-throwing-humans 400km up there risking the scratching of lenses" is ZERO, those NASA images are all faked, agreeing absolutely with your correct strong stance BrianV.

Now about the details of the methods of HOW those NASA images are faked, as the video you recommended points out, there are VARIOUS methods, which ALL have been used over the years, often MULTIPLE methods being combined in each movie, including but not limited to: green-screens, vomit-comets, actors on wires, physical-props on wires, CGI VirtualReality props, CGI AugmentedReality props, even absolutely fake non-human CGI Renderings of "humans".

As the video you recommended points out at the very beginning, even though NASA and its CGI artists have the ability to render everything 100% with computers without physical actors and without physical props, it seems they still are often choosing (currently) to use physical actors and physical props in addition to the CGI stuff. The very beginning of that video you recommended points out that one particular prop which another commenter was sure was 100% CGI, was in fact more likely to be a physical prop since it left a shadow behind it.

So again, there are various methods which can be combined. Perhaps those fake images with the "floating-camera-props" and "floating-videocamera-props" were created by: filming physical Earth-bound props on wires next to physical Earth-bound actors, or, filming physical Earth-bound props from all angles then later adding that separate prop-layer to the physical Earth-bound actors layer, or, (as I think BrianV is always rightfully doing his best to strongly remind us) total CGI renderings are possible and probable, meaning total CGI renderings of props, total CGI rendering of backgrounds, and even moving-image "footage" of "humans" created totally by CGI renderings, thus no physical actors are needed anymore.

I personally think they still used physical actor layers in the 9/11 KingKong scene (the green-screen actor layers being mistakenly enlarged when added to the totally CGI rendered buildings layer), and I personally think they are still using physical actors in the current NASA scenes (with a few physical props remaining but now MAINLY CGI rendered Virtual-Reality-props and Augmented-Reality-props) but at the same time I also agree with BrianV and Hoi and Simon who all say that it is foolish for us to ASSUME that their depictions of humans are actually human actors. Moving-image "footage" of "humans" created totally by CGI renderings (with no actors needed) are absolutely possible, and become more probable everyday.

If we all are in full agreement that the "humans in space" images are ALL 100% faked, we shouldn't allow NASA's (nor 9/11's) red-herring easter-egg goose-chase divide-and-conquer argument-invoking variety of fakery methods to cause us to forget the amazing fact that: we are in full agreement that the "humans in space" images are ALL 100% faked.

Please come back to this humble online pub BrianV, you helped all of these fellow friends to understand all 9/11 "footage" was 100% faked (plane images AND building images AND "victim" images) just as you are helping all of these fellow friends to understand all NASA "footage" is 100% faked, just as you are helping all of these fellow friends to understand all media-pushed "footage" is 100% faked.

We readers here agree with your strong stance about total media-fakery, we need your vital reminders about total rendering-ability, we like your direct succinct way of speaking, and we enjoy your company here as a lifelong contributing member (and I should add, for new readers, BrianV is one of the few people on Earth who can honestly say they founded this pub together with Simon search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&author=BrianV&start=3885), I'm sure your lifelong good friend Simon feels the same. :)

Don't let anger at the fakery perpetrators, nor details about the fakery methods, cause you to fight your good friend Simon: think of it this way, if you were to stop coming to your favorite pub the media-fakery-terrorists would win! Don't let the terrorists win! Keep coming to your favorite pub! :)
Observer
Member
 
Posts: 77
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 1:47 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby brianv on June 17th, 2018, 11:33 am

Oooh a reply from one of Simon's fanboys.

Fuck off, I don't want your respect. And don't use my name again. How many times in that post? You remind me of some bitch that used to vist here who used my name all the time.

There is No ISS, there is No Orbit, nobody has ever been in "Space". And none of you clowns has a fucking clue.

And for the record asshole, I'm not angry and I do not drink alcohol or visit pubs.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby pov603 on June 17th, 2018, 6:43 pm

Assholes, anger, alcohol and pubs exist...I encounter one, feel one, drink one and frequent one but maybe not necessarily in that order...
Rule #1 Do what you want...
Rule #2 Do no harm to anyone...
Rule #3 ...er...
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 767
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby Observer on June 17th, 2018, 9:06 pm

Simon and many here have made their stance clear, a stance which totally AGREES with your stance, "B".

Yes, 100% of purported "photos & videos" of "humans in space & humans in ISS" are absolutely 100% faked.

Yes, 100% of purported "photos & videos" of "Space Stations & Man-Made Satellites" are likewise 100% faked.

(Un-Manned custom-shaped planes/balloons MAY be able to temporarily-fly to 90km to take aerial spy-photos.)
(Un-Manned custom-shaped planes/balloons MAY be able to temporarily-fly to 90km to pose as "Satellites/ISS".)
(But Man-Made objects can NOT orbit Earth, as any magic "gravity sweet-spot" would be impossible to maintain.)
(And Natural objects (e.g. Moon) which orbit, seem locked into perfect circles by some other force NOT gravity.)

The main point is: Simon fully agrees ZERO Man-Made objects orbit Earth, so what's your point of contention "B"?

It truly seems baffling that your proven good-eyes, not blinded by alcohol or anger, could misinterpret Simon's logical post:

simonshack wrote:Yes, this is unreal. -_- (said by an ex semi-pro photographer who, admittedly many years ago, worked with several pros who were all totally obsessed / paranoid about keeping their expensive and delicate equipment out of harm's way. As it is, a mere scratch on those telephoto lenses would be disastrous - yet they let them float around the ISS like children's party balloons?... ).


All of Simon's posts agree with you: there is no "orbiting ISS" (nor any man-made "satellites"), and nobody has ever "been to Space".

brianv wrote:There is No ISS, there is No Orbit, nobody has ever been in "Space".


Simon is NOT claiming "the ISS is real, it orbits Earth, and people have been to space", not at all, Simon and Clues Forum prove such claims are fake.

So why are you now saying Simon is mistaken? I nicely tried to propose rational possible reasons why one would accidentally misinterpret Simon's post above.

You're not blinded by alcohol nor anger? Well, there must be some reason why you're currently feeling there is a disagreement about the fake ISS subject. Perhaps your misplaced point of contention is instead about TYCHOS?

I think you and Simon and Clues Forum are in agreement on the subjects of 9/11 and NASA and media-fakery in general: nobody was killed during the prepared-in-advance 100% faked CGI-renderings officially released since 9/11/2001, same thing goes for all media-pushed terror-events in general, there is no ISS (nor any man-made satellites) orbiting Earth, nobody has ever been to Space and all such "photos & videos" are 100% faked. :)

viewtopic.php?p=2357062&hilit=Brian#p2357062
viewtopic.php?p=2394330&hilit=Brian#p2394330

2005 Mar. https://archive.is/JRn91
2005 Mar. https://archive.is/tB0QU
2005 Mar. https://archive.is/MGD7K
2005 Mar. https://archive.is/2Dimv
2005 Mar. https://archive.is/ZcAf4
2005 Mar. https://archive.is/EtPPP
2005 Mar. https://archive.is/MdFMF
2005 Mar. https://archive.is/OiZN3
2005 Mar. https://archive.is/vYity
(2004 Oct. https://archive.is/NrZZk)
(2004 Oct. https://archive.is/IYCSc)
(2004 Oct. https://archive.is/qlctl)
)2004 July https://archive.is/TgLbv)
Observer
Member
 
Posts: 77
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 1:47 am

Epitaph for Cluesforum.

Postby brianv on June 18th, 2018, 7:27 am

16 Google robots a drunkard or two and a handful of sock puppets. Total waste of space and time.

Delete my account now!! I'm not even allowed that privilege, fuckheads.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Postby Observer on June 18th, 2018, 9:08 am

Obviously my attempt at peacemaking failed, I'm very sorry I offended you, B.
Mods, you should probably move all my posts to the Chatbox or Derailing room.

B, can you please let us know what specific post you disagree with Simon about?
Did the "scratched lenses" joke cause you to mistakenly accuse Simon of ISS belief?
Is there an actual specific post that you disagree with Simon or Clues Forum about?

You rightfully call out phrases which imply actual victim existence (e.g. false-flag).
You even rightfully call out words such as photo/video which imply actual "footage".
I feel Simon and Hoi and Nonhocapito and Fbenario et al try to be as vigilant as you.
Perhaps you feel some words/phrases are being allowed which imply incorrect ideas?

I remember your post a week ago stating, in your opinion "the Universe doesn't exist."
I interpret your fine post as, "IMO the Universe doesn't exist in the way people assume."
Thus I interpret your fine post as, "IMO natural Sky objects are not what people assume."
And perhaps you feel, probably rightfully so, the word Universe itself should not be used?
Meaning, just as we shouldn't use the phrase false-flag, we shouldn't use the word Universe?
That's a logical stance, as the word Universe is muddied with infinite incorrect assumptions.

Seriously, probably you are once again ahead of everyone's learning curve - as your history proves.
So instead of leaving all readers wondering forever, can you please bravely share your Sky theory?
This is not a forum where members ridicule a new Sky theory: I seriously am interested in learning.
Of all the forums anywhere, this forum here is by far the most open to new theories about the Sky.

Hopefully you can see past faulty words/phrases/formatting/personality to realize good intention?
You have always been ahead of the curve, readers enjoy learning from you, please share your ideas.
If, in protest of something at CF, you want to share your daily ideas elsewhere, please give us a link.
There are too many "BrianV" results to find you. How can we learn your ideas if you don't post here? :)
Observer
Member
 
Posts: 77
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 1:47 am

Previous

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests