Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

[AirplaneJoe]

GRAVITY. Watch this movie. talking about special effects. The ISS and the space walks look fakish and still very real, like the ISS videos but a lot better. The special effects are stunning, similar shots inside the ISS but with floating debris, fire. It just looks very, very real! If they can fake no gravity in this Hollywood movie set why can't NASA do it? I mean it looks a lot more realistic then the NASA videos.
They fake no gravity without a 0-g airplane.

[MrSinclair]

No doubt that NASA sees a convincing and high quality smash Hollywood film as far more useful for perpetrating their mythology than the newsreel footage they spew out for a limited and already largely deluded audience. This kind of fiction that purports to be thinly veiled truth or something that "could happen" goes a long way towards reinforcing their artificial story being sold to the public as real. By the time they've wrung people out emotionally through skillful film-making the already small interest in debunking NASA is further dissipated.

[AirplaneJoe]

If they can fake no gravity in this Hollywood movie set why can't NASA do it?

Ehrm... ever considered the possibility that NASA and Holly-wool are, so to speak, one and the same, Airplane Joe?

Exactly, that's what I don't understand. Why is Hollywood capable to fake it so much more realistic than NASA with the Billion $ budget? Look at the pictures from the Chinese spacewalk, that looks like a complete fraud, make even the NASA pictures look great. But in this movie Gravity it really llooks really quite realistic.

It would be interesting to get the footage of this movie in the ISS and compare it to the actual NASA ISS pictures.

[lux]

Look at the pictures from the Chinese spacewalk, that looks like a complete fraud, make even the NASA pictures look great. But in this movie Gravity it really llooks really quite realistic.

How is it "realistic"? You've been in orbit around the Earth then?

My point is that it only "looks realistic" because we've been programmed to believe what it is supposed to look like by ... guess who? ... Hollywood/NASA. Since we've never been shown anything real from space we have nothing to compare it to except Hollywood's or NASA's versions.

Apollo 11 was preceded by the release of the movie 2001 - A Space Odyssey (which was widely touted by the media as being ultra realistic) for that very reason. To establish a comparison of "reality."

Isn't it possible that real space travel looks nothing like either NASA's or Hollywood's creations? That a person who had really been in space would just laugh at either one?

[dblitz]

I think Hollywood caters to the viewers imagination with spectacle, careful and precise shot composition, high impact lighting and color contrast along with a certain pacing and rhythm usually escalating the visual impact of the action or scenery.

NASA caters to the viewers expectations with a rougher, more mundane and repetitive 'real (kinda boring after a while) life,' ad-hoc or more utilitarian recording and lighting set-up (secondary to the sciency tech that gets the most resources) along with a familiar and trusty 'everyday' atmosphere so we relate to the 'real life' space program as something that we are connected to in reality rather than a fantastic possibility.

These contrasting space 'visions' serve to reinforce the reality of the fake program by somehow asking us to accept that it is not quite as glamorous or spectacular as we might hope space adventures to be. Most space narratives, movie or 'documentary' restrict themselves to one or the other, as if there are no further possibilities and I think it's deliberate and perhaps tied to Lux's point that, in truth, the actual experience of space could be something unimaginable and possibly quite a bit more interesting, even shocking and confounding and, therefore, not easily managed or controlled in the viewers perception.

Not to mention the need to indoctrinate the mass with the high priests of science dogma that 99.99% of what can be known, is known, and so space travel adventures end up being people playing with floating food and singing or some hokey human interest angle. Imagination is the first casualty of popular science.

[tak47]

quick question: didn't NASA claim that it is impossible to capture stars on photos from space?




comparison:

[simonshack]

*

An alleged ISS module docking with the mother ship :


source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvasHaYr_e8

A couple of quick questions for NASA's "rocket scientists":

- How are the respective speeds of the two spaceships (module and mother ship - allegedly travelling at about 28.000km/h ) regulated / calibrated ? In other words, how does the module first catch up (in its journey from Earth) with the mother ship / maneuver towards it (with" split-centimeter" accuracy) - and thereafter brake / slow down to a given velocity (28.005 km/h?)- ONLY BARELY superior to the mother ship's orbiting speed?

- The above "docking" clip shows the module colliding fairly violently with the mother ship - and seemingly fails to firmly 'lock onto it' on first attempt. Would not such an impact result in the module bouncing rearwards and back to where it came from - in accordance with Newton's action/ reaction laws ? What mechanism keeps it from doing so? Is a 'docking rope' launched from the mother ship, perchance?

[arc300]

*

An alleged ISS module docking with the mother ship :


source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvasHaYr_e8

A couple of quick questions for NASA's "rocket scientists":

- How are the respective speeds of the two spaceships (module and mother ship - allegedly travelling at about 28.000km/h ) regulated / calibrated ? In other words, how does the module first catch up (in its journey from Earth) with the mother ship / maneuver towards it (with" split-centimeter" accuracy) - and thereafter brake / slow down to a given velocity (28.005 km/h?)- ONLY BARELY superior to the mother ship's orbiting speed?

- The above "docking" clip shows the module colliding fairly violently with the mother ship - and seemingly fails to firmly 'lock onto it' on first attempt. Would not such an impact result in the module bouncing rearwards and back to where it came from - in accordance with Newton's action/ reaction laws ? What mechanism keeps it from doing so? Is a 'docking rope' launched from the mother ship, perchance?

And if the module docked from the rear, wouldn't the impact velocity add to the forward velocity of the mother ship, or if from underneath -the Earth side- would it not push the mother ship ever-so slightly into a higher orbit, either way interfering with the required precision for its orbit? And wouldn't multiple dockings have a cumulative effect? I've reviewed a few docking vids and none of them mention any braking of the mothership to counteract this.

[simonshack]

*

"Houston! We have a moron!"

Here's a totally hilarious f@ck-up moment, courtesy of ass-true-not (and former Navy seal) Chris Cassidy. Ironically, moments before delivering this monstrous gaffe, the guy actually admits that he was none-too-bright at school - and it shows... Thanks go to Johan Backes (a crew member over at our valiant 'sister ship' http://www.Fakeologist.com) for this priceless find :


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp9Y8I6v_Ds

You also just gotta love how the discussion then veers to "how the ass-true-nots are trained to deal with stress" - what with the Medusa-haired lady mentioning how doing stupid and silly things may endanger their lives...

Poor, poor NASA casting directors... I can almost hear them howling in despair and frustration. This is the sort of shit that will inevitably happen since they have to rely on dense, military-trained brains (cast in the role of ass-true-nots) to run their endless 'reality-show'.

Ok - so some will argue that these "Meet-the-ISS-crew" broadcasts may not be aired live - and that NASA could have edited out Cassidy's slip at will. Was this a deliberate cock-up, another "candy for conspiracy-theorists"'? We just can't know. Whatever - I got a good laugh out of it...

[brianv]

I'm not going to watch it, but is that really her left arm? Was it leftover from Pinocchio? How would zero G affect a stick insect like she?

[lux]

“All of that happened in a little town called York, Maine across the United States from where we're talking to you right now,” he says.

That would put the studio on the West Coast. As in Hollywood. Surprise, surprise.

[Starbucked]

The Astrolady's long, blonde, luscious hair got me thinking.

The ISS crew says they can only wash by wiping themselves with a damp cloth and dabbing some water on their scalp. And they brush their teeth with Colgate and swallow the dregs

Have you ever tried not washing your hair for a few days? Tried not using shampoo? Exercised for one or 2 hours a day, running on a tread mill and with weights to work up a sweat as the Actornauts do? Now go 6 months without a shower or bath and imagine what your long hair would be like after wiping it everyday with a cloth. It would be an oily, unhygienic mess.

What we see in this video is a woman who has had her hair properly shampooed, blow-dried and fixed in place with hair styling product. NOT clogging up the ISS air filtration system with her matted, greasy locks. Prove me wrong JREF shills

[icarusinbound]

An equally-valid observation would be the huge contrast between classic NASA engineering contractors 'pre-launch' strictly wearing elasticated hairnets, all cleanroom suited-and-booted, and this contemporary hip hairy trio.

The breathing-in of shedded hair (whether by lungs or space-stations) was originally projected as being 'a bad thing'. Where are the skull caps, the latex gloves, elbow and knee protectors? Why is the environment, as depicted, now so...homely and safe?

Where are the fire detectors and alarm activator buttons? Communications points and loudhailer points; grab-handles, stowage lockers, sick-bags? This footage always feels like the inside of a well-constructed kid's romper room, with play-barn intersections.

Note that pre-ISS indoor space movement appeared to show more floating/unbounded multi-axial drift. In this, and other ISS videos, the players appear to bounce like tethered kangaroos in the vertical Y-axis. The Z-plane axis, away from or towards the viewer, appears obediently-unvarying: why might this be the case? Similarly, there's hardly any lateral changes of overlap. Will there be a defence of 'orbital centrifugal gravity effects'?

And again, her hair...I'm reminded of the press releases from Disney-Pixar, proudly proclaiming the advances in hair animation for Merida of 'Brave'


Illustration: Disney/Pixar
Before the final shots are rendered, this wireframe calculates the "core curves" of Merida's hair, based on the original concept art.

In the ’80s, when you wanted big hair you whipped out the Aqua Net. But it wasn’t so easy for animators. The Little Mermaid‘s Princess Ariel was meant to sport curls, but the technology just wasn’t there in 1989—rendering that kind of bounce and frizz, cel after hand-drawn cel, was all but impossible. Now, though, animated big hair is finally on the big screen in Disney/Pixar’s Brave.

The movie centers on Merida, a feisty Scottish princess on a quest to save her kingdom from a curse. To illustrate her fiery spirit, filmmakers wanted Merida’s locks to spring off the screen—”Curly hair almost defies gravity,” simulation supervisor Claudia Chung says—but Pixar’s old CG hair simulator (used in 2001′s Monsters, Inc.) wasn’t up to the task.

So in 2009 Chung’s team designed a new simulator named Taz, after the wild Looney Tunes character. It forms individual coils around computer-generated cylinders of varying lengths and diameters. The resulting locks stretch out when Merida runs but snap back into place as soon as she stops. Each strand is also strung through with a flexible “core curve,” like the string of a beaded necklace, that lets the coils bounce and brush against one another without unwinding.

Add a little randomness, some gravity, and more than 1,500 hand-placed corkscrews and flyaway wisps and voilà: hair with depth and texture viewers have never seen before. The result may look wild, but it’s not. “It’s very stylized, very controlled,” Chung says. No hair spray required.

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/06/ ... ehairtech/

Also- being realistic about this, how often would anyone with long hair in any operational aerospace environment just not have their hair tied back? Especially girls. Or, fail to have it shorn into an astroturf buzz-cut? Unless that hair was required to send a kinetic message (I do mean as a corporate flag-wave reinforcement, not a personal statement). You've also got to love that keepsake ring on a filigree chain floating around her neck. Just what you don't want in an enclosed environment, with aircon, fuel cells and toggle-switches: the strong possibility of random floating metal shrapnel.. I wouldn't want to see her flying in a Cessna, let alone a billion-dollar spacecraft.

[dblitz]

It would seem that for this clip at least, we can rule out the Vomit Comet as an anti-grav studio.

[lux]

This is what long hair looks like on the "Vomit Comet"