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$$

Unread postby Maat on Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:55 am

Starbucked wrote:As Scott Kelly is set to spend a year on the orbiting septic tank, ISS, it's time to look at photos of him and his twin as kids.

http://time.com/3637118/astronaut-twins ... rly-years/

What is going on with mom's head on this body? :blink:

Image

Houston, Mrs Kelly's head has achieved nominal geostationary orbit over her body, over.

:lol: The most appropriate response is "WTF?" :wacko: Not only out of proportion (& white outline on right side), but why is the "8:39 clock" hanging over the end of the mantelpiece? :blink:

Starbucked wrote:Why is the right twin's head double the size of the left twin? I'm no photographer, but this just looks wrong. Is he THAT much closer to the camera?

Image

The "shadows" are all wonky too — love those odd-shaped brown 'collars' around "their" necks :rolleyes:
Maat
Member
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread postby icarusinbound on Sun Mar 15, 2015 7:39 am

The twin on the right (as viewed) has, in comparison with the one on the left:

- much more upper body fat (chest and belly)
- considerably more muscular development of the forearms
- darker skin tan (potentially more melanin, versus exposure time)
- very large hands for purported height

But the head is just totally out of proportion. The lean, pale, equally-proportioned twin has a skull in keeping with an active late-stage toddler.

Conversely, the large head quotient for the right-side closer twin is more in keeping with cranio-skeletal proportionality in a baby, not a toddler.

How could a claim be made that a 60s/70s era SLR camera lens, even with a shorted focal range, even with barrel distortion, would result in such major differences?

And despite the depicted closeup grouping, the people way back in the rear are remarkably in focus.

Overall, the shadows are just strange.

But what really catches my eye are the faces. The face of LittleTwin is appliqued onto BigTwin. The curious extra 'quiff' of hair is also just so unrealistic.

Is this a red rag picture? A provocation that seems so overtly-unrealistic as to deliberately draw fire? Like the Franken-mom, it's impossible for anyone to miss these anomalies, unless they just barely glance at them. Why fail so easily, when perfection would've been attainable without that much more effort?
icarusinbound
Member
 
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread postby Flabbergasted on Sun Mar 15, 2015 1:31 pm

Maat wrote:The "shadows" are all wonky too — love those odd-shaped brown 'collars' around "their" necks :rolleyes:

Exactly! Another instance of the good old head-surgery-and-chocolate-shadow fail.

also, the entire section under the right elbow (waistline, swimsuit, thigh and wonky shadow in the sand) is mouse art. The knee appears to be that of an older child.

icarusinbound wrote:Why fail so easily, when perfection would've been attainable without that much more effort?

Despite eloquent arguments to the contrary, I have a gut feeling the easy fail is haste, boredom, carelessness. The geek who earned 50 dollars to switch those heads was in a rush to get back to the penny arcade. The patron who ordered it is unable to tell a mediocre shoop from a work of art. WTF-pictures worked like a charm for a century. The scammers got overconfident and quality control was never seriously implemented.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread postby tak47 on Sun Mar 22, 2015 2:07 pm

Image

could someone explain me this "photo"? :wacko:
tak47
Member
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:27 am

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread postby Pilgrim on Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:10 pm

The ISS passing over the Sun during a partial Solar eclipse from a genuine photograph? What a chance. Me thinks it's just a zip locker to open the Sun.
As the Sun takes up such a short angle of the 180 degree view available What an incredible coincidence indeed if you take these on board without question. Please question how such a image could even be photographed from the zoom seen, a Juggernaut in Space 250 km away casting a silhouette from the Sun's brightness from even from a partial eclipse?
Pilgrim
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread postby Selene on Tue Mar 24, 2015 5:11 pm

tak47 wrote:http://i.imgur.com/MykL2KM.jpg
could someone explain me this "photo"? :wacko:

Hi tak47,

Thanks for sharing this new NASA fantasy imagery, the whole world will fall (in love) for it and not question.

I have made a first try below, what I think is wrong (apart from the obvious photoshop and statistical impossibility) are two things:
  • The "ISS" that is "captured" is far too big (that was my feeling, now, with a simple calculation -which I am still not certain if that holds- it is too small: should be double the size on photo, see EDIT)
  • The velocity / movement of the "ISS" is far too big to "capture" like this on photo
As a first approach I have made the following slides, and really would appreciate constructive feedback; am I on the right track or just too simple and wrong in my calculations:

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

References used
[1], [2] - Solar Eclipse + “ISS”- Photo + Map Source - http://www.astrophoto.fr/eclipse-iss-20150320.html
[3] - Sun equatorial diameter - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
[4] - Moon equatorial diameter - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
[5], [8] - “ISS” diameter - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... ce_Station
[6], [7] - Sun & Moon distances - http://www.moongiant.com/phase/3/20/2015
[9] - Velocity “ISS” - http://earthsky.org/space/how-to-spot-t ... ce-station
[10] - Thierry Legault - http://www.astrophoto.fr/EM400_TL.jpg
[11] - Sevilla, Spain - http://destinosactuales.com/wp-content/ ... evilla.jpg

There should be a trigonometric simplified method to nail this one down, but I lack the experience and not being a rocket scientist :P my contribution may very well be completely bogus, so it would be great to improve these slides to get a more scientific view on it, taking into account the assumptions we have to make.

Image

EDIT:
  • Assuming the Ratio of the "Photo" diameter over the "Real" diameter should be that of the Sun and Moon (so ~39)
  • Assuming this Ratio is constant for objects no matter how far they are away when shot in the same picture
  • Taking this Ratio as assumption, the number of frames/captures of the "ISS" is divided by 2 (the "spacecraft" should be twice the size, so instead of 13 frames, only 6.5 frames fit in the space between the Moon shadow and the edge of the Sun
  • Then the distance that the alleged "ISS" moves between these celestial edges would become a mere 1.12 km (about 10 "ISS sizes")
  • The FPS setting of this amazing camera of Thierry "The Gold" Legault should then be 575,291,315 FPS, that's a hell of a camera!!
Again, I must make mistakes in this far too simple calculation, any feedback is highly appreciated.

Selene

There is nothing impossible to him who will try
Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.)
Selene
Banned
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread postby Pilgrim on Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:35 pm

Think what a zoom factor magnification you would need to even show the ISS in a photograph and then compare that to the low magnification of the Sun shown. Cased closed if this is trying to show a true image apart from CGI or image manipulation.
Pilgrim
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:33 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread postby fbenario on Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:36 pm

^ Hate to say it, but Selene's post is one of the most confusing in our history here.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread postby Selene on Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:52 pm

fbenario wrote:^ Hate to say it, but Selene's post is one of the most confusing in our history here.

Rrright, thanks for the constructive feedback. :rolleyes:
Selene
Banned
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread postby simonshack on Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:20 pm

*

I personally have only one question - or two actually - for Mr. Legault. (The first question is a bit trivial perhaps - but anyway, here goes).

QUESTION N°1: Mr Legault, why have you presented to the public (on your website) your remarkable shot - from Sevilla, SPAIN - of the "ISS transiting across the eclipsed Sun" - TILTED at 90°? See, what I witnessed from the surface of Earth in Rome, ITALY the other day ...

...was THIS:__________________________________________Yet, you are showing this historical event TILTED at 90°? Why so?
ImageImage


QUESTION N°2: Mr Legault: you claim that the ISS transit you captured (across part of the eclipsed Sun) lasted for 0.6 seconds:
(source of your claim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwjvduR3_Ho)
Image


On the other hand, "DAZZA the cameraman" in New Zealand claims he captured (on Oct 2, 2013) a transit of the ISS across the non-eclipsed Sun - which lasted for 0.8 seconds > source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56t_ZJ8nzsQ
Image
Image

Surely, Mr Legault - if YOUR images are legit (of the ISS transiting across a 30% slice of the Sun disc in 0.6sec), then DAZZA's images (of the ISS transiting across 98% of the Sun disc in only 0.8sec) cannot possibly be authentic? Or was the "ISS" travelling about three times slower than usual, the other day? Saving fuel, perhaps - due to recent NASA budget cuts?...
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6730
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread postby Selene on Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:52 pm

No worries, Simon. This monstruously outdated, slow and crappy swimming pool ISS will be replaced soon...

In a landmark decision, Russian space agency Roscosmos and its US counterpart NASA have agreed to build a new space station after the current International Space Station (ISS) expires. The operation of the ISS was prolonged until 2024.

“We have agreed that Roscosmos and NASA will be working together on the program of a future space station," Roscosmos chief Igor Komarov said during a news conference on Saturday.



Image

:wub: :unsure:
Selene
Banned
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread postby repentantandy on Sun Mar 29, 2015 6:54 pm

Looks like our Mr. Kelly (or whoever is writing his press releases and doing his press conferences) has made a rather revealing "Freudian Slip":

“We’re doing this so that we can mitigate those effects, so we can eventually go beyond low-Earth orbit one day..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/scien ... .html?_r=0

Yeah Mark, maybe SOME day.

Maybe. ;)
repentantandy
Member
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:17 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sun Mar 29, 2015 7:06 pm

From that article:

He described the space station as a “magical place,” but added, “You never get to leave.”


Hmmm. :mellow:
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5059
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread postby simonshack on Thu Apr 02, 2015 3:09 pm

*
To my fellow admins: please know that I have invited Thierry Legault to the forum. He has kindly accepted to respond to my above questions - and am looking forward to read his replies and explanations. Naturally, I have exempted him from introducing himself as of our standard forum registration requirements.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6730
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

Unread postby Undoctored on Mon Apr 06, 2015 12:32 am

Amateur illusionist and Canadian Space Celebrity Chris Hadfield squirts some water on a space washcloth and wrings it out. What's wrong with this picture?

Youtube video "Wringing out Water on the ISS - for Science! " posted Apr 16, 2013 by the Canadian Space Agency.

I originally had intended to write up a few notes on the "slight-of-hand" aspect of this purported science experiment on the ISS, but then started noticing some other signs of fakery all throughout the video.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8TssbmY-GM

Excessive / insufficient anti-gravity effects
  1. Up to 0:20: His watch wristband is ridiculously loose and his arm is ridiculously slippery. Why does it flop around so much and shoot halfway up his forearm and down? Did he choose such a loose wristband to begin with, or did his forearm shrink due to muscle and bone loss from his months of living in space?
  2. If this is truly a weightless environment, wouldn't his shirt sleeves flop around his upper arms the same way as his watch flops around his forearm? Instead, they're always being pulled "down" when his arms are horizontal, and as he reaches down at 0:18-0:20 and you will see that his sleeve is evenly spaced around his arm when vertical.


Suspicious sleight-of-handling
  1. 0:17-0:20: He reaches into his right front thigh pocket with his right hand, pulls out two small, round white objects and transfers one to his left hand, where he keeps it concealed between his hand and the microphone. The one in his right hand stays visible. Why does he take out two and hide one? I think we were only supposed to see him take out the one in his right hand.
  2. 0:20-0:30: He brings the object in his right hand closer to the camera, a thick white disk stamped with the NASA logo, which he identifies as a washcloth. He lets go of it and it floats for a bit. Wow, we're in space!
  3. 0:30-0:38: He catches the object with his right hand, and explains how washcloths in space are compacted into "hockey pucks" in order to (flashes eyebrows) "save space", and brings his right hand down holding the puck.
  4. 0:39-0:42: He lets go of the microphone with his left hand, continuing to conceal the object in that hand, and brings his left hand down to where his right hand is. Then, after a bit of fumbling, he brings up his left hand, revealing an object that looks just like the one we saw before. What did he do? From what I can tell, he put the puck in his right hand into his pocket, while trying to make it look like he was transferring the puck from his right to left hand.

Why did he make the substitution? I don't know enough about video effects to explain why it would have been necessary to have two pucks, but it could be one puck was designed for the "floating" effect and the other for the "unwrapping"...

  • 0:43-50: He takes the cellophane wrapper off the puck but you never see what becomes of the wrapper. Did he drop it? Cut!

Continuing...

Thumping's wrong here...
  • 0:50-1:04: After a cross fade, he is now struggling to unpack the (third?) puck-washcloth. Done. It looks like paper-thin napkin. He pulls it taut three times, and hear three dull thumps as he does it. He says "like a magic trick" and raises his eyebrows. He then lets go of the washcloth briefly then snatches it again with his right hand and we hear a fourth thump just like the first three. He simultaneously grabs his floating microphone with his left hand, so maybe that's the source of the fourth identical thump?
  • 1:05-1:09: He grabs the cloth and the microphone simultaneously a second time. I think I hear a thump again but it is overpowered by his voice. Then he touches the cloth and grasps the microphone a third time. No sound at this time.
  • 1:12: As he reaches for his water pouch with his left hand, he grabs the floating microphone with his right hand, and we hear a dull but loud "ka-lug!".
  • 1:14: After a little juggling, he grabs the microphone with his right hand -- no sound.
  • 1:24: He grabs the microphone with his left hand. Good "ka-lug" heard here.
  • 1:33: Subtle tap as he grasps the microphone again with his left hand.
  • 1:36: Microphone slams head-on into his mouth and bounces off and we don't hear a thing
  • 1:44: Microphone bounces off his arm and again makes no noise!

Quantum Soaking
  • 1:39-1:45: He squirts a stream of water directly at the center of the washcloth. Actually, from our side viewing angle we can't see the water actually hit the washcloth. In fact, we don't see the washcloth becoming wet. It looks as dry as ever. The cloth doesn't bend back any from the force of the water hitting it, nor does any water splash back. Where did the water go? You know, that was some pretty thin cloth; it did not look at all absorbent. Shouldn't we have seen some water seeping out the other side? Cut!
  • 1:46-1:54: Cross-fade to: "OK, so here's a soaking washcloth". The squirt pack has now been disposed of and the cloth is now glistening and shedding droplets.


The moment of truth
  • 1:55-2:17 He wrings out the washcloth, with water making a tube around the wrung washcloth and coating his hands. The crowd roars! (Studio audience?) This is absolutely unlike anything I've ever seen on earth! "Almost like ... gel on your hands ... wonderful moisturizer" as he says. Cut!

Mysterious conclusion: Sorcerer's apprentice? Time-space warp?
  • 2:18- A man appears in the background, floating or crawling (hard to say) in the lower-right corner, looking up at the magician. He picks up what appears to be a terrestrial-style real towel-thick washcloth, folds it twice, reaches out to the right and hangs it up. Just as he does this, our magician reaches forward and pulls out a thick washcloth to wipe his hands with, looking exactly like the one that the man hung up, and which is still hanging there.
Undoctored
Member
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:27 am

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests