Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

[Flabbergasted]

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.

[Nick Java]

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?

[pov603]

"C"

[agraposo]

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?

[simonshack]

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.

[Nick Java]

Thanks pov603!

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.

[agraposo]

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.

[Nick Java]

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).

[NotRappaport]

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!"

[NotRappaport]

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!

[hoi.polloi]

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.

[NotRappaport]

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!

[pov603]

nice find!

[NotRappaport]

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.

[simonshack]

*

"BARBIE'S ISS PHOTOGRAPHS"

There are days when I wake up in the morning, thinking: "Just HOW much bullshit can an intelligent individual (such as a 'homo sapiens') endure in his/her short lifespan?" In other words, is there any limit as to how much BS the human mind can withstand - before suffering a terminal / catastrophic meltdown?

That's right folks, I do consider myself as a fairly intelligent human being (hope that doesn't sound overly pretentious to the reader). Now, when I was younger than I am today, whenever this 'intelligence' I claim to be graced with got crudely offended, it used to ruin my day. Well, not anymore: such 'offensive behavior' now makes me laugh, more often than not, on the top of my lungs. What follows is precisely one of those instances - and it happened only yesterday. Let me explain :

As our 'veteran' Cluesforum members will know, I regularly (on a daily / or at least on a weekly basis) receive personal e-mails from individuals who, for some reason, prefer not to register to the forum - and instead choose to contact me personally to discuss a great number of issues that we cover on the forum. I try to be as corteous as possible - responding to virtually all of these mails (providing, of course, that their content requires so - and is of reasonably thoughtful and interesting nature).

For several months now, I've been engaging in e-mail exchanges with one Barbara Müller from Germany - whom I shall henceforth refer to as "Barbie" (since this person's e-mail address actually contains this 'abbreviation' for Barbara). To make a long story short, Barbie has been expressing her appreciation and support for pretty much ALL of our Cluesforum research - but one: the alleged man-made satellites (and the "ISS" - although, in her opinion, "it might not be a manned spacecraft"). According to Barbie, those things are obviously real - and circle around our planet for years on end, in so-called "freefall" (no fuel needed) - just as we are told.

Now, the other day, Barbie (who always has underlined in her writings her own purported expertise in a wide array of bio-techno-cosmo-photo-scientific areas) wrote to me that it's not so difficult to capture the ISS on film. All you need is some pretty standard, amateur photographic equipment - et voilà - you can snap fairly decent pictures of the ISS. Barbie said that she had, in fact, snapped some herself.

So I told her I'd be glad if she could send me some of those ISS pictures of hers.

Well, here's what Barbie sent me yesterday (I have only enlarged the area of those images meant to show pixels representing the "ISS") :





And here's a quote from Barbie's last e-mail to me - commenting the above two "photographs of the ISS" :

"In my place is a lot of light pollution and that's what I could do using "normal" equipment and not wasting to much time on this.
The ISS pictures I took on two different occasions and I got many similar pictures then. Mostly worse. It is supposed to be the front and the backside of what we call ISS. I don't claim there are people on board and I don't claim it is what others "photographed" in front of a moon or sun. That's what is flying up there and it is not a baloon or airplane."

My chest still hurts. And so do my eyeballs - for rolling way too much around their sockets.


******************
I have to wonder what her hubby, Johannes, would think of Barbie's eyesight & observational expertise: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... Kepler.jpg