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?... ).
There are no Cameras or anything else.
The ISS is ... VR and Augmented Reality
Watch this video:
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 http://cluesforum.info/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 http://cluesforum.info/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 http://cluesforum.info/search.php?st=0& ... 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!