The guy does a decent job but you can only tell he is stressed to the max trying to keep his head square to his shoulders throughout the video. Veins are popping out of his neck as he corrects the natural tendency to tilt your head up from the flat earth.I'm curious as to where NASA gets these "trillions in funny money" from when:
With trillions in funny money, NASA can create anything and all, well not all but most will believe the garbage.
Annual budgetWho's paying them the rest?
Seen in the year-by-year breakdown listed below, the total amounts (in nominal dollars) that NASA has been budgeted from 1958 to 2018 amounts to $601.31 billion.
Spurs Innovation and Business Growth
- 1,600 new technologies reported in 2012
- 2,200 tech transfer transactions in 2012
- $1M annually per spinoff (median, based on small study)
I've only watched bits of the first 10 minutes but it's interesting how often he lets go of the iPad and lets it float and rotate.
If they are faking it they're going out of their way to make it difficult for themselves.
Has any analysis been done from an actual expert in this area to determine fakery or is it just all baseless supposition?
The guy does a decent job but you can only tell he is stressed to the max trying to keep his head square to his shoulders throughout the video. Veins are popping out of his neck as he corrects the natural tendency to tilt your head up from the flat earth.
With trillions in funny money, NASA can create anything and all, well not all but most will believe the garbage.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-government-spent-21-trillion-of-our-money-without-telling-us/#187d8c7b7aefI bothered to look into this. 6.5 trillion USD snuck away in military budgets. That is pretty sneaky. It's not 21 trillion, but still sneaky.
Slave, ignorant slaves is all we are.Don't lump me in. I'm doing the maths.
This is fake. Point blank. We don't need to debunk anything. THey need to PROOF their case, not the other way around. Because the flat earth model is older than the round earth, therefor THEY need to proof, not us.
Age has nothing to do with it.If anything, it's an argument against FE.
This is fake. Point blank. We don't need to debunk anything. THey need to PROOF their case, not the other way around. Because the flat earth model is older than the round earth, therefor THEY need to proof, not us.Can't tell if this is just trolling but they didn't make the video to prove space travel is real, they aren't trying to prove you wrong. In fact it's generally accepted that it's real so when you say it's fake, it falls on you to prove it.
Errr...This is fake. Point blank. We don't need to debunk anything. THey need to PROOF their case, not the other way around. Because the flat earth model is older than the round earth, therefor THEY need to proof, not us....In fact it's generally accepted that it's real so when you say it's fake, it falls on you to prove it...
Also, the OP literally asked to try to debunk it... So again try to debunk it rather than just saying "FAKE FAKE FAKE" because that's not proof. You provided less evidence that it's fake than the video provided to prove it's self real... because the video exists and you literally have nothing to prove it to be fake. Therefor you 0 - video 1. I guess you now need to give at least one valid point that it's fake otherwise it's real by default.The only accuracy within your post is the video does exist in reality.
No gang, trillions....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-government-spent-21-trillion-of-our-money-without-telling-us/#187d8c7b7aef
Let me explain some basic accounting. Magic... While the DOD is not NASA, one can easily see why what NASA does and works for can be justified as National Security and thus fall under Dept of Defense, You know, the ISS and Russians in it. Write the check to everyone to fund it from the DOD. NASA looks for Aliens, those are National Security and our defense must be up to some par. Write the check. One can dream up any commingle of funds between dept's. A hooker, scotch and toothbrush in Moscow could be National Security and fall under the missing $21 Trillion. Don't be ignorant, NASA spends trillions protecting you and making subcontractors rich and their private majority shareholders :) It's how the rich got richer. Dream it up.
BTW did you send in your tax deposit...they want all your money ! Slave, ignorant slaves is all we are.
Interesting arguments here, i hadn't pickup up on the strain he seems to be under trying to keep himself "Weightless", from this it seems it might just be very clever cable work and cgi.... And i can't rule it out because who knows what they can and can't do, but the underwater idea seems a little far fetched, just because of the huge amount of crew resources and money needed, it would just be easier to green screen it or something, because by the time you have removed all the water in post i can't imagine there being much useable video left, also between all the various "Astronauts" there is a lot of this well produced video being released every day, so even with their funny money, time would still be an issue trying to edit all these to near perfection and distributed, Unless someone can convince me otherwise, i am going to stand by my theory of a well designed set, with an immense amount of cable work and some clever CGI.
Thanks all who responded
Look this video got sent to me the other day and i am no expert on video stuff, so like i figure they are using ropes and stuff, but like i said, i am not confident in my argument on how they faked this... only that they DID!
Anyone whos interested take a look, I probably missed something, god be with ye all
Look this video got sent to me the other day and i am no expert on video stuff, so like i figure they are using ropes and stuff, but like i said, i am not confident in my argument on how they faked this... only that they DID!
Anyone whos interested take a look, I probably missed something, god be with ye all
I really don't know. I would say green screen/CGI but the problem that I run into is that there are videos like this from 1990 before CGI and modern video editing technology. If CGI/video editing explains this what explains videos like this from way before CGI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdCR1XqPXK4
You can spot the ISS by eye using a telescope, it's up there orbiting. That is a fact. You can see it, you can track it. So yes, it is generally accepted to be a fact that it's up there under zero gravity because it is.Oh, my apologies.../sarcasm
That isn't argumentum ad populum, that would be something like saying cracking your knuckles gives you arthritis because that's what your grandparents told your parents who told you (it doesn't give you arthritis, thats a myth for another time) or that milk makes your bones strong (it doesn't).You can protest all you like and you can offer whatever spin you choose to offer; however...
Not at all, the evidence that the ISS exists is absolute, so why wouldn't there be people in the ISS? if the ISS is up there orbiting why wouldn't the people in the ISS be floating as well? You can literally see that it exists, there's no need for NASA or anyone else to make a fake video to try tricking everyone into believing it when we can literally see it for ourselves with our own eyes.You can spot the ISS by eye using a telescope, it's up there orbiting. That is a fact. You can see it, you can track it. So yes, it is generally accepted to be a fact that it's up there under zero gravity because it is.Oh, my apologies.../sarcasm
The video does not show the ISS orbiting, does it?
The video content is related to events supposedly taking place in the ISS.That isn't argumentum ad populum, that would be something like saying cracking your knuckles gives you arthritis because that's what your grandparents told your parents who told you (it doesn't give you arthritis, thats a myth for another time) or that milk makes your bones strong (it doesn't).You can protest all you like and you can offer whatever spin you choose to offer; however...
You offered argumentum ad populum and it is that simple.
First, the evidence is simply not absolute.Not at all, the evidence that the ISS exists is absolute, so why wouldn't there be people in the ISS?You can spot the ISS by eye using a telescope, it's up there orbiting. That is a fact. You can see it, you can track it. So yes, it is generally accepted to be a fact that it's up there under zero gravity because it is.Oh, my apologies.../sarcasm
The video does not show the ISS orbiting, does it?
The video content is related to events supposedly taking place in the ISS.That isn't argumentum ad populum, that would be something like saying cracking your knuckles gives you arthritis because that's what your grandparents told your parents who told you (it doesn't give you arthritis, thats a myth for another time) or that milk makes your bones strong (it doesn't).You can protest all you like and you can offer whatever spin you choose to offer; however...
You offered argumentum ad populum and it is that simple.
if the ISS is up there orbiting why wouldn't the people in the ISS be floating as well? You can literally see that it exists, there's no need for NASA or anyone else to make a fake video to try tricking everyone into believing it when we can literally see it for ourselves with our own eyes.No, you cannot see it with your own eyes...
So let me ask you, with all of the evidence clearly stacked in favour of the video being real...Wrong.
...what actual evidence do any of you here have that it's fake other than cop out answers like "CGI" or "strings holding the people up but we can't see". Give solid proof the ISS isn't up there, floating above us with people on board. You can't, because there is none.Aside from conflating evidence with proof, the fact a video exists does not = proof the content of the video is real.
Shouting "FAKE" doesn't make something fake, ignoring all the solid evidence and proof doesn't make it fake.Aside from no proof, I have not shouted anything.
Your argument is idiotic.Your argument is fallacious.
I've seen the ISS myself, you can see it for yourself. heck soon you can even go on commercial flights into space where you can feel for yourself the lack of gravity.Yeah, right...
https://www.virgingalactic.com/research/
And no, saying you cant afford it is not a reason for it to be fake.How about pointing out the clear fact that none of these flights for the discerning consumer has yet to take place, despite the ever present promises?
I'm not in any way saying "it must be real, everyone else thinks it is!" I'm saying it's real because we can all see the obvious proof that it is.No...
I don't think it's incumbent on anyone to prove that videos are real IF the video is of something which is generally agreed to be real.First, any particular video would need to be examined to determine veracity.
So if I took some film of a car going along a road I don't think I should have to go out of my way to prove it isn't faked.
We all accept that roads are a thing and that cars go along them.
If the car was a DeLorean and when it got to 88mph it disappeared in a trail of flames though then I think it would be up to me to show that was real and wasn't faked somehow because this is not a common experience.
Footage from the ISS is a bit of a grey area, not many people - compared with the population of earth - have been to the ISS. But space travel is generally accepted as a thing, footage from space from multiple countries has been widely available for decades, we are used to seeing footage of weightless astronauts in orbit, the ISS is visible from earth.
So, on balance, I think if people are going to call it fake then they're going to have to do better than just shout "fake" and run away.
All you get is vague assertions, I've not seen any solid analysis from an expert in this sort of thing claiming that these videos are fake.
And the people claiming they are fake do have an agenda - in order for FE to be a thing, the ISS can't be. But the only "evidence" I've heard for fakery are arguments from incredulity or vague assertions.
"No, you cannot see it with your own eyes...No it isn't.
At best, you need some sort of visual aid."
Do yourself a favour and get a decent telescope or camera with a decent zoom. Anyone can do that. The ISS is visible with the naked eye
... and it can be tracked easily enough if you just go to an ISS tracking website, you can find where it's going to be, go there and look up.None of this has anything to do with the OP video.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-see-the-ISS-through-a-telescope
The shape of the earth has everything to do with the ISS. The whole idea of the ISS and all the videos that have been taken is mutually exclusive with FET. If one thing is true, then the other has to be fake. In theory the ISS could orbit a global earth and use the force of gravity just like all the equations say. The whole idea is simple and has been known for 100s of years. Since with FET there is no gravity on earth and we are all held here by the force of UA then two other options are possible. An attempt to go around the edge could happen, since there is no dome. To stay in an 'edge to edge' orbit you would have to have a continuous fuel burn since you have no pull of gravity. Since the ISS can only carry a finite amount of fuel it would have a short expected life span. The other option would be to stay in a circular path around the top of the flat earth, just like the sun and moon. Again, 'Houston, we have a problem'. That would mean in order for the ISS to stay above a flat earth in a circle, the rockets would have to be going continuously. I guess you could repeal Newton's 2nd law, but I fear that you just wouldn't be able to fool 'Mother Nature'.All speculation posted by you.
Yes, it is visible. you can say it isn't but it's pretty common knowledge and testable yourself by looking up... It seems to be common practice for FE people to argue this way... Using your own argument style against you, I could say you don't have a brain. Just because it's assumed you do have a brain doesn't mean you have one. Have you seen your own brain? No? Oh I guess your brain isn't real and it's all up to you now to prove it's real. I would say go get a CT scan but how do we know that technology isn't made to make us think you have a brain in some big conspiracy? I guess with that said, Flat earthers under their own methods don't have brains!It seems quite easy for you to conflate ideas and concepts that have absolutely zero connection.
Nothing to do with this thread? A thread trying to prove ISS isn't orbiting the earth in lower gravity? You're saying pointing out the ISS being there isn't anything to do with the ISS videos being faked? They could spend a ton of money and lots of time and resources trying to fake a video just to deceive you for now reason OR maybe they could just go up the the ISS that we can all see exists, with a camera, and record a video on it for other purposes that aren't a total waste of time.
First, visibility of the ISS has absolutely nothing to do with the OP video.How much further before we can consider it evidence of what it is? Proof of a man-made installation in low-if-not-zero G space
...
My apologies, but kindly point out where the OP states the purpose of the thread is, "...trying to prove ISS isn't orbiting the earth in lower gravity."
I think we have failed with the original OP's request.I am not a video expert.
We have not been able to disprove the video. Least of all by budget.First, visibility of the ISS has absolutely nothing to do with the OP video.How much further before we can consider it evidence of what it is? Proof of a man-made installation in low-if-not-zero G space
...
My apologies, but kindly point out where the OP states the purpose of the thread is, "...trying to prove ISS isn't orbiting the earth in lower gravity."
Does the OP have an "it's dead" threshold in mind?
Further, I have read all the responses dismissive of the idea it could be special effects or green screened. I would simply offer the motion picture Gravity as evidence any short video would be easily produced and just as effective in deceiving an audience.I'm not sure Gravity is a good pick, even Neil De Grasse Tyson (probly spelled that wrong) pointed out that the lady's hair was all wrong. I originally went with Avatar, as the CG would have to be top-notch and I assume alot of the money goes into covering such a thing up etc.
Gravity was produced on a budget of only $100 million USD, a fraction of the budgets realized by all space agencies across the flat earth.
$1m in a year? So they will need to make realistic CG on a $1m budget. Going to compare to Avatar, then.J-man then included conspiracy money, but my calculator was still on hand.
Avatar budget $237m for 2h 42m (not all CG budget, but both vids would need actors).
for $1m we get 0.7m. That video is 50mins long... I'll do the maths again... Well. *takes calculator home*
Conspiracies ALWAYS struggle at the money stage. Too many people, too much work and not enough bullets in the world.https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2017/12/08/has-our-government-spent-21-trillion-of-our-money-without-telling-us/#187d8c7b7aefI bothered to look into this. 6.5 trillion USD snuck away in military budgets. That is pretty sneaky. It's not 21 trillion, but still sneaky.
Lemme adjust my Avatar CG maths.
Avatar budget $0.237b for 2h 42m (not all CG budget, but both vids would need actors).
for $6500b we get just over 74,000 hours. That's that video sorted. *dusts hands*
Oh? Other videos are posted every day? Best check those. "gopro space" should be a good enough search term.
Almost 4m results. I'll average from the first ten results for average length... 18.5 mins. Making progress
so, 4m times 1/4 hour... 1million hours of footage.
1m - 74k is 900k and change.
I think we need the rest of the budget.
Another 70 trillion USD, i think.
Some pretty amazing CGI was developed for cinema back in the 90's (See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computer_animation_in_film_and_television#1990s).
However, even when we watch the hours of footage, some live and some not, of space stuff today, let alone in the 90's, for it to be CGI, the computing power to do so is currently unimaginable. A believable 10 second shot today in a movie of, let's say, an astronaut and maybe some other stuff floating around, takes a server farm and days to render. 10 seconds, days! Let alone the $, artists involved. Like I've said before, it's actually more technologically feasible, cheaper and easier to put some people in space than it is to fake it.
My best guess is that they are on a 0 gravity plane ride where the plane accelerates down at 9.8 m/s giving the illusion of being weightless.Time to get the calculator out. Good thing this ancient thing is solar powered.
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2mhtnqv.jpg)
I'm not sure Gravity is a good pick, even Neil De Grasse Tyson (probly spelled that wrong) pointed out that the lady's hair was all wrong.Well, that may be Neil's opinion.
The ISS can be seen with the naked eye.I correct my post to read for initial intent.
This is a confusing argument.I'm not sure Gravity is a good pick, even Neil De Grasse Tyson (probly spelled that wrong) pointed out that the lady's hair was all wrong.Well, that may be Neil's opinion.
And it must be opinion as Neil has never been in space.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_(2013_film)#Scientific_accuracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_(2013_film)#Scientific_accuracy) We have opinions of people who allege to have been in space:
"According to NASA Astronaut Michael J. Massimino, who took part in Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Missions STS-109 and STS-125, "nothing was out of place, nothing was missing. There was a one-of-a-kind wirecutter we used on one of my spacewalks and sure enough they had that wirecutter in the movie."[133]
"Astronaut Buzz Aldrin called the visual effects "remarkable", and said, "I was so extravagantly impressed by the portrayal of the reality of zero gravity."
"Former NASA astronaut Garrett Reisman said, "The pace and story was definitely engaging and I think it was the best use of the 3-D IMAX medium to date. Rather than using the medium as a gimmick, Gravity uses it to depict a real environment that is completely alien to most people. But the question that most people want me to answer is, how realistic was it? The very fact that the question is being asked so earnestly is a testament to the verisimilitude of the movie. When a bad science fiction movie comes out, no one bothers to ask me if it reminded me of the real thing."[135]"
Of course, at the source provided, there are people (including an astronaut and deGrasse-Tyson) offering there objections. Curious I find no mention of, "...hair was all wrong."
Which is why you take a telescope, so when you see that bright light and then see it through a telescope. You can then see that it exists and also you can confirm what it is through a telescope. Stop being argumentative for the sake of it, you just come across as completely uneducated and in denial.The ISS can be seen with the naked eye.I correct my post to read for initial intent.
The ISS cannot be resolved to visual identification by the naked eye.
It is confusing if you ignore my prior statements.This is a confusing argument.I'm not sure Gravity is a good pick, even Neil De Grasse Tyson (probly spelled that wrong) pointed out that the lady's hair was all wrong.Well, that may be Neil's opinion.
And it must be opinion as Neil has never been in space.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_(2013_film)#Scientific_accuracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_(2013_film)#Scientific_accuracy) We have opinions of people who allege to have been in space:
"According to NASA Astronaut Michael J. Massimino, who took part in Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Missions STS-109 and STS-125, "nothing was out of place, nothing was missing. There was a one-of-a-kind wirecutter we used on one of my spacewalks and sure enough they had that wirecutter in the movie."[133]
"Astronaut Buzz Aldrin called the visual effects "remarkable", and said, "I was so extravagantly impressed by the portrayal of the reality of zero gravity."
"Former NASA astronaut Garrett Reisman said, "The pace and story was definitely engaging and I think it was the best use of the 3-D IMAX medium to date. Rather than using the medium as a gimmick, Gravity uses it to depict a real environment that is completely alien to most people. But the question that most people want me to answer is, how realistic was it? The very fact that the question is being asked so earnestly is a testament to the verisimilitude of the movie. When a bad science fiction movie comes out, no one bothers to ask me if it reminded me of the real thing."[135]"
Of course, at the source provided, there are people (including an astronaut and deGrasse-Tyson) offering there objections. Curious I find no mention of, "...hair was all wrong."
So...you think the ISS is faked? Ergo the footage from it is faked.
And your evidence that it is fake and that the faked footage from it is accurate is...testimony from astronauts at least one of whom has been on the ISS
???
I, as I am sure you would also be, personally incapable of obtaining and maintaining a telescope spotting on an object the size and moving at a speed like the ISS.Which is why you take a telescope, so when you see that bright light and then see it through a telescope. You can then see that it exists and also you can confirm what it is through a telescope.The ISS can be seen with the naked eye.I correct my post to read for initial intent.
The ISS cannot be resolved to visual identification by the naked eye.
Stop being argumentative for the sake of it, you just come across as completely uneducated and in denial.Ridiculous ad hom, unsupported by prior post history and indicative of your failure to connect the dots.
So with that out of the way, I'll ask again, if the ISS is up there orbiting, which we can all agree onWrong.
...how can you possibly think the video is faked?Because I am capable of independent thought.
They're up there orbiting with a lot less gravity in effect. It's also not the first video to show zero gravity and there is no way they could have faked them all.According to your opinion.
Simply put, it would be more effort to fake that video than it would be to just record the video on the ISS which again we can all agree is up there in orbit...Yes.
So why would they fake it?Because they are "fakers."
it would take more time, more effort, more money and absolutely no gain compared to just being real.Wrong.
What kind of intensive do they have to fake a video like that?Not much.
It would be pointless.No, it wouldn't.
You see the real reason you all want it to be fake is because it would be pretty hard to explain how it's real when you think the earth is flat and gravity doesn't exist... There is literally more reason for you to want it to be fake than there is for them to want to fake it.I do not "want," it to be anything.
I'd like for anyone else to give a reason it cannot be real other than because you don't want it to be.I do not understand why you want someone else to offer a reason when it is clear you misconstrue my reasoning.
Totalackey, What is painfully obvious is that your desire for something to be true has no limitations, despite any evidence to the contrary. Your argument is you think it is fake because that’s what you think. It is not an argument at all. It’s like a 3 year old saying she believes in Santa Claus because she believes it to be true. I can argue with her, point out the impossibilities of going to every good child’s home at the speed it would take in one night, but what is the point? She is 3 years old and believes it to be true. You can’t have an argument with a 3 year old about things she doesn’t understand yet.Your entire diatribe is senseless.
It seems to me the majority of FE supporters here are just trolls, arguing for arguments sake to be entertained. Instead of making declarations which are backed up by observational evidence and confirmed in multiple methods, verifiable by both argument participants, the FE person argues against the argument itself or makes undefined unverifiable straw man arguments, claims victory, and walks away. This thread like most others will end with declarative statements by a RE supporter and the FE side will simply stop engaging and move on to the next post to say they don’t believe in that either.
Totalackey, What is painfully obvious is that your desire for something to be true has no limitations, despite any evidence to the contrary. Your argument is you think it is fake because that’s what you think. It is not an argument at all. It’s like a 3 year old saying she believes in Santa Claus because she believes it to be true. I can argue with her, point out the impossibilities of going to every good child’s home at the speed it would take in one night, but what is the point? She is 3 years old and believes it to be true. You can’t have an argument with a 3 year old about things she doesn’t understand yet.This is all so true. It seems the typical response from the average FE is to argue against your argument instead of give any valid response, then declare victory in the debate. "Your argument is silly, so I'm right therefor I win!" - every FE'er.
It seems to me the majority of FE supporters here are just trolls, arguing for arguments sake to be entertained. Instead of making declarations which are backed up by observational evidence and confirmed in multiple methods, verifiable by both argument participants, the FE person argues against the argument itself or makes undefined unverifiable straw man arguments, claims victory, and walks away. This thread like most others will end with declarative statements by a RE supporter and the FE side will simply stop engaging and move on to the next post to say they don’t believe in that either.
I have entirely stated my points here in this thread.Totalackey, What is painfully obvious is that your desire for something to be true has no limitations, despite any evidence to the contrary. Your argument is you think it is fake because that’s what you think. It is not an argument at all. It’s like a 3 year old saying she believes in Santa Claus because she believes it to be true. I can argue with her, point out the impossibilities of going to every good child’s home at the speed it would take in one night, but what is the point? She is 3 years old and believes it to be true. You can’t have an argument with a 3 year old about things she doesn’t understand yet.This is all so true. It seems the typical response from the average FE is to argue against your argument instead of give any valid response, then declare victory in the debate. "Your argument is silly, so I'm right therefor I win!" - every FE'er.
It seems to me the majority of FE supporters here are just trolls, arguing for arguments sake to be entertained. Instead of making declarations which are backed up by observational evidence and confirmed in multiple methods, verifiable by both argument participants, the FE person argues against the argument itself or makes undefined unverifiable straw man arguments, claims victory, and walks away. This thread like most others will end with declarative statements by a RE supporter and the FE side will simply stop engaging and move on to the next post to say they don’t believe in that either.
totallackey is obviously not interested in bringing anything valuable to the debate, so far all he's done is basically "you're wrong! So there!". It's pointless even trying to debate with him, he's a waste of text on our screens.
Wrong.I have entirely stated my points here in this thread.Totalackey, What is painfully obvious is that your desire for something to be true has no limitations, despite any evidence to the contrary. Your argument is you think it is fake because that’s what you think. It is not an argument at all. It’s like a 3 year old saying she believes in Santa Claus because she believes it to be true. I can argue with her, point out the impossibilities of going to every good child’s home at the speed it would take in one night, but what is the point? She is 3 years old and believes it to be true. You can’t have an argument with a 3 year old about things she doesn’t understand yet.This is all so true. It seems the typical response from the average FE is to argue against your argument instead of give any valid response, then declare victory in the debate. "Your argument is silly, so I'm right therefor I win!" - every FE'er.
It seems to me the majority of FE supporters here are just trolls, arguing for arguments sake to be entertained. Instead of making declarations which are backed up by observational evidence and confirmed in multiple methods, verifiable by both argument participants, the FE person argues against the argument itself or makes undefined unverifiable straw man arguments, claims victory, and walks away. This thread like most others will end with declarative statements by a RE supporter and the FE side will simply stop engaging and move on to the next post to say they don’t believe in that either.
totallackey is obviously not interested in bringing anything valuable to the debate, so far all he's done is basically "you're wrong! So there!". It's pointless even trying to debate with him, he's a waste of text on our screens.
It has now devolved into a total mis-characterization of my posts.
You can literally see that it exists, there's no need for NASA or anyone else to make a fake video to try tricking everyone into believing it when we can literally see it for ourselves with our own eyes.
No, you cannot see it with your own eyes...
At best, you need some sort of visual aid.
Do yourself a favour and get a decent telescope or camera with a decent zoom. Anyone can do that. The ISS is visible with the naked eye and it can be tracked easily enough if you just go to an ISS tracking website, you can find where it's going to be, go there and look up.
No it isn't [visible with the naked eye].
The ISS can be seen with the naked eye.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoS29WjWTBw
I correct my post to read for initial intent.
The ISS cannot be resolved to visual identification by the naked eye.
...visibility of the ISS has absolutely nothing to do with the OP video.
Wrong.
That's fine, I'll take the warning even though it's exactly what he was doing, since I know full well it's against the rules and I know how pointless it was to do normally.Wrong.
Refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.
Which is why you take a telescope, so when you see that bright light and then see it through a telescope. You can then see that it exists and also you can confirm what it is through a telescope.I, as I am sure you would also be, personally incapable of obtaining and maintaining a telescope spotting on an object the size and moving at a speed like the ISS.
Here is a site that can predict ISS transits of the sun and moon from your location: https://transit-finder.com/Which is why you take a telescope, so when you see that bright light and then see it through a telescope. You can then see that it exists and also you can confirm what it is through a telescope.I, as I am sure you would also be, personally incapable of obtaining and maintaining a telescope spotting on an object the size and moving at a speed like the ISS.
You should get a motorized mount for your telescope. Then you could feed it any satellite tracking software.
The ISS is fast but it can take up to 6 minutes to cross the sky. Despite its size it can have an apparent magnitude up to -5 which is brighter than Venus.
Sites like https://www.heavens-above.com (https://www.heavens-above.com) will generate detailed maps of the next sightings at your location, including its position minute by minute:
Maybe one of the 1000's of engineers, scientists, commercial microgravity entreprenuers, etc etc etc who attend the annual ISSR&D Conferences where the Japs, Russians and Americans present the results of the microgravity research they're faking and publishing in those peer reviewed papers can help you sort that out.
Or maybe not since all those PhD's and super gullible MBA's, mega Corp owners and other prefessionale attending obviously aren't nearly as smart as the gurus attending next months IFEC in Denver.
Look this video got sent to me the other day and i am no expert on video stuff, so like i figure they are using ropes and stuff, but like i said, i am not confident in my argument on how they faked this... only that they DID!
Anyone whos interested take a look, I probably missed something, god be with ye all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvTmdIhYnes
Which is why you take a telescope, so when you see that bright light and then see it through a telescope. You can then see that it exists and also you can confirm what it is through a telescope.I, as I am sure you would also be, personally incapable of obtaining and maintaining a telescope spotting on an object the size and moving at a speed like the ISS.
You should get a motorized mount for your telescope. Then you could feed it any satellite tracking software.
The ISS is fast but it can take up to 6 minutes to cross the sky. Despite its size it can have an apparent magnitude up to -5 which is brighter than Venus.
Sites like https://www.heavens-above.com (https://www.heavens-above.com) will generate detailed maps of the next sightings at your location, including its position minute by minute:
(https://i.imgur.com/ZRXZs9w.png)
You could also wait for an ISS transit in front of the Sun or Moon and burst shoot a serie of pictures:
(http://0e33611cb8e6da737d5c-e13b5a910e105e07f9070866adaae10b.r15.cf1.rackcdn.com/Kenneith-Ho-keung-HUI--20171204_600D_ISStransit_v1_1512409689.jpg)
This was shot with an amateur refractor telescope, which is just a glorified field-glass. So yes, the shape of the ISS can be seen with the eye.
Your ISS fantasy is a projection of some type. Look real close. It fades in and out as it treks in front of brighter and darker areas. Very noticeable. Fake, fake fake. Say fake every time it gets lighter.
Your ISS fantasy is a projection of some type. Look real close. It fades in and out as it treks in front of brighter and darker areas. Very noticeable. Fake, fake fake. Say fake every time it gets lighter.
You want us to believe the ISS is a projection? A projection which is a worldwide hologram which can be seen every place on the planet NASA says it is. A projection that can move around he planet at 17000 miles an hour, over the Oceans, poles, and every single country for years and years and years. Complete, total rubbish.
Your ISS fantasy is a projection of some type. Look real close. It fades in and out as it treks in front of brighter and darker areas. Very noticeable. Fake, fake fake. Say fake every time it gets lighter.
Your ISS fantasy is a projection of some type. Look real close. It fades in and out as it treks in front of brighter and darker areas. Very noticeable. Fake, fake fake. Say fake every time it gets lighter.
Again, this is an amateur setup. Everybody can do it and see for themselves. Including you.
The brightness is pretty consistent across the shots. But you're right, there's one lighter than the others, 6th from the right.
It's perfectly expected for different shots to produce slightly different results, mostly because of atmospheric disturbances (also temperature variations inside the camera when it shoots). You would be surprised how astrophotography shots can vary from each other. You often have to shoot many raws and only keep the best ones.
If the transit was fake, the person would have probably copy/pasted the same outline of the ISS across the Moon. You wouldn't see any difference between them.
Here, the subject is consistent but each representation has its own tiny variations. That argument is indeed a proof of authenticity.
Look again, every time it passes in front of a lighter spot it gets lighter. This is observable in all ISS videos.
Anyway, the ISS does not have fuel or engines to maintain a serpentine path. It would need powerful engines and a lot of fuel to maintain such a path at such speeds.
And who's the damn pilot?
And what's the "G force" created during such sharp turns every few minutes?
Look again, every time it passes in front of a lighter spot it gets lighter. This is observable in all ISS videos.
I'm not going to flood this thread with pictures to prove you wrong. You could search "iss transit" in Google image if you were interested.Anyway, the ISS does not have fuel or engines to maintain a serpentine path. It would need powerful engines and a lot of fuel to maintain such a path at such speeds.
And who's the damn pilot?
And what's the "G force" created during such sharp turns every few minutes?
It doesn't need fuel because it's in orbit. Just like the hundreads of satellites orbiting the Earth that don't have any fuel. Actually fuel would be required to exit the orbit.
There's no pilot. It's not a spaceship. Whatever tiny corrections of trajectory are operated by ground control.
There's no sharp turn or serpentine. A straight line on a globe equals a sinusoidal wave on a Mercator projection, which is used in your map.
The ALLEDGED ISS is supposed to orbit in the same direction as the earth rotates, from west to east. But in this video it goes north, north east. OOPS!
Also, it appears ISS is a hologram. At 2:11 in the Video, the ISS fades out over a bright spot.
The ALLEDGED ISS is supposed to orbit in the same direction as the earth rotates, from west to east. But in this video it goes north, north east. OOPS!
Also, it appears ISS is a hologram. At 2:11 in the Video, the ISS fades out over a bright spot.
Yes it goes in the direction of the Earth's rotation, in contrast with the opposite direction. That leaves 90° of inclination, for the ISS it's 52°.
The fading you imagine is ridiculous. In every day's life, you would never think that an object more or less illuminated becomes transparent. Just that the light has changed, which is the case across the Moon's surface.
You should try to debunk the first video posted in this thread, if you find any argument.
The ALLEDGED ISS is supposed to orbit in the same direction as the earth rotates, from west to east. But in this video it goes north, north east. OOPS!
Also, it appears ISS is a hologram. At 2:11 in the Video, the ISS fades out over a bright spot.
Yes it goes in the direction of the Earth's rotation, in contrast with the opposite direction. That leaves 90° of inclination, for the ISS it's 52°.
The fading you imagine is ridiculous. In every day's life, you would never think that an object more or less illuminated becomes transparent. Just that the light has changed, which is the case across the Moon's surface.
You should try to debunk the first video posted in this thread, if you find any argument.
The picture you posted has ISS going east to west. The video I posted the ISS is going (as pictured) north north east. Why the difference?
Do you believe this Official Video from NASA is real?
Problem - The Earth Spin Clockwise as ISS remains mostly stationary to the Sun in this official NASA video. The ISS never passes between the Earth and Sun during 24 hrs, yet is supposed to every 94 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb84FkTuHuQ&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s&index=12
Do you believe this Official Video from NASA is real?
Problem - The Earth Spin Clockwise as ISS remains mostly stationary to the Sun in this official NASA video. The ISS never passes between the Earth and Sun during 24 hrs, yet is supposed to every 94 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb84FkTuHuQ&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s&index=12
Stop and think for just a minute about the tilted Earth and Sun in 3D and what the summer solstice is and how many hours go by in between a sunset and rise... Your failure to understand geometry or basic observation does not debunk anything. You don’t think the ISS exists because of its sinusoidal path?? You realize it has a sinusoidal path on the flat map because the flat Earth map is a projection of the globe. Its verifiable path is confirmation the Earth is a sphere.
Earth rotates Clockwise as ISS remains mostly stationary to the Sun.
Earth rotates Clockwise as ISS remains mostly stationary to the Sun.
The Earth's motion in this video doesn't come from its rotation, but from the ISS cruising it. What you have is a camera that moves along the surface, independently from the Earth. You can see the same from a plane. A plane can move in any direction, and show the surface moving in any opposite direction, that doesn't mean the Earth's rotation is changed.
You don't get to come up with another stupid video everytime the previous one has been debunked. We know you can find as many stupid videos as you want. You don't need to act as Youtube's recommendation algorithm. What you need is to provide arguments.
At some point you have to address the issues that disprove your previous statements. Jumping to the next one is going to get old very very fast. I'm still waiting for you to debunk the original video in this thread, since you're so bent on claiming the ISS is fake.
It was this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvTmdIhYnes
You ignore that ISS remains mostly stationary to the Sun. Why?I don't understand. What exactly do you mean?
You ignore that ISS remains mostly stationary to the Sun. Why?
You ignore that ISS remains mostly stationary to the Sun. Why?I don't understand. What exactly do you mean?
Why do you think that? You do understand that the orbit of the ISS is tilted 51.6 degrees to the equator, don't you? Because of that tilt, once in a while they get an orbit or two that doesn't get a sunset. However, most of the time they get 15-16 sunrises and sunsets per day.You ignore that ISS remains mostly stationary to the Sun. Why?I don't understand. What exactly do you mean?
The ISS is not orbiting Earth in the Video. Not traveling 17,000 mph. If one ISS video is fake there all fake.
Firstly, "they're".You ignore that ISS remains mostly stationary to the Sun. Why?I don't understand. What exactly do you mean?
The ISS is not orbiting Earth in the Video. Not traveling 17,000 mph. If one ISS video is fake there all fake.
You ignore that ISS remains mostly stationary to the Sun. Why?I don't understand. What exactly do you mean?
The ISS is not orbiting Earth in the Video. Not traveling 17,000 mph. If one ISS video is fake there all fake.
You ignore that ISS remains mostly stationary to the Sun. Why?I don't understand. What exactly do you mean?
The ISS is not orbiting Earth in the Video. Not traveling 17,000 mph. If one ISS video is fake there all fake.
Let’s pretend for a moment that ALL the videos said to have been made aboard the ISS are fake, this hasn’t been proven to even the smallest degree of certainty but for the sake argument we will say sure they are fake. That doesn’t make that “object” we call the ISS fake.
Maybe, as FE often say, man made flight is impossible, yet the ISS is in the sky, so call it what you want. The fact of its mere verifiable presence all day everyday flying at extreme speeds nothing on the Earth has ever gotten close to while verifiably serpentining through the sky apparently never slowing down apparently never speeding up orbiting the planet in 92 minutes. Its mere path through the sky whatever it is, not needing fuel somehow, changing directions northwest then southwest every 45 minutes or so (if on a flat earth) never missing a turn for days and weeks and years and years is PROOF we are a sphere. That serpentine path is only possible as it is a projection of a straight line orbit of our glob displayed on the flat map. Its path is verifiably true. Case is closed, deny people aboard it if you must, but it is man made, flying at incredible speeds on a verifiable perfect path around the globe without the need for fuel for years and only possible ON A SPINNING SPHERE.
So we have a trick that would be far easier to accomplish (and cost effective) with just a simple green screen effect as our first 'evidence' for this 'AUGMented reality' (gonna punch something if I have to hear augymented again) hypothesis. Followed by a series of basic camera/video glitches that don't serve as any sort of evidence for his hypothesis unless you've already bought into it. The far more reasonable (Occam's Razor) thought is they're simple video glitches. They happen all the time. This video does nothing to actually *prove* these videos are fake. Only offers another option for those hunting or wishing to believe they are.You ignore that ISS remains mostly stationary to the Sun. Why?I don't understand. What exactly do you mean?
The ISS is not orbiting Earth in the Video. Not traveling 17,000 mph. If one ISS video is fake there all fake.
Let’s pretend for a moment that ALL the videos said to have been made aboard the ISS are fake, this hasn’t been proven to even the smallest degree of certainty but for the sake argument we will say sure they are fake. That doesn’t make that “object” we call the ISS fake.
Maybe, as FE often say, man made flight is impossible, yet the ISS is in the sky, so call it what you want. The fact of its mere verifiable presence all day everyday flying at extreme speeds nothing on the Earth has ever gotten close to while verifiably serpentining through the sky apparently never slowing down apparently never speeding up orbiting the planet in 92 minutes. Its mere path through the sky whatever it is, not needing fuel somehow, changing directions northwest then southwest every 45 minutes or so (if on a flat earth) never missing a turn for days and weeks and years and years is PROOF we are a sphere. That serpentine path is only possible as it is a projection of a straight line orbit of our glob displayed on the flat map. Its path is verifiably true. Case is closed, deny people aboard it if you must, but it is man made, flying at incredible speeds on a verifiable perfect path around the globe without the need for fuel for years and only possible ON A SPINNING SPHERE.
You Globies will never admit your ISS fantasy toy is fake even with tons of evidence. You openly ignore the evidence and make ignorant replies in hopes it will just go away as any other would who is also brainwashed.
The important thing is, those seeking the truth here can see other intelligent people are brainwashed with the lies of NASA too.
This is EXACTLY how NASA fakes everything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-Y6CvkEHvc&index=142&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s
You Globies will never admit your ISS fantasy toy is fake even with tons of evidence. You openly ignore the evidence and make ignorant replies in hopes it will just go away as any other would who is also brainwashed.
The important thing is, those seeking the truth here can see other intelligent people are brainwashed with the lies of NASA too.
This is EXACTLY how NASA fakes everything.
You Globies will never admit your ISS fantasy toy is fake even with tons of evidence. You openly ignore the evidence and make ignorant replies in hopes it will just go away as any other would who is also brainwashed.
The important thing is, those seeking the truth here can see other intelligent people are brainwashed with the lies of NASA too.
This is EXACTLY how NASA fakes everything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-Y6CvkEHvc&index=142&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s
This is EXACTLY how NASA fakes everything.It seems to me that NASA would need several techniques working together to successfully fake ISS videos. Not only do they need to fake things that the astronauts are directly interacting with, but also things that they're indirectly interacting with. They need to fake the astronauts floating around, moving around, brushing against things, things floating around on their own, etc. That's an awful lot of fake things to keep track of in real time.
Again, Globies will never admit their ISS fantasy toy is fake even with tons of evidence. They don't care NASA has been exposed using harnesses on ISS nor do they think it matters because Earth is a ball to them and no evidence will make them say, Flat Earther's are right .Oh look, another video full of...well basically nothing. Semi-catchy tune I suppose, but he doesn't offer up anything particularly groundbreaking. The 'bubbles' have been discussed before, debris I believe? Many cases also show such things moving in multiple directions an impossibility for bubbles. Looks to me like this guy has you hook line and sinker with his conspiracy hypothesis. Is it the song? At least he knows how to pronounce all the words he's using.
Let’s all go to the “NASA Puppet Show” and count how many astronauts on strings they use on the FAKE International Space Station.
'Puppet Show" - an ISS exposé -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJZ9sqvH9dY
Again, Globies will never admit their ISS fantasy toy is fake even with tons of evidence. They don't care NASA has been exposed using harnesses on ISS nor do they think it matters because Earth is a ball to them and no evidence will make them say, Flat Earther's are right .
Let’s all go to the “NASA Puppet Show” and count how many astronauts on strings they use on the FAKE International Space Station.
'Puppet Show" - an ISS exposé -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJZ9sqvH9dY
Again, Globies will never admit their ISS fantasy toy is fake even with tons of evidence. They don't care NASA has been exposed using harnesses on ISS nor do they think it matters because Earth is a ball to them and no evidence will make them say, Flat Earther's are right .
Let’s all go to the “NASA Puppet Show” and count how many astronauts on strings they use on the FAKE International Space Station.
'Puppet Show" - an ISS exposé -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJZ9sqvH9dY
I watched that video twice, pausing many times to see what the singing buffoon is showing and saw nothing there. Those “bubbles” could have been lots of things, or been planted (I know, crazy right?). It’s a cute song and dance with amateurish green screen work putting himself on the ISS. You Earthman say all video and images of a round earth to be fake, so why should we accept possibly altered video or pictures as evidence from you? Why not make your own investigation with your own eyes of the man made object we can all look up and see orbiting above us at incredible speeds serpentining the planet (if flat) for years on end? How is that objects path possible?
In other words you are admitting that all this you beaut modern 3-D real-time simulation is a pile of crap? I don't believe that it is.
Truth seekers here, take notes.
Globies believe we are manipulating NASA’s own space footage to discredit it. But the fact is, NASA is manipulating globies’ minds with high-tech equipment to maintain a brainwashed status over them. Globies don’t care for truth as long as they get their fantasy fed.
The fake NASA ISS interior - a technical breakdown by Mike Helmick - Flat Earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3TE0CAXq_k&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&index=140&t=0s
As you can see, Globies ignore the evidence against their beloved toy, “ISS”. No amount of enormous evidence proving ISS is fake is going to make a Globie say to a flat earther, “you are correct.” They can’t have their fantasy toy taken away.In other words you are admitting that all this you beaut modern 3-D real-time simulation is a pile of crap? I don't believe that it is.
Truth seekers here, take notes.
Globies believe we are manipulating NASA’s own space footage to discredit it. But the fact is, NASA is manipulating globies’ minds with high-tech equipment to maintain a brainwashed status over them. Globies don’t care for truth as long as they get their fantasy fed.
The fake NASA ISS interior - a technical breakdown by Mike Helmick - Flat Earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3TE0CAXq_k&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&index=140&t=0s
If NASA was using the best software available, and apparent they can afford it, there would be none of those glitches.
The sort of artefacts you are showing would be familiar to anyone with any knowledge of MPEG-2 or H.264. The following video demonstrates artefacts in MPEG-2 under low bandwidth high noise conditions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Rp-uo6HmI
The glitches in your video are not unlike the artefacts expected when the signal is severely degraded.
In my opinion the existence of the artefacts followed by the drop-out is evidence that the video is genuine.
Were it produced by artificial reality there would be no artefacts and dropouts.
As you can see, Globies ignore the evidence against their beloved toy, “ISS”. No amount of enormous evidence proving ISS is fake is going to make a Globie say to a flat earther, “you are correct.” They can’t have their fantasy toy taken away.
As you can see, Globies ignore the evidence against their beloved toy, “ISS”. No amount of enormous evidence proving ISS is fake is going to make a Globie say to a flat earther, “you are correct.” They can’t have their fantasy toy taken away.
There's a difference between ignoring an argument and refuting it. All the 'evidence against the ISS' so far has been easily debunked.
I don't see where you have debunked any of those videos.
In other words, you have no rational answers to my claim so resort to the logically fallacious appeal to ridicule. That only detracts from your own credibility.As you can see, Globies ignore the evidence against their beloved toy, “ISS”. No amount of enormous evidence proving ISS is fake is going to make a Globie say to a flat earther, “you are correct.” They can’t have their fantasy toy taken away.In other words you are admitting that all this you beaut modern 3-D real-time simulation is a pile of crap? I don't believe that it is.
Truth seekers here, take notes.
Globies believe we are manipulating NASA’s own space footage to discredit it. But the fact is, NASA is manipulating globies’ minds with high-tech equipment to maintain a brainwashed status over them. Globies don’t care for truth as long as they get their fantasy fed.
The fake NASA ISS interior - a technical breakdown by Mike Helmick - Flat Earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3TE0CAXq_k&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&index=140&t=0s
If NASA was using the best software available, and apparent they can afford it, there would be none of those glitches.
The sort of artefacts you are showing would be familiar to anyone with any knowledge of MPEG-2 or H.264. The following video demonstrates artefacts in MPEG-2 under low bandwidth high noise conditions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Rp-uo6HmI
The glitches in your video are not unlike the artefacts expected when the signal is severely degraded.
In my opinion the existence of the artefacts followed by the drop-out is evidence that the video is genuine.
Were it produced by artificial reality there would be no artefacts and dropouts.
Proof NASA Fakes Being in Space.There's no proof there, just an apparent anomaly that you can't explain and I'm under no obligation to explain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2qwvAivfGM&index=139&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s
In other words, you have no rational answers to my claim so resort to the logically fallacious appeal to ridicule. That only detracts from your own credibility.As you can see, Globies ignore the evidence against their beloved toy, “ISS”. No amount of enormous evidence proving ISS is fake is going to make a Globie say to a flat earther, “you are correct.” They can’t have their fantasy toy taken away.In other words you are admitting that all this you beaut modern 3-D real-time simulation is a pile of crap? I don't believe that it is.
Truth seekers here, take notes.
Globies believe we are manipulating NASA’s own space footage to discredit it. But the fact is, NASA is manipulating globies’ minds with high-tech equipment to maintain a brainwashed status over them. Globies don’t care for truth as long as they get their fantasy fed.
The fake NASA ISS interior - a technical breakdown by Mike Helmick - Flat Earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3TE0CAXq_k&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&index=140&t=0s
If NASA was using the best software available, and apparent they can afford it, there would be none of those glitches.
The sort of artefacts you are showing would be familiar to anyone with any knowledge of MPEG-2 or H.264. The following video demonstrates artefacts in MPEG-2 under low bandwidth high noise conditions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Rp-uo6HmI
The glitches in your video are not unlike the artefacts expected when the signal is severely degraded.
In my opinion the existence of the artefacts followed by the drop-out is evidence that the video is genuine.
Were it produced by artificial reality there would be no artefacts and dropouts.Quote from: EarthmanProof NASA Fakes Being in Space.There's no proof there, just an apparent anomaly that you can't explain and I'm under no obligation to explain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2qwvAivfGM&index=139&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s
Your whole proof boils down to nothing more than the fact that you cannot or do not want to explain an anomaly and therefore that anomaly is evidence of fakery.
And that is not a proof in anyone's language!
You simply do not get the point.
According to anti-NASA people, like yourself, the organisation has almost unlimited resources to employ the best techniques to create fake videos and I don't doubt that they could now do it.
So if NASA and the other space agencies set out to deceive you there is no way that they would allow apparent anomalies like that pass through.
To some extent, these anomalies are more evidence of those videos being genuine than vice-versa.
But what do you gain from "proving" that there are no people on board the ISS? There is almost unlimited photographic and personal evidence that the ISS and other satellites are orbiting the earth.
As you can see, Globies ignore the evidence against their beloved toy, “ISS”. No amount of enormous evidence proving ISS is fake is going to make a Globie say to a flat earther, “you are correct.” They can’t have their fantasy toy taken away.
Proof NASA Fakes Being in Space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2qwvAivfGM&index=139&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s
No! You wake up and face the real issue!If I was a brainwashed Globie, I would reject the mass evidence too and say as you have.In other words, you have no rational answers to my claim so resort to the logically fallacious appeal to ridicule. That only detracts from your own credibility.As you can see, Globies ignore the evidence against their beloved toy, “ISS”. No amount of enormous evidence proving ISS is fake is going to make a Globie say to a flat earther, “you are correct.” They can’t have their fantasy toy taken away.In other words you are admitting that all this you beaut modern 3-D real-time simulation is a pile of crap? I don't believe that it is.
Truth seekers here, take notes.
Globies believe we are manipulating NASA’s own space footage to discredit it. But the fact is, NASA is manipulating globies’ minds with high-tech equipment to maintain a brainwashed status over them. Globies don’t care for truth as long as they get their fantasy fed.
The fake NASA ISS interior - a technical breakdown by Mike Helmick - Flat Earth, GLOBEBUSTERS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3TE0CAXq_k&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&index=140&t=0s)
If NASA was using the best software available, and apparent they can afford it, there would be none of those glitches.
The sort of artefacts you are showing would be familiar to anyone with any knowledge of MPEG-2 or H.264. The following video demonstrates artefacts in MPEG-2 under low bandwidth high noise conditions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Rp-uo6HmI
The glitches in your video are not unlike the artefacts expected when the signal is severely degraded.
In my opinion the existence of the artefacts followed by the drop-out is evidence that the video is genuine.
Were it produced by artificial reality there would be no artefacts and dropouts.Quote from: EarthmanProof NASA Fakes Being in Space, ThePottersClay (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2qwvAivfGM&index=139&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s)There's no proof there, just an apparent anomaly that you can't explain and I'm under no obligation to explain.
Your whole proof boils down to nothing more than the fact that you cannot or do not want to explain an anomaly and therefore that anomaly is evidence of fakery.
And that is not a proof in anyone's language!
You simply do not get the point.
According to anti-NASA people, like yourself, the organisation has almost unlimited resources to employ the best techniques to create fake videos and I don't doubt that they could now do it.
So if NASA and the other space agencies set out to deceive you there is no way that they would allow apparent anomalies like that pass through.
To some extent, these anomalies are more evidence of those videos being genuine than vice-versa.
But what do you gain from "proving" that there are no people on board the ISS? There is almost unlimited photographic and personal evidence that the ISS and other satellites are orbiting the earth.
NASA is manipulating the minds of it's followers. WAKE UP!
NASA Fails Again & Again | Space is Fake | Glitch on the ISS, ODD Reality (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS0VN056d68&index=126&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s)
No! You wake up and face the real issue!If I was a brainwashed Globie, I would reject the mass evidence too and say as you have.In other words, you have no rational answers to my claim so resort to the logically fallacious appeal to ridicule. That only detracts from your own credibility.As you can see, Globies ignore the evidence against their beloved toy, “ISS”. No amount of enormous evidence proving ISS is fake is going to make a Globie say to a flat earther, “you are correct.” They can’t have their fantasy toy taken away.In other words you are admitting that all this you beaut modern 3-D real-time simulation is a pile of crap? I don't believe that it is.
Truth seekers here, take notes.
Globies believe we are manipulating NASA’s own space footage to discredit it. But the fact is, NASA is manipulating globies’ minds with high-tech equipment to maintain a brainwashed status over them. Globies don’t care for truth as long as they get their fantasy fed.
The fake NASA ISS interior - a technical breakdown by Mike Helmick - Flat Earth, GLOBEBUSTERS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3TE0CAXq_k&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&index=140&t=0s)
If NASA was using the best software available, and apparent they can afford it, there would be none of those glitches.
The sort of artefacts you are showing would be familiar to anyone with any knowledge of MPEG-2 or H.264. The following video demonstrates artefacts in MPEG-2 under low bandwidth high noise conditions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Rp-uo6HmI
The glitches in your video are not unlike the artefacts expected when the signal is severely degraded.
In my opinion the existence of the artefacts followed by the drop-out is evidence that the video is genuine.
Were it produced by artificial reality there would be no artefacts and dropouts.Quote from: EarthmanProof NASA Fakes Being in Space, ThePottersClay (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2qwvAivfGM&index=139&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s)There's no proof there, just an apparent anomaly that you can't explain and I'm under no obligation to explain.
Your whole proof boils down to nothing more than the fact that you cannot or do not want to explain an anomaly and therefore that anomaly is evidence of fakery.
And that is not a proof in anyone's language!
You simply do not get the point.
According to anti-NASA people, like yourself, the organisation has almost unlimited resources to employ the best techniques to create fake videos and I don't doubt that they could now do it.
So if NASA and the other space agencies set out to deceive you there is no way that they would allow apparent anomalies like that pass through.
To some extent, these anomalies are more evidence of those videos being genuine than vice-versa.
But what do you gain from "proving" that there are no people on board the ISS? There is almost unlimited photographic and personal evidence that the ISS and other satellites are orbiting the earth.
NASA is manipulating the minds of it's followers. WAKE UP!
NASA Fails Again & Again | Space is Fake | Glitch on the ISS, ODD Reality (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS0VN056d68&index=126&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s)
If NASA wanted to fool people like they could and would do it without all the apparent "fake NASA ISS interior", apparent "NASA Fakes Being in Space" and "Glitches on the ISS".
But all you can resort to is more attempted proof by appeal to ridicule and ad hominem.
I'm afraid that doesn't work here, we're used to being called NASA fan boys, sheeples and far worse by the likes of Jeranism.
You claim that NASA has unlimited capabilities to fake these things using virtual and enhanced reality. If that is true then there would never be all these glitches an anomalies.
And, I for one, certainly agree that NASA has this capability when one sees the animations of interplanetary missions that could never have been videoed live.
But in these cases NASA does, I believe, state that they are animations.
Don't bother with a reply until you are prepared to answer the points that I raised!
- If NASA wanted to fool people like they could and would do it without all the apparent anomalies.
- What do you gain from "proving" that there are no people on board the ISS? There is almost unlimited photographic and personal evidence that the ISS and other satellites are orbiting the earth.
- In the end, what you gain even if you debunk the whole "space industry"?
The earth would still be a Globe, there would be still no workable flat earth model and still no accurate flat earth map.
PS The term "TRUTH seekers" doesn't impress me in the slightest.
True science does not pretend to know "THE TRUTH" but tries to find the best explanations (theories) for what we observe.
for real onpbservations
Globies will not tell you why NASA has to fake space. All they do is cover for those who have lied to them.
NASA Fail Compilation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6073j4v98Y&index=124&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s
There are many things pointed out in those videos that you have not explained, rabinoz. Why are you refusing to explain what is happening in those videos? Your ranting gives the impression that you are in denial over the matter.And nobody has attempted to answer any points that I raised. So Maybe you can answer these questions?
- If NASA wanted to fool people like they could and would do it without all the apparent anomalies.
- What do you gain from "proving" that there are no people on board the ISS? There is almost unlimited photographic and personal evidence that the ISS and other satellites are orbiting the earth.
- In the end, what you gain even if you debunk the whole "space industry"?
The earth would still be a Globe, there would be still no workable flat earth model and still no accurate flat earth map.
Globies will not tell you why NASA has to fake space. All they do is cover for those who have lied to them.Before you are entitled to ask "why NASA has to fake space" you must prove that NASA does indeed fake space.and you yet to prove that.
NASA Fail Compilation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6073j4v98Y&index=124&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0sl)Bye bye. Come back when you are prepared to to debate with more than ridicule and attacks on the characters of those don't agree with you.
There are many things pointed out in those videos that you have not explained, rabinoz. Why are you refusing to explain what is happening in those videos? Your ranting gives the impression that you are in denial over the matter.
There are many things pointed out in those videos that you have not explained, rabinoz. Why are you refusing to explain what is happening in those videos? Your ranting gives the impression that you are in denial over the matter.
There are many things pointed out in those videos that you have not explained, rabinoz. Why are you refusing to explain what is happening in those videos? Your ranting gives the impression that you are in denial over the matter.And nobody has attempted to answer any points that I raised. So Maybe you can answer these questions?
- If NASA wanted to fool people like they could and would do it without all the apparent anomalies.
- What do you gain from "proving" that there are no people on board the ISS? There is almost unlimited photographic and personal evidence that the ISS and other satellites are orbiting the earth.
- In the end, what you gain even if you debunk the whole "space industry"?
The earth would still be a Globe, there would be still no workable flat earth model and still no accurate flat earth map.
Why should I waste time on videos that are no more than ridicule when Earthman refuses to even acknowledge the points I raised.
I have found that these videos are often dismissed. We should collect these videos onto a thread in the projects or community forum and then add it to the wiki for reference.
One of the most damning proofs is the fact NASA has been caught faking ISS with harnesses time and time again.
Where did you prove "NASA being exposed using harnesses on ISS"?Why should I waste time on videos that are no more than ridicule when Earthman refuses to even acknowledge the points I raised.
And please tell the readers why you have ignored the evidence of NASA being exposed using harnesses on ISS.
Thanks,
Where did you prove "NASA being exposed using harnesses on ISS"?Why should I waste time on videos that are no more than ridicule when Earthman refuses to even acknowledge the points I raised.
And please tell the readers why you have ignored the evidence of NASA being exposed using harnesses on ISS.
Thanks,
All I see are videos so highly doctored by NASAphobes that no-one in their right minds would bother with them!
Show me some videos that are not cluttered with total idiocy and I might consider them.
Surely the Flat Earth Society has better standards of evidence and proof than the rubbish you deal up. Still, I guess your fans lap it up!
This makes as much sense as you highly doctored videos:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/mq2ibog04s41zv5/Ultimate%20Proof%20against%20Flat%20earth.jpg?dl=1)
I have found that these videos are often dismissed. We should collect these videos onto a thread in the projects or community forum and then add it to the wiki for reference.
I thought the Society forums had a higher standard of arguments than those retarded videos. That's a path I'm not sure you want to take.One of the most damning proofs is the fact NASA has been caught faking ISS with harnesses time and time again.
Any example of 'being caught'? Assuming you mean something else than the speculations of a random youtuber.
That's right, Tesla also believed much like what we do. Imaging that! See the pic below.I will consider what you say after you remove you blatant misquote of that firm believer in the Heliocentric Solar System, Nikola Tesla!
(https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10895.0;attach=2278;image)I will get to the issue of a true Checkmate with you at a later time. Be prepared!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Come back when fix your deceptive comments and your misquoting of what Nikola Tesla said!
What I can't work out is why Tesla seems to be held up as a hero by so many flat earthers. He certainly did not believe the earth to be flat or stationary! See this address by him:
HOW COSMIC FORCES SHAPE OUR DESTINIES, ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake") by Nikola Tesla (http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1915-02-07.htm)
also at
— How Cosmic Forces Shape Our Destinies — ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake"), New York American, February 7, 1915[/b] (https://www.pbs.org/tesla/res/res_art10.html) in which he states:Quote from: Nicola TeslaI have also read, though I cannot verify it right now, that one reason Tesla disliked Einstein so much is that he believed that Einstein destroyed "Newton's gravitation".NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount
Though not conscious of these periodic changes, he is surely affected by them.
The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From the above address.
And if you read Tesla's own writings describing his inventions he refers explicitly to the Globe many times - he was not flat earth believer!
From what I can gather, Tesla did not deny Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, just differed with Einstein's "curved spacetime" explanation of it.
Sure, Nicola Tesla had a lot of "different ideas", but he most certainly did not believe in a flat stationary earth.
Like I said, if one NASA video is fake there all fake. In the following ISS video, bubbles are seen again in space. This is from a NASA official video.As I keep saying and you totally ignore, if NASA wanted to deceive everybody they could do it easily!
I also find it amazing that NASA is advertising on Flat Earth YouTube channels. Please let the ad finish so the Youtuber gets paid from NASA. At least we can get some of our tax dollars back.And you believe Jeran Campanella? What a joke! He's a total ignoramus of the first order with no understanding of the Heliocentric Globe he tries to debunk.
GET OUT OF THE POOL NASA! More Space Bubbles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PB7AwZzaOo&index=49&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s)
Oh, my, you don't want those videos included. What are you afraid of? Would you also like if they didn't include this one too? It's also exposes NASA's lies. Be sure to watch it all so you know how to teach against it.
Grab a cup of coffee, it's about an hour long exposure of lies we all have been taught.
Planet Flat Earth | 2018 Nature Documentary II
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ7_9eIAlT4&index=69&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s
Like I said, if one NASA video is fake there all fake. In the following ISS video, bubbles are seen again in space. This is from a NASA official video.
I also find it amazing that NASA is advertising on Flat Earth YouTube channels. Please let the ad finish so the Youtuber gets paid from NASA. At least we can get some of our tax dollars back.
GET OUT OF THE POOL NASA! More Space Bubbles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PB7AwZzaOo&index=49&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ&t=0s
You would have to be blind and brainwashed not to believe NASA is faking the ISS with the use of harnesses and Virtual Reality.So they spend millions (you claim even billions) on these productions, yet they can't stop a guy from going across the video feed like that not once, but twice? What's the evidence that's a harness and not something sticking up because of the lack of gravity? Does how he is hanging jive with a harness wrapped around his waist? You can't just go 'look at this thing' and not examine it further, which is all this video does. There's a thing sticking up from about his waist. Great. You claim it's part of a harness system. What's your evidence it's part of a harness system? Doubly so as you ignore the spinning hat happening right in front of him. I know you'll say that's AR or whatever BS you're claiming, but how could they manage to do that and ignore the dude floating by behind? That's honestly the biggest problem with the NASA conspiracy imo. These guys are apparently bright enough, talented enough, and wealthy enough to put AR to use for years before it was in the public eye. But they can't catch and edit out things like a guy going by behind in a harness? Or some dude looking like he's grabbing a wire? You are simultaneously painting them as the smartest people in the room, but also the dumbest. They've become Bond villains.
If one Video is fake there all is fake.
Check out the deceivers.
NASA ISS "Astronaut" Caught Faking Space Uses A Harness During Live Feed With Boise State
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iZX8riQ90w
How much evidence do Globies need to accept the fact ISS is being faked?1) You can see the mic got caught on her shirt somehow and this produces the weird 'snap' of her shirt when she gets it loose.
The evidence is overwhelming.
ISS HARNESS FAILS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zcicL7MK9A
NASA caught faking ISS again with harnesses. Also check out the woman's permed hair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-huF7fRlnA
NASA caught faking ISS again with harnesses. Also check out the woman's permed hair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-huF7fRlnA
There's no harness or wire in this video. The guy says it's there but you can't see anything looking remotely like a harness.
First he claims that the wire is at the top left of the screen (right side of the guy who spins), then that it's attached to his waist on the right (his left side). How does that work exactly to lift him from the ground?
If he had a harness, it would be visible at least under his clothes or in his back. But we fully see his clothes and his back when he spins, there's nothing.
Are you suggesting that the woman has a harness in her hair? Or on her necklace?
Why do things have to be pointed out to globies?
NASA just can't stop screwing up during a ISS live feed. Anyone that has common sense and is not a globie can clearly see NASA is faking ISS.
The movie "Gravity" is more believable than live feeds from ISS.
NASA live feed EPIC FAIL! They cut live feed right as her harness malfunctions!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qf7qayXvFQ
NASA just can't stop screwing up during a ISS live feed. Anyone that has common sense and is not a globie can clearly see NASA is faking ISS.
The movie "Gravity" is more believable than live feeds from ISS.
NASA live feed EPIC FAIL! They cut live feed right as her harness malfunctions!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qf7qayXvFQ
You're still not answering any question... Instead of linking more videos, why not try to defend the previous ones that have been criticized?
The deception in the video is obvious. There is no need for me to narrate and point things out. You don't accept the fact NASA fakes space. So what! I could care less.
NASA just can't stop screwing up during a ISS live feed. Anyone that has common sense and is not a globie can clearly see NASA is faking ISS.Once again, that video shows she started moving after grabbing the microphone, her leg was in the thing on the side so she started to pivot down with her foot as a pivot point, then she quite clearly grabs something with her hand on the right side, pulling herself before the feed cuts. There is no falling, she didn't do any jerky movements that you'd expect from someone who unexpectedly falls. And you say gravity is more believable, thats becuase it's a movie and they were aiming for believable, real life isn't perfect like movies depict. That's like saying all romance in real life is fake because it's not as perfect as romcoms...
The movie "Gravity" is more believable than live feeds from ISS.
NASA live feed EPIC FAIL! They cut live feed right as her harness malfunctions!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qf7qayXvFQ
NASA just can't stop screwing up during a ISS live feed. Anyone that has common sense and is not a globie can clearly see NASA is faking ISS.
The movie "Gravity" is more believable than live feeds from ISS.
NASA live feed EPIC FAIL! They cut live feed right as her harness malfunctions!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qf7qayXvFQ
You're still not answering any question... Instead of linking more videos, why not try to defend the previous ones that have been criticized?
The deception in the video is obvious.
Look this video got sent to me the other day and i am no expert on video stuff, so like i figure they are using ropes and stuff, but like i said, i am not confident in my argument on how they faked this... only that they DID!
Anyone whos interested take a look, I probably missed something, god be with ye all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvTmdIhYnes
Are you just plugging your own videos?
Are you just plugging your own videos?
I am not that talented. However, I am helping to debunk the stupid videos NASA produces to make sure their followers maintain a brainwashed status.
As I said, NASA did a fair job faking the ISS video first posted by the OP but they have made a mess of others. It's necessary to show how long and how much they fake space. If one is fake there all fake.
Did you know they fake space? That's right, they do. The following video shows more of their trickery and deceit. If Earth was truly a Ball, then why do they have to fake it so much?
Some Terrible Footage of Fake Space - So Fake It's Funny
Are you just plugging your own videos?
I am not that talented. However, I am helping to debunk the stupid videos NASA produces to make sure their followers maintain a brainwashed status.
As I said, NASA did a fair job faking the ISS video first posted by the OP but they have made a mess of others. It's necessary to show how long and how much they fake space. If one is fake there all fake.
Did you know they fake space? That's right, they do. The following video shows more of their trickery and deceit. If Earth was truly a Ball, then why do they have to fake it so much?
Some Terrible Footage of Fake Space - So Fake It's Funny
You're not providing any evidence. All you're doing is slapping an hour and 45 minute video up (along with a children's song video) and yelling, "See, look!" It's like you think none of us have ever heard of the youtube before.
Are you just plugging your own videos?
I am not that talented. However, I am helping to debunk the stupid videos NASA produces to make sure their followers maintain a brainwashed status.
As I said, NASA did a fair job faking the ISS video first posted by the OP but they have made a mess of others. It's necessary to show how long and how much they fake space. If one is fake there all fake.
Did you know they fake space? That's right, they do. The following video shows more of their trickery and deceit. If Earth was truly a Ball, then why do they have to fake it so much?
Some Terrible Footage of Fake Space - So Fake It's Funny
You're not providing any evidence. All you're doing is slapping an hour and 45 minute video up (along with a children's song video) and yelling, "See, look!" It's like you think none of us have ever heard of the youtube before.
Oh, but I am providing a lot of evidence of NASA's fake crap. You little negative remark means nothing. There are many readers here who have not seen this evidence and they see you guys are up a creek without a paddle.
Even if you watch the video and debunk it thoroughly, point by point, Earthman isn't going to answer. He'll just reply with another video. Why bother?hopefully it'll tire him down and he'll eventually come to realise he doesn't have an actual argument. And anyone else reading this will see the videos claiming NASA is faking were debunked and less people will fall victim to its stupidity. The more people realise these videos don't make sense the better.
Oh, but I am providing a lot of evidence of NASA's fake crap. You little negative remark means nothing. There are many readers here who have not seen this evidence and they see you guys are up a creek without a paddle.No you are not. If NASA were trying to make fake videos you would never detect the glitches, artefacts and apparent anomalies.
They argue "there is no way NASA could do this so perfectly" in one breath and "there is no way NASA could make all of these mistakes" in another.assuming they're mistakes. I don't think getting your cuff caught on your top for a second is a mistake.. Just a thing that happens.
They argue "there is no way NASA could do this so perfectly" in one breath and "there is no way NASA could make all of these mistakes" in another.While FE argues that "the technology and budget is there to fake these videos" in one breath and "they are so incompetent at doing so that they keep making mistakes" in another :)
NASA has all types of tools to fake ISS. Harnesses, Virtual Reality, Photoshop and the use of green screens just like Hollywood uses. If you're not brainwashed with curve, you will be able to see NASA using green screens.
Here's another epic green screen failure from the ISS and our friends at NASA.
The "International Space Station" is an international hoax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYpiNCHLNVw
Watch the watch. And the water.OK. What are we looking for?
Watch the watch. And the water.OK. What are we looking for?
But their behavior can be accounted for with CGI and augmented reality.Watch the watch. And the water.OK. What are we looking for?
The behaviour of the watch cannot be accounted for with any claim of wires etc. holding it up, down or sideways. It's following its own path, totally unhindered by gravity.
Likewise the water.
But their behavior can be accounted for with CGI and augmented reality.Watch the watch. And the water.OK. What are we looking for?
The behaviour of the watch cannot be accounted for with any claim of wires etc. holding it up, down or sideways. It's following its own path, totally unhindered by gravity.
Likewise the water.
But their behavior can be accounted for with CGI and augmented reality.In this day and age quite possibly. Not so much back in the Skylab days from which there is plenty of footage of astronauts doing acrobatics in a way that I don't believe could have been done using harnesses in such a complicated way. Do you have any evidence of fakery other than that "it could be done"? You could apply that to anything.
The behaviour of the watch cannot be accounted for with any claim of wires etc. holding it up, down or sideways. It's following its own path, totally unhindered by gravity.But their behavior can be accounted for with CGI and augmented reality.
Likewise the water.