The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on November 08, 2018, 11:03:31 PM
-
A Group Project: Create a catalogue of NASA's ISS slip-ups and flubs. We will go through and make a Wiki page out of the best of them. Please point out a specific event rather than linking a 2 hour video. A title and description of the event for porting to the Wiki would be appreciated.
I will start:
Astronaut Accidentally Admits That They Are Filming on US Soil
In a live interview from "space" Chris Cassidy accidentally admits that the astronauts are filming from the USA. Watch the following video at the 28 second mark for about 1 minute for context and decide for yourself what Cassidy is talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Jp9Y8I6v_Ds?start=28
Cassidy says: "...and all of that happened in a little town called York, Maine, which is across the United States from where we are talking to you right now."
-
Tom, thank you for starting this project.
Can the videos include astronauts on ISS and on Earth inadvertently admitting "we have nor been beyond low earth orbit" and admitting they have never been pass the Van Allen Radiation Belts.?
-
My guess it that he's talking about his high school experience in York, Maine, which is across the US from Riverside, California from where the caller was calling from. Sometimes people aren't as precise with their words as they could be when they're doing informal interviews and don't expect their every word to be disceted.
You should consider starting the "Lets Make Excuses and Special Plead for NASA" thread, markjo. I am asking for users to post their favorite ISS fails.
Tom, thank you for starting this project.
Can the videos include astronauts on ISS and on Earth inadvertently admitting "we have nor been beyond low earth orbit" and admitting they have never been pass the Van Allen Radiation Belts.?
Sure, the videos can have any content to them. Just point out which sections to look at. I am planning to go through them and make gif animations, since it wouldn't look that great if it was just a series of 10 videos in a vertical row. I wasn't going to post long video clips to the Wiki. I'll also post a draft of the Wiki page to the Projects Forum before submitting to the Wiki.
-
This is a short video. 2:30 It’s a live feed of 4 astronauts in ISS.
At 15 seconds an astronauts begins a back flip after someone asked “is this a hoax? are you really in space?”
At 18 seconds midway through the back flip the astronaut behind him reaches up and moves a masked wire.
As the flip continues the astronaut is moving to the left and the astronaut on the right reaches over at 1:09 and grabs another masked wire near the waste of the flipper and pulls it towards him. You can see a tug on the pants, but its not where the hand was placed. Both astronauts are seen coming together because of the grab.
The masked wires are nothing new, Hollywood does it all the time.
Also check out the woman’s hair. It’s stiff as a board.
Nasa Hoax Absolute Proof of Harness Wires
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-huF7fRlnA
-
There's some dodgy stuff going on up there, no doubt about that.
I believe the earth is most likely a sphere but I'll call BS when I see it. This is BS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIy6dkOAaAI
Pure coincidence.
Naturally.
-
This is a short video. 2:30 It’s a live feed of 4 astronauts in ISS.
At 15 seconds an astronauts begins a back flip after someone asked “is this a hoax? are you really in space?”
At 18 seconds midway through the back flip the astronaut behind him reaches up and moves an unseen wire.
As the flip continues the astronaut is moving to the left and the astronaut on the right reaches over at 1:09 and grabs another unseen wire near the waste of the flipper and pulls it towards him. You can see a tug on the pants, but its not where the hand was placed. Both astronauts are seen coming together because of the grab.
The unseen wires are masked with Hollywood camera tricks.
Also check out the woman’s hair. It’s stiff as a board.
Nasa Hoax Absolute Proof of Harness Wires
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-huF7fRlnA
How do we know they reach for an unseen wire and not, for example, an unseen teapot?
What reliable method can we use to differentiate between unseen objects?
-
Pure coincidence
Naturally.
Post yfw Nasa forgets how old they think the universe is.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JnXgrhNX/1541729951035.jpg)
-
Thank you. The wire stuff seems pretty damning. Here are some more pure coincidences:
Astronauts on ISS Spacewalks Push Objects at a Distance
The following video shows astronauts on spacewalks pushing objects just before touching them, suggesting that the scenes are being filmed in an underwater set. See these two examples at the 5:20 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/UCGAEM7pgmA?start=319
Bodies are moving before being touched, which is difficult to explain. The entire video is worth watching as well.
-
I'll watch that when I get home Tom, it sounds interesting.
-
Thank you. The wire stuff seems pretty damning. Here are some more pure coincidences:
Astronauts on ISS Spacewalks Push Objects at a Distance
The following video shows astronauts on spacewalks pushing objects just before touching them, suggesting that the scenes are being filmed in an underwater set. See these two examples at the 5:20 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/UCGAEM7pgmA?start=319
Bodies are moving before being touched, which is difficult to explain. The entire video is worth watching as well.
I missed that one. Nice. I have added that one to my list.
At 6 seconds into this video there is a satellite deployment from the Space shuttle. It appears all of this is no more than a toy model. A man’s face is seen moving around in space behind the space shuttle.
At 2:23 - NASA is caught using a blue screen on ISS.
At 2:50 – Astronaut is caught using a harness. But this time it’s clearly seen.
The video is full of a history of NASA blunders. Enjoy.
NASA Bloopers, Blunders & Gaffes - Is Anyone Even In Space?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzAY6MeaPRo&t=0s&index=3&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ
-
This is a short video. 2:30 It’s a live feed of 4 astronauts in ISS.
At 15 seconds an astronauts begins a back flip after someone asked “is this a hoax? are you really in space?”
At 18 seconds midway through the back flip the astronaut behind him reaches up and moves an unseen wire.
As the flip continues the astronaut is moving to the left and the astronaut on the right reaches over at 1:09 and grabs another unseen wire near the waste of the flipper and pulls it towards him. You can see a tug on the pants, but its not where the hand was placed. Both astronauts are seen coming together because of the grab.
The unseen wires are masked with Hollywood camera tricks.
Also check out the woman’s hair. It’s stiff as a board.
Nasa Hoax Absolute Proof of Harness Wires
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-huF7fRlnA
How do we know they reach for an unseen wire and not, for example, an unseen teapot?
What reliable method can we use to differentiate between unseen objects?
The word "Masked" (as in covered up ) would have been a better choice.
The movie "Gravity" used wires too but they could not be seen, because they were covered up.
-
The word "Masked" (as in covered up ) would have been a better choice.
The movie "Gravity" used wires too but they could not be seen, because they were covered up.
I'm not picking on the words. How do you differentiate between masked objects?
That some movies use wires doesn't mean it's the only thing that can be edited out.
-
The word "Masked" (as in covered up ) would have been a better choice.
The movie "Gravity" used wires too but they could not be seen, because they were covered up.
I'm not picking on the words. How do you differentiate between masked objects?
That some movies use wires doesn't mean it's the only thing that can be edited out.
You should consider starting the "Lets Make Excuses and Special Plead for NASA" thread.
I was just trying to clarify my post.
-
You should consider starting the "Lets Make Excuses and Special Plead for NASA" thread.
I was just trying to clarify my post.
But you're still not answering my question.
A forgery can be very difficult to identify. Once a picture or video is published, there's just no way of telling how it was done for sure. That's how UFOlogists, cryptozoologists, and other truth seekers hold on their photographic evidence for so long.
Authors have sometimes admitted to faking their picture or video, but decades after their release. Even a serious study can fail to debunk with absolute certitude a well made fake. That's just a sad reality.
Here, the forgery seems as easy to prove as merely saying it. The strap moves so there's really water around it. A hand moves in the air so it's really grabbing a cable.
Both don't seem to me like the only explanations for a strap or a hand moving. What's the method to identify those suspicious moves with certitude?
-
Thank you. The wire stuff seems pretty damning. Here are some more pure coincidences:
Astronauts on ISS Spacewalks Push Objects at a Distance
The following video shows astronauts on spacewalks pushing objects just before touching them, suggesting that the scenes are being filmed in an underwater set. See these two examples at the 5:20 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/UCGAEM7pgmA?start=319
Bodies are moving before being touched, which is difficult to explain. The entire video is worth watching as well.
The astronaut is warping the space time around that strap.
-
Since there are already others commenting on the video, I will also take the liberties to do so, even though it should actually be done elsewhere. This video actually is represented as 'fake', but just go to 9:21 on the video and you will see what the 'real' story is. It looks to me like the original video was of a NASA rehearsal in a pool. You can see the divers messing with something in the background for a couple of seconds, and then a little later for a couple of seconds more. Then the background is altered and the divers are blocked out. Do you really think that NASA was doing the alterations of the video and trying to pass it off as a procedure done in space? You really think that they are that incompetent? Any video can be altered by anyone to suit their agenda and then use it as evidence to support their point. There is no real point in posting any videos under these circumstances.
-
This one is kind of fun. They try to fake time delays and then forget they are supposed to count to 11 before they react to anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOa1Zv7nvbc
-
Since there are already others commenting on the video, I will also take the liberties to do so, even though it should actually be done elsewhere. This video actually is represented as 'fake', but just go to 9:21 on the video and you will see what the 'real' story is. It looks to me like the original video was of a NASA rehearsal in a pool. You can see the divers messing with something in the background for a couple of seconds, and then a little later for a couple of seconds more. Then the background is altered and the divers are blocked out. Do you really think that NASA was doing the alterations of the video and trying to pass it off as a procedure done in space? You really think that they are that incompetent? Any video can be altered by anyone to suit their agenda and then use it as evidence to support their point. There is no real point in posting any videos under these circumstances.
This argument assumes that all of the footage in the debunking video was taken from the same source. It seems, however, to be a compilation of footage from various sources. The part at around 9:21 that you are referring to is presented by the narrator as being a demonstration as to how "easy it is to fake", meaning the maker of the video presumably understood that that particular footage was never presented as being authentic space footage or that it was otherwise modified (ie: the Youtuber swapped in the pool background to make his point.) I agree that the actual sources used should be cited in order to verify whether or not the footage in question was ever claimed to be real space footage by NASA or any other organization.
Edit: At 9:21 the pool background was obviously edited in by the video maker not to deceive but to show how easy it is to fake. Look at 9:34, there is a youtube video time bar that can only be seen in the background pool layer. Your point is entirely moot.
-
The footage from the video is from actual space walks, not pool training videos. The second example comes from a 11 hour video. See the 3:06:54 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/nFHwlWSDABM?start=11216
-
After more than 45 years and billions and billions of tax payers money NASA says.....
At 3 :10 Nasa Says we must solve the problems of the Van Allen Belt region before we send man into space.
At 3:45 Astronaut says this is the beginning of human beings leaving low earth orbit.
At 4:25 Astronaut says ; Right now we can only fly in earths low orbit. That’s the farthest we can go.
At 5:41 Astronaut says ; We don’t have the technology to go to the moon. We destroyed it and it’s a painful process to build it back again.
NASA ADMITS WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpPMoIv1lxI&t=0s&index=50&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ
-
NASA Bloopers, Blunders & Gaffes - Is Anyone Even In Space?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzAY6MeaPRo&t=0s&index=3&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ
The sequences from about 4:30 to 8:00 are so obviously cheesy 1960s era stop motion. It looks like something out of Davey and Goliath.
-
NASA Bloopers, Blunders & Gaffes - Is Anyone Even In Space?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzAY6MeaPRo&t=0s&index=3&list=FLiA3u9Cp8IHtFAUtmYmskxQ
The sequences from about 4:30 to 8:00 are so obviously cheesy 1960s era stop motion. It looks like something out of Davey and Goliath.
For the Ed White Gemini EVA shown beginning at 4:30, it looks like it was part of a Discovery Channel show. The EVA footage is sped up as opposed to the original which gives it that stop motion effect. I'll link the original below, the difference is clear. As well, the other argument that he swivels his helmet which you can't do in that suit. Apparently you can.
"Helmet. - The Gemini helmet...The torso portion also contains a rotating bearing, permitting the astronaut to turn his head with relative ease."
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660007653.pdf
Original footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7mVTFAspPk
-
Your youtube video doesn't look any more convincing to me, just murkier and with much more interlacing. As far as the helmet thing it says the "helmet to torso engagement" has a bearing the lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease", it doesn't seem to indicate to me that it should allow the helmet to swivel around but rather it is designed so that the astronaut is free to move his head within the static helmet. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it.
-
Your youtube video doesn't look any more convincing to me, just murkier and with much more interlacing. As far as the helmet thing it says the "helmet to torso engagement" has a bearing the lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease", it doesn't seem to indicate to me that it should allow the helmet to swivel around but rather it is designed so that the astronaut is free to move his head within the static helmet. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it.
Well, it's video. We could go all day back and forth as to what perhaps you want to see versus what I want to see. As for the helmet, I suppose up to interpretation. But it states that the torso engagement contains a 'rotating' bearing that lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease". Seems clear to me. And even if there is some perceived ambiguity, it seems disingenuous for the video author to state that it definitely doesn't swivel as a main contention.
My larger point is that we see what we want to see. FE sees fake, I don't. Both biased. But when I saw this, I tried to park my bias aside. As yeah, it looked like a gumby video and if the Gemini helmets don't swivel as the video author claimed, then yeah, that's pretty fake. So I looked for original footage which I find to be different. And then found the docs pertaining to the Gemini suit and in there, it states that the helmet does, in fact, rotate.
Point being, before slapping images/videos up, remove your bias to the best of your ability and do some research first, even from the opposite point of view. It just seems like the right thing to do.
-
Your youtube video doesn't look any more convincing to me, just murkier and with much more interlacing. As far as the helmet thing it says the "helmet to torso engagement" has a bearing the lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease", it doesn't seem to indicate to me that it should allow the helmet to swivel around but rather it is designed so that the astronaut is free to move his head within the static helmet. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it.
Well, it's video. We could go all day back and forth as to what perhaps you want to see versus what I want to see. As for the helmet, I suppose up to interpretation. But it states that the torso engagement contains a 'rotating' bearing that lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease". Seems clear to me. And even if there is some perceived ambiguity, it seems disingenuous for the video author to state that it definitely doesn't swivel as a main contention.
My larger point is that we see what we want to see. FE sees fake, I don't. Both biased. But when I saw this, I tried to park my bias aside. As yeah, it looked like a gumby video and if the Gemini helmets don't swivel as the video author claimed, then yeah, that's pretty fake. So I looked for original footage which I find to be different. And then found the docs pertaining to the Gemini suit and in there, it states that the helmet does, in fact, rotate.
Point being, before slapping images/videos up, remove your bias to the best of your ability and do some research first, even from the opposite point of view. It just seems like the right thing to do.
I'm not a Flat Earther, I have no position except that it is good to question everything, including the received wisdom of the experts. I provisionally believe in the RE based worldview because of maps and astronomical observation but I'm open to changing my position. The claim that I my criticism of NASA footage is based in confirmation bias is utterly false. NASA's older (pre-1990s) film footage simply looks completely phony to me. More modern footage looks better but there are still problems. The helmet swivel issue may be a moot point (one would hope the NASA fakers would be able to keep their story straight on such basic things) but the overall phoniness is glaring.
-
Your youtube video doesn't look any more convincing to me, just murkier and with much more interlacing. As far as the helmet thing it says the "helmet to torso engagement" has a bearing the lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease", it doesn't seem to indicate to me that it should allow the helmet to swivel around but rather it is designed so that the astronaut is free to move his head within the static helmet. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it.
Well, it's video. We could go all day back and forth as to what perhaps you want to see versus what I want to see. As for the helmet, I suppose up to interpretation. But it states that the torso engagement contains a 'rotating' bearing that lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease". Seems clear to me. And even if there is some perceived ambiguity, it seems disingenuous for the video author to state that it definitely doesn't swivel as a main contention.
My larger point is that we see what we want to see. FE sees fake, I don't. Both biased. But when I saw this, I tried to park my bias aside. As yeah, it looked like a gumby video and if the Gemini helmets don't swivel as the video author claimed, then yeah, that's pretty fake. So I looked for original footage which I find to be different. And then found the docs pertaining to the Gemini suit and in there, it states that the helmet does, in fact, rotate.
Point being, before slapping images/videos up, remove your bias to the best of your ability and do some research first, even from the opposite point of view. It just seems like the right thing to do.
I'm not a Flat Earther, I have no position except that it is good to question everything, including the received wisdom of the experts. I provisionally believe in the RE based worldview because of maps and astronomical observation but I'm open to changing my position. The claim that I my criticism of NASA footage is based in confirmation bias is utterly false. NASA's older (pre-1990s) film footage simply looks completely phony to me. More modern footage looks better but there are still problems.
No disrespect intended. Just that a lot of stuff is posted, by both sides, saying, "See, look, this definitely means 'X'!" And often times without a pre-dive into some level of research.
-
Your youtube video doesn't look any more convincing to me, just murkier and with much more interlacing. As far as the helmet thing it says the "helmet to torso engagement" has a bearing the lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease", it doesn't seem to indicate to me that it should allow the helmet to swivel around but rather it is designed so that the astronaut is free to move his head within the static helmet. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it.
Well, it's video. We could go all day back and forth as to what perhaps you want to see versus what I want to see. As for the helmet, I suppose up to interpretation. But it states that the torso engagement contains a 'rotating' bearing that lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease". Seems clear to me. And even if there is some perceived ambiguity, it seems disingenuous for the video author to state that it definitely doesn't swivel as a main contention.
My larger point is that we see what we want to see. FE sees fake, I don't. Both biased. But when I saw this, I tried to park my bias aside. As yeah, it looked like a gumby video and if the Gemini helmets don't swivel as the video author claimed, then yeah, that's pretty fake. So I looked for original footage which I find to be different. And then found the docs pertaining to the Gemini suit and in there, it states that the helmet does, in fact, rotate.
Point being, before slapping images/videos up, remove your bias to the best of your ability and do some research first, even from the opposite point of view. It just seems like the right thing to do.
I'm not a Flat Earther, I have no position except that it is good to question everything, including the received wisdom of the experts. I provisionally believe in the RE based worldview because of maps and astronomical observation but I'm open to changing my position. The claim that I my criticism of NASA footage is based in confirmation bias is utterly false. NASA's older (pre-1990s) film footage simply looks completely phony to me. More modern footage looks better but there are still problems.
No disrespect intended. Just that a lot of stuff is posted, by both sides, saying, "See, look, this definitely means 'X'!" And often times without a pre-dive into some level of research.
It's true that there is definitely an element of subjectivity in the question of whether or not something "looks fake" or "looks real." Some of the NASA critics have criticisms that, I think, comeclose to objectively falsify some of NASA's footage.
-
GJ,
This pdf by NASA in 1966 goes into detail about the suit. Page 18 of the pdf (page 15 by the numbers on the actual pages) shows a chart of each part of the suit. The helmet, the first row, says "Fiberglass shell with plexiglass visor - hard helmet with neck disconnect and bearings." So the bearing were on the physics helmet shell itself, meaning the helmet could swivel on the suit. (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660007653.pdf)
-
I came across another one today for this collection:
International Space Station CGI FAIL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-lvCnmc_g4
Original footage posted by the ESA (starting at 11:15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsITRfKhgSU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsITRfKhgSU)
-
I came across another one today for this collection:
International Space Station CGI FAIL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-lvCnmc_g4
Original footage posted by the ESA (starting at 11:15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsITRfKhgSU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsITRfKhgSU)
The only failure I see is someone's inability to tell the difference between stars in space and city lights (as well as other terrestrial features) at night.
-
The only failure I see is someone's inability to tell the difference between stars in space and city lights (as well as other terrestrial features) at night.
City lights? ???
(https://i.makeagif.com/media/5-23-2019/brWt06.gif)
-
Yes, city lights.
(https://www.rd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/07-nasa-lights-new-york-fsl.jpg)
-
Tom, can you explain in your own words what the CGI fail is alleged to be here?
However, the thread asks for NASA CGI fails, not ESA.
-
My guess is that he's talking about the specks that appear when he ups the white levels. Since the specs don't move with the rest of the earth or sky, I'd say that they're probably dust specs on the window or lens. Low light photography tends to vulnerable to all sorts of image noise sources.
I seriously doubt that any CGI artist would add multicolored stars to a star field.
-
The only fail here is the guy saying with much enthusiasm, "We have a real find here..." Find of what? Debris on a window or perhaps a lens? Why would one race their imagination directly to, "The CGI guy or gal obviously took what is supposed to be the star layer and forgot to mask the earth layer and put the star layer behind it..." Seems like quite the presupposed bias leap. Sure, I guess that could be the cause, but so could just about anything. Why have a full on conspiratorial synaptic explosion over something as "eh" as this.
If this is meant to be a collection of the BEST ISS fails, so far it's failing massively. We need stuff way more juicy than this.
-
International Space Station CGI FAIL
Original footage posted by the ESA (starting at 11:15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsITRfKhgSU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsITRfKhgSU)
Thanks for posting a link to the original video from original source. Some of the videos here are heavily edited, have scenes put in, and look like they reduced the resolution a lot. There are quite a lot original 4K and 8K videos out there.
The fixed CCTV cameras go totally black at night. I guess their sensitivity isn't that good or they use a fixed ISO. I was curious about that and investigated a little, purpose isn't really to get stunning night scenes, more like that it's easier to see the effects radiation has on the camera sensors.
But that video above it said to be a personal video through the window when there was something to see. Most likely highly overexposed, and the camera gear must 10+ years old, the video was posted in 2009. So it's not stars on earth.
BTW, that channel doesn't have many ISS videos.
-
I seriously doubt that any CGI artist would add multicolored stars to a star field.
You'd be suprised. Maybe not rainbow colours but slight hue variations and a twinkle (noise multiplied and scrolling over) makes stars far more interesting and believable than lots of dots with a single colour.
No professional CGI artist would accidentally leave stars overlayed on an image of the earth though, because CGI artists are not blind or dumb.
-
Thank you. The wire stuff seems pretty damning. Here are some more pure coincidences:
Astronauts on ISS Spacewalks Push Objects at a Distance
The following video shows astronauts on spacewalks pushing objects just before touching them, suggesting that the scenes are being filmed in an underwater set. See these two examples at the 5:20 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/UCGAEM7pgmA?start=319
Bodies are moving before being touched, which is difficult to explain. The entire video is worth watching as well.
Tom,
How do you square this with Pete's article about not always believing everything you see on the internet? (i.e. I saw it on the internet, therefore it must be true)
Thanks
-
Thank you. The wire stuff seems pretty damning. Here are some more pure coincidences:
Astronauts on ISS Spacewalks Push Objects at a Distance
The following video shows astronauts on spacewalks pushing objects just before touching them, suggesting that the scenes are being filmed in an underwater set. See these two examples at the 5:20 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/UCGAEM7pgmA?start=319
Bodies are moving before being touched, which is difficult to explain. The entire video is worth watching as well.
Tom,
How do you square this with Pete's article about not always believing everything you see on the internet? (i.e. I saw it on the internet, therefore it must be true)
Thanks
You are right to point that out. I have my doubts about those videos that NASA put up on the internet.
-
https://youtu.be/2CpY-tG7qCs
The RE response to this one seems to be "Hairspray doesn't prove that it's fakery."
-
I honestly don’t think there needs to be a response. It’s just a load of confirmation bias. Just lots of assertions that wires are being used but no actual evidence.
The bit where the guy “falls”, most of him is out of shot, I imagine he grabbed on to something. If it’s wires then why did he fall? If it’s a vomit comet why did they use that take?
-
The RE response to this one seems to be "Hairspray doesn't prove that it's fakery."
Do you disagree with that statement? Why would having the ability to style your hair to look similar to zero gravity conditions be proof that zero gravity conditions is impossible? With that logic if I can make a flat earth model out of paper mache that's proof that flat earth is impossible~ which would be a stupid statement. Equally, it doesn't prove the existence of zero gravity either.. Much like how dressing up in a t-rex costume doesn't suddenly bring t-rex back into existence.
That people can style their hair is not proving or disproving anything to do with space travel...
-
Now you guys are arguing that they purposely style their hair with hairspray in that manner, as a personal choice!
Did you see the part when the interviewer was asking for proof that they were in space and the lady pointed at her Bride of Frankenstein hair?
Interviewer: "Are you really in space? Is this a hoax?" (https://youtu.be/X-huF7fRlnA?t=8)
(https://i.imgur.com/qYkpv7h.png)
-
Personally, I'm not arguing anything. There's nothing to argue against.
Anyone with an agenda can take footage, over-analyse it and find things which fit their narrative.
Again, look up confirmation bias.
Find me a NASA CGI artist or an actor pretending to be an astronaut or one of the crew who did the filming, costume or set design or whatever whistle-blowing about what a sham it all is, then we can talk.
-
The RE response to this one seems to be "Hairspray doesn't prove that it's fakery."
My response is - hairspray doesn't work on jewellery.
With any of the videos of the female ISS crew, watch the necklaces. That's all you need do. Discussion about hairspray becomes moot after this.