[Mysfit]

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.

Right, so the video is 50 mins long (3000 seconds), falling at a rate of 9.8m/s/s...
so, assuming they were falling at rest at the start (instantly shooting to 9.8m/s/s)...
distance is 1/2 acceleration times time times time...
So, 4.9m/s/sx3000sx3000s gives us 44,000 km of falling.

Wait. How high is the ISS... 408km. They would have to be 100 times higher than the ISS to pretend be as high as the ISS.
We get into more problems when we consider that the FE Moon/Sun are 4828 km up. Why not land on the moon?

Wait. I realised they can do it in edits. Which now forces me to watch the whole thing to check for those (not a complete loss, not seen the inside of the ISS before).
There's a cut at 1:06... I'm at 24mins and I realized that the chunks need to be less than 5mins to be higher than ISS.
Cuts again at 28:08.
Curvature of the earth at 28:50 (can see my house from here)
Cut at 42:23
so, 3 cuts. In chunks: 1 min 6 seconds, 27 mins 2 seconds, 14 mins 15 seconds and 7 mins 58 seconds (give or take 2 seconds).

Only the first chunk would be workable. But your idea was still better than my underwater one. Touche

[Bobby Shafto]

Uploaded video. ISS appeared and transited the pre-dawn sky right on cue.

Even shows up on wide-angle captures from UCSD's HPWREN cameras on Black Mountain summit (actual light was not this bright; ISS appears as streak due to exposure)




This was my first time looking for and seeing the ISS in person. 2nd brightest sky object after the gibbous moon. Very easy to see with naked eye.

[JCM]

I would really rather see how someone could fake these videos from the 1960s.  This to me is more definitive proof which can’t just brushed off as fake cgi. 

[totallackey]

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 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."

[totallackey]

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.

[AATW]

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 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."

This is a confusing argument.
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

 

[MattyWS]

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.

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.

So with that out of the way, I'll ask again, if the ISS is up there orbiting, which we can all agree on, how can you possibly think the video is faked? 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. 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...

So why would they fake it? it would take more time, more effort, more money and absolutely no gain compared to just being real. What kind of incentive do they have to fake a video like that? It would be pointless. 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'd like for anyone else to give a reason it cannot be real other than because you don't want it to be.

[totallackey]

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 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."

This is a confusing argument.
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

 

It is confusing if you ignore my prior statements.

The OP concerns a video.

The OP asks for help debunking the video.

I have stated I have no expertise in determining video authenticity.

I have not argued for or against the existence of the ISS as that is not relative to the OP.

[totallackey]

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.

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.

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.

Thank you anyway, as your assessment is merely opinion, whether or not shared by others.

So with that out of the way, I'll ask again, if the ISS is up there orbiting, which we can all agree on

Wrong.

...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.

I agree.

It is "simply," put; however, you failed to insert the word, "inaccurately."

So why would they fake it?

Because they are "fakers."

Fakers do, in fact, exist you know.

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.

That is patently obvious to any objective reader.

[JCM]

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.

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]

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.

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.

Your entire diatribe is senseless.

Your conflation of my responses and the 3 year old's belief in the existence of Santa Clause is ridiculous.

Since you desire to equate the two issues, I would suggest you post any video evidence reviewed by experts in the field and in which the experts offer an opinion that video is an accurate detailing of how Santa performs his daily, and most importantly, yearly functions.

Plus, you must have missed the fact I have written very clearly and without mental reservation or equivocation I have no desire for this OP video to be true or false. I cannot argue for or against the video's authenticity, again because I am not an expert in the field of video.

I offered evidence, in response to those stating it could not be fake due to monetary reasons or ability, regarding the factual ability of video experts to manufacture videos of this type...no space or ISS necessary.

You need to try harder...

[MattyWS]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[TomInAustin]

The real question is this... we can see what is claimed to be ISS pass overhead.  What is it if it's not ISS?  What could move that fast and that accurately that is not in orbit?   And not just ISS.  There are many satellites in LEO that come over exactly when predicted. There are cheap tools to use to see where they are, I use Star Walk on my iPad.  I have asked this many times and never got an answer.  What are they?   

Using http://www.satflare.com/track.asp?q=25544#TOP I see ISS is over Australia now. Using Star Walk I have to point the iPad down at around 45 degrees and pretty close to due west.  Looking at Google Earth that looks pretty damn close.

[totallackey]

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have entirely stated my points here in this thread.

It has now devolved into a total mis-characterization of my posts.

Shame.

Since you find it wasteful, it would perhaps be better to stop responding since you offer no cogent responses to my points.

[MattyWS]

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have entirely stated my points here in this thread.

It has now devolved into a total mis-characterization of my posts.

Wrong.

[JCM]

I would argue, the verifiable presence and more specifically its verifiable serpentine path across the planet is proof the planet is a sphere. 

1. The ISS is verifiable, or at least SOMETHING is there
2. Its path is verifiable across its entire path where NASA says it is
3. Its path is verifiably perfectly serpentine
4. Its velocity is verifiably constant and faster then any engine powered machine I know of

Are we to believe that every day every 45 minutes the ISS is firing its engines to change directions perfectly to maintain the serpentine path viewable from a flat earth?  This is of course ignoring the constant velocity of the ISS.  Wouldn’t it run out of fuel to maintain such a ridiculous serpentine path just to prop up a flat earth conspiracy?  To that point, what type of surface shape would have a serpentine path over it?  The answer is simple, a sphere.

Totalackey, please debunk the path the object is taking as even denying the satellite doesn’t change its serpentine path which is only explainable on a globe shaped earth.

[Bobby Shafto]

Let me go back and revisit the thread to see if I misinterpreted MattyWS:

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.

I correct my post to read for initial intent.

The ISS cannot be resolved to visual identification by the naked eye.

I agree; but was that MattyWS's intent in claiming the ISS could be seen with the naked eye?

I think not. What I performed, witnessed and showed was what I thought MattyWS's meaning was and which you were contradicting. If MattyWS's meaning was that you can visually make out the details of the ISS with the naked eye, then I agree with you. You can't; but I don't read that as his meaning.

[Bobby Shafto]

...visibility of the ISS  has absolutely nothing to do with the OP video.

I could actually agree with this. Being able to see what NASA says is the ISS with the naked eye doesn't address whether or not the video in the opening post is legitimate or not.

It's part of supporting argument for the incredulity that NASA would or could concoct such an elaborate hoax as to not only produce faux video but also place a decoy in the sky (somehow) and providing tracking information to enhance the illusion.

But, being able to see something unresolvable without the aid of a telescope doesn't validate the video.

However, what I considered to be nonsense was the opening posts premise that the video must be false but he didn't know to prove it, so came looking for help to validate a preconceived conclusion. But at least I got something valuable out of this. I never bothered to try to see the (alleged) ISS for myself. I admit it was kind of exciting to see it come into view and track across the sky just as the eastern horizon was beginning to glow. Now I'm keen to try to do what others have done and try to get a telescopic image capture or one of it transiting the moon.

But yeah, this "seeing the ISS" is tangent to the open post.

[juner]

Wrong.

Refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.

[MattyWS]

Wrong.

Refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.

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.

Back on to the topic though, I do not think proving the ISS exists is a tangent from the original posts point. I think the fact that the ISS further validates the legitimacy of the video.

I could make a recording in my house right now, walk around showing my house etc because maybe I think it's interesting and I think it's something people want to see... Of course you could say that video is fake, but I could tell you the address to my house so that you know where I was recording was actually a real location. I'm not gunna let you into my house to prove it but come on... I made the video, why would I spend a ton of money on setting up a fake version of my house just to trick you into believing it's my house? I wouldn't, that would be a waste of everyones time and my money.