Any analyses on this video from the ISS?

I'd like to read a critique of it.

A video dissecting it would be even better.

Thanks.

This is so very interesting. Thanks !!

This brings so many memories of my favourite game when I was less than 11. It's called "Populous 4: The Beginning". I fact I still have the cd for that game in my house.

You play this shaman who reincarnates from "ball world to ball world", and you know why this is so familiar to me? Because the graphics in that video game and the ones in that video are identical.

They must have had the same artist to fake it.

There was this option in the game. You pressed "Enter" and you zoomed out, showing you the entire "world" below you, and you clicked on it, and forced it to revolve in any sense you chose, which is just what they're doing in this video !!

Congratulations. You're a Populous 4 fan, and you didn't even knew it !!

I thank you.

Thank you for the reply, but your explanation, that the video is just Populous 4, is too far-fetched for me. I google searched "Populous 4" and the game looks nothing like the video, aside from aesthetics such as they both depict a round earth.

Did you actually play the game, dear clueless one?

I have when I was very very very young.

Do your videos even show the zoom out option, after you click enter, and see all the buildings like icons, and all the units as little colored dots?

If not, let me know and I'll find a video of that, for you.

You'll see the ability to fake this is not that developed. Populous even looks more perfectly designed, to make it more believable.

That video is just like populous, but easily to see how forged it is.

It's not cleverly designed you see. When you craft a visual illusion, you have to fool enough trained eyes. But you cannot.

I see through those visual illusions like knives cut through moist warm butter.

Also you should wish to see the in-game, between worlds menu. The one that rotates you, from world to world, showing you the map of those little world as you fly from one to the other.

This is the original space fake program. They hired all the visual effects fakers from Populous 4. Or maybe they created the Populous game, to improve their forging skills.

But I promise you, and swear this on my life. That video is 100% fake. Created by CGI just as Populous 4 was. I recognise their fine programming details that reveal they have the same source.

I thank you.

Thank you for the reply, but your explanation, that the video is just Populous 4, is too far-fetched for me. I google searched "Populous 4" and the game looks nothing like the video, aside from aesthetics such as they both depict a round earth.

" class="bbc_ftp new_win" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Apparently it's correct title is "Let's Play Populous 3: The Beginning, Part 4 "Combined Forces" "

I must have played it longer ago, than I thought !! HAHAhahahaha

" class="bbc_ftp new_win" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Here's another one, for everyone's viewing pleasure.

There. Winning this one, was easier than stealing pie from an american.

Keep in mind, I played all of those battles when I was like ..... more than a decade ago.

I'd like to read a critique of it.

A video dissecting it would be even better.

Thanks.

You have both a critique of it, as well as two videos dissecting it.

Watch both of those videos, and maybe you will tell me next the Populous 3 worlds are also "real"?

That would be great news, since I loved playing that game. Imagine if it were real, and I actually got to play it for real, Ja?

You're welcome.

I'm looking for an analysis describing how it is a forgery. Your comparison to Populous is lacking, as the video in the OP and the video you posted show very stark contrasts between the two.

I await a serious reply.

Also, please refrain from double, triple and even quadruple posting in this thread. It's just a pet peeve of mine, and there's a conveniently placed "modify" button on each of your posts.

Thank you.

I see !! You need to find whoever sees any errors with this forgery, so the designers can fake a better visual lie?

How quaint? You expect me to aid you in your quest to create the most convincing visual forgery of a non-existing world.

Alright, but I'm gonna need you to promise to make Populous 5, 6, 7, 8 ..... 100. As a reward to me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~No Stars. Only one that appears and glows regularly like some kind of radioactive, pulsing light. And utterly unlike any stars anyone has ever seen on the Real Sky

~There is a large crater of fire in Siberia, that wasn't shown. It weaker, simple light from cities at night would show, volcanoes, with their massive smoke clouds should also be present.

~Some of the clouds reflect the yellow lights under them "too well". Literally it looks like the clouds are on fire, from reflecting those lights so much, and so far up the sky and around the source. This doesn't appear in the real sky, when light reflect this. From a mountain for example, the lights are much weaker and they even shimmer very lightly. These lights are too constant to be real. They need to be faked more.

~Some of the other clouds have this pale light reflection, that other clouds simply do not have. As if there's a white reflector, or white flashlight above those clouds, lighting them in a selective fashion. Kind of like when you a take a splooge of white paint and toss it somewhere random a painting.

~That could not have been explained anyway other that the Moon or something. Which is impossible, because the moon would have left that small region, a lot faster than that video shows.

~Of course being composed "frame by frame", radically mocks any notion of taking it seriously. If you take it frame by frame, with freeze frame cameras, that take over 9000 frames per minute, you will feel the pain of how utterly fake that is.

~That yellow line that shine over the top and rightmost part of the fake horizon? What's that about? Why does it only appear in the left side of the fake horizon?

~Despite the large duration of this so called "flight", the clouds barely move at all. Look at any fixed satellite shot cloud formations across Europe, and they move a lot, even in the small space of 15 minutes.

http://www.sat24.com/  Fixed clouds that stay "perfectly still" are a dead give away. So fix those to appear moving.

~At 0:25 there is this creepy series of giant lights flashing beneath a massive, dense white fluffy cloud? On the right side of the screen. That's utterly creepy and impossible. Geographically speaking, not that this video was geographical, instead of a visual effects fake. Of course.

~They look like giant lightning bolts? Please. Were storms even registered there on earth, at the exact moment of pretending to fly over them? Do your research if you want to fake thunder storms properly.

~ 0:30-34 Blue lights flash just before the scenery, on some isolated islands, or apparently above the sea, just outside the coastlines. Let me guess those would be "aliens" in your distorted world view.

~0:48-52 There is a white glowish mass of light within the giant mass of calm "clouds", appearing on the right, while you have a coast line with mountains and the sea to their left, on the other side, just before reaching the brighter part of this fabrication.
Fix that. It doesn't happen anywhere, nor does it appear on a real world.

~From 0:45 The upper side of the pseudo-metallic reflectors on the scenery fail to reflect all the yellow light from below it. Despite having reflects the yellow lights and the blue white flashes earlier from imaginary thunderstorms and other yellow lights on the left side. Fix that.

~Or does metal suddenly lose it's reflective properties 40 seconds into any CGI animation? Apparently real objects actually reflect that continously. Imagine that ....

~And of course, all those lost at sea, little lights from what I imagine the creators intented to seem ... islands? The distances between them are wrong, accoring to RET nonsense. You failed to calculate you actually have to send them any sort of visual confirmation, at the exact moment you pretend to soar above them, when they enter visual range of your camera.

~Then they use lasers to trace your trajectory across their sky, as you pretend to fly above their islands. Since this confirmation never happened, it's safe to say nothing like this flew over those islands.

~Unless you think you're in the middle age, where no one has enough skill to prove a satelitte flew over them, using sofisticated lasers, both from their location and from the satelite above them ... ?

~Buy some security lasers. The kind that spike when someone walks through them, and triggers the alarm. Then you'll be able to fake that better than this first, feeble attempt.

~On a positive note, if you planned for it's flaws to be so easily found, and having it shot down in a firey sea of chaos, you have got your wish !!

Merry Christmas.

1. There are stars, if you set the video to "Original" quality and fullscreen it, you can see them very easily.

2. Siberia is not in this video, "this movie begins over the Pacific Ocean and continues over North and South America before entering daylight near Antarctica."

3. I do not see this, some sort of visual aid would be welcome.

4. ^

5. I do not know what "That could not have been explained anyway other that the Moon or something." is referring to. What is "that" ?

6. All videos, of real and fake things, are simply still frames stitched together. I don't see the validity of this claim.

7. I think you're referring to the glow of the ionosphere "Also visible is the earths ionosphere (thin yellow line)" present throughout the entirety of the video, and that's what it is. I don't know what you mean by "Why does it only appear in the left side of the fake horizon?"

8. This is true, the clouds are very static.

9. The "creepy series of giant lights flashing beneath a massive, dense white fluffy cloud" is lightning.

10. I do not know if storms were reported in the areas where there is lighting in this video.

11. If you are referring to the flashes of light appearing over the ocean, that's lightning striking the water.

12. That is an interesting anomaly, probably with a few explanations, but not convincing proof that the video is fake.

13 + 14. I think I understand what you're saying here, that the light which was so bright before is now more dim and not as "reflected".  This could be explained by the fact that the ISS is now moving closer to "Sunrise" and thus the sun's light is dampening any other light source.

15, 16, 17, 18. I'm having trouble understanding what you mean here. Could you elaborate?

19. I did not plan anything in this video, nor did I produce it. I'm as interested in any flaws found in this video as you are.

Thank you, I did have a merry christmas, as I got a nice Dobsonian 4.5in reflector telescope, and the nights for the rest of this week are predicted to be very clear. I'm excited

And are you using your telescope to prove the Earth's Flatness?

If not, you are truly missing the point of the telescope.

Their purpose is to be pointed directly west, and see something there that "should not be there", by RET standards.

Like looking with a high rez telescope from Europe to America, and seeing South America instead. Because South America would West from Europe, if I recall the FET maps correctly.

Now, can you use that telescope to prove this?

If not, can you use that same telescope to sight something directly east or west, that "should be there", by RET standards?

Of course. Telescopes are not made strong enough to allow every common fool who steals them, to actually easily disprove the FET.

However, if I'm wrong, and you can use this telescope to either see cities that should or shouldn't be there, I am listening to your evidence.

Just kidding, I know you have no evidence. Your telescope knows the earth is flat. That's why it doesn't dare bend enough light to make it seem like RET is accurate.

Any Questions?

Or am I to take your previous questions, seriosly? What are you, 2 years old?

1. There are stars, if you set the video to "Original" quality and fullscreen it, you can see them very easily.

2. Siberia is not in this video, "this movie begins over the Pacific Ocean and continues over North and South America before entering daylight near Antarctica."

3. I do not see this, some sort of visual aid would be welcome.

4. ^

5. I do not know what "That could not have been explained anyway other that the Moon or something." is referring to. What is "that" ?

6. All videos, of real and fake things, are simply still frames stitched together. I don't see the validity of this claim.

7. I think you're referring to the glow of the ionosphere "Also visible is the earths ionosphere (thin yellow line)" present throughout the entirety of the video, and that's what it is. I don't know what you mean by "Why does it only appear in the left side of the fake horizon?"

8. This is true, the clouds are very static.

9. The "creepy series of giant lights flashing beneath a massive, dense white fluffy cloud" is lightning.

10. I do not know if storms were reported in the areas where there is lighting in this video.

11. If you are referring to the flashes of light appearing over the ocean, that's lightning striking the water.

12. That is an interesting anomaly, probably with a few explanations, but not convincing proof that the video is fake.

13 + 14. I think I understand what you're saying here, that the light which was so bright before is now more dim and not as "reflected".  This could be explained by the fact that the ISS is now moving closer to "Sunrise" and thus the sun's light is dampening any other light source.

15, 16, 17, 18. I'm having trouble understanding what you mean here. Could you elaborate?

19. I did not plan anything in this video, nor did I produce it. I'm as interested in any flaws found in this video as you are.

Thank you, I did have a merry christmas, as I got a nice Dobsonian 4.5in reflector telescope, and the nights for the rest of this week are predicted to be very clear. I'm excited

1. They are not stars. Stars shine continously. They don't magically apear on the sky after a few seconds, where they previously were not there. In the first seconds of the video, there were no stars in that vidoe. Utterly Retarded whoever forged that video ....

2.Indeed, but Iceland is also "not in the video"? If no volcanoes appear on there, that are actually active at the moment, how can you expect your forgery to become credible?

5. Clouds glowing white in the upper right side of the scenery. Since your eye sight is severly damaged, by RET telescopes, I am not surprised you missed that. Anyone who sees that video, can see the unusual light that is reflected on the upper part of the clouds, to the begining of the video, on the right upper side. There is no moon above it. No stars. NO NOTHING !! That light is as imbeciloid, as it's lack of reflection in the metal above it, which also shouldn't lose it's reflective properties in a real case scenario.

6. True, but a video is always less credible that what is before your very eyes. Videos being made by stitched frames, bound together in any way the artists saw fit, are just as believable, as me taking a video of you killing my neighbour.

If you honestly believe that video isn't faked, I shall compose a similar one, that shows your face on the body of someone who killed my neighbour. And then you will go to jail for it, for the rest of your unborn life.

7. The ionisphere doesn't appear in the left side, where the sun apparently rises, when you reach the so called day light. It only appears on the right and upper sides of the faked horizon. This is a very crass mistake, that anyone watching sees how idiotic it truly is.

8. Of course they're static. They're drawn there, but CGI animations. Moving them would be too costly for the Fake Fraud Crew of the Evil Artists Association (called N-ASS-A).

9. Dear deluded piece of person. If that WERE lightning, the camera would zoom so far up that lightning, you would see every person on that earth, with COUNTLESS details of the world down here, that would normally never appear in any sort of visual fake. As these details never appear, apparently you didn't know cameras have a zoom feature, that is extremely powerful? I see, you probably think you live in the middle ages, and you are seeing that thing with telescope or something.

You're not. That should be a very competent camera, able to zoom anywhere on the world, and see you running on a field, being chased and shot down in the back of the head by Nikita. Your cretinous fake camera doesn't zoom AT ALL, thus making it easier to fake everything it appears to shoot. No Zoom = No Real Camera.

10. If even satelites are unable to zoom unto the Earth and prove it's not faking it all, you're truly outmatched here, peon.

11. And yet it's not brighter from the future "sunlight". It's just dull and unreflective. If you don't fix that, anyone who looks on the upper part of those fakes will see how fake they are.

12. So fix that.

13. I feel somehow, you are utterly humiliated. There is no way for you to explain the lack of high resolution zoom that occurs absolutely no where on that forgery.

14. If it's a satelite camera the zoom should be extremely powerful. Or might you be blatantly retarded, to not know such?

15. Without a very high resolution zoom, to zoom in anywhere on that video, anywhere in the world beneath it, you have NO PROOF it's even a satelite !!

16. Your lies are becoming unrealistic. Fix that too, get yourself better writers, and a more competent, director of SCI.

17. 18. 19. Is it possible your staff is very underpayed? How else does one explain the errors they carefully left in this video, FOR ALL TO SEE AND WITNESS !!

Maybe they are sabotaging you on purpose to expose your filthy lies to the entire world. HAHAHAHHAA Maybe half your crew are Flat Earthers who are deliberately playing into my trap, to help me expose all those errors, that immediately prove how fake you are.

I thank you.

To answer your first post, no, I use my telescope to look at the celestial bodies. Last night I looked at Jupiter and its 4 visible moons, for instance, and it was quite exhilarating.

To answer your second post, fuck my IQ just dropped like 70 points reading that. I think you made my IQ 0.

Okay, since you're new I'm going to go ahead and save you a lot of time by just telling not to read Silverdane's posts. There is a reason he purposefully makes them hard to read, they're not meant to be read.

Warning now heeded.

If any other member that writes legibly cares to post feel free to read theirs.

The interesting thing about this video, is that star constellations can be seen.

Is there anyone with enough astronomical knowledge to make comment, one way or the other, about the stars that can be seen on this video?

Mizuki x

The interesting thing about this video, is that star constellations can be seen.

Is there anyone with enough astronomical knowledge to make comment, one way or the other, about the stars that can be seen on this video?

Mizuki x

As you can see here:

A time-lapse taken from the front of the International Space Station as it orbits our planet at night.

The camera could be exposed to the light longer because it was night time. This gave enough time for star exposure. Other pictures (i.e. the moon landings) had to use a faster exposure time, since the moon receives intense direct sunlight.

The interesting thing about this video, is that star constellations can be seen.

Is there anyone with enough astronomical knowledge to make comment, one way or the other, about the stars that can be seen on this video?

Mizuki x

I don't see any star constellations. Would you please do a screen capture and post it here of the star constellations that you can see? Thanks.

I'd have to know the date and time (GMT) of the screen capture to answer your question.

Would you please do a screen capture and post it here of the star constellations that you can see? Thanks.

I'd have to know the date and time (GMT) of the screen capture to answer your question.

From the video description:

Raw data was downloaded from;
The Gateway To Astronaut Photography of Earth "http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/mrf.htm".

A direct link to the original image there would be preferable to a screen capture.
Example: http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=ISS030&roll=E&frame=5132
All metadata is listed including the exact date and time.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 26, 2011, 07:21:42 PM

Would you please do a screen capture and post it here of the star constellations that you can see? Thanks.

I'd have to know the date and time (GMT) of the screen capture to answer your question.

From the video description:

Raw data was downloaded from;
The Gateway To Astronaut Photography of Earth "http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/mrf.htm".

A direct link to the original image there would be preferable to a screen capture.
Example: http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=ISS030&roll=E&frame=5132
All metadata is listed including the exact date and time.

Please try again... I asked for a screen capture showing the constellations that Mizuki claims to see and the date and time of that frame.

You misunderstand, I'm not a FE'er and I'm not arguing on behalf of Mizuki. I'm saying that Mizuki should link you to a specific image on that site of what she is referring to, not just a screen capture from the youtube video. The one I linked to was just for demonstration of what the page looks like -- as you can see, the GMT date and time is included and there is a link you can click to request the original full high-res photo for analysis.

Also, I'm still seeking an analysis from some of the smarter FE'er supporters on this website of the video. Silverdane doesn't really count.

Quote from: Mizuki on December 26, 2011, 06:55:36 PM

The interesting thing about this video, is that star constellations can be seen.

Is there anyone with enough astronomical knowledge to make comment, one way or the other, about the stars that can be seen on this video?

Mizuki x

I don't see any star constellations. Would you please do a screen capture and post it here of the star constellations that you can see? Thanks.

I'd have to know the date and time (GMT) of the screen capture to answer your question.

Hi ClockTower.

I can see quite clearly what looks like stars rising in the dark sky in that video. So i was wondering if they are the the correct constellations in the correct place in the sky to how they would appear in a RE scenario. Someone with a genuine knowledge of astronomy would be able to discern a lot from this video.

I'm sorry that i can't put a screen capture up for you, as i am not very good with computers - i'm amazed that you can't see them.

Mizuki x

Hi ClockTower.

I can see quite clearly what looks like stars rising in the dark sky in that video. So i was wondering if they are the the correct constellations in the correct place in the sky to how they would appear in a RE scenario. Someone with a genuine knowledge of astronomy would be able to discern a lot from this video.

I'm sorry that i can't put a screen capture up for you, as i am not very good with computers - i'm amazed that you can't see them.

Mizuki x

A few bright objects seen over 180^o do not constellations make. I'm pretty sure that NASA documents that one of the objects was an LEO satellite. I'd also be concerned a bright object might be a planet. There's just not enough information to answer your question.

A constellation is nothing other than a few bright dots over much less than 180 degrees in the sky. When the constellations were first "invented" they didn't even know what the dots were. This is semantics on a...stellar scale. Badum tsh!

And now put your hands together for the next act.

(To the music of I Like To Boogie by T-Rex)

I Like To Argue by Clock-T-ower

He loves to argue, he loves to argue
Clocktower argue, semantics pretty argue
He loves to argue on a Saturday night

Silverdane Answer's got a double-line-space
Gayer's lost her cherry walking
all the way home
The flatness of the Earth blasted it's mind
Now it's neat sweaty for
the moon based grind

He loves to argue
He loves to argue on a Saturday night
He loves to argue
Flat Earth Argue, Tom Bishop argue
He loves to argue on a Saturday night

A constellation is nothing other than a few bright dots over much less than 180 degrees in the sky. When the constellations were first "invented" they didn't even know what the dots were. This is semantics on a...stellar scale. Badum tsh!

And now put your hands together for the next act.

(To the music of I Like To Boogie by T-Rex)

I Like To Argue by Clock-T-ower

He loves to argue, he loves to argue
Clocktower argue, semantics pretty argue
He loves to argue on a Saturday night

Silverdane Answer's got a double-line-space
Gayer's lost her cherry walking
all the way home
The flatness of the Earth blasted it's mind
Now it's neat sweaty for
the moon based grind

He loves to argue
He loves to argue on a Saturday night
He loves to argue
Flat Earth Argue, Tom Bishop argue
He loves to argue on a Saturday night

 

I think you have hidden talents, Kasroa!

The definition of a constellation is a group of stars. Generally the ones that form the known patterns such as Orion, the Great Bear, etc.
Regardless of ClockTowers pedantry and semantic games, i can definitely see stars in that video.

Mizuki x

Also, I'm still seeking an analysis from some of the smarter FE'er supporters on this website of the video. Silverdane doesn't really count.

The reality is that this is an extremely well done forgery. Everything is essentially where it should be and what it should look like assuming a round earth model. They did, however, leave out one key detail. An object orbiting the earth can only maintain the same orientation with the earth if it were constantly rotating at the same rate as its orbital period.

They say the ISS does have attitude thrusters, but would it be using them constantly at all times? Of course not, it would run out of propellant. They should have accounted for the change in orientation of the space station relative to the earth in this video.

Well, considering the amount of drag there is in high-Earth orbit, not very much at all, they wouldn't have to constantly fire their thrusters, would they? They'd only need to fire them for a specific "burn period" to get the ISS to rotate at a "Geo-synchronous" rate (I put "Geo-synchronous" in quotes because I'm not sure if that's the right term) and then only fire them occasionally afterwards for maintenance of their rotation.

The ISS is not a geosynchronous artificial satellite. However, it doesn't lose enough positional altitude to be noticeable across such a short time lapse video. The ISS doesn't usually use its own thrusters to reposition itself, but uses various shuttles to do so.