NASA time lapse from Space - obviously fake

Do you believe that this NASA video was really taken from a spaceship?
Do you really believe that?

HD, refurbished, smoothed, retimed, denoised, deflickered, cut, etc.

I think this'd by why you think it looks fake.
They edited it quite a bit.

For what its worth, a simple documentary video on just about anything is edited with all of that. Makes it visually 'nicer', not necessarily fabricated.

I see no reason to believe it is fake.  Are you trying to point something out, because I must be missing it.

If you believe that this NASA video is really taken from a spaceship, I'm sorry but you're a dumb.
Do you really believe that?

Yes, I really do believe that the NASA video was really taken from a spaceship (using a rather loose definition of the word). Oh, and you might want to learn English grammar before before insulting others as "a dumb".

Also, you might want to try making an argument to support your claim that your evidence is useful.

Quote from: EduardoVS-BR on April 06, 2012, 08:38:10 PM

If you believe that this NASA video is really taken from a spaceship, I'm sorry but you're a dumb.
Do you really believe that?

Yes, I really do believe that the NASA video was really taken from a spaceship (using a rather loose definition of the word). Oh, and you might want to learn English grammar before before insulting others as "a dumb".

Also, you might want to try making an argument to support your claim that your evidence is useful.

How is that spaceship not falling out of the sky without some massive engines? How does it move around when it is so obviously non-aerodynamic? I'm more apt to believe in Inception before this clearly CGI video.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 07, 2012, 11:32:44 AM

Quote from: EduardoVS-BR on April 06, 2012, 08:38:10 PM

If you believe that this NASA video is really taken from a spaceship, I'm sorry but you're a dumb.
Do you really believe that?

Yes, I really do believe that the NASA video was really taken from a spaceship (using a rather loose definition of the word). Oh, and you might want to learn English grammar before before insulting others as "a dumb".

Also, you might want to try making an argument to support your claim that your evidence is useful.

How is that spaceship not falling out of the sky without some massive engines? How does it move around when it is so obviously non-aerodynamic? I'm more apt to believe in Inception before this clearly CGI video.

Great post. +1

1.)Space-time is bent around the planet, so if you move at the right speed you can be endlessly looped around it.

2.)The ISS's does not really come into contact with much air so aerodynamics are not really relevant.

But you already knew all that, I just needed to post more than "Great post. +1" so that markjo would not get me for low content.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 07, 2012, 11:32:44 AM

Quote from: EduardoVS-BR on April 06, 2012, 08:38:10 PM

If you believe that this NASA video is really taken from a spaceship, I'm sorry but you're a dumb.
Do you really believe that?

Yes, I really do believe that the NASA video was really taken from a spaceship (using a rather loose definition of the word). Oh, and you might want to learn English grammar before before insulting others as "a dumb".

Also, you might want to try making an argument to support your claim that your evidence is useful.

How is that spaceship not falling out of the sky without some massive engines? How does it move around when it is so obviously non-aerodynamic? I'm more apt to believe in Inception before this clearly CGI video.

I don't know of any reason that massive engines are needed to prevent a spaceship from falling out of the sky. Please tell me the reason you believe that to be.

Einstein's tensor equations describe how an object can more around in a gravitational field. I suggest that you read up on GR.

Please do tell us how you determined that the video is "clearly CGI", without jumping to conclusions.

Doesn't gravity pull things towards the centre of mass, not around it? I know that RE orbit is supposed to be perpetual free-fall with the earth curving away at the same rate as the falling object. However, if gravity pulls towards the centre of mass I don't see why this would occur.

EDIT: I'm a buffoon. I forgot the horizontal vector. Please ignore.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 07, 2012, 11:53:09 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on April 07, 2012, 11:32:44 AM

Quote from: EduardoVS-BR on April 06, 2012, 08:38:10 PM

If you believe that this NASA video is really taken from a spaceship, I'm sorry but you're a dumb.
Do you really believe that?

Yes, I really do believe that the NASA video was really taken from a spaceship (using a rather loose definition of the word). Oh, and you might want to learn English grammar before before insulting others as "a dumb".

Also, you might want to try making an argument to support your claim that your evidence is useful.

How is that spaceship not falling out of the sky without some massive engines? How does it move around when it is so obviously non-aerodynamic? I'm more apt to believe in Inception before this clearly CGI video.

I don't know of any reason that massive engines are needed to prevent a spaceship from falling out of the sky. Please tell me the reason you believe that to be.

Einstein's tensor equations describe how an object can more around in a gravitational field. I suggest that you read up on GR.

Please do tell us how you determined that the video is "clearly CGI", without jumping to conclusions.

The Star Wars movies had better CGI than this video. Look at all that overly saturated color. Also, all spaceships need big engines. The shuttle has big engines or it wouldn't be able to stay in space (supposedly). Why does the ISS not have big engines? NASA forgot? That is a very obvious loophole in their conspiracy.

The Star Wars movies had better CGI than this video.

Star Wars needed better special effects (CGI wasn't used until Ep. I-III and the special editions of IV-VI) in order to make up for the astonishingly poor physics.  After all, you could see the lasers and hear the engine roar in a vacuum.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 07, 2012, 01:00:39 PM

I don't know of any reason that massive engines are needed to prevent a spaceship from falling out of the sky. Please tell me the reason you believe that to be.

Einstein's tensor equations describe how an object can more around in a gravitational field. I suggest that you read up on GR.

Please do tell us how you determined that the video is "clearly CGI", without jumping to conclusions.

The Star Wars movies had better CGI than this video. Look at all that overly saturated color. Also, all spaceships need big engines. The shuttle has big engines or it wouldn't be able to stay in space (supposedly). Why does the ISS not have big engines? NASA forgot? That is a very obvious loophole in their conspiracy.

No, Star Wars did not have better CGI than this video. Yes, overly saturated colors do occur in videos. Did you mean to make a point?

No, all spaceships do not need big engines. Realize that saying something does not make it true. When you can come up with a reason supporting this outlandish claim that all spaceships need big engines. (Oh, and arguing that the retired Shuttle needed big engines to stay in space is arguing from a false premise.)

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 07, 2012, 03:57:52 PM

The Star Wars movies had better CGI than this video.

Star Wars needed better special effects (CGI wasn't used until Ep. I-III and the special editions of IV-VI) in order to make up for the astonishingly poor physics.  After all, you could see the lasers and hear the engine roar in a vacuum.

What is the problem with hearing the roar of the engine in space? The sound is louder in space because there isn't any air to get in the way. Waves travel faster in a vacuum so obviously there isn't anything to muddy up the roar of the engines.

No, Star Wars did not have better CGI than this video. Yes, overly saturated colors do occur in videos. Did you mean to make a point?

No, all spaceships do not need big engines. Realize that saying something does not make it true. When you can come up with a reason supporting this outlandish claim that all spaceships need big engines. (Oh, and arguing that the retired Shuttle needed big engines to stay in space is arguing from a false premise.)

Yes, spaceships need big engines, unless you're getting all pedantic on me and thinking (oh they don't need big engines).

What is the problem with hearing the roar of the engine in space? The sound is louder in space because there isn't any air to get in the way. Waves travel faster in a vacuum so obviously there isn't anything to muddy up the roar of the engines.

Come on, now, you can do better than this.  You've got to be more subtle.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 07, 2012, 04:04:14 PM

No, Star Wars did not have better CGI than this video. Yes, overly saturated colors do occur in videos. Did you mean to make a point?

No, all spaceships do not need big engines. Realize that saying something does not make it true. When you can come up with a reason supporting this outlandish claim that all spaceships need big engines. (Oh, and arguing that the retired Shuttle needed big engines to stay in space is arguing from a false premise.)

Yes, spaceships need big engines, unless you're getting all pedantic on me and thinking (oh they don't need big engines).

Spaceships need big engines to get into space, but do not need big engines once it is in orbit.

Yes, spaceships need big engines, unless you're getting all pedantic on me and thinking (oh they don't need big engines).

1) I remind you of your outlandish claim to foil your lame attempt to move the goal posts:

How is that spaceship not falling out of the sky without some massive engines? ...

2) You continue to fail. Justify your outlandish claim. Repeating a statement does not make it true.

Yes, I really do believe that the NASA video was really taken from a spaceship (using a rather loose definition of the word). Oh, and you might want to learn English grammar before before insulting others as "a dumb".

Indeed, this is my first topic strictly against RET, I used to be neutral at this point. I was just watching that video and I realized it was too much edited and could be good evidence for Space Travel Conspiracy.
And please forgive me for grammatical errors, I wrote this in a hurry.

Also, you might want to try making an argument to support your claim that your evidence is useful.

The video itself can take the place of many words.

Being heavily edited does not make it fake. 

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 07, 2012, 06:41:04 PM

Yes, spaceships need big engines, unless you're getting all pedantic on me and thinking (oh they don't need big engines).

1) I remind you of your outlandish claim to foil your lame attempt to move the goal posts:

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on April 07, 2012, 11:53:09 AM

How is that spaceship not falling out of the sky without some massive engines? ...

2) You continue to fail. Justify your outlandish claim. Repeating a statement does not make it true.

ITT: ClockTower thinks spaceships are powered by fairies.

Being heavily edited does not make it fake. 

I think the only thing necessary is a good illumination (lighting). There is no need to all this modification in the shooting.

If it was not modified, it would be a very long, slow, and boring film of the Earth. 

What is the problem with hearing the roar of the engine in space? The sound is louder in space because there isn't any air to get in the way. Waves travel faster in a vacuum so obviously there isn't anything to muddy up the roar of the engines.

You must be really bored if you need to sink to this pathetic level of trolling.

If it was not modified, it would be a very long, slow, and boring film of the Earth. 

Well, if you want to see "very nice" footages of the earth, full of lights and effects, just watch Star Wars.

Yes, Starwars was filmed on Earth.  What is your point?

Rushy makes me laugh since he is obviously an agent provocateur.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 07, 2012, 11:32:44 AM

Yes, I really do believe that the NASA video was really taken from a spaceship (using a rather loose definition of the word). Oh, and you might want to learn English grammar before before insulting others as "a dumb".

Indeed, this is my first topic strictly against RET, I used to be neutral at this point. I was just watching that video and I realized it was too much edited and could be good evidence for Space Travel Conspiracy.
And please forgive me for grammatical errors, I wrote this in a hurry.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 07, 2012, 11:32:44 AM

Also, you might want to try making an argument to support your claim that your evidence is useful.

The video itself can take the place of many words.

You really could have started with a better first anti-RET post. Some thought and logic would have been nice. You'll welcome to go the NASA site to get all of the videos before editing for this wonderful time-lapse video. It's not like NASA didn't provide the references and the original videos.

Quote from: jroa on April 07, 2012, 07:39:17 PM

If it was not modified, it would be a very long, slow, and boring film of the Earth. 

Well, if you want to see "very nice" footages of the earth, full of lights and effects, just watch Star Wars.

Star Wars doesn't take place anywhere near Earth.  Anyway, I'm not sure what effects you think are being used in this video.  There are lights from cities, lights from arorae, lights from lightning and light from the moon.  Everything I'd expect from the real thing is in this video, so I can't conclude that it's fake.

So... Somehow, because this video was so heavily edited, that is supposed to prove that space travel is impossible?
I just don't see the connection...

So... Somehow, because this video was so heavily edited, that is supposed to prove that space travel is impossible?
I just don't see the connection...

The OP's claim was that the video was faked, and not that space travel is impossible.

Quote from: Graff on April 08, 2012, 12:48:05 PM

So... Somehow, because this video was so heavily edited, that is supposed to prove that space travel is impossible?
I just don't see the connection...

The OP's claim was that the video was faked, and not that space travel is impossible.

Right, but even then: Let's assume the video was fake. How does that prove spacetravel is impossible?