ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)

  • 102 Replies
  • 23700 Views
ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« on: April 02, 2013, 06:54:05 PM »
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> (lol how 2 embed)

This video was uploaded to the NASAtelevision YouTube channel about 5 months ago.  What is shown is the (then) commander of the ISS giving a tour of the ISS before departing to return to earth.  Airplanes can be used to create such an environment (weightlessness), but only for very short times.  The fact that the time shown here is so long implies that either NASA was right all along, or they faked going to space by going to space in order to have enough time to be in freefall (relative to the earth) to have produced such a shot.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2013, 10:56:44 PM by Levi Dettwyler »

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2013, 12:27:20 AM »
They also on a regular basis do live interviews nearly a hour long with schools university's news program's answering questions from normal people along the way.

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2013, 12:41:36 AM »
Ah yes!  Here's an example of what you're talking about.  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2013, 04:22:51 AM »
Yes scepti we are all aware of you legendary non ability to spot forgeries in photo and film media. I'm sure  at some point you will give us all a comical epic fail post on supposed inaccuracies in footage you find on you tube posted by a 12 year old

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2013, 07:12:43 AM »
We are in the 21st century, there's nothing difficult about faking this stuff. It's routine now, with all the special effects.
It's all acting and special effects and no more than that.

If that's CGI, then NASA has VFX technology that is mind-bogglingly ahead of the rest of the VFX industry.

Like I said, you can do about 25 seconds of footage in NASA's Vomit Comet (that's how Apollo 13 was filmed), but these are really long shots.  I have never, ever seen such a detailed CGI composition in my life.  Everything is too perfect.

If this is routine, please, show me an example of someone coming close to this.  That's definitely not cabling supporting her, since she goes in and out of holes and tight spaces that cabling would get tangled on, so that woman must be entirely CGI.  This is the most detailed animation of a human I have ever seen.  It must have taken years to create this.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 07:21:17 AM by Levi Dettwyler »

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2013, 07:21:44 AM »
You have never shown us a edited shot yet. We welcom you to try its always though. its always quite amusing

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2013, 07:24:47 AM »
Are you saying that these are long unedited shots inside this fake space station? To the untrained eye, they can appear like that. If movies didn't have editing in long shots, then they would become frustrating.
As I said, it's the 21st century...nothing is beyond the capabilities of the clever fakers where video is concerned or photo's.

How would you even begin to fake something like this?  Is that a real person on a fake set or isn't it?  Is the woman a 3D model?  I know a little bit about 3D modeling and animation, so please, enlighten me with the wisdom of your "trained eye."

And again, if this is "routine," then it shouldn't be too hard to find an example that matches this, in term of length of the continuous shot and the realism of the person, set, and movement.  There aren't that many big-budget space movies.  This isn't routine at all.  Did you even watch it?  It's too real.  Too many nuances, and too many implications for what it would have required.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 07:27:45 AM by Levi Dettwyler »

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2013, 07:31:35 AM »
Dissection?  I'm not looking for a dissection.  I'm looking for a simple explanation as to whether or not she is a real person on cabling or a CGI person that took years to animate and model this perfectly.  She can't be on cabling, since she moves around in tight spaces in continuous shots (you can't splice human movement / hair that good), so she must be CGI.  Again, the implication is that this would have taken years AND 3D technology that simply does not exist yet.

When you have to start inventing new technologies to explain your previously held beliefs, it means that you are beginning to dip into the realm of magic.

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2013, 07:40:40 AM »
Scepti do you know how may years it takes film companies to make a small sequences for action and Sci Fi movies? And even these are litterd with mistake. NASA create hours and hours of fottage every day along with hundreds of thousnds if not millions of photos. Where is the money in this again?
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 07:48:52 AM by Pythagoras »

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2013, 07:44:38 AM »
That's a really good point.  The volume doesn't match what's physically possible, especially with NASA's budget.

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2013, 07:48:13 AM »
You are harping on about a video being "continuous" so put me a video up that is continuous, of your choice and I'll dissect it for you. What are you afraid of?

I challenge you to find just one clear instance of something that would have been impossible in space in the link I posted.  For example, in 2001: A Space Odyssey, when one of the crew is taking a drink through a straw, the liquid is seen to fall down when it shouldn't have fallen at all.  Not possibilities or maybes, but something that clearly defies the presently-held laws of physics if this were in orbit.

Even if you can account for this, there's still the problem of NASA producing this sort of footage all the time.  The money and time required don't match what they have in reality.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 07:50:05 AM by Levi Dettwyler »

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #11 on: April 03, 2013, 07:59:00 AM »
No thier isn't. Their is footage of astronauts imparting momentum on an object and it continuing to tumble or move after they let go but not what you describe.

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2013, 08:04:17 AM »
When things get shown to people like you, you simply dismiss it as if it's just normal when it clearly defies the laws what they say should happen.

When things get shown to people like you, you simply dismiss it as if it's just faked when it clearly complies the laws what they say should happen.

Now, we can go down this road, but I don't think it would be particularly useful.  You could find an example, and I would be able to argue that it's physically possible, or vice-versa.  Neither scenario would get us any closer to resolving this dilemma.  So I instead encourage you to return to the original issue at hand, which is how they would even begin to approach creating this.  Show me that it's routine as you claim, and then say how they are able to produce such realistic movement in long, continuous shots with no skipping.  Once (if) we've got that established, we can look at the problem of volume.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #13 on: April 03, 2013, 08:30:14 AM »
When things get shown to people like you, you simply dismiss it as if it's just normal when it clearly defies the laws what they say should happen.

When things get shown to people like you, you simply dismiss it as if it's just faked when it clearly complies the laws what they say should happen.

Now, we can go down this road, but I don't think it would be particularly useful.  You could find an example, and I would be able to argue that it's physically possible, or vice-versa.  Neither scenario would get us any closer to resolving this dilemma.  So I instead encourage you to return to the original issue at hand, which is how they would even begin to approach creating this.  Show me that it's routine as you claim, and then say how they are able to produce such realistic movement in long, continuous shots with no skipping.  Once (if) we've got that established, we can look at the problem of volume.
Ok!

You put me up, one video that you believe 100% shows you without doubt is continuous and I will scrutinise it and give you my opinion on it and anything I find of it that has anomalies of any description ok?

Its in the first post...
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #14 on: April 03, 2013, 08:31:05 AM »
Fine.  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Tell me how I could go about reproducing this scene.  I'm directing a space movie, and I don't want to be limited to just 25 seconds per scene by NASA's Vomit Comet.  How can I create scenes like this, where astronauts are clearly free-floating and moving about through tight spaces?

Here's another scene I want to reproduce (the transitioning from right-side up to upside-down): " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">  Note that her hair doesn't change significantly when she goes upside-down and stays that way.  Wouldn't "gravity" cause there to be a substantial difference?

Her necklace is also of particular interest to me.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 08:35:58 AM by Levi Dettwyler »

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #15 on: April 03, 2013, 08:57:17 AM »
The first video is littered with pauses, I'm sure everyone can see that. Also when she's moving about, she temporarily stops and hooks her foot under certain anchor points, this is most probably when the plane is making another manoeuvre ready for the next weightless dive. Her hair is simply held up with a stiffening spray which is clearly evident but we have already been over this one.

Continuous it is not.

You would see periods of gravity while the plane climbed and descended but after the first edit you have well over a minute of zero-g without an edit.  Zero-G on a flight can only be achieved for about 30 seconds.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #16 on: April 03, 2013, 09:00:36 AM »
The first video is littered with pauses, I'm sure everyone can see that. Also when she's moving about, she temporarily stops and hooks her foot under certain anchor points, this is most probably when the plane is making another manoeuvre ready for the next weightless dive. Her hair is simply held up with a stiffening spray which is clearly evident but we have already been over this one.

Continuous it is not.

You would see periods of gravity while the plane climbed and descended but after the first edit you have well over a minute of zero-g without an edit.  Zero-G on a flight can only be achieved for about 30 seconds.
In most of it, she stops and talks and anchors her feet.
It's all clever but it shouldn't fool anyone in reality.

With her hair still bobbing around in zero-gravity? 
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #17 on: April 03, 2013, 09:36:38 AM »
The first video is littered with pauses, I'm sure everyone can see that. Also when she's moving about, she temporarily stops and hooks her foot under certain anchor points, this is most probably when the plane is making another manoeuvre ready for the next weightless dive.

I really didn't expect you to go there.

There's no way you could stay in such a position if you were really on the Vomit Comet.  You would get flung to the floor in an instant.  Seriously, go watch some videos of the Vomit Comet in action.  You would at least see it in her hair, which easily moves about.  Remember, you're going from freefall to rapidly climbing.  You couldn't just kind of float there like she does.  You would be getting 2Gs of force.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 09:49:45 AM by Levi Dettwyler »

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #18 on: April 03, 2013, 09:53:32 AM »
There are periods longer than 25 seconds in that video where she isn't holding on to anything enough to stabilize her in the face of about 2Gs of force.  And no, it's not that gradual.  Remember, she goes upside down at once point, and stays that way.

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #19 on: April 03, 2013, 12:12:30 PM »
Take a look at their t.shirts in all the clips you want and you will notice that they keep pulling them down because they are lifting up on them.
In this supposed weightlessness  of a space station, none of this should be happening.

What?  Yes it should.  What on earth are you talking about?  If it's weightless, you would expect the shirts to be going all over the place.  The shirts can't go DOWN on their body any further, so they tend to go up from their preferred state (all the way down).

This is seriously calling into question your ability to critically analyze something like this.  What you said makes no physical sense whatsoever.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 12:14:51 PM by Levi Dettwyler »

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #20 on: April 03, 2013, 12:42:45 PM »
Ever heard of momentum sceptic?

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #21 on: April 03, 2013, 12:47:02 PM »
Some of the things they do and some of the objects on that supposed space station makes no physical sense either going by how they portray what's supposed to happen.

Weightless is weightless, meaning nothing moves unless it's moved, is how they portray things to us, so why do objects decide to go against this?

The tshirts aren't doing this.  They're moved either because they're next to an airflow source or they're jostled by the person wearing it.  You somehow tried to imply that a shirt shouldn't move at all in weightlessness, which doesn't make sense.  It's being worn by a person.  Of course it's going to move about, ESPECIALLY upward.  I don't know what else you could be referring to.  Everything else I saw her manipulating obeyed Newton's laws of motion.

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #22 on: April 03, 2013, 12:51:19 PM »
Why should anything move "upward" in a weightless environment, or "downward" even if no force is applied?

I… just… told you.  If they're next to airflow, or just regular body movement.  Either it stays perfectly still, or a little bit of force in any direction will cause it to start moving around, which will mean it will tend to move up, since it can't move down.

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #23 on: April 03, 2013, 12:56:14 PM »
In the case of shirts, the wearer is always moving around.  They're never perfectly still.  Thus, little amounts of force are always being applied to the shirt.  Over time, this should result in the shirt moving as well.  There's only one direction it can move in, and that's up.  A shirt not moving would be very, very strange.  If their shirt was pulled up, we would expect it to go both up and down as the wearer moved about, due to small forces applied by breathing, turning, moving the arms, or inertia from movement.

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #24 on: April 03, 2013, 12:59:55 PM »
What about the actual people moving upwards, is that the air flow as well and if so, do they use some kind of rocket fan that makes the Astroliars unsteady?

Point to a specific example please.  Remember, there are an infinite number of different states one can be in with respect to the space station, and only one of them is not moving.  Movement of some sort is EXPECTED.  Honestly, it's being perfectly stationary that you have to explain, given the distribution of possible states.

*

Dog

  • 1162
  • Literally a dog
Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #25 on: April 03, 2013, 02:06:24 PM »
This is seriously calling into question your ability to critically analyze something like this.  What you said makes no physical sense whatsoever.

Welcome to TFES

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #26 on: April 03, 2013, 05:33:25 PM »
What about the actual people moving upwards, is that the air flow as well and if so, do they use some kind of rocket fan that makes the Astroliars unsteady?

Point to a specific example please.  Remember, there are an infinite number of different states one can be in with respect to the space station, and only one of them is not moving.  Movement of some sort is EXPECTED.  Honestly, it's being perfectly stationary that you have to explain, given the distribution of possible states.

Levi, I really wouldn't bother. As far as logical reasoning is concerned Sceptimatic is quite simply retarded. I spent some time and effort explaining things to him but this quickly got tedious (like here for example http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57791.msg1468560.html#msg1468560) so I've since given up.

Even if you succeed in explaining simple physical concepts, you are still left with the scientific method, onus of proof, and the concept of denialism, none of which he is likely to understand (nor willing to learn) in any true sense. Also, keep in mind he is not really representative of the FE community as a whole, so anything you might gain from a conversation with him is unlikely to represent FE theory anyway.
Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #27 on: April 03, 2013, 08:13:38 PM »
What about the actual people moving upwards, is that the air flow as well and if so, do they use some kind of rocket fan that makes the Astroliars unsteady?

Point to a specific example please.  Remember, there are an infinite number of different states one can be in with respect to the space station, and only one of them is not moving.  Movement of some sort is EXPECTED.  Honestly, it's being perfectly stationary that you have to explain, given the distribution of possible states.

Levi, I really wouldn't bother. As far as logical reasoning is concerned Sceptimatic is quite simply retarded. I spent some time and effort explaining things to him but this quickly got tedious (like here for example http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57791.msg1468560.html#msg1468560) so I've since given up.

Even if you succeed in explaining simple physical concepts, you are still left with the scientific method, onus of proof, and the concept of denialism, none of which he is likely to understand (nor willing to learn) in any true sense. Also, keep in mind he is not really representative of the FE community as a whole, so anything you might gain from a conversation with him is unlikely to represent FE theory anyway.
Scepti will never admit defeat regarding the ISS video. I loved it and thanks Levi for posting it but Jason_85 is right. You're pulling your hair out for nothing.
Sceptimatic, aka True Myth and a few other pseudonyms(I also think he's Muggsy as it would explain A LOT), isn't about skepticism or even denial. All he's about, is being contrary. He doesn't care about the discussion at hand, he only wants to be as difficult as possible. He claims to be a proponent of FET but we all know that he doesn't actually believe a thing he's saying. If he were truly intent on proving a point, he would have a better repertoire than:

You're wrong... I'm right
It's all Pinocchio science
Show me ANY video (just not the one in front of me) and I can disprove it
They are all just astroliars (that's my technical term) because it's a conspiracy
If you use simple logic, you could see it
If we forget about science and just look outside we will see the earth is flat
I could prove the earth is flat but "they" would silence me
and of course, my personal favorite,
I don't believe in gravity, that's just a word that was made up to describe the force that pulls things.

It's gotten old Scepti (or whatever you want to call yourself). You've had your fun. You've succeeded in driving a lot of these guys totally crazy and I'll admit, I found it amusing for awhile. However it's time to start taking things seriously. No more Pinocchio science unless you have some Geppetto physics to offer in return. There are many here who truly appreciate the debate and science behind it. You clearly don't. You are merely an antagonist. If you have nothing better to do, perhaps you should find a hobby. At the very least, check out The Hollow Earth Society. I should think that site would be right up your alley. Better yet, go outside. Take a walk. Go to a museum. Stop sitting around in your robe and Batman underpants. Take the initiative. Have that weekly shower. Put some clothes on, climb the stairs from the depths of your parent's basement and proudly say, "Mom! You finally win! I'm moving out." 

?

jason_85

  • 645
  • 4D n-sphere earth believer
Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #28 on: April 03, 2013, 08:59:04 PM »
Why should anything move "upward" in a weightless environment, or "downward" even if no force is applied?

Jason, you are my least favorite noob.

Re: ISS Tour (and the difficulty of faking things)
« Reply #29 on: April 06, 2013, 12:29:45 AM »
The comet just goes up and down in waves, it doesn't climb straight up, it's gradual and will be timed, so people can get a grip on something, as you continually see in the ISS videos.

Here: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> (2:39)

There.  WAY more than 25 seconds of continuous and obvious weightlessness.

Here's another even longer segment: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> (4:39)

The only possible conclusions you can draw from this is that either she was, in fact, in orbit, and thus weightless, or she's a witch.  The second option wouldn't really surprise me.  I mean, look at that hair!  Obviously a witch.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2013, 12:34:10 AM by Levi Dettwyler »