ISS is not in space

Interesting. I wonder if the crazies over there would laugh at the crazies over here.

Nice link. Literally every picture taken in 'space' looks completely artificial, I have yet to see a pic that can't be made by an amateur in photoshop.

The only crazy ones are the ones who have looked at all the pictures, and still believe they are real.

Nice link. Literally every picture taken in 'space' looks completely artificial, I have yet to see a pic that can't be made by an amateur in photoshop.

The only crazy ones are the ones who have looked at all the pictures, and still believe they are real.

What would a real picture of the ISS in space look like? Do you seriously believe the second you see one you'd realise it was genuine and not fake as you proclaim?

Nice link. Literally every picture taken in 'space' looks completely artificial, I have yet to see a pic that can't be made by an amateur in photoshop.

The only crazy ones are the ones who have looked at all the pictures, and still believe they are real.

Three things. Yes the outside walk could be faked in water, because they could make a human float like they would in space. However, this does not include metal wrenches for example, which would sink in water. We have seen these videos too.
That is one.

They could fake a human floating in water with a space suit on, to supply the person with oxygen, to pass it on as walking in space. This however is a different story in videos where we see astronauts inside the ISS floating around. Again this can be done in water, but then the person would be out of breath within 2 minutes max, yet we see continious footage of people floating through air. This can only be done in space.

If all of it was filmed in a pool, then what the hell do we see flying above us. Many of us has observed the ISS and people like me have even seen the ISS using a telescope. Some even took pictures. That is three

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A Cool and Candid Look Inside the International Space Station - Hosted by Astronaut Suni Williams

What would a real picture of the ISS in space look like? Do you seriously believe the second you see one you'd realise it was genuine and not fake as you proclaim?

While this is a good point, simply google'ing 'earth' and looking at the pictures gives me serious, serious doubts about its veracity.

If all of it was filmed in a pool, then what the hell do we see flying above us. Many of us has observed the ISS and people like me have even seen the ISS using a telescope. Some even took pictures. That is three

I have never observed it, but I'm guessing it's just a point of light (or ISS-shaped light) in the sky that moves in an expected pattern given to you by a website. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that a technology exists that can simulate this. I don't know what it is or have an explanation for you.

I can propose that any person who claims to have seen the ISS in space, in the pictures that get shown are shills and just basic liars.
That's just my opinion.

That's also slander (or libel, if you do it in print) if you can't prove it.

You have not observed the ISS. You have observed what you believe to be the ISS.
I even doubt you have seen any shape up there, unless you've been observing objects in the atmosphere, like planes and what not.
You certainly have not seen, (with your own eyes) a craft that looks like the ISS in the pictures we get shown, unless you have been in the modelling department.

Care to explain what it is?

The ISS cannot be seen in detail with the naked eye, but you are able to see the shape using a telescope. Use a Meade 8' LX90 and you are able to see the image I enclosed. It is not my image, but it is similar to what I have seen. Before you go cry out loud that I cannot have seen it, do some experiment yourself to see if it is true. You refuse to believe what I say, but you do not take the effort yourself to have a look through a telescope. Therefore I put no value on what you say.  .

When I see a black sky like this one, I'll be sure to have a look through a telescope and see if I can see this ISS effigy.
Any idea when the next 100% totally black sky will be?

Don't you feel bad you called me a liar?


Before you have a look, you need to know when to look. Take this tool http://iss.astroviewer.net/observation.php
Fill in your location and you will know where to look. Just keep an eye out for the weather forecast for clear night skies.

No thanks. I stopped believing in fairies and stuff like that when I was a small child. Santa still had me for a few years after that but that's about it.
I've still got all my teeth thank god.
Can you imagine if I still believed in the tooth fairy, it would be like believing man made objects are in space, plus I'd have no teeth left and a bloody under pillow. 

Everything is a fairy tale to you. Perhaps you are also part of a fairy tale, but you just don't know about yet.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 23, 2013, 11:54:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 23, 2013, 11:51:08 AM

No thanks. I stopped believing in fairies and stuff like that when I was a small child. Santa still had me for a few years after that but that's about it.
I've still got all my teeth thank god.
Can you imagine if I still believed in the tooth fairy, it would be like believing man made objects are in space, plus I'd have no teeth left and a bloody under pillow. 

Everything is a fairy tale to you. Perhaps you are also part of a fairy tale, but you just don't know about yet.

We are all part of the fair tale. We have to live it as we have no other option but to live it, unless we expire.

If we are in a fairy tale, everything inside the fairy tale is also part of the fairy tale, even the FET, so we do not live on a flat earth or a sphere at all, but in someone's imagination or fairy tale book. You would just have to discover that.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 23, 2013, 12:13:56 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 23, 2013, 12:08:42 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 23, 2013, 11:54:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 23, 2013, 11:51:08 AM

No thanks. I stopped believing in fairies and stuff like that when I was a small child. Santa still had me for a few years after that but that's about it.
I've still got all my teeth thank god.
Can you imagine if I still believed in the tooth fairy, it would be like believing man made objects are in space, plus I'd have no teeth left and a bloody under pillow. 

Everything is a fairy tale to you. Perhaps you are also part of a fairy tale, but you just don't know about yet.

We are all part of the fair tale. We have to live it as we have no other option but to live it, unless we expire.

If we are in a fairy tale, everything inside the fairy tale is also part of the fairy tale, even the FET, so we do not live on a flat earth or a sphere at all, but in someone's imagination or fairy tale book. You would just have to discover that.

If that's how you view it, then it's fine by me. I'm just talking about us all being a part of the fairy tales that get told to us. It's called the mass media.

Mass media does not direct what my eyes see or my ears hear.   I can watch a very real sunset and it is not told to me that night is upon me.   Is this sunset part of the fairytale?   And I'm not talking about how the sunset works,  just that the Sun no longer lights my area of the world.

There is another derail. None of the FE step forward to explain the 3 points I mentioned earlier...

what a surprise...

There is another derail. None of the FE step forward to explain the 3 points I mentioned earlier...

what a surprise...

Partly filmed in water, partly filmed in a vomit comet.  Throw in some editing and you have a single video.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 23, 2013, 03:22:26 PM

There is another derail. None of the FE step forward to explain the 3 points I mentioned earlier...

what a surprise...

Partly filmed in water, partly filmed in a vomit comet.  Throw in some editing and you have a single video.

Junker, as I said, there is no way you can have one continiously shot of a person experiencing weightlessness. The Vomit Comet only allows you to be weightless for about 25 seconds. We see videos from the ISS in which the astronauts are continiously weightless, and there are no cuts in any of these videos.

The Apollo 13 film from 1995 used the Vomit Comet (or a similar method) to recreate weightlessness for the movie. However, they never show you a long continious shot of weightlessness. There can be scenes which last for some minutes, but they all have cuts and switch to other views all the time. We don't see that in the ISS videos. All videos are seamless.

You just deny the fact it is impossible to fake the ISS videos from the inside.

Junker, as I said, there is no way you can have one continiously shot of a person experiencing weightlessness. The Vomit Comet only allows you to be weightless for about 25 seconds. We see videos from the ISS in which the astronauts are continiously weightless, and there are no cuts in any of these videos.

The Apollo 13 film from 1995 used the Vomit Comet (or a similar method) to recreate weightlessness for the movie. However, they never show you a long continious shot of weightlessness. There can be scenes which last for some minutes, but they all have cuts and switch to other views all the time. We don't see that in the ISS videos. All videos are seamless.

That video is 25 min long.  Is there a particular segment you can reference?  I don't want to watch the whole thing.  The first segment with the girl before the next scene didn't seem to be that long.

You just deny the fact it is impossible to fake the ISS videos from the inside.

I don't deny anything.  I think it is possible.

If nothing else CGI could certainly do it. They have no problem using CGI, after all every pic showing a globe uses it.

If nothing else CGI could certainly do it. They have no problem using CGI, after all every pic showing a globe uses it.

The CGI technology does not exist to create videos that life like, for that amount of time, in the short amount of time between them coming out.

Quote from: Rip Riley on May 23, 2013, 04:37:47 PM

If nothing else CGI could certainly do it. They have no problem using CGI, after all every pic showing a globe uses it.

The CGI technology does not exist to create videos that life like, for that amount of time, in the short amount of time between them coming out.

Yes it does. Ever seen the 2 Star Trek movies in the last few years, Avatar, etc.

Quote from: Junker on May 23, 2013, 03:54:53 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 23, 2013, 03:22:26 PM

There is another derail. None of the FE step forward to explain the 3 points I mentioned earlier...

what a surprise...

Partly filmed in water, partly filmed in a vomit comet.  Throw in some editing and you have a single video.

Junker, as I said, there is no way you can have one continiously shot of a person experiencing weightlessness. The Vomit Comet only allows you to be weightless for about 25 seconds. We see videos from the ISS in which the astronauts are continiously weightless, and there are no cuts in any of these videos.

The Apollo 13 film from 1995 used the Vomit Comet (or a similar method) to recreate weightlessness for the movie. However, they never show you a long continious shot of weightlessness. There can be scenes which last for some minutes, but they all have cuts and switch to other views all the time. We don't see that in the ISS videos. All videos are seamless.

You just deny the fact it is impossible to fake the ISS videos from the inside.

Or they used some editing and made it appear seamless because it was good editing.

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 23, 2013, 04:25:50 PM

Junker, as I said, there is no way you can have one continiously shot of a person experiencing weightlessness. The Vomit Comet only allows you to be weightless for about 25 seconds. We see videos from the ISS in which the astronauts are continiously weightless, and there are no cuts in any of these videos.

The Apollo 13 film from 1995 used the Vomit Comet (or a similar method) to recreate weightlessness for the movie. However, they never show you a long continious shot of weightlessness. There can be scenes which last for some minutes, but they all have cuts and switch to other views all the time. We don't see that in the ISS videos. All videos are seamless.

That video is 25 min long.  Is there a particular segment you can reference?  I don't want to watch the whole thing.  The first segment with the girl before the next scene didn't seem to be that long.

 

From 0:50 onwards.


Here is another video. There are some cuts in the beginning, so you can skip to like 1:50 then till about 5:21 continious footage. The footage does continue, but they decided to put in a map next to the footage so you could get an idea where he is in the spacestation. Througout the video the footage continues, but you only see a map of where he is at in the spacestation. You could call these 'cuts' but if these were to film another scene, just see how everything just is the same in that 'next' scene.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">International Space Station Tour 2012 (HD) ISS Tour

Movies have lots of mistakes in them, because they do not film it in one go. If you pay close attention to any movie, you will find these errors. A lot of people do that and here is just an example of that.

If nothing else CGI could certainly do it. They have no problem using CGI, after all every pic showing a globe uses it.

Using CGI to create life like images takes a very, very long time to render and even then you are able to detect things which do not look real. But CGI is certainly not an option for live footage from the ISS, like happened on the TV show CBS the Talk for example. You can also see the astronauts doing their works using the live stream available to the public.  #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Waking up, working, and going to sleep in Zero G

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 23, 2013, 04:41:20 PM

Quote from: Rip Riley on May 23, 2013, 04:37:47 PM

If nothing else CGI could certainly do it. They have no problem using CGI, after all every pic showing a globe uses it.

The CGI technology does not exist to create videos that life like, for that amount of time, in the short amount of time between them coming out.

Yes it does. Ever seen the 2 Star Trek movies in the last few years, Avatar, etc.

Please cite a scene in any of those movies that realistically shows a shot of someone in a zero gravity environment for more than 30 seconds at a time.

Quote from: John Michell on May 23, 2013, 04:45:38 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 23, 2013, 04:41:20 PM

Quote from: Rip Riley on May 23, 2013, 04:37:47 PM

If nothing else CGI could certainly do it. They have no problem using CGI, after all every pic showing a globe uses it.

The CGI technology does not exist to create videos that life like, for that amount of time, in the short amount of time between them coming out.

Yes it does. Ever seen the 2 Star Trek movies in the last few years, Avatar, etc.

Please cite a scene in any of those movies that realistically shows a shot of someone in a zero gravity environment for more than 30 seconds at a time.

My point is that the technology to pull this off very well exists.

Not only that, but this is the government were talking about. They probably have very advanced technology we don't.

Quote from: John Michell on May 23, 2013, 04:45:38 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 23, 2013, 04:41:20 PM

Quote from: Rip Riley on May 23, 2013, 04:37:47 PM

If nothing else CGI could certainly do it. They have no problem using CGI, after all every pic showing a globe uses it.

The CGI technology does not exist to create videos that life like, for that amount of time, in the short amount of time between them coming out.

Yes it does. Ever seen the 2 Star Trek movies in the last few years, Avatar, etc.

Please cite a scene in any of those movies that realistically shows a shot of someone in a zero gravity environment for more than 30 seconds at a time.

With all due respect. Let them first give proper answer to the ISS videos. Now they will continue to discuss about Star Trek and ignore the ISS videos and everything that has been said about it.

My point is that the technology to pull this off very well exists.

How can you say that for certain if you can't show any examples?

Quote from: John Michell on May 23, 2013, 04:45:38 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 23, 2013, 04:41:20 PM

Quote from: Rip Riley on May 23, 2013, 04:37:47 PM

If nothing else CGI could certainly do it. They have no problem using CGI, after all every pic showing a globe uses it.

The CGI technology does not exist to create videos that life like, for that amount of time, in the short amount of time between them coming out.

Yes it does. Ever seen the 2 Star Trek movies in the last few years, Avatar, etc.

Please cite a scene in any of those movies that realistically shows a shot of someone in a zero gravity environment for more than 30 seconds at a time.

Oh, I thought he was joking 

Not to detract from the ISS video, but exactly how long did it take for them to make the Star Trek movies or Avatar?  And even then, the CGI in them is very good, but not good enough to make a human that looks real.

All the ISS vids look green screen'ed to me. Shoot under water with a green screen, put the space station in the background. Just like they do with every hollywood movie... they don't need GO to any of the locations any more.

I will stand by my comment that CGI could pull it all off too though. The scenes really aren't complicated... toughest part is the humans. But this is 2013 and nasa has access to petaflops of computing power. No way they couldn't cgi a dumb ISS video.

As an aside, ISS = 911 in numerology. We all know they like their number games.

All the ISS vids look green screen'ed to me. Shoot under water with a green screen, put the space station in the background. Just like they do with every hollywood movie... they don't need GO to any of the locations any more.

I will stand by my comment that CGI could pull it all off too though. The scenes really aren't complicated... toughest part is the humans. But this is 2013 and nasa has access to petaflops of computing power. No way they couldn't cgi a dumb ISS video.

As an aside, ISS = 911 in numerology. We all know they like their number games.

OH really? Then how come we can see the ISS in space with our own eyes and in detail using a telescope. You clearly are unable to grasp the entire picture of what we're saying. So typical...