"Weightlessness" and faked video evidence

Quote from: f.o.g.09 on July 16, 2013, 08:45:45 AM

Hutchison effect
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I think you're right.  It's the only explanation so far, that seems logical.  There must be a high pitched sound outside the vehicle that we can't hear because it's disguised by the sounds inside the vehicle.

Or they could not be lying about the video, that'd be a shocking logical explanation.

why dont they ever look at the moon through the iss , only the earth lol.. but after this post I bet they read this and say hey lets get some moon pics, good idea thinker.. of course they wont cut me a check.

You mean like the pictures they've already taken but you won't care to look up?





Considering that top photo was taken at least before February 2013, I don't think you can sue for any kind of idea theft.

Hint, in the future if you want to see if they've taken a picture of something, there's a wonderful thing called Google Images. For this exercise, I used the phrase "Moon from the ISS" without the quotes.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on July 15, 2013, 08:13:44 PM

Quote from: Thinker on July 15, 2013, 08:11:51 PM

nuclear submarines have scientists ... they should make a music video too

They do make videos, but they are constantly being taken down and their lives are being threatened because of treason charges.

exactly

they treat this space travel stuff like a made for kids disney movie.. only problem is most adults are mental children too. its really sad.. it really is.

It saddens me that so many RE'ers believe in cartoons.

Alex,

I have seen the video of the super moon from the ISS and it looks fake.   ONE video!  Come on now, with all the videos from the ISS, I would think they'd catch a few more glimpses of the moon.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Please explain what exactly looks fact about the video.

Alex,

I have seen the video of the super moon from the ISS and it looks fake.   ONE video!  Come on now, with all the videos from the ISS, I would think they'd catch a few more glimpses of the moon.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

What makes you think that they haven't?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Awesome, thanks for posting those.  Now what makes you think those videos weren't recorded from a high altitude airplane?

What makes you think they weren't recorded from a giant elephant?

Awesome, thanks for posting those.  Now what makes you think those videos weren't recorded from a high altitude airplane?

Those solar panels in " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">this video don't look at all aerodynamic. Try putting something like that on even a slow-moving aircraft and you'll understand why this couldn't've been taken from an airplane.

That stuff is added to the video.  Remember the first cell phones that had the extras you could add to your photos, like a frame or bubble comment, etc.?   It's not in the original footage.

Fair enough. Though it's impressive that they managed to make that added feature shift in and out of the frame as the camera turns. But they're probably good at that kind of thing.

So, in answer to your question, besides appearing to be taken much higher than Joseph Kittinger and the more recent Red Bull jump (can't remember the new fellow's name, sorry), taken around 31 km. For reference, the highest altitude ever achieved by a manned aircraft is just shy of 26 kilometers. Compare this photograph from 22 kilometers with the horizon visible in any orbital photograph.

Either the military has airplanes that the public is not aware of that can fly much higher or they have unmanned aircraft that are remote controlled.  They record as they fly over (not around) the Earth and then edit the video with the blacked, curved edges and/or ISS solar panels etc.

Are you aware of why there is a flight ceiling for aircraft? It's not due to human pilots or fancy technology.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on July 19, 2013, 12:52:59 PM

Are you aware of why there is a flight ceiling for aircraft? It's not due to human pilots or fancy technology.

Ok, so they may not be jet airplanes....they are some sort of spacecraft but it's for dang sure not something orbiting the Earth with humans living in it for months at a time.

How can you be sure?  Why would a spacecraft not be able to support life?

We're getting off-topic. It doesn't matter whether or not the ISS exist. This is about how they fake the video evidence, or to point out the evidence of such fakery.

The footage in this video is clearly recorded from a high altitude airplane.  In many of the images you do not see the Earth moving.  You see the stationary Earth passing as the plane flies. Ask yourself, why isn't the Earth spinning as fast as it does in many other ISS videos? Images of the Earth should not be considered as evidence for or against a flat Earth PERIOD.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

The video was taken from a handheld video camera from within the ISS.  There are plenty of reasons the Earth could appear to be moving with different speeds.  It could be traveling in different directions relative to the Earth's surface (because of its orbit path), the video's zoom could be different (and often is), the camera operator could be keeping an object in view manually.  A lot of the ISS videos are taken from a stationary camera mounted outside of the ISS, and are often sped up because videos like you linked to are rather boring to watch.

They never, ever think of looking anywhere else other than the earth. I mean, what's more boring than that when you've had it shoved in your face a gazillion times.
How about looking through the other cupola windows and having a look at all the lovely stars and planets floating about...imagine eh?

Sniff sniff, what can it be.... "I know" said Jim...it's bull crap you see.

Do you mean something sorta like this?

I see no fire in that picture, just light that could be coming from a number of sources, the most likely being cities.

No, I mean with no so called earth view.

Most satellites look back at the earth.  Why should the ISS be any different? 

Quote from: markjo on July 22, 2013, 07:23:14 AM

Most satellites look back at the earth.  Why should the ISS be any different? 

It wouldn't be because they are all added to Earth images with a computer.  That photo posted above is simply an image of the ISS overlayed on an image of the Earth.

How do they create these extended videos? Alternatively, please point out the evidence of fakery.

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on July 22, 2013, 07:55:44 AM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on July 22, 2013, 07:29:11 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 22, 2013, 07:23:14 AM

Most satellites look back at the earth.  Why should the ISS be any different? 

It wouldn't be because they are all added to Earth images with a computer.  That photo posted above is simply an image of the ISS overlayed on an image of the Earth.

How do they create these extended videos? Alternatively, please point out the evidence of fakery.

Look at the image for crying out loud. Why are you acting like this. The only reason can be a desperate attempt to keep the space crap alive for whatever reason.

I wasn't aware this thread was about still images. Please read the OP and get back to me on how extended weightlessness has been faked.

Scepti, I understand that you are passionate about this, but you need to tone it down and stay on topic.  Consider this a warning.

Hutchison effect
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I did not mean to ignore your reply, and I apologize for taking so long to return to you.

I have now read up on the Hutchison Effect, and find it interesting that nobody but pre-1991 Hutchison has been able to produce it. John himself cannot replicate it on-demand. His videos have been shown to be falsified, with John first denying such falsifications and then agreeing to them later.

This didn't stop many third parties, including NASA, to attempt to re-create the Hutchison Effect, all to no avail.

Without such evidence that the Hutchison Effect is real, it cannot be used to explain the hour-long video of weightlessness.

So, there are no other ideas for how weightlessness is faked in ISS videos? Anyone?

(meaning yes, it might be possible to levitate a human, but their bones would be hanging down against their body), so to see everything floating around is very telling that magnets are not the way this is produced.

I'm not advocating magnetism as an explanation, but the frogs suspended don't seem to suffer from "bones hanging down against their body."

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on July 16, 2013, 08:33:50 AM

(meaning yes, it might be possible to levitate a human, but their bones would be hanging down against their body), so to see everything floating around is very telling that magnets are not the way this is produced.

I'm not advocating magnetism as an explanation, but the frogs suspended don't seem to suffer from "bones hanging down against their body."

It's nice that you point out that what I put into the parenthesis, which had an interesting tidbit that I discovered while researching magnetic levitation, might be flawed. It is just a hypothesis, as we've not levitated humans who'd be able to voice said feeling. Frogs cant say "Oooo, that's weird!"

You dont need that much to levitate a human being.  If you possess a suit made of thin sheets of metal that fits the body like a glove underneath, it is possible to lift a human body and simulate weightlessness...  The suit consists of fabric with small plates spaced intermittently on the outside.  Then from there, clothes are worn over the thin suit.  Voila, levitation is born.

You dont need that much to levitate a human being.  If you possess a suit made of thin sheets of metal that fits the body like a glove underneath, it is possible to lift a human body and simulate weightlessness...  The suit consists of fabric with small plates spaced intermittently on the outside.  Then from there, clothes are worn over the thin suit.  Voila, levitation is born.

I take it their hair is likewise coated? And the rolls of tape? And globules of liquid and anything else that's also shown to float around with the humans?

You dont need that much to levitate a human being.  If you possess a suit made of thin sheets of metal that fits the body like a glove underneath, it is possible to lift a human body and simulate weightlessness...  The suit consists of fabric with small plates spaced intermittently on the outside.  Then from there, clothes are worn over the thin suit.  Voila, levitation is born.

I have seen a sheet of metal levitated about a foot in the air. After a few seconds, it became hot enough to boil water on contact, so unless you wanted to cook your astronauts, you might want to try something else.

Quote from: Jingle Jangle on July 26, 2013, 11:49:11 AM

You dont need that much to levitate a human being.  If you possess a suit made of thin sheets of metal that fits the body like a glove underneath, it is possible to lift a human body and simulate weightlessness...  The suit consists of fabric with small plates spaced intermittently on the outside.  Then from there, clothes are worn over the thin suit.  Voila, levitation is born.

I have seen a sheet of metal levitated about a foot in the air. After a few seconds, it became hot enough to boil water on contact, so unless you wanted to cook your astronauts, you might want to try something else.

That would only happen if the electromagnetic field was created with an AC power source.

That would only happen if the electromagnetic field was created with an AC power source.

Quite right, unmagnetised metal can (as far as I am aware, at least) only be levitated in an electromagnetic field created using an AC power source. Actually, I will have to look into that, as magnetic levitation of anything may only be possible using an AC power source. Once again, the FES forums have inspired me to do further research on a subject!

Quote from: jroa on July 26, 2013, 06:33:10 PM

That would only happen if the electromagnetic field was created with an AC power source.

Quite right, unmagnetised metal can (as far as I am aware, at least) only be levitated in an electromagnetic field created using an AC power source. Actually, I will have to look into that, as magnetic levitation of anything may only be possible using an AC power source. Once again, the FES forums have inspired me to do further research on a subject!

I meant that the metal would only heat up in the presence of a alternating magnetic field.  Magnetism itself does not produce heat.  Induced electrical current would cause the metal to heat up.

A refrigerator magnet does not heat up the refrigerator. 

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 22, 2013, 07:01:42 AM

They never, ever think of looking anywhere else other than the earth. I mean, what's more boring than that when you've had it shoved in your face a gazillion times.
How about looking through the other cupola windows and having a look at all the lovely stars and planets floating about...imagine eh?

Sniff sniff, what can it be.... "I know" said Jim...it's bull crap you see.

Do you mean something sorta like this?
(snip)

Or how about this? Big Dipper - July 20, 2013

Quote from: Scintific Method on July 26, 2013, 06:46:17 PM

Quote from: jroa on July 26, 2013, 06:33:10 PM

That would only happen if the electromagnetic field was created with an AC power source.

Quite right, unmagnetised metal can (as far as I am aware, at least) only be levitated in an electromagnetic field created using an AC power source. Actually, I will have to look into that, as magnetic levitation of anything may only be possible using an AC power source. Once again, the FES forums have inspired me to do further research on a subject!

I meant that the metal would only heat up in the presence of a alternating magnetic field.  Magnetism itself does not produce heat.  Induced electrical current would cause the metal to heat up.

A refrigerator magnet does not heat up the refrigerator.

Considering hair (which is clearly not covered in any metal) and every day objects are also seen floating around, then this magnetic levitation can't the the cause of these videos. Not that I don't want to stop this discussion on magnets--it's fascinating! It just no longer pertains to the point of this thread--that being how NASA faked that hour-long video (and other extended videos), or pointing out mistakes NASA made.