Zero G Footage?

I've heard most of the basic arguments for the countless hours of footage that was shot on the ISS.

But I like surprises and frankly, you people never fail to surprise me.

So tell me what you think? How did they achieve such realistic footage? It's obviously not CGI.

Did they really recreate the environment of the space station inside of a plan, just to put it into a parabolic arch to fake the absence of gravity?

Please tell me what you think.

I've heard most of the basic arguments for the countless hours of footage that was shot on the ISS.

But I like surprises and frankly, you people never fail to surprise me.

So tell me what you think? How did they achieve such realistic footage? It's obviously not CGI.

Did they really recreate the environment of the space station inside of a plan, just to put it into a parabolic arch to fake the absence of gravity?

Please tell me what you think.

NASA studied and fractally applied the use of Aether with an anti denpressure machine built in Base 74 on Antarctica. The unit was later modified to work with heavier objects but only up until a certain point where the energy requirements gets too high. The use of refraction in directing light beams through the anti denpressure helped with the illusion that the people are flying. It's all due to perspective.

at least people have humor on our flat earth.

at least people have humor on our flat earth.

I sure do.

Can I get atleast one flat earther to reflect on this?

I've heard most of the basic arguments for the countless hours of footage that was shot on the ISS.

But I like surprises and frankly, you people never fail to surprise me.

So tell me what you think? How did they achieve such realistic footage? It's obviously not CGI.

Did they really recreate the environment of the space station inside of a plan, just to put it into a parabolic arch to fake the absence of gravity?

Please tell me what you think.

They do use vomit comits for filming. Green screens and harnesses can all be seen, you can see these things on youtube if you're interested.

so you're saying the behavior of this fluid is CGI?

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

please.. do you own a pair of eyes?

a parabolic arch, and an absence of earth surface gravity are EXPONENTIALLY different, especially visually.

I also do video composition as a hobby, green screens and harnesses are clearly not the case.

Please source these videos, and don't take them off some chem trail conspirator channel lmao.

so you're saying the behavior of this fluid is CGI?

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

please.. do you own a pair of eyes?

a parabolic arch, and an absence of earth surface gravity are EXPONENTIALLY different, especially visually.

I also do video composition as a hobby, green screens and harnesses are clearly not the case.

Please source these videos, and don't take them off some chem trail conspirator channel lmao.

There's a green thing on his left. Totally a green screen.

They fly around on witch's broomsticks and then NASA use CGI to edit out the broomstick.  It's all on youtube if you want to search.

can a FE send me a video that debunks this kind of footage? please?

Quote from: Godspoke on February 12, 2016, 04:48:21 PM

so you're saying the behavior of this fluid is CGI?

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

please.. do you own a pair of eyes?

a parabolic arch, and an absence of earth surface gravity are EXPONENTIALLY different, especially visually.

I also do video composition as a hobby, green screens and harnesses are clearly not the case.

Please source these videos, and don't take them off some chem trail conspirator channel lmao.

There's a green thing on his left. Totally a green screen.

i'm pretty sure the chroma key would cover it.

Quote from: Godspoke on February 12, 2016, 04:48:21 PM

so you're saying the behavior of this fluid is CGI?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
please.. do you own a pair of eyes?
a parabolic arch, and an absence of earth surface gravity are EXPONENTIALLY different, especially visually.
I also do video composition as a hobby, green screens and harnesses are clearly not the case.
Please source these videos, and don't take them off some chem trail conspirator channel lmao.

There's a green thing on his left. Totally a green screen.

Yes, I have to agree it's green. If it's green of course it must be a green screen!
That's better evidence than we usually get for a flat earth.

I just love how easily people like to dismiss this kind of footage as just simply green screen and harness lol.

Are you saying that people can not be in free fall unless they are on the ISS? 

don't be a troll. you can only be in a sustained parabolic arch for a few minutes.

how would they have conducted interviews that our live, and hours long?

How long are you asking about?  Planes can fly pretty high.  How long can you be in free fall from 100,000 feet? 

How long are you asking about?  Planes can fly pretty high.  How long can you be in free fall from 100,000 feet?

Jora, wouldn't the plane hit the dome before reaching that height.

Quote from: jora on February 15, 2016, 10:59:58 PM

How long are you asking about?  Planes can fly pretty high.  How long can you be in free fall from 100,000 feet?

Jora, wouldn't the plane hit the dome before reaching that height.

Who said there is a dome at 100,000 ft?

Quote from: Empirical on February 16, 2016, 03:11:15 AM

Quote from: jora on February 15, 2016, 10:59:58 PM

How long are you asking about?  Planes can fly pretty high.  How long can you be in free fall from 100,000 feet?

Jora, wouldn't the plane hit the dome before reaching that height.

Who said there is a dome at 100,000 ft?

You did

There is a dome at 100,000 ft, it's true because it's in the wiki

This is a serious scientific discussion forum. 

This is a serious scientific discussion forum.

And you destroyed it with this post. He just show'd you that you said the dome is 100,000 feet.

Quote from: jroa on February 16, 2016, 07:15:05 AM

This is a serious scientific discussion forum.

And you destroyed it with this post. He just show'd you that you said the dome is 100,000 feet.

dummy, go back and read.  It was a fake quote, just like he changes my name in every quote.  You are so gullible.  He got you so good, lol at you.  You are so hilarious. 

so if the dome isn't at the heighth detailed in the wiki then that must mean you all just pretend to know about the stuff you believe is true

Who said there is a dome?  I certainly did not. 

so you don't believe in the FE theory entirely? because I clearly was referring to whats stated in the wiki.

How long are you asking about?  Planes can fly pretty high.  How long can you be in free fall from 100,000 feet?

I should have checked this earlier.
Free fall from 100,000 ft down to 10,000 ft (you would like to pull out I suppose) takes about 53 secs, but the velocity at the bottom is about 1,160 mph! That's mach 1.57! Of course the "vomit comet"  would have to be going at 1,160 mph at 10,000 ft to start the zero-g manoeuvre!
I don't know of any large aircraft that can approach that performance.

Typical zero-g sessions only last about 30 secs!

so you don't believe in the FE theory entirely? because I clearly was referring to whats stated in the wiki.

Only some FE'ers believe in a dome.  Are you new here? 

Quote from: jroa on February 15, 2016, 10:59:58 PM

How long are you asking about?  Planes can fly pretty high.  How long can you be in free fall from 100,000 feet?

I should have checked this earlier.
Free fall from 100,000 ft down to 10,000 ft (you would like to pull out I suppose) takes about 53 secs, but the velocity at the bottom is about 1,160 mph! That's mach 1.57! Of course the "vomit comet"  would have to be going at 1,160 mph at 10,000 ft to start the zero-g manoeuvre!
I don't know of any large aircraft that can approach that performance.

Typical zero-g sessions only last about 30 secs!

Got any more wonderful ideas?

Have you ever seen the movie Gravity? 

Quote from: rabinoz on February 17, 2016, 02:44:36 AM

Quote from: jroa on February 15, 2016, 10:59:58 PM

How long are you asking about?  Planes can fly pretty high.  How long can you be in free fall from 100,000 feet?

I should have checked this earlier.
Free fall from 100,000 ft down to 10,000 ft (you would like to pull out I suppose) takes about 53 secs, but the velocity at the bottom is about 1,160 mph! That's mach 1.57! Of course the "vomit comet"  would have to be going at 1,160 mph at 10,000 ft to start the zero-g manoeuvre!
I don't know of any large aircraft that can approach that performance.
Typical zero-g sessions only last about 30 secs!

Got any more wonderful ideas?

Have you ever seen the movie Gravity?

Yes, I have.
You have heard of CGI I suppose? Maybe they used that. Yes, I'm guessing, but it's all you ever do.

Quote from: jroa on February 17, 2016, 02:50:36 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 17, 2016, 02:44:36 AM

Quote from: jroa on February 15, 2016, 10:59:58 PM

How long are you asking about?  Planes can fly pretty high.  How long can you be in free fall from 100,000 feet?

I should have checked this earlier.
Free fall from 100,000 ft down to 10,000 ft (you would like to pull out I suppose) takes about 53 secs, but the velocity at the bottom is about 1,160 mph! That's mach 1.57! Of course the "vomit comet"  would have to be going at 1,160 mph at 10,000 ft to start the zero-g manoeuvre!
I don't know of any large aircraft that can approach that performance.
Typical zero-g sessions only last about 30 secs!

Got any more wonderful ideas?

Have you ever seen the movie Gravity?

Yes, I have.

But what has that to do with my calculations? I was talking about real aircraft!

You have heard of CGI I suppose? Maybe they used that. Yes, I'm guessing, but it's all you ever do.

So, just to clarify, you are claiming that it is possible to fake weightlessness for extended periods of time?