1 00:00:00,480 --> 00:00:09,480 In October 1958, 65 years ago, the US space agency NASA kickstarted its activities. 2 00:00:09,480 --> 00:00:17,917 What for some represents the figurehead of American research is for others the production site of a 3 00:00:17,917 --> 00:00:23,199 very elaborate but not flawless deception, i.e. fake. 4 00:00:23,199 --> 00:00:29,559 It is precisely these errors that catch the eye of media professionals and are commented on accordingly. 5 00:00:29,559 --> 00:00:37,240 This is also the case in the following 20-minute documentary, which aims to encourage viewers to form their own opinions. 6 00:00:37,240 --> 00:00:44,340 Basically, it is about nothing less than our entire world view. 7 00:00:59,280 --> 00:01:01,320 I have a serious question. 8 00:01:01,320 --> 00:01:06,799 Are the images that NASA and others present to us as videos from space really real? 9 00:01:06,799 --> 00:01:12,040 Are they real images or perhaps just fakes shot in a film studio? 10 00:01:12,040 --> 00:01:18,239 Do you recognize any hints or evidence of film tricks or even computer-generated virtual reality? 11 00:01:18,239 --> 00:01:20,640 Let's get to the bottom of the questions: 12 00:01:20,640 --> 00:01:29,250 As a media service provider with professional experience since 2004, I maintain that everything NASA, ESA and all the other 13 00:01:29,250 --> 00:01:38,640 space organizations show us is studio footage, green screen and CGI, i.e. computer-generated imagery - in other words, fake! 14 00:01:38,640 --> 00:01:42,000 An assertion that is likely to meet with strong resistance. 15 00:01:42,000 --> 00:01:45,680 But, I think, we can agree on one point from the outset. 16 00:01:45,680 --> 00:01:53,280 If the NASA images are actually real, we would only be receiving exclusively flawless footage to watch. 17 00:01:53,280 --> 00:02:00,840 Without mistakes, without Hollywood tricks, without questionable scenes that make us doubt the laws of physics. 18 00:02:00,840 --> 00:02:06,840 Even one single scene that reveals such things would expose NASA and co. as liars. 19 00:02:06,840 --> 00:02:10,919 But just take a look for yourself and form your own opinion. 20 00:02:10,919 --> 00:02:15,120 In this episode we look at glitches, CGI and green screen. 21 00:02:15,120 --> 00:02:19,820 In general, I will avoid technical terms as much as possible and explain what is seen as simply as possible 22 00:02:19,820 --> 00:02:22,680 so that even laypeople can understand what is going on. 23 00:02:22,680 --> 00:02:25,759 Nevertheless, a few things need to be mentioned. 24 00:02:25,759 --> 00:02:28,800 I think most people can relate to green screen. 25 00:02:28,800 --> 00:02:32,080 This is the green background that is often used for filming. 26 00:02:32,080 --> 00:02:37,982 Briefly explained, one films a scene in front of a green screen, removes the green in the video editing 27 00:02:37,982 --> 00:02:40,439 stage and replaces the color with a desired background. 28 00:02:40,439 --> 00:02:45,800 You are therefore very flexible and not tied to local conditions in terms of scene presentation. 29 00:02:45,800 --> 00:02:48,840 As when needed, blue screens are also used. 30 00:02:48,840 --> 00:02:52,439 They are not green, but - yes, as the name suggests - blue. 31 00:02:52,439 --> 00:02:55,439 By the way, green screen also works in live broadcasts. 32 00:02:55,439 --> 00:02:59,520 There, however, sometimes with small pitfalls. 33 00:02:59,520 --> 00:03:04,560 CGI stands for Computer Generated Imagery. 34 00:03:04,560 --> 00:03:10,439 Objects that are originated from 3D software, for example, and have therefore been created artificially. 35 00:03:10,439 --> 00:03:13,680 Glitches may need to be explained in more detail: 36 00:03:13,680 --> 00:03:20,280 These are faults or calculation errors in a computer program, in our case, graphic errors. 37 00:03:20,280 --> 00:03:26,617 For example, the software should calculate a virtual image scene containing an actor, a few real objects, 38 00:03:26,617 --> 00:03:30,879 artificially generated 3D objects and an artificial background. 39 00:03:30,879 --> 00:03:35,000 At a certain point - for whatever reason - a calculation error occurs. 40 00:03:35,000 --> 00:03:37,319 The processor may be eventually overloaded. 41 00:03:37,319 --> 00:03:44,360 The affected area is not displayed cleanly and strange artifacts, image jumps, distortions or similar appear. 42 00:03:44,360 --> 00:03:48,520 Glitches are therefore pretty clear evidence of computer manipulation. 43 00:03:48,520 --> 00:03:51,879 The question now arises: are there such things appearing in NASA images? 44 00:03:51,879 --> 00:03:55,960 And the answer is clearly YES! Absolutely! 45 00:03:55,960 --> 00:03:59,639 Let's start with this gem from September 9, 22: 46 00:03:59,639 --> 00:04:05,159 This was a live broadcast in which Kamala Harris allegedly spoke directly to the ISS on the phone. 47 00:04:05,159 --> 00:04:14,240 Take a closer look! --- Well? Did you spot something? 48 00:04:14,240 --> 00:04:18,519 Here once again. Still haven't seen anything? 49 00:04:18,519 --> 00:04:21,759 Let's go into detail, zoom in and slow down the shot: 50 00:04:21,759 --> 00:04:24,879 The microphone cable starts to move erraticly. 51 00:04:24,879 --> 00:04:30,040 The astronaut tries to knock it away and creates a beautiful glitch. 52 00:04:30,040 --> 00:04:37,094 Apparently, the 3D software can no longer decide whether the cable should be displayed above or below the hand 53 00:04:37,094 --> 00:04:43,720 when the hand is moved quickly and so the cable virtually merges with the hand or passes through it. 54 00:04:43,720 --> 00:04:50,160 So, we can see that the cable is a generated 3D object, because there is no other way to explain this scene. 55 00:04:50,160 --> 00:04:54,920 The image calculation software does not get the so-called collision detection right. 56 00:04:54,920 --> 00:05:02,560 In other words, it cannot track exactly which picture element should collide with the other and thus cause a repulsion effect. 57 00:05:02,560 --> 00:05:06,839 In this way, the hand becomes a transparent, non-colliding object. 58 00:05:06,839 --> 00:05:10,079 I hope that was halfway understandable. 59 00:05:10,079 --> 00:05:14,319 The phantom microphone a little further back in the movie is also nice to look at. 60 00:05:14,319 --> 00:05:17,000 Now it's here! Now it's gone! 61 00:05:17,000 --> 00:05:20,000 Back again! Gone again! And back again! 62 00:05:20,000 --> 00:05:24,160 Yes, the image calculation went really wrong. 63 00:05:24,160 --> 00:05:30,680 The microphone clearly also comes from 3D software and was calculated completely incorrectly into the scene. 64 00:05:30,680 --> 00:05:35,959 It can't be a camera error, because cameras simply record whatever is in front of their lens. 65 00:05:35,959 --> 00:05:42,867 And the transmission can't be to blame either, because it would be impossible for it to only leave out the microphone head or the 66 00:05:42,867 --> 00:05:46,879 cable, but would affect the entire image or large parts of it. 67 00:05:46,879 --> 00:05:51,439 Background to computer-generated 3D objects such as this microphone. 68 00:05:51,439 --> 00:05:56,279 One can create such objects in several - shall I say - levels or layers. 69 00:05:56,279 --> 00:06:02,353 First, the basic shape or the wireframe model, then color and texture layers are added on top and finally 70 00:06:02,353 --> 00:06:09,279 lighting effects add the finishing touches, to explain it very simply and without a lot of technical terms. 71 00:06:09,279 --> 00:06:12,800 The final creation of these objects is called rendering. 72 00:06:12,800 --> 00:06:16,519 With that, all layers are joined together to form a finished clip. 73 00:06:16,519 --> 00:06:22,383 If you render live, this can of course lead to problems, e.g. if the computer cannot generate the desired 74 00:06:22,383 --> 00:06:25,519 result quickly enough or the processor is overloaded. 75 00:06:25,519 --> 00:06:31,480 This is particularly problematic when 3D objects are to interact live with actors. 76 00:06:31,480 --> 00:06:33,839 And that is exactly what we are talking about here. 77 00:06:33,839 --> 00:06:40,160 The following examples show that we are really talking about computer graphics that are displayed live. 78 00:06:40,160 --> 00:06:46,251 1. this microphone. First it glitches, then the light reflections that were there before 79 00:06:46,251 --> 00:06:52,120 vanish, gone immediately from one image to the next. 80 00:06:52,120 --> 00:06:57,680 2. astronaut actor Don Pattit demonstrates how to drink coffee in space. 81 00:06:57,680 --> 00:07:00,839 Looks pretty good so far, apart from the picture quality. 82 00:07:00,839 --> 00:07:07,348 The end of the clip is crucial, because - oops - here the coffee suddenly separates from the 83 00:07:07,348 --> 00:07:11,639 container and pops out of it without losing its shape. 84 00:07:11,639 --> 00:07:16,971 The color layer clearly detaches itself from the shape layer, which is only possible if the object 85 00:07:16,971 --> 00:07:20,800 originates from 3D software and the live rendering went wrong. 86 00:07:20,800 --> 00:07:27,360 A flawless miscalculation and thus the next proof that NASA creates its images with virtual reality. 87 00:07:27,360 --> 00:07:29,160 3. as in the third example: 88 00:07:29,160 --> 00:07:33,759 A plushy figure appears out of nowhere and can even be interacted with live. 89 00:07:33,759 --> 00:07:39,618 At first I thought the object could have been hidden behind a so-called mask, but you can see the 90 00:07:39,618 --> 00:07:43,279 actress's hand shining through it for a few frames. 91 00:07:43,279 --> 00:07:50,800 So the object was blended and not made visible from a mask, which would eliminate the other possibility. 92 00:07:50,800 --> 00:07:55,859 The interaction with virtual objects can be explained by the so-called ragdoll engine, 93 00:07:55,859 --> 00:07:59,160 which is commonplace in video games, for example. 94 00:07:59,160 --> 00:08:02,759 You are welcome to do some research, but I won't go into any more detail now. 95 00:08:02,759 --> 00:08:08,300 Motion control would also be an interesting search term to add to the topic. 96 00:08:10,839 --> 00:08:15,560 And while we're on the subject of "virtual reality", let's take a look at this. 97 00:08:15,560 --> 00:08:23,879 Watch out for the guy on the left in the picture, what he's about to do. And, here we go. 98 00:08:23,879 --> 00:08:28,639 Yes, it loops back and forth now, but it illustrates what happened quite clearly. 99 00:08:28,639 --> 00:08:36,720 Pay attention to the hands. He takes an imaginary object in his left hand, hands it to his right hand and places it aside. 100 00:08:36,720 --> 00:08:41,840 The only problem is that the object he wants to get rid of is not visible. 101 00:08:41,840 --> 00:08:50,279 Technical explanation: The channel on which the live 3D object was to be shown was not active during the transmission. 102 00:08:50,279 --> 00:08:54,000 But apparently visible in the preview, because, just take look at his eyes. 103 00:08:54,000 --> 00:09:01,759 He does not look at the object, but looks ahead as if he were checking on a monitor that his action looks good and correct. 104 00:09:01,759 --> 00:09:03,399 Caught, I would say. 105 00:09:03,399 --> 00:09:08,320 Where possible, the actors may also use contact lenses for direct preview projection onto the retina. 106 00:09:08,320 --> 00:09:13,200 Yes, there really is such a thing! See for yourself. 107 00:09:13,200 --> 00:09:19,840 We see that entire scenes are artificially edited together, like the astronaut actor on the right in the picture. 108 00:09:19,840 --> 00:09:25,919 A brief glitch reveals that he has been cut out and inserted upside down into the scene. 109 00:09:25,919 --> 00:09:33,360 We see a very straight cut graphic error with parallel lines that match the man's angle of inclination. 110 00:09:33,360 --> 00:09:39,080 Cut out in a block, so to speak, rotated by 190 degrees and inserted at the top right. 111 00:09:39,080 --> 00:09:45,240 The lighting on the man's face also does not match the lighting on the woman's face and suggests a separate shot. 112 00:09:45,240 --> 00:09:48,559 The light is more intense, more direct and provides more contrast. 113 00:09:48,559 --> 00:09:55,120 As a former photographer, I see two different light settings and therefore two different shots put together. 114 00:09:55,120 --> 00:10:00,000 This one is also brilliant. No glitch, but a nice cutting error. 115 00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:07,984 And, we see - again at 15% speed - he disappears into thin air like a ghost, including an environmental 116 00:10:07,984 --> 00:10:13,000 error on the left side, where a few objects slip upwards. 117 00:10:13,000 --> 00:10:19,679 A so-called soft aperture has been installed here, which allows the transition between two scenes to be smooth. 118 00:10:19,679 --> 00:10:27,100 It's just stupid when such fades appear in supposedly unedited videos, where they simply shouldn't exist. 119 00:10:31,879 --> 00:10:36,639 Another nice and, well, embarrassing example of fade-in. 120 00:10:36,639 --> 00:10:43,039 We see magicians on board the ISS who simply appear out of nowhere with an insertion sequence. 121 00:10:43,039 --> 00:10:46,720 David Copperfield would be green with envy. 122 00:10:46,720 --> 00:10:51,559 Here is a layering error. You can see a shadow on this white rectangle in the background. 123 00:10:51,559 --> 00:10:55,799 Now take a close look at what happens to the actor's head at the back. 124 00:10:55,799 --> 00:11:02,409 The computer calculates part of the shadow in question, one level in front of the astronaut actor, which is why his head 125 00:11:02,409 --> 00:11:06,200 is initially partially obscured by it, as if by a door lintel. 126 00:11:06,200 --> 00:11:12,879 But then his head moves through the shadow plane, which creates a logical problem for the software. 127 00:11:12,879 --> 00:11:21,879 The bald head first merges with the shadow and then melts through it. A clear CGI calculation error. 128 00:11:21,879 --> 00:11:27,639 In the next shot, the so-called trecking, i.e. object tracking, goes badly wrong. 129 00:11:27,639 --> 00:11:30,600 The fingers of the right hand are on the microphone. 130 00:11:30,600 --> 00:11:35,978 Now this hand is pulled away, and, without a corrective movement, but with a nasty graphic glitch, the 131 00:11:35,978 --> 00:11:39,120 fingers of the left hand are now on the microphone. 132 00:11:39,120 --> 00:11:42,360 But it gets really funny when the hand returns. 133 00:11:42,360 --> 00:11:50,360 The fingers literally slide under the left hand without any resistance, which simply doesn't work physically. 134 00:11:50,360 --> 00:11:55,840 The computer's efforts to produce a clean image are clearly visible. 135 00:11:55,840 --> 00:12:03,559 You can clearly see the cut edges around the fingers as dark outlines and even eroded fingertips. 136 00:12:03,559 --> 00:12:09,700 No, dear NASA fans, these are not transmission errors. 137 00:12:11,279 --> 00:12:16,559 One more example and I don't think I need to comment on this picture jump, it speaks for itself. 138 00:12:16,559 --> 00:12:19,159 Another rendered 3D object with a life of its own. 139 00:12:19,159 --> 00:12:23,240 And if you let the scene continue, it glitches in a continuous sequence. 140 00:12:23,240 --> 00:12:28,023 I don't know what was going on, but it looks like the graphics processor was running a little 141 00:12:28,023 --> 00:12:32,840 too overheated for the live image calculation. 142 00:12:32,840 --> 00:12:38,840 But let's move on to another important point to expose NASA's faked recording, the green screen. 143 00:12:38,840 --> 00:12:41,080 My favorite recording right at the beginning. 144 00:12:41,080 --> 00:12:43,639 The video is officially from the NASA channel. 145 00:12:43,639 --> 00:12:46,840 Title and links are shown, so please check them out. 146 00:12:46,840 --> 00:12:49,519 Once again, the end of the recording is interesting. 147 00:12:49,519 --> 00:12:57,840 All three astronaut actors blur into a single graphic blur at the same time, while the background remains intact. 148 00:12:57,840 --> 00:13:05,679 Once again. And this time, focus on these foreground objects, as they are also affected by the graphic glitch. 149 00:13:05,679 --> 00:13:09,120 But these green areas are the most interesting. 150 00:13:09,120 --> 00:13:14,455 The glitch in the foreground layer gives us a direct insight into the real background 151 00:13:14,455 --> 00:13:17,679 behind the actors, who are named astronauts. 152 00:13:17,679 --> 00:13:20,039 And this is the green screen. 153 00:13:20,039 --> 00:13:25,783 For whatever reason, the masking of the green area persisted while the footage was destroyed 154 00:13:25,783 --> 00:13:28,960 without touching the superimposed background. 155 00:13:28,960 --> 00:13:33,559 The justifications of film errors or transmission problems is technically impossible. 156 00:13:33,559 --> 00:13:38,440 Firstly, the entire image would then be affected and not just this extremely selective section. 157 00:13:38,440 --> 00:13:41,840 Secondly, cameras do not produce arbitrary colors. 158 00:13:41,840 --> 00:13:45,240 You can't create green where there is no green. 159 00:13:45,240 --> 00:13:51,840 And transmission errors only destroy the existing image material and do not create colors out of nothing. 160 00:13:51,840 --> 00:13:54,200 This is how the whole thing works in the movie. 161 00:13:54,200 --> 00:14:01,080 This clip demonstrates very expressely how you can create complete fictional worlds simply by using a green screen. 162 00:14:01,080 --> 00:14:03,799 In movies, we take that for granted. 163 00:14:03,799 --> 00:14:10,639 But as soon as NASA is accused of faking images with this technology, most people think it's absurd. 164 00:14:10,639 --> 00:14:17,080 Why actually? Why don't we want to acknowledge what is obvious as soon as it contradicts our world view? 165 00:14:17,080 --> 00:14:22,000 Are illusions more important to us, so that we simply don't want to see anything? Whatever the case may be. 166 00:14:22,000 --> 00:14:25,919 Nowadays, green screen is completely standard practice in the video sector. 167 00:14:25,919 --> 00:14:33,799 A few objects are real, the rest are superimposed, such as here during the filming of "The Hobbit" or in many other movies. 168 00:14:33,799 --> 00:14:41,960 Or even at NASA itself, as can be clearly and probably unintentionally seen here in a report. 169 00:14:41,960 --> 00:14:50,240 Ask yourselves why a green screen is needed behind the ISS if all the space shots are supposedly real? 170 00:14:50,240 --> 00:14:54,480 In the meantime, the technology is getting better and better and green screen is being dispensed with more and more. 171 00:14:54,480 --> 00:15:01,442 Modern shoots use LED walls that react live to camera movement with the help of video game engines, making 172 00:15:01,442 --> 00:15:05,720 them much more realistic and enabling optimal lighting. 173 00:15:05,720 --> 00:15:15,320 Another advantage: the actors themselves see the background during filming - and it all works live and in real time. 174 00:15:15,320 --> 00:15:19,720 Speaking of which, everything can now be generated in real time. 175 00:15:19,720 --> 00:15:24,980 The video game "Hellblade" is an incredible prime example of this. 176 00:15:38,159 --> 00:15:43,320 The scene is rendered in real time and played back within milliseconds. 177 00:15:43,320 --> 00:15:48,318 This way recordings can be seamlessly merged in one another so that, as here, the 178 00:15:48,318 --> 00:15:52,779 actress can enter into a dialogue with herself. 179 00:16:59,159 --> 00:17:04,128 So, we are heading towards a time when clear evidence of forgery due to negligent or 180 00:17:04,128 --> 00:17:08,160 unintentional green screen errors will no longer occur. 181 00:17:08,160 --> 00:17:16,920 It is therefore all the more important to realize now that we are being lied to by NASA & Co. as cold as ice. 182 00:17:16,920 --> 00:17:19,039 I have one more comment on this point. 183 00:17:19,039 --> 00:17:23,319 Here George Bush Senior visited NASA - and what do we see in the background? 184 00:17:23,319 --> 00:17:29,668 The so-called astronaut Tim Peake, who should actually be in Earth orbit at the same time, and who is 185 00:17:29,668 --> 00:17:33,720 handling a green sphere in front of a blue grid background. 186 00:17:33,720 --> 00:17:39,960 The scene is framed at the edge with devices that can always be seen in the great ISS live broadcasts. 187 00:17:39,960 --> 00:17:45,961 Green objects are also used in films to provide orientation points for the actors if 188 00:17:45,961 --> 00:17:49,599 other 3D objects are to be incorporated later. 189 00:17:49,599 --> 00:17:54,420 And what about the background, you can ask yourselves. 190 00:18:05,079 --> 00:18:12,480 They later tried to find an excuse for the background and sell it as an aid for scientific experiments. 191 00:18:12,480 --> 00:18:14,559 But take a sober look at it: 192 00:18:14,559 --> 00:18:18,480 What the heck are these experiments supposed to be? 193 00:18:18,480 --> 00:18:25,319 What practical use is this supposed to fulfill? A few final examples: 194 00:18:25,319 --> 00:18:31,110 Apart from the fact that the image processor wanted to stop overheating again and it glitches until it 195 00:18:31,110 --> 00:18:38,960 drops dead, we can also see the telltale shine-through of the green screen here - right now. 196 00:18:38,960 --> 00:18:46,420 And in the next shot, the video software also misses the correct cropping of the green background for a moment. 197 00:18:48,000 --> 00:18:55,240 It's also a great example of the fact that the floating objects and the astronaut actors' clothing are 3D-generated. 198 00:18:55,240 --> 00:19:01,200 Take a close look at the cable: If that's not a clear calculation error, what is? 199 00:19:01,200 --> 00:19:05,939 As for the actors, I'm guessing that so-called motion-capture suits are being used and the 200 00:19:05,939 --> 00:19:08,960 appropriate clothing will be inserted digitally. 201 00:19:08,960 --> 00:19:14,200 Unfortunately, I can't prove that, but it would explain why there are calculation errors on the person in the first place. 202 00:19:14,200 --> 00:19:17,920 As I said, there would be no such thing with normal filming. 203 00:19:17,920 --> 00:19:22,359 The background remains intact, calculated objects become pixel mud. 204 00:19:22,359 --> 00:19:27,160 They are computer-generated images, nothing else. 205 00:19:27,160 --> 00:19:31,079 This one is also quite funny and actually a bit scary: 206 00:19:31,079 --> 00:19:34,839 Half of the actor's face was made transparent. 207 00:19:34,839 --> 00:19:38,920 This happens if you set the green tolerance in the video program too high. 208 00:19:38,920 --> 00:19:46,519 Areas that are not green but tend towards green due to unfavorable shadows, for example, are then also faded out. 209 00:19:46,519 --> 00:19:49,119 But well, let's leave it at that for the moment. 210 00:19:49,119 --> 00:19:52,880 There is plenty more evidence of NASA image falsification. 211 00:19:52,880 --> 00:19:56,279 But in my opinion, these here count amongst the clearest. 212 00:19:56,279 --> 00:20:02,747 I already know how strong the inner resistance rages in many NASA fans, almost automatically seeking 213 00:20:02,747 --> 00:20:06,720 explanation that I am wrong and NASA would never lie. 214 00:20:06,720 --> 00:20:12,119 I can only say to these people: there is no point in closing your eyes to the obvious. 215 00:20:12,119 --> 00:20:16,279 No one is as blind as the one who does not want to see! 216 00:20:16,279 --> 00:20:19,880 So take a look. We are being deceived and lied to! 217 00:20:19,880 --> 00:20:23,480 They are still making these mistakes, and we can still yet detect them. 218 00:20:23,480 --> 00:20:30,920 As explained at the beginning: In real transmissions there must never be such errors, not a single one! 219 00:20:30,920 --> 00:20:33,079 They prove that counterfeiting is taking place. 220 00:20:33,079 --> 00:20:41,739 And if the question now arises: Why does it even matter whether space organizations lie, I can only say: Consider 221 00:20:41,739 --> 00:20:45,960 what depends on NASA & Co - which is our entire world view.