In October 1958, 65 years ago, the US space agency NASA kickstarted its activities.
What for some represents the figurehead of American research is for others the production site of a
very elaborate but not flawless deception, i.e. fake.
It is precisely these errors that catch the eye of media professionals and are commented on accordingly.
This is also the case in the following 20-minute documentary, which aims to encourage viewers to form their own opinions.
Basically, it is about nothing less than our entire world view.
I have a serious question.
Are the images that NASA and others present to us as videos from space really real?
Are they real images or perhaps just fakes shot in a film studio?
Do you recognize any hints or evidence of film tricks or even computer-generated virtual reality?
Let's get to the bottom of the questions:
As a media service provider with professional experience since 2004, I maintain that everything NASA, ESA and all the other
space organizations show us is studio footage, green screen and CGI, i.e. computer-generated imagery - in other words, fake!
An assertion that is likely to meet with strong resistance.
But, I think, we can agree on one point from the outset.
If the NASA images are actually real, we would only be receiving exclusively flawless footage to watch.
Without mistakes, without Hollywood tricks, without questionable scenes that make us doubt the laws of physics.
Even one single scene that reveals such things would expose NASA and co. as liars.
But just take a look for yourself and form your own opinion.
In this episode we look at glitches, CGI and green screen.
In general, I will avoid technical terms as much as possible and explain what is seen as simply as possible
so that even laypeople can understand what is going on.
Nevertheless, a few things need to be mentioned.
I think most people can relate to green screen.
This is the green background that is often used for filming.
Briefly explained, one films a scene in front of a green screen, removes the green in the video editing
stage and replaces the color with a desired background.
You are therefore very flexible and not tied to local conditions in terms of scene presentation.
As when needed, blue screens are also used.
They are not green, but - yes, as the name suggests - blue.
By the way, green screen also works in live broadcasts.
There, however, sometimes with small pitfalls.
CGI stands for Computer Generated Imagery.
Objects that are originated from 3D software, for example, and have therefore been created artificially.
Glitches may need to be explained in more detail:
These are faults or calculation errors in a computer program, in our case, graphic errors.
For example, the software should calculate a virtual image scene containing an actor, a few real objects,
artificially generated 3D objects and an artificial background.
At a certain point - for whatever reason - a calculation error occurs.
The processor may be eventually overloaded.
The affected area is not displayed cleanly and strange artifacts, image jumps, distortions or similar appear.
Glitches are therefore pretty clear evidence of computer manipulation.
The question now arises: are there such things appearing in NASA images?
And the answer is clearly YES! Absolutely!
Let's start with this gem from September 9, 22:
This was a live broadcast in which Kamala Harris allegedly spoke directly to the ISS on the phone.
Take a closer look! --- Well? Did you spot something?
Here once again. Still haven't seen anything?
Let's go into detail, zoom in and slow down the shot:
The microphone cable starts to move erraticly.
The astronaut tries to knock it away and creates a beautiful glitch.
Apparently, the 3D software can no longer decide whether the cable should be displayed above or below the hand
when the hand is moved quickly and so the cable virtually merges with the hand or passes through it.
So, we can see that the cable is a generated 3D object, because there is no other way to explain this scene.
The image calculation software does not get the so-called collision detection right.
In other words, it cannot track exactly which picture element should collide with the other and thus cause a repulsion effect.
In this way, the hand becomes a transparent, non-colliding object.
I hope that was halfway understandable.
The phantom microphone a little further back in the movie is also nice to look at.
Now it's here! Now it's gone!
Back again! Gone again! And back again!
Yes, the image calculation went really wrong.
The microphone clearly also comes from 3D software and was calculated completely incorrectly into the scene.
It can't be a camera error, because cameras simply record whatever is in front of their lens.
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
cable, but would affect the entire image or large parts of it.
Background to computer-generated 3D objects such as this microphone.
One can create such objects in several - shall I say - levels or layers.
First, the basic shape or the wireframe model, then color and texture layers are added on top and finally
lighting effects add the finishing touches, to explain it very simply and without a lot of technical terms.
The final creation of these objects is called rendering.
With that, all layers are joined together to form a finished clip.
If you render live, this can of course lead to problems, e.g. if the computer cannot generate the desired
result quickly enough or the processor is overloaded.
This is particularly problematic when 3D objects are to interact live with actors.
And that is exactly what we are talking about here.
The following examples show that we are really talking about computer graphics that are displayed live.
1. this microphone. First it glitches, then the light reflections that were there before
vanish, gone immediately from one image to the next.
2. astronaut actor Don Pattit demonstrates how to drink coffee in space.
Looks pretty good so far, apart from the picture quality.
The end of the clip is crucial, because - oops - here the coffee suddenly separates from the
container and pops out of it without losing its shape.
The color layer clearly detaches itself from the shape layer, which is only possible if the object
originates from 3D software and the live rendering went wrong.
A flawless miscalculation and thus the next proof that NASA creates its images with virtual reality.
3. as in the third example:
A plushy figure appears out of nowhere and can even be interacted with live.
At first I thought the object could have been hidden behind a so-called mask, but you can see the
actress's hand shining through it for a few frames.
So the object was blended and not made visible from a mask, which would eliminate the other possibility.
The interaction with virtual objects can be explained by the so-called ragdoll engine,
which is commonplace in video games, for example.
You are welcome to do some research, but I won't go into any more detail now.
Motion control would also be an interesting search term to add to the topic.
And while we're on the subject of "virtual reality", let's take a look at this.
Watch out for the guy on the left in the picture, what he's about to do. And, here we go.
Yes, it loops back and forth now, but it illustrates what happened quite clearly.
Pay attention to the hands. He takes an imaginary object in his left hand, hands it to his right hand and places it aside.
The only problem is that the object he wants to get rid of is not visible.
Technical explanation: The channel on which the live 3D object was to be shown was not active during the transmission.
But apparently visible in the preview, because, just take look at his eyes.
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.
Caught, I would say.
Where possible, the actors may also use contact lenses for direct preview projection onto the retina.
Yes, there really is such a thing! See for yourself.
We see that entire scenes are artificially edited together, like the astronaut actor on the right in the picture.
A brief glitch reveals that he has been cut out and inserted upside down into the scene.
We see a very straight cut graphic error with parallel lines that match the man's angle of inclination.
Cut out in a block, so to speak, rotated by 190 degrees and inserted at the top right.
The lighting on the man's face also does not match the lighting on the woman's face and suggests a separate shot.
The light is more intense, more direct and provides more contrast.
As a former photographer, I see two different light settings and therefore two different shots put together.
This one is also brilliant. No glitch, but a nice cutting error.
And, we see - again at 15% speed - he disappears into thin air like a ghost, including an environmental
error on the left side, where a few objects slip upwards.
A so-called soft aperture has been installed here, which allows the transition between two scenes to be smooth.
It's just stupid when such fades appear in supposedly unedited videos, where they simply shouldn't exist.
Another nice and, well, embarrassing example of fade-in.
We see magicians on board the ISS who simply appear out of nowhere with an insertion sequence.
David Copperfield would be green with envy.
Here is a layering error. You can see a shadow on this white rectangle in the background.
Now take a close look at what happens to the actor's head at the back.
The computer calculates part of the shadow in question, one level in front of the astronaut actor, which is why his head
is initially partially obscured by it, as if by a door lintel.
But then his head moves through the shadow plane, which creates a logical problem for the software.
The bald head first merges with the shadow and then melts through it. A clear CGI calculation error.
In the next shot, the so-called trecking, i.e. object tracking, goes badly wrong.
The fingers of the right hand are on the microphone.
Now this hand is pulled away, and, without a corrective movement, but with a nasty graphic glitch, the
fingers of the left hand are now on the microphone.
But it gets really funny when the hand returns.
The fingers literally slide under the left hand without any resistance, which simply doesn't work physically.
The computer's efforts to produce a clean image are clearly visible.
You can clearly see the cut edges around the fingers as dark outlines and even eroded fingertips.
No, dear NASA fans, these are not transmission errors.
One more example and I don't think I need to comment on this picture jump, it speaks for itself.
Another rendered 3D object with a life of its own.
And if you let the scene continue, it glitches in a continuous sequence.
I don't know what was going on, but it looks like the graphics processor was running a little
too overheated for the live image calculation.
But let's move on to another important point to expose NASA's faked recording, the green screen.
My favorite recording right at the beginning.
The video is officially from the NASA channel.
Title and links are shown, so please check them out.
Once again, the end of the recording is interesting.
All three astronaut actors blur into a single graphic blur at the same time, while the background remains intact.
Once again. And this time, focus on these foreground objects, as they are also affected by the graphic glitch.
But these green areas are the most interesting.
The glitch in the foreground layer gives us a direct insight into the real background
behind the actors, who are named astronauts.
And this is the green screen.
For whatever reason, the masking of the green area persisted while the footage was destroyed
without touching the superimposed background.
The justifications of film errors or transmission problems is technically impossible.
Firstly, the entire image would then be affected and not just this extremely selective section.
Secondly, cameras do not produce arbitrary colors.
You can't create green where there is no green.
And transmission errors only destroy the existing image material and do not create colors out of nothing.
This is how the whole thing works in the movie.
This clip demonstrates very expressely how you can create complete fictional worlds simply by using a green screen.
In movies, we take that for granted.
But as soon as NASA is accused of faking images with this technology, most people think it's absurd.
Why actually? Why don't we want to acknowledge what is obvious as soon as it contradicts our world view?
Are illusions more important to us, so that we simply don't want to see anything? Whatever the case may be.
Nowadays, green screen is completely standard practice in the video sector.
A few objects are real, the rest are superimposed, such as here during the filming of "The Hobbit" or in many other movies.
Or even at NASA itself, as can be clearly and probably unintentionally seen here in a report.
Ask yourselves why a green screen is needed behind the ISS if all the space shots are supposedly real?
In the meantime, the technology is getting better and better and green screen is being dispensed with more and more.
Modern shoots use LED walls that react live to camera movement with the help of video game engines, making
them much more realistic and enabling optimal lighting.
Another advantage: the actors themselves see the background during filming - and it all works live and in real time.
Speaking of which, everything can now be generated in real time.
The video game "Hellblade" is an incredible prime example of this.
The scene is rendered in real time and played back within milliseconds.
This way recordings can be seamlessly merged in one another so that, as here, the
actress can enter into a dialogue with herself.
So, we are heading towards a time when clear evidence of forgery due to negligent or
unintentional green screen errors will no longer occur.
It is therefore all the more important to realize now that we are being lied to by NASA & Co. as cold as ice.
I have one more comment on this point.
Here George Bush Senior visited NASA - and what do we see in the background?
The so-called astronaut Tim Peake, who should actually be in Earth orbit at the same time, and who is
handling a green sphere in front of a blue grid background.
The scene is framed at the edge with devices that can always be seen in the great ISS live broadcasts.
Green objects are also used in films to provide orientation points for the actors if
other 3D objects are to be incorporated later.
And what about the background, you can ask yourselves.
They later tried to find an excuse for the background and sell it as an aid for scientific experiments.
But take a sober look at it:
What the heck are these experiments supposed to be?
What practical use is this supposed to fulfill? A few final examples:
Apart from the fact that the image processor wanted to stop overheating again and it glitches until it
drops dead, we can also see the telltale shine-through of the green screen here - right now.
And in the next shot, the video software also misses the correct cropping of the green background for a moment.
It's also a great example of the fact that the floating objects and the astronaut actors' clothing are 3D-generated.
Take a close look at the cable: If that's not a clear calculation error, what is?
As for the actors, I'm guessing that so-called motion-capture suits are being used and the
appropriate clothing will be inserted digitally.
Unfortunately, I can't prove that, but it would explain why there are calculation errors on the person in the first place.
As I said, there would be no such thing with normal filming.
The background remains intact, calculated objects become pixel mud.
They are computer-generated images, nothing else.
This one is also quite funny and actually a bit scary:
Half of the actor's face was made transparent.
This happens if you set the green tolerance in the video program too high.
Areas that are not green but tend towards green due to unfavorable shadows, for example, are then also faded out.
But well, let's leave it at that for the moment.
There is plenty more evidence of NASA image falsification.
But in my opinion, these here count amongst the clearest.
I already know how strong the inner resistance rages in many NASA fans, almost automatically seeking
explanation that I am wrong and NASA would never lie.
I can only say to these people: there is no point in closing your eyes to the obvious.
No one is as blind as the one who does not want to see!
So take a look. We are being deceived and lied to!
They are still making these mistakes, and we can still yet detect them.
As explained at the beginning: In real transmissions there must never be such errors, not a single one!
They prove that counterfeiting is taking place.
And if the question now arises: Why does it even matter whether space organizations lie, I can only say: Consider
what depends on NASA & Co - which is our entire world view.