WEBVTT 00:00.480 --> 00:09.480 In October 1958, 65 years ago, the US space agency NASA kickstarted its activities. 00:09.480 --> 00:17.917 What for some represents the figurehead of American research is for others the production site of a 00:17.917 --> 00:23.199 very elaborate but not flawless deception, i.e. fake. 00:23.199 --> 00:29.559 It is precisely these errors that catch the eye of media professionals and are commented on accordingly. 00:29.559 --> 00:37.240 This is also the case in the following 20-minute documentary, which aims to encourage viewers to form their own opinions. 00:37.240 --> 00:44.340 Basically, it is about nothing less than our entire world view. 00:59.280 --> 01:01.320 I have a serious question. 01:01.320 --> 01:06.799 Are the images that NASA and others present to us as videos from space really real? 01:06.799 --> 01:12.040 Are they real images or perhaps just fakes shot in a film studio? 01:12.040 --> 01:18.239 Do you recognize any hints or evidence of film tricks or even computer-generated virtual reality? 01:18.239 --> 01:20.640 Let's get to the bottom of the questions: 01:20.640 --> 01:29.250 As a media service provider with professional experience since 2004, I maintain that everything NASA, ESA and all the other 01:29.250 --> 01:38.640 space organizations show us is studio footage, green screen and CGI, i.e. computer-generated imagery - in other words, fake! 01:38.640 --> 01:42.000 An assertion that is likely to meet with strong resistance. 01:42.000 --> 01:45.680 But, I think, we can agree on one point from the outset. 01:45.680 --> 01:53.280 If the NASA images are actually real, we would only be receiving exclusively flawless footage to watch. 01:53.280 --> 02:00.840 Without mistakes, without Hollywood tricks, without questionable scenes that make us doubt the laws of physics. 02:00.840 --> 02:06.840 Even one single scene that reveals such things would expose NASA and co. as liars. 02:06.840 --> 02:10.919 But just take a look for yourself and form your own opinion. 02:10.919 --> 02:15.120 In this episode we look at glitches, CGI and green screen. 02:15.120 --> 02:19.820 In general, I will avoid technical terms as much as possible and explain what is seen as simply as possible 02:19.820 --> 02:22.680 so that even laypeople can understand what is going on. 02:22.680 --> 02:25.759 Nevertheless, a few things need to be mentioned. 02:25.759 --> 02:28.800 I think most people can relate to green screen. 02:28.800 --> 02:32.080 This is the green background that is often used for filming. 02:32.080 --> 02:37.982 Briefly explained, one films a scene in front of a green screen, removes the green in the video editing 02:37.982 --> 02:40.439 stage and replaces the color with a desired background. 02:40.439 --> 02:45.800 You are therefore very flexible and not tied to local conditions in terms of scene presentation. 02:45.800 --> 02:48.840 As when needed, blue screens are also used. 02:48.840 --> 02:52.439 They are not green, but - yes, as the name suggests - blue. 02:52.439 --> 02:55.439 By the way, green screen also works in live broadcasts. 02:55.439 --> 02:59.520 There, however, sometimes with small pitfalls. 02:59.520 --> 03:04.560 CGI stands for Computer Generated Imagery. 03:04.560 --> 03:10.439 Objects that are originated from 3D software, for example, and have therefore been created artificially. 03:10.439 --> 03:13.680 Glitches may need to be explained in more detail: 03:13.680 --> 03:20.280 These are faults or calculation errors in a computer program, in our case, graphic errors. 03:20.280 --> 03:26.617 For example, the software should calculate a virtual image scene containing an actor, a few real objects, 03:26.617 --> 03:30.879 artificially generated 3D objects and an artificial background. 03:30.879 --> 03:35.000 At a certain point - for whatever reason - a calculation error occurs. 03:35.000 --> 03:37.319 The processor may be eventually overloaded. 03:37.319 --> 03:44.360 The affected area is not displayed cleanly and strange artifacts, image jumps, distortions or similar appear. 03:44.360 --> 03:48.520 Glitches are therefore pretty clear evidence of computer manipulation. 03:48.520 --> 03:51.879 The question now arises: are there such things appearing in NASA images? 03:51.879 --> 03:55.960 And the answer is clearly YES! Absolutely! 03:55.960 --> 03:59.639 Let's start with this gem from September 9, 22: 03:59.639 --> 04:05.159 This was a live broadcast in which Kamala Harris allegedly spoke directly to the ISS on the phone. 04:05.159 --> 04:14.240 Take a closer look! --- Well? Did you spot something? 04:14.240 --> 04:18.519 Here once again. Still haven't seen anything? 04:18.519 --> 04:21.759 Let's go into detail, zoom in and slow down the shot: 04:21.759 --> 04:24.879 The microphone cable starts to move erraticly. 04:24.879 --> 04:30.040 The astronaut tries to knock it away and creates a beautiful glitch. 04:30.040 --> 04:37.094 Apparently, the 3D software can no longer decide whether the cable should be displayed above or below the hand 04:37.094 --> 04:43.720 when the hand is moved quickly and so the cable virtually merges with the hand or passes through it. 04:43.720 --> 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. 04:50.160 --> 04:54.920 The image calculation software does not get the so-called collision detection right. 04:54.920 --> 05:02.560 In other words, it cannot track exactly which picture element should collide with the other and thus cause a repulsion effect. 05:02.560 --> 05:06.839 In this way, the hand becomes a transparent, non-colliding object. 05:06.839 --> 05:10.079 I hope that was halfway understandable. 05:10.079 --> 05:14.319 The phantom microphone a little further back in the movie is also nice to look at. 05:14.319 --> 05:17.000 Now it's here! Now it's gone! 05:17.000 --> 05:20.000 Back again! Gone again! And back again! 05:20.000 --> 05:24.160 Yes, the image calculation went really wrong. 05:24.160 --> 05:30.680 The microphone clearly also comes from 3D software and was calculated completely incorrectly into the scene. 05:30.680 --> 05:35.959 It can't be a camera error, because cameras simply record whatever is in front of their lens. 05:35.959 --> 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 05:42.867 --> 05:46.879 cable, but would affect the entire image or large parts of it. 05:46.879 --> 05:51.439 Background to computer-generated 3D objects such as this microphone. 05:51.439 --> 05:56.279 One can create such objects in several - shall I say - levels or layers. 05:56.279 --> 06:02.353 First, the basic shape or the wireframe model, then color and texture layers are added on top and finally 06:02.353 --> 06:09.279 lighting effects add the finishing touches, to explain it very simply and without a lot of technical terms. 06:09.279 --> 06:12.800 The final creation of these objects is called rendering. 06:12.800 --> 06:16.519 With that, all layers are joined together to form a finished clip. 06:16.519 --> 06:22.383 If you render live, this can of course lead to problems, e.g. if the computer cannot generate the desired 06:22.383 --> 06:25.519 result quickly enough or the processor is overloaded. 06:25.519 --> 06:31.480 This is particularly problematic when 3D objects are to interact live with actors. 06:31.480 --> 06:33.839 And that is exactly what we are talking about here. 06:33.839 --> 06:40.160 The following examples show that we are really talking about computer graphics that are displayed live. 06:40.160 --> 06:46.251 1. this microphone. First it glitches, then the light reflections that were there before 06:46.251 --> 06:52.120 vanish, gone immediately from one image to the next. 06:52.120 --> 06:57.680 2. astronaut actor Don Pattit demonstrates how to drink coffee in space. 06:57.680 --> 07:00.839 Looks pretty good so far, apart from the picture quality. 07:00.839 --> 07:07.348 The end of the clip is crucial, because - oops - here the coffee suddenly separates from the 07:07.348 --> 07:11.639 container and pops out of it without losing its shape. 07:11.639 --> 07:16.971 The color layer clearly detaches itself from the shape layer, which is only possible if the object 07:16.971 --> 07:20.800 originates from 3D software and the live rendering went wrong. 07:20.800 --> 07:27.360 A flawless miscalculation and thus the next proof that NASA creates its images with virtual reality. 07:27.360 --> 07:29.160 3. as in the third example: 07:29.160 --> 07:33.759 A plushy figure appears out of nowhere and can even be interacted with live. 07:33.759 --> 07:39.618 At first I thought the object could have been hidden behind a so-called mask, but you can see the 07:39.618 --> 07:43.279 actress's hand shining through it for a few frames. 07:43.279 --> 07:50.800 So the object was blended and not made visible from a mask, which would eliminate the other possibility. 07:50.800 --> 07:55.859 The interaction with virtual objects can be explained by the so-called ragdoll engine, 07:55.859 --> 07:59.160 which is commonplace in video games, for example. 07:59.160 --> 08:02.759 You are welcome to do some research, but I won't go into any more detail now. 08:02.759 --> 08:08.300 Motion control would also be an interesting search term to add to the topic. 08:10.839 --> 08:15.560 And while we're on the subject of "virtual reality", let's take a look at this. 08:15.560 --> 08:23.879 Watch out for the guy on the left in the picture, what he's about to do. And, here we go. 08:23.879 --> 08:28.639 Yes, it loops back and forth now, but it illustrates what happened quite clearly. 08:28.639 --> 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. 08:36.720 --> 08:41.840 The only problem is that the object he wants to get rid of is not visible. 08:41.840 --> 08:50.279 Technical explanation: The channel on which the live 3D object was to be shown was not active during the transmission. 08:50.279 --> 08:54.000 But apparently visible in the preview, because, just take look at his eyes. 08:54.000 --> 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. 09:01.759 --> 09:03.399 Caught, I would say. 09:03.399 --> 09:08.320 Where possible, the actors may also use contact lenses for direct preview projection onto the retina. 09:08.320 --> 09:13.200 Yes, there really is such a thing! See for yourself. 09:13.200 --> 09:19.840 We see that entire scenes are artificially edited together, like the astronaut actor on the right in the picture. 09:19.840 --> 09:25.919 A brief glitch reveals that he has been cut out and inserted upside down into the scene. 09:25.919 --> 09:33.360 We see a very straight cut graphic error with parallel lines that match the man's angle of inclination. 09:33.360 --> 09:39.080 Cut out in a block, so to speak, rotated by 190 degrees and inserted at the top right. 09:39.080 --> 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. 09:45.240 --> 09:48.559 The light is more intense, more direct and provides more contrast. 09:48.559 --> 09:55.120 As a former photographer, I see two different light settings and therefore two different shots put together. 09:55.120 --> 10:00.000 This one is also brilliant. No glitch, but a nice cutting error. 10:00.000 --> 10:07.984 And, we see - again at 15% speed - he disappears into thin air like a ghost, including an environmental 10:07.984 --> 10:13.000 error on the left side, where a few objects slip upwards. 10:13.000 --> 10:19.679 A so-called soft aperture has been installed here, which allows the transition between two scenes to be smooth. 10:19.679 --> 10:27.100 It's just stupid when such fades appear in supposedly unedited videos, where they simply shouldn't exist. 10:31.879 --> 10:36.639 Another nice and, well, embarrassing example of fade-in. 10:36.639 --> 10:43.039 We see magicians on board the ISS who simply appear out of nowhere with an insertion sequence. 10:43.039 --> 10:46.720 David Copperfield would be green with envy. 10:46.720 --> 10:51.559 Here is a layering error. You can see a shadow on this white rectangle in the background. 10:51.559 --> 10:55.799 Now take a close look at what happens to the actor's head at the back. 10:55.799 --> 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 11:02.409 --> 11:06.200 is initially partially obscured by it, as if by a door lintel. 11:06.200 --> 11:12.879 But then his head moves through the shadow plane, which creates a logical problem for the software. 11:12.879 --> 11:21.879 The bald head first merges with the shadow and then melts through it. A clear CGI calculation error. 11:21.879 --> 11:27.639 In the next shot, the so-called trecking, i.e. object tracking, goes badly wrong. 11:27.639 --> 11:30.600 The fingers of the right hand are on the microphone. 11:30.600 --> 11:35.978 Now this hand is pulled away, and, without a corrective movement, but with a nasty graphic glitch, the 11:35.978 --> 11:39.120 fingers of the left hand are now on the microphone. 11:39.120 --> 11:42.360 But it gets really funny when the hand returns. 11:42.360 --> 11:50.360 The fingers literally slide under the left hand without any resistance, which simply doesn't work physically. 11:50.360 --> 11:55.840 The computer's efforts to produce a clean image are clearly visible. 11:55.840 --> 12:03.559 You can clearly see the cut edges around the fingers as dark outlines and even eroded fingertips. 12:03.559 --> 12:09.700 No, dear NASA fans, these are not transmission errors. 12:11.279 --> 12:16.559 One more example and I don't think I need to comment on this picture jump, it speaks for itself. 12:16.559 --> 12:19.159 Another rendered 3D object with a life of its own. 12:19.159 --> 12:23.240 And if you let the scene continue, it glitches in a continuous sequence. 12:23.240 --> 12:28.023 I don't know what was going on, but it looks like the graphics processor was running a little 12:28.023 --> 12:32.840 too overheated for the live image calculation. 12:32.840 --> 12:38.840 But let's move on to another important point to expose NASA's faked recording, the green screen. 12:38.840 --> 12:41.080 My favorite recording right at the beginning. 12:41.080 --> 12:43.639 The video is officially from the NASA channel. 12:43.639 --> 12:46.840 Title and links are shown, so please check them out. 12:46.840 --> 12:49.519 Once again, the end of the recording is interesting. 12:49.519 --> 12:57.840 All three astronaut actors blur into a single graphic blur at the same time, while the background remains intact. 12:57.840 --> 13:05.679 Once again. And this time, focus on these foreground objects, as they are also affected by the graphic glitch. 13:05.679 --> 13:09.120 But these green areas are the most interesting. 13:09.120 --> 13:14.455 The glitch in the foreground layer gives us a direct insight into the real background 13:14.455 --> 13:17.679 behind the actors, who are named astronauts. 13:17.679 --> 13:20.039 And this is the green screen. 13:20.039 --> 13:25.783 For whatever reason, the masking of the green area persisted while the footage was destroyed 13:25.783 --> 13:28.960 without touching the superimposed background. 13:28.960 --> 13:33.559 The justifications of film errors or transmission problems is technically impossible. 13:33.559 --> 13:38.440 Firstly, the entire image would then be affected and not just this extremely selective section. 13:38.440 --> 13:41.840 Secondly, cameras do not produce arbitrary colors. 13:41.840 --> 13:45.240 You can't create green where there is no green. 13:45.240 --> 13:51.840 And transmission errors only destroy the existing image material and do not create colors out of nothing. 13:51.840 --> 13:54.200 This is how the whole thing works in the movie. 13:54.200 --> 14:01.080 This clip demonstrates very expressely how you can create complete fictional worlds simply by using a green screen. 14:01.080 --> 14:03.799 In movies, we take that for granted. 14:03.799 --> 14:10.639 But as soon as NASA is accused of faking images with this technology, most people think it's absurd. 14:10.639 --> 14:17.080 Why actually? Why don't we want to acknowledge what is obvious as soon as it contradicts our world view? 14:17.080 --> 14:22.000 Are illusions more important to us, so that we simply don't want to see anything? Whatever the case may be. 14:22.000 --> 14:25.919 Nowadays, green screen is completely standard practice in the video sector. 14:25.919 --> 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. 14:33.799 --> 14:41.960 Or even at NASA itself, as can be clearly and probably unintentionally seen here in a report. 14:41.960 --> 14:50.240 Ask yourselves why a green screen is needed behind the ISS if all the space shots are supposedly real? 14:50.240 --> 14:54.480 In the meantime, the technology is getting better and better and green screen is being dispensed with more and more. 14:54.480 --> 15:01.442 Modern shoots use LED walls that react live to camera movement with the help of video game engines, making 15:01.442 --> 15:05.720 them much more realistic and enabling optimal lighting. 15:05.720 --> 15:15.320 Another advantage: the actors themselves see the background during filming - and it all works live and in real time. 15:15.320 --> 15:19.720 Speaking of which, everything can now be generated in real time. 15:19.720 --> 15:24.980 The video game "Hellblade" is an incredible prime example of this. 15:38.159 --> 15:43.320 The scene is rendered in real time and played back within milliseconds. 15:43.320 --> 15:48.318 This way recordings can be seamlessly merged in one another so that, as here, the 15:48.318 --> 15:52.779 actress can enter into a dialogue with herself. 16:59.159 --> 17:04.128 So, we are heading towards a time when clear evidence of forgery due to negligent or 17:04.128 --> 17:08.160 unintentional green screen errors will no longer occur. 17:08.160 --> 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. 17:16.920 --> 17:19.039 I have one more comment on this point. 17:19.039 --> 17:23.319 Here George Bush Senior visited NASA - and what do we see in the background? 17:23.319 --> 17:29.668 The so-called astronaut Tim Peake, who should actually be in Earth orbit at the same time, and who is 17:29.668 --> 17:33.720 handling a green sphere in front of a blue grid background. 17:33.720 --> 17:39.960 The scene is framed at the edge with devices that can always be seen in the great ISS live broadcasts. 17:39.960 --> 17:45.961 Green objects are also used in films to provide orientation points for the actors if 17:45.961 --> 17:49.599 other 3D objects are to be incorporated later. 17:49.599 --> 17:54.420 And what about the background, you can ask yourselves. 18:05.079 --> 18:12.480 They later tried to find an excuse for the background and sell it as an aid for scientific experiments. 18:12.480 --> 18:14.559 But take a sober look at it: 18:14.559 --> 18:18.480 What the heck are these experiments supposed to be? 18:18.480 --> 18:25.319 What practical use is this supposed to fulfill? A few final examples: 18:25.319 --> 18:31.110 Apart from the fact that the image processor wanted to stop overheating again and it glitches until it 18:31.110 --> 18:38.960 drops dead, we can also see the telltale shine-through of the green screen here - right now. 18:38.960 --> 18:46.420 And in the next shot, the video software also misses the correct cropping of the green background for a moment. 18:48.000 --> 18:55.240 It's also a great example of the fact that the floating objects and the astronaut actors' clothing are 3D-generated. 18:55.240 --> 19:01.200 Take a close look at the cable: If that's not a clear calculation error, what is? 19:01.200 --> 19:05.939 As for the actors, I'm guessing that so-called motion-capture suits are being used and the 19:05.939 --> 19:08.960 appropriate clothing will be inserted digitally. 19:08.960 --> 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. 19:14.200 --> 19:17.920 As I said, there would be no such thing with normal filming. 19:17.920 --> 19:22.359 The background remains intact, calculated objects become pixel mud. 19:22.359 --> 19:27.160 They are computer-generated images, nothing else. 19:27.160 --> 19:31.079 This one is also quite funny and actually a bit scary: 19:31.079 --> 19:34.839 Half of the actor's face was made transparent. 19:34.839 --> 19:38.920 This happens if you set the green tolerance in the video program too high. 19:38.920 --> 19:46.519 Areas that are not green but tend towards green due to unfavorable shadows, for example, are then also faded out. 19:46.519 --> 19:49.119 But well, let's leave it at that for the moment. 19:49.119 --> 19:52.880 There is plenty more evidence of NASA image falsification. 19:52.880 --> 19:56.279 But in my opinion, these here count amongst the clearest. 19:56.279 --> 20:02.747 I already know how strong the inner resistance rages in many NASA fans, almost automatically seeking 20:02.747 --> 20:06.720 explanation that I am wrong and NASA would never lie. 20:06.720 --> 20:12.119 I can only say to these people: there is no point in closing your eyes to the obvious. 20:12.119 --> 20:16.279 No one is as blind as the one who does not want to see! 20:16.279 --> 20:19.880 So take a look. We are being deceived and lied to! 20:19.880 --> 20:23.480 They are still making these mistakes, and we can still yet detect them. 20:23.480 --> 20:30.920 As explained at the beginning: In real transmissions there must never be such errors, not a single one! 20:30.920 --> 20:33.079 They prove that counterfeiting is taking place. 20:33.079 --> 20:41.739 And if the question now arises: Why does it even matter whether space organizations lie, I can only say: Consider 20:41.739 --> 20:45.960 what depends on NASA & Co - which is our entire world view.