In October 1958, 65 years ago, the U.S. space agency NASA began operations.
What is for some the figurehead of US-American research is for others the
production site of a very elaborately made 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
is intended to encourage viewers to form their own opinions.
Basically, nothing less than our entire world view is at stake.
I have a serious question.
Are the images that NASA and Co. present
to us as videos from space really real?
Is it real footage or maybe just fakes, shot in a film studio?
Can you spot any hints or evidence of movie 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 claim: Everything NASA, ESA and all the other space
agencies show us is studio footage, green screen and CGI,
i.e. computer generated imagery - New German: Fake!
A claim that is likely to meet with a great deal of opposition.
But I think we agree on one point from the outset.
If the NASA pictures are really real,
we would only see flawless images.
Without mistakes, without Hollywood tricks, without questionable scenes
that make us doubt the laws of physics.
Just one scene revealing such a thing would expose NASA and co. as liars.
But just 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 I
see as simply as possible, so that even laymen understand what is going on.
Still, a few things need to be mentioned.
I think most people can relate to green screen.
This is the green background that people like to use for filming.
Briefly explained, you film a spectacle in front of a green screen, remove
the green in video editing and replace the color with a desired background.
This means that you are very flexible and not
bound to local conditions in terms of scene representation.
Bluescreens are also used as needed.
They are then just not green, but - yes, as the name says - 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 originate, for example, from 3-D software and were thus artificially created.
Glitches may need to be explained in more detail:
They are faults, or calculation errors of a computer program, in our case graphic errors.
For example, the software is supposed to calculate a virtual
image scene containing an actor, a few real objects, plus
artificially generated 3-D objects and an artificial background.
At a certain point there is - for whatever reason
- a calculation error, possibly the processor is overloaded.
The affected area is not displayed cleanly and
strange artifacts, image jumps, distortions or similar appear.
Glitches are thus pretty clear evidence of computer manipulation.
The question now arises, does something like this exist in NASA images?
And the answer is clearly YES! Absolutely!
Let's start with this gem
from 9 September 22:
This was a live broadcast where Kamala Harris was reportedly on the phone directly with the ISS.
Look closely!
Well? What discovered?
Here again.
Still nothing seen?
Let's go into detail, zoom
and slow down the shot:
The cable of the microphone starts to move wildly.
The astronaut tries to knock it away and creates a beautiful glitch.
Apparently, the 3D software can't decide whether the cable should be displayed
above or below the hand when moving the hand quickly, and so
it virtually merges with the hand or goes through it.
So we see that the cable is a generated 3-D 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 which and thus cause repulsion.
In this way, the hand becomes a passing, non-colliding object.
I hope that was now halfway understandable.
Also nice to see is the phantom microphone a bit further back in the film.
Now it's here!
Now it's gone!
Back again!
Gone again!
And there again!
Yes, the image calculation went really wrong.
The mic is clearly also from a 3-D software
and was calculated completely wrong into the scene.
It can't be camera errors, because cameras simply record
two-dimensionally what comes in front of their lens.
And the transmission can't be to blame either, because it wouldn't possibly leave out just the
microphone head or cable, but would affect the entire image, or large parts of it.
Background to computer generated 3-D objects like this microphone.
You create such objects in several - let's say - layers.
First the basic shape or wireframe model, then color and texture layers
are applied, and at the end 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.
In this process, all layers are joined together to form a finished clip.
Rendering live can of course lead to problems, e.g. because the computer
cannot generate the desired result fast enough or the processor is overstrained.
This is especially problematic when 3-D objects
are to interact live with actors.
And that's what we're talking about here.
You can see wonderfully from the following examples
that we are really talking about computer graphics
that are superimposed live: 1. this microphone.
First it glitches, then the light reflections are gone that were
there before, and immediately from one image to the next.
2.
Astronaut actor Don Pattit demonstrates how to drink coffee in space.
Looks pretty good so far, except for the image quality.
The end of the clip is crucial, because
- whoops - this is where the coffee
suddenly separates from the container and pops out
of it without losing its shape.
Clearly, the color layer is detached from the shape layer, which is only possible
if the object originates from 3-D software and the live rendering went wrong.
A flawless miscalculation and thus the next proof
that NASA creates its images with virtual reality.
3.
This is also the case here in the third example: A plush 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' hand shining through it for a few frames.
So the object was blended and not made visible from a
masking, which would take the other possibility off the table.
By the way, the interaction with virtual objects is explained by the
so-called ragdoll engine, which is commonplace in video games, for example.
You are welcome to research this, but I won't go into it any further.
Motion control would also be an interesting search term to add to the topic.
And while we're on the subject of virtual reality, check this out.
Watch the guy on the left in the picture, what he's about to do.
Here we go.
Yes, it goes back and forth now, but it really makes what happened clear.
Watch the hands.
He takes an imaginary object in his left hand, hands
it over to his right, and grabs it aside.
The only bad thing is that the object he wants to get rid of can't be seen.
Technical explanation: The channel on which the live inserted 3-D
object should be shown was not active in the transmission.
Apparently, however, in the preview, because, pay attention once to his eyes.
He does not look at the object, but looks ahead, as if
checking on a monitor that his action also looks good and right.
Gotcha, I'd say.
It is also possible that the actors use contact lenses for direct preview projection onto the retina.
Yes, there really is such a thing!
See for yourself.
We see entire scenes being artificially
cut together, like the astronaut actor
on the right of the picture.
A brief image glitch reveals that he
was cut and rotated into the scene.
We see a very straight cut graphic error
with parallel lines matching the man's tilt angle.
Cut out in the block, so to speak, rotated 190 degrees and pasted in the upper right corner.
Also, the lighting on the man's face does not match the
lighting on the woman and argues for a separate shot.
The light is harder, more direct and provides more contrast.
As a former photographer, I see two different light
settings and thus two different shots stitched together.
This one's awesome, too.
No glitsch though, but a nice cut error.
And, we see - again
at 15% speed - like
a ghost it dissolves into
thin air, including environmental errors
on the left side where
a few objects slip upwards.
Here, a so-called soft aperture was installed, which allows
the transition between two scenes to run smoothly.
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 mages aboard the ISS just appearing
out of nowhere with an insertion sequence.
David Copperfield would be green with envy.
Here is an ebnit error.
In the background you can see a shadow on this white rectangle.
Now watch carefully what happens to the head of the rear performer.
The computer calculates a part of said shadow, one level in front of the astro-actor, which
is why his head is initially partially covered by it, as if by a door lintel.
But then his head moves through
the shadow plane, which throws the
software into a logic problem.
The bald head first connects with the shadow and then melts through it.
Clear CGI calculation error.
In the next shot, the so-called trekking,
i.e. object tracking, goes tremendously wrong.
The fingers of the right hand are on the mic.
Now this hand is pulled away and without a correction movement, but with nasty
graphic glitches, the fingers of the left hand are now at the mic.
But it gets really funny when you return the hand.
The fingers literally slide under the left hand without
any resistance, which physically simply doesn't work at all.
Clearly showing the computer's effort to produce a clean image.
You can clearly see the cut edges around the
fingers as dark outlines and even chewed off fingertips.
No, dear NASA fans, these are not transmission errors.
One more example, and I don't think I need
to comment on this image jump, speaks for itself.
Another rendered 3-D object with a life of its own.
And if you let the scene continue, it glitches in one go.
No idea what was going on, but it looks like the graphics
process for the live image calculation was running a bit too hot.
But let's get to the other important point
to expose NASA's recording fakery, the green screen.
Right at the beginning my favorite recording.
The video is officially from the NASA channel.
Title and links are pasted, so feel free to check.
Once again, the end of the shot is interesting.
All three astronaut actors blur simultaneously into a
single graphic mud, while the background remains intact.
Once again.
And this time, put your focus on those foreground objects, because they are also affected by the graphics glitch.
But the most interesting are these green areas.
Through the glitch in the foreground layer, we get a direct
glimpse of the true background behind the actors they call astronauts.
And that's the green screen.
For some reason, the masking of the green area remained
while the footage destroyed itself without touching the superimposed background.
The justification film error or transmission problem is technically impossible.
First, the entire image would then be affected and not just this extremely selective section.
Second, cameras do not produce random colors.
You can't create green where there is no green.
And also transfer errors only destroy the existing image material
and do not create colors out of thin air.
That's how it all works in the movie.
This clip demonstrates very impressively how you can create
complete fictional worlds simply by using a green screen.
In the film, we take that for granted.
But as soon as NASA is accused of faking images with this technique, most consider it absurd.
Why actually?
Why do we not 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?
Anyway. Green screen is completely standard practice in video these days.
A few objects are real, the rest are faded in, like here
during the filming of The Hobbit or in many other movies.
Or even at NASA itself, as seen clearly
and presumably unintentionally here in a report.
Wonder why you need a green screen behind the ISS
when all the space shots are supposed to be 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 look much more realistic and allowing for optimal lighting.
Another advantage: The actors themselves see the background during the shoot
- 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 here.
The spectacle is rendered in real time and played back within milliseconds.
In the process, shots can be seamlessly stitched together so that,
as here, the actor can engage in dialogue with himself.
I am happy with that.
So we are heading for times when clear evidence of falsification
by negligent or unintentional green screen errors will no longer occur.
Therefore, it is all the more important to realize now that we are being lied to ice-cold by NASA & Co.
I have one more on this point.
Here, George Bush Sr. 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 currently handling a green sphere in front of a blue raster background.
At the edge, the scene is framed with equipment that can always be seen in the great ISS live broadcasts.
By the way, green objects are also used in films to provide orientation
points for the actors when other 3D objects are to be incorporated later.
And what about the background, you can ask yourself.
People later tried to find an excuse for the background
and sell it as a tool for scientific experiments.
But take a sober look at this:
What the heck kind of experiments are these?
What practical use is this supposed to serve?
A few final examples:
Apart from the fact that the image processor wanted heat-free again
and it glitches until it drops, we 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.
Moreover, a great example that the floating objects and
also the clothes of the astro-actors are 3D generated.
Take a close look at the cable: If
that's not a clear calculation error, what is?
For the actor, my guess is that so-called motion-capture suits will
be used and the matching clothing will be digitally inserted.
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 in 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 creepy:
Half of the actor's face was made transparent.
This is what happens when you set the green tolerance in the video program too high.
Then also areas are faded away, which are not green, but
go by e.g. unfavorable shadows in the direction of green.
But well, let's leave it at that for the moment.
There is quite a bit more evidence of NASA image falsification.
But these are among the clearest, in my opinion.
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.
To these people I can only say: 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 watch. We are deceived and lied to!
They are still making these mistakes, nor can we tell.
As explained at the beginning:
In real transmissions there must never be such errors, not a single one!
They prove that falsification is taking place.
And if now the question arises: Why it is important at all whether space organizations lie, I can only say: Consider what all hangs on NASA & Co. - our entire world view.