164. Footage of weightless astronauts is created in a "vomit comet" or with wires and green screen technology

"Analysis of many interior videos from the “International Space Station,” have shown the use of camera-tricks such as green-screens, harnesses and even wildly permed hair to achieve a zero-gravity type effect.  Footage of astronauts seemingly floating in the zero-gravity of their “space station” is indistinguishable from “vomit comet” Zero-G airplane footage. By flying parabolic maneuvers this Zero-G floating effect can be achieved over and over again then edited together. For longer uncut shots, NASA has been caught using simple wires and green screen technology."

Again Dubay provides no evidence.  He seems to think that saying “I don’t believe NASA” constitutes a proof.

"Footage of astronauts ... in the zero-gravity ... is indistinguishable from “vomit comet”"

Lets discuss NASA's first space station Skylab rather than the ISS because the claims of faking are harder to support.

First, the planes that none of the planes that were in operation up to 1974 when the last crew left Skylab before its deorbit were large enough to simulate zero gravity Skylab.

The following planes have been used as "vomit comets":

• KC135:           Cabin width 3.56 m / 11.67 feet
• Navy C9:  Cabin width  3.11 m /10.2 feet
• Boeing 727:  Cabin width 3.56 m / 11.67 feet

Skylab width was about 6 m./ 19.68 feet

Below are video's of Skylab.

As an aside, the image at the top is used by Dubay and is a picture of a "vomit comet" operated by Space Adventures  (http://www.spaceadventures.com/experiences/zero-gravity-flight/).  Far from  being indistinguishable from shots from the ISS, it seems very obviously taken within an aircraft fuselage to me.

How about Greens Screen and wires?

Certainly it would have been possible for weightlessness to have been simulated with Green Screen and wires.   Stanley Kubrik did it in 1968 with 2001 Space Odyssey.

However at this time special effects were not carried out quickly with computers as they are now.

From : https://2001archive.org/resources/the-special-effects-of-2001-a-space-odyssey/

"The achievements of 2001‘s effects, which were all done without the benefits of computer technology, are nothing less than amazing. Kubrick held his crew to the highest standards to insure that the film’s effects were designed to be as realistic-looking as possible. To insure that every element of an effects scene was as sharp and clear as a single-generation image, he ruled out the use of many techniques that would have been much faster and less expensive. $6.5 million of his $10.5 million budget ended up going toward effects alone, and it was nearly two years after the end of principal photography that film was finally finished."

It seems unlikely to me that using the technology of the day NASA would have been able to turn around Green Screen simulations of Skylab quickly enough.

How about CGI?

Obviously the claim that the film clips could be filmed on a vomit comet are bogus.  Could they have been CGI’ed.  No.  CGI was nowhere near advanced enough to achieve this in 1974.  See the following clip for state of the art CGI in 1974.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computer_animation_in_film_and_television#1970s

I suppose flat earther’s will then say that the films were produced recently and made to look old.  The answer to that is to ask them to look up the biographies of all the people shown in these films.  But of course they will then say that all these biographies are fake.  Conspiracy theories are so great for flat earthers.  They never have to produce any evidence and they can always add a new theory if cracks start to appear in the current ones.

Is NASA stupid?

If NASA was fabricating things they seem to have made things deliberately difficult for themselves.  So many astronauts to create false identities for, so many rocket launches, so many films of space.  Why go to so much trouble?  They could have simply had the same actors for consecutive missions.  They could have never involved people outside of the military etc etc.


< Prev     161-170    Next >