Miscellaneous NASA comedies
-
- Member
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:33 am
Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies
The horizon line actually appears bent and inconsistently curved rather than smoothly curved like in the photo you provided, lux.
As well, notice how natural and straight the lines of the ship and other foreground objects appear, in contrast to the horizon. Is this even possible? I'm calling complete shenanigans.
ps. Is that a teal green sky in the top hell-i-copter shot I posted? Looks like a crayon color I would have chosen for the sky when I was 6.
pps. In the YouTube comments section someone wrote, 'notice how clear the water is'. Good observation! In fact the water is crystal clear. Possibly because the divers were filmed in a pool?
As well, notice how natural and straight the lines of the ship and other foreground objects appear, in contrast to the horizon. Is this even possible? I'm calling complete shenanigans.
ps. Is that a teal green sky in the top hell-i-copter shot I posted? Looks like a crayon color I would have chosen for the sky when I was 6.
pps. In the YouTube comments section someone wrote, 'notice how clear the water is'. Good observation! In fact the water is crystal clear. Possibly because the divers were filmed in a pool?
Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies
My vote: Lens distortion.Starbucked wrote:The horizon line actually appears bent and inconsistently curved rather than smoothly curved like in the photo you provided, lux.
As well, notice how natural and straight the lines of the ship and other foreground objects appear, in contrast to the horizon. Is this even possible? I'm calling complete shenanigans.
ps. Is that a teal green sky in the top hell-i-copter shot I posted? Looks like a crayon color I would have chosen for the sky when I was 6.
pps. In the YouTube comments section someone wrote, 'notice how clear the water is'. Good observation! In fact the water is crystal clear. Possibly because the divers were filmed in a pool?
a) Whether consistently curved or bent, it doesn't really matter. The photo of the bookshelf looks bent to me.
b) Adobe Lightroom has a plugin that allows you to "flatten" your images in post production. Choose your lens and it calculates for you. It works quite well, especially if you're into taking pictures of buildings, doors, etc.
c) Yes, it's possible that the horizon would appear bent and the lines of the ship and other objects appear straight, because those items are in the foreground. When you flatten an image, the area closest to the center flattens the least. In other words, you get more correction at the edges. Just think of how the lens is shaped and you'll understand what I mean.
d) Yes, the water is crystal clear. It's the ocean, what other appearance do you expect it to have?
Here's how my logic works:
It would be easier, cheaper, and faster to just build a silly Hollywood Prop or even a real machine that will never go into orbit but can function here on Earth (which will also be used for future fakery videos) and run a fake military drill in the ocean to get your Navy boys some training. You'd be done with filming in half a day, the braindead seals would have no clue, and you can use your prop again in a different environment without having to create all new CGI. Hiring someone to do all of that CGI would take much longer. Plus, it's more realistic to use a prop because, well ... physically, it's real. This is one of the reasons why the newer generation Star Wars films can never compare to the originals. Props just look better than CGI. There really is nothing like the magic of old-school Hollywood Filmmaking!
^^^^ A little holiday sarcasm for you.
You could also make the argument that using real props serves to appease and fool the many low level military/NASA dupes by actually giving them something physical and tangible to work on, which they do everyday for their entire careers. Perhaps they think they're "working on a space project" and may have actually had hand in testing/designing/producing something (for argument's sake) from Engineers, Project Managers, Designers, Construction, Mathameticians, etc. There are a lot of people that work at NASA. My guess is that the majority of them have real jobs and are doing real things at those jobs everyday. They may just think they're working on a spacecraft but have no idea that it's just a prop. If they can see and interact with what they think is a technological marvel that will fly into outer space, they will never question it because it's right there in front of them and they are fully invested! Theoretically, it all makes sense based on what they think they know, so it should work on paper. They're essentially trapped in a prison of their own minds.
There's no need for CGI, all the pieces are in place. They set it up as a drill and training exercise. This is called "military spending". They tell everyone that they don't film the real re-entries (those are top secret) and use the footage from the "drill" so as to not give away any military secrets, wink wink, nudge, nudge, sign on the line and keep your mouth shut. Do it for your country. Those involved in the operation believe that the "real" landing will actually happen at a later date and they don't question it for a second ... why should they? They are invested in the lie with their lives and their false reality depends on it, entirely.
If you told a paleontologist, or any scientist for that matter, or even a layperson that there are no real dinosaur fossils on display at the museum because the real fossils are "too rare" to be put on display and must be kept locked away in a vault somewhere with access only given to a small group of "top" paleontologists, do you think the majority of these people would even have a moment of doubt that the fossils are actually there, in a vault somewhere?
Of course not, the mere suggestion that the fossils don't exist would completely derail their entire lives and turn their reality on its head. Most people can't handle that sort of thing.
Last edited by anonjedi2 on Fri Dec 26, 2014 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am
Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies
I completely agree. Also, they need the props to deceive school children and romantic adults at aerospatial exhibits and museums.anonjedi2 wrote:It would be easier cheaper, and faster to just build a silly Hollywood Prop or even a real machine that will never go into orbit but can function here on Earth (which will also be used for future fakery videos) and run a fake military drill in the ocean to get your Navy boys some training. You'd be done with filming in half a day [...] This is called "military spending".
Well put.anonjedi2 wrote:If you told a paleontologist, or any scientist for that matter, or even a layperson that there are no real dinosaur fossils on display at the museum because the real fossils are "too rare" to be put on display and must be kept locked away in a vault somewhere with access only given to a small group of "top" paleontologists, do you think the majority of these people would even have a moment of doubt that the fossils are actually there, in a vault somewhere?
Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies
Absolutely first-rate thinking. One of the best posts of the year. Extraordinarily clear-headed analysis of the manipulated reality and psychology of how psyops 'work'.anonjedi2 wrote:You could also make the argument that using real props serves to appease and fool the many low level military/NASA dupes by actually giving them something physical and tangible to work on, which they do everyday for their entire careers. Perhaps they think they're "working on a space project" and may have actually had hand in testing/designing/producing something (for argument's sake) from Engineers, Project Managers, Designers, Construction, Mathameticians, etc. There are a lot of people that work at NASA. My guess is that the majority of them have real jobs and are doing real things at those jobs everyday. They may just think they're working on a spacecraft but have no idea that it's just a prop. If they can see and interact with what they think is a technological marvel that will fly into outer space, they will never question it because it's right there in front of them and they are fully invested! Theoretically, it all makes sense based on what they think they know, so it should work on paper. They're essentially trapped in a prison of their own minds.
There's no need for CGI, all the pieces are in place. They set it up as a drill and training exercise. This is called "military spending". They tell everyone that they don't film the real re-entries (those are top secret) and use the footage from the "drill" so as to not give away any military secrets, wink wink, nudge, nudge, sign on the line and keep your mouth shut. Do it for your country. Those involved in the operation believe that the "real" landing will actually happen at a later date and they don't question it for a second ... why should they? They are invested in the lie with their lives and their false reality depends on it, entirely.
If you told a paleontologist, or any scientist for that matter, or even a layperson that there are no real dinosaur fossils on display at the museum because the real fossils are "too rare" to be put on display and must be kept locked away in a vault somewhere with access only given to a small group of "top" paleontologists, do you think the majority of these people would even have a moment of doubt that the fossils are actually there, in a vault somewhere?
Of course not, the mere suggestion that the fossils don't exist would completely derail their entire lives and turn their reality on its head. Most people can't handle that sort of thing.
Stellar. (As one might say about NASA matters. Get it?)
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 1250
- Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am
Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies
A mission patch speaks more than a thousand words. Hopefully, it is more wishful thinking on their part than reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NR ... rol-39.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NR ... rol-39.jpg
Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies
^^Ha! Reminiscent of:
Sometimes it does take a rocket scientist!
Scientists at NASA built a gun specifically to launch standard 4- pound dead chickens at the windshields of airliners, military jets and the space Shuttle, all travelling at maximum velocity. The idea is to simulate the frequent incidents of collisions with airborne fowl to test the strength of the windshields.
British engineers heard about the gun and were eager to test it on the windshields of their new high speed trains. Arrangements were made, and a gun was sent to the British engineers.
When the gun was fired, the engineers were shocked as the chicken hurtled out of the barrel, crashed into the shatter proof windshield, smashed it to smithereens, blasted through the control console, snapped the engineers back rest in two, and embedded itself into the back wall of the cabin like an arrow shot form a bow.
The horrified Brits sent NASA the disastrous results of the experiment along with the designs of the windshield and begged the US scientists for suggestions.
NASA RESPONDED WITH A ONE-LINE MEMO -- "DEFROST THE CHICKEN."
*********************************************************************************************************************************
I was told that this is a true story, but cannot confirm. Thought it was good for a laugh though.
regards,
Steve O.
Scientists at NASA built a gun specifically to launch standard 4- pound dead chickens at the windshields of airliners, military jets and the space Shuttle, all travelling at maximum velocity. The idea is to simulate the frequent incidents of collisions with airborne fowl to test the strength of the windshields.
British engineers heard about the gun and were eager to test it on the windshields of their new high speed trains. Arrangements were made, and a gun was sent to the British engineers.
When the gun was fired, the engineers were shocked as the chicken hurtled out of the barrel, crashed into the shatter proof windshield, smashed it to smithereens, blasted through the control console, snapped the engineers back rest in two, and embedded itself into the back wall of the cabin like an arrow shot form a bow.
The horrified Brits sent NASA the disastrous results of the experiment along with the designs of the windshield and begged the US scientists for suggestions.
NASA RESPONDED WITH A ONE-LINE MEMO -- "DEFROST THE CHICKEN."
*********************************************************************************************************************************
I was told that this is a true story, but cannot confirm. Thought it was good for a laugh though.
regards,
Steve O.
Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies
This footage, we're told, represents the view from the Huygens spacecraft as it landed on Saturn's moon Titan back in 2005.
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L471ct7YDo
But, what is this footage exactly? Is it from a camera? Is it a computer animation? What is it? From what I have read about this footage it seems that is is believed to be, essentially, a photographic motion picture. Well -- sort of.
It is described as “...rendered from Huygens’ Descent Imager/Spectral Radiometer (DISR) data.”
Huh?
'Rendered'? Hmmm ... that word implies that it is not a photographic image but something artificially created.
'Imager'? What is an imager? Is it a camera? Well, if it were a camera wouldn't they call it a camera? But, they call it an 'imager' instead so I guess an imager is something that makes images but it can't be called a camera because cameras produce “real” images of things actually in front of them and imagers don't.
So, I guess that phrase “rendered from Huygens’ Descent Imager/Spectral Radiometer (DISR) data” is just a coy way of saying that it is a computer animation but with a strong implication that it represents a scene that actually existed in front of and was “perceived” by an optical device.
So, are we witnessing the birth of a new type of medium then? One that bridges the gap between cartoon and photo? Between fake and real? It's an animation but it's ... uh... real. Kind of makes it a lot easier to fool the masses doesn't it? Just make a cartoon and tell them it came from an imager-plus-real-data and they'll buy it as a real scenario that actually took place. It doesn't even have to be that realistic -- as the crappy imagery in the above video demonstrates.
In any case I'm seeing this sort blurring of the line between computer renderings and photographic imagery more and more these days. And, judging by the way that the mass audience swallows these hoax images so readily, I'd say that it seems to be working.
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L471ct7YDo
But, what is this footage exactly? Is it from a camera? Is it a computer animation? What is it? From what I have read about this footage it seems that is is believed to be, essentially, a photographic motion picture. Well -- sort of.
It is described as “...rendered from Huygens’ Descent Imager/Spectral Radiometer (DISR) data.”
Huh?
'Rendered'? Hmmm ... that word implies that it is not a photographic image but something artificially created.
'Imager'? What is an imager? Is it a camera? Well, if it were a camera wouldn't they call it a camera? But, they call it an 'imager' instead so I guess an imager is something that makes images but it can't be called a camera because cameras produce “real” images of things actually in front of them and imagers don't.
So, I guess that phrase “rendered from Huygens’ Descent Imager/Spectral Radiometer (DISR) data” is just a coy way of saying that it is a computer animation but with a strong implication that it represents a scene that actually existed in front of and was “perceived” by an optical device.
So, are we witnessing the birth of a new type of medium then? One that bridges the gap between cartoon and photo? Between fake and real? It's an animation but it's ... uh... real. Kind of makes it a lot easier to fool the masses doesn't it? Just make a cartoon and tell them it came from an imager-plus-real-data and they'll buy it as a real scenario that actually took place. It doesn't even have to be that realistic -- as the crappy imagery in the above video demonstrates.
In any case I'm seeing this sort blurring of the line between computer renderings and photographic imagery more and more these days. And, judging by the way that the mass audience swallows these hoax images so readily, I'd say that it seems to be working.
Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies
*
NASA's Star Trek recruiter Nichelle Nichols,"Uhura", introducing their "shuttle" successor, Orion — as shown on StarTrek.com:
Indeed, it "will take us deeper into the solar system bullshit than we have ever gone before"
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNAyBekeVyw So appropriate
Ironic comment: “Amazing to me is how a TV show that cancelled has had such a long reaching effect on our lives.”
If only they’d try to think it through
SSDD
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLgnZ89b8Po
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEuOpxOrA_0
NASA's Star Trek recruiter Nichelle Nichols,"Uhura", introducing their "shuttle" successor, Orion — as shown on StarTrek.com:
Indeed, it "will take us deeper into the solar system bullshit than we have ever gone before"
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNAyBekeVyw So appropriate
Ironic comment: “Amazing to me is how a TV show that cancelled has had such a long reaching effect on our lives.”
If only they’d try to think it through
SSDD
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLgnZ89b8Po
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEuOpxOrA_0
Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies
More from CBS Entertainment for NASA
► http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/kelly-ast ... periments/ See also: http://www.nasa.gov/content/president-o ... M2eYi5YaPp
Reminiscent of the twin characters in Cameron's Avatar movie script: Jake & Tom Sully
► http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/kelly-ast ... periments/ See also: http://www.nasa.gov/content/president-o ... M2eYi5YaPp
Reminiscent of the twin characters in Cameron's Avatar movie script: Jake & Tom Sully
Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies
Leonard Nimoy's Legacy: Obama, Astronauts Sci-fi Actors Pay Tribute – space.com
"Leonard Nimoy was an inspiration to multiple generations of engineers, scientists, astronauts, and other space explorers," NASA administrator Charles Bolden said in a statement. "As Mr. Spock, he made science and technology important to the story, while never failing to show, by example, that it is the people around us who matter most."
http://www.space.com/28688-leonard-nimo ... nauts.html
"Leonard Nimoy was an inspiration to multiple generations of engineers, scientists, astronauts, and other space explorers," NASA administrator Charles Bolden said in a statement. "As Mr. Spock, he made science and technology important to the story, while never failing to show, by example, that it is the people around us who matter most."
http://www.space.com/28688-leonard-nimo ... nauts.html
Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies
Nichelle hangin' with her far-out sista Mae Jemison on the set of Star Trek...
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/mem ... -prefix=en
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/amgov ... ish_LO.pdf
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/mem ... -prefix=en
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/amgov ... ish_LO.pdf
Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies
Apparently Saturn has a sci-fi soundtrack...
http://www.nasa.gov/wav/123163main_cas-skr1-112203.wav
and if you're not into sci-fi; NASA says...
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0306/carina_hst.jpg
http://www.nasa.gov/wav/123163main_cas-skr1-112203.wav
and if you're not into sci-fi; NASA says...
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0306/carina_hst.jpg
Last edited by hoi.polloi on Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Typos
Reason: Typos
Re: Miscellaneous NASA comedies
Not sure where to put it. Here it fits best I guess, but it could be in the ISS or rocketry in space topic as well.
Just watch and laugh about this ridiculous piece of video presented by an ADD guy who dares to call his programme "Smarter Every Day":
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFjw6Lc6J2g
Just watch and laugh about this ridiculous piece of video presented by an ADD guy who dares to call his programme "Smarter Every Day":
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFjw6Lc6J2g