Fakery in Orbit: THE I$$

[Maat]

NASA have fired their previous animators. This video clip of Kelly by the new animators is quite slick and is very much in line with NASA's new 'add stars to the photos' policy of this year.

However their new efforts are even more see through and pathetic.

Indeed they are, Terence, more cartoony all right. Pinning down how they do all of it is difficult when they evidently use a combination of techniques and methods and mix them around according to who/what/where and the intended effect. e.g. Some actornauts seemed to be suspended in harnesses, others 'wafted' up & down in 20 minute long 'interviews from space' while their lower body/legs were conveniently out of shot.
One early one (on NASA's site) has the supposed Columbia crew in 2003 'sitting' rather still, but the Commander holding the mic at waist level deliberately opens his hands to let it float up — looking like it was helium-filled!

Kelly sure is leaning oddly, as though facing down over a ledge, lower body hidden — and it must be awfully drafty to cause those 'cards' to go spinning off in all directions, eh. Their 'space videos' have always appeared unnatural and contrived, but this is one of the worst.

My take on U2 is as follows. Like in the film 'Trading Places', perps enjoy and get a kick out of turning once talents and outspoken people into their own Satan's little helpers through the process of drip feeding their egos and plying them with money. Think of all the grammys U2 have won and as Simon rightly points out above Bonos little visits to the white house etc. Same goes for the other Irish walking embarrassment SIR bob Geldof. Same goes for politicians.
The biggest risk to perps are well known people speaking the truth. They must replace the natural cultural dialogue with their own form of culture dialogue populated with their automatons and superblands.

I agree, well said.

[lux]

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ydz5-ecdpg

I've been mulling this ISS Kelly "space" message over and I'm beginning to wonder if the segment with Kelly may have been done underwater -- or at least the portion where he does the floating words bit. The fake interference being inserted to hide the necessary cuts in going from a dry to a wet environment.

If you notice, the segment is in 3 parts separated by the fake "interference":
- first a 10 second portion where Kelly says, "Hello Seattle ..."
- then some fake interference
- then, when we come back from the interference, the camera position has changed and the lighting looks a bit different from the first part and the camera has also gone from apparently being hand-held to its being tripod-mounted with a slow zoom-in as he releases the words
- then we have approximately 30 seconds as Kelly does the floating words which, to me, behave as they would if released underwater and Kelly does not speak during this part. It looks to me that the words swirl about as objects underwater would if there was some movement in the water surrounding them
- then another bit of "interference" and cutaway to U2
- then back for another 10 seconds where Kelly says, "I'm looking forward to coming home ... Tell my wife ... blah blah" as he seems to float toward camera and out of frame. The band around his neck seems to float here as well.

My thoughts on this are -
- in the first 10-second part Kelly is simply talking to the camera in a dry environment and his body (with lower part hidden) bobs around a little (easily done mechanically)
- then they fill the space with water (or other liquid) and he simply holds his breath for 30 seconds as he does the floating words bit -- any bubbles being digitally removed
- in the last 10-second portion he is dry again and they simply "bob" him toward the camera and add the floating necklace via CGI

The first and last 10-second portion being probably shot at the same time and the middle portion shot at another time and cut into the middle.

There is also another, admittedly speculative possibility -- a thing called liquid breathing which, we are told, is only theoretical, in which it would be possible for a person to be submerged in a liquid which is breathable as was depicted in the Hollywood movie "The Abyss." Or, a less "far out" possibility is that a liquid was used which produces less bubbles or other giveaways than would plain water.

It's also very convenient that Kelly has no hair on his head to float around (or not)

[pov603]

Just realised Kelly quotes from Bowie's 'Major Tom' with '...tell my wife I love her very much, she knows...'
Hmmm...

[nonhocapito]

when we come back from the interference, the camera position has changed and the lighting looks a bit different from the first part and the camera has also gone from apparently being hand-held to its being tripod-mounted with a slow zoom-in as he releases the words

Regarding the interference in that video, and responding about this to the post by Terrence.drew above:

I think it is obvious that the video, since it was featured in a mass pop concert, was largely edited in post-production in an "official" way, to make it more appealing for the U2 public.

So, just like the golden, unchanging background is not supposed to be a real background, but it is a "special effect", so the "interferences" are nothing but transitions between cuts that can have whatever explanation due to the various stages in which the shots may have been filmed. They are not supposed to be "real" interferences in term of fakery, but just some embellishment for the occasion.

Obviously I am not saying this to relieve in any way the faked nature of this video, but just to discern between different levels of alteration.

The hypothesis of the water is interesting, certainly there are algorithms that can take care of the bubbles even in real time with amazing results. The only problem that I have is with other scenes where we have astronauts talking and interacting in ways that exclude the presence of water. In those cases the problem must be solved some other way, and it seems redundant to have so many ways to take care of the same problem.

[lux]

The hypothesis of the water is interesting, certainly there are algorithms that can take care of the bubbles even in real time with amazing results. The only problem that I have is with other scenes where we have astronauts talking and interacting in ways that exclude the presence of water. In those cases the problem must be solved some other way, and it seems redundant to have so many ways to take care of the same problem.

Yes, I agree and I had the same reservation since other ISS videos don't look like they were shot in a fluid environment and my musings may be completely off base. However, I think the comment regarding "so many ways" is not necessarily a factor since we're only talking about one additional way for a total of maybe 2 or 3 ways which is not so many.

They may also use a combination of techniques together at the same time. As an illustration of what I mean, look a this scene from the movie "The Bucket List" which supposedly shows Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman skydiving but was apparently done with "digital head transplants" :


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RIOFzhufm8

That is, the real actors are not really in the falling part of the scene -- only their heads are substituted digitally with the real stunt doubles who are actually doing the skydiving. It's pretty obvious that's what's going on here -- perhaps intentionally obvious so as not to give away that more realistic versions of the same thing are being used on the public for propaganda purposes.

Also, in a real skydiving scenario we wouldn't be able to hear anyone talking as the wind noise would be too great so their voices are also being overlaid into the scene.

I guess what I'm getting at is that in the ISS videos we may be seeing composites of various techniques combined to give the desired effect -- for example, bodies floating in a liquid along with digital head/voice "transplants" as a composite video plus digital touch-ups to remove giveaways such as bubbles, etc.

Of course, this is pure speculation on my part. I'm just suggesting it as a possibility.

[Terence.drew]

I think it is obvious that the video, since it was featured in a mass pop concert, was largely edited in post-production in an "official" way, to make it more appealing for the U2 public.

So, just like the golden, unchanging background is not supposed to be a real background, but it is a "special effect", so the "interferences" are nothing but transitions between cuts that can have whatever explanation due to the various stages in which the shots may have been filmed. They are not supposed to be "real" interferences in term of fakery, but just some embellishment for the occasion.

Obviously I am not saying this to relieve in any way the faked nature of this video, but just to discern between different levels of alteration.

hmmmm. I think all the footage is largely edited in post-production. Is the Naudet footage largely edited in post production too? An embellishment for their film?

[hoi.polloi]

An interesting point from Terrence; it would probably make more sense that the scenes are fictitious from the start. Plain old planned special effects tricks with modern day trickery.

[Ajasin]

Considering the state of CGI today, it is pretty much impossible to tell what is real and what is done in some Hollywood studio.

[nonhocapito]

hmmmm. I think all the footage is largely edited in post-production. Is the Naudet footage largely edited in post production too? An embellishment for their film?

An interesting point from Terrence; it would probably make more sense that the scenes are fictitious from the start. Plain old planned special effects tricks with modern day trickery.

Sure, they probably like it when the line between reality and fiction is lost. But is NASA really telling us that those interferences and that background are real? I doubt it.
We are in the context of a big-production world tour that obviously requires particular re-branding of all visual elements. We gotta separate the two moments.

Something like this:

step 1: the nasa fakery team puts together a video of kelly that moves the letters around;
the video looks just like all the other crap from the ISS we know. No interferences (certainly not so macroscopic), nor the golden unchanging background. Maybe a few "cuts" to pretend that kelly didn't have all the time in the world to be filmed doing this. The U2 people is not required to spot fakery at this stage.

step 2: the video is given to the U2 concert people, let's say their video editing team that:

1) adds the fake interferences;
2) turns the background (supposedly of the earth going by or something) into the "golden hour" background.
3) probably adds much of the cropping-zooming-panning that we see.



Even if the whole thing was produced in one studio by the same people (very possible), they would still give us a story similar to the above as official explanation: they would never pretend that the background or the interferences are real: so there isn't much of a point in "exposing" them, as if officially belonging to reality.

The video has been embellished to appeal to the public during a concert. This does not negates the fakery nor makes any exception, it just adds a layer of manipulation that, in this particular case, borrows from the "suggestive" manipulative nature of NASA, but does not pretend to be part of that "reality".

[nonhocapito]

More nonsense from the U2-NASA alliance:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciHVOGCHpNE







It seems clear that this propaganda band has been instructed to push the space hoax a little deeper into young people's minds. Maybe there is a purpose to this soon to be unveiled -- or maybe it is just a convergence of interests. Enterprises full shit tend to find each other.

[AnonymousTruther2]

This is Alex Jones explanation (with George Noory) of Apollo Missions, UFOs and more...
The good part is his rapid explanation of fakery about the moon and why they did it
Between 0:29 to 2:00

From 4:55 to 12:42, for pure NASA propaganda purposes, Alex Jones starts to talk about a story with Buzz Aldrin at Charlie Sheen house, and George Noory replies with Buzz the "Great American" who risks his life" and the "idiocy" of the fake moon landings, following about UFOs on the Moon psyop and much more propaganda that I won't even name...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am1GX_zFhvQ

[hoi.polloi]

Art Bell may have been some FBI/CIA/Hollywood-connected asset or merely bumped into the intelligence world on accident, like we did with the Jersey Girls and "traumatized family members", but George Noory takes the cake for pushing his agenda on every show, buddying up with Alex Jones and defending the official conspiracy narrative.

[fbenario]

From The Daily Mash, the English version of The Onion.

NASA abandons search for intelligent life on Earth

"SCIENTISTS monitoring the airwaves for signs of intelligent life on planet Earth have finally given up, it has emerged.

Staff at NASA's California monitoring station had spent the last three decades scanning this planet's electronic media output for signs of anything not shit.

A NASA spokesman said: “As much as we all wanted it to be true, it sadly appears there is pretty much nothing but soil-brained idiocy emanating from Earth's airwaves.
...
"This planet is a vacuous nightmare of teenage vampires, celebrity sex tapes and energy drinks called things like Grunt."

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/scie ... 111094523/

[lux]

Wasn't Noory the guy who first "vouched" for Bob Lazar's tales?

[simonshack]

*

Then, I stumbled upon this article - http://www.webspawner.com/users/shuttlehoax/ by one Greg Alexander. Don't know anything about him but...what do I know about anything, really?

The Space Shuttle and the ISS are a hoax!


As impossible as it may sound at first, and I have been studying this phenomena for several years now, but it would appear that the International Space Station (ISS) and the Space Shuttle are a complete hoax. I have managed to prove this by directly viewing the ISS through a privately owned telescope (a Newtonian of 6 inch aperture at low magnification and using manual tracking). On every occasion I have viewed the ISS, and I am an experienced observer, a perfectly round object is revealed presenting no angular projections whatsoever. This entirely goes against what we have officially been told regarding the exact configuration of the ISS which could loosely be described as shaped somewhat like an ‘aeroplane’.

Knowing the quoted altitude of this object (the ISS) and estimating its approximate apparent diameter by comparing it with the apparent diameter of the planet Saturn at the time (excluding its rings), I was able to calculate its absolute diameter as being somewhere around 40 metres. A perfectly round man-made object of this size in space could only be a balloon that has been inflated in orbit. Such experimental balloon satellites were officially launched in the early 1960’s (e.g. Echo 1 and 2).

But the question is how could the Space Shuttle ever dock with a balloon? It is possible that the Space Shuttle isn’t real either and there is ample evidence to suggest that this is in fact the case. For example the Earth’s sky during the daytime glows a bright blue colour as a result of the scattering of light. But this blue colour should be just as visible from space as it is from the ground as the light in question is by necessity scattered in all directions. Yet most of the photographic and video images of the Earth taken from the ISS and Shuttle don’t show this blue glow which should appear as a blue fog clouding out much of the detail on the Earth’s surface below. In fact most of these images would suggest that the Earth’s atmosphere were completely transparent in this regard. Yet despite the absence of this blue glow we can still see blue coloured oceans which according to the opinion of some obtain their colour from the very same blue sky glow.

I believe the images supposedly taken on board the Space Shuttle in orbit were actually filmed in an underwater film studio and possibly the same Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory specially built for the Space Shuttle astronauts to do their training in. Indeed the footage shows loose appendages and insulation foil swaying about as if being moved by currents of water. Also small white dots are sometimes seen shooting off the side of the Shuttle in straight lines and at a constant velocity which could well represent rising air bubbles as there is no way in the vacuum of space that any loose debris could leave the side of the Space Shuttle in such a manner.

In addition to this and despite the fact that we are told that the Space Shuttle performs an unpowered landing, i.e. it glides, video footage taken from both outside and inside of the Shuttle on landing appears to betray what is clearly background engine noise. Besides how could a delta winged aircraft with such a weight to wingspan ratio possibly glide anyway? Further night time landings when viewed from the rear of the Shuttle reveal peculiar red lights directly inside the rocket combustion chambers mounted at the rear of the craft. What are these, landing lights? I strongly doubt it. These lights would also indicate that the Shuttle’s engines are actually running on landing.

It is also evidently the case that NASA scientists have not been entirely honest when it comes to the immediate hazards presented to spacecraft by the space environment. For example the Earth’s upper atmosphere is comprised largely of ionized atomic oxygen at temperatures at times approaching 1,400°C. This gas apparently produces a noticeable drag factor for spacecraft such as the ISS which has to be re-boosted every three months or so. But this gas in reality would be more corrosive than any acid found in an Earth laboratory such as hydrofluoric acid which easily corrodes glass.

Further the Sun’s spectrum of radiative output (assuming it to be a blackbody of a temperature of 5,770 Kelvin) contains ultraviolet light possessing the required quantum energy to break open not only every organic bond known to man but every inorganic bond known to man as well. The Sun's UV is able to ionize atomic oxygen within the Earth's upper atmosphere forming the ionosphere, and of course the energy required to ionize a gas is significantly higher than any bond energy you can think of. Obviously at the higher frequencies and at the Earth’s distance from the Sun, the flux density of this radiation is comparatively weaker than the radiation within the visible spectrum. However the effects of this high frequency radiation are nevertheless cumulative. Space suits would blacken and glass would become ‘smoked’ in appearance as the hours or even minutes passed by.

In my mind it is only too apparent who the perpetrators of this monumental fraud are. At the end of World War II Nazi scientists were taken to both the United States and the Soviet Union as part of Operation Paperclip. It were these same scientists who ultimately made up the chief executive at NASA. The first director of the Kennedy Space Center, Kurt Debus, was an ex-Nazi; the founder of the science of exobiology (the study of the possibility of life on Mars or elsewhere in the Universe), Hubertus Strughold, (whose experiments on live humans during the War at Dachau concentration camp often proved fatal) was an ex-Nazi; and the designer of the Saturn V, Wernher von Braun was Hilter’s leading rocket scientist who built the V-2.

I believe that these ex-Nazis were clearly not to be trusted and like other ‘stay behind’ Nazi operatives after the war, they actively conspired from the outset to do damage to the US government. They were directly putting into practice Hitler’s famous saying concerning the power of propaganda, “The bigger the lie, the more believable it is.” I also believe these bogus space endeavours represent a ‘plant’ from which further operations could be launched against the anti-Nazi United States possibly assisted by an international league of Nazis in hiding rescued by the Vatican’s notorious ‘ratlines’ at the end of the war.

I think I love the quote "these bogus space endeavours"