|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 21, 2019 21:38:06 GMT
Yeah, he did, and I didn't buy it. If you want to buy it, go ahead. What don't you buy? Again, much like viewing the ISS with a telescope, this is something you can do yourself with a video-editing program and a video file. There's nothing to "buy." Plus, he posted examples showing precisely what he described. Did NASA fake that Monster's Inc. video too? I'm going to post both videos here so that The People can decide for themselves. In the NASA video nothing from the background was lost. All that was lost was those three so-called astronauts with a perfect outline around them, because they were never really there. They were gumped into the space station background.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2019 21:42:58 GMT
The evidence speaks for itself... Not when you don't know the first thing about how digital media works, in which case that "evidence" can "speak for" any theory your imagination can conjure. For those who do understand, that video is nothing more than evidence that visual artifacts exist, which they do, and are quite common on live feeds, which they are. Knowing things is so elitist. Every time you learn a fact, the baby jesus cries.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 21, 2019 21:58:29 GMT
What don't you buy? Again, much like viewing the ISS with a telescope, this is something you can do yourself with a video-editing program and a video file. There's nothing to "buy." Plus, he posted examples showing precisely what he described. Did NASA fake that Monster's Inc. video too? I'm going to post both videos here so that The People can decide for themselves. In the NASA video nothing from the background was lost. All that was lost was those three so-called astronauts with a perfect outline around them, because they were never really there. They were gumped into the space station background. Well that's not quite accurate. It's not just the three astronauts. You can see the shelf in front of the one on the right, as well as the very top-right of the frame that's also get glitched. It's hardly a "perfect outline" considering the astronauts are equi-distant from the edges of both sides of the frame but it's only the right side that glitches. The glitching is actually very asymmetrical. The guy in the video doesn't really explain why these other parts would glitch as well, basically just saying something like "they needed to be floated" or something, but the part on the top right isn't floating at all. BTW, the "explanation" that they turned the VR camera off first is... I mean, do you know how incompetent someone would have to be to do that? For every media production that has to cut to things like commercials there's a countdown for when that cut happens and it's done with a single button. They're not going to have two buttons for two separate videos, they'd just have one to cut the whole thing. Even if they were shooting two layers (for the sake of argument), they certainly wouldn't cut the feed on the VR layer before cutting away from the whole thing. What in the world would be the point? And why would cutting the VR camera result in the same kind of look as compression errors? If you shot a layer to put in front of a green screen and then removed that layer, you'd just see what was on the green screen, you wouldn't get glitchy, washy blobs. Literally, none of his explanation for what's going on makes sense, neither in terms of how digital video works, nor in terms of how video production works.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 21, 2019 22:03:35 GMT
I'm going to post both videos here so that The People can decide for themselves. In the NASA video nothing from the background was lost. All that was lost was those three so-called astronauts with a perfect outline around them, because they were never really there. They were gumped into the space station background. Well that's not quite accurate. It's not just the three astronauts. You can see the shelf in front of the one on the right, as well as the very top-right of the frame that's also get glitched. It's hardly a "perfect outline" considering the astronauts are equi-distant from the edges of both sides of the frame but it's only the right side that glitches. The glitching is actually very asymmetrical. The guy in the video doesn't really explain why these other parts would glitch as well, basically just saying something like "they needed to be floated" or something, but the part on the top right isn't floating at all. BTW, the "explanation" that they turned the VR camera off first is... I mean, do you know how incompetent someone would have to be to do that? For every media production that has to cut to things like commercials there's a countdown for when that cut happens and it's done with a single button. They're not going to have two buttons for two separate videos, they'd just have one to cut the whole thing. Even if they were shooting two layers (for the sake of argument), they certainly wouldn't cut the feed on the VR layer before cutting away from the whole thing. What in the world would be the point? And why would cutting the VR camera result in the same kind of look as compression errors? If you shot a layer to put in front of a green screen and then removed that layer, you'd just see what was on the green screen, you wouldn't get glitchy, washy blobs. Literally, none of his explanation for what's going on makes sense, neither in terms of how digital video works, nor in terms of how video production works. What in the world would be the point? Ask them. They're the ones who did it, not me. I'm having trouble remembering something here. Are you the one from the old board who was hoping to have his consciousness downloaded into a computer someday, or am I thinking of someone else?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 21, 2019 22:47:57 GMT
Well that's not quite accurate. It's not just the three astronauts. You can see the shelf in front of the one on the right, as well as the very top-right of the frame that's also get glitched. It's hardly a "perfect outline" considering the astronauts are equi-distant from the edges of both sides of the frame but it's only the right side that glitches. The glitching is actually very asymmetrical. The guy in the video doesn't really explain why these other parts would glitch as well, basically just saying something like "they needed to be floated" or something, but the part on the top right isn't floating at all. BTW, the "explanation" that they turned the VR camera off first is... I mean, do you know how incompetent someone would have to be to do that? For every media production that has to cut to things like commercials there's a countdown for when that cut happens and it's done with a single button. They're not going to have two buttons for two separate videos, they'd just have one to cut the whole thing. Even if they were shooting two layers (for the sake of argument), they certainly wouldn't cut the feed on the VR layer before cutting away from the whole thing. What in the world would be the point? And why would cutting the VR camera result in the same kind of look as compression errors? If you shot a layer to put in front of a green screen and then removed that layer, you'd just see what was on the green screen, you wouldn't get glitchy, washy blobs. Literally, none of his explanation for what's going on makes sense, neither in terms of how digital video works, nor in terms of how video production works. What in the world would be the point? Ask them. They're the ones who did it, not me. I'm having trouble remembering something here. Are you the one from the old board who was hoping to have his consciousness downloaded into a computer someday, or am I thinking of someone else? Surely you believe if I asked them they'd deny it; and you're the one thinking they did it to begin with, so I'd think it'd behoove you to have answers to such basic questions. You'd think an operation with that much money wouldn't be that completely incompetent when it comes to the most basic fundamentals of video production. All I remember saying on the matter of consciousness-to-computer was that the hypothetical was better than the inevitably alternative (death). It's not like if they invented the technology tomorrow I'd be going "upload me now, baby!"
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 21, 2019 23:07:40 GMT
What in the world would be the point? Ask them. They're the ones who did it, not me. I'm having trouble remembering something here. Are you the one from the old board who was hoping to have his consciousness downloaded into a computer someday, or am I thinking of someone else? Surely you believe if I asked them they'd deny it; and you're the one thinking they did it to begin with, so I'd think it'd behoove you to have answers to such basic questions. You'd think an operation with that much money wouldn't be that completely incompetent when it comes to the most basic fundamentals of video production. All I remember saying on the matter of consciousness-to-computer was that the hypothetical was better than the inevitably alternative (death). It's not like if they invented the technology tomorrow I'd be going "upload me now, baby!" Thanks for your reply. It's not so much a matter of competence. The more complex something is, the more that can go wrong with it. Take the humble earthworm for example. It's basically just a tube with a mouth at one end and a butthole at the other end, but there's not as much that can go wrong with it compared to the human organism. CGI....lot of things can go wrong....and no retakes when you're on live stream.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 21, 2019 23:24:15 GMT
Surely you believe if I asked them they'd deny it; and you're the one thinking they did it to begin with, so I'd think it'd behoove you to have answers to such basic questions. You'd think an operation with that much money wouldn't be that completely incompetent when it comes to the most basic fundamentals of video production. All I remember saying on the matter of consciousness-to-computer was that the hypothetical was better than the inevitably alternative (death). It's not like if they invented the technology tomorrow I'd be going "upload me now, baby!" Thanks for your reply. It's not so much a matter of competence. The more complex something is, the more that can go wrong with it. Take the humble earthworm for example. It's basically just a tube with a mouth at one end and a butthole at the other end, but there's not as much that can go wrong with it compared to the human organism. CGI....lot of things can go wrong....and no retakes when you're on live stream. Sure, lots of things can go wrong, like compression artifacts! One thing that doesn't go wrong, though, is cutting off a camera and that causing compression artifact-looking effects, since that's not how CGI works.
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on Dec 22, 2019 9:51:54 GMT
Have you assigned yourself to me? Are you my shadow now? Paranoid much?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 22, 2019 12:21:24 GMT
Somebody has more computer toys than they need. Not I. I can use more.
I am the voice of reason. Listen to me (or read if not in person).
Attention detractors of Erjen: you just saw a video that "proves" the ISS can be faked and someone has faked a brief video. I understand perfectly that does not mean it is all faked. I understand your distress at the challenge to your worldview (ahem space view). What I would suggest is that you allow yourself time, not impinging on your work time, just recreation time, to consider how many images from space are real and how many might be faked and for what purposes.
My default position on all news from whatever source is that it is heavily steeped in artifice. It requires a skeptical and calculating mind to uncover the purpose of it all and such truth as might be extracted. Challenges such as that video can be interesting exercise. As I say, relax.
Your rally to detract can push you to the other extreme, make you mind numbed robots following a narrative in the media or as cows follow a herd.
Remember my "go to" challenge to many of these stories, how does this help anyone decide between the Chevrolet Equinox and the Pontiac Solstice? Say for the purposes of discussion all the ISS videos are fake. What then? What should I do differently if so?
Now there is an interesting expression, "for the purposes of discussion." Maybe you should do that more often, hold discussions. That's what this board is for. It is not going to decide any issue anyway. Some of you need to develop your discussion skills. Maybe Erjen can help you with that.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Dec 22, 2019 12:48:14 GMT
I am the voice of reason. Reason vociferously objects.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 22, 2019 12:52:14 GMT
I am the voice of reason. Reason vociferously objects. Not with three measly words it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 22, 2019 14:54:22 GMT
Reason vociferously objects. Not with three measly words it doesn't. I'm glad the voice of reason is here.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 22, 2019 15:25:20 GMT
Not with three measly words it doesn't. I'm glad the voice of reason is here. Where? Where? Oh yeah right, us. I forgot for a moment.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Dec 22, 2019 17:30:29 GMT
really? The thing they are contained in is . . . space. You literally accept all the hard stuff, planets, solar systems etc, but you think that there is something other than space between the objects? Are you thinking maybe jelly?, bananas? Mayas sanity? I mean really of all the dumb things you could say this is yet another one of them. Obviously there is space between the objects. Length x width x height = space. Then what on earth are you collating regarding whether space exists or not?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Dec 22, 2019 17:31:14 GMT
But there is no space . . . . Seems like there's a space between some people's ears, doesn't it? Vast vacuums of ineffable horror.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 22, 2019 18:24:06 GMT
Obviously there is space between the objects. Length x width x height = space. Then what on earth are you collating regarding whether space exists or not? I think that space as it is might be significantly different from space as portrayed in these faked NASA videos.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Dec 22, 2019 18:48:09 GMT
Then what on earth are you collating regarding whether space exists or not? I think that space as it is might be significantly different from space as portrayed in these faked NASA videos. In what kind of ways? Be specific.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 22, 2019 18:55:43 GMT
I think that space as it is might be significantly different from space as portrayed in these faked NASA videos. In what kind of ways? Be specific. Well now, since you asked so nicely, I'm questioning if space travel is even possible at all, given the fakery of the Moon landings and the International Space Station. I'm wondering if the rumors I heard were true, that the Soviets killed one cosmonaut after another before realizing it. Now, unless I'm mistaken, this is the part where gadreel tells me that it would be impossible for any government to keep such a massive secret.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Dec 22, 2019 19:07:16 GMT
In what kind of ways? Be specific. Well now, since you asked so nicely, I'm questioning if space travel is even possible at all, given the fakery of the Moon landings and the International Space Station. I'm wondering if the rumors I heard were true, that the Soviets killed one cosmonaut after another before realizing it. Now, unless I'm mistaken, this is the part where gadreel tells me that it would be impossible for any government to keep such a massive secret. That tells me nothing about what possible ways you think space is different from how it is commonly perceived or portrayed. In what ways could space differ to how it is portrayed.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 22, 2019 19:11:20 GMT
Well now, since you asked so nicely, I'm questioning if space travel is even possible at all, given the fakery of the Moon landings and the International Space Station. I'm wondering if the rumors I heard were true, that the Soviets killed one cosmonaut after another before realizing it. Now, unless I'm mistaken, this is the part where gadreel tells me that it would be impossible for any government to keep such a massive secret. That tells me nothing about what possible ways you think space is different from how it is commonly perceived or portrayed. In what ways could space differ to how it is portrayed. I don't know. It's not my job to answer your questions. I'm calling fake on a fake space program. As to what the fake is standing in for, I don't know.
|
|