NASA - Alles Lüge (Teil 1) - Glitches, CGI, Green Screen - Fakten & Positionen

I have a serious question. Are the pictures that NASA and Co. present to us as videos from space really real? Are they real recordings or maybe just fakes shot in a film studio? Do you recognize clues or evidence for film tricks or even computer-generated virtual reality? Let's get to the bottom of the matter. As a media service provider with professional experience since 2004, I claim that everything that NASA, ESA and all the other space travel organizations show us is studio recording, green screen and CGI, i.e. computer-generated visual material. New German, fake. A claim that will probably come across as a big deal. But I think we agree on one point from the start. If the NASA recordings were actually real, we would only get to see pure visual material. Without mistakes, without Hollywood tricks, without questionable scenes that make us doubt the laws of physics. Even a single scene that reveals something like this would be called a lie by NASA and Co. But just look for yourself and form your own judgment. In this episode we will focus on the topic of glitches, CGI and green screen. In general, I will avoid technical terms like white screen and explain the seen as simply as possible so that laypeople understand what is going on. However, a few things have to be mentioned. I think most people can start with green screen. This is the green background that you like to use for film recordings. In short, you film an action scene in front of a green screen, remove the green in the video editing and replace the color with a desired background. So you are very flexible and not bound to local conditions in terms of scene representation. Blue screens are also used, depending on the need. They are not green, but as the name suggests, blue. By the way, green screen also works in live broadcasts. There, however, sometimes with small tweaks. CGI stands for Computer Generated Imagery, i.e. computer generated images. Objects that were created, for example, by a 3D software and thus artificially created. Glitches may need to be explained a little more closely. They are disturbances or calculation errors of a computer program. In our case, graphic errors. The software is supposed to calculate a virtual image scene, for example, which contains an actor, a few real objects, artificially generated 3D objects and an artificial background. At a certain point, for whatever reason, there is a calculation error. The processor may be overloaded. The affected area is not displayed cleanly and strange artifacts, image jumps, distortions or the like appear. Glitches are thus a pretty clear proof of computer manipulation. The question is now, is there such a thing in NASA recordings? And the answer is clearly YES. ABSOLUTELY. Let's start with this piece of jewelry from September 9, 2022. This was a live broadcast in which Kamala Harris allegedly spoke directly to the ISS. Look closely. Well, what do you discover? Here again. Still nothing seen? Let's go into detail. Zoom in and slow down the recording. The cable of the microphone begins to move wildly. The astronaut tries to knock it away and creates a beautiful glitch. Apparently, the 3D software can no longer decide whether the cable should be displayed over or under the hand during fast hand movement. And so it merges with the same or goes through the hand. So we see that the cable is a generated 3D object, because this scene cannot be explained otherwise. The software for image calculation does not get the so-called collision query in order. In other words, it cannot exactly track which image element should collide with which and thus cause a collision. So the hand just becomes a passing, non-colliding object. I hope that was reasonably understandable now. The phantom microphone is also nice to look at a little further back in the film. Now it's there. Now it's gone. There again. Gone again. And there again. Yes, the image calculation went really wrong there. The microphone is clearly also a 3D software and was completely miscalculated into the scene. Camera errors cannot be, because cameras simply record what comes in front of the lens. And the transmission cannot be to blame either, because it would only save the microphone head or the cable, but influence the entire image or large parts of it. Background to computer-generated 3D objects, such as this microphone. Such objects are created in several, I would say, layers or layers. First the basic shape or the wireframe model. Then color and texture layers come over it. And in the end, lighting effects give the final touch to explain it very simply and without major color terms. The final creation of these objects is called rendering. All layers are combined into a finished clip. If you render live, this can of course lead to problems. For example, if the computer cannot generate the desired result quickly enough or the processor is overwhelmed. This is especially problematic when 3D objects are supposed to interact live with actors. And that's exactly what we're talking about here. The following examples show that we are really talking about computer graphics that are displayed live. First, this microphone. First it glitches, then the light reflexes are gone, which were previously present. And immediately from one picture to the next. Second, the astronaut actor Don Pettit demonstrates how to drink coffee in space. Looks pretty good so far, apart from the picture quality. The end of the clip is crucial, because... Oops. Here the coffee suddenly separates from the container and jumps out of it. Without losing its shape. The color layer clearly separates from the shape layer. Which is only possible when the object is created by a 3D software and the live rendering went wrong. A complete miscalculation and thus the next proof that NASA creates its recordings with virtual reality. So here in the third example. Out of nowhere, a plush figure appears that can even be interacted with live. At first I thought you could have hidden the object behind a so-called mask. But you can see a few pictures of the hand of the actress shining through. So the object was overshadowed and not made visible from a mask. Which would be the other possibility at the table. By the way, interacting with virtual objects is explained by the so-called ragdoll engine. Which, for example, is common in video games. You are welcome to research, I will not go deeper now. Motion control would also be an interesting search term to complement the topic. And since we are already on the subject of virtual reality, take a look at this. Pay attention to the guy on the left in the picture, what he's about to do. And here we go. Yes, that goes back and forth, but that's how it gets really clear. Watch your hands. He takes an imaginary object in his left hand, hands it over to the right and puts it aside. It's just stupid that the object he wants to get rid of is not visible. Technical explanation. The channel on which the 3D object inserted live should be shown was not active in the transmission. But apparently in the preview, because look at his eyes. He does not look at the object, but looks forward as if he were checking on a monitor that his action looks good and right. Caught, I would say. Perhaps the actors also use contact lenses for direct preview projection on the retina. Yes, there really is something like that. See for yourself. We see that whole scenes are artificially cut together, like the astronaut on the right in the picture. A short image glitch reveals that it was cut out and rotated into the scene. We see a very straight graphic error with parallel lines that match the man's inclination. So to speak, cut out in the block, rotated by 190 degrees and inserted at the top right. Also the lighting in the face of the man does not match the lighting of the woman and speaks for a separate shot. The light is harder, more direct and ensures more contrast. As a former photographer, I see two different light settings and thus two different shots that were put together. This one is also brilliant. No glitch, but a nice cut error. And? Seen? Again at 15% speed. Like a ghost, it dissolves into the air. Including the environment error on the left side, where a few objects slide up. Here a so-called soft aperture was installed, which allows the transition between two scenes to run smoothly. It's just stupid when such apertures appear in supposedly uncut videos, where they simply shouldn't exist. Another nice and, well, embarrassing example of fade-in. We see magicians on board the ISS, who simply appear out of nowhere with a fade-in sequence. David Copperfield would go pale with envy. Here a level error. In the background you can see a shadow on this white rectangle. And now look closely at what happens to the head of the actor in the back. The computer calculates a part of the said shadow one level before the astro actor, which is why his head is partly covered by it at first, like a door knock. Then, however, the head moves through the shadow plane, which puts 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 tracking goes horribly wrong. The fingers of the right hand are on the microphone. Now this hand is pulled away and without a correction movement, but with nasty graphic glitch, the fingers of the left hand are now on the microphone. But it gets really funny when the hand returns. The fingers glide firmly under the left hand without any resistance, which physically simply does not work at all. You can clearly see the effort of the computer to create a clean image. You can clearly see the cut edges around the fingers as dark outlines and even eaten finger tips. No, dear NASA fans, these are not transmission errors. Another example, and I don't think I have to comment on this image jump, speaks for itself. Again, a rendered 3D object with its own life. And if you let the scene run on, it glitches in one shot. No idea what was going on there, but it looks like the graphics processor ran a little too hot for the live image calculation. But let's get to the other important point to debunk the recording fraud of NASA. The green screen. My favorite shot right at the beginning. The video is officially from the NASA channel. Titles and links are faded in, so feel free to check. The end of the recording is interesting again. All three astronaut actors disappear at the same time in a single graphic blur while the background remains intact. Again. And this time your focus is on these foreground objects, because they are also affected by the graphic glitch. But these green areas are the most interesting. By the glitch in the foreground, we get a direct insight into the real background behind the actors they call astronauts. And that's the green screen. For some reason, the masking of the green area persisted while the image material was destroyed without touching the faded background. The justification for film error or transmission problem is technically impossible. First, the entire image would be affected and not just this extremely selective section. Second, cameras do not generate random colors. They cannot generate a green where there is no green. And transmission errors only destroy the existing image material and do not generate colors from nothing. This is how it works in the film. This clip demonstrates very clearly how you can simply create complete fictional worlds through a green screen. In the film, we take this for granted. But as soon as NASA is accused of falsifying images with this technique, most people think it's absurd. Why actually? Why don't we want to recognize what is obvious as soon as it contradicts our worldview? Are illusions more important to us so that we simply don't want to see? Whatever. Green screen is now a complete standard practice in the video area. Most of the objects are real, the rest is faded in. For example, here during the shoot for the film The Hobbit or in many other films. Or even with NASA itself, as you can see clearly and probably unintentionally in a report here. Ask yourself why you need a green screen behind the ISS, if all space recordings are supposed to be real. Technology is getting better and better and more and more people are reluctant to use green screens. Modern shootings use LED walls that react live to camera movement with the help of video game engines and thus allow for much more realistic effects and optimal lighting. Another advantage, the actors themselves see the background during the shoot. And all of this works live and in real time. By the way, now you can simply generate everything in real time. The video game Hellblade is an incredible example of this. The acting is rendered in real time and given back within milliseconds. In doing so, recordings can be seamlessly put together, so that, like here, the actor can enter into dialogue with himself. Senua, listen to me. Not them. They were afraid. Like children scared of the dark. So was I. They made up monsters to fill the void. That doesn't make them real. They made them. No. Don't leave me. And cut. I'm happy with that one. So we are heading towards times when clear proof of fraud will no longer occur due to negligent or unintended green screen errors. Therefore, it is all the more important to understand now that we are being lied to by NASA and co. I have one more thing to add to this point. Here George Bush Senior visits NASA and what do we see in the background? The so-called astronaut Tim Peake, who was supposed to be in Earth orbit at the same time, and who is dealing with a green ball just in front of a blue cluster background. On the edge, the scene is framed with devices that can always be seen in the great ISS live broadcast. By the way, green objects are also used in the film to provide orientation points for the actors when other 3D objects are to be built in later. And what about the background? You can ask yourself. They later tried to find an excuse for the background and sell it as a tool for scientific experiments. But look at it soberly. What kind of experiments is that supposed to be? What practical use should it serve? A few final examples. Apart from the fact that the image processor wanted to be heat-free again and it glitched to fall over, we also see the treacherous shine of the green screen here. Right now. And even in the next shot, the video software misses the correct release of the green background for a moment. In addition, a great example of how the floating objects and probably the costumes of the astro actors are generated in 3D. Take a closer look at the cable. If that's not a clear calculation error, what is? As an actor, I guess that so-called motion capture suits are used and the right clothes are digitally inserted. Unfortunately, I cannot prove it, but I would explain why there are calculation errors on the person at all. As I said, there would be no such thing in normal film recordings. 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. Almost half of the actor's face was made transparent. Something like this happens when you set the green tolerance too high in the video program. Then areas are also faded away that are not green, but go through, for example, unfavorable shadows in the direction of green. But well, let's leave it at that for the moment. There are still a number of other evidence for NASA image fakes, but these count as the clearest in my opinion. I already know now how much the inner resistance in many NASA fans is angry and almost automatically seeks an explanation that I am wrong and NASA would never lie. I can only tell these people that it is useless to close your eyes to the obvious. No one is as blind as the one who does not want to see. So look, we are deceived and lied to. They still make these mistakes, we can still find out. As explained at the beginning, there should never be such mistakes in real transmissions. Not a single one. They prove that it is fake. And if the question arises now why it is important at all whether space travel organizations are lying, I can only say. Consider everything that depends on NASA and Co. Our entire worldview.