Carefully study the clouds between 5:40 and 5:50. There is a sudden change in their shape, like a loop coming to its end. Moving objects at 5:49 or 7:17 pretty much look like bubbles. Maybe some bluescreen filming in a pool? I know that NASA training is under water.
8:45+ you see STUDIO-LIGHTS reflection in the mirror WTF!
Trackbacks |
No trackbacks, yet.
Comments |
The sudden change in cloud shape appears more to be a compression related quality loss due to the general low contrast of earth.
The appearance of earth in general, while strange to those used to high quality space imagery in movies, is nothing unusual as well, as it depends on the camera setting (aperture too high perhaps). I could imagine they turned up the aperture high enough so the indirect reflected light from earth provides enough lighting for the space vessel + personnel.
Last thing that seems to be evidence against fake (for me at least) is the 0 gravity behavior of the safety cords they use.
I think, if it was fake, then at least those imaging errors would in all probability not be there, to make for a nicer overall presentation (a fake production implies that they try to impress others with it).
(and no, i'm not related to the chinese, nor their government)
Last thing that seems to be evidence against fake (for me at least) is the 0 gravity behavior of the safety cords they use.
Could be helium-filled balloons.
[quote]Could be helium-filled balloons.[/quote]
Look at the metal piece attaching the cord to the vessel. Still helium?
who says its really out of metal?
Watch the reflections on his watch around 8:55. What is that if it isn't an array of floodlights?
most boring "conspiracy theory" I've ever seen.
flag movements @5:24 seems suspect. Also those chords: why do they seem to flow up, at least at the beginning?
The chords try to assume a position of low stress ie as straight as possible.
The "floodlights" can be seen when the watch is pointed almost directly at the camera, so it is probably the cameras array of lights, maybe LEDs.
The light reflected off the spacecraft is _much_ brighter than any star. Just because a human eye can see something does not mean a camera can. Remember the black ink on a book page reflects much more light when read in the sunlight than the (white) paper when read under room lighting. The human eye sees contrasts while a camera "sees" absolute brightness for every pixel.
Also a star is much smaller than one pixel out of 480.
The clouds are clearly compression artifacts as seen in any compressed movie when the decoder has not enough bandwidth available or erroneously decides something is not important but one can see it anyway.
I'm not saying this isn't faked, but those arguments don't prove anything :)
Yeah lets all listen to the obviously unbiased opinions of WASABI and KORBSAN... its under banned media why would it be true?
Also, shouldnt there be the constant, unblocked shine of the sun? The camera should be flooded with high contrast darks and lights. Wouldnt his little mirror on his arm reflect some kind of, oh I dunno, unfiltered blinding rays? Wouldnt the solar panels be facing in the correct direction to pick up the amount of light necessary to run the station? And, if so, they would look kinda shiny ey?
"its under banned media why would it be true?"
switched category to "received reality", my bad.
look at the little air-bubble floating from under the helmet of the "astronaut" on the right side to the top of the screen at 5:49... they are clearly under water filming this... what a flimsy job, thats just funny.
China's news agency xinhua published "quotes from space" long before taikonaut's takeoff:
yeah, judging from the utter lack of stars, the obvious air bubble at 5:49 (and given it's angle, the floating of other pieces can be determined), looks p.bad to me. the flag could have been a heavy piece of leather or something like that to have it not have so much visible water resistance.
also noting the angle of "up" from the bubble, the floodlights could actually be the lights of the building the pool is in. there's far too many of them to be the led's of the camera, spaced far too far apart. the camera would have to be the size of a drywall board from that distance. furthermore, looking from the opposite angle moments before, we see no array of lights around any such camera.
The Bubble at 5:49 from the right "astronauts" helmet is obvious. All anti-conspiracy-theorists please sshhhh!
I was working in a pool one day, in the merry, merry month of May--
October. October is the day and, in space, nobody can hear you sing.
BTW, the security code was "ICaQa". Yeah, I see water, definitely.
Where are the stars ? I mean take a view mins and videogoogle for space missions - you can see the stars everywhere .... in that yellow vid ist only black!
Could somebody please link to a 'genuine' spacewalk video where the stars show up? Should be an easy task for the space photography experts here.
Just look here:
http://images.google.com/images?safe=off&q=... walk
As you can see, there are no visible stars anywhere and many of these are even high-resolution photographs instead of screenshots of a over-compressed webcam-quality video. Have you ever photographed or filmed the nightsky? I guess not. This may very well be fake but the lack of stars isn't even worth to be mentioned.
Of course the search term was supposed to be "space walk", not space:
I can understand when someone says that the moon landing back then was fake. When was that again... around 1950 or something :D ? They did not have any good computers or photoshops to manipulate some pictures.
I dont think they'd been working months on a fake vid and then forgot to remove the array of floodlights reflecting in his.. iPhone.
Watch some cinematic Halo 3 Trailers and then tell me that it looks unreal. I just want to say that TODAY its impossible to say whats fake and whats not. Just google "brintney spears naked". It may look real, maybe it IS real! But you can never know....
THIS is a bubble! go check it out at around 7:17
The movements of the arms and the flag are too quick to be under water. Try to wave your arm like the first does in the first minutes under water - it's not possible, the water slows you down to much.
Maybe the bubble is space debris, though it would be rather careless....
The only thing that looks suspicious are these small floating "bubble" objects. But one would really need to see the video at higher quality. With this compression it is impossible what they are, though they don't look like bubbles to me and this being filmed under water seems very far-fetched. Movement would look very different and lighting as well.
i just have to:
somebody, fish, aj, mono, Nonbody and timtom GET A JOB. i want just once in my lifetime see you make something so complex and complicated like a spacewalk and then some jobless freak who thinks hes smart because he thinks he can distinguish bubbles from ANY other stuff that floats around in space sais its a fake. "blubb" (i think he chose the name in annoyance) is right. you JUST CANT DIFFER a fake from an original today. even the most brainless nerd like most here could do it better if it was a fake.
so if the bubbles arent bubbels - why does the stuff behind them look like its behind a lense ? and, btw, the "not-bubbles" are moving faster when he moves his arm ...
wtf, why are so many redstared yellow little man in front of my house ?
And how can you know that there is really a person inside that suit?
there was actually some "fire alarm" at the background when the guy tried to move out. that is the most annoying thing for the "communist government", you need to understand that broadcast was shown to more than 100 million Chinese at that day, why the communist government want that "fire alarm" thing at the background if the video was took in a pool? to tell the population that they couldn't make a sensor more reliable?
interesting vid, yes, might be a fake. Why not ask NASA to confirm that mission?