65 Years of NASA: All a Lie?!
17 Oct 2023 | www.kla.tv/27238
In October 1958, 65 years ago, the U.S. space agency NASA began its operations. What for some is the flagship of U.S. research is, for others, the production site of a very elaborately made—but not flawless—deception, in other words: fake. It is precisely these flaws that catch the eye of media professionals and are commented on accordingly. This is also the case in the following 20-minute documentary, which is intended to encourage viewers to form their own opinion. Ultimately, it is about nothing less than our entire worldview.
Copyright: https://chnopfloch.ch/datenschutz/
(DOWNLOAD THE VIDEO HERE)
I have a serious question: Are the images that NASA and others present to us as videos from outer space really real? Are they genuine recordings, or perhaps forgeries filmed in a movie studio? Can one recognize indications or evidence of film tricks or even computer-generated virtual reality?
Let’s get to the bottom of these questions:
As a media service provider with professional experience since 2004, I claim: Everything NASA, ESA, and all the other space agencies show us is studio footage, green screen, and CGI—computer-generated imagery—in modern terms: fake!
This is a claim that will likely meet with strong resistance. However, I think we can agree on one point from the outset. If NASA’s recordings were actually real, we would see nothing but pristine image material. Without errors, without Hollywood tricks, without questionable scenes that make us doubt the laws of physics. Even a single scene that revealed such things would expose NASA and others as liars. But just watch for yourselves and form your own judgment.
In this episode we focus on glitches, CGI, and green screen. I will generally avoid technical jargon as much as possible and explain what is seen as simply as I can so that laypeople can also understand what is going on. Nevertheless, a few things must be mentioned.
Most people are probably familiar with green screen. It is the green background often used for film recordings. Simply put: an actor is filmed in front of a green backdrop, the green is removed in video editing, and the color is replaced with a desired background. This makes one very flexible and not tied to specific locations in terms of scene depiction. Depending on requirements, blue screens are also used—then they are not green but, as the name suggests, blue. By the way, green screen also works in live broadcasts, though sometimes with small pitfalls. CGI stands for Computer Generated Imagery—computer-generated images. Objects that originate, for example, from 3D software and are thus artificially created.
Glitches may need a bit more explanation: they are malfunctions or calculation errors in a computer program—in our case, graphical errors. The software is supposed to calculate a virtual image scene containing an actor, some real objects, artificially generated 3D objects, and an artificial background. At a certain point—whatever the reason—a calculation error occurs; perhaps the processor is overloaded. The affected area is not rendered cleanly and strange artifacts, image jumps, distortions, or similar effects appear.
Glitches are therefore quite clear evidence of computer manipulation. The question now is: do such things exist in NASA footage? And the answer is unequivocally YES! Absolutely!
Let’s start with this gem from September 9, 2022: a live broadcast in which Kamala Harris supposedly spoke directly with the ISS. Look closely! Well? What do you notice? Here it is again. Still nothing? Let’s go into detail, zoom in and slow down the footage:
The microphone cable begins to move wildly. The astronaut tries to bat it away and in doing so creates a beautiful glitch. Apparently, during the fast hand movement, the 3D software can no longer decide whether the cable should be displayed over or under the hand, and so it virtually merges with it, or passes straight through the hand. We therefore see that the cable is a generated 3D object, because there is no other way to explain this scene.
The image-rendering software fails to handle the so-called collision detection. In other words, it cannot accurately track which image element should collide with which and thus cause repulsion. As a result, the hand suddenly becomes a permeable, non-colliding object. I hope that was at least somewhat understandable.
Also nice to look at is the phantom microphone a little further back in the film. Now it’s there! Now it’s gone! Back again! Gone again! And back again! Yes, the image calculation really went wrong there. The microphone clearly also originates from 3D software and was completely miscalculated into the scene.
They cannot be camera errors, because cameras simply record flatly whatever comes in front of the lens. Nor can the transmission be at fault, because it could not possibly exclude only the microphone head or cable, but would affect the entire image or large parts of it.
Some background on computer-generated 3D objects such as this microphone: such objects are created in several—let’s say—layers. First the basic shape or wireframe model, then color and texture layers are added, and finally lighting effects give the finishing touch, explained very simply and without much jargon. The final creation of these objects is called rendering. During rendering, all layers are combined into a finished clip. If rendering is done live, this can of course lead to problems—for example because the computer cannot generate the desired result quickly enough or the processor is overloaded. This is particularly problematic when 3D objects are supposed to interact live with actors. And that is exactly what we are talking about here.
In the following examples you can clearly see that we are indeed dealing with computer graphics that are inserted live:
This microphone. First it glitches, then the light reflections that were previously present suddenly disappear—from one frame to the next.
The astronaut actor Don Pettit demonstrates how to drink coffee in space. It looks quite good so far, apart from the image quality. The end of the clip is decisive, because—oops—the coffee suddenly separates from the container and jumps out of it without losing its shape. The color layer clearly detaches from the shape layer, which is only possible if the object originates from 3D software and the live rendering went wrong. A textbook miscalculation and thus the next proof that NASA creates its footage using virtual reality.
The same applies in the third example: out of nowhere, a plush figure appears, with which one can even interact live. At first I thought the object might have been hidden behind a so-called mask, but for a few frames you can see the actress’s hand shining through it. So the object was overlaid, not revealed from a mask, which rules out the other possibility.
Interacting with virtual objects is explained by the so-called ragdoll engine, which is common in video games. Feel free to research it; I won’t go into more detail here. Motion control would also be an interesting search term to complement the topic.
And since we’re already on the subject of “virtual reality,” take a look at this. Pay attention to the guy on the left of the image and what he does next. And here we go. Yes, this goes back and forth, but that’s how it becomes really clear. Watch his hands. He takes an imaginary object in his left hand, passes it to his right, and puts it aside. Too bad that the object he wants to get rid of is not visible.
Technical explanation: the channel on which the live-inserted 3D object was supposed to be shown was not active in the broadcast. Apparently it was active in the preview, though—just look at his eyes. He is not looking at the object, but straight ahead, as if checking on a monitor that his action looks good and correct. “Caught,” I would say. Possibly the actors even use contact lenses for direct preview projection onto the retina. Yes, such things really exist!
We also see that entire scenes are artificially spliced together, such as the astronaut actor on the right of the image. A brief image glitch reveals that he was cut out and rotated into the scene. We see a very straight-cut graphical error with parallel lines that match the man’s angle of tilt. So to speak, cut out as a block, rotated 190 degrees, and inserted at the top right. The lighting on the man’s face also does not match the woman’s lighting and suggests a separate recording. The light is harsher, more direct, and creates more contrast. As a former photographer, I see two different lighting setups and thus two different recordings that were merged.
This one is also brilliant. No glitch, but a nice editing error. And we see—again at 15% speed—how he dissolves into thin air like a ghost, including environmental errors on the left side where some objects slip upward. A so-called soft dissolve was used here, blending the transition between two scenes. Unfortunately, such dissolves have no place in supposedly uncut videos where they simply must not occur.
Another nice and, well, embarrassing example of compositing: we see “magicians” aboard the ISS who simply appear out of nowhere via an insert sequence. David Copperfield would turn green with envy.
Here is a layering error. In the background, on this white rectangle, you can see a shadow. Now watch closely what happens to the head of the performer in the back. The computer calculates part of the shadow as a layer in front of the astronaut actor, which is why his head is initially partially obscured by it, like by a door lintel. Then his head moves through the shadow layer, which puts the software into a logic problem. The bald head first merges with the shadow and then melts through it. A clear CGI calculation error.
In the next shot, the so-called tracking—object tracking—goes badly wrong. The fingers of the right hand are on the microphone. Now this hand is pulled away, and without any corrective movement, but with nasty graphic glitches, the fingers of the left hand are suddenly on the microphone. It gets really funny when the hand is moved back. The fingers literally glide under the left hand without any resistance whatsoever, which is physically impossible. At the same time, you can clearly see the computer’s effort to produce a clean image. The cut edges around the fingers are clearly visible as dark outlines, and even chewed-off fingertips can be seen. No, dear NASA fans, these are not transmission errors.
One more example, and I think I don’t need to comment on this image jump—it speaks for itself. Again a rendered 3D object with a life of its own. And if you let the scene run, it glitches continuously. No idea what was going on there, but it looks as if the graphics process for the live image calculation overheated a bit.
But let’s move on to another important point for exposing NASA’s falsified footage: the green screen. Right at the start, my favorite shot. The video officially comes from NASA’s channel. Title and links are displayed, so feel free to check.
Once again, the end of the recording is interesting. All three astronaut actors blur simultaneously into a single graphic mush, while the background remains intact. Again. And this time, focus on the foreground objects, because they too are affected by the graphic glitch. But the most interesting are these green areas. Through the glitch in the foreground layer, we get a direct glimpse of the true background behind the actors they call astronauts. And that is the green screen. For some reason, the masking of the green area remained intact while the image material disintegrated—without affecting the inserted background.
The explanation “film error” or “transmission problem” is technically impossible. First, the entire image would be affected, not just this highly selective section. Second, cameras do not generate arbitrary colors. They cannot create green where there is no green. And transmission errors only destroy existing image material; they do not create colors out of nothing.
This is how it works in film. This clip demonstrates very impressively how entire fictional worlds can be created simply with a green screen. In film, we take this for granted. But as soon as one accuses NASA of falsifying images with this technique, most people consider it absurd. Why, actually? Why don’t we want to acknowledge 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 anything? Be that as it may. Green screen is completely standard practice in video production today. A few objects are real, the rest is composited—such as here during the filming of “The Hobbit,” or in many other films. Or even at NASA itself, as can be clearly—and probably unintentionally—seen here in a report. Ask yourselves why one would need a green screen behind the ISS if all space footage is supposed to be real.
Meanwhile, the technology is getting better and better, and green screens are being used less and less. Modern productions use LED walls that react live to camera movement with the help of video game engines, thus appearing much more realistic and enabling optimal lighting. Another advantage: the actors themselves see the background during filming—and all of this works live and in real time. By the way, today almost everything can be generated in real time. The video game “Hellblade” is an incredible example. The acting is rendered in real time and displayed again within milliseconds. Shots can be seamlessly merged so that, as here, the actor can enter into dialogue with himself.
We are therefore heading toward times when clear evidence of forgery through careless or unintended green-screen errors will no longer occur. This makes it all the more important to understand now that we are being coldly lied to by NASA & Co. I have one more example on this point. George Bush Sr. visited NASA—and what do we see in the background? The so-called astronaut Tim Peake, who was supposedly at the same time in Earth orbit, and who is handling a green sphere in front of a blue grid background. At the edges, the scene is framed by equipment that is always seen in the wonderful ISS live broadcasts. By the way, green objects are also used in film to provide reference points for actors when other 3D objects are to be added later. And as for the background—you can ask yourselves.
Later, an excuse was attempted for the background, selling it as an aid for scientific experiments. But look at it soberly: what on earth are these supposed experiments? What practical benefit are they supposed to have?
A few concluding examples: Apart from the image processor apparently wanting to cool down again and glitching like crazy, we also see here the telltale shining through of the green screen—right now. And in the next shot, the video software briefly fails to correctly key out the green background. Additionally, a great example that the floating objects—and even the clothing of the astro-actors—are 3D-generated. Take a close look at the cable: if that’s not a clear calculation error, then what is? As for the actor, I suspect that so-called motion-capture suits are used and the appropriate clothing is digitally inserted. I cannot prove this, but it would explain why there are calculation errors on the person at all. As I said, in normal film recordings such things would not occur: the background remains intact, calculated objects turn into pixel mush. They are computer-generated images—nothing else.
This one is also quite funny and actually a bit creepy: half of the actor’s face was made transparent. This happens when the green tolerance in the video program is set too high. Areas are then keyed out that are not green but shift toward green due to, for example, unfavorable shadows. But enough of that for now.
There are many more pieces of evidence for NASA image forgery. But in my opinion, these are among the clearest. I already know how strong the inner resistance in many NASA fans will be, automatically seeking explanations for why I must be wrong and NASA would never lie. To those people I can only say: it is pointless to close your eyes to the obvious. No one is so blind as the one who does not want to see! So look. We are being deceived and lied to! For now, they still make these mistakes; for now, we can still detect them. As explained at the beginning: in real broadcasts, such errors must never occur—not a single one! They prove that forgery is taking place.
And if the question now arises why it even matters whether space agencies lie, I can only say: consider what all depends on NASA & Co.—our entire worldview.
hm
