It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Internatiomnal space station actually within an ordinairy airplane..

page: 12
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge


If people can NOT live on a ballistic missile sub for longer that 3 months do to the air turning TOXIC

What? Did Dubay tell you that?

Add this to what Zaphod said. I think food is the main issue, for the short term. They say this sub could remain submerged for 25 years. The reactor would require service after that time. metro.co.uk...

Gotta run because the Moon looks to be coming in a little low. Unbelievable!

edit on 16-2-2016 by DenyObfuscation because: the Moon made me do it




posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014



Not sure if you are being serious, so this is a general reply.

That's actually a good question because one never knows. Let's just say I was trying for irony, or something along those lines. I mean, I know the space station is real. I was wondering what the OP thought he (she) was seeing.

What shows or films were you involved in, if you don't mind me asking.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge




The Sun and the moon are in our atmosphere.



Oh my!




posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: 3danimator2014



Not sure if you are being serious, so this is a general reply.

That's actually a good question because one never knows. Let's just say I was trying for irony, or something along those lines. I mean, I know the space station is real. I was wondering what the OP thought he (she) was seeing.

What shows or films were you involved in, if you don't mind me asking.


Sorry man. I'm afraid I'm not happy to divulge that. But I have mostly worked on uk commercials although I did do a tea commercial in Istanbul with realistic tea leaves falling all over the city. That took a month of solid work.

In the uk, I have been involved with big name commercials all involving photoreal 3d composited over filmed footage. Film wise...not so many, but that was a personal choice I made at a time in my life when I was asked to come work for the mill on films, I didn't want to just be a cog in the machine of film cgi so I decided to stay in the smaller studios and work for tv commercials mostly. Same standard of cgi but much much faster turnarounds plus I get to use the whole host of my skills rather than just animate Gollums arms (for example). I'm also a damn good compositor if I may say so, so maybe that's why I can say with confidence there are very very few moving shots out there that look 100% convincing.


By the way, reason I don't want to divulge is that I've mentioned before what I studied and where and some guy already managed to figure out who I was on Reddit and hounded me....so, no more. Sorry man
edit on 16-2-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014



Sorry man. I'm afraid I'm not happy to divulge that.

That's cool, anonymity and all that.

I've seen behind the scene footage where they do that kind of work. It looks like it takes a lot of talent and painstaking attention to detail.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: 3danimator2014



Sorry man. I'm afraid I'm not happy to divulge that.

That's cool, anonymity and all that.

I've seen behind the scene footage where they do that kind of work. It looks like it takes a lot of talent and painstaking attention to detail.


I added to my reply above about why I'm not divulging. And it's so much work to create anything like Gravity, it would be cheaper to send people to space for real.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I'm just going to put this here....

www.wired.com...



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Inous

OK, that's pretty damn cool.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   
All well and good but there is only a small amount of time in zero gravity supposedly 10 - 20 seconds in the Vomit Comet so how can they make and extended video longer than that ?

stephaniephibbs.wordpress.com...

Just A simple question on how to get around the maximum time in zero gravity to make A extended video ?



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Ok Go have just filmed a music clip on a zero G plane.



You can only stay in zero G for about 15 seconds, you can see in the clip when the plane is diving and when it levels off.
edit on 16/2/16 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: eNumbra
Dear NASA,

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Regards.


Dear eNumbra,

Sorry we cannot get anyone out of earth and into deep space, we gave up on this over 40 years ago.

Regards.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: DutchMasterChief
"A mere façade"? Orbiting Earth at over 17,000 mph at an altitude between 205 and 270 miles. If you can do that, why the need to fake anything? That makes no sense.



Ever try looking at it through a telescope ?

Even at that distance at 17,000 mph it goes by pretty dam fast, you can't really see any detail at all.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Thanks for the laugh.

The ISIS isn't real!

Considering the US no longer has a space program.

And Europeans, and Russia operate the ISS.

I really don't understand people at all.

Ps ?

Amateur astronomers have also photographed every inch of the moon too.

So don't say we didn't go there.


And yet not one good photo of the moon landings, must drive them CRAZY !



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: charlyv

None of this really proves that the ISS as we know it is a real functioning space station with people on it.


So then, why wouldn't it be. I would say that there is overwhelming evidence of being there than not. So statistically, it exists, and there are people on it.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus
I heard they shot a video on the vomit comet. That's cool.



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief


0:49

Why is there a cut? Look at the blurring and the microphone shifting from the one segment to the other.

If this is a cut, then they actually had to have set it up on purpose.


Still no takers?

I'll take that as an admission.

If someone now feels compelled to say it is a connection glitch or something, it is easy to establish that it's not.


So why did they have to make that cut and then splice it together with another scene in an apparent attempt to pass it of as a single scene during a supposed live stream. No original video without edits to be found and as far as I can tell no actual reporting present at that school.
edit on 17-2-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Regarding the duration of "zero G" during parabolic flight, it depends on the size of the parabole. The numbers that people are refering to here are not the limit, these 20 sec durations are from the standard testing and practise, happening for instance between 12.000 and 8.000 meter.

I am pretty sure they can safely push this to 40 sec, or more.
edit on 17-2-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

An admission of what?

That people think you're right?

No.

You can try and stretch the laws of physics to suggest that the Canadian Space Agency didn't have an astronaut in the ISS and were using unheard of parabolic flight lengths to generate the required footage, or they just edited out the faffy bit of him taking a wrapper off a washcloth because it makes tedious TV.

Editing does not automatically mean suspicious behaviour or trying to hide something, it could just be editing.

And if you haven't seen the original footage how do you know it wasn't a glitch? On my cycle home today I recorded the journey. The camera has a maximum file size before it generates a new file. Each time it does this I lose a small amount of video. Does that mean I didn't cycle home?



posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

The video was presented as proof of zero G in an extended video, only it is full of edits.




You can try and stretch the laws of physics to suggest that the Canadian Space Agency didn't have an astronaut in the ISS and were using unheard of parabolic flight lengths to generate the required footage, or they just edited out the faffy bit of him taking a wrapper off a washcloth because it makes tedious TV.


What Law of Physics are preventing longer zero g durations in the situation I explained?

So you think he was fighting with the thing for 2 mins during the supposed livestream?




And if you haven't seen the original footage how do you know it wasn't a glitch?


I said not a connection glitch. Because you can see it being spliced together. It is doctored.



On my cycle home today I recorded the journey. The camera has a maximum file size before it generates a new file. Each time it does this I lose a small amount of video. Does that mean I didn't cycle home?


Nice anecdote but it doesn't apply here does it?
edit on 17-2-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join