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 Nasa exposed using green screen here?

page: 3
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: heineken

As Shamrock has shown, it’s not what you’re calling a blue screen.

That aside, the idea of a blue screen is its entirely blue yeah?

The white grid renders it useless.

Come on.




posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: heineken

Ask yourself why the comments are disabled for that video you posted? I've given you some advice to stay away from the flat earth madness on YouTube.

How about the cameras inside the ISS?



See footage taken by a fisheye from inside. Compare the two videos that show footage of the earth.



Camera gear used inside the ISS.

www.diyphotography.net...

Scroll down the comments on the video and see the post by Dark Star.


Dark Star 1 year ago Even with a 'fish-eye' (curvilinear) lens you can still reliably see the curvature by noting what the actual distortion of the lens is (and with software you can completely reverse it). I go into the details here both on the lens side and calculating the estimated size of the horizon sagitta - where you draw a line between the two edges of the horizon and measure the height of the hump to most distant horizon point. Since the horizon is a circle with radius ~1426 miles and from 249 miles we're viewing the edge from about a 20 degree angle that means that it appears as part of an ellipse. flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com... Curvilinear lenses essentially bend everything outwards from the center so as long as your curvature is going the OPPOSITE direction of this distortion - and you can still observe the curvature - then you have a winner. Even without correction (as I show above). Right around 2:04 I think we see the best evidence for curvature. Real quick estimate: 1314720 feet up, 1729 pixels across the window view, ~60 degree FOV through the window. The estimated size of the curvature hump (or sagitta, ) gives about 84 pixels: www.metabunk.org... I counted that at about 88 pixels by fitting an Ellipse to the curvature to help compensate for the atmospheric distortion along the horizon and then measuring the pixels of the 'hump' (hard to tell exactly where the edge is so we're +/- probably 5 or so pixels). So I would say that this view is very consistent with the expected view from 249 miles up and therefore this image, even if it has SOME lens distortion, is very close to what we would expect to see with our eyes. In contrast, you can see that when the 'upside down' Earth is lower in the image we see some exaggeration of the curvature. In this case you would need to correct any lens distortion before using it for estimates. To do that RIGHT you need to know the exact lens (and settings on that lens, aperture, focal length, etc) that was used and get the corrections from a database but so long as things are going through the center they aren't very distorted. Hope that helps.


Dark Star's blogspot on fish eye.

flatearthinsanity.blogspot.co.uk...

Another good thread to have a look at.

www.metabunk.org...
edit on 2/12/2017 by tommyjo because: Malformed url corrected

edit on 2/12/2017 by tommyjo because: Additional info added



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: heineken

In the video we can see Bush entering the scene and in the background there is what looks like to be faking ISS activity using green screen.



That looks nothing like a Chroma Key screen (greenscreen/Bluescreen). A real Chroma Key screen would not have a white grid. That white gird would screw up the effect (we may not see the blue when the effect is "working", but would see the white grid).

That background behind the astronaut is a grid used to measure the movement of the ball.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: heineken
just wow found another interesting video ...



Could the thing on his lower back be an antenna (maybe radio or broadband pr something similar) so he could stay electronically connected to some "base unit" as he floats through the ISS?

I see TV studio reporters or stage performers wearing boxes on their lower backs (often under their clothes) for their wireless mics, and I'm thinking this could be a similar thing, bit maybe for some other kind of connectivity to some other device on the ISS.


originally posted by: tommyjo

Nothing remarkable about it. It is just a floating strap. It is just ridiculous non-sense to claim that he is suspended by it!

See Metabunk link for further details.

Metabunk Link

Ahhh. Another good explanation.
Thanks.

edit on 2017/12/4 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo

Yup.

They use that for the same reason archaeologists use these. To help measure things, or plot locations...rather important in many aspects of science.




new topics

top topics
 
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join