>>6149543 >Where does this footage come from? Not from any real spacecraft, that's for sure. Analog horror footage like this is not possible with missions to the outer solar system because they didn't have the power or bandwidth to broadcast signals of this nature, and most of the missions used very different mechanisms to capture images than a normal camera.
>>6149543 looks like some shitty sci fi B movie from the 50's.
>>6149545 looks like something very poorly scanned with some cheap ass 8mm movie scanner. film doesn't do that flattening of the bands of jupiter. also jupiter has high winds but nowhere near that high. I would have said time lapse but the "spaceship" negates that.
>>6149546 that jumping indicates broken film sprocket holes the lens flare is badly done and nothing like any lens would make that looks like a gradient filter.
whatever it is it look like AI slop. if it isn't AI then it's someones film school demo reel.
here is video from voyager 1 each frame is one picture over a 65 day period. taking the picture when the red spot is in the same place. then someone at JPL stitched them together in a movie.
>>6149543 >>6149555 >>6149558 >>6149872 If it's from a Hollywood production or a known sci-fi film, what film is it specifically? Why can't anyone identify the source despite the footage apparently circulating online since at least 2019? Why are there no obvious frame matches, archive references, movie stills, or reverse-image hits connected to these clips?
If it's an ARG or analog horror project, where is the rest of the project? Who made it? If it's fake archival footage, what was the original source material before the degradation and filtering were added?
The interesting thing isn't whether the footage is "real" or not - it's that nobody seems able to trace where it actually came from. Usually internet mystery clips eventually get identified. These haven't, at least not from anything I could find.
>>6149545 >>6149872 If it's a badly scanned 8mm or 16mm film, what was the original source? What movie, documentary, TV special, reel, or archive does it come from? Why does nobody seem able to identify a matching frame anywhere online?
Why would film inherently misrepresent Jupiter's atmospheric banding? Aren't Jupiter's bands known to shift, fade, flatten, and even temporarily disappear over time depending on storm activity, cloud cover, viewing angle, wavelength, and the era the imagery was captured in?
What exactly is the dark triangular object moving left to right near the top of the frame? If it's just scanner damage or film transport artifacting, why does the object appear to move coherently across the scene rather than remain fixed relative to the frame?
And if it's composited or fabricated footage, where is the unprocessed or original version?
>>6149546 >>6149872 I saved these files back in 2019. If it's AI-generated, what AI video tools existed in 2019 that could produce footage like this? Most publicly accessible AI video generation in 2019 was extremely primitive compared to modern systems, wasn't it? What specific model, software, or workflow would have been capable of generating coherent moving planetary imagery like this at that time?
If it's a film school demo reel, where is the reel from? Who made it? Why can't anyone identify the source project, original upload, or matching frames anywhere online? And if the jumping is caused by damaged sprocket holes or bad film scanning, what was the original film source being scanned in the first place?
Isn't the lens flare itself unusual in that it doesn't behave like a typical modern digital flare effect? Why does it look more like a diffuse optical reflection, internal bloom, or secondary imaging artifact than a standard composited flare? And if that's the case, what kind of source, projection method, reflective surface, or capture process could have produced it in the first place?
The interesting question isn't whether the footage has artifacts, clearly it does. The question is what the underlying source material actually is.
>>6150484 >I saved these files >The question is what the underlying source material actually is. You tell us, you are the one claiming you downloaded them.
>>6150491 That's the point. I downloaded them from 4chan back in 2019. I don't know what the original source materials are, and nobody else seems able to identify them either.
People are confidently calling it AI, a 50s B movie, a film school reel, bad scanning, analog horror, composited CGI, etc. But where is the actual source for any of those claims? What movie is it from? What reel? What artist? What project? What archive? What AI workflow available in 2019 produced it?
I'm not claiming to know what the footage is. I'm asking why nobody can trace it to an identifiable source despite everyone sounding certain that it's fake.
>>6150517 >where is the actual source for any of those claims? You can’t prove a negative, you muslim retard. The burden of proof lies with you, YOU need to prove that it’s real and give a verifiable source. If you can’t do that it’s fake.
>>6150521 I'm not claiming they're real. I'm asking what they actually are. There's a difference between saying "this footage is authentic" and saying "I downloaded some weird clips years ago and still can't identify the original source material."
If they're fake, fine. Fake footage still originates from somewhere - a movie, an artist, a reel, a project, a CGI test, an ARG, an animation, something. So far there have been multiple theories in the thread, but no one has posted an actual identifiable source for any of the three videos.
>>6150470 >>6150476 >>6150484 dude they are are badly edit or purposely badly edited video or film. the edits are so bad that it's extremely difficult to find the source media.
whoever made them purposely made them to look as shitty as they could. most likely to keep people from finding the originals. whatever they are they are NOT something mysterious, secret, or whatever you think they are.
>>6150541 here I whipped up a my own attempt at making one of these videos. I took a clip from the movie robinson crusoe on mars. reduced color saturation adjusted contrast added film effects hair, dust, flicker, gain, jitter added glint added starburst adjusted saturation defocused smoothed then I crappily encoded it.
>>6156377 >i-i'm so smart of pretending to be retarded i will mock pretend retards because pretending makes no difference, a pretend retard is still a retard, just in a different way.
>>6156554 Are you pretending? Or are you actually stupid and believe the most obvious erroneous AI hackjob in recent history? Oh you're serious...? Yikes.
>>6145197 >Atmospheric friction >Issues with near FTL and time relativity >absurd size of universe means like 80% of the universe we actually see is gone and we can't see what's replaced it until we're gone. >Had to discover/name a whole subset of already pretty advanced science just to cope with how all the fucking rules change if you go really fast or small.
For a universe that goes really fast all the time it really doesn't like -us- going fast does it?
pretending to be retarded deserves nothing short of complete and utter bullying and humiliation, it is equally as shameful a behaviour as being unironically retarded.
>>6158482 to me the earth is a moldy bacteria covered ball floating in space.
most people cannot comprehend how insanely small we are, and how precipitous our existence is. we have existed in what is the equivalent to a nano second in the life of the universe and we will be gone before anyone else in the universe even knew we were there.
but you (general you) keep pushing your personal agenda because you hate "them" whoever "they" are.
you all will be dead and the universe will be better for it.
>>6160520 I will probably never get to see the S-IC or the F-1 engine in my life, and probably never get to record a TV show about anything. So it absolutely tears my asshole that the fucker couldn't even get straight that the fucking thing burnt kerosene and not hydrogen.
>>6160663 >So it absolutely tears my asshole that the fucker couldn't even get straight that the fucking thing burnt kerosene and not hydrogen. ACKTULLY!
that was a Centaur based rocket that uses liquid oxygen and hydrogen. not a saturn V. I mean did you actually watch the video?
>>6160663 The first stage burned Kerosene and LOX, but the second and third burned hydrogen and lox. You should try to go somewhere that has an F-1 on display, they're really impressive in person.
>>6161132 I've been to the Huntsville one. You can stand under the replica and the real one is laid out really nice, old NASA guys who built the thing are sometimes on staff and give a guided tour. There's also an Apollo capsule in the same building.
>>6157737 I dont get it. if were no different, then why do they need all them for? >>6161206 theres a difference between earth and space and none of you morons seem to get that.
like friction doesn't exist, in space. Space, where NOTHING is. outer space. i dont know what to call it for you idiots to get it. btw explain light to me now
>major in aerospace engineering because i believe humanity has a future in space >work for spaceX and ULA >literal aids >get older >realize spaceflight is just another tool to enslave mankind because payloads are either surveillance devices or weapons of mass destruction >mfw