A Proper Gander At Propaganda


PLEASE NOTE: This is not a conspiracy theory blog.

This website exists to serve as public resource for reverse imagineering world-wide culture, one that takes a critical look at the numerous artifacts and other types of relics that represent our shared collective international heritage. This blog is dedicated to examining social engineering and the use of tax funded governmental propaganda, and the mainstream media, as international human resource management tools.

About The AA Morris Proper Gander At Propaganda Podcast: Coming to you from one of the suburban metropolitan melting pots of international culture, outside of one of the multimedia capitals of the world, New York City, the Proper Gander at Propaganda podcast is meant to be a filter free look at our shared international cultural heritage, our shared social media infused and obsessed present, and what our children and their children could be looking forward to. This link will bring you to the podcast page of this website, with embedded squarespace audio: link: http://www.aamorris.net/podcast/

Thank you for taking the time to read this,

AA "The Proper Gander" Morris

Article Index Link  •  Tip Jar Link: For those who wish to support independent media.

Web addresses: www.aamorris.net or www.aamorris.com

Zero-G Parabolic Flight With The illusion '76

illusion (n.) 

mid-14c., "mockery, scorning, derision;" late 14c., "act of deception; deceptive appearance, apparition; delusion of the mind," from Old French illusion "a mocking, deceit, deception" (12c.), from Latin illusionem (nominative illusio) "a mocking, jesting, jeering; irony," from past participle stem of illudere "mock at," literally "to play with," from assimilated form of in- "at, upon" (see in- (2)) + ludere "to play" (see ludicrous). Sense of "deceptive appearance" first developed in Church Latin. Related: Illusioned "full of illusions" (1920).

illusionist (n.) 

"conjurer, magic act performer," 1840, from illusion + -ist. Earlier "one suffering from illusions" (1812). Middle English had illusor"deceiver, deluder."

Do You Understand The Gravity of The Situation?

Can Parabolic Flights Be Faked?

With Pre-Production and Post-Production techniques, they can be faked.

"Pre-production is the process of fixing some of the elements involved in a filmplay, or other performance. There are three parts in a production: pre-production, production, and post-production. Pre-production ends when the planning ends and the content starts being produced."

"Post-production, or postproduction, is part of the process of filmmakingvideo production and photography. It occurs in the making of motion picturestelevision programsradio programsadvertisingaudio recordingsphotography, and digital art. It is a term for all stages of production occurring after shooting or recording individual program segments"

A Very Special Effect

"The illusions or tricks of the eye used in the filmtelevisiontheatrevideo game, and simulator industries to simulate the imagined events in a story or virtual world are traditionally called special effects (often abbreviated as SFX, SPFX, or simply FX).

Special effects are traditionally divided into the categories of optical effects and mechanical effects. With the emergence of digital filmmaking a distinction between special effects and visual effects has grown, with the latter referring to digital post-production while "special effects" referring to mechanical and optical effects.

Mechanical effects (also called practical or physical effects) are usually accomplished during the live-action shooting. This includes the use of mechanized props, scenery, scale modelsanimatronicspyrotechnics and atmospheric effects: creating physical wind, rain, fog, snow, clouds, etc. Making a car appear to drive by itself and blowing up a building are examples of mechanical effects. Mechanical effects are often incorporated into set design and makeup. For example, a set may be built with break-away doors or walls to enhance a fight scene, or prosthetic makeup can be used to make an actor look like a non-human creature.

Optical effects (also called photographic effects) are techniques in which images or film frames are created photographically, either "in-camera" using multiple exposuremattes, or the Schüfftan process, or in post-production using an optical printer. An optical effect might be used to place actors or sets against a different background.

Since the 1990s, computer generated imagery (CGI) has come to the forefront of special effects technologies. It gives filmmakers greater control, and allows many effects to be accomplished more safely and convincingly and—as technology improves—at lower costs. As a result, many optical and mechanical effects techniques have been superseded by CGI."

A Trick with Wires

Superman Flies in A Hollywood Harness

If You Can't Actually Dance on The Celling, Move The Set!

This video shows how Fred Astaire's famous "dance around the room" was filmed by Stanley Donen in the 1951 movie "Royal Wedding" (now in public domain). To see a detailed account of how this video was made, visit http://www.bigfott.com/Astaire_Unwound.html .

A Flight of The Imagination?

All That's Left Are The Harnesses

It's Stanley's Space: 2001 Baby!


Of Course It's Easier To Fake It Than To Actually Go Into Outer Space:

Just like a hamster in a wheel, yet the astronaut, unlike the hamster is in ZERO G, or rather he is supposed to be, and yet he is able to somehow manage to run despite the fact that there is no force available to push him back towards his hamster wheel. He should have been pushed away from it instead of being able to somehow run,  It is as if gravity was turned on and then off again. This is impossible. The way it is done is explained in this article.

SkyLab- Jogging on The Walls- Impossible Physics

Zero G Parabolic Flight with The Ilyushin 76

Flying with Wires

Centripetal Motion 2001 A Space Odyssey

The Big Bang Theory- Howard in Space.

'Gravity' Behind-The-Scenes

The zero-gravity hallway fight scenes were achieved by using "...massive, rotating sets that twisted and turned and forced Gordon-Levitt to maneuver with utmost caution. Five-hundred crew-members were involved in the scene, which took a full three weeks to complete."

"Jogging in weightlessness? :) Get real! It's fake. Jogging in weightlessness is impossible, period."

Compare the above clip to the one below:

Space Station Centrifuge Gravity Simulation 196x NASA color 3min

The Chroma Key To The Puzzle

"Chroma key compositing, or chroma keying, is a special effects / post-production technique for compositing (layering) two images or videostreams together based on color hues (chroma range). The technique has been used heavily in many fields to remove a background from the subject of a photo or video – particularly the newscastingmotion picture and videogame industries. A color range in the top layer is made transparent, revealing another image behind. The chroma keying technique is commonly used in video production and post-production. This technique is also referred to as color keyingcolour-separation overlay (CSO; primarily by the BBC"

Lost Your Key? Front Project!

"A front projection effect is an in-camera visual effects process in film production for combining foreground performance with pre-filmed background footage. In contrast to rear projection, which projects footage onto a screen from behind the performers, front projection projects the pre-filmed material over the performers and onto a highly reflective background surface."


"Introvision is a front projection composite photography system using a pair of perpendicular reflex screens to combine two projected scenes with a scene staged live before the camera in a single shot. It utilizes a camera, two projectors, and three half-silver mirrors/beam-splitters. It allows foreground, midground and background elements to be combined in-camera: such as sandwiching stage action (such as actors) between two projected elements, foreground and background."

"Introvision was first used in 1980-81 during the filming of the science-fiction movie Outland to combine star Sean Connery and other performers with models of the Io mining colony.[4] It was also used in the telefilm Inside the Third Reich to place actors portraying Adolf Hitler and Albert Speer in the long-destroyed Reichstag,[5] as well as Under SiegeArmy of Darkness and The Fugitive, where it seemed to place Harrison Ford on top of a bus that was then rammed by a train. Adventures in Babysitting employed IntroVision to place children in multiple situations of peril such as hanging from the rafters and scaling the "Smurfit-Stone Building" in Chicago, and Stand By Me used IntroVision during the train sequence.[6] Most movie companies brought small units to the Introvision sound stages near Poinsettia and Santa Monica Boulevard in Hollywood, California. Scenes were often shot near the end of the production schedule to allow for the shooting of "live" plates to have been done while on location."


"Front projection was chosen as the main method for shooting Christopher Reeve's flying scenes in Superman. However, they still faced the problem of having Reeve actually fly in front of the camera. Effects wizard Zoran Perisic patented a new refinement to front projection that involved placing a zoom lens on both the movie camera and the projector. These zoom lenses are synchronized to zoom in and out simultaneously in the same direction. As the projection lens zooms in, it projects a smaller image on the screen; the camera lens zooms in at the same time, and to the same degree, so that the projected image (the background plate) appears unchanged, as seen through the camera. However the subject placed in front of the front projection screen appears to have moved closer to the camera; thus Superman flies towards the camera. Perisic called this technique "Zoptic". The process was also used in two of the Superman sequels (but not used in the fourth movie due to budget constraints), Return to OzRadio FlyerHigh Road to ChinaDeal of the CenturyMegaforceThief of BaghdadGreatest American Hero (TV), as well as Perisic's films as directorSky Bandits (also known as Gunbus) and The Phoenix and the Magic Carpet."

If You can't Control Gravity, Control The Motion of Everything Else

"Model-making for scenery has long been used in the film industry, but when a model is too small it often loses its illusion and becomes "obviously a model". Solving this by building a larger model introduces a dilemma: larger models are more difficult to build and often too fragile to move smoothly. The solution is to move the camera, rather than the model, and the advent of compact lightweight 35mm cameras has made machine-controlled motion control feasible. Motion-control also requires control over other photographic elements, such as frame rates, focus, and shutter speeds. By changing the frame rates and the depth of field, models can seem to be much larger than they actually are, and the speed of the camera motion can be increased or decreased accordingly.

World War Two Technology Re-imagined!

"With aircraft speeds increasing dramatically during the war, even the speed of the Kerrison Predictor proved lacking by the end. Nevertheless, the Predictor demonstrated that effective gunnery required some sort of reasonably powerful computing support, and in 1944 Bell Labs started delivery of a new system based around an analog computer. The timing proved excellent. Late in the summer the Germans started attacking London with the V-1 flying bomb, which flew at high speeds at low altitudes. After a month of limited success against them, every available anti-aircraft gun was moved to the strip of land on the approach to London, and the new sights proved to be more than capable against them. Daytime attacks were soon abandoned.

Long after the war, U.S. M5's started appearing in surplus shops in the late 1950sJohn Whitney purchased one (and later a Sperry M7) and connected the electrical outputs to servos controlling the positioning of small lit targets and light bulbs. He then modified the "mathematics" of the system to move the targets in various mathematically controlled ways, a technique he referred to as incremental drift. As the power of the systems grew they eventually evolved into what is today known as motion control photography, a widely used technique in special effects filming."

Kerrison Predictor, below.

Early attempts at motion control came about when John Whitney pioneered several motion techniques using old anti-aircraft analog computers (Kerrison Predictor) connected to servos to control the motion of lights and lit targets. The 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey pioneered motion control in two respects. The film's model photography was conducted with large mechanical rigs that enabled precise and repeatable camera and model motion. The film's finale was created with mechanically controlled slit-scan photography, which required precise camera motion control during the exposure of single frames. The first large-scale application of motion control was in Star Wars (1977), where a digitally controlled camera known as the Dykstraflex performed complex and repeatable motions around stationary spaceship models. This enabled a greater complexity in the spaceship-battle sequences, as separately filmed elements (spaceships, backgrounds, etc.) could be better coordinated with one another with greatly reduced error.

In the UK The Moving Picture Company had the first practical motion control rig. Designed and built in-house, it used the IMC operating system to control its various axis of movement. Peter Truckel operated it for several years before leaving to pursue a career as a successful commercials director.

The simultaneous increase in power and affordability of computer-generated imagery in the 21st century, and the ability for CGI specialists to duplicate even hand-held camera motion (see Match moving), initially made the use of motion control photography less common. However film producers and directors have come to realise the cost-saving benefit of using motion control to achieve the effects in a reliable and realistic way. CGI still struggles to be 100% photorealistic, and the time and cost to achieve photo-realistic shots far exceeds the cost of shooting the live action itself."

Today, The Illusion of Water is (relatively) Easily Created With CGI on a Home Computer

"The Abyss is a 1989 American science fiction film written and directed by James Cameron, starring Ed HarrisMary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, and Michael Biehn. When an American submarine sinks in the Caribbean, the US search and recovery team works with an oil platform crew, racing against Russian vessels to recover the boat. Deep in the ocean, they encounter something unexpected."

"To create the alien water tentacle, Cameron initially considered cel animation or a tentacle sculpted in clay and then animated via stop-motion techniques with water reflections projected onto it. Phil Tippett suggested Cameron contact Industrial Light & Magic.[14] The special visual effects work was divided up among seven FX divisions with motion control work by Dream Quest Images and computer graphics and opticals by ILM.[10] ILM designed a program to produce surface waves of differing sizes and kinetic properties for the pseudopod.[14] For the moment where it mimics Bud and Lindsey's faces, Ed Harris had eight of his facial expressions scanned while twelve of Mastrantonio's were scanned via software used to create computer-generated sculptures. The set was photographed from every angle and digitally recreated so that the pseudopod could be accurately composited into the live-action footage.[14] The company spent six months to create 75 seconds of computer graphics needed for the creature. The film was to have opened on July 4, 1989, but its release was delayed for more than a month by production and special effects problems"

The Abyss scene

History of CGI: water effects

" In time, more advanced three-dimensional Panel Codes were developed at Boeing (PANAIR, A502), Lockheed (Quadpan), Douglas (HESS),[McDonnell Aircraft (MACAERO), NASA (PMARC) and Analytical Methods (WBAERO, USAERO and VSAERO. Some (PANAIR, HESS and MACAERO) were higher order codes, using higher order distributions of surface singularities, while others (Quadpan, PMARC, USAERO and VSAERO) used single singularities on each surface panel. The advantage of the lower order codes was that they ran much faster on the computers of the time. Today, VSAERO has grown to be a multi-order code and is the most widely used program of this class. It has been used in the development of many submarines, surface ships, automobiles, helicopters, aircraft, and more recently wind turbines. Its sister code, USAERO is an unsteady panel method that has also been used for modeling such things as high speed trains and racing yachts. The NASA PMARC code from an early version of VSAERO and a derivative of PMARC, named CMARC,[21] is also commercially available."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_fluid_dynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_simulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated_imagery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar#Early_history

"The actors then traveled to Johnson Space Center in Houston, where they flew in NASA's KC-135 reduced-gravity aircraft to simulate weightlessness in outer space. While in the KC-135, filming took place in bursts of 25 seconds, the length of each period of weightlessness that the plane could produce. The filmmakers eventually flew 612 parabolas which added up to a total of three hours and 54 minutes of weightlessness. Parts of the command module, lunar module, and the tunnel that connected them were built by production designer Michael Corenblith, art directors David J. Bomba and Bruce Alan Miller, and their crew to fit inside the KC-135. Filming in such an environment, while never done before for a film, was a tremendous time saver. In the KC-135, the actors moved wherever they wanted, surrounded by floating props; the camera and cameraman were weightless, so filming could take place on any axis from which a shot could be set up."


It would seem to be easier and to make more sense for film makers to fake a parabolic flights rather than attempting to shoot scenes on such a flight. Film and video production is more efficient in an extremely controlled environment.

Considering how much money is involved with film making on the level of this production and considering that Hollywood talent like Tom Hanks and Ron Howard have multiple deals going on at the same time. Who in the right mind would allow these Hollywood heavy weights and other well known actors to put themselves in any kind of danger at all when Hollywood has a long history of creating these exact kinds of effects?

Revealing The Propaganda - The Space Odyssey Secret is Outer Space Only Exists On A Screen

Houston, we have a problem. Immortal words from mortal men on that ill-fated journey of 1970. Ron Howard just keeps on making magnificent films, doesn't he? Here, he recreates that event and gives us exhilarating, exciting, extraordinary entertainment. Subscribe to the PictureBox YouTube Channel here: http://bit.ly/YouTube_PB Get one month's free trial at http://www.pictureboxfilms.com now.
Leslie Ekker and Patrick McClung talk about the miniature effects work on Apollo 13 in this deleted segment from SENSE OF SCALE. www.senseofscalefilm.com

It is obviously easier to get the shots and to keep to the budget in the process when filming in a controlled environment. This bit about them actually going on a parabolic flight makes little sense in terms of real Hollywood business practice.

Please note that in the above illustration gravity pulls an object straight down. The supposed parabolic arc is not straight up and down. The passenger jet would have to fall towards the Earth for us to see anything like what we are shown in video as a parabolic flight. In other words the passenger jet would be out of control and plummeting towards its destruction. The other possibility would be that the passenger jet could somehow magically point straight down and 'fall' with the pull of gravity (which is an acceleration). The jet would have to turn off its engines and just fall. The pilot would have to somehow be able to regain control of the jet from this position which would be quite a feat. The explanation we are offered makes no sense. Parabolic flights seem to be the stuff of fantasy.

Is a Parabolic Flight Really Possible or Has it Always Been a Clever Hollywood-style illusion?

What is provable with mathematics is not always possible in actuality.

"Initially, the aircraft climbs with a pitch angle of 45 degrees using engine thrust and elevator controls. The sensation of weightlessness is achieved by reducing thrust and lowering the nose to maintain a neutral, or "zero lift", configuration such that the aircraft follows a ballistic trajectory, with engine thrust exactly compensating for drag. Weightlessness begins while ascending and lasts all the way "up-and-over the hump", until the craft reaches a downward pitch angle of around 30 degrees. At this point, the craft is pointing downward at high speed and must begin to pull back into the nose-up attitude to repeat the maneuver. The forces are then roughly twice that of gravity on the way down, at the bottom, and up again. This lasts all the way until the aircraft is again halfway up its upward trajectory, and the pilot again reduces the thrust and lowers the nose"


The balloon rises in the opposite direction that an apple would fall.

The balloon will also be pushed toward the direction the jet travels in.

Illustration A: The official explanation for a parabolic flight relies on the jet flying at an angle that is not in direct opposition to that of gravity. The balloon would then be seen to rise up at 1 o’clock as opposed to noon (what we would see a ballon do if we were at rest on Earth.) As the jet turns during the parabolic flight, the balloon would then also turn as it adjusts to this new direction, as it will want to rise against he direction of gravitational pull and it will also seek to move in the same direction as the jet travels. As the plane turns down, towards the center of the Earth's mass, the balloon would continue to adjust its course accordingly.

Illustration B: What would seem to be how the jet would have to maneuver in order to achieve a “Zero-G” environment for the passengers. Free-fall would only be experienced when the jet was pointed straight down towards the center of the Earth’s mass.

Examples of objects in free fall include:

  • A spacecraft (in space) with propulsion off (e.g. in a continuous orbit, or on a suborbital trajectory (ballistics) going up for some minutes, and then down).
  • An object dropped at the top of a drop tube.
  • An object thrown upward or a person jumping off the ground at low speed (i.e. as long as air resistance is negligible in comparison to weight).

Technically, an object is in free fall even when moving upwards or instantaneously at rest at the top of its motion. If gravity is the only influence acting, then the acceleration is always downward and has the same magnitude for all bodies, commonly denoted .

Since all objects fall at the same rate in the absence of other forces, objects and people will experience weightlessness in these situations.”


If the jet and the passengers are considered to be ‘thrown upward’ and this is supposed to explain the experience of “Zero-G” on the way up, we still have a problem. The jet itself is not a projectile. If the jet moves in a manner that the passengers do not, we’d expect to see the effects of inertia manifest. In this case the passengers would continue traveling up and away from the Earth as the jet maneuvered around them. This could only last for a brief instant of time. The rest of the 25 seconds of weightlessness has to be explained in another manner, and the logical explanation would require the jet to be in free fall as well, plummeting towards the center of Earth’s mass with no lift from its wings and no forward motion. It would seem the best that could be accomplished would be some kind of experience of a reduced 'gravity', but not "Zero-G".

“This aircraft is used to train astronauts in zero-g maneuvers, giving them about 25 seconds of weightlessness out of 65 seconds of flight in each parabola. “


Orbital Speed is over 17,000 MPH!



Would it really be advisable to attempt to fly a jet in the fashion envisioned for a parabolic flight?

Physics experiment demonstrating helium balloon inertia. Edited by Tessa Ricci Filmed by Austin Jaspers

The Famed Foucault Pendulum and Coriolis Effect are Wrong As Well. This is the subject for a future article. But both 'phenomena' ignore Newton's concept of inertia. The Foucault Pendulum is flawed in another way as well as the experiment is predicated on the Earth rotating beneath the apparatus. This can only occur at the poles. At any other point the whole pendulum will be rotated with the Earth.






RED BULL Flying Squirrel Suits and RED BULL Upside Down Flying Helicopters & The Red Bull Skydiving Stunt Are Fake - that's Cartoon Physics for you

some source:










Please see the article index for more - specifically the Jet Fighter Fakery Series where we show how stage magicians went west to Hollywood to help create the special effects Military Industrial Entertainment Complex™ we all know and love.