Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #20 on: September 01, 2017, 03:35:37 PM »
For me, the most damning video evidence that it is all a hoax, comes from NASA.



I can't see how anyone can look at that and say it is real (2 mins 50+)
What exactly is your issue with it? Nothing looks off there considering year and age of equipment. Thrust doesn't seem like that big of an issue either considering the reduce gravity.

*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #21 on: September 01, 2017, 03:42:22 PM »
For me, the most damning video evidence that it is all a hoax, comes from NASA.



I can't see how anyone can look at that and say it is real (2 mins 50+)

Doesn't explain the physical phenomena seen in the Space Lab video.  Please show how they faked that specific video.  Other assertions of it's all fake fail to explain the weightless environment, lack of high velocity air displacement as posited by J-man, increased resistance preventing rapid acceleration from being under water, the complex 3d acrobatics which would have made the last part of the video impossible to accomplish with wire suspension systems and the complete inability to use photo real CGI in 1974.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #22 on: September 01, 2017, 06:54:08 PM »
For me, the most damning video evidence that it is all a hoax, comes from NASA.



I can't see how anyone can look at that and say it is real (2 mins 50+)
It certainly looks real to me.

If you think it's not then either:

1) You've forgotten that this is happening in a vacuum (hence no exciting flames).
2) You've forgotten that the moon's gravity is 1/6th that of Earth, so things don't look so "heavy".
3) You've watched too many terrible SciFi shows and movies, and your expectations do not match reality for that reason.

Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Screamer

Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #23 on: September 10, 2017, 12:10:47 PM »
Well I have several issues with this.

The first is that the camera is supposed to be controlled by Houston. With a 4 second round trip for the speed of light, how does the camera operator manually anticipate the lift off perfectly and get a centered shot, and focus as the craft rises? He anticipates it all? 4 seconds ahead of time? He then loses the shot much later when they want a break away from the take off (hoisted object to top of crane) in a situation where the anticipation is negligible as the lander isn't moving out of frame so fast.

Why are there no hills behind the moon hills? The ones in the foreground are the only ones you see, even at horizon level. Having played Kerbal Space program with a plant 1/10th the size of earth, I can tell you, you can see more than half a mile. How small does NASA want us to think the moon is? 5 mile walk right round?

As for the flight of the lander, just no. It looks exactly like it is being hoisted up on a crane. It is supposed to weigh 15,000kg. Now even 1/8th weight makes it 2 tons on the moon. This does not look like 2 tons lifting off. It looks like a lightweight prop on a crane.

The sparks are ridiculous. Very Stanley Kubric.

What powers the camera? You know, being as the temperature on the light side of the moon is 123 degrees centigrade? Even today, batteries do not operate well in extremes of hot or extremes of cold.

Batteries have a narrow operating range ... especially batteries in the in 1960s. How do they keep this battery in a 20 degree band on the moon? Its all nonsense.







*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #24 on: September 10, 2017, 01:48:30 PM »
The video that you are criticizing was not presented as evidence and was not part of the initial question.  My questions were specific to footage on page one from skylab in the 1970's.  I would be happy to hear your rebuttals on that video.  The one you are making a critique of was supplied by a FE supporter in an effort to dismiss all video evidence as faked without actually explaining the physical phenomena demonstrated in the video that I posted initially.  Ad Hominem attacks against NASA will not explain the weightless acrobatics demonstrated in the skylab video.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Screamer

Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #25 on: September 10, 2017, 05:40:08 PM »
Quote
@1:18-1:43 The three men execute intersecting 3d pathways that would make wire harnesses tangled, the video segment is too long to be explained by parabolic flight as it exceeds 20 seconds in duration and the SkyLab is too large of an internal volume to fit inside the largest aircraft available at that time.

One of the nice things about youtube is you can watch at 2x speed. Do so and that footage looks a lot more 'earthly'. Now you have around 22 seconds ... and that could be a parabolic flight.

Take the floor out of a standard 747 and I think you have the size.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2017, 05:46:37 PM by Screamer »

*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #26 on: September 10, 2017, 07:01:30 PM »

One of the nice things about youtube is you can watch at 2x speed. Do so and that footage looks a lot more 'earthly'. Now you have around 22 seconds ... and that could be a parabolic flight.

Take the floor out of a standard 747 and I think you have the size.

Not without removing the structural cross members that end up forming the floors.  Inside of them are trusses much like you would see on a crane, called a space frame.  Try pulling microgravity maneuvers without any of those in your tail section and see how long it takes to rip the fuselage in half.

Anyway, if you want to see what a real microgravity parabolic flight looks like then here.



Notice the interior size is dramatically smaller, the weightlessness isn't uniform during the entire maneuver and there is a steady downward pull towards the floor at even the peak of the parabolic flight path.  These physical phenomena are not seen in the original skylab video.  And for the whole 2x thing, overcranking footage in the 1960's and 1970's would have run out of actual storage media long before the length of videos they routinely recorded and posted for the public.  Magnetic video storage of the day just didn't have the capacity to produce the lengths of slow motion film needed for that explanation to work.  Today?  Sure, you could fake it.  Back then, not even with state of the art videography equipment.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #27 on: September 10, 2017, 07:10:04 PM »
Well I have several issues with this.

The first is that the camera is supposed to be controlled by Houston. With a 4 second round trip for the speed of light, how does the camera operator manually anticipate the lift off perfectly and get a centered shot, and focus as the craft rises? He anticipates it all? 4 seconds ahead of time? He then loses the shot much later when they want a break away from the take off (hoisted object to top of crane) in a situation where the anticipation is negligible as the lander isn't moving out of frame so fast.

Why are there no hills behind the moon hills? The ones in the foreground are the only ones you see, even at horizon level. Having played Kerbal Space program with a plant 1/10th the size of earth, I can tell you, you can see more than half a mile. How small does NASA want us to think the moon is? 5 mile walk right round?

As for the flight of the lander, just no. It looks exactly like it is being hoisted up on a crane. It is supposed to weigh 15,000kg. Now even 1/8th weight makes it 2 tons on the moon. This does not look like 2 tons lifting off. It looks like a lightweight prop on a crane.

The sparks are ridiculous. Very Stanley Kubric.

What powers the camera? You know, being as the temperature on the light side of the moon is 123 degrees centigrade? Even today, batteries do not operate well in extremes of hot or extremes of cold.

Batteries have a narrow operating range ... especially batteries in the in 1960s. How do they keep this battery in a 20 degree band on the moon? Its all nonsense.

Because they were smart? How did they keep the astronauts alive in such an extreme environ? They engineered the equipment to survive. You can read all about it.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #28 on: September 10, 2017, 10:37:38 PM »

That does not apply to the questions that I raised about the video footage from Sky Lab in 1974.  Wires would have become tangled during the maneuvers in the video from 1:18-1:43.  This still does not provide evidence that the Sky Lab video was faked.

Thank you,

Critical Thinker

The typical responses you get to logical questions makes me want to reword something from Adam Savage from Mythbusters. I reject your reality and substitute nothing in its place.

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 1045
  • "Let's go Brandon ! I agree" >Your President<
    • View Profile
Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #29 on: September 11, 2017, 02:00:33 AM »

That does not apply to the questions that I raised about the video footage from Sky Lab in 1974.  Wires would have become tangled during the maneuvers in the video from 1:18-1:43.  This still does not provide evidence that the Sky Lab video was faked.

Thank you,

Critical Thinker

The typical responses you get to logical questions makes me want to reword something from Adam Savage from Mythbusters. I reject your reality and substitute nothing in its place.

I know right, we went to the moon and we can't hire some Mexico cliff divers to do acrobatics in our new almost zero g room. We had the best movie production and editing teams in the world. Ringling Bros. was a hit, now it's Cirque du Soleil ah la Vegas baby.
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #30 on: September 11, 2017, 03:56:59 AM »

I know right, we went to the moon and we can't hire some Mexico cliff divers to do acrobatics in our new almost zero g room. We had the best movie production and editing teams in the world. Ringling Bros. was a hit, now it's Cirque du Soleil ah la Vegas baby.

You still don't offer any plausible explanation to his questions. "we had the best movie...teams". Sure, his point was that no film technique of that time could have made the footage. And by choosing an example from a time predating CGI, he excludes that as a possible excuse. Computers at that time output on punch cards, paper tape, and monitors with two colors.

Also, do you deny that the Skylab mission actually took place? Just curious.

BTW, to the original poster, great examples of the conservation of angular momentum!

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 1045
  • "Let's go Brandon ! I agree" >Your President<
    • View Profile
Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #31 on: September 11, 2017, 12:02:41 PM »
Oh you got me, the multiple emmys I see on the mantle for editing prove the Zapruder film wasn't tampered with. That was what year? 1963

Before the fake moon walkie talkie and skylabs.

Moody Blues:

Red is grey and yellow white.
But we decide which is right.
And which is an illusion?
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #32 on: September 11, 2017, 12:56:21 PM »
Well I have several issues with this.

The first is that the camera is supposed to be controlled by Houston. With a 4 second round trip for the speed of light, how does the camera operator manually anticipate the lift off perfectly and get a centered shot, and focus as the craft rises? He anticipates it all? 4 seconds ahead of time?
We've been over and over this, but I'll cover it again.  The answer is Yes, the camera tilt was calculated ahead of time.  The camera on the lunar rover was operated from Earth by a NASA engineer named Ed Fendell.  Because of the signal delay between the moon and the Earth, as you mentioned, he had to start sending the command to "pan up" the camera a couple seconds before the module actually launched, based on the countdown clock running in Mission Control.  You can read his account of the event on pages 60-61 of this interview transcript.  He and a colleague had pre-calculated where the camera needed to be aimed at each second of flight, and Ed sat in Houston sending incremental commands to the camera, working blind.  They didn't know if they had good footage until afterward.  There were only three lunar missions with rovers: Apollo 15-17.  On 15 the motor to tilt the camera burned out, so no footage.  On 16 the crew parked the rover in the wrong spot, so Fendell's pre-calculated camera angles were useless with no time for new calculations, so no footage.  17 was the last chance, and they got it.

Batteries have a narrow operating range ... especially batteries in the in 1960s. How do they keep this battery in a 20 degree band on the moon? Its all nonsense.
The same way you do it on earth: thermal insulation and heaters.  Today's electric cars have heaters in/around the battery compartment to keep the battery at operating temperature, for example.  This does rob the vehicle of some range, since power for those heaters comes from the same battery powering the drive motors.  However, that's still worth doing, because the car would be essentially inoperable if you just allowed the battery to cool down.  I commute in a Nissan Leaf, and for more than two years now I have been tracking its performance.  I get maximum range with outside air temps between 70-80 F, and see an approximately linear decrease in miles per kilowatt-hour as temperatures drop.  At freezing temps, the battery heater draws so much power that my driving range is cut in half.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #33 on: September 11, 2017, 01:01:52 PM »
Oh you got me, the multiple emmys I see on the mantle for editing prove the Zapruder film wasn't tampered with. That was what year? 1963

Before the fake moon walkie talkie and skylabs.

Moody Blues:

Red is grey and yellow white.
But we decide which is right.
And which is an illusion?

You're gonna have to be a bit more specific on timing. We didn't have Emmy's for visual editing until the first one was given out in 1976, and I'm willing to bet the 'editing' here was quite obvious to the modern day viewer, or more to do with clever use of camera tricks and perspective.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #34 on: September 11, 2017, 01:51:43 PM »
Well I have several issues with this.

The first is that the camera is supposed to be controlled by Houston. With a 4 second round trip for the speed of light, how does the camera operator manually anticipate the lift off perfectly and get a centered shot, and focus as the craft rises? He anticipates it all? 4 seconds ahead of time? He then loses the shot much later when they want a break away from the take off (hoisted object to top of crane) in a situation where the anticipation is negligible as the lander isn't moving out of frame so fast.

Firstly, the radio delay to the moon is 1.3 seconds...so 2.6 round-trip...not '4'...please check your facts!   The round-trip delay may have been a LITTLE longer than 2.6 seconds because it may have had to be relayed via some distant radio repeater...but certainly no more than 2.8 seconds.

Anyway - there is an interesting story to that.   The guy who controlled the camera on the Moon Buggy gave an interview once about how he pulled it off.   He said that he did some back-of-envelope arithmetic on how fast he'd have to move the joystick back in Houston space center to keep the LEM in-shot given the launch speed and accelerations.  He practiced a bit with their simulator to get the right joystick speed - and then listened to the countdown from the LEM - when it reached '3' he moved the joystick in the way he'd practiced, and by pure luck got a really nicely centered shot.   The LEM does eventually go out of frame - but he did really well all things considered.
Quote
Why are there no hills behind the moon hills? The ones in the foreground are the only ones you see, even at horizon level.

Well, the moon (like the Earth) IS NOT FLAT.   The moon's horizon curves away much more rapidly than it does on Earth - so mountains disappear below the horizon much more quickly than our "gut feel" suggests.   Also, those hills that you do see are much further away than your gut feel suggests because without an atmosphere, you don't see the tell-tale shifts in color that you see on Earth to help you understand how far away something is.   There were many occasions when the Astronauts thought they were very  close to a small object, when in fact they were farther away from a large one - or even closer to a small one.   Our millions of years of eyesight evolution has not prepared us for the Moon.

Also, the moon landings were not going to expected to touch down at exactly the planned spot - since they didn't want the LEM to land on an steep slopes, they picked areas of the moon that are flat for long distances...hence they did not pick anywhere that was near any large hills or mountains.

Quote
Having played Kerbal Space program with a plant 1/10th the size of earth, I can tell you, you can see more than half a mile. How small does NASA want us to think the moon is? 5 mile walk right round?

These kinds of comment always make me giggle!   I've worked in the video games industry for decades...trust me when I tell you not to trust what you see as an accurate representation of reality.

Quote
As for the flight of the lander, just no. It looks exactly like it is being hoisted up on a crane. It is supposed to weigh 15,000kg. Now even 1/8th weight makes it 2 tons on the moon. This does not look like 2 tons lifting off. It looks like a lightweight prop on a crane.

Again, we humans are not used to the 'feel' of 1/6th gravity.   Yes, it looks weird - and that's how you know it's right.   If it looked like your "gut feel" says - then you'd KNOW it was faked.   If they'd have faked it, they'd have made it look "gut feel" correct and not physically reasonable.

Quote
The sparks are ridiculous. Very Stanley Kubric.

Well, again, you're used to Earthly sparks which (a) fall to the ground much faster because of much bigger gravity and (b) cool off very quickly in the air, and rapidly stop glowing.

On the moon, those sparks stayed aloft much longer than you'd expect - and they glowed continuously because they had nothing but vacuum around them.

Again - the fact that it doesn't match your very human expectations is proof that it wasn't faked.

Quote
What powers the camera? You know, being as the temperature on the light side of the moon is 123 degrees centigrade? Even today, batteries do not operate well in extremes of hot or extremes of cold.

Batteries have a narrow operating range ... especially batteries in the in 1960s. How do they keep this battery in a 20 degree band on the moon? Its all nonsense.

What powers the camera is indeed batteries...the same big bank of them that powered the moon rover.  (The camera used for this shot was the one mounted onto the rover).

The lunar rover had two 36-volt "silver-zinc potassium hydroxide" non-rechargeable batteries with a capacity of 121 Amp hours each.

Do you have "silver-zinc potassium hydroxide" non-rechargeable batteries in any devices at home?   No?  Didn't think so.

Are you a battery chemistry expert?   No?   Didn't think so.


Typically of Moon-landing deniers - you're guessing - and guessing very badly - and without even looking at the technology that was used.  You think your pathetic knowledge of $2 AAA batteries makes you enough of an expert to decree that it's impossible to make batteries costing tens of thousands of dollars that can withstand some temperature changes?  With zero knowledge about the subject - and without even bothering to check what technology was used - you start babbling on as though you know what you're saying.   That's not a very smart thing to blather on about is it?   Stop saying this crap - it doesn't convince anyone with half a brain in their head - and it really doesn't make you look very smart does it?

Also, it's a myth that it's always cold on the moon - in prolonged full sunlight, the surface can get hot enough to melt lead - and in prolonged full shadow, cold enough to liquify nitrogen.  The moon gets 15 days of continuous daylight and 15 of continuous night.   The moon missions were planned for the "lunar twilight" so that the average surface temperatures would be acceptable...but still, anything that didn't move around had to have reflective mylar sheeting over it to reflect sunlight and/or retain internal heat.   Things like electronics, batteries and spacesuits tended to be actively heated and/or cooled as necessary.

Nobody said the moon landings were easy.   A MOUNTAIN of clever engineering went into the design of every last nut and bolt.    The assumptions you make are that this was done on a shoe-string budget - but it wasn't.  I read somewhere that every single nut, bolt and rivet that went into the LEM was examined individually under a microscope to ensure there were no cracks in them.   It cost BILLIONS of dollars and had some of the best engineering minds on the planet working on it.   Keeping a battery from freezing up would be one of the simpler things to do - but it would still have occupied the minds of a number of experts for many months.

Your super-naive answers are ill-informed and ridiculous...just like those of the other lunar landing deniers.   There isn't ONE thing they say that isn't trivially disprovable...not a single one.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Offline mtnman

  • *
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #35 on: September 11, 2017, 03:09:41 PM »
Excellent and detailed response there 3DGeek!

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 1045
  • "Let's go Brandon ! I agree" >Your President<
    • View Profile
Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #36 on: September 11, 2017, 06:53:12 PM »
How did the film in those completely stock Hasselblad film rolls not get damaged by 200 degree heat or cold on da Warren Moon. And this radiation, no burn up the Kodak moment? These guys couldn't even focus the lens with those glovies on.

All fake fake fake, super timing NASA, big round of applause !
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #37 on: September 11, 2017, 07:20:55 PM »
A quick search for "apollo hasselblad cameras" finds a NASA page that offers this information:

Quote from: https://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html
Modifications to the cameras included special large locks for the film magazines and levers on the f-stop and distance settings on the lenses. These modifications facilitated the camera's use by the crew operating with pressurized suits and gloves.

Honestly, at this point you should stop, you're just embarrassing yourself.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #38 on: September 11, 2017, 07:25:05 PM »
How did the film in those completely stock Hasselblad film rolls not get damaged by 200 degree heat or cold on da Warren Moon. And this radiation, no burn up the Kodak moment? These guys couldn't even focus the lens with those glovies on.

All fake fake fake, super timing NASA, big round of applause !

That's actually not true. NASA had Kodak create new film for the missions. Hasselblad made the cameras. But hey, don't let facts get in your way.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 1045
  • "Let's go Brandon ! I agree" >Your President<
    • View Profile
Re: Old video footage of space
« Reply #39 on: September 11, 2017, 07:27:17 PM »
A quick search for "apollo hasselblad cameras" finds a NASA page that offers this information:

Quote from: https://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html
Modifications to the cameras included special large locks for the film magazines and levers on the f-stop and distance settings on the lenses. These modifications facilitated the camera's use by the crew operating with pressurized suits and gloves.

Honestly, at this point you should stop, you're just embarrassing yourself.

Excellent, I knew they'd come up with an explanation of 100% perfect photos. Centered and focus each and every time by he film crew. Kodak got involved also with super duper film rolls too that withstand cosmic rays and temp swings no doubt.

I see stink has come up with Kodak's contribution to landing on the moon thru the belts of no return.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 07:29:08 PM by J-Man »
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.