The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: CriticalThinker on August 30, 2017, 02:01:37 PM
-
I realize that not every member of the FE community believes that NASA is part of a great conspiracy, but I see a general consensus that the majority of the FE community believs that real people haven't been in space to see the curvature of the earth.
So I am interested in their take on certain aspects of this video taken in SkyLab in 1974 and released to the public in 1974.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjvmXLyrtjM
Specific points of interest as follows.
@ 1:03 the man is able to accelerate his rotation too quickly to be an underwater environment.
@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.
Photo real CGI in 1974 was not available.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5seU-5U0ms
This video provides a time period correct comparison as this was made in 1972.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lxUIM6bYQo
This is the same effects in 2013. During the commentary they stated that they had to digitally erase the entire body and create a CGI one. When you look at the movie footage, the CGI bodies just aren't quite right. Even with today's technology they look off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0Pf-sevOc0
Notice how the actors on the wire harnesses don't intertwine the way the 3 men from the first video do. That's because they can't. Only distant background characters are on intersecting courses and they are fully CGI. They clearly don't look like actual people.
Based on all of this, how did NASA fake the video from skylab in 1974 using 1974 technology?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
Hilarious, no really, just a couple years after the fake moon missions we got a space lab.
Here's your sign.....
Trump just told you we've been bribing North Korea for 25 years with fake money. Who could have kept that a secret? No really.
-
Hilarious, no really, just a couple years after the fake moon missions we got a space lab.
What happened was that the last few moon missions were cancelled - NASA had a spare Saturn V rocket and nothing special to do with it. So they took the second stage (which is a HUGE fuel tank and not much else) and fitted it out with the rudimentary parts of a space lab and launched on top of the unmodified first stage.
The resulting "space station" wasn't much more than a vast orbiting cylinder full of air.
It wasn't really a fully-fledged "space station" because it lacked many, many things that such a thing would need...but it remains the largest enclosed space ever to be put in orbit.
-
Hilarious, no really, just a couple years after the fake moon missions we got a space lab.
What happened was that the last few moon missions were cancelled - NASA had a spare Saturn V rocket and nothing special to do with it. So they took the second stage (which is a HUGE fuel tank and not much else) and fitted it out with the rudimentary parts of a space lab and launched on top of the unmodified first stage.
The resulting "space station" wasn't much more than a vast orbiting cylinder full of air.
It wasn't really a fully-fledged "space station" because it lacked many, many things that such a thing would need...but it remains the largest enclosed space ever to be put in orbit.
Try again Geek. The rocket wouldn't have made it off the launch pad. The second stage would have crushed like a pancake (similar to the shape of earth) from the extreme pressure of being mostly void.
Where do you come up with such nonsense?
-
Skylab was in orbit for 6 years before falling back to Earth on my birthday in '79.
-
Skylab was in orbit for 6 years before falling back to Earth on my birthday in '79.
Low content, your birthday is of no importance to me el stinko
-
Hilarious, no really, just a couple years after the fake moon missions we got a space lab.
What happened was that the last few moon missions were cancelled - NASA had a spare Saturn V rocket and nothing special to do with it. So they took the second stage (which is a HUGE fuel tank and not much else) and fitted it out with the rudimentary parts of a space lab and launched on top of the unmodified first stage.
The resulting "space station" wasn't much more than a vast orbiting cylinder full of air.
It wasn't really a fully-fledged "space station" because it lacked many, many things that such a thing would need...but it remains the largest enclosed space ever to be put in orbit.
Try again Geek. The rocket wouldn't have made it off the launch pad. The second stage would have crushed like a pancake (similar to the shape of earth) from the extreme pressure of being mostly void.
Where do you come up with such nonsense?
Please provide some evidence to back up your claim that the second stage was not structurally sound without the presence of fuel to fill it. Materials properties, stress strain curves, compression loads due to thrust, compression strength of the parent structure. Without evidence to support your claim, it's just a wild proclamation.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
Hilarious, no really, just a couple years after the fake moon missions we got a space lab.
What happened was that the last few moon missions were cancelled - NASA had a spare Saturn V rocket and nothing special to do with it. So they took the second stage (which is a HUGE fuel tank and not much else) and fitted it out with the rudimentary parts of a space lab and launched on top of the unmodified first stage.
The resulting "space station" wasn't much more than a vast orbiting cylinder full of air.
It wasn't really a fully-fledged "space station" because it lacked many, many things that such a thing would need...but it remains the largest enclosed space ever to be put in orbit.
Try again Geek. The rocket wouldn't have made it off the launch pad. The second stage would have crushed like a pancake (similar to the shape of earth) from the extreme pressure of being mostly void.
Where do you come up with such nonsense?
Ah - I had no idea you were a fully qualified structural engineer.
Take some nice heavy weights and start piling them onto the end of an empty coke can. You'll be amazed at how much force it can withstand. But bear in mind that the spacecraft doesn't collapse when the fuel tanks are almost empty and the motors are still going at full burn...so, it's not really a surprise that it goes OK when it's completely empty.
But then you're obviously an expert on space craft design.
Pffffhhhh! <giggle>
-
Hilarious, no really, just a couple years after the fake moon missions we got a space lab.
Here's your sign.....
Trump just told you we've been bribing North Korea for 25 years with fake money. Who could have kept that a secret? No really.
Please provide evidence that the video from Space Lab has been faked. Without evidence to support your claim, it is meaningless. The video exists, and was released to the public in 1974 before advanced CGI could have made it in a virtual environment. The segments of video in question would not be possible underwater or in a parabolic flight. So how was it faked?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhPXXM9VCk8
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhPXXM9VCk8
Please note the distinctive lack of face masks or stretch clothing from the Sky Lab video. If it were wind as you are claiming, this would be clearly visible on the original footage. No facial distortions regardless of direction that would be accompanied by the large volume of air required for the zero gravity chamber, no dramatic blowing of hair or clothing either.
Please provide applicable evidence that the Sky Lab video was faked. It is clearly not an air chamber, underwater chamber, wire harness setup or CGI.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhPXXM9VCk8
Sorry - that's not a "zero gravity chamber" - it's one of those "indoor skydiving" centers. We have one just up the road from where I live - it's called "iFly" - and while it's a LOT of fun - the experience is nothing like being in zero g.
Under the floor there is a GIGANTIC set of fans that blow air upwards through the chamber.
In your video, you can see the people's clothes fluttering frantically in the high speed airflow. Nothing like that happens in the skylab video.
-
more fakery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIMf5fgUU_4
-
more fakery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIMf5fgUU_4
Repeat after me: CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION.
Just because there is a bulge in the guys back pocket that looks like the wire attachment in a movie DOES NOT PROVE that the bulge is due to a wire.
My guess (although I'd need more information to be certain) is that he had the transmitter part of his audio equipment clipped to his belt under the shirt. That's what it looks like - and you can see astronauts in the ISS using those things in many other videos.
However, if you want to say that everything that comes out of NASA is faked - then fine - believe that if you like. It doesn't help you in the face of simple earthly evidence such as:
* The appearance of the moon in the Northern and Southern hemispheres being rotated 180 degrees.
* The flight times of airlines being far *far* shorter than your Flat Earth maps would force them to be.
* That the positions and rotations of the stars around the poles don't match the directions compasses point (even after you compensate for the position of the magnetic versus geographic poles).
* That there is NO plausible explanation for how sunsets (and moonsets and star/planet sets) are possible in an FE world.
Those things are far more compelling - and there is no effort here to deny my careful explanations of each of them.
-
more fakery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIMf5fgUU_4
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
-
more fakery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIMf5fgUU_4
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
I agree - but it's not a slam-dunk. Our uber-skeptics might say that NASA spent all the money that was supposed to go into launching guys into space in inventing clever CGI techniques that were decades ahead of their time.
I *KNOW* for 100% sure that's not true - Jim Blinn (who did the actual CGI graphics for NASA missions like Voyager where no actual footage of the spacecraft was possible) is a friend of mine - he invented many of the techniques used today in CGI. He'd have been in on the secret for sure - and he's definitely not someone who is able to keep a secret!
I can't prove that though.
Honestly - if the FE'ers want to claim a conspiracy - that's fine with me. There are plenty of better ways to debunk their nonsense.
-
more fakery
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIMf5fgUU_4
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
I agree - but it's not a slam-dunk. Our uber-skeptics might say that NASA spent all the money that was supposed to go into launching guys into space in inventing clever CGI techniques that were decades ahead of their time.
I *KNOW* for 100% sure that's not true - Jim Blinn (who did the actual CGI graphics for NASA missions like Voyager where no actual footage of the spacecraft was possible) is a friend of mine - he invented many of the techniques used today in CGI. He'd have been in on the secret for sure - and he's definitely not someone who is able to keep a secret!
I can't prove that though.
Honestly - if the FE'ers want to claim a conspiracy - that's fine with me. There are plenty of better ways to debunk their nonsense.
That's why I supplied video examples of cutting edge 1974 CGI technology in my very first post. It's also why I chose a Sky Lab video instead of a more recent one. Photo real CGI did not exist in 1974. Even in 2013 with the Ender's Game example, the bodies don't make it past the Uncanny Valley. You can see other examples of today's CGI failing to pass the uncanny valley in most modern action movies, especially Marvel. When they cut out the entire actor and replace him/her with a CGI stunt double it's relatively easy to spot. The acrobatics filmed on Sky Lab would not be possible to fake in 1974.
-
Skylab was in orbit for 6 years before falling back to Earth on my birthday in '79.
Low content, your birthday is of no importance to me el stinko
Lay off personal attacks in the upper fora. Warned.
-
Skylab was in orbit for 6 years before falling back to Earth on my birthday in '79.
Low content, your birthday is of no importance to me el stinko
Lay off personal attacks in the upper fora. Warned.
Thank you Junker, I'm occasionally in need of reprimand.
-
For me, the most damning video evidence that it is all a hoax, comes from NASA.
https://youtu.be/sj6a0Wrrh1g?t=2m36s
I can't see how anyone can look at that and say it is real (2 mins 50+)
-
For me, the most damning video evidence that it is all a hoax, comes from NASA.
https://youtu.be/sj6a0Wrrh1g?t=2m36s
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.
-
For me, the most damning video evidence that it is all a hoax, comes from NASA.
https://youtu.be/sj6a0Wrrh1g?t=2m36s
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
-
For me, the most damning video evidence that it is all a hoax, comes from NASA.
https://youtu.be/sj6a0Wrrh1g?t=2m36s
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.
-
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.
(https://cdn.comsol.com/wordpress/2015/02/Thermal-management-system.png)
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 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
-
@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.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/976x549_b/p01sshk8.jpg)
-
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drdBKMOZmTc
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
-
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.
(https://cdn.comsol.com/wordpress/2015/02/Thermal-management-system.png)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
-
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 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4666.msg93377#msg93377) and over (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4666.msg93409#msg93409) 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 (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/Fendell-OralHist.pdf). 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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(https://cdn.comsol.com/wordpress/2015/02/Thermal-management-system.png)
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.
-
Excellent and detailed response there 3DGeek!
-
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 !
-
A quick search for "apollo hasselblad cameras" finds a NASA page that offers this information:
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.
-
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.
-
A quick search for "apollo hasselblad cameras" finds a NASA page that offers this information:
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.
-
A quick search for "apollo hasselblad cameras" finds a NASA page that offers this information:
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.
Not sure about you, but it seems far more likely to me that they simply only published the better quality/'perfect' ones. Why bother publishing images that are a blurred mess, or you can't see anything on?
-
Squirrel do you have anyway to back that up? Of course not, this is the same organization that lost all records of the greatest achievement of mankind. Duh
50 years later and were still buying our rockets from Russia. They go up, tip over and plummet to the ocean. nice, that's science baby
-
And before you get too excited about oh yeah we pulled off the photo shoot on the moon. Do just a little research into the fakery. No camera/film could have survived.
"This is the first time we've been able to measure the high energy particles in the heart of the radiation belts," Mazur said. "We're able to measure at the one billion electron volt level; particles at that energy are virtually impossible to shield against. They will easily penetrate half-inch thick aluminum plate." Particles at that energy level are known to cause a range of damages to spacecraft, from physical degradation to instrument malfunctions and false readings.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-12-van-allen-probes-reveal-dynamics.html#jCp
So Mr. Critical thinktank, if you can fake the moon landing you can surely fake skylab and some cliff divers from Ringlings performing.
-
Squirrel do you have anyway to back that up? Of course not, this is the same organization that lost all records of the greatest achievement of mankind. Duh
50 years later and were still buying our rockets from Russia. They go up, tip over and plummet to the ocean. nice, that's science baby
Where have you been for the past year?
SpaceX lands their rocket cores now.
-
Squirrel do you have anyway to back that up? Of course not, this is the same organization that lost all records of the greatest achievement of mankind. Duh
50 years later and were still buying our rockets from Russia. They go up, tip over and plummet to the ocean. nice, that's science baby
Where have you been for the past year?
SpaceX lands their rocket cores now.
Wait, really? Lets watch one.
Awesome, didn't even have to buy popcorn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hulMgWJV3e8
-
All very interesting and I fear headed away from the original question and premise. Skylab was a low orbit, temperature controlled, oxygenated environment where the astronauts could easily maneuver around without any of the moon landing equipment on. Solar charging and stable temperatures means that camera battery life from inside skylab is not an issue. The skylab film would have been transported only through interior cabins and air locked connection ports. So all of the film/camera/hand dexterity issues brought up just recently are a moot point for the film in question. The skylab film can't be explained away by CGI, underwater filming, wires, parabolic flight so.... As far as I can tell it must be real which means we've been in low orbit and could see the convexity of the earth.
Please explain how the skylab film from the first post was faked. I didn't post a movie of the moon landing and skylab didn't go to the moon so it's irrelevant for the purposes of this conversation.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
The zapruder film was fake and so is yours. fake fake fake
The tech was available for your cliff divers.
-
Squirrel do you have anyway to back that up? Of course not, this is the same organization that lost all records of the greatest achievement of mankind. Duh
Never said I did. Commented that I see no reason to suspect the ones published would have been the only ones taken. Wedding photographers take hundreds of pictures looking for that 'perfect shot'. You appear to be assuming they didn't. Fairly easy search later though, I see reports of nearly 6000 photos taken over the course of the 6 missions to the moon.
But as CriticalThinker points out, this doesn't really have anything to do with the original SkyLab footage.
Where is your evidence the Zapruder film was fake? I already refuted your one rebuttal about Emmy's. Please try again.
-
Squirrel do you have anyway to back that up? Of course not, this is the same organization that lost all records of the greatest achievement of mankind. Duh
Ah - this is the old "NASA lost the plans to the Saturn V moon rocket" bullshit isn't it?
This ridiculous notion was printed in a book published by John Lewis called "Mining the Sky" in 1996. He claimed that the blueprints to the Saturn V had been lost. Nobody knows why he's say such a bizarre thing and he's never provided his sources for this crazy claim.
When saner people asked NASA, a guy called Paul Shawcross, from NASA's "Office of Inspector General" said:
"The Federal Archives in East Point, Georgia, (...) has 2,900 cubic feet of Saturn documents, (...) Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program. This effort was initiated in the late '60s to document every facet of F 1 and J 2 engine production to assist in any future restart."
When asked if NASA could build a Saturn V today if they needed to, Shawcross said:
"The problem in recreating the Saturn 5 is not finding the drawings, it is finding vendors who can supply mid-1960's vintage hardware, and the fact that the launch pads and vehicle assembly buildings have been converted to space shuttle use, so you have no place to launch from."
Full story is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20100818173517/http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/saturn_five_000313.html
So, no - NASA didn't lose any records...this is just more bullshit from the idiot moonshot deniers. Do these people not know how to use Google or something?
-
J-man
The Zapruder film might be fake. Not my worry today. You really think that any obstacle between greed and its target won't be removed quickly, forcibly and permanently whenever the opportunity presents itself? Humans are very destructive critters. Still doesn't make all film faked. Too damn much effort for not a lot of payout. Skylab maybe could be faked, but to what purpose and for how long before some low level disgruntled employee burned it all over a stupid red stapler. The real question you should ask is why, if the skylab video was faked, they didn't make it more entertaining? I mean, I enjoy watching half naked men play grabass in microgravity as much as the next man but if the internet has taught me anything useful, it's that they would have had a much bigger budget if the video featured half naked playmates instead. You want to really get a big budget? Give the people what they want.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/52/cd/45/52cd452efc17ba9470609bfe7a29a79f--staplers-demotivational-posters.jpg
CriticalThinker
-
A quick search for "apollo hasselblad cameras" finds a NASA page that offers this information:
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.
Yes, because I'm sure the they are going to show off the blurry pics. They took rolls and rolls of pics. You've seen a handful. And yes, we can shield against radiation. C'mon, you're not even trying anymore.
-
And before you get too excited about oh yeah we pulled off the photo shoot on the moon. Do just a little research into the fakery. No camera/film could have survived.
"This is the first time we've been able to measure the high energy particles in the heart of the radiation belts," Mazur said. "We're able to measure at the one billion electron volt level; particles at that energy are virtually impossible to shield against. They will easily penetrate half-inch thick aluminum plate." Particles at that energy level are known to cause a range of damages to spacecraft, from physical degradation to instrument malfunctions and false readings.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-12-van-allen-probes-reveal-dynamics.html#jCp
So Mr. Critical thinktank, if you can fake the moon landing you can surely fake skylab and some cliff divers from Ringlings performing.
I looked at the article you quoted. How odd that you didn't quote the paragraph that followed the one you quoted:
"NASA built these spacecraft to be super tough, and thank goodness we did," says APL's Nicky Fox, Van Allen Probes deputy project scientist. "The instruments are seeing the exact sorts of damaging effects we designed the spacecraft to survive."
And I'm not even going to dwell on the irony that you are using results taken from a space mission, to explain how space missions are fake.