Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2018, 04:43:53 PM »

NASA Bloopers, Blunders & Gaffes - Is Anyone Even In Space?

The sequences from about 4:30 to 8:00 are so obviously cheesy 1960s era stop motion.  It looks like something out of Davey and Goliath.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1125
    • View Profile
Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2018, 09:20:18 AM »

NASA Bloopers, Blunders & Gaffes - Is Anyone Even In Space?

The sequences from about 4:30 to 8:00 are so obviously cheesy 1960s era stop motion.  It looks like something out of Davey and Goliath.

For the Ed White Gemini EVA shown beginning at 4:30, it looks like it was part of a Discovery Channel show. The EVA footage is sped up as opposed to the original which gives it that stop motion effect. I'll link the original below, the difference is clear. As well, the other argument that he swivels his helmet which you can't do in that suit. Apparently you can.

"Helmet. - The Gemini helmet...The torso portion also contains a rotating bearing, permitting the astronaut to turn his head with relative ease."

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660007653.pdf

Original footage:
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« Reply #22 on: November 11, 2018, 06:41:40 PM »
Your youtube video doesn't look any more convincing to me, just murkier and with much more interlacing.  As far as the helmet thing it says the "helmet to torso engagement" has a bearing the lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease", it doesn't seem to indicate to me that it should allow the helmet to swivel around but rather it is designed so that the astronaut is free to move his head within the static helmet.  Maybe I'm misinterpreting it.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1125
    • View Profile
Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« Reply #23 on: November 11, 2018, 08:32:44 PM »
Your youtube video doesn't look any more convincing to me, just murkier and with much more interlacing.  As far as the helmet thing it says the "helmet to torso engagement" has a bearing the lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease", it doesn't seem to indicate to me that it should allow the helmet to swivel around but rather it is designed so that the astronaut is free to move his head within the static helmet.  Maybe I'm misinterpreting it.

Well, it's video. We could go all day back and forth as to what perhaps you want to see versus what I want to see. As for the helmet, I suppose up to interpretation. But it states that the torso engagement contains a 'rotating' bearing that lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease". Seems clear to me. And even if there is some perceived ambiguity, it seems disingenuous for the video author to state that it definitely doesn't swivel as a main contention.

My larger point is that we see what we want to see. FE sees fake, I don't. Both biased. But when I saw this, I tried to park my bias aside. As yeah, it looked like a gumby video and if the Gemini helmets don't swivel as the video author claimed, then yeah, that's pretty fake. So I looked for original footage which I find to be different. And then found the docs pertaining to the Gemini suit and in there, it states that the helmet does, in fact, rotate.

Point being, before slapping images/videos up, remove your bias to the best of your ability and do some research first, even from the opposite point of view. It just seems like the right thing to do.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« Reply #24 on: November 11, 2018, 08:49:21 PM »
Your youtube video doesn't look any more convincing to me, just murkier and with much more interlacing.  As far as the helmet thing it says the "helmet to torso engagement" has a bearing the lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease", it doesn't seem to indicate to me that it should allow the helmet to swivel around but rather it is designed so that the astronaut is free to move his head within the static helmet.  Maybe I'm misinterpreting it.

Well, it's video. We could go all day back and forth as to what perhaps you want to see versus what I want to see. As for the helmet, I suppose up to interpretation. But it states that the torso engagement contains a 'rotating' bearing that lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease". Seems clear to me. And even if there is some perceived ambiguity, it seems disingenuous for the video author to state that it definitely doesn't swivel as a main contention.

My larger point is that we see what we want to see. FE sees fake, I don't. Both biased. But when I saw this, I tried to park my bias aside. As yeah, it looked like a gumby video and if the Gemini helmets don't swivel as the video author claimed, then yeah, that's pretty fake. So I looked for original footage which I find to be different. And then found the docs pertaining to the Gemini suit and in there, it states that the helmet does, in fact, rotate.

Point being, before slapping images/videos up, remove your bias to the best of your ability and do some research first, even from the opposite point of view. It just seems like the right thing to do.
I'm not a Flat Earther, I have no position except that it is good to question everything, including the received wisdom of the experts.  I provisionally believe in the RE based worldview because of maps and astronomical observation but I'm open to changing my position.  The claim that I my criticism of NASA footage is based in confirmation bias is utterly false.  NASA's older (pre-1990s) film footage simply looks completely phony to me.  More modern footage looks better but there are still problems.  The helmet swivel issue may be a moot point (one would hope the NASA fakers would be able to keep their story straight on such basic things) but the overall phoniness is glaring.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2018, 08:55:37 PM by George Jetson »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1125
    • View Profile
Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« Reply #25 on: November 11, 2018, 08:55:22 PM »
Your youtube video doesn't look any more convincing to me, just murkier and with much more interlacing.  As far as the helmet thing it says the "helmet to torso engagement" has a bearing the lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease", it doesn't seem to indicate to me that it should allow the helmet to swivel around but rather it is designed so that the astronaut is free to move his head within the static helmet.  Maybe I'm misinterpreting it.

Well, it's video. We could go all day back and forth as to what perhaps you want to see versus what I want to see. As for the helmet, I suppose up to interpretation. But it states that the torso engagement contains a 'rotating' bearing that lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease". Seems clear to me. And even if there is some perceived ambiguity, it seems disingenuous for the video author to state that it definitely doesn't swivel as a main contention.

My larger point is that we see what we want to see. FE sees fake, I don't. Both biased. But when I saw this, I tried to park my bias aside. As yeah, it looked like a gumby video and if the Gemini helmets don't swivel as the video author claimed, then yeah, that's pretty fake. So I looked for original footage which I find to be different. And then found the docs pertaining to the Gemini suit and in there, it states that the helmet does, in fact, rotate.

Point being, before slapping images/videos up, remove your bias to the best of your ability and do some research first, even from the opposite point of view. It just seems like the right thing to do.
I'm not a Flat Earther, I have no position except that it is good to question everything, including the received wisdom of the experts.  I provisionally believe in the RE based worldview because of maps and astronomical observation but I'm open to changing my position.  The claim that I my criticism of NASA footage is based in confirmation bias is utterly false.  NASA's older (pre-1990s) film footage simply looks completely phony to me.  More modern footage looks better but there are still problems.

No disrespect intended. Just that a lot of stuff is posted, by both sides, saying, "See, look, this definitely means 'X'!" And often times without a pre-dive into some level of research.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« Reply #26 on: November 11, 2018, 11:44:30 PM »
Your youtube video doesn't look any more convincing to me, just murkier and with much more interlacing.  As far as the helmet thing it says the "helmet to torso engagement" has a bearing the lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease", it doesn't seem to indicate to me that it should allow the helmet to swivel around but rather it is designed so that the astronaut is free to move his head within the static helmet.  Maybe I'm misinterpreting it.

Well, it's video. We could go all day back and forth as to what perhaps you want to see versus what I want to see. As for the helmet, I suppose up to interpretation. But it states that the torso engagement contains a 'rotating' bearing that lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease". Seems clear to me. And even if there is some perceived ambiguity, it seems disingenuous for the video author to state that it definitely doesn't swivel as a main contention.

My larger point is that we see what we want to see. FE sees fake, I don't. Both biased. But when I saw this, I tried to park my bias aside. As yeah, it looked like a gumby video and if the Gemini helmets don't swivel as the video author claimed, then yeah, that's pretty fake. So I looked for original footage which I find to be different. And then found the docs pertaining to the Gemini suit and in there, it states that the helmet does, in fact, rotate.

Point being, before slapping images/videos up, remove your bias to the best of your ability and do some research first, even from the opposite point of view. It just seems like the right thing to do.
I'm not a Flat Earther, I have no position except that it is good to question everything, including the received wisdom of the experts.  I provisionally believe in the RE based worldview because of maps and astronomical observation but I'm open to changing my position.  The claim that I my criticism of NASA footage is based in confirmation bias is utterly false.  NASA's older (pre-1990s) film footage simply looks completely phony to me.  More modern footage looks better but there are still problems.

No disrespect intended. Just that a lot of stuff is posted, by both sides, saying, "See, look, this definitely means 'X'!" And often times without a pre-dive into some level of research.
It's true that there is definitely an element of subjectivity in the question of whether or not something "looks fake" or "looks real."  Some of the NASA critics have criticisms that, I think, comeclose to  objectively falsify some of NASA's footage.


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6360
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« Reply #28 on: May 23, 2019, 06:13:15 PM »
I came across another one today for this collection:

International Space Station CGI FAIL



Original footage posted by the ESA (starting at 11:15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsITRfKhgSU

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3562
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« Reply #29 on: May 23, 2019, 06:25:39 PM »
I came across another one today for this collection:

International Space Station CGI FAIL



Original footage posted by the ESA (starting at 11:15): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsITRfKhgSU
The only failure I see is someone's inability to tell the difference between stars in space and city lights (as well as other terrestrial features) at night.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6360
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« Reply #30 on: May 23, 2019, 06:30:15 PM »
Quote from: markjo
The only failure I see is someone's inability to tell the difference between stars in space and city lights (as well as other terrestrial features) at night.

City lights?  ???

« Last Edit: May 23, 2019, 09:40:35 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3562
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« Reply #31 on: May 23, 2019, 06:36:57 PM »
Yes, city lights.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1353
    • View Profile
Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« Reply #32 on: May 23, 2019, 06:59:17 PM »
Tom, can you explain in your own words what the CGI fail is alleged to be here?

However, the thread asks for NASA CGI fails, not ESA.
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3562
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« Reply #33 on: May 23, 2019, 07:17:46 PM »
My guess is that he's talking about the specks that appear when he ups the white levels.  Since the specs don't move with the rest of the earth or sky, I'd say that they're probably dust specs on the window or lens.  Low light photography tends to vulnerable to all sorts of image noise sources. 

I seriously doubt that any CGI artist would add multicolored stars to a star field.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2019, 07:19:41 PM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1125
    • View Profile
Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« Reply #34 on: May 24, 2019, 12:09:50 AM »
The only fail here is the guy saying with much enthusiasm, "We have a real find here..." Find of what? Debris on a window or perhaps a lens? Why would one race their imagination directly to, "The CGI guy or gal obviously took what is supposed to be the star layer and forgot to mask the earth layer and put the star layer behind it..." Seems like quite the presupposed bias leap. Sure, I guess that could be the cause, but so could just about anything. Why have a full on conspiratorial synaptic explosion over something as "eh" as this.

If this is meant to be a collection of the BEST ISS fails, so far it's failing massively. We need stuff way more juicy than this.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.