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: 522
    • 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:

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: 522
    • 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.

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: 522
    • 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.

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.