Offline George Jetson

  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Christopher Cane's Salsa Rocks My Mouth
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #20 on: February 06, 2019, 02:07:26 AM »


Edit: For all those who say the fluid stuff could be from parabolic flight, it can't be, 5:41 to 6:27 is longer than the 20 seconds of parabolic flight.



How deceptive of you.  There's a cut at 5:14 minutes in to the video so it isn't 46 seconds of continuous footage as you try to imply but about 32-33 seconds.  Google says the parabolic flights provide about 30 seconds of weightlessness.  Also, the footage appears to be slightly slowed down.  Furthermore ,hand-drawn cel animation definitely existed in 1974, and the footage is grainy enough that it could plausibly be the work of a skilled animator (but I lean towards parabolic flight).
« Last Edit: February 06, 2019, 02:09:49 AM by George Jetson »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #21 on: February 06, 2019, 02:49:14 AM »


Edit: For all those who say the fluid stuff could be from parabolic flight, it can't be, 5:41 to 6:27 is longer than the 20 seconds of parabolic flight.



How deceptive of you.  There's a cut at 5:14 minutes in to the video so it isn't 46 seconds of continuous footage as you try to imply but about 32-33 seconds.  Google says the parabolic flights provide about 30 seconds of weightlessness.  Also, the footage appears to be slightly slowed down.  Furthermore ,hand-drawn cel animation definitely existed in 1974, and the footage is grainy enough that it could plausibly be the work of a skilled animator (but I lean towards parabolic flight).

22 seconds seems to be the max with the Vomit Comet when it comes to 0g. The 30 seconds include includes the 4 seconds from g to 0 and 4 seconds back again.

I don't know about footage being slowed down, could be a framerate thing, 24 frames to 30 or something. But that doesn't change the 'floatiness' of it all.

I can't seem to find any hand-drawn cel animation that looks like this. Still can't find any CGI or parabolic flight where you can do this (If it is, it's level 9000 stuff):

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

Offline George Jetson

  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Christopher Cane's Salsa Rocks My Mouth
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #22 on: February 06, 2019, 02:52:28 AM »
Quotation from the first post: "@ 1:03 the man is able to accelerate his rotation too quickly to be an underwater environment."

Or the cameraman is able to slow down the frame rate such that it appears that he is rotating faster than he actually is. 

Another quote from the first post:  "@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."

Parabolic flights can create a zero-g environment for up to 40 seconds. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598414/ 

The notion that the entire volume of Skylab would need to be fitted into the parabolic aircraft in order to shoot the scene in question is obviously ridiculous.  The circle that the "astronauts" are seen floating around in looks no larger than about 10-15 feet in diameter.  It could also be a swimming pool, since the original claim that it could not have been shot in a swimming pool was refuted above.  It looks to me like this scene was shot under water while the scene discussed above looks more like a vomit-comet scene (it isn't "either-or".  Both could have been used, each for different effects).  Either way, this stuff could easily have been faked.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2019, 03:53:02 AM by George Jetson »

Offline George Jetson

  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Christopher Cane's Salsa Rocks My Mouth
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #23 on: February 06, 2019, 02:54:24 AM »


22 seconds seems to be the max with the Vomit Comet when it comes to 0g. The 30 seconds include includes the 4 seconds from g to 0 and 4 seconds back again.



This article claims "Although space flight is the only way to provide long periods of true freefall, a much cheaper and more accessible method is available in an aircraft flying a parabolic trajectory. During such parabolic flight an aircraft flies a trajectory that provides freefall for up to 40 seconds."  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598414/

The mustache guy stuff is from the CGI era so it isn't at all pertinent to this discussion.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #24 on: February 06, 2019, 04:34:35 AM »


22 seconds seems to be the max with the Vomit Comet when it comes to 0g. The 30 seconds include includes the 4 seconds from g to 0 and 4 seconds back again.



This article claims "Although space flight is the only way to provide long periods of true freefall, a much cheaper and more accessible method is available in an aircraft flying a parabolic trajectory. During such parabolic flight an aircraft flies a trajectory that provides freefall for up to 40 seconds."  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598414/

The mustache guy stuff is from the CGI era so it isn't at all pertinent to this discussion.

From the same paper:

"Such a flight typically consists of 30 to 60 parabolas, each providing about 25 seconds of freefall. Between parabolas, the aircraft must climb to regain altitude, and during this 40 second interval when downward velocity is reduced and eventually becomes upward velocity, g levels reach 1.8 g. (Contrary to popular misconception, the 0 g freefall phase of flight begins as the aircraft climbs, and does not occur solely as the aircraft descends. Although the aircraft has upward velocity during the initial 0 g phase, its acceleration is downward: the upward velocity is decreasing.)"

Cool, so your point is?:

- Skylab bouncing around guys was just parabolic vomit comet stuff - No Skylab 'cut' under 25 seconds is worthy. There is one. (The 40 seconds of 'freefall' is the entire parabola, not the entirety of 0g.)
- Skylab water experiments were Disney-esque hand-drawn cel stuff
- Anything ISS is in-pertinent



Some from MIR (Same era - Seems decidedly ghetto in comparison to Skylab, let alone ISS - I'm in your camp on this one, who in their right mind would go up into a Soviet era space station?):


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

Re: Skylab
« Reply #25 on: February 06, 2019, 09:52:59 AM »
Either way, this stuff could easily have been faked.

I'd dispute the "easily", but let's say that it's possible it could have been faked.
Do you have any evidence that it was?
Just saying it's possible is a cop out, that could apply to pretty much anything. Where's the evidence that it was?
And I'm looking for better than vague assertions, what actual analysis has been done on the footage by a professional in this area which has shown evidence of fakery?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline George Jetson

  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Christopher Cane's Salsa Rocks My Mouth
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #26 on: February 06, 2019, 05:30:18 PM »
Quote
From the same paper:

"Such a flight typically consists of 30 to 60 parabolas, each providing about 25 seconds of freefall. Between parabolas, the aircraft must climb to regain altitude, and during this 40 second interval when downward velocity is reduced and eventually becomes upward velocity, g levels reach 1.8 g. (Contrary to popular misconception, the 0 g freefall phase of flight begins as the aircraft climbs, and does not occur solely as the aircraft descends. Although the aircraft has upward velocity during the initial 0 g phase, its acceleration is downward: the upward velocity is decreasing.)"
The 25 seconds of free fall refers to a "typical" flight.  Elsewhere it is claimed that the maximum (as opposed to the typical) amount of free fall time is 40 seconds:  "During such parabolic flight an aircraft flies a trajectory that provides freefall for up to 40 seconds.  Later on:  "Between 1955 and 1958, a refined approach in the F-94 fighter allowed a variety of medical experiments to be performed during 30 to 40 seconds of freefall."  The 40 seconds of "increased force" during the typical parabolic flight has nothing to do with the maximum claimed 40 seconds (or 30-40 seconds) of free-fall, they just happen to be the same.
Quote
Cool, so your point is?: 

- Skylab bouncing around guys was just parabolic vomit comet stuff - No Skylab 'cut' under 25 seconds is worthy. There is one. (The 40 seconds of 'freefall' is the entire parabola, not the entirety of 0g.)
Dealt with above.  You also have to account for the possibility that the film was overcranked (slowed down.)  For instance if the 32 seconds of uninterrupted floating water sequence was shot at a higher frame-rate than it was played back at, if it were slowed down by 25 percent that would mean that the sequence actually took up 24 seconds of real time.
Quote
- Skylab water experiments were Disney-esque hand-drawn cel stuff
I don't think that was used in this particular case but it is possible that NASA used hand-drawn animation in the pre CGI era.  The video quality is usually so grainy (deliberately so) that if the effect was well animated enough it wouldn't be easy to see that the texture of the animated feature looked "off."

Quote
- Anything ISS is in-pertinent

This is a Skylab thread.  The ISS monstrosities are dealt with in other threads.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #27 on: February 06, 2019, 09:11:49 PM »
Quote
From the same paper:

"Such a flight typically consists of 30 to 60 parabolas, each providing about 25 seconds of freefall. Between parabolas, the aircraft must climb to regain altitude, and during this 40 second interval when downward velocity is reduced and eventually becomes upward velocity, g levels reach 1.8 g. (Contrary to popular misconception, the 0 g freefall phase of flight begins as the aircraft climbs, and does not occur solely as the aircraft descends. Although the aircraft has upward velocity during the initial 0 g phase, its acceleration is downward: the upward velocity is decreasing.)"
The 25 seconds of free fall refers to a "typical" flight.  Elsewhere it is claimed that the maximum (as opposed to the typical) amount of free fall time is 40 seconds:  "During such parabolic flight an aircraft flies a trajectory that provides freefall for up to 40 seconds.  Later on:  "Between 1955 and 1958, a refined approach in the F-94 fighter allowed a variety of medical experiments to be performed during 30 to 40 seconds of freefall."  The 40 seconds of "increased force" during the typical parabolic flight has nothing to do with the maximum claimed 40 seconds (or 30-40 seconds) of free-fall, they just happen to be the same.

For your $5000, Zero G Corporation gives you 22 seconds of weightlessness each of the 15 parabolic maneuvers. (Pricey).
It would be kinda tough to fit skylab into an F-94 fighter. The largest US plane in 1973 was the C5 Super Galaxy Transport. Skylab at it's largest diameter of 22' I'm not sure would fit into it. But if you could, then you'd have to get the C5 to perform parabolas like a fighter jet to get to that extended 30-40 seconds.

Here's a 47 second clip from skylab:



Quote
Cool, so your point is?: 

- Skylab bouncing around guys was just parabolic vomit comet stuff - No Skylab 'cut' under 25 seconds is worthy. There is one. (The 40 seconds of 'freefall' is the entire parabola, not the entirety of 0g.)
Dealt with above.  You also have to account for the possibility that the film was overcranked (slowed down.)  For instance if the 32 seconds of uninterrupted floating water sequence was shot at a higher frame-rate than it was played back at, if it were slowed down by 25 percent that would mean that the sequence actually took up 24 seconds of real time.

Dealt with above.

Quote
- Skylab water experiments were Disney-esque hand-drawn cel stuff
I don't think that was used in this particular case but it is possible that NASA used hand-drawn animation in the pre CGI era.  The video quality is usually so grainy (deliberately so) that if the effect was well animated enough it wouldn't be easy to see that the texture of the animated feature looked "off."

Still not buying hand-drawn cel animation as an explanation. Too weak and reaching.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Skylab
« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2019, 02:10:05 AM »


Edit: For all those who say the fluid stuff could be from parabolic flight, it can't be, 5:41 to 6:27 is longer than the 20 seconds of parabolic flight.



How deceptive of you.  There's a cut at 5:14 minutes in to the video so it isn't 46 seconds of continuous footage as you try to imply but about 32-33 seconds.  Google says the parabolic flights provide about 30 seconds of weightlessness.  Also, the footage appears to be slightly slowed down.  Furthermore ,hand-drawn cel animation definitely existed in 1974, and the footage is grainy enough that it could plausibly be the work of a skilled animator (but I lean towards parabolic flight).

I'm guessing there's a typo and you meant 6:14, but why do you think the cut is deceptive in any way? It's obvious they just zoomed in on the water. Like, do you have any evidence the cut signifies a different rotating formation of water? The backgrounds match up pre cut and psot cut, the speeds match up, and since we know it went through all the time pre cut without splitting into two blobs of water,that that time was not long enough to do so pre cut. So if the speeds match up, then post cut is focused on the same splitting blob of water. If you're going to bring up cranking and frame rates, then provide some evidence for it, speculation means nothing. And besides, even if you still are convinced of whatever effect the cut has, 32 seconds is still longer than the max parabolic flight time.

Also, animation? Can you provide any evidence to support your claim?

Quotation from the first post: "@ 1:03 the man is able to accelerate his rotation too quickly to be an underwater environment."

Or the cameraman is able to slow down the frame rate such that it appears that he is rotating faster than he actually is. 
Do you have any evidence for that, not just speculation?
Another quote from the first post:  "@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."

Parabolic flights can create a zero-g environment for up to 40 seconds. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598414/ 

The notion that the entire volume of Skylab would need to be fitted into the parabolic aircraft in order to shoot the scene in question is obviously ridiculous.  The circle that the "astronauts" are seen floating around in looks no larger than about 10-15 feet in diameter.  It could also be a swimming pool, since the original claim that it could not have been shot in a swimming pool was refuted above.  It looks to me like this scene was shot under water while the scene discussed above looks more like a vomit-comet scene (it isn't "either-or".  Both could have been used, each for different effects).  Either way, this stuff could easily have been faked.
Well, stack already handled the 40 second thing, but I'm not seeing how this swimming pool thing works. They're bouncing off the ring and doing flips and stuff. They're obviously exerting themselves quite a bit over the 25 second period and should be exhaling their breath to keep up that much exertion. You really think NASA can edit out the streams of bubbles?
https://www.usms.org/fitness-and-training/articles-and-videos/articles/exhalingthe-hidden-secret-to-swimming-farther-and-faster

Indeed, in light of stack's video of the skylab ring sequence of 47 seconds, that level of exertion underwater for 47 seconds would be nearly impossible without surfacing.

And now fast rotation guy could be a vomit comet. The problem with that is that the scene is still too big for a vomit comet. The rotation guy has stretched out his arms before and after the rotation, giving a rough estimate of the length of his route being at least two wingspans. Which is most likely larger than the space in a vomit comet. Indeed, when we pan to the other guy who rolls forward, it affirms the assumption that it's a ring the rotation guy was spinning next to, and we've already established that as too big to fit in a vomit comet, even if you don't think it's a ring, the arc is still too big for a vomit comet and then panning to the other guy shows we're not seeing an arc placed sideways in a vomit comet, it's clearly an internal circumference of what would be the vomit comet's fuselage.

Quote
From the same paper:

"Such a flight typically consists of 30 to 60 parabolas, each providing about 25 seconds of freefall. Between parabolas, the aircraft must climb to regain altitude, and during this 40 second interval when downward velocity is reduced and eventually becomes upward velocity, g levels reach 1.8 g. (Contrary to popular misconception, the 0 g freefall phase of flight begins as the aircraft climbs, and does not occur solely as the aircraft descends. Although the aircraft has upward velocity during the initial 0 g phase, its acceleration is downward: the upward velocity is decreasing.)"
The 25 seconds of free fall refers to a "typical" flight.  Elsewhere it is claimed that the maximum (as opposed to the typical) amount of free fall time is 40 seconds:  "During such parabolic flight an aircraft flies a trajectory that provides freefall for up to 40 seconds.  Later on:  "Between 1955 and 1958, a refined approach in the F-94 fighter allowed a variety of medical experiments to be performed during 30 to 40 seconds of freefall."  The 40 seconds of "increased force" during the typical parabolic flight has nothing to do with the maximum claimed 40 seconds (or 30-40 seconds) of free-fall, they just happen to be the same.

Do you have any evidence that vomit comet flights, like the ones today even exceed 30 seconds? Also, lol, the F-94? You do realize that thing is a two seater, right? In fact, here's a picture! Please explain to us how you can film anything in that or how conventional vomit comet planes can fly like a fighter jet.


Quote
- Skylab water experiments were Disney-esque hand-drawn cel stuff
I don't think that was used in this particular case but it is possible that NASA used hand-drawn animation in the pre CGI era.  The video quality is usually so grainy (deliberately so) that if the effect was well animated enough it wouldn't be easy to see that the texture of the animated feature looked "off."

It's grainy yes, but do you have any evidence for these allegations? Can you show us any hand drawn animations that can pass of as real?
« Last Edit: February 07, 2019, 03:31:50 PM by Bastian Baasch »
We are smarter than those scientists.
Hmm. So Tom Bishop is a Russian spy. That would explain why he is so dedicated.

Offline George Jetson

  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Christopher Cane's Salsa Rocks My Mouth
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #29 on: February 07, 2019, 06:31:50 PM »
Quote
For your $5000, Zero G Corporation gives you 22 seconds of weightlessness each of the 15 parabolic maneuvers. (Pricey).
It would be kinda tough to fit skylab into an F-94 fighter. The largest US plane in 1973 was the C5 Super Galaxy Transport. Skylab at it's largest diameter of 22' I'm not sure would fit into it. But if you could, then you'd have to get the C5 to perform parabolas like a fighter jet to get to that extended 30-40 seconds.

Here's a 47 second clip from skylab:
That 47 second clip is obviously slowed down, look at all the interlaced frames.  As far as fitting Skylab into the jet, that wouldn't be necessary it would only be necessary to create a set for the specific room that was used in the shot.  There are also methods to make a room look larger than it actually is (forced perspective and traveling mattes come to mind.)  The commercial Vomit Comets  As for the Zero G Corporation, civilian planes are only permitted to fly so high, military planes would be allowed to reach a higher peak height than the commercial planes, the only trade off being much higher g-forces after the zero-g period, but the astronauts would be trained to handle that. 

Offline George Jetson

  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Christopher Cane's Salsa Rocks My Mouth
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #30 on: February 07, 2019, 06:43:00 PM »
Quote
I'm guessing there's a typo and you meant 6:14, but why do you think the cut is deceptive in any way? It's obvious they just zoomed in on the water. Like, do you have any evidence the cut signifies a different rotating formation of water? The backgrounds match up pre cut and psot cut, the speeds match up, and since we know it went through all the time pre cut without splitting into two blobs of water,that that time was not long enough to do so pre cut. So if the speeds match up, then post cut is focused on the same splitting blob of water. If you're going to bring up cranking and frame rates, then provide some evidence for it, speculation means nothing. And besides, even if you still are convinced of whatever effect the cut has, 32 seconds is still longer than the max parabolic flight time.
I already provided evidence that the parabolic flights can create 40 seconds of zero-g time.

Quote
Also, animation? Can you provide any evidence to support your claim?
Watch Fantasia.   


Quote
Do you have any evidence for that, not just speculation?
The question is whether or not it is possible to fake the Skylab effects.  The speed could have been faked using camera-effects, thus I fulfilled my burden of showing that it was possible to fake that aspect.

Quote
Well, stack already handled the 40 second thing, but I'm not seeing how this swimming pool thing works. They're bouncing off the ring and doing flips and stuff. They're obviously exerting themselves quite a bit over the 25 second period and should be exhaling their breath to keep up that much exertion. You really think NASA can edit out the streams of bubbles?
https://www.usms.org/fitness-and-training/articles-and-videos/articles/exhalingthe-hidden-secret-to-swimming-farther-and-faster
We found that zero-g planes can achieve free fall for 40 seconds.

Quote
Indeed, in light of stack's video of the skylab ring sequence of 47 seconds, that level of exertion underwater for 47 seconds would be nearly impossible without surfacing.
Clearly slowed frame rate.  Look at all the interlaced frames.  It looks more natural at double-speed
Quote
Do you have any evidence that vomit comet flights, like the ones today even exceed 30 seconds? Also, lol, the F-94? You do realize that thing is a two seater, right? In fact, here's a picture! Please explain to us how you can film anything in that or how conventional vomit comet planes can fly like a fighter jet.
The evidence was already presented.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598414/

The length of zero-g times is dependent upon the maximum altitude.  If the vomit comet's max altitude is greater than the typical 34,000 feet the amount of time in zero-g would be greater than the typical 25 seconds.



Quote
It's grainy yes, but do you have any evidence for these allegations? Can you show us any hand drawn animations that can pass of as real?
There's no allegation, it was only mentioned as a possibility.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2019, 07:29:24 PM by George Jetson »

Offline George Jetson

  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Christopher Cane's Salsa Rocks My Mouth
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #31 on: February 07, 2019, 07:18:30 PM »
Quote
And now fast rotation guy could be a vomit comet. The problem with that is that the scene is still too big for a vomit comet. The rotation guy has stretched out his arms before and after the rotation, giving a rough estimate of the length of his route being at least two wingspans. Which is most likely larger than the space in a vomit comet. Indeed, when we pan to the other guy who rolls forward, it affirms the assumption that it's a ring the rotation guy was spinning next to, and we've already established that as too big to fit in a vomit comet, even if you don't think it's a ring, the arc is still too big for a vomit comet and then panning to the other guy shows we're not seeing an arc placed sideways in a vomit comet, it's clearly an internal circumference of what would be the vomit comet's fuselage.
This is just a mass of evidence-free assertions and assumptions.
Quote
Well, stack already handled the 40 second thing, but I'm not seeing how this swimming pool thing works. They're bouncing off the ring and doing flips and stuff. They're obviously exerting themselves quite a bit over the 25 second period and should be exhaling their breath to keep up that much exertion. You really think NASA can edit out the streams of bubbles?
It's way too grainy to make out any bubbles.  Plus, the film is clearly slowed-down so the real-time needed to film it would be significantly less than the time it takes to playback.  Also, notice how the guys run around the circle in Stack's video.  How is that possible?  Where is the normal force coming from that keeps the astronauts feet attached to the surface?  In zero-g, intertia would cause them to move in straight lines opposite the line of force caused by his feet pushing down.  This proves the video is fake.

ADDENDUM:  The claim that it couldn't be faked using wires because they would have gotten tangled is sensible, but using multiple exposures and/or rotoscoping they could have achieved the effect shooting each astronaut one at a time.  If it was choreographed carefully enough the portions where the astronauts appear to come into contact could be made to look natural.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscoping
« Last Edit: February 07, 2019, 08:30:41 PM by George Jetson »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6076
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #32 on: February 07, 2019, 07:47:04 PM »
The fact that this old footage is cutting it so close to the limit is evidence enough. It's not like 1970's video cameras could only record video for less than a minute.

Re: Skylab
« Reply #33 on: February 07, 2019, 07:54:41 PM »
Quote
Well, stack already handled the 40 second thing, but I'm not seeing how this swimming pool thing works. They're bouncing off the ring and doing flips and stuff. They're obviously exerting themselves quite a bit over the 25 second period and should be exhaling their breath to keep up that much exertion. You really think NASA can edit out the streams of bubbles?
It's way too grainy to make out any bubbles.  Plus, the film is clearly slowed-down so the real-time needed to film it would be significantly less than the time it takes to playback.  Also, notice how the guys run around the circle in Stack's video.  How is that possible?  Where is the normal force coming from that keeps the astronauts feet attached to the surface?  In zero-g, intertia would cause them to move in straight lines opposite the line of force caused by his feet pushing down.  This proves the video is fake.

ADDENDUM:  The claim that it couldn't be faked using wires because they would have gotten tangled is sensible, but using multiple exposures they could have achieved the effect shooting each astronaut one at a time.  If it was choreographed carefully enough the portions where the astronauts appear to come into contact could be made to look natural.
What's your evidence again that it's 'clearly slowed-down'? I don't see it personally, although more because there are bits that look odd at one speed but not the other, and vice versa. Interlaced frames =/= film speed difference. You'll need a better case than that.

As for running around in a circle, do you understand how moving in a circle works? You calling this impossible, imo, calls into question the rest of your concerns about this video. That's very simple physics going on right there. Go spin a bucket of water around on the end of a string. The force being applied is always towards the center, yet it doesn't ever end up there. Why? Same thing. (I'd also note your assertion that it's happening on a vomit comet would produce zero-g circumstances and render this a feat impossible there too, leaving you *required* to have wires which simply isn't the case)

The fact that this old footage is cutting it so close to the limit is evidence enough. It's not like 1970's video cameras could only record video for less than a minute.
Only if you're already inclined to think it's fake. Length of segments is not strong evidence in and of itself without entering with bias.

Offline George Jetson

  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Christopher Cane's Salsa Rocks My Mouth
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #34 on: February 07, 2019, 08:22:14 PM »
Quote
What's your evidence again that it's 'clearly slowed-down'? I don't see it personally, although more because there are bits that look odd at one speed but not the other, and vice versa. Interlaced frames =/= film speed difference. You'll need a better case than that.
The evidence is the copious frame interlacing and the fact that it looks unnatural.  Anyway, all I need to do is show that it could be faked in order to refute the initial argument that Skylab proves space-flight is real.

Quote
As for running around in a circle, do you understand how moving in a circle works? You calling this impossible, imo, calls into question the rest of your concerns about this video. That's very simple physics going on right there. Go spin a bucket of water around on the end of a string. The force being applied is always towards the center, yet it doesn't ever end up there. Why? Same thing. (I'd also note your assertion that it's happening on a vomit comet would produce zero-g circumstances and render this a feat impossible there too, leaving you *required* to have wires which simply isn't the case)

Nonsense.  The force in question here is the force of the astronauts feet upon the circle thing which produces a linear force perpendicular to the surface of contact.  The point about the bucket is irrelevant:  If what we are told about Skylab is correct there is no centrifugal force acting upon the astronauts except for the minute amount of centrifugal force upon the entire satellite due to orbiting around the Earth; whereas the water is contained by the bucket and moving in unison with it as it is being moved along the circle.  Your argument requires Skylab to be spinning like a gravitron amusement park ride. As far as the "calling into question" stuff:  ad hominem fallacy.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2019, 08:34:40 PM by George Jetson »

Offline George Jetson

  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Christopher Cane's Salsa Rocks My Mouth
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #35 on: February 07, 2019, 09:01:10 PM »
Do people here think Chris Angel is a wizard because he makes things disappear and levitate?  Illusions and special-effects are a "thing."  There are entire professions based around deceiving your sense of sight.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3345
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #36 on: February 07, 2019, 09:33:47 PM »
The fact that this old footage is cutting it so close to the limit is evidence enough. It's not like 1970's video cameras could only record video for less than a minute.
Are you sure that it was a video camera used to record that footage?  Although there was a TV video camera on Skylab, they also used film movie cameras that did have limited recording capabilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab#Cameras_and_film
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: 951
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #37 on: February 07, 2019, 09:34:32 PM »
Quote
For your $5000, Zero G Corporation gives you 22 seconds of weightlessness each of the 15 parabolic maneuvers. (Pricey).
It would be kinda tough to fit skylab into an F-94 fighter. The largest US plane in 1973 was the C5 Super Galaxy Transport. Skylab at it's largest diameter of 22' I'm not sure would fit into it. But if you could, then you'd have to get the C5 to perform parabolas like a fighter jet to get to that extended 30-40 seconds.

Here's a 47 second clip from skylab:
That 47 second clip is obviously slowed down, look at all the interlaced frames.  As far as fitting Skylab into the jet, that wouldn't be necessary it would only be necessary to create a set for the specific room that was used in the shot.  There are also methods to make a room look larger than it actually is (forced perspective and traveling mattes come to mind.)  The commercial Vomit Comets  As for the Zero G Corporation, civilian planes are only permitted to fly so high, military planes would be allowed to reach a higher peak height than the commercial planes, the only trade off being much higher g-forces after the zero-g period, but the astronauts would be trained to handle that.

I'm not seeing the obviousness you are seeing.

I'm not sure the 22' diameter 'running' room in skylab would fit inside the largest military craft we had at the time. But maybe. And I'm not sure how a C5 Super Galaxy Transport would handle really severe parabolas as I am not an aerospace engineer.

I'm not buying the LotR's Gandolf/Hobbit forced perspective thing, reaching.
I'm not buying the Fantasia cel-animation thing, reaching.

So to recap, skylab fackery:

- 40 second parbolas (Longest we know of)
- Sections of skylab 'sets' built into our largest military plane of the day to perform parabolas
- Water experiments, unknown at the moment
- I suppose astronauts outside = water tanks
- Images of earth = mattes and such

Did I miss anything?

Here's a strange under-cranked video I found. If to be believed, erases the parabola explanation:


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

Re: Skylab
« Reply #38 on: February 07, 2019, 09:42:42 PM »
Quote
As for running around in a circle, do you understand how moving in a circle works? You calling this impossible, imo, calls into question the rest of your concerns about this video. That's very simple physics going on right there. Go spin a bucket of water around on the end of a string. The force being applied is always towards the center, yet it doesn't ever end up there. Why? Same thing. (I'd also note your assertion that it's happening on a vomit comet would produce zero-g circumstances and render this a feat impossible there too, leaving you *required* to have wires which simply isn't the case)

Nonsense.  The force in question here is the force of the astronauts feet upon the circle thing which produces a linear force perpendicular to the surface of contact.  The point about the bucket is irrelevant:  If what we are told about Skylab is correct there is no centrifugal force acting upon the astronauts except for the minute amount of centrifugal force upon the entire satellite due to orbiting around the Earth; whereas the water is contained by the bucket and moving in unison with it as it is being moved along the circle.  Your argument requires Skylab to be spinning like a gravitron amusement park ride. As far as the "calling into question" stuff:  ad hominem fallacy.
You're ignoring their initial momentum. Again. Also, not Ad Hominem, but a legitimate technique used in court. If a witnesses testimony is unreliable in one respect (in this case your declaration that running around this circle is impossible) how can the testimony be relied upon in another respect (your declaration it looks fake). I'll admit perhaps a bit of a stretch, but proclaiming it shows gaps in fundamental knowledge of physics. So how can I expect you to be a reliable witness/testimony regarding the physics of movement of them through the air that you claim clearly indicates slowed down footage, when you proclaim a far simpler feat impossible?

Offline George Jetson

  • *
  • Posts: 101
  • Christopher Cane's Salsa Rocks My Mouth
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #39 on: February 07, 2019, 10:01:13 PM »



That is indeed a strange video.  Preliminary observations:  look at the two "water bubble scenes", the only scenes that couldn't be done with wires:  both are less than 40 seconds when slowed down to 25%