*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #40 on: February 07, 2019, 10:10:37 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%

I don't see any wires. Can you point them out?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Skylab
« Reply #41 on: February 08, 2019, 12:39:21 AM »
The more I watch it, the more it looks like most of it was shot underwater, perhaps aided with very thin wires, in neutral buoyancy conditions.  Nobody's head is seen for more than a few minutes at a time and there are a number of cuts so breath holding time isn't an issue.  Everything looks suspended in water.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2019, 12:42:07 AM by George Jetson »

Re: Skylab
« Reply #42 on: February 08, 2019, 12:47:17 AM »
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.
What initial momentum?  You'll have to elaborate

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #43 on: February 08, 2019, 01:11:35 AM »
The more I watch it, the more it looks like most of it was shot underwater, perhaps aided with very thin wires, in neutral buoyancy conditions.  Nobody's head is seen for more than a few minutes at a time and there are a number of cuts so breath holding time isn't an issue.  Everything looks suspended in water.

Perhaps that's why they use neutral buoyancy tanks to train for weightlessness. I'm not seeing any bubbles, no hair-in-water/clothes-in-water typical movement, no wires, the way certain objects just seem to revolve/move unlike they would specifically underwater. That would be some seriously impressive breath holding considering some of the long takes and the fact that the film is sped way up.

All in all, literally anything can be faked. I'm not saying this is real, I just don't see what you see and any evidence that it is definitely fake.

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
- Any footage longer than what a parabola could offer is underwater
- Water experiments, unknown at the moment
- I suppose astronauts outside = water tanks
- Images of earth = mattes and such

Did I miss anything?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Skylab
« Reply #44 on: February 08, 2019, 01:13:47 AM »



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%

I don't see any wires. Can you point them out?
Can you point any out in this video (starting at 16:44)? 


*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #45 on: February 08, 2019, 01:18:55 AM »



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%

I don't see any wires. Can you point them out?
Can you point any out in this video (starting at 16:44)? 



See the wires? No. See the obvious jerky movement of objects suspended by wires? Yes.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Skylab
« Reply #46 on: August 02, 2019, 05:53:50 PM »
The more I watch it, the more it looks like most of it was shot underwater, perhaps aided with very thin wires, in neutral buoyancy conditions.  Nobody's head is seen for more than a few minutes at a time and there are a number of cuts so breath holding time isn't an issue.  Everything looks suspended in water.

It looks nothing like it's under water, if it was you'd see the guy kicking his legs to move from one side to the other.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #47 on: August 02, 2019, 05:57:58 PM »
Although not SKylab, I see a wire in this one:


*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #48 on: August 02, 2019, 06:17:32 PM »
Although not SKylab, I see a wire in this one:



Here's what a Syncon satellite looks like, the one being launched in the video. Not a 100%, but the 'wire' looks like the antenna like thing on top:

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

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #49 on: August 03, 2019, 03:32:04 PM »
There were two satellites on STS-51A. Syncom is not the satellite deployed in the clip above. Take a look at the full video at the 2:35 minute mark. Syncom is the second satellite deployed, as depicted and stated by narrator.



From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-A

"The two communications satellites successfully deployed were Anik D2 (on the second day of the mission) and Syncom IV-1, also known as Leasat 1 (on the third day)."
« Last Edit: August 03, 2019, 03:45:33 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Skylab
« Reply #50 on: August 03, 2019, 09:25:31 PM »
I'm always bemused that people who believe NASA are faking everything simultaneously believe they are doing so well enough to fool most people on the planet but are also doing their "special FX" so poorly that films from the 60s have better done effects.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #51 on: August 03, 2019, 09:38:18 PM »
I'm always bemused that people who believe NASA are faking everything simultaneously believe they are doing so well enough to fool most people on the planet but are also doing their "special FX" so poorly that films from the 60s have better done effects.

Explain the wire seen in the above clip.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #52 on: August 04, 2019, 10:24:52 PM »
I'm always bemused that people who believe NASA are faking everything simultaneously believe they are doing so well enough to fool most people on the planet but are also doing their "special FX" so poorly that films from the 60s have better done effects.

Explain the wire seen in the above clip.

Talk about leading the witness..."Explain the wire..." presumes there is a wire. I'm not convinced. You're right, the night time launch of the satellite was for the Anik D2 which has an antenna but it pops up after deploy not during.

I went through the 27 or so frames in question that show the "wire" one by one. This one seemed to be the best:



If you look at the 27 frames, one by one, but in succession, the "wire" changes shape and other stuff, like in the frame grab above, shows up like over in the lower right. All of which could be whatever light is reflecting off the top of the device.

In other words, I don't see it anymore as a wire as I do a reflection created from all of the light dancing around the whole launch as it spins it's way up and out. I've been looking for raw source material, but haven't found any.

The most famous and impressive things about STS 51A was not the alleged "wire" launch of the Anik, but the retrieval of two other satellites which I don't think had been done before. As well there's some UFO captured during the retrieval that keeps popping up in my search.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6476
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #53 on: August 05, 2019, 09:15:08 PM »
Changing shape? Can you show us what you mean?


Re: Skylab
« Reply #54 on: August 05, 2019, 10:18:09 PM »
That "wire" isn't even in the centre of the satellite. How is the satellite not at an angle or oscillating side to side if it's dangling on a wire and the wire isn't central to a spinning satellite?

Honestly, I don't know what that is. Could be an antenna, could be an "artifact", the video isn't great quality, there's a lot of ghosting. But I don't see how an object can spin like that and stay upright and not wobble if it's on a wire and the wire isn't at the axis of rotation which it doesn't look like it is from that animated gif.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 656
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #55 on: August 05, 2019, 11:19:25 PM »
Honestly, I don't know what that is. Could be an antenna, could be an "artifact", the video isn't great quality, there's a lot of ghosting. But I don't see how an object can spin like that and stay upright and not wobble if it's on a wire and the wire isn't at the axis of rotation which it doesn't look like it is from that animated gif.

I love how you are so quick to dismiss that it could be a wire. Is it that difficult to just admit that it might kinda sorta look like a wire maybe? It sure does to me.


In other words, I don't see it anymore as a wire as I do a reflection created from all of the light dancing around the whole launch as it spins it's way up and out.

When I look at the image I see the line. What is the line? I don't know. I agree that it could be the things that you have listed above but, I also believe, that it COULD be a wire. Again i'm shocked at peoples inability to acknowledge that it might  be a wire.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2019, 11:22:23 PM by iamcpc »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #56 on: August 05, 2019, 11:54:11 PM »
Changing shape? Can you show us what you mean?



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

Re: Skylab
« Reply #57 on: August 06, 2019, 07:49:22 AM »
Again i'm shocked at peoples inability to acknowledge that it might  be a wire.
I do admit that "it might kinda sorta look like a wire maybe". But the key words there are "look like".
I explained why I don't see how it can be a wire. If an object is spinning then the wire has to be in the centre or it'll wobble or tilt. That "wire" clearly isn't in the centre. That would apply to an antenna as well. Honestly the video is such poor quality, there's so much ghosting that I'm leaning towards some "artifacts" on the video.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Skylab
« Reply #58 on: August 06, 2019, 08:40:00 AM »
Honestly, I don't know what that is. Could be an antenna, could be an "artifact", the video isn't great quality, there's a lot of ghosting. But I don't see how an object can spin like that and stay upright and not wobble if it's on a wire and the wire isn't at the axis of rotation which it doesn't look like it is from that animated gif.

I love how you are so quick to dismiss that it could be a wire. Is it that difficult to just admit that it might kinda sorta look like a wire maybe? It sure does to me.


In other words, I don't see it anymore as a wire as I do a reflection created from all of the light dancing around the whole launch as it spins it's way up and out.

When I look at the image I see the line. What is the line? I don't know. I agree that it could be the things that you have listed above but, I also believe, that it COULD be a wire. Again i'm shocked at peoples inability to acknowledge that it might  be a wire.

Hey, simmer down. Stop being all 'judgy' on what you think people are willing to dismiss or not. I originally posted that I thought it was a different satellite being deployed which had a definite antenna protrusion which could have accounted for the 'wire', but as I stated, I wasn't 100% sure. Tom did the due diligence and corrected me on which satellite it was, so I had to look deeper. It's compelling footage no matter which side of the fence you're on, so worth a look.

Upon review I looked at it again, and again, frame by frame. Coupled with looking up the specific satellite schematics and such. Tom comes at it from a "look at the wire" perspective, I come at it from a "what else could it be" perspective. Neither angle is right and neither is wrong. Maybe we meet in the middle.

My personal determination, 27 frames of a straight line protruding off-center from the spinning instrument, supposedly in space - a video medium I'm not too familiar with, none of us are - that kind of comes in and goes out presented at a post flight conference video with super poor resolution, 1984 NTSC reso with reflected light and blown out aspects of the image doesn't really land me, personally in the "that's a wire" camp.

The mantra of space debunkers has been, "If we can show one piece of evidence that NASA faked something, then the whole shooting match has been faked." So if you're going to go by that standard, this one fails. It's just not strong enough to take down the mantle of space travel.

But that's not to say the notion wasn't examined nor entertained. Better evidence is simply required.

So saddle off your high horse.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Skylab
« Reply #59 on: August 06, 2019, 09:21:31 AM »
The mantra of space debunkers has been, "If we can show one piece of evidence that NASA faked something, then the whole shooting match has been faked."

That is logically fallacious anyway. Even if it was conclusively shown that NASA faked a certain mission then while that would raise questions or cast doubt on other missions that absolutely does not prove that every NASA mission is fake. And that's without the numerous space missions which are nothing to do with NASA, my TV points at satellites which were put up by the European space agency, for example.

This is where I struggle with the conspiracy theory mindset. There's a mountain of evidence that space travel is a thing. Satellite TV, GPS, weather satellites, the hundreds of people who have been to space including 7 space tourists, the number of other people who would have to be in on a conspiracy or actively working on it, the private companies now being paid to deploy satellites. And that's without all the photos and film from space. A bunch of countries now have the technology to send things into space, there are hundreds of satellites orbiting, the technologies they enable demonstrably work, rocket launches are public events which people witness, the ISS can be seen from earth.

So that's on one side of the evidence scales. On the other side you have some grainy footage in which you can see something which could possibly be a wire although it's far from clear and it's beyond me why you'd see a wire in NASA footage when you don't in films set in space which predate that footage by decades. I've explained above why a wire (or aerial) seems unlikely, it's off centre and it's spinning, a wire would have to be in the centre. That's why I suspect it's artefacts on the footage. So that's on the other side of the scales. To me it would have to take a pretty large slice of cognitive dissonance (to admit what NASA are really doing what they claim is to admit the earth can't be flat) and confirmation bias to come down on the side of "they must be faking it all". 
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.