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-fasterIndeed, 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.
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.
- 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?