Re: A comment from the author of the videos
Hi, Bbenbb! I'm glad you came over! You've clarified some of the claims I didn't quite understand. However, I still disagree with you that you have evidence of fakery.
Why is debris flying down towards the spacecraft immediately after debris flies upward, apparently changing velocity? It seems pretty evident this is the same debris and it looks like a bubble to me. In my quick clip of a russian spacewalk, you can see a piece of actual debris flying up. It looks much different- it is obviously debris. Why do the clouds change speeds so rapidly right before the bubble, and why does the bubble itself change speed and expand?
I've seen a LOT of NASA TV through the years, and debris rarely passes conveniently perpendicular to the camera, and it doesn't all look exactly the same. You've got a clip of debris in a Russian spacewalk -- well, I've seen other debris, and it doesn't always look like that. I remember one particularly large chunk of something that drifted out of the docking assembly when one of the Orbiters undocked from the ISS several years ago; it did not look like your Russian debris, nor what you claim to be a bubble.
I guess my point is that this could plausibly be debris. If you want to convince me that it's a bubble, you're making an extraordinary claim and will need to give me more reason to believe than just "well, it *might* be a bubble, and it doesn't look like this one other piece of debris I saw."
I provided examples of American and Russian communications to compare with. Furthermore, I researched Chinese claims that the background noise is so loud that the astronauts need earplugs.
Did you know that ISS crews sometimes wear earplugs as well? They do. And yet, you don't hear that noise during spacewalks and such. Why? Well, first of all, because they're not inside the noisy spaceship during the spacewalk. But you don't hear it when they're on board either, and this is because they use microphones that are designed to filter out everything more than a few inches away. It's the same sort of equipment used on airplanes, and quite common throughout the world. I would be shocked if China didn't use this sort of equipment themselves. Heck, they probably *make* most of the mikes used in aviation. (Not the ones NASA uses, of course; NASA is a government agency and consequently has to operate under the "buy American" order.)
You can see the freakin bubble rolling on the helmet. It ought to be reflecting in the helmet if that weren't the case. It gets sizably larger and speeds up, indicating buoyancy. And again, it changes directions and flies downward. And again, the earth's clouds change speeds considerably. They move slowly for a while, and then move very quickly.
Why should debris be reflected, but bubbles not? This is debris. It only appears to be changing direction. The changing of the clouds suggests a more plausible explanation for its apparent movement -- the spacecraft has fired an attitude control thruster.
That's one of the tricky things about space footage -- don't forget that the camera is not on a fixed platform, and what you are seeing is *relative* motion. That can be confusing, especially when the background is so far away.
Try to wrap your head around my explanation of the craft's spin around the earth and the sun angle changes. There should be a 120 degree sun angle change, but I show that the top of the craft is in sun, in shadow, then in sun again. If the craft stays stationary facing earth, with the sun panels turning like they do, that can't happen.
Oh, I get what you're saying. You seem to be assuming that the Shenzhou 7 can only possibly be choosing one particular attitude for the entirety of its flight. Why make that assumption? There's no reason for it. Different spacecraft do things differently, usually intentionally, though it depends on what they're trying to do.
For instance, on a Shuttle mission (excluding time docked to the ISS), things are set up such that, with very little need for using the RCS system, the Orbiter will keep its tail forward and its belly out to space. Basically, it completes a 360 pitch each revolution. Now, it's large enough that it's gravity gradient becomes significant, so it can't just start the spin and then let it go; the autopilot does have to periodically correct it. (Crews have reported the difficulty of sleeping when every now and again, with no warning, they'd hear -- and feel -- the thump of an RCS thruster firing. Shuttle RCS thrusters are hypergolic, not cold gas, so they've got some oomph.) ISS does the same thing, but for the most part is gravitationally stable in this orientation -- and can use its massive gyros for orientation instead of thrusters. Apollo used a different strategy -- the so-called "barbecue roll" in which the vehicle would be set gently spinning along its long axis. This provided even heating and also some stabilization, but they had to stop the roll before performing any burns. Soyuz has used a number of different strategies, depending on the mission. One early Soyuz experimented with end-over-end rotation (much, much faster than once per revolution), but this resulted in some motion sick cosmonauts and was abandoned.
What he's claiming? That American preflight training is effective because it simulates microgravity so well?
I'm simply showing that underwater training simulates microfgravity very well. Not everyone is as smart and educated as you, chief!
I'm not so smart, since I guess I still don't understand what you're getting at with this claim.
"Flag looks like it's underwater" -- no it doesn't.
Does to me, and the air cords especially tend to float up.
Have you ever put a flag underwater? Swimming is one of my passions, so I know this flag simply is not underwater. Water tends to put a lot of drag on cloth; it shouldn't flutter so easily underwater.
the quality is so poor that the differences could easily be JPG artifacts.
Oh BS... The letters are obviously different. And why are there no videos or images of the launch but this one video?
I'll have to watch it again when I get YouTube access to see what you're talking about.
Did you know that the first video of a Soyuz launch available to the public wasn't released until 1975? That was because NASA had a policy of taking lots of pictures of everything they were involved in, and in 1975, the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project occurred. The Soviet Union was very secretive ,and although videos were taken, they were never released to the public until the days of perestroika. (Many still haven't been released.) Is this evidence that the Russian part of Apollo-Soyuz was faked? Of course not. It just means the USSR was paranoid. China's clearly less paranoid, since they did release launch footage.
Is it weird that only one bit of footage is available? Not really. Until the Soviet Union fell, the same thing was true for Russian flights, and you seem to be convinced that those really happened.
showing a different arc of Earth than in Shenzhou 7, apparently believing that one can only launch into one altitude.
Uhhh no. You missed my point completely. The different earth arc indicates that the photo taken from the satellite was closer to the craft than the photo taken from the craft itself. The two photos are both of the Shenzou 7. The photo from the satellite could have been manipulated to make this happen, but why would they do that?
Okay, now I'm even more confused as to what you're claiming. "The photo from the satellite was closer to the craft." What satellite are you talking about?
his claim that you can make underwater footage look normal by speeding it up is absurd, but could make a nice sequel to the Mythbusters special on the Apollo hoax claims
[/color] Okay, so I'm guessing people said they slowed down video to make it look like the Apollo astronauts were on the moon jumping. I'm claiming the opposite here, my friend, I'm saying they
sped up the video. Try this. Try taking the footage and slowing it down. Does it look underwater? Try taking American test footage underwater and speeding it up. And again, the change in cloud speed correlates with the apparent change in footage speed.[/quote]
You are correct about the Mythbusters thing. And no, I don't think speeding up underwater footage makes it look like this. I've seen underwater footage and outer space footage -- they look like they're moving at pretty much the same speed.
I'll take a look at your earth halo argument when I get a chance to look at the video again; I don't recall what the claim was off the top of my head.