From the first link:-
"Things don't seem to have the damping in their motions that would be expected from water immersion...the inertia without friction causes them trouble at several points. There are several instances of "bubbles", but no buoyancy to them...they actually seem to radiate from a projection further on down. Popping flakes of ice/paint/insulation from surfaces heating/cooling, perhaps caught in maneuvering thruster blasts?"That is actually one point I hadn't considered. There are frequent thruster adjustments to maintain the orb-rate attitude.
"I disgaree, only an "insane conspiracy nut" would see that "something is wrong". A normal person might say "I don't understand why the rope appears to be coming out of the hatch, what explanations could there be?" Or they might realise that almost all pipes, ropes and wires tend to straighten out, as this one is doing, pushing itself out of the container in the process.
Furthermore when a curved rope or cable in a confined area on a spacecraft is suddenly unconfined on one side it might float out. There are some good videos of astronuats on the shuttle fighting with cables coming out of a locker in exactly the same manner."
"As I mentioned above, just because it's weird doesn't mean it's suspicious. Because the cable is weightless, the shape it takes is primarily determined by the shape it had when it was stowed. In this case, the shape of the cable is forcing it into a position "above" the bar to which it's tethered. That's why the cable looks like it's floating."
"Ah, thank you, that is much better. When you stop and start the video in half second increments the right looks angular to me and changes in attitude as well. I think it is a small piece of flat debris, foil, insulation paper maybe. The same appears to be the case on the right hand side one as well. Again, flatness, angularitry and opposite sense of movement are not what you woudl expect from bubbles."
"It appears to be moving in that direction, but that image is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimension reality. What direction it really is moving it would require photogrammetry."
This post from that thread, which sums it up quite well:-
And this one, which I have bolded as it confirms my own analysis totally:-
"Something that is ejected, say, from the capsule by an impulse of escaping gas or a mechanical effect does not fly away from the capsule in a straight line. In fact it enters its own orbit around Earth, very similar in period and other orbital elements to the capsule itself. But what this means is that as the capsule pursues its orbit and the fragment pursues its own very similar (but not identical orbit) the fragment will be seen to move in various directions relative to the capsule. In orbital operations this is known as periodic recontact, and it is something we have to plan for when we schedule intentional ejections."
From the second link:-
"True, but the point is that it was written in advance and we agree that it was sensible to have done so. If you have reports written in advance to cover all of the likely outcomes, it's only a matter of time time before an inappropriate one is released accidentally. If the Nixon administration writes a speech in advance for a contingency, then it's just good thinking. If the Chinese news agency does the same thing, they're typical disinformationists."
"1 meter per frame, 30 frames a second so the "water jet used to achieve neutral boyancy" (Why??? [B]Last time I went diving I managed it with a few weights[/B],) is travelling at 30 meters per second.
Who would believe that?
Are they completely deranged?"
Once again you make your credibility test based on your own ignorance.
As for your opposingdigits, look at your own behaviour!
If there was damage in the first place! Once again offering your opinion as the finite analysis of something. It's pretty clear they are full of people a quantum leap smarter than yourself, who aren't gullible or ignorant and who don't spend their lives spamming the internet.
One of your other spam sites, offering more Aulis regurgitation. Each of those threads has correct assessments on them. Once again I cite somebody who has refuted this already (though his links to the ALSJ are a little out of date - I may need to rewrite this).
Irrelevant. This is called attacking the messenger. The purpose of which is to indirectly suggest that his extremely competent rebuttals are in some way suspect.
From that link, somebody has also noticed your propensity to spam:-
That's given me a great idea for the video I was preparing!
"If the webmaster used to work in aerospace, then doesn't that mean he and all the other contributors could be part of the conspiracy? "
"Yes, it's possible but not very rational. The conspiracists wish to divide their opponents into two groups, those who know very little about the moon landings and therefore don't have the knowledge required to see through the holes in the conspiracy theory, and those who know quite a bit about the moon landings and therefore (say the conspiracists) are probably part of the conspiracy. To stack the deck so that all the possibilities point to the conspiracy is to avoid seriously examining the question. Evidence which seriously challenges the conspiracy must be dealt with, regardless of who proposes it.
As a practical matter, the webmaster has never worked for NASA. He has no financial interest in supporting NASA's claims."