Monday, July 25, 2011

Spacewalks being "faked"

Only to somebody biased, uninformed and with no idea about motion in micro gravity.

Video 1:-
From the user arcangel4myke, a man so convinced of his case, he blocks all comments and replies on his films and channel. He has numerous videos that suggest Disney directed the Apollo footage, with Mickey Mouse showing up in them!

Clip 1 from that video suggests the astronaut breathing is a release of a single bubble. From a self contained system? The "bubble" is simply a small piece of space debris.

Clip 2 he announces a quote of "It's like the ocean (pool water) poured in the SLP". Facepalm! He is talking about the Spacelab Logistics Pallet and the word he says is MOTION not ocean.

Clip 3 he says the light is from refraction in water, opinion. He says the communication sounds like a diver helmet, opinion. He alleges the Sun is a big light in the vast Russian swimming pool, opinion. He then lies by referring to actual footage as being a simulation, thus creating the illusion that he is comparing the two, when in reality he is showing two different clips. Finally another piece of space debris is a "bubble". Truly pathetic. If anybody watches that and is taken in by it, they deserve to stay in ignorance.

Video 2:-
From the same person. More space debris, almost certainly ejected from the craft. It actually flickers visibly and disappears as it catches the Sun and spins sideways on. It is probably a piece of heat insulation. I cannot fathom what level of gullibility is needed to believe this footage is hoaxed.

Link doesn't work - same post from years gone by.

This is the actual footage:-

Are you seriously suggesting that was faked? It is the most obvious spacewalk you could get, there is no way you could fake the Earth with such clarity in the late 60s. He has a much less bulky suit than ISS or shuttle astronauts and it is an umbilical fed system rather than self contained.

The statement about non linear paths of objects in zero-g is just plain stupid. Objects in micro gravity follow paths that relate to their inertia and centre of gravity(COG). Anything with mass, albeit small, at either end of a line could easily rotate about its COG, a curved path resulting, is also perfectly feasible.

An example here:-

Maybe you need to confine your wonder to things you understand! The idea that it is feasible to fake spacewalks in the totally obvious underwater environment beggars belief. The effort needed to do this in water and cover it up, plus keep all the participants, film crew, divers etc. quiet, as opposed to just opening the hatch is an example of conspiracy theory going even more bonkers.

It should be noted, that the video maker has taken a small clip from a large continuous piece of footage showing all sorts of views of the Earth rotating, and the ISS orbiting it. This is deliberate subterfuge. Bunkum.

Circular argument and a credibility test from the hard of understanding.
China did not fake their spacewalk, as shown in my analysis:-

He discusses the photograph in Collins' book where he used a training photograph to show what his spacewalk would look like. He is implying that the photograph has been deliberately manipulated with intent to deceive, and attempts to pigeon hole this with Apollo photographs. The actual photograph was rendered to represent space for his book.

From that book, the quote:-
"One of the great disappointments of the flight was that there were no photos of my spacewalk. [...] All we had was the film from one movie camera, [...] which recorded an uninterrupted sequence of black sky [...] I was really feeling sorry for myself, unable to produce graphic documentation for my grandchildren of my brief sally as a human satellite [...]”

Hardly shows intent to deceive does it!! Deliberate subterfuge by Jarrah White, a common theme amongst conspiracy theorists, cherry picking little pieces of information, whilst deliberately omitting other information that clearly refute the claim being made.

He compares different missions where the suits have different pressures. His primary observation is the suits aren't ballooned, and neither are the gloves. Since the outer suit is not pressurised this is just a daft observation. It comes from Ralph Rene and his idiotic pressurised glove "demonstration"! Bunkum.
White's example of ballooning is from a video where the astronaut uses an umbilical air feed, which is totally different to the self contained suits used and developed for Apollo. He is either being deceptive, or is very ignorant. I tend to believe it was probably both of those!

The premise being that because their visors are up, the IR and UV from the Sun is going to cause damage, therefore it must be "faked". I expect he got that from "Deep Impact" the Hollywood movie!

This is where I advise the film maker to go back to school and learn how these two electromagnetic waves actually impact on astronauts. The Apollo pressure helmet and the protective visor are made of lexan, a material almost completely opaque to UV. Does Jarrah White think UV penetrates the helmet enough to give even a mild tan??

Infrared is also not an issue, since these suits have self contained life support systems, with sublimating heat exchangers.

Maybe soon, one of these youtubers will start quoting figures and exposure rates, and equate them to the known protection of the spacesuits used by Apollo. I somehow doubt it!

Circular argument. They didn't fake the Moon missions or the spacewalks, and they did not fake the Mars missions. I am simply not going to waste any of my time debunking a non-sequitur argument steeped in ignorance. I offer the quote on the first video which to me says it all:-

"What I learned from this video: Space probes can never have their paint job changed between photo shoots and launch. Promotional videos never get details wrong. Lens flare does not exist, and a screw? looks like a sort of white streak, also, you can pick a screw out of some dust without disturbing it at all or leaving a mark. Newspapers never make mistakes ever."