The Chinese spacewalk was faked

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Scott, Sep 20, 2020.

  1. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,164
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The clearest proof that I've seen is the flag fluttering the way it would in a gaseous or liquid medium at the thirty second time mark in this video.

    Chinese Space Walk - 2008



    There's more.

    Proof China Faked Their Spacewalk (Part 2)




    China's Space Walk Was FAKE (part 1)




    In this video the safety cable is obviously buoyant. It has a distinct tendency to to upward.

    China Shenzhou 7 Space Walk Live!! Full Success!


    Watch it at these time marks.
    0:50
    2:10
    3:00
    3:10
    6:08
    6:44
    6:53

    It's going upward because it's slightly lighter than water.

    In the above video (Proof China Faked Their Spacewalk "Part 2") at the 3:45 time mark you can see the astronaut holding the buoyant safety cable down so that its buoyancy won't be so obvious.


    NASA's position on the Chinese spacewalk is that it was real to this shows that NASA is capable of lying.


    It's clear that the people who say it was real in this thread don't even believe their own arguments.
    https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?87594-Chinese-space-walk-conspiracy

    The dead link in post #1 led to the same video as the second link from the top in this thread.

    Those people are the heavyweight Apollo defenders. Jay Windley* is among them.


    *
    http://www.clavius.org/about.html
     
  2. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,164
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is from Betamax.
    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html

    In the video at the top of post #1 at the thirty second time mark the astronaut pulls the flag from right to left. The flag flutters the way it would in a gaseous or liquid medium. There is no other force that would make it flutter that way. This alone proves the footage was taken in water.

    The Chinese flag is made of stiff material but the same effect can be seen in these two videos.


     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2020
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,164
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Chinese Spacewalks - Part 1 (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)

    Before I begin debunking this, the user who made this, freely admits he has been given a "good run for his money" and concedes in this video that many of his points have been debunked.



    I will pay particular attention to those that he insists have not.

    Underwater Footage

    During underwater footage in weightless training, the surface will reflect the light and cause shimmering lights on all surfaces.
    A good example of this is the cylindrical object in this video, shimmering as light is refracted all around it:-



    There is no evidence of this in the entire Chinese spacewalk. They would have had to have used a sealed chamber painted black to avoid all light reflection and surface wave refraction.


    Item 1 - The "Bubbles"

    [​IMG]

    These are not bubbles. It is a combination of small loose assorted items, pieces of paper and frozen condensation. Many times in space, the introduction of a vacuum causes parts of the various coatings on the interior to freeze and break away.
    Here is a video showing them exiting the hatch and always at different angles:-



    The statement about there being zero gravity is just plain wrong. Zero-g means zero g-forces not zero gravity. This whole idea about accelerating objects is so easy to explain. The gravitational force at that altitude is circa 9 metres per second squared. Any object expelled towards the Earth, will still have orbital velocity, but as it now has slight downward velocity, it will accelerate very slightly as a result.The object that has caused most of a flap amongst hoax claimants, is merely a piece of debris that has moved diagonally towards the camera, in itself adding to what looks like even more acceleration. We can deduce this quite easily from it's apparent change in size which does not comport with a small depth change for a so called bubble.
    The idea that objects should not exit the hatch after 10 minutes is invalid. He implies that it is due only to the very slight pressure release(usually residual air pressure) that the objects are expelled in the first place, when it is also that in moving about inside the craft, they have impacted the inside and deflected through the hatch. As seen in the video above, even the paper accelerates - wet sodden paper does not float!
    It must also be pointed out that due to the way a wide angled lens shows movement at its edge, it naturally appears to move slightly quicker.

    Adding this video to show the "bubble" that is a flat piece of tape:-



    And this one to isolate the salient clip:-




    Item 2 - Wave Blowers

    [​IMG]

    Complete hogwash! Neutral buoyancy is established using weights.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Buoyancy_Laboratory

    "The principle of neutral buoyancy is used to simulate the weightless environment of space. First the suited astronauts or equipment is lowered into the pool using an overhead crane. Once this is done the suited astronauts weighted in the water by support divers so that they experience no buoyant force and no rotational moment about their center of mass."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_buoyancy

    "Neutral buoyancy is a condition in which a physical body's mass equals the mass it displaces in a surrounding medium. This offsets the force of gravity that would otherwise cause the object to sink. An object that has neutral buoyancy will neither sink nor rise."

    This video demonstrates that very principle:-



    This video shows tether cables with no tendency to rise and also demonstrates always in every example, the bubbles rise vertically:-



    Further, a waveblower would set up a continuous current and would not magically disappear once it hits an object. if there were 2, one either side as suggested, there would now be cross currents. These in turn would cause significant instability of anything caught in its wake. There are no signs of turbulence you would expect from water movement, or no additional light refraction.

    Wave blowers are introduced by the film maker to explain why the "bubbles" don't rise vertically, a logical fallacy and bunkum.


    Item 3 - The Mission Commander "slip-up"

    [​IMG]

    Is the film maker saying there is no water inside the hatch then?! The communication is actually pretty garbled. The Mandarin word for water is pronounced "shuway" I can't hear that said.
    But some comments on the video disagree with the film maker:-

    [​IMG]

    Item 4 - Odd row of lights

    [​IMG]

    They are located here:-

    [​IMG]

    Here is a short excerpt referring to them:-

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/28/content_10130548.htm

    "Zhang Tao, a technician with the Shanghai Institute of Technical Physics under the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said the Shenzhou-7 mission's success marks China's space program has "entered a new stage." Zhang was in charge of developing the illumination lamp on the exterior of the Shenzhou-7 vessel."


    Item 5 - The Markings on the Craft at take-off

    He compares Shenzhou 1 launch with wider thruster displacement to Shenzhou 7. Shenzhou 1 has a noticeably more split triple exhaust, Shenzhou 7 is more combined - it has a bigger payload and more thrust. There is also a much bigger surface smoke cloud on the Shenzhou 1 launch. Here they are side by side with completely different plumes evident:-

    [​IMG]

    He says the photograph used by China Weekly shows different markings. It's just a low resolution version of the original. The markings are the same!

    [​IMG]


    Item 6 - What is lighting the craft?

    [​IMG]

    Of course it's Earthlight! The Earth has an albedo of 35%, meaning it reflects that percentage of light cast upon it. We can clearly see it is daylight.


    Item 7 - The flag moves like it does in water!

    [​IMG]

    This is complete nonsense. A flat fabric will not move that way in a viscous medium. The drag co-efficient of water would simply not allow it to rotate unrestricted. The fabric would simply wrap around the small pole. The references to there being no noticeable movement of the astronauts hand, ignore any movement made by simply moving the finger and thumb. He indicates that the flag is moved by water movement which is simply bunkum, water doesn't rotate a flag like that, it is simply impossible. The movement was supposedly down to the mysterious wave blowers!

    Item 8 - Astronauts always keep hold of the rails

    [​IMG]

    Whenever astronauts let go in other space walks, they are either tethered, or have attitude control thrusters on their suits. Inexperienced astronauts could be forgiven for taking care. The narrator suggests they don't let go, because the water will sweep them upwards, yet it has no such effect on their position. If there was a mystery wave blower current, their legs would be swept upwards!


    Item 9 - Supposedly static Earth position

    [​IMG]

    For hours he says? How about 20 minutes maximum, as is the duration of this spacewalk.
    The craft thrusters initiate a rotation about its horizontal axis that matches its orb-rate around the Earth. It is used on most satellites, as opposed to something like the Hubble which has a stellar inertial orbit.
    Explained here:-

    http://www.ehartwell.com/afj/Orb-rate_explanation


    Item 10 - The fast moving clouds

    [​IMG]

    The clouds aren't moving - video artefacts make the background less stable. The craft is orbiting at circa 17,000 mph on a 42 degree inclined orbit.
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax: The Chinese Spacewalks - Part 2 (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)

    Item 11 - Transmission quality

    The video is very good, as one would expect from the technology that comes out of the Far East, however only the audio recorded on the surface appears to be pretty good quality. Astronaut comms aren't that good, but they have a very good background noise supression system. A rather labored point, perhaps trying to demonstrate the clarity was because it was on Earth, when they could simply have added some video distortion to the picture, had they deemed it necessary. Bunkum.

    Item 12 - Pre launch document released early

    Somebody put out the press release early. The actual dialogue quoted appears to be fairly standard, and obviously something rehearsed in their genuine underwater facilites. Embarrassing for China, but hardly a unique event to have a pre-prepared press release in news reporting of big events.


    Item 13 - China faked the Chang'e photographs

    It was actually just one picture that sent tongues wagging. Completely wrong, the Chinese picture is taken at a different angle, and actually has a newly formed crater on its picture that can easily be verified. If this find had any credence, it would have had all the mad conspiracy theorists scrambling for more evidence. None was found, just this one picture. A leap of faith logical fallacy argument based on a single photograph.

    Here is the picture against the NASA one:-

    [​IMG]

    Item 14 - The arc of the Earth

    He compares the relative Earth arcs of the Shenzhou spacewalk with other footage, and says Earth's arc is different!

    The Chinese spacewalk is closer footage than the example given and has a wider angled lens.


    Item 15 - The clouds are speeding up

    This is more bunkum to explain both the motion of the flag and the space debris. He uses a short passage where the cloud cover appears to brighten up very quickly. This is light striking the solid cloud and diffusing it. The camera is set for near field operation so sees it over exposed. The craft as stated is orbiting at 17,000mph.


    Item 16 - The floating cables

    He says the astronaut's air is provided in the tether cables!! He then says the astronaut is holding it down to stop it floating up!

    The tethers have shape memory caused by them being wound on drums during manufacture. The only tendency the cable has in an unrestricted vacuum is to assume that curled position from being wound around a large drum. There are numerous examples where it makes this same movement in a horizontal vector in relation to the camera. Bunkum.


    Item 17 - The "missing" outer atmosphere halo

    He talks about the blue halo missing from the footage showing the outer part of the Earth's atmosphere that scatters blue light.

    The halo is visible under most, but not all conditions, as shown by the examples below. The camera for Shenzhou 7 was set to expose for sharp nearfield and in digital quality, the Earth in the background is consequently over exposed and a little out of focus.

    [​IMG]

    Watch 10 seconds of this video from the time marker 13:21. The first view has no halo, the second has a huge halo:-




    Item 18 - The Earth moves

    Says the earth moves up and down a tiny bit, and questions how does that happen in space.
    The craft follows an elliptical orbit, it has very small corrections made at intervals to its forward orb-rate rotation. Perhaps he should have asked this basic question before adding it into his video?


    Item 19 - The change in degrees towards the Sun

    He talks of a 120 degree sun angle change in the 15 minutes we see the craft!!

    A standard 90 minute orbit makes a 60 degree orbital change in 15 minutes not 120 degrees. However, the craft is following a 42 degree orbit so that equates to nearer 40 degrees. Just really bad math and ignorance of the orbital path.


    Item 20 - The supposedly lit piece of the craft

    He says the Sun angle never changes on both cameras, then indicates that it lights up part of the craft and then back off again. He says it is impossible, especially at 90 minutes per orbit.

    If we assume that the area he highlights as being lit is done so by the Sun, when the light recedes, one would expect the top part to be still illuminated last of all. But it isn't as this screenshot indicates:-

    [​IMG]

    The screenshots show the light is coming from the opposite direction, the Earth, as the bottom part is lit last of all! Simple attitude control would account for this, as previously explained. In addition, 10 minutes later on during the space walk, we see the Sun angle has changed accordingly, representing what we would expect to see:-

    [​IMG]

    Item 21 - The extra astronaut

    He says there are 4 distinct voices and only 3 astronauts.

    This is just speculation. He begs the question, then plays some different clips, all labelled up for the viewer. Basically he is just clutching at straws. The voices are all varied volume inflection and clarity. To me, voice 2 is the same as voice 4, just closer to the mike(ie. face not turned to the side maybe), or speaking softer on some of the clips he plays.
     
  6. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    This post, quoted and ignored:

    I don't care whether you mentioned it or not! In the past you have mentioned it numerous times and have failed to identify by what factor. During the flag waving sections which are consistently at the same speed, the flag rotates with ZERO force impeding it. This is moronic to claim it is in water - a viscous medium with drag. Now by this very token it is irrefutable that either the WHOLE film is speeded up the same factor or it has not. When it is slowed down to 25%:-

    Watch the video:



    The flag is STILL moving in ways that are impossible in water and the astronaut is now barely moving! The scientific method looks at all the evidence not the idiotic "look, the flag is fluttering" fragment!

    1. HOW fast has it been sped up?
    2. Are you saying this section hasn't been sped up but the one just prior where the flag pole is PUSHING a flat fabric is?


    I'm still waiting for you to address this:-

    3. Show your scientific methodology as to why it is an anomaly! Your opinion is less than most and not even close to scientific.

    4. In progress.........

    5. The other "anomalies" have gone away with simple observational evidence, your lack of response to this fundamental question is most telling. You are checkmated. The objects fly in a whole myriad of directions. Explain this with a valid and workable reason.

    6. The guy who made your main film:-

    Says your stupid "bubble" changes direction! (I dare you to dispute this.)
    911 was not an inside job
    The Moon landing was not hoaxed.

    This is where you make the absurd claim that he was "got at" when there are dozens of people still making idiotic films and claims on these subjects with far more views! Your witness disagrees with you, just like Chomsky.

    7. THERE is your real credibility test.

    [​IMG]

    That looks NOTHING like a bubble and EVERYTHING like a flat jagged piece of rotating ice. A bubble in areas where people are breathing is almost impossible to be a singular item. It rises vertically and doesn't change size by 400% in a short span of ascent. It isn't jagged, doesn't rotate and isn't white and flat!

    Here is a further credibility test.

    Only 3 seconds before the idiotic "fluttering" video which is being moved by his hand ridiculously fast in water, we see the flag being PUSHED edge first. In water, it is absolutely absurd to suggest that is possible in a viscous medium with drag!

    [​IMG]



    8. I laugh at your statements - they are ridiculous.

    Number 1:
    Number 2:
    Your "bubble" goes "straight up" / A piece of debris would "go straight". - Explain to me how these two are different!
     
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    So, after I posted the second gif in 7. above, the response was thus:-

    If anyone has seen a more clearer case of deliberate evasion and refusal to concede than I would be amazed. To anyone with a brain, it is simply not possible to push a flag flat side on in water with the aid of a flagpole. But he says it may be "buoyant"!? Or the crazy " the flag could be raises(sic) slowly"?

    Then of course this perfectly fluid piece of footage showing the same motion throughout, suddenly, according to the batshit crazy claim is now using variable speed.

    The real woo explanation is a man dangled some cotton down on a hook and pulled it!

    But tell me how buoyant the flag is to go flattish in similar fashion and also fully sideways on - with no resistance?

    [​IMG]

    So he is moving the flag across, with it extended sideways on and when it gets to the extended point and returns back, the open ended flag KEEPS GOING!

    To anyone with objective critical thinking, this cannot possibly be in water - this thread was done when I wrote my blog 10 years ago - the first time I addressed this horseshit. Think about that. I made mainly the same points TEN YEARS ago and this person is STILL making the same bullshit claims as he did back then.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2021
  8. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,164
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)

    10. Divert/Obfuscate/Re-spam: This is where he avoids the item completely and gish-gallops away with repeated spam. Almost certainly he will keep avoiding the original claim.


    7. THERE is your real credibility test.

    [​IMG]

    That looks NOTHING like a bubble and EVERYTHING like a flat jagged piece of rotating ice. A bubble in areas where people are breathing is almost impossible to be a singular item. It rises vertically and doesn't change size by 400% in a short span of ascent. It isn't jagged, doesn't rotate and isn't white and flat!

    Here is a further credibility test.

    Only 3 seconds before the idiotic "fluttering" video which is being moved by his hand ridiculously fast in water, we see the flag being PUSHED edge first. In water, it is absolutely absurd to suggest that is possible in a viscous medium with drag!

    [​IMG]



    So, after I posted the second gif in 7. above, the response was thus:-

    If anyone has seen a more clearer case of deliberate evasion and refusal to concede than I would be amazed. To anyone with a brain, it is simply not possible to push a flag flat side on in water with the aid of a flagpole. But he says it may be "buoyant"!? Or the crazy " the flag could be raises(sic) slowly"?

    Then of course this perfectly fluid piece of footage showing the same motion throughout, suddenly, according to the batshit crazy claim is now using variable speed.The real woo explanation is a man dangled some cotton down on a hook and pulled it!

    But tell me how buoyant the flag is to go flattish in similar fashion and also fully sideways on - with no resistance?

    [​IMG]

    So he is moving the flag across, with it extended sideways on and when it gets to the extended point and returns back, the open ended flag KEEPS GOING! This is because it has MOMENTUM. In water this is negated fully by drag - it would stop such motion completely.

    To anyone with objective critical thinking, this cannot possibly be in water - this thread was done when I wrote my blog 10 years ago - the first time I addressed this horseshit. Think about that. I made mainly the same points TEN YEARS ago and this person is STILL making the same bullshit claims as he did back then.
     
  10. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,164
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If there's one clear anomaly that proves that the footage was taken in water, everything else becomes moot. Tell us about the buoyant safety cables (see post #1). As far as I'm concerned, this anomaly closes the whole case and totally discredits you.
     
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Debunking The Apollo Moon Hoax (debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com)

    10. Divert/Obfuscate/Re-spam: This is where he avoids the item completely and gish-gallops away with repeated spam. Almost certainly he will keep avoiding the original claim.

    Bullshit. There's a whole barrage of proof it cannot be in water and you are cowardly ignoring absolutely every single thing. You have the audacity to claim you are a damn truth seeker! You are afraid of the truth, because your ego won't allow you to entertain the inevitable result that you are a complete failure.

    1. Tell us about the object that is clearly NOT a bubble, is white jagged and rotating!

    [​IMG]

    That looks NOTHING like a bubble and EVERYTHING like a flat jagged piece of rotating ice. A bubble in areas where people are breathing is almost impossible to be a singular item.

    2. Tell us about this object that goes DIAGONALLY and gains 4 times in size in under a couple of metres!

    3. Tell us about the ridiculous motion of the flag, amongst others being pushed (in water!?) flat edge on with a pole doing the pushing! Ridiculous.
    Only 3 seconds before the idiotic "fluttering" video which is being moved by his hand ridiculously fast in water, we see the flag being PUSHED edge first. In water, it is absolutely absurd to suggest that is possible in a viscous medium with drag!

    [​IMG]


    4. Tell us about this post, quoted and ignored:

    I don't care whether you mentioned it or not! In the past you have mentioned it numerous times and have failed to identify by what factor. During the flag waving sections which are consistently at the same speed, the flag rotates with ZERO force impeding it. This is moronic to claim it is in water - a viscous medium with drag. Now by this very token it is irrefutable that either the WHOLE film is speeded up the same factor or it has not. When it is slowed down to 25%:-

    Watch the video:



    The flag is STILL moving in ways that are impossible in water and the astronaut is now barely moving! The scientific method looks at all the evidence not the idiotic "look, the flag is fluttering" fragment!

    5. Tell us HOW fast has it been sped up?

    6. Tell us about your scientific methodology as to why the "fluttering" crap is an anomaly! Your opinion is not even close to scientific.

    7. Tell us how those other objects fly in a whole myriad of directions. Explain this with a valid and workable reason.

    8. Tell us about your idiot video maker. The guy who:-

    Says your stupid "bubble" changes direction! (I dare you to dispute this.)
    911 was not an inside job
    The Moon landing was not hoaxed.

    This is where you make the absurd claim that he was "got at" when there are dozens of people still making idiotic films and claims on these subjects with far more views! Your witness disagrees with you, just like Chomsky.

    9. Tell us about the idiotic statements you made:-
    Number 1:
    "The bubble hugs the astronaut`s visor and then goes straight up"

    Number 2:
    "A piece of debris would go straight along it's original trajectory."

    Your "bubble" goes "straight up" / A piece of debris would "go straight". - Explain to me how these two are different![/QUOTE]


    Your opinion is a layman and ignorant of all sciences pertaining to space flight. You are the discredited one. You don't have the balls to answer properly because you are the checkmated black knight ejected from the debating hall for abject failure!
     
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,164
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Proof China Faked Their Spacewalk (Part 2)

    (1:50 time mark)

    It looks exactly like a bubble and it behaves exactly like a bubble. Your attempt to obfuscate this is very entertaining. This pretty much discredits you.

    Anyone can see that the original trajectory of the object is not upward. It goes upward because of buoyancy. It takes the same route a bubble would take. The odds that a piece of debris would take the same route that a bubble would take are extremely low.

    You're pretty much washed up (again).
     
  13. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Your idiotic statement avoids reality:

    1. Tell us about the object that is clearly NOT a bubble, is white jagged and rotating!

    [​IMG]

    That looks NOTHING like a bubble and EVERYTHING like a flat jagged piece of rotating ice. A bubble in areas where people are breathing is almost impossible to be a singular item.

    2. Tell us about this object that goes DIAGONALLY and gains 4 times in size in under a couple of metres!

    You are cowardly avoiding the large posts. What kind of sad person quotes a full section then actually makes no attempt to answer it!?

    9. Tell us about the idiotic statements you made:-
    Number 1:
    "The bubble hugs the astronaut`s visor and then goes straight up"

    Number 2:
    "A piece of debris would go straight along it's original trajectory."

    Your "bubble" goes "straight up" / A piece of debris would "go straight". - Explain to me how these two are different!

    Wait, what!? You now say it wasn't going upwards?

    It goes diagonally and is expelled from the hatch.

    No it doesn't and even if you found an object going completely vertical, it is opposite the entry to the hatch.

    Well I already worked out that if you take a corridor of 6 degrees it is 60 to one and you originally said billions. How very dumb that was.

    But lets ignore all the other object firing out of the hatch, because that is exactly what you are good out. It's a very dishonest way to debate.

    All of them are going in random directions, none of them look like a bubble.

    You have zero credibility, but your evasion and ridiculous observations are just the icing on the cake.

    I have some great animated gifs I am putting together. You will be even less credible if that is at all possible. One of them will show the full path of your "bubble" and the 400% size change you lied about. Two will show volleyball jumps straight legs, soil dispersing before apex. You will ignore them all, because you are afraid to be wrong.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2021
  14. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,164
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A good point is made about the bubble at the 00:40 time mark of this video.

    China's Space Walk Was FAKE (part 1)



    The bubble speeds up as it goes upward. A piece of debris would not speed up.

    Also, watch the heavy safety cable in the video. It's obviously buoyant. If shape-memory were the explanation, it's movement would not be one hundred percent consistent with way a buoyant cable would behave. It would go in random directions.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2021
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Your idiotic statement avoids reality:

    1. Tell us about the object that is clearly NOT a bubble, is white jagged and rotating!

    [​IMG]

    That looks NOTHING like a bubble and EVERYTHING like a flat jagged piece of rotating ice. A bubble in areas where people are breathing is almost impossible to be a singular item.

    2. Tell us about this object that goes DIAGONALLY and gains 4 times in size in under a couple of metres!

    It is coming diagonally towards the camera.

    The heavy safety cable is buoyant. You really are making so many dumb statements.

    A moronic premise with a false claim. It is not "100% consistent" with anything. Throughout the spacewalk, the cable goes sideways many times without being pushed with the connector laying flatter. The idea they would do this in water is stupid enough without the idea they would use safety cables that had positive buoyancy!

    It does. Your selective and inept observations are the problem. But lets ignore all the other object firing out of the hatch, because that is exactly what you are good out. It's a very dishonest way to debate.

    All of them are going in random directions, none of them look like a bubble including your main and obviously clueless claim.

    You have zero credibility, but your evasion and ridiculous observations are just the icing on the cake.

    Now fully explain this.

    9. Tell us about the idiotic statements you made:-
    Number 1:
    "The bubble hugs the astronaut`s visor and then goes straight up"

    Number 2:
    "A piece of debris would go straight along it's original trajectory."

    Your "bubble" goes "straight up" / A piece of debris would "go straight". - Explain to me how these two are different!


    This post, quoted and ignored:

    I don't care whether you mentioned it or not! In the past you have mentioned it numerous times and have failed to identify by what factor. During the flag waving sections which are consistently at the same speed, the flag rotates with ZERO force impeding it. This is moronic to claim it is in water - a viscous medium with drag. Now by this very token it is irrefutable that either the WHOLE film is speeded up the same factor or it has not. When it is slowed down to 25%:-

    Watch the video:



    The flag is STILL moving in ways that are impossible in water and the astronaut is now barely moving! The scientific method looks at all the evidence not the idiotic "look, the flag is fluttering" fragment!

    1. HOW fast has it been sped up?
    2. Are you saying this section hasn't been sped up but the one just prior where the flag pole is PUSHING a flat fabric is?


    I'm still waiting for you to address this:-

    3. Show your scientific methodology as to why it is an anomaly! Your opinion is less than most and not even close to scientific.

    5. The other "anomalies" have gone away with simple observational evidence, your lack of response to this fundamental question is most telling. You are checkmated. The objects fly in a whole myriad of directions. Explain this with a valid and workable reason.

    6. The guy who made your main film:-

    Says your stupid "bubble" changes direction! (I dare you to dispute this.)
    911 was not an inside job
    The Moon landing was not hoaxed.

    This is where you make the absurd claim that he was "got at" when there are dozens of people still making idiotic films and claims on these subjects with far more views! Your witness disagrees with you, just like Chomsky.

    Here is a further credibility test.

    Only 3 seconds before the idiotic "fluttering" video which is being moved by his hand ridiculously fast in water, we see the flag being PUSHED edge first. In water, it is absolutely absurd to suggest that is possible in a viscous medium with drag!

    [​IMG]


     
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    So, I just put together another gif. It shows the following:-

    • The path is diagonal not vertical.
    • The object is small to begin with.
    • It gains at least 400% in under 2 metres(nearer 2 feet! but being generous).
    Image 1 circling the ice particle as it becomes visible.
    [​IMG]


    Image 2 circling the ice particle as it disappears - last frame visible.
    [​IMG]

    Image 3 showing the two together CLEARLY showing the discrepancy denied by Scott/Cosmored!
    [​IMG]

    Now the animation showing the path:
    [​IMG]

    1. Tell us about the object that is clearly NOT a bubble, is white jagged and rotating!

    [​IMG]

    That looks NOTHING like a bubble and EVERYTHING like a flat jagged piece of rotating ice. A bubble in areas where people are breathing is almost impossible to be a singular item.

    2. Tell us about this object that goes DIAGONALLY and gains 4 times in size in under a couple of feet!
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2021
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,164
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Would a piece of ice increase in size?
     
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No. It is coming towards the camera.

    But wait a minute! You categorically denied a size change. You really are getting hopelessly lost aren't you. Every subject, every thread you fail. Yet you keep going, evading and obfuscating. Surely somewhere in there is this voice telling you, you are wrong!
     
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,164
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You really got sloppy and now you're trying to worm your way out of it. When you said that the bubble can't be a bubble and must be a piece of ice or debris because it increases in size by four hundred percent, you'd forgotten that ice and pieces of debris don't expand four hundred percent.

    If it's not really expanding and just getting closer to the camera, the same thing could happen with a bubble.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2021
  20. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    17,514
    Likes Received:
    2,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It did not increrase in size.

    It was not a bubble.

    You lost the debate
     
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Once again you come up with the bullshit response. YOU denied it was even getting bigger - more of your incessant evasion.

    I said this was one reason it wasn't a bubble. This is the other reason:-

    1. Tell us about the object that is clearly NOT a bubble, is white jagged and rotating!

    [​IMG]

    That looks NOTHING like a bubble and EVERYTHING like a flat jagged piece of rotating ice. A bubble in areas where people are breathing is almost impossible to be a singular item.

    2. Tell us about this object that goes DIAGONALLY and gains 4 times in size in under a couple of feet!

    One of the good things about believing and being able to properly define my analysis is that I don't actually forget anything. The ice particle appears bigger because it is coming diagonally towards the camera. This has always been my position.

    TRUMP SCIENCE ADVISOR DENIES APOLLO MOON LANDINGS EVER HAPPENED | Page 20 | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics
    "1. Multiple pieces of debris all coming from the hatch at various angles can't be bubbles.
    2. The main "bubble" by the helmet is flat, white, rotating and is exiting angled towards the camera.
    3. Neutral buoyancy is achieved by weights not idiotic uncited wave blowers.
    4. The motion of the flag is completely impossible in water. Thanks to Descartes for the video that finally nailed this.
    5. The pair of you are afraid to answer basic points and questions.

    The OP seemed hung up on the space debris issue and not the hogwash you claim. Can you read? From that thread!!

    "Remember, this is freefall in a vacuum, and what happens in that sort of environment is very different from what we're used to here on Earth. 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."

    The response from the OP:-

    Good explanation. I consider the cable thing properly addressed now.

    SHAPE MEMORY!!!

    Finally admitting the change in size. Now we both know such a size change in a bubble is actually impossible in such a short "depth" change were it in water. It just won't do that in any circumstances. Size is related directly to pressure.

    So, we know things coming towards a camera, especially a wide angled lens will grow in size. There is the very simple explanation for why the ice increases in size.

    BUT, and it's a big but, we now have the "bubble" which you have insisted for numerous years as rising vertically, is now wandering off diagonally and at an angle, that even with currents affecting its rise, is beyond what one would expect from this lone "bubble"!
    Once again the elephant in the room is ignored:-

    Once again
    [​IMG]

    That looks NOTHING like a bubble and EVERYTHING like a flat jagged piece of rotating ice. A bubble in areas where people are breathing is almost impossible to be a singular item.
     

Share This Page