ApolloHoax.net
Off Topic => Other Conspiracy Theories => Topic started by: VincentMcConnell on June 18, 2012, 03:22:53 AM
-
I'm really convinced Shenzhou 7 was not real. And I have two points I think are the most damning pieces of evidence. Tear em up if you will, but I want to run this by some experts. I have already had one qualified expert message me to say he believed the spacewalk was faked, too, and until this person gives permission, I will not reveal their identity. Anyway...
Most of you know, I believe in the moon landings, but when it comes to communists saying they did things in space, I just don't believe them.
Here goes:
1.) Notice the hose/tether in the Shenzhou 7 spacewalk footage. It consistently floats UPWARD, along with the flag. The "astronaut" has to continuously hold it down just so it won't keep floating. This is perfectly consistent with being shot underwater. As you all know, space is a neutral free-fall environment. Things don't float "up" or "down", they are simply suspended in one spot unless moved. The spacewalk footage is directly in contradiction to Newton's laws. Watch the flag when it is "down". It tends to rise "up" and the Taikonaut attempts to force it down again. Even his legs are flying up against his will. I am able to achieve neutral buoyancy (try it, it's awesome), so why did China fail so miserably at it? Honestly, that footage looks exactly like it was shot in a water tank.
2.) The Earth is very...very.. faded. Using Gimp 2.6, I attempted to best restore the blue to match Apollo and ISS photos and when I did, it was clear that the entire foreground was tinted blue. Much like it was filmed in a water tank. Removing blue from an image is fairly easy and there's not reason China could not have done this.
Anyway, those are only two points that I think are pretty big. I brought them here just to get feed back from some of the experts. I'm not really an expert, just a researcher of sorts.
Here's the video of the "space"walk, by the way, in case you don't believe what I've said. haha
-
Vincent, be careful when distrusting something being ` those communists`. Engineering in USSR and nowadays in China is at extremely high level. it is the `commies` under whose rule USSR brought out An-225 , the biggest helicopters, kilo class submarines, s-47 berkut, Ekranoplanes and s-300 missile systems, etc . Engineering supremacy of USSR was proved by diversity of flying platforms, virtually in every segment, lagging behind in UAVs and stealth. And China today is striving the same diretion, be it J-20 jetfighter, C-919 comac passenger plane or the new Shanghai tower under construction.
As to faking space walks here- I saw a video where i could see a reflection of six or eight bright points on the astronauts wristwatch or whatever that thing was, hinting backround additional lights. I am perplexed. Yes, and why would americans stay silent about it? And when someone resorts to being expert , ask them which exact subject that they have studied or field of their work or research gives them this advantage. You see, claims like ` i work for NASA, I have been in the military for decades, bla, bla, don`t count`. it doesn`t make you an expert, but neither does it make them.Richard Hoagland is also highly educated, so is John Lear, and we now how shabby their expertise in some fields is.
-
The USSR and USA both achieved spacewalks in 1965. Why is it suddenly impossible 43 years later?
-
Watch the flag when it is "down". It tends to rise "up" and the Taikonaut attempts to force it down again.
Watch the flag when it is being waved. There is no way a large, flat, thin piece of material like that could possibly flap around that quickly in water. The resistance of the fluid would be far too great to allow that kind of motion.
Using Gimp 2.6, I attempted to best restore the blue to match Apollo and ISS photos
Why? The Chinese spacewalk is a live digital broadcast, and as such would be expected to have different optical properties than photographs. You can't just match colours between different media and expect the results to be comparable.
-
2.) The Earth is very...very.. faded. Using Gimp 2.6, I attempted to best restore the blue to match Apollo and ISS photos and when I did, it was clear that the entire foreground was tinted blue. Much like it was filmed in a water tank. Removing blue from an image is fairly easy and there's not reason China could not have done this.
The blue tint in swimming pools comes from the chlorine that is added.
But if you're entirely working entirely in space suits, why bother sterilising the water? Especially when it then requires complex colour correction to give the appearance of being in space.
-
And when someone resorts to being expert , ask them which exact subject that they have studied or field of their work or research gives them this advantage.
The specific field is optics professional. They are highly qualified and actually got good words from Neil Armstrong for their work on matching descent footage with google satellite imagery.
-
The blue tint in swimming pools comes from the chlorine that is added.
But if you're entirely working entirely in space suits, why bother sterilising the water? Especially when it then requires complex colour correction to give the appearance of being in space.
A lot of the blue tint actually comes from the sunlight or light being refracted through the water. As you get further down, the blue becomes deeper because certain wave lengths of light disappear. Plenty of places around the world have blue water that are natural bodies. Think about the bahamas. The blue is just from refracted light...
-
Watch the flag when it is being waved. There is no way a large, flat, thin piece of material like that could possibly flap around that quickly in water. The resistance of the fluid would be far too great to allow that kind of motion.
Speeding the footage up would cause everything to look like it was not underwater.
-
Speeding the footage up would cause everything to look like it was not underwater.
Except it wouldn't. The nature of having a fluid surrounding everything would mean everything behaved differently. Some things will be more able to move through it than others. You can't simply apply one technique to remove the effect of a fluid medium because it affects everything differently.
In any case, the problem isn't simply one of speed but of just how much that flag moves. A flag like that could not move that much in water. The water would simply stop it from having that range of motion.
-
The USSR and USA both achieved spacewalks in 1965. Why is it suddenly impossible 43 years later?
I second that question. Also, Vincent, are you saying that the entire Shenzhou 7 mission was not real or just the EVA? Because there were certainly non-Communists who tracked Shenzhou 7.
-
A flag like that could not move that much in water. The water would simply stop it from having that range of motion.
I plan to refute that in my neighborhood swimming pool with a miniature flag this summer. As long as my friend's GoPro is up and working again, I should be able to get some footage of that and see.
-
The USSR and USA both achieved spacewalks in 1965. Why is it suddenly impossible 43 years later?
I second that question. Also, Vincent, are you saying that the entire Shenzhou 7 mission was not real or just the EVA? Because there were certainly non-Communists who tracked Shenzhou 7.
Isn't it possible to send an unmanned spacecraft into orbit and then have the tracking stations simply believe it's manned?
-
I plan to refute that in my neighborhood swimming pool with a miniature flag this summer. As long as my friend's GoPro is up and working again, I should be able to get some footage of that and see.
Don't you mean 'test'? If you're setting out with a conclusion in mind you are not exactly being unbiased, are you?
If you can reproduce the motions of that flag underwater and the motions of the astronauts that led to the flag doing what it did I will be happy to retract my statement. I do not see that miniature flag showing that range of movement, however.
-
Isn't it possible to send an unmanned spacecraft into orbit and then have the tracking stations simply believe it's manned?
How?
-
Isn't it possible to send an unmanned spacecraft into orbit and then have the tracking stations simply believe it's manned?
How?
Simple. Launch a spacecraft into orbit and have those tracking stations watch it. Then simply relay data through to it so the tracking stations believe it's manned. The Soviet Union actually did this. They tricked us into thinking they had sent a man to the moon just before Apollo 8, but they revealed it was actually just a tape recorder on board. Gene Cernan said it "scared the hell out of us."
-
They tricked us into thinking they had sent a man to the moon just before Apollo 8, but they revealed it was actually just a tape recorder on board. Gene Cernan said it "scared the hell out of us."
Source please? I know the USSR included tapes of human voices on some of their early unmanned flights to test the communications system, but when did this happen?
Edit: I think I found it in Wikipedia, but the article also says that "it was soon clear, however, that these were test transmissions between two ground control centers with the Zond 6 intercepting and relaying the transmissions."
-
Isn't it possible to send an unmanned spacecraft into orbit and then have the tracking stations simply believe it's manned?
Yes, but it's risky. What if the spacecraft develops a minor technical problem that is both observable from the ground and potentially fixable by a crew.
What if it crashes; you then have the Capricorn 1 style problem of three excess astronauts.
What if it lands outside of China, empty?
No, if you are going to fake Shenzhou 7 you put the three astronauts in it and replay pre-recorded footage of the EVA at the apropriate times. Much simpler.
-
Here's some stuff I did to restore color to the Chinese spacewalk photo and then to show that underwater CAN be made to look like real life.
I believe China played around with the green curves a bit, but when I restored the blue fairly close to the ISS, you can see how the foreground originally looked. A LOT like it was shot underwater, if I do say so, myself.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/600281_10150970205778830_523439051_n.jpg)
Then here I took a Johnson Space Center photo of some STS astronauts training for a spacewalk and showed how it is possible to reduce the blue from the image to make it appear like it was NOT shot underwater.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/s480x480/545014_10150970220938830_1732805484_n.jpg)
Here is what I did:
First, I reduced some of the blue from the image. That left me pretty "greened", so I went ahead and reduced that and then went down and down until I found a fairly close color image. Next, I added some red to the image. Red is the first color in the spectrum to disappear underwater and so some of it must be restored to get a good view of how this photo would have looked if not taken underwater.
-
Why did they need to fake Shenzhou 7? Were China's previous manned flights fake too?
-
Isn't it possible to send an unmanned spacecraft into orbit and then have the tracking stations simply believe it's manned?
Yes, but it's risky. What if the spacecraft develops a minor technical problem that is both observable from the ground and potentially fixable by a crew.
What if it crashes; you then have the Capricorn 1 style problem of three excess astronauts.
What if it lands outside of China, empty?
It's China. If something would have gone wrong, they probably would do the same thing that happens in Capricorn one... Kill the astronauts... This is a country operating behind a veil of secrecy. Remember Stalin? He used to just erase people from history if he wanted them gone. Who's to stop the Chinese from just saying "Our brave heroes died in space!"
No, if you are going to fake Shenzhou 7 you put the three astronauts in it and replay pre-recorded footage of the EVA at the apropriate times. Much simpler.
Possibly. I'm not sure they can't get someone into space, but people don't realize how dangerous a spacewalk is and how correct and functional EVERYTHING has to be. All that protects you from certain death is a simple pressure suit. Maybe that is how they did it. I don't really know exactly. I can state that I firmly hypothesize that footage was shot underwater.
-
What if it lands outside of China, empty?
-
Why did they need to fake Shenzhou 7? Were China's previous manned flights fake too?
The only previous one was Shenzhou 5. I haven't done much research into it, but if I remember correctly, there's only footage of the astronaut in freefall for about a minute at a time. What's to stop them from shooting it like they did Apollo 13?
Maybe 5 was real, but simply sitting in a cabin and then the next mission actually getting out and floating around in a suit is two completely different ball games. I'm not here to say I know everything about how this was hoaxed and that it was. It's simply my hypothesize... my hunch, my belief. I think there is sufficient evidence to suggest this was filmed underwater.
-
What if it lands outside of China, empty?
Sorry! I forgot to answer that.
Well, I don't know. But simply targeting a recovery area is not hard. I can do it in spaceflight simulators. It's all about knowing where to fire the retro engines. And maybe the spacecraft had explosives on it. If it looked like it was going off course, couldn't an RSO blow it up during interface and say the heatshield failed?
-
No, Shenzhou 5 and Shenzhou 6 were both manned.
-
No, Shenzhou 5 and Shenzhou 6 were both manned.
\
Six was manned? I didn't even know about it. I will do some research on it right now.
For now, however, I want to stay on the topic of discussing Shenzhou 7.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_6)
-
Why did they need to fake Shenzhou 7?
They didn't, but the Epoch Times saw an opportunity to propagandise against the regime.
-
Maybe 5 was real, but simply sitting in a cabin and then the next mission actually getting out and floating around in a suit is two completely different ball games.
Isn't this what happened with Gemini 3 and 4? Sitting in a cabin during one mission and then performing an EVA on the next one?
-
Why did they need to fake Shenzhou 7?
I don't know, but probably because they wanted to accomplish "EVA" to make themselves look superior in the world of spaceflight. China wants to establish themselves as a world power. Russia and the US had already made flights into space, so China probably felt obligated to start a space program. It is my hypothesis that for some reason or another, these flights weren't real. And my evidence about Shenzhou 7 is what I have to back that.
--EDITED TO FIX FORMATTING PROBLEM WHERE MY RESPONSE WAS IN QUOTATION--
-
Maybe 5 was real, but simply sitting in a cabin and then the next mission actually getting out and floating around in a suit is two completely different ball games.
Isn't this what happened with Gemini 3 and 4? Sitting in a cabin during one mission and then performing an EVA on the next one?
Of course, but Gemini was a public program. If there was something wrong with the capsule that didn't allow life support or the suits were defective, the whole world would know about. Since we only have what China says as proof, we're supposed to just take their word for it. Gemini 4 was a VERY daring stunt, but because the whole world had knowledge of our equipment and we are a public space program, we can't do anything short of actually EVAing or going to the moon.
-
Couldn't a real flight have accomplished the same goals? Why was it impossible to fly real missions?
-
Couldn't a real flight have accomplished the same goals? Why was it impossible to fly real missions?
As in "why was it impossible for China"? Like I said, I really don't know, and since I don't, I won't claim to. I plan to take an intellectually honest approach to this. That's how science works. It's my personal hypothesis that maybe they didn't have man-rated spacecraft that had sufficient life support to keep a man alive or they weren't confident with putting a man in orbit. But that's only an educated guess and because of China's secrecy, it's hard to find evidence to back that. The closest thing I can do is try to show that the missions themselves were faked based on the videos and photos provided.
-
So it seems that everyone here has simply just stopped responding...
Anyway, someone brought up Shenzhou 7 in another thread, when if you really want to discuss it, it should be here.
I have provided a lot of evidence and some theory that it really would not have been hard for Shenzhou to be faked.
Nobody here has really offered sufficient evidence otherwise.
-
I plan to refute that in my neighborhood swimming pool with a miniature flag this summer. As long as my friend's GoPro is up and working again, I should be able to get some footage of that and see.
Vincent, what are the characteristics of the flag used by the taikonaut in the video? Do you know what fabric, dye and construction methods where used to make it? These are important factors - if the results of your "test" are to have any meaning the flag you use MUST replicate the properties of the chinese flag. The same thing applies to the "water" the sequence was filmed in - any impurities present may affect the flag movement.
I assume you have all these things, as otherwise it would make your "experiment" worthless. Would you mind sharing with us this information, and how you came by it, please?
-
I hope Shenzhou 9 isn't being faked too. I like it when countries put their first woman in space.
-
You know, this kind of argument is exactly the sort of thing that doubtless happened in the Soviet Union during Apollo. The fact that it's only one person on a message board is, to me, the best indicator that it was real. You think NASA wouldn't have been full of people who would have noticed?
-
I hope Shenzhou 9 isn't being faked too. I like it when countries put their first woman in space.
Maybe they faked the woman as well. I wouldn't put it past those godless commies.
-
Vincent, what are the characteristics of the flag used by the taikonaut in the video? Do you know what fabric, dye and construction methods where used to make it? These are important factors - if the results of your "test" are to have any meaning the flag you use MUST replicate the properties of the chinese flag. The same thing applies to the "water" the sequence was filmed in - any impurities present may affect the flag movement.
Haha. That's NOT how it works... There's no proof to suggest that the flag in the video was the one China said they took. If a FLAG moves underwater like that, that is all the proof you need that a flag can move underwater.
-
You know, this kind of argument is exactly the sort of thing that doubtless happened in the Soviet Union during Apollo. The fact that it's only one person on a message board is, to me, the best indicator that it was real. You think NASA wouldn't have been full of people who would have noticed?
I'm sure a lot of people noticed. But why are they going to risk their career by going public with it? Most people these days don't want proof... They just blindly accept the word of any country that claims they sent man into space. Even if a NASA scientist provided his evidence, people like the ones here would just call them crazy, discount their credentials and then try to "black list" that person.
Besides, I already have a credentialed optics professional on my side who Neil Armstrong himself even praised.
-
Who's the expert?
-
Besides, I already have a credentialed optics professional on my side who Neil Armstrong himself even praised.
Please can you provide citations to support this? Also proof that Armstrong praised them would be helpful.
-
Who's the expert?
At their personal request, they have said they don't want to "go public". This is much like the situation I was talking about with other NASA scientists.
Here is their message:
Without a signature or address to keep anonymity.
You know me -- defender of Apollo Was Real. I don't think that I will ever bring myself to publicly admit it, but this Shenzhou 7 video is fake. There are two blatantly obvious reasons which one can see in the video.
-
--EDIT--
I deleted this message not to delete what I said, but because I realized it might be fairly obvious who I'm talking about and I REALLY don't want to give away any identities without permission.
I will PM the video of Neil only on request.
--EDITED to change a word from protect to delete--
-
Funny, many Apollo conspiracy theorists do the exact same thing. An expert agrees with them, but we'll just have to take their word for it because the expert wants to remain anonymous and there's no way to verify the claim.
-
Funny, many Apollo conspiracy theorists do the exact same thing. An expert agrees with them, but we'll just have to take their word for it because the expert wants to remain anonymous and there's no way to verify the claim.
Yes, but I really can screen the image and block the username. This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. People don't want to go public because they fear it will make them look bad.
The fact is, the optics professional DID indeed message me. If you really choose not to believe that, you don't have to take that word. Regardless, the evidence suggests that spacewalk is fake. I haven't seen a shred of evidence to convince me it was real. In fact, nobody here has offered any evidence but me, either!
-
Haha. That's NOT how it works...
That is exactly how it works. The results of your experiment will only be commensurate if they are obtained using the materials and procedures that were used by the chinese. Now, what were they? If you don't know what they were, you won't have a valid set of results. Period.
-
Haha. That's NOT how it works...
That is exactly how it works. The results of your experiment will only be commensurate if they are obtained using the materials and procedures that were used by the chinese. Now, what were they? If you don't know what they were, you won't have a valid set of results. Period.
What's to stop the Chinese from using something different in the video than the flag that was supposedly used?
-
(https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/205263_10150970411053830_1215278743_n.jpg)
-
People don't want to go public because they fear it will make them look bad.
If they are telling the truth and have the evidence to prove it, why do they fear looking bad?
The fact is, the optics professional DID indeed message me. If you really choose not to believe that, you don't have to take that word.
Regardless, the evidence suggests that spacewalk is fake. I haven't seen a shred of evidence to convince me it was real. In fact, nobody here has offered any evidence but me, either!
Please produce that evidence and we'll examine it together, shall we?
-
If they are telling the truth and have the evidence to prove it, why do they fear looking bad?
Because a lot of people these days just blindly accept that China went into space without asking for any proof. I'm really disappointed about that, because that's not how science works...
Please produce that evidence and we'll examine it together, shall we?
My OP provides two of my main points. The first being the hose, the second being the color of the Earth. I showed some photos which I altered to attempt to get the true color of the Chinese spacewalk. I also was able to make an underwater photo look like it was taken above water.
-
...
That's proof alright as bitmaps are impossible to forge. ::)
-
...
That's proof alright as bitmaps are impossible to forge. ::)
Must I make a webcam video of me pointing my cam at the monitor on the youtube page to prove it is part of the page?
-
I'm sure a lot of people noticed. But why are they going to risk their career by going public with it? Most people these days don't want proof... They just blindly accept the word of any country that claims they sent man into space. Even if a NASA scientist provided his evidence, people like the ones here would just call them crazy, discount their credentials and then try to "black list" that person.
Besides, I already have a credentialed optics professional on my side who Neil Armstrong himself even praised.
That's a perfect HB argument. As is "so what if my test doesn't show any real relation to what the circumstances are? How do you know they weren't just lying?"
-
I'm sure a lot of people noticed. But why are they going to risk their career by going public with it? Most people these days don't want proof... They just blindly accept the word of any country that claims they sent man into space. Even if a NASA scientist provided his evidence, people like the ones here would just call them crazy, discount their credentials and then try to "black list" that person.
Besides, I already have a credentialed optics professional on my side who Neil Armstrong himself even praised.
That's a perfect HB argument. As is "so what if my test doesn't show any real relation to what the circumstances are? How do you know they weren't just lying?"
*Super sigh*...
What is to stop the Chinese from using a flag of different material than the details published about it?
If they're going to fake a whole space mission, why not fake a flag? haha
-
Must I make a webcam video of me pointing my cam at the monitor on the youtube page to prove it is part of the page?
No, because that doesn't constitute proof either.
Also, you haven't answered my previous question, so for your convenience I will reproduce it here.
Besides, I already have a credentialed optics professional on my side who Neil Armstrong himself even praised.
Please can you provide citations to support this? Also proof that Armstrong praised them would be helpful.
After you have answered this question I can retire to bed, safe in the knowledge that the Chinese are faking space flights.
-
I posted the video link here, but the subject matter Armstrong is speaking about kind of gives it away who the expert is, as he is the only person doing such restorations of Apollo media. PM me and I will send you it. I won't go public at the request of my "source".
-
You know, I just watched the Gemini 4 spacewalk. The tether and several straps do an awful lot of 'floating up'. At one point a glove randomly floats up and out of the capsule. Was that all fake too?
have you seen Gemini 11? Dick Gordon braces himself by straddling the nose of the Gemini at the Agena docking collar. He keeps floating up too.
-
You know, I just watched the Gemini 4 spacewalk. The tether and several straps do an awful lot of 'floating up'. At one point a glove randomly floats up and out of the capsule. Was that all fake too?
have you seen Gemini 11? Dick Gordon braces himself by straddling the nose of the Gemini at the Agena docking collar. He keeps floating up too.
The glove was bumped by White's pilot if I remember correctly. In fact, I think he even tossed it up to him.
That's because Gordon was bumping off of the spacecraft and had R(.) relative to the Gemini and the Agena.
-
And the tether and straps?
-
You know, I just watched the Gemini 4 spacewalk. The tether and several straps do an awful lot of 'floating up'. At one point a glove randomly floats up and out of the capsule. Was that all fake too?
If you haven't already seen it, I strongly recommend the film "For All Mankind" - a documentary about the Apollo program, it contains some astonishing footage of Ed White's space walk that has been stabilised for the film - it doesn't have the jittering and jumping that the most commonly seen footage of White has. It's quite beautiful
-
And the tether and straps?
Easy. Notice how White is spinning all around, struggling to gain control as he wrestles with mobility. This also produces R(.), or relative velocity.
The straps are only moving relative to his body as he bumps into them. The Gemini 4 spacewalk is clearly real. It looks MUCH more convincing than
the Shenzhou spacewalk.
-
I have seen it. I have it. That doesn't answer the question about the upward floating of the tether and the straps seen in that film.
-
I have seen it. I have it. That doesn't answer the question about the upward floating of the tether and the straps seen in that film.
I just did answer the question.
-
And the tether and straps?
Easy. Notice how White is spinning all around, struggling to gain control as he wrestles with mobility. This also produces R(.), or relative velocity.
The straps are only moving relative to his body as he bumps into them. The Gemini 4 spacewalk is clearly real. It looks MUCH more convincing than
the Shenzhou spacewalk.
And what is happening to the tethers in the Shenzhou spacewalk? They disappear down inside the hatch. What's happening down there?
And what about the strap on White's spacesuit? What makes that float upwards?
-
The glove was bumped by White's pilot if I remember correctly. In fact, I think he even tossed it up to him.
Ed White was the Pilot, the other man present was the mission commander Jim McDivvit.
Now what evidence do you have that the glove was "bumped" or "tossed" by McDivvit?
-
I just did answer the question.
Yes, but look at the timing of our posts. You answered it while I was typing that reply.
-
The glove was bumped by White's pilot if I remember correctly. In fact, I think he even tossed it up to him.
Ed White was the Pilot, the other man present was the mission commander Jim McDivvit.
Now what evidence do you have that the glove was "bumped" or "tossed" by McDivvit?
I think the transmissions kind of suggest it.
Ed says something like, "That looks like a (?) glove."
"That's exactly what is was, Ed!"
Much like he realized he had tossed it up to him.
-
I just did answer the question.
Yes, but look at the timing of our posts. You answered it while I was typing that reply.
No problem.
-
Now what evidence do you have that the glove was "bumped" or "tossed" by McDivvit?
It also doesn't matter. The glove had to be bumped by someone or something to float upward. Newton's laws dictate so.
"An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force."
The hose in the Shenzhou video seems to keep floating up by itself.
-
The glove had to be bumped by someone or something to float upward. Newton's laws dictate so.
A moment ago, it was McDivvit that tossed the glove. Now it might be "something". I can hear the sound of goalposts moving.
-
The glove had to be bumped by someone or something to float upward. Newton's laws dictate so.
A moment ago, it was McDivvit that tossed the glove. Now it might be "something". I can hear the sound of goalposts moving.
No, I still think it was McDivvit, I'm making a point that someone or something did touch the glove.
The fact is, there is nothing acting on the hose in the Shenzhou footage. It just floats up by itself. This is not a thread to argue Gemini (which I believe), it's a thread to discuss Shenzhou.
--EDIT--
I still agree with this statement and am not hiding or retracting it:
I think the transmissions kind of suggest it.
Ed says something like, "That looks like a (?) glove."
"That's exactly what is was, Ed!"
-Me.
-
I think the transmissions kind of suggest it.
Ed says something like, "That looks like a (?) glove."
"That's exactly what is was, Ed!"
-Me.
[/quote]
The only thing that can be ascertained from that quote is that the two astronauts agree on the identity of the item that floats by.
-
I think the transmissions kind of suggest it.
Ed says something like, "That looks like a (?) glove."
"That's exactly what is was, Ed!"
-Me.
The only thing that can be ascertained from that quote is that the two astronauts agree on the identity of the item that floats by.
[/quote]
The glove was unable to be seen by McDivvit unless he knew what it was already, as it was in space by the time Ed mentioned it. He must have saw it leave previously or made it leave himself.
Wait a minute....... Are you saying that an object doesn't need a force to move in space??
-
The fact is, there is nothing acting on the hose in the Shenzhou footage. It just floats up by itself.
How do you that it wasn't bumped or tossed by another taikonaut, or that it had been under tension and subsequently been released?
Do you know what Occam's Razor is?
-
The glove was unable to be seen by McDivvit
How do you know this? Proof would be greatly appreciated.
-
It's time for me to go to bed Vincent, as its 01:20 in my part of the world. Good night.
P.S. Still waiting for your PM that contains your "proof".
-
Just came back from making a video. Sure, I'll send you the video of Neil saying good things about my source.
-
The glove was unable to be seen by McDivvit
How do you know this? Proof would be greatly appreciated.
Think about it's position. I believe the commander was in the left hand set. The hatch for the pilot was directly above the right hand seat's head. Once it leaves that hatch, it is above and away from the commander's position.
-
On a similar note, I flew in space today. Do you believe me, guys? Afterall, I did SAY so.
-
On a similar note, I flew in space today. Do you believe me, guys? Afterall, I did SAY so.
You don't have the means to do so. The Chinese do have the means, they produced photos and video of it, and you have no evidence they faked any of it, or even justification for why they would do so.
-
What would convince you that it was real, McConnell?
-
Apparently you haven't really evolved that far beyond the irrational hoax believer you were when we first met you, Vincent. You've only changed the villains from NASA to the Chinese space agency. I think you have bought into the whole "China is evil" propaganda a bit too much.
One of the big problems with a conspiracy theory like this one is that China is going to keep launching missions that are more complex than the one before it. If the previous missions were all fake and the current one is their first real manned spaceflight, then they are starting with a rendezvous and docking with three taikonauts aboard. It's extremely unlikely they would risk three lives trying to perform such a complicated mission the first time they sent anyone into orbit. If this mission is fake then their next mission is going to be even more complex and therefore even less likely to be something they would attempt on their first try.
It's like the Apollo hoax theory. If Apollo was fake then that would mean NASA went from Gemini to the Space Shuttle with nothing in between to learn from. How likely is that?
The picture has a blue tint? Maybe their cheap Chinese cameras are flawed. The tethers and flags behave ways that don't look right to you? Maybe your expectations are flawed.
-
What would convince you that it was real, McConnell?
Spacewalk footage that looks a lot like Gemini or the ISS and videos with no anomalies showing zero g for more than 2 minutes at a time.
-
On a similar note, I flew in space today. Do you believe me, guys? Afterall, I did SAY so.
You don't have the means to do so. The Chinese do have the means, they produced photos and video of it, and you have no evidence they faked any of it, or even justification for why they would do so.
I have some video I took of me with a floating pen in front of me. And sure I have the means. I built a rocket. That's pretty much all China has to do for everyone to believe they flew in space... say they did it...
-
Apparently you haven't really evolved that far beyond the irrational hoax believer you were when we first met you, Vincent.
Irrational? I'm the only one here that refuses to believe something unless there is evidence for it.
-
The tethers and flags behave ways that don't look right to you? Maybe your expectations are flawed.
It's not that they behave opposite my expectations, it's that they behave in ways that defy the laws of physics in space.
-
Okay. So they manufactured a control module: Complete with space inside for an astronaut and instrumentation...
They filmed several minutes of being in space:
They have space travel capability that's well-documented:
But we're supposed to believe it was easier for them to fake everything?
Irrational? I'm the only one here that refuses to believe something unless there is evidence for it.
Errrr... we know human space travel is possible. We know China is becoming a real economic power. They have the resources and man-power to get into space. There's footage. There's photos.
So yeah, not "just because I'm told it, hurr hurr". Your claims of floating a pen in front of you are nonsense and easily dismissable as an argument.
-
And a lot of the same arguments that prove Apollo was real are just as true for China's space program. If the Apollo craft could be tracked by non-US citizens, so too can a Chinese craft be tracked by non-Chinese citizens. If it would be ludicrous to risk faking Apollo because the truth would come out, so too would it be ludicrous for the Chinese to risk faking a space program. Those rocket launches? More noticeable than the Saturn V, because there are all sorts of satellites tracking things which weren't tracked forty and fifty years ago.
-
I have some video I took of me with a floating pen in front of me.
Which I'm sure is very convincing.
And sure I have the means. I built a rocket.
Yeah, well, their rocket wasn't purchased at a hobby store.
That's pretty much all China has to do for everyone to believe they flew in space... say they did it...
My friend said he went to Australia but all I have seen are a few photographs that could have been Photoshopped. Was he lying?
Irrational? I'm the only one here that refuses to believe something unless there is evidence for it.
That is not irrational. What is irrational is believing that all of the scientists and other experts around the world are either too stupid to realize China is faking their space program, or are willing participants in the hoax. What is irrational is your belief that only you, a 17 year old kid, could discover the truth. What is irrational is your inability to even consider the possibility that you are wrong.
-
Some people were bothered by this. I don`t know if they had additional lighting but it seems to be lighting in backgound. This is a still from a video.
-
That is not irrational. What is irrational is believing that all of the scientists and other experts around the world are either too stupid to realize China is faking their space program, or are willing participants in the hoax. What is irrational is your belief that only you, a 17 year old kid, could discover the truth. What is irrational is your inability to even consider the possibility that you are wrong.
No, I think many people have figured it out, yet they don't want to risk their careers even if they have great proof.
For the pen, I used wires and slowmo.
-
We know human space travel is possible. We know China is becoming a real economic power. They have the resources and man-power to get into space. There's footage. There's photos. There's telemetry. There's satellites.
I'm sorry, this just isn't a plausible hoax.
-
`they don't want to risk their careers even if they have great proof`
For once I agree with you Vincent. There is nothing more dangerous to Status Quo than a man that has nothing to lose. And it is not strictly China bound.
-
Or several hundred thousands of men, amateur radio operators, and engineers and scientists that actually know their stuff, that never once let anything slip, even though no other conspiracy in the world has been handled so expertly.
Nothing ever slipped. No mistakes. Nothing told to outsiders. Nothing appearing on wikileaks. Nothing popping up on blogs. Nothing at all.
Except for alleged mistakes that any teenager somehow is able to spot from their computer, that they can identify better than any engineer on the known planet.
That about sum it up?
-
Some people were bothered by this. I don`t know if they had additional lighting but it seems to be lighting in backgound. This is a still from a video.
That would be the small lighting system next to the camera attached to the hull.
(http://97.74.127.8/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/china2.jpg)
-
Wow, see what a couple of minutes of actual research can turn up? There was a lighting rig reflected on something? Yup, because the Chinese put it on their spacecraft!
-
For the pen, I used wires and slowmo.
And I guarantee you that will be strongly in evidence on the video, however convincing it may look to you.
-
Wow, see what a couple of minutes of actual research can turn up? There was a lighting rig reflected on something? Yup, because the Chinese put it on their spacecraft!
It did, literally, take me a couple of minutes...
-
Meh, that's obviously fake. They rigged the whole thing up after they noticed they had to disprove what the internet found out, but naturally didn't bother making it space worthy in the slightest. Much more efficient that way, don'tcha know. Faking everything was much easier. :D
-
It's not that they behave opposite my expectations, it's that they behave in ways that defy the laws of physics in space.
And exactly what are your qualifications to judge that, Vincent? No offence to your age, but you are talking to people here who have studied physics for many years longer than you have, and several of them now apply it in their jobs. It is the case that they behave against your expectations. That is because your understanding of the laws of physics and your interpretation of the video is flawed.
How do you know, for example, that the tethers do not move upwards naturally because that is the shape they want to adopt because of the materials they are made of? Deprived of external forces like gravity, flexible objects will adopt their lowest energy shape, i.e. one with the least tension and compression in them. You seem to be expecting them to simply adopt whatever shape they are put in and stay there.
-
Here is a video of Ed White's Gemini 4 spacewalk.
Notice how at 0.47 there is a strap and a loop visible, both of which are 'floating' upwards of their own volition. Notice how as he sets up the camera at about 1.16 the coiled tether is floating upwards rather than sitting against the spacecraft.
Violating the laws of physics? Filmed underwater? Or just the natural tendency of the things in question?
-
Vincent, when I saw you start this thread I honestly thought you were joking. I really thought you were doing a spoof of the usual Apollo hoax believer argument with "United States" replaced by "China". But it appears you're serious. Can you please confirm that? Sarcasm doesn't always come through in text.
For the record, I really don't care what anyone who professes to support me in other contexts thinks about the Chinese space program. I see absolutely no reason to suspect that it isn't perfectly real, and it would take a lot to overcome that.
-
No, I think many people have figured it out, yet they don't want to risk their careers even if they have great proof.
Did Dr. Qu Zheng's career end?
Has he suffered in any way for his statements?
-
How do you know, for example, that the tethers do not move upwards naturally because that is the shape they want to adopt because of the materials they are made of? Deprived of external forces like gravity, flexible objects will adopt their lowest energy shape, i.e. one with the least tension and compression in them. You seem to be expecting them to simply adopt whatever shape they are put in and stay there.
I just redid the wiring behind my computers while installing a KVM switch...stiff cables sprawling every which way, even under a full 1 g. They've got a bulky, heavily protected umbilical carrying air, power, and electrical signals...and it's something they *want* to be a bit stiff, so it can be more easily manipulated in freefall without flopping around and snagging on everything.
As pointed out earlier, achieving neutral buoyancy is not difficult, some unobtrusive weights would have done the job perfectly well, and just positioning the camera above or below the set would cause buoyancy errors to be far less obvious. Blue tinted water could trivially be compensated for by using lights with low color temperature, or in post processing.
So, we have a country that has demonstrated all the capabilities required unnecessarily and riskily deciding to fake the EVA, and failing to compensate for some obvious giveaways while doing so, or we have an EVA with a stiff tether doing what tethers have been observed to do in other EVAs, and a camera with poor color balance, as is fairly typical, color balance not being a great priority in their application. The color balance is even off in the expected manner of a camera attempting to automatically compensate for a color cast in the scene, lit partially by the big, bright blue Earth in the background.
Summary: zero evidence of a hoax. And the video does in fact provide evidence of a freefall, airless environment not reproducible on Earth. Radars around the world track the launches, amateurs observe them and photograph them with their scopes, and we ourselves did similar operations decades ago with far more primitive technology. So why would anyone believe it was hoaxed?
-
I wonder if given the quality and detail of the pictures that amateurs have been to produce of the ISS if it would have been possible to get pictures of Shenzhou with sufficient detail to show the EVA in progress? While I am not aware of anyone even attempting to do so the possibility of it would make attempting a hoax even less appealing and more likely to be revealed.
-
Hahahahahahaha. Read a comment to one of the youtube videos on the Shenzhou 7...
"**** it, it really doesn't matter. I don't believe China spacewalked, and that's my final word. Even IF (pretty HUGE IF), this was real, nice job, China, you did something everyone else can already do... Congratulations... That's like bragging that you invented a bottle that holds liquids.
Too little, too late, China. Go have fun with your communism lol.
PS: Mao sucks ass."
-
Ah, maturity!
-
The part I found amusing, is that he's basically saying China couldn't spacewalk so they must have faked it (implying it's too difficult for them), and then IN THE SAME POST said that spacewalking is easy and everyone's done it.
-
Vincent, I think you must be trolling, now. That's a disappointing realisation - I guess I won't be so gullible in future when I see someone profess to have 'seen the light' after making exactly the same sort of ridiculous claims - based on ignorance and hanging around tinfoilhat websites and youtube - first with Apollo, and now this..?
The only other possibility is that you genuinely believe that oversaturating and playing with RGB sliders on a video is a valid method of proving what you wish to believe, and that you haven't bothered to actually think about the basic mechanics/physics and all the potential causes for these 'effects' that you (want to) think show fakery.
Either you have learnt nothing, or it's a troll. So I'll go with the latter.
Thing is, by now you should KNOW that there are many folks here that have a wealth of technical knowledge, that have seen countless hours of spacewalk footage, that understand how videos should/could be *properly* analysed, that have seen countless hours of underwater astronaut training, and that have the experience and wisdom you clearly do NOT have, to make an educated judgement. As for me, I may not have a pile of letters after my name, but I get by.. eg I certainly know dam well that what would you did with that video to faux-analyse the colours was nothing more than a ridiculous stunt, with not a shred of science behind it..
HAD you simply come here and expressed your concerns about various aspects of that footage, I and others would have been willing to assist you in going through the why's and wherefore's of how to investigate it properly.
But you didn't do that, rather wishing to emulate the tactics of 'tapdance'boy. Shame on you, and him.
-
We know human space travel is possible. We know China is becoming a real economic power. They have the resources and man-power to get into space. There's footage. There's photos. There's telemetry. There's satellites.
I'm sorry, this just isn't a plausible hoax.
This is pretty much what I'm sticking with. I don't see any reason to change it. If Vincent decides to come in and try to argue the case again, I invite him to read it again.
-
Guys. Guys. GUYS! Can I have your attention please? Vincent PM'd with the truth the other night.
I'll send you the video of Neil saying good things about my source.
At 2:00 in you'll hear Neil saying good things about my source.
Apparently, this "source" is the one who provided proof that the Shenzou 7 spacewalk was faked. This is the link he didn't want to post to protect his source's privacy.
::)
-
He doesn't say any good things about the creator of the video. He just talks about the descent.
-
He doesn't say any good things about the creator of the video. He just talks about the descent.
It seems we don't have the ability, that the woos have, to spot hidden meaning.
-
Never mind all this Chinese hoaxing nonsense, that was a cool video. Doubly so because it was narrated by Armstrong.
-
It seems we don't have the ability, that the woos have, to spot hidden meaning.
Vincent isn't woo, he's just a bit, er, young.
-
Never mind all this Chinese hoaxing nonsense, that was a cool video. Doubly so because it was narrated by Armstrong.
You're spot on - anything with Neil in is a joy to watch. That man could read a telephone directory out loud and I'd watch it enraptured.
-
It seems we don't have the ability, that the woos have, to spot hidden meaning.
Vincent isn't woo, he's just a bit, er, young.
Hidden messages and implied meaning? Come on, that's a woo. Wooism is age independant.
-
Meh, his logic is off, as is all these people's. The thing is, to them, it's just like believers in sorcerors/witches way back... there's the possessed/tricked, the demons, and the ordinary people. Ordinary people can be potentially trusted, but if they support "the story", they're tricked or "possessed" by demons (paid off, afraid to speak up, etc.), while the demons are the worst of the worst, and everything they say must either support they're demons, or are innately lies that should be discarded as such.
Once you adopt that mindset, it goes that route. In this case, the Chinese Govt. are the demons (and Communists in general, I suppose), and the engineers are the possessed/tricked.
-
I have returned from an accidental hiatus from this website. (I actually forgot about it... lol).
My friend and I plan to wave a flag under water and film it using his GoPro. If we get results similar to the Chinese video, that proves it CAN be done underwater. If we don't, I'll retract all of my claims that this mission was faked.
-
How do you know, for example, that the tethers do not move upwards naturally because that is the shape they want to adopt because of the materials they are made of? Deprived of external forces like gravity, flexible objects will adopt their lowest energy shape, i.e. one with the least tension and compression in them. You seem to be expecting them to simply adopt whatever shape they are put in and stay there.
Hm. So you're now saying that flags like to float up in free -fall? hahahahaaha. That's a good one.
-
Okay, outside of the unnecessary snarkiness not doing anything for you, Vincent, do keep in mind that the flag is attached to something that's moving. For instance, if I hold a string in zero gravity and move, the string will move differently than I will; it won't retain its shape and just move, but will hover a bit for a moment, while it still has flexibility.
If I'm explaining this poorly, someone please tell me.
-
Here is a video of Ed White's Gemini 4 spacewalk.
Notice how at 0.47 there is a strap and a loop visible, both of which are 'floating' upwards of their own volition. Notice how as he sets up the camera at about 1.16 the coiled tether is floating upwards rather than sitting against the spacecraft.
Violating the laws of physics? Filmed underwater? Or just the natural tendency of the things in question?
How many times do I have to clear this up?????
Ed White used a NITROGEN GUN to maneuver. That causes him to develop relative velocity and motion to the tether and strap... Inertia dictates they must move. On the Chinese video, however, it's clear that they float up without any kind of force throughout the video.
-
...do keep in mind that the flag is attached to something that's moving. For instance, if I hold a string in zero gravity and move, the string will move differently than I will; it won't retain its shape and just move, but will hover a bit for a moment, while it still has flexibility.
If I'm explaining this poorly, someone please tell me.
No, I understand what you're talking about. Watch the flag though. At moments when the Taikonaut's hand is still and the flag is limp for a second, it will strangely start to float up for no reason...
-
I honestly don't see anything unusual. Even the most subtle of hand movement can change the way an object moves; I should know, it's an easy way to slip a blow past defenses as a fencer.
-
Also, there is a natural tendency for flexible objects to straighten -- to relieve compression and tension. On Earth, a rope will usually just lie there, the friction with the ground overwhelming the straightening forces. In space, the tethers are only restricted by the by the end attachments, so they will tend to equalize the strain along the length, forming arcs.
The same thing happens with the flag. When not being whipped about, it tends to straighten directly out from the rod. The way it was gripped, this direction was "up" a lot of the time, but not always. In particular, just before it was stowed, it was aimed almost directly at the camera.
As for the color of the Earth, it's simply slightly over-exposed.
-
According to Mary Roach in Packing For Mars, there are always fans running in the ISS to prevent bubbles of CO2 from forming around astronauts. Is this true? Could this be an issue?
-
According to Mary Roach in Packing For Mars, there are always fans running in the ISS to prevent bubbles of CO2 from forming around astronauts. Is this true? Could this be an issue?
For the flag? Not during the spacewalk, for obvious reasons.
As an unrelated question, "bubble" is probably a misleading word, but the lack of natural convection could indeed lead to a still astronaut developing a region of high CO2 around them. It could also lead to uncomfortable increases in temperature around the astronaut, or incidents like a piece of overheating electronics going unnoticed until it starts a fire, rather than being discovered by its odor. Establishing an overall circulation pattern also tends to collect small items in predictable locations.
Anyway, going back and watching the video...the tether's obviously stiff and springy, the clasps at the ends jiggle and slide around without any evidence of damping by water drag, various small straps tend to project out at the same direction from the astronaut independent of their orientation, the flag flops around, sometimes flying ahead of the stick it's attached to and clearly not being dragged through water, the person doing the EVA several times ends up drifting around a pivot, clearly not settling to an equilibrium position due to imperfect neutral buoyancy or being slowed by water drag...
It also looks largely lit by indirect light from the Earth. You can see parts of the suit go into direct sunlight a few times later on, and it saturates the camera. Indirect light from Earth, the big blue object in the background, will be tinted blue. Color balancing the video to make the white suit and spacecraft look white will make the Earth look faded. Readjusting the balance to make Earth blue will make white things lit by that blue light also appear blue. It looks exactly as it should under those lighting conditions, and certainly isn't evidence of a hoax.
It doesn't look one bit like it's under water. It doesn't make sense for them to fake it. There is no reason to think they couldn't have the capabilities they claim, they are in fact in a better position to achieve those capabilities than we were when we did our first spacewalks. There is just no reason whatsoever to think this was faked.
-
See, this is the problem:
Generally, when you see something that does not behave or look just what you might expect, that could simply be because you're not used enough to what's being handled to be able to tell.
While asking questions about it is fine for learning, or even if you have doubts, once you start using it as evidence of a large conspiracy is where it falls into woo-woo territory.
Vincent, you could easily have learned more about the subject, instead of going on about how we're only believing China was in space purely because they told us so. But when you do the latter, you look foolish; there's a lot more involved than just our eyes and ears. There's radio, there's satellites, there's a lot of people involved on the project that live in an extremely globalized world, even in China (the Great Firewall of China is practically a non-issue at this point), and there are expert engineers in other countries that would pounce on the idea that China was faking things.
It's much better to treat these things with humility and give yourself a chance to learn, than to go about and act as if you're superior to the world.
-
Here is a video of Ed White's Gemini 4 spacewalk.
Notice how at 0.47 there is a strap and a loop visible, both of which are 'floating' upwards of their own volition. Notice how as he sets up the camera at about 1.16 the coiled tether is floating upwards rather than sitting against the spacecraft.
Violating the laws of physics? Filmed underwater? Or just the natural tendency of the things in question?
How many times do I have to clear this up?????
Ed White used a NITROGEN GUN to maneuver. That causes him to develop relative velocity and motion to the tether and strap... Inertia dictates they must move.
How many times do i have to spoon feed you? The two sections I pointed you to specifically in that video occur before he does any kind of manoeuvring. The strap is floating upwards from his body, and the tether is floating upwards from the attachment point, while he is still seated in the capsule, BEFORE he does any kind og manoeuvring with that gun at all.
-
According to Mary Roach in Packing For Mars, there are always fans running in the ISS to prevent bubbles of CO2 from forming around astronauts. Is this true? Could this be an issue?
Not outside, of course, but ventilation definitely moves things around inside. Astronauts report often finding lost objects (as well as lots of debris) stuck to the filters of air return vents.
A few years ago I had what I thought was a brilliant idea for an educational physics video made in space. I wanted to show the effect of the earth's gravity gradient. Objects floating freely inside a spacecraft are essentially in their own independent orbits. In theory, an object freely floating near the floor of the ISS, i.e., closer to the earth than the ISS's center of mass, would be in a slightly shorter period orbit than the ISS itself, so it would tend to move forward along the velocity vector. An object near the "ceiling" would tend to move against the velocity vector.
Similarly, a floating object left or right of the station center of mass would be in a slightly different orbital plane than the station itself. It would oscillate on its own around the center line, completing one full cycle per orbit.
I had the opportunity to ask two experienced astronauts if this would work: Dr. Owen Garriott and his son Richard. Both immediately shot down my idea, explaining that the ventilation currents are so strong that they would easily overwhelm the effect I was trying to demonstrate. I think Owen did say that he tried to create the effect himself inside a storage locker on Skylab, out of reach of the ventilation ducts, but I don't remember if he succeeded.
This effect would be present during an EVA, and it might be worth looking for. It will be rather subtle, and it does seem more likely that any free-floating and untethered object would have enough residual velocity to fly away from the spacecraft and out of camera view.
-
How many times do I have to clear this up?????
Ed White used a NITROGEN GUN to maneuver.
Actually, his maneuvering gun used oxygen, not nitrogen, and White depleted it fairly rapidly.
-
Thanks, everyone--I forgot we were talking about a spacewalk. I feel well and truly dumb now!
-
Hm. So you're now saying that flags like to float up in free -fall? hahahahaaha. That's a good one.
That is not what I said. Lose the attitude, re-read what I said, and consider the fact that I am more familiar with the visual record of space flight history and the laws of physics as they pertain to it than you are.
Flexible objects in free-fall and vacuum will adopt their lowest energy configuration. The concept of 'up' is irrelevant, since in this case it is only relative to the orientation of the camera. If the flagpole is oriented with the flag atached on the 'upward' side of it, then the flag will naturally tend to straighten out and point 'upwards', because being flat is a lot more energetically favourable for that sheet of what appears to be paper or somesuch material than being curled up. Similarly the tether on the taikonaut is attached to his body at a point 'lower' than the rails he clips the other end onto. They will therefore naturally tend to try and straighten out, but since they are restrained at both ends they will instead adopt their lowest energy configuration, which is a long, smooth curve. The location of the attachment points and the length of the tether dictate this curve places the middle of the tether 'higher' than either end, and so yes, it will appear to float 'upwards', because it adopts the shape with the least stored elastic energy in it. That is the important law of physics here, which you are missing.
-
You can learn a lot of physics from space flight; that's one of the neatest things about studying it.
Lots and lots of systems seek their lowest energy states because they're following one of the most important laws in all of physics: the second law of thermodynamics. It states that any form of energy can be turned into heat, but heat energy cannot be turned back into another form of energy with 100% efficiency. It also says heat spontaneously flows from a hot object to a cold one, but never from cold to hot. In the far distant future all the mass and energy in the universe will become heat at a constant temperature, and nothing interesting will ever happen again. This will be the "heat death" of the universe.
When something as simple as a tether assumes its lowest energy state, that excess energy doesn't just disappear. It has to go somewhere because the first law of thermodynamics says that energy is conserved. As the "springiness" in the tether flexes it, that excess energy becomes heat. It warms up. Even in space, warm objects tend to radiate their heat away toward objects at lower temperatures. That energy won't come back, and even if it did it wouldn't spontaneously turn back into mechanical energy. So the tether seeks its lowest energy state and stays there until some external force intervenes.
-
Excellent posts, Jason and ka9q.
-
Applause from me too - you guys said it all very succinctly and patiently (skills I don't always possess..)
-
Thank you both.
And, Vincent, you may want to keep in mind the fact that Andromeda has degrees in physics, so when she assesses our comments regarding the physics of the situation as excellent, that carries some weight.
-
Thank you both.
And, Vincent, you may want to keep in mind the fact that Andromeda has degrees in physics, so when she assesses our comments regarding the physics of the situation as excellent, that carries some weight.
*Takes a bow*
-
Jason, you're quite a lucky guy. I'm just throwing that out there.
-
Jason, you're quite a lucky guy. I'm just throwing that out there.
He knows. I tell him so every day. ;D
-
Something tells me Vincent won't post back until he really carries out that underwater test.
-
Something tells me Vincent won't post back until he really carries out that underwater test.
Or at least not until he thinks we've forgotten about this thread.
-
What he's forgotten is that we have long memories around here.
-
No, no. I've been very busy responding to other things on my time on the internet -- which has been very little to say the least. I was gone all day yesterday and the day before and I've been building a spacecraft simulator.
As for Shenzhou 7, I will say this. It is my belief that the space walk was not real. I have seen evidence for things that simply look exactly like it was shot underwater. That being said, I will leave it at that until I have conducted an experiment to prove my point. I am simply waiting for my friend's GoPro to be back in action again.
-
Well I'm glad that a bunch of more experienced people telling you it looks nothing like underwater and is not in fact remotely suspect in appearance means absolutely nothing. Glad we didn't waste our time then...
Did you even read and understand our responses?
-
Oh, also, the Moonwalk the astronauts did has always been cool.
-
As for the Earth and the Sun, I will say this. It is my belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth. I have seen evidence for the motion of the sun that simply looks exactly like it's revolving around the Earth. That being said, I will leave it at that until I have conducted an experiment to prove my point. I am simply waiting for my friend's Geocentric Simulator to be back in action again.
-
Well I'm glad that a bunch of more experienced people telling you it looks nothing like underwater and is not in fact remotely suspect in appearance means absolutely nothing. Glad we didn't waste our time then...
Did you even read and understand our responses?
Yes, I read them, but I believe you are DEFINITELY wrong. It donned on me last night when I was in the pool, actually. I noticed that the legs of my swim trunks were moving and oscillating back and forth when I achieved perfect neutral buoyancy to the point where they were moving back and forth for up to a minute. Especially if I moved them myself, they would continue to swing back and forth until I came back up to the surface or ruined my neutral buoyancy. Essentially, this proves that a flag CAN move back and forth without stopping simply by flicking your hand underwater. I imagine that speeding up the footage would make the movement even MORE visible.
-
Well, it's nice to know that China are so inept (because they're ignorant commies, of course), that they can stage a huge hoax that any kid in his back yard could spot (but all the experts, for some reason, can't), building the command module and the rocket and everything just to fake it all...
Sure sounds efficient.
-
Also, maybe the tether did move from shape memory, but this doesn't explain Zhai's legs flying up when he is not even moving. A human being's legs don't want to fly up relative to the camera just because. If you don't believe me, watch the bodily control the astronauts doing ISS spacewalks can achieve. Parts of their body don't just float against their will. Zhai, on the other hand, shows us the exact opposite. This kind of "floating leg" visual is often what happens to you underwater. Try it. Don't achieve neutral buyoancy, just go down to the bottom of the pool and hold onto something. Your legs and the back of your body will try to fly up towards the surface. In space, this is not AT ALL the case.
-
Well, it's nice to know that China are so inept (because they're ignorant commies, of course), that they can stage a huge hoax that any kid in his back yard could spot (but all the experts, for some reason, can't), building the command module and the rocket and everything just to fake it all...
Sure sounds efficient.
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. Now you're just misrepresenting my position. I believe that many experts HAVE doubts about this spacewalk. In fact, I can't remember his name now, but there is one expert at JSC or JPL that said he does not believe the mission was real. Someone posted their name here I think. And of course, they'd HAVE to build the rocket. But was Shenzhou 7 really launched? In the Bnebb video, the rocket that launched Shenzhou 7 appears DIFFERENT in two films taken of it! Markings on the side are different at launch than they were before launch. Bnebb hypothesized that China simply showed footage of the Shenzhou 1 launch and said it was Shenzhou 7.
For the Orbital Module, if the rocket launch was not real, they never had to construct one at all. All they had to do was build a mock up.
-
He doesn't say any good things about the creator of the video. He just talks about the descent.
Why are you lying? He talks about the Gentleman from Georgia that did a good job piecing together certain clips etc. You should watch the video but then comment HONESTLY.
-
Update!
This is another expert who says he doesn't believe the spacewalk was real.
He works as an engineer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. See? Some experts do not believe Shenzhou 7 was real and I'm sure there are many more that doubt it, too. His name is Dr. Qu Zheng.
-
Essentially, this proves that a flag CAN move back and forth without stopping simply by flicking your hand underwater.
The point is not whether it can move, but if it can flap around that much.
I imagine that speeding up the footage would make the movement even MORE visible.
As well as leaving very obvious evidence of being sped up on other elements of the video.
-
The only evidence I find of Qu Zheng is Jarrah White.
-
this doesn't explain Zhai's legs flying up when he is not even moving.
Isn't he moving? Not even slightly as he shifts his grip?
In space EVERY muscle movement, no matter how small, will afeect the entirety of his body. Even a simple movment of his arm will cause this to occur. You cannot say he is not moving.
Astronauts on ISS spacewalks are tethered in multiple locations with very short tethers and often have their feet on something, precisely in order to avoid this kind of unwanted motion.
The movement of the taikonaut is quite consistent with the reports of the Gemini astronauts on their early spacewalks.
-
And once again, Vincent, what exactly are your qualifications in physics and space flight research? Everyone you are talking to here has years on you in that respect.
-
The only evidence I find of Qu Zheng is Jarrah White.
Interesting, because I seem to have sent him an email.
Here's his address:
[EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED].
I am awaiting his reply, as I sent it about three seconds ago.
-
Update!
This is another expert who says he doesn't believe the spacewalk was real.
He works as an engineer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. See? Some experts do not believe Shenzhou 7 was real and I'm sure there are many more that doubt it, too. His name is Dr. Qu Zheng.
Quoted in just one publication, the Epoch Times, which is heavily slanted to only write stories which are critical of the Chinese government. It's no better than citing Whale.to.
-
Isn't he moving? Not even slightly as he shifts his grip?
In space EVERY muscle movement, no matter how small, will afeect the entirety of his body. Even a simple movment of his arm will cause this to occur. You cannot say he is not moving.
Astronauts on ISS spacewalks are tethered in multiple locations with very short tethers and often have their feet on something, precisely in order to avoid this kind of unwanted motion.
The movement of the taikonaut is quite consistent with the reports of the Gemini astronauts on their early spacewalks.
At certain parts, he actually is NOT moving and his legs will tend to simply float up. This is against Newton's laws and you simply cannot discredit Newton just to defend a spacewalk that experts have doubted. There are plenty of videos showing astronauts climbing along structures of the ISS with their legs free floating. They do not fly up. I have pictures of astronauts working on Hubble in orbit that show their bodies as straight as a board. In addition, Bruce McCandless was very controlled when doing the untethered walk with the MMU.
-
Isn't he moving? Not even slightly as he shifts his grip?
In space EVERY muscle movement, no matter how small, will afeect the entirety of his body. Even a simple movment of his arm will cause this to occur. You cannot say he is not moving.
Astronauts on ISS spacewalks are tethered in multiple locations with very short tethers and often have their feet on something, precisely in order to avoid this kind of unwanted motion.
The movement of the taikonaut is quite consistent with the reports of the Gemini astronauts on their early spacewalks.
At certain parts, he actually is NOT moving and his legs will tend to simply float up. This is against Newton's laws and you simply cannot discredit Newton just to defend a spacewalk that experts have doubted. There are plenty of videos showing astronauts climbing along structures of the ISS with their legs free floating. They do not fly up. I have pictures of astronauts working on Hubble in orbit that show their bodies as straight as a board. In addition, Bruce McCandless was very controlled when doing the untethered walk with the MMU.
You cited just one, and given the publication it appeared in I have my doubts. Now you use the plural.
Please list your "experts" and sources.
-
And once again, Vincent, what exactly are your qualifications in physics and space flight research? Everyone you are talking to here has years on you in that respect.
My research is more on two things:
1.) The history of manned spaceflight and the details of all of these missions.
2.) Orbital Mechanics.
These two things I have spent quite a while with extensive research. For the history of manned spaceflight, I have been studying, researching and reading up on that for about one year and seven months. For orbital mechanics, that has only been in the last 4 months or so, but I have confirmed many of my own calculations and theories through Kerbal Space Program and Orbiter 2010. My Uncle teaches Orbital Mechanics and rendezvous at M.I.T. and I have had many discussions with him about it. I have learned much through him and simply spending time with space flight simulators.
The number of years and months is no issue, however. It is the INTENSITY of the research that matters.
-
Quoted in just one publication, the Epoch Times, which is heavily slanted to only write stories which are critical of the Chinese government. It's no better than citing Whale.to.
If Zheng confirms that he still doubts the Chinese spacewalk in his reply to my email, I can officially say I have a NAMED expert on my side. I do, however, have an UNNAMED expert on my side, and this individual told me they plan to do a lot of optical research into the video before going public with their findings. That is good, because it fits the scientific method. First conduct all other steps before reporting your results. You may choose not to believe that my unnamed expert exists, but you're only doubting reality. I will be glad to hear back from Qu Zheng.
-
At certain parts, he actually is NOT moving and his legs will tend to simply float up.
Prove he is not moving at all, and has no residual momentum from when he last was.
This is against Newton's laws and you simply cannot discredit Newton just to defend a spacewalk that experts have doubted.
Cite them.
In addition, Bruce McCandless was very controlled when doing the untethered walk with the MMU.
Irrelevant comparison. Untethered he has no attachment point to act as the centre of rotation or leverage.
-
And of course, they'd HAVE to build the rocket. But was Shenzhou 7 really launched?
Oh my god. You really haven't changed at all, have you? Do you really expect anyone to believe the rocket wasn't really launched?
Do you understand that the United States has spent the last 60 or so years monitoring the skies for rockets? Do you understand that they can track objects in orbit that are the size of a small metal bolt? Do you understand that the US Navy has vessels in the Pacific Ocean monitoring launches from China and North Korea?
-
Some digging indicates Dr Zheng worked at CIRES, not the JPL at the time he allegedly spoke to that journalist (2008) - lousy journalism or a lie?
-
My research is more on two things:
1.) The history of manned spaceflight and the details of all of these missions.
2.) Orbital Mechanics.
And yet you're arguing physics here. Shenzhou 7's spacewalk has nothing to do with either of those two things.
For the history of manned spaceflight, I have been studying, researching and reading up on that for about one year and seven months.
I'll take my over a decade of research on that subject, and the various presentations on it I have made in that time, over your short time.
The number of years and months is no issue, however. It is the INTENSITY of the research that matters.
You know one person on this discussion has a couple of degrees in physics, right? Want to argue that her research and understanding is inadequate?
-
If Zheng confirms that he still doubts the Chinese spacewalk in his reply to my email, I can officially say I have a NAMED expert on my side. I do, however, have an UNNAMED expert on my side, and this individual told me they plan to do a lot of optical research into the video before going public with their findings. That is good, because it fits the scientific method. First conduct all other steps before reporting your results. You may choose not to believe that my unnamed expert exists, but you're only doubting reality. I will be glad to hear back from Qu Zheng.
One named and one unnamed expert, versus every other expert in the field who does not agree?
-
Prove he is not moving at all, and has no residual momentum from when he last was.
Watch the video. He moves, kills his relative motion to the side of the orbital module, but then, without moving again, his legs just float right back up. I'd have to make a video of the spacewalk showing a static point to display relative motion, but I have many things to do before I work on that.
Cite them.
As I have said, I have one unnamed expert on my side and one named. Simply because they do not wish to go public does not make them non-existent. Even IF you choose to believe I am lying about that, Qu Zheng, engineer at JPL has expressed doubts about the Chinese spacewalk. I will cite his exact reply when I receive a message from him via email. He is real, as the jpl email I used actually was sent to [EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED].
In addition, Bruce McCandless was very controlled when doing the untethered walk with the MMU.
His center of mass is the center of rotation for his legs. If, however, you don't want to take Bruce McCandless as an example, I provided a statement that I have pictures of astronauts working on hubble with their bodies straight throughout their EVA. You simply chose to ignore that part of my comment.
-
One named and one unnamed expert, versus every other expert in the field who does not agree?
As equal as a logical fallacy by a moon hoax believer. You say EVERY expert in the field thinks the Shenzhou spacewalk was real? PROVE IT. Cite every single qualified individual since 2008 and provide evidence to back up the claim that all of them think the spacewalk was real. You simply can't throw around a statistic with absolutely no evidence. I hypothesize that many experts don't believe it, but have chosen not to go public for any number of reasons, not limited to fear of being looked at like a moron. Now, that's only a hypothesis, so I will spend as much time as I have to try to find experts who don't believe that spacewalk was real.
Here is a relevant question for you. Zheng is an engineer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and has confirmed he does not believe the Shenzhou 7 mission was real. How do you feel about his qualifications? Do you think he is an idiot? Do you think he damaged his credibility by making that statement?
-
One named and one unnamed expert, versus every other expert in the field who does not agree?
As equal as a logical fallacy by a moon hoax believer. You say EVERY expert in the field thinks the Shenzhou spacewalk was real? PROVE IT. Cite every single qualified individual since 2008 and provide evidence to back up the claim that all of them think the spacewalk was real. You simply can't throw around a statistic with absolutely no evidence. I hypothesize that many experts don't believe it, but have chosen not to go public for any number of reasons, not limited to fear of being looked at like a moron. Now, that's only a hypothesis, so I will spend as much time as I have to try to find experts who don't believe that spacewalk was real.
Here is a relevant question for you. Zheng is an engineer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and has confirmed he does not believe the Shenzhou 7 mission was real. How do you feel about his qualifications? Do you think he is an idiot? Do you think he damaged his credibility by making that statement?
I've already picked plenty of holes in that line of argument.
1. He is quoted in a biased and highly unreliable source.
2. It was almost 4 years ago, and I can find no comment from him since.
3. He didn't work at JPL at the time, he worked at CIRES.
-
Some digging indicates Dr Zheng worked at CIRES, not the JPL at the time he allegedly spoke to that journalist (2008) - lousy journalism or a lie?
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/items-by-author?author=Qu%2C+Zheng
It could not have been a lie. The article was *supposedly* written before he worked at JPL, but he did in fact/does work at the JPL, as evident by the link I posted above. If you think the article was written before he worked at JPL, yet he went on to work there, does that suggest the journalist who wrote the article can see the future??
-
Watch the video. He moves, kills his relative motion to the side of the orbital module, but then, without moving again, his legs just float right back up. I'd have to make a video of the spacewalk showing a static point to display relative motion, but I have many things to do before I work on that.
Please provide the precise time reference. Don't worry about making fancy videos, just point to a precise part of the existing one.
I provided a statement that I have pictures of astronauts working on hubble with their bodies straight throughout their EVA. You simply chose to ignore that part of my comment.
No, I addressed that. Shorter tethers, multiple attachment points and occasionally their feet are also attached. Not comparable.
-
I've already picked plenty of holes in that line of argument.
1. He is quoted in a biased and highly unreliable source.
2. It was almost 4 years ago, and I can find no comment from him since.
3. He didn't work at JPL at the time, he worked at CIRES.
1. Does that change his verbatim quotes? The source being biased has no bearing on the fact that his quotes were word for word on that article.
2. Jarrah White emailed Qu Zheng in 2010 who confirmed he still sticks with the idea that Shenzhou 7 was faked.
3. He works for JPL now... If the article was supposedly written before he worked at JPL, yet he works there now, does that mean the writer of the article was psychic? Could they see the future? No. It seems more likely that whatever source you found to suggest he worked at CIRES at the time is simply wrong.
-
Some digging indicates Dr Zheng worked at CIRES, not the JPL at the time he allegedly spoke to that journalist (2008) - lousy journalism or a lie?
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/items-by-author?author=Qu%2C+Zheng
It could not have been a lie. The article was *supposedly* written before he worked at JPL, but he did in fact/does work at the JPL, as evident by the link I posted above. If you think the article was written before he worked at JPL, yet he went on to work there, does that suggest the journalist who wrote the article can see the future??
That paper was written 2 years after the date of the alleged interview.
I suggest that the journalism was bad or a lie which evolved in this way:
Zheng worked at CIRES --> CIRES collaborates with the JPL --> Zheng works at the JPL.
It's similar to how Bill was claimed to work at NASA.
-
That paper was written 2 years after the date of the alleged interview.
I suggest that the journalism was bad or a lie which evolved in this way:
Zheng worked at CIRES --> CIRES collaborates with the JPL --> Zheng works at the JPL.
It's similar to how Bill was claimed to work at NASA.
No. Zheng DOES work at JPL. His email proves that. Say the interview was conducted at the time he worked at CIRES. OK. Now the article says he worked at JPL, yet if what you say is true, he doesn't really work for JPL. Later on, however, he goes on to work for JPL! That means that that simple lie was actually a prophecy! The odds of the lie being an accurate prediction are worse than the odds that your source saying he worked at CIRES is simply wrong.
-
If the article was supposedly written before he worked at JPL, yet he works there now, does that mean the writer of the article was psychic? Could they see the future? No. It seems more likely that whatever source you found to suggest he worked at CIRES at the time is simply wrong.
No, it's just bad journalism. Many people claim that Bill Kaysing worked for NASA. He never did. He worked for Rocketdyne, whichw as contracted by NASA to provide engiones for their rockets. Nonetheless, many people who quote him as an expert in the Apollo hoax garbage insist he worked for NASA.
-
That paper was written 2 years after the date of the alleged interview.
I suggest that the journalism was bad or a lie which evolved in this way:
Zheng worked at CIRES --> CIRES collaborates with the JPL --> Zheng works at the JPL.
It's similar to how Bill was claimed to work at NASA.
OK. Now the article says he worked at JPL, yet if what you say is true, he doesn't really work for JPL.
No, what Andromeda said is that he did not work for JPL at the time the article was written.
Later on, however, he goes on to work for JPL! That means that that simple lie was actually a prophecy! The odds of the lie being an accurate prediction are worse than the odds that your source saying he worked at CIRES is simply wrong.
Bullcrap. Why are the odds of someone who works for a company that collaborated with JPL going on to work with JPL so low? Never heard of headhunting on the corporate world?
-
Please provide the precise time reference. Don't worry about making fancy videos, just point to a precise part of the existing one
OK, but I will have to watch the whole video, and so my response will be in ten minutes at the least.
No, I addressed that. Shorter tethers, multiple attachment points and occasionally their feet are also attached. Not comparable.
In the photos I have, they are not tethered.
-
In the photos I have, they are not tethered.
Post them.
-
No, what Andromeda said is that he did not work for JPL at the time the article was written.
He went on to work for JPL.
Bullcrap. Why are the odds of someone who works for a company that collaborated with JPL going on to work with JPL so low? Never heard of headhunting on the corporate world?
The odds certainly aren't 100%. The article was dead-on if it was a lie. Regardless, did I want Andromeda to give us the source she found to suggest he worked for CIRES at the time. It's even possible that the article was changed to update his current employers at JPL. As recent as 2010, Zheng confirmed the spacewalk was fake.
-
In the photos I have, they are not tethered.
Post them.
I have them on some playing cards that are spaceflight themed, but it shouldn't take me more than a few minutes to find the exact same images on google images. I will update this post accordingly as soon as I find them.
PHOTOS:
(http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2004/05/25/0001198137/manmachine_sts103.jpg)
Not the same image, but also a good example. He is tethered in this image, but not anywhere near the ankles. In fact, the tether is closer to his center of gravity. Yet his legs are not floating "up" relative to the camera even with his center of mass anchored. I am still going through images. Some show the astronauts too far away to tell.
(http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/4x9033140/untethered_spacewalk_rr015104.jpg)
Not working on hubble, but this is an untethered spacewalk photo of an astronaut. Notice that his legs are aligned with the rest of is body, not floating "up".
-
The odds certainly aren't 100%.
I never said they were. However, it is not uncommon.
The article was dead-on if it was a lie.
Or a mistake of the kind now described multiple times here.
-
This is something else I would like to point out:
Every Low Earth Orbit photo I have ever seen, including the spacewalk photos I posted above, shows the Earth's atmosphere pretty visible. In the Shenzhou 7 footage, the horizon of the Earth looks like that of the moon. Is Shenzhou 7 the first mission in history to shoot video of the Earth from orbit without a visible atmosphere? Is it that unique?
-
1. Does that change his verbatim quotes? The source being biased has no bearing on the fact that his quotes were word for word on that article.
Prove the quotes were verbatim.
2. Jarrah White emailed Qu Zheng in 2010 who confirmed he still sticks with the idea that Shenzhou 7 was faked.
You are citing Jarrah White?!
3. He works for JPL now... If the article was supposedly written before he worked at JPL, yet he works there now, does that mean the writer of the article was psychic? Could they see the future? No. It seems more likely that whatever source you found to suggest he worked at CIRES at the time is simply wrong.
Do a Google search for his name and "CIRES". A whole bunch of papers come up.
This idea (the idea of a fake and the identity of Qu Zheng, including where he works) has been dissected elsewhere: http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=6756
-
Every Low Earth Orbit photo I have ever seen, including the spacewalk photos I posted above, shows the Earth's atmosphere pretty visible. In the Shenzhou 7 footage, the horizon of the Earth looks like that of the moon. Is Shenzhou 7 the first mission in history to shoot video of the Earth from orbit without a visible atmosphere? Is it that unique?
Can you try and get your head around the idea that comparing images taken using different media is NOT a valid comaprison? You can't compare photos to videos and expect the results to be the same.
-
Prove the quotes were verbatim.
Zheng has never gone public to say he was mis-quoted or mis represented in that article. Most people, when mis-quoted, are going to call that to the attention of people. In fact, I don't know ONE person who wouldn't.
You are citing Jarrah White?!
No, I am citing an email that was sent to Jarrah White via Zheng. Zheng said the walk was faked, not Jarrah.
Do a Google search for his name and "CIRES". A whole bunch of papers come up.
K. One second.
This idea has been dissected elsewhere: http://www.orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=6756
Will view.
-
Can you try and get your head around the idea that comparing images taken using different media is NOT a valid comaprison? You can't compare photos to videos and expect the results to be the same.
Same with video. I have never seen a video in LEO where the horizon was not complimented by an atmosphere. Shenzhou 7 must be the first craft to film the Earth from orbit without showing the atmosphere. That's fine, but here's where there's an issue. I have a question for you:
Were the cameras used to film the inside of the cabin on Shenzhou 5 the same type of cameras used to film the spacewalk on Shenzhou 7?
-
Prove the quotes were verbatim.
Zheng has never gone public to say he was mis-quoted or mis represented in that article. Most people, when mis-quoted, are going to call that to the attention of people. In fact, I don't know ONE person who wouldn't.
As someone who has been heavily misquoted and misrepresented by the media, believe me when I say that making a fuss doesn't do any good. Corrections get hardly any attention at all.
-
Not the same image, but also a good example. He is tethered in this image, but not anywhere near the ankles.
Where are his feet? Do you know that on quite a few spacewalks the astronauts had their feet attched to the end of the rocbotic arm?
Not working on hubble, but this is an untethered spacewalk photo of an astronaut. Notice that his legs are aligned with the rest of is body, not floating "up".
You're comparing a still picture with a moving video now? How do you know he's not in the middle of a rotational movement in which his legs are indeed moving 'up'? And what is 'up' in a spacewalk?
And where is the time reference in the video I asked for and you said you were going to get?
-
Same with video. I have never seen a video in LEO where the horizon was not complimented by an atmosphere.
You know that line of the Earth loks pretty fuzzy to me in that video.
Were the cameras used to film the inside of the cabin on Shenzhou 5 the same type of cameras used to film the spacewalk on Shenzhou 7?
I have no idea. Possibly, possibly not. Why?
-
Where are his feet? Do you know that on quite a few spacewalks the astronauts had their feet attched to the end of the rocbotic arm?
If that is your response, I will look for more images. Actually, I'll find a video.
You're comparing a still picture with a moving video now? How do you know he's not in the middle of a rotational movement in which his legs are indeed moving 'up'? And what is 'up' in a spacewalk?
Up is relative to the camera's frame.
And where is the time reference in the video I asked for and you said you were going to get?
I'm trying to reply to all of the other replies here, do research on Zheng and give you photos and video. I haven't even had the chance to start watching the Shenzhou 7 spacewalk yet.
-
You know that line of the Earth loks pretty fuzzy to me in that video.
Strange. I seem to see the exact opposite. It looks pretty sharply defined from globe straight to space. I don't see an atmosphere at all there.
I have no idea. Possibly, possibly not. Why?
The Shenzhou 5 videos filming the Earth out the window show an atmosphere. If the cameras were the same, you have to wonder: Why is the atmosphere absent in the Shenzhou 7 video and present in the Shenzhou 5?
-
Up is relative to the camera's frame.
So in fact he could be floating in any direction whatsoever and it only seems to be 'up' because of the angle of the camera?
See, that right there is a big flaw in the whole idea. If things floating 'up' is a giveaway that they are underwater, why did they not just turn the camera upside down or sideways and avoid the whole issue? Or film from above so that 'up' is actually towards the camera? This is a standard filming technique in TV and movies already when shooting scenes in space, to avoid the obvious problems of things falling 'down' in a gravity field. You're suggesting they were too stupid to think of this when faking their spacewalk? It's just the same as the absurdity of the Apollo hoax idea that they filmed a scene set in a vacuum with a breeze blowing the flag.
-
He doesn't say any good things about the creator of the video. He just talks about the descent.
Why are you lying? He talks about the Gentleman from Georgia that did a good job piecing together certain clips etc. You should watch the video but then comment HONESTLY.
Physician heal thyself.
A gentleman in Georgia, astronomer by trade, took images from our most recent lunar exploring satellite, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter which was launched two years ago with very good optics to completely map the surface of the moon. With high quality images with resolution of one half to one metre.
The gentleman took the images from the LRO and patched them together using google moon. Google moon allows you to take a perspective of a picture. This picture, the image in front of you is a perspective.
But all the images taken by the satellite are vertical - straight down.
So, google allows you take a vertical image and convert it to a perspective as you see in this image.
The gentleman patched together a myriad of images from different orbits of the LRO that passed over the trajectory of the Apollo 11 descent and recreated the descent in perspective mode.
The actual descent was twelve and a half minutes...
Where does he say, he did a good job etc. If anything he praised google moon.
-
So in fact he could be floating in any direction whatsoever and it only seems to be 'up' because of the angle of the camera?
See, that right there is a big flaw in the whole idea. If things floating 'up' is a giveaway that they are underwater, why did they not just turn the camera upside down or sideways and avoid the whole issue? Or film from above so that 'up' is actually towards the camera? This is a standard filming technique in TV and movies already when shooting scenes in space, to avoid the obvious problems of things falling 'down' in a gravity field. You're suggesting they were too stupid to think of this when faking their spacewalk? It's just the same as the absurdity of the Apollo hoax idea that they filmed a scene set in a vacuum with a breeze blowing the flag.
Not at all. I'm saying that his legs floating away from him in any direction is suspicious.
Here's proof in video form for you:
Go to 1:25-1:30 and look at the astronauts doing the spacewalks. Their legs remain very straight along their body despite free falling.
-
I will cite his exact reply when I receive a message from him via email. He is real, as the jpl email I used actually was sent to [EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED].
Did you ask him about his religious beliefs?
-
I will cite his exact reply when I receive a message from him via email. He is real, as the jpl email I used actually was sent to [EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED].
Did you ask him about his religious beliefs?
No, I did not. Why?
-
So now it's 'any direction' is it?
Earlier on you made a huge fuss of things floating 'up. You even ridiculed me for suggesting that 'up' is a perfectly normal place for things to go in freefall. Now you can't actually defend that view you switch without any kind of acknowledgement to 'any direction' as being suspect.
Make up your mind and stick to it. This is just like your arguments for the Apollo hoax. You refused to listen then. I see no evidence you have actually learned a single thing from those dicsussions about how to conduct a reasoned debate.
And what video am I supposed to be looking at?
-
So now it's 'any direction' is it?
Earlier on you made a huge fuss of things floating 'up. You even ridiculed me for suggesting that 'up' is a perfectly normal place for things to go in freefall. Now you can't actually defend that view you switch without any kind of acknowledgement to 'any direction' as being suspect.
Make up your mind and stick to it. This is just like your arguments for the Apollo hoax. You refused to listen then. I see no evidence you have actually learned a single thing from those dicsussions about how to conduct a reasoned debate.
And what video am I supposed to be looking at?
Up was relative to the camera. They should not float in ANY direction.
I am conducting a perfectly fine reasoned debate. Anything you have said, I've addressed with logic about how things SHOULD perform in freefall.
Wow, fail on my part!
I forgot to post the video... Sorry bout that. Here it is.
-
I will cite his exact reply when I receive a message from him via email. He is real, as the jpl email I used actually was sent to [EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED].
Did you ask him about his religious beliefs?
No, I did not. Why?
HINT: Which religious organisation is the Epoch Times the propaganda rag for?
-
I am off to the pool now to test something in a neutral buoyancy environment. If possible, I ask nicely that all replies to this thread with regards to NEW challenges against me be saved until I am back and can address them immediately. I shouldn't be more than an hour. That being said, go ahead and respond to anything I have already said and attempt to counter.
Be right back everyone.
-
HINT: Which religious organisation is the Epoch Times the propaganda rag for.
Christianity?
-
Anything you have said, I've addressed with logic about how things SHOULD perform in freefall.
Except, as has already been explained, your ideas about how things 'should' behave in freefall are oversimplified and wrong. You've had physicists and others tell you this, but still you won't get it, will you?
And OK, a few seconds of video hardly makes a convincing rebuttal, since none of thiose astronauts were doing anything at all resembling the kind of thing the guy on Shenzhou 7 was doing.
I still await your pointing to the exact time in the Shenzhou 7 vide where the taikonaut's legs move suspcioously, as requested some time ago.
-
HINT: Which religious organisation is the Epoch Times the propaganda rag for.
Christianity?
Definitely not.
-
It's almost one in the morning, Vincent, so I am going to bed.
-
HINT: Which religious organisation is the Epoch Times the propaganda rag for.
Christianity?
No, try again.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong
-
He doesn't say any good things about the creator of the video. He just talks about the descent.
Why are you lying? He talks about the Gentleman from Georgia that did a good job piecing together certain clips etc. You should watch the video but then comment HONESTLY.
Why are you falsely accusing someone of lying? I've watched the video twice now and I don't hear Armstrong praise the creator of the video. And believe me, I hate to say that since he is a member of this forum.
-
I will cite his exact reply when I receive a message from him via email. He is real, as the jpl email I used actually was sent to _______@________.gov.
Do not post the email addresses of anyone without their permission, Vincent. I'm sure he doesn't want to receive spam or a flood of emails from people asking if he really believes the Chinese are faking their space program. It's his work email, so I'm sure his boss (and the US tax payers) would agree that he's got more important things to accomplish with his time.
-
No, I am citing an email that was sent to Jarrah White via Zheng. Zheng said the walk was faked, not Jarrah.
No, Jarrah says the guy says the spacewalk was faked. You are taking Jarrah's word for it. Now, you have been around long enough to know exactly how far you should trust Jarrah White, I'm sure, and yet you're willing to believe him here because you want to believe him. You should be asking yourself if you think he's worth listening to about spaceflight at all, not just when you already agree with him. Be honest. Would Jarrah lie about it?
-
The academic papers authored under the name Qu Zheng that I have been able find fall into two categories, materials science/chemistry and atmospheric science. The latter category of papers, authored by Zheng Qu or Zheng-Wang Qu, seem to be the work of the author in question. It is also necessary to point out that we still don't know if he does or ever did work for JPL. The existence of an email address at an academic institution does not prove employment nor does being one among several authors of a paper published by the institution. So lets get some perspective on this. An atmospheric scientist is neither an expert on the capabilities of the Chinese space program or nor an expert on videography. Nor does an affiliation with the JPL provide any support for whatever he may say. So assuming he responds, any opinion that he provides that is not backed up by a complete analysis will be of no more value than Vincent's, "it look like therefore it is" contention.
-
Well I'm glad that a bunch of more experienced people telling you it looks nothing like underwater and is not in fact remotely suspect in appearance means absolutely nothing. Glad we didn't waste our time then...
Did you even read and understand our responses?
Yes, I read them, but I believe you are DEFINITELY wrong.
Is there a faint possibility, that you yourself might be wrong?
-
Not at all. I'm saying that his legs floating away from him in any direction is suspicious.
One of the biggest giveaways in Hollywood space flight is that things don't slowly drift off in various arbitrary directions. Instead they tend to wiggle around arbitrarily in a limited space. A good example is the shuttle scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey when Dr. Floyd chats with a crew member while eating. His food tray suddenly rises, wiggling a little left and right at the same time but not rotating. Newton's first law of motion states that objects change momentum only when acted on by external forces. If they're stopped, they stay stopped. If they're moving, they continue to move in the same direction. There was no force to make his tray suddenly start moving upward, nor to make it wiggle from side to side.
The scene may have worked fine when 2001 first came out because we had yet to see people actually weightless in a large cabin. Now that we've all seen decades of real weightlessness from Skylab, Shuttle, Mir and ISS, the 2001 scene looks downright hokey. Even recently faked zero-G scenes just don't look right. In real zero-G it's almost impossible to completely remove all angular and linear velocity from every free-floating object. Everything tends to slowly move in straight lines in different directions at constant speeds. They often have a little angular momentum too, and here the physics gets really complicated and counterintuitive; suffice it to say that the best place to demonstrate the physics is in space.
Going underwater simply won't do. It may be good enough for training to make each object neutrally buoyant as a whole but that won't fool anyone who's seen real zero-G. You'd have to make every part of every object neutrally buoyant so they would not tend to rotate with their lightest sides up. Water has far too much drag. Even pure water is far from completely transparent and colorless. Water's refractive index is higher than air (and vacuum). And on and on.
The only way to do truly convincing zero-G for a sophisticated audience without actually going into space is with parabolic lobs in an airplane, as in Ron Howard's Apollo 13. Even that has many giveaways, mainly the limitation of airplane weightlessness to about 20 seconds at a time. That works in Hollywood where edits are rapid anyway, but not for your typical space TV footage with static shots lasting many minutes.
The bottom line is simple: it remains simply impossible to produce a fake spacewalk scene that can fool modern viewers who understand physics and know what real spacewalks look like. That includes doing it underwater. The Chinese spacewalks are perfectly real.
-
Even pure water is far from completely transparent and colorless. Water's refractive index is higher than air (and vacuum). And on and on.
The most notable feature to those of us that have seen the NASA - Neutral Buoyancy Lab pool at the JSC is the color. It is a deep, beautiful blue. The docents attribute the effect to the color of the overhead lights, but I suspect it is more complicated than just that. Either way, photos and video taken in the NBL pool are noticeable dissimilar to those taken in space. Not that this means that a new effort to fake a video could not be done, but it raises the plausibility hurdle for a claim of underwater fakery by showing a clear example of the extent to which a faked video would need to be changed to become passable. I invite Vincent to tell us what technologies would be required to make the fakery undetectable, provide us a proven example of its use, and show that the Chinese have this technology.
One of the biggest giveaways in Hollywood space flight is that things don't slowly drift off in various arbitrary directions. Instead they tend to wiggle around arbitrarily in a limited space. A good example is the shuttle scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey when Dr. Floyd chats with a crew member while eating. His food tray suddenly rises, wiggling a little left and right at the same time but not rotating....The scene may have worked fine when 2001 first came out because we had yet to see people actually weightless in a large cabin. Now that we've all seen decades of real weightlessness from Skylab, Shuttle, Mir and ISS, the 2001 scene looks downright hokey.
In this connection, I nominate the phrase "Doing the Hokey Pokey" for the Bingo card square referring to a reference to the special effects in 2001.
Everyone join in:
You put the special effect in, you take the special effect out, you put the special effect in and shake it all about...
-
Can I just say? If they really did fake all of this underwater, fool the world, and fool telemetry and satellites in space...
Then these people have accomplished far more than a space walk, because they just achieved the seemingly impossible, and at probably very high cost, too! Certainly more expensive than going into space.
-
And if it isn't, they should be selling their underwater spacewalk technique to Hollywood.
-
They could patent it and make nothing but scifi films better than 2001! Instead of Hollywood or Bollywood, it would have to be Chinese... hmm... Chinawood? That sounds weird.
-
And why? Why would they fake it? They can do it for real. This is China, they've been successfully launching satellites and large rockets for quite a while now, the manned Shenzhou missions alone spanning almost a decade. These things fly a few hundred miles overhead around the entire globe, they have been photographed by amateurs and have certainly been closely monitored by governments. A spacewalk is not outside their capabilities, and a hoax would be incredibly risky. So what possible motivation would they have?
And once again, you have no evidence. There's several parts of the video that are clearly inconsistent with being under water...objects rattling around without drag, the flag flopping forward against its direction of motion, clearly not being pulled through water. Your supposed giveaways are things that someone trying to fake it could easily avoid, and are also entirely consistent with an actual spacewalk. Your complaints about the scene appearing blue tinted when you adjust the color balance to make the dominant source of light in the scene appear more blue show your lack of critical thinking on this subject. You have a video of a freefall environment that is not filled with water...either they launched a studio into orbit to fake the spacewalk in, or they did a spacewalk.
-
Hold on, I'm actually liking this hoax idea. China's trying to corner the market on science fiction movies in Zero G environments! That's just awesome.
-
I have A LOT to reply to here, and I'll get around to all of it in the next day. I have much to do, but I don't want anyone to think I've left.
-
Hold on, I'm actually liking this hoax idea. China's trying to corner the market on science fiction movies in Zero G environments! That's just awesome.
It certainly makes a heck of a lot more sense.
-
I have A LOT to reply to here, and I'll get around to all of it in the next day. I have much to do, but I don't want anyone to think I've left.
Your eloquent, thoughtful and extremely well researched insights into a subject you are clearly an expert in are the high points of my day. Please hurry back Vincent, as I'm not sure how long I can hold my breath for.
P.S. How's your underwater experiments getting on? You've gone awfully quiet on that - I hope it's not due to your complete failure to prove your point.
-
P.S. How's your underwater experiments getting on? You've gone awfully quiet on that - I hope it's not due to your complete failure to prove your point.
I haven't gotten the chance to do ANYTHING underwater in the last few days. I was at Knott's yesterday and I've been very hard at work on building a spacecraft mock up, but I do have news on the Shenzhou 7 front, and now that it's past midnight, I finally have some time to share an update. I will post below...
-
So Dr. Zheng emailed me back at his JPL address.
He does still believe the mission was a hoax. Here is his exact email to me:
Yes, but what I found was that the video was a faked ‘live cast’, there still exists a possibility that they faked the video (for fear of broadcast a failure) while actually did perform the EVA—we don’t know.
I am sure the video was faked because I did orbital analysis with SZ-7 and compared the scene in the ‘live video’ and found many inconsistencies, e.g. the spacecraft was actually flying over a land while the ‘live video’ showed ocean on its camera (pointing backward of its moving direction).
Sorry I don’t have time for now to explain the details, but if you are interested I could later send you my communications with a friend on this. If you happen to be an amateur radio /astronomy fan you could do the orbital analysis yourself. The orbital parameters (TLE) can be downloaded from http://www.space-track.org/ , the catalogue number for SZ-7 is 33386.
-Dr. Qu Zheng.
I got his permission to use his statements in my argument. There. A named expert for you. And I'm willing to bet there are many...many more out there that simply aren't saying anything.
-
A named expert in what, exactly?
-
Uh, even if we accept the source completely and without questioning it, what exactly does any of it demonstrate? That could easily be recorded footage instead of live.
Either way, I took up his offer and went ahead and got an account at Space-Track.
-
there still exists a possibility that they faked the video (for fear of broadcast a failure) while actually did perform the EVA—we don’t know.
Speculation does not equal proof.
I am sure the video was faked
Speculation does not equal proof.
There. A named expert for you. And I'm willing to bet there are many...many more out there that simply aren't saying anything.
An expert in what exactly?
Vincent, how many times must you be told that bits of text do not constitute proof.
Also, your goalposts are moving again: you've gone from having definate proof from an expert and are now on vague reckonings from a person of unknown provenance. Give it up son!
-
So Dr. Zheng emailed me back at his JPL address.
He does still believe the mission was a hoax. Here is his exact email to me:
Yes, but what I found was that the video was a faked ‘live cast’, there still exists a possibility that they faked the video (for fear of broadcast a failure) while actually did perform the EVA—we don’t know.
I am sure the video was faked because I did orbital analysis with SZ-7 and compared the scene in the ‘live video’ and found many inconsistencies, e.g. the spacecraft was actually flying over a land while the ‘live video’ showed ocean on its camera (pointing backward of its moving direction).
Sorry I don’t have time for now to explain the details, but if you are interested I could later send you my communications with a friend on this. If you happen to be an amateur radio /astronomy fan you could do the orbital analysis yourself. The orbital parameters (TLE) can be downloaded from http://www.space-track.org/ , the catalogue number for SZ-7 is 33386.
-Dr. Qu Zheng.
I got his permission to use his statements in my argument. There. A named expert for you. And I'm willing to bet there are many...many more out there that simply aren't saying anything.
It is astonishing that after so long as an Apollo hoax believer, you ceased believing in the hoax, and became convinced of the reality of Apollo.
Yet here you are, applying all the same dud arguments to Shenzou.
This will not end well for you.
-
A named expert in what, exactly?
Nothing related to spacefilght, but hey, when did that stop anyone making wild claims ever?
-
Vincent, could you ask your new friend if:
1 Dr. Qu Zheng representative of The Epoch Times http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=1361651996&targetid=profile (http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=1361651996&targetid=profile)
2. Qu Zheng, Epoch Times columnist http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/8-1-12/63966.html (http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/8-1-12/63966.html)
3. Qu Zheng, Speaker on behalf of Alliance for the Global Quitting the Chinese Communist Party http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-7-7/30373.html (http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-7-7/30373.html)
4.Dr. Qu Zheng, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/shenzhou-vii-fake-spacewalk-5809.html)
5. Zheng Qu, A research scientist at CalTech http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/united-states/parade-in-nyc-explains-falun-gong-17833.html (http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/united-states/parade-in-nyc-explains-falun-gong-17833.html)
Are all the same person?
I found the Chinese versions of the articles for 2 & 4, and they both use the same Chinese characters '曲錚', but maybe it's just a common name.
-
So Dr. Zheng emailed me back at his JPL address.
He does still believe the mission was a hoax. Here is his exact email to me:
Yes, but what I found was that the video was a faked ‘live cast’, there still exists a possibility that they faked the video (for fear of broadcast a failure) while actually did perform the EVA—we don’t know.
I am sure the video was faked because I did orbital analysis with SZ-7 and compared the scene in the ‘live video’ and found many inconsistencies, e.g. the spacecraft was actually flying over a land while the ‘live video’ showed ocean on its camera (pointing backward of its moving direction).
Sorry I don’t have time for now to explain the details, but if you are interested I could later send you my communications with a friend on this. If you happen to be an amateur radio /astronomy fan you could do the orbital analysis yourself. The orbital parameters (TLE) can be downloaded from http://www.space-track.org/ , the catalogue number for SZ-7 is 33386.
-Dr. Qu Zheng.
I got his permission to use his statements in my argument. There. A named expert for you. And I'm willing to bet there are many...many more out there that simply aren't saying anything.
So essentially, your"expert" failed to support several of your statements.
I'm really convinced Shenzhou 7 was not real.
Not supported, you expert says that "perhaps they actually did perform the EVA—we don’t know."
Speeding the footage up would cause everything to look like it was not underwater.
Your contention that it was or might have been shot under water then manipulated to make it appear to be in space was refuted by your expert who believes the video was "a faked ‘live cast.’ "
Finally, you have only established your expert as an "expert" by the fact he has a JPL email address. Hardly convincing. I have, at various times, had university email addresses, none of which, nor the education received at the schools, make me an expert on anything.
Your "expert" doesn't leave you with much to work with.
-
He does still believe the mission was a hoax. Here is his exact email to me:
Bollocks. He said he thinks the video was faked, NOT the mission.
And how in heck is he an "expert"? He does not appear to have any qualifications in space flight at all, his area of expertise is somewhere completely different.
-
Why do I care what a Dr. Zheng thinks? Are all your arguments made by appealing to authorities you select according to whether they tell you what you want to hear?
-
Bollocks
Thank you for saying what everyone else was only thinking ;D
-
Why do I care what a Dr. Zheng thinks? Are all your arguments made by appealing to authorities you select according to whether they tell you what you want to hear?
Good point. There are many, many experts saying that the video was real but you have chosen to ignore them and focus on one person who isn't an expert at all.
Going by qualifications, I am more of an expert on this than Dr Zheng, but you dismiss me. Why is that?
Bollocks
Thank you for saying what everyone else was only thinking ;D
:)
-
6. Mr Qu Zheng, an engineer for JPL 2006
http://en.minghui.org/emh/articles/2006/5/5/72853.html#.T-w0cZEtnyQ
(http://en.minghui.org/emh/article_images/2006-5-3-la-jzy-02.jpg)
7. "Epoch Times" Los Angeles bureau spokesman, Dr. Qu Zheng 2011
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.epochtimes.com%2Fgb%2F11%2F3%2F7%2Fn3189845.htm&act=url
(http://www.epochtimes.com/i6/1103062208271996_1.jpg)
Looks like the same guy to me.
-
Just in case you still don't get it, Vincent, the fact that he 'works for JPL' does not make him an expert. I worked for Pfizer, but I know next to nothing about Viagra.
-
I haven't gotten the chance to do ANYTHING underwater in the last few days.
Why not?
What happened after you posted this:
I am off to the pool now to test something in a neutral buoyancy environment.
...
Be right back everyone.
?
Let me guess, you didn't manage to get the flag to move underwater the way you said it would, in fact it behaved exactly as other posters here predicted... and you don't want to admit it.
Vincent, if you've realised you were wrong, it's okay. Just say so.
-
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxjlw4AnIX1rn1xxfo1_250.gif)
Don't mind me, I'm just waiting for Vincent.
-
Just in case you still don't get it, Vincent, the fact that he 'works for JPL' does not make him an expert. I worked for Pfizer, but I know next to nothing about Viagra.
As it happens, one of my best friends works for JPL. They're paying for her to get her MBA, in fact, and I know more about spaceflight than she does. When I was a kid, JPL adopted my junior high. (The Adopt-a-School program of the Pasadena Unified School District.) I went caroling through their complex with my choir in seventh grade; I still have the Christmas tree ornament I got from that. I've also done the open house several times. (If you live in the area, it's worth going; I believe it's every May.) There are a lot of people who work there who are not qualified to judge the validity of a video of a spacewalk.
-
Lines like these totally destroy this guy's credibility:
Yes, but what I found was that the video was a faked ‘live cast’, there still exists a possibility that they faked the video (for fear of broadcast a failure) while actually did perform the EVA—we don’t know.
The only meaningful words here are we don't know. I.e., he doesn't know, so he lets his imagination run wild. It's the usual conspiracist supposition based on nothing more than "well, I suppose this or that could have happened".
-
I am sure the video was faked because I did orbital analysis with SZ-7 and compared the scene in the ‘live video’ and found many inconsistencies, e.g. the spacecraft was actually flying over a land while the ‘live video’ showed ocean on its camera (pointing backward of its moving direction).
Sorry I don’t have time for now to explain the details, but if you are interested I could later send you my communications with a friend on this. If you happen to be an amateur radio /astronomy fan you could do the orbital analysis yourself. The orbital parameters (TLE) can be downloaded from http://www.space-track.org/ , the catalogue number for SZ-7 is 33386.
Wait -- he's basing his entire conclusion on the the fact that the ground appearing in the video didn't match where he thought the spacecraft should be at the time?? I happen to know a fair bit about satellite tracking, having written software from scratch to do it, so I can authoritatively say that this is just plain silly.
Which of these possibilities seem more likely?
1. The orbital elements were off. Manned spacecraft in low earth orbit are notorious for the very short lifetimes of their published orbital element sets. Manned spacecraft frequently maneuver, and they're usually in such low orbits that atmospheric drag is both significant and unpredictable, as it depends on solar activity and the orientation of the spacecraft. A small amount of unmodeled drag will integrate quickly (often over less than a day) to significant along-track position errors.
So the NORAD elesets are often out of date by the time a civilian gets them from official sources. Sometimes they're out of date even when NORAD gets them, as it depends on their source: recent NORAD tracking or simply passed on from the spacecraft operator. (I have personally generated an element set for a satellite, given it to NORAD, and seen it appear later in their published elesets).
2. The spacewalk broadcast wasn't actually 'live' - the Chinese (or some news agency) recorded the EVA and played it later. Many recordings are made of broadcasts with the word LIVE on the screen, and obviously that word does not apply when the recordings are played back.
3. Zheng was confused about his geography and where the camera was actually pointing.
4. The Chinese faked the whole thing, doing such an outstanding job on the special effects that nearly every western space engineer (except for Zheng) is still completely fooled.
-
So, some questions, Vincent:
I did orbital analysis with SZ-7 and compared the scene in the ‘live video’ and found many inconsistencies, e.g. the spacecraft was actually flying over a land while the ‘live video’ showed ocean on its camera (pointing backward of its moving direction).
Which way was the camera pointing?
What portion of the Earth could you expect the camera to be able to see? Does it, for example, only see the land or ocean directly below the spacecraft?
What positional error would be required compared to the published parameters for the spacecraft to be over ocean instead of land?
Is such an error within the normal range when comparing published and actual positions of orbital spacecraft?
And finally:
When are you going to take those ten minutes you promised to point out the time reference in the original video you posted I asked you for some time ago? The one where we see the taikonaut's legs float up of their own accord.
-
Vincent, please consider this a formal request, if you wish to 'use' this alleged expert as an authority.
Qu Zheng stated, according to you:
I did orbital analysis with SZ-7 and compared the scene in the ‘live video’ and found many inconsistencies
Post that orbital analysis. In full.
And to Qu Zheng, if you are watching this unfold, why don't *you* do that? I'll happily admit I'm no orbital-mechanics whiz, but I do know what a decent analysis will look like and how to verify the approach that was taken. And given we have a goodly number of folks here who DO know all about the topic, here's Qu Zheng's chance for an informal 'peer review' - if I had come up with a theory like this I would be most eager to bounce it off experts...
May I place a bet? I bet that the excuses will come thick and fast, but no analysis will appear.
Even a cursory look at some of the posts on this thread should make an 'analytical pretender' realise what a complete mess he has made of this one...
Prove me wrong, Vincent/Qu.
-
Yes. Please post that orbital analysis. I want to see:
1. Every available TLE (three line element) set for the SZ-7 spacecraft with epoch dates +/- 1 day of the spacewalk.
The numbers in an element set define an orbit and the position and velocity of the spacecraft within that orbit at the epoch time. A tracking program can then determine position and velocity at other times, but accuracy degrades the farther you go from the epoch in either direction. The predictions are also invalid if an orbital maneuver was made between the epoch and time of prediction.
I want to see how closely the predicted positions match for the different element sets. This will tell me how quickly the orbit was being perturbed by maneuvers and unmodeled drag, and from that I can estimate the accuracy of the predicted position using the 'best' element set, i.e., the one with the epoch closest to the time of the spacewalk.
If all the element sets +/-1 day give nearly identical positions during the EVA, then I can feel pretty confident about their accuracy. But if element sets with epochs just a few hours apart give radically different positions, then all of them are suspect.
I will also be able to detect any gross errors in the element sets, e.g., if one gives an entirely different orbit than the others.
2. The universal times of EVA start and finish. These are given in the Wikipedia article as follows; is there any dispute about them?
Zhai leaves airlock: 0843 UTC 27 Sept 2008
Zhai returns to orbital module: 0900 UTC
3. The video of the spacewalk with the earth geography below (if any) identified.
-
I've never been able to understand WHY they would have to fake it. They can get to orbit right? They can buy spacesuits right? They know how to dress themselves right? They are capable of opening doors right? What is supposed to be so hard about a spacewalk then?
-
To summarize, Vincent, what we have here is a non-expert who has given a tentative opinion that he claims is based on an analysis that he hasn't provided. Your other source is a unnamed person who has made no public statement and whose only qualification you have provided is the ability to use Google software to animate the landing of Apollo 11. That you have asserted you claim of a hoax on something so flimsy puts you in the camp of the hoax believers. In other words, you have a politically driven reason to want the spacewalk to be a hoax and just grasp at whatever is available that superficially appears to affirm your beliefs. That simply doesn't cut it.
-
Add to the fact the Chinese are using space ship and space suit technology influenced by directly by Russian technology, which has a proven pedigree that spans decades.
Also, no one doubts the Russian achievements, not a single one. All the Chinese are doing is replicating things that the Russians have done, using technology derived from the Russians.
What do you think about that Vincent?
-
Also, no one doubts the Russian achievements, not a single one. All the Chinese are doing is replicating things that the Russians have done, using technology derived from the Russians.
Not quite true, Hunchbacked thinks that Yuri Gagarin's flight was faked.
-
Not quite true, Hunchbacked thinks that Yuri Gagarin's flight was faked.
Goes without saying, really.
-
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxjlw4AnIX1rn1xxfo1_250.gif)
Don't mind me, I'm just waiting for Vincent.
OT, but that is a rather unnerving gif. It's scarier than the rest of the video.
-
Vincent
These are my questions for you:
1. Did you or did you not go to the pool, after declaring you were "just off" there?
1a. If you did, what did you find?
2. Why do you choose to believe a single non-expert over many experts in this matter?
3. Why did you declare that your "expert" claimed the mission was fake, when the email you allegedly received from him does not say that?
Lastly and perhaps most importantly:
4. I note you make the same arguments in the same way as Turbonium in this thread: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=136948&st=195
Do you have a connection to Turbonium, and if so, what is it?
-
My spider sense tells me Vincent won't participate any further in this thread, which is a shame.
-
Do you have a connection to Turbonium, and if so, what is it?[/b]
Great minds think alike?
;D
-
Crickets chirp...
...
-
Maybe the Chinese got him, what with him revealing the truth about their plans.
-
I am sure the video was faked because I did orbital analysis with SZ-7 and compared the scene in the ‘live video’ and found many inconsistencies, e.g. the spacecraft was actually flying over a land while the ‘live video’ showed ocean on its camera (pointing backward of its moving direction).
Sorry I don’t have time for now to explain the details, but if you are interested I could later send you my communications with a friend on this. If you happen to be an amateur radio /astronomy fan you could do the orbital analysis yourself. The orbital parameters (TLE) can be downloaded from http://www.space-track.org/ , the catalogue number for SZ-7 is 33386.
Wait -- he's basing his entire conclusion on the the fact that the ground appearing in the video didn't match where he thought the spacecraft should be at the time?? I happen to know a fair bit about satellite tracking, having written software from scratch to do it, so I can authoritatively say that this is just plain silly.
Which of these possibilities seem more likely?
1. The orbital elements were off. Manned spacecraft in low earth orbit are notorious for the very short lifetimes of their published orbital element sets. Manned spacecraft frequently maneuver, and they're usually in such low orbits that atmospheric drag is both significant and unpredictable, as it depends on solar activity and the orientation of the spacecraft. A small amount of unmodeled drag will integrate quickly (often over less than a day) to significant along-track position errors.
So the NORAD elesets are often out of date by the time a civilian gets them from official sources. Sometimes they're out of date even when NORAD gets them, as it depends on their source: recent NORAD tracking or simply passed on from the spacecraft operator. (I have personally generated an element set for a satellite, given it to NORAD, and seen it appear later in their published elesets).
2. The spacewalk broadcast wasn't actually 'live' - the Chinese (or some news agency) recorded the EVA and played it later. Many recordings are made of broadcasts with the word LIVE on the screen, and obviously that word does not apply when the recordings are played back.
3. Zheng was confused about his geography and where the camera was actually pointing.
4. The Chinese faked the whole thing, doing such an outstanding job on the special effects that nearly every western space engineer (except for Zheng) is still completely fooled.
This is basically all that needs to be asked at this point.
-
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxjlw4AnIX1rn1xxfo1_250.gif)
Don't mind me, I'm just waiting for Vincent.
(http://i.imgur.com/ZZl1e.gif)
-
I'm back everyone! I completely forgot about this website! I've been busy playing Orbiter and working on my capsule and I do have one announcement to make regarding Shenzhou 5.
I went through some footage and found that there is video of the astronaut in Shenzhou five in his cabin in zero-g for over two minutes at a time.
Scratch one hoax theory. I still have to get a miniature flag so I can do the underwater experiment. I'm fresh out of money.
-
Vincent
These are my questions for you:
1. Did you or did you not go to the pool, after declaring you were "just off" there?
1a. If you did, what did you find?
I did not. When I got there, there was a bunch of people there and the water hadn't even been cleaned... It was literally green. Needless to say, I turned RIGHT around.
2. Why do you choose to believe a single non-expert over many experts in this matter?
No. I simply used him as evidence that some experts do doubt this mission.
3. Why did you declare that your "expert" claimed the mission was fake, when the email you allegedly received from him does not say that?
Because his original interview had him state the mission was faked. His email expresses severe doubt.
Lastly and perhaps most importantly:
4. I note you make the same arguments in the same way as Turbonium in this thread: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=136948&st=195
Do you have a connection to Turbonium, and if so, what is it?
I have nothing in connection with Turbonium. I have only ever been on Unexplained Mysteries once and I never registered. There was a thread on which I was lurking. I think it was about Hitler surviving WWII or something. (I don't believe that...)
I register on ALL forums with the name "VincentMcConnell."
You can verify this by going to the Orbiter-Forum, the KerbalSpaceProgram forum and, of course, this forum. I see no reason to hide behind a username and using my real name allows people to contact me easier.
-
Let me guess, you didn't manage to get the flag to move underwater the way you said it would, in fact it behaved exactly as other posters here predicted... and you don't want to admit it.
Vincent, if you've realised you were wrong, it's okay. Just say so.
No. I didn't get a chance to try it. I will gladly admit I was wrong if the flag does not move underwater. Afterall, I now believe Shenzhou 5 flew in space and I have video to prove it. If I can't get the flag to move within three tries, I'll make a thread right on the General Discussion Board called "Flag Does Not Move Underwater: Shenzhou 7 Validated!"
-
Is there a faint possibility, that you yourself might be wrong?
There is a huge possibility.
Until I can get the experiment done, I shouldn't even say Shenzhou 7 was faked. I should say I'm on the fence until I can perform an experiment to prove or discredit my claims of fakery on China's part.
-
Hello, Everyone. My replies have been very seldom for quite a few reasons.
1.) I forgot about this website for a few days.
2.) I have been building a spacecraft mockup for simulated space missions.
3.) I've been playing too much Orbiter...
On to my point now. After remembering I still have an experiment to perform, I will continue forth with the following attitude: I do not know Shenzhou 7 was faked. But I don't know it was real. Science dictates I MUST complete an experiment to either prove or discredit my claims of fakery. I am very close to actually filling up the bath tub right now and trying to wave a flag in it, but I'm not sure it will be deep enough.
If I do this and receive results that Chinese Men walked in space, I will create a thread on the GD board. I will not hide my results or my beliefs. I admitted I was wrong about Apollo and that was a WAY bigger part of my life than Shenzhou.
I will return very shortly with results.
-
Let me guess, you didn't manage to get the flag to move underwater the way you said it would, in fact it behaved exactly as other posters here predicted... and you don't want to admit it.
Vincent, if you've realised you were wrong, it's okay. Just say so.
No. I didn't get a chance to try it. I will gladly admit I was wrong if the flag does not move underwater. Afterall, I now believe Shenzhou 5 flew in space and I have video to prove it. If I can't get the flag to move within three tries, I'll make a thread right on the General Discussion Board called "Flag Does Not Move Underwater: Shenzhou 7 Validated!"
I think you might want to re-examine that premise. We have not said that the flag would not move underwater. You will of course get the flag to move in the water. The point is that it won't move with the same degree of freedom as the one in the video. It's not a simple case of getting the flag to move, but getting it to accurately reproduce what is seen in the video.
-
Let me guess, you didn't manage to get the flag to move underwater the way you said it would, in fact it behaved exactly as other posters here predicted... and you don't want to admit it.
Vincent, if you've realised you were wrong, it's okay. Just say so.
No. I didn't get a chance to try it. I will gladly admit I was wrong if the flag does not move underwater. Afterall, I now believe Shenzhou 5 flew in space and I have video to prove it. If I can't get the flag to move within three tries, I'll make a thread right on the General Discussion Board called "Flag Does Not Move Underwater: Shenzhou 7 Validated!"
I think you might want to re-examine that premise. We have not said that the flag would not move underwater. You will of course get the flag to move in the water. The point is that it won't move with the same degree of freedom as the one in the video. It's not a simple case of getting the flag to move, but getting it to accurately reproduce what is seen in the video.
Assuming the space walk was faked and for Vincent's "experiment" to have any validity whatsoever he will need to replicate the physical conditions of the "fake" space walk, e.g. material properties of the flag, depth and temperature of the water, the chemicals present in the water. I have already pointed this out to Vincent, but he disagrees.
-
Vincent there are multiple questions you haven't answered, so I have reproduced them below in a list so you can quickly answer them:
So, some questions, Vincent:
I did orbital analysis with SZ-7 and compared the scene in the ‘live video’ and found many inconsistencies, e.g. the spacecraft was actually flying over a land while the ‘live video’ showed ocean on its camera (pointing backward of its moving direction).
Which way was the camera pointing?
What portion of the Earth could you expect the camera to be able to see? Does it, for example, only see the land or ocean directly below the spacecraft?
What positional error would be required compared to the published parameters for the spacecraft to be over ocean instead of land?
Is such an error within the normal range when comparing published and actual positions of orbital spacecraft?
And finally:
When are you going to take those ten minutes you promised to point out the time reference in the original video you posted I asked you for some time ago? The one where we see the taikonaut's legs float up of their own accord.
Vincent, please consider this a formal request, if you wish to 'use' this alleged expert as an authority.
Qu Zheng stated, according to you:
I did orbital analysis with SZ-7 and compared the scene in the ‘live video’ and found many inconsistencies
Post that orbital analysis. In full.
And to Qu Zheng, if you are watching this unfold, why don't *you* do that? I'll happily admit I'm no orbital-mechanics whiz, but I do know what a decent analysis will look like and how to verify the approach that was taken. And given we have a goodly number of folks here who DO know all about the topic, here's Qu Zheng's chance for an informal 'peer review' - if I had come up with a theory like this I would be most eager to bounce it off experts...
May I place a bet? I bet that the excuses will come thick and fast, but no analysis will appear.
Even a cursory look at some of the posts on this thread should make an 'analytical pretender' realise what a complete mess he has made of this one...
Prove me wrong, Vincent/Qu.
Yes. Please post that orbital analysis. I want to see:
1. Every available TLE (three line element) set for the SZ-7 spacecraft with epoch dates +/- 1 day of the spacewalk.
The numbers in an element set define an orbit and the position and velocity of the spacecraft within that orbit at the epoch time. A tracking program can then determine position and velocity at other times, but accuracy degrades the farther you go from the epoch in either direction. The predictions are also invalid if an orbital maneuver was made between the epoch and time of prediction.
I want to see how closely the predicted positions match for the different element sets. This will tell me how quickly the orbit was being perturbed by maneuvers and unmodeled drag, and from that I can estimate the accuracy of the predicted position using the 'best' element set, i.e., the one with the epoch closest to the time of the spacewalk.
If all the element sets +/-1 day give nearly identical positions during the EVA, then I can feel pretty confident about their accuracy. But if element sets with epochs just a few hours apart give radically different positions, then all of them are suspect.
I will also be able to detect any gross errors in the element sets, e.g., if one gives an entirely different orbit than the others.
2. The universal times of EVA start and finish. These are given in the Wikipedia article as follows; is there any dispute about them?
Zhai leaves airlock: 0843 UTC 27 Sept 2008
Zhai returns to orbital module: 0900 UTC
3. The video of the spacewalk with the earth geography below (if any) identified.
Add to the fact the Chinese are using space ship and space suit technology influenced by directly by Russian technology, which has a proven pedigree that spans decades.
Also, no one doubts the Russian achievements, not a single one. All the Chinese are doing is replicating things that the Russians have done, using technology derived from the Russians.
What do you think about that Vincent?
I am sure the video was faked because I did orbital analysis with SZ-7 and compared the scene in the ‘live video’ and found many inconsistencies, e.g. the spacecraft was actually flying over a land while the ‘live video’ showed ocean on its camera (pointing backward of its moving direction).
Sorry I don’t have time for now to explain the details, but if you are interested I could later send you my communications with a friend on this. If you happen to be an amateur radio /astronomy fan you could do the orbital analysis yourself. The orbital parameters (TLE) can be downloaded from http://www.space-track.org/ , the catalogue number for SZ-7 is 33386.
Wait -- he's basing his entire conclusion on the the fact that the ground appearing in the video didn't match where he thought the spacecraft should be at the time?? I happen to know a fair bit about satellite tracking, having written software from scratch to do it, so I can authoritatively say that this is just plain silly.
Which of these possibilities seem more likely?
1. The orbital elements were off. Manned spacecraft in low earth orbit are notorious for the very short lifetimes of their published orbital element sets. Manned spacecraft frequently maneuver, and they're usually in such low orbits that atmospheric drag is both significant and unpredictable, as it depends on solar activity and the orientation of the spacecraft. A small amount of unmodeled drag will integrate quickly (often over less than a day) to significant along-track position errors.
So the NORAD elesets are often out of date by the time a civilian gets them from official sources. Sometimes they're out of date even when NORAD gets them, as it depends on their source: recent NORAD tracking or simply passed on from the spacecraft operator. (I have personally generated an element set for a satellite, given it to NORAD, and seen it appear later in their published elesets).
2. The spacewalk broadcast wasn't actually 'live' - the Chinese (or some news agency) recorded the EVA and played it later. Many recordings are made of broadcasts with the word LIVE on the screen, and obviously that word does not apply when the recordings are played back.
3. Zheng was confused about his geography and where the camera was actually pointing.
4. The Chinese faked the whole thing, doing such an outstanding job on the special effects that nearly every western space engineer (except for Zheng) is still completely fooled.
Please answer them all in full, addressing each point and show your calculations whenever appropriate.
Please don't start handwaving, evading the questions etc
-
I'll get to it right now.
-
I did orbital analysis with SZ-7 and compared the scene in the ‘live video’ and found many inconsistencies, e.g. the spacecraft was actually flying over a land while the ‘live video’ showed ocean on its camera (pointing backward of its moving direction).
Which way was the camera pointing?
I don't know. That was Dr. Zheng's statement... Not mine.
What portion of the Earth could you expect the camera to be able to see? Does it, for example, only see the land or ocean directly below the spacecraft?
What positional error would be required compared to the published parameters for the spacecraft to be over ocean instead of land?
Is such an error within the normal range when comparing published and actual positions of orbital spacecraft?
Again, these were not my statements. I was simply quoting Dr. Zheng. You'll have to ask him if you have any questions regarding his stance.
And finally:
When are you going to take those ten minutes you promised to point out the time reference in the original video you posted I asked you for some time ago? The one where we see the taikonaut's legs float up of their own accord.
As soon as I'm done replying to all of these questions. I've been EXTREMELY busy these past few days and Shenzhou hadn't even crossed my mind until tonight really.
Qu Zheng stated, according to you...
I did orbital analysis with SZ-7 and compared the scene in the ‘live video’ and found many inconsistencies
Post that orbital analysis. In full.
The analysis was Dr. Zheng's not mine. You can email him if you'd like. His email is public domain through a JPL address. If you don't believe he truly sent me the email I claim he did, feel free to ask him. I will PM his email address to you if you want. I will ask him before I do so.
And to Qu Zheng, if you are watching this unfold, why don't *you* do that? I'll happily admit I'm no orbital-mechanics whiz, but I do know what a decent analysis will look like and how to verify the approach that was taken. And given we have a goodly number of folks here who DO know all about the topic, here's Qu Zheng's chance for an informal 'peer review' - if I had come up with a theory like this I would be most eager to bounce it off experts...
May I place a bet? I bet that the excuses will come thick and fast, but no analysis will appear.
Even a cursory look at some of the posts on this thread should make an 'analytical pretender' realise what a complete mess he has made of this one...
Orbital Mechanics aren't that complicated. If there was anything wrong with his analysis, we'd all notice. I have seen no analysis from him and I cannot provide one as those were his statements. If you wish to see one, feel free to ask him.
Yes. Please post that orbital analysis. I want to see:
1. Every available TLE (three line element) set for the SZ-7 spacecraft with epoch dates +/- 1 day of the spacewalk.
The numbers in an element set define an orbit and the position and velocity of the spacecraft within that orbit at the epoch time. A tracking program can then determine position and velocity at other times, but accuracy degrades the farther you go from the epoch in either direction. The predictions are also invalid if an orbital maneuver was made between the epoch and time of prediction.
I want to see how closely the predicted positions match for the different element sets. This will tell me how quickly the orbit was being perturbed by maneuvers and unmodeled drag, and from that I can estimate the accuracy of the predicted position using the 'best' element set, i.e., the one with the epoch closest to the time of the spacewalk.
If all the element sets +/-1 day give nearly identical positions during the EVA, then I can feel pretty confident about their accuracy. But if element sets with epochs just a few hours apart give radically different positions, then all of them are suspect.
I will also be able to detect any gross errors in the element sets, e.g., if one gives an entirely different orbit than the others.
2. The universal times of EVA start and finish. These are given in the Wikipedia article as follows; is there any dispute about them?
Zhai leaves airlock: 0843 UTC 27 Sept 2008
Zhai returns to orbital module: 0900 UTC
3. The video of the spacewalk with the earth geography below (if any) identified.
Dr. Zheng's email is readily available to anyone. Ask him any questions you have about his analysis. I simply quoted the statement he left me.
Also, no one doubts the Russian achievements, not a single one.
There are plenty of people who doubt the Russian space achievements of the early sixties. If you mean experts, I haven't done much research into that and couldn't tell you.[/quote]
What do you think about that Vincent?
I think I feel totally indifferent. What's your point?
I am sure the video was faked because I did orbital analysis with SZ-7 and compared the scene in the ‘live video’ and found many inconsistencies, e.g. the spacecraft was actually flying over a land while the ‘live video’ showed ocean on its camera (pointing backward of its moving direction).
Sorry I don’t have time for now to explain the details, but if you are interested I could later send you my communications with a friend on this. If you happen to be an amateur radio /astronomy fan you could do the orbital analysis yourself. The orbital parameters (TLE) can be downloaded from http://www.space-track.org/ , the catalogue number for SZ-7 is 33386.
Wait -- he's basing his entire conclusion on the the fact that the ground appearing in the video didn't match where he thought the spacecraft should be at the time?? I happen to know a fair bit about satellite tracking, having written software from scratch to do it, so I can authoritatively say that this is just plain silly.
Which of these possibilities seem more likely?
1. The orbital elements were off. Manned spacecraft in low earth orbit are notorious for the very short lifetimes of their published orbital element sets. Manned spacecraft frequently maneuver, and they're usually in such low orbits that atmospheric drag is both significant and unpredictable, as it depends on solar activity and the orientation of the spacecraft. A small amount of unmodeled drag will integrate quickly (often over less than a day) to significant along-track position errors.
So the NORAD elesets are often out of date by the time a civilian gets them from official sources. Sometimes they're out of date even when NORAD gets them, as it depends on their source: recent NORAD tracking or simply passed on from the spacecraft operator. (I have personally generated an element set for a satellite, given it to NORAD, and seen it appear later in their published elesets).
2. The spacewalk broadcast wasn't actually 'live' - the Chinese (or some news agency) recorded the EVA and played it later. Many recordings are made of broadcasts with the word LIVE on the screen, and obviously that word does not apply when the recordings are played back.
3. Zheng was confused about his geography and where the camera was actually pointing.
4. The Chinese faked the whole thing, doing such an outstanding job on the special effects that nearly every western space engineer (except for Zheng) is still completely fooled.
Every single point and question here is a good question for Dr. Zheng himself. All I did was quote the statement he gave me to show what he thought about the spacewalk. If you have any questions about his analysis, since I am not Dr. Zheng, I cannot answer those questions. You will have to run those by him yourself.
Please answer them all in full, addressing each point and show your calculations whenever appropriate.
Please don't start handwaving, evading the questions etc
I'll gladly address the claims I made. But I simply can't answer for Dr. Zheng, as I am not Dr. Zheng.
-
Assuming the space walk was faked and for Vincent's "experiment" to have any validity whatsoever he will need to replicate the physical conditions of the "fake" space walk, e.g. material properties of the flag, depth and temperature of the water, the chemicals present in the water. I have already pointed this out to Vincent, but he disagrees.
How am I to know what they used for the water and the possible water tank in which it may have been filmed? The conspiracy theory simply states that it was filmed underwater.
-
I don't know. That was Dr. Zheng's statement... Not mine.
And there's the problem. You have taken his statement without doing any kind of verification of it and simply posted that because you agree with him. You haven't even checked to see if he has any valid points, what his area of expertise is, whether he might have some political bias for his statements, or anything, or asked the questions of him that we have been asking of you. All you have done is grab the nearest named 'expert' who agrees with you and gone: 'see, he agrees and he works for JPL, so there must be something in it!'
-
Also, no one doubts the Russian achievements, not a single one.
There are plenty of people who doubt the Russian space achievements of the early sixties. If you mean experts, I haven't done much research into that and couldn't tell you.
What do you think about that Vincent?
I think I feel totally indifferent. What's your point?
[/quote]
Once again you are selective in response to questions.
I am not asking what other people think about the Russian space achievements. I am asking you.
Add to the fact the Chinese are using space ship and space suit technology influenced by directly by Russian technology, which has a proven pedigree that spans decades.
Also, no one doubts the Russian achievements, not a single one. All the Chinese are doing is replicating things that the Russians have done, using technology derived from the Russians.
What do you think about that Vincent?
In case you found the above question difficult, let me say it again:
The Chinese carried out their space walk using technology derived from proven Russian technology that has accomplished identical tasks to the chinese decades before. Simply put, the technology used by the Chinese is undoubtably capable of performing a space walk. Do you doubt this is the case? If yes, tell us why using your own words, not relying on vague handwaving, references to so called"experts" (who you still have failed to identify, BTW) etc.
In short, no bullshit please.
-
Orbital Mechanics aren't that complicated. If there was anything wrong with his analysis, we'd all notice.
I did notice.
-
2. Why do you choose to believe a single non-expert over many experts in this matter?
No. I simply used him as evidence that some experts do doubt this mission.
So you took the opinion of ONE NON-EXPERT and somehow turned it into SOME EXPERTS? Seriously?
Well, I'm an expert and so are several others here. We say it was real - why do you accept Dr Zheng's opinion and reject ours.
FTR I also contacted Dr Zheng to clear this matter up. He has not responded.
-
Well, to be fair, Emma, he'll have today off work. I mean, there are probably some security guys and janitors working, and presumably anyone tracking an active mission, but most of that campus is empty today.
-
Well, to be fair, Emma, he'll have today off work. I mean, there are probably some security guys and janitors working, and presumably anyone tracking an active mission, but most of that campus is empty today.
I emailed him on 29th June.
-
As in "why was it impossible for China"? Like I said, I really don't know, and since I don't, I won't claim to. I plan to take an intellectually honest approach to this. That's how science works. It's my personal hypothesis that maybe they didn't have man-rated spacecraft that had sufficient life support to keep a man alive or they weren't confident with putting a man in orbit. But that's only an educated guess and because of China's secrecy, it's hard to find evidence to back that. The closest thing I can do is try to show that the missions themselves were faked based on the videos and photos provided.
You fail, son.
-
I emailed him on 29th June.
That, I can't excuse. It is distinctly possible that he never expected anyone to care what he thought about the spacewalk. He might be wanting people to leave him alone on the subject. But if that's the case, he never should have made a statement about it in the first place.
-
FTR I also contacted Dr Zheng to clear this matter up. He has not responded.
I'd be surprised if he does. If he has any PR skills at all he will stay focused on his FUD politics and as far away as he can from actually committing anything to writing about such a peripheral issue. Once the possibility of fakery is raised, detailed discussion will only undermine the doubt.
-
FTR I also contacted Dr Zheng to clear this matter up. He has not responded.
I'd be surprised if he does. If he has any PR skills at all he will stay focused on his FUD politics and as far away as he can from actually committing anything to writing about such a peripheral issue. Once the possibility of fakery is raised, detailed discussion will only undermine the doubt.
So why did he reply to Vincent?
FTR, I got Jason to check over my email and it was very diplomatic. I simply stated that I had read his comments online and wished to check if the article was accurate and if Dr Zheng believed the video alone was faked or the whole mission.
-
UPDATE
How interesting, that around the same time I posted here last night saying I hadn't received a reply, Dr Zheng emailed me! (I just this minute checked my inbox). I assume he is either watching the board or someone else has contacted him about my posts. Hi Dr Zheng! (http://yoursmiles.org/csmile/preved/c0103.gif) (http://yoursmiles.org/c-preved.php)
His reply is as follows:
From the video itself, with orbital data (tracked by U.S.) I am sure the video was faked—at least not a live one.
Video plus other pieces of evidence, I doubt the spacewalk ever happened.
The spacecraft, its launch, and its return was real.
-Zheng
If I am breaking forum rules by posting this email, please remove it. However, given that these are the same statements Dr Zheng made to the "newspaper" (snerk) and to Vincent and gave Vincent permission to post them I decided to copy the email in its entirety for the purposes of transparency.
I have not decided whether or not to follow up this email with questions about the other evidence, which I am interested to hear his take on. Thoughts, anyone?
-
FTR - Dr Zheng's email also says "affiliate", which I take to mean that he is associated with JPL but is not an employee. Vincent didn't mention that!
-
So, of Vincent's "some experts", we have one non-expert that at least thinks that the video wasn't live after all, at most thinks that the space walk never happened...
Even though the Chinese do have the technology to go into space.
Even though this space walk has been done before by both the US and the USSR.
Even though China has done all the preliminary stuff that leads to this point.
Mostly because of orbital data tracked by the US (which isn't the best source, given how quickly course corrections do come about), and "the video itself" plus "other pieces of evidence", which he seems to be deliberately sketchy about.
Well, I'm convinced.
-
FTR I also contacted Dr Zheng to clear this matter up. He has not responded.
I'd be surprised if he does. If he has any PR skills at all he will stay focused on his FUD politics and as far away as he can from actually committing anything to writing about such a peripheral issue. Once the possibility of fakery is raised, detailed discussion will only undermine the doubt.
So why did he reply to Vincent?
My ability to underestimate the extent of peoples hoax belief is yet again shown for what it is. I have this tendency to assume it is tactical while in reality it is almost always genuine and practical.
-
My, what a lot of evidence and reasoning went into that answer!
"I'm sure it was faked. Trust me on this."
-
Even though the Chinese do have the technology to go into space.
Even though this space walk has been done before by both the US and the USSR.
Even though China has done all the preliminary stuff that leads to this point.
And to add to that, the fact that the Chinese are using technology derived from Russian technology, with a proven pedigree spanning decades, to replicate things the Russians have already done with said technology.
Well, looking at the above I think we have pretty much incontrovertible evidence that the Shenzou 7 isn't faked.
-
I think the only question is what quantitative analysis of the evidence suggested to him that it was a hoax. Something beyond "it looks wrong!" In my experience, with space, "It looks wrong!" means that your expectations are wrong.
-
I am not asking what other people think about the Russian space achievements. I am asking you.
Sure. Why not believe the Russians sent men into space? The evil communist government would have shot Yuri in an unpressurized paper box if it suited them. They didn't care about their cosmonauts. That kind of "who cares" attitude makes me think it's probable he went up.
Add to the fact the Chinese are using space ship and space suit technology influenced by directly by Russian technology, which has a proven pedigree that spans decades.
What one person can make of technology is different than another.
The Chinese carried out their space walk using technology derived from proven Russian technology that has accomplished identical tasks to the chinese decades before. Simply put, the technology used by the Chinese is undoubtably capable of performing a space walk. Do you doubt this is the case?
No. I don't doubt that. But you're still offering a straw man. Put it this way: I can play Orbiter. I understand how to get the technicalities to work, advanced transfers to different orbits etc. That software is proven to work. Put it in the hands of my Grandma, though, and all the sudden, What the hell does retro-grade mean? It's not the equipment. It's the operator.
-
You all act like you are totally sure China has the means to get into space and do it manned. Prove it. You demand proof from me, I do the same. How do you know China has the ability to get into space? Are your facts based on the data they release?
-
Vincent, are you aware that your arguments against the reality of a Chinese spacewalk are nearly identical to your arguments against the reality of Apollo?
-
The evil communist government would have shot Yuri in an unpressurized paper box if it suited them. They didn't care about their cosmonauts.
This is a very unfair characterisation of the Soviet space program. They put a LOT of effort into testing the Vostok spacecraft to make sure it was safe. They designed it so that it would naturally come back to Earth on its own after ten days if the retros failed. They definitely DID care about their cosmonauts. Voskhod 1 is the first and only time safety was significantly compromised by cramming three men into a spacecraft without spacesuits, but all three men went up voluntarily. A few years later when this attitude resulted in the death of the Soyuz 11 crew they changed procedures to ensure that all crew could wear spacesuits during flight.
-
Vincent, are you aware that your arguments against the reality of a Chinese spacewalk are nearly identical to your arguments against the reality of Apollo?
No, they're really not. I am asking where you got the data that China has the capability to put man in space. Did you get this from information CHINA released or was their independent support. If there was, what was it and why was it evidence?
-
You all act like you are totally sure China has the means to get into space and do it manned. Prove it.
That's not how this works and you know it. The burden of proof is not on us. It is on you. You claim it was faked. Prove it. We claim it was genuine. That is the default position until proven otherwise.
How do you know China has the ability to get into space? Are your facts based on the data they release?
There's your own straw man.
And by the way I am STILL waiting for that time reference in the Shnzhou 7 video. The one you promised you'd get right on at least twice and have still failed to do so. In the time it has taken you to write your various replies you could have easily scanned through a ten minute video and pointed to the exact moment you were referring to way back when.
-
If there was, what was it and why was it evidence?
[/quote]
Stop shifting the burden of proof, Vincent. YOU started the thread claiming YOU had evidence that Shenzhou 7 was faked. Present it. It is not our burden of proof to show it was genuine.
-
This is a very unfair characterisation of the Soviet space program. They put a LOT of effort into testing the Vostok spacecraft to make sure it was safe. They designed it so that it would naturally come back to Earth on its own after ten days if the retros failed. They definitely DID care about their cosmonauts. Voskhod 1 is the first and only time safety was significantly compromised by cramming three men into a spacecraft without spacesuits, but all three men went up voluntarily. A few years later when this attitude resulted in the death of the Soyuz 11 crew they changed procedures to ensure that all crew could wear spacesuits during flight.
The Vostok had a lot of problems. On Yuri's flight, I'd say the most dangerous one was the fact that the SM wouldn't separate from the CM... In future Russian space missions or in American missions, when has a stage failed to separate? You'd think that's not hard to avoid in preflight testing. Anyway, this thread is not about Russia's problems and lack of concern for cosmonauts. It's about Shenzhou and I want to know where everyone got the info that China is totally capable of putting a man into space.
-
That's not how this works and you know it. The burden of proof is not on us. It is on you. You claim it was faked. Prove it. We claim it was genuine. That is the default position until proven otherwise.
I have given my arguments for why I don't believe it. You brought for the claim that China has the capability to put man into space. That was not part of the original debate, therefore it is YOUR claim. Your original argument. Debates work on the premise that each side must offer evidence for their stance and be convincing. You said China has the capability to put man into space. Until you provide a source of that information, it's just a bald assertion and you might as well retract it completely, for it is useless.
And by the way I am STILL waiting for that time reference in the Shnzhou 7 video. The one you promised you'd get right on at least twice and have still failed to do so. In the time it has taken you to write your various replies you could have easily scanned through a ten minute video and pointed to the exact moment you were referring to way back when.
OK. On to page one...
-
The Vostok had a lot of problems. On Yuri's flight, I'd say the most dangerous one was the fact that the SM wouldn't separate from the CM... In future Russian space missions or in American missions, when has a stage failed to separate?
Voskhod 2 for one. American spacecraft used a different system for separation.
You'd think that's not hard to avoid in preflight testing.
There was no sign it did happen in preflight testing. It was a surprise to all when it occurred on Gagarin's flight.
The fact that there were problems doesn't mean the Soviet government didn't care about their cosmonauts any more than the fact that a stuck thruster on Gemini 8, a flash fire on Apollo 1 and an exploding oxygen tank on Apollo 13 means NASA didn't care about their astronauts.
Anyway, this thread is not about Russia's problems and lack of concern for cosmonauts.
No, it's about YOUR claim that the Shenzhou 7 video was faked. Do you plan to go back to that and provide the evidence you've been promising for some time now?
-
OK. A few minutes into the EVA video and I've noticed one instance that is similar but not identical to what I remember seeing.
At 3:13, Zhai is moving his lower wrists and hands. His legs are away from the craft and he makes no movements below his center of mass. The only movement appears to be his hands as he works on the tether. Over the course of a few seconds, his legs start to float aimlessly "upward" relative to the camera's frame. There appears to be no movement in that area. Why did his legs float?
-
No, it's about YOUR claim that the Shenzhou 7 video was faked. Do you plan to go back to that and provide the evidence you've been promising for some time now?
I have already provided my evidence, just supplied you with a possible time stamp and covered my side of this debate thoroughly. You brought forth a part of this argument that does not pertain specifically to Shenzhou 7. You claim that China has the ability to put man into space. Do you have any evidence for that? Please answer that simple question.
-
It is now 3AM where I live. I will be back on most likely tomorrow.
-
You brought for the claim that China has the capability to put man into space. That was not part of the original debate, therefore it is YOUR claim. Your original argument. Debates work on the premise that each side must offer evidence for their stance and be convincing. You said China has the capability to put man into space. Until you provide a source of that information, it's just a bald assertion and you might as well retract it completely, for it is useless.
Again, I say bollocks. It is NOT Jason's claim and original argument that China put a man into space. That claim was made by CHINA and supported by various agencies around the world, including NASA. Go and search on NASA's webpage and you'll find tons of stuff about what China are up to in space.
I am quite stunned at your attitude.
-
OK. A few minutes into the EVA video and I've noticed one instance that is similar but not identical to what I remember seeing.
At 3:13, Zhai is moving his lower wrists and hands. His legs are away from the craft and he makes no movements below his center of mass. The only movement appears to be his hands as he works on the tether. Over the course of a few seconds, his legs start to float aimlessly "upward" relative to the camera's frame. There appears to be no movement in that area. Why did his legs float?
Because his legs are still attached to the rest of him. In the absence of external forces EVERY movement he makes ANYWHERE will affect his entire body, especially if those movements are made against another object. Moreover, the relative size of him and the spacecraft means that the spacecraft itself will move a little as well, and since the camera is on the spacecraft that will translate to a video appearing to show a fixed craft with the man moving in relation to it.
Watch the Gemini 12 EVA film for similar issues with Aldrin. He ends up in some very strange positions relative to his spacecraft before the tethers himself firmly in place.
And I still await your acknowledgement of the 'upward' floating strap and coiled tether from the part of the Gemini 4 EVA before Ed White exits the spacecraft, which you seem to have glossed over in the hope no-one noticed.
-
covered my side of this debate thoroughly.
Not even close.
You have not shown that objects like the flag will move in the same way underwater. You have not acknowledged the various challenges to Dr Qu Zheng's 'expertise'.
You brought forth a part of this argument that does not pertain specifically to Shenzhou 7.
I did not.
You claim that China has the ability to put man into space. Do you have any evidence for that? Please answer that simple question.
So you think that spacefaring nations and other countries with the capability to track and communicate with orbiting spacecraft can be easily fooled by the evil commies?
China may have a LOT of control over the stuff it releases to the outside world, but a) it is not absolute, and b) it is impossible to conceal a spacecraft that orbits the entire world once every 90 minutes and can be tracked by anyone with the capability.
The 'evidence' is the combined acknowledgement of the achievement by many other countries, several of which are ideologically opposed to China's government if not outright hostile, and several of which would be more than happy to expose a fraud of that kind.
-
Vincent, we're still waiting for the results of your underwater flag waving experiment. When will you provide them?
-
No. I don't doubt that. But you're still offering a straw man. Put it this way: I can play Orbiter. I understand how to get the technicalities to work, advanced transfers to different orbits etc. That software is proven to work. Put it in the hands of my Grandma, though, and all the sudden, What the hell does retro-grade mean? It's not the equipment. It's the operator.
No, I'm not offering a straw man argument. You, on the other hand, are.
-
I have given my arguments for why I don't believe it.
I have already provided my evidence,
Unfortunately your arguments and evidence resolve to...
I've noticed one instance...the only movement appears to be...there appears to be.
That is not an argument, it is a lack of understanding.
-
No. I don't doubt that. But you're still offering a straw man. Put it this way: I can play Orbiter. I understand how to get the technicalities to work, advanced transfers to different orbits etc. That software is proven to work. Put it in the hands of my Grandma, though, and all the sudden, What the hell does retro-grade mean? It's not the equipment. It's the operator.
Those stupid Chinese. They couldn't understand anything technical. It's not like they make high marks when it comes to mathematics...
Oh wait (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12874&page=1).
Ah well, I'm sure of it: They're uneducated grandmas. But yet they're perfect at faking the missions to the world... except for a few internet "geniuses" of course.
Seriously, though, your "grandmother" argument is terrible. China has plenty of young, energized people willing to prove themselves to their nation. Your "The Russian Commies Were Evil" is starkly black and white, too, I have to add... it really isn't that simple.
-
You all act like you are totally sure China has the means to get into space and do it manned. Prove it. You demand proof from me, I do the same. How do you know China has the ability to get into space? Are your facts based on the data they release?
I'm back everyone! I completely forgot about this website! I've been busy playing Orbiter and working on my capsule and I do have one announcement to make regarding Shenzhou 5.
I went through some footage and found that there is video of the astronaut in Shenzhou five in his cabin in zero-g for over two minutes at a time.
Scratch one hoax theory.
It seems like you've already accepted that China can put a man into space, or have you changed your mind?
-
The Vostok had a lot of problems. On Yuri's flight, I'd say the most dangerous one was the fact that the SM wouldn't separate from the CM... In future Russian space missions or in American missions, when has a stage failed to separate?
Rocky Soyuz landing caused module separation failure (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2008-05-22-soyuz-landing_N.htm) (USA Today, May 22, 2008)
Last month's botched landing of a Russian capsule returning from the International Space Station was caused by the failure of an equipment module to separate from the capsule on time, a Russian space official said Wednesday.
The Soyuz TMA-11 craft carrying U.S. astronaut Peggy Whitson, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko and South Korean bioengineer Yi So-yeon landed hundreds of miles off course when it bounced onto the steppes of northern Kazakhstan April 11.
The three were subjected to severe G-forces, communications were disrupted and Russian officials said they had been in serious danger during the descent.
Alexei Krasnov, who heads Russia's manned space program, said after the Soyuz's separation from the space station, the equipment bay module was supposed to detach, allowing the capsule to enter the atmosphere and descend to Earth smoothly.
That did not happen, he said, and the Soyuz went into a "ballistic" descent.
-
Put it this way: I can play Orbiter. I understand how to get the technicalities to work, advanced transfers to different orbits etc. That software is proven to work. Put it in the hands of my Grandma, though, and all the sudden, What the hell does retro-grade mean? It's not the equipment. It's the operator.
So, in other words, you don't doubt that the technology is capable of sending people into orbit, you doubt that the Chinese people are capable of understanding the technology. Blind patriotism and racism often walk hand in hand.
The belief that "only Americans can do this" is somewhat offensive to me, and I'm not even Chinese. Most countries don't have space programs because it is expensive (especially if you are located far from the equator), not because their people are too stupid to understand how to do it. You better hurry up and realize that the Chinese are quite capable when it comes to science and technology, and they can afford to fund the necessary research. Your patriotism/racism is blinding you to a real threat to your (slowly degrading) superiority.
-
In future Russian space missions or in American missions, when has a stage failed to separate?
Separation failures still happen. A NASA scientific payload was lost last year when the payload shroud didn't separate. There have been at least two occasions when the Shuttle returned to Earth with a payload that should have separated. Many years ago a NASA launch of an Intelsat comsat failed because the Atlas booster stage failed to separate cleanly. I remember a Pegasus payload going into the wrong orbit due to a poor stage separation, etc, etc.
-
My proof that China has the ability to put humans into space:
The Chinese people are human beings. If other human beings, from a number of different nations, can figure out how to achieve space flight, I see no reason why being Chinese would prevent their nation from doing so. And, since they have a fair amount of economic power, I see no cost restrictions that would prevent it. Since one other communist country has achieved it, one cannot argue that there is something inherent in the Chinese economic system that prevents it. Therefore, there is a prima facie case that China can send humans into space, just like any other nation with the time, money and inclination.
I think it's you that are making the assumption that "compared to the US and Russia, China has an inherent incapability of achieving space flight, and performing a space walk". This starts to sound a little racist, does it not?
China is hardly your grandmother when it comes to technology.
-
Separation failures still happen. A NASA scientific payload was lost last year when the payload shroud didn't separate.
It happened twice in a row, to the same launcher (Orbital Sciences' Taurus XL). The first shroud jettison failure was in 2009 to the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, followed by the failure last year during the Glory launch attempt.
Repeated failures are rather unusual in aerospace, but they do still happen.
Even the venerable Saturn V wasn't immune to separation problems. Skylab was nearly lost when the micrometeroid shield tore off during first stage flight. Debris also damaged the separation ordnance for the ring between the S-IC and S-II stages, so while the stages separated normally, second plane jettison failed to occur 30 seconds later. Fortunately, the launch had so much margin that it still made orbit carrying the excess mass of the interstage ring; had it been a lunar mission, an abort would have been necessary. The two failed Taurus XL launchers deposited their payloads in the ocean not because the rockets didn't function, but because they did not have enough margin to take their payload fairings all the way into orbit.
-
I am quite stunned at your attitude.
I stopped being stunned back on the old board last year when he accused me of being an HB. The fact is, his arguments sound exactly like those of someone who just wants to be special. Now, I know that the fact that I don't have your education in the sciences, so I assume that you know more than I do on the subject. Vincent assumes that, somehow, he still knows things you do not. He wants to be special.
-
Vincent assumes that, somehow, he still knows things you do not. He wants to be special.
He assumes he knows more than other people based solely on what he has learned by playing video games and watching YouTube videos. Real experts have years of university and/or practical experience under their belt. And I agree that he just wants to be special, which is why he posts under his real name (something I advise strongly against, especially if you're a teenager).
-
Because his legs are still attached to the rest of him. In the absence of external forces EVERY movement he makes ANYWHERE will affect his entire body, especially if those movements are made against another object. Moreover, the relative size of him and the spacecraft means that the spacecraft itself will move a little as well, and since the camera is on the spacecraft that will translate to a video appearing to show a fixed craft with the man moving in relation to it.
He needs the force in the correct direction to allow his legs to move in the opposite. If his wrists are the only things moving back and forth, there's no force actually pushing his legs in the opposite direction. Think of a scale or a teter totter. The weight from one end pushes down (force) which sends the other end in the opposite direction because it's unbalanced. So if he applies force upward or bumps into the craft while moving down, we should expect to see his legs go back up relative to the camera's frame. What we instead see, if his wrists moving as if I was typing on the keyboard and his legs floating up. This can be shown in neutral buoyancy underwater. Achieve neutral buoyancy and then write the words "I am in zeroG" while underwater or something. Your legs don't have a force pushing them from the opposite direction, so they don't move. This is basic Newtons laws.
And I still await your acknowledgement of the 'upward' floating strap and coiled tether from the part of the Gemini 4 EVA before Ed White exits the spacecraft, which you seem to have glossed over in the hope no-one noticed.
I have already addressed Gemini claims MANY times on this thread. As he pushes down or up while exiting (which he clearly is) inertia takes the tether and strap upward or downward based on his movement. What we see in the Gemini 4 spacewalk is much different than what we see in the Chinese spacewalk.
-
You have not acknowledged the various challenges to Dr Qu Zheng's 'expertise'.
Amateurs don't work as engineers at JPL.
You brought forth a part of this argument that does not pertain specifically to Shenzhou 7.
I did not.
You stated that China has the capability to put a man into space. Is that the same as "Shenzhou 7 was real"? No. Of course it's not. And whether they can put man into space on a wide scale is not SPECIFICALLY Shenzhou 7, which this thread is about...
So you think that spacefaring nations and other countries with the capability to track and communicate with orbiting spacecraft can be easily fooled by the evil commies?
China may have a LOT of control over the stuff it releases to the outside world, but a) it is not absolute, and b) it is impossible to conceal a spacecraft that orbits the entire world once every 90 minutes and can be tracked by anyone with the capability.
The 'evidence' is the combined acknowledgement of the achievement by many other countries, several of which are ideologically opposed to China's government if not outright hostile, and several of which would be more than happy to expose a fraud of that kind.
An unmanned spacecraft can be tracked. There is no independent film of a Chinese man walking in space. It was all released by China. So if they launched an unmanned Shenzhou, who would know?
-
Vincent, we're still waiting for the results of your underwater flag waving experiment. When will you provide them?
When I perform it.
No such experiment has been conducted on my part for two reasons.
1.) I don't have a mini flag.
2.) I don't have a clean pool outside of my cousins' pool. That still brings option 1 against me.
-
I've noticed one instance...the only movement appears to be...there appears to be.
That is not an argument, it is a lack of understanding.
[/quote]
Of course that's an argument. When Greeks looked up in the skies and noticed that some "stars" appeared to move, was that a lack of understanding? Were the planets really not moving? Just because someone says something appears so doesn't mean that what they see doesn't exist. Big difference. Frankly, I'm shocked that you didn't realize that...
-
So, in other words, you don't doubt that the technology is capable of sending people into orbit, you doubt that the Chinese people are capable of understanding the technology.
No. I don't say only China can't understand it, but they do have a hunger to be a world power. If they don't understand spaceflight, (Like many countries don't), then they will have to fake it in order to establish their position in the world of space.
It has nothing to do with specifically hating Chinese. It has to do with hypothesizing a mission was faked. That mission just happens to have been a Chinese one.
-
The belief that "only Americans can do this" is somewhat offensive to me, and I'm not even Chinese.
We need to get something straight here... I don't think only Americans can accomplish spaceflight. There are Russians right now on the international space station. The first man in space was Russian. Russia has done a lot of stuff, too and they were communists. They also lied about a lot of things because communist governments aren't open and therefore can lie and get away with it.
Your patriotism/racism is blinding you to a real threat to your (slowly degrading) superiority.
Patriotism? This country is a total shit hole these days. It has nothing to do with liking America or hating China. It has to do with seeing signs of fakery in their official video...
-
No. I don't say only China can't understand it, but they do have a hunger to be a world power. If they don't understand spaceflight, (Like many countries don't), then they will have to fake it in order to establish their position in the world of space.
It has nothing to do with specifically hating Chinese. It has to do with hypothesizing a mission was faked. That mission just happens to have been a Chinese one.
So the argument involving your grandmother was completely superfluous and even downright disingenuous, if you are not claiming that the Chinese are "just incapable" of learning spaceflight.
So they log many hours in space, with unmanned and manned missions, with a high knowledge of mathematics and physics, but just happen to be completely incapable of spacewalking because... why?
-
He assumes he knows more than other people based solely on what he has learned by playing video games and watching YouTube videos.
Or doing independent research into the technicalities of spacecraft and orbital mechanics? How do you think the first people learned it may be possible to orbit something? They had no textbooks to read. They did the research on their own. Are you saying Kepler was an uneducated amateur just because his research was independent?
And I agree that he just wants to be special, which is why he posts under his real name (something I advise strongly against, especially if you're a teenager).
No. It has nothing to do with wanting to be special. I post under my real name so I can be identified easily across forums. Earlier, I was accused of being someone else on the Unexplained Mysteries forum. A forum I have never registered with or used. If it WAS me, I would have registered in my real name. As I have done on two other forums besides this one. It makes everything convenient. And because I later come to dislike the username I've chosen if I just don't use my real name.
-
So the argument involving your grandmother was completely superfluous and even downright disingenuous, if you are not claiming that the Chinese are "just incapable" of learning spaceflight.
No. But it helps explain that just because a technology works, doesn't mean the operator understands how to use it. Just because China USES Russian technology doesn't mean they have learned how to properly put it to work. This goes for any country that attempts spaceflight. Not just China.
So they log many hours in space, with unmanned and manned missions, with a high knowledge of mathematics and physics, but just happen to be completely incapable of spacewalking because... why?
As I have said, I believe Shenzhou 5 was likely real. I have seen video of the inside of the cabin in zero g for a few minutes at a time. But sitting in a pressurized cabin and then actually evacuating all the air and relying on nothing but a pressure suit and then getting out to walk around near a bunch of sharp metal is a totally different story. Who knows? Maybe they have faulty pressure suits, don't want to risk man or have simply not mastered the technology yet.
-
I stopped being stunned back on the old board last year when he accused me of being an HB. The fact is, his arguments sound exactly like those of someone who just wants to be special. Now, I know that the fact that I don't have your education in the sciences, so I assume that you know more than I do on the subject. Vincent assumes that, somehow, he still knows things you do not. He wants to be special.
It has nothing to do with being special, as I told LO.
But many qualified people can be blind to evidence because they simply don't want something to not be real. I have still received NO proof to the claim that China has the ability to let a man spacewalk outside his cabin. Many people have said that here on this thread but have offered no proof of their claims. I guess we can just assume there is no proof that China can safely spacewalk...
-
I think it's you that are making the assumption that "compared to the US and Russia, China has an inherent incapability of achieving space flight, and performing a space walk". This starts to sound a little racist, does it not?
China is hardly your grandmother when it comes to technology.
Absolutely ridiculous. China has not had space-age technology for almost 60 years like the US and Russia has. Someone who is new to something might "suck" at it. If China can't do something yet, but they want to be apart of the game, they can just as easily fake it. Were you alive in the 60's? If you were, you remember space missions (advanced ones, too!) going up every few months. Apollo missions going up just three months apart or whatever. From testing the LM in LEO in March to landing it on the moon in July. China has so far (apparently) achieved three manned space missions over the last almost ten years.... If they were moving at the rate we were in the 60's, they'd already have landed a man on the moon. But they're not.
-
Absolutely ridiculous. China has not had space-age technology for almost 60 years like the US and Russia has.
56 years ago, in..
1955/6 - China implements ballistic missile program (USSR and China even had a cooperative technology transfer agreement at that time)
1958-60 - China launches first missiles
1964 - China launches and recovers a rocket with live passengers (8 white mice..!)
1964 - China detonates first successful nuclear device
1965 - China produces successful ICBM type missiles with nuclear warheads
1967 - China sets up space technology centres including a Space Medicine Institute with a view to 'keeping up' with the space race
1968 - China develops a manned capsule and has begun selecting /training astronauts for potential missions
1969/70 - China develops 2 heavy-lifting rocket designs for launching sateliites, and in April of that year successfully launched the Mao-1 satellite (which weighed more than all of the first satellites put up by the other four competing countries combined..)
...
***** NOTE - this is still over 40 YEARS AGO....
I'll stop there (before getting to Long March, Shenzhou 5 in 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_5) and Chang'e in 2007), but seriously Vincent, don't you think it's time you did the hard work BEFORE you post such ignorance?
-
seriously Vincent, don't you think it's time you did the hard work BEFORE you post such ignorance?
That is so ironic that I actually started laughing! NONE of the examples you posted was a man in space, a man on the moon, a rendezvous between orbiting space craft etc. Notice the words I wrote, "LIKE THE US AND RUSSIA"
Pretty clear who is posting the ignorance here. Please actually READ my post before responding to it. Thanks.
-
Amateurs don't work as engineers at JPL.
What kind of engineer is he? How is he qualified to judge the authenticity of the Chinese space program?
There is no independent film of a Chinese man walking in space. It was all released by China. So if they launched an unmanned Shenzhou, who would know?
There was no independent film of the first US or Russian spacewalks either. This leads me to wonder why you accept the word of NASA and the Russians, but not the Chinese.
If they don't understand spaceflight, (Like many countries don't), then they will have to fake it in order to establish their position in the world of space.
Why is fakery the only option? Isn't it more likely that they would simply learn how to do it for real? If they don't understand space flight they could study it. It's been 50 years since the first manned space flights by Russia and the US... do you think maybe the Chinese have had time to read a book or two about space flight since then? Or maybe enroll some of their children in American universities? I really don't understand why you believe the Chinese are incapable of doing this.
But I'm pretty sure the Chinese have had some understanding of rocketry for quite some time. They did invent the darn things, after all.
It has nothing to do with specifically hating Chinese. It has to do with hypothesizing a mission was faked. That mission just happens to have been a Chinese one.
You don't doubt the Russians. You don't doubt the US. You doubt the Chinese. Why? Explain it to me. Why do you believe the Chinese are incapable of doing something that the Russians and Americans did 50 years ago?
How do you think the first people learned it may be possible to orbit something? They had no textbooks to read. They did the research on their own.
Why are the Chinese incapable of doing this?
Are you saying Kepler was an uneducated amateur just because his research was independent?
You're not Kepler. You're just a kid with delusions of grandeur.
It has nothing to do with wanting to be special. I post under my real name so I can be identified easily across forums.
It's incredibly dangerous to post using your real name. And it could also make it difficult for you to get a job if potential employers Google your name and discover you're a looney conspiracy theorist. You're free to do as you wish, of course, I'm just giving you some friendly advice.
Absolutely ridiculous. China has not had space-age technology for almost 60 years like the US and Russia has. Someone who is new to something might "suck" at it.
Huh? The US and Russia did not have "space-age technology for almost 60 years" when they made their first space flights either. So what are you saying? That no one can do something that hasn't been done before? How does anything new ever get accomplished then?
China has the advantage of being able to study how the US and Russia accomplished their first space flights. They aren't completely in the dark.
If China can't do something yet, but they want to be apart of the game, they can just as easily fake it.
Why do conspiracy theorists always assume that faking something is easier than actually doing it for real?
I believe Shenzhou 5 was likely real. I have seen video of the inside of the cabin in zero g for a few minutes at a time. But sitting in a pressurized cabin and then actually evacuating all the air and relying on nothing but a pressure suit and then getting out to walk around near a bunch of sharp metal is a totally different story. Who knows? Maybe they have faulty pressure suits, don't want to risk man or have simply not mastered the technology yet.
Ridiculous. If having "faulty suits" was the only issue they could very easily just wait until they sort out the problem. And since the suits are pretty much just off the shelf Russian space suits I don't see why they would be faulty to begin with.
And if the suits were faulty... would they be safe in that swimming pool where you think they filmed the spacewalk?
Were you alive in the 60's? If you were, you remember space missions (advanced ones, too!) going up every few months. Apollo missions going up just three months apart or whatever. From testing the LM in LEO in March to landing it on the moon in July. China has so far (apparently) achieved three manned space missions over the last almost ten years.... If they were moving at the rate we were in the 60's, they'd already have landed a man on the moon. But they're not.
I don't see how that proves they are faking it. They're being cautious and/or thrifty. They aren't rushing anything because they aren't in a race to beat anyone.
-
Amateurs don't work as engineers at JPL.
Not everyone who works at/for JPL is an engineer, and not every engineer has knowledge in the relevant fields.
-
First up, if you wish to keep parroting your jpl friend, WHERE IS THE ORBITAL ANALYSIS?
What work did he actually do at JPL? I used to run a marine science centre, but I knew virtually nuthin' about, say, large fishing boat diesel engines or deep sea trawling net technology...
That is so ironic that I actually started laughing!
Laugh it up. I'll let the audience decide. YOU said:
China has not had space-age technology for almost 60 years like the US and Russia has.
They DID have space age technology going back well over 55 years as I pointed out. The fact that YOU now had to CHANGE THE GOALPOSTS by adding on the bit about manned flights simply shows you have learnt your conspiracy theorist trade well - from Jarrah White? He'd be proud of you. But is *any* notoriety good?
The further fact that you seemed to miss that I stopped listing their achievements at forty years ago (remembering YOU said 60) and then still you managed to miss the reference to Shenzou 5, which you now say you think happened!!??!! is so self-contradictory it makes your argument incomprehensibly ridiculous.
One minute you say this:
If they were moving at the rate we were in the 60's, they'd already have landed a man on the moon.
The next it is:
China has not had space-age technology for almost 60 years
Do you honestly not see the contradictions in that argument? The US was able to land people on the Moon in just 8 years from the time JFK made his statement. Yes, they had some prior technology. Yes, they took some of that from elsewhere. But here we are just talking about China putting people into ORBIT, some forty years later, in a much more cooperative political climate, with the benefit of prior & new technology, what they bought from Russia, copying other countries (as they all do). And incredibly, you think they already HAVE done this (Shenzhou 5), so ... it's just this later one that they faked? :o
Of course. What a superbly engineered argument. Almost as good as the ones you originally brought us about Apollo being faked. You stridently believed THOSE too, didn't you..
Vincent, I strongly suggest you change your name before trying to get work in any field that involves any sort of application of logic. Any employer who saw you first denigrate Apollo like you did and then completely turn yourself around, and then, having learnt NOTHING, do exactly the same thing with Shenzhou, will not go near you.
What do you think your role model, Mike Collins, believes? What would he think of what you are doing now?
-
You have not acknowledged the various challenges to Dr Qu Zheng's 'expertise'.
Amateurs don't work as engineers at JPL.
1. He is NOT an engineer.
2. he doesn't work at JPL, he is affiliated to them.
-
If his wrists are the only things moving back and forth, there's no force actually pushing his legs in the opposite direction.
Rubbish. The force of moving his wrists puts an equal and opposite reaction on the rest of his body.
When you sit down and twist your wrist back and forth your wrist twists relative to your arm. Your arm is static because it is attached to the rest of your body, the mass of which is held in place by gravity. Remove the gravity and the twist of your wrist will transmit a torque all the way through the rest of your body.
Like I said, watch Buzz Aldrin on the early part of his Gemini 12 activities, before he tehters himself with short loops.
This is basic Newtons laws.
No, that is your limited understanding of them. Precisely the kind of understanding that caught NASA out with their early EVAs, when the astronauts found that even the smallest movement sent them twisting off in unexpected directions.
I have already addressed Gemini claims MANY times on this thread. As he pushes down or up while exiting (which he clearly is) inertia takes the tether and strap upward or downward based on his movement.
Oh dear god, how many more times do I have to tell you this? WATCH the video I posted. The specific instances I am referring to occur well BEFORE Ed White exits the capsule, while he is sitting on the edge. He is NOT moving in a way that would cause either of those things to float 'upwards', and yet they do.
-
Amateurs don't work as engineers at JPL.
So what? Does Dr Zheng? What exactly are his areas of expertise? The fact that he works at or for JPL does not automatically make him an expert in spacewalks.
You stated that China has the capability to put a man into space.
I did not.
An unmanned spacecraft can be tracked. There is no independent film of a Chinese man walking in space. It was all released by China. So if they launched an unmanned Shenzhou, who would know?
Ah, so you don't know how they could tell the difference between manned and unmanned spacecraft, therefore nobody does? You REALLY need to cultivate an understanding of just what is involved in these things before you start passing judgement on them.
-
If they don't understand spaceflight, (Like many countries don't),
Which countries 'don't understand' space flight? There's a world of difference between understanding and having the resources to actually do it.
-
Just because China USES Russian technology doesn't mean they have learned how to properly put it to work.
They don't USE Russian technology, they based their own spacecraft on it. That's not the same thing at all.
-
Vincent, we're still waiting for the results of your underwater flag waving experiment. When will you provide them?
When I perform it.
No such experiment has been conducted on my part for two reasons.
1.) I don't have a mini flag.
2.) I don't have a clean pool outside of my cousins' pool. That still brings option 1 against me.
- Purchase flag from http://www.miniatureflagshop.com/china.html (http://www.miniatureflagshop.com/china.html)
- Locate clean pool
- Experiment
- Post results here
- Bask in the admiration of this forum AND become established as a major force in the space industry because you found out what those godless communists where getting up to
Not that you're going to do any of stuff as, like the last four time, you'll come up with an excuse.
-
What do you think your role model, Mike Collins, believes? What would he think of what you are doing now?
Actually, I'm surprised Vincent has role model of Mike Collins as Mike carried out a space walk of which no independent footage exists, for a country that has had space travel technology for a short time.
-
Vincent, if you don't have the flag why did you say you were heading off to perform the test? And why do you need a clean pool? All you need is to make a flag move underwater. For something like a mini flag a bathtub will serve the purpose.
-
Just because someone says something appears so doesn't mean that what they see doesn't exist.
No it doesn't. Nor does it mean that what is seen happens for a specific cause. So rather than argue semantics, I'll restate my point. You have no training or expertise in this area nor do you have a full accounting for the movements of the astronauts that can be examined. An accounting that would definitively demonstrate the differences between movement in space from movement under water. Yet despite a lack of demonstrable expertise and and objective demonstrations of the principles you involve you claim it "appears" to be a hoax. On top of that you have a history of uncritically accepting hoax theories. That is reason I say your statements of "appears" do not constitute an argument.
-
When Greeks looked up in the skies and noticed that some "stars" appeared to move, was that a lack of understanding?
No, that was an empirical observation that did not require a complex understanding of the laws of physics. They observed, they catalogued. The movements were undeniably real. What they did not understand was what the planets were and why they were moving.
What you are doing is a whole world away from cataloguing obvious empirical observations. You are applying interpretation to the movements you see. Interpretation that relies on a knowledge framework you simply do not have. Furthermore, you presume to argue with those who DO have that framework.
There's a reason why an episode of Frasier made comedy out of the titular character arguing with a heart surgeon with years of experience and full training because he'd downloaded a couple of bits from the internet. See if you can figure out the parallels there...
-
No. But it helps explain that just because a technology works, doesn't mean the operator understands how to use it. Just because China USES Russian technology doesn't mean they have learned how to properly put it to work. This goes for any country that attempts spaceflight. Not just China.
What about it is so difficult to understand, honestly? They have universities in China, where you can learn mathematics, engineering, rocketry, any number of things. They'd naturally select the best of the best of their fields in order to work on this project. It's not like this is art, where you draw a masterpiece. It's not like you have to have a certain kind of magic spell to go in a spacesuit.
As I have said, I believe Shenzhou 5 was likely real. I have seen video of the inside of the cabin in zero g for a few minutes at a time. But sitting in a pressurized cabin and then actually evacuating all the air and relying on nothing but a pressure suit and then getting out to walk around near a bunch of sharp metal is a totally different story. Who knows? Maybe they have faulty pressure suits, don't want to risk man or have simply not mastered the technology yet.
Or maybe you're pulling speculations out of your ass to justify being right just this once about uncovering a huge conspiracy, while consistently ignoring that the effort required to fake it is significantly greater than actually going out there and doing the damn thing.
-
So, in other words, you don't doubt that the technology is capable of sending people into orbit, you doubt that the Chinese people are capable of understanding the technology.
No. I don't say only China can't understand it, but they do have a hunger to be a world power. If they don't understand spaceflight, (Like many countries don't), then they will have to fake it in order to establish their position in the world of space.
It has nothing to do with specifically hating Chinese. It has to do with hypothesizing a mission was faked. That mission just happens to have been a Chinese one.
Countries do not understand space flight. People do.
Do you really believe that China cannot put together a team of scientists and engineers to be able to achieve what the US, Russia and the EU were able to do? They sure have a lot of people. Surely some of them are smart enough to figure it out, especially when they have a lot of information from previous experiences to draw from?
I don't believe you hate the Chinese. I think you seriously underestimate what a combination of determination, intelligence, and economic power can achieve.
And for some reason, it disturbs you to think of humans in space. I'm not sure why.
-
Or doing independent research into the technicalities of spacecraft and orbital mechanics?
Much of my knowledge is self-taught. But I also went to two universities and obtained two engineering degrees. And I've continued to learn on the job throughout my career. I consider all three learning methods essential to being a good engineer.
One of the things I learned during and after college is that while self-teaching can give you very deep knowlege in specific areas that interest you, you often have significant gaps in that knowledge. More important, you are often unaware of those gaps -- you don't know what you don't know. A formal education tends to fill in those gaps, and through exposure to many different professors and fellow students, you also get a better appreciation of how much more there is that you don't know (and probably never will know). This process continues as you work in industry with other engineers, each of whom has their own personal specialties and experiences.
Knowing what you don't know is sometimes even more important than knowing what you know. You learn what you're especially good at, you learn to tell when something is outside your competence, and where to go and who to talk to when that happens.
-
- Bask in the admiration of this forum AND become established as a major force in the space industry because you found out what those godless communists where getting up to
In the early 1980s I had the honor of meeting the late Geoffrey Perry, teacher at the Kettering Grammar School (aka "junior/senior high school" to us Yanks) in the UK, who became world famous for the detective work he did in the 1960s and 70s with his students on the secretive Soviet space program. Geoff and his very young students, armed with little more than a cheap shortwave receiver and a lot of curiosity and cleverness, managed to figure out the existence of the then secret Plesetsk Cosmodrome. We don't know if the intelligence agencies already knew this, but the public certainly didn't.
So it's entirely possible for a highly motivated individual to become a respected authority on another country's space program. But you have to be right. That entails a lot of hard work, dead ends, and most of all seriously listening to other people's ideas and suggestions.
That was one of the things that immediately impressed me about Geoff. He gave the definite impression that there wasn't anyone in the world from whom he couldn't learn something interesting. In fact, he came up to me after my talk and told me that I'd just helped him solve one of his longstanding puzzles about Soviet space practice. I had explained that large orbital plane changes are dangerous in that if you do them in one maneuver, an engine failure partway through the burn could result in an inadvertent re-entry. It seems he'd noticed the Soviets doing plane changes in a roundabout fashion and couldn't understand why. It was a definite kick to learn that I'd helped someone so accomplished.
-
What about it is so difficult to understand, honestly? They have universities in China, where you can learn mathematics, engineering, rocketry, any number of things.
Not only that, but many of their students come here (to the USA) to attend American universities and get the very same education as many American students. (University education seems to be one of our country's few remaining major exports).
A quick look around my workplace reveals an awful lot of non-US nationals (their badges are distinctive). It's not that non-Americans are easier or cheaper to hire -- the government makes just the opposite true -- but that there simply aren't enough American engineers to meet the demand. So we have to go overseas. This worries me.
-
In the early 1980s I had the honor of meeting the late Geoffrey Perry, teacher at the Kettering Grammar School (aka "junior/senior high school" to us Yanks) in the UK, who became world famous for the detective work he did in the 1960s and 70s with his students on the secretive Soviet space program. Geoff and his very young students, armed with little more than a cheap shortwave receiver and a lot of curiosity and cleverness, managed to figure out the existence of the then secret Plesetsk Cosmodrome. We don't know if the intelligence agencies already knew this, but the public certainly didn't.
I remember an obituary for him saying something along the lines of:
He lived long enough into the days of glastnov to finally "read the answers at the back of the book" and confirm that so many of his deductions were correct.
-
In the early 1980s I had the honor of meeting the late Geoffrey Perry, teacher at the Kettering Grammar School (aka "junior/senior high school" to us Yanks) in the UK, who became world famous for the detective work he did in the 1960s and 70s with his students on the secretive Soviet space program. Geoff and his very young students, armed with little more than a cheap shortwave receiver and a lot of curiosity and cleverness, managed to figure out the existence of the then secret Plesetsk Cosmodrome. We don't know if the intelligence agencies already knew this, but the public certainly didn't.
I remember an obituary for him saying something along the lines of:
He lived long enough into the days of glastnov to finally "read the answers at the back of the book" and confirm that so many of his deductions were correct.
Sorry to be pedantic, but I believe the word you're after is Glasnost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasnost
It must have been fun to meet Mr. Perry. He was a worthy successor to the Sherlockian tradition.
-
It must have been fun to meet Mr. Perry. He was a worthy successor to the Sherlockian tradition.
Absolutely. But to him, being a detective was just his way of being a teacher. Teaching was his obvious passion.
-
But many qualified people can be blind to evidence because they simply don't want something to not be real. I have still received NO proof to the claim that China has the ability to let a man spacewalk outside his cabin. Many people have said that here on this thread but have offered no proof of their claims. I guess we can just assume there is no proof that China can safely spacewalk...
None? They've provided a nice video of the spacewalk being performed, something that would be quite difficult to fake. I think someone linked it earlier...
-
Would the VincentMcConnel of this thread be the same Vincent who produced the woo YouTube videos on how to fake lunar footprints and various other proof of hoaxing in the Apollo program?
-
Would the VincentMcConnel of this thread be the same Vincent who produced the woo YouTube videos on how to fake lunar footprints and various other proof of hoaxing in the Apollo program?
He most assuredly is. In fact he came here pushing his hoax belief most vehemently, but then claimed to have changed his mind and became an even more vehement supporter of all things Apollo. Yet as you have noted, he left much of his 'legacy' behind, so his turnaround seems rather shallow.
And now he repeats his earlier mistakes, it seems, with Shenzhou 7... For some folks, just being noticed is all that is important, it seems. Even making allowances for youth, it's not a good look.
-
Would the VincentMcConnel of this thread be the same Vincent who produced the woo YouTube videos on how to fake lunar footprints and various other proof of hoaxing in the Apollo program?
I think so, especially if you look at his early posts on the Proboards site where he talked about the YouTube videos he made.
-
He most assuredly is. In fact he came here pushing his hoax belief most vehemently, but then claimed to have changed his mind and became an even more vehement supporter of all things Apollo. Yet as you have noted, he left much of his 'legacy' behind, so his turnaround seems rather shallow.
Poor, dumb kid! The internet never forgets! His truly herculean monuments of stupidity are out there for all to see. This may affect his future career, especially if it's science or engineering.
-
Poor, dumb kid! The internet never forgets! His truly herculean monuments of stupidity are out there for all to see. This may affect his future career, especially if it's science or engineering.
I've had this discussion with my colleagues a few times -- about how now we have an Internet that never forgets, that everything you've ever said or done (under your name, at least) can be found in a few seconds with a Google search by a future employer, prospective spouse (or father-in-law), lender, and of course the media and the public should you ever run for office. And how the current generation of young people will grow up with this when we didn't.
But there's a possible mitigating factor. Some information that would have been extremely damaging tends to become less so with time. A perfect example is the knowledge that someone is gay. At one time, having this generally known would have wrecked somone's life; it'd get them fired, socially shunned and possibly prosecuted -- as it did with Alan Turing. Today, not so much though it still happens in some backwaters. It may turn out that so many young people will have so many skeletons in their Google closets when they get older that everyone will just start to dismiss them, much as we now dismiss the reports of occasional youthful pot smoking or even cocaine use by mainstream presidential candidates. If we disqualified everyone who ever tried an illegal drug in their youth, there wouldn't be anyone left.
-
I don’t get it.
I watched the footage and saw nothing suspicious.
Things I did see were a flag fluttering in all directions, karabiners bouncing back and forth on the rails they were clipped onto and a mirror on the astronaut’s left wrist.
A flag in water will only move in the direction it’s dragged. There’s simply no way the flag will remain perpendicular to its direction of motion if it’s in water. I suspect that would be the case even if the rectangle was made of something heavy like lead or uranium, but such a flag then wouldn’t be flexible.
The karabiners are either going to be lighter than water or heavier than water. If they’re lighter than water they’re going to float in one direction, and if heavier they’re going they’re going to sink in another direction. But no matter their density compared to water, I can’t see them bouncing around like they do in the video clip.
The mirror is presumably to let the astronauts read dials on their chest, but it has the incidental effect of reflecting everything as they move their arms around. If the footage was all recorded in a tank, that’s a lot of extra computer work to ensure the reflections are correct and consistent, and that no extraneous objects are reflected.
Russia has done a lot of stuff, too and they were communists. They also lied about a lot of things because communist governments aren't open and therefore can lie and get away with it.
Yes they lied a lot. And a lot of people in the Western media bought the lies. But the point is that the Soviets didn’t get away with a lot of stuff. The Americans knew about the N-1 rockets as they were rolled out onto the pad, so even if the Soviets claimed they weren’t part of this American Space Race silliness, NASA knew otherwise. Likewise the disappearing astronauts were noticed in the 1970s thanks to different versions of doctored photos. Ten minutes of faked video is orders of magnitude more complex than individual photos.
… just because a technology works, doesn't mean the operator understands how to use it. Just because China USES Russian technology doesn't mean they have learned how to properly put it to work. This goes for any country that attempts spaceflight. Not just China.
Seeing as you accept the reality of earlier Chinese space flights, are you seriously saying that they’d be launching people into space without knowing how their spacecraft work?
I have still received NO proof to the claim that China has the ability to let a man spacewalk outside his cabin. Many people have said that here on this thread but have offered no proof of their claims. I guess we can just assume there is no proof that China can safely spacewalk...
What sort of proof would satisfy you?
China has not had space-age technology for almost 60 years like the US and Russia has. Someone who is new to something might "suck" at it. If China can't do something yet, but they want to be apart of the game, they can just as easily fake it. Were you alive in the 60's? If you were, you remember space missions (advanced ones, too!) going up every few months. Apollo missions going up just three months apart or whatever. From testing the LM in LEO in March to landing it on the moon in July. China has so far (apparently) achieved three manned space missions over the last almost ten years.... If they were moving at the rate we were in the 60's, they'd already have landed a man on the moon. But they're not.
Unfortunately I see a few problems with this argument.
The first is that if the Chinese were launching a mission every three months or so, that would also be fodder for the conspiracy theorists, who would be asking, “How can they possibly be achieving so many missions so quickly? It must be faked!”
The second thing is that the rate of Chinese launches is obviously affected by a heap of factors, including budget. I have no idea what the Chinese Manned Space Missions budget is, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s smaller (when adjusted for inflation) than NASA’s equivalent was back in the early- to mid-1960s.
Thirdly, the amount of time China has had their technology is broadly the same as the time the Soviets and Americans had their technology prior to their successful spacewalk missions. If the Soviets and Americans could achieve spacewalks that quickly, why can’t the Chinese?
-
Vincent, could you explain what "proof" you would accept that the Chinese can, indeed, manage a space walk? Because to most of us, the video is basic proof. It's then up to you to disprove the video. It's a little like a defense attorney in a murder trial, presented with his client's fingerprints on the murder weapon, demanding "Prove to me that no one faked them! I bet it could be done somehow!" Really, it's up to the attorney to bring up proof that the evidence was faked.
And arguing "the video of the spacewalk must be faked, because there's no proof they can do a spacewalk," is glaringly obvious as circular reasoning. I'm sure you're better than that.
-
What sort of proof would satisfy you?
I don't think any proof would satisfy Vincent, he's had a lot in this thread which he's refused to accept. He's either an idiot or zealot, possibly both.
-
So, in other words, you don't doubt that the technology is capable of sending people into orbit, you doubt that the Chinese people are capable of understanding the technology.
No. I don't say only China can't understand it, but they do have a hunger to be a world power. If they don't understand spaceflight, (Like many countries don't), then they will have to fake it in order to establish their position in the world of space.
It has nothing to do with specifically hating Chinese. It has to do with hypothesizing a mission was faked. That mission just happens to have been a Chinese one.
Vincent, LunarOrbit never accused you of saying only the Chinese can't "understand" spaceflight. You are suggesting that the Chinese do not, alone or in companionship with, say, Papua New Guinea. Apparently, to you, spaceflight is so complicated that only a handful of countries (coincidentally, I'm sure, ones with high European populations) can manage to achieve a space walk. Even if they have the work of previous pioneers to build on. Could you explain what barriers exist to China "understanding" space flight? Time constraints? Money? Manpower? Inherent intelligence?
Now, regarding the bit I've bolded. You came here originally saying that the US program was faked. Then, having accepted the US as a space-faring nation, you have found what you believe is evidence the Chinese program is a fake. I think you're admitting without realizing it that you, for some reason, want to believe that spacefaring is a hoax. If you can't get the goods on one country, you'll just switch to the next.
-
Unless I am missing something, I really don't see what is so hard about a spacewalk once you have the technology to put a human being into space. Surely all that is required is a capsule that can be safely opened in space, with an exit hatch that is large enough to accommodate an astronaut in full spacesuit, and either some way of tethering the astronaut safely to the craft or some way of enabling the astronaut to return safely to the craft without tethering them.
I realise I am no rocket scientist, but it strikes me that a spacewalk is only a small step on from putting the astronaut out in space in the first place.
-
Agreed. Since the all the technology was developed fifty years ago, all that is needed to do a space walk is to have the industrial organization required to implement it. And if there is one strength that China has, it is industrial organization.
In many ways, China is similar to the US of the sixties with its rapidly growing economy supporting an increased standard of living for many of its citizens and providing growth in the government coffers that can be used to fund impressive, if speculative ventures.
-
Unless I am missing something, I really don't see what is so hard about a spacewalk once you have the technology to put a human being into space. Surely all that is required is a capsule that can be safely opened in space, with an exit hatch that is large enough to accommodate an astronaut in full spacesuit, and either some way of tethering the astronaut safely to the craft or some way of enabling the astronaut to return safely to the craft without tethering them.
Well, there's also the small matter of the spacesuit and the associated life support equipment. The latter can be provided through an umbilical for this type of space walk, but the suit itself is not entirely trivial. However, these days you don't have to start from scratch.
-
It's not a matter of just hopping out the airlock, no. But it's not a massive leap when you've got several successful manned missions accomplished, a space station testbed in orbit, considerable experience by others to draw on, etc...
-
They probably didn't do it this way, but is there any reason they couldn't have just contacted Playtex (or whomever's making them now) and had a suit or six made?
-
They probably didn't do it this way, but is there any reason they couldn't have just contacted Playtex (or whomever's making them now) and had a suit or six made?
No need for that, as the Russians gave them a load of advice and technical assistance.
-
It looks like Vincent "completely forgot about this website" again.
-
It looks like Vincent "completely forgot about this website" again.
No doubt he's found something else to disbelieve or debunk. I await his return with interest.
-
Well, there's also the small matter of the spacesuit and the associated life support equipment.
You noticed that omission too, huh?
Even pressure suits are getting easier to make simply because the growing body of published experience means fewer unknowns. There are certainly many good tailors in China, and I'm sure at least a few of them have learned how to make very good pressure suits. (I wonder if I can buy one in Hong Kong?) Their expense is partly due to exotic materials like PTFE/fiberglass cloth (beta cloth) and metalized Kapton film and partly to all the labor, but I bet the biggest factor is the rather obvious need for some serious quality control.
Every crewed spacecraft has its share of Criticality 1 items (failure results in loss of crew and vehicle; no redundancy) but I can't think of a Criticality 1 item whose failure could kill you more quickly than a pressure suit and its associated life support system. Even when the life support system in a spacecraft cabin fails, you still have some time to fix the problem. But a pressure suit has maybe 2 cubic feet (50 liters) of unoccupied volume, and that's not much to help maintain pressure against a leak or to dilute CO2 below the toxic concentration. I don't know how much time an Apollo astronaut would have had to activate his OPS were his PLSS to suddenly expire, but it couldn't have been very long.
-
No doubt he's found something else to disbelieve or debunk. I await his return with interest.
Go easy on the guy. He's been busily producing some reasonably good (by Youtube standards, anyway) Apollo hoax debunking videos.
He just did one on the film slate at the beginning of the 16mm film reel from Apollo 11. Apparently Bart Sibrel found another of his phantom smoking guns: the date was before the start of the mission.
Now I find it hard to believe that Sibrel, supposedly a video producer, couldn't figure this out. But you know how the man works.
-
That's what perplexes me about Vincent - he's clearly smart, and can be very logical at times. But, for some reason, he wants to be the one to prove someone's been faking space flight.
-
I remember being young once.
-
I remember being young once.
I used to remember that.
-
I was never that young. I was always as I am now. ;)
-
I remember being young once.
It's overhyped AND wasted on the young.
-
I remember being young once.
My motto: You can only be young once, but you can be immature forever.
-
- Purchase flag from http://www.miniatureflagshop.com/china.html (http://www.miniatureflagshop.com/china.html)
- Locate clean pool
- Experiment
- Post results here
- Bask in the admiration of this forum AND become established as a major force in the space industry because you found out what those godless communists where getting up to
Not that you're going to do any of stuff as, like the last four time, you'll come up with an excuse.
Well, thanks to a kind lady at the local hardware store and one of my sons behaving angelically, I've been able to try the experiment.
We picked up an Australian flag (being handed out in large numbers for no particular reason I could see, except that in our case my son was being helpful to me and polite to the shop staff) of about the same size as the one being waved by the Chinese astronaut on the space walk.
I filled up the kitchen sink with hot water (later used to warm a couple of bowls for dinner) and waved the flag around in a variety of ways.
Results:
1. As a general rule, the flag always trailed wherever the flagpole led. That is, the part of the flag adjacent to the pole was always parallel with the direction the flag pole was travelling. The remainder of the flag simply trailed along like a snake's body. The water very obviously constrainted the motion of the flag. This compared most notably with the space walk flag which often remained perpendicular to the direction of the flag pole's motion.
2. The flag fluttered in the water. I assume this was due to a combination of (a) random motions generated in the flagpole by its passage through the water being transmitted to the flag, and (b) random lateral motions of the water against the flag as it passed by. This compared most notably with the constant smooth appearance of the space walk flag.
3. When the flagpole was moved in a circular fashion, the flag wrapped around the flagpole and remained in place, trapped by the water. This is simply a consequence of 1. above, whereby the flag simply trailed the movement of the flagpole.
Summary:
The flag moved through water in a fashion entirely unlike that of the space walk flag.
Conclusion:
The space walk flag was not submerged in water at the time the space walk footage was recorded.
-
Very nice experiment and summary, Peter B.!
-
Now try it with a lead feather :-)
-
It's a shame that Vincent no longer hangs around these parts, as I'd be interested to see what he makes of China's plans for super a heavy load lifter, the Long March 5/CZ-5 heavy rocket:
http://www.americaspace.org/?p=22881 (http://www.americaspace.org/?p=22881)
I suspect that he'd think this is faked as well, since the space walk was faked there's no possible way the Chinese could build anything this complex.
-
So, Vincent, how about having the cojones to return and withdraw your claim? Or are you still looking for a flag and a pool?
Hmm. I have an underwater camera, so perhaps I should do his work for him..? But I won't bother if he hasn't the intestinal fortitude to return and face the results.
-
I don't know how much time an Apollo astronaut would have had to activate his OPS were his PLSS to suddenly expire, but it couldn't have been very long.
That's one of those questions that can only be answered "It depends."
If we're talking about a catastrophic loss of pressure, what little experience we have seems to indicate that he would have about 15 seconds before becoming unconscious. Depending on the cause, though, the OPS may not be much help. If it was a tear in the TLSA, the OPS probably couldn't supply O2 fast enough to compensate for the leak.
If the oxygen system in the PLSS just suddenly stopped working, he would get audible alarms and RCS flags. I would guesstimate that he would have at least one to two minutes of clear-headed consciousness to pull the apple and open the purge valve.
On a related question, am I correct in thinking the spacesuits used for Gemini EVAs didn't have the convolute joints like the Apollo suits - just a "flexible" pressure layer, sort of like a very tight wet suit? If so, I'm amazed they were able to move at all (I'm reading Collins' and Cernan's books and it sounds like either of them could have died as a result of their Gemini EVAs, basically from exhaustion).
-
The Gemini suits had a pressure bladder (more like a loose wetsuit) surrounded by a human-shaped woven mesh. The mesh layer both forms constant-volume joints and keeps the bladder from inflating like a balloon. This design has been the basis for the USAF's high-altitude pressure suits for the past 50 years, but, as I understand it, is much stiffer than the Apollo suits.
-
This design has been the basis for the USAF's high-altitude pressure suits for the past 50 years, but, as I understand it, is much stiffer than the Apollo suits.
Yes, evidently crawling around on the exterior of a spacecraft turned out to require more flexibility that sitting in a cockpit or gondola. Amazing how clear things are in hindsight, isn't it?
-
IIRC, the OPS actually had quite a bit more oxygen than the PLSS, but it would be used up very quickly in a once-through mode. The buddy system hose introduced with Apollo 15 was only to share cooling water so the purge rate could be decreased, extending OPS lifetime from 30 to 60 min.
The irony is that on the moon something like 1/2 of the mass of the crust is chemically-bound oxygen, and there's plenty of solar energy to extract it. Someday they'll do just that.
-
And the tether and straps?
you know, I was thinking - with the relation of the ship to the Earth in the video (Earth 'above' the Astronaut), wouldn't the pull of Earth's gravity cause these items to 'float up'?
-
Here is a video of Ed White's Gemini 4 spacewalk.
Notice how at 0.47 there is a strap and a loop visible, both of which are 'floating' upwards of their own volition. Notice how as he sets up the camera at about 1.16 the coiled tether is floating upwards rather than sitting against the spacecraft.
Violating the laws of physics? Filmed underwater? Or just the natural tendency of the things in question?
How many times do I have to clear this up?????
Ed White used a NITROGEN GUN to maneuver. That causes him to develop relative velocity and motion to the tether and strap... Inertia dictates they must move. On the Chinese video, however, it's clear that they float up without any kind of force throughout the video.
If I recall correctly, he did NOT use the gun to get out of the spacecraft - he talked about a physical maneuver he did, but not with the gun.
EDIT (I stand corrected): I apparently did not have the sound on - he did use the gun. I was certain that the comms during the mission he stated he didn't need it, but I must be misremembering.
-
They could patent it and make nothing but scifi films better than 2001! Instead of Hollywood or Bollywood, it would have to be Chinese... hmm... Chinawood? That sounds weird.
Chollywood! (ok that is just more sillier than the other ...)
-
you know, I was thinking - with the relation of the ship to the Earth in the video (Earth 'above' the Astronaut), wouldn't the pull of Earth's gravity cause these items to 'float up'?
No. All the items in the spacecraft are in freefall around the Earth, and are no more subject to being pulled 'up' by Earth's gravity than any other object, the spacecraft included. It is true that objects with one long axis tend to orient themselves with the long axis pointing towards Earth due to the gravity gradient, but this takes some time to occur.
In short, you can't think of these things as 'hanging' towards the Earth due to its gravity.
-
you know, I was thinking - with the relation of the ship to the Earth in the video (Earth 'above' the Astronaut), wouldn't the pull of Earth's gravity cause these items to 'float up'?
No. All the items in the spacecraft are in freefall around the Earth, and are no more subject to being pulled 'up' by Earth's gravity than any other object, the spacecraft included. It is true that objects with one long axis tend to orient themselves with the long axis pointing towards Earth due to the gravity gradient, but this takes some time to occur.
In short, you can't think of these things as 'hanging' towards the Earth due to its gravity.
Fair enough. I think I may have actually surmised this as I was reading last night, but needed the clarification. Having never been in space, I was clearly guessing, wrongly, at what happened. :) Thanks for keeping me on the right path. When I can find the time, I think I am going to read up on LEO 0g physics so I can at least talk intelligently here ... :o
-
The thing to remember--the problem that Vincent has--is that space does not work the way you expect. Your expectations of how things act are based on your life experience, which involves things like air and gravity. When things look wrong to you in space travel, it's almost certainly your expectations which are the issue.
-
Exactly. What most HBs fail to grasp in addition to that is that some things [/i]do[/i] still work the same way. To them it's an either/or situation. Either everything works the same way or nothing does, and hence when we say their understanding of, say, interpreting how far something on the Moon is in the absence of familiar cues is flawed, and then go on to describe the behaviour of light, they act incredulous that we can say on the one had that standard familiar things don't work and then on the other hand use a standard familiar thing to make another argument.
-
bobdude,
Don't be fooled by the tides, which are often (misleadingly) described as being caused by the Moon's pull on the Earth. In fact, the tides are caused by the gravity gradient, similar to the effect on long objects that Jason mentioned.
In fact, tides are a pretty interesting thing to learn about. The Earth causes tides on the Moon, too, and the Moon's tide affects the solid rock of the Earth as well as the oceans (just not as dramatically).
-
you know, I was thinking - with the relation of the ship to the Earth in the video (Earth 'above' the Astronaut), wouldn't the pull of Earth's gravity cause these items to 'float up'?
As Jason Thompson pointed out, there is something called a "gravity gradient". It is present only when you're close to a massive body (e.g., in low earth orbit) and even then the effect is very small. It tends to cause a long, skinny object to orient itself along the local vertical.
Probably the best known (and certainly one of the largest) gravity-gradient stabilized object is Luna, our moon. It has aligned one of its axes along the earth's gravity gradient so that one side always faces the earth.
This is why NASA refers to the environment on the ISS (in a very low earth orbit) as "microgravity" rather than "zero gravity". Only points at the same altitude as the ISS's center of mass are in true free fall. A point on (or in) the ISS at a higher altitude would tend to orbit slightly slower and a point at a lower altitude would tend to orbit slightly faster but they're all dragged along by the rigid structure. This slight force is experienced as "microgravity".
Some spacecraft are gravity-gradient stabilized, a few deploy a mass on the end of a long boom to increase the effect. It can be tricky because there's no atmospheric friction to stop oscillations, so some sort of active damping is required.
-
This is why I come to this site. I learn more in one or two posts from the experts than I believe I can with a Google hunt … :)
-
It can be tricky because there's no atmospheric friction to stop oscillations, so some sort of active damping is required.
Damping can be passive, for instance using magnetic materials that slow the oscillations as they move through the earth's field.
-
Damping can be passive, for instance using magnetic materials that slow the oscillations as they move through the earth's field.
Or internal friction/mechanical hysteresis. A lossy spring will do the job even in high orbits or orbits around bodies that lack strong magnetic fields.
-
I'm not up on the latest implementations, but back in the early 1980s the UoSAT-Oscar-9 spacecraft had a boom and mass to attain gravity gradient stabilization. I remember them having a lot of trouble trying to damp out the oscillations. Maybe it's gotten easier since, especially with better on-board computers and attitude sensors. I should look at this again.
-
I'm not up on the latest implementations, but back in the early 1980s the UoSAT-Oscar-9 spacecraft had a boom and mass to attain gravity gradient stabilization. I remember them having a lot of trouble trying to damp out the oscillations. Maybe it's gotten easier since, especially with better on-board computers and attitude sensors. I should look at this again.
From what I've found, UoSAT 1/Oscar 9 had a deployment failure...a magnetometer cable snagged and prevented the gravity gradient boom from extending. It and UoSAT 2 used active damping via electromagnets, and I haven't found anything indicating unusual troubles with the system.
-
I think you're right -- it's been a while. Active damping did help a lot on the later Surrey spacecraft.
-
This is a topic I'm still interested in, as many small amateur satellites are still flown with little or no attitude control capability. This forces the use of simple antennas on the lower VHF and UHF frequency bands, and while they're nominally omnidirectional in fact they tend to have some rather deep nulls. This has forced me to make my modulation and error correction schemes extremely robust against fading, and that comes at a cost in data rate.
If we could cheaply and reliably keep one side facing earth at all times, we could use more directional (i.e., higher gain) antennas on the microwave bands and achieve much higher data rates.
-
From what I've found, UoSAT 1/Oscar 9 had a deployment failure...a magnetometer cable snagged and prevented the gravity gradient boom from extending. It and UoSAT 2 used active damping via electromagnets, and I haven't found anything indicating unusual troubles with the system.
Apart from the boom failure, it suffered early comms problems which prevented commands being sent for several months. In all, it took about a year to achieve stabilisation.
-
If we could cheaply and reliably keep one side facing earth at all times, we could use more directional (i.e., higher gain) antennas on the microwave bands and achieve much higher data rates.
One of the harder problems is that a gravity-gradient stabilized craft has two stable positions, and it's a bit tricky to get it to settle into the desired one. However, even if you let it flip into one of the two orientations at random, this could still be used to keep nulls in the pattern away from the ground and allow use of an antenna with some gain...
-
Greetings to the people of the ApolloHoax.net forums. There are a few reasons I am posting here today, and I feel it necessary to make a long, official statement of sincerity for actions taken many, many months ago.
My name, as you know, is Vincent McConnell and I was once a poster here on these forums. However, things became complicated, as can be seen in the contents of this thread, and I left under the context that I didn't want to deal with this anymore. To let the record state, I never conducted any experiments concluding any one stance on the Chinese Space Program and its missions. So before I am asked how "that underwater experiment went", I want to announce publicly that no such experiment ever took place. Regardless, I feel it has become necessary to make my official statement here, where I was kind of "run-off" the forums. I lost interest in the Chinese space program and the arguments surrounding it many months ago and my position on the Shenzhou missions (even to me) has become completely irrelevant. Whether China put a man in space or not, I simply don't care. There are a number of people who were personally offended by remarks I made questioning their scientific integrity, and for each and every one of those remarks, I officially apologize and ask for forgiveness. I was in a "conspiracy mood" at the time and no longer agree with statements made that directly insult or offend another user of these forums.
Apollohoax.net for me is about Apollo, and I have chosen to keep it that way. I will hereby cease to make mentions of conspiracy theories surrounding anything but Apollo. And to further go into detail, I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theory at this time. There were users, whose names I don't remember, that I challenged openly and I angered moderators of these boards. As said, I would like to make an official apology for that. Shenzhou 7, since it needs to be addressed one final time, cannot be concluded by me or anyone else as fake, because I have simply not done the proper experiments to arrive at that conclusion. Scientifically, I had no reason to state so emphatically that these missions were faked in a swimming pool.
Shenzhou 5, I have openly regarded as being completely real, because scenes from the mission show evidence of free-fall for more than a minute at a time. As Shenzhou 5 clearly put a man in space, it would be foolish to suggest anything other than the official story for Shenzhou 7 without crack evidence.
Tempers will probably be high with my return to this page and my attempt to patch things up, and that is fully understandable. I will be available via PM and this thread to answer all questions personally regarding my conduct more than half a year ago. In addition, if there is anyone that feels I need to make a named apology to them, please let me know, and I will do so. I would like to wrap this ridiculous controversy up once and for all. In hindsight, leaving such an excellent forum for such a stupid reason was a dumb idea, and I would like to just distance myself from arguments about the Chinese space program. My number one goal here will be to make counter-arguments against the Apollo Moon Hoax Theory and discuss the technicalities of spaceflight (orbital mechanics/rocket science).
So this post is certainly not the end here -- because there are going to be a lot of skeptical users who are going to want to tell me to fock off.
-Vincent McConnell.
-
Vincent, you were not "run off" the forums. You were asked to present your evidence and back up your claims, a rule which everyone who posts here is expected to adhere to.
I appreciate your apology, but I think perhaps you don't really understand why people got annoyed. Your tone in the post above sounds very high and mighty and it might be that attitude which puts people's backs up. I appreciate that might not be your intent and I do not say these things to injure you, but merely to be open and honest about why I think your relationships with others on the board might be a bit strained. If I am the only one who feels this way about your tone, then I withdraw my comments and apologise.
-
Well thank you for that rather verbose apology, Vincent. However:
I feel it has become necessary to make my official statement here, where I was kind of "run-off" the forums.
You were never 'run off' the forum. Your arguments were challenged as with anyone else here. At any point you could have withdrawn them or simply conceded. You left of your own volition. No-one here made any effort to make you leave.
I angered moderators of these boards.
Lunar Orbit is the one and only moderator here.
Tempers will probably be high with my return to this page and my attempt to patch things up, and that is fully understandable.
I don't think tempers will be high at all.
So this post is certainly not the end here -- because there are going to be a lot of skeptical users who are going to want to tell me to fock off.
Why would you say that? I see no reason why you shouldn't be welcomed back, provided you keep to the same rules of conduct expected of everyone, namely be polite and back your arguments up with evidence. The only thing that got people wound up in this thread was your inability to provide the evidence and your attitude to people trying to show you where and why you were incorrect. You've apologised for that so it's done and we'll move on.
-
If I am the only one who feels this way about your tone, then I withdraw my comments and apologise.
I don't think that would be necessary. Your views are your views, regardless of what anyone else thinks.
For the record my first thought on reading it was that it had a kind of 'hello cruel forum' tone (if that makes sense), and that the lengthy apology, while welcome and appreciated, was somewhat undercut by the suggestion we had run him off the forum and the comments about how we would likely react to his return.
-
Vincent, you were not "run off" the forums. You were asked to present your evidence and back up your claims, a rule which everyone who posts here is expected to adhere to.
I appreciate your apology, but I think perhaps you don't really understand why people got annoyed. Your tone in the post above sounds very high and mighty and it might be that attitude which puts people's backs up. I appreciate that might not be your intent and I do not say these things to injure you, but merely to be open and honest about why I think your relationships with others on the board might be a bit strained. If I am the only one who feels this way about your tone, then I withdraw my comments and apologise.
I agree with Andromeda.
Vincent, your apology sounds insincere to me. An "official apology" is made by an officer speaking for an organization. A individual speaking for himself can only make a personal apology. Perhaps that is what you meant and this will appear to you to be nit picking, but using exaggerated language is not the way to communicate your personal position to others. Putting quotes around your claim of being "'run off'" does not make them any less of a provocation and it also makes you words seem insincere.
If you really want to reintegrate yourself back in to this community, a simple and personal explanation for your change of heart is best. Followed by postings that reflect that change of heart. So far you you still seem to be the same loner that left in a huff because your personal beliefs were challenged.
-
I wasn't a part of the previous discussion so I don't know anything about that. However, if you want to fit in here all you need to do is be polite and respectful, do not make indefensible arguments, and if you do need to defend an argument, do so in a civil manner. Also, make your contributions within the flow of the discussion. Don't preach or talk over people. Acknowledge what others have said and add to the discussion when you have something of value to say. And learn from others whenever possible - don't assume you know more.
-
I agree with Andromeda.
Vincent, your apology sounds insincere to me. An "official apology" is made by an officer speaking for an organization.
What I mean by "official" is that it's my legitimate post to officially return to these forums and explain what I feel needs to be said. So if you prefer to word it as "personal", that is fine.
To all the people saying I was not "run-off" these forums, maybe I just used the wrong choice of words. What I meant to say was, this was the thread which resulted in my departure and hiatus from this forum.
-
So if you prefer to word it as "personal", that is fine.
That is the problem, it wasn't really personal.
-
That is the problem, it wasn't really personal.
No... Personal just doesn't transfer through text. What did you want me to do? Send you money? Typing something out is the best I can do on a forum.
-
That is the problem, it wasn't really personal.
No... Personal just doesn't transfer through text. What did you want me to do? Send you money? Typing something out is the best I can do on a forum.
You could have written a less pompous apology, for a start.
-
You could have written a less pompous apology, for a start.
Such as? The current explains the situation pretty well, since we're dealing with something that happened 8 months ago...
-
How about "I'm sorry I was such a jerk"? "I'm sorry I made unsupported assumptions and then disparaged people who disagreed with them"? Vincent, almost everyone on the forum is older and more educated than you are, and most of them have years of professional experience in relevant fields. Yet you always come across as though you are trying to teach them, as though they know less than you do. You might want to look to that.
-
That is the problem, it wasn't really personal.
No... Personal just doesn't transfer through text. What did you want me to do? Send you money? Typing something out is the best I can do on a forum.
A friendly suggestion, and hopefully my last word on the topic; this is just something you need to work out.
ETA: So it wasn't the absolute last word. There is a substantial space between an "Official" announcement and "Send you some money" that you might want to explore.
-
Such as?
Such as 'sorry I was unable to conduct a reasoned argument without disparaging others who know more about the subject than me simply by virtue of their greater years and experience'?
Vincent, you're not a moron. You're clearly passionate about whatever subject you set your mind to researching. The problem, as gillianren says, is that you present that learning sometimes as if, once hearing about it, it's the be all and end all and everyone must be impressed with your level of understanding. Believe me, if your knowledge is impressive people will be impressed. If they are not impressed, and they tell you why, you need to listen to that because it might just be that your understanding is incomplete. And I'm sorry but the fact is that your age does matter here. As an example, I am more than twice your age. I have been looking at stuff relating to astronomy and Apollo and other related subjects longer than you have been alive. My education in the relevant fields has progressed further than yours. That doesn't mean I know everything and you can't possibly tell me things I don't know, but it does mean that you can't, for example, lecture me on physics as you tried to do more than once in this thread.
The most frustrating thing for us was that you first came on here vehemently defending Jarrah White and the notion that the Apollo missions were faked. Then after some time interacting here you realised your mistake and came back having 'switched sides', so to speak. Fine. But then you came on just as vehemently attacking the validity of the Shenzhou missions, showing no indication that you had learned anything beyond the technical details of Apollo from your time discussing it with us. Nothing about the way arguments need to be presented and supported. Nothing about who and what constitute reliable sources of information. Nothing about how the people here knew what they knew and how they applied it, which might have made you think twice before saying some of the things that you have now apologised for in the first place.
And then, after all that, to come on here making a big announcement about your return, and using terms like 'run off' to describe what was in fact simply you retreating from the discussion for whatever reason, makes me wonder what it is you expect in response.
-
Vincent's young. He'll learn. I did.
At least he's saying he's willing to learn, and that puts him ahead of many other people his age. And certainly light-years ahead of any hoaxer.
-
At least he's saying he's willing to learn, and that puts him ahead of many other people his age. And certainly light-years ahead of any hoaxer.
There's a difference between saying it and showing it. One is important. The problem is the repeated behaviour, or anyway one of the problems is the repeated behaviour.
-
Yes. Still, even just saying it does put him ahead...
-
For me, I adhere strictly to the well-documented "once bitten - twice shy" theorem. Now .. many people think this is a simple linear equation and, ergo-therefore, that I should now be just thrice shy given Vincent's two bites..
However, I believe it's a volumetric sorta thing, so I'm feeling octo-shy.
Did that make any sense to anyone?
-
Yes. Still, even just saying it does put him ahead...
I don't think so. We get plenty of HBs who are "just asking questions" and "willing to be told they're wrong." And then, they act annoyed, spoiled, and petulant when you actually do tell them that they're wrong. I've seen it many times over the years, and I'm not inclined toward putting up with it anymore.
-
For me, I adhere strictly to the well-documented "once bitten - twice shy" theorem. Now .. many people think this is a simple linear equation and, ergo-therefore, that I should now be just thrice shy given Vincent's two bites..
However, I believe it's a volumetric sorta thing, so I'm feeling octo-shy.
Did that make any sense to anyone?
Hysteresis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis)
-
...
Did that make any sense to anyone?
Hysteresis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteresis)
:D Indeed. I am in a highly negative area of the loop currently, and it would take a fair bit from Vincent to even get me near equlibrium, let alone into the positive.
Don't get me wrong, it would be good if he made the effort required..