Miscellaneous NASA comedies

[pov603]

Scott Kelly wears glasses?
Whatever happened to 20/20 vision for pilots or is it different for a-straw-nuts?

[anonjedi2]

I had never seen a clip of the first ever space walk (Gemini 4), until tonight. It's worth watching!

From Wikipedia:

Gemini 4 (officially Gemini IV)[3] was the second manned space flight in NASA's Project Gemini, occurring in June 1965. It was the tenth manned American spaceflight (including two X-15 flights at altitudes exceeding 100 kilometers (54 nmi)). Astronauts James McDivitt and Edward H. White, II circled the Earth 66 times in four days, making it the first US flight to approach the five-day flight of the Soviet Vostok 5. The highlight of the mission was the first space walk by an American, during which White floated free outside the spacecraft, tethered to it, for approximately 20 minutes. Both of these accomplishments helped the United States overcome the Soviet Union's early lead in the Space Race.

The flight also included the first attempt to make a space rendezvous as McDivitt attempted to maneuver his craft close to the Titan II upper stage which launched it into orbit, but this was not successful.

The flight was the first American flight to perform many scientific experiments in space, including use of a sextant to investigate the use of celestial navigation for lunar flight in the Apollo program.

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7mVTFAspPk

Notes:

1) In the first 2 minutes of the video, we see Edward White struggling with his equipment. Notice the flimsy strap and other objects of the tether as they wave violently in what seems to be "wind"? Also note the speed at which the objects move, much faster than we're used to seeing things move up in the ISS and modern space walks.

2) Also in the first two minutes, notice the rotation of the Earth from East to West (with North being the top of your computer screen, not TRUE north).

3) At 2:05, notice the tether contraption reach it's limit and a "kink" sound is heard. Does sound travel through space?

4) Around 3 minutes, the astroNOT is out of the frame (to the left). At this point we can note that the shadow has creeped up higher on the portion of the craft on the right side of the frame. But we have not observed much of the curvature or positioning of the Earth change in accordance with the rotation of the craft (causing the change in shadow from the "sun"). The angle, however, has changed slightly.

5) Around 4 minutes, the Earth is now rotating slightly from SE to NW and more so around 5 minutes.

6) Around 6 minutes, the craft has returned (rotated)? back to it's previous position with the sun shown on more of the surface of the craft to the right of the frame and less shadow. The earth (or movement of the clouds) is now rotating from SW to NE.

7) Around 7 minutes we see the Earth conveniently covered completely by clouds as it continues its SW to NE rotation.

8) By 8 minutes, the Earth is rotating from West to East.

9) By 9 minutes it's rotating in an almost circular pattern from NE to SW.

10) Hardly any land whatsoever is observed on the Earth until the very end of the 9 minute clip. Also note that the straps and tether are flapping around wildly throughout the "space walk."

Some questions that come to mind for me...

1) Is it realistic to observe the Earth rotating in all of those different directions during an 8 minute portion of the alleged 20 minute space walk?

2) Is the craft moving at all, and if so, in which direction and how fast? Wouldn't the combination of the craft's speed and the Earth rotation result in various different shots of the Earth other than just seeing it with the edge on the left, taking up mostly the same space of the frame of the camera, throughout the video?

4) If the craft is relatively stationary, or "moving away" from the Earth, other than its brief rotations exposing more of the sun, how can we see the Earth go through this many different directions of "rotation" in such a short period of time?

4) Is it realistic that this much of the Earth would be covered by clouds and no visible land for 8-9 minutes? All we see is Clouds and Ocean the entire time, but if the Earth is spinning at 1000mph, is it consistent relative to the way the Earth is moving and how much Earth (clouds/oceans) we see go by in this amount of time?

5) At certain times in the video (earlier vs later, for example), the velocity of the Earth's rotation seems slower/faster than in other parts of the video. Does this make sense?

Obviously this space walk is one ridiculous fraud. I am not sure if my questions above are easy to understand but hopefully they can spark a little discussion about what we observe in this video.

One more thing to ponder:

If the astronots look down towards the Earth while they are blasting off towards space but still traveling in the atmosphere, they wouldn't see the Earth rotating at all (so we are told), because they are part of the atmosphere spinning with it. So, is there an imaginary line where they just stop being in Earth's atmosphere and are now in "Space"? What would happen if an Astronot went for a space walk right up to this imaginary line and stuck his head past it? Would the Earth stop rotating in his eyes? Would his head fall off his body and tumble back down to Earth? What would happen to an astronot or any object if half of it was still in Earth's atmosphere and the other half in space?

And finally, once you exited the atmosphere into the vacuum, shouldn't the Earth now take off at 30km per second (67,000 miles per hour) through the solar system with the astronots and craft floating in space behind it? In the 8 minutes time of this video, the Earth should be ~8933 miles away from it's original position (continuing its journey around the sun). It should be out of the view of the camera in less than a few seconds, essentially whizzing past the astronot and Gemini craft. Wouldn't they need to wait 12 months for the Earth to return back to this position so they can land on it? Or is the vacuum of space somehow dragged along with the Earth and its atmosphere?

EDIT to add:

Of course the reason we're given for this last question is that the astronot and spacecraft, as well as the moon, would be held near the Earth, due to its gravitational pull, and thus travel along the orbit with it ... but of course this makes no sense either, as the spacecraft would then eventually be pulled back to the atmosphere as well, no? By the same token, shouldn't the moon then be sucked into the Earth at some point in time? Or are we expected to believe that everything is just in perfect balance, by accident?

[fbenario]

What would happen if an Astronot went for a space walk right up to this imaginary line and stuck his head past it? Would the Earth stop rotating in his eyes? Would his head fall off his body and tumble back down to Earth?

Awesome.

[simonshack]

8) By 8 minutes, the Earth is rotating from West to East.

9) By 9 minutes it's rotating in an almost circular pattern from NE to SW.

Totally hilarious, dear Anonjedi !

Here we have two clips from a 'modern version' of this alleged first-ever EVA performed by Ed White...
Looks like the GEMINI4's orbit around earth changed course - and quite radically so - during that brief EVA !




Grey or white? - YOU decide !


source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSrAF5DgknM

Here's a high-resolution image to be found on Wackopedia - with the inane caption: "created June3, 1965". Yes, we are actually asked to believe that this is a real photograph - snapped by James McDivitt (also credited with the above 'motion footage') ...



And here are a few lines from Wickedpedia concerning this "historical event"; they really can't help themselves with this silly "11" mantra...

- "As late as 11 days before the scheduled June 3 launch, newspapers were reporting that NASA was saying it "had not yet determined whether White would be the first American astronaut to expose himself to the elements of space," and that "A decision might not be made until a day or two before launching."

-" Press interest, due to the satellite broadcast and the new center in Houston, proved to be so high that NASA had to lease buildings to accommodate the 1100 print and broadcast journalists who requested accreditation."

- "Eleven experiments were carried on the spacecraft."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_4

How much sillier can it get?

[rusty]

What strange kind of "orbit" is this anyway, that we never see even a glimpse of the night side of the earth???

[Critical Mass]

I've mentioned Gemini IV before.

I still love that accelerating glove.

2:33 in anonjedi2's find

[Flabbergasted]

[Thinktwice]

It seems possible the craft is supposed to be rotating, which could explain why the Earth's rotation appears to change in orientation. For instance, first it is pointed towards the south, and by the end it it pointing more north. However, the position of the sun and the shadows in the video is inconsistent with that idea. The sun is always off to the left side of the image, so the craft cannot be rotating very much, certainly not almost 180 degrees.

It looks more like they took some high altitude plane footage of some clouds, and projected it onto a giant globe. Apparently they didn't tell the pilot/photographer to fly in a straight line!

[arc300]

Check out the swell (but not swollen from pressurization) space suit that Ed White is wearing during the space walk in 1965:



Then gasp in admiration as you check out the huge technological leap forward with the Republic Moon Suit being tested in 1966. What a difference a year makes:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/repnsuit.htm
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=59&p=2369684#p2369684

[ICfreely]

On a much lighter note…

The Batman of science’s dynamic duo (Neil de-Ass Tyson & Bill Nye ‘the sci-fi guy’) gives us the low down on what’s up with Gravity – duh moo-vie on this very special installment of Cinemasins. I’m sure Sandra Bullock’s agent insisted she sport a pair of Daisy Dukes instead of the diapers ‘real astronauts’ do to remind us she’s still hot. Works for me. I mean I’d tap that. Just sayin’...


Everything Wrong With Gravity - With Neil deGrasse Tyson


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzE6bKIKK3A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzE6bKIKK3A


Holy shitballs Batman! Education is fun-duh-mental!

[hoi.polloi]

Yes, but surely you aren't endorsing the fool! Tell us what's up about the video — What is the content? What is your feeling on it? Not even a time stamp to pay attention to? We are all supposed to just soak in the propaganda?

[ICfreely]

Well, I don’t know where to begin.

1- The title Gravity promotes 300+ years of Newtonian mystery G pseudoscience.

2- “Mysteries of #Gravity: Why anyone impressed with a zero-G film 45 years after being impressed with “2001: A Space Odyssey”” Inferring Kubrick’s movie already established that zero-G spaceflight is possible is beyond laughable.

3- “Why Bullock, a medical Doctor, is servicing the Hubble Space Telescope.” Infers the existence of the Hubble.

4- “The film #Gravity depicts a scenario of catastrophic satellite destruction that can actually happen.” Possibly serves as a predictive programming device in the event our space cadets decide to scrap the satellite/space travel hoaxes by claiming a chain reaction of satellite collisions caused space debris.

5- “Satellite communications are disrupted at 230 mi up, but communications satellites orbit 100x higher.” Sure Neil, if you say so. Speaking of ‘up,’ I thought there was no up or down in ‘space.’

6- “The film #Gravity should be renamed “Zero Gravity.” We all ‘know’ the Earth’s ‘gravitational pull’ is nonexistent for humans & ‘spacecraft’ at 230 miles ‘up’ but somehow magically pulls the Moon which is purportedly a quarter million miles away.

7- “When Clooney releases Bullock’s tether, he drifts away. In Zero-G a single tug brings them together.” Well, I guess NASA’s technical advisors were asleep at the wheel on that one.

8- “How Hubble (350mi up) The International Space Station (230mi up) & a Chinese Space Station are all in sight lines of one another.” Good point Neil! While we’re at it, where are all the other thousands of satellites?

9- “Why Bullock’s hair, in otherwise convincing zero-G scenes, did not float freely on her head.” Well maybe because her hair was conveniently cut short to avoid that technical problem. Or perhaps she didn’t want to use a blow dryer like ‘real astronauts’ do. Or maybe she didn’t want to use Aqua Net hairspray for fear of contributing to the destruction of the delicate hole in the ozone layer which is conveniently situated above Antarctica.

10- “Nearly all satellites orbit Earth West to East yet all satellite debris portrayed orbited East to West” Nearly all? What satellites are supposed to orbit Earth East to West?

The general theme is: Hollywood is so inept at producing realistic space scenes that NASA couldn’t possibly fake it. And that’s just halfway through the clip. So no, dear hoi, I by no means endorse Tyson in any way shape or form. Whether we realize it or not we're soaking in propaganda practically 24/7. In retrospect, I should have posted it Misc. NASA comedies thread & elaborated further. Hope that helps.



************
Just moved it over to this appropriate thread, dear IC ( -simon)

[anonjedi2]

Not directly NASA related, but it all falls into the same sphere of nonsense, so I'm posting it here.

Aussie student proves existence of plasma tubes floating above Earth

It’s a finding that was initially met with a considerable degree of scepticism within the field of astrophysics, but a University of Sydney undergraduate student Cleo Loi, 23, has proven that the phenomenon exists.

Proven? Do tell! Apparently these plasma tubes are invisible, so none of us can see them for ourselves.

By using a radio telescope in the West Australian outback to see space in 3D, Ms Loi has proven that the Earth’s atmosphere is embedded with these strangely shaped, tubular plasma structures. The complex, multilayered ducts are created by the atmosphere being ionised by sunlight.

There's that pesky "proven" word again, bandied about with such ease and recklessness. So we are told that one can use a radio telescope to see space in 3D? Nobody's ever seen this before?

“For over 60 years, scientists believed these structures existed, but by imaging them for the first time, we’ve provided visual evidence that they are really there,” said Ms Loi, of the Australia Research Council Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO).

I see, so these scientists believed that these things exist for over 60 years? Since when does belief have any place in real science? How fortunate and coincidental that this student just confirmed all of their beliefs!

“We saw a striking pattern in the sky where stripes of high-density plasma neatly alternated with stripes of low-density plasma. This pattern drifted slowly and aligned beautifully with the Earth’s magnetic field lines, like aurorae.

“We realised we may be onto something big.”

An artist’s impression of tubular plasma structures in the Earth’s magnetosphere. Source: Supplied

But why would we need an artist's impression if she imaged the phenomenon? Why can't we see the images for ourselves?

“It is to Cleo’s great credit that she not only discovered this but also convinced the rest of the scientific community. As an undergraduate student with no prior background in this, that is an impressive achievement,” said Dr Murphy, also of CAASTRO and the School of Physics at the University of Sydney.

“When they first saw the data, many of her senior collaborators thought the results were literally ‘too good to be true’ and that the observation process had somehow corrupted the findings, but over the next few months, Cleo managed to convince them that they were both real and scientifically interesting.”

Convinced them that they were real and scientifically interesting? Why would anyone in a field of science need to convince anyone of anything? Shouldn't the data, imagery, experiments, etc. stand on their own? I suppose maybe it's because they're invisible.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/scien ... 7379756018

[hoi.polloi]

Seems as though the story would have merit if it had any scientific language in it whatsoever! No studies cited or even described? Just a link to the person who organized the study and their article? Thanks for "reporting" that someone described uh, er, something ... wait, who are we thanking? Is it the author "story writer" James Law? And the site makes it look as though any coinpurse could pay to have an article appear on NEWS.COM.AU

Here's what the linked 'study' (we are assuming) says:

Ionization of the Earth's atmosphere by sunlight forms a complex, multilayered plasma environment within the Earth's magnetosphere, the innermost layers being the ionosphere and plasmasphere. The plasmasphere is believed to be embedded with cylindrical density structures (ducts) aligned along the Earth's magnetic field, but direct evidence for these remains scarce. Here we report the first direct wide-angle observation of an extensive array of field-aligned ducts bridging the upper ionosphere and inner plasmasphere, using a novel ground-based imaging technique. We establish their heights and motions by feature tracking and parallax analysis. The structures are strikingly organized, appearing as regularly spaced, alternating tubes of overdensities and underdensities strongly aligned with the Earth's magnetic field. These findings represent the first direct visual evidence for the existence of such structures.

Of course, you have to pay to have access to this supposed breakthrough. Meh.

[simonshack]

*

NASA's latest (quite successful) comedy


I feel compelled to warn everyone about this latest NASA comedy - which, alas, seems to be gaining traction all over the webs.

It has all to do with this "Matt Boylan" character - and his sidekick Eric Dubay. "Mattt Boylan" (a.k.a. comedian Math Powerland) claims to be a NASA defector and whistleblower. Don't wish to waste much time on this - so here are just a couple of links for those who wish to gain awareness of just how this flat earth craze of late was launched...


I'll just let you read this video description by Eric Dubay :

NASA Insider Exposes the Flat Earth! - Eric Dubay Youtube channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQt9vq3sdtQ

"Matthew Boylan, former NASA operational graphics manager, worked for years creating photo-realistic computer graphics for NASA. Now a vocal Flat-Earther, Boylan claims that NASA’s sole reason for existence is to propagandize the public and promote this false ball-Earth heliocentric worldview. Originally recruited because of his skills and reputation as a hyper-realist multi-media artist, he started doing projects like photoshopping various lighting and atmospheric effects onto images of Earth, the Moon, Jupiter, Europa, etc. Having proved himself, and wanting to promote him to do more classified work, a room of NASA higher-ups during a party, as a type of initiatory-rite, explained to him and a few others in detail the reality of the Geocentric Flat-Earth model and how they have fooled the entire world!"

"Refusing to be a part of their deception, Boylan cut his ties to NASA, began researching the Flat-Earth for himself, and has recently become a powerful voice on the lecture circuit and the internet exposing NASA and their heliocentric hoax. In his comedic lectures he speaks candidly and eloquently about how simple it is using nothing more than Adobe Photoshop and a video editor to create any and every type of image NASA purports to be “receiving from the Hubble telescope.” He points out how in most ball-Earth videos lazy NASA graphics workers don’t even bother changing cloud structures in ordinary or time-lapse footage; the same shape, color and condition cloud cover often stays completely unchanged for 24 hour periods and longer! Boylan states unequivocally that every picture and video of the ball-Earth, all the Moon/Mars landings, the existence of orbiting satellites, space stations, and all Hubble images are hoaxed. He even quips anecdotes about how NASA officials and astro-nots privy to the Flat-Earth truth would laugh hysterically at the brain-washed zombie public who unquestioningly believe their televisions."

Make of it what you wish - but please use your brain while making it !

Not much of a video - but it's good to see someone who's getting it - and won't fall for this latest NASA charade:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORqIV9te_Rs