Ah… sorry.
I searched China Space and it didn’t come up for me.
I say we quietly slip out of the thread. They aren’t very keen on Conspiracy Theories round these parts!
I’m at work so I can’t listen to the audio on the video, but here’s a couple of refutations to get everyone started one way or the other.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/did-the-chinese-fake-their-space-walk/
Well, here’s a refutation of their refutation.
I merged nilum’s thread into ivan astikov’s older one, which hadn’t been active since September 2009.
I’m not going to watch some random video; why don’t you detail the claims and then I might watch it?
It’s not “some random video”. It’s totally related to the thread title, and if you read the rest of the thread you’ll get the general gist of the topic. If you are so reticent to simply watch a youtube vid, why should I be arsed to type out a full summary, when you might not even watch it anyway?
That’s not a refutation, that’s technological solipsism. It is not reasonable to assume by default that the Chinese government faked an achievement that has been within the capabilities of other major powers for the past 45 years.
And regardless of what he claims, when you start assuming that NASA is keeping secrets for the Chinese just because the US government owes their government money, you’re a conspiracy theorist.
Stranger is a real, honest to goodness rocket scientist. He says that the capability is there, and he sees no reason to believe the Chinese faked their launch. He points out valid reasons outside of fakery that could explain the discrepancies in the video.
Why do you discount what he says, while putting stock in what others say if they back you up?
Who is this “james” you quote at response #24? Is he also a rocket scientist, astronaut, or physicist?
I saw minor discrepancies, but it seems like the most plausible explanation for them is that when the taikonaut-carrying rocket launched, Chinese media just used the launch of a previous rocket for news footage in case something went wrong and made the Party look bad.
An even better question that seems to elude the narrator of the video is why China would fake a space mission when their first manned space mission in 2003 does not seem to be in dispute?
I don’t get the CT aspect of this.
I mean, OK, the Chinese claim to have done a spacewalk… so what? Welcome to the 1970s.
Call us and tell us what size leisure suit you need…
Actually, it’s welcome to the 60s. Ya know, bellbottoms, tiedyes, Apollo moon landings?
The “refutation of the refutation”…isn’t. It’s basically saying “Ok I’m going to ignore the fact that the claims that gave pause for thought as to the spacewalk’s veracity in the first place have been undercut. It’s possible to fake shit, therefore they did. Q.E.fucking.D”
Also known as “putting all the crazy in one basket”.
Minor correction: I’m an engineer that works on rocket launch systems; I’m not a specialist in spacecraft operation, manned orbital systems, or propulsion science (though I know a little bit about all of these areas, mostly through personal interest). Certainly China has the capability to loft a payload like Shenzhou spacecraft, which itself is heavily based on the tried-and-true Soyuz layout, though it is clear that Shenzhou has benefited from decades of advancement and likely not just a little industrial espionage from the West. There is nothing particularly implausible about their launching a manned mission, and in fact there has been speculation since the early 'Nineties that the Chinese were technically ready to launch a manned mission, and Project 921 was initiated in 1992. So any credible conspiracy theory has to posit the question, “Why would the Chinese fake a manned mission?” when they actually have the technical capability to do so. A sincere failure is far more credible and notable an effort than a readily discovered scam.
To get back to the video, though (if we must) it is instructive to see that their own hypotheses are internally contradicted. The narrator opines (regarding the debris that is moving at various angles diagonal to the video frame) that what we are observing as air bubbles, as the scene was filmed in a water tank and digitally altered to appear as if it was in freefall, hence why the debris doesn’t move “toward Earth”. Never mind that the narrator doesn’t apparently understand the concept of a freefall; as any scuba diver knows, air bubbles not only have a strong tendency to go straight up toward the water’s surface despite any currents, but they also expand as they rise and break into multiple bubbles. The narrator offers up some handwaving about turbulence without considering that nothing in a turbulent flow field is going to go in a straight line, whereas debris with any impulse in freefall will travel along a geodesic curve which will appear to be a straight line at local distances. He also makes claims about the varying apparent curvature of the Earth based upon video from different cameras. Anyone knowledgeable about optics and photography can easily speak to why the curvature may vary depending on the lens system that is used.
I could go on debunking the points made by this conspiracy hypothesis, but it should be apparent that even without a working knowledge of space systems the claims just don’t hold vacuum, and are the work of the same type of cranks who believe the auto industry is concealing a 200 mpg gas engine.
Stranger
As an underwater photographer, I agree with the lens aspects, and the ‘bubbles’ not looking right. The flag also would be moving very differently as there would be water resistance.
Going on about the ‘curvature being different’ shows some pretty basic ignorance about how different lenses or even amounts of zoom can change this curvature effect. Also you can get some fairly obvious effects from the water itself unless the water is absolutely pure, ie nearer objects being clearer and more distinct than ones that are further away.
Any higher resolution video would show this up quite clearly unless a ton of work was done to manipulate it. The original video would be great, but on initial glance this all looks very CT, ie “any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.[1]”
Otara
I’ve read several warnings about Chinese intelligence agencies using seductive female agents to coerce secrets from unwitting technical folks. Perhaps you should have held out for a hot Chinese lady.
Kind of a zombie thread (plus Stranger has already weighed in, so that’s probably debunked it right there), but here is what BA has to say on it (sorry if someone else has already linked to this):
Pretty much what’s already been said in this thread by those who actually have some specific knowledge on this subject. Not that I expect this to have any effect on Ivan, but figured I’d drop in the BA article, since I happened to be reading it yesterday and saw this thread pop up today.
-XT
Exactly. If you are going to make up a lie about doing something, at least make it a lie that will impress your friends.
“One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent.”
–H. L. Mencken