Should this be considered a quote A psychic political science major?
I did a one shot pass of the video and ignored all of the curvature angle/optics stuff but where did the bubbles come from?
One of the claims in the video is that debris seen flying out of the hatch was actually bubbles from filming in an underwater tank and speeding up the motion. So apparently the Chinese are sophisticated enough to remove all the blue hues from filming with water and even out the color temperature to look like filming in vacuum, but aren’t fundamentally bright enough to use a simple motion-tracking removal tool that can be found in any professional video editing software.
Huh. Weird.
Stranger
Right. Their faked video is so well done it will fool scientists and engineers, but so lame a random guy on the internet can easily spot the mistakes.
Can’t be any weirder than the Iranians photo-shopping a missile launch. The Chinese government is willing to filter the entire internet signal going into their country in order to suppress the images of the Tiananmen Square event. It’s not a big stretch to suggest they covered up a failed launch.
I don’t have a horse in this race but China has issues regarding their public perception of events.
“Can’t be any weirder than the Iranians photo-shopping a missile launch.”
Which was trivially easy to detect, despite being orders of magnitude easier to fake.
One of the bigest problems with CT is often ‘its not a big stretch’ to imagine it as a one line scenario. Its when you start considering everything needed to really make it actually happen and yet be detectable to one guy on Youtube that it starts getting silly.
Otara
I really don’t care whether it is a fake or not but the political will to lie about a failure has a precedence in China’s will to control it’s image. True it’s harder to fake a video than a photo by orders of magnitude but the event is not done in plain sight. If it’s because of a failed mission then at least that can be eliminated by interviews with the astronauts. This is Great Debates so the argument against the op’s premise has to be more than “because it’s harder to do than photo-shop”.
It’s one of the hallmarks of most Conspiracy Theories; the conspirators are Genius Fools.
So you’re not actually interested in addressing the issue posed by the o.p.? You just want to sling around accusations no matter how without factual merit they may be?
Stranger
The op posted a web video for debunking. I’d be interested in knowing what the air bubbles are in the video. You’ve provided nothing as a way of explanation except they should have removed what is an easily missed air bubble.
I don’t care if it’s a fake which is different than wanting to know if it’s a fake. As conspiracies go it’s interesting enough to hear the explanation of what the apparent air bubble is. If you have a background in rocket surgery then pony up some proof that it’s a fake and kill the thread with ignorance fought.
Either you just got off the jackass train or you utterly failed reading comprehension, because as I’ve already explained in a couple of posts the supposed “bubbles” do not act as air bubbles under water do, even if the frame speed is doubled or tripled. Bubbles don’t go diagonally to one side and then the other, nor do they elevate without expanding. Consider the claims in the video debunked.
Stranger
So, are you stating that the effects seen in the video link couldn’t be achieved using a decent video editing package, that the Chinese would not/have no need to fake this sort of thing, or both?
I didnt just say its ‘harder than photoshop’, and gave several reasons why this is an extremely dubious claim in an earlier post. I have also read the other links supplied and foolishly expected other people had done so as well so I wouldnt need to repeat what they said.
In them you can even see close ups of the bubbles including the one with the helmet where they’re clearly debris to me rather than any air bubble than Ive ever seen in hundreds of hours underwater.
The issue is more that the ‘things they missed’ that suppsedly show its a fake actually seem more to support its for real, because real air bubbles would have been removed, these were left in, and also are the kind of thing your average person wouldnt expect to see.
The next step you get to is that maybe these pieces of debris were digitally put in to make it look more convincing to ‘experts’, and once you get to that point, its well into CT as far as Im concerned, because each step explained then gets turned into yet more proof that maybe it really is a fake.
Otara
As demonstrated by recent cinema, you can fake damn near anything with a professional grade motion capture, animation, and video editing suite. It seems manifestly unlikely, however, that a national power that is otherwise capable of lofting a capsule capable of carrying a manned crew and heavily based upon a decades-old successful space capsule design would do a cut rate job of manufacturing a video simulating a spacewalk such that it could be discovered by some random yahoo with a YouTube account. I also find it vastly more likely that the supposed bubbles were actually small pieces of debris or insulation propelled by a positive pressure system designed to prevent any contamination from settling in the airlock and reentering the capsule than that a sophisticated effort to process a video image so as to remove distortions caused by filming in an underwater environment and correct the color temperature totally failed to miss large bubbles flying across the image that oh gee wiz by the way are moving in distinctly different directions.
As a conspiracy theory, this one is just slightly more substantial than the “Giuiliani blew up the World Trade Center for the insurance” claims.
Stranger
Because if true it would (in their minds) lend more credence to their other theories. If the Chinese faked their spacewalk then maybe, just maybe, the US faked their moon-landings. Magiver is saying it could be fake because, well, the Iranians faked theirs.
Thanks ever so much for the insults.
No, you haven’t explained the bubble. You’ve given opinion as to why it can’t be in the picture.
There is no “bubble”, and you can stop lying by saying that I haven’t addressed this question. See from a previous post:
Stranger
In my opinion there is something that looks like an expanding bubble and you haven’t addressed it.
You may not accept his explanation, but he’s rather demonstratively addressed it.
Yes and no, some of the bubbles (fit explanation here) do not come from the craft hatch.
The video is wrong about the Chinese moon shots perthis explanation of the photo stitching process.
The comparison pictures of the rocket are not the same. If the loss of imagery on the picture on the right is a result of overexposure then the boxed symbol in the middle would be lighter and not darker. I have no way of verifying if they are in fact suppose to be the same vehicle launch.