Chinese Space Walk 2008 Pulsating Background Objects

[happyidiottalk]

Obviously aliens. They came all this way to use there extremely advanced tech to work out where our closest cameras are and then stay far enough back that we cant work out what they are... just to fuck with us.

I actually do believe there are advanced civilizations out there, but this is not them. And if they do show up, we'll all know, and people like me wont be able to cast doubt on them.

[thegreatestsinistral]

FAke chinese

[SvalbardJanMayen1976]

I like how it said "EVA Completed" so they could turn off the blowers. Fucking Chinese also faked the "Moon Orbit" with a model and a map of Google Moon. There's no way those slant eyed bastards built ANYTHING that could take the punishment of space, the last thing they built that could last more than a week was a wall. I also love how they had the report of their conversation BEFORE they left Earth. Fuck'em.

[SvalbardJanMayen1976]

I like how it said "EVA Completed" so they could turn off the blowers. Fucking Chinese also faked the "Moon Orbit" with a model and a map of Google Moon. There's no way those slant eyed bastards built ANYTHING that could take the punishment of space, the last thing they built that could last more than a week was a wall.

[BrodyLuv2]

This is mad..I think I have to admit all manned missions to the Moon and Space walks all appear to be fakes.

Damn.

[MTMind2]

It's called debris!

And anyone who thinks those are bubbles, please wake up! :-)

Bubbles do NOT change luminosity like this, the light reflected off the surface of a bubble is steady.

The reason these 'objects' appear to pulsate is because they are small ROTATING pieces of debris, and hence the light levels changes as they rotate.

Even close up video of these so-called bubbles shows they are not smooth circular shapes, but irregularly shaped objects, i.e. debris.

[Kr4zyAc3]

i hate when people try to deny chinas tech advance

[ChuckManiac]

What tech is that?

[ChuckNorrisModded]

Some shit floating in pool where this scene had been filmed... easy.

[satweavers]

debris.

[dexterbeatz]

no that are bubbles...

not debris....

if you watch closer you will see that the objects are getting faster....

like bubbles under water

[satweavers]

What you see is debris tumbling generally toward the camera. The laws of perspective dictate that as a traveling object moves from the distance to the foreground it traverses more apparent field of view, so it will appear to be accelerating when it is not. Bubbles do not accelerate when rising through water, certainly not over as short a distance as THAT!. LOOK at the "bubbles" and you will see that they are tumbling, irregularly shaped chips of stuff. They are not spheres of ovoids.

[dexterbeatz]

maybe i am wrong and you are right, but i still think they are bubbles.... so you mean space debris does accelarete?

i dont think so...

[satweavers]

I didn't say that the debris was accelerating. It's an effect of perspective that makes it look like it's accelerating. Set up a camera on a tripod and drive a car through frame from right to left at constant speed. If the car enters frame right 100 yards away and drives diagonally toward the camera, exiting frame left five feet from the car you will notice two things. The car becomes larger in the frame, and the closer it is, the faster it progresses across the frame. That's just perspective.

[frankensteinmoneymac]

@satweavers Yes but this would only explain an acceleration of speed towards you. The bubble videos (that Ive seen anyway) show acceleration in an upwards direction. So coming towards you...yes...but in a straight line up..no.

[satweavers]

@frankensteinmoneymac The fact that there are "pulsating" objects (tumbling debris) crossing the frame in multiple directions is a direct indication that these are not bubbles. The object you cite rising vertically in a straight line COULD be moving toward the camera. The most referenced "bubble" is a piece of debris reflected off the Taikonaut's spherical visor, which provides all sorts of distortion. There is much misinterpretation.

[frankensteinmoneymac]

@satweavers You really sort of spun my comment into other issues didnt U? I was making a point that an object can appear to speed up as it moves in a straight line Horizontaly towards U. This is an illusion of perspective. An illusion of perspective does not however cause an object to suddenly speed up while moving up vertically in front of U. If coming at an angle, it may suddenly seem to lurch faster TOWARDS you on the horizontal plane, but not suddenly speed up vertically at the same time.

[satweavers]

@frankensteinmoneymac Other issues? Not really. They are all the same issue. It does not matter whether the thing is crossing frame horizontally, diagonally or vertically. It can still be moving perpendicular relative to camera POV, or towards or away from it. Do you suggest that only the vertically rising things are bubbles? What are all the others? When have you observed a bubble tumbling end over end?

[frankensteinmoneymac]

@satweavers Either you are yet again attempting to spin this to other issues..(in which case I actually got to admire your chutzpah!!) Or you didnt understand the meaning of what I was saying. I am not suggesting only the "only the vertically rising things are bubbles"...actually I was arguing simply from a point of the effects of visual perspective. You were arguing that the object only APPEARED To speed up, but that it was an illusion of perspective. I was countering that the illusion[CONT]

[frankensteinmoneymac]

@frankensteinmoneymac [CONTINUATION].....countering that the ILLUSION of 'something speeding up, due to perspective' arguement only works with an objects whose movements are toward the observer/camera in a horizontal manner...any movement that moves vertically from the POV of the camera would NOT be sped up by this illusion. The object in question speeds up VERTICALLY from the camera POV...this makes the illusion arguement null & void, and leaves a serious problem which U refuse 2 explain!

[satweavers]

@frankensteinmoneymac What makes you think that the perspection-driven illusion of acceleration is possible in all directions EXCEPT verticle? Is this a property of the camera? Is it a human perception issue? You seem to contend that an object traversing from bottom to top of frame in the video cannot also be traveling toward the camera, as though this is impssible, therefore you win. Why is this impossible? How can tumbling bubbles travel in so many straight paths in so many directions?

[frankensteinmoneymac]

@satweavers Uhg!....Hmmm Im not sure why I'm having such a hard time getting my message accross here....I will try not to be rude, and I will make the assumption that the fault lies with me not explaining this clearly enough...so I will try again. The illusion of an object speeding up as it comes near you is dependendent on its direction RELATIVE to the observer. It can only appear to accelerate in the direction that comes TOWARDS you, not veritcaly in front of you. So if at [CONTINUATION]

[frankensteinmoneymac]

@satweavers [CONTINUED CONTINUATION -yeah I wrote continuation in the last one where I should have just wrote continued...LOL sorry] ......So if at an angle where it is in between verticle and horizontaly coming at you...it will ONLY appear to accelerate horizontally because it is moving CLOSER to you...but not appear to move UPWARD VERTICALLY faster..especially not in a 2-D camera image! PS I should point out Im using accelerate interchangeably with faster. Faster is more technically accurate.

[satweavers]

@frankensteinmoneymac Both of us understand that an object traveling at a steady speed toward the camera will appear to accelerate (its speed seeming to compound with distance traveled). I got that. We are in agreement. THIS statement of yours does not make sense: "So if at an angle where it is in between verticle and horizontaly coming at you...it will ONLY appear to accelerate horizontally because it is moving CLOSER to you...but not appear to move UPWARD VERTICALLY faster." Continued...

[satweavers]

@frankensteinmoneymac Continued ...  You seem to think that the object is only getting closer to the camera if it is moving horizontally... but that it is not getting closer to the camera if it is moving vertically. If it can enter frame right more distant than when it exits frame left, it can enter frame bottom more distant than it exits frame top ("UPWARD VERTICALLY")... and have the appearance of crossing the frame faster the closer it is to the camera. Direction is irrelevant.

[satweavers]

@frankensteinmoneymac I think the nut of our problem is that I see the debris coming toward the camera in scenes where you are convinced that it is not coming towards the camera... for instance, in the scene where it is said that a bubble glides across the visor and then accelerates up... the debris is actually on a trajectory that is angled toward the camera, is seen REFLECTED in the visor, and exits frame top larger and faster than when it appeared.

[frankensteinmoneymac]

@satweavers Think of the tv as a grid. A is the bottom, B is the top. C is a point in the distance horizontaly from you, and D is a point on the same trajectory just behind you. Perspective can make an apparent speed up from C to D, but not A to B. Coming at an angle halfway between vert and horizontal, U may see an object suddenly move faster on the C to D.., but never will it move past the gridlines faster on an A to B trajectory, which is what the object in question DOES do.

[satweavers]

@frankensteinmoneymac I get it. Now... Take your line AB and tilt the A end towards you about 20 to 45 degrees. You have a trajectory that appears vertical, while getting closer to you at the top of the frame. That's what we're seeing here. That will produce the rising "bubble" or debris that APPEARS to accelerate as it rises. The "Stadium Lights" are three rows of LEDs below the camera recording the video. Look carefully and you will see them as a bright rectangle from the other camera.

[satweavers]

@frankensteinmoneymac This mythic "wave blower" is said to be causing turbulence that makes the bubbles rise at all these different angles to vertical... but they are not traveling a path that is turbulent. They are following a straight trajectory, and tumbling end over end. After depressurizing the craft, in zero G, bits of stuff have been bouncing around in teh cabin at different velocities, untill they randomly happen to pass through the open hatch and exit each at different angles.

[frankensteinmoneymac]

@satweavers The wave blower is certainly NOT mythic. The US have used them for years in their underwater training excercises. It creates a boyancey effect to help with the weighlessness (technically freefall) illusion felt by those participating in the training. Also anyone who has studied aerodynamics (not TOO different than hydrodynamics) knows that turbulance is an incredibly complicated thing. Even small ridges and bumps on an airplanes wing greatly effects the shape and size of [continued]

[satweavers]

@frankensteinmoneymac The only place I have ever heard any mention of "Wave Blowers" or any device that serves that purpose in Neutral Buoyancy Training is in these videos that claim the Chinese space walk is faked. I've searched the net and the ONLY hits I get for "Wave Blower" are China Space Walk Hoax related videos. Ive studied videos and photos of NBT facilities and there is no evidence of them. Please direct me to a NON HOAX reference.

[frankensteinmoneymac]

@satweavers [continuation] ....size and shape of the turbulence. And this is involving a relatively smooth aircraft wing! To imagine that you can guess how the turbulance will manifest on a blocky looking Chinese orbiter....well that is beyond both yours, and my abillity, and would take some sophisticated modeling software.

[satweavers]

@frankensteinmoneymac Buoyancy has nothing to do with being supported by uplifting water currents. It's about relative density. Water exerts an upward force equal to the weight of the water displaced by a body. Neutral buoyancy is a balance of one's weight against this buoyant force. Re:Turbulence: up pointing screws generating vertical currents would be turbulent, and above a cylindrical body, the eddies and turbulence would prevent the straight "bubble" trajectories seen in these videos.

[elysse523]

they are BUBBLES. the entire thing was done underwater

[mizutofu]

Just Google "Fake moon landing", NASA faked everything, United States has never land on the moon.

[playnine99]

Google "Flying Spaghetti Monster", the world was created by a flying spaghetti monster.

dumbass

[neomrdo]

Youre a fucking brainwashed idiot! Go on with your radiation belt mumbo jumbo. Do you believe in Black helicopters and Bush ordered the destruction of the World Trade Towers?

[c3333333335]

you hope it was lies because you do not like China, whether it was true or not

[dexterbeatz]

yep, damn right...

[loveria1234]

不听我们的政府。他们撒谎太空行走。

其伪造的。

太空行走是假的。

[Jason200384]

You guys are dumb. This is very easily explained. Its not space debris. Its Darth vader preparing to invade earth.

[GrimBradleyX]

lol i was thinking distant satelites but debri works too

[abusiveWORLD]

chinks always make us laugh.

I don hate u.lol

[dreamrecorder]

It's really hard to tell.

I believe in UFO. But for this instance, the video cannot show it is 100% UFO. But during the whole launch process from earth to space I know they are watching and monitoring us - progression. Unless the pulsating light does show it come to a complete stop or change in direction in a abruptly, theres no way we bite that is 100% UFO in the video.

[nightcreeper360]

space junk my ass, we all know what they are...

[brolyss4]

Yeah, they were the result of a spitting contest, those were the 3 winners, they managed to spitt thru orbit.

[RomelioSanz]

A lot of space junk!!!, a lot!!!

How much space junk could be orbiting the Earth since 1957?

[Grubym]

The best explanation for these objects so far: Pulsating effect due to spinning satellites reflecting light of their panels, creating the pulsating effect. Isnt a orbit one directional?.

Even the original clear footage only showed only one star. This was strange indeed. Perhaps it was just one part of the galaxy with no stars at all....if thats possible.

[dreamrecorder]

Space Debris

[mw99mw]

lmao

[teslaandlyne]

Nasty. Illuminati ship are always in the skies. Part of the Science Dictatorship.. read it in the Lyne documents.

[marknz101]

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE.

[gtpson]

GO BACK TO HIGH SCHOOL PHYSIC CLASS FIRST

Before making silly comment.

[GeneJ225]

No stars = exposure-adjusted film (no atmosphere to soften the light). UFOs = space junk. There's lots of it and counting.

[ICanHasWarKittens]

The astronauts were pooping, guys. It's not aliums.

[sonofhendrix]

Its probably pecies of that old weather satellite they shot down a while back.

[sonofhendrix]

Strange that there are no stars. What the heck i it that they do to the video cameras. I think they close the iris right down so that it cant absorb enough light to show stars and UFOs. Btw there are millions of peices of junk debris in orbit.

[bagtaggar]

The same sorts of flecks were claimed to be UFOs on NASA videos.

They are frozen gases being pushed around by the RCS system.

Wait. No. THEY ARE ALIENS.

[MEL3D]

UFO, angels-extraterrestrial vehicles!

we are not alone!

[StupidRat]

They're stars. The space craft is moving quite fast. I don't know how fast, but the ISS moves around 5 miles per second.

[ashsama2]

Ever heard of satellites?

Yes the do rotate giving pulsating reflections and yes they can orbit both ways.

[asianwong]

i think it is a us spy satellite hehehehe, meddling bbastards

[spottorf]

Oh crap! Not the Pulsating Background Objects ... again. Hide the children! Contact the NRA! Wake up the guys on the CHEMtrail sites! And, just remember: A waste is a terrible thing to mind.

[akinkhoo]

satellite.

[sariosto]

wake up Europe !!!!