live iss!

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2013, 12:37:49 PM

Quote from: markjo on February 05, 2013, 12:24:33 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2013, 12:11:10 PM

What excuse are you going to give for this Astro liars hair being down?

I've had very long hair and I've had short hair and I can tell you from personal experience that long hair and short hair can behave very differently under the same conditions.

Oh really. 

What is so hard to believe about that? I too have had both and can confirm this.

I don;t doubt that you have had long and short hair. Many have, yet you haven't been in a weightless environment but know that on Earth, you could not spike up your long hair unless you were under massive static or you used a hair stiffener.
The space station (fake) has a weightless environment we are told, with no up or down, or sideways, long hair especially should act  with motion, meaning if you turn your head one way the hair will follow until it is stopped.
Her hair just bounces about and I don't care about elasticity, it's not normal and I'm 100% sure of that given what we are told that environment is.

Quote from: Berstram Jones on February 05, 2013, 08:27:13 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2013, 12:37:49 PM

Quote from: markjo on February 05, 2013, 12:24:33 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2013, 12:11:10 PM

What excuse are you going to give for this Astro liars hair being down?

I've had very long hair and I've had short hair and I can tell you from personal experience that long hair and short hair can behave very differently under the same conditions.

Oh really. 

What is so hard to believe about that? I too have had both and can confirm this.

I don;t doubt that you have had long and short hair. Many have, yet you haven't been in a weightless environment but know that on Earth, you could not spike up your long hair unless you were under massive static or you used a hair stiffener.
The space station (fake) has a weightless environment we are told, with no up or down, or sideways, long hair especially should act  with motion, meaning if you turn your head one way the hair will follow until it is stopped.
Her hair just bounces about and I don't care about elasticity, it's not normal and I'm 100% sure of that given what we are told that environment is.

It's elasticity.  It's a standard, well-known material property.  Objects tend to hold their shape unless acted on by a force.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 07:04:52 AM

Quote from: Berstram Jones on February 05, 2013, 08:27:13 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2013, 12:37:49 PM

Quote from: markjo on February 05, 2013, 12:24:33 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2013, 12:11:10 PM

What excuse are you going to give for this Astro liars hair being down?

I've had very long hair and I've had short hair and I can tell you from personal experience that long hair and short hair can behave very differently under the same conditions.

Oh really. 

What is so hard to believe about that? I too have had both and can confirm this.

I don;t doubt that you have had long and short hair. Many have, yet you haven't been in a weightless environment but know that on Earth, you could not spike up your long hair unless you were under massive static or you used a hair stiffener.
The space station (fake) has a weightless environment we are told, with no up or down, or sideways, long hair especially should act  with motion, meaning if you turn your head one way the hair will follow until it is stopped.
Her hair just bounces about and I don't care about elasticity, it's not normal and I'm 100% sure of that given what we are told that environment is.

It's elasticity.  It's a standard, well-known material property.  Objects tend to hold their shape unless acted on by a force.

Ok, by that thought, I should be able to get 10 hair ribbons and hold them at the bottom, in my fist and the rest of the ribbons will point upright, correct?

Ok, by that thought, I should be able to get 10 hair ribbons and hold them at the bottom, in my fist and the rest of the ribbons will point upright, correct?

For a 0g environment, that's correct.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 07:57:47 AM

Ok, by that thought, I should be able to get 10 hair ribbons and hold them at the bottom, in my fist and the rest of the ribbons will point upright, correct?

For a 0g environment, that's correct.

I agree that this should happen, as I agree that the females hair should stand on end...but only "if" that's how they were positioned in the first place.
Now I can give a little bit of movement as regards the womans hair, maybe moving up slightly, due to the hair being bent over down to her face and the need for it to spring slightly to the side about 15 degrees or so but no way would it spring upright like we see.

Anyway:
If she starts with her hair up, I agree it should stay that way, "until" something acts on it as in force. Then it should move in the direction the force is applied.
So in "fact", when she jerks her head, her hair should start to move and not stop moving until it hits her face or moves around her head till it's taut.
If she jerks her head upwards, her hair should move downwards as she is pushing her head through the follicles, collapsing her hair.

An example is in this video.
Granted it's in so called gravity but the movement of the head should produce an effect like this.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mitchell Davis (livelavalive) Hair Flick!

Quote from: Berstram Jones on February 05, 2013, 08:27:13 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2013, 12:37:49 PM

Quote from: markjo on February 05, 2013, 12:24:33 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2013, 12:11:10 PM

What excuse are you going to give for this Astro liars hair being down?

I've had very long hair and I've had short hair and I can tell you from personal experience that long hair and short hair can behave very differently under the same conditions.

Oh really. 

What is so hard to believe about that? I too have had both and can confirm this.

I don;t doubt that you have had long and short hair. Many have, yet you haven't been in a weightless environment but know that on Earth, you could not spike up your long hair unless you were under massive static or you used a hair stiffener.
The space station (fake) has a weightless environment we are told, with no up or down, or sideways, long hair especially should act  with motion, meaning if you turn your head one way the hair will follow until it is stopped.
Her hair just bounces about and I don't care about elasticity, it's not normal and I'm 100% sure of that given what we are told that environment is.

You do realize that she most likely had her hair bound in a pony tail, don't you?  Exactly where she had the elastic band (or barrette, or whatever) binding her hair would have a significant effect on how her hair would move around.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 07:04:52 AM

Quote from: Berstram Jones on February 05, 2013, 08:27:13 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2013, 12:37:49 PM

Quote from: markjo on February 05, 2013, 12:24:33 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 05, 2013, 12:11:10 PM

What excuse are you going to give for this Astro liars hair being down?

I've had very long hair and I've had short hair and I can tell you from personal experience that long hair and short hair can behave very differently under the same conditions.

Oh really. 

What is so hard to believe about that? I too have had both and can confirm this.

I don;t doubt that you have had long and short hair. Many have, yet you haven't been in a weightless environment but know that on Earth, you could not spike up your long hair unless you were under massive static or you used a hair stiffener.
The space station (fake) has a weightless environment we are told, with no up or down, or sideways, long hair especially should act  with motion, meaning if you turn your head one way the hair will follow until it is stopped.
Her hair just bounces about and I don't care about elasticity, it's not normal and I'm 100% sure of that given what we are told that environment is.

You do realize that she most likely had her hair bound in a pony tail, don't you?  Exactly where she had the elastic band (or barrette, or whatever) binding her hair would have a significant effect on how her hair would move around.

She is not wearing a pony tail on the so called ISS.

Quote from: markjo on February 06, 2013, 09:08:32 AM

You do realize that she most likely had her hair bound in a pony tail, don't you?  Exactly where she had the elastic band (or barrette, or whatever) binding her hair would have a significant effect on how her hair would move around.

She is not wearing a pony tail on the so called ISS.

How do you know this?  Did you see the back of her head?  When my hair was very long, I used to wear it in a pony tail and it would get quite frizzy, very much like her hair.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 09:27:10 AM

Quote from: markjo on February 06, 2013, 09:08:32 AM

You do realize that she most likely had her hair bound in a pony tail, don't you?  Exactly where she had the elastic band (or barrette, or whatever) binding her hair would have a significant effect on how her hair would move around.

She is not wearing a pony tail on the so called ISS.

How do you know this?  Did you see the back of her head?  When my hair was very long, I used to wear it in a pony tail and it would get quite frizzy, very much like her hair.

Ok, so now it isn't default hair, it's now a well hidden pony tail. I mean she really looks like she's got a pony tail in doesn't she.

Unbelievable. You're still going on and on and on about the hair.
PLEASE can a mod lock this thread?

Unbelievable. You're still going on and on and on about the hair.
PLEASE can a mod lock this thread?

The hair part is pertinent and seeing how it's being argued for and against, it stays pertinent until someone decides not to pursue that avenue.
You can choose to take part of ignore it all and stop whining like a spoilt little kid.

It's seriously getting ridiculous. Either take your fingers out of your ears so we can move on, or someone lock this thread.

It's seriously getting ridiculous. Either take your fingers out of your ears so we can move on, or someone lock this thread.

Normally you guys would get your way, because you aren't used to someone pushing one particular point out of many.
If you want to duck out, just do it. There is nobody putting any pressure on you to answer any questions relating to it.

Quote from: Dog on February 06, 2013, 03:50:06 PM

It's seriously getting ridiculous. Either take your fingers out of your ears so we can move on, or someone lock this thread.

Normally you guys would get your way, because you aren't used to someone pushing one particular point out of many.
If you want to duck out, just do it. There is nobody putting any pressure on you to answer any questions relating to it.

Nobody's trying to "duck out." This hair issue is going absolutely nowhere.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:53:34 PM

Quote from: Dog on February 06, 2013, 03:50:06 PM

It's seriously getting ridiculous. Either take your fingers out of your ears so we can move on, or someone lock this thread.

Normally you guys would get your way, because you aren't used to someone pushing one particular point out of many.
If you want to duck out, just do it. There is nobody putting any pressure on you to answer any questions relating to it.

Nobody's trying to "duck out." This hair issue is going absolutely nowhere.

The hair issue to people that push the space station bullshit is nothing.
To anyone questioning it, it's a big deal.

Quote from: Dog on February 06, 2013, 03:50:06 PM

It's seriously getting ridiculous. Either take your fingers out of your ears so we can move on, or someone lock this thread.

Normally you guys would get your way, because you aren't used to someone pushing one particular point out of many.
If you want to duck out, just do it. There is nobody putting any pressure on you to answer any questions relating to it.

Haha what? We're just tired of repeating ourselves. It's just dragging on too long. If you don't want to accept reality, fine by me, but at least make it interesting. One hundred posts about hair is pretty far down my list of interesting.

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 29, 2013, 08:58:32 AM

where do we start with you today?...... number 1. the moon is 250,000 miles away. it wouldnt appear to move to any large degree especialy since the iss isnt traviling towards the moon. and what reference points on the earth are you using to base your asumption its not moving beneath the space station.

why would nasa post video of the stars viewd from the iss? they would be hard to capture to begin with and it would be a very boring view becasue they wouldnt appear to move much. and this has nothing to do with what you said. you said no crew member has ever looked into space. where is your evidence of this?

Now now, don't be twisting things. I can sense you sweating here.

Show me a video of any Astro liar on any mission that has took video capture of space without the earth in view.

What would be the point...? You can look at into space at night by looking at the sky 

Quote from: MrT on January 30, 2013, 10:17:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 08:45:10 AM

Give me a logical reason why this should be happening with her. Oh and don't come up with the old static carry on either.

When my hair is even a little dirty, or if I use crappy shampoo, I can run my hands through it and it will stand up, even against gravity.  Now, my hair isn't nearly as long as what's shown in the video, but it's not in a weightless condition either.  The hair itself could be resisting the movement. 

My mother's hair will eventually be a poofy mess if she doesn't condition and brush it regularly (despite being subject to "gravity" or whatever you atribute as the reason things fall on Earth).  Some people's hair naturally becomes quite curly.  Why is it so hard to believe that someone's hair could end up looking like a bouncing, puffy mess in a weightless environment without showers.  I realise they do wash their hair, but I doubt they are using the same exact products and procedures that allow hair to be smooth and flowing.

The logical answer I would have expected was, " yes that does appear strange...why would her hair simply just stay up like that even with static."

If her hair was dirty, it would be a greasy mop, so we can assume it's clean.
We also know that static like that in a craft would cause lots of problems in the amount it would take to whip her hair up like that, so we can discount that on logical grounds.

We also know that in a weightless environment with no up or down, her hair should be up and down or side to side depending on her head movements, yet it stays upright at all times.

The only two logical conclusions can be..she has some hair stiffening compound on it and does this for a bit of fun as she still relives her punk rocker days and she is free to do this in the space station.

OR.....

She has some hair stiffening compound on her hair, because she is faking being in the space station in zero gravity and is playing a mix between a zero gravity plane and also a green screen.

What seems more likely?

Hair stiffening compound? 

#t=3m20s" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#t=3m20s

Look at the hair in a zero g fall. That's what happens to hair when it becomes weightless. 

What excuse are you going to give for this Astro liars hair being down? Brylcream? 

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">How do you wash your clothes in space?

Ok, well, his hair is different but the socks and the shirt act just like the lady's hair in the taboo video.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:53:34 PM

Quote from: Dog on February 06, 2013, 03:50:06 PM

It's seriously getting ridiculous. Either take your fingers out of your ears so we can move on, or someone lock this thread.

Normally you guys would get your way, because you aren't used to someone pushing one particular point out of many.
If you want to duck out, just do it. There is nobody putting any pressure on you to answer any questions relating to it.

Haha what? We're just tired of repeating ourselves. It's just dragging on too long. If you don't want to accept reality, fine by me, but at least make it interesting. One hundred posts about hair is pretty far down my list of interesting.

If you're tired of repeating yourself, then avoid the issue and it will go away. I know it goes against the laws of physics as we are told those laws are and it's plain to see there's a major problem.
The problem with faking stuff in space is, once you make a mistake, you cannot then go and do the opposite to make it look right, as it will be picked up on, so what you do is go with the flow and blag your way through the mishaps, just like this hair issue and just like the lack of blast crater on the moon, plus the no stars in pictures...things like that.

In the early days, they made some monumental mistakes which they have to keep going to this day because although they know that people are gullible, they also know that people aren't entirely stupid.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2013, 09:09:19 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 29, 2013, 08:58:32 AM

where do we start with you today?...... number 1. the moon is 250,000 miles away. it wouldnt appear to move to any large degree especialy since the iss isnt traviling towards the moon. and what reference points on the earth are you using to base your asumption its not moving beneath the space station.

why would nasa post video of the stars viewd from the iss? they would be hard to capture to begin with and it would be a very boring view becasue they wouldnt appear to move much. and this has nothing to do with what you said. you said no crew member has ever looked into space. where is your evidence of this?

Now now, don't be twisting things. I can sense you sweating here.

Show me a video of any Astro liar on any mission that has took video capture of space without the earth in view.

What would be the point...? You can look at into space at night by looking at the sky 

Put yourself in the same situation and be honest.
Let's say that the space station was yours and you were in charge of missions and showing the waiting public your finds.
Would you continually keep showing the pictures of the Earth or would you be looking at the stars and showing the public just how much brighter and clearer they are in the blackness of space?
The fake Hubble telescope takes all those fake pictures of the universe, yet the fake ISS can't show is any from the supposed 360 observation pod, I wonder why?

Do you think they can't , because it's simply a pod immersed in a big pool?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 10:31:43 AM

Quote from: MrT on January 30, 2013, 10:17:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 08:45:10 AM

Give me a logical reason why this should be happening with her. Oh and don't come up with the old static carry on either.

When my hair is even a little dirty, or if I use crappy shampoo, I can run my hands through it and it will stand up, even against gravity.  Now, my hair isn't nearly as long as what's shown in the video, but it's not in a weightless condition either.  The hair itself could be resisting the movement. 

My mother's hair will eventually be a poofy mess if she doesn't condition and brush it regularly (despite being subject to "gravity" or whatever you atribute as the reason things fall on Earth).  Some people's hair naturally becomes quite curly.  Why is it so hard to believe that someone's hair could end up looking like a bouncing, puffy mess in a weightless environment without showers.  I realise they do wash their hair, but I doubt they are using the same exact products and procedures that allow hair to be smooth and flowing.

The logical answer I would have expected was, " yes that does appear strange...why would her hair simply just stay up like that even with static."

If her hair was dirty, it would be a greasy mop, so we can assume it's clean.
We also know that static like that in a craft would cause lots of problems in the amount it would take to whip her hair up like that, so we can discount that on logical grounds.

We also know that in a weightless environment with no up or down, her hair should be up and down or side to side depending on her head movements, yet it stays upright at all times.

The only two logical conclusions can be..she has some hair stiffening compound on it and does this for a bit of fun as she still relives her punk rocker days and she is free to do this in the space station.

OR.....

She has some hair stiffening compound on her hair, because she is faking being in the space station in zero gravity and is playing a mix between a zero gravity plane and also a green screen.

What seems more likely?

Hair stiffening compound? 

#t=3m20s" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#t=3m20s

Look at the hair in a zero g fall. That's what happens to hair when it becomes weightless. 

This video entirely proves my point.

Quote from: Dog on February 06, 2013, 05:06:24 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:53:34 PM

Quote from: Dog on February 06, 2013, 03:50:06 PM

It's seriously getting ridiculous. Either take your fingers out of your ears so we can move on, or someone lock this thread.

Normally you guys would get your way, because you aren't used to someone pushing one particular point out of many.
If you want to duck out, just do it. There is nobody putting any pressure on you to answer any questions relating to it.

Haha what? We're just tired of repeating ourselves. It's just dragging on too long. If you don't want to accept reality, fine by me, but at least make it interesting. One hundred posts about hair is pretty far down my list of interesting.

If you're tired of repeating yourself, then avoid the issue and it will go away. I know it goes against the laws of physics as we are told those laws are and it's plain to see there's a major problem.
The problem with faking stuff in space is, once you make a mistake, you cannot then go and do the opposite to make it look right, as it will be picked up on, so what you do is go with the flow and blag your way through the mishaps, just like this hair issue and just like the lack of blast crater on the moon, plus the no stars in pictures...things like that.

In the early days, they made some monumental mistakes which they have to keep going to this day because although they know that people are gullible, they also know that people aren't entirely stupid.

The reason there are no stars in the pictures is because the camera has to be set to low exposure. If it were high exposure to capture the stars then the camera would have been flooded with the light from the sun bouncing off of the moon, as the moon has an extremely reflective surface. I'm not even a camera expert and I know this detail. This is also why the astronaut's helmet visors have the reflective coating; if it didn't have the coating they would have been blinded (temporarily or permanently, I don't know) whenever they were on the surface of the moon.  These things are common knowledge amongst amateur and professional photographers. This claim has been debunked many times over, and there's absolutely no reason to think otherwise unless you reject the simplest of reality.

What excuse are you going to give for this Astro liars hair being down? Brylcream? 

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">How do you wash your clothes in space?

Ok, well, his hair is different but the socks and the shirt act just like the lady's hair in the taboo video.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 07, 2013, 12:48:00 AM

Quote from: Dog on February 06, 2013, 05:06:24 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 06, 2013, 03:53:34 PM

Quote from: Dog on February 06, 2013, 03:50:06 PM

It's seriously getting ridiculous. Either take your fingers out of your ears so we can move on, or someone lock this thread.

Normally you guys would get your way, because you aren't used to someone pushing one particular point out of many.
If you want to duck out, just do it. There is nobody putting any pressure on you to answer any questions relating to it.

Haha what? We're just tired of repeating ourselves. It's just dragging on too long. If you don't want to accept reality, fine by me, but at least make it interesting. One hundred posts about hair is pretty far down my list of interesting.

If you're tired of repeating yourself, then avoid the issue and it will go away. I know it goes against the laws of physics as we are told those laws are and it's plain to see there's a major problem.
The problem with faking stuff in space is, once you make a mistake, you cannot then go and do the opposite to make it look right, as it will be picked up on, so what you do is go with the flow and blag your way through the mishaps, just like this hair issue and just like the lack of blast crater on the moon, plus the no stars in pictures...things like that.

In the early days, they made some monumental mistakes which they have to keep going to this day because although they know that people are gullible, they also know that people aren't entirely stupid.

The reason there are no stars in the pictures is because the camera has to be set to low exposure. If it were high exposure to capture the stars then the camera would have been flooded with the light from the sun bouncing off of the moon, as the moon has an extremely reflective surface. I'm not even a camera expert and I know this detail. This is also why the astronaut's helmet visors have the reflective coating; if it didn't have the coating they would have been blinded (temporarily or permanently, I don't know) whenever they were on the surface of the moon.  These things are common knowledge amongst amateur and professional photographers. This claim has been debunked many times over, and there's absolutely no reason to think otherwise unless you reject the simplest of reality.

The Sun is in one place, so anywhere they look , away from the Sun, they would have been able to at the very least get video footage of the stars on that lunar rover, yet none to be seen.
The moon does appear to have a very reflective surface when you consider us from Earth looking at a full moon, yet in N.A.S.A's footage, it's as if they took it in the dark, with the Sun shining in the background.

If the Sun is supposed to be so big and the moon is reflective as we notice from Earth, then in Sunlight, that moon should be lit up like a beacon but it looks nothing like that, except for a silly spot light on a small area, which is silly. Why should there be a spot light from a supposed 850,000 mile diameter Sun against a few thousand mile diameter of the moon as they tell us?

sceptimatic's work has value, it epitomizes the natural landscape one would discover in front of our eyes. His art is worth considering because it captures the unique features of the hazy atmosphere. Unlike his contemporaries like Gerhard Richter, Cady Noland, or in all modesty, myself, he has the ability to depict the notorious climate; he communicates the raw essence of the humidity found in the universe. I value this skillfully crafted, extraordinary piece because it triggers memories in me. Memories of a flat earth, and an even flatter future.

Thank you, sceptimatic

The Sun is in one place, so anywhere they look , away from the Sun, they would have been able to at the very least get video footage of the stars on that lunar rover, yet none to be seen.
The moon does appear to have a very reflective surface when you consider us from Earth looking at a full moon, yet in N.A.S.A's footage, it's as if they took it in the dark, with the Sun shining in the background.

If you want to take photos or videos in a bright environment, you adjust the amount of exposure.  Clearly they didn't use as much taking pictures on the moon.  This is also why you can't see the stars.  The photo has been darkened to keep the moon from being overblown, and as a result the stars are dimmed.  I highly doubt that a space hoax agency would forget something as trivial as stars.  So, either the stars are dimmed, or the hoaxers were smart enough not to include them.

If the Sun is supposed to be so big and the moon is reflective as we notice from Earth, then in Sunlight, that moon should be lit up like a beacon but it looks nothing like that, except for a silly spot light on a small area, which is silly. Why should there be a spot light from a supposed 850,000 mile diameter Sun against a few thousand mile diameter of the moon as they tell us?

I'm sorry, spotlight?

The Sun is in one place, so anywhere they look , away from the Sun, they would have been able to at the very least get video footage of the stars on that lunar rover, yet none to be seen.

Camera exposure and how it works.  Crazy stuff.

The moon does appear to have a very reflective surface when you consider us from Earth looking at a full moon, yet in N.A.S.A's footage, it's as if they took it in the dark, with the Sun shining in the background.

The surface is bright.  The sky is dark because there's no atmosphere.

If the Sun is supposed to be so big and the moon is reflective as we notice from Earth, then in Sunlight, that moon should be lit up like a beacon but it looks nothing like that,

Looks pretty bright at night to me.  It casts shadows even.

except for a silly spot light on a small area, which is silly.

It is silly.  Why did you even come up with this?

Why should there be a spot light from a supposed 850,000 mile diameter Sun against a few thousand mile diameter of the moon as they tell us?

The sun is a sphere and radiates light in all directions.  Where did you hear 'spotlight' from, FES?  It's also about 92million miles away (varying a couple hundred thousand for the moon of course).

The moon is a sphere, not a disk.

I'm also curious as to where you came up with this spotlight on the moon...

This.