The Aeronauts - movie on Amazon Prime

[son_of_flubber]

The high altitude balloon flight scenes in this fictional depiction of early balloonists are pretty interesting. The scenes on the ground might entice someone to watch it with you. If the ground action bores you, fast forward to the flight scenes.

I won't post any spoilers.

[Joel Flamenbaum[_2_]]

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:43:45 AM UTC-8, son_of_flubber wrote:
> The high altitude balloon flight scenes in this fictional depiction of early balloonists are pretty interesting. The scenes on the ground might entice someone to watch it with you. If the ground action bores you, fast forward to the flight scenes.
>
> I won't post any spoilers.

It's nothing but a bunch of Hot Air

[son_of_flubber]

On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 4:13:16 PM UTC-5, Joel Flamenbaum wrote:
> On Saturday, December 21, 2019 at 8:43:45 AM UTC-8, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > The high altitude balloon flight scenes in this fictional depiction of early balloonists are pretty interesting. The scenes on the ground might entice someone to watch it with you. If the ground action bores you, fast forward to the flight scenes.
> >
> > I won't post any spoilers.
>
> It's nothing but a bunch of Hot Air

They used 'coal gas' in that era. Coal gas contains a lot of hydrogen.

[Joel Flamenbaum[_2_]]

It was meant as a joke Mr Flubber - watched last night - interesting concept even though it was based on "fictitious event" 37,000 feet - no frost bite, no hypoxia, able to climb to the top of the balloon to open gas hatch??
Gosh glider pilots flying in wave -- who needs supplemental O2?

[kinsell]

On 12/21/19 9:43 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> The high altitude balloon flight scenes in this fictional depiction of early balloonists are pretty interesting. The scenes on the ground might entice someone to watch it with you. If the ground action bores you, fast forward to the flight scenes.
>
> I won't post any spoilers.
>


Read the comments on Amazon before wasting your time on this. A very
substantial rewrite of history, in order to push a political agenda.

[son_of_flubber]

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 7:24:17 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:

> Read the comments on Amazon before wasting your time on this. A very
> substantial rewrite of history, in order to push a political agenda.

The very capable and athletic young WOMAN in the movie is a fictional character. Once the balloon is aloft, the male scientist help her remove her corset and then she gets into her rain gear right before they fly into a cloud.

[kinsell]

On 12/22/19 5:38 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 7:24:17 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
>
>> Read the comments on Amazon before wasting your time on this. A very
>> substantial rewrite of history, in order to push a political agenda.
>
> The very capable and athletic young WOMAN in the movie is a fictional character. Once the balloon is aloft, the male scientist help her remove her corset and then she gets into her rain gear right before they fly into a cloud.
>

Damn. You said you weren't going to post spoilers, and here you gave
away the whole plot.

I suppose this isn't any worse than the Titanic movie, but most people
know that Kate Winslett and Leonardo DeCrapio weren't really on the
ship. The balloon story is much less well known, and weak-minded
individuals may think this is real.

It's a pity, the actual story was fascinating in its own right, just
didn't have the correct political message to make Bezos and company
happy. What an inspiring story for young girls, teaching them how easy
it is to fabricate phoney role models.

I'll skip watching this one, plenty of other phoney news stories
saturate the media these days. Now, back to soaring.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 8:54:32 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
> On 12/22/19 5:38 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 7:24:17 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
> >
> >> Read the comments on Amazon before wasting your time on this. A very
> >> substantial rewrite of history, in order to push a political agenda.
> >
> > The very capable and athletic young WOMAN in the movie is a fictional character. Once the balloon is aloft, the male scientist help her remove her corset and then she gets into her rain gear right before they fly into a cloud.
> >
>
> Damn. You said you weren't going to post spoilers, and here you gave
> away the whole plot.
>
> I suppose this isn't any worse than the Titanic movie, but most people
> know that Kate Winslett and Leonardo DeCrapio weren't really on the
> ship. The balloon story is much less well known, and weak-minded
> individuals may think this is real.
>
> It's a pity, the actual story was fascinating in its own right, just
> didn't have the correct political message to make Bezos and company
> happy. What an inspiring story for young girls, teaching them how easy
> it is to fabricate phoney role models.
>
> I'll skip watching this one, plenty of other phoney news stories
> saturate the media these days. Now, back to soaring.

Recently I finally saw the movie "Gravity". Same sort of nonsense, political correctness and wrong physics. But that's always the case with mainstream movies.

[2G]

On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 8:54:32 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
> > On 12/22/19 5:38 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 7:24:17 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
> > >
> > >> Read the comments on Amazon before wasting your time on this. A very
> > >> substantial rewrite of history, in order to push a political agenda.
> > >
> > > The very capable and athletic young WOMAN in the movie is a fictional character. Once the balloon is aloft, the male scientist help her remove her corset and then she gets into her rain gear right before they fly into a cloud.
> > >
> >
> > Damn. You said you weren't going to post spoilers, and here you gave
> > away the whole plot.
> >
> > I suppose this isn't any worse than the Titanic movie, but most people
> > know that Kate Winslett and Leonardo DeCrapio weren't really on the
> > ship. The balloon story is much less well known, and weak-minded
> > individuals may think this is real.
> >
> > It's a pity, the actual story was fascinating in its own right, just
> > didn't have the correct political message to make Bezos and company
> > happy. What an inspiring story for young girls, teaching them how easy
> > it is to fabricate phoney role models.
> >
> > I'll skip watching this one, plenty of other phoney news stories
> > saturate the media these days. Now, back to soaring.
>
> Recently I finally saw the movie "Gravity". Same sort of nonsense, political correctness and wrong physics. But that's always the case with mainstream movies.

It is interesting to note that James Glaisher, the pilot in the movie, did indeed set an altitude record of 36,000 ft in 1862 (Sep 5). But the passenger wasn't a female, it was Henry Coxwell. Glaisher did lose consciousness during the flight, but no mention is made of climbing the balloon to release the valve.

Tom

[Dan Marotta]

He wasn't the pilot in the movie, SHE was.Â* I found it mildly
entertaining but didn't take it seriously.

On 12/28/2019 4:45 PM, 2G wrote:
> On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 8:54:32 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
>>> On 12/22/19 5:38 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 7:24:17 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Read the comments on Amazon before wasting your time on this. A very
>>>>> substantial rewrite of history, in order to push a political agenda.
>>>> The very capable and athletic young WOMAN in the movie is a fictional character. Once the balloon is aloft, the male scientist help her remove her corset and then she gets into her rain gear right before they fly into a cloud.
>>>>
>>> Damn. You said you weren't going to post spoilers, and here you gave
>>> away the whole plot.
>>>
>>> I suppose this isn't any worse than the Titanic movie, but most people
>>> know that Kate Winslett and Leonardo DeCrapio weren't really on the
>>> ship. The balloon story is much less well known, and weak-minded
>>> individuals may think this is real.
>>>
>>> It's a pity, the actual story was fascinating in its own right, just
>>> didn't have the correct political message to make Bezos and company
>>> happy. What an inspiring story for young girls, teaching them how easy
>>> it is to fabricate phoney role models.
>>>
>>> I'll skip watching this one, plenty of other phoney news stories
>>> saturate the media these days. Now, back to soaring.
>> Recently I finally saw the movie "Gravity". Same sort of nonsense, political correctness and wrong physics. But that's always the case with mainstream movies.
> It is interesting to note that James Glaisher, the pilot in the movie, did indeed set an altitude record of 36,000 ft in 1862 (Sep 5). But the passenger wasn't a female, it was Henry Coxwell. Glaisher did lose consciousness during the flight, but no mention is made of climbing the balloon to release the valve.
>
> Tom

--
Dan, 5J

[2G]

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 4:37:07 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> He wasn't the pilot in the movie, SHE was.Â* I found it mildly
> entertaining but didn't take it seriously.
>
> On 12/28/2019 4:45 PM, 2G wrote:
> > On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> >> On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 8:54:32 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
> >>> On 12/22/19 5:38 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 7:24:17 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Read the comments on Amazon before wasting your time on this. A very
> >>>>> substantial rewrite of history, in order to push a political agenda..
> >>>> The very capable and athletic young WOMAN in the movie is a fictional character. Once the balloon is aloft, the male scientist help her remove her corset and then she gets into her rain gear right before they fly into a cloud.
> >>>>
> >>> Damn. You said you weren't going to post spoilers, and here you gave
> >>> away the whole plot.
> >>>
> >>> I suppose this isn't any worse than the Titanic movie, but most people
> >>> know that Kate Winslett and Leonardo DeCrapio weren't really on the
> >>> ship. The balloon story is much less well known, and weak-minded
> >>> individuals may think this is real.
> >>>
> >>> It's a pity, the actual story was fascinating in its own right, just
> >>> didn't have the correct political message to make Bezos and company
> >>> happy. What an inspiring story for young girls, teaching them how easy
> >>> it is to fabricate phoney role models.
> >>>
> >>> I'll skip watching this one, plenty of other phoney news stories
> >>> saturate the media these days. Now, back to soaring.
> >> Recently I finally saw the movie "Gravity". Same sort of nonsense, political correctness and wrong physics. But that's always the case with mainstream movies.
> > It is interesting to note that James Glaisher, the pilot in the movie, did indeed set an altitude record of 36,000 ft in 1862 (Sep 5). But the passenger wasn't a female, it was Henry Coxwell. Glaisher did lose consciousness during the flight, but no mention is made of climbing the balloon to release the valve.
> >
> > Tom
>
> --
> Dan, 5J


This is a more detailed description of the flight:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120207052638/http://johnwoodfield.co.uk/balloon.htm
Glashier wasn't the pilot - Coxwell was. Coxwell did have major problems getting the valve to open, but didn't climb to the top of the balloon to do it. The also didn't cut away the basket to slow their descent. Nonetheless, it was a very amazing flight by any standards.

Tom

[Tom BravoMike]

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 7:12:58 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
> On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 4:37:07 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > He wasn't the pilot in the movie, SHE was.Â* I found it mildly
> > entertaining but didn't take it seriously.
> >
> > On 12/28/2019 4:45 PM, 2G wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 23, 2019 at 10:31:09 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 8:54:32 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
> > >>> On 12/22/19 5:38 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> > >>>> On Sunday, December 22, 2019 at 7:24:17 PM UTC-5, kinsell wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Read the comments on Amazon before wasting your time on this. A very
> > >>>>> substantial rewrite of history, in order to push a political agenda.
> > >>>> The very capable and athletic young WOMAN in the movie is a fictional character. Once the balloon is aloft, the male scientist help her remove her corset and then she gets into her rain gear right before they fly into a cloud.
> > >>>>
> > >>> Damn. You said you weren't going to post spoilers, and here you gave
> > >>> away the whole plot.
> > >>>
> > >>> I suppose this isn't any worse than the Titanic movie, but most people
> > >>> know that Kate Winslett and Leonardo DeCrapio weren't really on the
> > >>> ship. The balloon story is much less well known, and weak-minded
> > >>> individuals may think this is real.
> > >>>
> > >>> It's a pity, the actual story was fascinating in its own right, just
> > >>> didn't have the correct political message to make Bezos and company
> > >>> happy. What an inspiring story for young girls, teaching them how easy
> > >>> it is to fabricate phoney role models.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'll skip watching this one, plenty of other phoney news stories
> > >>> saturate the media these days. Now, back to soaring.
> > >> Recently I finally saw the movie "Gravity". Same sort of nonsense, political correctness and wrong physics. But that's always the case with mainstream movies.
> > > It is interesting to note that James Glaisher, the pilot in the movie, did indeed set an altitude record of 36,000 ft in 1862 (Sep 5). But the passenger wasn't a female, it was Henry Coxwell. Glaisher did lose consciousness during the flight, but no mention is made of climbing the balloon to release the valve.
> > >
> > > Tom
> >
> > --
> > Dan, 5J
>
>
> This is a more detailed description of the flight:
> https://web.archive.org/web/20120207052638/http://johnwoodfield.co.uk/balloon.htm
> Glashier wasn't the pilot - Coxwell was. Coxwell did have major problems getting the valve to open, but didn't climb to the top of the balloon to do it. The also didn't cut away the basket to slow their descent. Nonetheless, it was a very amazing flight by any standards.
>
> Tom

I don't get it. Without oxygen, the time of useful consciousness (TUC) at 35000 feet is 30-60 seconds according to this table:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness

Alpinists spend weeks in successive camps to get acclimated to the altitude; these guys blow all handbooks about hypoxia. Plus, in 1862 gloves and hats had not been invented and used yet, right?

[AS]

> I don't get it. Without oxygen, the time of useful consciousness (TUC) at 35000 feet is 30-60 seconds according to this table:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness
>
> Alpinists spend weeks in successive camps to get acclimated to the altitude; these guys blow all handbooks about hypoxia. Plus, in 1862 gloves and hats had not been invented and used yet, right?

The difference is that you are applying science, facts and reality and Hollywood is not.
Some viewers may even argue that the balloon should have bounced off of the glass dome that is spanning the flat disc we live on!

Uli
'AS'

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 12:12:33 AM UTC-5, AS wrote:
> > I don't get it. Without oxygen, the time of useful consciousness (TUC) at 35000 feet is 30-60 seconds according to this table:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness
> >
> > Alpinists spend weeks in successive camps to get acclimated to the altitude; these guys blow all handbooks about hypoxia. Plus, in 1862 gloves and hats had not been invented and used yet, right?
>
> The difference is that you are applying science, facts and reality and Hollywood is not.
> Some viewers may even argue that the balloon should have bounced off of the glass dome that is spanning the flat disc we live on!
>
> Uli
> 'AS'

It's not glass. It is made from the same crystal material found in the pyramids. That is what enables you can travel right thorugh it if you stand in just the right place during the solstice.

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 18:03:02 -0800, Tom BravoMike wrote:

>> Glashier wasn't the pilot - Coxwell was. Coxwell did have major
>> problems getting the valve to open, but didn't climb to the top of the
>> balloon to do it. The also didn't cut away the basket to slow their
>> descent. Nonetheless, it was a very amazing flight by any standards.
>>
>> Tom
>
Thanks for the link - a good, if minimal account of that flight.

> I don't get it. Without oxygen, the time of useful consciousness (TUC)
> at 35000 feet is 30-60 seconds according to this table:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness
>
You'll notice that Glashier did pass out, reviving as the balloon
descended and Coswell almost passed out, presumably because, as a
practising balloon pilot, he was already somewhat acclimatised to high
altitudes.

Its also worth knowing that in WW1 fighter pilots regularly patrolled and
fought at up to 19-20,000 ft without using oxygen.

In mountaineering the region above 26000ft (365 millibars or lower
pressure) is known as the 'death zone', yet at least five climbers have
reached the summit of Everest and descended again without using oxygen.
This would involve a LOT more physical exertion and for much longer above
26,000 than seems likely for that balloon flight, but of course
acclimatisation would have helped the climbers to remain active for
longer than Coswell managed.

> Alpinists spend weeks in successive camps to get acclimated to the
> altitude; these guys blow all handbooks about hypoxia.

> Plus, in 1862
> gloves and hats had not been invented and used yet, right?
>
That is very unlikely: both would have been in use during the Little Ice
Age in the mid-1600s, when Europe was very cold. That was when fairs and
ox-roasts were regular winter events on the frozen Thames.

People were wearing hats and using gloves well before that. Any outdoor
picture from the mediaeval period onward shows hats aplenty. Gloves date
from at least Greek times: they are mentioned by both Herodotus and Homer.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Dan Marotta]

Would those pictures have been Polaroid, film, or digital?

On 12/29/2019 7:51 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Any outdoor
> picture from the mediaeval period onward shows hats aplenty.

--
Dan, 5J

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 6:51:44 AM UTC-8, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 18:03:02 -0800, Tom BravoMike wrote:
>
> >> Glashier wasn't the pilot - Coxwell was. Coxwell did have major
> >> problems getting the valve to open, but didn't climb to the top of the
> >> balloon to do it. The also didn't cut away the basket to slow their
> >> descent. Nonetheless, it was a very amazing flight by any standards.
> >>
> >> Tom
> >
> Thanks for the link - a good, if minimal account of that flight.
>
> > I don't get it. Without oxygen, the time of useful consciousness (TUC)
> > at 35000 feet is 30-60 seconds according to this table:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness
> >
> You'll notice that Glashier did pass out, reviving as the balloon
> descended and Coswell almost passed out, presumably because, as a
> practising balloon pilot, he was already somewhat acclimatised to high
> altitudes.
>
> Its also worth knowing that in WW1 fighter pilots regularly patrolled and
> fought at up to 19-20,000 ft without using oxygen.
>
> In mountaineering the region above 26000ft (365 millibars or lower
> pressure) is known as the 'death zone', yet at least five climbers have
> reached the summit of Everest and descended again without using oxygen.
> This would involve a LOT more physical exertion and for much longer above
> 26,000 than seems likely for that balloon flight, but of course
> acclimatisation would have helped the climbers to remain active for
> longer than Coswell managed.
>
> > Alpinists spend weeks in successive camps to get acclimated to the
> > altitude; these guys blow all handbooks about hypoxia.
>
> > Plus, in 1862
> > gloves and hats had not been invented and used yet, right?
> >
> That is very unlikely: both would have been in use during the Little Ice
> Age in the mid-1600s, when Europe was very cold. That was when fairs and
> ox-roasts were regular winter events on the frozen Thames.
>
> People were wearing hats and using gloves well before that. Any outdoor
> picture from the mediaeval period onward shows hats aplenty. Gloves date
> from at least Greek times: they are mentioned by both Herodotus and Homer.
>
>
> --
> Martin | martin at
> Gregorie | gregorie dot org

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-survival-story-of-the-only-known-person-to-parachute-through-a-thunderstorm-2013-1

[2G]

On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 9:05:50 AM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 6:51:44 AM UTC-8, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 18:03:02 -0800, Tom BravoMike wrote:
> >
> > >> Glashier wasn't the pilot - Coxwell was. Coxwell did have major
> > >> problems getting the valve to open, but didn't climb to the top of the
> > >> balloon to do it. The also didn't cut away the basket to slow their
> > >> descent. Nonetheless, it was a very amazing flight by any standards.
> > >>
> > >> Tom
> > >
> > Thanks for the link - a good, if minimal account of that flight.
> >
> > > I don't get it. Without oxygen, the time of useful consciousness (TUC)
> > > at 35000 feet is 30-60 seconds according to this table:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness
> > >
> > You'll notice that Glashier did pass out, reviving as the balloon
> > descended and Coswell almost passed out, presumably because, as a
> > practising balloon pilot, he was already somewhat acclimatised to high
> > altitudes.
> >
> > Its also worth knowing that in WW1 fighter pilots regularly patrolled and
> > fought at up to 19-20,000 ft without using oxygen.
> >
> > In mountaineering the region above 26000ft (365 millibars or lower
> > pressure) is known as the 'death zone', yet at least five climbers have
> > reached the summit of Everest and descended again without using oxygen.
> > This would involve a LOT more physical exertion and for much longer above
> > 26,000 than seems likely for that balloon flight, but of course
> > acclimatisation would have helped the climbers to remain active for
> > longer than Coswell managed.
> >
> > > Alpinists spend weeks in successive camps to get acclimated to the
> > > altitude; these guys blow all handbooks about hypoxia.
> >
> > > Plus, in 1862
> > > gloves and hats had not been invented and used yet, right?
> > >
> > That is very unlikely: both would have been in use during the Little Ice
> > Age in the mid-1600s, when Europe was very cold. That was when fairs and
> > ox-roasts were regular winter events on the frozen Thames.
> >
> > People were wearing hats and using gloves well before that. Any outdoor
> > picture from the mediaeval period onward shows hats aplenty. Gloves date
> > from at least Greek times: they are mentioned by both Herodotus and Homer.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Martin | martin at
> > Gregorie | gregorie dot org
>
> https://www.businessinsider.com/the-survival-story-of-the-only-known-person-to-parachute-through-a-thunderstorm-2013-1

Here is an excerpt from Lt. Col. Rankin's book (I read it as a teenager) that describes the bailout (amazingly, it was his SECOND ejection):

https://loa-shared.s3.amazonaws.com/static/pdf/Rankin_Man_Thunder.pdf

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 09:18:43 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:

> Would those pictures have been Polaroid, film, or digital?
>
Oil, paint or gouache.

But who cares about the medium: what the artist sees around him is going
to please the guy that's buying the picture that counts. And, if the
subject is a pilgrimage/****up/wedding or whatever then it follows that
what clothes are worn in the picture will be similar to what the
purchaser expects to see people waering.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Dan Marotta]

Gouache...Â* Being a savage from the Colonies, I had to look that one up.

On 12/29/2019 6:51 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 09:18:43 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
>> Would those pictures have been Polaroid, film, or digital?
>>
> Oil, paint or gouache.
>
> But who cares about the medium: what the artist sees around him is going
> to please the guy that's buying the picture that counts. And, if the
> subject is a pilgrimage/****up/wedding or whatever then it follows that
> what clothes are worn in the picture will be similar to what the
> purchaser expects to see people waering.
>
>

--
Dan, 5J