Bart's 5:1 Russian superiority claim

[sts60]

The simple and undeniable fact is: Sibrel's claim is wrong. Wildly wrong. And the data that shows this is unequivocal and trivially easy to obtain.

Given this, and Sibrel's claims to have looked into Apollo so thoroughly, and how people have pointed the facts out to him, it is my opinion that Sibrel is deliberately maintaining this claim despite correction - in other words, he is lying.

margamatix, what does such a blatant error say to you about Sibrel's reliability and competence, if not his integrity?

[gwiz]

rocketdad said:

I'm not up on the minutia of the history, but somebody else here surely can compare numbers of dead astronauts and failed missions?

Through Apollo, the only flight fatalities were Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11 - total four men - though the Apollo 1 fire could be included as a near-flight fatal accident. Both US and Soviet astronauts died in other accidents that were less directly involved with spaceflight, air and car crashes, a fire in a ground test chamber, etc.
Failed missions are more difficult to count as the Soviets didn't list their objectives pre-launch. Apollo 13 is the obvious one, but the docking failures of Gemini 9, Soyuz 2/3 and Soyuz 7/8 and the failure of the Soyuz 10 crew to enter the Salyut space station could all be counted.
On the whole, and given the statistical unreliability of dealing with a fairly small number of events, I'd guess the US and Soviet success rates were not too different.

[Jason Thompson]

OK, a new development. I contacted Sibrel again saying I'd found information about Gemini that gave flight durations and that the Project gave NASA over 1000 hours of flying in space under their belt. I asked if Russia really had over 5000 hours and where he had got his information from.

He told me it was from a promotional video 'from the Kennedy or Johnson administration' aimed at producing interest in the necessity of bridging the 'space gap' between America and Russia. He also said it was a borrowed video so he was unable to provide the title.

So, where to begin?

He can't recall if this video was made during the Kennedy or Johnson administration. That's a problem because the Kennedy administration ended two years before the first Gemini flight, yet Bart has categorically told me that the 5:1 figure included Gemini flights.

It's a propaganda video anyway, so why should we believe their figure?

It's the usual conspiracist tactic of an un-named, un-producable, un-verifiable source. If he was maiing a true investigation he should be able to name his sources.

It's crap, and I have the written word of the man himself to prove it.

[Jason Thompson]

OK, the next development:

I asked Sibrel how he could be sure the 5:1 figure still applied by the time of Apollo since he can't recall when the original quote was made on his borrowed video. His response was that i would have to take that up with the man who made the original quote and then he suggested I should watch his 'smoking gun' footage on A Funny Thing Happened....

So, evasion followed by a shift to the sales pitch and a new argument.

I e-mailed back asking how I was supposed to take it up with the guy who made the quote when he can't tell me who it was, and why I should part with my money to buy something from someone who can't substantiate a claim they hold up as evidence.

[Bob B.]

jasonthompson said:

I asked Sibrel how he could be sure the 5:1 figure still applied by the time of Apollo since he can't recall when the original quote was made on his borrowed video. His response was that i would have to take that up with the man who made the original quote and then he suggested I should watch his 'smoking gun' footage on A Funny Thing Happened....

Why didn't he take it up with the man who made the quote to verify its accuracy? Aren't journalists supposed to obtain confirmation before printing something as fact?

[PhantomWolf]

jasonthompson said:

then he suggested I should watch his 'smoking gun' footage on A Funny Thing Happened....

Tell you have and you watched the entirity of all three broadcasts. Then ask him to explain exactly how a transparency stuck to the window could possibly have became obsured by the window frame a number of times during the footage. You could also ask him to explain exactly how the transparency was lit given that the footage shows that the sun was clearly on the other side of the CM, being partially blocked out with Buzz's star charts so as to shade the cabin while they filmed the Earth.

[PhantomWolf]

Oh, you could also ask him how come the entire version of all three transmissions is publically availible from Spcecraft Films when he claims that it can only be seen on his video, and why he cut most of it out in his video including the Astronaut's commentary and the parts were the Earth vanishes either partially or totally behind the window frame.

[JayUtah]

I'd like to get the answers to two questions:

1. Why is he showing clips from the half-hour live telecast and implying that the public "never saw them"? Doesn't he recognize what parts of his "secret" footage were broadcast on television and which weren't?

2. Why doesn't he show any clips from the part of the footage where the small, distant Earth, is intersected by the window frame, and where the interior of the spacecraft is visible? He quotes from clips before and after it on the original reel.

[Jason Thompson]

I'd like to get hold of his video, just so I have firsthand evidence of what his technique is like, but for obvious reasons I have no desire to send him any money. Does anyone here know where I could get it without paying Sibrel, or perhaps own it and would be willing to run me off a copy? I'd pay or trade for it. Anyone willing pm me and we'll sort out exchange details.

[PhantomWolf]

Well he does claim that if he doesn't convince you he'll give you your money back.... However knowing his other claims.....

[sts60]

Now that margamatix is back in town, I would like him to address one or more of these issues from various threads, including this one, when he has some free time:

1. Sibrel's 5:1 superiority claim, which has been thoroughly debunked in this very thread. Does he still believe Sibrel's claim? What does he think the facts, which were not hard to dig out, say about Mr. Sibrel's competence and/or integrity?

2. margamatix's claim that there is no plausible way to cool an astronaut on the Moon. Among various responses which pointed out his fundamental failures to understand the environment, types of heat transfer involved, or insulation techniques, I gave him hard numbers indicating the suitability of cooling an astronaut via the PLSS' water sublimation technique. Does he acknowledge our refutations of his claim? If not, why, exactly?

3. margamatix's claim that the Apollo lunar orbit rendezvous was "untried" (refuted here). Does he acknowledge his error?

4. margamatix's claim that missions to the Moon should have started with unmanned craft. It is pointed out here again that many unmanned craft were sent to the Moon prior to the A11 landing. It was discussed at length here as to exactly why it made no sense to attempt an automated LM landing. Does he acknowledge the refutations of his claim, which included the opinions of practicing engineers with extensive aerospace experience? If not, why, exactly?

5. margamatix's repetition of Sibrel's claim that the Saturn had to be 266 times bigger than it actually was (refuted here). margamatix's only response was to call von Braun a "war criminal". Correct or not, that does not alter the fact that Sibrel's claim is factually incorrect. Does he (margamatix) acknowledge this? If so, what does he think this says about Sibrel's competence? If not, why not, exactly?

6. margamatix's claim that the Apollo CSM was unable to get back from the Moon itself (couldn't carry enough fuel, etc.), refuted here, with explicit numbers crunched by Bob B. Does he acknowledge the refutation? If not, why not, exactly?

There are a number of other statements margamatix has made which he has not backed up, but I think this is a good sample to start.

[rocketdad]

Margamatix is a "scambaiter." Ignore all.

www.419eater.com/

[sts60]

Playing around with 419 scammers does not disqualify margamatix from discussing his beliefs here.

I don't think he is a troll or baiter, at least not consciously. I think he really believes Apollo was a hoax, but for some reason can't bring himself to confront the hard evidence and experience which contradicts him. So he nibbles around the edges, asking questions or asserting his disbelief, but avoids the technical responses.

In any case, that's not really trolling by most defintions, and I for one am willing to continue to engage him in the hopes of reducing the grip on him held by con men like Bart Sibrel.

[margamatix]

sts60 said:

Playing around with 419 scammers does not disqualify margamatix from discussing his beliefs here.

.

At first, I couldn't work out what rocketdad was talking about here, or what his logic was for suggesting that someone who takes on hoaxers should be so feared.


But of course, when you think about it, what's the greatest hoax of all?

[Count Zero]

margamatix said:

But of course, when you think about it, what's the greatest hoax of all?

Nooo...
Before you go raising any new questions, how about dealing with the ones that are already on the table?