Bart's 5:1 Russian superiority claim

[margamatix]

admin said:

[
d**n it, will you please respond to people before you start new arguments? Why can't you understand that it's important to bring closure to one debate before starting new ones? Are you this irratic in all aspects of your life?

But hang on. The first thread I ever started was entitled "Moving in one-sixth gravity" so if anything, I'm doing what you asked of me and seeing a thread through.


I'm afraid you aren't going to get anywhere with the TV thing either. I watched the first part of "Space Race" on BBC this week, and this was the first time I have watched anything on a television for over a month.


I would be interested in seeing this footage doubled in speed. Any takers?

[JayUtah]

Thanks for the link. The motion of the astronaut's lower body is exactly the same, of course- in that both of his feet leave the "lunar surface", entirely against the laws of physics.

You have simply declared that the motion is "against the laws of physics" without giving any specific argument. I don't accept vague handwaving as an explanation. Please give a detailed description, according to the principles of Newtonian dynamics, of why this scene is impossible without a wire. Consider: (a) the inertial conditions, (b) the forces -- linear and moments -- that are applied, and (c) the rigidity of the space suit. Provide computations or estimates for the quantitative values.

That will be an argument invoking the "laws of physics". Not until then.

But in any case, do you admit now that the astronauts clearly intend to show that one is being helped up by the other, by grasping or pushing on hands?

Yes or no.

If you agree that this is the case, do you still maintain there "must" be a wire, because "no other explanation" is possible?

The action of the assisting astronaut does not provide an equal and opposite reaction.

If you are able to conclude this, then you are able to give me an estimate of the force applied by the prone astronaut (direction and magnitude) to the standing astronaut, an analysis of the inertial condition of the standing astronaut (since that applies to Newton's third law.

Does this bag fall to the surface as though it was in an environment of one sixth gravity?

Yes.

What do you think?

I think you're trying to distract from the sad fact that you are now faced with the full evidence clearly refuting your "wire" theory. So you're trying to start off on another tangent, as you typically do when you are cornered and unable to argue further on your original point.

...restoring it to the original speed as though the speed of the film was halved after it was filmed.
Any offers?

Why would that be necessary? You've already drawn your conclusion.

[JayUtah]

The first thread I ever started was entitled "Moving in one-sixth gravity" so if anything, I'm doing what you asked of me and seeing a thread through.

No. Within that topic there are several possible lines of discussion. You dredged up your first-ever claim here, which was the "wire" theory for this scene. You simply -- for the umpteenth time -- reiterated that claim. At long last you have taken a look at the better evidence (Spacecraft Films' version is better still). And your only comment on that was a vague dismissal of it by a handwaving reference to the "laws of physics", whereupon you opened up an entirely new line of reasoning involving the falling bag.

Let's wrap up the "wire" theory before we start off on another tangent. In case you can't tell, there is a very low tolerance now on this forum for your annoying habit of changing the subject just as the discussion goes badly for you. And when we complain, you say you don't have time to continue those failing discussions. If you have time to reiterate past claims and time to open up new lines of reasoning, then you have time to follow one line of reasoning to its resolution.

[sts60]

147:32:29 Young: Oh. (Pause)
[Charlie has dropped the hammer. He tries to bob down to get it but loses his balance and lands heavily on his hands and knees.]

147:32:34 Duke: Agh! Whoops, here we go again. Give me a help. (Pause)

147:32:42 Young: Here you go.

147:32:45 Duke: Okay, just start pushing on my head.
[Charlie wants John to push back on his head so he can rotate his torso up and over his knees. Instead, John goes to Charlie's left side and holds out his hand.]

147:32:49 Young: Give me a hand.

147:32:50 Duke: Okay. Here we go.
[Charlie takes John's hand and rises, albeit awkwardly. As he rises, a sample bag comes out of his SCB.]

[sts60]

(deleted earlier version of the post)

Are your beliefs and your funding interconnected?

Engineers that let their beliefs get in the way of the facts don't keep working as engineers.

But is there any reason to ask such a question other than to be inflammatory? Do you have any evidence to support such a not-so-veiled accusation?

[margamatix]

jayutah said:

But in any case, do you admit now that the astronauts clearly intend to show that one is being helped up by the other, by grasping or pushing on hands?

Yes or no.

.

No. The fallen astronaut is on his knees. His knees are the "fulcrum" in a 1st class lever. Applying upward pressure on his hand would not cause his feet to leave the surface under any circumstance.

And yet they do.

If his feet were the fulcrum, then upward pressure on the effort arm (his hand) would not cause them to leave the surface under any circumstance.

And yet they do.

If you double the speed of this footage, then I think you'll find it's "Game Over".

[margamatix]

sts60 said:

But is there any reason to ask such a question other than to be inflammatory? Do you have any evidence to support such a not-so-veiled accusation?

It is not an accusation. It is a question. For example, I understand from another place that Jay has appeared on television from time to time to discuss Apollo. So he clearly has a closer connection to the whole affair than I do.


But he has explained to me that he has no vested interest in the matter, and I am happy to accept his word for that. I do not feel he needed your intervention in this question, since he is obviously capable of speaking on his own behalf.

[sts60]

Point taken. You are quite correct that Jay is fully capable of speaking on his own behalf. I suppose I let my annoyance at your repeated evasions get the better of me.

I am happy, however, to acknowledge that you are now defending a specific claim. More to come on that.

For right now, I will just note that I levered myself off the ground, from a kneeling position, using one hand push-off point, and both my feet and my knees came off the ground.

According to your statement, what I just did physically impossible.

[margamatix]

sts60 said:

For right now, I will just note that I levered myself off the ground, from a kneeling position, using one hand push-off point, and both my feet and my knees came off the ground.

According to your statement, what I just did physically impossible.

If you were kneeling on the ground with your hand on your computer desk, and you pushed downwards on the desk (or the desk pushed upwards on your hand)...........


And both your knees and your feet jerked upwards from the ground, twice, as happened to our friend in the video footage I drew your attention to........


Then yes. You did something physically impossible.



Will somebody PLEASE point me in the direction of a film editor able to speed up this footage by a factor of two?

[sts60]

Then yes. You did something physically impossible.

Dang. I'm more talented than I thought. "Look, Ma, no wires!"

[margamatix]

Look, we don't need to wait for someone to appear, quoting tables of logarithms. You only need to look at that footage to say that the whole thing stinks.

Regardless of resolution, compression, the presence or absence of a soundtrack or anything else, that footage clearly shows a man being jerked upwards from his midriff, twice, by an unseen third-party pulling on a wire.

This statement, like yours and everybody elses, is here on the internet for anyone to read and judge for themselves. I'm happy to leave it at that.

[margamatix]

admin said:

I didn't choose the titles, they were the defaults of the forum and they are based on the number of the posts a user (any user) makes. It is purely a messure quantity of posts, not quality. That means you too, Margamatix, can be a "God".

I don't really like the default titles either which is why I intend to customize them to something more related to the subject of the forum... as soon as I can think of something to use. Any suggestions?

Now, if you want to contribute something of value to the discussion, rather than just attacking people over titles they did not choose, then please feel free to do so.

Now that you have explained how this title came about, I feel that I have wronged Jay. I accept the explanation and apologise to him for any offence caused.

For default settings, surely anything would be better than describing someone as "God". I would be embarassed by it myself.

As for suggestions, Jay could have simply remained as "Senior Member". If you want to demark members by the amount of postings made, then I would suggest "Mercury, Venus, Earth Mars etc......."

[sts60]

Just when we were making progress, you return to begging the question?

Look, we don't need to wait for someone to appear, quoting tables of logarithms.

No logarithms necessary. But once again, don't blame us if you make a specific claim and we bring up the details. A careful examination of the details is essential in examining objective claims.

You only need to look at that footage to say that the whole thing stinks.

No. No one else here finds anything odd about it; only you. It's significant that the ones who have studied and worked in science and engineering, and the ones who have studied Apollo carefully, are the ones who don't find anything wrong with it. In fact, most of those here who haven't studied these fields that much have no problem with it. Only you. Within this small community, at least, you cannot therefore appeal to the "obvious" if it is manifestly not obvious.

Regardless of resolution, compression, the presence or absence of a soundtrack or anything else, that footage clearly shows a man being jerked upwards from his midriff, twice, by an unseen third-party pulling on a wire.

Begging the question and ignoring or restricting evidence are useless. At least when you were making your "fulcrum" claims, you were attempting to back yourself up. Why quit now?

This statement, like yours and everybody elses, is here on the internet for anyone to read and judge for themselves.

That's why we're here - to shine the light on hoax claims and let people see for themselves, without the machinations, manipulations, misrepresentations, and lies of Sibrel, White, Kaysing, etc. I invite any casual visitor to examine your claims and the refutations and evidence which has been developed at some effort for you by many people. Perhaps it will be educational to someone initially taken in by the HB swindle, but willing to learn.

[echnaton]

margamatix said:

you can see that this "astronaut" is quite clearly being jerked up on a wire

Margamatix is the one jerking here. The question, is what is he jerking? Could it be our collective chain?

[margamatix]

sts60 said:

No. No one else here finds anything odd about it; only you. .

Oh, please!!!