Bart's 5:1 Russian superiority claim

[JayUtah]

The fallen astronaut is on his knees.

He is variously on his hands, toes, and knees.

His knees are the "fulcrum" in a 1st class lever.

No. First, a lever presumes a rigid slab lever arm with no variability in its geometry -- no articulation. The astronaut is able to flex and to exhibit non slablike behavior.

Second, the normal righting procedure calls for him to lean forward placing all his weight on his hands.

Third, the toes also act as a point of contact with the ground, as the knees leave it, but not necessarily in the capacity of a fulcrum.

Fourth, the feet and lower legs are also able to exert forces; they are not static fulcra.

Applying upward pressure on his hand would not cause his feet to leave the surface under any circumstance.

If that were the only force applied in this system, and if the system were as simple as you say, you might have a point.

The astronaut does not constitute a lever because that model does not represent all of the articulations and forces present in the system. You cannot draw conclusions from an oversimplified model about what is impossible, because you cannot know whether the alleged impossibility exists only because of the infidelity of the model. Reducing the scene inappropriately to a simple machine and then arguing that the simple machine does not allow for the observed motion, is not proof.

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

If that is your argument then you have the burden of proof to support it.

[JayUtah]

Evidence?

What evidence do I need or should I have for private conversations? Journalists do this all the time.

You're being evasive. Answer the question.

[Jason Thompson]

I seriously doubt that Bart Sibrel makes any money to speak of from his videos.

He sells videos which contain various claims he is unable to substantiate. His website promoting his video specifically contains a statement, presented as fact, that I asked him to substatiate. He made unequivocal statements regarding the nature of that 'fact' but was totally unable to say where he got that 'fact' from. When pressed on the point and given evidence that he was incorrect about that 'fact' he evaded the question and suggested I buy his video.

What does that say about his motives?

Personally, I believe that his view, like mine, is genuinely held.

Then why can't he separate genuine facts from incorrect information and just use stuff that really supports his belief? Why, when shown to be incorrect, does he not act upon that? Why, if he is as good and thorough a reporter/investigator as he claims, having supposedly spent half a million dollars on his research, can't he tell me where he gets pieces of his information from? Why can't he recognise that his own uncertainty about the date of the source of his claim about Russian superiority in space time might just invalidate it completely?

But I can't speak for him- why don't you ask him for yourself? He publishes his email address for all to see.

Already have asked him things. That's how this thread got started in the first place.

Now, what do you think of him as a source of reliable information in view of these facts that I have personally experienced?

[sts60]

I am currently the only active member of the Apollo.Hoax forum who believes that Apollo was a hoax.

Not exactly - turbonium has his doubts, apparently - but you are the only one who finds the astronaut-getting-up video "odd". Which was my point, and why I was puzzled when you said Oh please!, but... let it pass. The key point was that you said it was "obvious" he was being jerked up on a wire, but "obvious" means most or everyone should see it - but in fact, only you do. Therefore it's not "obvious". I've watched the reasonably good ALSJ version several times; there are "obviously" no wires in it.

That's why I don't have time to reply in detail to the other 200-or-so members of this forum on every single point they raise.

200-ish people aren't involved in these threads, not by an order of magnitude. But nobody expects you to answer every point raised by a tenth that many people; however, it is quite reasonable that among them they answer every point you raise. Which is why it benefits you to limit raising new claims until you've addressed the counterarguments to at least one.

But numbers mean nothing.

In engineering, they sure as hell do. Numbers show quite clearly, for example, that a PLSS is capable of cooling an astronaut on the Moon, or that the Apollo CSM could certainly get back from the Moon - in other words, numbers have refuted some of your claims.

There was a time when the massive majority believed that the Earth was flat.

It wasn't then, it isn't now.

Irrelevant; you are just making a reverse appeal to the popular majority. Facts are not determined by popular opinion. That means that something is neither wrong nor right simply because a lot of people believe it.

[sts60]

Then yes. You did something physically impossible.

To revisit this just a little bit - Obviously, I didn't apply a "pure" force acting only through one point of contact - I twisted, leaned, tried to spring with my body, etc.

In the video, the astronaut is clearly using both hands and some "body English" to get himself off the ground. margmatix is ignoring this and his characterization of the knees as a Type 1 fulcrum is clearly incorrect. In fact, it looks to me like he's attempting to push with both feet - at least, the right foot appears to be pushing forward (horizontally) to help stabilize himself as he pushes off. The left foot looks like it might be getting under him a little bit and helping with the vertical push.

In any case, wires neither needed, nor present.

[Martina W.]

admin said:

Seriously... do you have "Attention Deficit Disorder"?

Seriously - I do have ADD. And it shows. But not the way like margamatrix appears in this forum.

[margamatix]

jayutah said:

If that is your argument then you have the burden of proof to support it.

Yes, of course. I contend that if the speed of this footage was doubled, then it would be obvious that it was filmed on Earth. But the burden is on me to prove that point.


I do not know how to double the speed of film taken from the internet. If anyone could give me advice on how to do this, I would be grateful, and would publish the results for all to see, regardless of which side of the argument the new footage supported.

Incidentally, I can also point you in the direction of footage showing Gene Cernan running as fast as he can while on the moon (and singing a song to boot) , but moving no further or higher than he would on Earth. Would you like to see it?

[Martina W.]

margamatix said:

I do not know how to double the speed of film taken from the internet. If anyone could give me advice on how to do this, I would be grateful, and would publish the results for all to see, regardless of which side of the argument the new footage supported.

If it was any format other than real media I'd say you'd find everything necessary here: www.doom9.org/. Real media is a proprietary format and I have no idea how to convert it without too much loss in the process. Maybe mplayer/mencoder mplayerhq.hu/ can do it.

[margamatix]

Thanks Martin, I will have a look. I'm sure it can't be too difficult to take a piece of film and then double its play speed, but its not something I have ever done before so I don't know where to begin.

I have seen the speed of Apollo footage increased by a factor of 2 before, on a BBC programme investigating the possibility that it was all faked. For me, this was perhaps the "defining moment", since it became immediately clear how this piece of footage was produced.

Of course, I felt a complete fool for having been taken in for so long. But you move on, don't you?

Many on this forum claim to be highly trained in photography, and I'm sure someone will volunteer to take on this simple job very soon.

[Count Zero]

margamatix said:

I have seen the speed of Apollo footage increased by a factor of 2 before, on a BBC programme investigating the possibility that it was all faked. For me, this was perhaps the "defining moment", since it became immediately clear how this piece of footage was produced.

...he says, as he completely ignores the post where someone watched the full-length video at higher speed and observed that the arms were moving too fast.
Perhaps I didn't state it clearly enough; I will do so now:
The motion of the arms rules-out the possibility that the video was slowed down.

[Data Cable]

martinaw said:

Real media is a proprietary format and I have no idea how to convert it without too much loss in the process.

RealVideo can be read into an AVISynth script through the DirectShowSource filter (assuming you have RealPlayer installed), but it's a little flakey.

[margamatix]

countzero said:

margamatix said:

I have seen the speed of Apollo footage increased by a factor of 2 before, on a BBC programme investigating the possibility that it was all faked. For me, this was perhaps the "defining moment", since it became immediately clear how this piece of footage was produced.

...he says, as he completely ignores the post where someone watched the full-length video at higher speed and observed that the arms were moving too fast.
Perhaps I didn't state it clearly enough; I will do so now:
The motion of the arms rules-out the possibility that the video was slowed down.

I must have missed that. Could you give me the url?

[margamatix]

jayutah said:

Evidence?

What evidence do I need or should I have for private conversations? .

It was a private conversation? But I thought you just posted the full details of it on the internet?

[Jason Thompson]

Oh Margamatix, for heaven's sake. It was private in the sense that it involved only Jay and Bart's ex-wife, not that the contents were confidential. Stop quibbling over semantics and deal with the real issues.

[Count Zero]

margamatix said:

countzero said:

...he says, as he completely ignores the post where someone watched the full-length video at higher speed and observed that the arms were moving too fast.
Perhaps I didn't state it clearly enough; I will do so now:
The motion of the arms rules-out the possibility that the video was slowed down.

I must have missed that. Could you give me the url?

Reply #67 on page 5 of this thread.