Bart's 5:1 Russian superiority claim

[margamatix]

jasonthompson said:

Oh Margamatix, for heaven's sake. It was private in the sense that it involved only Jay and Bart's ex-wife, .

I've never been to America, but I understand that it is quite a large country with a large population..

So what's the story here? Did JayUtah bump into Bart Sibrel's ex-wife at the shopping mall or what?


Tell you what, perhaps it would be better if we left it to Jay to explain how he came to be speaking to the ex-wife of the main opponent of his theories.

[margamatix]

countzero said:

margamatix said:

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

Reply #67 on page 5 of this thread.

OK, so you watched a DVD video of Station 8 on a 52" TV at 1.5 x normal speed.


But how does that help me?

What's the url?

[sts60]

What about the refutation of your claim that the astronaut's knees were a Type 1 fulcrum? What about the fact that he used mutliple points of contact and force to lever himself off the ground?

There was no wire in any video. The astronaut's motion is compatible with his environment, his gear, and the use of hands and feet to get himself off the ground. Your analysis of the forces involved was incorrect. That's pretty much it for your claim of him "clearly being jerked upward on a wire".

Personally, I'd like to see margamatix to address any one of his 6 failed claims listed earlier in this thread. But I'm not holding my breath, and I'm not particularly interested in thrashing through another "this doesn't look right!" exercise.

[Jason Thompson]

I've never been to America, but I understand that it is quite a large country with a large population..

So what's the story here? Did JayUtah bump into Bart Sibrel's ex-wife at the shopping mall or what?

England is quite large, and has a sizeable population, yet here I am chatting to you. I wouldn't recognise you in the street, nor do I have any idea how to contact you in person, but we are conversing.

Why do you discount the possibility that Jay and the ex-Mrs Sibrel may have communicated in the same way we are? I have never met Jay in person, but I have had numerous conversations with him over the net.

Firstly, it would not be hard for Sibrel's ex-wife to find her way to a site where she could communicate directly with Jay, me or even you. Secondly, perhaps more pertinently, Sibrel almost certainly knows who Jay is, given that he is a very outspoken opponent of the hoax theories. I am also reasonably sure that Jay and Sibrel will have had numerous conversations themselves. Depending on when Mrs Sibrel became ex-Mrs Sibrel, she could well have obtained the necessary information to contact Jay through Bart's info.


Tell you what, perhaps it would be better if we left it to Jay to explain how he came to be speaking to the ex-wife of the main opponent of his theories.

What theories? Jay has not put forward any theories. Jay deals in facts.

OK, so you watched a DVD video of Station 8 on a 52" TV at 1.5 x normal speed.


But how does that help me?

What's the url?

This may come as a great shock, but not everything is availble online, especially not the hours of footage of Apollo EVAs. However, the footage is available if you know where to find it. You might have to buy it, or you might be able to borrow some from a library.

I will repeat, there is hours of footage of the Apollo EVAs, and the clips of a few seconds shown by conspiracy theorists are completely devoid of context. I could show you parts of the footage from Apollo 15 that, when speeded up, look like they were shot on Earth. I could then go on to show you bits from the same piece of footage merely minutes or seconds later that absolutely could not have been filmed in that way because other movements look stupidly speedy when the film speed is doubled.

Try and find the fotage and watch it in its full form. In fact, if it comes to it I will run you off a copy of the Apollo 15 EVA footage and send it to you for your perusal. If you are willing to put in the time and effort needed to examine the material properly then fine. If you insist on basing your conclusions on a few seconds of low quality footage with no context then don't be surprised that those of us who have seen the full length versions disagree with you.

[nomuse]

margamatix said:

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.

I just did it too.

I guess I'll have to credit exposure to the rays of a yellow sun for this impossible feat.

Sorry if this is an old argument. Just now getting to this thread.

[nomuse]

By the by...I like to think of it as instinct, and trained instinct. Instinct being a fancy way for a very fast heuristic access to your own body of experience. Trained instinct being not just an experential body within a specific field, but the knowledge that senses lie and expectations mislead; that must be aware of observer bias in every observation you make.

Anyhoo, my body of experience includes some amount of time hanging out around circus schools, and watching a heck of a lot of dance and ballet. That instinct for the movement of the human body in space makes those two videos Count Zero posted links to jump out for me as some of the strongest evidence I've seen that these can not be movies made (at any film speed) in Earth's gravity.

Both those videos would look silly as heck sped up -- would look utterly unconvicing. Also, I've seen young performers practising on a wire, (and long practice flying sessions with the Foys), and this ain't the kind of movement you get. Specifically (and here I go from what instinct tells me to an attempt to isolate and describe the observations that go into that instinctual feeling), the astronauts show that their entire body is being supported. You don't do manuevers like that if your torso is held up but the weight of your legs is still the same.

I know "feel" is a bad way to do science. Margamatix "feels," based on whatever movement experience he has had, that these movements are unrealistic or impossible. I "feel," based on the movement experience I have, that this is exactly what I should see with the MASS of a human body moving under a lesser gravitational attraction, in a stiff and somewhat springy space-suit.

The difference being, perhaps, that I recognize observer bias, and I can make an attempt to look dispassionately at the entire clip (not just an isolated moment) before I start searching for explanations. And it is at that point I am able to realize the limitations of what my eyes "judge," and move on to facts and figures for a more detailed explanation of what I am seeing.

[PeterB]

Margamatix said:

Look, I have explained to you that my time is limited, but despite this, PeterB has seen fit to start a new thread, directly addressed to me, on the subject of radio, a subject in which I have never professed to have any specialist knowledge.

As I said, I will look into his claims if and when I have the time.

I understand it can be pretty daunting when it looks like everyone on the forum is aiming their keyboards. And I can understand it can be pretty daunting when people direct questions at you in subjects you’re not familiar with. So I’m happy for you to take your time responding to my thread.

However, you might like to consider this thought.

You’re free to question the reality of Apollo (the missions themselves), and the reality of the Apollo record (photos and video). Your questioning has mostly been of the record. You haven’t really questioned the reality of Apollo itself. The two are very different matters. It’s possible for the Apollo record to be faked without the missions themselves being fakes. That’s one thing.

But in order to argue your case, it’s in your best interest to learn some of the theoretical background to the topics being discussed. You don’t have to believe Apollo to be real in order to learn a bit about orbits, rockets, radios or photography.

In an earlier post, you expressed disbelief in the idea that NASA might recreate a section of the surface of the Moon so that astronauts might familiarise themselves with what it looked like. This last weekend, you expressed disbelief that you’re the only person to see anything unusual in the video footage of the astronaut standing up.

In each case, your disbelief appears to stem from a lack of knowledge. Think about the larger picture in each case.

With the recreation of the crater field, put yourself in the position of a NASA geologist and assume you’d like the astronauts to do some observing. One way to do this would be to give them photographs of the crater field, and get them to memorise the area. But this is somewhat limited. After all, the photos were taken with the Sun at a particular angle, and when the astronauts are there, the Sun will probably be at a different angle, which might make it harder to recognise. If you physically recreate the crater field the astronauts can fly over it at different altitudes, speeds and times of the day, thus allowing them to become familiar with the craters under a range of conditions. In the same way, the military would make models of targets for some missions, rather than relying on photos.

When it comes to the astronaut getting up, remember that his actions are part of a much longer segment of video, maybe lasting 10 or 20 minutes. Watch the whole segment of video if you can, to see what else both astronauts do and say, and what else the camera looks at. There are two things to keep in mind: how far do the astronauts wander, and what does their environment say about where they are. In this case, NASA says the astronauts are in a vacuum and in 1/6th gravity. How does the soil they kick up behave? What about the sample bags hanging off their backpacks? How fast do their arms move? Consider that if the astronaut is jerked up by a wire attached to his backpack while on Earth, how would his limbs move? Can you see the wire when he’s close to the camera?

By the way, my knowledge of radios is entirely non-technical. I don’t know the first thing about how they actually work, but I can understand how their operation is taken as proof that Apollo was real.

[Kiwi]

margamatix said:

OK, so you watched a DVD video of Station 8 on a 52" TV at 1.5 x normal speed.

But how does that help me?

What's the url?

You want a url for something to fill up a 52-inch TV screen? Yeah, right!

You have already been told where to see it on DVD: AJV's reply No. 22 in the thread Suspended by wires, page 2.

To repeat: Get hold hold of the Spacecraft Films' DVDs of Apollo 16, and watch the Station 8 chapter. Perhaps if you watched the entire EVAs on a large screen and heard the dialogue, you would get a better idea of what was going on than from a silly little 50mm-wide, fuzzy video clip.

[Bob B.]

margamatix said:

jasonthompson said:

Oh Margamatix, for heaven's sake. It was private in the sense that it involved only Jay and Bart's ex-wife, .

I've never been to America, but I understand that it is quite a large country with a large population..

So what's the story here? Did JayUtah bump into Bart Sibrel's ex-wife at the shopping mall or what?

Tell you what, perhaps it would be better if we left it to Jay to explain how he came to be speaking to the ex-wife of the main opponent of his theories.

I certainly do not know the details of Jay's encounter with Bart's ex-wife, but I can tell you I have also exchanged correspondence with her. She contacted me via email after finding my Web page debunking the hoax theory. She thanked me for my effort and encouraged me to keep up the fight against ignorance and hucksterism. In a follow up email she told me that by getting wealthy financiers to back his moon hoax videos, Bart Sibrel has been able to live a lifestyle he had always sought but would have otherwise not been able to afford.

[twinstead]

It appears that to some the entire Apollo program, with its thousands of hours of images and audio, and warehouses full of documentation, consists of a couple lossy video clips and a handful of still pictures.

The more I study the program the more awed I am by the physical record of the trip.

And to think there are some who infer that every single piece of that record is fake. Amazing.

[JayUtah]

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

No.

First, the conversation was private in that it involved only me and her -- no third party involved. This is no different from my having sent letters to Prof. Van Allen or Arthur C. Clarke, or from a newspaper reporter who interviews a witness or informant. In those cases only the reporter and the informant are witnesses to the conversation. What do you consider appropriate substantiation that a private conversation took place?

Second, originally she asked me not to identify her. I felt comfortable using her information while protecting her identity. If you had been married to Bart Sibrel would you want him to know that you were helping his critics and opponents? I don't know that this was the reason behind her request, but it seems plausible. I used her information as background, or to confirm things I had discovered through other sources. I have recently discovered that she has given others permission to use her identity as authority for the statements she has given to me and to others, and that she has given them substantially the same information as she gave me.

Third, I haven't posted the "full details" of anything. I gave one quote that substantiated the notion that Bart Sibrel was motivated by monetary concerns.

But this is now largely irrelevant, Maragamatix. My point in asking you about Bart Sibrel was to ascertain whether you employed a double standard in judging the ulterior motives of your sources. I have my answer.

[JayUtah]

So what's the story here? Did JayUtah bump into Bart Sibrel's ex-wife at the shopping mall or what?

She contacted me through my web site, which discusses her ex-husband's theories at length. She established her identity to my satisfaction and we had a conversation regarding her husband's claims and activities.

Tell you what, perhaps it would be better if we left it to Jay to explain how he came to be speaking to the ex-wife of the main opponent of his theories.

No. I will not be distracted. Please explain why you are so very interested in whether I have my sources properly documented and substantiated, but you do not do the same for the people who provide the information upon which you base your beliefs.

This is about you and how you approach authority.

[Kiwi]

margamatix said:

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?

Okay, I'll play your little game because I have the Apollo 17 DVDs here, courtesy of AJV.

But tell me a few things first.

1. What is your source for the information that Cernan is running as fast as he can? Certainly not some conspiracy web site, I hope. A reputable source, please.

2. Have you found the relevant section in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and examined what is stated there about the activity?

3. Please describe the activity, duration, dialogue, sun angle and background so that I can look it up on the DVDs. No doubt the words of the song will help.

I am not aware of Cernan ever running as fast as he could during the mission. I recall him saying something about what a comfortable, sustainable gait was and how ski-poles could help in the case of a long walk-back to the lunar module if the rover broke down.

[sts60]

They certainly helped this fellow:


(posts, leaves to go camp in line for "Curse of the Were-Rabbit")

[sts60]

So I'm staying out of the "Radio signals" thread per peterb's request. But, hey, this is a different thread.

Would you not accept that it would be quite easy to create artificial signal delay if, say, the astronauts were in low Earth orbit?

No. Absolutely not. A vehicle on its way to, returning from, or orbiting the Moon, is on a completely different trajectory, both real and apparent, than one in low Earth orbit. The motion across the sky is drastically different, and the delays, signal strengths, and Doppler signatures are are as well. It's rather like trying to fake the appearance of Venus in the sky by using a 747.