Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Reuters, and all the academics they consulted, appears to disagree with that sentiment
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q3AI
IThe article appears to just be talking about the difference between "proof" and "evidence"
“First, I'd like to stress that Benford's Law can NOT be used to "prove fraud",” he told Reuters by email. “It is only a Red Flag test, that can raise doubts. E.g., the IRS has been using it for decades to ferret out fraudsters, but only by identifying suspicious entries, at which time they put the auditors to work on the hard evidence. Whether or not a dataset follows BL proves nothing.”
Walter Mebane, Professor at the Department of Political Science and Department of Statistics at the University of Michigan (here) authored a December 2006 article (here) around the application of Benford’s Law to the US presidential election results. The article suggested some limitations of the process, but said in the Abstract: “The test is worth taking seriously as a statistical test for election fraud."
Do you have a special search algorithm that can detect the only phrases in an article that can be manipulated to support your preconceptions? Did you read any of the other paragraphs? The rest of amebanes quotes? The excerpts from the paper he published about the 2020 results?
"On Nov. 9, 2020, in response to “several queries” Mebane published a paper called “Inappropriate Applications of Benford’s Law Regularities to Some Data from the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States” (www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf). His paper says, “The displays shown at those sources using the first digits of precinct vote counts data from Fulton County, GA, Allegheny County, PA, Milwaukee, WI, and Chicago, IL, say nothing about possible frauds” before examining the reasons behind this statement."
The article admits that Bedford's law is a valid way of collecting evidence for voter fraud.
This is one of those Snopes: Fact Check False articles which builds a strawman and debunks it. It even ends with their "verdict".
"Someone said it was proof! Not proof, it's only evidence!!"
"This method of doing it I saw on the internet may be incorrect, but it's otherwise a valid method of collecting evidence for voter fraud"
Can you see how absurd this sounds? Why not just show that Biden's votes follow the law and that there are no anomalies.
Reuters, and all the academics they consulted, appears to disagree with that sentiment
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q3AI
IThe article appears to just be talking about the difference between "proof" and "evidence"
“First, I'd like to stress that Benford's Law can NOT be used to "prove fraud",” he told Reuters by email. “It is only a Red Flag test, that can raise doubts. E.g., the IRS has been using it for decades to ferret out fraudsters, but only by identifying suspicious entries, at which time they put the auditors to work on the hard evidence. Whether or not a dataset follows BL proves nothing.”
Walter Mebane, Professor at the Department of Political Science and Department of Statistics at the University of Michigan (here) authored a December 2006 article (here) around the application of Benford’s Law to the US presidential election results. The article suggested some limitations of the process, but said in the Abstract: “The test is worth taking seriously as a statistical test for election fraud."
There is no visible wire in this clip. The wires are edited out using software. There are other videos where they simply forgot to edit the harnesses out altogether. I can pull these up if you like, a google search should do. My point is that you can clearly see the astronaut on the right pull something that is physically attached to the astronaut on the left in order to bring him under control after his somersault. Also, look how ridiculous Sandy's hair looks. This is not how you would expect hair to behave in space. It should have a more fluid out of control behavior as it would in water. This is just blatantly gelled upwards.
In looking at your clip with the visible wire I was definitely intrigued. But here we go again with we see what we want to see. So I had to really look into this one as I have not seen it before. So, take it at face value. I did a deep dive on it and we will all walk away with what we believe, most likely. But in doing so, trying to be as objective as possible, I think it's debunked. Here's what I came up with.
In short, the "wire" is a line outlining a sign on the hatch behind them all in the frame. What I did to determine this, first off, is found the whole higher quality clip here, starting at around 31:46 of this:
The low quality of the clip you provided helps us not.
Then, there was a hint that the "wire" in question was actually a line printed on the hatch door behind them around some text. So I followed that lead. I then found a clear view of the hatch door, albeit, slightly off angle, and superimposed it over the video image. For the most part, it lined up. Shown here:
Now, I then took the clip and slowed it down - I went frame-by-frame to double-check, but I think the slowed down gif reveals a lot:
Notice how the "wire"/line never moves laterally or otherwise from it's fixed point along with the movement of the guy. Watch really, really closely. And even gets obscured by the pants of the guy behind the guy in front. It's not moving. It's a line in background. It's not a wire affixed to the guy in front nor grabbed by the guy on the right.
This was a particularly compelling in a, "Wow, is that a wire/cable thing faking the ISS tumbles and such?" video. No, it is not.That is very impressive CGI and nothing more. No astronaut would be wreckless enough to let water splash everywhere out of control like this. It contradicts instructional videos they did previously on how to brush your teeth in space where they were being very careful about water use, swallowing their toothpaste for example and not washing their hair for extended periods (or not at all).
How would they fake this effect?So, this could be a powerful argument on your side. If you could just clear this up: is your argument that NASA's current explanation for how their spacesuits work inconsistent with physics as we know it? Or are you saying that their past explanations are not consistent, the current one are, but that the fact that their explanations changed over time is the problem. In any case, if you could provide the mathematical proof or at least a reference to a reading or a URL, that could also help. After you expand this, I'll give a more full response.The suits they supposedly use now and also the new xEMU suits have hinges/bearings at the joints. The suits used during the Apollo missions did not. Let me explain why this is a huge problem:
On earth, there is 101,000 Pascals or Newtons per square meter of pressure or 1 atmosphere exerted on us right now. I'm spelling out the units so it's easier to comprehend how huge a pressure that is. So why don't we get crushed, or why don't our lungs collapse under this pressure? Because inside our lungs and blood vessels and body cavities there is also 101,000 Pa of pressure - the difference between the inside and outside is effectively zero. But in space they don't have this luxury. So if you send a vessel that has
1 atm of pressure inside it into space, now you have a very difficult engineering problem on your hands because now all the materials used to make the rockets, the lunar landers, the space suits all have to withstand at least 101,000 Pa of pressure (this is not an easy problem to solve at all).
Let me give you a real world example of how huge a pressure this is: Lets say on earth we open up a spacesuit and for arguments sake the opened material is 1 square meter of fabric. If you take this piece of fabric and fix the four corners to a rope (so it's like a trampoline) if you were to put 10,100 Kg (or 10 tonnes) of mass on the fabric, the tension experienced would be the equivalent of having a space suit in space with 1 atm of pressure inside it. There are very few flexible materials that can withstand these pressures and even if they could, they would be rendered so incredibly rigid that the astronaut inside would not be able to maneuver. Think of how stiff the wall of a basketball is, well the space suit would be pressurized to twice this amount at least.
So in the post Apollo era they had to explain this away somehow. Nasa's official stance now is that before going on a space walk the astronaut has to depressurise the suit down to 5-6KPa of pressure in order to allow maneuverability. But, there is a big problem with this, as divers know, this depressurization causes bubbles of nitrogen to form in the blood causing a condition known as "the bends". To overcome this, they must pump pure oxygen into the space suits so the astronaut can expel all the nitrogen from their blood. But this raises another problem - breathing pure oxygen for extended periods causes hyperoxia which can cause death in minutes!
None of this was taken into account during Apollo missions. There were no hinges on the suits, no depressurization chambers, no pure oxygen elements in the suits. And yet they hop around happily on the moon hitting golf balls and doing burnouts on the lunar rover!
The whole thing is preposterous if you dig in just a tiny bit.
