ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd October 2016, 06:23 AM   #161
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 851
Originally Posted by ehcks View Post
OSHA would also like to see that. He wouldn't, because a harness and safety line would dramatically limit both his range and maneuverability. Can't go very far, can't turn very quickly without tangling up the line. If he wants to do any showing off, a safety line would make it more dangerous.
For showing off or demonstrating capabilities, yes i agree.
But the footage we are talking about is just him hovering above the platform itn what appears to be a concrete yard.
Looks more like training/testing type thing than a display

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y0sxFkN2Eg

Last edited by esspee; 2nd October 2016 at 06:26 AM.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 07:20 AM   #162
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
For showing off or demonstrating capabilities, yes i agree.
But the footage we are talking about is just him hovering above the platform itn what appears to be a concrete yard.
Looks more like training/testing type thing than a display

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y0sxFkN2Eg
That's because you're only showing a few seconds out of a multiple-minute recording, when they've also released many more videos.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 08:14 AM   #163
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,697
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
Would you like to comment on the following aspects of this story.

1. Why does his ground crew wear shorts and trainers, and other unsuitable clothing? (as seen in one of my recent videos)
See this, starting at 1:11
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

or this at 1:00
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
1:00
I could go on.... What is "Unsuitable"?
Quote:
2. Why was he training above concrete without a safety line or crash mats? (as seen in my last video)
others have explained this, repeatedly
Quote:
3. Why were his florida flights barely covered in the USA?
Why, until the emergency happened, was Apollo 13 barely covered in the US?
Boredom. Old hat. It's been done before...
Quote:

IN the original thread these questions were waved away - Would you like to be brave enough to address them?

Bonus question - 4. whilst gaining about 100million views on social media with the videos on the event ( in only about a week) why was the media not interested in Franky. Why did he not do the chat show circuit like Rossy did ( ROssy is confirmed real deal stuff)
Only about 3 or 4 articles appeared online. And they all contained footage from the sovial media sites.

( bonus info - according to another 'conspiracy theorist' he actually phoned up the newsroom who did the fox story, they told him they were sent the footage by frankies team.)

You can answer these questions, or you can ignore them like everyone has.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 02:04 PM   #164
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 37,499
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
SO you are saying no one picked up on a story that had was exploding on facebook getting many millions of views in just the first day, because there were more important stories? I think you think all of the news is about imprtance - some of it IMO is about entertainment. Many newspapers or news websites ( other than the 3 or 4 tiny local ones) IMO would have been all over this if it was legit
What do you think is important about this? At the moment, it's a toy, a device that one man can use, only after many hours of training. It's not yet the future of aerial transport (though it could potentially be). How much coverage do you think it deserves?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 03:36 PM   #165
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 851
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
What do you think is important about this? At the moment, it's a toy, a device that one man can use, only after many hours of training. It's not yet the future of aerial transport (though it could potentially be). How much coverage do you think it deserves?
This is a valid point. And its one of the reasons that i have not made a video about the lack of coverage.

Because it is possible that like you say, many people would not be as interested in it as me if it were real.

Basically this Flyboard Air (were it real) would be right up my street interest wise. BUt taht does not mean it would be for everyone else.

For me (were it real) it would represent a huge breakthrough in aviation, and an entirely new discipline/sport. Like not quite wright bros, but around about that important.

But for most people maybe they would not care.

I accept your point as possible that it is simply 'not newsworthy'.

I am not agreeing you are right, but only that you could be, were it real.

So lack of news coverage, by itself, is not good evidence of it being a hoax.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 03:37 PM   #166
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 5,744
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
For showing off or demonstrating capabilities, yes i agree.
But the footage we are talking about is just him hovering above the platform itn what appears to be a concrete yard.
Looks more like training/testing type thing than a display

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y0sxFkN2Eg
Yes, it does and you will notice that he is wearing a crash helmet, and that the assistants are wearing long trousers rather than shorts; on this occasion, a sensible precaution given that Franky is learning how to hover and balance the thing, and that his helpers are remaining very close to him. Notice they are also carrying fire extinguishers!!

This is the testing phase you were asking for a few weeks ago. I find it quite funny that your debunking video actually strengthens the case for the reality of the Flyboard Air! Well done!

As to crash mats, what will they achieve? Exactly nothing! He already has to remain well above the ground over the mesh to avoid having the turbines ingesting their own jet exhaust.

When I learned to ride a skateboard (as an adult I might add) there were no crash pads, I learned on..... ahem, concrete!!!


NOTE: A word of advice. Inserting silly remarks edited in from actors in movies further harms your credibility (which on reflection probably doesn't matter much since your credibility is entirely shot to pieces anyway) however, purely from a fairness perspective, you should allow the viewer to draw their own conclusions.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 2nd October 2016 at 03:54 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 03:46 PM   #167
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 5,744
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
or me (were it real) it would represent a huge breakthrough in aviation, and an entirely new discipline/sport. Like not quite wright bros, but around about that important.ck of news coverage, by itself, is not good evidence of it being a hoax.
Pffft! You're kidding right?

This is not a huge breakthrough at all. It is simply an old idea, that has been done numerous time before, but this time using technology that was not available to those who did this originally, e.g. miniature turbine jet engines and computerized stability control.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 2nd October 2016 at 03:54 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 04:00 PM   #168
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 851
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Yes, it does and you will notice that he is wearing a crash helmet, and that the assistants are wearing long trousers rather than shorts; on this occasion, a sensible precaution given that Franky is learning how to hover and balance the thing, and that his helpers are remaining very close to him. Notice they also carrying fire extinguishers!!

This is the testing phase you were asking for a few weeks ago. I find it quite funny that your debunking video actually strengthens the case for the reality of the Flyboard Air! Well done!

As to crash mats, what will they achieve? Exactly nothing! He already has to remain well above the ground over the mesh to avoid having the turbines ingesting their own jet exhaust.

When I learned to ride a skateboard (as an adult I might add) there were no crash pads, I learned on..... ahem, concrete!!!


NOTE: A word of advice. Inserting silly remarks edited in from actors in movies further harms your credibility (which on reflection probably doesn't matter much since your credibility is entirely shot to pieces anyway) however, purely from a fairness perspective, you should allow the viewer to draw their own conclusions.
We will have to disagree on the crash mats debate.

I think having your feet strapped into a 20kg machine with jets on it 8ft above concrete is risky. I think were it real it would not be done like this, and not with such a small and awkward platform. Especially without mats or a safety line. We will not get anywhere closer to agreement on that aspect IMO. You are certain this training picture looks right, I am certain it looks wrong. Even more certain than I am that the Flyboard is a fake. And that is saying something.

As for the editing choices. I make these videos mostly for myself. And I am learning to edit. Your feedback is welcome, but really my motivation for making these videos is to put MY opinion out there for the world.

And to provide a place for doubters to hear a different opinion. My mission with the youtube videos is not to be impartial. It is to express my opinion and hopefully create a place for discussion in the comment section.

Ultimately it would be great for someone to see my video then go on to shatter the hoax - that would be the best outcome.

Worst outcome is I am wrong about the FlyboardAir and it is real, and then my videos will be interesting for a different reason.

SO - I will continue to edit them however it suits me to do so at the time when i make them.

BTW I am honestly very surprise that anyone is even watching the videos, let alone in the numbers that they are and a fair few people are giving them thumbs up.


I'm at about 35,000 views so far. And an average watch time of around 45- 60% depending on when i check.

Last edited by esspee; 2nd October 2016 at 04:07 PM.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 04:18 PM   #169
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,063
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
I think...
That's your entire argument. The person in the video did it differently than you think it should have been done, but no one has any reason to place so much confidence in how you think it should be done to leap to a conclusion of hoax. Your argument just begs the question over and over again. The conspiracy world is full of armchair policeman declaring that the JFK assassination investigation was botched, and armchair prosecutors saying there was no case against Oswald. It's full of armchair scientists and engineers saying there was no way NASA could really have sent men to the Moon as we saw. We see armchair epidemiologists telling us vaccines aren't worth it. None of it is convincing because none of these people are able to support the contention that the standards against which they propose to measure the evidence are reasonable standards.

Whether it's prudent to have crash mats or wear PPE or whatever is irrelevant. It's a red herring in your argument. The question is whether the absence of these things, and the other inconsistencies you note between the evidence and your expectation, is best answered by accusations of hoax. I've had many, many claimants tell me they have evidence of a hoax, and it rarely rises to any higher degree of credibility than you have shown. It simply doesn't matter what you think should have been done. That's not the basis for proving a hoax.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 04:42 PM   #170
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 851
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
That's your entire argument. The person in the video did it differently than you think it should have been done, but no one has any reason to place so much confidence in how you think it should be done to leap to a conclusion of hoax. Your argument just begs the question over and over again. The conspiracy world is full of armchair policeman declaring that the JFK assassination investigation was botched, and armchair prosecutors saying there was no case against Oswald. It's full of armchair scientists and engineers saying there was no way NASA could really have sent men to the Moon as we saw. We see armchair epidemiologists telling us vaccines aren't worth it. None of it is convincing because none of these people are able to support the contention that the standards against which they propose to measure the evidence are reasonable standards.

Whether it's prudent to have crash mats or wear PPE or whatever is irrelevant. It's a red herring in your argument. The question is whether the absence of these things, and the other inconsistencies you note between the evidence and your expectation, is best answered by accusations of hoax. I've had many, many claimants tell me they have evidence of a hoax, and it rarely rises to any higher degree of credibility than you have shown. It simply doesn't matter what you think should have been done. That's not the basis for proving a hoax.
I have not 'proved' the hoax. Yet.

And i actually agree with your outlook in some ways.

The reason, the real reason I first thought this was a hoax was intuition. I trust it, it has a good track record.
But i still tried to test it, and i found nothing that proved this is real. Yet.

I have found no evidence to prove this is real. And no one has presented me with any.

All i have is a story with a lot of very unlikely aspects to it.


IMO far too many unlikely and strange aspects to it for it to be likely to be true.

if almost every aspect and detail of a story seems highly unusual and unlikely, and absolutley no solid proof exists, then IMO it almost certainly BS.

Last edited by esspee; 2nd October 2016 at 04:53 PM.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 04:52 PM   #171
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
I think having your feet strapped into a 20kg machine with jets on it 8ft above concrete is risky. I think were it real it would not be done like this, and not with such a small and awkward platform. Especially without mats or a safety line. We will not get anywhere closer to agreement on that aspect IMO. You are certain this training picture looks right, I am certain it looks wrong. Even more certain than I am that the Flyboard is a fake. And that is saying something.
I think having your feet strapped to nothing, standing on a single rope hundreds of feet in the air in risky. I think were it real it would not be done like that, or at all. Especially without a safety net or a parachute.

But people still tightrope walk across the gap between skyscrapers. Some people do dangerous things. It's not fake. It's just a level of bravery/risk-stupidity that you don't have.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 05:09 PM   #172
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 851
Originally Posted by ehcks View Post
I think having your feet strapped to nothing, standing on a single rope hundreds of feet in the air in risky. I think were it real it would not be done like that, or at all. Especially without a safety net or a parachute.

But people still tightrope walk across the gap between skyscrapers. Some people do dangerous things. It's not fake. It's just a level of bravery/risk-stupidity that you don't have.
Well you don't know me, so you can not comment so without it being a massive and irrelevant assumption.


BAck to the Flyboard.:
THe fact that people do dangerous and brave things all the time, has no bearing on this being a real thing or a fake.

WHat is relevant to this question is the lack of evidence proving that it is real, and the extreme oddness of almost all details of the story.

Last edited by esspee; 2nd October 2016 at 05:10 PM.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 05:12 PM   #173
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 5,744
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
I have not 'proved' the hoax. Yet.

And i actually agree with your outlook in some ways.

The reason, the real reason I first thought this was a hoax was intuition. I trust it, it has a good track record.
But i still tried to test it, and i found nothing that proved this is real. Yet.
There is your first problem...your personal intuition is not a substitute for science, engineering and mathematics

Originally Posted by esspee View Post
I have found no evidence to prove this is real. And no one has presented me with any.
Wrong! You have been presented with pile after pile of conclusive evidence, but you have simply chosen to hand-wave it away or ignore it.

The Cognitive Dissonance is strong with you.

Originally Posted by esspee View Post
All i have a story with a lot of very unlikely aspects to it.

IMO far too many unlikely and strange aspects to it for it to be likely to be true.

if almost every aspect and detail of a story seems highly unusual and unlikely, and absolutley no solid proof exists, then IMO it almost certainly BS
.
Well, you see, I fully understand the basics of how this machine works. I find no strange aspects to it whatsoever. There is nothing strange about mounting four small turbine engines to a mounting framer with a fuel tank on the pilots back and a computer based FCS for steering and stability... and then flying it... this has all be done before... Franky Zapata has not reinvented the wheel here, he has simply taken a different, more modern approach to an idea that goes back 70 years or more.

So, how am I able to say, with confidence, that I know how it works? Experience! Twenty years as an avionics engineer in our armed forces has given me a thorough grounding in aircraft engineering, at least to a level where I understand how this machine functions. I can do the math, I understand the engineering and the science involved. I can see that there is no reason why it would not work, and I can see that it does, in fact work.

That you can't see it says more about you than it does about the Flyboard Air
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 05:32 PM   #174
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,697
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Pffft! You're kidding right?

This is not a huge breakthrough at all. It is simply an old idea, that has been done numerous time before, but this time using technology that was not available to those who did this originally, e.g. miniature turbine jet engines and computerized stability control.
All you have to do is look up the "flying bedstead " lunar lander from the 1960s. It had a turbo jet for main thrust, plus rockets for lateral and roll stability. It was huge, since the smallest turbo jet back then was also very large ( and all they wanted was to counter 5/6 of earth gravity)
But yes, indeed. It is old, old technology...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 05:42 PM   #175
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,271
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
I have a few ideas.

BUt you don't need to know exactly how a magic trick is done to conclude that it is most likely an illusion.

I've seen a close up magician before in person. I don't know how he did the tricks.
But that does not mean I think he was a wizard.
Ah, I can now see where your personal incredulity is failing you.
While Arthur C. Clarke's 3rd Law is close, I think Florence Amrose's corollary is more apt,
"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it. "
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 05:52 PM   #176
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 851
@smartcooky.

I have no issue with the technology being 'possible' nor do i doubt that the maths shows it is possible.

WHat i have a problem with is the many weird aspects of the story.
I have not said such a thing is impossible.

I have said that i think THIS flyboard air is a marketing stunt and a hoax.

Your experience in avionics gives you a good authority to say whevther this is thing is possible or not. But i think maybe it does not hep you in considering if it is real or not.
Sometimes too much knowledge can blind people in a way.

ON a side note - imagine i am right and this is some huge hoax - do you think they would make it completely impossible sounding ? Do you think they would not sit down and see what kind of story they need to spin to convince the majority of techy types that it is at least 'on paper'' maybe possible?

If you create the story and its fake, you get to choose any detail you want.
You are unlikely to have four jets that are say only capable of lifting 1/2 Frankies weight now are you?
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 05:59 PM   #177
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 851
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Ah, I can now see where your personal incredulity is failing you.
While Arthur C. Clarke's 3rd Law is close, I think Florence Amrose's corollary is more apt,
"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it. "
Good quote.

I am lucky enough to (realise) that i do not understand most technology these days.

It means my world is full of magic.

THe internet is like total magic.

VIdeo cameras are pure magic.

The orignal old school mobile phones are like star trek, and smart phones - well put it this way - I feel like I have time travelled to the future every time i have use skype. It blows my mind.
If Skype is not magic of some sort - I don't know what is.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 06:15 PM   #178
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,063
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
The reason, the real reason I first thought this was a hoax was intuition. I trust it, it has a good track record.
In what alternate universe? We have created a whole philosophy of investigation, including the scientific method, precisely because intuition has such a poor track record.

You admit you're ignorant of the relevant fields. What then makes your untrained, inexperienced expectation the gold standard of truthfulness and credibility? I've worked in the aerospace industry for nearly three decades, as well as film, television, and theater. Would you consider my judgment better informed than yours?

Quote:
I have found no evidence to prove this is real. And no one has presented me with any.
Of course they have. That's what you're frantically trying to explain away. And you can manage no more than feeble speculation for how the evidence may have been faked.

You're the one claiming hoax. That is, you have a specific, affirmative hypothesis for how the evidence came to be that the world is looking at. That means you have the burden of proof, and it's not satisfied simply by telling the world you think it should be happening differently.

Quote:
if almost every aspect and detail of a story seems highly unusual and unlikely, and absolutley no solid proof exists, then IMO it almost certainly BS.
"Unusual and unlikely" is once again simply your subjective opinion. It doesn't fit your expectations, but you don't validate your expectations. By the way, have you applied your own standard of proof to your own claims? Or is this going to be the predictable double standard where you judge the prevailing story by one standard and your own by a more lenient one?

Last edited by JayUtah; 2nd October 2016 at 06:26 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 07:18 PM   #179
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 851
@JayUtah.

I think perhaps my position and perspective is just as unlikely and 'odd' as the official accepted story of the Flyboard Air. Both stories, mine that it is fake, and theirs that is it real, both sem eqully unlikley.

However, from my perspective, i have my past record, and my intuition to go on.

So from my perspective, the flyboard seems almost certainly a fake.
But I have no issue with you or anyone else not agreeing with that.

I may retire from this thread for a while - but I will be back very shortly. I am currently doing work on my next video. And as i don't know what I am doing and still learning , this stuff takes time.

In the mean time - enjoy this kind of unrelated but still very interesting video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybdmk57fDxw

Last edited by esspee; 2nd October 2016 at 07:23 PM.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 07:32 PM   #180
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,063
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
Both stories, mine that it is fake, and theirs that is it real, both seem eqully unlikley.
No. Most conspiracy theorists, when cornered, will stab at just the sort of stalemate declaration you're proffering. But no, there is no stalemate. All the evidence is on the other side of the question. You have nothing but supposition and denial, and nothing beyond frantically trying to erode the other side. Your story is an affirmative attempt to explain the evidence in a different way, and it falls flat.

Quote:
However, from my perspective, i have my past record, and my intuition to go on.
Unconvincing. Intuition in general is unreliable. Its infamous unreliability is why we evolved the modern scientific method and all that pertains to it. Your intuition in particular is uninformed, lacking an appropriate body of expertise in engineering development or film effects. You give people no reason to trust you.

Quote:
So from my perspective, it the flyboard seems almost certainly a fake.
There is no "perspective" here. When there is an allegation of fact on the table, opinions are irrelevant; the allegation is either factually true or factually false. You have made an affirmative allegation of fact for which you supply only uninformed supposition as evidence. That supposition is applied fancifully to a plethora of actual evidence suggesting the item is real. You have the burden of proof, but all you manage to do is nit-pick ignorantly at the other side's evidence.

The rational approach is clear here: until you have something more that handwaving speculation, your accusation is simply not the least credible.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 08:05 PM   #181
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 851
QUestion for the techies and learned.

Any reason why the old school jet packs (hydrogen peroxide) with the 20 second flight time, or the Go fast one ( same set up but 30 seconds fly time) seemed to fly over concrete, roads, buildings etc? This can be seen by looking on youtube at old jetpack demos.

But that the flyboard and the new JetPack Avaition JB10 units have only ever flown over water, and even state that they only fly over water for now.

No hidden agenda in my questoon - I am just wondering why the difference in approach to flying. The only thing i can think is that (if real) its not proven or stable enough to inspire confidence. ( the other explanations i don't even want to go into yet - this may be the conspiracy forum, but i don't want to get banned just yet/ thread deleted)

Thanks in advance for any opinions or facts or possible explanations supplied.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 08:29 PM   #182
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,063
The 1961 test flights of the jet pack were generally under 30 feet in altitude and generally over grass and generally over distances less than 100 yards. A lot of what you see now in film and video is the product of decades of improvements and developments. Hence the early footage isn't exciting anymore and is rarely seen. The development flights of the jet pack, comparable to the present development flights of the Flyboard, were initially tethered until the control system was perfected and the engines made reliable. That's suitably equivalent to flying over water with the presumption that a fall would not necessarily be fatal to the pilot. The differences in approach are not as far different as you seem to believe.

The remaining differences in approach can be easily explained by the differences between the machines. The jet pack is inherently more stable than the Flyboard. This is salient because it will likely take longer to perfect the flight controls than it did for the jet pack, hence the need to test in free flight but over a soft surface. The jet pack is really a rocket pack, and the rocket engines use catalyzed hydrogen peroxide. They're dirt-simple and highly reliable. This gives confidence in later flights to higher altitudes because the motors are simply not very likely to fail and cause the pilot to fall from a dangerous height. The Flyboard motors are very complex and may yet cut out unexpectedly while under development.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 08:39 PM   #183
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 851
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The 1961 test flights of the jet pack were generally under 30 feet in altitude and generally over grass and generally over distances less than 100 yards. A lot of what you see now in film and video is the product of decades of improvements and developments. Hence the early footage isn't exciting anymore and is rarely seen. The development flights of the jet pack, comparable to the present development flights of the Flyboard, were initially tethered until the control system was perfected and the engines made reliable. That's suitably equivalent to flying over water with the presumption that a fall would not necessarily be fatal to the pilot. The differences in approach are not as far different as you seem to believe.

The remaining differences in approach can be easily explained by the differences between the machines. The jet pack is inherently more stable than the Flyboard. This is salient because it will likely take longer to perfect the flight controls than it did for the jet pack, hence the need to test in free flight but over a soft surface. The jet pack is really a rocket pack, and the rocket engines use catalyzed hydrogen peroxide. They're dirt-simple and highly reliable. This gives confidence in later flights to higher altitudes because the motors are simply not very likely to fail and cause the pilot to fall from a dangerous height. The Flyboard motors are very complex and may yet cut out unexpectedly while under development.
thanks.

Mirrors a little what i though people might think.

I think i have everything i need now for my next video.

#therabbitholegoesdeep

I just hope i can get it out in time.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 06:09 AM   #184
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,697
Now, why would a guy who is the father of the water jet board and the competitions involved with the water jet board want to fly his new toy over water at water jet board competitions where his biggest audience will be, as well as the most likely customer base? It makes absolutely no sense at all!
Besides the fact that a fall into water will 1. Put out any fire that may occur and 2. Is one hell of a lot softer than, say, concrete, and 3. Presents a more uniform surface for ground effect purposes, and 4 the only debris that is likely to be kicked up and ingested is water vapor (as opposed to rocks, sticks, and dirt) I can't think of any reason at all...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 06:30 AM   #185
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 558
Esspee, I can't see any difference between your stance on this issue and the typical conspiracy theorist.

You have already concluded that the story is a hoax because there are too many 'holes' or 'anomalies' or whatever in the 'official story'. No matter how many of those holes that are pointed out to you that they aren't really holes, you just go digging for more holes in the story.

I read through this entire topic and I lost count of the amount of times you raised an objection to the story being real, only for someone to patiently point out that your objection wasn't a valid objection, for you to accept their rationale with the response "fair point" and then for you to bounce off to the next 'problem' with the 'official story'. If your reasons for thinking the story is fake then you'll just go out and find different reasons for why the story is fake. That's not a sound approach to the subject.

I don't see the difference between this and the oddballs who think every mass shooting and terrorist attack are false flags. They immediately conclude that the event is a hoax, and scour over video footage, news reports, etc. looking for 'holes' and 'anomalies' and 'inconsistencies' and think that if they can dredge up enough minor objections that can imagine up, that the story isn't true because there are too many things wrong with it even though anyone with time on their hand and some imagination can dream up these kind of objections to any news story and conclude that everything is fake.

Last edited by JesseCuster; 3rd October 2016 at 06:32 AM.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 07:33 AM   #186
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 851
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
Esspee, I can't see any difference between your stance on this issue and the typical conspiracy theorist.

You have already concluded that the story is a hoax because there are too many 'holes' or 'anomalies' or whatever in the 'official story'. No matter how many of those holes that are pointed out to you that they aren't really holes, you just go digging for more holes in the story.

I read through this entire topic and I lost count of the amount of times you raised an objection to the story being real, only for someone to patiently point out that your objection wasn't a valid objection, for you to accept their rationale with the response "fair point" and then for you to bounce off to the next 'problem' with the 'official story'. If your reasons for thinking the story is fake then you'll just go out and find different reasons for why the story is fake. That's not a sound approach to the subject.

I don't see the difference between this and the oddballs who think every mass shooting and terrorist attack are false flags. They immediately conclude that the event is a hoax, and scour over video footage, news reports, etc. looking for 'holes' and 'anomalies' and 'inconsistencies' and think that if they can dredge up enough minor objections that can imagine up, that the story isn't true because there are too many things wrong with it even though anyone with time on their hand and some imagination can dream up these kind of objections to any news story and conclude that everything is fake.
This is easily the best and most sober criticism of my position given so far on this entire thread (inducing the original thread) and even including all comments on my youtube videos.


Your comment certainly gives me something think about and I also believe it was delivered with respect and manners. So thanks.

I guess, all that I can say in response at the moment is - if one is crazy, how can one tell?
Well you kind of can't. So at the end of the day - when you truly believe something and see something in a particular way, but others do not or cannot, the choice you have is to be true to your perspective and back yourself or abandon your viewpoint.
I chose to back myself.

I've been backing my own crazy for years - and its never turned out to have been a bad decision before.

But who knows- there is a first time for everything.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 07:52 AM   #187
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 12,550
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
This is easily the best and most sober criticism of my position given so far on this entire thread (inducing the original thread) and even including all comments on my youtube videos.


Your comment certainly gives me something think about and I also believe it was delivered with respect and manners. So thanks.

I guess, all that I can say in response at the moment is - if one is crazy, how can one tell?
Well you kind of can't. So at the end of the day - when you truly believe something and see something in a particular way, but others do not or cannot, the choice you have is to be true to your perspective and back yourself or abandon your viewpoint.
I chose to back myself.

I've been backing my own crazy for years - and its never turned out to have been a bad decision before.

But who knows- there is a first time for everything.
If you recall at the onset of this thread I had agreed with you that there were a number of odd aspects to the initial demonstration videos that raised my own suspicions. But I have had those initial concerns more than adequately addressed despite my skepticism. The Flyboard is not a hoax- it is definitely real, although not likely to become the means by which I commute to work each day. I must second JesseCuster's post- your posts have begun to resemble even to me, an initial supporter, classic conspiracy theorist arguments. I am glad that you are willing to consider this at least as a possibility. I honestly suggest that you do step back, think about it, and re-analyze the evidence dispassionately "from go" to decide if you haven't inadvertently painted yourself in a corner. Would you reach the same conclusion if you began with all the data available right now, rather than with the less compelling evidence that began your journey?
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 08:03 AM   #188
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 851
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
The Flyboard is not a hoax- it is definitely real,
I do not agree. And I certainly do not agree with the use of the word 'definitely'.

Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I honestly suggest that you do step back, think about it, and re-analyze the evidence dispassionately "from go" to decide if you haven't inadvertently painted yourself in a corner. Would you reach the same conclusion if you began with all the data available right now, rather than with the less compelling evidence that began your journey?
I think this is good advice, and I will do just that.

BTW I am in the process of making a video at the moment, and I may put this out first before I fully re-analyze everything from afresh.

Last edited by esspee; 3rd October 2016 at 08:05 AM.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 07:01 PM   #189
Drs_Res
NWO Acorn Hoarder
 
Drs_Res's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: N 34 3 8 / W 118 14 33
Posts: 2,095
Originally Posted by esspee
Originally Posted by Drs_Res View Post
Facebook counts, or used to count, a video as being viewed if the video ran over 3 seconds in someone's browser. I am not a Facebook user, but I heard that a lot of videos on Facebook auto start with no sound. It might take you longer than 3 seconds before you stop that video or switch to a different one. So I would take video views on Facebook with a grain of salt. I'd say cut the number down by 50 to 80 percent and you are probably closer to the number of real views. I am open to correction on this of course.

Here are a couple of highly viewed videos that I never saw on the news:
  • Charlie bit my finger - again ! -- Veiws: 843,262,558

    YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
    I AGREE
  • Play Doh Ice cream cupcakes playset playdough by Unboxingsurpriseegg -- Veiws: 804,800,975

    YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
    I AGREE

As to training:
  1. You would not do that over water because:
    1. You want a stable surface to train over where spotters can follow you around easily.
    2. You may have to set down quickly and do not want to go into a pool or lake.

*ETA: I did not originally watch your "Flyboard Air HOAX #4 - training over concrete" video and thought that your video was referencing Franky's "First flight on the ground with an airboard" video. I was wondering why you said something about being 8 feet off of the ground. So I watched your video and see that you took 8 seconds out of a 4 minute segment from a French television show, added your own derpy music and some other clips to it.
  1. That 8 seconds has no context.
    1. Maybe he was training. You know that he sets up the platform that he takes off and lands on over hard surfaces. So it is quite possible that he was practicing flying over his platform to get a feel for the how the flyboad acts over a grated surface. Was that the prototype for his platform? We don't know.
    2. Maybe he was not training, maybe he was testing to see if they needed to make any changes to the grating.
    3. Maybe they were testing to see what the optimum height for the platform should be.
  2. He was only 3 maybe 4 feet off of his platform, which is the grated platform that he takes off and lands on.
  3. He is not flying off of said platform, so he drops at most 3 to 4 feet, not 8, and not onto concrete.

As to France's Got Talent, it is quite possible that the mat covering the stage was insisted on by the television producers for liability reasons. Franky may not have even wanted that on stage. It is also possible that he may have wanted it as well since he was trying to show off to a degree, I don't know.
Thanks for your info about facebook videos. I had not thought about that.
This auto play thing may also explain why it was not as 'big' on youtube.

( I don't really use facebook much - but you are right as my flatmate used to show me stuff on his time line and every video he scrolled past started playing automatically. Don't know if this is a setting he had on or if this is just facebook in general when 'friends' share vids - but your comment is legit. I only have an empty account with no contacts, so any vids i watch on there are not from mates - but ones i have to find. So they don't autoplay for me)
I noticed that you ignored commenting on the 2 Youtube videos that did not make the news despite having more than 800,000,000 views each, and yes, I have seen videos similar to those 2 on the news before.

Originally Posted by esspee
Regarding the training over concrete. I did not mean to suggest he was flying around all ove the place.
However, landing and taking off are the most critical phases of any flight, and hovering in place is a skill that pilots of real things such as helicopters and paragliders have to develop over time.
Except he was never hovering in place in these clips.

Originally Posted by esspee
Just because he was a few feet above the platform this does not mean he is safe at all. If anything this is a danger zone as the close proximity to the the elevated ground mean things can happen before he can react.
That is why there are two "spotters" up there with him, in case he needs a hand. I think by the time he got to this stage he was probably fairly good at controlling the flyboard. I did come up with another reason for doing this, If you are going to land on a grating, you can see through it and your judgment about where the grating surface actually is can be very off from reality. Notice he was looking down the entire time. Could be because he was getting accustomed to judging where the grating surface is.

Originally Posted by esspee
You have a good point about training over water.
Thank you.

Originally Posted by esspee
It could wreck the machine. However falling off this launch pad could wreck the Pilot.
And falling on a mat may not really be much better.

Originally Posted by esspee
WHat i would expect to see, if this was legit, is some kind of safety line attached to a small crane. It could be as simple as a pulley attached to any high point. You could even just use climbing rope and a belayer.
He is in a backyard of a house, there is nothing above him to attach a line to. Notice that the "spotters" stay close to him with their forearms towards Franky.

Originally Posted by esspee
BUt flying an expensive experimental contraption over an elevated platform with no crash mats and no safety line seems like a pointless gamble even from a financial point of view.
You could damage the equipment, or you could damage your pilot. Seeing as Franky is the only guy flying this to my knowledge, he is not someone the project would wish to lose due to injury. They would have either extended down time while he recovered, or have to train up a new 'test pilot'.
By that logic, he should never fly on it then.

Originally Posted by esspee
P.s. I used two separate short clips taken from the same program, as that is the only footage i could find anywhere showing this scene.
That clip is used multiple times in the show, it's the same clip, just edited longer or shorter. As a matter of fact, that clip, or parts of it, are used 7 times in the show. I can give you time stamps if you want.

Originally Posted by esspee
The scenes were given no context in the original program either.
That was my whole point, but now I am going to add this: There may be some context, but I don't speak French, so I do not know what they were saying. Maybe there is someone here who could translate what they were saying in the video at those points

If anyone is interested in seeing the video and possibly translating those segments, here is the URL: https://youtu.be/tmchRvSOIDE
The segment with Franky starts at 00:14:09 and ends at 00:18:39.

Originally Posted by esspee
Personally - I am still waiting for the footage of Franky crashing into the water 12 days before the record attempt. That footage has yet to surface. Maybe no one was videoing, maybe he just did not want to release it, or maybe it was not worth the sheer editing time and difficulty involved in pulling it off.
There may not be any video of that, but of course it is more likely, in your mind, that it would have to be faked as well.

I noticed that you ignored this from the program:

__________________
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.
Drs_Res is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2016, 03:25 AM   #190
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 851
@Dr-Res

If you have a link to the TV show I would appreciate it.

I only found a very poor quality file of it and i do not think it was full length.

Thanks in advance.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2016, 03:53 AM   #191
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,342
You are falling for the classic CT position esspee.

What I mean by this is that you are assuming it is a hoax and demanding proof that it isn't. This however creates a situation where you are wanting to have a negative proven, and this isn't possible.

The trouble you are hitting is that it's impossible to prove anything real, especially when, as you are doing, any evidence that is presented is dismissed as not good enough based on some arbitrary and in motion standard.

Consider this thought experiment.

I want you to prove that the WTC 1 & 2 Twin Towers really existed.

To do this you cannot use plans as they don't prove the towers were actually built.
You cannot Photographs or Video, as these can be manipulated
You cannot use scans of tickets menus or other object purchased at the WTC Towers as these can be faked.
You cannot use eye-witness accounts as they could be lying.
You cannot use media accounts as they could be in on the conspiracy to make people believe that towers really existed.

Now, how do you prove that they existed?

I could likewise try and get you to actually prove that the moon is real and not a hologram projected into the sky by the world's governments.

Until you understand that you have entered into this spiral, you won't be able to move on beyond your gut feeling because all you do is dismiss evidence in exactly the same way that is done by those that believe in a JFK Conspiracy, the Faked Apollo Program, and the Government being behind 9/11 (which of course never happened because the Towers never existed. ).
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2016, 07:13 AM   #192
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,021
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You are falling for the classic CT position esspee.

What I mean by this is that you are assuming it is a hoax and demanding proof that it isn't. This however creates a situation where you are wanting to have a negative proven, and this isn't possible.

The trouble you are hitting is that it's impossible to prove anything real, especially when, as you are doing, any evidence that is presented is dismissed as not good enough based on some arbitrary and in motion standard.

Consider this thought experiment.

I want you to prove that the WTC 1 & 2 Twin Towers really existed.

To do this you cannot use plans as they don't prove the towers were actually built.
You cannot Photographs or Video, as these can be manipulated
You cannot use scans of tickets menus or other object purchased at the WTC Towers as these can be faked.
You cannot use eye-witness accounts as they could be lying.
You cannot use media accounts as they could be in on the conspiracy to make people believe that towers really existed.

Now, how do you prove that they existed?

I could likewise try and get you to actually prove that the moon is real and not a hologram projected into the sky by the world's governments.

Until you understand that you have entered into this spiral, you won't be able to move on beyond your gut feeling because all you do is dismiss evidence in exactly the same way that is done by those that believe in a JFK Conspiracy, the Faked Apollo Program, and the Government being behind 9/11 (which of course never happened because the Towers never existed. ).
__________________
I AM THE DREADED PAPIER-MÂCHÉ CENSOR!
------------------------------------------------
I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
Nay_Sayer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2016, 12:17 PM   #193
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 14,140
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Pffft! You're kidding right?

This is not a huge breakthrough at all. It is simply an old idea, that has been done numerous time before, but this time using technology that was not available to those who did this originally, e.g. miniature turbine jet engines and computerized stability control.
All you have to do is look up the "flying bedstead " lunar lander from the 1960s. It had a turbo jet for main thrust, plus rockets for lateral and roll stability. It was huge, since the smallest turbo jet back then was also very large ( and all they wanted was to counter 5/6 of earth gravity)
But yes, indeed. It is old, old technology...

Given Smartcooky's background, I bet he would have thought of a different "Flying Bedstead", which also illustrates your point - probably more so as the lunar lander was a rocket albeit with turbopumps (IIRC).

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo..._bedstead.html
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2016, 12:20 PM   #194
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 14,140
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Pffft! You're kidding right?

This is not a huge breakthrough at all. It is simply an old idea, that has been done numerous time before, but this time using technology that was not available to those who did this originally, e.g. miniature turbine jet engines and computerized stability control.
And the price will have dropped significantly for these recently with the advent of drones.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2016, 12:34 PM   #195
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 5,744
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Given Smartcooky's background, I bet he would have thought of a different "Flying Bedstead", which also illustrates your point - probably more so as the lunar lander was a rocket albeit with turbopumps (IIRC).

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo..._bedstead.html
Although I realised he was referring to the LLRV, the term "Flying Bedstead" did remind me of the TMR. As a kid I had a picture book of experimetnal aicraft. This was among the pictures, along with the Westland Rotodyne, Convair XFV-1 and the Lockheed XFY-1
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2016, 12:42 PM   #196
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 14,140
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Although I realised he was referring to the LLRV, the term "Flying Bedstead" did remind me of the TMR. As a kid I had a picture book of experimetnal aicraft. This was among the pictures, along with the Westland Rotodyne, Convair XFV-1 and the Lockheed XFY-1
Indeed, it was obvious from the context, it was just that the TMR was an even better model. "Immediately sprung to mind" might have been a better term.


Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The 1961 test flights of the jet pack were generally under 30 feet in altitude and generally over grass and generally over distances less than 100 yards. A lot of what you see now in film and video is the product of decades of improvements and developments. Hence the early footage isn't exciting anymore and is rarely seen. The development flights of the jet pack, comparable to the present development flights of the Flyboard, were initially tethered until the control system was perfected and the engines made reliable. That's suitably equivalent to flying over water with the presumption that a fall would not necessarily be fatal to the pilot. The differences in approach are not as far different as you seem to believe.

The remaining differences in approach can be easily explained by the differences between the machines. The jet pack is inherently more stable than the Flyboard. This is salient because it will likely take longer to perfect the flight controls than it did for the jet pack, hence the need to test in free flight but over a soft surface. The jet pack is really a rocket pack, and the rocket engines use catalyzed hydrogen peroxide. They're dirt-simple and highly reliable. This gives confidence in later flights to higher altitudes because the motors are simply not very likely to fail and cause the pilot to fall from a dangerous height. The Flyboard motors are very complex and may yet cut out unexpectedly while under development.
An aside, I have a vague recollection that they initially did use a jet pack, but replaced it with a rocket pack with improved performance.

We seem to have discussed jetpacks without anyone having mentioned this

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2016, 07:12 PM   #197
Matthew Ellard
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
We seem to have discussed jetpacks without anyone having mentioned this
Or this famous incident from the documentary "Lost in Space"
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Lost in Space Jet pack.jpg (47.3 KB, 7 views)
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2016, 09:24 PM   #198
Drs_Res
NWO Acorn Hoarder
 
Drs_Res's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: N 34 3 8 / W 118 14 33
Posts: 2,095
Originally Posted by esspee View Post
@Dr-Res

If you have a link to the TV show I would appreciate it.

I only found a very poor quality file of it and i do not think it was full length.

Thanks in advance.
The link was in my post just above yours.

Originally Posted by Drs_Res

Snip...

If anyone is interested in seeing the video and possibly translating those segments, here is the URL: https://youtu.be/tmchRvSOIDE
The segment with Franky starts at 00:14:09 and ends at 00:18:39.

.../snip

__________________
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.
Drs_Res is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2016, 07:08 AM   #199
esspee
black goo
 
esspee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 851
NEWS UPDATE.


I hope any of you thinking of investing in the company IMSC took my advice and stayed the hell away from it.

THe company pretty much went bankrupt today by the looks of it. All the value of shares stripped - now only 8c.

Thats a 75% fall in one day.

I hope none of you bought IMSC.

Last edited by esspee; 10th October 2016 at 07:26 AM.
esspee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th October 2016, 09:01 AM   #200
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,021
Are you implying they went bankrupt after investing in the flyboard, Thus proving it's fake?

By that logic. General Motors was producing nothing buy hologram cars and or cars that really worked by having a fleet of gerbils in hamster wheels generating power, This can be backed up by them getting a Guinness world record for 'World’s Largest Flag Pulled by a Moving Vehicle' and we all know they are shysters.
__________________
I AM THE DREADED PAPIER-MÂCHÉ CENSOR!
------------------------------------------------
I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.

Last edited by Nay_Sayer; 10th October 2016 at 09:03 AM.
Nay_Sayer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:25 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.