REGISTER AN ACCOUNT
Who's Online - 0 members and 74 guests
You are here: HomeForumAMH_Power → View All Posts

View All Posts: AMH_Power

12345678910 ... ... 8788899091929394959697

» First Man Film, Did The USA Go To The Moon ? (Go to post)21-07-2019 @ 13:16 
Post Edited: 21.07.2019 @ 13:20 PM by AMH_Power
Thing is, one or two suspect things and you can see past it. But when there's 100's (literally) of CGI failures and contradictions...

If anybody has ever worked with 3D design (CAD, Maya, Blender etc) you'll know what the editing window vs. render window looks like. There's LIVE footage of the ISS where it accidentally drops to Maya (a 3D animation software, the exact same software used to make most of the animated movies you've seen) edit window from live view.

As it comes back to Live view, the render layers activate one by one as it loads, starting with the sphere, then the ozone layer, lighting effects and then the post processing like bloom and lensflare. You can't make it up (unless you are NASA).

Don't get me wrong, there's some absolute tripe that's posted. But CGI failures are CGI failures, there's no opinion about these. There's that many I don't even need to link!

Infact, this single one video, would absolutely in a court of law be ruled as CGI:

https://youtu.be/2_4jyfjSKGQ?t=89

Glitching and compression issues are normal, but for him to go transparent while glitching and leave the room behind him in full view is ridiculous. Unless video glitches give cameras x-ray vision???

Come on. Open your eyes mate!
» First Man Film, Did The USA Go To The Moon ? (Go to post)21-07-2019 @ 13:10 
ChrisMcCarthy said:
For confirmation which Astronauts from which Apollo Mission?
If you mean Armstrong and Aldrin there were contextual reasons why they answered the way they did.
..


Michael Collins & Neil Armstrong during the press conference following from the mission both state they couldn't see any stars at all during the entire mission without looking through the optics. This was following a question asking why none of the footage had stars:

Please see past the tinhat editing which isn't needed, but this video saves me finding the point in the full interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwPYl7a9Yuk

Michael Collins went on to write a book which contradicts this massively, stating how extravagant the stars are from both side of the moon (Carrying The Fire; 1974).

Tim Peake was asked, while aboard the ISS. He said you can't see any stars up there due to spectrogramy.

Sadly, Chris Hadfield was also asked while aboard the ISS. He said the stars are 'so beautiful' up here.

As a side note, there are videos of Tim Peake stood in front of a green screen too, playing with a physical ball. There's side by side footage of the same video that we was shown, only that it's not a greenscreen... it's the ISS, and the physical ball is now a water bubble. I digress...
» First Man Film, Did The USA Go To The Moon ? (Go to post)21-07-2019 @ 12:05 
ChrisMcCarthy said:
That's more Photography than anything else. - now, I've never taken a photo on the Moon but the theory seems right to me...


I was meaning where the accounts from different astronauts from the same Apollo mission under interview. One says you can't see any stars in space, just a black void. The other says they are the brightest things ever and so much clearer in space
» First Man Film, Did The USA Go To The Moon ? (Go to post)21-07-2019 @ 11:25 
Post Edited: 21.07.2019 @ 11:25 AM by AMH_Power
Rick said:
Ouch. Fair enough, I could have been more polite. It's also hard to point out that "everything you just wrote is simply not true" without potentially sounding condescending. The wilful disregard of evidence in favour of conspiracy theory does irritate me, I confess.
I would defend myself against the allegation of ad hominem, though. An ad hom would be "what you're saying is wrong because you're X". I'm saying "what you're saying is wrong because of fact Y, which makes you sound X." It's not ad hom, it's bonus free invective.


This a solid post. But, when you have two astronauts claiming two seperate things, it's not conspiracy, it's outright lies.

ie the argument of star visibility in space. Have you seen this?
» First Man Film, Did The USA Go To The Moon ? (Go to post)21-07-2019 @ 11:06 
Post Edited: 21.07.2019 @ 11:14 AM by AMH_Power
WILLSAN said:when someone comes off as condescending in their posts or starts including ad homs in their arguments some people assume they are getting triggered. I know thats not true but some people dont.


edit. I don't want to sound like a c**t so I'm jumping ship. If somebody wants to believe we landed on the moon in a washing machine of a craft and lost the technology to do so since (along with all telemetry data) and haven't repeated it 5 decades later... Is their choice.
» First Man Film, Did The USA Go To The Moon ? (Go to post)21-07-2019 @ 09:27 
Rick said:
All modern systems use satellites. All consumer ones use the American GPS system, which uses 32 satellites. The accuracy currently sits at significantly better than a metre. They're not geostationary, they only sit about 20,000km up.
Unless you are suggesting that this is a conspiracy of lies colluded in by tens of thousands of engineers for no apparent reason, you are confused. (Actually, either way you're confused.)


Tens of thousands of engineers? Like myself? Working on actual satellites and seeing them go up and down annually not relevant to satellites? Ok...

Arthur C Clarke absolutely is mason, again I'm speaking from first hand knowledge.

As for the 'bluemarble', this is NOT the 1972 photo. This is the one created by Robert Simmons which made its way to the iPhone wallpaper. This is a modern composite.

Not sure why you think I'm confused. Not sure why when masonry gets mentioned you seem to trigger as if it's some tinhat conspiracy. Maybe you was blackballed at initiation? If you have any masonic friends just ask them, providing they have visited the grand lodge they will have seen his portrait... So I've heard.

In any case, the original debate was NASA going to the moon. The moon is much, much further than satbirds or HA balloons.
Second, NASA lie. There's enough videos proving this fact. A perfect example is the visibility of stars in space. Again, a different topic.
» First Man Film, Did The USA Go To The Moon ? (Go to post)20-07-2019 @ 22:18 
Post Edited: 20.07.2019 @ 22:22 PM by AMH_Power
Rick said:Hmm.

"No photos of the earth". You seem, by citing that website, to be conflating the Blue Marble project that started in the the early 2000s, which is a composite rendering of a 3D Earth, with the Blue Marble photograph from 1972, which is... A PHOTOGRAPH. Thinking about it, if this argument held water, it would be an argument that we have not launched actual satellites, which is so absurd that I can't credit it being held by anybody not mad enough to believe the earth is flat.

I watched about half of your video "exposing NASA fakery". I am unsurprised to see it was posted by a flat earther. All I can say on that is, I do not think it shows what I think you think it shows.

The Masonic argument is new to me. Insane, but new. Quite apart from anything else, it massively expands the size of the conspiracy needed, and that size would be implausible already even if purely internal to NASA. Humans in numbers can't keep cool secrets.


Also your quote reference composting makes no sense; the blue marble is a composite of LEO photos all stitched together. It's nothing to do with the photo from apollo missions. You wouldn't need to composite if you had an actual image of the full earth...

I think you've misread. They built the images from data from EOS which is a collection of high altitude balloon satellites and planes. The data then is given to an artist to put it all together to present to us.

They didn't do anything with the photo from 1972; he was just quoting that this is the last time any photo was taken of the earth. This statement alone, carries many questions.
» First Man Film, Did The USA Go To The Moon ? (Go to post)20-07-2019 @ 22:06 
Post Edited: 20.07.2019 @ 22:18 PM by AMH_Power
Rick said:Hmm.

"No photos of the earth". You seem, by citing that website, to be conflating the Blue Marble project that started in the the early 2000s, which is a composite rendering of a 3D Earth, with the Blue Marble photograph from 1972, which is... A PHOTOGRAPH. Thinking about it, if this argument held water, it would be an argument that we have not launched actual satellites, which is so absurd that I can't credit it being held by anybody not mad enough to believe the earth is flat.

I watched about half of your video "exposing NASA fakery". I am unsurprised to see it was posted by a flat earther. All I can say on that is, I do not think it shows what I think you think it shows.

The Masonic argument is new to me. Insane, but new. Quite apart from anything else, it massively expands the size of the conspiracy needed, and that size would be implausible already even if purely internal to NASA. Humans in numbers can't keep cool secrets.


Just throwing this out there; the 'satellites' that are used by consumer services (Sat TV etc) aren't exactly what you think they are.
They are geostationary satellites which are balloon launched (into LEO/Molniya)... I know, I've worked on enough of them in a former career. I've done considerable x-band work with Skynet 5 too, althoug this was mainly engineering links.

They go up on balloons, and come down on high altitude balloons.

As for geosynchronous; these are a bit of a misnomer. The idea from these came from a guy called Arthur C. Clarke (a masonic, science fiction writer). The idea was supposed to be for GPS type comms. Instead we used Loran/Gee positioning towers until we implemented GSM/Cell towers in place of these. Some older GPS systems do use the geostationary birds but need at least three and aren't very accurate. But again, it's all HA helium/hydrogen balloons. Some sit at about 30 mile up!

Also, global communication does not happen via satelite. There are satphones though, which again communicate with the geostationary birds and the cost and delay is ridiculous.
99% of all comms use underwater trunking optics or BLOS (beyond line of sight) point to point microwave links.

I've worked on a lot of these systems for about 14 years in a career with the MOD.

But yeah, the dishwashers with solarpower wings spinning around the earth at 45,000mph is a bit of a stretch. Unless we are talking relative to earth, then its about 1100mph. Still...
» First Man Film, Did The USA Go To The Moon ? (Go to post)20-07-2019 @ 12:45 
The biggest argument I have is no photos of the earth.
They are all composite/photoshopped 'to meet our expectations'.

Source; NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html

The second biggest argument is that we destroyed the technology to go to the moon (what??).

Source; NASA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16MMZJlp_0Y

As for Russia crying foul if USA didn't go... they are one in the same. All space agencies are masonic entities. If there's any masons here look at the register of supported institutes next time you are at the grand lodge; all one in the same.

As for NASA, there are lots and lots of videos showing their lies. I'm not talking about ridiculous claims like 'moon flag flapping in the wind', I'm talking about greenscreen failures, CGI failures, transparent people and other undeniable f**kery.

Example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNf6VkaTtgg


If these examples don't register with you, then I don't think anything would ever have you question any lie given to you by the powers that be.

f**k me, even the videos from the ISS in 1999 vs 2019 are a joke. We now have lightning effects, vortex effects, crespuclar lighting effects, parallax mapping of the landmass... all computer fx which wasn't there in 99... Unless the world has changed that much with new neon lighting and cloud types?

Anyway, I think we live in a closed system. This is from reading accounts from both side of the coin. Those that research both open minded tend to believe we didn't go, and vice versa.

This is a decent video which is factually correct from what I can find:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR296RWS0yM&t=192s
» A Gift... Free Gains For All... TRIR-2.0 (Go to post)05-07-2019 @ 20:10 
Post Edited: 05.07.2019 @ 20:11 PM by AMH_Power
uzalad said:First of all, this spreadsheet is great, thanks for posting it. I'm the go-to person in my office for creating dashboards, manipulating data etc and this is something I'd be proud of.

Now to completely bas***dise your beautiful ideas -

My training has completely lacked direction lately so I think I'm going to try the ideas in this programme but I might have to do it across 6 training days rather than the 3-4 and spreading it across about 9 to 10 days for each "WEEK" because I like to be in and out of the gym within an hour and more significantly because I'm almost certain my body cannot handle benching 3 times a week.

Just off the top of my head something like this:
1. Squats, hamstrings, back
2. Bench, shoulders
REST
3. Squat, quads, abs
4. Bench, triceps
TEST
5. Squat, deadlift, rear delts
6. Bench, biceps, abs (absolute BRO day)

If I figure out the formulas and create a new sheet I'll make sure to send it across via email.

Let me know your thoughts on splitting the days up, I think it would be interesting to hear your perspective given your experience with the methods you've put down in the spreadsheet and because you're obviously very experienced as a strength athlete.


A 10 day micro is what I would call optimal, it's superior to a 7 day week.

If you can follow how this is laid out, it will satisfy some serious OCD, AND achieve what you want.... in that:

Lower always follows: squat, dead, squat, dead.
Upper always follows: variant, bench, variant, bench.
In the 10 day block there are 2 sessions for each of the 4 lifts. One session is moderate, the other is heavy.
A heavy day warrants 72 hours rest off upper or lower respectively.
A moderate day warrants a 48 hour rest off upper/lower respecitvely.

Using the rules above, this is the 10 day micro (which is THE micro I used to hit my 820 total at the british championships):

Day1: Heavy Squat/Moderate Bench
Day2: Off
Day3: Heavy PushVariant
Day4: Moderate Deadlift
Day5: Off
Day6: Heavy Bench/Moderate Squat
Day7: Off
Day8: Heavy Deadlift
Day9: Moderate Push Variant
Day10: Off

Again, it looks chaotic, but if you break it down with the rules above its f**king awesome. Every session feels epic.

Now, you could use the TRIR principles and the loading pattern with this. I would do it like this:

week1 (med int/med vol):
heavy session = 4 sets, at 85% intensity. TRIR of 2
medium session = 4 sets, at 80% intensity. TRIR of 3

Week2 (med int/high vol)
heavy session = 5 sets, at 85% intensity. TRIR of 2
medium session = 5 sets, at 80% intensity. TRIR of 3

Week3 (low int/med vol)
heavy session = 4 sets, at 75% intensity. TRIR of 3
medium session = 4 sets, at 80% intensity. TRIR of 3

Week4 (high int/low vol)
heavy session = 3 sets, at 90% intensity. TRIR of 1-2
medium session = 3 sets, at 80% intensity. TRIR of 3

I would insert the relevant 'bro' stuff with the relevant days. On double days where squat and bench are done together, I wouldn't bother if time is a factor. But on days where you only do one exercise, that is the day to do your extra work focused around the elements of that lift.

As a 'bro' lifter, these will be isolation movements with 3-4 sets at 6-12 reps.
Strength athletes would do some more compound work here or plyometrics/shock training towards a meet to improve rate of force development.

Hope this answers your question mate. But in summary, 10 day cycle is optimal.
» A Gift... Free Gains For All... TRIR-2.0 (Go to post)05-07-2019 @ 07:32 
1369phil said:Aaron

I would have messaged you but someone else might benefit from my stupidity (it's a long term life goal that has yet to pay dividends)

Would a Mon/Tues/Thur/Fri set up be ok?

Would stiff legs be ok instead of good mornings?

Would a SSB offer anything for the paused squat day? (I'm thinking of my shoulders mostly)


Absolutely mate. It's a template, it's designed for exercise substitution. Ideally even components.

The loading pattern should stay though, and where there are standard comp lifts these should ideally stay too.

That split is also fine.
» A Gift... Free Gains For All... TRIR-2.0 (Go to post)03-07-2019 @ 20:37 
Post Edited: 03.07.2019 @ 20:38 PM by AMH_Power
I forgot to mention how the meso cycle is laid out:

Week 1:
Moderate volume, moderate intensity. This is baseline development and all minor adaptations realised/recovered by the start of week 2.

Week 2:
High volume, moderate intensity. This is a hard week that incurs a large recovery demand (but also the largest adaptation). Recovery demand will leak into week 3.

Week 3:
Moderate volume, low intensity. Full recovery and adaptations occur from week 2 in this week. Velocity should be higher and any minor speed loss from previous sessions reinstated. By week 4, everything will be 'fresh'.

Week 4:
Low volume, high intensity. Learning to express adaptations developed over the other 3 weeks. Basically a heavy week with, but recovery is short due to low volume, allowing you to start at week 1 again fresh.

In summary, week 1 is base, but the final 3 weeks, volume linear declines H-M-L, where weight on the bar is M-L-H; allowing for the greatest expression of force on week 4.
» A Gift... Free Gains For All... TRIR-2.0 (Go to post)03-07-2019 @ 14:47 
slimsim said:How important is the 2 TRIR parameter? For example, is someone typically overestimates what they can do and thinks they are stopping at 2TRIR but in reality it's 1TRIR does that cause a big issue?

The spreadsheet looks absolutely great!


Not that important mate, it will just give a more accurate predicted 1rm.

Because all the main work is TRIR, if you over do it, you'll naturally have larger peaks and troughs within the system so it will balance out.

Also worth pointing out that recent studies (collectively speaking over many cohorts and peer reviewed journals) are showing that tonnage to calculate volume isn't as accurate as total challenging sets.

Volume is good to compare work like for like and general wear/tear, but to gauge fatigue predictions total challenging sets is the way to go.

Or spend 30 quid on a Dynameter and use it in a morning to gauge CNS. No guess work then!
» A Gift... Free Gains For All... TRIR-2.0 (Go to post)03-07-2019 @ 13:06 
JackRevans said:This is a beautifully constructed spreadsheet


Thank you mate haha.
You wouldn't be saying that if you found all the reference tables and formulas hidden somewhere random like cells Z98763:XK4567
» A Gift... Free Gains For All... TRIR-2.0 (Go to post)02-07-2019 @ 17:49 
The system is pretty clear cut. It's a month long, 4 sheets (1 per week).

1. Enter you current maxes at the top of each sheet.
2. Follow the program.
3. After each session, Log the reps achieved on each set.
4. After each session, Log the weight on accessory work.

Now...

You'll notice all the graphs plot themselves on the right hand side.

You'll get a break down of the days performance, and even the set performance.

Why is this important???

Because if each set is just as good, you can afford to ramp up the difficulty on the next time round, their should be some slight decay on each set.
If there's rapid decay in performance... you've got some conditioning to do!

Now, the most important variables are at the bottom right. These are the weekly summaries.

It accurately gives you a MINIMUM capability based on your BEST set of the week (irrespective of what day, weight or reps was done). It works.

If this value is ever greater than the entries you used in step 1... revise the following week.

It's perpetual. There's potential for this system to serve for many many many years providing:

1. Correct variants are used
2. You USE THE DATA on the right to tune it to yourself
3. Accessory work on saturday addresses weakness/imbalances/prehab.
4. You acknowledge it's not peaking... its foundational.


Any way, I await an onslaught of questions.

It was made in the latest iteration of Excel, and uses some advanced HLookups and other s**t, so don't come at me if your iPotato 3s doesn't make sense with it.

I've uploaded it to dropbox but please feel free to share/redistribute, just don't take my email off it as I'd like to keep some custom:

Enjoy!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3jg5agct5yz8lcz/TRIR%202.0%20-%20AMH.xlsx...

12345678910 ... ... 8788899091929394959697

You are here: HomeForumAMH_Power → View All Posts
© Sugden Barbell 2025 - Mobile Version - Privacy - Terms & Conditions