response to John Heenan

response to John Heenan

Post by Jaan » Fri, 23 May 1997 04:00:00


Subject:      Re: Perkins and Popov Freestlye and it's relation to

long-distance freetyle efficany.


Date:         1997/05/06

Quote:
>There is a vital point that must be kept in mind when you ask someone to
>swim with an 'S' pull.  Someone being told to swim with an S pull, as
>opposed to pulling without such an instruction, is likely to confuse an S
>shape movement pull with an overall force of variable direction pull.  You
>can swim with an S shape with virtually all of the applied overall force to
>the water in one direction
>I reckon there is a good chance swimmers in the trial below made this
>mistake,

*NO, not a chance in the world*

Quote:
>If you move your hand in an S path such that you let your arm 'slip' in the
>lateral direction, then you are moving in an S path with minimal deviation
>of overall force from a single direction, an action that is likely to be
>natural.  If you move in an S path in such a way there is some 'catch' in
>the lateral direction then you have introduced pulling with an overall
>force that varies in direction, an action that is likely if you are told to
>pull with an S shape.
>If you do not understand these points and want to, then I suggest you take
>up some introductory applied mathematics.

-- > 7. Less strokes per 50 suggests test results are invalid on purely

Quote:
> mechanical grounds. However less strokes for a given length does not mean
> swimming is more efficient.

What are you John, you lecture ME on physics and then come up with this?

are you for real? you gotta be kidding... so a car that use 500ml or

petrol per KM is not more effeciant than one that uses 700ml on the same

KM of road? at a higher speed with less revs? who are you kidding mate?
you have NO KNOWLEDGE OF BASIC SWIMMING PRINCIPALS, LET ALONE PHYSICS if
you ignore this point.

Quote:

> 10 You stated 'swimmers found..', not that tests found.  This suggests

you

Quote:
> relied on subjective judgements.  Such judgements are predisposed to be
> whatever the results you want.

> You lecture me inappropriately with an irrelevant statement that high
> school physics states that the fastest way from A to B is straight line.
> (Yeah, I know, Jaan clearly lacks any knowledge of relativity concepts,

but

Quote:
> this is irrelevant here). You have ignored what I have indicated
> previously, that for the hand to move straight back it would need to stay
> near the surface of the water.  You indicate in a vague and

unsatisfactory

Quote:
> way the S shape may value some swimmers, despite you own beliefs about a
> straight line, that the hand cannot follow unless it stays near the

surface

Quote:
> of the water .  You ignore the fact that when the hand moves underwater

it

Quote:
> does not stay at a level depth under the water, but moves in a vertical
> curve, apart from whether lateral or s shape motion is present.  You

ignore

Quote:
> the fact other parts of the arm do not move in the same direction as the
> hand.  You failed to indicate that when swimmers are told not to 'slip'
> their pull, they slow down their pull.  A pull in which there is slip is
> faster than one with no slip, but less efficient, showing in a very

simple

Quote:
> way the irrelevance of your fastest path argument.  

*wrong again, I have in numerous posts indicated that lateral depth

change is a part of the straight pull, I have allways referred to a lack
of HORIZONTAL movement, not lateral.  A straight pull with no "slip"
(now there's a scientific term
 for you John) TAKE AS LONG, SOMETIMES SHORTER to exectute then a "s"
pull.  Part of the "s" thoery is by pulling on the water "longer" by
utilizing momentum changes, you generate more force.  YOU HAVE JUST
CONTRADICTED YOURSELF JOHN, AND SHOWN EVERYONE YOUR COMPLETE LACK OF
KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING IN THIS MATTER.  At least you acknowledged
that a straight pull is more effeciant....NOW THAT'S A BACKLFIP FOR YOU
JOHN.  

You have given no

Quote:
> comment on my comment that lateral hand movement requires low extra

energy

Quote:
> expenditure and may be of advantage in terms of capacity to more
> efficiently impart momentum changes to water.  You have given no

indication

Quote:
> that you even accept that is momentum change of water that is responsible
> for propulsive force, I suggest you examine Newton's laws of motion if

this

Quote:
> is a problem for you.

No, wrong again, I acknowleged that momentum changes CAN and DO produce

propulsion, but I believe and have proved time and again that it this

method of "s" shapes, that rely *heavily* in Newtons laws for thier

basic permise, donot produce as MUCH or EFFECIANT or POWERFUL or even

EFFECTIVE propulsion as force being directly applied to the direction
travel is desired, by using a "straight" pull.  I have acknowledged
lateral hand movements.... have you even bothered to read my posts, and
those of others in this newgroup with infinnitly more knowledge and
experience than you have been saying *yes lateral hand movement happens,
don't exagerate it, and NO to horizontal movement and  the exageration
of that movement*

Quote:

> Even a simple examination of vehicle transport means using non fluid
> propulsive contact points such as motor cars or push bicycles indicate

that

Quote:
> motion is not achieved using straight A to B motion of component parts at
> contact points.  Where wheels touch the ground, that part of the wheel is
> not moving straight, it is moving in a curve. Even with walking or

running,

Quote:
> the contact point with the ground involves no relative motion for

extended

Quote:
> time, not straight not curved, just none.  Ships, propeller aircraft, jet
> aircraft, rockets all rely on one means of achieving propulsion: applying

a

Quote:
> change of momentum to a liquid or gaseous fluid.

Yes, but once again *sigh* exagerated "s" movements produce less

propulsion and force (therfore speed) than a non-exagerated on

non-sculling, "s" shape etc, than when that force is applied directly.

Here are some things for you to reaserch John, it might help your
swimming education....

http://www.usswim.org/science/perkins.htm    an analysis of perkins, at

Atlanta, with poor technique (I must add here that although perkins won,
his technique, not overall fitness was more of a factor in his poor
time, and yes, that small "s" shape is what poor technique for perkins
is) revealing a small "s" shape, but very distant from what you find in
most swimming text-books or what they shove down your throat at a level
1 coaching course, or what people like you believe to be superior
freestyle technique.

http://www.usswim.org/science/russia.htm  and

http://www.usswim.org/coaches/russian.htm  here the American take notes

from the Coaches of Popov and Evgueni Sadovyi, on the importance of

streamlining, which "s" shapes donot promote, and transerefing power as

effectively as possible, once again something that for the majority of

simmers, "s" shapes with horizontal movement donot promote.  And finally

to complete your basic education on some of the new (last 20 or so

years) idea's in freestlye swimming

http://lornet.com/~asca/articles/teaching.htm

Quote:

> Having said all this I am not taking a position that S motion is more
> efficient than no lateral hand movement swimming.  There may be no
> significant difference. I dislike seeing shoddy standards and people
> claiming more authority than they deserve.

This is a backflip, but yeah, I agree with you on all points

except...swap lateral with horizontal and that comment could have come

from MY mouth! :-> (as it stands, I can agree) John, All I am interested
in as a coach, swimming educator and debator is exsposing swimmers and
coaches to new ideas! we/I

have hard proof that the MAJORITY but not ALL swimmers benifit from a
"straight" pull, and yet new enthusiastic coaches doing thier level one
courses around Australia are being kept in the dark on the different
theories with ALL strokes! there is only one Tutor Coach that I am aware
of in Australia who teachs...3 different styles of fly pull, 3 timing
models for br/s and 2 theories on FS, his name is Peter Freney, who has
coached a world SC record holder and 2 AIS scholarship holders, all from
an AGE group squad with no assistance from the AIS or goverment, federal
OR local.

Quote:
> I would suggest an informative way to approach this problem is to examine
> rowing.  Do all the best rowers row with a largely straight path, a

curved

Quote:
> path or does it vary?  If it varies I put it you the difference is
> insignificant for rowers just as it is possibly insignificant for

swimmers.

Interesting point John, but oars can't move like a arm can, it is a

fixed object. (the oar that is)

Quote:

> I guess with your style of results their is a good chance you work with

one

Quote:
> of the Institutes in Canberra.  I certainly hope no public money was used
> in getting your 'results'.  Certainly these Institutes have in no way
> justified their existence in terms of return on public money.  They

expend

Quote:
> a lot of effort on giving misleading information that their contributions
> are significant.

> John Heenan    

Public money is the only way studies like this will get done, who from

the private sector will fund it? or perhaps myself and a few other

coaches are conducting a long-term study, booking and hiring lanes and

equipment  neede to prove convincingly to the majority of narrow-minded

coaches that there is more than one answer to one problem, and to be

prepared to teach more than one thoery.  It took a series of shoulder

injuries to some of my swimmers a long time ago to convince ME that my

FS couldn't work for everyone! and I allways considered myself pretty

open minded.

Jaan, Coach, Canberra

|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|

|  I will not respond to any Posts, Email       |

|  or other forms of communication which        |      

|  incorparate personal insults or              |

|  foul
...

read more »

 
 
 

response to John Heenan

Post by John Heena » Thu, 26 Jun 1997 04:00:00

Perhaps some things have dawned on Jaan at last and so perhaps he is now
attempting to rewrite history in an attempt to protect the supply of tax
payers money for shoddy studies!

Quote:

> Subject:      Re: Perkins and Popov Freestlye and it's relation to

> long-distance freetyle efficany.


> Date:         1997/05/06

> >There is a vital point that must be kept in mind when you ask someone to

> >swim with an 'S' pull.  Someone being told to swim with an S pull, as

> >opposed to pulling without such an instruction, is likely to confuse an S

> >shape movement pull with an overall force of variable direction pull.  You

> >can swim with an S shape with virtually all of the applied overall force to

> >the water in one direction

> >I reckon there is a good chance swimmers in the trial below made this

> >mistake,

> *NO, not a chance in the world*

Don't be silly.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> >If you move your hand in an S path such that you let your arm 'slip' in the

> >lateral direction, then you are moving in an S path with minimal deviation

> >of overall force from a single direction, an action that is likely to be

> >natural.  If you move in an S path in such a way there is some 'catch' in

> >the lateral direction then you have introduced pulling with an overall

> >force that varies in direction, an action that is likely if you are told to

> >pull with an S shape.

> >If you do not understand these points and want to, then I suggest you take

> >up some introductory applied mathematics.

> -- > 7. Less strokes per 50 suggests test results are invalid on purely

> > mechanical grounds. However less strokes for a given length does not mean

> > swimming is more efficient.

This is what I was replying to in an earlier post:

Quote:
> Every swimmer I have has tried both techniques, and over 90% of them
> found that straight line pull provided, compared to "s" shapes:

> 1. less stokes per 50.

At the very least, you would expect a straighter pull to increase the
stroke rate.  Hence the reasonable proposition the resuls may be invalid
on grounds of mechanical consideration alone.

Quote:

> What are you John, you lecture ME on physics and then come up with this?

> are you for real? you gotta be kidding...

Not at all!

Quote:
> so a car that use 500ml or

> petrol per KM is not more effeciant than one that uses 700ml on the same

> KM of road? at a higher speed with less revs? who are you kidding mate?

Really?  

Quote:
> you have NO KNOWLEDGE OF BASIC SWIMMING PRINCIPALS, LET ALONE PHYSICS if
> you ignore this point.

What point.  You are the one making oddball statements without any
decent theory or results to back them up.

By your type of reasoning a car should only ever run in top gear, with
that top gear a lot higher than current top gears.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> > 10 You stated 'swimmers found..', not that tests found.  This suggests

> you

> > relied on subjective judgements.  Such judgements are predisposed to be

> > whatever the results you want.

> > You lecture me inappropriately with an irrelevant statement that high

> > school physics states that the fastest way from A to B is straight line.

> > (Yeah, I know, Jaan clearly lacks any knowledge of relativity concepts,

> but

> > this is irrelevant here). You have ignored what I have indicated

> > previously, that for the hand to move straight back it would need to stay

> > near the surface of the water.  You indicate in a vague and

> unsatisfactory

> > way the S shape may value some swimmers, despite you own beliefs about a

> > straight line, that the hand cannot follow unless it stays near the

> surface

> > of the water .  You ignore the fact that when the hand moves underwater

> it

> > does not stay at a level depth under the water, but moves in a vertical

> > curve, apart from whether lateral or s shape motion is present.  You

> ignore

> > the fact other parts of the arm do not move in the same direction as the

> > hand.  You failed to indicate that when swimmers are told not to 'slip'

> > their pull, they slow down their pull.  A pull in which there is slip is

> > faster than one with no slip, but less efficient, showing in a very

> simple

> > way the irrelevance of your fastest path argument.

> *wrong again, I have in numerous posts indicated that lateral depth

> change is a part of the straight pull,

No. You have not.

Quote:
> I have allways referred to a lack
> of HORIZONTAL movement, not lateral.

Again no.  

Quote:
>  A straight pull with no "slip"
> (now there's a scientific term

No it isn't.  'Slipstream' is a recognised term, 'slip' is not.

Quote:
>  for you John) TAKE AS LONG, SOMETIMES SHORTER to exectute then a "s"
> pull.  Part of the "s" thoery is by pulling on the water "longer" by
> utilizing momentum changes, you generate more force.

You have learnt the change of momentum lesson at last but then use it in
an inappropriate way, demonstaring your limited understanding and
knowledge.  The only 'S' theory I know of in swimming is the invalid one
on Bernoulli lift.  My argument is that moving with an S shape direction
(not S shape force) may make very little difference. It may provide
advantages in terms of being able to impart momentum change to water
more efficiently.

Quote:
> YOU HAVE JUST
> CONTRADICTED YOURSELF JOHN, AND SHOWN EVERYONE YOUR COMPLETE LACK OF
> KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING IN THIS MATTER.  At least you acknowledged
> that a straight pull is more effeciant....NOW THAT'S A BACKLFIP FOR YOU
> JOHN.

There is no contradiction. I have made no acknowledgment of the type you
indicate .  I have clearly stated I refuse to take a postion on the
matter.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> You have given no

> > comment on my comment that lateral hand movement requires low extra

> energy

> > expenditure and may be of advantage in terms of capacity to more

> > efficiently impart momentum changes to water.  You have given no

> indication

> > that you even accept that is momentum change of water that is responsible

> > for propulsive force, I suggest you examine Newton's laws of motion if

> this

> > is a problem for you.

> No, wrong again, I acknowleged that momentum changes CAN and DO produce

> propulsion,

For the first time!

Quote:
> but I believe and have proved time and again that it this

> method of "s" shapes, that rely *heavily* in Newtons laws for thier

> basic permise, donot produce as MUCH or EFFECIANT or POWERFUL or even

> EFFECTIVE propulsion as force being directly applied to the direction
> travel is desired, by using a "straight" pull.  

Rubbish

Quote:
>I have acknowledged
> lateral hand movements....

No

Quote:
> have you even bothered to read my posts, and
> those of others in this newgroup with infinnitly more knowledge and
> experience than you have been saying *yes lateral hand movement happens,
> don't exagerate it, and NO to horizontal movement and  the exageration
> of that movement*

Lateral movemet is movemnent in the horizontal (two dimendional) plane.

You can pull your articles from http://www.altavista.digital.com news
archives to show us what you claim.  But of course you won't, because
they don't exist.  Protecting your grab of tax payers money Jaan?

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> > Even a simple examination of vehicle transport means using non fluid

> > propulsive contact points such as motor cars or push bicycles indicate

> that

> > motion is not achieved using straight A to B motion of component parts at

> > contact points.  Where wheels touch the ground, that part of the wheel is

> > not moving straight, it is moving in a curve. Even with walking or

> running,

> > the contact point with the ground involves no relative motion for

> extended

> > time, not straight not curved, just none.  Ships, propeller aircraft, jet

> > aircraft, rockets all rely on one means of achieving propulsion: applying

> a

> > change of momentum to a liquid or gaseous fluid.

> Yes, but once again *sigh* exagerated "s" movements produce less

> propulsion and force (therfore speed) than a non-exagerated on

> non-sculling, "s" shape etc, than when that force is applied directly.

Exagerated?  Whether 'exageratted' or not, an S shape is an S shape.

Quote:
> Here are some things for you to reaserch John, it might help your
> swimming education....

> http://www.usswim.org/science/perkins.htm    an analysis of perkins, at

> Atlanta, with poor technique (I must add here that although perkins won,
> his technique, not overall fitness was more of a factor in his poor
> time, and yes, that small "s" shape is what poor technique for perkins
> is) revealing a small "s" shape, but very distant from what you find in
> most swimming text-books or what they shove down your throat at a level
> 1 coaching course, or what people like you believe to be superior
> freestyle technique.

Text books do nor quantify degree of S movement.  They indicate that it
happens among the best. That is about it.  

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> http://www.usswim.org/science/russia.htm  and

> http://www.usswim.org/coaches/russian.htm  here the American take notes

> from the Coaches of Popov and Evgueni Sadovyi, on the importance of

> streamlining, which "s" shapes donot promote, and transerefing power as

> effectively as possible, once again something that for the majority of

> simmers, "s" shapes with horizontal movement donot promote.  And finally

> to complete your basic education on some of the new (last 20 or so

> years) idea's in freestlye swimming

> http://lornet.com/~asca/articles/teaching.htm

> > Having said all this I am not taking a position that S motion is more

> > efficient than no lateral hand movement swimming.  There may be no

> > significant difference. I dislike seeing shoddy standards and people

> > claiming more authority than they deserve.

...

read more »

 
 
 

response to John Heenan

Post by John Heena » Sun, 29 Jun 1997 04:00:00

Is it ever possible to find out what really happens in Orwellian Canberra institutes
with their access to skilled media abusers?

There were very serious allegations made of horrific abuse against young gymnasts
under the care of the AIS.  

Was there a proper independent investigation?  Were charges ever laid?  It appeared
to just die a death in the media.  

My impression is that whatever the outcome was, we the public, were left with no real
idea of what really happened.  If anything the impression seemed to be horrific abuse
of young girls is a necessasry part of training and how dare the public interfere.

Maybe it is time to really make the AIS answerable with people who will not be
intimadated or otherwise compromised.

John Heenan

Quote:

> This is being posted to aus.politics in the hope those who have links to those
> who are involved in deciding grants get some inkling of the public waste
> carried on in public institutes.  Jaan Murphy appears to have been involved in
> a shoddy publicly funded study.  He is now lying about what he has stated.

> I have done a search to confirm Jaan is lying with respect to statements below by
> Jaan.  You can confirm this for yourself pasting the following in a single line to
> a web browser, preceded by http://
> (it is too long to make a direct link),

> xp6.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?search=word&query=*&maxhits=50&filter=%7bdb97p2%20%7b%7b%7eg%20rec.sport.swimming%01%7ea%20%7bJaan%20%7c%20(Jaan%20%26%20M %7d%7d%7d%20%7bdb97p3%20%7b%7b%7eg%20rec.sport.swimming%01%7ea%20%7bJaan%20 %7d%7d%7d

> entering

> hand|momentum|lateral|movement|lateral

> in the box at the top and clicking on the 'New Search Button'  button.

> This will bring up all the Deja News archived articles of Jaan that were posted
> to rec.sport.swimming and contain any, some or all of the words hand, momentum,
> lateral, movement or lateral

> It will bring up articles in which Jaan merely automatcally quotes my own or
> other posts and in which these words occur.

> Jaan posted the lies below on 22 May 1997.  On 21 May 1997 he posted the following

> "*sorry, but I've have proved, and other people including some here in
> this newsgroup have tried my so called "theory" and have proved to
> themselves, that although this may be true, it is more effeciant to pull
> from entry to exit point with as little as possible horizontal movement
> then to waste energy with memntum changes ("S" shapes) by applying thier
> force in the most efficant and direct way possible, a straight line.*"

> This statement is sufficent to prove the incompetence of Jaan.  All propulsion
> relies on momentum change (straight pull or not).

> You will discover Jaan is not only abusive, he is also a liar.

> He is from Canberra.  He appeares to be associated with a public body (the AIS).
> We see a demonstration of what appears to be a government representaive
> conducting an Orwellian rewrite of history.  We should not be surprised.

> John Heenan

> ************************************************************


> John:

> > Perhaps some things have dawned on Jaan at last and so perhaps he is now
> > attempting to rewrite history in an attempt to protect the supply of tax
> > payers money for shoddy studies!

> > > > You lecture me inappropriately with an irrelevant statement that high

> > > > school physics states that the fastest way from A to B is straight line.

> > > > (Yeah, I know, Jaan clearly lacks any knowledge of relativity concepts,

> > > but

> > > > this is irrelevant here). You have ignored what I have indicated

> > > > previously, that for the hand to move straight back it would need to stay

> > > > near the surface of the water.  You indicate in a vague and

> > > unsatisfactory

> > > > way the S shape may value some swimmers, despite you own beliefs about a

> > > > straight line, that the hand cannot follow unless it stays near the

> > > surface

> > > > of the water .  You ignore the fact that when the hand moves underwater

> > > it

> > > > does not stay at a level depth under the water, but moves in a vertical

> > > > curve, apart from whether lateral or s shape motion is present.  You

> > > ignore

> > > > the fact other parts of the arm do not move in the same direction as the

> > > > hand.  You failed to indicate that when swimmers are told not to 'slip'

> > > > their pull, they slow down their pull.  A pull in which there is slip is

> > > > faster than one with no slip, but less efficient, showing in a very

> > > simple

> > > > way the irrelevance of your fastest path argument.

> Jaan the LIAR:

> > > *wrong again, I have in numerous posts indicated that lateral depth

> > > change is a part of the straight pull,

> John:

> > No. You have not.

> Jaan the LIAR:

> > > I have allways referred to a lack
> > > of HORIZONTAL movement, not lateral.

> John:

> > Again no.

> Jaan:

> > >  A straight pull with no "slip"
> > > (now there's a scientific term

> John:

> > No it isn't.  'Slipstream' is a recognised term, 'slip' is not.

> Jaan:

> > >  for you John) TAKE AS LONG, SOMETIMES SHORTER to exectute then a "s"
> > > pull.  Part of the "s" thoery is by pulling on the water "longer" by
> > > utilizing momentum changes, you generate more force.

> John:

> > You have learnt the change of momentum lesson at last but then use it in
> > an inappropriate way, demonstaring your limited understanding and
> > knowledge.  The only 'S' theory I know of in swimming is the invalid one
> > on Bernoulli lift.  My argument is that moving with an S shape direction
> > (not S shape force) may make very little difference. It may provide
> > advantages in terms of being able to impart momentum change to water
> > more efficiently.

> Jaan:

> > > YOU HAVE JUST
> > > CONTRADICTED YOURSELF JOHN, AND SHOWN EVERYONE YOUR COMPLETE LACK OF
> > > KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING IN THIS MATTER.  At least you acknowledged
> > > that a straight pull is more effeciant....NOW THAT'S A BACKLFIP FOR YOU
> > > JOHN.

> John:

> > There is no contradiction. I have made no acknowledgment of the type you
> > indicate .  I have clearly stated I refuse to take a postion on the
> > matter.

> > > You have given no

> > > > comment on my comment that lateral hand movement requires low extra

> > > energy

> > > > expenditure and may be of advantage in terms of capacity to more

> > > > efficiently impart momentum changes to water.  You have given no

> > > indication

> > > > that you even accept that is momentum change of water that is responsible

> > > > for propulsive force, I suggest you examine Newton's laws of motion if

> > > this

> > > > is a problem for you.

> Jaan:

> > > No, wrong again, I acknowleged that momentum changes CAN and DO produce

> > > propulsion,

> John:

> > For the first time!

> Jaan:

> > > but I believe and have proved time and again that it this

> > > method of "s" shapes, that rely *heavily* in Newtons laws for thier

> > > basic permise, donot produce as MUCH or EFFECIANT or POWERFUL or even

> > > EFFECTIVE propulsion as force being directly applied to the direction
> > > travel is desired, by using a "straight" pull.

> John:

> > Rubbish

> Jaan:

> > >I have acknowledged
> > > lateral hand movements....

> John:

> > No

> Jaan:

> > > have you even bothered to read my posts, and
> > > those of others in this newgroup with infinnitly more knowledge and
> > > experience than you have been saying *yes lateral hand movement happens,
> > > don't exagerate it, and NO to horizontal movement and  the exageration
> > > of that movement*

> John:

> > Lateral movemet is movemnent in the horizontal (two dimendional) plane.

> > You can pull your articles from http://www.altavista.digital.com news
> > archives to show us what you claim.  But of course you won't, because
> > they don't exist.  Protecting your grab of tax payers money Jaan?

> > > > Even a simple examination of vehicle transport means using non fluid

> > > > propulsive contact points such as motor cars or push bicycles indicate

> > > that

> > > > motion is not achieved using straight A to B motion of component parts at

> > > > contact points.  Where wheels touch the ground, that part of the wheel is

> > > > not moving straight, it is moving in a curve. Even with walking or

> > > running,

> > > > the contact point with the ground involves no relative motion for

> > > extended

> > > > time, not straight not curved, just none.  Ships, propeller aircraft, jet

> > > > aircraft, rockets all rely on one means of achieving propulsion: applying

> > > a

> > > > change of momentum to a liquid or gaseous fluid.

> Jaan:

> > > Yes, but once again *sigh* exagerated "s" movements produce less

> > > propulsion and force (therfore speed) than a non-exagerated on

> > > non-sculling, "s" shape etc, than when that force is applied directly.

> John:

> > Exagerated?  Whether 'exageratted' or not, an S shape is an S shape.

> Jann and pulic money:

> > > Public money is the only way studies like this will get done, who from

> > > the private sector will fund it? or perhaps myself and a few other

> > > coaches are conducting a long-term study, booking and hiring lanes and

...

read more »

 
 
 

response to John Heenan

Post by John Heena » Sun, 29 Jun 1997 04:00:00

This is being posted to aus.politics in the hope those who have links to those
who are involved in deciding grants get some inkling of the public waste
carried on in public institutes.  Jaan Murphy appears to have been involved in
a shoddy publicly funded study.  He is now lying about what he has stated.

I have done a search to confirm Jaan is lying with respect to statements below by
Jaan.  You can confirm this for yourself pasting the following in a single line to
a web browser, preceded by http://
(it is too long to make a direct link),

xp6.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?search=word&query=*&maxhits=50&filter=%7bdb97p2%20%7b%7b%7eg%20rec.sport.swimming%01%7ea%20%7bJaan%20%7c%20(Jaan%20%26%20M %7d%7d%7d%20%7bdb97p3%20%7b%7b%7eg%20rec.sport.swimming%01%7ea%20%7bJaan%20 %7d%7d%7d

entering

hand|momentum|lateral|movement|lateral

in the box at the top and clicking on the 'New Search Button'  button.

This will bring up all the Deja News archived articles of Jaan that were posted
to rec.sport.swimming and contain any, some or all of the words hand, momentum,
lateral, movement or lateral

It will bring up articles in which Jaan merely automatcally quotes my own or
other posts and in which these words occur.

Jaan posted the lies below on 22 May 1997.  On 21 May 1997 he posted the following

"*sorry, but I've have proved, and other people including some here in
this newsgroup have tried my so called "theory" and have proved to
themselves, that although this may be true, it is more effeciant to pull
from entry to exit point with as little as possible horizontal movement
then to waste energy with memntum changes ("S" shapes) by applying thier
force in the most efficant and direct way possible, a straight line.*"

This statement is sufficent to prove the incompetence of Jaan.  All propulsion
relies on momentum change (straight pull or not).

You will discover Jaan is not only abusive, he is also a liar.

He is from Canberra.  He appeares to be associated with a public body (the AIS).  
We see a demonstration of what appears to be a government representaive
conducting an Orwellian rewrite of history.  We should not be surprised.

John Heenan

************************************************************

John:

Quote:
> Perhaps some things have dawned on Jaan at last and so perhaps he is now
> attempting to rewrite history in an attempt to protect the supply of tax
> payers money for shoddy studies!

> > > You lecture me inappropriately with an irrelevant statement that high

> > > school physics states that the fastest way from A to B is straight line.

> > > (Yeah, I know, Jaan clearly lacks any knowledge of relativity concepts,

> > but

> > > this is irrelevant here). You have ignored what I have indicated

> > > previously, that for the hand to move straight back it would need to stay

> > > near the surface of the water.  You indicate in a vague and

> > unsatisfactory

> > > way the S shape may value some swimmers, despite you own beliefs about a

> > > straight line, that the hand cannot follow unless it stays near the

> > surface

> > > of the water .  You ignore the fact that when the hand moves underwater

> > it

> > > does not stay at a level depth under the water, but moves in a vertical

> > > curve, apart from whether lateral or s shape motion is present.  You

> > ignore

> > > the fact other parts of the arm do not move in the same direction as the

> > > hand.  You failed to indicate that when swimmers are told not to 'slip'

> > > their pull, they slow down their pull.  A pull in which there is slip is

> > > faster than one with no slip, but less efficient, showing in a very

> > simple

> > > way the irrelevance of your fastest path argument.

Jaan the LIAR:

Quote:
> > *wrong again, I have in numerous posts indicated that lateral depth

> > change is a part of the straight pull,

John:

Quote:
> No. You have not.

Jaan the LIAR:

Quote:
> > I have allways referred to a lack
> > of HORIZONTAL movement, not lateral.

John:

Quote:
> Again no.

Jaan:

Quote:

> >  A straight pull with no "slip"
> > (now there's a scientific term

John:

Quote:
> No it isn't.  'Slipstream' is a recognised term, 'slip' is not.

Jaan:

Quote:
> >  for you John) TAKE AS LONG, SOMETIMES SHORTER to exectute then a "s"
> > pull.  Part of the "s" thoery is by pulling on the water "longer" by
> > utilizing momentum changes, you generate more force.

John:

Quote:

> You have learnt the change of momentum lesson at last but then use it in
> an inappropriate way, demonstaring your limited understanding and
> knowledge.  The only 'S' theory I know of in swimming is the invalid one
> on Bernoulli lift.  My argument is that moving with an S shape direction
> (not S shape force) may make very little difference. It may provide
> advantages in terms of being able to impart momentum change to water
> more efficiently.

Jaan:

Quote:

> > YOU HAVE JUST
> > CONTRADICTED YOURSELF JOHN, AND SHOWN EVERYONE YOUR COMPLETE LACK OF
> > KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING IN THIS MATTER.  At least you acknowledged
> > that a straight pull is more effeciant....NOW THAT'S A BACKLFIP FOR YOU
> > JOHN.

John:

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> There is no contradiction. I have made no acknowledgment of the type you
> indicate .  I have clearly stated I refuse to take a postion on the
> matter.

> > You have given no

> > > comment on my comment that lateral hand movement requires low extra

> > energy

> > > expenditure and may be of advantage in terms of capacity to more

> > > efficiently impart momentum changes to water.  You have given no

> > indication

> > > that you even accept that is momentum change of water that is responsible

> > > for propulsive force, I suggest you examine Newton's laws of motion if

> > this

> > > is a problem for you.

Jaan:

Quote:
> > No, wrong again, I acknowleged that momentum changes CAN and DO produce

> > propulsion,

John:

Quote:
> For the first time!

Jaan:

Quote:
> > but I believe and have proved time and again that it this

> > method of "s" shapes, that rely *heavily* in Newtons laws for thier

> > basic permise, donot produce as MUCH or EFFECIANT or POWERFUL or even

> > EFFECTIVE propulsion as force being directly applied to the direction
> > travel is desired, by using a "straight" pull.

John:

Quote:
> Rubbish

Jaan:

Quote:
> >I have acknowledged
> > lateral hand movements....

John:

Quote:
> No

Jaan:

Quote:
> > have you even bothered to read my posts, and
> > those of others in this newgroup with infinnitly more knowledge and
> > experience than you have been saying *yes lateral hand movement happens,
> > don't exagerate it, and NO to horizontal movement and  the exageration
> > of that movement*

John:

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> Lateral movemet is movemnent in the horizontal (two dimendional) plane.

> You can pull your articles from http://www.altavista.digital.com news
> archives to show us what you claim.  But of course you won't, because
> they don't exist.  Protecting your grab of tax payers money Jaan?

> > > Even a simple examination of vehicle transport means using non fluid

> > > propulsive contact points such as motor cars or push bicycles indicate

> > that

> > > motion is not achieved using straight A to B motion of component parts at

> > > contact points.  Where wheels touch the ground, that part of the wheel is

> > > not moving straight, it is moving in a curve. Even with walking or

> > running,

> > > the contact point with the ground involves no relative motion for

> > extended

> > > time, not straight not curved, just none.  Ships, propeller aircraft, jet

> > > aircraft, rockets all rely on one means of achieving propulsion: applying

> > a

> > > change of momentum to a liquid or gaseous fluid.

Jaan:

Quote:
> > Yes, but once again *sigh* exagerated "s" movements produce less

> > propulsion and force (therfore speed) than a non-exagerated on

> > non-sculling, "s" shape etc, than when that force is applied directly.

John:

Quote:
> Exagerated?  Whether 'exageratted' or not, an S shape is an S shape.

Jann and pulic money:

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> > Public money is the only way studies like this will get done, who from

> > the private sector will fund it? or perhaps myself and a few other

> > coaches are conducting a long-term study, booking and hiring lanes and

> > equipment  neede to prove convincingly to the majority of narrow-minded

> > coaches that there is more than one answer to one problem, and to be

> > prepared to teach more than one thoery.  It took a series of shoulder

> > injuries to some of my swimmers a long time ago to convince ME that my

> > FS couldn't work for everyone! and I allways considered myself pretty

 
 
 

response to John Heenan

Post by Perspicacious » Wed, 02 Jul 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

> This is being posted to aus.politics in the hope those who have links to those
> who are involved in deciding grants get some inkling of the public waste
> carried on in public institutes.  Jaan Murphy appears to have been involved in
> a shoddy publicly funded study.  He is now lying about what he has stated.

You had better be very careful what you are saying here. I think you
will find that this is defamatory and actionable.

Quote:
> I have done a search to confirm Jaan is lying with respect to statements below by
> Jaan.  

Far more interesting is to do a DejaNews search of your postings and
conduct an examination of your web site. As part of it you make
defamatory comments about the Australian swimmer Sam Riley (amongst
other things). The records show there is even a long newsgroup thread
asking you never to post to any newsgroup again.
Quote:
>You can confirm this for yourself pasting the following in a single line> a web browser, preceded by http://
> (it is too long to make a direct link),

> xp6.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?search=word&query=*&maxhits=50&filter=%7bdb97p2%20%7b%7b%7eg%20rec.sport.swimming%01%7ea%20%7bJaan%20%7c%20(Jaan%20%26%20M %7d%7d%7d%20%7bdb97p3%20%7b%7b%7eg%20rec.sport.swimming%01%7ea%20%7bJaan%20 %7d%7d%7d

> entering

> hand|momentum|lateral|movement|lateral

> in the box at the top and clicking on the 'New Search Button'  button.

> This will bring up all the Deja News archived articles of Jaan that were posted
> to rec.sport.swimming and contain any, some or all of the words hand, momentum,
> lateral, movement or lateral

> It will bring up articles in which Jaan merely automatcally quotes my own or
> other posts and in which these words occur.

> Jaan posted the lies below on 22 May 1997.  On 21 May 1997 he posted the following

> "*sorry, but I've have proved, and other people including some here in
> this newsgroup have tried my so called "theory" and have proved to
> themselves, that although this may be true, it is more effeciant to pull
> from entry to exit point with as little as possible horizontal movement
> then to waste energy with memntum changes ("S" shapes) by applying thier
> force in the most efficant and direct way possible, a straight line.*"

> This statement is sufficent to prove the incompetence of Jaan.  All propulsion
> relies on momentum change (straight pull or not).

> You will discover Jaan is not only abusive, he is also a liar.

> He is from Canberra.  He appeares to be associated with a public body (the AIS).
> We see a demonstration of what appears to be a government representaive
> conducting an Orwellian rewrite of history.  We should not be surprised.

> John Heenan

> ************************************************************


> John:

> > Perhaps some things have dawned on Jaan at last and so perhaps he is now
> > attempting to rewrite history in an attempt to protect the supply of tax
> > payers money for shoddy studies!

> > > > You lecture me inappropriately with an irrelevant statement that high

> > > > school physics states that the fastest way from A to B is straight line.

> > > > (Yeah, I know, Jaan clearly lacks any knowledge of relativity concepts,

> > > but

> > > > this is irrelevant here). You have ignored what I have indicated

> > > > previously, that for the hand to move straight back it would need to stay

> > > > near the surface of the water.  You indicate in a vague and

> > > unsatisfactory

> > > > way the S shape may value some swimmers, despite you own beliefs about a

> > > > straight line, that the hand cannot follow unless it stays near the

> > > surface

> > > > of the water .  You ignore the fact that when the hand moves underwater

> > > it

> > > > does not stay at a level depth under the water, but moves in a vertical

> > > > curve, apart from whether lateral or s shape motion is present.  You

> > > ignore

> > > > the fact other parts of the arm do not move in the same direction as the

> > > > hand.  You failed to indicate that when swimmers are told not to 'slip'

> > > > their pull, they slow down their pull.  A pull in which there is slip is

> > > > faster than one with no slip, but less efficient, showing in a very

> > > simple

> > > > way the irrelevance of your fastest path argument.

> Jaan the LIAR:

> > > *wrong again, I have in numerous posts indicated that lateral depth

> > > change is a part of the straight pull,

> John:

> > No. You have not.

> Jaan the LIAR:

> > > I have allways referred to a lack
> > > of HORIZONTAL movement, not lateral.

> John:

> > Again no.

> Jaan:

> > >  A straight pull with no "slip"
> > > (now there's a scientific term

> John:

> > No it isn't.  'Slipstream' is a recognised term, 'slip' is not.

> Jaan:

> > >  for you John) TAKE AS LONG, SOMETIMES SHORTER to exectute then a "s"
> > > pull.  Part of the "s" thoery is by pulling on the water "longer" by
> > > utilizing momentum changes, you generate more force.

> John:

> > You have learnt the change of momentum lesson at last but then use it in
> > an inappropriate way, demonstaring your limited understanding and
> > knowledge.  The only 'S' theory I know of in swimming is the invalid one
> > on Bernoulli lift.  My argument is that moving with an S shape direction
> > (not S shape force) may make very little difference. It may provide
> > advantages in terms of being able to impart momentum change to water
> > more efficiently.

> Jaan:

> > > YOU HAVE JUST
> > > CONTRADICTED YOURSELF JOHN, AND SHOWN EVERYONE YOUR COMPLETE LACK OF
> > > KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING IN THIS MATTER.  At least you acknowledged
> > > that a straight pull is more effeciant....NOW THAT'S A BACKLFIP FOR YOU
> > > JOHN.

> John:

> > There is no contradiction. I have made no acknowledgment of the type you
> > indicate .  I have clearly stated I refuse to take a postion on the
> > matter.

> > > You have given no

> > > > comment on my comment that lateral hand movement requires low extra

> > > energy

> > > > expenditure and may be of advantage in terms of capacity to more

> > > > efficiently impart momentum changes to water.  You have given no

> > > indication

> > > > that you even accept that is momentum change of water that is responsible

> > > > for propulsive force, I suggest you examine Newton's laws of motion if

> > > this

> > > > is a problem for you.

> Jaan:

> > > No, wrong again, I acknowleged that momentum changes CAN and DO produce

> > > propulsion,

> John:

> > For the first time!

> Jaan:

> > > but I believe and have proved time and again that it this

> > > method of "s" shapes, that rely *heavily* in Newtons laws for thier

> > > basic permise, donot produce as MUCH or EFFECIANT or POWERFUL or even

> > > EFFECTIVE propulsion as force being directly applied to the direction
> > > travel is desired, by using a "straight" pull.

> John:

> > Rubbish

> Jaan:

> > >I have acknowledged
> > > lateral hand movements....

> John:

> > No

> Jaan:

> > > have you even bothered to read my posts, and
> > > those of others in this newgroup with infinnitly more knowledge and
> > > experience than you have been saying *yes lateral hand movement happens,
> > > don't exagerate it, and NO to horizontal movement and  the exageration
> > > of that movement*

> John:

> > Lateral movemet is movemnent in the horizontal (two dimendional) plane.

> > You can pull your articles from http://www.altavista.digital.com news
> > archives to show us what you claim.  But of course you won't, because
> > they don't exist.  Protecting your grab of tax payers money Jaan?

> > > > Even a simple examination of vehicle transport means using non fluid

> > > > propulsive contact points such as motor cars or push bicycles indicate

> > > that

> > > > motion is not achieved using straight A to B motion of component parts at

> > > > contact points.  Where wheels touch the ground, that part of the wheel is

> > > > not moving straight, it is moving in a curve. Even with walking or

> > > running,

> > > > the contact point with the ground involves no relative motion for

> > > extended

> > > > time, not straight not curved, just none.  Ships, propeller aircraft, jet

> > > > aircraft, rockets all rely on one means of achieving propulsion: applying

> > > a

> > > > change of momentum to a liquid or gaseous fluid.

> Jaan:

> > > Yes, but once again *sigh* exagerated "s" movements produce less

> > > propulsion and force (therfore speed) than a non-exagerated on

> > > non-sculling, "s" shape etc, than when that force is applied directly.

> John:

> > Exagerated?  Whether 'exageratted' or not, an S shape is an S shape.

> Jann and pulic money:

> > > Public money is the only way studies like this will get done, who from

> > > the private sector will fund it? or perhaps myself and a few other

> > > coaches are conducting a long-term study, booking and hiring lanes and

> > > equipment  neede to prove convincingly to the majority of narrow-minded

> > > coaches that there is more than one answer to one problem, and to be

> > > prepared to teach more than one thoery.  It took a series of shoulder

> > > injuries to some of my swimmers a long time ago to convince ME that

...

read more »

 
 
 

response to John Heenan

Post by John Heena » Thu, 03 Jul 1997 04:00:00

Quote:


> > This is being posted to aus.politics in the hope those who have links to those
> > who are involved in deciding grants get some inkling of the public waste
> > carried on in public institutes.  Jaan Murphy appears to have been involved in
> > a shoddy publicly funded study.  He is now lying about what he has stated.

> You had better be very careful what you are saying here. I think you
> will find that this is defamatory and actionable.

No, it is not defamatory and actionable.  Why?  Because it is true.
Kindly read before you reply.

You are being disgracefully defamatory.

Quote:

> > I have done a search to confirm Jaan is lying with respect to statements below by
> > Jaan.

> Far more interesting is to do a DejaNews search of your postings and
> conduct an examination of your web site. As part of it you make
> defamatory comments about the Australian swimmer Sam Riley (amongst
> other things).

More lies.  What I stated about Sam Riley was factual and valid
comment.  Sam Riley does not dispute a finding she took a banned
substance.  Are you suggesting Sam Riley is defaming herself?

Quote:
> The records show there is even a long newsgroup thread
> asking you never to post to any newsgroup again.

No.  Some have expressed the desire I post in other newsgrops.  Some
have wanted me banned.  I am pleased I have been able to deservedly
shake up newsgroups the way I have done.

John Heenan

Quote:

> >You can confirm this for yourself pasting the following in a single line> a web browser, preceded by http://
> > (it is too long to make a direct link),

> > xp6.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?search=word&query=*&maxhits=50&filter=%7bdb97p2%20%7b%7b%7eg%20rec.sport.swimming%01%7ea%20%7bJaan%20%7c%20(Jaan%20%26%20M %7d%7d%7d%20%7bdb97p3%20%7b%7b%7eg%20rec.sport.swimming%01%7ea%20%7bJaan%20 %7d%7d%7d

> > entering

> > hand|momentum|lateral|movement|lateral

> > in the box at the top and clicking on the 'New Search Button'  button.

> > This will bring up all the Deja News archived articles of Jaan that were posted
> > to rec.sport.swimming and contain any, some or all of the words hand, momentum,
> > lateral, movement or lateral

> > It will bring up articles in which Jaan merely automatcally quotes my own or
> > other posts and in which these words occur.

> > Jaan posted the lies below on 22 May 1997.  On 21 May 1997 he posted the following

> > "*sorry, but I've have proved, and other people including some here in
> > this newsgroup have tried my so called "theory" and have proved to
> > themselves, that although this may be true, it is more effeciant to pull
> > from entry to exit point with as little as possible horizontal movement
> > then to waste energy with memntum changes ("S" shapes) by applying thier
> > force in the most efficant and direct way possible, a straight line.*"

> > This statement is sufficent to prove the incompetence of Jaan.  All propulsion
> > relies on momentum change (straight pull or not).

> > You will discover Jaan is not only abusive, he is also a liar.

> > He is from Canberra.  He appeares to be associated with a public body (the AIS).
> > We see a demonstration of what appears to be a government representaive
> > conducting an Orwellian rewrite of history.  We should not be surprised.

> > John Heenan

> > ************************************************************


> > John:

> > > Perhaps some things have dawned on Jaan at last and so perhaps he is now
> > > attempting to rewrite history in an attempt to protect the supply of tax
> > > payers money for shoddy studies!

> > > > > You lecture me inappropriately with an irrelevant statement that high

> > > > > school physics states that the fastest way from A to B is straight line.

> > > > > (Yeah, I know, Jaan clearly lacks any knowledge of relativity concepts,

> > > > but

> > > > > this is irrelevant here). You have ignored what I have indicated

> > > > > previously, that for the hand to move straight back it would need to stay

> > > > > near the surface of the water.  You indicate in a vague and

> > > > unsatisfactory

> > > > > way the S shape may value some swimmers, despite you own beliefs about a

> > > > > straight line, that the hand cannot follow unless it stays near the

> > > > surface

> > > > > of the water .  You ignore the fact that when the hand moves underwater

> > > > it

> > > > > does not stay at a level depth under the water, but moves in a vertical

> > > > > curve, apart from whether lateral or s shape motion is present.  You

> > > > ignore

> > > > > the fact other parts of the arm do not move in the same direction as the

> > > > > hand.  You failed to indicate that when swimmers are told not to 'slip'

> > > > > their pull, they slow down their pull.  A pull in which there is slip is

> > > > > faster than one with no slip, but less efficient, showing in a very

> > > > simple

> > > > > way the irrelevance of your fastest path argument.

> > Jaan the LIAR:

> > > > *wrong again, I have in numerous posts indicated that lateral depth

> > > > change is a part of the straight pull,

> > John:

> > > No. You have not.

> > Jaan the LIAR:

> > > > I have allways referred to a lack
> > > > of HORIZONTAL movement, not lateral.

> > John:

> > > Again no.

> > Jaan:

> > > >  A straight pull with no "slip"
> > > > (now there's a scientific term

> > John:

> > > No it isn't.  'Slipstream' is a recognised term, 'slip' is not.

> > Jaan:

> > > >  for you John) TAKE AS LONG, SOMETIMES SHORTER to exectute then a "s"
> > > > pull.  Part of the "s" thoery is by pulling on the water "longer" by
> > > > utilizing momentum changes, you generate more force.

> > John:

> > > You have learnt the change of momentum lesson at last but then use it in
> > > an inappropriate way, demonstaring your limited understanding and
> > > knowledge.  The only 'S' theory I know of in swimming is the invalid one
> > > on Bernoulli lift.  My argument is that moving with an S shape direction
> > > (not S shape force) may make very little difference. It may provide
> > > advantages in terms of being able to impart momentum change to water
> > > more efficiently.

> > Jaan:

> > > > YOU HAVE JUST
> > > > CONTRADICTED YOURSELF JOHN, AND SHOWN EVERYONE YOUR COMPLETE LACK OF
> > > > KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING IN THIS MATTER.  At least you acknowledged
> > > > that a straight pull is more effeciant....NOW THAT'S A BACKLFIP FOR YOU
> > > > JOHN.

> > John:

> > > There is no contradiction. I have made no acknowledgment of the type you
> > > indicate .  I have clearly stated I refuse to take a postion on the
> > > matter.

> > > > You have given no

> > > > > comment on my comment that lateral hand movement requires low extra

> > > > energy

> > > > > expenditure and may be of advantage in terms of capacity to more

> > > > > efficiently impart momentum changes to water.  You have given no

> > > > indication

> > > > > that you even accept that is momentum change of water that is responsible

> > > > > for propulsive force, I suggest you examine Newton's laws of motion if

> > > > this

> > > > > is a problem for you.

> > Jaan:

> > > > No, wrong again, I acknowleged that momentum changes CAN and DO produce

> > > > propulsion,

> > John:

> > > For the first time!

> > Jaan:

> > > > but I believe and have proved time and again that it this

> > > > method of "s" shapes, that rely *heavily* in Newtons laws for thier

> > > > basic permise, donot produce as MUCH or EFFECIANT or POWERFUL or even

> > > > EFFECTIVE propulsion as force being directly applied to the direction
> > > > travel is desired, by using a "straight" pull.

> > John:

> > > Rubbish

> > Jaan:

> > > >I have acknowledged
> > > > lateral hand movements....

> > John:

> > > No

> > Jaan:

> > > > have you even bothered to read my posts, and
> > > > those of others in this newgroup with infinnitly more knowledge and
> > > > experience than you have been saying *yes lateral hand movement happens,
> > > > don't exagerate it, and NO to horizontal movement and  the exageration
> > > > of that movement*

> > John:

> > > Lateral movemet is movemnent in the horizontal (two dimendional) plane.

> > > You can pull your articles from http://www.altavista.digital.com news
> > > archives to show us what you claim.  But of course you won't, because
> > > they don't exist.  Protecting your grab of tax payers money Jaan?

> > > > > Even a simple examination of vehicle transport means using non fluid

> > > > > propulsive contact points such as motor cars or push bicycles indicate

> > > > that

> > > > > motion is not achieved using straight A to B motion of component parts at

> > > > > contact points.  Where wheels touch the ground, that part of the wheel is

> > > > > not moving straight, it is moving in a curve. Even with walking or

> > > > running,

> > > > > the contact point with the ground involves no relative motion for

> > > > extended

> > > > > time, not straight not curved, just none.  Ships, propeller aircraft, jet

> > > > > aircraft, rockets all rely on one means

...

read more »