• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Motor doping thread

Page 118 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

thehog said:
...
But there's no way the UCI wants to do any of that.
Instead UCI went ahead to create 'special motor detection software' with the help of electric bike manufacturer Typhoon, i.e. the company suspected of selling bikes to pro's, and the company who, when there was too much heat from the French police at the TdF, got tipped off by... UCI's techinical director Barfield.
Lol.

Hell will freeze over before UCI catches a pro with a motor.

We were told by Typhoon's marketing director, Russell Carty, that a key advantage of using an iPad Mini with magnetometer is that it's portable and quick: "To do a whole Tour of bikes it's just not possible, there are too many bikes.

"They [the UCI] looked at different ways, the heat sensor way, taking the bikes apart, which teams don't like. To keep the teams happy that the bikes aren't gone from them for very long, the iPad-based system can quickly go through more bikes."

Another important consideration is cost: the UCI wants to run the test across all the national cycling federations. As Carty told us, "That's where they have more problems, with the semi-pros and good amateurs."
Good to know! We have to keep the proteams happy, and there's nothing to see in procycling anyway. It's a problem of the semi-pros and amateurs.

Gimme strength.
I mean just *** read this.
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/uci-mechanical-doping-test-how-it-works-47002/
Barfield, who is in bed with Typhoon, and Typhoon, who is in bed with the proteams...Together they set out on a mission to catch the motorcheats. With an ipad mini, just to keep the teams happy.
 
@Tom
I was surprised how little we got to see in the Stade 2 doc and therefore did not participate in the discussion about it. From memory I only pointed out that in the video the difference in color was more clear then the pictures and that they where probably talking about Sagan.
Your posts on the topic are interesting and you might be (partially) correct. Other posters have actually claimed the doc is debunked because of your posts. I ended my last post with this sentence: For me there is no way of telling from what has been aired. I posted the CN article just as counterweight to your arguments. I think its relevant that Bugno says: "They're very efficient and very precise."

I can not guarantee anything based on what I've seen, thats my point. I could ask similar questions like: Can you guarantee that the thermal images where not made by an expert? We just dont know.


Because this big blob that is "glowing" in the picture is mainly his cassette
Reading about the skateboard motors I noticed that heat was a big problem due to the PU wheels. I was thinking that a motor in a freehub could use the casette as cooling fins.
I will not defend this hypothesis because it is just a thought I had when I read a link posted by John and I lack knowledge in this area.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

thehog said:
..
But there's no way the UCI wants to do any of that.
Hold the phone there, Hog. You're jumping to conclusions. Fact is UCI are very serious about motors.
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/uci-mechanical-doping-test-how-it-works-47002/
As you can read in that link they even did a press conference showing how they go about testing motors and explaining why they went for the (cheaper) i-Pad method because it allows them to test more bikes more quickly at as many races as possible. I mean, in this day and age it's just too risky to use a motor.

Oh wait.
"No bike checks were performed] at any post worlds cyclocross races including SuperPrestige."
https://twitter.com/MrKatieCompton/status/831090972553535492
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Re:

Tienus said:
@Tom
I was surprised how little we got to see in the Stade 2 doc and therefore did not participate in the discussion about it. From memory I only pointed out that in the video the difference in color was more clear then the pictures and that they where probably talking about Sagan.
Your posts on the topic are interesting and you might be (partially) correct. Other posters have actually claimed the doc is debunked because of your posts. I ended my last post with this sentence: For me there is no way of telling from what has been aired. I posted the CN article just as counterweight to your arguments. I think its relevant that Bugno says: "They're very efficient and very precise."

I can not guarantee anything based on what I've seen, thats my point. I could ask similar questions like: Can you guarantee that the thermal images where not made by an expert? We just dont know.
agreed on all accounts.

For the moment I take the Stade 2 footage as just another (as opposed to the single most important) piece of evidence (no, not proof) pointing towards Roglic using a motor.
For me, similarly important are his specific results / career trajectory and the testimony from the Corriere della Sera reporter about Roglic' pre-race bike swap and mid-race bike problems prior to the start of the Giro TT which he won despite all those bike problems.
I would also call Lotto Jumbo's reactions (or lack thereof) to the insinuations rather suspect. (E.g. they didn't reply to Stade 2's attempts to contact them and came up with a *** story about a mid-race wheel change which nobody - except, surprise surprise, the UCI - could verify. Also, if the heat signature wasn't caused by a motor, and if there are plausible alternative explanations, I think it should be rather easy to show / simulate what did cause it.)

If you take each one of those indications in isolation, they mean zilch.
It's their sum that is meaningful.
 
Re:

Tienus said:
@Tom
I was surprised how little we got to see in the Stade 2 doc and therefore did not participate in the discussion about it. From memory I only pointed out that in the video the difference in color was more clear then the pictures and that they where probably talking about Sagan.
Your posts on the topic are interesting and you might be (partially) correct. Other posters have actually claimed the doc is debunked because of your posts. I ended my last post with this sentence: For me there is no way of telling from what has been aired. I posted the CN article just as counterweight to your arguments. I think its relevant that Bugno says: "They're very efficient and very precise."

I can not guarantee anything based on what I've seen, thats my point. I could ask similar questions like: Can you guarantee that the thermal images where not made by an expert? We just dont know.


Because this big blob that is "glowing" in the picture is mainly his cassette
Reading about the skateboard motors I noticed that heat was a big problem due to the PU wheels. I was thinking that a motor in a freehub could use the casette as cooling fins.
I will not defend this hypothesis because it is just a thought I had when I read a link posted by John and I lack knowledge in this area.

It is the other way around. Some poster (yes, I am looking at you sniper) claimed it was clear evidence that Roglic used a hub motor (quotes like "lighting up like a Christmas tree" spring to mind). Tom did a sterling job of showing where Stade2 (possibly) fouled up and why you basically can't tell anything concrete from this documentary and that it is therefore a solidly missed chance (and sloppy journalism). On that most here agree.
 
This is what you only wrote last Saturday:

viewtopic.php?p=2062352#p2062352

what's left, you ask?
What's left is that you explain to me why Roglic' hub was glowing like a falling star on a clear sky, how Hesjedal's wheel started spinning despite losing it's momentum due to friction with the road, and what kind of software Varjas used to fabricate that vid of a working rear hub.

Uhuh, you don't use the Stade2 documentary to jump to conclusions and you never keep presenting it as evidence. This all part of you MO. Be all reasonable when there is no way out and two-three days on rinse, repeat the same arguments as if they were never opposed. And this but one example, but I can give you plenty more on the same subject.
 
Re:

Tom the Engine said:
Follow up to my last post:
I felt that I should add something with a bit of substance and not just rant. So here is a small example to show that thermal imaging is quite intricate although it kinda just looks like filming with a normal video camera. I try to keep it as simple (and therefore oversimplified) as possible.

A thermal camera measures radiation from the surface of an object. This radiation is either emitted from the surface (that's what we're interested in) or transmitted through the object (let's leave this aside) or it is radiation coming from elsewhere that is reflected by the surface.
Now let's talk about these reflections: It's basically the same as with visible light. How strong the reflection is depends on the material (e.g. light gets reflected by a mirror but not so much by other surfaces). Metals in general are much more reflective than other materials. These reflections are a problem for thermal imaging because the camera cannot distinguish between emitted radiation that comes from the object (and is useful to determine temperature) and reflected radiation that comes from elsewhere (and therefore hurts the measurement).

So if you're measuring an object that contains metallic parts you have to be very careful about reflections. Even the radiation from your body heat could influence your measured value if you're standing close-by.
Would you have thought of that? Of course not! That's why people working with these cameras have to complete a thorough training first. And that's just one of multiple potential pitfalls one has to deal with. If you don't adapt your measurement setup to the circumstances and calibrate the camera accordingly you're very likely to measure crap. Period.

Finally making a link to Stade 2: Roglic is very close to a running car with a warm motor hood in this very short sequence. Can you guarantee me that this warmer-than-expected looking hub is not at least partially caused by thermal radiation from the car that gets reflected at his metallic cassette?
Because this big blob that is "glowing" in the picture is mainly his cassette, the hub itself is much smaller.

I'm not making any claims here. But are you confident that the Stade 2 journalists even thought about potential problems like this? I'm not. I don't trust their measurement.
Excellent post....
 
Re:

GJB123 said:
This is what you only wrote last Saturday:

viewtopic.php?p=2062352#p2062352

what's left, you ask?
What's left is that you explain to me why Roglic' hub was glowing like a falling star on a clear sky, how Hesjedal's wheel started spinning despite losing it's momentum due to friction with the road, and what kind of software Varjas used to fabricate that vid of a working rear hub.

Uhuh, you don't use the Stade2 documentary to jump to conclusions and you never keep presenting it as evidence. This all part of you MO. Be all reasonable when there is no way out and two-three days on rinse, repeat the same arguments as if they were never opposed. And this but one example, but I can give you plenty more on the same subject.
Spot on.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
This is a little bit stupid post. I do agree Stade 2 didn't have opportunity to impound the bikes after the stage but that's what thermal imaging gives you, an indication of the heat or lack of heat source. You also move the camera and take several shots to remove away the reflecting light to see the consistent source of active heat.

All the manufactures tell you this, I did very much the same one of my properties when looking for a water leak. After taking three shots I could see where the leak was centered and then bust through the plaster close the leak, fix the pipe then paste over the hole.
So what's your point exactly?
You took three (static!) shots from three different angles to eliminate reflections and identify the leak. Yes that's the right way to do it. Can you spot the tiny differences to what they've done in this documentary? In fact they're really not so tiny but rather crucial.


Tienus said:
I only pointed out that in the video the difference in color was more clear
There is another problem with those colors that I discussed in detail here.
In summary: The measured temperature range fluctuates massively on a short timescale. The consequence is that the same color can have a very different meanings from one shot to the next. And part of the fact that Roglics hub "glows" so brightly is a purely artificial effect because the upper temperature limit is so low at this point. That's not an opinion or a speculation (like the other stuff before) but a fact.
It still appears warmer but would look way less dramatic if we correct for this.

And speaking of colors. It's not only reflections that can distort your results. The different emissivity properties of the different materials you're measuring is also something you have to pay close attention to. I'm not going into details here but just look at this image for an illustration. The left half is a photograph, the right half the thermal image. The real temperature is the same on the whole mug surface and the different colors are caused solely by the different emissivity properties of the different materials on it.
If you want to detect temperature gradients from the metallic cassette to the carbon frame or anything like this with different involved materials you have to control for this effect otherwise you get garbage again.


Tienus said:
I think its relevant that Bugno says: "They're very efficient and very precise."
I'm not sure if Bugno is really the ultimate authority we should turn to, but let's leave this aside.
Thermal cameras are absolutely very efficient and very precise when they're used correctly. No doubt about that. But if they aren't then they can also easily produce garbage. And that's my whole point here. With this fast-moving and messy race situations we're dealing with extraordinarily difficult measurements that make the use of a thermal camera much more challenging then under regular, well-known and controllable circumstances.

Look, the main reason why I'm so disappointed with this documentary is that I think they took a really nice and potentially very powerful idea and they just f*cked it up. If they had invested just a bit more care and time we would probably have had great and convincing results.
(And their "excuse" that they didn't want to catch someone but just to demonstrate the potential of this technology is ridiculous. We all intuitively know that a thermal camera can detect warmer spots, no need to show that. A real demonstration of the technology would have required to present a measurement setup that convincingly delivers high-quality results given the problem at hand. And that's exactly what they didn't do.)


Tienus said:
I could ask similar questions like: Can you guarantee that the thermal images where not made by an expert? We just dont know.
We can actually see more than once in the documentary that it's the journalist with the thermal camera in his hand who is filming.
 
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
GJB123 said:
This is what you only wrote last Saturday:

viewtopic.php?p=2062352#p2062352

what's left, you ask?
What's left is that you explain to me why Roglic' hub was glowing like a falling star on a clear sky, how Hesjedal's wheel started spinning despite losing it's momentum due to friction with the road, and what kind of software Varjas used to fabricate that vid of a working rear hub.

Uhuh, you don't use the Stade2 documentary to jump to conclusions and you never keep presenting it as evidence. This all part of you MO. Be all reasonable when there is no way out and two-three days on rinse, repeat the same arguments as if they were never opposed. And this but one example, but I can give you plenty more on the same subject.
Spot on.

Thats the problem with some clinic posters, especially *******. They have made up their mind that everybody is dirty cheaters and liers, its confirmation bias at its finest. Close to no nuances.
The one exclusion is when dopers speak out against other dopers, then suddenly, its as everything is to be believed.
 
Re: Moto-fraud: first rider caught

I think one problem is that no one wants to be perceived as naive. No one wants to be the fool who kept believeing in an athlete only to be proven wrong. The stance that probably everyone is doing something is the safest to take. You can never be proven wrong, and every time someone gets caught you get to say 'I told you so' and laugh at the fools who didn't want to listen.
 
Jul 15, 2012
226
1
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

sniper said:
...
I would also call Lotto Jumbo's reactions (or lack thereof) to the insinuations rather suspect. (E.g. they didn't reply to Stade 2's attempts to contact them and came up with a ****** story about a mid-race wheel change which nobody - except, surprise surprise, the UCI - could verify. Also, if the heat signature wasn't caused by a motor, and if there are plausible alternative explanations, I think it should be rather easy to show / simulate what did cause it.)

If you take each one of those indications in isolation, they mean zilch.
It's their sum that is meaningful.
The rolling resistance of the rear tire is ~15W.

The drive train friction is ~9W.
Assume 2/3 of that friction is generated at the cassette (lots of bending + high load), ~6W.
The surface area of the tire is much greater and more exposed to the wind than the cassette, but of course it's rubber vs metal, hard to say.

IMO, the tire and the cassette are heated and cooled off by the same order of magnitude and their 'glow' indicates a similar surface temp. Its plausible we're seeing the same temperature from two different friction sources.

Another 'calibration anchor', is the extreme brightness/color of the 38deg body parts. In relation, the hub/cassette and the tire seems way cooler.
A hub motor would, according to my estimations, waste 20-30W from poor efficiency. Several times the friction from the chain.

From the hip.
 
Re:

sniper said:
we have thermal footage of a glowing hub, thermal specialists saying it can only be explained by a hub motor
I try to abstain from going after particular forum members. Everybody tries to contribute to the best of his/her capabilities.
But I have to say that this kind of arguing often is somewhere between frustrating and insulting. Whenever someone presents a detailed reasoning that you cannot counter you're quick to acknowledge "fair points" and so on. But a day later you just bring up the very same preconceived points again as if the last discussion had never happened! And sometimes you make the claim even stronger than before.
Where the heck are the "thermal specialists" coming from all of a sudden who say that it can only be explained by a hub motor? You just made them up! Unless we get more information we have to assume that the "expert engineers" who are cited on it are Varjas and the guy from FLIR. And we all have heard what they said. Don't try to fool us, it's embarrasing.


sniper said:
In my view, the way Primoz and LJ tried to debunk the accusations merely added to the suspicions.
I've asked you this question more than once already but you always dodged it. I'll ask again:
Assume that you're Roglic or LJ and that you didn't use a motor in Strade Bianche. What would you have said or done to reply to this fraction of a second of thermal footage?
And I'll add a prediction right away: You won't be able to come up with something that doesn't count as suspicious according to your own standards. Prove me wrong.


sniper said:
Why have all those pro-teams ongoing collaborations with F1 teams? Sky has been working with McLaren from 2009 onwards; Jaguar is also in the mix. I doubt it is to improve Varjas' crank drive motor.
Why would a F1 team get involved into very disruptive cheating in a different sport? Talking about risk-reward ratio. Their reward must be next to zero on their relevant scale. They have budgets of several hundred millions of dollars. So however small their risk might be, it's absolutely nonsensical nonetheless.


kingjr said:
I think one problem is that no one wants to be perceived as naive. No one wants to be the fool who kept believeing in an athlete only to be proven wrong. The stance that probably everyone is doing something is the safest to take. You can never be proven wrong, and every time someone gets caught you get to say 'I told you so' and laugh at the fools who didn't want to listen.
This.
 
Re: Re:

Nicko. said:
The surface area of the tire is much greater and more exposed to the wind than the cassette, but of course it's rubber vs metal, hard to say.
IMO, the tire and the cassette are heated and cooled off by the same order of magnitude and their 'glow' indicates a similar surface temp.
Be careful when comparing rubber vs metal on a thermal image that isn't guaranteed to be of good quality. They might not be comparable at all. Because emissivity. As discussed above.
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
4
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

djpbaltimore said:
Tom the Engine said:
Follow up to my last post:
I felt that I should add something with a bit of substance and not just rant. So here is a small example to show that thermal imaging is quite intricate although it kinda just looks like filming with a normal video camera. I try to keep it as simple (and therefore oversimplified) as possible.

A thermal camera measures radiation from the surface of an object. This radiation is either emitted from the surface (that's what we're interested in) or transmitted through the object (let's leave this aside) or it is radiation coming from elsewhere that is reflected by the surface.
Now let's talk about these reflections: It's basically the same as with visible light. How strong the reflection is depends on the material (e.g. light gets reflected by a mirror but not so much by other surfaces). Metals in general are much more reflective than other materials. These reflections are a problem for thermal imaging because the camera cannot distinguish between emitted radiation that comes from the object (and is useful to determine temperature) and reflected radiation that comes from elsewhere (and therefore hurts the measurement).

So if you're measuring an object that contains metallic parts you have to be very careful about reflections. Even the radiation from your body heat could influence your measured value if you're standing close-by.
Would you have thought of that? Of course not! That's why people working with these cameras have to complete a thorough training first. And that's just one of multiple potential pitfalls one has to deal with. If you don't adapt your measurement setup to the circumstances and calibrate the camera accordingly you're very likely to measure crap. Period.

Finally making a link to Stade 2: Roglic is very close to a running car with a warm motor hood in this very short sequence. Can you guarantee me that this warmer-than-expected looking hub is not at least partially caused by thermal radiation from the car that gets reflected at his metallic cassette?
Because this big blob that is "glowing" in the picture is mainly his cassette, the hub itself is much smaller.

I'm not making any claims here. But are you confident that the Stade 2 journalists even thought about potential problems like this? I'm not. I don't trust their measurement.
Excellent post....

Most metals are good reflectors of low frequency radiation as you say. (free electron model - http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys1230/phys1230_fa01/topic12.html) But oxides are a different story. Reflectance drops off a cliff at the infrared. http://www.jcse.org/volume3/paper3/v3p3.php

Without knowing the aluminum oxide thickness, there's no way of calculating or modelling how reflective the cassette would be. Note that it's also likely to have a bit of dust and grease which are infrared absorbers.

And if you look at the luminous flux from a car a couple meters away, you'd see that it's unlikely to be a detectable source of infrared reflection (look up black body radiation curves). The biggest culprit will always be the sun. And that would change in intensity from even small shifts in perspective (i.e., as the bike moves).

John Swanson
 
We can actually see more than once in the documentary that it's the journalist with the thermal camera in his hand who is filming.
Filming the journalist at the race with a flir camera makes good tv. When the "suspect" images are made the camera is filming the riders and not the journalist holding the camera.
 
Re: Re:

ScienceIsCool said:
Most metals are good reflectors of low frequency radiation as you say. (free electron model - http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys1230/phys1230_fa01/topic12.html) But oxides are a different story. Reflectance drops off a cliff at the infrared. http://www.jcse.org/volume3/paper3/v3p3.php

Without knowing the aluminum oxide thickness, there's no way of calculating or modelling how reflective the cassette would be. Note that it's also likely to have a bit of dust and grease which are infrared absorbers.

And if you look at the luminous flux from a car a couple meters away, you'd see that it's unlikely to be a detectable source of infrared reflection (look up black body radiation curves). The biggest culprit will always be the sun. And that would change in intensity from even small shifts in perspective (i.e., as the bike moves).

John Swanson
John, I'm not entirely sure what you try to achieve by namedropping keywords from sophomore classes ("free electron model", "black body radiation curves"). It has served me well in the past to consider this a red flag, but I give you the benefit of doubt and assume it was meant to be educational, which I'm sure other forum members might appreciate.
And I also worked through the (moderately relevant at best) paper you referenced ("The influence of carboxylic acids in sulphuric acid anodising solutions on the corrosion and SCC behaviour of Al-1050") and, again, I hope that you didn't just google a couple of keywords and inserted a link to the first publication that contained an IR reflection spectrum to add authority to your post? Please don't do that. Referencing is not an end in itself.

When I explicitly state that I oversimplify an argument on purpose to make a different point then I mean it that way. I don't make bold claims either. My bigger point is that using a thermal camera in such messy circumstances in very prone to lots of difficulties, reflections being one of those.

I think we agree that this is not a qualitative but a quantitative question with too many unknown parameters just from watching the video. And your argument with the dust on the cassette is certainly true. But it works in both directions. Most bikes probably have a considerable amount of dust there given the dirt roads on Strade Bianche. But when somebody changed the wheel just recently then there is way less dust or none. And the lack of dust film on the cassette would not only change reflection, compared to other bikes, but also emissivity, which is way more crucial for sure.
There are just so many things that can complicate interpretation. And you have to try to control for them during the measurement or analysis. And if you are not able to then you have to account for them in your reported error bars.

I therefore repeat my central question: Can you state with confidence that this is a sound and precise measurement and what we're seeing is real beyond uncertainty levels in play? I can't.
 
Re:

Tienus said:
We can actually see more than once in the documentary that it's the journalist with the thermal camera in his hand who is filming.
Filming the journalist at the race with a flir camera makes good tv. When the "suspect" images are made the camera is filming the riders and not the journalist holding the camera.
The video camera is not specifically emphasizing on the journalist holding the thermal camera. It follows the riders and in doing so also happens to show the journalist standing nearby who is filming the same scene with the thermal camera.
I'm not even sure what your argument is. That they for some reason wanted to show their journalist on tv holding the thermal camera while there was an expert hidden in the background who then took over and did the real measurements that were shown in the film..? Why would they want to hide the fact that they had an expert helping them with the measurements on-site? Doesn't make much sense to me.
Anyway, I'm amazed how you guys seemingly always find a way to make it fit. ;)
 
I'm not even sure what your argument is.
As posted before this is my point:
You might be right that it was a bad job but they could also have used experts from the start of the investigation. For me there is no way of telling from what has been aired.

I have been pretty clear that I stayed away from this technical discussion based on the stade 2 video and have no intention to participate unless we get more info. I was actually hoping LJ would stick to their guns and sue stade 2 after they called out Roglic, so the evidence would need to be scrutinized.

When the color difference was discussed just after the show I pointed others at the fact that the color difference in the video was more apparent. I did not discuss the value or meaning of that. You want to discuss it I dont.

I actually liked your "rant", it was a good post and sufficient for me. You then followed it up with a technical post with the question in bold: Can you guarantee. I thought that was funny as I just posted that I would not defend it and that I did not discuss the stade 2 video. My point is that we have not seen enough to draw conclusions, to guarantee something is even a step further. To make my point I questioned if you could guarantee who made the images. You cant even though it seems very obvious.

To summarize:
Posters have posted that the stade 2 doc has been thoroughly debunked by your posts. I disagree because its based on multiple assumptions.

Anyway, I'm amazed how you guys seemingly always find a way to make it fit.
I'm actually alone, posting from my mums attic.
 
Re:

Tienus said:
I'm not even sure what your argument is.
As posted before this is my point:
You might be right that it was a bad job but they could also have used experts from the start of the investigation. For me there is no way of telling from what has been aired.

I have been pretty clear that I stayed away from this technical discussion based on the stade 2 video and have no intention to participate unless we get more info. I was actually hoping LJ would stick to their guns and sue stade 2 after they called out Roglic, so the evidence would need to be scrutinized.

When the color difference was discussed just after the show I pointed others at the fact that the color difference in the video was more apparent. I did not discuss the value or meaning of that. You want to discuss it I dont.

I actually liked your "rant", it was a good post and sufficient for me. You then followed it up with a technical post with the question in bold: Can you guarantee. I thought that was funny as I just posted that I would not defend it and that I did not discuss the stade 2 video. My point is that we have not seen enough to draw conclusions, to guarantee something is even a step further. To make my point I questioned if you could guarantee who made the images. You cant even though it seems very obvious.

To summarize:
Posters have posted that the stade 2 doc has been thoroughly debunked by your posts. I disagree because its based on multiple assumptions.

Anyway, I'm amazed how you guys seemingly always find a way to make it fit.
I'm actually alone, posting from my mums attic.

Who has posted that and where? You have it the wrong way around again.

All I can find is people saying that you can't draw any realistic conclusion with regard to motor usage during the Strade Bianchi based on that documentary, yet we have posters doing just that. The documentary has not been debunked as such, nor will it be, because the information we have to go on is just too scarce and not conclusive in any way. What has been debunked is the importance some posters attach to the "evidence" provided in the documentary. It has abundantly clear that statements like" lighting up like a falling star at night" of "glowing like a Christmas tree" simply cannot follow logically from the documentary. In that sense I have stated that I find it sloppy journalism, but that is just an opinion not fact.
 

TRENDING THREADS