Wasn't easy being a planet hunter back in the day *promote

I'm looking for
1 tug
The pull of a planet
1 tell
A wobbling sun
I've searched for years
Haven't found a one
But they're out there

1 jump
In radial redshift
1 slip
Of spectral lines
They'll see if I can show them the sines

Pish tosh
Green men
Take five
Take ten

Just a little cash guys

Budget's tight
Don't fund this trash guys

I can take a hint
Better face the facts
Second-hand'll have to do

Eww
All you planet hunters at the bottom
You've got fact & fantasy entwined
Finding planets except they haven't got one

Well they gotta be forming readily
When you think about it given we've got nine

1 jump
A blip in the spectrum
1 shift of meters per second
1 graph of period power
They laugh but I'm not sour

Here goes
18 months of data
Cross & correlate it
All I gotta do is run

Pish tosh
Green men
Ah don't mind them
If only they'd look closer
Would they see a pure void
No sirree
They'd find out
There's worlds galore
To see

Make way for Pegasi
51 Pegasi

First was a world
Round an old pulsar
That's true
But the news
Is a sun-like star
With wobble
Too quick & precise
To be designed
No fluke not a spot
If you like it hot
You're gonna love this find

Pegasi 51b
Planet discovered
Orbit traced
Every 4 days
Hot as can be
Its order-Jupiter size
Was something of a surprise
Especially given its star's proximity

Pegasi 51b
It's a new era
To detect
Exoplanets
Soon there'll be three
As planet pulls on its Sun
It shifts the stellar spectrum
That's how we found 51b Pegasi

How'd a planet get so close in orbit
Cause I thought you needed ice to form it
Did it later undergo some strange migration
Star too small to be so long-pulsating
And too old to be so quick rotating
Is there any other good interpretation

This will certainly help with our funding

We got your funding
We got your funding

Got a surface of 1200 C

It's treacherous
So treacherous

If in time this new breakthrough feels mundane
Planets are common

That's proof
Of the truth
I've been telling you
This is no mean anomaly

Pegasi 51b
Planet uncovered
Round a far
Main sequence star
Spectral type G
We know its mass to be high
Half Jupiter by sine i

It's 15.61 pc from home
And it shakes our faith in how planets are formed
And its star is in Pegasus
Give it an A and thus
Label the planet as b
51 Pegasi

Plotting Doppler shifts is glacial-pace
And that astrometry never prevails
But baby you're in luck cause
Up in space
You got a planet-finder never fails

You got the power of statistics now
You got a view without an atmosphere
So no more nights spent locked up in your tower
All you gotta do is wait right here
And I say

Kepler the planet-searcher
Got a dip, no 2, no 3
We just measure brightness
Plot it out & that's transiting photometry

When your stars do this
And your curves displace
Then your star's got this
Transiting its face

Then you hit compute
And lookie here

You get good diameter data
From that dip
And orbit distance from the length of year

Well now we need this tale supported by
A ground observer with a good Échelle
We got 2000 planets certified
2000 more that only time will tell

But let's take em all, plot em out
And find out if we're really all alone
Is there a rocky world we've found no doubt
That orbits in the habitable zone
Like home?

Kepler the planet searcher
Got an Earth 452b
Part of a throng
40 billion strong

There ain't never been a field
Clever as the field
There ain't never been a field
Better than the field they call
Exoplanetology

I can show you a world
A shining shimmering planet
Found concealed in the band-shifts
Of the closest star in sight

I've found hope in the skies
And facing wonder I wonder
Could the sine wave discovered be
A planet fit for life

A whole new world
A new fantastic point of blue
Placed in that narrow zone
Where water flows
Midway tween cold & steaming

A whole new world
Its sun a faint, reddish hue
Could there be waiting here
A biosphere
Evolving in this whole new world to view

Fathoming a whole new world to view

Unbelievable find
Indescribable feeling
Earthlings someday revealing
Through directly captured light
A whole new world

Don't just stare from a far

Though nigh impossible to see

Wouldn't close up be bolder

Next to its parent's flair
If life is there
We'll know through atmosphere spectroscopy

A whole new world

Block the glare of the star

A laser starshot to pursue

With a star-shaped occulter

Chasing that crazy dream
That's always been
Of walking in a whole new world with you

a whole new world
That's where we'll be
A thrilling chase
A home in space
For you and me

It looks fun to me. Seriously, there are only two rides I have ever been on that I never went to go on again. The Twilight Zone ride, where it goes dark and you drop like 12 stories straight down or something like that. I screamed like a girl. 2: DMT breakthrough, a ride so far outside of this Universe that I screamed for my life louder and longer than I would like to admit, lol. After that, jumping out of a spacecraft back to Earth would be like floating in some soothing, calm Caribbean waters.

DMT(ayahuasca) are not recreational, no matter which way anyone wants to flip it. The Universe in 5 minutes... an eternal life/death scenario. I was taking ayahuasca to mediate upon my father's death 2 months prior, along with a shaman I respected deeply, I also respect the "traditions" (in that I find the anthropological history incredibly rich) but I realize after "figuring out" DMT on my own that I think my way is best (standard psychedelic procedure, alone) and is the most important thing that I can learn from it. That this is my journey into the soul and I don't need anyone else in my way during my experiences; shamans have a way of influencing the experience, but the experience itself and YOU are the real guide, no need for a shaman with smoked DMT Ayahuasca is definitely an incredible experience and plant... I just prefer my way of visiting "that" realm of infinite knowledge. Tell us how it goes

Some things I did not like about Santo Diame were Christian dogma (with a lot of beliefs taken from many religions), they want you to stay with the circle even though you may be compelled to find somewhere that is quiet and away from everyone else, they separate men from women half circle men, half circle women, guide in between, they do not want talking, but the music is incessant and influences the experience (when the lights go out, be prepared to experience hell on fucking Earth), I couldn't stand the "helpers" at the ceremony I went to, they kept urging people to drink more - there were a lot of aspects that I didn't like about it. But, I certainly wouldn't want to take ayahusca alone, either. Instead, I believe the best way, for me at least, would be one on one with the shaman, in an open place, preferably outside and for him to just chant and check in with me every once in a while.

Also, you can check out the video I made about my smoked DMT breakthrough experience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuRbLAqM6Kk

You can find examples of that throughout history, I think it's how science has always worked. You can sum it up with the saying 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' - when something has been so reliable and proven to work, are you likely to believe the first, second or even 10th person who comes along saying otherwise?

If you are revolutionary, you go against the grain and others will criticise you for daring to be different - as did so many geniuses in all kinds of different fields.

I think that's completely fair, because whilst it sometimes puts the brakes on breakthroughs because of mob mentality, it also puts the brakes on spurious bullshit. I'd prefer every paper be judged entirely on merit, but I have to accept the nature of people and go with something workable.

Theoretically, science works great. However, as has already been noted, in the real world in certain fields, the pressure to publish something "substantial" combined with the inability to get grants for certain experiments because they aren't "trendy" right now causes scientists to self-limit the kinds of research they undertake, which is not at all great for increasing human knowledge.

Another problem is the "expert opinion" problem--when someone with little reputation in the field finds something that directly contradicts the "experts" in the field, they often face ridicule. The most famous recent case of this was 2011 Nobel Prize winner Dan Shechtman, who discovered a new type of crystal structure that was theoretically impossible in 1982 and was roundly criticized and ridiculed for it until a separate group of researchers many years later actually replicated his experiment and realized he had been right all along. This web page lists several more examples of scientists whose breakthrough research was ignored because it didn't match the "expert consensus" of the period.

Finally, in the humanities at least, one of the biggest problems in research that uses a quantitative approach (i.e. statistics) is that researchers apply a statistical method to their data, such a as a t-test, without actually demonstrating that whatever being studied follows a normal distribution (i.e bell curve). Many statistical tests are only accurate if what is being studied is normally distributed, yet I've seen a fair share of papers published in respected journals that apply these tests to objects of study that are quite unlikely to be normally distributed, which makes their claims of being "statistically significant" quite suspect.

There are other statistical methods (non-parametric) that you can use on data that is not normally distributed but generally speaking a test of significance on data taken from a normally distributed pool is going to be more reliable. As is noted in this video, the reason these kinds of mistakes slip through into the peer-reviewed journals is that sometimes the reviewers are not nearly as well-trained in statistical analysis as they are in other methodologies.

Many self professed feminists believe it is about hating men too, but I assume "no true feminist" would ever do that right?

I wasn't trying to wilfully misunderstand you, but rather to pursue my whole contention about any political/social argument:

Individual People and specific arguments over ideologies always.

When the reverse is true and ideology is placed before people or the specific merits of an argument, the result is dehumanising and anti-intellectual (even if by the slimmest margins sometimes).

That's not to say that, where mutual understanding already exists, ideological terms are completely useless. But the moment individuals disagree, those ideological assumptions are going to get in the way of a productive dialogue.

My whole point I guess is that this seems rather anti-humanist if you will pardon the irony of taking an ideological position.
If as a humanist one believes that the optimal way is for everyone to be judged only on the merits of their individual words, deeds and capacity.

Rather than by culture, race, gender or some other involuntary and/or irrelevant factors.

Assuming you agree in principle with that definition of humanism in terms of goals, then what we are arguing here really is collectivism vs individualism.

You are suggesting we can get better results by pushing the "right" version of said ideology and suppressing the "wrong", correct?

I am arguing ultimately that we seem to get better results in the long term, by encouraging free and critical thought and allowing all ideas (no matter how egregious) a fair fight.

This puts me contrary to many tenets of the various feminist ideologies and concordant with others. Sometimes wildly so.

If I want to try to be a good humanist, I have no choice but to try and understand each on their own terms.

When someone describes themselves as a "Feminist", that could mean anything from "kill all men" to "women should have fundamental legal equality".

It seems almost as redundant as racial and cultural epithets, it tells me very little really important about you or how you really think, to know you are Black, or White or Asian or Polish, Spanish etc. etc. It's just another excuse to put an idea above the person in front of you or to not have to think too much about ones own.

i.e. Collectivist thinking.

I think this may represent the very antithesis of intellectual progress.

However I am a Hegelian and I just defined a Thesis-antithesis relationship............ That means the next great breakthrough should lie in the synthesis of the two.......

................

Collective individualism! All we should need is a mass movement of free critical thought and.....bollocks.

It's over people, we have officially peaked as a species! I'm calling it

as a legal immigrant who left the US but has a lot of friends and family there, Ill just add two points-

1) a lot of immigrants take very good jobs in the US that low skilled americans are far, far away from doing. There is tons of research on how the US takes the best and the brightest from around the world, just in my immediate family there are 3 people with 3 degrees from the best american and european universities that work in the US who would instantly become the top experts in their fields if they decided to come home. Beyond what they pay in taxes, invest in the economy, real estate, their kids' educations etc etc, they make important contributions in their fields and Im quite sure that the US' big lead in technology for example would fall apart if american universities could no longer bring in international students. A lot of the technological breakthroughs happen in the US at US universities, but driven by foreign/immigrant students.

2/ Its not our fault if american businessmen are hypocrites like Trump who hire illegals then complain about them taking jobs from americans. Just like the factories in China that killed US manufacturing belong to corporations with mostly western management. By your own capitalist philosophies, if anyone is responsible it is american consumers unwilling to pay for fair trade and quality products, instead preferring cheap goods produced with slave wages- you cant have your cake and eat it too.

And your first paragraph pretty much spells out why solar PV is a dud investment for small plant/home plant if it were completely unsupported by a plethora of mechanisms designed to make it viable financially (and that's before even considering whether the energy cost is significantly offset by the energy produced), not to mention trying to make time to do things when your PV production is high so that you're not wasting it.

I try to load shift as much as possible, even went so far as to have most of the array facing the west where we'll scrape out some extra power when we're actually going to use it (eg. in the afternoon, particularly for running air conditioners in summer), but without feed in tariffs that are 1:1 with energy purchase prices and government subsidies on the installation of the system, the sums (at least in Australia) just do not ever come close to making sense.

But as I said in the first paragraph, that is all financial dickering, it has nothing to do with actual energy used vs energy generated. There is no free energy, you have to spend energy to make energy. You have to buil a PV array, pay for the wages of the people who install it, transport costs etc etc. They all drain energy out of the system. And most people in places where feed in tariffs are either on parity with the cost of purchasing energy when your PV isn't producing align their solar arrays with the ideal direction for greatest generation of energy that they can get the best profit for, not for generation of energy when energy demands spike.

The consequences of this are that at midday, energy is coursing in to the grid and unless your electricity provider has some capacity for extended storage and load shifting (eg. pumped hydro, large scale battery arrays), it's underutilised. Come peak time in the afternoon when people get home, switch on cooling/heating, start cooking etc when PV's production is very low, the electricity company still has to cycle up gas turbines to provide the extra power to get over that peak demand, and solar does little to offset that.

So carbon still get's pissed away every day, but as long as PV owners get a cheaper bill, it's all seen to be working like a charm... ; )

The energy current efficiency panels return is only on an order of 2-3x the energy input, which is barely enough energy returned to support a subsistence agrarian lifestyle (forget education, art, industrialisation). There's a reason that far better utilisation of coal and oil via steam heralded the massive breakthrough of industrialisation, it's because coal has close to a 30 to 1 return on energy invested. Same with petrochemicals, incredibly high return on energy.

The biggest advances in human civilisation came with the ability to harness energy more effectively, or finding new energy sources which gave high amounts of energy in return for the effort of obtaining them and utilising them. Fire, water (eg. mills etc), carbon sources, nuclear and so on. Even if you manage to get 95% efficiency on the panels for 100% of their lifetime (currently incredibly unlikely), you're only turning that number in to 8-12x the energy invested compared to 25-30x for coal/petro, 50x+ for hydro and 75-100+x for gen IV nuke reactors.

Thank goodness we have someone else here on the Sift (other than myself) that truly understands both the molecular structure AND the experience itself! I think "walls breathing" with a slight "therapeutic effect" would result in a Shulgin rating of 1 - where as the correct dosage with the right strain could very well end up with a Shulgin rating of 3 /5 potentially 4 - so the spectrum is vast. To reach those states on mushrooms I would say is potentially dangerous - due to duration and effects - if that is the state one wishes to see - I'd highly recommend smoking straight up very small doses of 5-MEO-DMT (which is potentially dangerous past say 7 milligrams so start small and actually weight the dose) or NN-DMT (up to 25 milligrams - which is not dangerous at all - one could smoke 200000000000000000000 mg and it's safe, "breakthrough" experience usually occurring somewhere in the 20mg-50mg range). I don't promote "breakthrough experiences" like the poet, mycologist & ethnobotanist + ultimate source of knowledge on the subject (Terence Mckenna) did - I think it's a lot crazier than any person can realize is possible but what I recommend is starting small and working up from there.

Maybe Guam just needs to get pissed off to care. Maybe that's what banded us together as united states in the first place. If the people are in a slump, you're saying that's their fault? There have been all types of breakthroughs in our understanding of how depression and dependence can affect populations. I don't know myself, but your arguments are pretty sound beyond actually understanding the socio-economic conditions there. Which I don't know, so you being the expert, can you shed some light on why their population hasn't the motivation to move forward? Humans don't just behave as they do for no reason. (How is their educational system?)

Your video, the moment-comedian talks about his breakthrough in comedy, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

the moment-comedian talks about his breakthrough in comedy has been added as a related post - related requested by my15minutes on that post.

While I cannot know what many experience - I have been the sitter for over 40 people. They tell me what they experience, when they come back their eyes say it all. They could never have imagined what had happened to them was possible. None of them had negative experiences. Though, for a strong "teaching" psychedelic like DMT a negative experience is not always "negative" there is a story to it. I should know, I would say that one of my "breakthrough" trips was the most terrifying experience I have ever had hands down. But, I learned from what that experience wanted me to experience and what I was taught has had long-lasting positive components in my life.

I think you are confusing DMT/ayahuasca with other psychedelics, salvia, mushrooms, LSD, MXE... etc etc. Show me ONE story where someone has committed suicide from taking DMT.

While, I would not say I am a drug riddled person, I almost never take them.
I have "experienced" substances out of curiosity. I've taken many different kinds and all of the big psychedelics, LSD, shrooms, mescaline a few times. I learned that the propaganda around these substances has no merit. Obviously, a person needs to take them seriously and with respect so that nothing goes awry. And no, DMT does not compare at all.

But,I am very well versed on the topic (DMT), I researched all of the negative/positive effects for about six years before I actually did it myself. I was very careful, since if you have ever read a decent trip report it sounds absolutely crazy. There is no way anything could take you to places like that, to meet creatures of a bizarre sort, it's just not possible I thought. Well, I found out, it's similiar to decent trip reports X 1,000,000. As Joe Rogan says - it's "mushrooms + aliens x 1,000,000". But, nothing in the human language(s) could ever prepare anyone for it and no one can express even 1% of what it is like.

I think you are over-exaggerating the negative effects while shunning the reality of what this molecule is, it is a mystery that can only be understood after having experienced it firsthand. It only lasts 5-10 minutes (2 million years) what are you waiting for?

From this week's issue of The New Yorker:


Shouts & Murmurs February 16, 2015 Issue
Diary of the Left Shark
By Kelly Stout




A remarkable feat of agility was performed on Sunday night, and it had nothing to do with football. It was the sharks. . . . The dancing sharks at Katy Perry’s Super Bowl halftime show . . . danced in unison. But soon, one of the sharks, specifically Left Shark, said enough of that, and began to do his own thing frenetically on national television.

—Washington Post.

First rehearsal went great. Katy says to just call her “Katy”—very down-to-earth move. Happy to see Eric! Grateful he got me this gig, as not a lot of work out there for us sharks.

Second rehearsal O.K. Eric picking up dance moves faster than me, which is no biggie, since I’m still getting over quad injury. Still, resolving to work harder. Went for a beer afterward with dancing Blue Surfboard, named Jeremy. He’s worked with Miley Cyrus!

Eric texted wanting to know if I could use some “extra practice.” Didn’t think I needed “extra practice,” but Eric = good buddy, so I value his input. Couldn’t meet him, though, had book club.

Eric acting high and mighty in rehearsal—keeps referring to himself as “old veteran.” Feel he should turn it down a notch. Super Bowl halftime show is not a combat situation, and metaphor makes no sense.

Rehearsal rough tonight. Eric called my grasp of choreography “amateurish.” Said he did big favor by recommending me, and now worried Katy won’t hire him again. Said work must be “on a professional level” with “zero tolerance for mistakes.” I told him I was sorry to have disappointed, that my work will be “professional level” from here on out. Went to bathroom and cried into fins, but no one saw except Jeremy, who was very understanding. J says Katy makes a lot of people crazy—just ask Russell Brand! Found joke to be a little sexist—and, besides, Katy not really the problem—but appreciated support.

Katy took me aside after rehearsal. Uh-oh. But no! Said she likes seeing my extra effort! On verge of major breakthrough vis-à-vis choreography!

Happy to have long weekend off from rehearsal to regroup. Guy at brunch overheard me talking about current gig and asked if I am a real shark! Of course I’m a real shark! Tried not to be offended, but people can be so ignorant.

Back at rehearsal. Things steadily better, but sometimes feel Eric = competitive with me, since so few of us sharks in the industry. But shouldn’t that bring us closer? (Rising tide lifts all sharks!)

Big day almost here. Grandma and Mom both called to say everyone back home’s rooting for me. Pressure, but in a good way.

Eric recommended some changes to choreography today. Katy considers Eric “genius,” so took recommendations. Feel my success with old choreography hard won, so am disappointed. This time, Eric didn’t offer any “extra help.”

More dance changes today! Can’t keep up, and Eric can tell. Hate to sound paranoid, but worry that Eric’s trying to sabotage me! Going to have a glass of Shiraz to relax before practicing new moves.

Regret drinking entire bottle of wine last night. Skipped rehearsal, which I realize is not “professional level” behavior, but Eric and his “zero-tolerance policy” can suck it.

Embarrassed by last diary entry. Eric is not sabotaging me. Am letting my insecurities get in way of friendship.

NOPE. ERIC’S DEFINITELY TRYING TO SABOTAGE ME. Super Bowl is tomorrow and he changed dance moves AGAIN. Trying to make a fool of me. Unsure which makes me sadder, potential end of dance career or potential end of friendship.

Super Bowl over. Grandma and Mom called to remind me that my personal best was all they ever asked for. Am laughingstock of Internet. Gained hundreds of Twitter followers, but suspect most are “joke” follows. Katy sweet about it.

Jeremy invited me to have a beer with him and other Surfboard. Frankly, feel that other Surfboard’s kind of a blowhard, so declined.

Got voice mail from Mom this morning asking if I’m considering going back for teaching degree. Said I’m “good with kids” and not end of world that dancing didn’t work out. Ouch.

Jeremy brought over falafel last night and made me forget Super Bowl debacle with impression of Taylor Swift. Didn’t know Jeremy = T.S. fan! Promised I wouldn’t tell Katy. Not that I’ll be working with Katy again anytime soon.

Text from Eric wanting to know how I’m “holding up.” Chose not to say anything, as had nothing nice to say.

Jeremy joining book club! Silver lining of Super Bowl ordeal.

Downloaded application to Columbia Teachers College. Think I could maybe make a difference in lives of youth, plus get mind off Super Bowl. Jeremy, Mom, and Grandma all supportive. Mom asked if Jeremy just a friend or what. Her ideas re male friendship pretty “stone age,” but appreciate her interest.

Feeling O.K. about future. Dance world maybe too toxic for shark like me. Perhaps whole episode not humiliation but wake-up call! Considering move to Austin. ♦

I completely agree with her about Lars on many points. He often (very often actually) makes his technique seem "the best in the world" when compared to ANY other technique (as there are A LOT of shooting techniques; some that need different bows, materials, and setups).

Kind of like being able to shoot through plate-mail... Lars would NEVER be able to pull that off (of course no one, with a shortbow and the wrong arrow--or tip--will be doing it either; the crossbow is as close as you can get to being small and puncturing plate) as it requires a huge amount of pull force to puncture plate (even heavy English oaken wood shields). The type of bow is a big issue, because that is where you get your draw strength. But, what type of tip you have on your arrow will determine whether or not it even goes into or just bounces off the armor...

However, for the most part, archers didn't try to puncture plate armor--because to be honest about it: it was HARD, it required a VERY heavy bow and expensive tips (of course the bows were also expensive, because they would not be made out of normal material--it might be a specially imported type of wood that could hold up to extreme forces; the string may also be made of something a bit different than normal). So, you didn't have very many people walking around with the innate ability to puncture plate. BUT, what most archers trained a VERY long time to accomplish was extreme accuracy, for one reason alone: armor.

Instead of trying to puncture plate or even chain, archers instead aimed for gaps or areas were there was no coverage (basically anywhere you bend or connect the armor to another piece or tie/connect itself together; so places like under the armpit or along the side of the body were the armor is pulled together and tied shut). Then they may not have to go through anything at all, or they will only have light leather or heavy cloth armor in the way--either way they will penetrate, and they will slowly kill their target by slowing them down and immobilizing them, then moving in for the finishing blow OR if they hit the right place they can just let blood loss finish them off...

But, this requires extreme accuracy, especially in battle AND especially so if you are firing from a horse (if you were lucky you were able to ride behind someone and concentrate solely on firing your shots, then you could add a bit of speed as well). This is the one place that Lars has horribly mislead people--OR he has made a really great breakthrough. But, if Lars never bothers to really demonstrate this stuff, we have no idea how great an archer he really is.

His entire video is one gigantic edit. Every shot and "trick" has been setup with the camera in the right place. The biggest problem is we don't know if it took Lars 1000 attempts to accomplish some of these feats (he makes it sound in some areas that it happens VERY fast, however...but due to the editing, or how he edited it, we actually have no idea if his claims are true) or if he did it in ten...or right off the bat...

That is why I said we needed to wait for Lars to actually talk to us about this whole thing, and to clear various areas up (records and competition). Because he has set a very high bar for himself, and from his own video he seems to be amazing--but, I like many know that if you edit enough and try something over and over again, you can make yourself look like an expert *whatever* whenever you wish to do it...

I agree heavily with her about his historic claims (and also mocking him on his "super clumsy" shots and setups to make fun of "modern" archers); she also points out, correctly, how wrong he is on some of those claims. Like everyone shooting from the left side; which somehow Lars, in ALL his studying completely and utterly missed. Which tells me one thing: she knows more about archery history than Lars actually does.

But, is Lars actually a great archer? Would Lars be a good archer in a battle, or more specifically his "technique"? Lastly, is he really an unique archer more than worth praising? We won't know until Lars does what I mentioned above; he must meet these criticisms head on.

If we allow Lars time to learn how to ride a horse; or it might be a bit more fair to just allow him to ride behind someone controlling the horse, which was a common practice even in battle (then make sure Lars knows how to also fire properly from a horse, since it requires controlling a horse--if you're alone--and staying on the horse using your thigh muscles...which is actually a pretty hard thing to do...and requires expert horsemanship; asking Lars to accomplish this is laughable, as this type of thing would have been a lifetime achievement in the past AND any archer that could fire fast, accurate, and ride a horse by himself...would have been a horrific force on the battlefield; then give him a sword/melee skill--make sure they have a lot of upper body strength--and a very well made, thick steel buckler and he'd be godlike; and then enough armor to protect from arrows...BUT this means you have to be very strong...otherwise you will never be able to accomplish ANY of the feats with the bow mentioned above; BTW, I'm mentioning a superhero right here, there "may" have been a few people like this in history, but they would've been very few and far apart...and more than likely used sparingly).

Mounted archers are extremely powerful against all units that are mounted yet slower than them and of course those on foot and without a long range means of attacking them (at least shorter than the mounted archer's range), this I will always agree with. We already know that mounted archery units could create absolute havoc in the past, see: Alexander The Great. However, eventually people figured out how to deal with this type of threat as well... But, horse mounted archers do have their "nemeses", namely foot archers--since they can take some time (if an arrow comes their way, they block it--it is much harder for a horse archer to carry around a big shield or at least just have on sitting nearby--or you can aim for their horse, which is why above I said that "superhero" like warrior would need a melee skill, because eventually they WILL be on the ground).

So, again, we have to wait and see if Lars bothers to respond to this video and to ALL of the others that have also been made (he did make a lot of people angry; as he did make some stuff up and possibly "overshoot" the mark on other claims and possibly even his own abilities...). I won't hold my breath though.

I think we can all come to a fairly logical conclusion on this. If Lars NEVER responds to anything, then we will have to assume that a lot of his "super-speed" with "accuracy" was due to one thing alone: editing.

Phew, I think that covers everything...it certainly was long enough!!!!