Jack White now quoting Cosmic Dave

Obviousman · #1 (**permalink**) 09-November-2006, 08:10 AM

Yes, Jack is now a Cosmic Dave fan! From the Education Forum:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/in...showtopic=8478

Quote:

Here's 33 things that need to be answered!

1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)

5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).

9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.

12) Who would dare risk using the LM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?

13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.

15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.

16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?

17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.

18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.

20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.

21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.

22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.

23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?

24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.

25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!

26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!

27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go?

30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.

31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, showing the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!". and appears above in the 'Why Did Apollo 11 Astronauts Lie About Being In Deep Space?' section.

32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?

33) Why did NASA need to airbrush out anomalies from lunar footage of the Moon if they have nothing to hide?

Written by Dave Cosnette. Updated September 12th, 2006

Have fun!

Nicolas · #2 (**permalink**) 09-November-2006, 12:04 PM

this is getting oooooold

I like the occurence of my 5 mile high Eiffel tower in number 33 though: one wonders about an anomaly which only exists when sticking to a previously made assumption, and never questions the assumption made. In fact this one returns under the surface in may of the 33 points raised. "If we assume there is something wrong with A, than there is something wrong with B, so then we've got A and B that aren't right, which is too much to be a coincidence, and hence Apollo is fake" is a very poor attempt at logic

. Point 33 doesn't even involve a B, it just says that "if we assume they forged it, they forged it and hence it's fake". Duh.

I see they also misquote the debunking argumentation of the non-parallel shadows.

Kiwi · #3 (**permalink**) 09-November-2006, 12:33 PM

Sigh! Most of Cosmic Dave's arguments were debunked back in 2002:

New Very Laughable Topic
27 May 2002
235 posts
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=1323

Cosmic Dave's 32 questions
3 June 2002
199 posts
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=1354

Proof photos for Cosmic Dave (slow images)
3 June 2002
19 posts
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=1352

More refutations through CG of Cosmic Dave's site
4 June 2002
19 posts
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=1361

For cosmic dave....stars
5 June 2002
49 posts
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=1371

Question for cosmicdave
8 June 2002
43 posts
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=1406

AGC Computer Details
10 June 2002
15 posts
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=1422

Cosmic Dave and Apollo 13
10 June 2002
18 posts
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=1418

For CosmicDave: A Thread Devoted Entirely to the Rover Video
29 June 2002
10 posts
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=1571

The artful dodges of "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette (Probably one of the "best" threads.)
29 June 2002
95 posts
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=1573

Dave´s claim regarding the Gemini 10 spacewalk photo
3 July 2002
13 posts
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=1602

Our mate Cosmic Dave
4 September 2002
15 posts
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=2047

CosmicDave's backbiting
1 October 2002
8 posts
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=2258

More from Dave
11 March 2003
25 posts
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=3944

Grand_Lunar · #4 (**permalink**) 09-November-2006, 01:08 PM

So, Jack White is bringing up the same old hash again from Cosmic Dave, huh?

It's both old and sad.

Jim · #5 (**permalink**) 09-November-2006, 01:51 PM

Cosmic Dave's 32 questions
3 June 2002

Only now it's 33 points.

It reminds me of a nut case who appeared on a late night talk show (Paar?) talking about his "Ten Points". After he had spoken for a few minutes, mentioning his Ten Points repeatedly, the host deadpanned, "Take off your hat. I think you have another point."

Swift · #6 (**permalink**) 09-November-2006, 02:09 PM

Personally, I like this Cosmic Dave much better.

Eta C · #7 (**permalink**) 09-November-2006, 02:26 PM

I lurk over on the ed forum and when I saw that the "esteemed" Mr. White was citing the "C" rock picture as an anomaly (#9) I just about died of laughter. And I though he reached a low point by not realizing where the LRV was stowed.

Matherly · #8 (**permalink**) 09-November-2006, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim

Only now it's 33 points.

Oh! Oh! I can come up with another point!

"34. Have NASA officals stoped beating thier wives yet?"

And the best part, it makes as much sense as the previous 33 points!

Mr Gorsky · #9 (**permalink**) 09-November-2006, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swift

Personally, I like this Cosmic Dave much better.

Aw man ... now I'm hungry. Thanks for that!

Grand_Lunar · #10 (**permalink**) 09-November-2006, 05:03 PM

You know, his question on point 28 about computer chips could've been answered by a look at Wikipedia.

Then again, that would ruin the HBers reputation of not doing (proper) research, now wouldn't it?

Nicolas · #11 (**permalink**) 09-November-2006, 06:24 PM

There is only one thing dirtier than doing research beyond looking for the next conspiracy theory, and that is doing calculations. Works like garlic on a vampire.

Grand_Lunar · #12 (**permalink**) 09-November-2006, 06:50 PM

Or gold on a Cyberman (classic series, that is).

MartianMarvin · #13 (**permalink**) 09-November-2006, 07:05 PM

Have you had the pleasure of playing with Interdimensional Warrior, Nicolas?

His physics is better than yours (or any mainstream engineer, physicist, etc).

If you haven't any idea what I'm talking about...
Interdimensional Warrior (IDW) is (possibly are) a CT on the Godlike Productions forum. About 18 to 24 months ago, he regurgitated a few Apollo hoax theories (starting out with how the CSM would've eventually melted into a molten blob). Eventually, there is an discussion about whether the LM/CSM could survive docking, with IDW proclaiming that one or the other (the LM, I think) would have been crushed, and goes so far as to say that he's done the calculations which back his argument. IDW is challenged to provide his calculations, and after much stalling, finally posts them. It is almost immediately pointed out that (notibly by Jay Utah) he has mangled the units (especially for torque), and that his calculations are grossly incorrect. He became beligerent (well, more than usual, at any rate), and further argued that his version of physics was vastly superior to the mainstream's.

nomuse · #14 (**permalink**) 09-November-2006, 09:22 PM

I hate to say anything that verges so close to ad hom, but I have a fondness for IDW. I may even miss Godlike Productions for the wonderful imaginary science it has brought to me over the years.

Some other gems include; "The moon does not orbit the Earth, and it's not a satelite"

"You make yourself incredible with your own ignorance, such as your insistence the saturn 5 was fueled by liquid hydrogen."

"I think were we actually disagree is the makeup of emr, to which I say the photon is a fairy particle that does not exist unless a photon is an electron."

"You'll get a half a rad exposure on a beach in a day or two, dumbass"

And one I'm tempted to use as a sig... "If a theory is falsifiable, it by definition IS false, but then I wouldnt expect you to understand this simple logic. If you CAN prove it false, it is, and if you cannot, it MIGHT not be."

Peter B · #15 (**permalink**) 09-November-2006, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obviousman

Yes, Jack is now a Cosmic Dave fan! From the Education Forum:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/in...showtopic=8478

Have fun!

People might like to know that Dave's 32 points have been debunked on his own bulletin board. Perhaps someone who posts at the Education Forum might like to provide a link.

Grand_Lunar · #16 (**permalink**) 10-November-2006, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomuse

I hate to say anything that verges so close to ad hom, but I have a fondness for IDW. I may even miss Godlike Productions for the wonderful imaginary science it has brought to me over the years.

Some other gems include; "The moon does not orbit the Earth, and it's not a satelite"

"You make yourself incredible with your own ignorance, such as your insistence the saturn 5 was fueled by liquid hydrogen."

"I think were we actually disagree is the makeup of emr, to which I say the photon is a fairy particle that does not exist unless a photon is an electron."

"You'll get a half a rad exposure on a beach in a day or two, dumbass"

And one I'm tempted to use as a sig... "If a theory is falsifiable, it by definition IS false, but then I wouldnt expect you to understand this simple logic. If you CAN prove it false, it is, and if you cannot, it MIGHT not be."

Perhaps Godlike Productions should change it's name to "We never paid attention in Science class Productions".

PhantomWolf · #17 (**permalink**) 10-November-2006, 02:21 AM

His physics is better than yours (or any mainstream engineer, physicist, etc).

There was a guy on the IMDB that had the same complex. When it was shown using basic everyday physics that he was wrong in claiming that the dust from the LRV wheels should have sprayed 60' in the air, he merely declared that MS Physics was wrong and that his were far superior and under his physics he was right and we were wrong.

Gillianren · #18 (**permalink**) 10-November-2006, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

His physics is better than yours (or any mainstream engineer, physicist, etc).

There was a guy on the IMDB that had the same complex. When it was shown using basic everyday physics that he was wrong in claiming that the dust from the LRV wheels should have sprayed 60' in the air, he merely declared that MS Physics was wrong and that his were far superior and under his physics he was right and we were wrong.

I remember that guy! Wow, that was some seriously weird stuff, huh?

Nicolas · #19 (**permalink**) 10-November-2006, 08:46 AM

Quote:

"If a theory is falsifiable, it by definition IS false, but then I wouldnt expect you to understand this simple logic. If you CAN prove it false, it is, and if you cannot, it MIGHT not be."

Falsifiability (is that a word

) is a necessary part of any theory. Artful quotes such as the one you posted are born in the misconception that falsifiabililty means that it's false, but not shown to be yet. But that is totally wrong. Falsifiable means that the theory is constructed in a way that allows it to be identified as false if it indeed would turn out to be false.

That is logic too. But too long for a sig.

Part of this misconception is not getting the difference between allowing for a possibility, versus the certainty of getting that result when performing an action.

If you have only one horse in the race, it is unbeatable. That is not a genuine race, because its construction doesn't allow for a contender to be beaten. That is the equivalent of a non-genuine (there must be a word for that

) theory: if it is unfalsifiable through its construction, it is not a real theory. In a real race, every horse is beatable. This is the point where your quoted CT says "if a horse is beatable, it won't win. That's logic". I guess he would see the mistake in his logic with this example. In order to have a real race, contenders need to be beatable, but that doesn't imply they will be beaten (as in lose, not as in getting hit

). In order to have a real theory, it must be falsifiable, but that doesn't mean it will turn out to be false. The horse might lose, the theory might be false, but it can also be a wnning horse or spot on correct theory.

Nicolas · #20 (**permalink**) 10-November-2006, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartianMarvin

Have you had the pleasure of playing with Interdimensional Warrior, Nicolas?

His physics is better than yours (or any mainstream engineer, physicist, etc).

If you haven't any idea what I'm talking about...
Interdimensional Warrior (IDW) is (possibly are) a CT on the Godlike Productions forum. About 18 to 24 months ago, he regurgitated a few Apollo hoax theories (starting out with how the CSM would've eventually melted into a molten blob). Eventually, there is an discussion about whether the LM/CSM could survive docking, with IDW proclaiming that one or the other (the LM, I think) would have been crushed, and goes so far as to say that he's done the calculations which back his argument. IDW is challenged to provide his calculations, and after much stalling, finally posts them. It is almost immediately pointed out that (notibly by Jay Utah) he has mangled the units (especially for torque), and that his calculations are grossly incorrect. He became beligerent (well, more than usual, at any rate), and further argued that his version of physics was vastly superior to the mainstream's.

I missed that gem, but I did have the honour to meet IDW on GLP. Wasn't he the one who also used to claim he knew like any detail on Apollo because his father worked on it, or am I mixing up people?

nomuse · #21 (**permalink**) 10-November-2006, 09:41 AM

It's hard to keep track. They have all these astounding degrees and awards. And it is surprising they find time to post with all the high-profile businesses they are running at the same time.

To give IDW credit, he is well ahead on his science compared to the bulk of the attendees at the late lamented GLP;

"What's the doppler effect got to do with how light travels? You should read more or stop taking acid." (illucid)

"Newton's law of gravity applies only to within our atmosphere it does not apply to the moon. Your argument is from an uneducated, small mind." (anonymous)

"Moron, what does Halley's Comet got to do with no one able to expalin any orbit of any object in the solar system?" (anonymous)

"Study the moon. Is there any indication that the moon is spinning? The same side of the moon always faces the Earth, right?" (ptah)

"Really, something is funny here. You can breathe oxygen on the moon, but yet there is no US settlement of anykind there? Why not?" (anonymous)

Mostly I collect those that have some surface plausibility -- ones that you can sort of say "yes, I can see how you might get there from here." But sometimes, I have to save one that is off in some strange land of its own...

"I'm wondering when NASA is going to address the secret, hidden issue of a layer of water that emcompasses the outer space of Earth? Lots of unusual space ocean sea creatures swimming around way up there!" (space ocean)

BigDon · #22 (**permalink**) 10-November-2006, 10:17 AM

I've noticed a couple of times now, while following links to older threads like a couple in this one, that one poster has no name, title or avatar. Just blank. Can somebody explain?

Nicolas · #23 (**permalink**) 10-November-2006, 12:07 PM

That poster is a hoax.

Grand_Lunar · #24 (**permalink**) 10-November-2006, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomuse

It's hard to keep track. They have all these astounding degrees and awards. And it is surprising they find time to post with all the high-profile businesses they are running at the same time.

To give IDW credit, he is well ahead on his science compared to the bulk of the attendees at the late lamented GLP;

"What's the doppler effect got to do with how light travels? You should read more or stop taking acid." (illucid)

"Newton's law of gravity applies only to within our atmosphere it does not apply to the moon. Your argument is from an uneducated, small mind." (anonymous)

"Moron, what does Halley's Comet got to do with no one able to expalin any orbit of any object in the solar system?" (anonymous)

"Study the moon. Is there any indication that the moon is spinning? The same side of the moon always faces the Earth, right?" (ptah)

"Really, something is funny here. You can breathe oxygen on the moon, but yet there is no US settlement of anykind there? Why not?" (anonymous)

Mostly I collect those that have some surface plausibility -- ones that you can sort of say "yes, I can see how you might get there from here." But sometimes, I have to save one that is off in some strange land of its own...

"I'm wondering when NASA is going to address the secret, hidden issue of a layer of water that emcompasses the outer space of Earth? Lots of unusual space ocean sea creatures swimming around way up there!" (space ocean)

People like that make me shudder as to the scientific integrity in whatever classrooms they went to.

Then again, I do hope such people represent only a small fraction of the population.

Grashtel · #25 (**permalink**) 10-November-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grand_Lunar

People like that make me shudder as to the scientific integrity in whatever classrooms they went to.

You assume that their actually turned up to any science classes and that if they did they stayed awake or paid attention.

Quote:

Then again, I do hope such people represent only a small fraction of the population.

As do I, though my faith in humanity is insufficient to make me actually believe that.

MartianMarvin · #26 (**permalink**) 10-November-2006, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicolas

I missed that gem, but I did have the honour to meet IDW on GLP. Wasn't he the one who also used to claim he knew like any detail on Apollo because his father worked on it, or am I mixing up people?

IIRC, he claimed that his father worked for the Aluminum Co. of America throughout the buildup and during the Apollo missions, and that he was involved in the fabrication for some of the structural elements. However, his biggest claim for knowledge that I remember was that he was a highly competent "engineer" (several patents, accommodations, etc.). After his calculations were thoroughly decimated, he never retracted this claim, but didn't bother repeating it (at least, not with the bravado he did before). I also remember that he claimed to have gone to a prestigious school, but I don't recall if he said he graduated (or how highly, if he did), or if he was another one of those "I lost interest/dropped out when I realized that I was smarter than all of my professors."

Gillianren · #27 (**permalink**) 10-November-2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDon

I've noticed a couple of times now, while following links to older threads like a couple in this one, that one poster has no name, title or avatar. Just blank. Can somebody explain?

I believe that would be HUb', who had some trouble with crossover, which is clearly why he doesn't post here anymore. Not that newbies would know, because there's no name, title, or avatar to his posts, but those of us from BABB would recognize his . . . distinctive posting style.

Grand_Lunar · #28 (**permalink**) 10-November-2006, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grashtel

You assume that their actually turned up to any science classes and that if they did they stayed awake or paid attention.

You're right, bad assumption on my part.

BigDon · #29 (**permalink**) 10-November-2006, 07:54 PM

Thanks Gillian.

DataCable · #30 (**permalink**) 11-November-2006, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

His physics is better than yours (or any mainstream engineer, physicist, etc).
There was a guy on the IMDB that had the same complex.

MrGuitarDeath. I'm still laughing at his claim that electric motors will spin 6x as fast in 1/6G.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode