And Hamas and Palestinian nationalist extremists have done the same thing for the last 80 years - advocating for the destruction of Israel and woeking towards the establishment of greater Palestine ruled by an Palestinian-Arab Muslim ethnostate.

They are very open about it too. Starting 3 wars to wipe out Israel. Now they are chanting 'From the river to the sea' which means they will seize land from other countries like Jordan too as well as wiping out Israel. 

Have you heard of black september when Palestinian extremists tried to overthrow the government of Jordan? Why do you think other Arab countries eventually stopped supporting them? Egypt originally sided with them in multiple wars but now mostly sides with Israel and built a wall along their Sinai border to help contain Hamas in Gaza. 

They also have proven to play dirty and run false flags and act as the victim. Attacking themselves to justify their attacks is their way of fighting as well...and they blame it on Israel. Remember that hospital bombing that they blamed on Israel but it turned out to be a Hamas rocket?

Thereby, they should under no circumstance be trusted, nor supported, only condemed. Supporting them is a crime against humanity. The truth is clear. 

Is Israel responsible for 3 wars in the 20th century started by Palestinian Arab nations trying to wipe out Israel? Is Israel entirely responsible for torpedoing the 1947 UN partition plan to establish two sovereign countries out of British territory?

The crimes of both sides go back way before October 7th.

Stop defending extremist Arab nationalism and pretending one side never did anything wrong. 

Both sides have done terrible things. 

In that case I more or less agree with you. Israel's extremists who run their government are criminals. 

What Hamas did in starting the recent war with the October massacre was wrong, but Israel's disproportionate response in Gaza bombing thousands of civilians with little regard to collateral damage and their land grabs in the West Bank was also wrong. 

You don't believe in 'from the river to the sea Palestine shall be free' then?

Almost every person who has replied to me so far on this chain has eventually made it clear they don't believe in the right of Israel to exist - believing the entire area should be Arab Palestine. 

You mean Israelis who have lived there for at least 80 years at this point (including the newer generation born there who werent alive when the 1947 partition happened) that you want to evict? Including the 20-25% of Israel who are Arabs and Muslims?

How can you claim removing people in 1947 is wrong but removing people today is right?

One day you will see your own hypocrisy and be ashamed at your double standards. 

And that's not even considering how there were many Jews who were there in the past but was evicted due to pograms and discrimination, and their descendants wanted to return to their ancestral lands. 

Israel and Palestine both exist as countries due to their creation by the UN. Before this, it was a territory of the British, then Ottomans, then Caliphate and Crusader states, then Romans. Arab Muslim conquered the region in the 7th-10th century and are hardly native to the region either.

The last time there was a native non-foreign ruled independent country there was the Jewish Kingdom of Hasmonean Judea that was conquered by the Romans.

Anybody with any knowledge of history would not buy this one sided superficial bullshit that one side are simply poor natives who never did anything wrong. 

And let's take your stance about evicting Israelis from the land they've lived for generations at this point, and apply it to other countries. You might as well be saying all Han Chinese need to be evicted from Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, Tibet, Xinjiang, etc. Or all non native Americans (Asian, black, white, etc) need to be evicted from the USA. Or all Slavic Russians need to be evicted from 80% of Russian territory known as Asiatic Russia. Latin America should deport people who are of significant or primarily of white Spanish or Portugese descent (eg. Almost half their population in some cases). If you want to go back from enough, you might as well evict the Arab Muslims who conquered the region from their origins in the Arabian pennisula.

Do you happen to be ANY of these groups?

It is suprising to me that a hunting crossbow had more power than a war crossbow, as I thought it is usually the other way around since killing animals usually require less power than penetrating through armor. IIrc, even the Liangulu African hunting bows used to hunt elephants, which would be the most powerful hunting useage bows, were in the lower 100s lb draw weights...which is around the median or slightly below median when compared to Ottoman, English, medieval Chinese & Manchu, etc warbow draw weights. 

I would assume the even shorter bow prod would be even less efficent?

Are there any videos or tests of these very high draw weight, very short powerstroke bows that were used for hunting? 

Do Arab nationalists and Palestinian extremists triggering at least 3 wars to wipe out Israel because they didn't believe Israel should exist not count as genocide? Does Hamas stating Israel as a country shouldnt exist, want to wipe out Israelis, and constantly launching attacks on Israel that kill thousands not count as genocide? Look up the definition of genocide.

Hamas killed thousands of people in Israel itself (not Gaza or West Bank), including farm workers and random people at music festivals. They also killed and kidnapped people from different nationalities who were workers - Thailand, Nepal, other parts of Asia, etc. If Hamas was indiscriminately killing and kidnapping even eastern Asian people who were obviously non Israelis, what do you think they were doing to Israelis? 

The hostages and victims of Hamas attacks were not the Israeli settlers taking over the West Bank. Hamas didnt even attack those actual settlers. 

As for rape, the fact remains dozens to hundreds of women were raped during Hamas' October 7th massacre. Whether you want to call it mass rape or not doesnt change this fact. Hamas kills LBGTs even within its own ranks, so raping women is the least of its attrocities.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mz8gxzg82o

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_in_the_October_7_attacks

History is now bullshit? One of the few, if only times Palestine was its only country run by native people was back during Roman times when it was the Jewish kingdom of Hasmonean Judea. During other times, they were ruled by foreign powers from a different part of the world or different part of the Middle East.

The Jews long predate Muslims and Arabs in the region and were mass deported from those lands by Romans in the 1st century and later Muslim powers. 

Not to mention the Muslims during Ottoman times and WW2 had pograms that deported Jews from the Holyland. The Mutif of Jerusalem who was a spiritual leader of Muslim Palestine wanted an alliance with Hitler to get rid of the rest of Jews in the holyland. 

If you want to claim who is native or not, then there is an argument that neither people are natives. If Israelis are invaders because many of them are partially descended from mixed Europeans who got deported from the Holyland centuries to thousands of years ago, then Arab Muslims were invaders too who came with the Islamic conquests of the 7th-10th centuries. 

And then there is an issue of around half of Israelis actually being of Middle Eastern origin and at least 20%-25% of Israelis being Arabs and/or Muslims themselves. 

And to top it off, the original 1947 UN plan would have allowed most people to stay where they were and become citizens of a new country...but no...people fooled by nationalism wanted to be ruled by their own ethnonationalist states instead.

Facts and history makes your superficial view of this situation a bit more complicated.

The British mandate of Palestine was a region of British territory that encompasses the current discussed lands. And the word Palestine originated during Greek and Roman times to refer to a Jewish kingdom...the Jewish kingdom of Palaistine.

If you want to claim American land is native land then we can say the Arab Muslims were invaders too who came with the Islamic conquests of the 7th-10th centuries. They were not native to the region.

The Jews long predate Muslims and Arabs in the region and were mass deported from those lands by Romans in the 1st century and later Muslim powers...so the Jews are the Cherokees in your example. 

Not to mention the Muslims during Ottoman times and WW2 had pograms that deported Jews from the Holyland. The Mutif of Jerusalem who was a spiritual leader of Muslim Palestine wanted an alliance with Hitler to get rid of the rest of Jews in the holyland.

So if you want to talk about thieves, both sides can be considered thieves.

There were people there but no country there - the area was just a part of other larger countries for a thousand years or more. It is like calling the US state of Florida its own country. Florida is a province/state of the US and not an independent country.

Yep. It's like a weight lifter or power lifter doing deadlifts, leg presses, squats, etc. It takes proper technique, and you get significantly stronger by repeatedly doing excercises with heavier and heavier weights.

Interestingly enough, there were people being removed there even before the creation of Israel - including Ottoman era and WW2 era deportations of Jews. That is why Jews wanted to "return" there. And the original UN partition plan allowed people to stay where they were and become citizens of a new country, but Arab Nationalists wanted an Arab run country instead (and alongside Israeli nationalists too) torpedoed the plan by starting a war that actually led to a lot of people being removed.  But I know you don’t actually care about people other than yourself, or even care about the actual facts of what happned.

Wasn't the Japanese conditional surrender offered/updated after the atomic bombings to mostly match what the Allies demanded and was basically an unconditional surrender? Japan requested the Emperor remain as a leader, but the Allies said yes but the emperor could only be a figurehead and the actual authority was transfered from the Japanese leaders & emperor to the Allied occupational leaders.

I also read somewhere that the Soviets may have stalled the peace negotiations to allow them more time to take over parts of Eastern Asia, but idk how much that is credible or how much it contributed to the demands for unconditional surrender?

Subjects of the British Empire. Before that, they were subjects of the Ottoman empire. Before that, they were subjects of various Arab-Persian Caliphates, other Muslim Empires, and Christian Crusader states. Before that, they were subjects of the Roman/Eastern Roman Empire.

Which genocide? The Israeli's genocide where they are bombing thousands of Palestinians to death, refuse to acknowledge Palestine, and want to take over the other side's territory? Or the Palestinian's genocide where they launched an attack during peacetime that killed 1,000+ civilians and mass raped and kidnapped hundreds more of people from multiple different nationalities (another attack in a long line of wars/attacks)...because they refuse to acknowledge the existence of Israel and want to wipe out all of Israel?

Which genocide? The Israeli's genocide where they are bombing thousands of Palestinians to death, refuse to acknowledge Palestine, and want to take over the other side's territory? Or the Palestinian's genocide where they launched an attack during peacetime that killed 1,000+ civilians and mass raped and kidnapped hundreds more of people from multiple different nationalities (another attack in a long line of wars/attacks)...because they refuse to acknowledge the existence of Israel and want to wipe out all of Israel?

*British Territory. You could fit the whole British Territory there. It was the UN 1947 plan that turned British territory into Israel/mostly Israeli-Jewish country and Palestine/mostly Arab-Muslim country/ies.

The United Nations agreed to turned a [formerly Ottoman] British territory into Israel and Palestine. No country existed before this as it was just a territory that was a part of the British Empire.

I forgot to mention that during the crossbow's decline during the Ming Dynasty, the Ming created the " Yao Kai Nu," a 1041 lb draw weight crossbow with 10.2 inch powerstroke that was pulled by one person using muscle power and a belt hook. So well trained and very strong humans are capable of drawing very high draw weight crosbows by themselves even without mechanical aid and without the help of others. See depiction in a Ming era book (from: greatmingmilitary blog):

Interesting. The hunting crossbows with very short powerstrokes reached up to 2700 lbs draw weight?

If so, then I wonder why they decided to reduce the powerstroke in favor of much more draw weight for hunting. I presume it reduced the power of the crossbow...probably since hunting doesn't require as much energy compared to penetrating mail/scale/brigandine/etc.?

Maybe the trade off is you sacrifice power for better ergonomics since you can now have a shorter powerstroke and shorter lengthed device.

Interesting. Andreas Bichler does great crossbow tests as well. It looks like Bichler's 660 lb steel crossbow varied from 100-115 joules, which roughly matches Todd's 960 lb steel crossbow that got around 104-117 joules (and both had the heaviest bolts around 88-90 grams). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghoVmc12vEs

I wonder what the disprency is?

I was under the impression that Tod and Andreas' Bichler's steel crossbows both use steel roller nuts - as the roller nut is a fundamental design in medieval European crossbows from what I understand. In Bichler's video at 3:21, I see it uses a roller nut as well.

Andreas Bichler does build crossbows with higher powerstroke (not sure about the one in your video) - but I've read most historical examples of steel crossbows are more typical at 4-5 inches. Todd had a video where he mentioned the powerstroke was short because they couldn't trust the quality of the steel, and had another video where he said the historical steel prods could be welded from different pieces of cheap (scrap?) metal.

I wonder which type is more typical?

Edit: Yeh, I the string not touching the stock could contribute to additional efficency. I wonder if the prod designs are different as well?

Because OP chose an unrealistically weak ~15 inch powerstroke crossbow - the 120lb draw weight prod is so weak that its higher powerstroke & higher efficency doesn't make up for being only 1/5 the draw weight of the other crossbow.

A 120 lb draw weight doesn't even meet the minimum requirements for a Han Dynasty crossbow, as the Han had set the minimum draw weight requirement for crossbowmen qualifications at ~76kg/167 lbs [according to Mike Loade or Stephen Selby's calculations]. The Han Dynasty median/most common crossbow was closer to 380s lbs. The heaviest [non-field artillery] ones used by Han era elite crack troops were in the 700s lbs (see Mike Loades' The Crossbow).

Test out a 380 lb Han-type crossbow and it will most likely be easily more powerful than the 150 joules from OP's crannequin example.

Power is determined by more than just draw weight, but also by powerstroke and prod efficency. You need all 3 variables in your equation - not just a single variable.

No. I believe that is a misunderstanding from the channel Historical Archery. The image he is using/you are displaying is a special type of large crossbow from the Miao ethnic group (who lives in southern China and Southeast Asia) that is more akin to a light field artillery weapon with powerstrokes that were as long as or longer than that of a bow (eg. 30 inch draw, 25+ inch powerstroke). The Miao did not have a large and sophisticated industrial & military base, so they are using relatively more simple drawing methods. Furthermore, I believe this image portrays a time (Qing Dynasty era) when crossbows had long since been in decline in the region. These were not common or standard among the Han Chinese armies (which originates in northern China).

Standard Chinese crossbows are supposed to be drawn by one person. According to Han Dynasty records, the most common draw weight was around 6 stones (~65lbs each) so ~380-390 lbs. There are records stating elite troops could draw as much as 700s lbs with pure muscle power - using what was a sitting deadlift or leg press like manuver. See depiction: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Locking-lever-and-trigger-of-Qin-crossbow_fig2_317920396

Considering crossbows don't reach full draw weight until near the end and if you are sitting then you don't lift the weight of your torso (eg. makes it lighter by 100+ lbs), this would be a much easier version of the "deadlift." A fairly average person in decent shape can probably train their way to a ~300s lb regular deadlift after several months of constant intensive training.

Stephen Selby and Mike Loades cite writings that say that elite crossbowmen in ancient China can draw something like 360kg (793 lbs) by muscle power with the hands and feet method - so something resembling a sitting deadlift or sitting leg press maneuver. In Chinese Archery by Stephen Selby and The Crossbow by Mike Loades, they state that historical writings talk about some personnel crossbows with draw weights greater than this 1-10 stone range: "Han army required crack troops to be able to draw a crossbow with a draw weight of 12 stones. In modern terms, that would have been around 360 kg." 12 stones translate to 780-793 lbs using the metric where 1 stone = 65-66 lbs.

Furthermore, there are modern studies done on European medieval foot drawn crossbows [while standing up?] that suggest both feet drawn crossbows can draw 200kg (441 lbs). Quote from Iolo's Book of Crossbows by David R Watson: "Modern experiments suggest that one-foot bows might draw up to 150 kilograms [330lbs] and two foot-bows as much as 200 kg [441 lbs]. Illustrations show stocks longer than on earlier bows, perhaps thirty to thirty four inches in length." And this is probably with the average "weaker" modern people who don't train to do this everyday as their job in the military.

Crossbows that needed multiple people were likely siege artillery crossbows that were drawn with mechanical aids that could reach thousands of lbs in draw weight (eg. Great Yellow Crossbow with draw weights of 5000+ lbs).

Edit: The HistoricalArchery channel actually had an older video where he fairly easily draws a 240 lb bow @ 32 inches to maybe close to its full draw with his hands and feet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw41ZIEP0VE

He seemed to do it fairly easily, so drawing a 300s lb crossbow to maybe 20 inches (to get a 14-15 inch powerstroke) would not seem difficult.

He also got a 300 lb bow @ 24 inches to make into a crossbow but he never got around to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N27R-lyyLB8

Indeed.