I have seen a longbow test in which it penetrated plate armor at short range. There are historical accounts that longbows did indeed penetrate plate armor at combat ranges. Which battle are you referring to in which the longbowmen were “massacred” by knights? By “the second” do you mean Poitiers? I see no mention of a slaughter of bowmen there.
The longbow didn’t lose its mystique until after the Hundred Years’ War.
Sorry, I meant the “second Agincourt”, battle of Vernuill. The Lombard and Milanese cavalry had plate armor. They punched through a flank against the archers (who were ineffective) and went through the rear and baggage trains. However, the English were able to fight off the main French forces. When the cavalry returned to the main battle expecting victory, they saw that the Franco-Scottish forces were defeated and so did not take further action.
Within 50 meters I bet which, to a lightly armed archer, is pretty scary considering he’s facing a fully armored mass with a combined weight of more than 700 pounds and hurtling at him at 45kph. If your archers are at the front line, protected by pikemen and dismounted armored knights, this is ok. But at Vernuill, the archers were isolated towards the rear. They failed to install their own protection (wooden stakes on the ground) because it was summer and the ground was baked hard.
I had a teacher in High School (mid-1980s) who didn’t know which lines were latitude and which were longitude. I suspect his confusion came from the fact that along the lines of latitude are spaced the numbers marking longitude. And vice versa.
I tried to correct him, but I ended up confusing myself and everyone else in the end.
“Know true?” Did you mean to say “known to be true” or “not true?” Again, you can find this debate all over the place, but I’m pretty sure that it’s “known to be true.” The Bernoulli effect increases lift.
But, again, don’t just take my word for it. This really is one of those experiments you can do yourself, in a car, with a couple of cheap wing-like objects. The non-airfoil shape lifts a little…but the airfoil shape tries to climb right out of your hands!
(In fact, you can even do it without an “object” at all: use your own hand! First, hold your palm flat. Then, arch your palm slightly, so that the curve approximates an airfoil. You can feel the air yanking the front of your hand upward, especially when you tilt it at just the right angle. When you hit that sweet spot, you really feel it!)
I’d love to do a folkloric research study on the rise of this debate. I’ve even seen it in the letters column of Scientific American! It seems to have swept out of the blue, about ten years ago.
Pressure is lower above so there is lift. That’s how I always understood it. Now comes my confusion:
V-1 flying bombs attacking London were difficult to shoot down by fighters for two reasons. One, the sheet metal construction made them tough for machine guns. Two, shooting at them at close range with cannons will detonate the explosive charge that will likely damage, even destroy the interceptor. So they just flew abreast of it, moved the Spitfire’s wing under one of the V-1’s wings. This supposedly caused an imbalance in underwing pressure, causing one wing to tip up (the one near the Spitfire) and make the flying bomb crash before reaching London.
So if the wing tips up, the underwing pressure increases, causing excess lift, is that right? Now how does pushing one’s own wing underneath cause that?
You will get stomach cramps if you do not wait at least half an hour after eating before going swimming.
Any liquid used to react with something during an industrial process is an ‘acid.’
Could it possibly be that the wing went over the V1’s wing, in effect “pulling” it up rather than “pushing” it up? I had thought that was how it was done.
The effect was reproduced – fictionally – in an episode of the TV show “JAG,” and, if memory serves, the active pilot put his wing just above the wing of the unpiloted plane. (The pilot had passed out; tilting the plane was supposed to set off alarms that would awaken him. Shrug. The show took a lot of liberties!)
Oops, never mind: Wikipedia says “under.” (For V-1s; they don’t mention JAG.)
By “caught on” I meant why did firearms win out - not that people did not use crossbows. I’m sorry about my poor word choice.
I’m thinking that the smoke & noise factor may have been the most significant - purely as a psychological boost, as well as practically in terms of scaring the enemy and their horses. It is very satisfying to shoot off a gun, one really has the feeling one is dealing out death & destruction - even if on a harmless tin can. 
Drinking water during exercise was bad for you. During PE we would be running, or playing field hockey or basketball, but could not drink water because it would harm us in some way. I don’t blame the teachers; it was the prevailing wisdom. Don’t think they do that any more.
When my daughter was born we were told by the doctors and nurses and every child care expert imaginable that she must sleep on her stomach and never on her back. I hear that’s changed, too.
Now I realize why my mother and grandmother would roll their eyes and ignore so much of my youthful wisdom. They’d lived through so many drastic changes of advice and pronouncements that it was hard to get excited over any new ones.
On Wiki’s V-1 page, there is discussion of this, including a photo of a Spitfire executing the maneuver.
Apparently you would get “the cramps” whatever that is. Up until the 1970s, NHL players weren’t allowed to drink water during games, or even at practice. It changed after the 1972 Canada-Russia summit when the players noticed the Ruskies were allowed to have water during games, and it HELPED them!
Pluto was a planet. Common! It took forever to find it. It looked like a point of light when they found it and it still did even decades later. And don’t get me started on that weird assed orbit. Hell it even looked like crap with the Hubble telescope. I think astronomers were just embarrassed to admit they were wrong.
When they finally deplaneted Pluto a few years back I had no choice. I had to defriend all my old astronomy professors for knowingly misleading me all those years. It was the principle of the thing you know.
An older lady I used to know told me how when she was giving birth (she had 10 kids), they would tell her that she was only supposed to have thin gruel after giving birth for whatever reason. She found that to be total crap - she was hungry as a horse after giving birth, and she wanted a meal, dammit, not some tea and toast garbage!
You can start here 
My fifth-grade teacher pronounced “tortoise” as though it rhymed with “more boys.” Nobody corrected her for a while, but eventually I couldn’t stand it and spoke up. She gave me a pitying look and said she thought she MIGHT just know more about vocabulary than I did. I grabbed a dictionary and showed her.
I thought for sure she was going to be mad at me for embarrassing her in front of the class (not that I meant to do that), but to her credit she congratulated me for sticking to what I knew to be right and started saying it right from then on.
It would seem angle of attack is pretty important. Isn’t that the only thing that makes this airplane fly?
The Brits do that.
Are there still people in English-speaking countries who pronounce ‘comptroller’ as ‘cump-troll-er’? Here in the Philippines most newscasters and politicians do.