lapman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,717
Wow, they don't get that "massive" traffic like AE911Truth.org. They get a whopping .00038%. Did you also notice that pfft gets a measurable percentage of visits from Israel?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
AA77 FDR Data, Explained
- Thread starter Anti-sophist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aa77 flight data recorder
GStan
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,350
JREF Forums do way better. .002% of internet users with a ranking of 31,743. (PFT not in the top 100,000.)
911files,
I couldn't agree more. The impression that all computer data can be believed at face value is inversely proportional to any person's experience with any data acquisition system.
It does chap my azz that the NTSB (& FAA, so often) does screw the pooch like this tho. You'd wish that they'd show a little more rigor. I guess those gubbamint jobs just don't weed out mediocrity well enough.
Can you refer me to that video of the shadow on the ground? Thanks.
tom
I couldn't agree more. The impression that all computer data can be believed at face value is inversely proportional to any person's experience with any data acquisition system.
It does chap my azz that the NTSB (& FAA, so often) does screw the pooch like this tho. You'd wish that they'd show a little more rigor. I guess those gubbamint jobs just don't weed out mediocrity well enough.
Can you refer me to that video of the shadow on the ground? Thanks.
tom
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Out of curiosity what does cnn.com get?
Actually we were done here when TF went looking for flash drive experts, found them, argued with them, misread and misinterpreted everything they said on their own forum then argued with the one who came here including questioning his expertise to offer an opinion when it was an opinion that TF sought out in the first place.
If there were any doubt that the only expertise and qualifications which PfT will accept are those of the people who express a belief that coincides with the position of PfT, that exchange nailed it.
The CiT/PfT no-planers will continue to spew forth I suppose. Oh-well
Actually we were done here when TF went looking for flash drive experts, found them, argued with them, misread and misinterpreted everything they said on their own forum then argued with the one who came here including questioning his expertise to offer an opinion when it was an opinion that TF sought out in the first place.
If there were any doubt that the only expertise and qualifications which PfT will accept are those of the people who express a belief that coincides with the position of PfT, that exchange nailed it.
The CiT/PfT no-planers will continue to spew forth I suppose. Oh-well
Rhetoric is your strong suit it appears.
Wrong again Gravy. Why do you lie so much? Ask Beachnut if Balsamo was "medically disqualified". Hint: He already answered it above. Balsamo was never medically disqualified and is the reason you fail to source your lies, as usual.
Gravy, your lack of source exposes your lies.
I especially like the "ex-commercial pilot" lie on your site. Why do you feel the need to lie so much?
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
Caustic Logic has a thread here on the subject. I just projected that based on my 3D modeling and with the frame rate of the Citgo video that there was a 0.8 probabililty that the shadow of the plane should be visible on the ground in one particular view. I obtained the best copy of the video possible from Scott Bingham, and indeed a phenomenon which could be called a "shadow" was in a location, and at a time predicted by modeling. That of course suited my purposes (model > prediction > observation).
Caustic Logic took it in the opposite direction with similar results.
Pinch
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 401
Captain Bob. No doubt.
911Files uses radar data sans mode C to compare to a file which was decoded by software not meant for Accident Investigation, in which he readily admits has a "high probability of human error". Yea, I think we know why 911files also refuses to debate P4T and would rather personally attack them from the comfort of the JREF. Seems 911Files is obsessed with P4T/CIT. 911Files, they never talk about you anymore. Sorry, but it appears your only ego boost will come from this forum.
I also think we know why 911Files has flip flopped his way through his research thinking every expert he spoke to didn't know what they were talking about, and was unable to calculate proper vectors for G Load, until P4T pointed it out to him.
How's that "missing seconds" lawsuit coming along with the NTSB 911Files? Ever wonder why the NTSB doesn't claim any missing seconds? I suppose the NTSB don't know what they're talking about either, right?
Don't forget now, your research into the csv file concluding it was altered showing a south path from a north, still places the aircraft north regardless of the purpose for alteration (since you flip flopped your way through those excuses as well, love the recorded call of you by the way. Is Craig arrested yet?).
You also may want to check the work done by dMole on the P4T forum as it appears the radar data is also more consistent with a north approach.
I also think we know why 911Files has flip flopped his way through his research thinking every expert he spoke to didn't know what they were talking about, and was unable to calculate proper vectors for G Load, until P4T pointed it out to him.
How's that "missing seconds" lawsuit coming along with the NTSB 911Files? Ever wonder why the NTSB doesn't claim any missing seconds? I suppose the NTSB don't know what they're talking about either, right?
Don't forget now, your research into the csv file concluding it was altered showing a south path from a north, still places the aircraft north regardless of the purpose for alteration (since you flip flopped your way through those excuses as well, love the recorded call of you by the way. Is Craig arrested yet?).
You also may want to check the work done by dMole on the P4T forum as it appears the radar data is also more consistent with a north approach.
Last edited:
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
If you had to fly into a remote airstrip halfway up a mountain, would you want Beachnut or Cap'n Bob at the controls? Me, I'd want the Beachman.
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
Considering Balsamo is unable to think logically and prone to irrational and erratic behavior, I wouldn't want Balsamo to operate a shopping cart in the same grocery store I'm in.
I see we have yet another PFT/CIT WATERBOY posting here because all of their prominent members have ALL BEEN BANNED!
I see the same tired arguments as well as the JEALOUSY towards 9-11 Files.
I dont get it, they hate JREF yet they seem jealous that 911files has recieved a lot of support from JREF.
I see the same tired arguments as well as the JEALOUSY towards 9-11 Files.
I dont get it, they hate JREF yet they seem jealous that 911files has recieved a lot of support from JREF.
Unfortunately, it appears Beachnut hasn't flown in almost a decade and may have lost his medical due to a stroke. (yes, I looked up his name at the P4T forum, if thats really him)
Balsamo is qualified to fly. Looks like you don't have a choice if those are your only two options.
It also looks like its the train for you as Balsamo has attracted current pilots from most of the major airlines. Certainly you wouldn't want to fly with anyone who supports Balsamo, right?
Seems a good time to remind people that NEITHER CRAIG NOR ALDO hold any college degrees, have ZERO eperience or education whatsoever in ANYTHING related to aircraft, ZERO experience/education in journalism, ZERO experience/education in accident investigation, ZERO experience/education in explosives.
I could go on and on if you like jtrbby.
What is your point?
People do eventually retire but that has NO BEARING on their skill.
Paper airplaines dont count well unless of course if you are talking about his fantasies.
I would want drug and psychological testing done on any of the pilots that associate themselves with Captain Bobby.
Well except that crack head who believes that aliens live on the moon I have pretty much determined that his as crazy as a ********* rat.
Perhaps so, in a legal sense, but his judgment should disqualify him from driving a car. I think he's a supreme jerk! Do you know the jerk, jtribby?
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
He doesn't even have a job. He's trying fleece losers like you (assuming you're not him).
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
Now I know who you are...how you been doing Rob my old buddy, old pal? The lawsuit has been going great! Nothing out of the NTSB yet, but the FBI and FAA are sending me mo stuff than I can keep up with
And don't try denying it is you old buddy, that post sounded just like yer emails (yes, I get hate mail too).
Last edited:
Scott_Milner
Scholar
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2009
- Messages
- 59
After reading through several pages of nonsense, I finally stumbled on the replies to my previous post. It seems there are still some people confused about the purpose of a CSV file and how it's created.
The animation heading has absolutely nothing to do with how the data is mismatched between the animation and CSV file. The data is simply loaded into the flight software and within minutes, the plot is displayed.
It's all right here on the software developer's site:
http://www.cefa-aviation.com/flight_data_analysis.htm
CEFA can realistically and accurately reconstruct a flight just a few minutes after the data from the flight data recorder becomes available.
CEFA accepts CSV (ASCII – Spreadsheet) files in engineering units and can easily interface with any black boxes reading software capable of converting raw data.
This is pretty much standard course for all flight analysis software.
That's it folks. You can choose to ignore this simple fact, or continue to believe the misinformation coming from certain members here.
Whether the operator can correct/edit parameters once the file is loaded does not excuse the file errors with the NTSB released study.
The animation heading has absolutely nothing to do with how the data is mismatched between the animation and CSV file. The data is simply loaded into the flight software and within minutes, the plot is displayed.
It's all right here on the software developer's site:
http://www.cefa-aviation.com/flight_data_analysis.htm
CEFA can realistically and accurately reconstruct a flight just a few minutes after the data from the flight data recorder becomes available.
CEFA accepts CSV (ASCII – Spreadsheet) files in engineering units and can easily interface with any black boxes reading software capable of converting raw data.
This is pretty much standard course for all flight analysis software.
That's it folks. You can choose to ignore this simple fact, or continue to believe the misinformation coming from certain members here.
Whether the operator can correct/edit parameters once the file is loaded does not excuse the file errors with the NTSB released study.