First of all- in the spanking process, its unfortunately necessary to treat an idiot as an idiot, call their hand on their lies and obfuscations, show them the way and just hope they have the base intellect to stand up to the challenge of being normal. This is one of these times. Its sad but a fool leaves little choice. By the numbers: (this is unfortunately necessary because the spouting fountain of nothingness refuses to challenge on equal ground because he knows his arguments are weak, worthless, unfounded and false- he simply hides behind the skirts of biased moderators who protect him and refuses a 1 on 1 because he knows he is beaten before he starts and doesn’t want to lose his Sainthood status so is resolved to goading)
The funny thing is- the information is the SAME and a board is a board. The challenge started HERE yet all of a sudden went to the BFF because UNLIKE here (these moderators are fair, impartial and intelligent) there is cover fire that has protected not only the ignorance but the sheer incompetence of the poster. (There’s the ultimate proof- run and hide)
It makes one wonder why one makes a challenge on one board then runs with their tail tucked to talk trash. The answer is simple. The one in question isn’t a “woo” as in one who doesn’t understand- the one in question actually DOES know it lies in an attempt to gain fame amongst the woo.
“woo” cannot stand against a legitimate challenge on fair ground so they run and hide hoping either “mommy” or moderators will rescue them so they keep their one sided argument and claim false victories to keep their place amongst fools.
That’s why they talk a line but refuse to step in the arena of the Octagon of fact.
This is nothing new with this individual because that’s his established “M.O.”. He talks in circles to satisfy the woo but always fails to actually do anything.
I know he cannot, he knows he cannot, he knows I know he cannot and he knows that I know that he cannot. That’s why he runs and hides and spouts his meaningless words from afar when its much more simple than just post it here for intelligent discussion. Its just so easy to call his hand that it’s lost entertainment value.
Fear is always a good indicator and it shows very well.
So, GF, lets once again expose all of your errors and challenge you to take your ignorant, uneducated, gutless, lying ass to me in a fair forum where the mods won’t rush to help you.
Its very simple- you post there as Gigantofootecus- you post here as Óðinn but you goad and taunt because you and I both know you cannot hold your own ( you never have before so what has changed?) but you have to have moderators who protect you while you post from the safety of their ban button.
Come on into the Octagon sweetcheeks and test the water- its fine as long as you bring facts and data to the table. Of course, you can’t handle a fair exchange because then you have to actually deliver something and we both know that aint happening and we both know why.
I keep extending the offer and you keep running and hiding. Why is that? I’ll tell you why just so you know. You are the worst kind of lying fraud. You actually have a rookies understanding of what you are talking about so you post false information KNOWING you are lying. That’s not “woo”- that’s out and out fraud.
Come on sweety, the water is just fine here- jump on in. There aint no Paul or Counselor to save you here. Just your own capability and knowledge. ( we both know that will be a short lived crash and burn but it will entertain the posters here for a day or so)
>>>LT, are you blaming the BFF for Herriott's omission from the Yakima shin-dig's guest list?
No and I never even insinuated such
>>>You certainly don't have a very high opinion of the members here.
For certain members, that’s correct (bet you didn’t expect to hear that)
>>>Their criticism of your review is how personal you made it
I made nothing personal (because I wasn’t the only one doing it) and if you want to see how “wrong” it was- submit to the ASPRS and see what they say. I told it like it was and IF (which we both know will never happen) you had a clue as to how the process runs- you would understand what I said. The fact you comment further more establishes your lack of knowledge of how the REAL scientific community works.
>>>Just more of your "scorched earth" approach to just about everything you do.
Nah,”woos” scream that mantra all the time- I’m immune to it.
>>>I'm not interested in your scathing review because I anticipated Bill's 15mm lens theory would be rejected 6 weeks ago. I've been privy to some of Bill's full frame images and independently determined that a 25mm lens was used with a 23mm effective focal length. In spite of our discrepancies, Bill trusted his software. But IMO, Bill's software missed the 23mm solution and went to the 15mm "near" solution.
That’s only the beginning of the error process and you helping him make me now fully understand why it was so wrong. Bill would have benefited more by asking my Basset Hounds. All I need now is to know what you influenced so I can assist in removing the errors.
>>>These apparent multi-solutions can happen because of the relationship between the camera's FOV and the unknown distances from the camera. I'll demonstrate this in my review. Won't be any scorched earth though.
There are some other “reviews” you need to do first. Don’t worry, I’ll remind you.
>>>So LT, are you saying that your long-winded critique is definitive? Game over? I guess you've dealt with the construct of the report but I didn't see any peer review.
Yes I am and send it to anyone you wish for a second opinion. (Anyone in a legitimate position such as the ASPRS) This was not a technical peer review because there is little to review.
>>>When you started posting on the BFF you confessed that you were no photographic expert. Since then, you've tipped your hand plenty of times that "photogrammetery" or "photogrammery" is not your forte. I can quote your posts if you like.
Do so and make sure you post them in context. I do it the right way, not the “woo” way. Its funny because in all of those “unqualified” posts- you never shot a hole in any of them so what does that say about you? You talk in circles a lot but never deliver a punch line. This time will be no exception so feel free to do so.
>>>It would be evident that you have never conducted a photogrammetric analysis of 16mm film in you life. Or did you recently take a wiki course so you could claim the following?
On 16 mm film, that’s correct but that’s not what we use. (That was detailed in those posts you intend to pull up but the process never changes)
Get to it little man- you need to pack a lunch so get started. (I notice you have YET to show error- but then again, we both know the answers to that don’t we? LOL)
>>>I'd enjoy you telling us how to do this right.
I intend to but too bad you wouldn’t understand it but I may even be able to break it down where you can.
>>>How would you determine the focal length of the lens used to shoot the PGF? Why didn't you refute Bill's report with the "correct" methods, instead of assuming the film can't be measured, which I'd love to see you prove. Even YOU can't prove a negative. But give it shot. That is if you ARE a certified, bona fide, expert film metrologist. A formal review requires formal credentials, a scathing review does not.
I realize that things such as detail, paying attention, intelligence and so forth escapes you, but I outlined this in clear detail. Its all there and I hope maybe you can find that before you go post hunting so you wont open another door for me to make even a bigger fool out of you. The review comes before the rebuttal- that hasn’t happened yet. (gawd, what an idiot)
>>>You did know that field measurements are NOT required to determine the focal length of a lens, didn't you?
I didn’t say that- just another of your strawmen arguments to argue a point never spoken. I see how well you proof read.
>>>The 102' distance from the camera is a red herring. And besides, Bill's model derived a distance from the camera of 98' for frame 352.
A contradiction that needs explaining and validation- you got one? ( didn’t think so)
>>>With enough frames (and other sources such as the McClarin footage), this can be deduced strictly thru triangulation and/or a FOV analysis/comparison. Field measurements are only needed to calibrate the site model.
Don’t quit your day job- the world needs burgers
>>>There is so much more potential here that you obviously realize. In spite of what lens was used to shoot the film, what Bill has done here is initiated the process of a definitive analysis of the PGF. There is now the potential to resolve many outstanding issues. There has never been a formal photogrammetric analysis done on this film. First, you needed access to a full framed copy of the film, and then you needed to scan in the frames to professional standards. Bill did this. No certified photo analyst would have touched the PGF otherwise. Bill opened the door to proper analysis.
Oh my gawd, not only no factual rebuttal but a meaningless love fest appealing to the world. Get to it little man and show us those numbers and how you obtained them.
>>>Bill's report represents a first stab at the data. IMO, whether it is accurate, or serendipitous, isn't that crucial.
That’s the funny thing- you know the answer as well as I and you opened the door there. That’s why you lie. Even you know better but wont admit it to save your life. You just did.
>>>The door is now open to apply photogrammetric methods to the data. Unlike LT, I feel there is a good chance to determine the lens' focal length, Patty's physical dimensions, the distances from the camera, Roger P's position, and every step of the trackway, to within reasonable tolerances. It depends what information we're mining for. A formal error analysis will validate the measurements. The value of "historical" measurements in this case is to validate them. If they fit the model perfectly, then this is evidence they are accurate. Invalid measurements are revealed thru residual outliers in the model. That's what control points are used for. A 3D model rarely fits the data if the data is inaccurate.
Now, ladies and gentlemen- he “feels” but notice, NEVER ONCE does he DARE stand me down on ANY point. That’s how GF does it. Talks in circles knowing he is lying because he knows the truth and knows what I will do if he countermands me with BS.
>>>I'll post my review to Bill's 15mm lens theory in the thread Greg started.
I cant wait
It really helps!
