alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
That's correct. So do you agree this topic doesn't really belong in the 9/11 Conspiracy section or not? I've already made the same comment to tfk long ago FYI.
Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis
- Thread starter tfk
- Start date
That's correct. So do you agree this topic doesn't really belong in the 9/11 Conspiracy section or not? I've already made the same comment to tfk long ago FYI.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
femr2, why should this thread be kept here then? In what way is it relevant to conspiracy theories?
Because it was created here.
alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
LOL, that's a good one. I'll save it for future use.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Here's a simple experiment that can be performed in the real world I inhabit:
- Suspend a lead weight by a thread over a body of water.
- Burn the thread with a match's flame.
- Graph the lead weight's acceleration curve.
Here's a simple experiment that can be performed in the real world I inhabit:
If a graph of the lead weight's acceleration as a function of time does not resemble a step function, then you're doing it wrong.
- Suspend a lead weight by a thread over a body of water.
- Burn the thread with a match's flame.
- Graph the lead weight's acceleration curve.
By *descent* I meant *of a building*, not an arbitrary object.
With that clarification, do you agree with my original statement ?
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
No.
In what circumstance do you suggest a building could descend with an acceleration profile corresponding to said step function ?
Or, to make sure this discussion doesn't veer off into the wilderness...make the building WTC 7.
Whether caused by collapse or demolition, suggestion that the acceleration curve of WTC7's descent should correspond to a step function... is
Any better for you ?
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Circumstances quite ordinary. For example, this happened just three days ago:
It's way too late to stop this discussion from veering off into the wilderness.
No. I am not even an engineer, let alone an expert on the collapse of WTC7. Whether a graph of its acceleration would resemble a step function is a factual question whose answer wouldn't surprise me either way. The only definite statements I can make about this are
- I have definitely not seen any definite evidence that would definitely persuade me that suggesting a step function would definitely be silly.
- As a non-expert, it would definitely be silly for me to suggest that physically plausible models (such as step accelerations) are silly.
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
"Words mean exactly what I want them to mean" he said.
I'm predicting a similar ending.
An NTSC frame is two sequential 1/59.94 temporal slices scanned from alternating scan lines of a raster. Those slices are called fields. By using the term fps to mean frame per second or field per second, you're muddying (whether intentionally or not) your own point, rendering it useless because it's unclear to anyone who isn't you or your clone whether in any given circumstance you mean frames per second or fields per second.
I'm happy for you that you've found peace in your time. But fields are not frames. The words "field" and "frame" have very specific meanings whether you choose to accept that or not.
It's never too late
...It is indeed a factual question, and (contrary to repeated outbursts from tfk to the contrary) my opinion (along with a full acceleration curve plot) of that has already been made clear...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6448319&postcount=529
femr2 said:
They have a context based meaning, absolutely. I've repeatedly stated that I regularly call what may at one point in time have been a field...a frame, a picture, an image, ...
What is this, is it a field, or a frame, or both ?
Last edited:
WD,
Just for the record ...
In the comment that you made that has been split to AAH, you said that you thought that I started this thread as "a call-out thread".
Nothing is further from the truth.
I started this thread with the explicit intention of looking at femr's data, and trying to get an fix on the error bands that could be ascertained. I was clear from the start that I did NOT wish for the thread to degenerate into this sort of animosity & attack.
From my point of view, I threw in the towel on that when femr started both this "frame/field" fiasco, and when he refused to answer simple, direct questions. And when he left me, and other, guessing about his meaning with one-word replies, hair-split answers, and other word games. My opinion.
2nd point. I am not "arguing from incredulity" regarding my skepticism of his sub-pixel resolution. If you check out this post, you'll see that I did some stats based on the data that femr supplied, which state that, IF his data is uncompressed, then he may well get sub-pixel resolution. Based on a simple comparison of supposedly stationary points.
Although I'm no longer sure of that conclusion, because femr says that he doesn't know if there has been compression applied to the file. Compression which likely would eliminate any slight variations in data blocks for which there was little motion, as h264 encoding does. (I know h264 didn't come along until 2003 or so, but according to some of the things that I read, previous compression algorithms employed this same technique.)
Anyway, my stand is that, if femr wants to claim it, then he has to prove it. It's not my job to disprove it.
And that has not happened, IMO. Too many unanswered questions.
Finally, "equanimity" is admirable. So are "open & clear discussion", "full disclosure" & "answering questions honestly", IMO. femr & I had a history long before this thread. It wasn't pretty. Just like this thread isn't pretty. But I was absolutely not looking to simply bash him.
I admit to losing my temper with him. My weakness. But the snark evolved in this thread. It did not start out that way.
And I predict that, if you make any attempt at a continuing conversation with him, you'll reach the same level of frustration that I did.
JMO.
I've been wrong before.
Regards,
tom
Just for the record ...
In the comment that you made that has been split to AAH, you said that you thought that I started this thread as "a call-out thread".
Nothing is further from the truth.
I started this thread with the explicit intention of looking at femr's data, and trying to get an fix on the error bands that could be ascertained. I was clear from the start that I did NOT wish for the thread to degenerate into this sort of animosity & attack.
From my point of view, I threw in the towel on that when femr started both this "frame/field" fiasco, and when he refused to answer simple, direct questions. And when he left me, and other, guessing about his meaning with one-word replies, hair-split answers, and other word games. My opinion.
2nd point. I am not "arguing from incredulity" regarding my skepticism of his sub-pixel resolution. If you check out this post, you'll see that I did some stats based on the data that femr supplied, which state that, IF his data is uncompressed, then he may well get sub-pixel resolution. Based on a simple comparison of supposedly stationary points.
Although I'm no longer sure of that conclusion, because femr says that he doesn't know if there has been compression applied to the file. Compression which likely would eliminate any slight variations in data blocks for which there was little motion, as h264 encoding does. (I know h264 didn't come along until 2003 or so, but according to some of the things that I read, previous compression algorithms employed this same technique.)
Anyway, my stand is that, if femr wants to claim it, then he has to prove it. It's not my job to disprove it.
And that has not happened, IMO. Too many unanswered questions.
Finally, "equanimity" is admirable. So are "open & clear discussion", "full disclosure" & "answering questions honestly", IMO. femr & I had a history long before this thread. It wasn't pretty. Just like this thread isn't pretty. But I was absolutely not looking to simply bash him.
I admit to losing my temper with him. My weakness. But the snark evolved in this thread. It did not start out that way.
And I predict that, if you make any attempt at a continuing conversation with him, you'll reach the same level of frustration that I did.
JMO.
I've been wrong before.
Regards,
tom
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
Appears to be the upper field of this. Mind you, judging from the low-resolution of the image, it could be the lower field.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
A suggestion - femr2 could point readers to instances where "fps" is commonly used to discuss "fields per second," since that's how he has used it here.
tfk - As I noted earlier, I'd love to see this in science so that the methodology and findings could be delved into more rigorously.
tfk - As I noted earlier, I'd love to see this in science so that the methodology and findings could be delved into more rigorously.
Indeed. Bottom field. The point is that it is an image. If I deinterlaced the video file and you watched it...all of the images would be frames...even though in the original file (in their original context) each frame was a field.
It is only your prior knowledge that allows you to make the distinction.
As I've said numerous times...a field is only a field whilst it is within the interlace frame container. Once you separate it, call it whatever you please...field, frame, image, picture...
It's such a small point that unless there is some reason to elaborate... I suggest everyone is clear.
Last edited: