Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

[pgimeno]

The bigger issue here is the accuracy of the program in question and the results. Since NIST seems to have agreed with Chandler, then any attempts to prove chandler wrong must also prove NIST wrong.

They haven't.

NIST did two data fits. The linear regression is a way of finding the average acceleration, and both Chandler and NIST agree on what the average acceleration is for a certain period of time. That's all they agree on. However, NIST did also another curve fit, which goes over g. Chandler didn't do this fit. NIST's analysis leaves the door open to the possibility that the acceleration wasn't constant; Chandler's doesn't.

There are reasons to think that the acceleration indeed went over g for a certain period of time, therefore the average acceleration is not enough to study the behavior of the building, and thus the linear fit is not the whole story, but just what it is: an average.

 

[lexicon008]

You "have to" disagree with what exactly? With my statement "if, as a matter of fact, a given individual teacher applies a method of his own choosing in class, that in itself does not imply that he is doing it competently, as C7's claim that Chandler is "a professional" implies."?
Do you then assert that "if, as a matter of fact, a given individual teacher applies a method of his own choosing in class, that in itself does imply that he is doing it competently, as C7's claim that Chandler is "a professional" implies."?

Sorry if i wasn't clear.

" I would accept he is doing it "professionally", and competently, if that software is featured in college curricula for physics teachers, or part of the curricula for their students, or covered in high school physics textbooks used at Chandler's school(s)."

You seem to think that unless the program is covered in a textbook or is part of the over all curricula that it's use would be "unprofessional". That is a fundementally flawed view since again..the overall goal is to teach a certain amount of given information and again how you go about doing so is largely left up to the teacher.
If one chooses to use videos and computer programs to get the point across and another doesn't, the only way to tell if one is more effective then the other is test scores.
Since there doesn't seem to be any indication that Chandler was reprimanded or told that his use of said program in class was "unprofessional" or inappropriate, we should accept that is was not.
Again however this does not imply he is an expert at it's use and that the data is without error. But also again if we are arguing that his findings are in error then NISTs acceptance of his data is therefore also in error.

 

[carlitos]

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Apostrophes

 

[lexicon008]

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Apostrophes

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Grammar Nazi

 

[Oystein]

Sorry if i wasn't clear.

" I would accept he is doing it "professionally", and competently, if that software is featured in college curricula for physics teachers, or part of the curricula for their students, or covered in high school physics textbooks used at Chandler's school(s)."

You seem to think that unless the program is covered in a textbook or is part of the over all curricula that it's use would be "unprofessional". That is a fundementally flawed view since again..the overall goal is to teach a certain amount of given information and again how you go about doing so is largely left up to the teacher. ...

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

C7 said that, in the context of using a particular software to analyze the motion of an object in a video, "Chandler is a professional".

The profession of teachers is to teach. Not to track objects on video with software.

So how, I ask, could it be a meaningful statement to say "Chandler tracks motion on videos professionally"? This would imply that tracking motion is a normal (required, or frequently needed, or taught) proficiency associated with the profession of "high school physics teacher".

I doubt that this is so. Whether or not Chandler is competent and proficient in using software to track motion on video is, in my opion, in no sensible way related to his being a physics teacher by profession. You can change this opinion of mine by showing that indeed Chandler has personally ackquired professional proficiency in that task, or that it is even a frequent or required proficiency for professional high school physics teachers in the jurisdiction where he teaches.

It's a different issue with NIST: NIST employs a lot of engineers, scientists, programmers and what not to cover a wide range of professional proficiencies, and generelly if they don't have people with a necessery professional proficiency to do a certain taskl within their own payroll, they outsource that task to contractors with the relevant professional skills. It is thus a pretty fair bet that NIST (in conjunction with contractors) are in fact "professionals" with regard to performing forensic video analysis.

Chandler is very certainly NOT a "professional" in that sense.




I hope I was clear now.

 

[lexicon008]

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

C7 said that, in the context of using a particular software to analyze the motion of an object in a video, "Chandler is a professional".

The profession of teachers is to teach. Not to track objects on video with software.

So how, I ask, could it be a meaningful statement to say "Chandler tracks motion on videos professionally"? This would imply that tracking motion is a normal (required, or frequently needed, or taught) proficiency associated with the profession of "high school physics teacher".

I doubt that this is so. Whether or not Chandler is competent and proficient in using software to track motion on video is, in my opion, in no sensible way related to his being a physics teacher by profession. You can change this opinion of mine by showing that indeed Chandler has personally ackquired professional proficiency in that task, or that it is even a frequent or required proficiency for professional high school physics teachers in the jurisdiction where he teaches.

It's a different issue with NIST: NIST employs a lot of engineers, scientists, programmers and what not to cover a wide range of professional proficiencies, and generelly if they don't have people with a necessery professional proficiency to do a certain taskl within their own payroll, they outsource that task to contractors with the relevant professional skills. It is thus a pretty fair bet that NIST (in conjunction with contractors) are in fact "professionals" with regard to performing forensic video analysis.

Chandler is very certainly NOT a "professional" in that sense.




I hope I was clear now.

Ok agreed..however..remembering back to the stone age and the experiments we used in physics class to calculate the acceleration of falling bodies, we used a setup with a falling mass connected to a long stip of paper that fed through a dot punch that was set to a certain rate. We allowed the mass to fall to a known distance and then took the paper and mapped out the dots and distances and such to calculate the acceleration.
Now it is not a great stretch to do the same on a video of a falling object if you have a known distance, time and frame rate etc.
Any physics teacher can reproduce the falling mass experiments results so i would argue that the general idea is within the physics teachers handbook, what is at question is the results and the error in the results and the implication of the results.
Perhaps the discrepency here is professionality vs expertise. One does not have to hold professional credentials in order to have the expertise to do something effectively or correctly.

 

[Oystein]

...
You seem to think that unless the program is covered in a textbook or is part of the over all curricula that it's use would be "unprofessional". ...

No.

Two things wrong with that phrasing:

1. False dichotomy: When I doubt that someone is doing something "professionally" (i.e.as a skill learned through professional training or experience), that is not the same as saying it is "unprofessional" (i.e. regarded as unworthy of a professional) to do it. Surely, people of all trades often do things in their jobs that they are not professionally trained or experienced in, and yet that is very often a good and professional thing to do! For example, I used to worl close to LAN network components, servers and such stuff - areas that were strictly off-limits to the cleaning staff. But too little to warrant hiring specialized cleaners. So now and then me and my colleague would grab a vacuum cleaner, or a bucket with water and a couple of rags, to get rid of the dirt of time. That is not an "unprofessional" thing to do, as some minimum level of cleanliness is certainly in order at such places, but I also was not "a professional" wrt cleaning chores.
2. Strawman: I didn't say that Chandler is doing this "unprofessionally" in the classroom, nor that he is not acting as "a professional" in the classroom when he employs that software. It may be a smart and instructive thing to do and provide his students with excellent teaching. I said a different thing: He is not a professional when he analyses the descent of a building with video tracking software. That's two different activities (teaching vs. forensic analysis) and two different professions (teacher vs. forensic analyst)

 

[LSSBB]

For example, I used to worl close to LAN network components, servers and such stuff - areas that were strictly off-limits to the cleaning staff. But too little to warrant hiring specialized cleaners. So now and then me and my colleague would grab a vacuum cleaner, or a bucket with water and a couple of rags, to get rid of the dirt of time.

I hope you didn't use the water on the servers or over cable runs!

 

[lexicon008]

"That's two different activities (teaching vs. forensic analysis) and two different professions (teacher vs. forensic analyst)"

I doubt very much that Chandler is trying to represent himself as a forensics analyst. He has clearly stated that his analysis is based on his understanding and application of physics and math.
In essence one could argue that he is indeed "teaching" how the physics of free fall are inconsistent with his understanding of the building collapse. Whether or not he is right is still being debated.
That being said..if the "professionals" at or that were used by NIST agree with some of his findings then he is either correct or both are wrong.

 

[Oystein]

Ok agreed..however..remembering back to the stone age and the experiments we used in physics class to calculate the acceleration of falling bodies, we used a setup with a falling mass connected to a long stip of paper that fed through a dot punch that was set to a certain rate. We allowed the mass to fall to a known distance and then took the paper and mapped out the dots and distances and such to calculate the acceleration.
Now it is not a great stretch to do the same on a video of a falling object if you have a known distance, time and frame rate etc.
Any physics teacher can reproduce the falling mass experiments results so i would argue that the general idea is within the physics teachers handbook, what is at question is the results and the error in the results and the implication of the results.
Perhaps the discrepency here is professionality vs expertise. One does not have to hold professional credentials in order to have the expertise to do something effectively or correctly.

The way these things are done in high school are sometimes quite different, often simplified, from the way things are done "professionally" by actual engineers and scientists. A good (?) teacher might even choose to "fake" results in order to not confuse students with the nitty-gritty pitfalls and exceptions that real life has to offer.

To anecdotes from my years as high school physics student (physics was one of my two main elected subjects, had 6 school-hours (45 min) per week) to stress that point:

1. One semester we had finished the course work one double-hour early, so as a reward, we build a Foceault pendulum in the main building. Had it swinging after 30 minutes, and then had almost an hour to watch how the plane of motion rotates. And rotate it did, not quite as much perhaps as it should have. But I asked the teacherm, quietly: "Uhm, shouldn't it rotate clockwise?" And he said "yes, but pssst, don't tell the others, I want you to finish the semester with a sense of success"
2. We had a machine that could be used measure the displacement of certain motions via threads running over a wheel, and it would plot that motion, and also the first and second derivative (velocity and acceleratio). On a project day, I was supposed to showcast that apparatus with an installation of simple springs moving a weight back and forth (hovering on a flow of pressured air), and show how distance, velocity and acceleration plot out to sine curves, shifted by 90°. You can guess already what happened: The springs wobbled, the velocity plots were wild, and acceleration was a total mess. So I grabbed an oszillo... - a machine that would output cleaner sine curves (with a liiiiittle noise modulated on top) and fed that signal into my plotter, with a frequency sufficiently matching the springs. Fooled everybody. Made for a nice, instructive effect

Try that in an actual lab

 

[lexicon008]

The way these things are done in high school are sometimes quite different, often simplified, from the way things are done "professionally" by actual engineers and scientists. A good (?) teacher might even choose to "fake" results in order to not confuse students with the nitty-gritty pitfalls and exceptions that real life has to offer.

[/LIST]

Try that in an actual lab

True, but many "professionals" have also "faked" or misrepresented results.

 

[Oystein]

...
I doubt very much that Chandler is trying to represent himself as a forensics analyst. ...

You are again losing focus.

It wasn't Chandler whose statement about his professionality I rejected,

Christopher7 made such a wrong claim ("Chandler is a professional"; context: forensic video analysis of a collapsing building).

 

[Oystein]

True, but many "professionals" have also "faked" or misrepresented results.

Yes. It's always a terrily bad thing to do in those professions.

In the profession of "teacher", such a fake to enhance understanding could be a smart move. A good teacher knows which corners to cut. A researcher should know not to cut any corners.

Chandler IS cutting corners in his video analysis. He sells the average acceleration as the actual acceleration. Good if he were teaching. But actually bad since it's supposed to be research.

 

[ozeco41]

I hope you didn't use the water on the servers or over cable runs!

I don't recall where ChrisMohr got lost in pedantry over words such as "professional" in the "Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr". I'm sure Chris would have focussed on the errors that Chandler made if he needed to refer in anyway to Chandler.

So which part of which Video or website article are we discussing folks?

And if, heaven forbid, we have become derailed chasing nit picking details, why not go right to the core issues:

Chandler is not credible because most (maybe all but I cannot be certain from personal experience) ...so "most" of his claims are false. And false in ways that are fatal to the claim he seeks to make.

NIST is credible because most of its work is correct - and the errors if any are in minor details and don't affect the NIST conclusions.

And, as I said several times in recent days, If a claim is right it is right no matter what label or qualification we give the claimant. And if a claim is wrong it is wrong even if the claimant has multiple PhD's.

AND there is still the overriding issue of "So what?" Or stated slightly more specifically is the error relevant and significant? Chandlers claims on initial collapse of all three WTC towers are wrong. So choose your topic folks and if it isn't "Comment on the ChrisMohr rebuttals" - start the thread.

 

[femr2]

It is thus a pretty fair bet that NIST (in conjunction with contractors) are in fact "professionals" with regard to performing forensic video analysis.

Have you seen the length of the list of issues with the NIST video data extraction procedures and methodology ?

Regardless of your opinion about other areas of NIST, whoever conducted the WTC7 descent tracing was certainly not an "expert in that field".

 

[Oystein]

Have you seen the length of the list of issues with the NIST video data extraction procedures and methodology ?

Regardless of your opinion about other areas of NIST, whoever conducted the WTC7 descent tracing was certainly not an "expert in that field".

I have seen the length of that list. Yes.

 

[ozeco41]

You are again losing focus....

True.

...Christopher7 made such a wrong claim ("Chandler is a professional"; context: forensic video analysis of a collapsing building).

..and the broader context is the C7 repeated attempts to give credibility to Chandler:

...So being right trumps being wrong.

Being right whilst having no degree trumps being wrong whilst holding multiple PhD's

Being wrong remains wrong even if the claimant has multiple PhD's.

... we can be assured that no matter how many times C7 shoves Chandler's name in parallel with NIST he will neither drag Chandler up to credibility nor reduce NIST credibility down towards the depths of chandlerism,.

 

[MarkLindeman]

So you find that remarkable? Chandler said he had used that online program to measure velocities and acceleration so he applied it to the TT and WTC 7. NIST used a similar program. They are professionals so I figure that must be the way it's done. But that's just me . You keep claiming that they don't know what they are doing if you like.

Chandler is a professional in measuring velocities and acceleration based on video analysis? I must have missed the post where you demonstrated that.

But keep sticking words in my mouth. I'm sure that will help.

 

[Animal]

True.

..and the broader context is the C7 repeated attempts to give credibility to Chandler:

And himself

 

[ozeco41]

And himself

Could be but they are different categories.

Chandler is a truther from what I can see.

However he is wise enough to stay away from any challenging debate. And since he doesn't come here we cannot see if he would abandon 'truther' in favour of 'troll'.

And, by definition, credibility doesn't count when the activity is trolling.