He's well qualified because the data being interpreted is so basic anyone with any basic academic ability could do so.
By that logic anyone is "well-qualified." Sorry, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You first touted him as a physicist, as if you wanted us to believe such a lofty credential mattered. Now you're backpedaling away from that, having realized that physicists aren't automatically radar operators. But now you have to explain why Stalcup alone is so famously capable of reaching this conclusion where none else have.
...with experts in the aviation and radar fields.
You mention only Stalcup. Besides, you're still trying to both have and eat your cake. You can't tell me there exist experts in the "radar field" without admitting it's a field that requires some expertise. And if it requires some expertise, then not everyone automatically is an expert. Experts by definition know something others don't. Therefore you have the burden to prove Stalcup is one of the experts.
In your haste to rehabilitate your witness you've set up contradictory criteria.
Stalcup has shown reasonable evidence that no one has reasonably disproven.
Asked and answered.
And he's well-qualified to do so, despite your flagrantly-deceptive denials.
Nonsense. Radar operation and interpretation is a highly specialized field. And if Stalcup cannot demonstrate his expertise in it, then he does not get to have his uninformed inferences accepted as premises.
The radar data clearly shows debris ejecting to the starboard side. No serious investigator involved with this questions this. There is no ejecta to the port side. There's no "poor interpretation" possible with this kind of unquestionable data. You are just adding non-truths to obfuscate the facts.
No, you're just continuing to beg the question, with increasing desperation.
Besides, your own CIA animation clearly shows a symmetrical fuel explosion pattern. So you are contradicting what your own people said. Well done! lol
Straw man. I never mentioned anything about a CIA animation. They are not "my" CIA.
I think this one example alone shows your input to be fatally deficient and not worth responding to.
Most people sooner or later manufacture some pretense not to talk to me, or to anyone else who asks them questions they cannot answer. As I said, you may offer any excuse you want to avoid my posts, but you cannot then say that you have been ignored.
Since when have you had any objections to pseudo-science since your side has...
Straw man, and
tu quoque ad hominem.
While you pretend high standards don't forget your side offered the seat glue explanation.
Gish gallop.
You're just filibustering sophist filler material.
I'm happy letting the reader decide. He may instead come to the conclusion that you simply don't understand the rebuttals being put to you.
Stalcup has satisfied the science by showing the leading piece of ejecta got to that point at mach 4.
Asked and answered. You're simply demanding that we accept his inexperienced opinions and inferences as fact, despite that we have given you a number of reasons why that would be unwise. You may not understand why his findings are pseudoscience, but we do.
What's painfully obvious here is that your contrived, hollow protests have failed to disprove that.
I'll let others decide for themselves what is obvious to them. You have failed to explain why Stalcup ventured outside normal scientific practice to do work in an unrelated field. When asked to explain how Stalcup's findings should still be considered valid, you retracted the claim to expertise and tried to argue that anyone could have done that work. You have put all your eggs in one basket, and I've shown you the holes in the basket.
Since you seem to believe anyone can interpret radar information, please explain to me the differences among ATC search radar (primary or secondary), military search radar, and targeting radar. And yes, the differences are relevant to your claims. How, for example, does search radar establish a track such that position and velocity information is available? Does ATC radar do this?
You're obviously in denial...
Oh, "obviously."
...and that method validation protest you make is disingenuous.
Funny, that's the whole point of peer review. Most scientists consider validation of method and associated error analysis to be the pillars of the scientific method.
Meanwhile your side doesn't offer anyone to explain the results besides this technical dishonesty.
Asked and answered. You simply seem not to understand how subversion of support works.
Where is your explanation for NASA scientist Charley Basset...
Gish gallop.
Besides, what you're saying isn't true and Stalcup did legitimately show a piece of ejecta that traveled at mach 4.
Asked and answered -- begging the question.
Your in contempt of commonly-known science.
I don't accept you as an expert on science or the scientific method.
It isn't me who should be answering these obscene reversals.
There is no "obscene reversal." You are the affirmant, therefore it is your burden of proof.
It is you who should be explaining how a 300 foot per second fuel explosion created such a quickly-traveling ejecta plume?
Asked and answered -- subversion of support.
Says the guy who tolerates...
Straw man.
Not as big as your double standard considering what you haven't come close to disproving here.
I have shown you the flaws in your argument. You simply deny them and repeat your original claims.
The first pieces of ejecta reach a point on the radar that required mach 4 to get them there.
Asked and answered -- unsupported inference.
Of course I can. You just desperately wish I wouldn't. You keep baiting me to offer rebuttals only on points you're already prepared to answer. Sadly, I will provide the proper rebuttal, addressed at the points I find to be weakest, and I will not apologize that you are unprepared for it. The proper rebuttal here is that the analysis allegedly showing a Mach 4 debris track is based on unproven methodologies devised and executed by an inexpert practioner working outside the scientific method.
It's hard science written in stone in the radar data.
Nonsense, for the reasons already given. You alternatively provide a pseudo-expert or argue that no expertise is needed. You pooh-pooh the basis of peer-reviewed science, then try to argue that the results are somehow nevertheless scientifically rigorous.
No matter how much you frantically beg the question, it is not "hard science." And since it is the basis of your entire claim, it is not something that can just be glossed over.
Let's always keep in mind that your side never proved any forensic evidence showing a center fuel tank explosion as the cause. So you're a hypocrite.
Name-calling is inappropriate. You make straw-man references to "my side" in a frantic effort to shift the burden of proof. I have made no affirmative claims or statements of belief. I'm simply examining
your claim. If you cannot sustain such an examination, it is no fault of mine nor the fault of any others who may or may not believe various things.
It's right there on radar. Anyone who argues it dismisses their own credibility.
I'm satisfied with my credibility as it stands. It doesn't need your validation.
What you are obviously doing (and it isn't fooling anyone) is you are trying to bamboozle with highly technical challenges based on contrived esoteric knowledge...
Nonsense. I am applying my professional expertise to a claim made within the boundaries of my discipline. You likely believed, wrongly so, that the audience for your claims would be laymen. So that when you assured us that there was sufficient scientific and engineering justification for your claims, few if any would be able to challenge it.
Now that you have been surprised with an expert examination of your claims, you're trying various tactics to recover. You're offering incessant bluff and bluster. You're trying to write off the questions and challenges as mere sophistry, but this comes off as little more than an admission you don't understand it. You're employing name-calling and other emotional arguments to try to poison the well.
There is only one reason you are unable to carry on a discussion regarding the specific scientific and engineering claims you have made. And it's not that I'm just blinding you with science.
If we go back to my original point the uniform failure of the forward center fuel tank wall in the forward direction shows the blast happened symmetrically. Therefore this fatally conflicts with the asymmetrical plume forensic data shown on the radar.
Asked and answered. You are applying straw-man criteria of fidelity to the test, which I previously explained.
Don't you understand that the more you offer these substance-devoid protests without being able to disprove the actual evidence the stronger it becomes?
Yes, I am well aware of the rhetorical idiom of conspiracy claims. However, if you'd read any of the thousands of posts I've made to this and similar forums, you'd realize that your bluster really isn't going to save you. You can try all you want to claim I'm just some internet blowhard, but most of the people reading your posts have been reading
my posts for years. You won't prevail in this debate by trying to frame your critics.
You have yet to give a credible answer to the mach 4 ejecta besides painfully transparent sophist technicalities over methodology.
Dismissing the central tenet of the scientific method does not bode well for your belief that science "backs you up" here.
Meanwhile the evidence itself stands and you haven't touched it.
Asked and answered -- subversion of support. You want to leap-frog over the important part of the discussion. The evidence doesn't stand until you are able to acknowledge and meet the challenges to it.
OK. Let's discuss the particular point of FBI criminally lying about the seat glue test.
No, let's not have a Gish gallop. We're not going to change subjects every time you get stuck. Let's stay on the points you first raised until we're satisfied they've been adequately explored. I know it's painful for you to have to continue trying to bluff your way through technical arguments, but that's my point. Defending your beliefs is painful, which should be telling you something.
The TWA 800 site is run by pilots and top credibility industry professionals.
You're cherry-picking your experts.
Where is your demand that CIA come forth with its science? You're not being honest.
Straw man
again. Also, changing the burden of proof.
In some sophist theoretical heaven I suppose but not in the real world.
I'm an engineer in the real world. What are you?
To me you look like a laughable lord guarding his burnt-out gilded crack house of deception.
Sticks and stones...
Just keep poisoning that well. We'll see how well that argument works for you.
Anyone can compare the evidence content of my posts to the hot air content of yours.
Yes, they can.
Arrogant presumption. Do not presume to tell me what I know or don't know, or that I secretly agree with you.
)