AA77 FDR Data, Explained
- Thread starter Anti-sophist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aa77 flight data recorder
Hi Tom,
Warren.
No need to apologise, I welcome scrutiny of my results.
I didn't see this pattern. Did you use more than two adjacent subframes to calculate the running average? Which subframes did you see it in? Were you looking at the "Pressure Altitude as per 757-3b_1.TXT (FEET)" or "ALTITUDE (1013.25mB) (FEET)" parameters? I don't believe the "Pressure Altitude as per 757-3b_1.TXT (FEET)" values are correct as I noted.
I don't know why there is both indicated and corrected AoA. Interestingly corrected AoA only appears in 757-3b_1.txt. D226A101-3G.pdf has different parameters stored in that location. I've discussed that here after JFK pointed out that the corrected AoA was almost exactly double the indicated AoA. Note that the m value for corrected AoA is almost exactly double the m value for indicated AoA.
Yes, I did do that for indicated AoA.
The PDF file I have on my web site is as I received it from the NTSB which unfortunately consists of page images rather than text as you can see. Indicated AoA appears on pages 415 (port D5 label 221), 482 (word 123 bits 3 to 12) and 506 (word 251 bits 3 to 12).
For indicated AoA, I am using a scalar of 0.17578125 and an offset of 0. I will be using the same scalar and offset for corrected AoA, since then indicated AoA and corrected AoA will have values close to each other and in the same range of +/- 90 degrees.
The values for indicated AoA produced by the two data frame layouts are close to each other and close or identical to those in the NTSB's decode. That's not to say that they are correct however.Regardless, the numbers in the spreadsheet just don't make any sense.
If you plot the pitch angle and AoA vs. time during the take off roll & climb out, you'll see that the trends are OK. This tells you that this is not a sign issue. The sign of the multiplier is correct (positive). It also suggests that the offset is not zero for some reason. (But just using a different multiplier won't fix the problem.)
But it looks like there is about a -15 to -20 degree offset to the AoA. The data says that the AoA stays negative all thru the climb out.
As my petulant 6 year old niece used to say, "I don't think so... " (Complete with foot stamp.)
Good luck digging up the problem. "You're doing a heluva job, Brownie."
Tom
Warren.
OK, there is something goofy going on with these AoA values. We can take the Balsamo approach and proclaim that they must be accurate, since the data came already converted by the NTSB(irony anyone?) - so the 757 is some kind of engineering marvel to hide 15 degrees or so of wing incidence; or we can assume that the value doesn't represent AoA in the traditional way.
One thing that doesn't add up is the DFL range of +/- 90. I'm pretty sure they don't assume that the vane actually moves that much, and the DFL range is sort of a convenience figure. But in any case, an AoA vane doesn't move anything close to 180 degrees. I'd say they only move 60 degrees total, and only 10-15 degrees leading edge up, if that much. So maybe 0 is actually (-)10-(-)15 degrees, the start point of the range of movement?
I don't have all the FDR data here in front of me, but does "corrected AoA" produce more sensible values?
eta: I just saw where Robbie is talking about AoA in the thread over there...but I don't understand how anyone who knows what AoA is can possibly poo poo a median value of -15 degrees for an entire flight. Either he has no idea how much 15 degrees really is, or he hasn't explained himself very well. I'm trying to picture a 757 flyling along with an AoA of -15...and I having difficulty with it. At 400+ knots, its not gonna wander too far from 0 near sea level. At high altitude, it'll be between 2-3 degrees.
One thing that doesn't add up is the DFL range of +/- 90. I'm pretty sure they don't assume that the vane actually moves that much, and the DFL range is sort of a convenience figure. But in any case, an AoA vane doesn't move anything close to 180 degrees. I'd say they only move 60 degrees total, and only 10-15 degrees leading edge up, if that much. So maybe 0 is actually (-)10-(-)15 degrees, the start point of the range of movement?
I don't have all the FDR data here in front of me, but does "corrected AoA" produce more sensible values?
eta: I just saw where Robbie is talking about AoA in the thread over there...but I don't understand how anyone who knows what AoA is can possibly poo poo a median value of -15 degrees for an entire flight. Either he has no idea how much 15 degrees really is, or he hasn't explained himself very well. I'm trying to picture a 757 flyling along with an AoA of -15...and I having difficulty with it. At 400+ knots, its not gonna wander too far from 0 near sea level. At high altitude, it'll be between 2-3 degrees.
Last edited:
-16.5 -16 -17.1 and -15.1 are values of AOA during level flight from 77's FDR. There is no level flight AOA, or level AOA. Balsamo is 2,223 gs off on AOA. I can give you many different values for AOAs during level flight; normalized from 0 to 1.
Add AOA to Balsamo's 2,223 g effort of stupid ideas on 911. Pilots for delusions are still one of the top fringe groups in 911 truth.
Balsamo needs to figure out AOA before he makes up more junk.
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/angle_of_attack/DI5.htm
http://biggles-software.com/software/757_tech/boeing/aero_12_aoa.htm#measurement
http://biggles-software.com/software/757_tech/boeing/aero_12_whatisaoa.htm
What is level AOA again Balsamo? As soon as JFK (aka super english major; "In the meantime the old *******/blanked up drunkard come along with") gains some more knowledege he will "punch out" of p4t club of stupid 911 delusions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHYfWBcn3R0
So ask Balsamo what a level AOA value is for a normalize AOA from 0 to 1? .2? .6? lol - just like 2,223 gs of stupid. Got an ATP?
Add AOA to Balsamo's 2,223 g effort of stupid ideas on 911. Pilots for delusions are still one of the top fringe groups in 911 truth.
Balsamo needs to figure out AOA before he makes up more junk.
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/angle_of_attack/DI5.htm
http://biggles-software.com/software/757_tech/boeing/aero_12_aoa.htm#measurement
http://biggles-software.com/software/757_tech/boeing/aero_12_whatisaoa.htm
What is level AOA again Balsamo? As soon as JFK (aka super english major; "In the meantime the old *******/blanked up drunkard come along with") gains some more knowledege he will "punch out" of p4t club of stupid 911 delusions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHYfWBcn3R0
So ask Balsamo what a level AOA value is for a normalize AOA from 0 to 1? .2? .6? lol - just like 2,223 gs of stupid. Got an ATP?
Last edited:
Pinch
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 401
They're going all cannibal over there again. Besides Cap't Bob being unable to finish a sentence without referencing THE LIST that NEVER stops growing, he is now starting to eye Warren Stutt as the proverbial pork chop to a hungry Wile E. Coyote. His butt-buddy Craig is right behind him here, and yes, JFmoronK is threatening to jump ship (or punch out of the Stupid) because the other doofuses can't understand that good, solid analysis will take it where it may, good bad or indifferent.
I really don't think I have ever seen a more entertaining group of absolute idiots than that P4T crowd.
JFK understands AOA is degrees, but thinks my normalize 0 to 1 values we used in tankers is not correct, or did he miss the fact I pulled 4 different values of AOA from 77 during level flight. Maybe normalized is not understood. JFK is right after Warren for the p4t under the bus tour.
Craig is upset with Warren. Warren produces real evidence, while CIT is stuck with made up moronic delusions only idiots believe.
Last edited:
Der Fuhrer Balsamo said:
As I told Warren via PM last night, he's quickly worn out his welcome at PFT as the result of all of his honest, free of charge efforts. You gotta admire the way he keeps his cool under adversity, though.
eta:
Rob couldn't even make a gift of his crappy DVDs to Warren for all the countless hours of hard work....and then accuses him of being biased in his research. Wow, what a scumbag.
Last edited:
Pinch
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 401
What ELSE should one expect from a complete loser who makes his living begging for money on the internet via PayPal and selling hilarious DVDs and little tee-shirts and spaghetti-stringed nighties with his favorite logo on them?
Once again, character is defined by how you treat your friends - we saw how Cap't Bobby treated TF, we're seeing how he is about to cut JFmoronK loose (which I couldn't honestly care less about - they are twin sons of different mothers, as far as I am concerned), and we shouldn't expect anything different in his use and then discarding of Stutt.
Hi apathoid,
Decoding CORRECTED AOA in accordance with 757-3b_1.txt which has a range of +/-180 degrees produces values close to twice that of INDICATED AOA. D226A101-3G.pdf does not have CORRECTED AOA and has different unrelated parameters stored at the location used by CORRECTED AOA in 757-3b_1.txt
Warren.
Unfortunately not.
Decoding CORRECTED AOA in accordance with 757-3b_1.txt which has a range of +/-180 degrees produces values close to twice that of INDICATED AOA. D226A101-3G.pdf does not have CORRECTED AOA and has different unrelated parameters stored at the location used by CORRECTED AOA in 757-3b_1.txt
Warren.
[decloak]
Psst, guys... The NWO memo on how to handle the anomalous AoA data went out a couple of years ago.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87504&page=14#post2819232
Here's the corrected URL for the pdf file included in the linked post:
http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pd...Understanding_The_Angle_Of_Attack_(Part1).pdf
In short - indicated AoA data in the FDR is not the raw AoA data. It's most probably a processed value used for the pitch limit indicator, showing the AoA margin to stall warning.
P.S.: good work, Warren.
[/decloak]
Psst, guys... The NWO memo on how to handle the anomalous AoA data went out a couple of years ago.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87504&page=14#post2819232
Here's the corrected URL for the pdf file included in the linked post:
http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pd...Understanding_The_Angle_Of_Attack_(Part1).pdf
In short - indicated AoA data in the FDR is not the raw AoA data. It's most probably a processed value used for the pitch limit indicator, showing the AoA margin to stall warning.
P.S.: good work, Warren.
[/decloak]
Hi clestrin,
Warren.
Rob came to the same conclusion i.e. a 0 value is actually the critical angle of attack.
Warren.
"level AOA" ; lol, how can someone get dumber than 2,223 gs?
I can't wait for the "level AOA". Is it 0 for normalized to 1 data, or 1? .2?
Balsamo said -15.6 or some other number was level AOA. But he picked a value out of the air just like 2,223 Gs. There is no level AOA, Balsamo has no clue as he can't comprehend the many articles on AOA. What does the AOA have to do with 911? If you look at the AOA it does support the rest of the FDR proving 77 impacted the Pentagon.
Does Balsamo close his eyes and have visions to obtain these 2,223 g values?
The p4t continue to offer no theory and it is due to the fact the best the cesspool of stupid captain can come up with is 2,223 Gs, no clue how many feet are in a nautical mile, zero clue the frequency range RADALT works at, and the famous super not-physics 11.2 g special pilot for truth math. We discovered hockey stick physics from Balsamo as he discoved math and used it to mess up the guilible who think he is an airline pilot, and now we have "level AOA".
found it?
found it again?
and again?
What exactly is level AOA as Balsamo educate the non-thinking core of pilots who beleive in nothing, have no evidence, and poorly apologize for terrorists by impling dirt dumb delusions. What is the next big delusion?
The latest delusion is the terrorists who did kill on 911 could not enter the cockpit because the door was closed the whole flight. No wonder they get no real press, their delusions are only shared by a few nut case non-thinking pilots who fail to think for themselves and spew idiotic theories while offering no theories (door closed whole flight). (no rational theories; they offer only moronic theories based on nothing; like 2,223 gs)
When I talk raw data, I mean the existing data from the FDR. I am use to a normalize, 0-1, AOA cockpit display and other processed values, the data coming from the FDR is raw (the data from the FDR = raw) until you know more about it and how it used in systems; such as the post above.
Last edited:
warren,
I apologize if you know all of this.
This is what correct data will show.
From:
Aerodynamic Design Of Transport Aircraft
Angle of attack. The acute angle formed between the chord line of an airfoil and the direction of the air striking the airfoil.
Angle of attack for 757 type wing (asymmetric)
This is a generic chart. The 757 wing is asymmetric.
Note that, at 0° AoA, you are still generating lift (Cl = 0.2), and according to this curve, the zero lift AoA is -2°.
Again, the curves above are generic (not precise for the 757), but they are gonna be darn close. I've seen the data for the 757 wing in which the zero lift AoA is -4°. The principles & trends are still applicable.
__
Angle of incidence. The angle formed by the chord line of the wing and a line parallel to the longitudinal axis of the airplane.
Angle of incidence for the 757
You can see that the "average" Angle of Incidence is approximately 6°. When the plane is on take off roll, the pitch angle is 0°, the AoA is about PLUS 6°. The wings are generating lift (as proven by the fact that they flex upwards during the take off roll), just not nearly enough to unstick the plane from the ground.
One thing to note is that, whenever the plane is in level flight (and this includes on take-off roll), the AoA is equal to the Pitch Angle plus the Angle of Incidence. (This ignores the irrelevant-to-this-conversation situation of microbursts, significant vertical wind speeds.)
Here I've plotted the data for the take off roll.
"Indicated AoA": according to Celestrin( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2819232#post2819232 ), this is the "Pitch Limit Indicator". Which can be thought of as "angular margin to stall warning", the difference between the current AoA minus the stall warning AoA. As Celetrin notes, you always want to keep this number less than zero.
You can see the pitch angle = 0° (implies that the AoA = +6°) during take off. At transition, the pilot gradually brings the nose up. The plane generates enough lift to unstick at a pitch = 8° (AoA = 14°), and he continues to raise the nose to about 17° pitch. You'll note that, for all the numbers before this point, the AoA is simply 6° (the Angle of Incidence) greater than the pitch angle.
But in the climb, the apparent wind is not coming horizontally anymore, so the AoA is less than 6° greater than the pitch angle. So, at a pitch angle of, say, 15°, the AoA may be as low as, say 18°.
And it appears that, on climb out, they bring the AoA right up to this limit (Ind AoA stops just below 0°), probably for a max performance take-off, to get as high as possible as quickly as possible for noise abatement. The decrease in "indicated AoA" during the climb out (even tho pitch angle increases to about 19°) is probably due to reconfiguring the wings (retracting flaps).
Everything makes sense, except for the decision to call this parameter "indicated AoA". That's completely weird.
As to cruise performance, in level flight, the AoA is going to be about 6° greater than the pitch angle.
I BELIEVE that I read that the pitch at level cruise was 2.5°, which would make the AoA be about +8.5°.
It is possible that the reference that I saw said that the AoA in level cruise was 2.5°, which would make the pitch be -3.5°.
Any of you pilots know which of these situations is right for 757 cruise flight?
___
BTW, Warren, here is the vertical velocity data (based on differential "PA as per 757-3b"). You can see the abnormal spikes in the data. You can also see it in the tabulated "PA as per 757-3b" data, just not as obviously.
Tom
I apologize if you know all of this.
This is what correct data will show.
From:
Aerodynamic Design Of Transport Aircraft
Angle of attack. The acute angle formed between the chord line of an airfoil and the direction of the air striking the airfoil.
Angle of attack for 757 type wing (asymmetric)
This is a generic chart. The 757 wing is asymmetric.
Note that, at 0° AoA, you are still generating lift (Cl = 0.2), and according to this curve, the zero lift AoA is -2°.
Again, the curves above are generic (not precise for the 757), but they are gonna be darn close. I've seen the data for the 757 wing in which the zero lift AoA is -4°. The principles & trends are still applicable.
__
Angle of incidence. The angle formed by the chord line of the wing and a line parallel to the longitudinal axis of the airplane.
Angle of incidence for the 757
You can see that the "average" Angle of Incidence is approximately 6°. When the plane is on take off roll, the pitch angle is 0°, the AoA is about PLUS 6°. The wings are generating lift (as proven by the fact that they flex upwards during the take off roll), just not nearly enough to unstick the plane from the ground.
One thing to note is that, whenever the plane is in level flight (and this includes on take-off roll), the AoA is equal to the Pitch Angle plus the Angle of Incidence. (This ignores the irrelevant-to-this-conversation situation of microbursts, significant vertical wind speeds.)
Here I've plotted the data for the take off roll.
"Indicated AoA": according to Celestrin( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2819232#post2819232 ), this is the "Pitch Limit Indicator". Which can be thought of as "angular margin to stall warning", the difference between the current AoA minus the stall warning AoA. As Celetrin notes, you always want to keep this number less than zero.
You can see the pitch angle = 0° (implies that the AoA = +6°) during take off. At transition, the pilot gradually brings the nose up. The plane generates enough lift to unstick at a pitch = 8° (AoA = 14°), and he continues to raise the nose to about 17° pitch. You'll note that, for all the numbers before this point, the AoA is simply 6° (the Angle of Incidence) greater than the pitch angle.
But in the climb, the apparent wind is not coming horizontally anymore, so the AoA is less than 6° greater than the pitch angle. So, at a pitch angle of, say, 15°, the AoA may be as low as, say 18°.
And it appears that, on climb out, they bring the AoA right up to this limit (Ind AoA stops just below 0°), probably for a max performance take-off, to get as high as possible as quickly as possible for noise abatement. The decrease in "indicated AoA" during the climb out (even tho pitch angle increases to about 19°) is probably due to reconfiguring the wings (retracting flaps).
Everything makes sense, except for the decision to call this parameter "indicated AoA". That's completely weird.
As to cruise performance, in level flight, the AoA is going to be about 6° greater than the pitch angle.
I BELIEVE that I read that the pitch at level cruise was 2.5°, which would make the AoA be about +8.5°.
It is possible that the reference that I saw said that the AoA in level cruise was 2.5°, which would make the pitch be -3.5°.
Any of you pilots know which of these situations is right for 757 cruise flight?
___
BTW, Warren, here is the vertical velocity data (based on differential "PA as per 757-3b"). You can see the abnormal spikes in the data. You can also see it in the tabulated "PA as per 757-3b" data, just not as obviously.
Tom
Last edited:
Balsamo math...
Every time I read some of Robby's attempt at analyzing anything, I'm left staggered at his math incompetency.
While looking for other info, I stumbled onto this page of P4T. It is the main page for their topic "American 77 (Pentagon)".
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
About 80% of the way down the page, we find some results of Robby's "figgurin'."
Note well that this information is the CURRENT info that he posts. Even tho all of these facts have been completely disputed by the FDR and Rades data.
In this one paragraph, Robbie makes several statement of numeric fact.
a. AA77 travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes just before starting the 330° turn.
b. Average speed over this interval was 396 kts.
c. AA77 entered the 330° turn at 396 kts.
d. travelled 5 miles in the turn
e. took 3 minutes to do so.
f. average speed thru the turn was 430 kts.
Now we have the right info from the FDR. Let's see how Robby has done, shall we?
Using the "Computed Air Speed" and the Mag heading info, we find:
Case | Rob's claim | actual | Rob's % error
a | 33 miles | 28.6 | 15%
b | 396 knots | 298.1 | 33%
c | 396 knots | 287.5 | 38%
d | 5 miles | 21.9 | -77%
e | 180 seconds | 227 | -21%
f | 430 knots | 302 | 42%All of the above is in one simple paragraph. A paragraph that he has clearly gone back in an attempt to fix ... and it's still wrong.
The one that is really shocking for an alleged pilot is the 5 mile distance travelled when doing the descending turn.
Using his OWN numbers, if a plane were flying an average speed of 430 kts for a time of 3 minutes, then it would cover:
Distance = (430 kts) (1.688 ft/sec-kt) (180 seconds) (1 mile / 5280 ft) = 24.7 miles.
(Compare this with Rob's claim of 5 miles)
At 430 kts, you would cover 5 miles in about 36 seconds.
(Compare this with Rob's claim of 180 seconds.)
This stuff is "Dead reconning 101".
How can a guy, who is supposed to be a Professional Pilot and an Instructor be so totally clueless about something that is so rudimentary??
I pity his students...
Tom
PS. However, this DOES explain Rob's 2200 G's assertion...
Every time I read some of Robby's attempt at analyzing anything, I'm left staggered at his math incompetency.
While looking for other info, I stumbled onto this page of P4T. It is the main page for their topic "American 77 (Pentagon)".
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
About 80% of the way down the page, we find some results of Robby's "figgurin'."
Note well that this information is the CURRENT info that he posts. Even tho all of these facts have been completely disputed by the FDR and Rades data.
Robbie said:
In this one paragraph, Robbie makes several statement of numeric fact.
a. AA77 travelled 33 miles in 5 minutes just before starting the 330° turn.
b. Average speed over this interval was 396 kts.
c. AA77 entered the 330° turn at 396 kts.
d. travelled 5 miles in the turn
e. took 3 minutes to do so.
f. average speed thru the turn was 430 kts.
Now we have the right info from the FDR. Let's see how Robby has done, shall we?
Using the "Computed Air Speed" and the Mag heading info, we find:
a | 33 miles | 28.6 | 15%
b | 396 knots | 298.1 | 33%
c | 396 knots | 287.5 | 38%
d | 5 miles | 21.9 | -77%
e | 180 seconds | 227 | -21%
f | 430 knots | 302 | 42%
The one that is really shocking for an alleged pilot is the 5 mile distance travelled when doing the descending turn.
Using his OWN numbers, if a plane were flying an average speed of 430 kts for a time of 3 minutes, then it would cover:
Distance = (430 kts) (1.688 ft/sec-kt) (180 seconds) (1 mile / 5280 ft) = 24.7 miles.
(Compare this with Rob's claim of 5 miles)
At 430 kts, you would cover 5 miles in about 36 seconds.
(Compare this with Rob's claim of 180 seconds.)
This stuff is "Dead reconning 101".
How can a guy, who is supposed to be a Professional Pilot and an Instructor be so totally clueless about something that is so rudimentary??
I pity his students...
Tom
PS. However, this DOES explain Rob's 2200 G's assertion...
Last edited:
Celestrin!
Indeed, it could be the PLI indication, for some reason it didn't even dawn on me. Now a range of 0-20 degrees makes sense;the negative sign notwithstanding.
eta: now watch Robby backtrack and say pitch limit is what he meant, not "level AoA"......where is my laughing dog.
tfk said:
Indeed. Some aircraft, and even some 757/767s actually display raw AoA in degrees on a circular display on the EADI; I thought this is what we were talking about. PLI is different animal, albeit based on the same primary source. The other thing that kinda doesn't makes sense is that the DFL says this parameter is coming from the ADC. The ADC doesn't compute pitch limit, so....
Last edited:
Thanks Tom for the AOA info,<snip>
BTW, Warren, here is the vertical velocity data (based on differential "PA as per 757-3b"). You can see the abnormal spikes in the data. You can also see it in the tabulated "PA as per 757-3b" data, just not as obviously.
Tom
I believe the Pressure Altitude as per 757-3b_1.TXT data which is decoded using the data frame layout 757-3b_1.txt is incorrect as you say. I believe the ALTITUDE (1013.25mB) parameter which is decoded according to the other data frame layout D226A101-3G.pdf is decoded correctly and should not show those spikes. I added the Pressure Altitude as per 757-3b_1.TXT parameter as a comparison after interest was expresed in it. I noted my opinion of it on my Notes on Parameters for the AAL77 FDR Decoder web page.
Sorry for any confusion,
Warren.
Last edited:
Oh, THIS is really special...
I thought Robbie had his server computer go thru all posts & change "JREF" to "That Government loyalist site" simply as a little poke at us.
That's not it at all.
The insecure little child has his computer automatically change
in all URLs to
This effectively disables all links to any JREF thread. So that the credulous suckers, oops, excuse me, his "respected patrons" can't simply click on a link to find out what a clueless moron he is.
Sorry, my bad.
That should have read "clueless, scared-out-of-his-wits-that-his-cluelessness-will-be-exposed, moron".
Ahhhh, MUCH better...
Tom
I thought Robbie had his server computer go thru all posts & change "JREF" to "That Government loyalist site" simply as a little poke at us.
That's not it at all.
The insecure little child has his computer automatically change
Code:
"http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums"
Code:
"http://govtloyalistsite.orgSorry, my bad.
That should have read "clueless, scared-out-of-his-wits-that-his-cluelessness-will-be-exposed, moron".
Ahhhh, MUCH better...
Tom
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
Oh, THIS is really special...
I thought Robbie had his server computer go thru all posts & change "JREF" to "That Government loyalist site" simply as a little poke at us.
That's not it at all.
The insecure little child has his computer automatically changein all URLs toCode:"http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums"This effectively disables all links to any JREF thread. So that the credulous suckers, oops, excuse me, his "respected patrons" can't simply click on a link to find out what a clueless moron he is.Code:"http://govtloyalistsite.org
Sorry, my bad.
That should have read "clueless, scared-out-of-his-wits-that-his-cluelessness-will-be-exposed, moron".
Ahhhh, MUCH better...
Tom
He never heard about tinyURL or any other redirection services...
His intent is NOT to help his posters post convenient, short URLs.
Nor is it to help his readers easily link to pertinent, related information.
His specific purpose is to PREVENT his readers from seeing information that exposes him as a fraud.
Typical behavior for frauds & charlatans for centuries.
This is simply one of a half dozen sleazy tactics that Rob uses to maintain the charade, such as:
... banning anyone who disagrees with him.
... stripping out posts that expose his mistakes.
... limiting people's posting privledges.
... throwing up walls of technobabble.
... running away when he can't ban people.
... revisionist history.
... incompetence.
... blatant lying.
In other words, for Balsamo, business as usual.
Tom
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)