CIT Fraud Revealed

@Hokulele: The source of the data is clear, mudlark linked you to it several times. You could plug this data into the program you pretend to not understand, but frankly, it's too late to regain credibility.
 
Childlike Empress said:
The source of the data is clear, mudlark linked you to it several times. You could plug this data into the program you pretend to not understand, but frankly, it's too late.
Click to expand...


No, mudlark has linked to various pieces of data that can be used, but has not linked to the data that was actually used.

Do you have access to the original scene files and are you willing to share those?
 
Childlike Empress said:
The source of the data is clear, mudlark linked you to it several times. You could plug this data into the program you pretend to not understand, but frankly, it's too late.
Click to expand...


We don't even need to CE. I reposted my debunk above. No need to jump through PFT hoops. We have proven that they are math challenged.
 
A W Smith said:
My wrist sundial has stopped running
Click to expand...


It's the moisture. Mine does the same thing. Hates rain & snow.

But as soon as it dries out, it works perfectly.

Best part: I don't even have to re-set it!


Tom

PS. It also works very intermittently in Seattle, WA & Ithaca, NY. Must be some geographical anomalies or sumthin'.
 
Childlike Empress said:
@Hokulele: The source of the data is clear, mudlark linked you to it several times. You could plug this data into the program you pretend to not understand, but frankly, it's too late to regain credibility.
Click to expand...
CIT and Balsamo used it to make a cartoon of a plane doing things it can't. They made a cartoon of a plane path. The plane is not represented as it would be in the real world.

You can support fantasy, but this is reality. The reality is CIT has many false flight path and can't do the math to support any of them. You can't do the math to see they are wrong and now you support their cartoon delusions?

The best part Paik is still pointing out the south flight path.
PaikpointssouthdebunksCIT.jpg

Need some help locating south? The CIT witnesses can help you.

As all the CIT witnesses.
pointingSouthOops.gif

south, south, south...
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
It's the moisture. Mine does the same thing. Hates rain & snow.

But as soon as it dries out, it works perfectly.

Best part: I don't even have to re-set it!


Tom

PS. It also works very intermittently in Seattle, WA & Ithaca, NY. Must be some geographical anomalies or sumthin'.
Click to expand...


Ill just wait and change operating systems. I hear Steve Jobs is gonna come up with a SnowDial
 
Hokulele said:
No, mudlark has linked to various pieces of data that can be used, but has not linked to the data that was actually used.

Do you have access to the original scene files and are you willing to share those?
Click to expand...


No, that's not what he linked to. You are very lazy in thinking, and in cohorts with pathological liars. Congratulations.
 
Hokulele: He has linked to all the data necessary to run a simulation in the program you, beside better knowledge, brand as "cartoon" software. While you take data from proven liars like BCR and beachnut for granted. Your stance is an insult to science and pseudo-skeptical to the extreme. Shame on you.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
He has linked to all the data necessary to run a simulation in the program you, beside better knowledge, brand as "cartoon" software. While you take data from proven liars like BCR and beachnut for granted. Your stance is an insult to science.
Click to expand...


Answer my question
when you ran the software yourself, using the scene model and plane model he provided you with. and the data i posted above. What exactly did you find?
 
Childlike Empress said:
For me it looks like you are plugging the stuff out of your rear end. It's obvious that you are not familiar with software like this. You look like someone who predecided that his "opponents" are fools and figures out too late that they themselves are the ones who are clueless. Your comments on MAYA are embarrasing.

@mudlark: excellent work, but futile. Working average braindead mainstream forums is much more effiicient. Those "opponents" here are just not well in their brain.
Click to expand...
Stuff out of your... Think you messed that one up. But great evidence to support CIT.

How it is obvious she is not familiar with the software CIT and the failed pilot cult make cartoons with?

CIT is not "pre-decided" to be fools, they are liars and idiots who make up delusions about 911. Proof!: take any of their flight paths and do the math. They are nuts who can't do math. But go ahead support the 2,223 gs of special Balsamo math endorsed by CIT. Which path is a the NoC, as Paik points south?

"Not well in the brain"? Who is supporting flight paths that can't be possible. Show the NoC flight path from CIT that is possible, and you will see CIT are not well in the brain. You support idiotic flight paths made up by math morons, and you can't fix their failed ideas.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
He has linked to all the data necessary to run a simulation in the program you, beside better knowledge, brand as "cartoon" software. While you take data from proven liars like BCR and beachnut for granted. Your stance is an insult to science.
Click to expand...


No, he has only linked to some of the data, certainly not all of it, and nowhere has there been any examples of the methods used to process this data. Judging by the screen captures provided in the first 6 pages of this thread, whoever generated the Google Earth image "proving" the shadow could not have hit Paik's office clearly had no idea what they were doing.

And no, I have always labeled Maya as "animation" or as "visualization" software. I have labeled their effort as a "cartoon", which is what it is. Unless mudlark is willing to provide evidence that this cartoon was created with accuracy, why should anyone naively assume it is?

And as to your second accusation, you might want to go back to some of BCR's earliest threads here, when he was still posting under his previous user name. He and I did go nine rounds over his data, his methods, and his accuracy. Once we were satisfied that the numbers were correctly calculated for the purposes for which they were intended, then and only then did I take his results "for granted".

So, to the meat of the issue, have you done as much for the PfT cartoon? Would you please provide the source data you used and what calculations you did to arrive at the conclusion that it is accurate? In other words, are you willing to shoulder the burden of proof of this claim that mudlark seems to have abandonded?
 
Smith, i don't answer your question. You know that thew whole argument with this software is only about the interpretation of the testimony of ONE of the witnesses. And you know that it's a desperate "argument".
 
Childlike Empress said:
No, that's not what he linked to. You are very lazy in thinking, and in cohorts with pathological liars. Congratulations.
Click to expand...

Whoa, she joined up with CIT?

Wow.

Nice of you to join the conversation, though. Say, did the CIT mutts release the raw video of Paik's interview yet?

I mean, they have already admitted that they incompetent, so aren't you curious just how incompetent they are CE?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Smith, i don't answer your question. You know that thew whole argument with this software is only about the interpretation of the testimony of ONE of the witnesses. And you know that it's a desperate "argument".
Click to expand...
so you concede that the shadow can in fact reach Paiks shop using the Warren decode data points and the correct altitude and azimuth of the sun. So you now brush it off as " only about the interpretation of the testimony of ONE of the witnesses."

CE: do you know what a balk is? Because you just did it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom