CIT Fraud Revealed

God, there is NOTHING worse than somebody who is arrogant while being totally wrong.

mudlark, keep on keeping on, m'kay?
 
technoextreme said:
Why are we debating someone who thinks that measurement equipment is 100% accurate?

God...... What is it with truthers thinking that drawing lines is an accurate method of measuring distance in a photo?
Click to expand...

Oh and it is even worse, they think it is both 100% accurate and 100% precise :)
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
BCR said:
Oh and it is even worse, they think it is both 100% accurate and 100% precise :)
Click to expand...


Are you saying I can't just add as many zeros after the decimal as I like?


:sulk:
Click to expand...

Well, of course you can. But your credibility may change depending on how many you like. :)
 
Since some folks are mathematically and scientifically illiterate, I thought this image might help.

Accuracy_and_precision.jpg


That little 'bell shape' is what I am talking about in regards to 'error'. It is normal and it did not exist then one might think someone was making something up (pulling numbers out of their a%!). So if someone disputes the error band in the correlation of multiple measurement systems, then the dispute would only be to the variance of the band, not whether it exists or not. I have already pointed out that there are issues with both the accuracy and precision of the model. However, I understand those issues and have offered a data based adjustment to compensate for them. Sadly for P4T, the adjustment is still well SoC.
 
May I borrow that graphic? I have had a few cases where I have had to explain the difference between accuracy and precision, and that makes it as clear as anything.


And a%%%55%% is better than eleventy-five%%55%5%%.
 
Hokulele said:
May I borrow that graphic? I have had a few cases where I have had to explain the difference between accuracy and precision, and that makes it as clear as anything.


And a%%%55%% is better than eleventy-five%%55%5%%.
Click to expand...

Ha. 5 times better, eh? I stand vindicated! Wait. Not so much. Crap again!
 
Have we figured out yet what the freaking point is when all witness data points to a plane impact in a freakin' building? I've long considered the NOC theory stupid for the illiteracy in how witness statements are analyzed. I need nothing else, credulity's shot long before it enters technical territory.
 
CIT and their few followers seem to believe that, if witness testimony could be plotted on a graph, that 13 outliers are somehow more significant than the entire bulk of the remaining testimony.

This just gives me another reason to post this:

the-evidence_1.gif


the-evidence_2.gif


Those dots on the fringes are what CIT focuses on. And that's retarded.

the-evidence_3.gif
 
Last edited:
mudlark said:
... make a wider picture to show us that when using heading/course data, the aircraft will not line up with the physical damage from your plotted position.
Click to expand...
You forgot to include reality in your plot. You now have another delusion based on your failure in math, physics, and more. Do you understand flying?

1CITattemptAtMathFailed.jpg

...
the wing span of the jet is perpendicular (another math term CIT and Balsamo are not able to understand) to the flight path. It is funny because the line you drew is in the ball park for impact. Are you drawing lies as if 77 drove into the Pentagon on GE. Error band.
mudlark said:
... Before BCR chimes in with the "Error band!" mantra..an argument which in effect allows you guys to tweak the path to suit your opinions..once and for all tell me and everyone WHICH is the SOC path?
Click to expand...
You are right who needs math, it will ruin your moronic delusions made up by the Balsamo and CIT. There are errors in Google Earth so you can't forget the error band. But since you don't do math forget reality and stay put on your delusion, the one you already debunked.

mudlark said:
... Is it the one through which BCR claims that the VDOT tower may have been struck, only a page or two ago?
Click to expand...
You are messing up again, you want 77 lower, not higher. It will debunk you more if you raise 77 higher, you need 77 to hit the tower now, but that debunks you too! "error band"!

mudlark said:
... Is it the one YOU are pushing still, even though I told you that the shadow cast in the images I posted are based on the NTSB heading/course data and the physical damage a page or two ago and NOT Warren´s datapoints?
Click to expand...
Warren's data? It is the FDR data Warren decoded when the p4t dolts failed to decode the last 5 seconds, the 5 seconds found that Balsamo said can't be missing or were not missing; or some garbage; we told him data was missing from the decode. But... You failed to provide the data you used, you talk about it but never presented the data. Warren's data confirms the real flight path. you made a mistake

mudlark said:
... Is it the one described by Madelyn Zakhem which Beachnut insists that she saw which had to be further North than yours for her to see the cockpit, and which was in a ´left-tilt´?
Click to expand...
Madelyn saw 77 on the real flight path south of her, and coming at her with a left tilt which is a right bank from the cockpit.

A right bank is a left tilt from Madelyn's point of view. Sorry, you failed.

mudlark said:
... Or is it the "consolidated path" which DOES line up with the physical damage?
Click to expand...
77 clearly knocked down the lampposts, so all you have to do is make a error band starting from the posts back-wards to see you have proved 77 can do the SoC. Failing to make a rational conclusion, you prove CIT is a fraud with 2,223 gs of stupid.


1EMC2einstein.jpg

well do you ?

No need to tweak the path, the path was seen by CIT witnesses pointing south and debunking CIT. The plane was flying in air, not driving on the ground, or on a google earth math.
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
God, there is NOTHING worse than somebody who is arrogant while being totally wrong.

mudlark, keep on keeping on, m'kay?
Click to expand...


I see it as quite the opposite. To me, there's nothing more funny than somebody so arrogant while being so wrong.

Of the 'newest' crop of truthers, I must say Mudlark has caused more laugh-out-loud moments for me than any of the others. I had Telltale Tom first for a while until it became bleedin' obvious that the poster is deliberately trying to be funny - - which rules out their being a 'truther' as everyone knows that 'truthers' have no sense of self-humor. My philosophy is 'if I can't laugh at myself then I must be unconscious'.

Truthers can't laugh at themselves. It must be a rule or summat.
 
mudlark said:
The Pentagon DID contain dead bodies. Those of the Pentagon workers and military. I have seen no documentary evidence to support the DNA retrieval and identification of passengers.
Click to expand...


AA587 crashed in Queens in 2001, killed 5 people on the ground. The crash site DID contain dead bodies. Those who were killed on the ground. I have seen no documentary evidence to support the DNA retrieval and identification of passengers. Have you? Any you seen this info for ANY plane crash in history? Or will you conclude that AA 587 had no passengers?
 
mudlark said:
I HAD thought that you were maybe an honest critical thinker Cornsnail, but this post is beyond ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I try to be. I don't see how there is anything dishonest about my post.

He saw the plane pass OVER his shop. He could only see the right wing and part of the fuselage.
The interview was conducted by one of your own.
Click to expand...

Not sure what this has to do with my post. I'm talking about the drawn flightpath.

Where the hell are you suggesting the path is that he SHOULD have described???
Click to expand...

I thought I made it clear what I was talking about. My main question, which I've asked several times now, is about what the flightpath Paik drew is supposed to mean. He only saw anything of the plane for 1-2 seconds as it was passing his shop. He stated this clearly in the interview. He also said that he didn't see the plane at all after he went outside. So what is the line he drew (which bends north over the navy anex and ends at the pentagon) supposed to be? It's clearly not a flightpath he witnessed, other than perhaps a tiny portion of it.

SOC would have been in plain sight to him from where he was.
Click to expand...

SOC meaning south of Citgo??

Not so long ago you were posting witness testimony from 2km away LOOKING THROUGH A WINDOW.
Click to expand...

Yeah--a window with a view of the pentagon.. I also conceded that at least one of the impact witnesses I brought up (the kindergarten teacher) was unlikely to have seen the actual impact. What's your point? I never argued that Paik couldn't see anything because he was looking through a window. He said himself that all he saw was a wing for 1-2 seconds! So what did he think he was drawing? And why is it presented as a witnessed flightpath?

Windows are made of concrete in your part of the world? Don´t answer that..
Click to expand...

:confused:

You still haven't answered the question..
 
Last edited:
fwiw mudlark, I don't think you're an idiot, liar or scumbag, but your heavy bias in favor of your conclusions is blinding you from anything that contradicts them. at least you aren't behaving like CE. but can you concede a point? can you accept the possibility that you're wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom