A W Smith
Philosopher
Having a problem with the quote function Mudlark?
Just who is it exactly you are quoting?
Just who is it exactly you are quoting?
Last edited:
CIT Fraud Revealed
- Thread starter BCR
- Start date
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
Why are you misquoting me? I said the record indicates ~230 feet agl, but the extrema (high end using very rough approximations) is ~450 feet assuming the path model mean is considered. I said that there is error in that estimate, already established and yet to be quantified in the latitude. However, based on the physical damage and RA topography match that shift is most likely less than 120 feet too far south-southeast. I gave a range of values for the most likely event window. The closer to the extrema, the less likely that the value is true.
For people such as yourself who seem to be completely lacking in math and/or logic skills that is interpreted to mean that the altitude could be 450 feet, but most likely less than 450 feet. Please don't play in my sandbox. You'll lose.
Just an FYI:
The model path is fitted to known empirical data. Every measurement system has error associated with it can the variance of that error is dependent upon the system used to measure a given point. In this case, the PLA ARSR has a normal variance, the IAD, DCA and ADW ASR's have normal variance associated with each, but independent from one another. Then the FDR INS has a measurement error associated with it. The RA has a normal variance associated with it. So the model is derived by developing the 'best fit' to multiple measurement systems, and will have normal variance associated with it. This principle applies whether you are using radio waves (radar), light or a yardstick to measure a position. Once that fit was developed, the model was fine-tuned using the RA to obtain the 'best fit' to the topography. So, it represents an approximation based on the data.
Intuitively, I know the model is shifted ~120 feet south-southeast. However, that is a subjective estimate, not an objective one. I could just shift th model up to compensate, but then it would no longer be an empirical model based on objective data. It is just simply the best path approximation that can be obtained using the radar/fdr positional data. ANY math/physics literate person understands that there it is NOT exact, but an approximation. You can compare the model points with points from the various ASR paths to get an idea of how accurate the approximation is. The greatest separation along the model range between between the most accurate radar path, DCA, ranges between 67 - 180 feet north of the model. So the highest probability for the true path is 123 +/- 56.5 feet north-northwest of the model position. However, there are only 3 data points to estimate the shift with and the INS is in a state of correction following the 330 degree turn and operating outside normal tolerances. This is at best an educate guess. What can be said is that there is no evidence to indicate anything beyond a 180 foot deviation. Using the 'best guess' estimate of ~120 feet, then the distance along the ground to the plane is only around 400 feet away from A-One with an altitude of 360 feet. The lower extrema is only 333 feet from A-One with an altitude of 299 feet agl. So the lower extrema agrees fairly well with the recorded RA of ~230 feet agl considering only 3 data points are available to make the estimation.
Consider the alternative that the plane was over Columbia Pike as some are suggesting. That would be a range of only 100 feet and altitude of only 90 feet based on ONLY one subjective data point (Paik account interpretation) which is not even close to the recorded 233 feet agl. So if you don't mind, I'll go with the fitted empirical model with the understanding that I already know (subjective) that it is shifted by an estimable amount using three empirical data points. I would go ahead and apply the correction to the model, but then it would no longer an empirical model, but something I pulled out of my a__. In other words, based on empirical modeling, the 'official path' is a much better fit for Paik's observation than the CIT 'over the Annex' model.
You should try this with sub-micron tolerances sometime with an LMS system. Oh the joy!
Last edited:
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
There is no circle on that illustration, just FYI.
ETA: My bad, after closer inspection, there is a small circle there. Still doesn't negate the fact that you're a fraud Mud.
Last edited:
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
The circle still puts him in a position from which he could not determine its heading in relation to the Navy Annex. The line leading north of Citgo is totally conjectural.
As I have stated before, the apparent size of the aircraft from the witnesses points of view distorts the proportions, thus positions, of more distant objects.
As I have stated before, the apparent size of the aircraft from the witnesses points of view distorts the proportions, thus positions, of more distant objects.
He also seems to have a problem with the apostrophe key. I don't understand why he uses the acute accent instead of the apostrophe.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
more fish from the bottom of the same barrel
None of Balsamo's flight paths match any of the 8 or 9 yellow lines in the CIT-produced image you have been citing to explain your story. In particular, none of Balsamo's flight paths end at the impact site, as all of your yellow lines do.
My name is Will, not Smith. You linked to my post but said you were quoting Smith. You are confused.
Describing a specific flight path to within an estimated range of error is not only possible, but necessary for your argument. BCR has done it. You haven't.
None of Balsamo's flight paths match any of the 8 or 9 yellow lines in the CIT-produced image you have been citing to explain your story. In particular, none of Balsamo's flight paths end at the impact site, as all of your yellow lines do.
The highlighted person would be you, I presume. Arguing math with you would be pointless, because you don't know anything about it. That hasn't kept you from vouching for Balsamo's math in this and other threads, which makes your own mathematical judgement as relevant as Balsamo's.
Another lie, mudlark. As I told you earlier, I argued with Rob Balsamo's sock puppet at ATS. It did not go well for Rob, who melted down after demonstrating his incompetence by (among other things) insisting a quadratic equation with no linear term could produce a linear trajectory.
Only to replace it with their 10.14g mistake, which I mentioned also and has not been retracted, augmented later by Balsamo's 2223g, which he has retracted only to replace it with his 58g mistake, which I mentioned also and he has not retracted. The correct answer for both of those closely related problems is less than 2g. Balsamo's 11.2g/10.14g/2223g/58g mistakes, some retracted and some not, are a fair summary of his technical competence.
The last person who said he had spoken to Rob Balsamo about me turned out to be Rob himself, when he was hiding behind a dishonest screen name at ATS.
BCR has already answered this, noting that your "450ft agl" is the extreme end of a generous error range. BCR's range of altitude estimates includes the altitude calculated from the FDR data at the distance of Paik's shop. That altitude lines up with the altitude calculated from the g-forces recorded by the FDR, which agree in turn with the less than 2g that is the correct mathematical result for Balsamo's hilarious 11.2g/10.14g/2223g/58.2g calculations.
Take care, mudlark. If you hang out with morons, you may start to talk like them.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
He's Will Smith? Really? Show us how you "get giggy with it" 
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
[insert sound of skidding brakes here]
People! If the plane cleaered the Sheraton and passed directly over Paik's head, it would have to have passed over the NA in such a place where Morin would not have seen it.
People! If the plane cleaered the Sheraton and passed directly over Paik's head, it would have to have passed over the NA in such a place where Morin would not have seen it.
Interesting you should say that BCR because the radalt reading on Warren Stutts program is 233ft agl as you say. Are you also using Warren´s plotted co-ordinates?
Aren´t the radalt readings ´solid´ numbers? I mean the 4ft agl radalt reading for example..is that open to the lonnnng winded explanation you gave which in essence gives you wiggle room to cry ´margin of error´ if the path doesn´t ´fit´?
Are you saying that the 233ft agl reading isn´t exact?
Anyway..
Dataframe 151364 being the approximate alleged point in question.
This data point isn´t where you are claiming the shadow of the plane was cast from are you? Surely given the azimuth it would be past the midway point between 151364 and 151364, in a descent of 40ft per second.
According to this rate of descent the plane would have been 210ft+ agl.
270ft away from the shop.
I used the azimuth function on Google Earth for September 11 2010 at 09:37am and found that the 2001 data was the same(give or take a decimal point)
42º Altitude 126.2ºAzimuth (E of N)
I then plotted Warren´s (red) ´your´(yellow) positional data points here
Are you trying to tell me that given your altitude and positional estimation
that the shadow could have reached Ed Paik´s shop?
Look at the shadow of the Sheraton hotel. It measure 186ft in length at its longest. This being cast from a roughly 200ft tall building.
The point where the plane would have cast a shadow in the direction of Ed Paik´s shop is between (-3) and (-4).
Even at the upper range of 450ft. from your path, the shadow would not cover the 540ft distance from this point.
A friend of mine sent me an approximatation of where the shadow would have fallen using a 3D program which contains the exact topography and dimensions of the Navy Annex/Arlington/Pentagon area.
He plotted the Azimuth using the correct figures and came up with this conclusion on the plane´s position according to Warren´s program and explained above:
Know what was funny though?
IF the plane follows your path at up to 450ft agl, the shadow cannot reach the shop.
IF the plane follows Warren´s path, the shadow cannot reach the shop.
IF, and testified to by Ed Paik, the plane follows what he described, the shadow does INDEED reach the shop.
BCR said:
You can blind (and possibly bore) readers of this thread with the technobabble which I´ve been told you don´t really understand yourself by certain pilots, but I´m FAR more stubborn and willing to research than you could possibly imagine.
Oops, thought that was you.
The quote still stands as regards you claiming that math has been linked to me directly rebutting the NOC math presented by Pilotsfor911Truth.
According to Clinger there hasn´t even been any done.
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
Well, you did not understand a thing I said. Oh well, didn't expect you to. The only person 'bored' is obviously you because I don't use technobabble. My degree is in mathematics, what is your's in? I wrote the book for global operations (Asia, Europe and US) and the statistical procedures used here for process control and alignment of measurement systems. It is not 'technobabble' when you know what you are talking about.
The answer is yes, I used the positional data from Warren's decode (if you had read the post you would know that). The INS system that measured that position drifts during extremes, that is why it updates using the DME and other references during fight. If you plot the INS positional data for the beginning of flight, you would know that. It has to be aligned with the other more accurate measurement systems (ASR radar). The QA check is DME. The 'best fit' agrees with the DME record that Capt Bob is so fond of (what you plotted does not). Nice try though.
Last edited:
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
Been talking to Capt'n Bob again huh?
A W Smith
Philosopher
All muddies pretty pictures wasted.
You do realize mudlark that it's 42.4 degrees from the horizon? and not from vertical?
You do realize mudlark that it's 42.4 degrees from the horizon? and not from vertical?
Last edited:
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
I give you the math and you give pretty pictures with no way of replicating the results? Are you nuts? Anyone on this board can replicate my numbers and the math is what it is. We have no way of knowing what numbers are used for that pretty picture and not many folks have or know how to use the software (Maya) properly. I do know how to use it and I also know how hard it is to set up the lighting in it accurately. So forgive us if we don't take your word for it
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
A W Smith
Philosopher
and your google azimuth is wrong. Go ahead, check the heading of the yellow line you drew. You will find it is 108º e of n . Not 126.2º All you did was follow the shadows,
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
It seems mudlark is having just as much trouble quoting JREFers as he and CIT have been having when quoting eyewitnesses.
Several JREFers, including myself, have also provided links to math showing that the Balsamo/Desideri paper mudlark has been citing contains errors on pages 1 and 4.
PfT hasn't done any math that matches the 8 or 9 yellow lines in the CIT-produced image mudlark has been promoting. On the other hand, several JREFers have provided links to math that directly rebuts those yellow lines.
Several JREFers, including myself, have also provided links to math showing that the Balsamo/Desideri paper mudlark has been citing contains errors on pages 1 and 4.
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
I am going to try this again so that even mudlark can understand it. I'm sure that at some point in his life, he took a chemistry or physics class. These classes usually have labs associated with them, so mudlark, remember back to when you was in high school mixing up those smelly chemicals. Your instructor would have you measure something (weight, volume, etc) several times and then take an average of those measurements and report the results. Now remember this as I continue, because that average value is what I am talking about. This is not technobabble, it is something you learned in high school.
The reason you were asked to make a number of measurements is because there was always some error associated with each. The difference between the highest measurement you took and the lowest is called a the range. The collection of those measurements is the population, and if they are graphed, they will form something called a distribution. I won't go into explaining what a distribution is because you would not understand it, but it is important to note that most measurements of this type will fall into a normal (Gaussian) distribution. How far from the average (mean) is often called the spread and is an indicator of the variance. Some measurement systems have a very large spread, while others have a much smaller one. Now, if you used two different scales to weigh an object in the lab, you'll find that the average is different for each. Why? Because each has different slightly different properties and calibration attributes. No two things are ever exactly alike. This leads to discussion of precision and accuracy, but I don't want to confuse you.
So, you can take one measurement device, for example the INS positional value in the Warren decode and it will have a different average and spread than say the DCA ASR positional values. That means to find the average that actually represents reality, it is best to use an average based on ALL of the available measurement systems, and of course that mean old spread is going to still be there so it has to be estimated as well.
Now eyewitnesses are simply measurement devices with their own unique problems with precision and accuracy (very poor), but they can be used to get a rough path estimate. But remember that spread? What CIT has done is before the Annex area, they used ONLY witnesses from the south side of the suspected flight path. So, in that area the average skewed to the south because only that side of the spread was being measured. After the Sheraton, they have taken ONLY those on the north side of the suspected path which skewed the average to the north side of the path because only that half of the spread was being considered. Now, IF and only if they had taken eyewitness accounts from BOTH sides of the suspected (official path as they like to call it), then they would have been able to average those accounts and the average would be a better representation.
So mudlark, you and CIT are dismissing all of that stuff they tried to teach you in high school science lab and presenting measurements taken ONLY on the north half of the suspected path (hint: overwhelming majority of the CIT witnesses point south). If you disregard the scientific approach to measuring things, then how can any of you claim (as CIT does) to be using the scientific approach? Please, come back to reality soon. I hope this has been clear enough for you without any techobabble. I don't think I can simplify it any further for you.
The reason you were asked to make a number of measurements is because there was always some error associated with each. The difference between the highest measurement you took and the lowest is called a the range. The collection of those measurements is the population, and if they are graphed, they will form something called a distribution. I won't go into explaining what a distribution is because you would not understand it, but it is important to note that most measurements of this type will fall into a normal (Gaussian) distribution. How far from the average (mean) is often called the spread and is an indicator of the variance. Some measurement systems have a very large spread, while others have a much smaller one. Now, if you used two different scales to weigh an object in the lab, you'll find that the average is different for each. Why? Because each has different slightly different properties and calibration attributes. No two things are ever exactly alike. This leads to discussion of precision and accuracy, but I don't want to confuse you.
So, you can take one measurement device, for example the INS positional value in the Warren decode and it will have a different average and spread than say the DCA ASR positional values. That means to find the average that actually represents reality, it is best to use an average based on ALL of the available measurement systems, and of course that mean old spread is going to still be there so it has to be estimated as well.
Now eyewitnesses are simply measurement devices with their own unique problems with precision and accuracy (very poor), but they can be used to get a rough path estimate. But remember that spread? What CIT has done is before the Annex area, they used ONLY witnesses from the south side of the suspected flight path. So, in that area the average skewed to the south because only that side of the spread was being measured. After the Sheraton, they have taken ONLY those on the north side of the suspected path which skewed the average to the north side of the path because only that half of the spread was being considered. Now, IF and only if they had taken eyewitness accounts from BOTH sides of the suspected (official path as they like to call it), then they would have been able to average those accounts and the average would be a better representation.
So mudlark, you and CIT are dismissing all of that stuff they tried to teach you in high school science lab and presenting measurements taken ONLY on the north half of the suspected path (hint: overwhelming majority of the CIT witnesses point south). If you disregard the scientific approach to measuring things, then how can any of you claim (as CIT does) to be using the scientific approach? Please, come back to reality soon. I hope this has been clear enough for you without any techobabble. I don't think I can simplify it any further for you.
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
Your friend sent you a load of crap. He has the shadow following the aircraft from slightly to the right. That's south, dude. Not freakin' possible/ BS. Totally bogus.
The Fail Boat has landed.
Get where I'm going with this?