CIT Fraud Revealed

A W Smith also brought up the ink spot on the picture Paik originally signed. What is interesting is that he actually started to draw a line closer to Columbia Pike. This may not be the exact "official" path, but it's definitely SOUTH of the Citgo. Did CIT record Paik drawing these lines? I would like to see if any "coaching" was done. Why did he stop drawing his first line?

911-3soc.jpg





Oh, and can you ask Captain Douche if PFT will be bringing back these for the spring season?

pilot4truth.jpg
 
Last edited:
It appears mudlark has NO idea what evidence the "official story" has to support it--and how compelling it is--because he's unwilling to do even the most cursory investigation to find out.
 
mudlark said:
All 1000 saw plane parts? Specifically parts of Boeing 757-200, N644AA?
Were all of them qualified to identify plane parts? Which specific plane parts were recovered and handled by 1000 people? I didn´t know there was so MUCH debris.

I don´t mean to be antagonistic, but you DO see my point when making broad generalisations without backing them up with specifics, links to interviews, verification of what they said, first hand recorded testimony, documented photographs of debris, recovery and chain of custody of parts from said Boeing 757 N644AA, etc, etc..

Gravy posted a lot of NAMES, that´s it.
Click to expand...

Why are CIT scared to interview any of them?
 
BCR said:
I prepped a nice triangle and made a nice table of values complete with equations, but then decided it was just a waste of time. You understand of course you will now have more cartoons to contend with.
Click to expand...


Well, I am sure it was a very nice triangle. :)


Yeah, I had downloaded the sun location information and started to play with lighting, intending to see what type of results I get, then I realized that if mudlark ignores A W Smith's graphic and calculations, why should I bother?

However, one new question came up as I was thinking how I would attack this problem, and that has to do with error-checking my work. I figured I would create the scene using the values I found, then do a quick hand-calc to check and make sure the numbers matched. For example, I can take a reference object with a known height and location, calculate the expected azimuth/length of the shadow, and then compare that back to Maya. If I wanted to take things a step further, I could find an aerial image of the same reference object that has an accurate time/date stamp, and reference that back to Maya and my hand-calcs. Ideally, I would have other people do similar checks on my work to see if there are any mistakes I missed. This whole peer review process with raw data is what guarantees my simulation is as accurate as possible. This is similar to your explanation of including your equations with your calculated data.

Mudlark, did PfT do an error-checking, verification process on their cartoon? If so, please show their work. If not, well, incompetence in, incompetence out.
 
While gleefully hand waving away everything we present to him, what mudlark doesn't realize is that if HE had the same amount of evidence of an inside job that WE have evidence it wasn't, that other investigation would have been long completed and a bunch of people would be in jail for mass murder by now.
 
Hokulele said:
Well, I am sure it was a very nice triangle. :)


Yeah, I had downloaded the sun location information and started to play with lighting, intending to see what type of results I get, then I realized that if mudlark ignores A W Smith's graphic and calculations, why should I bother?

However, one new question came up as I was thinking how I would attack this problem, and that has to do with error-checking my work. I figured I would create the scene using the values I found, then do a quick hand-calc to check and make sure the numbers matched. For example, I can take a reference object with a known height and location, calculate the expected azimuth/length of the shadow, and then compare that back to Maya. If I wanted to take things a step further, I could find an aerial image of the same reference object that has an accurate time/date stamp, and reference that back to Maya and my hand-calcs. Ideally, I would have other people do similar checks on my work to see if there are any mistakes I missed. This whole peer review process with raw data is what guarantees my simulation is as accurate as possible. This is similar to your explanation of including your equations with your calculated data.

Mudlark, did PfT do an error-checking, verification process on their cartoon? If so, please show their work. If not, well, incompetence in, incompetence out.
Click to expand...


I did that quick and dirty calculation and google image a few weeks ago. And there are slight errors in it. IN HIS FAVOR! which is why he didn't point them out. But still it falls well within range of the shadows enormous size. I used five minute increments instead on one.
 
Hokulele said:
However, one new question came up as I was thinking how I would attack this problem, and that has to do with error-checking my work. I figured I would create the scene using the values I found, then do a quick hand-calc to check and make sure the numbers matched. For example, I can take a reference object with a known height and location, calculate the expected azimuth/length of the shadow, and then compare that back to Maya. If I wanted to take things a step further, I could find an aerial image of the same reference object that has an accurate time/date stamp, and reference that back to Maya and my hand-calcs. Ideally, I would have other people do similar checks on my work to see if there are any mistakes I missed. This whole peer review process with raw data is what guarantees my simulation is as accurate as possible. This is similar to your explanation of including your equations with your calculated data.
Click to expand...

OMG, that is way more work than a poor pilot who sells DVD's for a living could ever manage. Here is a novel idea, I'll just give them the simple little math equation(s) from high school that should make life so much easier for them.

(tangent of angle) = altitude/(distance to ground track),
altitude = (distance to ground track)*(tangent of angle),
(distance to ground track) = altitude/(tangent of angle).

This simple relationship has been used since the building of the pyramids by several hundreds of generations of builders, timekeepers (they used to use the Sun's shadow to tell time you know) and sailors without fail. Now P4T with Maya proves them all wrong with cartoons.
 
My wrist sundial has stopped running

BCR said:
OMG, that is way more work than a poor pilot who sells DVD's for a living could ever manage. Here is a novel idea, I'll just give them the simple little math equation(s) from high school that should make life so much easier for them.

(tangent of angle) = altitude/(distance to ground track),
altitude = (distance to ground track)*(tangent of angle),
(distance to ground track) = altitude/(tangent of angle).

This simple relationship has been used since the building of the pyramids by several hundreds of generations of builders, timekeepers (they used to use the Sun's shadow to tell time you know) and sailors without fail. Now P4T with Maya proves them all wrong with cartoons.
Click to expand...

Mudlarks gonna log on and in a flurry of posts will now claim through 3 d modeling that the pyramids of Egypt are incapable of casting a shadow.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
No way! Next, you will probably expect me to believe that cartographers used to use the Sun to calculate latitude.
Click to expand...

Oh no...the Mayans used Maya software. Get with the program woman!
 
Hokulele said:
Well, I am sure it was a very nice triangle. :)

Yeah, I had downloaded the sun location information and started to play with lighting, intending to see what type of results I get, then I realized that if mudlark ignores A W Smith's graphic and calculations, why should I bother?
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...


Which comments specifically? That it isn't design software? That any sort of scene, fictional or otherwise, can be rendered? That someone using the software should verify the sun locations provided by Maya against a third party?


ETA: And speaking of erroneous assumptions, your choice of possessive pronouns is incorrect.
 
Last edited:
It is the perfect software to visualize what they intended to visualize. Your shenanigans are nothing but embarrassing. And it's obvious that your are conscious of it and pretending.
 
Childlike Empress said:
It is the perfect software to visualize what they intended to visualize. Your shenanigans are nothing but embarrassing. And it's obvious that your are conscious of it and pretending.
Click to expand...


It is only perfect if their source data, initial assumptions, and the way those are brought together is perfect. This is the part for which mudlark is as yet unable to provide evidence. Maya does not have error-checking built into it, so if the parameters entered are wrong, the end result is wrong.

Perhaps you have access to these source files?
 
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...

I saw you posted in this thread CE and low and behold your ignorance never disappoints. It's basic math CE, Deal with it. The only thing they achieve with their modeling software is to obscure what they fudged in the data input,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom