As to the second bolding....
I think we need to start putting "mathematician" and "expert" in quotes when we talk about this person.
CSV FDR File was altered to make aircraft appear on southern approach
- Thread starter rearnakedchoke
- Start date
I think we need to start putting "mathematician" and "expert" in quotes when we talk about this person.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
For any lurkers that may not be on to what JonnyFive, apathoid, and myself are griping about regarding v=d/t:
Whereas speed is:
velocityWPSince velocity is defined as a vector quantity, both speed and direction are required to define it. For example, "5 metres per second" is a speed and not a vector, whereas "5 metres per second east" is a vector. The average velocity (v) of an object moving a displacement (s) in a straight line during a time interval (t) is described by the formula:
Whereas speed is:
speedWPSpeed is measured in the same physical units of measurement as velocity, but does not contain the element of direction that velocity has. Speed is thus the magnitude component of velocity.
In mathematical notation, it is simply:
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
Maybe JDX is merely another bit of broken wind. This headupmynakedbutt fellow can't even claim that much substance.
DR
It's also worth pointing out that we're talking about both average speed and average velocity here, not instaneous speed or velocity, which the author of the original blog post didn't even touch.
On the "mathematician's" original blog post, here says:
This is just silly. Average velocity over the duration of the flight will, by definition, be one value (even in the horizontal, horror of horrors!). It doesn't really tell you anything useful in this context either, just like figuring the average speed of a car that is involved in a crash doesn't tell you anything useful about the crash.
We're talking about a fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts involved.
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,542
What's worse is this abject gibberish is dressed up in mildly sophisticated language. It's pseudoscience to the max, meant to mislead the stupid. It's worked.
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,542
There are two distinct people likely sharing the accounts.. JDX and THE DECIDER are definitely distinct. I know this because of THE DECIDER's obsession with Sylvia Browne.
Truly. The person is presented as an "expert" in statistics and mathematics. Reading their material leads me to doubt those claims of expertise, but it looks fancy enough that the unsophisticated reader may be misled by the idea of a gen-u-ine expert presenting this information.
He may simply have been in a 9th grade science class - or, if from florida a taker of FCAT because, I teach science and had to teach v=d/t because that is the formula the science book has and FCAT uses and we have to (uh, get to) teach (not to the test, heaven forbid) to the things they need to klnow for the test (looks the same, but I'm told yearly it isn't. We have to all teach the same basic stuff also (cooperation). My TE says that 1500 times 45 is 37,500. I was allowed to fix that!!
None of this is made up.(I do rebel, I explained to my 9th grade Sci. classes why and how the formula was wrong and why they had to use it anyway - 2 or 3 actually cared.)
So JDX and weedwacker and that latest idiot are still just PFT idiots.
Poor JDX. Does that mean he made a thread just for me? He does like me, he likes me! Darn, I will have to make a thread about him but it put everyone to sleep. JDX can not even figure wind drift, how did he fly?
So our anti-keyboard commando was on a raid and failed. Funny he said he would not resort to being a keyboard kommando.
Banned, the censorNAZI banned.
BalsaPilot Bob said:
Mr D'oh wouldn't be possibly be lying now would he? After a cursory search of pprune members who might be named JohnDoeX, John_DoeX, Rob Balsamo, Rob_Balsamo, PilotsFor*, Pilots_4*, Pilots_for* - I got no matches. Which leaves good 'ole AluminumDrvr . Funny, the only thread by this member is the Billzilla beard/pen-dot thread in which D'oh was embarrassed enough to not return since December :
D'ohs pprune member profile said:
BTW - No mention of the FDR in that thread..
What do you think happen to his post?
If you break the above rules you may be banned, lose your PPRuNe Forums Membership and have all your posts deleted. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/misc.php?do=cfrules)
Bet JDX's money he was banned. Did JDX mess up, and then erased?
JDX has it wrong again. They do not let nut cases lie about 9/11. JDX has to stop telling lies.
Last edited:
He may simply have been in a 9th grade science class - or, if from florida a taker of FCAT because, I teach science and had to teach v=d/t because that is the formula the science book has and FCAT uses and we have to (uh, get to) teach (not to the test, heaven forbid) to the things they need to klnow for the test (looks the same, but I'm told yearly it isn't. We have to all teach the same basic stuff also (cooperation). My TE says that 1500 times 45 is 37,500. I was allowed to fix that!!
Your post makes me very, very sad on the inside.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
He was AluminumDrvr. Rob Balsamo simply lied about ever posting there about Flight 77. Because he's a liar, a coward, and interested only in selling his P4T merch since he's too ◊◊◊◊◊◊* insane to ever fly an airplane ever again.
sleahead
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 11, 2006
- Messages
- 406
Here is a British troofer giving a talk on the FDR data:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=558348710883993755&q=ipswich
During the course of the talk, he says:
Would one of those forums be the notorious JREF, Calum? If so, it's a shame you had to lie by saying that the only thing JREF has to offer is a claim that investigations are pointless. Shame also that you didn't give this site a namecheck. What's wrong, afraid your audience might visit this site and get some information you don't wish them to see?
The part which may be of most interest to the the people here with FDR knowledge starts at around the 30 minute mark. He decribes how a file was given to a PfT member by a major company in the field, which made their decoding possible and then he presents the results.
Anyway, the thrust of his argument is that there are three piece of conflicting evidence which cannot be reconciled. Someone must be lying and all roads lead to the government:
If the FDR data is real, the plane is too high and couldn't hit the Pentagon or the light poles. Therefore, the government is lying.
If the FDR data is fake, the government is implicated by act of faking it.
If the Pentacon's two police officer witnesses are lying, the government is again implicated by virtue of the officers being government employees.
One new claim, at least one I've never heard before. The part the Pentagon that was hit housed the only computers containing the information relating to the investigation of the missing $2.3 trillion.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=558348710883993755&q=ipswich
During the course of the talk, he says:
Calum Douglas said:
Would one of those forums be the notorious JREF, Calum? If so, it's a shame you had to lie by saying that the only thing JREF has to offer is a claim that investigations are pointless. Shame also that you didn't give this site a namecheck. What's wrong, afraid your audience might visit this site and get some information you don't wish them to see?
The part which may be of most interest to the the people here with FDR knowledge starts at around the 30 minute mark. He decribes how a file was given to a PfT member by a major company in the field, which made their decoding possible and then he presents the results.
Anyway, the thrust of his argument is that there are three piece of conflicting evidence which cannot be reconciled. Someone must be lying and all roads lead to the government:
If the FDR data is real, the plane is too high and couldn't hit the Pentagon or the light poles. Therefore, the government is lying.
If the FDR data is fake, the government is implicated by act of faking it.
If the Pentacon's two police officer witnesses are lying, the government is again implicated by virtue of the officers being government employees.
One new claim, at least one I've never heard before. The part the Pentagon that was hit housed the only computers containing the information relating to the investigation of the missing $2.3 trillion.
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,542
Their arguments have been thoroughly examined here by several people with more experience in these matters then all of p4t. The fundamental flaws have been isolated, explained, re-explained, re-re-explained, repeated, link, re-linked, and re-re-linked more times then I care to count.
At some point they are just making a willful choice to perpetuate ignorance.
This is as non-sequitor because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. There is absolutely no way, at all, a truther can make a conclusive and statistically significant argument that the plane was too high to hit the lightpoles given the FDR data.
They can't isolate both the height and the 2-d dimensional position of the plane with enough precision to make this claim with any statistical confidence.
This is a fallacy of false precision.
I agree. However, there is no evidence that it is fake.
Again, non-sequitor, as the conclusion does not follow from the premise. There are plenty of other reasons they might lie. More importantly, he ignores his burden of proof of demonstrating his premise. He has provided no evidence that they lied -- most specifically, that they intentionally misled anyone.
Oddly, exactly how it makes me feel!Your post makes me very, very sad on the inside.
Well, plus annoyed, pissed off and such. On the bright side, it is a cherry-picked example I just brought it up because it tied errors among troofers to one I had to use because of the situation here.
That's not much of a bright side.
The fact that such a situation exists at all is ridiculous.
Isnt the "statistics" and "mathematician" referred to as the "idjit" by apathoid and "the latest idiot" by Beachnut and what Anti-Sophist claims...
"What's worse is this abject gibberish is dressed up in mildly sophisticated language. It's pseudoscience to the max, meant to mislead the stupid. It's worked. "
... arent they referring to the same John Farmer who is now "911Files" on the JREF who still maintains the csv file was altered to show a southern approach?
Yep, looks like the same guy. I wonder why no one really questions his "pseudo-science" anymore, consdering Farmer does maintain the csv file is altered.
Have a nice day...
(thread saved)
"What's worse is this abject gibberish is dressed up in mildly sophisticated language. It's pseudoscience to the max, meant to mislead the stupid. It's worked. "
... arent they referring to the same John Farmer who is now "911Files" on the JREF who still maintains the csv file was altered to show a southern approach?
Yep, looks like the same guy. I wonder why no one really questions his "pseudo-science" anymore, consdering Farmer does maintain the csv file is altered.
Have a nice day...
(thread saved)
Last edited:
This is what Farmer had to say about your reply Arkan,
I went back and read over a few comments and picked up on someone commenting on the v = d/t equation I posted on my blog.
First, anyone with half a brain knows that the v, d, t are as arbitrary as anyone wants to make them. I could just as easily replace them with a, b, and c if I wanted to, since it is the quantity they represent that is important, not the symbol used to represent them. In one post I use "Velocity = distance/time" to represent the same concept.
Second, the critic's comments are curiously similar to the Wikipedia entry for velocity which leads me to believe he has no clue what he is talking about.
Third, velocity is indeed a vector (that is why I discuss it in terms of its components) and speed is a scalar so the proper terminology would be speed, not velocity. However, those posts are written for the lay person and it is so stated in them and I intentionally try to use common terms and am quite loose in jumping between the two (speed and velocity) to avoid losing my audience. If I were writing a technical paper for a technical audience I would use a stricter construct.
So, when my intent is to compare changes two quantities such as the east-west component of the planes SPEED, with change in longitude (delta longitude/delta time), I don't want to confuse my audience (they get lost enough) by applying two sets of terminology to something that is for all practical purposes the same, which is what distance is traveled in what period of time. The units used are also purely arbitrary. Distance can be in inches, degrees, radians, miles, feet, or Donald Duck units. Time can be in seconds, hours, centuries...whatever. All I'm looking for in the case under discussion is whether speed, velocity, distance/time, or whatever definition you want to use is changing. I don't even care if the change is equal or not. All I'm looking for is, are they BOTH changing, whatever unit I (or you) wish to use. In this case, one is, one is not during the same time interval. That is suspicious to me. It may not be to you.
I could have been even more exact than you seem to feel I was in terminology. Because what I was really going for was the first derivative of that simple "equation". Perhaps next time I could show off all of the fancy calculus and matrix algebra formulas I know. Boy, I could use the summation symbol every time I wanted to show I was adding a bunch of quantities. Throw in the natural logarithm symbol just for good measure. Folks would think I'm real smart then.
You remind me of a PhD guy we had working in our advanced technologies lab down in Round Rock. I was working on a problem that had eluded their division for two years and simply emailed him a simple question about one final problem I was having. A few weeks later I got back a very lengthy and technical response covering in great detail how what I was attempting to do was impossible. I was real impressed with the exactness of his technical presentation. The only problem was, I had already solved the problem and our plant was already in trial runs with the solution.
Good job reading the Wikipedia definition!
Afterthought:
I just glanced over at my Mathematical Methods for Physicists (3rd Ed) and Advanced Engineering Mathematics reference books I have on my desk next to me. I bet I could get some real fancy equations out of those too books to impress you with next time
z10.invisionfree.com/ Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6221&view=findpost&p= 12926197