P4T Data Tampering?

[BCR]

I have been passing the time playing with Cpt'n Bob over at ATS and see no reason I should hog all the fun to myself. He (or his sock puppet) started a thread with the 9/11 Intercepted video. After a few false starts that were promptly deleted by the mods at ATS, he was finally successful getting it up and running. Since then I've been leading him into the open with an accusation of data "tampering", which of course was finally successful.

I won't bore you with the whole video, but at issue is this representation of the 84 RADES video in the cartoon.

It is selectively edited to show an implied plane swap with UAL175. Of course I have been asking for the data to support the cartoon and for them to elaborate on how they "tampered" with the 84 RADES screen shot (not data) to get that representation. Of course I am still awaiting their response to exactly what Mode 3 values were used or other filtering applied.

Since I have not gotten a response, I asked a colleague to pull the data from the best guess time (when the transponder changed) and plotted the actual data.

As you can see, there are several potential candidates for this plane swap. However, when we add the third dimension, a different story emerges.

None of the potential targets comes close to the altitude required for a plane swap. So now the ball is in their court.

Throw us a bone here, we are trying to help you guys out. If those dastardly NWO guys pulled a swap then I would think it would be in everyone's interest to prove it, don't you? Why you guys being so resistant to us knowing how you "tampered" with the screen shots? Just give us the time of the swap or the M3 codes and we'll crack this thing right open.

It remains to be seen if they actually "tampered" with the screen shots maliciously, used a different time frame or just simply did not bother to check the altitudes. i certainly hope they did not check the altitudes and then falsely misrepresent the data. That would not be nice.

FYI, I did check the coordinates for my last point in GE, so definitely in the right area.

Update: - Found it. You would think pilots would know better.

Plane information
Positional
Altitude

 

[tfk]

It would sure help if you could replace your round circles with numbers or letters representing equivalent times on the two plots.

The planes have to intersect at both the same point & same time.

 

[Dog Town]

Capt. booby reads this forum.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Wow... Spock nailed it in 1982!!

As you can see, there are several potential candidates for this plane swap. However, when we add the third dimension, a different story emerges...

I'm sorry... it just came to mind when I read that.

 

[BCR]

I'm sorry... it just came to mind when I read that. [qimg]http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/SmileyGiggle-1.gif[/qimg]

I love it

Capt. booby reads this forum.

Yes, I know. Fun ain't it?

It would sure help if you could replace your round circles with numbers or letters representing equivalent times on the two plots.

The planes have to intersect at both the same point & same time.

Yes it would. This is the quick-and-dirty effort. I did the initial (above) at work last night. After having some more data pulled, I'll dig in a little deeper this afternoon and who knows, perhaps I'll make my own cartoon.

 

[George 152]

Capt. booby reads this forum.

And that is why we do not use the real big words on here..

 

[BCR]

Hey Cpt'n Bob. Could it be that you are suggesting UAL93 and UAL175 "swapped"? I ran the numbers on that as well. They never came closer than 15 nautical miles in 2D separation, but they were also separated by ~12,000 feet in altitude.

UAL175 UAL93 Close Encounter

 

[BCR]

Yep, It is UAL93 they are talking about.

In a conversation with Colin Scoggins Rob raised this section of his presentation


how many times have you observed two eastbound aircraft, both from a different path, converge and then turn almost 180 degrees westbound - at the same exact time - converging with two other opposite direction westbound aircraft (one of which happened to be allegedly UA93 and another which converged with UA175 earlier).. then stick with and overlap those aircraft in formation... then diverge?

Rob Balsamo

You're really clutching at straws here 911files. You owe Rob Balsamo an apology (one of many).

Cheap Shot, you have been played. Cpt'n Bob, kiss my grits.

Oh, and by the way, we still have not seen what Cpt'n Bob describes in the data, just in cartoons made by P4T.

 

[BCR]

It would sure help if you could replace your round circles with numbers or letters representing equivalent times on the two plots.

The planes have to intersect at both the same point & same time.

Well, since you asked so nicely, I revised the graphs and plotted 4 relevant aircraft.

1) UAL175 - Red
2) UAL93 - Yellow
3) BTA4369 - Blue
4) Midex 7 (Touching History fame) - Aqua

The scales are in nautical miles (distance from radar site in x,y) and the altitude (z vector) in feet is added to the targets annotation.

The data worksheet can be downloaded here.

The ARSR sweeps once every ~12 seconds. I plotted the data into 15 second segments ending at the time indicated on the plot time stamp. With these I aligned and added the ZNY R42 audio for the same time period (adjusting for the ~25 second offset found in the NEADS time stamp).

In other words, I made my own cartoon. Distances from each aircraft at any given time can be estimated via the x, y scales and altitude annotations.



Okay Cpt'n Bob, don't see any "swapping" going on. I showed you my data and methodology, now show me yours.

Cross-posted at ATS

 

[Dog Town]

Capt. booby reads this forum.

Ooops! That was supposed to look like this!

Capt.boobie reads this forum?


That will teach me to typo, and run!

 

[jaydeehess]

Oh, and by the way, we still have not seen what Cpt'n Bob describes in the data, just in cartoons made by P4T.

Well in animation cappy bobby had made he also had Morin having to turn around to see the a/c fly over the Navy annex. This animation was supposedly based on Morin's description but was obviously more the result of pft/cit wishful thinking.
It is, or should be, patently obvious to all that pft and cit are delusional and self serving and more than willing to substitute fantasy for technical detail.

 

[BCR]

Well, reckon my fun is over at ATS for awhile. I should have quoted the post before the mods deleted it, but essentially the Cpt'n Bob sockpuppet does not want to talk about it anymore. He changed the subject and told me to go to the P4T forum for clarification of the issue. Since I refuse to contribute to the stats for that site, then I reckon I have done my job, exposing (once again) just how dishonest that gang of failed pilots are.

Of course the mods gave me four warnings on that thread and threatened me with a ban if I continued calling P4T a bunch of liars. Truth hurts I reckon.

 

[cjnewson88]

I was told off over on the david icke forums the other day because I refused to watch hours of pilots for truth material. I responded that on the odd occation that I have viewed their material, I find it so frustratingly inaccurate that I cannot bare to watch anymore. For this, I am in denial and unwilling to listen to the truth spoken by this large number of 'experienced pilots'...

 

[George 152]

I was told off over on the david icke forums the other day because I refused to watch hours of pilots for truth material. I responded that on the odd occation that I have viewed their material, I find it so frustratingly inaccurate that I cannot bare to watch anymore. For this, I am in denial and unwilling to listen to the truth spoken by this large number of 'experienced pilots'...

They should spell the word 'pile-its'.

I can claim to be a slightly experienced pilot and the stuff they post is definitely NOT to do with reality.

 

[cjnewson88]

George, you don't happen to work for CTC or the Waikato aero club do you?

 

[tfk]

For this, I am in denial and unwilling to listen to the truth spoken by this large number of 'experienced pilots'...

For anyone who is still contending with those, uh, nuts, it would be very interesting to see how many real pilots (other than Robbie) who actually post. My impression from days of yore was that the answer was "zero".

Robby would call one in to comment from time to time. Usually when getting trashed on some point. But the regular posters were, to an extremely high percent, not pilots themselves.

Robby claims to speak for all those other pilots.

But we've seen the (total lack of) substance in Robby's claims before.

 

[cjnewson88]

How many pilots make up P4T?

 

[Dog Town]

For anyone who is still contending with those, uh, nuts, it would be very interesting to see how many real pilots (other than Robbie) who actually post. My impression from days of yore was that the answer was "zero".

Well, there was that loon Lear! Desert submarine base, and all.

 

[Boone 870]

The other day, someone at ATS copied and pasted the list of core members from P4T. Keep in mind this is where all the members list there credentials, one of them was listed as the "niece of a famous Air Force pilot." I giggled.

 

[BCR]

Yep, just went to try to respond to some new nonsense by P4T on ATS and this is what I got.

You are unable to post a new topic or reply to current posts, as your posting privledges have been removed.

I find their whole process odd. I got my first warning last night. Have not posted since then. Then on the same thread on old posts, they gave me three more warnings and said I would be suspended for further violations. Still have not posted anything. Now I am banned.

Strange how a person can get banned for not posting