Plume in Flight 93 photo is different

[Yoink]

CTers can change the rules whenever they see fit and then go cry to mama Dylan. So it wouldn't do any good.

Perhaps. Still, it would be interesting to see if any CTist would be willing to engage in an argument on that basis. It would, at least, be a way of more rapidly exposing those who, like Killtown, have no serious interest in exploring and weighing evidence.

You'll note, too, that I'm not suggesting that the claimant would have to agree to any "rules." If those skeptical of the claimant's position simply agreed among themselves that they would not address anything the claimant had to say until that claimant had acknowledged that some mutually agreed upon step in the argument had been settled ("mutually" here meaning "among those skeptical of the claim") one way or the other, then attempts by the claimant to "break the rules" simply wouldn't matter.

This thread in particular seems to cry out for some such approach simply because Killtown is so clearly frivolous in his arguments. At some level he clearly doesn't really "believe" any part of them; that is, he's just as happy to hold that the photo is photoshopped as he is to hold that it's a genuine photo of "ordnance" which debunks the OV, despite the fact that these two propositions are mutually incompatible. As long as there's something "fishy" and as long as it feeds his sense of self-importance ("I know something THEY don't want me to know") he's happy.

There'd be some value in refusing to feed that sense of self-importance by getting him to the "put up or shut up" point a great deal more rapidly.

 

[Killtown]

1) Your lines are innacurate until demonstrated to be otherwise. You have done nothing in terms of measurement of error to demonstrate otherwise.

2), a) even if we assume you lines to be correct AS DRAWN, they give a maximum plume size of 700m.

I and others have asserted that 400m would be a consertive minimum for the plume.

b) Given the innacuracy of such estimates (thanks again buckwheatjones) 1000m maximum plume size would not be unreasonable.

3) Otherwise, watch out as those falling cards could put an eye out...

1) I double checked them, they are accurate. Prove otherwise.

2) a) Max 800m.
b) sure, if a nuclear explosion went off their.

3) yeah, that wasn't immature.

 

[Killtown]

Why in the blue peeping hell would the conspirators set off an explosion at a site separate from the debris site?
Answer that one simple question, please.

I don't know, why?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

1) I double checked them, they are accurate. Prove otherwise.

2) a) Max 800m.
b) sure, if a nuclear explosion went off their.

3) yeah, that wasn't immature.

Since this appears necessary, allow me to provide a free lesson in the scientific method, via Michael Shermer

Michael Shermer on "The Scientific Method"*

Elements of the scientific method ( hypothetico-deductive):

Induction -- Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.

Deduction -- Making specific predictions based on the hypothesis.

Observation -- Gathering data, driven by hypothesis that tell us what to look for in nature.

Verification -- Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypothesis.

Through the scientific method, we may form the following generalizations:

Hypothesis -- A testable statement accounting for a set of observations.

Theory -- A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses.

Fact -- A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement.

Through the scientific method, we aim for objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation.

Science leads us toward rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. And science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority rather than logic and evidence.

It is important to recognize the fallibility of science and the scientific method. But within this fallibility lies its greatest strength: self-correction.

A scientific law is a description of a regularly repeating action that is open to rejection or confirmation.

Scientific progress is the cummulative growth of a system of knowledge over time, in which useful features are retained, and nonuseful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge.

Pseudoscience: claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.


Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.

A skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it.

Please take special note that what you have presented fails to meet this criteria on multiple levels.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I don't know, why?

well if you cant answer this question isnt it easier to believe a plane crashed there and not some super-secret govt conspiracy that cant decide where they want the "crash" scene to be?

 

[Killtown]

So do you guys think the plume would have been even BIGGER than the larger superimposed plume in this pic which is about 800m or 2,700ft wide???...

If so, that's ONE hell of a plume!

 

[Mercutio]

1) I double checked them, they are accurate. Prove otherwise.

Please show your work. We could certainly learn something from your example, given that you can guarantee accuracy that even an expert in the field cannot.

What, exactly, did you double check? What are the key variables that you have right, and others have wrong?

I would be happy to attempt to prove otherwise, or to fail in the attempt. To do so, though, you will need to provide your numbers, how you got those numbers, and what you did with those numbers. Unless you provide those, trying to "prove otherwise" is impossible. You are obviously confident that your numbers are accurate; you should have no hesitancy in providing them for critical analysis.

 

[Killtown]

well if you cant answer this question isnt it easier to believe a plane crashed there and not some super-secret govt conspiracy that cant decide where they want the "crash" scene to be?

I'm just trying to wonder why you guys think I would know what goes on in the minds of the conspirators?!

Now I answered his question, back to topic.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I'm just trying to wonder why you guys think I would know what goes on in the minds of the conspirators?!

Now I answered his question, back to topic.

because the conspiracy theories dont add up worth a damn (see my other thread) so either you must see how they add up so nicely or your really bad at math

 

[MortFurd]

I don't know, why?

You are the one whose diagram shows that the conspirators did so. YOU answer the question.

 

[Mercutio]

So do you guys think the plume would have been even BIGGER than the larger superimposed plume in this pic which is about 800m or 2,700ft wide???...

[qimg]http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7508/1605/1600/rumpl4skn-plume-size2.0.gif[/qimg]

If so, that's ONE hell of a plume!

A "superimposed plume" is no longer one for which any scale is appropriate. Size, distance, and speed, when inferred from a 2-dimensional photo (or retinal image, for that matter) are dependent on one another. An object may be small and near, or large and far (your argument is based on this; I do not imply that I am telling you anything you don't know here). When a 2-dimensional object is superimposed on a 2-dimensional picture, its size and distance are independent of any of the objects in the picture.

What you are doing here is asking a judgment of a forced perspective picture. This is not evidence. This is not logic. This is just bad.

 

[Gravy]

.


To everyone, do you agree this debate boils down to the size of the smoke plume the crash would have made?

Yes or no?

No.

 

[Killtown]

Please show your work. We could certainly learn something from your example, given that you can guarantee accuracy that even an expert in the field cannot.

What, exactly, did you double check? What are the key variables that you have right, and others have wrong?

I would be happy to attempt to prove otherwise, or to fail in the attempt. To do so, though, you will need to provide your numbers, how you got those numbers, and what you did with those numbers. Unless you provide those, trying to "prove otherwise" is impossible. You are obviously confident that your numbers are accurate; you should have no hesitancy in providing them for critical analysis.

Here, double check for me...

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html

 

[CurtC]

My estimate of the plume width:

If it was as far as the crater, I get right at 650 m. That would mean that it had gone due South with the breeze, to be the same distance, while Val's house is due East.

If it went to the Southeast, that would mean it would be about 10% closer, or 600 m.

Here are the endpoints of the sight lines that I used to estimate:

-78.90168458485243,40.05104592456145
-78.90203426604705,40.04482683949028

 

[Killtown]

You are the one whose diagram shows that the conspirators did so. YOU answer the question.

People commit a lot of crimes in which I don't know why they did it.

Now, back to topic.

 

[MortFurd]

I'm just trying to wonder why you guys think I would know what goes on in the minds of the conspirators?!

Now I answered his question, back to topic.

You haven't answered, and it is very germane to the topic.

Your idea that the smoke plume is the wrong size and color and in the wrong spot has been torn to shreds - repeatedly. Your whole argument hinges on someone doing this obviously insane thing of creating a fake crash area and then setting off an explosion in the wrong spot to have come from the crash site.

Either A.) The conspirators are simply ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ insane and couldn't coordinate well enough to set off an explosion at the crash site (in which case it is questionable that they'd have managed any of the super human things attributed to them.)

or B.) The photo is faked, in which case this discussion was pointless as the appropriate thing to do would be to accuse Ms. McClatchey of fraud.

or C.) The photo is what it appears to be (a photo of the aftermath of the crash of Fliight 93) in which case this whole discussion about plumes and explosions is irrelevant.

A, B, or C?

Welche Schweindle hätten Sie denn gern?

 

[Killtown]

A "superimposed plume" is no longer one for which any scale is appropriate. Size, distance, and speed, when inferred from a 2-dimensional photo (or retinal image, for that matter) are dependent on one another. An object may be small and near, or large and far (your argument is based on this; I do not imply that I am telling you anything you don't know here). When a 2-dimensional object is superimposed on a 2-dimensional picture, its size and distance are independent of any of the objects in the picture.

What you are doing here is asking a judgment of a forced perspective picture. This is not evidence. This is not logic. This is just bad.

Man, I think some of you just like to make things complicate just to be skeptical!

The image just shows how big your guys plume would essentially be. No reason to get all complicated about it.

If you feel this is and incorrect rendision, please draw up your own so everybody can get a sense of what the size of your estimated plume would look like from an aerial photo.

 

[MortFurd]

People commit a lot of crimes in which I don't know why they did it.

Now, back to topic.

We are still on the topic.
You are the one who has created this concept of the separated crash and explosion sites. Since you've had plenty of time to think about, you must have some idea of why it would be done in such a bizarre manner.

 

[Gravy]

Killtown, can you name some unknown variables in this problem that, if known, would disprove your claim? Strictly speaking about the photo analysis, that is.

 

[Killtown]

My estimate of the plume width:

If it was as far as the crater, I get right at 650 m. That would mean that it had gone due South with the breeze, to be the same distance, while Val's house is due East.

If it went to the Southeast, that would mean it would be about 10% closer, or 600 m.

Here are the endpoints of the sight lines that I used to estimate:

-78.90168458485243,40.05104592456145
-78.90203426604705,40.04482683949028

So roughly the same size as our gif shows (2,200ft)?...

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4601/plumecomparisonns0.gif