Retired NASA "expert" Inspires Balsamo Fraud?

[Oystein]

You are flat out WRONG!

What if beachnut IS the source material? He gave an OPINION and he IS an expert in the area upon which he was commenting. If you had been here long enough you would know beachnut is WHO and WHAT he says he is. You would also know his full real name. He can be verified in the FAA database and he has been verified by me via mutual acquaintances. Unfortunately, Balsamo can also be verified in the same database. Your comments on this are truly a FAIL!

Hr posted two examples of Published Vg Diagrams and the SOURCE for the idiot chart made up by Balsamo. If you don 't understand them you certainly are entitled to ask questions. Nah, you didn't do that, but instead started condemning him for his writing style! Here you are doing it again.

With regard to the identity of "Tiffany", you ought to understand the vein in which that opinion was given. It was an opinion and I have the same opinion. In fact, there is no legitimate question about it. He can generally be spotted from miles away just as others are doing in another thread. How is one suppose to prove that anyway as even an IP address doesn't prove it due to network technology.

If you don't like beachnut's writing style then put him on ignore and be done with it. If you elect to continue in this vein, then you have at least two people to deal with (probably others).

I implore you to stop this kind of nonsense and stop it now. You picked the wrong people with whom to start a stupid argument.

Reheat,

lack of sources and references is not a matter of style, it's a matter of content. While the style also gets tiring after thousands of similar posts, it's the lack of utility that I lament. If beachnut were not an expert and his claims and arguments were wrong, I'd put him in the drawer labelled "wrong", and not lose a heartbeat over it. But I understand he is generally right. I have been around, and even though I never checked his FAA credentials (as if that would make any argument more right), I do understand that he understands.
But that can't possibly be the core of the argument: "A is B because I say so, and I am an expert" is not the way to convince a skeptic.

Again, I am not the one you need to convince, as I am convinced already. We (!) need to convince those who are yet convinced by Balsamo.

Problem with the OP: He posts a few graphs Balsamo allegedly used somewhere. But where? In what context? beachnut posts the T-37 diagram and the T-38 with virtually no context, and no reference. I can't even figure out if these are real graphs (made by who? representinbg what?), and whether or not these were presented and used by Balsamo, ever, anywhere (and yes, this confusion arises out of a confusing writing style, too),
Basically, I don't know what beachnut is talking about. Why? No references.


Reheat, I am here to educate myself, to entertain myself, but also to find strong and valid references to refer truthers to. Several posters here know a whole lot about about specific relevant fields such as aeronautics, engineering, fire science, and compose well-structured, well-sourced posts. I am thinking, for example, of tfk, Cheap Shot, Sunstealer, or yourself. Others are not professionals of immediately relevant fields of study, but intelligent amateurs and also compose well-structured, well-sourced posts - for example Gravy, W.D.Clinger, R.Mackey. There are some very good posters whose professional or educational background I don't even know, such as Myriad or A W Smith - the quality of their posts stands on its own. And then there are those who are good at their relevant field of expertise, but sadly fail to compose well-structured, well-sourced posts.
If and when I encounter truthers outside of the JREF, I happily link them to JREF posts by Sunstealer, Myriad, WDC or Mackey, but I can't remember a beachnut post with that kind of usefulness. Why? because even if he is right, he alienates, and whatever facts he brings, he brings without references.

The OP could have been so good.

 

[Oystein]

Balsamo usually sources most of his material and it proves absolutely NOTHING unless you understand how and when it applies.

WITH the references I have a chance to understand and tell bogus fromn real. WITHOUT the reference you'd expect me to just believe the expert.

Deets hasn't sourced anything worthwhile yet.

I am not defending Deets. In fact, if the OP had been Deets, I'd attack just as vehemently. Strawman?

Basically, many of these issues boil down to WHO to believe.

That would be an indirect case of assuming the conclusion. But suppose I came here with a fresh mind - how do you suppose I shoukd decide who to believe? If not by judging the strength of everyone's arguments?

Unfortunately, it does take some knowledge of the subject matter to be able to sort out the difference.

No. It takes some degree of teaching skills, and better references. You are basically pushing the Richard-Gage-argument here: "Believe us, because we are professionals and you are not"

If you'll go back and read beachnut's post again for technical content he scanned two Vg charts from his personal material.

And how on earth would I know that? Beachnut failed to mention that in his first post!!

Those are NOT available online anywhere as a source. Those are REAL Vg diagrams from USAF Technical Manuals for the respective aircraft.

So what's stopping him from telling us what the source is? The USAF Technical manual?

He also posted Balsamo's original chart and one with B767 speeds Balsamo inserted.

A reference to Balsamo introducing that chart somewhere on Balsamo's sites would have been nice, for context.

The problem with Balsamo's Chart is that it is NOT a real Vg Diagram, i.e. it is fake just as beachnut said.

I understood that Balsamo took a Vg diagramm from somewhere (where??), manipulated the x- and y-axis, and claimed this was a B767 diagramm. So please: How does beachnut know where Balsamo stole the generic diagramm? What is Balsamo's and beachnut's source? I would like to check that beachnut did not in turn make that up. Again: I don't personally doubt that beachnut is right, BUT a Balsamo follower might very well.

It was selected by Balsamo in order deceive his layman audience at ATS. When accompanied with his supporting verbiage that the speed of UA 175 was (insert various words here like impossible, improbable, "the elephant in the room", etc) it appears that he is correct according to HIS chart. He also says that Boeing derives their V speeds from flight and wind tunnel tests (which is NOT SOURCED because it is proprietary material) which is a half truth. Balsamo does not have the real material from Boeing to support any of this, he only has his made up (fake) chart.

The chart was posted at pprune for comment (undoubtedly by Balsamo) without any accompanying verbiage.

Aha? Where? I have no idea this ever happened. Do you really expect readers like myself to know thism, when beachnut totally fails to tell us any of this? A link to pprune where the chart was posted for comment by (undoubtedly) Balsamo would have been very helpful indeed to turn a rant into a useful post. As it is, beachnut has created a riddle. Sorry that I am not a pilot and have not read everythinbg ever posted anywhere by beachnut AND Balsamo. For ordinary mortals like myself, the OP was a rant that did not inform me, and would not convince anybody who isn't already convinced, sorry.

To my knowledge no one has commented yet. The VSpeeds on it are correct for a B767, but in that it is not a real Vg Diagram, it is extremely deceptive.

Do you now understand or do you want beachnut or I to draw more diagrams and add fake charts?

Some links to the things you are talking about would be nice.

 

[Reheat]

Some links to the things you are talking about would be nice.

Yea, well frequently I simply don't want to spend the time to copy a damn link to a post for those too lazy to find it themselves based on the content and references included.

I've got some rather old news for you! Those twoofers remaining are not going to be convinced of anything posted here that disagrees with their existing conclusions. It's obvious (to me, at least) they only come here to argue or simply for attention and don't read (let alone understand) the links and references posted. Consequently, spending time to copy and post specific links is mostly a waste of time. As a result, I don't post much anymore.

I read the Forum daily for areas that interest me because I'm here to learn too. It doesn't mean that I have to post the usual tripe in order to run up my post count. I can easily learn by reading as opposed to posting. There are numerous posters here that I ignore (they are not on formal Forum "ignore") simply because they usually have nothing of substance to say. I suggest you do the same with beachnut since you don't like his posting style.

Additionally, there is such a thing as a friendly suggestion to people on how to improve their posts and there is also an opportunity to ask question about references and links. Unfortunately, you've chosen to do that in a confrontational way, which I find quite offensive and insulting.

This is my last post on this specific issue as I believe beachnut can and will handle this in his own way.

Happy New Year!

 

[Oystein]

Yea, well frequently I simply don't want to spend the time to copy a damn link to a post for those too lazy to find it themselves based on the content and references included.

Me neither - except when I open a new thread in which I assume a very strong tone to put down once and for all an opponent in one blow.

I've got some rather old news for you! Those twoofers remaining are not going to be convinced of anything posted here that disagrees with their existing conclusions. It's obvious (to me, at least) they only come here to argue or simply for attention and don't read (let alone understand) the links and references posted. Consequently, spending time to copy and post specific links is mostly a waste of time. As a result, I don't post much anymore.

You are not sugegsting that opening threads without links and references is time any better spent?!

I read the Forum daily for areas that interest me because I'm here to learn too. It doesn't mean that I have to post the usual tripe in order to run up my post count. I can easily learn by reading as opposed to posting. There are numerous posters here that I ignore (they are not on formal Forum "ignore") simply because they usually have nothing of substance to say. I suggest you do the same with beachnut since you don't like his posting style.

I usually do ignore him, but when he opens a brand new threadm that's interesting enough.

Additionally, there is such a thing as a friendly suggestion to people on how to improve their posts and there is also an opportunity to ask question about references and links. Unfortunately, you've chosen to do that in a confrontational way, which I find quite offensive and insulting.

It's the beachnut-way - I am sure he is comfortable with that style

This is my last post on this specific issue as I believe beachnut can and will handle this in his own way.

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

 

[Dragon37]

At this point I would like to just to step in with my observations.

1. Of the charts that beachnut posted the only one I cannot see the alterations on is the is the T-38. Without him even mentioning alteration to the T-37 I can see it. The 382 is most definitely added in.

2. As beachnut says the coloured Vg diagram is clearly a fabrication. The original is online and easy to find and the is identical to Balsamo's save the changes Balsamo made adding his own indicated speed.

What bothers me about all of the stuff I have seen out of p4t is that it is manipulated or leading data. In their impossible speed video they lead the viewer into their train of though not with actual data from Boeing which they admit they could not get but instead use simulations and a dramatic small plane wind tunnel experiment video and not any true Boeing video. It is essentially salting the mine. They further talk about how weak using simulator examples are then they spend a couple of minutes using using a simulator example of landing a commercial jet on an aircraft carrier and use a graphic of a aircraft carrier standing on end beside the WTC towers to compare. They completely leave out that the towers are an unmoving vertical target and a carrier is a tiny horizontal target.

With the T-37 diagram I immediately noticed the font difference on the added 382. Not to mention that it seems to be a lower resolution than the other numbers too. I am not proficient with photoshop (nor do I have the time right now) to show people here what I mean. It is actually irrelevant in the end because from my experience with such charting the practice is when producing such charts you work with rounded numbers and you usually chart in a range past the critical point one is discussing. You have to include a fairly broad range because the idea is to show what the full range of known possibility is for the data set.

I have to pass on commenting on the T-38 diagram.

With the coloured Vg diagram it was very easy to find the original and it is self evident what the changes are. The airspeed on one is a round regular range in MPH while Balsamo's has been changed to knots and displays a range which is irregular and is not even converted properly and is very evidently forced into the existing diagram. The graph is also devoid of any reference for the reader.

Now I am NOT a pilot but I do have plenty of experience with charts and diagrams and these are both incredibly sloppy forgeries. What bothers me more is that there is such a complete lack of testable data that they give to a reader. They do not present any data from Boeing, other than what is easily found online, they use anecdotes and leading graphics and they use their experience/authority in exceedingly insulting ways to push their agenda. As someone in science their data display is insulting but to speak as if they represent all pilot or even a large number of pilots must be incredibly frustrating to those here who are pilots or have been.

I hope I have not insulted anyone in any way that was not my intention but I do think beachnut did provide enough evidence for one to realize that these charts are forgeries.

 

[beachnut]

... Problem with the OP: He posts a few graphs Balsamo allegedly used somewhere. But where? In what context?
...

A graph of a Vg diagram, when googled shows the graph he changed; FRAUD. Took the skill of google, and compare graph to graph; time 10 seconds.

Vg diargram, place in google; this is tough, only experts need try.

... beachnut posts the T-37 diagram and the T-38 with virtually no context, and no reference. I can't even figure out if these are real graphs (made by who? representinbg what?), and whether or not these were presented and used by Balsamo, ever, anywhere (and yes, this confusion arises out of a confusing writing style, too),
...

They are T-37 and T-38 Vg diagrams and if you look at them for a second you will see why Balsamo's graph is a fraud. It takes some thinking, or research, even on-line to gain the knowledge.

Oops, you have to look at the legends, the axis. The graph is load factor and speed. You will need math, or a class that went over graphs to understand. Next time you are baffled by real Vg diagrams ask, but they are self contained and a grade school kid could explain them.

... Basically, I don't know what beachnut is talking about. Why? No references. ...

The Vg diagrams need no references. I flew the T-37 and T-38, the diagrams I posted were not flight tested by me, but I flew inside the envelope, and when I hit those corners, or limits, I STALLED, and had to recover the jet.

The T-38 was the most fun, it would not depart into anything but a stall, whereas the T-37 would enter a spin and it had to be recovered by flying it out. I not only presented real Vg diagrams, but I confirmed some of the points when I messed up. The way you can tell a Vg diagram is real, it not only has real numbers related to the plane, but it for a specific weight and altitude; which are listed on the diagram or in the ledgend. Common knowledge when someone is interested enough to resreach the subject they don't understand. I look at the diargrams and the only why you can't understand them, is not put any effort into it.

Balsamo's Vg diagram was made up from an example Vg diagram. If you google "Vg diagram" you can find the one he used, and see he faked it.

Seriously, you picked the wrong beachnut posts to cry about and failed to understand because you failed to try.

There is nothing Balsamo has, no claim, no non-theories he has that are true. But feel free to take any 911 truth conclusion and tell me it is not a delusion based on nonsense. The thread of least delusions spread by liars in 911 truth - a new OP.

What did I get wrong? nothing

Gee, yes this is real. It is load factor and MACH for the T-38. It is for 10,000 pounds. What don't you understand? The reference was GIVEN! Can you FIND IT! Bet Balsamo's reference is google. Did you have graphs in school? Seriously?

 

[beachnut]

... Problem with the OP: He posts a few graphs Balsamo allegedly used somewhere. But where? In what context? ...

Not true.

Hint; ATS... ATS is http://www.abovetopsecret.com/ look for TiffanyInLa.
From the OP.

... Balsamo, posing as a girl sock at ATS and other forums, took a Vg diagram and inserted Vspeeds for a 767.

Also from the OP.

... See the same at
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3611382/4/ ; where else is this fraud being posted... ? ...

Where was found in the OP. Hint: check out the entire thread... The diagrams are still in the thread, there is where. http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3611382/3/ In the same thread I posted in the OP, the diagrams are found.

Balsamo's sock came here and showed he added a made up legend for the load factor. He makes his fraud more stupid. Double stupid?

 

[beachnut]

The fraud of the Vg diagram is easy to solve. Balsamo, who is posing as a sock at many internet sites is spreading fraud. Balsamo says he can use the Boeing 767 A1NM Type Certificate Data Sheet to make a Vg diagram.

A grade school kid could read A1NM and see Balsamo is a fraud; no wonder Balsamo never earned an ATP.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...7ac6c178625731e006944bc/$FILE/A1NM Rev 26.pdf

The funniest part of Balsamo's fraud may be ... the legend ...

Based on the scale by the time you get to 360 based on 110, you would be at 330 or less. Using a training Vg diagram and inserting speeds at random and calling it a 767 Vg diagram is moronic. Using A1NM for the 767 is more proof of fraud. Once again, a grade school kid could debunk Balsamo with ease. Too bad Balsamo has no clue what math is.

Balsamo says:

... the Boeing 767 A1NM Type Certificate Data Sheet includes altitude data, therefore the V-G diagrams offered are good up to almost 18,000 feet?
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/a8694be7b7ac6c178625731e006944bc/$FILE/A1NM%20Rev%2026.pdf

Why is Balsamo wrong? If anyone takes the time to look at A1NM and Balsamo's fake Vg diagram, they will see why this is fraud. Gee ... g ... and holy fake airspeed legend. Balsamo does not do math and it shows, proof is now backed with the legend. Where did he get the stall speed from? What weight and altitude is the Vg diagram good for? Oops, it is a fake Vg diagram.

The next funny part... Balsamo used this source as his support for his fake Vg diagram.
http://www.warbirddepot.com/fighter_formation/documents/FFQP_Turn_Performance.pdf
In this source ...

Balsamo debunks his fake Vg diagram. Always check the sources used by 911 truth, they usually debunk 911 truth. Wow, each time Balsamo offers a new source for his fraud, it proves his fraud is worse. "one" - remember what Jack Palance said, one thing. (i can post anything, and blame it on the stoke Balsamo said I had; another lie, or is that an offer no theory thing)

Balsamo took this Vg diagram.
http://www.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com/images/vg_diagram.gif
http://www.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com/Load_factors.html
The same source debunks Balsamo.

If flight is attempted beyond the limit airspeed, structural damage or structural failure may result from a variety of phenomena.

Balsamo added a new airspeed legend, to make a fraudulent Vg diagram.
http://i30.tinypic.com/k488aw.jpg

He makes a claim A1NM speeds make it real. Where is the data to add the load factor? What weight? What altitude? He has no clue.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/a8694be7b7ac6c178625731e006944bc/$FILE/A1NM%20Rev%2026.pdf

 

[Oystein]

Thanks, Beachnut, good analysis!

 

[SkepticGuy]

With John Lear, Balsamo proves he offers theory, delusional theories.

Actually, with John Lear, Balsamo and Fetzer have latched onto a crazy old man who has changed his story once he became the darling of "pilots for truth."

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread659196/pg22#pid10618143

One of our members located Lear stating (in 2004) it'd be relatively easy to train a non-pilot to fly a 767 into the WTC -AND- that the apparent high airspeed at low altitude was possible.

 

[BCR]

And the 'truth' marches on ....

 

[beachnut]

Actually, with John Lear, Balsamo and Fetzer have latched onto a crazy old man who has changed his story once he became the darling of "pilots for truth."

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread659196/pg22#pid10618143

One of our members located Lear stating (in 2004) it'd be relatively easy to train a non-pilot to fly a 767 into the WTC -AND- that the apparent high airspeed at low altitude was possible.

Darn, one of your members is cherry picking quotes, and failed to comprehend what Lear really said.
Easy?, you failed to read what Lear said! Lear was into woo then, and now; Lear was nuts, he still is nuts, and he tells you he is nuts; nuts! 300 hours in a simulator is not simple, Lear was into woo then too.

I say a kid off the street with zero training in flying could do the flying done on 911. Lear does not get close to reality, he makes up woo, BS. Darn, cookies, cookies attack from ATS.

Lear, full of BS in 04, and now. RIF...

Go over to p4t and get Balsamo to come back to ATS as another sock. Oops, Balsamo is at ATS as another sock, advertising his woo, his fake Vg diagram, his 11.2g moron math, his moronic delusions.

Lear said in 04 -

It was an amazing feat of airmanship.

He failed to research 911 in 04, and doubt he has improved.
http://www.fantasticforum.com/1res/printthread.php?threadid=9594&perpage=15&pagenumber=3
http://www.fantasticforum.com/1res/printthread.php?threadid=9594
What do you think about Balsamo (his sock at ATS) posting fake 767/757 Vg diagram to mislead people?

 

[SkepticGuy]

What do you think about Balsamo (his sock at ATS) posting fake 767/757 Vg diagram to mislead people?

That diagram has recently been exposed as fake in the thread I linked.

What username is his "sock," and if you're aware of his promotion of that diagram as fact within an opening post of a thread, I'll move it to our HOAX forum without delay.

 

[dafydd]

And the 'truth' marches on ....

In a circle.

 

[Dog Town]

That diagram has recently been exposed as fake in the thread I linked.

What username is his "sock,"

That's a funny question. There's nothing subtle about Captain Booby.
I'm sure many of the posters at your cesspool, can identify him in under three posts!

 

[triforcharity]

I think it's ATH911, but that's just me. The "No planes" side of debate is not my cup of tea, but that I who I think it is.

The VG diagram has been referenced ITT by others, with links to the original.

He just canged the numbers on the bottom IIRC. Someone else with more knowledge of Capt. Bobby can elaborate.

 

[George 152]

[QUOTE
http://www.fantasticforum.com/1res/printthread.php?threadid=9594&perpage=15&pagenumber=3
http://www.fantasticforum.com/1res/printthread.php?threadid=9594
What do you think about Balsamo (his sock at ATS) posting fake 767/757 Vg diagram to mislead people?[/QUOTE]

Totally unbelievable....
Words fail me

 

[grandmastershek]

Totally unbelievable....
Words fail me

"I've been flying ms2004, IL2 Sturmovik, X-plane and many other realistic PC based simulators for years and consider myself to be a very skilled virtual pilot."

BWHAHAHAAHAH!!!

 

[tfk]

I was supposed to leave this afternoon for the mine but I am $60 short for gas. And there are no good prospects for money until my wife gets her paycheck on Friday at 4pm.

Link

I take zero enjoyment anybody's financial hardships. It's a shame that happens to anyone near the end of their lives.

I don't count anyone's bank account as a measure of their being correct or incorrect.

In the case of John Lear, I suspect that his financial situation may be an indication that he's burned LOTS of bridges in the aviation community. I've heard lots of pilots speak with blatant disdain regarding his comments in lots of areas.

And that group IS a community. There are lots of flyers, with resumes comparable to Lear's, who have found work as spokesmen, representatives or just frontmen for various companies after their flying careers.

So I do not conclude that the things that Lear says are bat-guano crazy because he is broke.

I do suspect, tho, that Lear is broke because the things that he says are so frequently bat-guano crazy.


tk

 

[cantonear1968]

I'm very sorry for resurrecting an old topic, but I was reading some old threads on Rob Balsamo and this comment by Beachnut made me laugh out loud!

Balsamo insulates himself from being the one who lies by using hearsay and opinions from Deets, for instance. Balsamo does not make the moronic claims, he makes them dumber.

"...makes them dumber."

I offer this only for your evening smile!
Literally one of the best lines to describe Capt Bobby, and most truthers in general, I have ever read!

Thanks Beachnut!