IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Aa77 Fdr Heading Divergence, speed/heading vs Lat/Lon

tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 15 2011, 05:36 PM
Post #1





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



I've used the AA77 FDR data with original timestamps and I did a laboured experiment:

I went 53 seconds back from the alleged impact point and I carefully measured a theoretical "impact flightpath" from the quite very exact heading/groundspeed values taken from the FDR data using Google Earth centimeter/0.01° measuring feature.
for illustration:


Some portions of the heading flightpath (red line) I measured at once to spare measuring error, because the heading value in the FDR data was the same for multiple subsquent periods (the 1 second step nodes backwards from alleged impact numbered in parentheses)

I've found there is very consistent and significant divergence from the by lat/lon coordinates described FDR flightpath -in rate of 8.14 m/s. The divergence one clearly sees at the general situation view by bare eye.



One would expect it is a result of wind, but the wind that day and hour in the area of Washington was <5.1 m/s blowing in direction to NNW approx. perpendicular to the flightpath. (SOURCE)

So there still seems to be a residual divergence of 3.04 m/s
In the 51 seconds it makes ~155m cummulative divergence. (the maximum cummulative error of this positioning I've assessed being in margin of <±37 meters laterally and <±27m longitudinally).

For comparison with the FDR lat/lon path based on coordinates in the FDR dataset (blue) I've also included the positions given by nearest radars at Reagan Itl. (DCA-yellow) and Andrews AFB (ADW- green), measured using range/azimut values rather than unexact derived lat/lon positions (sometimes almost exact, mostly like tens of meters off the position given by rang/azimut - which is where the lat/lon positions are calculated from).
illustration for the idea:


The residual divergence, way higher than its possible error margin, would in my opinion at least suggest the the FDR data have significant inner inconsistence between lat/lon positions and the flightpath derived from heading/speed values, so the lat/lon position values in the FDR data might have been shifted (and we already know NTSB shifted time in the FDR data outputs - so nobody would wonder if they would shift also other values.) to make the final flightpath appear being more south. (further research is pending and I welcome your comments)

Here I've made a video presentation to further clarify what I mean:



go to Youtube for HD , data used HERE
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 15 2011, 11:30 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



The video showing the datapoints, like the video showing the 25.3 discrepancy in the RADES data is a real eye opener for me Tume.

Great work!

Stutt and Legge have some (more) explaining to do.

cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 16 2011, 10:24 AM
Post #3





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 15 2011, 03:30 PM) *
The video showing the datapoints, like the video showing the 25.3 discrepancy in the RADES data is a real eye opener for me Tume.

Great work!

Stutt and Legge have some (more) explaining to do.

cheers.gif

Yeah, they're done, but moreover I've now applied the findings to the DCA and ADW radar data and now I very much think the whole AA77 impact to Pentagon scam is finished... whistle.gif

To explain more, before I put together a presentation:

In the initial post I've stated this "The residual divergence, way higher than its possible error margin, would in my opinion at least suggest the the FDR data have significant inner inconsistence between lat/lon positions and the flightpath derived from heading/speed values, so the lat/lon position values in the FDR data might have been shifted (and we already know NTSB shifted time in the FDR data outputs - so nobody would wonder if they would shift also other values.) to make the final flightpath appear being more south."

Now I've got a bit further and I must state that it is egal and I don't care anymore whether the lat/lon data were shifted or not, they don't support SoC in either case anyway and the radar data from DCA and ADW + meteo + 84Rades PLA corroborate this conclusion. 5:(1?). It looks to me now very much like there's nothing left from the hard evidence, except the fishy lightpoles, which would support the AA77 "impact path" to the Pentagon. It has to do with the wind which is major portion of the above described divergence and would be very hardly disputable... Stay tuned.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 16 2011, 12:14 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Looking forward to it thumbsup.gif

ETA: I think it would be a good idea to explain how accurate the various readings are claimed to be (RADES, ATC, etc)?

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Feb 16 2011, 12:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 16 2011, 03:43 PM
Post #5





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 16 2011, 04:14 AM) *
Looking forward to it thumbsup.gif

ETA: I think it would be a good idea to explain how accurate the various readings are claimed to be (RADES, ATC, etc)?


Accurateness of the 84 Rades PLA radar data positioning is given by 0.001° azimut and 0.005 nmi range step and so for distances in question the error shouldn't be above ~±1m laterally from the center of the radar beam and ±10 m longitudinally -generally the positioning shouldn't be above 1/8 nmi error even for much longer distances than here in question. The timing should have 0.005 s accurateness, but as we already know it is shifted about ~25+ seconds backwards.

Accurateness of the civil ASR radars is given by 0.5° and 0.01 nmi range step so to have idea for the distances here in question for the above analysis - for DCA the error definitely shouldn't be above ~±103m laterally and ~±18.6m longitudinally - for the furthest point at 13:36:59.801 - closer it will be appropriatelly less, for ADW radar and distances in question ~±220m laterally and again ~18.6m longitudinally for the furthest point 13:37:01.327. The timing for both the radars has a step of 0.001 s and it very much looks like the DCA, ADW and FDR corroborate each other and very convincingly rule-out any "impact" before ~13:37:52UTC (official time 13:37:46UTC) -more here - where you can also learn about the gross inaccurateness of the ATC transcript timing which most probably the NTSB based their "impact timing" on.

I think that generally the FDR heading divergence combined with the wind meteo data and radar records helps to find quite decisive answers to this questions:
Does the downed lightpoles support the "impact path"?
Although quite improbable an airplane wouldn't crash if just leveling from the very high descent rate at very high speed, maybe, inconclusive, especially when one considers this...
Does the meteo wind data support the "impact path"?
Nope.
Does the (first timeshifted) FDR support the "impact path"?
Nope.
Does the DCA radar support the "impact path"?
Nope.
Does the ADW radar support the "impact path"?
Nope.
Does the timeshifted 84Rades PLA radar support the "impact path"?
Nope.
Do the CIT wittnesses support the "impact path"?
Nope

6:(1?) game, set, match.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 17 2011, 11:33 AM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BCR
post Feb 20 2011, 11:06 AM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 14
Joined: 3-March 07
Member No.: 717



Two words for you ... magnetic declination.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 20 2011, 11:43 AM
Post #8





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I've heard of magnetic deviation and variation, but not declination?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BCR
post Feb 20 2011, 11:52 AM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 14
Joined: 3-March 07
Member No.: 717



Synonyms
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beachnut
post Feb 20 2011, 02:07 PM
Post #10





Group: Troll
Posts: 6
Joined: 6-June 07
Member No.: 1,124



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_declination
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 20 2011, 04:05 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



spcengineer = John Farmer, couldnt calculate a proper vector if he wanted to fight his way out of a wet paper bag.....

jackcahill = Keith "Beachnut" Beachy .... unable to tell the difference between a Boeing 757 and an Airbus A320.

Both notoriously obsessed with our work. Both continuously and notoriously wrong. As they are in this case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Feb 21 2011, 12:51 AM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 21 2011, 06:35 AM) *
spcengineer = John Farmer, couldnt calculate a proper vector if he wanted to fight his way out of a wet paper bag.....

jackcahill = Keith "Beachnut" Beachy .... unable to tell the difference between a Boeing 757 and an Airbus A320.

Both notoriously obsessed with our work. Both continuously and notoriously wrong. As they are in this case.


Can someone explain what magnetic declination has to do with this all i really dont understand? And what has this got
to do with this us being wrong again into wont go into details because Rob doesnt like me mentioning them here so i wont
i dont want to upset you again since you have kindly asked me not to out of respect i wont post their hmmmmm you know who's
bs here again.

Sorry i know nothing about planes magnetic declaration it is all very hard to comprehend for me a non pilot i have bad memory
too which makes it diffycult to concentrate and learn.

Cheers Paul

whistle.gif whistle.gif whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 21 2011, 01:25 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



As usual, it appears Farmer is just trying to throw technical terms around of which he has no clue how to apply such terms, and poor old stroke victim Keith Beachy just follows along like a good little puppy.

To be honest, i havent gone through tume's analysis above thoroughly, been working pretty hard on our presentation, but from what i seen above, it's clear tume used True course from the FDR data. It appears Farmer is trying to say the divergence tume found is due to magnetic variation. Farmer is wrong.. .as usual.

I wonder if they informed Stutt/Legge yet of their bogus 'divergence' analysis and in fact that no such divergence exists when measuring from a known elevation.

Then again, if they are unable to tell the difference between an Airbus and a Boeing....

(by the way Beachy, the below A320 and the 737 Classic are very similar in size.)

A320
Wingspan - 111 ft 11 in
Length - 123 ft 3 in
Height - 38 ft 7 in
Seating - 180 (1-class, maximum)
164 (1-class, typical)
150 (2-class, typical)

737 Classic
Wingspan - 94 ft 9 in
Length - 120 ft
Height - 36 ft 4 in
Seating - 149 - 189 (maximum)
108 - 146 (2-class)


(poor guy...)



.... i dont expect they will understand the operation of a Radio Altimeter. Retreat is probably still lost regarding RA tracking capability (which... by the way, would be worse if Stutt's theory were correct).

Beachy hasnt flown since before color photography was invented (as you can see from his avatar above... and is probably the reason he cant tell the difference between an Airbus and a Boeing), he is probably only familiar with NDB approaches (if he even remembers what an NDB is after his rumored stroke... poor old guy..). Farmer has flipped-flopped and thrashed his way through his research like a fish out of water on a hot blacktop. Neither have a clue. Farmer admits to having "senior moments". It's the blind leading the blind.

I'm sure Beachy is probably incoherently ranting at his cesspool as usual, while Farmer still is unable to calculate a proper vector. If past experience is any indication, they probably attribute the analysis above to me as well. They have a problem with comprehending the white text at the top of the forum.

Divergence or no divergence, it doesnt really matter imo (although im not surprised tume found yet another anomaly). We know the data does not support an impact, nor is there any evidence linking the data to N644AA. That's the bottom line.

Its also not surprising Farmer comes out of the wood-work throwing around technical terms of which he clearly doesnt have a clue of how to apply. He reads this forum religiously, yet is afraid to ever engage... and when he does, he shows his ignorance, this is why he cautiously used only "two-words" (you can see his lack of confidence even in his own analysis, this is why he regularly deletes most of his work). Its probably also why he washed out of civilian pilot training before he could even get to solo. I wouldnt be surprised if his CFI told him to stay away from airplanes if he wants live a long life.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Feb 21 2011, 08:14 AM
Post #14





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 232
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 21 2011, 12:25 AM) *
As usual, it appears Farmer is just trying to throw technical terms around of which he has no clue how to apply such terms, and poor old stroke victim Keith Beachy just follows along like a good little puppy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov-1S8Xxd94

Ya wanna go beat up some twoofers, Spike? Eh? Eh? Ya wanna, hey Spike?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 21 2011, 10:05 AM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Feb 21 2011, 01:14 PM) *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov-1S8Xxd94

Ya wanna go beat up some twoofers, Spike? Eh? Eh? Ya wanna, hey Spike?


laughing1.gif


QUOTE (Rob Balsamo)
ts probably also why he washed out of civilian pilot training before he could even get to solo. I wouldnt be surprised if his CFI told him to stay away from airplanes if he wants live a long life.


laughing1.gif

Thanks lads. Needed that!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 21 2011, 10:54 AM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 21 2011, 09:05 AM) *
laughing1.gif




laughing1.gif

Thanks lads. Needed that!


lol... Farmer brings new meaning to the term, "Screwed the pooch".

What is even more hilarious is that Farmer thinks lat/long coordinates need to be adjusted for magnetic variation.

Psst, Farmer, tume's analysis was heading divergence from the FDR lat/long.

(not surprisingly, Farmer doesnt even understand the argument).


From tume's original post -

I've found there is very consistent and significant divergence from the by lat/lon coordinates described FDR flightpath -in rate of 8.14 m/s. The divergence one clearly sees at the general situation view by bare eye.

<snip>

The residual divergence, way higher than its possible error margin, would in my opinion at least suggest the the FDR data have significant inner inconsistence between lat/lon positions and the flightpath derived from heading/speed values, so the lat/lon position values in the FDR data might have been shifted .... to make the final flightpath appear being more south......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 21 2011, 05:28 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (Rob Balsamo)
From tume's original post -

I've found there is very consistent and significant divergence from the by lat/lon coordinates described FDR flightpath -in rate of 8.14 m/s. The divergence one clearly sees at the general situation view by bare eye.

<snip>

The residual divergence, way higher than its possible error margin, would in my opinion at least suggest the the FDR data have significant inner inconsistence between lat/lon positions and the flightpath derived from heading/speed values, so the lat/lon position values in the FDR data might have been shifted .... to make the final flightpath appear being more south......


Seems very similar to a prvious post by John Farmer.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...t&p=8131328

QUOTE
Farmer e-mail to Rob Balsamo
Feb 27 2007
http://911files.info/blog/?p=58

I posted a little analysis I did based on the FDR data and it suggests that my hypothetical was indeed what was done to the data. I’ve demonstrated it to my satisfaction and I’ll leave the rest in your capable hands. My guess is the simulation was done before the data alteration (that is why in the video it flies north of the Citgo station). To be honest, they really did do a sloppy job in the alteration and I would expect better from our civil servants. The guy who did the work should be fired for not doing a sanity check before releasing it.

First, let me make it perfectly clear that I am using the NTSB data from the FOIA csv file. I have not altered it in anyway, except to separate components (such as breaking the velocity into horizontal and vertical components). Everything I’m going to cover, others will be able to replicate.
(snip)
What has been done is to take the distance deviation I already discussed and spread it across the horizontal velocity component. In the real world, this equates to longitude. In other words, the longitude data has been “fitted” to hide the angular change in the later part of the flight path. In doing so (for reasons discussed in my prior post) the arrival coordinates changed and since the error was distributed along the entire flight path, the beginning coordinates were also changed (primarily in the horizontal).
The coordinate error could have been easily corrected with a similar correction (introduce an offset). Fortunately, whoever applied the change forgot to do a “sanity check”. Had they done so, I would still be scratching my head.

Hopefully I have made this presentation fairly straightforward. If not, feel free to leave comments below or email me.


and (watch how he transparently tried to earn his paycheck here)..

QUOTE
Which is which? I don’t know. Has the government intentionally put out misinformation? Absolutely! I would go so far as to suggest that a lot of the “work” done by internet “investigators” is planted as well to discredit serious reviews.( rolleyes.gif) P4T has done a lot of great analysis that I have referred to in my own work. Do I take their work at face value? No! That is why I set out to do my own work, to verify for myself what they had already pretty much established.
All I would suggest is, you can’t escape the fact that there are three different records of the FDR and all three disagree with one another. All three might be wrong, or one might be the “real deal”. That is what we are trying to sort out. In my humble opinion the *fdr and *csv files are trash. In the end, don’t take my word for anything because I’m not a pilot and as with the lateral acceleration my interpretation may not agree with someone elses. But my textbook says yaw is a change in vertical axis, which results in a change in heading by virtue of a change in the acceleration component. But that is just me



Here are a few other gems from the swamp (BCR aka John Farmer aka spcengineer)..

QUOTE
And yes, I have already demonstrated that the CSV file data has been altered, the lateral acceleration shifted, and the positional data offset, etc, etc, etc. It is a matter of record in a Court complaint and I don't think anyone here denies that. the Pentagon gate camera footage does have issues, and again I don't think most people here deny that either. That is a far cry from flying the plane over the Pentagon."

Yes, I do see secondary evidence trails in the Pentagon evidence set. Like I said, I don't wear blinders. Down the road, evidence may develop to explain that secondary evidence set, but for now there simply is nothing to explain some of it. Was some of the public release information altered and doctored?
There is no doubt in my mind that it was. To what end? I don't know. I'm honest enough to say that."

[b]"NEADS 25.3 Second Time Difference Explained (Or, "I hate it when Craig is Right")
I told my nemeses at CIT that if I found evidence of tampering in the 84 RADES data that they would be the first to know and I am a man of my word. The NEADS clock was NOT running slower on 9/11. Rather its radar data was being collected, altered, and then fed into the system.


-John Farmer


http://www.thepentacon.com/JohnFarmer.mp3

QUOTE
I've caught them lying out the teeth buddy! (laughs) I mean what really convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt was the NTSB data. That is such an obvious misinformation campaign right there it isn't even funny. That stuff is so doctored. It just isn't even funny."
[...]
"The first thing I noticed in 3Ding is the Pentagon gate cameras....no way, no way. Ok that plane came in and hit those two poles,( rolleyes.gif) it had a certain angle of attack coming in. Ok...the Pentagon gate cameras have the thing sittin' on the ground. Naw naw naw that's not even reality.


Just in case you didn't know Tume. Take this guy's "assertions" with a pinch of salt.

Is your contribution to this thread over Farmer? This isn't J.REF. People here know when you're blowing smoke out of your rectum mate. Even me. And I'm just a "grunt in the trenches".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 22 2011, 01:20 AM
Post #18





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (oss)
Just in case you didn't know Tume. Take this guy's "assertions" with a pinch of salt.

Is your contribution to this thread over Farmer? This isn't J.REF. People here know when you're blowing smoke out of your rectum mate. Even me. And I'm just a "grunt in the trenches".

I take Farmer with grain of salt from the very beginning, because I was contributing at his 84Rades forum some years ago until it mysteriously disappeared. But on the other hand I look into his works, although I don't know the cited quotes until now. The Farmers coordinates in the radar files don't completely match the range/azimut, although he uses the startling 13 decimals behind comma accuracy, but nothing too off I still haven't discovered in his file, just one unidentified blip which clearly also belongs to "AA77" and one misidentified blip which doesn't belong to "AA77", but I indeed don't know who did the identification. I think he's more or less sometimes right sometimes not about the data, e.g. the shifted accels. or magnetic declination don't seem to me be the case. I would think Farmer is also partially a victim of the NTSB misleading tampered files with some of his conclusions.

What I must now appologize for myself is that I probably confused it with the wind and it looks it blowed in opposite direction as I was alerted by one of my Czech colleagues and subsequently also by Warren Stutt - everybody makes mistakes, not just NTSB - me at least not intentionally - which only makes the divergence even more startling, because now it looks it is counter-wind. dunno.gif

I'm in middle of making also the tracking angle/GS plot and heading/TAS plot to make classical wind triangle, to see what will come out.

I have also some communications with Warren Stutt and now it seems he slowly backs off from the "FDR (GMT) clock maybe incorrect" presumption, because his counter-arguments are weaker and weaker.

I was also writing to 911blogger why they didn't published my article about the incorrect "impact timing" (which more or less agrees with Farmer - as I understand it) and from the answer it looks clear they don't much understand what is it all about, one of their main argument I must confess I didn't much understand at all, because it was so off what my article was all about, that I have suspicion they don't know even much to read when they moderate the blogs. So I've spent loads of precious time to explain them in very detail what is it all about and my little petty plots didn't progressed. So I wonder what will be the 911blogger answer.

I have also a bit refined on the "impact time", so now I see from the data compared to the theoretical trajectory plots, that all the datasets (DCA, ADW, 84Rades, FDR) rule out the "impact" before 13:37:52 UTC. So it looks like the initial seismo reports were right (http://www.911review.com/attack/pentagon/index.html). I must also state to it , that I'm still undecided about the flyover question and I still see more and more indicies for it in both the FDR and radar data, ufortunately some them are not of the nature I can publish even here, because I can imagine the the govt loyalist site pundits would eat me alive, so in the case somebody is interested, then via PM.

HERE a funny correlation of the ATC vs FDR time(s). Mind the red.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 22 2011, 01:48 AM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 22 2011, 12:20 AM) *
I'm in middle of making also the tracking angle/GS plot and heading/TAS plot to make classical wind triangle, to see what will come out.




If you use True Course or "Track Angle True" (which is what i thought you initially used when i skimmed through your video), wind is already taken into consideration. There isnt much of a difference as the winds are pretty light. 1 to 2 degrees at most.

You also may want to make a plot with only the blue line (FDR Lat/Long) vs. the red (True Course), as Farmer and his ilk seem to be confused of what exactly you are referencing regarding the divergence. He apparently thinks you need to adjust for magnetic variation for FDR Lat/Long positions. He seems to be having more frequent "senor moments" nowadays i guess.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 22 2011, 03:23 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



So i had a little time to stroll over to the cesspit today. Wow, what a mess. The usual Farmer obsession showing, Beachy's usual incoherent rants, Mackey poking his head in his usual contradictory debate style, "There is nothing to debate..."... the expected cheerleaders who havent a clue, all of which attribute the above analysis to P4T in a deceptive and egotistical manner attempting to discredit Pilots For 9/11 Truth.


As suspected, Farmer is completely lost. He thinks Tume's analysis intended to show a divergence between FDR data plots and Radar tracks.

Their conclusion is that the lat/long coordinates in Warren's RO have been 'altered' to reflect a more southerly approach. They base this conclusion on DCA/ADW radar data plotted in GE using the range and angle data from those ASR's. So, the conclusion is only valid if the DCA/ADW data is plotted correctly. It is not.


Wrong.

Tume's conclusion is -

"The residual divergence, way higher than its possible error margin, would in my opinion at least suggest the the FDR data have significant inner inconsistence between lat/lon positions and the flightpath derived from heading/speed values, so the lat/lon position values in the FDR data might have been shifted.... to make the final flightpath appear being more south. "


Pay attention to the underlined words Farmer. No where in the above conclusion does tume state anything about a divergence with radar tracks.

Farmer started the thread feeling giddy that the divergence is due to a failure to adjust for magnetic variation.

Well, first, Farmer didnt even understand the analysis (as i suspected). Tume, you shouldn't have included the DCA/ADW tracks as it only confused Farmer. In his usual tunnel vision giddiness, he zeroed in on the Radar plots, saw a divergence with some other line... his blood pressure raised with excitement as he laughed himself into stupor... "Aha! I got them! They didnt adjust the radar tracks for mag variation! That is why they see a divergence! I gotta go tell them and just give them two words to see if they figure it out... oh I'm so giddy with excitement! I got them!".

Wrong again Farmer -

The divergence analysis is between the FDR heading and FDR Lat/Long. Tume included the Radar plots to show comparison with FDR Lat/Long. as tume explained...


"For comparison with the FDR lat/lon path based on coordinates in the FDR dataset (blue) I've also included the positions given by nearest radars at Reagan Itl. (DCA-yellow) and Andrews AFB (ADW- green), "



If Farmer actually looked at the analysis and understood it, his first clue that the Radar plots were showing a True Course track is that the Radar Plots (Green/Yellow lines)... line up pretty close with FDR Lat/Long (Blue line).



Then again, Farmer isn't very bright, so he probably still thinks FDR Lat/Long needs to be adjusted for Mag Variation. I was puzzled why Farmer would come here with "two-words Magnetic declination". I was thinking to myself, this must be an all new low for stupidity coming from Farmer.

Farmer dug himself deeper, still never realizing that the divergence issue had nothing to do with the Radar tracks (nor mag variation/deviation/declination) and that it was a comparison between heading and FDR lat/long.

When i pointed this out above, he attempted to back-peddle in true Farmer fashion.

"From what I can tell, the plot points for DCA/ADW do look very close to the one's I derived, although a little hard to tell from the lack of surface detail, so I am going to assume that the guy made some kind of mag dec correction when plotting them."


Now, Farmer finds out that Tume used Farmer's "processed" Radar plots (already adjusted for Mag variation) and is throwing himself into a frenzy!

"Okay, now I'm just a little pee-o'd.... HE IS USING MY RESULTS W/O CREDITING OR UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY ARE!


laughing1.gif

Wow, what an ego!

Farmer, you are pissed because you once again opened your mouth before engaging your brain.

(By the way, how can he source your work, when you have deleted it? ... Twice!!)

It doesnt get any better than that folks!

It bears repeating what i said in my initial reply to Farmer in post 13...

As usual, it appears Farmer is just trying to throw technical terms around of which he has no clue how to apply such terms, and poor old stroke victim Keith Beachy just follows along like a good little puppy.

Psst... Farmer, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

With that said, i again reiterate i havent looked over tume's analysis thoroughly (meaning, i havent plotted the data myself to compare), but if his heading plots were adjusted for wind (which tume made reference in the OP), he was plotting a True Course. Tume says he reversed the wind correction. I would be interested to see what the results are with True Course (Track Angle True) plotted against FDR Lat/long. (Again Tume, please post at least one plot omitting Radar Tracks as it will only confuse our 'opposition' who admits to having "Senior moments".)

And as a reminder (especially for the idiots in the Cesspit)


POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH

FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


You think this will win the "Stundies" for the month of Feb at the Cesspit? Do they still hold such infantile "awards"?

"So, the conclusion is only valid if the DCA/ADW data is plotted correctly. It is not." - John Farmer aka BCR aka spcengineer, Feb. 21, 2011

"I thought those DCA/ADW plotted points looked familiar and they should, THEY ARE MINE!" - John Farmer aka BCR aka spcengineer, Feb. 22, 2011


laughing1.gif

Sometimes i wonder if Farmer and Beachy are there just to discredit honest skeptics.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th November 2019 - 11:15 PM