IPB




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

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

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Addressing GL Arguments For North Path, Split from "9/11: The North Flight Path" in Latest News

rob balsamo
post Dec 26 2008, 07:46 PM
Post #21



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,657
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (dMole @ Dec 26 2008, 06:36 PM) *
Ummm.... didn't that v2/(r*11.26) formula (with v in knots and r in feet, and yes I took a "shortcut" but "check my math") come from Newtonian physics?!?!?!

http://www.mill-creek-systems.com/se/SEGravity.htm


Exaclty... and of course Reheat doesnt even realize he offered the same formula to check his work. Probably because he doesnt even know how to use it and instead used online calculators. This is why Reheat hasnt even bothered to let Farmer in on the fact he is wasting his time by checking the formula and doesnt realize to give him the applicable pdf which lays out the formula in Newtonian terms. lol.. Its fun watching them chase their tails.


by the way.. check your PM's dMole.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 26 2008, 09:34 PM
Post #22



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE
They fail to take into account any acceleration or deceleration of the plane along with any decent or accent of the plane.

Although a decent hypothetical plane could in theory make a reasonable descent, I like to think of my hypothetical plane as having an accent much like the fictional character "Tony Montana"- I blame that on the DoD... whistle.gif

[metaphor][fictional plane]:"Say hello..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scarfaceinthefall.jpg


[/metaphor]

[Aside: it gives the farmers bad nameses it does. wink.gif ]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 26 2008, 10:03 PM
Post #23



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Turbofan @ Dec 26 2008, 06:46 PM) *
I belive Mr. Farmer is trying confuse everyone with his elaborate, convoluted math equation. Notice he does not explain his variables
which makes it very difficult to ascertain what and where the "a" in his formula represents/comes from.

Personally, I would have expected an engineer to know and remember this [very simplified case of] "scientific method-esque" information already, but OK??

http://www.mrmartinweb.com/wp.htm

"General Method to Solve

First, read the problem carefully. Decide what information you are given and what is being asked. Draw a diagram if applicable. Remember, there is more than one piece of information missing in all these problems. After you have done this, do the following:

1. Define only one variable. Let n = (describe in English what n equals)

2. Using the same variable, define the other unknowns.

3. Using the information given, write an equation.

4. Solve the equation for the variable.

5. Find the other answers by going back to the definitions you made."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 26 2008, 10:21 PM
Post #24



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,657
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Farmer has a problem of not defining his variables. Anti-Sophist picked up on it when Farmer was calculating the csv file being altered to show a south approach. A-S called his math "pseudo-science". A-S also thinks there can only be up to 2 seconds missing from the FDR (which still places the aircraft too high). Notice you dont see him around much anymore and all the rest of the GL's now embrace Farmer's "pseudo-science". Its the most attention he has gotten since he started researching 9/11 im sure...


Its fun watching Farmer trying to prove wrong a formula used in the pdf originally linked by Reheat to check his work, but since we now used it to expose ReTreat's bogus claims, it might be wrong... lol
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 27 2008, 10:49 AM
Post #25



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Because I'm so f#cking sick of hearing the OGCT True Believer faithful cock-knockers drone on about average vs. instantaneous velocity:

Hey NWO "kitties-" you aren't the ones who invented differential calculus. I believe that would be Newton and Liebniz, although I find the German notation to be vastly superior IMHO.

Funny they extremely rarely seem to have sources for their assertions I have noticed though. Here's one.

http://www.stkate.edu/physics/phys111/curr...stvelocity.html

I often wonder if they've ever heard the words purpose, target audience, and scope though... rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 27 2008, 11:23 AM
Post #26



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Surprise! That thread with the now somewhat less fraudulent title over in Randiland has now devolved into "kitty pile on SPreston" banal metachatter drivel.

e^n did however make a brief appearance at #263 that was about the only noteworthy occurence:

CODE
http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=4297880&postcount=263


On Farmer AKA "911files" and his degree in mathematics, is this the same John Farmer that had negative (read backwards, below zero) aircraft velocities when he graphed the USAF 84 RADES data derived velocities with his "error bars" around November 2007? This is of course not long before his entire RADES forum mysteriously "disappeared" after our forum member Tume pointed this out to Farmer. I've still got my now-archived PM to Tume about this one. Perhaps Tume will make an appearance here eventually and sound off.

Helicopters flying backwards- well yes, but not necessarily recommended, especially at high velocities. B757 and B767 flying backwards- well frankly good luck with that. rolleyes.gif
----------------------
"Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose." ~Albert Einstein

http://www.quotegarden.com/math.html

""Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things, you just get used to them."
John von Neumann.

http://martin.winkler.net/maths_quotes.html

I've got a really off-color joke about a mathematician and a pencil, but I'll be "nice" here today and not relate it. Farmer was saying something about P4T "cheating" on #2 radius? but I didn't see what/where that business was about. Perhaps a messenger RandiTroll will bring us his shiny new "treasure" and "show and tell" post it here today for us to review...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 27 2008, 11:32 AM
Post #27



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



OK one more question and 2 editorial comments- why doesn't Farmer take all his LaTeX and do something useful, like write a math textbook?

I wonder if it has occurred to Mr. Farmer that much more efficient means of typing equations have been developed over the last 10-15 years. Oh well, let's not begrudge him his [clerical, "AR" IMHO] "specialty" then.

He would fit in really well in the "appearance over substance/content" Los Angeles/Hollywood "scene" though IMHO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 27 2008, 12:21 PM
Post #28



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,657
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I havent had a chance to look over there yet today... but as we stated in our presentation...


"Anyone can cherry pick witneses statements to suit their bias making a flight path impossible"....

Going by your replies above, that is exactly what they are doing it seems... again.

So predictable...

We can go in circles all day every day, but at the end of the day, its going to be up to the viewer to decide which is more "reasonable".

Bottom line, all paths are aerodynamically possible, the math is correct, there wasnt any "cheating" as its all laid out and explained how to cross check, many paths are witness compatible, the GL myth is busted.

Have they figured out how to work a Sagitta formula yet? lol
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 27 2008, 12:46 PM
Post #29



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,657
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Agreed... we'll button it up when we get a chance and send it out.

I took a gander over there... lol.. too funny.

Farmer is way off with his G Loads for a given bank angle and its not due to a "conversion factor". Its due to the fact he doesnt have a clue and his math is wrong. Perhaps Farmer should use a cheat sheet. Im not surprised Reheat didnt correct him with a simple Load Factor chart. But any student or private pilot can... smile.gif

Seems Farmer is more adept in posting LaTeX figures than doing actual arithmetic. Same sh*t we went through last year...

This is why they will never debate us, or even go to a flight school and ask. They hate to be proven wrong. When proven wrong, they go in their room, slam the door and plug their ears...

It appears they still dont realize "radius #2" is reduced from radius #1 when adjusted to the impact point. We even extended the pass at the citgo further north for "Radius #2". They have no idea how to calculate a Sagitta yet... They're clueless....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 27 2008, 12:47 PM
Post #30



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Hey "kitties"- pull this- and talk to "Reheat"- he offered to do your precious "pull up" calculation on your forum already BTW, but buyer beware of "Reheat's" math from what I have found...

My post #154 in a related thread:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10761291

CODE
http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=4257199&postcount=3


http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16709

They said "impossible flightpath," and Rob & Tino demonstrated 4 (+2 "slower") flightpath possibilites that I independently verified using a CAD program and 2 concurring Excel spreadsheets for the "math." We showed the error and cherry-picked bias of "Reheat's 911 myths debunk." Why did we even expect anything better (as in integrity and intellectual honesty) from those Illusionist-following J-Cult clowns? wall.gif

EDIT: Let me guess- CAD programs and Microsoft Excel have gone "twoofy" now...

EDIT2: Let's review the Randiite "Reheat" turn radii one more time.

My post #152:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10761287

"Reheat" tells us these are the NoC turn radii (with 2000 US feet being the largest blue one):
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16635

Underlaid with "Reheat's" very own Google Earth image, that defined my drawing scale with that 921-foot Pentagon wall:
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16636

Now who exactly "cheated" again?
Reason for edit: Added Reheat's "work"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 27 2008, 01:22 PM
Post #31



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,657
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Someone needs to tell Jayduhees to go take a lesson at a flight school and ask for Steep Turn instruction. He is completely lost....lol

circular indeed Jayduh. smile.gif


Anyone notice a pattern with most of the GL "experts"? Old timers, half senile, some may be stroke victims. Many admit to having "senior moments". It appears Jayduh is no exception. laugh.gif


Now, dont get me wrong, im not trying to bust on people due to their age, i love my grandpa too, but now he lets me fly the plane and for good reason. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 27 2008, 02:11 PM
Post #32



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,657
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Jaduhees math...

First conclusion... note the bold...

QUOTE
In level flight a lateral force of 1 g combined with a vertical(due to gravity alone) g force of 1 g will result in the airframe experiencing a 1.41g force in a direction 45 degrees below the horizontal


Not really sure what he means by "below the horizontal". But he is correct a level 45 degree bank will produce 1.41 G.

http://www.coryat.com/faa-pp-written/2.jpg


His descent case reduces G loading to 1.11

QUOTE
A desent [sic] would cause a reduction in the normal 1 g experienced due to gravity. A desent [sic] of half the acelleration [sic] of gravity would result in the airframe experiencing that 1 g lateral force due to the same turn with only 0.5 g vertical and the vector sum would be 1.11 g


1.41 - 1.11 = 0.3 G difference

Then he pulls G load back to same level altitude as the initial 45 deg bank...

QUOTE
In an ascent of 0.5 g vertical force we now have 1 g lateral and 1.5 g vertical (adding in gravity) we get an total force of 1.8


1.8 - 1.41 = 0.39 G

0.3 is near equal to 0.39 G. Although not exactly equal, Possible errors due to JayDuh rounding, arithmetic, inconsistent decimal placing and typo (he used 1.141 in his initial calculation instead of 1.41 as he correctly used for 45 deg level bank).

Then in his conclusion, he completely confuses his own typing...

QUOTE
So the plane would go from 1.141 g to 1.11 g then to 1.8 g


No JayDuh! You correctly calculated 1.41 initially, not 1.141 as you state in your conclusion. Senior moment perhaps?

Conclusion, Jayduh, although he had his senior moment with an obvious typo (and thought his typo proved me wrong..lol), confirmed the training and basic airmanship every pilot goes through. The G Loads reduced by descending from a level turn will equal (but be opposite to), the G loads needed to return to level alitude for same duration.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 27 2008, 03:02 PM
Post #33



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Turbofan @ Dec 27 2008, 11:29 AM) *
We need to take screen shots of all these "experts" and their theories/math.

Does anyone have a library, or football sized warehouse that we can store all of the binders full of JokeREF computations? laughing1.gif

I've been generating .PDF's of our [fraudulently posted] namesake thread over in Randiland periodically for posterity every once in a while. As far as where we should store the Randiite "computations," from what I've seen so far this is the most apt location for their "math:"

http://www.wpclipart.com/buildings/outhouse.png



It would also appear that Mr. Farmer has evolved Ryan Mackey's old SOP:

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with [TiNRAT] bullshit" ever so slightly into "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then gloss it over with LaTeX." Wasn't Reheat the one harping on "razzle dazzle?"

I just hopped over to ATS for a quick peek around. How's "pinch" treating you TF? He's a real firecracker! I haven't seen our justifiable OGCT True Believer faithful-provided "pull up" coordinates/altitudes posted anywhere, but I've had my fill of the Illusionist latrine for quite a while and didn't look very hard over there. I'm starting to get that nasty "funk" up in my sinuses from that place.

EDIT: Has anyone know of any "elevation" photos of the Navy Annex that I could use to estimate the building height (or even better- know the building height)? The Pentagon is 77 feet 3.5 inches high, and ground level at the Pentagon is 36 feet high (from memory without looking it up, but I've been looking at a lot of topography lately, and this should give ~113 feet 3.5 inches aMSL for the Pentagon roof). I'll edit in the Navy Annex ground elevations here shortly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 27 2008, 03:24 PM
Post #34



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,657
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Farmer thinks the formula we used was used for G Load laughing1.gif. Did he even watch the video?

Psst.. Farmer, the formula is used for determining bank angle theta, from there you can determine G Load usig a simple load factor chart. Your G loads are wrong for your given bank angles. Its clear you need a cheat sheet. Use it before you look more a fool.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 27 2008, 03:46 PM
Post #35



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Thanks TF- that first link ought to do nicely. 5 stories at 10 feet/story would be 50 feet high. 5 stories at 12 feet/story (that's the WTC number) would be 60 feet, and that roof is flat rather than gabled isn't it? Does anyone have a preference? I'm guessing that would be the "eastern" side sloping down towards the Pentagon then?

http://randybaxter.net/Documents/001%20nav...%20entrance.JPG

Your 2nd link was 404-busted for me BTW, TF.
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_Wh1tPKSKtCU/SFrgg8Mb...YYID4mw/671.JPG

Would that new-ish Google maps street view give us anything here? I haven't used it.

EDIT: I edited the elevations from Google Earth into this "Key Coordinates" post #8:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10760963

For convenvience, here they are again:

I get the northernmost corner of the Navy Annex complex at:

N 38.869108, -77.067104 [W], elev=113 feet aMSL

Working clockwise from above location, Google Earth places the following:

SE Annex corner: N 38.868040, -77.066669 [W], elev = 124 ft aMSL
SW Annex corner: N 38.867237, -77.069819 [W], elev = 148 ft aMSL
NW Annex corner: N 38.868345, -77.070264 [W], elev = 144 ft aMSL


The first of TF's photo links above actually looks to me like the NW Annex corner (although the caption indicates "Air Force Memorial" which is on the East "Pentagon" side of the Navy Annex). If we go with the 60 foot building height (and let's do since it is very close to 20m for our metric-speaking friends), and "ballpark" average the east Annex elevation as 120 feet, this would be ~180 feet aMSL.

With that Pentagon roof at ~113 feet 3.5 inches aMSL, and the alleged impact hole at ~52 feet aMSL, why would a plane be pulling up in this scenario? In other words, Pentagon's 113.3 feet - Annex's 180 feet ~= -66.7 feet. That would be a descent for the errr... more sluggish readers.
http://randybaxter.net/Documents/001%20nav...%20entrance.JPG
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 27 2008, 06:16 PM
Post #36



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,657
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 27 2008, 02:24 PM) *
Farmer thinks the formula we used was used for G Load laughing1.gif. Did he even watch the video?

Psst.. Farmer, the formula is used for determining bank angle theta, from there you can determine G Load usig a simple load factor chart. Your G loads are wrong for your given bank angles. Its clear you need a cheat sheet. Use it before you look more a fool.



I'll expand on the above a bit more...

Here are Farmers numbers for a given bank angle...



Farmer admits our arithmetic is correct for bank angle, but is apparently confused regarding his G Load calculations based on bank angle. I will set him straight here....


The formula we used in the video presentation (which Farmer thinks solves for G load) is:

Θ = arctan ((V^2/r)/11.26)

The above formula does not solve for G load (as Farmer claims). It solves for bank angle theta (Θ) based on radius and speed. It has nothing to do with G Load.

From there, we can use a simple chart to determine G Load for a given bank..

http://www.geocities.com/cfidarren/hz26.jpg

The above is the same chart used in our presentation.

However, if Farmer wants to use an actual formula for determining G load based on Bank Angle, the proper formula to use is...

n = 1/(cosΘ)

where:

Θ = bank angle
n = G Load

(see, this is how you define variables if you're a real "scientist")

I was going to email the above to Farmer since he is notorious for plugging his ears when proven wrong, but i figured i'd let him bury himself more while the GL cheerleaders gather 'round him. Again, its the same crap we went through when i worked with Farmer. He reminds me of pilots i knew coming through the ranks who used to say "No, the chart is WRONG, I am right!". They are all now smoking holes. Thank god Farmer doesnt fly an airplane.

JayDuhhee's even proves Farmers G Loading for a given bank wrong and they dont even realize it...

Fun fun fun.... wink.gif


Perhaps one of the lurking GL's will provide Farmer with this chart as its clear he doesnt have a clue...

http://www.coryat.com/faa-pp-written/2.jpg


Nah.. they much rather think our posts are filled with "blah blah blah". Be sure to gather 'round Farmer, GL cheerleaders, and watch your ship go down hard. smile.gif

Conclusion - Farmer proven wrong once again, and we didnt even need 'Latex'. Farmer likes to get fu*ked hard... wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 27 2008, 06:54 PM
Post #37



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Well with LaTeX and all that mathematical knowledge, Farmer is bound to know more than all those charts, flight and wind tunnel test data, books, SOP's, flight instructors, test and combat pilots, etc. compiled over the decades by USAAF, USAF, NASA, USSR (mainly Migoyan and Sukhoi), Lockheed, Boeing, Hughes, Douglas, etc. right? [/sarcasm]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 27 2008, 07:08 PM
Post #38



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,657
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (dMole @ Dec 27 2008, 05:54 PM) *
Well with LaTeX and all that mathematical knowledge, Farmer is bound to know more than all those charts, flight and wind tunnel test data, books, SOP's, flight instructors, test and combat pilots, etc. compiled over the decades by USAAF, USAF, NASA, USSR (mainly Migoyan and Sukhoi), Lockheed, Boeing, Hughes, Douglas, etc. right? [/sarcasm]



According to Farmer, the FDR Experts he spoke to, "didnt make sense" and Farmer had to "Sever all ties" and climb in bed with anonymous "experts" in order to stroke his ego based on his obvious incredulity. When Farmer hears something he doesnt like... he goes ballistic as seen. Farmer has never had this much attention. Im sure he's enjoying it...

I wonder if Farmer knows the credentials and real name of "Reheat" and other GL "experts" since they're slipping each other the tongue.


It'll be fun to watch Farmer "flip flop" again (again, Farmer is a creature of habit and precedent)... and eventually give us all the juicy details of the anonymous "experts", including skeletons. But, i dont think they trust Farmer that much to expose themselves even more... despite their obvious public back slapping.


Bottom line, they will never debate real experts who can be verified. But they will spend every day in their "room" obsessed with us.


Kinda sad actually...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Dec 28 2008, 11:14 AM
Post #39





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,092
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (dMole @ Dec 25 2008, 02:23 PM) *
On Farmer AKA "911files" and his degree in mathematics, is this the same John Farmer that had negative (read backwards, below zero) aircraft velocities when he graphed the USAF 84 RADES data derived velocities with his "error bars" around November 2007? This is of course not long before his entire RADES forum mysteriously "disappeared" after our forum member Tume pointed this out to Farmer. I've still got my now-archived PM to Tume about this one. Perhaps Tume will make an appearance here eventually and sound off.

Hi dMole, I'm back from christmas and I see you've fun here with the Farmer and comp. again. Funny stuff rolleyes.gif
It looks like it is the very same Farmer (the former 911Omission member?!) who claimed he obtained the 84Rades data on FOIA and then have found the forum about 84Rades research - where he first posted quite valuable statistical analyses of the USAF radars visibility (obtained from all 911 traffic in 84Rades) and then, when I was extensively researching that and posting my doubts about the 84Rades data credibility on his forum - casting a real shadow especially on the probability the "AA77" data are real (because of the improbable radar invisibility periods on multiple radars), and you've also brilliantly pointed out then his "backward planes" - when there was the talk about the speed profiles. (there are numerous really weird anomalies in 84Rades, see e.g here) He simply deleted not just my posts, or the thread, but he deleted the whole forum! - Just wiped it from the internet. cleanup.gif
And when I asked him then via email (it's almost exactly one year ago), where the forum is (I naively thought he moved it somewhere), he just laconically replied: "It no longer exists...." (I still keep his email rolleyes.gif ) and when I was asking him then to share with me at least his statistical analyses, he never replied again.
This guy doesn't look credible to me at all...
Just for others> In fact I was up on the 84Rades analysis for several months (since the release of 84Rades till ~february 2008 - and we consulted it with dMole on several occasions), but then I was more and more convinced, that without the corroboration from FAA data (if published) I would be really reluctant to publish more about 84Rades. - Because the whole thing more and more looked to me as a psyop. (especially when I consider the really weird behaviour of the "source" of the 84Rades data John Farmer) -The more I was digging into the 84Rades I was more and more convinced, the data could be at least partially a fake or a result of injects, and definitely I've found several indicies the data are at least partially manipulated - so if I can't be convinced about its credibility - then I concluded it's a nonsense to 1. waste more time with it if it can't be used as a credible proof 2. to attract attention to it from the side of the honest researchers and waste their time with it too.
The same I would recommend with John Farmer.
Anyway I wish you happy new year dMole and to all you guys. I'm not much posting on P4T last couple of months, because I'm still in the tough struggle against the Lisbon Treaty here - so I've not much time left. But I still have enough to look at P4T regularly and appreciate your work guys. It's quite needed indeed. thumbsup.gif handsdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 28 2008, 11:32 AM
Post #40



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Thanks Tume and Best Wishes for the New Year to you as well. Good Luck on the EU/Lisbon thing.

That was my "loose" understanding of the RADES event(s) and I respect private communications, but I had no direct contact with Mr. Farmer, just the "FOIA released RADES data" itself. I readily noticed the disappearance of the RADES forum, as I was watching those developments quite closely (being one of the "primaries" in that RADES data analysis here).

thumbsup.gif cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th July 2014 - 04:33 PM