Addressing Gl Arguments Regarding Noc Tech Paper Options

[rob balsamo]

Looks like there is only one reply so far, out of much noise being generated at the GL site... so we'll address the first "legit" reply to our NoC paper...

Didn't 911files show that the radii PfT was using in their last video were fudged? Looks like they're still using those same radii in this paper.

ETA: Why, yes, he did...

CODE

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4324901&postcount=8

Actually, no, he didnt.

1. It appears Farmer cherry picked one "radius" for his claim, not "radii". Yet refuses to show exactly which "radius" he feel is "fudged".

2. Based on Farmers final arithmetic for our alleged "fudged" radius, Farmer calculated his alleged G Load based on bank angle which Farmer claims is accurate -

Farmer calculates G load for given bank...

Banking angle = 62 degrees
g-force = 1.9

Its far from accurate...

First, Farmer doesnt specify speed to obtain such a bank angle.

Second, Farmer's arithmetic is wrong regarding G load for a given bank angle.

Every pilot from a student onward knows the rule of thumb that a 60 deg bank is 2.0G. How does Farmer calculate less G load for a higher bank? I'll tell you why, its because Farmer doesnt understand basic vector analysis as outlined in the paper, doesnt understand how to calculate a sag of an arc, nor is he able to determine a proper radii.

Looks like Farmer needs the chart as his "maths" is pathetic.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10761451

Or perhaps he will actually learn something from the tech paper regarding vector analysis.

n = 1/cos(62)

n = 2.13 G's

Farmer is more than 10% off with his "maths".

[rob balsamo]

JayDuh once again lives up to the "Duh" in his name...

quick question; the scale listed in the diagrams, this would be dependant upon the size of my 'puter screen so can we assume that each square on the graph paper is 1cm per side?

1cm Box = 100 feet

....as explained in all our video presentations.

Not to mention the first picture in our tech paper shows "R=253.497cm".

Does he really think the "cm" is based on distance along his computer screen? Really?

Another "Senior moment" for JayDuh i guess... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Think he will understand the "units" this time around? I doubt it... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

Here JayDuh.. i'll help you a bit. "cm" doesnt necessarily have to mean "centimeter". It can be a variable. Although, it does mean centimeter in terms of the CAD program used, but its not based on distance across your "computer screen".. i suppose JayDuh also thinks an Architect has to have a monitor with a surface area of several hundred feet because he shows a side of a building at x number of feet in his CAD program on his monitor? too funny...lol... aww, the poor ol' timers.. cant even determine scale...