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]

Farmer rant regarding debate...

For the benefit of the govt loyalist site'rs who are not familiar, there has been a call issued by some in the Truth Movement

"Some in the Truth Movement"? Why not say his name? Its Mark Gaffney. You know, the same person Farmer wrote a book with who is confused regarding Farmers' and my claims which is why he offered to moderate a debate?

The debate would be video-taped and posted on the web at some point in the future. I have declined this offer for debate.

We are not surprised as its clear you are the one who doesnt have a clue.

My reasons for declining are simple. I will not give P4T and CIT fantasy's any credibility by "debating" them.

Yet Farmer posts daily on the the govt loyalist site doing just that, as well in the past year on his blog. We would source such a claim rearding Farmer "debating" from the comfort of his blog, but he deleted it, accusing P4T and CIT of "cyber-attacks".

They do not accept FAA and RADES radar data,

The data Farmer admits was "manipulated?

or FAA ATC audio, the NTSB data, or the majority of eyewitness testimony.

P4T accepts all data from the govt. The difference between us and Farmer is that we want answers for the conflicts with such data. Farmer makes excuse based on his inaccurate analysis, and feels all Experts who can be verified as such "dont know what they're talking about.."

Since they do not accept such objective data, there is no basis for debate.

Translation - I'd much rather debate P4T and CIT without an opponent and accept govt data as gospel.

Their entire line of "reasoning" is based on fantasy where the rules of physics do not apply

We are not the people who need a chart due to calculations being more than 10-15% off from known figures and vector analysis. Farmer can scream we "dont know physics", but everyone from a student pilot onward realizes it is Farmer who doesnt understand physics and basic vector analysis. Good thing he deleted his blog or i'd be able to prove more inaccuracies from "Farmer".

I would be better off "debating" the existence of the tooth fairy and I have better things to do with my time.

...and your excuse for your numerous blog entries in the past few years attacking P4T/CIT? Further, your excuse for "debating" our work daily on the comfort of the the govt loyalist site? I think we know why, its because there arent any real pilots there to correct your bogus arithmetic.

However, I do not debate fantasy. Thanks for the laughs Rob.

Seems Farmer already is.. daily. But of course, without an actual opponent.