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]

ok.. wont spend too much time on this... but

CurtC rants

I just now watched the video linked in the OP, and here are my observations:

The link in the OP is to a pdf technical paper. Not a video. Wake up!

* I does not touch the objections we skeptics had with their NoC flight path, how it's aerodynamically impossible.

Obviously this person is not up to speed as we "touched" the ground in our tech paper and its still aerodynamically possible.

* It is a re-hash of PfT's failed paper from last year showing that a straight-line descent from the top of the tower to the light poles, then a sudden pull-up to level flight, would not be possible because the sudden pull-up would be too much g-loading.

Yes, it was based on plotted data by the NTSB. We have been asking for flight data for the aircraft independently witnessed and corroborated for the north approach, but GL's always dismissed the point with personal attack posts, personal attack pictures and noise.

* If you recall, this paper was trashed because their assumption of a straight-line descent followed by a sudden pull-up is not reasonable - it's the problem of the hockey-stick path.

We dont "recall" such "trashing". Matter of fact, Ryan Mackeys paper is wrong with respect to vertical acceleration components. But you'll never know the difference.. .we do. Does "CurtC" recall the path as plotted by the NTSB? Apparently not.

* After much confusing (intentional I think) talk about different paths, including parabolic, the video simply goes straight back to their hockey-stick scenario, and here's the big innovation:

The "parabolic" scenario was offered by Ryan Mackey. And we agree, he has successfully confused "CurtC" and the rest of the GL's based on bias.

* They used a computer tool to measure the little arc at the elbow of their hockey stick. They think that since a computer was involved, their calculations must be right, even though they went back to their infantile hockey stick shaped flight path.

Many aircraft were designed with the same type of computer "program" we used. Looks like its the train for you if you are unable to determine scale based on such CAD programs. But then again, trains are designed with the same type of software... looks like it sneakers for you on your next trip. Well wait.. sneakers are designed with the same type of software... barefoot for you?

I think they could benefit by understanding the abbreviation "GIGO."

I think "CurtC", Ryan Mackey, John Farmer et al... could benefit from the abbreviation "CAD", Since they probably dont know what it means.. its stands for "Computer Aided Design".


Anyone else find it strange how GL's used to tout a "cartoons" not based on any flight data whatsoever?

- Purdue, failed to even animate engines for impact, "disappeared" Vertical stab on "impact"
- "Integrated Consultants", failed to incorporate flight data as plotted by NTSB

GL's claim to be "critical thinkers"? I think not...