Originally posted by cogburn
This video is a prime example of Truther pseudo-science and the modern manufacturing process of snake oil.
I will show you how YOU ARE the one using faulty logic sprinkled with venom to make completely irrelevant and of course ENTIRELY incorrect points.
Are the maths correct? Absolutely. Are the applications of theory correct? Absolutely.
Ah! Ok great! Thanks for the vote of confidence! Did you check the maths yourself?
I have a feeling you didn't.
However between the 6 and 7 minute mark it is mentioned that all variables are being pre-supposed because it is impossible to know the exact values
involved. The values are pre-supposed based on "eye witness testimony".
That is why I have always said the demands for "math" by the *SNIP* have been unreasonable to begin with.
Witnesses are not computers and they are NEVER mathematically accurate.
We only rely on them for the extremely general claim that the plane was NoC.
Nothing mathematical about that.
If you look at the average plotting of the NoC path as posted ad naseum on these forums and in the video, you can see that the path that is
mathematically analyzed in the video is actually to one extreme of the data. A more valid scientific approach to the problem would have been to use
the mean (average) plot based on all of the accumulated testimony.
P4T/CIT have chosen a specific flight path that is on the extreme of the reports, not the average, in order to justify all other mathematical formula
that follow in the film.
You must have watched a different presentation! They did not analyze only 1 flight path which completely destroys your entire argument here.
Plus they absolutely DID take the average! They anticipated this absurd argument and provided math for MULTIPLE paths!
Are you sure you watched it?
They did everything possible to account for all of their (and apparently your) excuses.
They moved the flyover point south, direct and north of the "impact hole"
They used e^n's path and broke it down.
They used averages of witness drawn paths.
They showed bank angles corresponding to witness accounts, and those above and below compatible statements.
They used extreme paths, they used conservative paths.
They used extreme speeds and conservative speeds.
They exposed Reheat's incorrect and dishonest flight radii.
And furthermore they even provided the math for a path that accounts for flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts Jr in the south parking lot that has the
plane over the ANC parking lot which is as far north as ANY of them placed it.
This proves you did not even bother to watch the entire presentation and that your ridiculous response is way out of line and inappropriate.
This is EXACTLY how you would argue things the first time you came around these parts with a bunch of illogical rants and uneducated irrelevant
There isn't anything more that you could possibly want out of this presentation that wasn't already included.
Ignoring what was presented or stopping after the first 7 minutes to compose an out of line vitriolic response based on a FALLACY makes you look just
as ridiculous as you did when you tried to argue a NoC impact!
Why don't YOU provide the flight path and math if you think the multiple examples covering all scenarios provided by P4T aren't fair?
This is akin to disqualifying all testimony that places the plane any further north than the flight path presented in the film, or weighting some eye
witness testimonies greater than others. This weighting or the reason as to why the extreme observed flight path were used were never offered, other
than it was the flight path that most conveniently fit the mathematical "evidence" that P4T/CIT is attempting to convince us is valid and
Since of course once again I have just shown the entire premise of your post to be based on a blatant false claim the rest of your obviously
pent-up/seething rant looks pretty foolish.
Look at the example in the image above.
It came from the presentation.
You are either lying or you couldn't sit through all 19 minutes for whatever reason.
This video was constructed not as summation or recreation of the eye witness testimony, but rather as an attempt to find some form of mathematical
"proof" as to support the as of yet unsupported eye witness testimony already presented.
No it wasn't.
It was created to prove how the lies of the war-crime-apologists do not prove the witnesses were all simultaneously hallucinating the plane on the
Math is not necessary to validate eyewitness accounts.
Intellectually honest people understand this is achieved via the scientific method of corroboration
and of course everyone knows that it has
been unanimously validated with this approach.
Mod edit: Off topic personal attacks removed. Read my u2u for more info.
[edit on 12/28/2008 by Hal9000]