New FDR Decode

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

This is hilarious!!!

You guys are STILL talking about hobbyists' home flight sims, aren't you?

There IS a large sub-culture out there, it seems....I've seen some of these dudes ('dudettes?) post their efforts on YouTube.

I've seen a website/blog sort of thing, where a guy is BUILDING an entire Boeing cockpit replica, to integrate with his HOME computer programs.

These things are, of course, going to mimic the "real" thing....but, so what??

I'm not a computer programmer, but can't just about ANY computer language be used, by a professional programmer, to accomplish the same "simulation"??

IOW...you can run Windows software on a Mac, right?

Is there a computer techhie out in the world who would NOT notice the difference, between teh two softwares???

Load Flight Data Recorder File

X-Plane is sometimes used in accident investigation or re-creation, and in that case people need to be able to take the data from a black box and put it in a format that X-Plane can read. That format is the Flight Data Recorder (or .fdr) format. Unlike the SMO files, which are compressed binary, and the MOV files, which are for showing movies only, the FDR file is text. This means that users can make their own FDR files as easily as possible from whatever data they have and then re-create these flights in X-Plane. Look in the Instructions folder within the X-Plane directory for the file “Example FDR file.fdr.” This is a sample FDR file.

Source

You can literally load the .fdr file from the NTSB into Xplane and watch the aircraft fly.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


So what??

You can literally load the .fdr file from the NTSB into Xplane and watch the aircraft fly.

I never disputed that there are methods to interpret the data FROM the SSFDR, into another program, for displaying as wished. Graphs, videos, whatever, just up to the programmer's abilities, and the software limitations.

BUT, IT ONLY WORKS IN ONE DIRECTION!!!

That is what some here don't understand....the ones who claim that the SSFDR from American 77, and United 93, could have been "created" in a laboratory, or by "flying" in a Level-D FFS, or whatever nutty "theory" is being suggested.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
BUT, IT ONLY WORKS IN ONE DIRECTION!!!

These plugins where written in 2003 and were hosted on my other web site
They allowed you to record and playback a flight in Xplane V7.
That flight data file could also be used in FS2002 using the apps that I created in Borland C++ Builder.
The files recorded on FS2002 could also be played back in XPlane.

www.xpluginsdk.org...

Xplane can RECORD and play back .fdr files.

Since it is open source, it can also be tweaked to record .fdr files using Custom Data Frame layouts provided by any airline.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


You still don't understand???

So what??? "Record and playback"?? Do you even understand what you're typing?

Here....adding this, from another thread....even though it HAS been linked many times, no one seems to bother to take time to read and understand it....seems more appropriate here, anyway:

NTSB - Specialist's Factual Report of Investigation, Digital Flight Data Recorder for American flight 77.


(Look at page I-13, for example. There is no yaw control servo in a simulator!!!)






[edit on 24 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

You still don't understand???

So what??? "Record and playback"?? Do you even understand what you're typing?

Here....adding this, from another thread....even though it HAS been linked many times, no one seems to bother to take time to read and understand it....seems more appropriate here, anyway:

www.ntsb.gov...

[edit on 24 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

Do you?

You claimed it was impossible for a simulator to produce .fdr files. You also claimed it "only works in one direction", playback only, no record.

You are wrong (as usual).

Not only can 50 dollar software you can buy at Walmart produce the same files provided by the NTSB, but so can a Level D sim.

As long as you have a data frame layout for the specific aircraft and the
ability to re-write the code, then yes it would be possible.

The files that are loaded with the manufacturer game software would not
be the same however.

The flight investigation software is not much different than a game in the sense that it reads data files and creates animations while interpreting the
data frames into units that can be read as actual values as opposed to
data words (ie: 1's and 0's).

So yes Weed, as the lady suggests with a data frame layout and the ability
to re-write code, you too can record/playback files and recreate simulations
just as the accident investigation software does.

reply to post by turbofan


Uhh...Tino....(psssst....I really, really REALLY doubt that that is a "lady"...haven't you caught on, yet???)

So yes Weed, as the lady suggests with a data frame layout and the ability to re-write code, you too can record/playback files and recreate simulations just as the accident investigation software does.

OK...both of you (once mortal enemies, if I'm not mistaken...have you made up??) are STILL NOT GETTING IT!!

But, I think I've finally figured out the problem....AND, when I take time to look at this thread's OP again....well, I shudder to think about how far afield it's gone, these last few days.

The OP, if you recall, is about WARREN STUTT and his further decode of AAL 77's SSFDR.

It completely BLOWS the 'PfT' claims out of the water...the ones that THEY (still) go on about. Because, THEIR (quasi-) interpretations are based on incomplete data --- and, data that they've massaged and interpolated/extended...in order to foster their "magic show", and bag of tricks delusions.

Now...back to this latest imbroglio....as I said, I think I finally am getting into your heads, to see where you're coming frm....it is so SIMPLE, is why I just couldn't believe anyone would try to argue for it!

It is the mistaken belief that because what is shown by the NTSB video could be, with not "too much trouble", reproduced using some of the modern-era consumer-grade flight sim software available....the inference, and intent to innuendo drop here....is the CLAIM that the NTSB in fact did do such a thing???

Is this it?

Sorry...I try to remain polite...but-that is really stupid! IF that is what I'm reading, between the lines?

Notwithstanding how ridiculous this "claim" is (do you realize how many people are involved, people who WORK at the NTSB???)

Despite how ridicuous this is....you guys (no, I still don't think Tiffany's a "she") are suggesting that this was done with 2010-era software, way back in 2001??

Am I the only one who doesn't own a time machine???

__________

Just to make sure on the same page: To re-phrase, you believe that the NTSB intentionally made a "fake" video re-enactment, suing ONLY Heading, Altitude, Vertical Velocity, Pitch and Roll attitude, Control Wheel and Column Position, and Thrust Lever Position information???

(Trying to remember the video, not sure if I missed anything...any parameters, besides the geography and terrain/structures outside depicted, of course)

Well...let's take a gander at some OTHER videos that the NTSB has made, and compare, shall we??? (Hiope you don't think THESE are "faked" too??):














And.....next time you fly Internationally, you will now know what WE have to listen to, so often...English is the "official" language, but not all aviators from other countries are fluent:










[edit on 24 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

Alright Weed, are you suggesting "Tiffany" is not "Tiffany"?

I was a little skeptical due to the intense pilot speak and technical jargain
offered...I'm not surprised.

In any case, I hope that you are coming to terms with the fact that these
Level D sims actually do produce authentic, proprietary flight data.

I don't know "IF" the NTSB would have fabricated the data; I'm not
pointing the finger specifically at them. Perhaps some indviduals within
that organization are involved.

Perhaps they were handed a computer file ... or even a tampered
SSFDR with faked data to study.

The point I'm trying to get across is my theory holds water. It is perfectly
acceptable to suggest that the data reviewd by the NTSB was created by
a flight simulator.

That is all I want to get across. We can agree that the NSTB might not
have done it; that is fine. I don't know who did it. My theory is just a theory
with research to back it up.

For the record, when I pointed out that discrete was the term used by
techs to describe inputs into the FDAU, it wasn't a shot...I had hoped that
the line, "I'll let it slide since you're not a technical person" would have
eased that transition.

In any case, it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt that Level
D flight sim can produce data frames exact to the airline's specific design.

reply to post by turbofan


NO!! N ot for ALL recorded parameters!

In any case, it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt that Level D flight sim can produce data frames exact to the airline's specific design.

I linked to the NTSB report Appendix I for AAL 77 earlier, told "Tiffany" to look at page I-13....it shows the SSFDR recorded parameters for, as example, "yaw servos"....YES, those are on the real airplane...the SIM does NOT have them!!!

HOW can this data, this information, be IN the SSFDR files, IF it "came from " a Level-D FFS???

Do you see, yet??

Originally posted by weedwhackerHOW can this data, this information, be IN the SSFDR files, IF it "came from " a Level-D FFS???

I'll have a look at this parameter more in depth.

If it's part of the orignal aircraft, the SIM will have provisions for this
as well because it uses the same guts.

Think of the FDAU as a box, and the FDR sits inside the box.

The cockpit displays, indicators, knobs, lights, etc. also connect to this
box via a data bus and/or single line inputs (either analog, or digital).

Any information that you receive in the cockpit; any buttons you can
twist; any lights that illuminate are all controlled by a flight management
computer.

That information which is controlled by, received, or sent to the comptuer
is also connected to the FDAU.

I don't know how else to describe emulation other than servos and their electric
properties can be converted, driven and manipulated by computer code.

The parts that you list as non-existent on a SIM are replaced by code, or
electronics to emulate their functions. It's the only way the simulator will
function seamlessly.

Just as there are no engines, fuel, oil, etc. The simulator records this
information. It can calculate fuel loads, fuel use, EGT Temps, etc. even
though no such fluids exist.

The simulator can also display fuel quantity and fuel flow dynamically as it would be
used based on throttle position.

All of this possible, yet no fuel tanks, or fuel.

It's easy Weed. Very easy. Servo's are a snap.

Please do your own research. I think I've done enough by calling a
SIM company and uploading a call to put this to rest.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


You aren't getting it....there is a BIG difference.

Remember, I am the one who is the pilot, not you "conspiracy" guys!!!

Let's use your example, the fuel flow:

The simulator can also display fuel quantity and fuel flow dynamically as it would be used based on throttle position.

Well..technically, thrust lever position will determine what the "engine" will do, and then, the "F/F" will be calculated from that.

b[]Just as there are no engines, fuel, oil, etc. The simulator records this information. It can calculate fuel loads, fuel use, EGT Temps, etc. even
though no such fluids exist.

ONLY because the desired amounts are inputted, from the Instructor's station.


The BIG difference? The mathematics and computer language coding is MADE UP for those values that represent items that don't exist, in the SIM.

Looking at JUST fuel use, and how it does its "magic"...in the REAL airplane there are actual, physical fuel flow meters in the fuel lines, inside the FCU (Fuel Control Unit) that is integrated into the engine.

The SIM uses mathematics, and engineering data from the engine manufacturers to estimate a F/F value, based on the "engine's" operating parameters, I.E., N2/N3, and environment, (*simulated) as in, altitude and temperature, etc.

The real airplane? Uses ACTUAL, physical flow info.

Now...this is avionics/FMC advanced, or 303 course stuff, so bear with me:

The FMC will calculate FOB (fuel on board) independently of what is displayed on the fuel quantity indicators.

Get this, please: In a real airplane (and in the SIM, since the "boxes" are the same units)....and this is where your confusion probably begins. The FMC, and its CDU are a combined unit....I have a picture of it posted, already [another thread]. SO, they can "talk" the same computer language to the FDAU in the airplane.

The FMC (as one function, of many) monitors fuel quantity, and "looks" for discrepancies. IOW....once initialized at the gate, beginning of flight, it "looks" at the real F/F, and continually calculates what it thinks the fuel quantity should be. This is the same as in a SIM...since there isn't any REAL fuel, there.

Now....in a real airplane, say you had a fuel leak? In a part of the system where it's not going to affect the F/F readings...say, just a hole in a tank section somewhere. (BTW, when we "dump", this is the same as a 'leak', to the FMC).

Eventually, when it reaches pre-determined point, it triggers an alert. The FMC will alert the crew (message on the FMC, and in EICAS) that what it "sees" in the fuel gauges isn't the same as what it calculated, from its independent readings.

There are many more examples....it is JUST NOT possible to "fool" people who are examining the SSFDR data files in the way suggested! NOT when you are talking about the entire data set!

What you and Rob Balsa....er, I mean..."Tiffany",....are trying to argue is that the NTSB video re-enactment of AAL 77 was "faked", using the FSX, or whatever, home-based computer flying simulation programs?

Sorry, but that is simply untrue, and there is no way it could fool any of the professionals who were involved in examining the data.

This sort of "theory of conspiracy" would involve dozens at least of people working in the NTSB, and other agencies!! It is ludicrous beyond mentioning.


Now....let me tell you about the FMC units, again. At our training center we have many different ways to get familiar with the cockpit...full-sized, and enlarged photos of the instrument panels, panel drawings they give you, rolled up in tubes, so you can take them to the Hotel, and write on them, study, etc. ALSO, various sorts of non-motion "simulators"...everything from the so-called "wooden wonders" (just plywood, with more of those photos cut out, and glued to the surfaces...a sort of "mock up", with a few desk chairs to sit on) to some that integrate some of the electronics...all the way to the most technically advanced, but still NO MOTION --- the "CPT". Cockpit Procedures Trainer. I guess that's a dated term, nowadays..."FTD"...Flight Training Device. More descriptive. "IPT", for "Integrated", are a new thing too....all electronic, inter-active touch-screens, I believe....more like the ones for home use, only FAR more advanced.

Some of these are almost perfect replicas of the cockpit (but still may or may not have the actual airplane pilot seats...sometimes still just chairs) but, they have a whole wall-full of computer cabinets dedicated to them, so that you can get the lights and noises and instruments to interact, and be somewhat similar to the "real" thing.

In-between the full-blown (and expensive, even non-motion devices...$5-7 million, just for that!) are the "wooden wonders" with two FMCs, and four CRTs installed...along with the appropriate panel controls for them.

You can sit there, learn how to program the FMC (the IRS is "faked"...they are fed an already aligned 'platform' for attitude reference) and see how it interacts on the EFIS....you can even 'fly' it, after a fashion. NO, the control wheels don't do anything...you use the "autopilot" controls on the MCP.

It is ALL self-contained...no FDAU, no nothing! I once set one up to "fly" from LAX to HNL...and I gave it, by manually inputting, a "tailwind" of something like 500 knots, if I recall....just to hurry things along. Then went to lunch. Came back to check on its progress, peeking in now and then.


Ya know...found this interesting video, in my perusing around....want to show it for a particular reason. Guess it's in New Zealand, one of those companies ["Flight Experience" That was the 'callsign' I heard)...(like the one in Canada, and the one I know of in England) that you can buy time in. You see this kid playing in it.

Watch at :15, after he releases the Parking Brake. (Normally, we just push the brake pedals, to pop the brake off..)....OK...then he taxis, makes the left turn into position, and stops. NOTE that he taxiied....there's a reason I point this out.

Freeze it at :49 --- this kid is sharp!. He points to the Engine Start Levers....they are in CUT-OFF!!!

This means (in a real airplane) that the engines are not running! How did he "taxi"??

Well....many, many many times the Instructor's panel can "start" the engines, even when the fuel levers are technically "off". This is just one of the many quirky things about SIMulators! Can't tell you how many times I've seen that....we're setting up, have to hurry sometimes, because the syllabus is so full, and time is limited...SIMs are very busy, at an airline.

Instructor just "gang-starts" the engines, since we don't have to "practice" the starts, nor do any start malfunction training...and the SIM will sometimes ignore the Start Levers actual position. Guaranteed, this is NOT realistic!!

That is why we KNOW it is a SIMulator.



________________

Found their website, in NZ - (for all of our friends 'down under'):

www.flightexperience.co.nz...










[edit on 25 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Remember, I am the one who is the pilot, not you "conspiracy" guys!!!

If that is the case, why have you refused to answer these questions for over 6 pages?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Get this, please: In a real airplane (and in the SIM, since the "boxes" are the same units)....and this is where your confusion probably begins. The FMC, and its CDU are a combined unit....I have a picture of it posted, already [another thread]. SO, they can "talk" the same computer language to the FDAU in the airplane.

The FMC (as one function, of many) monitors fuel quantity, and "looks" for discrepancies. IOW....once initialized at the gate, beginning of flight, it "looks" at the real F/F, and continually calculates what it thinks the fuel quantity should be. This is the same as in a SIM...since there isn't any REAL fuel, there.

Now....in a real airplane, say you had a fuel leak? In a part of the system where it's not going to affect the F/F readings...say, just a hole in a tank section somewhere. (BTW, when we "dump", this is the same as a 'leak', to the FMC).

Eventually, when it reaches pre-determined point, it triggers an alert. The FMC will alert the crew (message on the FMC, and in EICAS) that what it "sees" in the fuel gauges isn't the same as what it calculated, from its independent readings.

Are you saying the same above scenario cannot be simulated in the box?

You would be wrong.

everything from the so-called "wooden wonders" (just plywood, with more of those photos cut out, and glued to the surfaces...a sort of "mock up", with a few desk chairs to sit on) to some that integrate some of the electronics...all the way to the most technically advanced, but still NO MOTION --- the "CPT". Cockpit Procedures Trainer. I guess that's a dated term, nowadays..."FTD"...Flight Training Device.

Wrong.

CPT -

www.simtogo.net...

FTD -

www.tradekorea.com...

They are not the same thing, nor is CPT "dated".


A CPT has no working interactive switches. It is to learn procedures only. Call-outs, memory items, checklists, etc. Hence, "Cockpit Procedural Trainer"

An FTD has working switches, levers, yoke, etc... just like a simulator, but no motion. Basically the nose of an airplane sitting on the floor with visuals.

Keeping it simple -
An FTD is powered, a CPT is not.

You can "fly" an FTD, you cannot "fly" a CPT.

You can use an un-powered FTD as a CPT, you cannot use a CPT as an FTD.

You can log sim time in an FTD, you cannot log "sim" time in a CPT.

weedwhacker, you sure you're a pilot?

[edit on 25-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Oh, Big Deal!!!

I really never bothered to know WHICH things had WHICH specific name....I just wrote from memory!!

Who cares? And, yeah...we had one or two of the POS "devices" that you could "fly"...didn't work worth a damn, usually. THAT'S why we have the FFSs.....

(Maybe big Daddy United, or Great Aunt American has a lot of better equipment in their Training Departments...doesn't make them better pilots, though...not if you look at their accident history record. Way in the past, of course...not recently).

So....really, I can't give a rat's behind about the "proper" terminolgy for the units I used...but, leave it to Rob to nitpick, as per custom. The M.O. is rather obvious, and everyone can see it clearly.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
So....really, I can't give a rat's behind about the "proper" terminolgy

Apparently, you don't give a "rat's ass" about a lot of the basic aeronautical knowledge a real pilot would know.

If you were a real airline pilot, you would know the difference between CPT and FTD as training is required in each during initial, upgrade and transition training. There has never been a real airline pilot who referred to a CPT as an FTD at United, American nor Continental.

Again weedwhacker, I'm flattered you think I'm Rob Balsamo.

Clearly he knows more than you as well.

(by the way turbofan, there are many female pilots who know the technical "lingo". One just qualified and consulted on the new 787 design and is close friends with Rusty Aimer, Another Boeing consultant on the 787 and member of Pilots For 9/11 Truth.)




[edit on 25-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Wow, I've never seen such a disregard for proven evidence as this Weed!

You are dead wrong, and you have the nerve to deny the facts even after
a phone call was placed to a SIM instructor!

As I mentioned in the previous reply, you can't leave inputs OPEN and
hanging in the simulator. If the FMC doesn't have all the information,
It cannot perform or make the necessary calculations!

Do you really think the SIM would be able to function and provide feedback
if it was missing any of the system inputs?!!! REally?

The system must be complete. IT's THE SAME ONE USED IN THE REAL
AIRCRAFT.

What would happen if you disconnected sensors in a real aircraft?! THINK
ABOUT IT! The cockpit displays would show errors and then aircraft probably
wouldn't even allow flight!

Here are yet MORE examples of PROOF that SIM acquistion systems produce
the SAME data sets as their real world counterparts:
www.frasca.com...

With automated scenario execution and enhanced data recording, this Frasca FSTD will generate detail-rich reports for post-flight analyses. Flights can be replayed on both the FSTD and remote Debrief Station, including playback of audio communications and cockpit video. Time-stamped event logs will include aircraft configuration, control inputs, attitude, location, and weather conditions. These tools will enable researchers to study complex circumstances in precise detail and identify meaningful trends.

www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov...

The B747-400 simulator is equipped with a specialized
system for collecting run data during a simulator
session. A list of variables and the rate at which they
will be captured is created on the IBM RISC 6000-560
data collection computer before the session. The name
of the list is then entered on the EOS to initiate the
recording of the data.

www.cae.com...

Insight|Animation includes all the functionality of Insight|Analysis, as well as provides a compre-hensive and interactive real-time flight animation system that visualizes raw binary data from aircraft and/or full flight simulators.

Here's a bonus for ya Weed:

Recovery is a bit level editing tool designed for accident investigators. It allows bit editing of tape-based and solid state recordings to recover data problems associated with dropouts and synchronization losses due to power interruptions and error codes.

Imagine that! A program that allows bit level editing of the data file!

YOu are wrong. Admit it. Accept it. Apologize.

If you feel the need to deny these sources, don't bother. I wont even acknowledge your attempts to skew this information. In fact, if you
want to prove me wrong, get on the phone and record a call with a level
D company and uploaded like I did.


[edit on 25-8-2010 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan
Wow, I've never seen such a disregard for proven evidence as this Weed!

Excellent work turbofan.

This is a bit off topic, but weedwhacker et al have repeatedly been claiming that Rob Balsamo lived in your basement and that you kicked him out of your house (they do this regularly when they cannot debate the facts).

Is this true?

Who lived in your basement and how long did Rob Balsamo stay at your house? Did he pay rent?

Did you "kick" him out? Or did he leave voluntarily?

I would appreciate a reply to these questions so I can have a link to post to those who try to obfuscate issues they refuse to answer. Those who blindly support the OS seem to elect libel as their foremost tactic.

Thanks.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by turbofan
Wow, I've never seen such a disregard for proven evidence as this Weed!

Excellent work turbofan.

This is a bit off topic, but weedwhacker et al have repeatedly been claiming that Rob Balsamo lived in your basement and that you kicked him out of your house (they do this regularly when they cannot debate the facts).

Is this true?

Who lived in your basement and how long did Rob Balsamo stay at your house? Did he pay rent?

Did you "kick" him out? Or did he leave voluntarily?

I would appreciate a reply to these questions so I can have a link to post to those who try to obfuscate issues they refuse to answer. Those who blindly support the OS seem to elect libel as their foremost tactic.

Thanks.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Well Tiffany, I'll provide those answers if you can post up another photo
of yourself to prove your identity. Since you have no trouble showing
your photo in the avatar to the left, please upload another with you holding
a sign that says "ATS".

I'd hate to respond to quesitons to those who claim they are certain
individuals, and turn out to be someone else. I'm sure Mr. Balsamo
would appreciate the fact checking before I answer these questions.

Further to this, we should probably get his permission. I don't want to
rehash any of the past as there were some issues with confidentiality
with personal information and it became quite intense.

I hope you understand.

Originally posted by turbofan
Well Tiffany, I'll provide those answers if you can post up another photo
of yourself to prove your identity. Since you have no trouble showing
your photo in the avatar to the left, please upload another with you holding
a sign that says "ATS".

I'd hate to respond to quesitons to those who claim they are certain
individuals, and turn out to be someone else. I'm sure Mr. Balsamo
would appreciate the fact checking before I answer these questions.

Further to this, we should probably get his permission. I don't want to
rehash any of the past as there were some issues with confidentiality
with personal information and it became quite intense.

I hope you understand.

First,

When did I claim the person in my avatar is me? I'm not saying it's not, but why is that a requirement to prove the lies told by weedwhacker, trebor, et al?

Turbofan,

...is weedwhacker, trebor, et al, lying or not when they claim that Rob Balsamo lived in your basement and that you kicked him out?

[edit on 25-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

So the picture is not you? Well, then I can't be sure who I'm conversing with.

I'm not going to reply to any further questions regarding Mr. Balsamo as
there were some intense confidential/personal issues in the past and
I am not about to begin discussing the past - especially without his permission.

Sorry, I don't need the hassle and not for what I went through.

Originally posted by turbofan
.I'm not going to reply to any further questions regarding Mr. Balsamo as
there were some intense confidential/personal issues in the past and
I am not about to begin discussing the past - especially without his permission.

Sorry, I don't need the hassle and not for what I went through.

Turbofan,

...is weedwhacker, trebor, et al, lying or not when they claim that Rob Balsamo lived in your basement and that you kicked him out?

If it is a blatant lie, why would you let them continue?

They claim you you said this.

Are you familiar with the term libel?

Are you familiar with the term integrity?

Regardless, thank you Tino, you have already provided enough source/links for those who blatantly lie, and you refuse to expose as liars, unless I take a picture of myself.



Perfect.

Shall I post the video Rob Balsamo took in your house which proves weedwhacker, trebor, et al as liars?

Why do you protect them?

Why do you require a picture of me in order to expose the lies of those who you claim "Wow, I've never seen such a disregard for proven evidence as this Weed! "

I have video proof. Wanna see it? (well, from what I understand, you already have)

Why do you protect the lies of weedwhacker et al when it's directed towards Rob Balsamo?

Ego?



[edit on 25-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]