golfhobo
Venus
DAMN! That woulda gone in the hole IF....
Posts: 86
|
Post by golfhobo on Sept 24, 2005 13:29:54 GMT -4
The accident report is spot-on. They tried to push a bad approach, got way behind the aircraft, and killed themselves and their passengers. This talk of EM weapons is a desperate (pathetic?) attempt to turn an accident into another CT feeding frenzy. Obviousman, your responses to Jim on the Education Forum have been, as you upsidedowners say, "spot on." You almost leave me with nothing to contribute. Since I couldn't join you there, I will have to go back and see if there was anything I wanted to add to your posts. You have the credentials I lack, but see it almost exactly the way I do. Fetzer HAS managed to confuse you a bit, I think, concerning the relevance of the 269° radial (not 268) and you may want to read my analysis of the final approach to see if you agree with me. f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/EIY1Q4ZU-DUIlnOoyBbiDioisUBZOwviYk44ziWMZOfKXt7RaPXAW0GbYtHAOy4PtW_lKzC2fdcegfvD-ARD0_A0jbbeVigXE8g/Approach%20analysis.doc (I think this will link you to it. If not, I'll try another way. If this link works, I strongly suggest others who are interested in this thread take a look as well.
|
|
golfhobo
Venus
DAMN! That woulda gone in the hole IF....
Posts: 86
|
Post by golfhobo on Sept 24, 2005 13:35:09 GMT -4
|
|
golfhobo
Venus
DAMN! That woulda gone in the hole IF....
Posts: 86
|
Post by golfhobo on Sept 24, 2005 14:08:01 GMT -4
Costella's qualifications are exceptional. I also have serious doubts about that 1 in 33 pre '84 planes will crash figure. Someone on another forum though he didn't notice minus sign in the article and multiplied instead of dividing. As I am the "someone" referred to, let me flesh out what I said. In the book "American Assassination" Costella references a report on HIRF catastrophe probabilities and by either misunderstanding scientific notation (which I doubt given the fact he teaches math and claims to know physics) or misinterpreting the author's use and meaning by the word "LARGER" comes to the conclusion that the report indicates that a FATAL crash, caused by EMI, WOULD or SHOULD occur in one out of every 33 flights. Of course, this is just preposterous on its face! Not only would we be hearing of small plane crashes every hour on the hour, but NO ONE WOULD FLY IN THEM with odds like that! As my skills with scientific notation are a little rusty, and I'm too lazy to look it up in my reference books, I will paste the pertinent paragraph FROM THE CITED REPORT, and let one of you turn it into plain English. Quote: No reliable evidence was found to suggest that flights in the Denver and Seattle areas experience electromagnetic fields in excess of the NPRM certification levels. Worst case upper limits are estimated at ~2e-6 and ~1e-5 for transport and nontransport category aircraft, respectively. DO- 160C associated HIRF catastrophic event probabilities are one to two orders of magnitude larger and DO-160B probabilities are three to four orders of magnitude larger than these pessimistic upper limits. My contention is that, from the worst case UPPER limit referenced above for transport aircraft, the author intends the word LARGER to mean that for DO-160C systems (newer, shielded avionics,) the probability of a catastrophic crash DECREASES because the probability is an order of magnitutde of one in a LARGER number of instances, and for DO-160B systems (aircraft WITHOUT succeptible FBW control and avionics systems such as the 1979 built King Air A100 being flown by the accident pilot) the probability is even LESS due to their preponderance of mechanical and/or hydraulic systems. This is the exact OPPOSITE of Costellas (mis)understanding, and therefore the claim of a crash every 33 flights is completely false, and shows that neither he nor Fetzer understand what they are talking about. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize to Fetzer. But not until at least one of you reads the article on this (I will dig up the link) to get the whole picture and purpose of the report. Meanwhile, please tell me if my understanding makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by ktesibios on Sept 24, 2005 14:20:02 GMT -4
Sorry, a solenoid is not an electrical switch.I'm not sure whether Costella is simply confused, or whether he has used inaccurate language to describe the entire control system. Either way, it's a clue that any technical claims which follow aren't to be taken too seriously. I gave that purely as one example of why one might want to have a solenoid actuate a switch. I can think of others, where a switch or other position sensor is used to cause something to happen when a solenoid is actuated, or to prevent something from happening if it isn't fully pulled in, but they wouldn't be relevant here. These guys aren't doing anything resembling academic science. In the world of designing and manufacturing products you have such things as product liability, regulatory standards and the need to satisfy your customers to encourage you to get right with reality. People doing genuine science in the academic milieu have such things as peer review in publication and the need to convince funders of the value of their work to help encourage them. A bit of bash-the-boffins is fun, but it works at more than one level. Get me started and I could zark for an hour about why Famous Manufacturer A's technical manuals are models to be emulated by every tech writer on the planet while Famous Manufacturer S's should be taught as the gold standard of How Not To Do It, or about design engineers who seem to think that the service and repair work will be done by tiny little gnomes, or who harbor odd ideas about the dimensions and capabilities of the human hand... or engineers who have found ways to design for economical manufacturing and efficient MRO work.
|
|
golfhobo
Venus
DAMN! That woulda gone in the hole IF....
Posts: 86
|
Post by golfhobo on Sept 24, 2005 15:21:07 GMT -4
Okay, I modified my (second attempt) post from above and the hyperlink will now take you to my reasonably short discussion of the final moments of the Wellstone flight. Unlike Fetzer, I'm a little shy about recommending my own work, but I do think it will help anyone who wants to brush up on what happened in the final moments of the flight, the problems with the VOR beacon and how it affected their flight, and why I believe the two marginally qualified pilots let the plane stall and crash.
Hobo
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Sept 24, 2005 18:22:06 GMT -4
That link is taking me to the Yahoo signup page - which I don't want to do.
Any chance of posting it here?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 24, 2005 21:25:45 GMT -4
ktesibios it really didn't take you long to figure out their M.O.!! My impression is they are so stuck in their 'PCT' mindsets that they might not be acting deceptively intentionally, they really think that there must be something more to all these 'coincidences' and 'anomalities'. The ironic thing is that Fetzer is one of those people who believes ' the WTC was a demolition job' and 'the Pentagon was hit by missile' so I don't know if he really believes that Moussaoui was involved Strangely what he was trying say is that the NTSB smeared him by not putting his conviction into context. After his home construction business went bankrupt some of Conry' s subcontractors brought civil and criminal complaints against him. IIRC he was convicted of 14 counts of mail and wire fraud, he was sentenced to 4 years, but it got reduced to 2 and he served a little more than a year. Fetzer is trying to dismiss the conviction as "bouncing a few checks". I don't find that very convincing I've never heard of an honest but failed business owner being convicted of fraud. In Costella's case I would respectfully disagree. Since his degrees are his only credentials, to me it would make a difference if he got them from an 'MIT' or an "East Powdunk State". If Costella's alma matter is more like the latter than the former then Fetzer's crowing about his credentials is even less valid. Craig, Hobo, and I have been asking Fetzer for ONE link to an article from a RELIABLE source that says an OPERATIONAL weapon like this exists. He keeps providing us with crap like canabis.com, rumormillnews, UFO/ET/hollow earth/Nostradamus etc sites or articles simply saying that the government has been working on such weapons for years and has some promising prototypes wouldn't be capable of having done the job. He complained I was asking for an "extremely high standard of proof". Funny since he isn't convinced we've been to the Moon. Hobo, I drink sulfuric acid for breakfast. LOL. It's good to "see" you again. Do think I was too vitriolic here or on the other forum? As you know arguing with Fetzer civilly [as exemplified by his post above] isn't easy. After being compared to Hitler maybe I have an Ax to grind. I don't think I have ever straid from being factual. I second and third that. I also have found numerous examples in which sources are misquoted. Fetzer even misquoted his own book in the "NTSB Failed Wellstone" article! If anyone wants to read Fetzer's various articles on the crash go to his site assassinationscience.com/ and see the Books, Minnesota and Assassination sections in the menu bar as well as 2 or 3 links in the main part of the page. The thread where Fetzer is being debated is educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4542The NTSB final report can be found at www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/AAR0303.pdfand one of the main supporting reports at www.wcco.com/content/local_file_052162555many of the other reports and documents at www.startribune.com/style/news/politics/wellstone/ntsb/unfortunately many of the links don't work
|
|
golfhobo
Venus
DAMN! That woulda gone in the hole IF....
Posts: 86
|
Post by golfhobo on Sept 25, 2005 0:02:59 GMT -4
Len, Mostly on the Education Forum. You must remember that THERE he is going to be defended by his CT buddies like Jack White and their lap dog (Healey was it?) This emboldens him and allows him to take the high road. There it is not "accepted" to attack CT's for what they are. One must attack their arguments.
|
|
golfhobo
Venus
DAMN! That woulda gone in the hole IF....
Posts: 86
|
Post by golfhobo on Sept 25, 2005 0:17:40 GMT -4
Len says:
"Strangely what he was trying say is that the NTSB smeared him by not putting his conviction into context. After his home construction business went bankrupt some of Conry' s subcontractors brought civil and criminal complaints against him.... Fetzer is trying to dismiss the conviction as "bouncing a few checks".
Actually, Fetzer takes different positions on this at different times. In his book, he tries to imply that Conry might have been duped into flying into the "kill zone" because he needed money, or that Guess might have made a pact with Moussaoui or something. It gets kinda confusing. But, in most of his posts, he is defending them as being super pilots and blaming the NTSB for smearing them. If it helps his case, he will say the pilots might have done it on purpose, or unwittingly, but refuses to accept they could have crashed due to incompetence.
The only smear that he claims the REPORT to make is against their incompetence because that dispells his assassination theory.
|
|
golfhobo
Venus
DAMN! That woulda gone in the hole IF....
Posts: 86
|
Post by golfhobo on Sept 25, 2005 0:32:52 GMT -4
That link is taking me to the Yahoo signup page - which I don't want to do. Any chance of posting it here? It's a five page Word document. That would probably end up being as long as one of Fetzer's posts! I suppose I could, but I wish I could find another way. If anyone has a suggestion, I'd like to hear it. Meanwhile, if you'll trust me you can click on my email icon, send me a quick note, and I can "attach" it to my reply. No one here will have to see you email addy.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 25, 2005 19:44:02 GMT -4
Hobo - If you give me the OK I could attach it to a post on the Ed. Forum and then provide a link here. I don't think someone needs to be a member to download.
Len
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 25, 2005 20:01:35 GMT -4
Debating Fetzer is much like debating Margamatix.
He brings up points that he thinks prove his case
-The fire burned for 5 hours
-The smoke was bluish-white
-one of the NTSB investigators said that they didn't know exactly what happened
-the FBI didn't allow the press come near the crash site
-the NTSB says the pilots lost track of altitude
etc. etc. etc.
We provide rational explanations for these things (or in the case o the last point that he is just wrong)
He doesn't try to counter our explanations or even acknowledge they've been made, he just keeps on repeating the same points.
To his credit he does argue some points, but he cherry picks and doesn't argue others.
Len
|
|
golfhobo
Venus
DAMN! That woulda gone in the hole IF....
Posts: 86
|
Post by golfhobo on Sept 25, 2005 22:07:37 GMT -4
I found an interesting signature line on this board. It is Jason Thompson's. It fits Fetzer to a Tee!
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views."
I would prefer to change the words "very stupid" to "conspiracy theorists" because I promised to be civil. But it works. Bush is guilty as per the way he "fixed the intelligence" for invading Iraq. And Fetzer wrote the book on it concerning Wellstone!
|
|
|
Post by craiglamson on Sept 26, 2005 23:22:37 GMT -4
You might like this one Jay...from Fetzers latest post here: educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4542&pid=40929&st=210entry40929# of people on the ApolloHoax thread who believe that Costella knows what he is talking about in the EM chapter 0 Your source, "JayUtah", whose background is in mechanical engineering, does not appear to have qualifications that are appropriate to address these issues. You are eager to cite someone with no qualifications in either electromagnetism or electrical engineering as though he were an "expert", while denying the expertise of someone with both a Ph.D. in electromagnetism and an honors undergraduate degree in electrical engin- eering! By now, I think, even those who have not been following this threat carefully should be able to discern the extent of your efforts to bias an objective and scientific analysis by distorting the case.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Sept 26, 2005 23:35:41 GMT -4
How about this line from Fetzer. Is there any truth to it?
"the NTSB said they lost track of their airspeed, that cannot occur without a commensurate loss in altitude"
This doesn't make sense to me so if they speed up they automatically gain altitude?
Len
|
|