Post by david on Jan 23, 2007 15:27:23 GMT -4
Ah yes, the picture that somebody on BAUT analyzed and determined that it was not too short for the angle it came in. Now that you've shown that you've completely ignored that analysis, you've shown that you are not objective in the least. Thanks for clearing that up.
If you look at the page is shows that we never got to finish talking about it as the thread was closed for a bogus reason.
I talked about it on post #1123 here.
www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48507&page=38
Concerning the calculations.
I'm still trying to check that the angle is right in the third picture down here.
www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf
When I look at this picture, it seems that the angle on which he's basing all of his calculations goes too far toward the bottom of the picture. I can't figure out how to check it.
Also, this site shows the angle of the plane to be 40 degrees.
0911.site.voila.fr/index1.htm
(Fourth picture down)
I measured Laguna2's picture with a protractor and got 46 degrees. How did you get 46 degrees?
I'm still trying to check that the angle is right in the third picture down here.
www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf
When I look at this picture, it seems that the angle on which he's basing all of his calculations goes too far toward the bottom of the picture. I can't figure out how to check it.
Also, this site shows the angle of the plane to be 40 degrees.
0911.site.voila.fr/index1.htm
(Fourth picture down)
I measured Laguna2's picture with a protractor and got 46 degrees. How did you get 46 degrees?
Then again in post #1148
www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48507&page=39
I was talking about the angle from the perpendicular. That's 40 degrees if the angle from the wall is 50 degrees.
I drew a 40 degree line on this picture.
www.space.com/images/pentagon_damage_02.jpg
It agreed with the location of the hole in the fourth picture down here.
0911.site.voila.fr/index1.htm
You state that the box is about five meters away from the camera in this proof you did.
www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf
Getting the correct distance of the box from the camera and the width of the box are pretty important in a proof like this. A small mistake in precision will throw the whole thing off. I want to see some more detail in how you got those numbers.
That's why I wanted to use the side of the Pentagon as the basis for the calculations--it's a lot clearer.
I drew a 40 degree line on this picture.
www.space.com/images/pentagon_damage_02.jpg
It agreed with the location of the hole in the fourth picture down here.
0911.site.voila.fr/index1.htm
You state that the box is about five meters away from the camera in this proof you did.
www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf
Getting the correct distance of the box from the camera and the width of the box are pretty important in a proof like this. A small mistake in precision will throw the whole thing off. I want to see some more detail in how you got those numbers.
That's why I wanted to use the side of the Pentagon as the basis for the calculations--it's a lot clearer.
Then again on this thread.
www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=52326
Post #1
My question on post #1148 was never answered because the thread was closed. We were discussing the mathematical proof that Laguna2 presented in post #1096. I'd like an answer to my question.
Here it is.
Quote:
You state that the box is about five meters away from the camera in this proof you did.
www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf
Getting the correct distance of the box from the camera and the width of the box are pretty important in a proof like this. A small mistake in precision will throw the whole thing off. I want to see some more detail in how you got those numbers.
That's why I wanted to use the side of the Pentagon as the basis for the calculations--it's a lot clearer.
Here it is.
Quote:
You state that the box is about five meters away from the camera in this proof you did.
www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf
Getting the correct distance of the box from the camera and the width of the box are pretty important in a proof like this. A small mistake in precision will throw the whole thing off. I want to see some more detail in how you got those numbers.
That's why I wanted to use the side of the Pentagon as the basis for the calculations--it's a lot clearer.
Distorting what happened is a pretty low tactic--about as low as the moderator's behavior when he closed the Pentagon thread saying that I hadn't answered a set of questions put to me when I had. I asked him about it here and never got an answer.
www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=52326
Also--
On post 1094 of this page of the Pentagon thread www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48507&page=37 I was asked to answer a list of questions.
In post 1123 of the next page www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48507&page=38 I answered the questions.
In the last post of the thread www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48507&page=39 (post 1166) the moderator said I hadn't answered the questions and closed the thread giving that as the reason for his closing it.
Question for the moderator--why did you say I hadn't answered the questions when the answsers to the questions were in post #1123? I want to hear an explanation from the moderator on this.
On post 1094 of this page of the Pentagon thread www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48507&page=37 I was asked to answer a list of questions.
In post 1123 of the next page www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48507&page=38 I answered the questions.
In the last post of the thread www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48507&page=39 (post 1166) the moderator said I hadn't answered the questions and closed the thread giving that as the reason for his closing it.
Question for the moderator--why did you say I hadn't answered the questions when the answsers to the questions were in post #1123? I want to hear an explanation from the moderator on this.
I won't be doing much posting for about a week; I have to change residences and I'm going to be busy.