Author Topic: Flight Path And Related Issues (Read 1101323 times)

guru312 · « **Reply #240 on:** April 08, 2014, 09:05:40 PM »

Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!

That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.

Shutter · « **Reply #241 on:** April 08, 2014, 09:20:03 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!

That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.

Welcome Guru, that's what we try to keep out of this forum. you will see some bumps along the way, but I try and keep things on topic. plenty of different categories, links etc. I consider it still in the testing stage....

Shutter

georger · « **Reply #242 on:** April 08, 2014, 11:50:53 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!

That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.

Funny@

georger · « **Reply #243 on:** April 09, 2014, 02:09:45 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!

That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.
Welcome Guru, that's what we try to keep out of this forum. you will see some bumps along the way, but I try and keep things on topic. plenty of different categories, links etc. I consider it still in the testing stage....

Shutter

Please note! I did not bring Existentialism and Phenomenology to the forum. Smokin99 did! By questioning "memory", Smokin is questioning the reliability of all human knowledge and the human thought process itself.
Under that condition, not only are Janet and Emma wrong!, all human knowledge is unreliable, and no so-called facts can ever exist, not just in the Cooper case, but in the whole human enterprise! This is no trivial matter! This is the very tool many are using to question all facts in the Cooper case ... except their alleged facts of course! It is one of the reasons we are here at this website vs another ... in the first place!

hom · « **Reply #244 on:** April 09, 2014, 06:07:59 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

By questioning "memory", Smokin is questioning the reliability of all human knowledge and the human thought process itself.
Under that condition, not only are Janet and Emma wrong!, all human knowledge is unreliable, and no so-called facts can ever exist, not just in the Cooper case, but in the whole human enterprise! This is no trivial matter! This is the very tool many are using to question all facts in the Cooper case ... except their alleged facts of course! It is one of the reasons we are here at this website vs another ... in the first place!

Some alleged facts:

If, by "memory", you mean recall of events, it is well established scientific fact that it is unreliable and imperfect. Taking this into account does not mean outright rejection or invalidation of all memories.

I did not see Smokin questioning the reliability of all human knowledge. If she did so in the sense of the totality of human "knowledge" rather than every individual bit of human knowledge, she would be correct. Look at everything everyone in the world "knows." Most of it is wrong. People "know" things regardless of whether or not the things are facts. Taken as a whole, human knowledge is unreliable (incorrect) in the extreme. The human thought process is unreliable in the extreme. Humans are imperfect. People come up with ways to rationalize things they don't nearly understand. Humans "think" at least as much with their feelings as we do with any logic.

Recognizing the limitations of memory does not mean Janet and Emma were totally wrong. But we are all wrong to different extents. Something happened that night, some of it somewhat "physics" in nature. They saw (perceived) something. What they saw was a product both of what really happened, the environment, and of their own natures. Then, it's all been modified by time and by other peoples' interpretations. Saying that much of what everyone remembers is not correct is not saying anyone is totally wrong, that all human knowledge is unreliable, or that no facts can exist.

Memories are not facts. What people say are not facts. What people say others say are not facts. They all typically have some elements of fact.

Can't we all just get along?

Shutter · « **Reply #245 on:** April 09, 2014, 07:05:48 PM »

Can't we all just get along?

I don't think anyone meant any disrespect towards G's family involvement. I don't think anyone was implying they seen something different than what has been told over the years, but, as we all often do. we search out all avenues of possibilities. this doesn't mean it applies to every situation. we don't know if 305 was seen that night. based on Geroger's background I believe what he says. I believe Emma seen something that night. trying to resolve it with a couple posts won't do it either. that's why I brought up the afterburner thingy.... I don't think s99 meant any disrespect either. hopefully we can work this problem without a problem. I think the story is fascinating and needs to be looked over. I'm still trying to find out anything on the flare reports prior to the hijacking. this might take a little time to surface.

we can always change the subject until more light is shed.

smokin99 · « **Reply #246 on:** April 09, 2014, 10:51:15 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!

That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.
Welcome Guru, that's what we try to keep out of this forum. you will see some bumps along the way, but I try and keep things on topic. plenty of different categories, links etc. I consider it still in the testing stage....

Shutter

Please note! I did not bring Existentialism and Phenomenology to the forum. Smokin99 did! By questioning "memory", Smokin is questioning the reliability of all human knowledge and the human thought process itself.
Under that condition, not only are Janet and Emma wrong!, all human knowledge is unreliable, and no so-called facts can ever exist, not just in the Cooper case, but in the whole human enterprise! This is no trivial matter! This is the very tool many are using to question all facts in the Cooper case ... except their alleged facts of course! It is one of the reasons we are here at this website vs another ... in the first place!

Actually you did bring up the psyche of it all. You did this by making correlations where there were none. Though I agree with the entirety of Hom's post, I can't take credit for weighing in on the totality of human consciousness. My eyes are beginning to glaze just thinking about it.

Throughout my post it was pretty clear that I was referring to memory as the recall of specific events and not "the reliability of all human knowledge and the human thought process itself".

Just like I don't have to consciously remember the act of being born to have the knowledge that I was in fact born, I also don't have to have knowledge of aerodynamics to remember seeing a plane fly overhead. But accounts of both events - whether I'm recalling or retelling them - can be colored by my perceptions, my knowledge base, external stimuli (such as the passage of time and hearing other accounts), and societal norms -- and I might not even realize it. You know this as well so I'm not sure why my posts are causing you such angst of all sudden.

I am merely trying to be consistent in the desire to have the possibility/probability of events validated to know what weight to give someone's account of that event, thus my call for an experiment. -And what weight to give to the possibility of other explanations for those accounts. ---All of this without questioning the integrity of the person giving the account. Whether it's Janet or Emma or Margaret Geestman.

That said - I'm sorry if you took offense, I meant no slight or disrespect to anyone's family.

Shutter · « **Reply #247 on:** April 09, 2014, 11:17:00 PM »

hopefully we can move on from this, and get back on topic.

I'm going to be posting some stall results from my simulator for Hominid to look at. I don't know if it's correct, but the 727 is hard to stall on the simulator. other aircraft in the sim react differently?. I'll post the info this weekend in the proper category....

smokin99 · « **Reply #248 on:** April 09, 2014, 11:48:17 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

hopefully we can move on from this, and get back on topic.

I'm going to be posting some stall results from my simulator for Hominid to look at. I don't know if it's correct, but the 727 is hard to stall on the simulator. other aircraft in the sim react differently?. I'll post the info this weekend in the proper category....

Sounds good to me.

georger · « **Reply #249 on:** April 10, 2014, 01:08:58 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!

That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.
Welcome Guru, that's what we try to keep out of this forum. you will see some bumps along the way, but I try and keep things on topic. plenty of different categories, links etc. I consider it still in the testing stage....

Shutter

Please note! I did not bring Existentialism and Phenomenology to the forum. Smokin99 did! By questioning "memory", Smokin is questioning the reliability of all human knowledge and the human thought process itself.
Under that condition, not only are Janet and Emma wrong!, all human knowledge is unreliable, and no so-called facts can ever exist, not just in the Cooper case, but in the whole human enterprise! This is no trivial matter! This is the very tool many are using to question all facts in the Cooper case ... except their alleged facts of course! It is one of the reasons we are here at this website vs another ... in the first place!

Actually you did bring up the psyche of it all. You did this by making correlations where there were none. Though I agree with the entirety of Hom's post, I can't take credit for weighing in on the totality of human consciousness. My eyes are beginning to glaze just thinking about it.
Throughout my post it was pretty clear that I was referring to memory as the recall of specific events and not "the reliability of all human knowledge and the human thought process itself".

Just like I don't have to consciously remember the act of being born to have the knowledge that I was in fact born, I also don't have to have knowledge of aerodynamics to remember seeing a plane fly overhead. But accounts of both events - whether I'm recalling or retelling them - can be colored by my perceptions, my knowledge base, external stimuli (such as the passage of time and hearing other accounts), and societal norms -- and I might not even realize it. You know this as well so I'm not sure why my posts are causing you such angst of all sudden.

I am merely trying to be consistent in the desire to have the possibility/probability of events validated to know what weight to give someone's account of that event, thus my call for an experiment. -And what weight to give to the possibility of other explanations for those accounts. ---All of this without questioning the integrity of the person giving the account. Whether it's Janet or Emma or Margaret Geestman.

That said - I'm sorry if you took offense, I meant no slight or disrespect to anyone's family.

For us its a subjective matter to debate; others at the time had a different 'take' and acted accordingly! Suits showed up at Janet's door. Janet's husband in law enforcement came home with 'some advice to give in the matter'. Vern was visited by someone and dispensed his own 'advice' to family members.

Strange results for merely seeing Leonids on the 17th and 18th, not seen at Portland-Vancouver due to conditions.

Thank God the camera was invented otherwise all of modern science would still be being debated as 'somebody's unverified account' and we would still have gas lamps in our homes, and out houses and stamps and the horse and mule instead of the internet!

georger · « **Reply #250 on:** April 13, 2014, 12:39:52 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!

That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.

Interesting link on the Bayesian analysis of flight 370.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Any application to flight 305 or aspects of it, or to the money flow analysis? A similar analysis was suggested over at DZ years ago but got no traction, until Shutter took up a flight simulation.

Shutter · « **Reply #251 on:** April 13, 2014, 08:03:44 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!

That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.

Interesting link on the Bayesian analysis of flight 370.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Any application to flight 305 or aspects of it, or to the money flow analysis? A similar analysis was suggested over at DZ years ago but got no traction, until Shutter took up a flight simulation.

Thanks for the link Georger. I noticed some of the information he used is from X-Plane. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

First, I followed the lead of WNYC’s 777 runway map by downloading the original XPlane dataset(1) and parsing through it to plot all of the runways longer than 5,000 ft, considered to be a minimum distance for a Boeing 777 to land (but not take off), as black dots. These do not factor in, in terms of where the airplane is located, but do show near where a 777 could land, if it’s in the area.

Shutter · « **Reply #252 on:** April 13, 2014, 10:05:20 AM »

Robert99 · « **Reply #253 on:** April 13, 2014, 02:29:24 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!

That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.

Interesting link on the Bayesian analysis of flight 370.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Any application to flight 305 or aspects of it, or to the money flow analysis? A similar analysis was suggested over at DZ years ago but got no traction, until Shutter took up a flight simulation.

Thanks for the link Georger. I noticed some of the information he used is from X-Plane. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

First, I followed the lead of WNYC’s 777 runway map by downloading the original XPlane dataset(1) and parsing through it to plot all of the runways longer than 5,000 ft, considered to be a minimum distance for a Boeing 777 to land (but not take off), as black dots. These do not factor in, in terms of where the airplane is located, but do show near where a 777 could land, if it’s in the area.

Shutter and Georger, where is this link to the Bayesian analysis of MH flight 370 that you are talking about?

georger · « **Reply #254 on:** April 13, 2014, 02:32:33 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ah, ha!!...I came for DB Cooper and I found Existentialism!!! How cool is that?!

That sure beats reading drivel from people selling books and ego trips.

Interesting link on the Bayesian analysis of flight 370.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Any application to flight 305 or aspects of it, or to the money flow analysis? A similar analysis was suggested over at DZ years ago but got no traction, until Shutter took up a flight simulation.

Thanks for the link Georger. I noticed some of the information he used is from X-Plane. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

First, I followed the lead of WNYC’s 777 runway map by downloading the original XPlane dataset(1) and parsing through it to plot all of the runways longer than 5,000 ft, considered to be a minimum distance for a Boeing 777 to land (but not take off), as black dots. These do not factor in, in terms of where the airplane is located, but do show near where a 777 could land, if it’s in the area.

Shutter and Georger, where is this link to the Bayesian analysis of MH flight 370 that you are talking about?

You mean this? You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

See also: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

and discussion at,
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login