Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2010 - 09:33pm PT
|
Provide the quote and source.
I can provide his words regarding his actual description.
Link to KCBS story previously provided.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2010 - 10:13pm PT
|
I'm disappointed.
I thought all you guys are scientists.
Ya can't seem to solve this thing.
National Enquirer is coming out with the full story and the truth.
You guys are worthless .....
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 01:24am PT
|
not to mention a retired general saying he was positive 100% that it was a sub luanch.... Was he there or did he see the same video everyone else saw?
If he was an Admiral, his opinion might carry some weight.
I still say, show me a pitcure or a video of anything launched from a sub,
that leaves even remotely that amount of exhaust trail.
to think that the Chinese would lauch a missile from a sub, somewhere near our coast, to flex their muscles or make some statement is pretty laughable. If that was the case, they would have wanted us to know it was them.
They would have done it off their coast and demonstrated the range and show that we could be reached. They would never tip their hand that they were in our coastal waters with a sub and then launch a missile so we could find them. That is totally ridiculous.
There is no way any missile could ever be launched by accident.
Completely preposterous. There are so many thing that have to happen before a missile is even capable of being launched, like being fueled for starters. No one can accidentally hit "the button" or anything like that.
The sub has to be at the proper depth and speed, the bay door have to be opened etc. etc. It's simply not possible for one person to launch a missile on accident or on purpose.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 01:26am PT
|
Someone explain to me how this series of stills photographed from a fixed location don't at the very least completely demolish any notion of an object headed on a NW trajectory?
|
|
MisterAnswers
Social climber
Ark on the Moon
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 01:35am PT
|
Question: Does the fact that Klimmer is a fundamentalist christian make any difference here?
Answer: This handy-dandy graphic demonstrates (sadly) that the Answer is "you bet!" Unfortunately Klimmer uses the "I know the answer" approach.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 01:41am PT
|
Klimmer uses the "I know the answer" approach science.
Just like you.
You're all just guessing and making up sh'it calling it theory.
Pure fuking guessing and speculating.
Non of you know sh'it, except trying to refute each others sh'it ....
|
|
Port
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 01:44am PT
|
In this case, Klimmer's religion has become a bottomless pit that has sucked every semblance of intellect from his mind, creating a prism through which reality is bent and twisted to conform to his preconceived notions.
|
|
MisterAnswers
Social climber
Ark on the Moon
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 01:44am PT
|
Question: How does Werner fit into this picture?
Answer: Of course Werner takes the "I know the Answer" approach to a new level, never before seen in the Climbing Universe.
|
|
Port
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 01:45am PT
|
Pure fuking guessing and speculating
Not all speculation is equal.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 01:49am PT
|
...and not all speculums reveal the same secrets.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 01:51am PT
|
Yeah
A big wild guess or an educated guess.
Still it's guessing.
Oooohhhh I hit a nerve on their god called "Science"
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 02:10am PT
|
i used to live in an apartment in NYC with those white hexagonal tiles, such a classical look for buildings put up I believe just after WWII.
You'd sit there looking at those tiles, and play games, like crossing your eyes and letting them relax back to normal, but at some point you'd "lock" on those tiles and the floor would be a whole lot closer! It's because of the way you learn to use stereopsis, which is so second nature you don't actually know what you are doing.
For your eyes, located about 10 cm apart, if you're normal you're "normal" you can resolve horizontal disparities of 2.3 minutes of arc, that's 2.3/60 degrees = 0.38º = 0.7 milliradians... that's out to about 150 meters depth of field... and if you have good skillz, 30 arcseconds... that's out to about 700 m...
you use a lot of other 3D queues to get around in the world, not depending on stereopsis alone to reconstruct what you see...
Depending on the way the pictures are taken, the orientation of the camera with respect to the scene for both shots, there are different ways of reconstructing in 3D... now to get an accurate depiction of the scene a lot of care must be taken to understand the location of the cameras and their orientations... otherwise you don't know what you are seeing, and it isn't sufficient to rely on just your innate ability to process the scene, you actually perceive things very differently in many cases than what is actually there, just like looking at my bathroom floor in NYC.
Just how could the reconstruction be incorrect?
The first issue is the depth-of-field, which is the ability to tell how far away something is... the formula I provided above:
D = S / (1/tanΘ1 - 1/tanΘ2)
the distance the object appears away from us, D is given in terms of the separation of the two views, S and the angles from those views to the object, Θ1 and Θ2.
if S is small compared to D then the angles are almost equal to 90º
Here we're talking about Θ ≈ 90º where the tangent starts to get very large... the point is that the largeness of the tangent of one angle has to be subtracted from the largeness of the tangent of the other angle, to get a small number. If there is a small error in the measurement of the angles, then there is a large error in the determination of D the distance to the object.
Let's take klimmer's example, he is trying to measure something roughly 180 miles, let's say that the pictures were taken 1 mile apart? then the difference in the tangents is:
1/tanΘ1 - 1/tanΘ2 = 1/180
The tangent of the angles: tanΘ = sqrt(180^2 + 0.5^2)/0.5 ≈ 360
klimmer knows that tan(½π + δ) ≈ -1/δ
where δ is the small angle difference from 90º (=½π radians).
In this example δ = 1/360 = 0.003 radians, which is small...
SO WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS?
if there is an error in the determination in the angle, it can badly throw off our estimation of the distance:
D ≈ 0.5*S/δ
the percentage error in the distance D is the same as the percentage error in the angle δ,
for δ = 0.003 radians this corresponds to 2 pixels on klimmer's images...
If klimmer cannot do better than 1 pixel in resolution, he has a 50% error possible in the angular determination, the distance is then measured to 180 miles ± 90 miles
so it wouldn't be outrageous if parts of the picture were wildly displaced from other parts due to the angular errors that are an intrinsic property of his image. He can't do better, the information is not there.
On top of that, the atmosphere refracts (the density near the ground is higher than the density far above) and that will lead to optical distortions.
Finally, your perception of the confusion in the depth due to stereopsis doesn't help, you will construct an image, based on other queues, but just how that corresponds to reality is pretty arbitrary.
This all gets a lot worse if the two images are taken closer than my presumption of 1 mile... and other problems having to do with the exact position that the two images are taken with respect to the object make things worse, the case I considered above is the most favorable. I don't assume that the cameras are moving around during the actual image production, but that is also possible in a helicopter, depending on how the cameras are mounted.
And I could also have made a mistake in my calculation. The reason I present it here is so that others can reproduce it independently, and check... this is something klimmer has not done, and he has not provided important information regarding where the pictures were made, the location of the pictures, so the error could be a lot larger in the stereoscopic reconstruction than I have calculated above.
klimmer can pick my argument apart if it is wrong. hopefully he will do it by calculation and not rhetoric. basically, he does not have sufficient angular resolution in his images to conclude much about the distance from the helicopter to the object, certainly the distance determination to not better than 50% of that distance, and that really means he cannot support the claims he has made regarding the location of the object based on his stereoscopic arguments.
[EDIT] this post was above Shack's... now it's below... I needed to make some corrections...
[second EDIT] had some typos which I corrected, too bad Mike Bolte opted out, I could use his critical eye...
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 02:35am PT
|
Yeah
A big wild guess or an educated guess.
Still it's guessing.
But you don't know that. It's just a wild uneducated guess you pulled out of your ass.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 02:38am PT
|
Ed's and Monolith's posts make this thread worth reading.
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 02:47am PT
|
But they CLEARLY show the exhuast/vapor plume going up steeply and leaning to the W - WNW. I have already shown colleagues and they can easily see it too.
Can they see your ark on the moon too?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 02:50am PT
|
Trust a bunch of male climbers to do 600 posts on whether someone's missile got up or not. Klimmer and the right wing nutbars really seem to have major Freudian issues.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 03:10am PT
|
watch out for those asian missiles!
ST threads are NOT about navel gazing
(but just a little more south...)
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 07:19am PT
|
China "Mystery Missile" off L.A. - Ret. General "It was a missile" Michio Kaku "It was an illusion"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50ArWaJZ-uA
Ret. General Tom Micinerney "It was a missile"
vs.
PhD Michio Kaku "It was an optical illusion"
In the General's corner we have:
Many years of experience firing off and observing missiles
He clearly also sees the missile head upward and to the W - WNW
He mentions the change in direction when the guidance system kicks in
Stereo vision sets the truth free.
GOES satellite images during the event sets the truth free.
Trigonometry sets the truth free.
In other words, lots of empirical evidence. It's testable!
In PhD Michio Kaku's corner we have:
"It was an optical illusion"
Swamp Gas.
Massive amounts of disinfo.
So SuperTopians choose your sides. You can't stand on the fence. Be brave and make a stand. Only one is right . . .
I'm with the general and science.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2010 - 07:40am PT
|
But apparently not on the side of reality unless you can explain away this:
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!