SanderO wrote:Couldn't the motion be more complex than 1 axis rotation?
Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been suspended.
SnowCrash wrote:I think I got this wrong the first time.
Rotating faster and faster in the y/z plane would increase the frequency of the sinusoid modulating g...
...while a larger amplitude would represent a beam physically growing in length, which is of course absurd.
P.S.: Obviously, the one axis rotation is a simplifying assumption to aid in my own understanding.
So, what if I extracted, say, x frames and manually drew a circle around the object for each frame, the circle fitting the visible diameter of the object exactly, and then using the center of this expanding/contracting circle as the trace reference point? Wouldn't that eliminate any interference from rotation? It's a monk's work, but would it work?
SnowCrash wrote:All of which is interesting but OT... My OT contribution would be that (A) the nanothermite issue has not been resolved, nor has the temperature gap issue, even though Steven Jones appears to have done his best to discredit his own research by doing other things which call his scientific integrity into question. Since I was a big supporter of his, I hope I don't have to explain that this pains me. (B) The NIST reports are demonstrably false, although that doesn't prove 'CD'. (C) There is a good case for LIHOP, although unclear who pulled the strings (suspect are the military and the CIA, as usual) (D) It's a proven fact that the 9/11 Commission Report was a cover-up, in other words a conspiracy to lie.
So elements of the 9/11 Truth Movement have been successful. I do not regard anybody as the true Truth Movement except the 9/11 family members, first responders and survivors. These people are repeatedly overlooked. They are what matters here, as well as the collateral victims of the ensuing global war on terror. Poorly informed and badly educated conspiracy theorists who feel drawn to 9/11 research are irrelevant in my opinion.
Moreover, the Poteshman paper proves with mathematical certainty that there was insider trading. The counterarguments are circumstantial and cannot debunk Poteshman's statistical analysis.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests