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 temporarily enabled; take advantage of it!
Darkwing wrote:There is ZERO internal critique with you guys except the most banal a**-licking corrections.
OneWhiteEye wrote:Indeed. "Invalid at step 1" characterizes so many arguments.
I disagree. Your method is simply tracking the average position of the pixels in the region of an image, weighted by luminosity. This works great for a nice blob on a featureless background, but it's not really relevant when a larger object is moving...
OneWhiteEye wrote:oz, Major_Tom and Oystein were there.
Which is very much the reasons that appealed to me - pragmatic engineer looking for answers. So I took the "Master Class" as femr confronted and patiently won ground of credibility again the antagonistic "truthers are always wrong" claque on that other forum. Including two very hostile specialists in personal credibility attack - one engineer one an academic. My respect for femr's objective rationality grew as I followed his progress in the face of such a back lash. I cannot recall him ever claiming more that he had "proved" to date - even if it was "his way". Objectivity exemplary.
OneWhiteEye wrote:Perhaps worthy of mention here is the This is NIST's hole; I'm in it, too post. That was end of November 2008. I had a "finding" of over g.
Climbed out of that hole eventually.
ozeco41 wrote:I wasn't involved in the early days here - but I only missed about 1.5 years of it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest