Evan Burton

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry166677  has no photo after 147 posts. You visited his profile ten days ago, yet Magda was booted-out [iMO because on the progressive hit list] for a photo you didn't like. I've long complained of several other dark, small, side-shot photos of the various Borg. Some are still tolerated, a few were asked to change only after I pointed-out. 

Fingernail and bedsheet taughtness inspection tomorrow at 2300 hours.....

Oh such a short memory Peter. Do you not forget Magda was given two weeks to change her avatar - and she refused to do so? And she was asked to change her avatar to one which Jack White said we should all have? And that I advised her to contact John or Andy if she had a reason not to show her photo?

Such a selective memory, Peter. No wonder your recollection is so skewed - and so wrong.

IIRC Jack was reminded several times that the link for his bio was broken and he flatly refused to fix it. He had ample opportunity to fix it.

Exactly. As I have said before about other members: if people want to act like petulant children, then they will have no-one to blame but themselves for the consequences.

I'd imagine that Peter goes around looking for people who haven't dotted the I's and T's, gleefully tattling on them.

Both John and Andy visited his bio page and said zip.

And how do you know this Peter? Are you reading the member's private messages? Can you state unequivocally that John or Andy have not sent a PM to the member, asking them to put up a bio?

Good points, Tom. Under similar conditions, the engines should sound similar. The main differences we have now are power setting and airspeed. What do you think - would they make a great difference? What difference would they make, if anything?

You've brought up another interesting point. The 757 engines have a rather distinct whine, similar to the DC-10 engines. The 747 engines have more of a traditional jet engine sound. Wonder if that made a difference?

I can't give you any particular technical explanation, but different aircraft do sound different. For helicopters, the "whomp whomp" sound of a UH-1 is very distinctive. Other helicopters sound different. It's easy for me to tell whether it is a Sea king, a Seahawk, a Squirrel, etc. Same with fixed wing aircraft. A HS-748 turboprop sounds very different to a DHC-8 turboprop. Same for jets.

The difference in sound for the turbofans probably has to do with blade design, and by-pass ratio.

Peter,

Can you you or Tom advise some details of the missing posts? When topics are merged, all posts should be included. If anything has been missed, we'll need to ensure it is restored.

I'm going to combine the two threads on the same subject. All the comments should be seen together.

I agree in one area: this was an absolutely stupid thing to do.

What buffoon decided to restrict the information? Okay, all the major agencies were warned but what about the public? of course they are going to ask what that aircraft is doing. Joe Average is not that smart, so I don't expect that they would recognise an Air Force 1 aircraft, therefore they are bound to wonder about what was happening.

This was a blunder on a huge scale, and SOMEONE should be sacked over it. During the Hazard Risk Analysis, didn't anyone point out there might be some concern with an airliner-type aircraft flying over New York with a fighter escort... especially when the public had not been informed?

This will go down in history as a "Oh - I didn't think of that" moment.

No single frame numbers Jack? Don't you want to show us up, show how we are wrong and this is more evidence of fakery?

No Peter. If the MAJORITY of a profession (pilots, engineers, etc) agreed with a LIHOP / MIHOP scenario, you'd be crowing about it from the treetops. Do you deny that? There are only a small number of "truthers" because they are a fringe element.

The facts are that when you have people claiming thermite brought down the WTC, that the WTC were brought down by demolition, that no aircraft flew into the Pentagon, etc, the overwhelming majority of professionals in those relevant fields DISAGREE with those theories. Why haven't genuine professional organisations come forward, agreeing with these theories? Why do they not at least offer some type of endorsement to the 9-11 groups?

Because they DISAGREE with them and consider them WRONG.

Whats suprising is that a self proclaimed photo expert like Jack would screw up on something as simple as parallax and pano creation.

Based on Jack's Apollo record, I don't find it surprising.

Then tell us what frame number those images come from. I'm not wasting time chasing down your imagined faults if you won't do the courtesy of providing the frame number - or at least the area of the panorama that these images come from.

Yep, ditto. The number you have given refer to pans taken at Geophone 3 (EVA-1, 120 hrs 40 min GET) and Station 5 (EVA-2, 146 hrs 49 min GET). Both are colour film, but I didn't see any rocks coloured in the assembled panoramas so can only conclude that whoever created those shots added the colour.

Jack, we have gone through this time and time again: would you like to tell us where in which frame (not frames) these images come from, and what the problem is? You seem to be suggesting there is something wrong with those things appearing to be repeated. Well, considering it's a panorama, and a panorama is a series of overlapping images that are joined together, I'd suggest that you are looking at a join.

Why don't we look at the individual frames, and see if the 'doubling' appears in those? I'm willing to bet money that we don't.

Show us.

Jack

Yep, ditto. The number you have given refer to pans taken at Geophone 3 (EVA-1, 120 hrs 40 min GET) and Station 5 (EVA-2, 146 hrs 49 min GET). Both are colour film, but I didn't see any rocks coloured in the assembled panoramas so can only conclude that whoever created those shots added the colour.

Jack, we have gone through this time and time again: would you like to tell us where in which frame (not frames) these images come from, and what the problem is? You seem to be suggesting there is something wrong with those things appearing to be repeated. Well, considering it's a panorama, and a panorama is a series of overlapping images that are joined together, I'd suggest that you are looking at a join.

Why don't we look at the individual frames, and see if the 'doubling' appears in those? I'm willing to bet money that we don't.

When I did the calcs on the Pilots for Truth group, I came up with a figure of less than 0.05% (IIRC). I used figures based on all PfT members who claimed they were pilots (from student to retired, whether in the US or not, giving the largest number possible), and compared them to only active FAA pilots who held an ATPL (giving a minimum number). It demonstrates that their opinions are of a very small minority who do not represent the vast majority of professional pilots.

Oh, and I should say that a correction is due from me; if Duane was able to PM you then he is still a member but he is under moderation. So I am wrong about him being "thrown out"; he has chosen to not post here.

It does further weaken your case about my supposed banning of people. It now turns out no-one at all was banned. Two people asked for their accounts to be removed, and the rest are under moderation.

Now, just to demonstrate how all the "faults" are of your doing, Peter, let's look at the post you made:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=166179

In it, you'll see the two hyperlinks you made in that post (please not that the only person to have edited that post is Peter; I nor any other mod has touched it).

The first link appears, and has the properties of this:

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/vie...093a6d9f412001

Notice that if you were to place your mouse over the hyperlink, exactly the same text appears down the bottom left of the screen.

The same for the second link:

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL268.../361485259.jpg

However, if we go to the original page this came from, the first link should have the full URL of:

"http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=17110&sid=4ddadc847a0fe046fd093a6d9f412001"

Here is a screen shot, showing how you SEE a truncated version, but the full link appears underneath:

The problem appears because Peter did a straight cut and paste from his other post on another forum's page. When you do a cut and paste in some circumstances, the "cut" looks simply at what text appears and NOT what the full link should be.

Whenever you copy text with a link that has been truncated (or parsed), you need to make sure that the "paste" includes ALL the link. In most cases, you'll need to select the link, right click, and select "COPY LINK LOCATION" (for Firefox). You'd then paste that over the URL (link) that you pasted.

Don't believe me? Go to the page Peter copied the text from:

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sh...amp;postcount=1

(notice that link is ALSO truncated, but I have made sure the full URL is available)

Select the text, select COPY, go to ANY OTHER FORUM WHERE YOU CAN POST, and paste the text. Hit POST or whatever you need to do to post your message.

Now check the link you have just posted..

OH MY GOD! Now THAT site is blocking the links to Peter's pages! Better inform them how they are blocking freedom of speech.

So.. any apology coming from you Peter?

Lest we forget.

If we can't speak the truth and our minds here, there is no reason to be here anyway. There are alternatives.

Then can I say exactly what i think, Peter, without being restricted by Forum rules, without being restricted by being a moderator? Surely you believe in free speech?

AS to the links in my post on the 911 actor and MI man which some are clamoring about as only bad links. I do not know what the problem is/was. I know I spent 15 minutes, or more, endlessly repasting the links and everytime they would not work on the post I had on this Forum and everytime they worked on the other post on the other Forum. I didn't subscribe a motive or means for the blockage - only that they were blocked. It could be a computer software 'thing' - of which this forum has more than it should. Now, when I often hit button for complete edit I get the bitvertiser page and there is no way to complete the edit. That is probably software the advertiser has to capture more people or a mistake in their software. There is also the annoying as hell huge shaking bitvertizer adds in the local language that must be scrolled away. So who's paranoid and who's trying to be annoying?

BULL***, Peter - you said:

The links are being blocked specifically from this site. If you go the similar thead on the Deep Politics Forum [even Len was there the last two days] the links work and they are exactly the SAME. I have repeatedly tried to re-do them here. As I said they are being blocked from this site.

Three people told you REPEATEDLY what they problem was. You maintain your accusations, and lack the moral fibre to even admit you stuffed up.

Your paranoia is running rampant, Peter.

A verbatim PM sent to me by permanently [!] moderated Duane by our immoderate moderator-superior. He didn't post it himself knowing full well Burton would get him kicked off and warned me about posting it in a later follow-up PM. If we can't speak the truth and our minds here, there is no reason to be here anyway. There are alternatives.

Peter,

I haven't read anything on this forum in a very long time or bothered to log in .. but the one time I decided to read some of the threads here, including the complaints thread, I saw where Evan Burton has recently lied about me being "thrown off" this forum, instead of choosing to leave.. Here is his quote;

"Remind me again: which members were kicked out, and who chose to leave? I can only think of one who was "thrown out" - Duane. Everyone else chose to leave."

It's true that he's responsible for my being placed on moderation but nobody ever threw me off of this forum .. I left on my own accord because I don't like the insulting mind games that take place here ... If I had been "thrown off", as Evan puts it, then I wouldn't be able to log in here and send you this PM .. It's hard to believe that this type of dishonest person is allowed to be a moderator of any forum, much less one that is suppossed to be for learning.

Duane

Peter,

Are you an idiot, or are you doing this for some reason unknown to the rest of us?

Your post:

...Duane was just kicked off the forum for things he may not have done...

So YOU say he was "kicked off" - are you a "xxxx" Peter, as Duane calls me? What you said seems to be in contrast with what Duane said and in agreement .

with what I said. EDITED TO ADD: Okay, I'm wrong about him being no longer a member here, but it is hardly a lie. As I said above - if Duane is correct and I'm a xxxx, does that make you one too? You used similar wording to me.

And also, a reminder:

Andy Walker was able to trace the posting back to Duane.

How about an apology for all the false accusations you have made, Peter?

Unfortunately I don't have the skills to help you further. I can recommend Firefox as a browser, but that's about it. Sorry!

As far as ad Q's go, I've noticed that the first click in a blank reply window on this forum opens another tab with an ad. This is definitely annoying.

I don't see that one myself, John. I use Firefox with Adblock and NoScript (although I have this as a trusted site, and let the ads appear).

What browser do you use?

I can't do that one myself John, but I'll pass it on. I think both would be worthwhile.

The question you asked previously - was that about reading e-mails without ads?

If you find you encounter a problem when trying to do something on the Forum, please do NOT assume you are the victim of some malfeasance or start accusing people of wrongdoing. Instead, post the problem here and we'll try to sort it out.

This thread can also serve as a bit of an FAQ for common technical issues. Have a read through it to see if you are encountering the same issues as another member.

Thanks!

He does not discriminate against persons with widely different political ideologies ( apart from a commendable principled stance against racism and fascism ).

Very very true. John S and I are probably politically opposite, but he insists that I have the right to state my views, the same as anyone else.

I don't know diddly about JFK, but I do know John S is a genuine champion of free speech.