Craig Lamson Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 A colleague has reminded me of a perfect example.In my last job, when the Lieutenant-Colonel asked me to analyse failure data for all the ballistic vests worn by the Army, he didn't do so because I knew about ballistics and ammunition. Indeed, I had to ask my boss (a Major) which ammunition type went with the AK-47 rifle -- everyone else in my Section (all Army guys) just assumed that it was common knowledge. They didn't laugh (OK, they did smile), because they didn't put me onto the analysis because I knew about Army stuff, but because I was (in their opinion) the best person to attack what was an almost-impossible statistical task. In the whole Department of Defence, that is. So if the Chief of Army was willing to trust my expertise when it came to the lives of all of his soldiers, do you think I'd be confident tackling the analysis of tree rings and tubes of ice? You bet. LOL! You can't even understand photographic parallax! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Costella Posted December 14, 2009 Author Share Posted December 14, 2009 Give it up, Lamson, and come back when you've learnt what that "algebra" stuff they talked about in school is all about ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 (edited) Give it up, Lamson, and come back when you've learnt what that "algebra" stuff they talked about in school is all about ... No Costella, you give it up, come back when you learn to actually TEST. The photos do you in, and the great thing is that anyone can do the work and prove you wrong. It must really suck to be you, a PhD in physics and to make a claim that something is against the laws of physics, and then find you got it all wrong. Qualified to study tree rings? LOL! The truth about John P. Costella is available for all to see. www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm Edited December 14, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Costella Posted December 14, 2009 Author Share Posted December 14, 2009 You're right, Lampoon -- the entire Australian Army should be recalled. What was I thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 (edited) You're right, Lampoon -- the entire Australian Army should be recalled. What was I thinking? God forbid anyone should trust their life to your works. Look how afraid you are to even address the proof of your failure as documented here. And thats not even considering the other gross failures in your boggled Zapruder film mess. www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm Whats the matter johnboy, Chicken? Maybe you would be more comfortable crawling back under your rock down there in oz...much safer to be sure.... Edited December 14, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Costella Posted December 14, 2009 Author Share Posted December 14, 2009 That's right, Lampoon, I'm scared of your arguments. I suppose you're now saying that your fear of algebra means that we need to MEASURE carbon dioxide on a real planet -- get some unnecessary planet and do experiments on it for a few thousand years -- rather than try to calculate anything? You're right -- I just never will get to that level of proof that you require. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 You're right, Lampoon -- the entire Australian Army should be recalled. What was I thinking? God forbid anyone should trust their life to your works. Look how afraid you are to even address the proof of your failure as documented here. And thats not even considering the other gross failures in your boggled Zapruder film mess. www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm Whats the matter johnboy, Chicken? Maybe you would be more comfortable crawling back under your rock down there in oz...much safer to be sure.... my goodness, did someone say that commercial photography of yours looks FAKE, painted instead of touched up or enhanced.... what happens when ya get to arrogant, son. So where's Zavada lets get to the bottom of it, NOW! LMAO... Can you focus on the thread topic Craigster? Or does Doug Horne have you running in circles too? Climategate, nice and slow now, so Al Gore can hear ya.... C-L-I-M-A-T-E-G-A-T-E..... where's the .john varsity gone these day's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 You're right, Lampoon -- the entire Australian Army should be recalled. What was I thinking? God forbid anyone should trust their life to your works. Look how afraid you are to even address the proof of your failure as documented here. And thats not even considering the other gross failures in your boggled Zapruder film mess. www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm Whats the matter johnboy, Chicken? Maybe you would be more comfortable crawling back under your rock down there in oz...much safer to be sure.... my goodness, did someone say that commercial photography of yours looks FAKE, painted instead of touched up or enhanced.... what happens when ya get to arrogant, son. So where's Zavada lets get to the bottom of it, NOW! LMAO... Can you focus on the thread topic Craigster? Or does Doug Horne have you running in circles too? Climategate, nice and slow now, so Al Gore can hear ya.... C-L-I-M-A-T-E-G-A-T-E..... where's the .john varsity gone these day's? Have a go at it squealy, if you dare. However given that your just hot air, no one pays you any mind. Johnboy changed the topic to his competence or lack thereof. I'm perfectly ON topic davie. Poor Costella, whats the sad sack gonna do now? The honorable thing and admit he is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Costella Posted December 14, 2009 Author Share Posted December 14, 2009 Wrong again, Lambikins -- it was the honourable Len Colby who questioned my competence: ... your background is in particle physics, computer science, electrical engineering and math/science education. Do you really think this qualifies you understand the complex issues at hand? But I agree with you and Dave: let's get back on-topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 (edited) That's right, Lampoon, I'm scared of your arguments.I suppose you're now saying that your fear of algebra means that we need to MEASURE carbon dioxide on a real planet -- get some unnecessary planet and do experiments on it for a few thousand years -- rather than try to calculate anything? You're right -- I just never will get to that level of proof that you require. The shuck and jive gets you and your shattered reputation nowhere johnboy. Your vaunted calulations have failed you. You screwed the pooch because your thought all you needed was the math. Just like almost all of your photographic errors, of which there are plenty, IGNORANCE, VERY POOR ASSUMPTIONS AND LACK OF TESTING did you in. Sadly for you all it took to bring you down was three simple photographs...photographs anyone who desires can produce for themself and show just how ignorant John P. Costella, PhD really is when it comes to photographic parallax, among other things. Yep you are scared to death of my unimpeachable experimental data. You can't refute it. It destroys you. Maybe you need to head back to McDonalds, you just might be qualified to say; "You want fries with that?" Edited December 14, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 (edited) Wrong again, Lambikins -- it was the honourable Len Colby who questioned my competence:... your background is in particle physics, computer science, electrical engineering and math/science education. Do you really think this qualifies you understand the complex issues at hand? But I agree with you and Dave: let's get back on-topic. Yes he did, and then you RAN with it. We still are on topic and you are still RUNNING. Not content with one post boasting, you added a second: johnboy spewed: "A colleague has reminded me of a perfect example. In my last job, when the Lieutenant-Colonel asked me to analyse failure data for all the ballistic vests worn by the Army, he didn't do so because I knew about ballistics and ammunition. Indeed, I had to ask my boss (a Major) which ammunition type went with the AK-47 rifle -- everyone else in my Section (all Army guys) just assumed that it was common knowledge. They didn't laugh (OK, they did smile), because they didn't put me onto the analysis because I knew about Army stuff, but because I was (in their opinion) the best person to attack what was an almost-impossible statistical task. In the whole Department of Defence, that is. So if the Chief of Army was willing to trust my expertise when it came to the lives of all of his soldiers, do you think I'd be confident tackling the analysis of tree rings and tubes of ice? You bet. " Of course you can answer in the Costellagate thread if that makes you feel better. Are you gonna man up and admit your error johnboy or forever be labeled as a dishonest "scientist" just like those you are attempting to slime? The irony really IS delicious. Cluck, cluck johnboy.... Edited December 14, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Costella Posted December 14, 2009 Author Share Posted December 14, 2009 Yes, I've been a baa-aa-aa-ad boy, Lambikins, for allowing you to take us off-topic. So I'll be a good boy now and ignore your distractions. Apologies all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 The "global warming scare" is like all other scares of this type.The first question to ask is WHO BENEFITS from the scare propaganda. You are right that we always need to ask the question “who benefits” from any particular theory. However, that must also be applied to those who support the theory that “global warming” does not exist. We must look for the financial backers for those spokes people who argue against global warming. In virtually every case it is the oil industry that of course would lose billions if governments took effective measures against the causes of global warming. Of course, it is true that because of the overwhelming evidence that global warming is taking place, scientists involved in this area of research would have their career prospects damaged if they argued the opposite was the case. After all, people would just think they were being paid by the oil industry to put forward this point of view. I am not saying that all anti-global climate warming advocates are being paid by the oil industry. Some will no doubt argue that it is some sort of conspiracy. But then again, they usually do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 (edited) A colleague has reminded me of a perfect example.In my last job, when the Lieutenant-Colonel asked me to analyse failure data for all the ballistic vests worn by the Army, he didn't do so because I knew about ballistics and ammunition. Indeed, I had to ask my boss (a Major) which ammunition type went with the AK-47 rifle -- everyone else in my Section (all Army guys) just assumed that it was common knowledge. They didn't laugh (OK, they did smile), because they didn't put me onto the analysis because I knew about Army stuff, but because I was (in their opinion) the best person to attack what was an almost-impossible statistical task. In the whole Department of Defence, that is. So if the Chief of Army was willing to trust my expertise when it came to the lives of all of his soldiers, do you think I'd be confident tackling the analysis of tree rings and tubes of ice? You bet. So have you actually tackled "the analysis of tree rings and tubes of ice"? And in answer to your question no.I mean I can't give a informed answer with out know more about the "failure data for all the ballistic vests" but it seems like rather straight forward statistical analysis: vest x failed --% of the time when hit with type IV ammo from an AK-47 and --% of the time with type V ammo, vest y. Worldwide climate analysis is far more complex. And despite your arrogance you've made basic errors in physics in your Z-film analysis. Riddle me this, when else in the last 500 years have such an overwhelming % of scientific specialists been wrong? Edited December 14, 2009 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 (edited) Yes, I've been a baa-aa-aa-ad boy, Lambikins, for allowing you to take us off-topic. So I'll be a good boy now and ignore your distractions. Apologies all. Your choice Johnboy, its is YOUR reputation in tatters. <Removed by Burton>. Works for me, and what a wonderful addition for the webpage! Your hypocrisy in this thread alone is simply stunning! Gotta laugh to see the "great" John P. Costella quaking in fear over three little photographs. Edited December 15, 2009 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now