New TWA Flight 800 film coming out - Page 6

Anders Lindman · 23rd June 2013, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

So, what did we miss in these milliseconds? Remembering the other channels were still recording.

Not milliseconds. Microseconds (millionth of a second):

"However, 0.73 and 0.68 seconds before the CVR recording stopped, there were brief (2 microseconds) changes in the electrical system background noise hum recorded by the captainís position CVR channel." -- http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003.pdf

"A sound spectrum study of the information recorded by the CVR revealed that twice within the last second of the CVR recording (about 0.73 and 0.68 seconds before the recording stopped), the captain's channel recorded harmonic tones at the 400 Hertz (Hz) frequency, but it did not record other electrical system background noise that it had recorded previously throughout the recording. These other electrical system background noises were recorded on the other CVR channels without interruption." -- http://www.ntsb.org/Wiringcargodoor/...es/AAR0003.pdf

So there were two very brief, millionth of a second, gaps in the captain's channel recording. How could such brief gaps have been caused other than by manipulation of the recording with audio editing?

Anders Lindman · 23rd June 2013, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

And the story told by the human remains continues to be ignored...

What human remains? I propose that there were no victims.

jargon buster · 23rd June 2013, 02:03 PM

Quote:

So there were two very brief, millionth of a second, gaps in the captain's channel recording. How could such brief gaps have been caused other than by manipulation of the recording with audio editing?

Please demonstrate what equipment is capable of eliminating sound down to 2 millions of a second and what do you believe was omitted during those two millionths of a second that you may feel was important?

Anders Lindman · 23rd June 2013, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Please demonstrate what equipment is capable of eliminating sound down to 2 millions of a second and what do you believe was omitted during those two millionths of a second that you may feel was important?

Pro Tools Family -- http://www.avid.com/US/products/family/Pro-Tools

What was omitted was just background noise. Microseconds of it. Please don't try to turn that into a straw man argument.

TheRedWorm · 23rd June 2013, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by TheRedWorm

That's only because it is the actual smoking gun. Truthers seem to never address evidence that is definitive with anything other than, "faked," a handwave, or dead silence. Rather predictable.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

What human remains? I propose that there were no victims.

God damn, I'm good.

Anders Lindman · 23rd June 2013, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by TheRedWorm

God damn, I'm good.

Ok, I'll give you a fair chance. Produce evidence of human remains from the TWA 800 disaster.

jargon buster · 23rd June 2013, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Pro Tools Family -- http://www.avid.com/US/products/family/Pro-Tools

What was omitted was just background noise. Microseconds of it. Please don't try to turn that into a straw man argument.

A link to a website isnt going to get you out of this predicament Anders
Please demonstrate what I asked for

Quote:

Please demonstrate what equipment is capable of eliminating sound down to 2 millions of a second and what do you believe was omitted during those two millionths of a second that you may feel was important?

What two millionths of a second of background noise do you feel was important to your argument?

Anders Lindman · 23rd June 2013, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

A link to a website

Yes, an example of digital audio editing. They had that already back in the 90s you know.

jargon buster · 23rd June 2013, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Ok, I'll give you a fair chance. Produce evidence of human remains from the TWA 800 disaster.

http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/w...plain&header=1

Quote:

1. VICTIM RECOVERY, EXAMINATION, AND IDENTIFICATION

The remains of all of the 230 victims aboard the airplane were recovered and identified. The remains were recovered at sea and brought to a temporary morgue at the Coast Guard station at East Moriches, NY. The first 99 bodies were found floating on the surface of the ocean and were recovered by various civilian, military, and police vessels during the night of July 17, 1996, and throughout the day of July 18, 1996. The majority of the remaining victims were recovered by U. S. Navy divers and local police divers during the next 96 days. Contract trawling operations were subsequently utilized for the recovery of additional wreckage and remains until April 30, 1997. The last remains that were identified were recovered by a fishing trawler on May 22, 1997.

Victims were placed in body bags and transported by boat to a temporary morgue at East Moriches, NY, which was staffed by personnel from the Suffolk County Medical Examiner's Office and the Suffolk County Police Depai4ment. Victims were assigned a medical examiner accession number, photographed, and their clothing and possessions were cataloged. Pertinent data on the location victims were found, when available, and the circumstances of the recoveries of the victims were also recorded. The remains were then placed in a refrigerated trailer and transported to the Suffolk County Medical Examiner's Office (ME) in Hauppage, NY.

TheRedWorm · 23rd June 2013, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Ok, I'll give you a fair chance. Produce evidence of human remains from the TWA 800 disaster.

Go ahead and read that first post I quoted. Then tell me you won't just handwave any evidence I or anyone else provides; you'll be lying if you say you won't.

jargon buster · 23rd June 2013, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by TheRedWorm

Go ahead and read that first post I quoted. Then tell me you won't just handwave any evidence I or anyone else provides; you'll be lying if you say you won't.

He will hand wave my evidence away and ask for photos no doubt.
If they are provided he will say they are fakes or post a link to Lockerbie.

Anders Lindman · 23rd June 2013, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/w...plain&header=1

Ha! That's not an official website.

Anders Lindman · 23rd June 2013, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by TheRedWorm

Go ahead and read that first post I quoted. Then tell me you won't just handwave any evidence I or anyone else provides; you'll be lying if you say you won't.

I think I will examine the evidence, if it's from an official source.

TheRedWorm · 23rd June 2013, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by TheRedWorm

Go ahead and read that first post I quoted. Then tell me you won't just handwave any evidence I or anyone else provides; you'll be lying if you say you won't.

Originally Posted by jargon buster

He will hand wave my evidence away and ask for photos no doubt.
If they are provided he will say they are fakes or post a link to Lockerbie.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Ha! That's not an official website.

(my bolding) God damn, JB's good.

SezMe · 23rd June 2013, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

The background noise is the same on all channels. Are you claiming "they" altered something the captain whispered (really softly and stupid quickly)?

Where's flaccon when we need her?

jargon buster · 23rd June 2013, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Ha! That's not an official website.

What do you want Anders?
A link to an official government site that was responsible for doctoring a recording device to eliminate two millionths of a second from a single channel of a four channel recording device to cover up why the plane went down?

Why would you accept an official sites word on it?

TheRedWorm · 23rd June 2013, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I think I will examine the evidence, if it's from an official source.

And let me guess, you get to define official is such a way that you will automatically discount anything that site says, right? Also, you totally weaseled out of actually saying that you'd accept with the words ""I think I will examine..." You will either say you have thought wrong, or say that, on examination, they're faked.

Anders Lindman · 23rd June 2013, 02:30 PM

I MAY dismiss official sources of TWA 800 victims. But I will probably at least look at it.

TheRedWorm · 23rd June 2013, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I MAY dismiss official sources of TWA 800 victims. But I will probably at least look at it.

(my bolding) Make no mistake, you will. That's how you troll.

Captain_Swoop · 23rd June 2013, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Why would you accept an official sites word on it?

For the usual CT reason. An official source is a lie unless it supports the CT.

jargon buster · 23rd June 2013, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I MAY dismiss official sources of TWA 800 victims. But I will probably at least look at it.

I dont understand your reasoning, you seem to claim there is some government conspiracy regarding the recordings but are happy to look at and maybe accept evidence of human remains provided by the very same source?

Can you please explain why they would lie here but not there?

DGM · 23rd June 2013, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

So there were two very brief, millionth of a second, gaps in the captain's channel recording. How could such brief gaps have been caused other than by manipulation of the recording with audio editing?

Who cares? You even claim it's less significant. Everything was still there in the other channels. Do you actually have a point? I doubt it.

What could we have we miss? You keep forgetting to answer this obvious question.

Anders Lindman · 23rd June 2013, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

I dont understand your reasoning, you seem to claim there is some government conspiracy regarding the recordings but are happy to look at and maybe accept evidence of human remains provided by the very same source?

Can you please explain why they would lie here but not there?

I actually think the gaps in the audio are suspicious. There could of course be some technical detail I have missed however, and then I will have to take back my claim. On the other hand if the evidence for human remains also looks shaky then that would strengthen my conspiracy theory. So it would be interesting to check out the official claims about the victims. I have done some research about that, such as finding a list of supposed victims. From an UNofficial website! That's suspicious because it was used as reference in a Wikipedia article. Is that the best reference they have?

Anders Lindman · 23rd June 2013, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

Who cares? You even claim it's less significant. Everything was still there in the other channels. Do you actually have a point? I doubt it.

What could we have we miss? You keep forgetting to answer this obvious question.

I care! I can't see how such gaps could be a result of anything other than audio fakery. How significant is evidence of audio fakery? Could be hugely significant! Unless the official version is changed and they claim the gaps in the audio are a result of post production in their labs.

TheRedWorm · 23rd June 2013, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I actually think the gaps in the audio are suspicious. There could of course be some technical detail I have missed however, and then I will have to take back my claim. On the other hand if the evidence for human remains also looks shaky then that would strengthen my conspiracy theory. So it would be interesting to check out the official claims about the victims. I have done some research about that, such as finding a list of supposed victims. From an UNofficial website! That's suspicious because it was used as reference in a Wikipedia article. Is that the best reference they have?

You've already decided that the evidence is shaky. There is no reason to, but you already have.

DGM · 23rd June 2013, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I actually think the gaps in the audio are suspicious. There could of course be some technical detail I have missed however, and then I will have to take back my claim. On the other hand if the evidence for human remains also looks shaky then that would strengthen my conspiracy theory. So it would be interesting to check out the official claims about the victims. I have done some research about that, such as finding a list of supposed victims. From an UNofficial website! That's suspicious because it was used as reference in a Wikipedia article. Is that the best reference they have?

Wait...................I'm detecting microsecond gaps in your message. Are you sure what you are typing is what we see? I think it can't be (the MA prohibits me from explaining why).

jargon buster · 23rd June 2013, 02:53 PM

Quote:

I actually think the gaps in the audio are suspicious.

PSST in reality there are no gaps, they have all the recordings.
Go and read the evidence again.

Anders Lindman · 23rd June 2013, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

PSST in reality there are no gaps, they have all the recordings.
Go and read the evidence again.

Gaps in the recording of the noise. The 400 Hz harmonics are still present in those places, if that's what you mean.

jargon buster · 23rd June 2013, 03:01 PM

Nope, no gaps at all, its all there, nothing missing, go and read the report again.

Anders Lindman · 23rd June 2013, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

Nope, no gaps at all, its all there, nothing missing, go and read the report again.

They didn't use the term 'gaps' but you know what I mean:

"the captain's channel recorded harmonic tones at the 400 Hertz (Hz) frequency, but it did not record other electrical system background noise that it had recorded previously throughout the recording"

jargon buster · 23rd June 2013, 03:10 PM

Quote:

"A sound spectrum study of the information recorded by the CVR revealed that twice within the last second of the CVR recording (about 0.73 and 0.68 seconds before the recording stopped), the captain's channel recorded harmonic tones at the 400 Hertz (Hz) frequency, but it did not record other electrical system background noise that it had recorded previously throughout the recording. These other electrical system background noises were recorded on the other CVR channels without interruption."

So what was missing exactly?

DGM · 23rd June 2013, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

They didn't use the term 'gaps' but you know what I mean:

"the captain's channel recorded harmonic tones at the 400 Hertz (Hz) frequency, but it did not record other electrical system background noise that it had recorded previously throughout the recording"

So, what did the other channels miss?

You do know they all record the same thin, only at different levels.

Should we just chock this one up like all the rest of your arguments?

Anders Lindman · 23rd June 2013, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

So, what did the other channels miss?

You do know they all record the same thin, only at different levels.

Should we just chock this one up like all the rest of your arguments?

The other channels recorded the background noise continuously.

Imagine four journalists recording what Barack Obama is saying in a press conference. Then further imagine that when the recordings are examined, one of the journalists has two microsecond gaps in his or her recording while the other journalists have recordings without such gaps. What caused those gaps?

jargon buster · 23rd June 2013, 03:13 PM

Cue a link to the suitcase sandwiches of Lockerbie.

jargon buster · 23rd June 2013, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Imagine four journalists recording what Barack Obama is saying in a press conference. Then further imagine that when the recordings are examined, one of the journalists has two microsecond gaps in his or her recording while the other journalists have recordings without such gaps. What caused those gaps?

Stop clutching at straws.
There is nothing missing.
All the noises were recorded.
In your example has something the president said been missed?

I notice you have ignored the human remains evidence now, its been noted though.

DGM · 23rd June 2013, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

The other channels recorded the background noise continuously.

Imagine four journalists recording what Barack Obama is saying in a press conference. Then further imagine that when the recordings are examined, one of the journalists has two microsecond gaps in his or her recording while the other journalists have recordings without such gaps. What caused those gaps?

So? What are you missing that breaks open this case in a few microseconds? Why are you ignoring the fact they overlap information?

Anders Lindman · 23rd June 2013, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by jargon buster

All the noises were recorded.

Not continuously by the captain's channel. What exactly the source of that background noise was, from electric circuits or from the sound environment, can be put aside in my argument. It's the very fast "cut out" of that noise in spans of microseconds that I wonder how that could have been caused.

DGM · 23rd June 2013, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Not continuously by the captain's channel. What exactly the source of that background noise was, from electric circuits or from the sound environment, can be put aside in my argument. It's the very fast "cut out" of that noise in spans of microseconds that I wonder how that could have been caused.

Why? Could it be because it helps you detract from all the other things you need to ignore?

You are so predictable.

Anders Lindman · 23rd June 2013, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

So? What are you missing that breaks open this case in a few microseconds? Why are you ignoring the fact they overlap information?

I'm missing a plausible explanation for how those microsecond glitches could have been produced. The official documents omit discussing the very fast "switching" that would have been required by the equipment.

Anders Lindman · 23rd June 2013, 03:25 PM

So, no official evidence of human remains from the TWA 800 disaster?

23rd June 2013, 02:03 PM	#203
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773	Quote: So there were two very brief, millionth of a second, gaps in the captain's channel recording. How could such brief gaps have been caused other than by manipulation of the recording with audio editing? Please demonstrate what equipment is capable of eliminating sound down to 2 millions of a second and what do you believe was omitted during those two millionths of a second that you may feel was important?
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773

23rd June 2013, 02:08 PM	#205
TheRedWorm I AM the Red Worm! Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,452	Originally Posted by TheRedWorm That's only because it is the actual smoking gun. Truthers seem to never address evidence that is definitive with anything other than, "faked," a handwave, or dead silence. Rather predictable. Originally Posted by Anders Lindman What human remains? I propose that there were no victims. God damn, I'm good.
	__________________ I'll be the best Congressman money can buy! As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah

23rd June 2013, 02:12 PM	#207
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Pro Tools Family -- http://www.avid.com/US/products/family/Pro-Tools What was omitted was just background noise. Microseconds of it. Please don't try to turn that into a straw man argument. A link to a website isnt going to get you out of this predicament Anders Please demonstrate what I asked for Quote: Please demonstrate what equipment is capable of eliminating sound down to 2 millions of a second and what do you believe was omitted during those two millionths of a second that you may feel was important? What two millionths of a second of background noise do you feel was important to your argument?
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773

23rd June 2013, 02:19 PM	#209
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Ok, I'll give you a fair chance. Produce evidence of human remains from the TWA 800 disaster. http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/w...plain&header=1 Quote: 1. VICTIM RECOVERY, EXAMINATION, AND IDENTIFICATION The remains of all of the 230 victims aboard the airplane were recovered and identified. The remains were recovered at sea and brought to a temporary morgue at the Coast Guard station at East Moriches, NY. The first 99 bodies were found floating on the surface of the ocean and were recovered by various civilian, military, and police vessels during the night of July 17, 1996, and throughout the day of July 18, 1996. The majority of the remaining victims were recovered by U. S. Navy divers and local police divers during the next 96 days. Contract trawling operations were subsequently utilized for the recovery of additional wreckage and remains until April 30, 1997. The last remains that were identified were recovered by a fishing trawler on May 22, 1997. Victims were placed in body bags and transported by boat to a temporary morgue at East Moriches, NY, which was staffed by personnel from the Suffolk County Medical Examiner's Office and the Suffolk County Police Depai4ment. Victims were assigned a medical examiner accession number, photographed, and their clothing and possessions were cataloged. Pertinent data on the location victims were found, when available, and the circumstances of the recoveries of the victims were also recorded. The remains were then placed in a refrigerated trailer and transported to the Suffolk County Medical Examiner's Office (ME) in Hauppage, NY.
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773

23rd June 2013, 02:22 PM	#210
TheRedWorm I AM the Red Worm! Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,452	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Ok, I'll give you a fair chance. Produce evidence of human remains from the TWA 800 disaster. Go ahead and read that first post I quoted. Then tell me you won't just handwave any evidence I or anyone else provides; you'll be lying if you say you won't.
	__________________ I'll be the best Congressman money can buy! As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah

23rd June 2013, 01:55 PM	#201
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by DGM So, what did we miss in these milliseconds? Remembering the other channels were still recording. Not milliseconds. Microseconds (millionth of a second): "However, 0.73 and 0.68 seconds before the CVR recording stopped, there were brief (2 microseconds) changes in the electrical system background noise hum recorded by the captainís position CVR channel." -- http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003.pdf "A sound spectrum study of the information recorded by the CVR revealed that twice within the last second of the CVR recording (about 0.73 and 0.68 seconds before the recording stopped), the captain's channel recorded harmonic tones at the 400 Hertz (Hz) frequency, but it did not record other electrical system background noise that it had recorded previously throughout the recording. These other electrical system background noises were recorded on the other CVR channels without interruption." -- http://www.ntsb.org/Wiringcargodoor/...es/AAR0003.pdf So there were two very brief, millionth of a second, gaps in the captain's channel recording. How could such brief gaps have been caused other than by manipulation of the recording with audio editing?

23rd June 2013, 01:58 PM	#202
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by Corsair 115 And the story told by the human remains continues to be ignored... What human remains? I propose that there were no victims.

23rd June 2013, 02:08 PM	#204
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by jargon buster Please demonstrate what equipment is capable of eliminating sound down to 2 millions of a second and what do you believe was omitted during those two millionths of a second that you may feel was important? Pro Tools Family -- http://www.avid.com/US/products/family/Pro-Tools What was omitted was just background noise. Microseconds of it. Please don't try to turn that into a straw man argument.

23rd June 2013, 02:11 PM	#206
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by TheRedWorm God damn, I'm good. Ok, I'll give you a fair chance. Produce evidence of human remains from the TWA 800 disaster.

23rd June 2013, 02:18 PM	#208
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by jargon buster A link to a website Yes, an example of digital audio editing. They had that already back in the 90s you know.

23rd June 2013, 02:23 PM	#211
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773	Originally Posted by TheRedWorm Go ahead and read that first post I quoted. Then tell me you won't just handwave any evidence I or anyone else provides; you'll be lying if you say you won't. He will hand wave my evidence away and ask for photos no doubt. If they are provided he will say they are fakes or post a link to Lockerbie.
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773

23rd June 2013, 02:24 PM	#212
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by jargon buster http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/w...plain&header=1 Ha! That's not an official website.

23rd June 2013, 02:25 PM	#213
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by TheRedWorm Go ahead and read that first post I quoted. Then tell me you won't just handwave any evidence I or anyone else provides; you'll be lying if you say you won't. I think I will examine the evidence, if it's from an official source.

23rd June 2013, 02:26 PM	#214
TheRedWorm I AM the Red Worm! Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,452	Originally Posted by TheRedWorm Go ahead and read that first post I quoted. Then tell me you won't just handwave any evidence I or anyone else provides; you'll be lying if you say you won't. Originally Posted by jargon buster He will hand wave my evidence away and ask for photos no doubt. If they are provided he will say they are fakes or post a link to Lockerbie. Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Ha! That's not an official website. (my bolding) God damn, JB's good.
	__________________ I'll be the best Congressman money can buy! As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah

23rd June 2013, 02:27 PM	#215
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 25,183	Originally Posted by DGM The background noise is the same on all channels. Are you claiming "they" altered something the captain whispered (really softly and stupid quickly)? Where's flaccon when we need her?

23rd June 2013, 02:27 PM	#216
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Ha! That's not an official website. What do you want Anders? A link to an official government site that was responsible for doctoring a recording device to eliminate two millionths of a second from a single channel of a four channel recording device to cover up why the plane went down? Why would you accept an official sites word on it?
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773

23rd June 2013, 02:29 PM	#217
TheRedWorm I AM the Red Worm! Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,452	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman I think I will examine the evidence, if it's from an official source. And let me guess, you get to define official is such a way that you will automatically discount anything that site says, right? Also, you totally weaseled out of actually saying that you'd accept with the words ""I think I will examine..." You will either say you have thought wrong, or say that, on examination, they're faked.
	__________________ I'll be the best Congressman money can buy! As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah

23rd June 2013, 02:30 PM	#218
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	I MAY dismiss official sources of TWA 800 victims. But I will probably at least look at it.

23rd June 2013, 02:31 PM	#219
TheRedWorm I AM the Red Worm! Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,452	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman I MAY dismiss official sources of TWA 800 victims. But I will probably at least look at it. (my bolding) Make no mistake, you will. That's how you troll.
	__________________ I'll be the best Congressman money can buy! As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah

23rd June 2013, 02:34 PM	#220
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 43,373	Originally Posted by jargon buster Why would you accept an official sites word on it? For the usual CT reason. An official source is a lie unless it supports the CT.

23rd June 2013, 02:36 PM	#221
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman I MAY dismiss official sources of TWA 800 victims. But I will probably at least look at it. I dont understand your reasoning, you seem to claim there is some government conspiracy regarding the recordings but are happy to look at and maybe accept evidence of human remains provided by the very same source? Can you please explain why they would lie here but not there?
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773

23rd June 2013, 02:39 PM	#222
DGM Skeptic not Atheist Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,738	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman So there were two very brief, millionth of a second, gaps in the captain's channel recording. How could such brief gaps have been caused other than by manipulation of the recording with audio editing? Who cares? You even claim it's less significant. Everything was still there in the other channels. Do you actually have a point? I doubt it. What could we have we miss? You keep forgetting to answer this obvious question.
	__________________ "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 Last edited by DGM; 23rd June 2013 at 02:41 PM.

23rd June 2013, 02:44 PM	#223
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by jargon buster I dont understand your reasoning, you seem to claim there is some government conspiracy regarding the recordings but are happy to look at and maybe accept evidence of human remains provided by the very same source? Can you please explain why they would lie here but not there? I actually think the gaps in the audio are suspicious. There could of course be some technical detail I have missed however, and then I will have to take back my claim. On the other hand if the evidence for human remains also looks shaky then that would strengthen my conspiracy theory. So it would be interesting to check out the official claims about the victims. I have done some research about that, such as finding a list of supposed victims. From an UNofficial website! That's suspicious because it was used as reference in a Wikipedia article. Is that the best reference they have?

23rd June 2013, 02:47 PM	#224
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by DGM Who cares? You even claim it's less significant. Everything was still there in the other channels. Do you actually have a point? I doubt it. What could we have we miss? You keep forgetting to answer this obvious question. I care! I can't see how such gaps could be a result of anything other than audio fakery. How significant is evidence of audio fakery? Could be hugely significant! Unless the official version is changed and they claim the gaps in the audio are a result of post production in their labs.

23rd June 2013, 02:48 PM	#225
TheRedWorm I AM the Red Worm! Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,452	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman I actually think the gaps in the audio are suspicious. There could of course be some technical detail I have missed however, and then I will have to take back my claim. On the other hand if the evidence for human remains also looks shaky then that would strengthen my conspiracy theory. So it would be interesting to check out the official claims about the victims. I have done some research about that, such as finding a list of supposed victims. From an UNofficial website! That's suspicious because it was used as reference in a Wikipedia article. Is that the best reference they have? You've already decided that the evidence is shaky. There is no reason to, but you already have.
	__________________ I'll be the best Congressman money can buy! As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah

23rd June 2013, 02:51 PM	#226
DGM Skeptic not Atheist Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,738	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman I actually think the gaps in the audio are suspicious. There could of course be some technical detail I have missed however, and then I will have to take back my claim. On the other hand if the evidence for human remains also looks shaky then that would strengthen my conspiracy theory. So it would be interesting to check out the official claims about the victims. I have done some research about that, such as finding a list of supposed victims. From an UNofficial website! That's suspicious because it was used as reference in a Wikipedia article. Is that the best reference they have? Wait...................I'm detecting microsecond gaps in your message. Are you sure what you are typing is what we see? I think it can't be (the MA prohibits me from explaining why).
	__________________ "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

23rd June 2013, 02:53 PM	#227
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773	Quote: I actually think the gaps in the audio are suspicious. PSST in reality there are no gaps, they have all the recordings. Go and read the evidence again.
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773

23rd June 2013, 02:56 PM	#228
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by jargon buster PSST in reality there are no gaps, they have all the recordings. Go and read the evidence again. Gaps in the recording of the noise. The 400 Hz harmonics are still present in those places, if that's what you mean.

23rd June 2013, 03:01 PM	#229
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773	Nope, no gaps at all, its all there, nothing missing, go and read the report again.
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773

23rd June 2013, 03:06 PM	#230
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by jargon buster Nope, no gaps at all, its all there, nothing missing, go and read the report again. They didn't use the term 'gaps' but you know what I mean: "the captain's channel recorded harmonic tones at the 400 Hertz (Hz) frequency, but it did not record other electrical system background noise that it had recorded previously throughout the recording"

23rd June 2013, 03:10 PM	#231
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773	Quote: "A sound spectrum study of the information recorded by the CVR revealed that twice within the last second of the CVR recording (about 0.73 and 0.68 seconds before the recording stopped), the captain's channel recorded harmonic tones at the 400 Hertz (Hz) frequency, but it did not record other electrical system background noise that it had recorded previously throughout the recording. These other electrical system background noises were recorded on the other CVR channels without interruption." So what was missing exactly?
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773

23rd June 2013, 03:10 PM	#232
DGM Skeptic not Atheist Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,738	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman They didn't use the term 'gaps' but you know what I mean: "the captain's channel recorded harmonic tones at the 400 Hertz (Hz) frequency, but it did not record other electrical system background noise that it had recorded previously throughout the recording" So, what did the other channels miss? You do know they all record the same thin, only at different levels. Should we just chock this one up like all the rest of your arguments?
	__________________ "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

23rd June 2013, 03:13 PM	#233
Anders Lindman Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 13,833	Originally Posted by DGM So, what did the other channels miss? You do know they all record the same thin, only at different levels. Should we just chock this one up like all the rest of your arguments? The other channels recorded the background noise continuously. Imagine four journalists recording what Barack Obama is saying in a press conference. Then further imagine that when the recordings are examined, one of the journalists has two microsecond gaps in his or her recording while the other journalists have recordings without such gaps. What caused those gaps?

23rd June 2013, 03:13 PM	#234
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773	Cue a link to the suitcase sandwiches of Lockerbie.
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773

23rd June 2013, 03:15 PM	#235
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773	Quote: Imagine four journalists recording what Barack Obama is saying in a press conference. Then further imagine that when the recordings are examined, one of the journalists has two microsecond gaps in his or her recording while the other journalists have recordings without such gaps. What caused those gaps? Stop clutching at straws. There is nothing missing. All the noises were recorded. In your example has something the president said been missed? I notice you have ignored the human remains evidence now, its been noted though.
jargon buster Banned Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 4,773