Salter Busted - Ace Baker's Request for Technical Data -

[Roadrunner]

Below is the written request, made by Ace Baker, for Eric Salter to produce basic technical data in support of his own video argument. Salter can't answer. We're all still waiting. Salter - busted !

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/SalterDeconstruction.html

[gruts]

meanwhile back in the real world, Eric Salter has updated and combined his responses to Ace Baker's "research" into one article....

Critical Review of Fox 5 Video Fakery Claims
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/reviewfox5.html

....as well as posting an addendum to explain some of his previous answers to Baker's "rebuttal" in more detail.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/Fox5analysis.html#addendum

salter has proved that ace baker's research is based on deliberate deception, subjective interpretation of his own error-prone guesswork and sheer incompetence.

why are you pretending not to know this?

[Roadrunner]

So, have you actually read the following document ? A simple question, yes ? Have you actually read it ? Yes or No ?

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/SalterDeconstruction.html

[chek]

[Roadrunner]

Chek, have YOU read it ?

[Roadrunner]

Gruts, you're hilarious. Where on earth did they recruit you ? You're as dumb as they come. Have you actually read the document ? Yes or No ?

Simple, right ?

Do you understand the question ????

[chek]

[Roadrunner]

Forget it Check, such questions are a big challenge to guys like you. You feel intellectually challenged by them, right ?

[John White]

[Roadrunner]

Well, in the case of this forum, which specialises in the most ragged and baseless rantings, with no aherence to scientific principles, no manners shown between posters, and not even a basic understanding of what constitutes the scientific method, it collapses because its members (for the most part) are people of low education who cannot even understand a simple yes or no question. That's been demonstrated over and over on this forum.

And yet it's the gang who are against NPT. Add to this the comedy appearance of a charlatan, from time to time. It's a farce and is treated as such worldwide in 9/11 research.

[chek]

[gruts]

oh yeah - I'd forgotten that we were all being controlled by the "Jesuit Order" - or something....

[Roadrunner]

Neither Check nor Gruts (both of who believe Baker has been defeated by Salter) can say if they've actually read the document by Baker placed at the top of this thread. They've been asked to say Yes or No repeatedly. They still can't answer.

You are dummies. Stooges. Low life misinformants with no contribution to make, whatsoever in establishing truth. You have established, instead, that forums such as this exist solely to misinform, to mislead and to rubbish attempts to establish the truth by scientific methods. These you know nothing about.

Youre a bunch of abused misfits with the collective intellectual ability of a slug.

[gruts]

Amen

[chek]

[Roadrunner]

Salter, having based (as Baker shows) his entire paper on the FALSE premise that the helicopter shot was perfectly stable, has fabricated a huge margin of error in his reply with no control cases. He has concealed his required stabilization data. He has employed the strawman argument of chroma key. He has offered readers a false choice between CGI and his own strawman. He has diverted attention to irrelevant details and even to a completely different video. Salter then has the audacity to accuse Baker of intellectual dishonesty in his analysis of this footage.

Baker closed by repeating his request that Mr. Salter release a high quality copy of the entire Chopper 5 video, and any other 9/11 videos he may have in his possession. All of the above remain, at this time, unanswered by Salter.

How anyone can claim, in view of the above, that Baker has been debunked by Salter is ridiculous. The opposite has happened. Salter is shown to be unable, incapable, of providing the above material to Baker.

Case Closed. Once again the agents of misinformation cannot conform to the requirements of scientific method.

If you, Chek, disagree, then point us to the specific parts of Salter which deal with these vital issues.

One last chance. They don't exist.

[chek]

[Ace Baker]

Salter wants us to believe that the camera motion in Chopper 5 is perfectly stable. Anyone with a computer can easily verify that this is false. Salter has not addressed this sticky problem.

Now, here's a another sticky problem for Salter and the plane theorists.

Salter measures the same instability on the airplane motion that I measure, his graph shows it.

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/SalterDeconstruction.html

In trying to dismiss my conclusions, Salter blames the unstable motion on measurement error.

However, in a similar study on the Evan Fairbanks video, Salter claims to be able to measure the velocity with such accuracy as to show deceleration on impact.

http://questionsquestions.net/WTC/175speed.html

Frank Greening has lately authored a new Evan Fairbanks paper, which relies on the Salter study.

Problem:

If the margin of error is low enough to support Salter's conclusions in Fairbanks, then they are low enough to support my conclusions in Chopper 5.

Please note that Evan Fairbanks was NOT shown live, and that making a digital plane image "decelerate" on "impact" is as simple as hitting the left arrow key a few times, nudging the image over to the left, and then a little more on the next frame. This would only have needed to be done on 4 or 5 frames, and is child's play in a compositing program like Adobe After Effects.

Which is all interesting, but ignores the real insight that I had in my Chopper 5 paper. The insight is that random errors accumulate. They add up. Whatever errors are present, if we can subtract out one source of error, while holding all the others perfectly constant, then the result must be less error. If the subtraction produces more error, we know something is fishy.

I've written a new paper which summarizes my findings, updates Chopper 5, recapitulates and demolishes Salter's arguments again, presents a litany of as yet unanswered questions about video fakery, and concludes with my 3D model study of Ghostplane.

The 3D model study will also appear as a stand-alone article , and look for all of this shortly.

[chek]

[Roadrunner]

So there you are Chek, from the man himself. You can't say you don't have the data. The list of things not dealt with by Salter. Baker, from a scientific viewpoint, is owed a response by Salter who has failed (as you can confirm yourself by reading) to provide the vital data requested by Ace Baker. Until he does so you are simply in error.

[gruts]

just because ace baker says something doesn't mean it's true - especially as so much of what he has already said has been shown to be false.

you either haven't read salter's evisceration of baker's "methodology" or you're denying the truth, just like you deny the truth that simon shack's a disinfo merchant or that your famous "missile" is so obviously a helicopter.

it's clear that if you were looking at something that is black, you could quite happily convince yourself that it was white if it was convenient for you to do so - and you would cling to that belief like a limpet regardless of what anyone said to the contrary, if it suited you.

your contempt for the truth has no limits.

[chek]

[Roadrunner]

I really don't care if you want to make these issues one where your ignorance is made plain to the entire world. But please have some respect for this truth forum, which is founded (so we are told) with an aim to establish truth, this by a scientific method.

You show no understanding of just how silly you look in the face of such material. Why not admit that you are just a bunch of fools, obscuring this issue from those who want to see it for themselves.

Baker has personally explained the deficiencies in Salter. Twice. Once in his published article (given at the top of this thread) and now, for the second time, to you personally.

The smart thing to do is to go away and actually read this stuff. Right ? Then come back, having studied it, digested it, with your reply.

Which part of this message do you not understand ?

[chek]

[Roadrunner]

Chek,

If you wish to make a spectacle of yourself, posing as a person who has read, understood and arrived at a fair decision on this issue, then go ahead. I have tried repeatedly to save you from being laughed at worldwide. But you seem determined to do it.

Go ahead. But everyone's tired of your nonsense. Can I suggest you get posted to another 'truth' forum and let this one examine these issues fairly, in the light of the evidence ?

[chek]

[Roadrunner]

Fear is the stuff of the terrorist. Laughter is best.

[John White]

[Roadrunner]

Just doing my bit to keep this forum focused on what is right and what is not. Something very absent for long periods on this forum. I hope you agree Chek doesn't seem to understand what the scientific method is. Nor Gruts. Bit sad really. But we'll get them there, right John ?

[John White]