Shoot that drone down

In article , Bill W
wrote:

Anyway, skipping the rest of your post, I need to ask, why are you
doing this? You wrote nothing that is conclusive evidence that he lied
about anything. It's all conjecture, and sounds petty and spiteful.

There is 0 conjecture. Prove otherwise.

This isn't an argument that can have any productive end, and I'm not
going to on about it, but you need to step back, objectively reread
your posts, and then decide if you can reasonably claim *zero*
conjecture. I personally see nearly 100%.

nearly? it pegs the meter, and if it could go higher, it would.

no matter what i do or say or what photos or videos i post, he'll say
it's all faked.

he even comes up with crazy explanations as to why it can't do what it
does, despite never actually using any of them.

there's no way to have a normal discussion with such people.

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:


Anyway, skipping the rest of your post, I need to ask, why are you
doing this? You wrote nothing that is conclusive evidence that he lied
about anything. It's all conjecture, and sounds petty and spiteful.

There is 0 conjecture. Prove otherwise.

Spiteful? Not at all. OTOH I despise being lied to

i despise is being called a liar, which is exactly what you're doing.

*nothing* i've said is a lie.

what's clear is that you're so hard up to argue that you don't realize
just how much you've gotten *wrong* and how deep a hole you've dug for
yourself.

and nospam was
given many exit ramps away from his bull**** - instead he simply wove
himself into a deeper and deeper lie. Every time he was challenged he "
researched " his way out of one claim by making another and another and
another. Tony Cooper certainly sensed it because he's heard nospam's
**** before and this was as smelly as his worst.

i don't need exit ramps because i don't need to exit.

you, on the other hand, should start looking, and fast.

My own BS meter was overloaded from the start and I gave him free rein
to entangle himself deeper. I gave him many clues for him to get out
gracefully, instead he's made an absolute fool of himself. Not the
first time - but this one is a doozy!

the only doozy is the extent to which you're going to not admit your
bash attempt backfired, big time.

your supposed 'clues' only show you have a gross misunderstanding of
how the devices actually work, which you get even *more* wrong in your
latest posts.

the only fool is *you*.

As many have noticed, the more vehemently nospam argues, the more likely
it is he is in devoted production of BS. This last episode is one of
the most "prodcutive" I've seen.

i'm not arguing at all.

the only bs is coming from you and a whole lot of it.

i know what products i own and how they work. you *clearly* do not.

you keep digging yourself a deeper hole trying to explain how a device
you don't have and never used works to someone who has more than one
and has used nearly all of them. that's very ****ed up.


let's recap:
you doubted i owned them, so i posted a photo.

instead of saying "oh, i guess you really do own them", you harp on the
white balance and even try to claim i composited it.

you then start rambling about how you *think* it works and getting just
about all of it *wrong*.

you even cite specs to prove me wrong, except it's of a device i never
said i had and made no claims about one way or the other.

you aren't interested in facts, particularly your own.

NOTE: Still waiting on his LAB colour conversion loss proof - what's it
been - 2 years? More?. He hasn't "gotten around to it" was the last I
recall reading on the subject.

learn the math and you'll have your proof. lab conversions are lossy.
it's as simple as that.

the problem is you don't want proof. you just want to argue.

The most trivial thing started all this,

More the reason he should have been more clear about his information.

my information was perfectly clear from the start. *all* of it.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

1. It all developed over a few days as he frantically researched his way
around challenges to his initial claims (minor bs about "observed" a/c
altitudes around his home [Tony C caught that as a bit off]) that did
not make much sense (as usual). So, in the classical nospam manner he
goes off and researches and comes up with a silver bullet to back his
claim. He says things that somewhat make sense and things that don't
quite make sense. Well, I decided to be patient and leave the bait in
the woods and keep rustling the branches.

tony didn't catch a thing nor did i go off to research anything.

this began when i said there were planes over my house 1700-2000 feet.

Twisting things again.

nope.

What you said was "where i live, small planes
often fly over houses at around 2000 feet (the lowest i've seen is
1700 feet)."

i did say that. so far, so good.

That strongly implied that you could determine an airplane's altitude
visually.

nonsense.

it says nothing about how i determined it.

anyone with even the slightest clue should know it's not possible to do
so visually, therefore there *had* to be another method in use.

since this wasn't a thread about avionics, there was no need to go into
a lengthy explanation of airplane proximity detectors and the theory of
operation.

I immediately replied challenging this by saying "You indeed have
amazing powers! You can tell the difference between
an airplane's altitude of 1,700 feet and 2,000 feet! Without being in
the cockpit and observing the altimeter."

otherwise known as an attack.

you could have simply asked "how do you know what their altitude is?"
and perhaps learned something in the process.

obviously, that's agl. why would *anyone* think otherwise?

tony is *so* obsessed with attacking anything i say that he decided it
*had* to be msl and that i don't know the difference, which is of
course complete bull****. when i said it's easy to convert, he said
it's not a conversion, it's a subtraction, which is just stupid.

Twisting again. I never even hinted at challenging whether or not the
planes you "see" at 1,700 feet are at 1,700 feet agl.

you bashed me for not knowing the difference and that i don't know how
to convert.

It was Alan's comment that wound you up about this. He said that the
information you claimed to "broadcast" was "Said altitude being above
sea level - not ground level."

what wound me up is his insistence i'm bull****ting.

he thinks he's tripped me up but he hasn't. all he's done is show just
how ignorant he is about the devices i have and how they work.
yesterday's post had *so* much wrong.

You then said the difference between sea level and ground level was
"trivial".

it *is* trivial.

subtraction is very easy. a calculator is not even required.

at least for most people. i guess for you, subtraction is hard.

More lies and twisting from you.

you have that backwards. it's more lies and twisting from *you*.

everything i've written is 100% correct.

On 2016-06-01 21:47, Bill W wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 21:07:02 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

There is 0 conjecture. Prove otherwise.

This isn't an argument that can have any productive end, and I'm not
going to on about it, but you need to step back, objectively reread
your posts, and then decide if you can reasonably claim *zero*
conjecture. I personally see nearly 100%.

Some yes. But the physical reality of the system he claims to have
cannot work in the differential mode he claims w/o a transponder and
encoder near by. Even if he had such, it likely would not work as there
would be no radar pulses received (from ATC) to trigger it to reply.
Also the device he has does not mention its own baro altimeter sensor in
its spec.

That said, unless you know about the matters being discussed, then
you're not able to judge.

Finally, in the areas being discussed where I have in-depth knowledge,
he's always been correct. Sometimes his opinions suck, though.

My experience is that his knowledge is often correct, but it is also
often tinged with BS that reeks of quick research to backup what he
says. This case, is such and I've outlined it clearly. Especially
points 3 through 5 that I posted outline the most blatant errors in his
decpetion. And his photo proof is laughable for the reasons stated (2).



--
She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics.
-Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.

On 2016-06-02 02:11:19 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2016-06-02 01:44:52 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 18:20:33 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-06-02 01:10:45 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2016-06-01 19:58, Savageduck wrote:

Of course there is always something such as this:
https://planefinder.net/about/free-ads-b-receiver/

That link doesn't seem to work.

Others can try, but I have no problem here.

Blank screen to me. After a while, Error 504.

It has gone bad on me now. Perhaps a traffic issue.

It seems to be working now.
https://planefinder.net/about/free-ads-b-receiver/

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2016-06-02 10:52, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:


i don't have an atd-300. i never said i had an atd-300.

go read the specs of the two units i said i *do* have, and if you'd
been paying *any* attention, you'd know which ones they are, as it's
been mentioned several times. i'm intentionally not saying it again.



Okay then, you're on the path to victory here, and I'll admit that -
once I see your video of it working with proof that it's your unit. So
make the video, get a "catch". Move that camera around. Say something
specific and clearly linked to this group.

Don't do anything to the video.

--
She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics.
-Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.

On 2016-06-01 21:20, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-06-02 01:10:45 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2016-06-01 19:58, Savageduck wrote:

Of course there is always something such as this:
https://planefinder.net/about/free-ads-b-receiver/

That link doesn't seem to work.

Others can try, but I have no problem here.

It works now, but didn't last night. FlightRadar24 have (had?) a
similar program but you had to install in in an area of poor ADS-B
ground cover, so if you live in an urban area (or close) there is not
much need (volunteers had it covered long ago).


--
She hummed to herself because she was an unrivaled botcher of lyrics.
-Nick (Gone Girl), Gillian Flynn.

On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 10:52:22 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Well, where nospam is concerned I call BULL**** about him and his
transponder receiving device. Yes, such exist. And yes, they work
reasonably well.

bull**** right back.

a few days ago you said they didn't exist. now you say they work
reasonably well.

if that's not bull****, i don't know what is.

However, there were various flies (as mentioned) in
nospam's tale which raised the BS alarms (as usual) as he replied to
various challenges. We shall new add them up.

you really should quit before you dig yourself an even deeper hole, but
if you insist...

1. It all developed over a few days as he frantically researched his way
around challenges to his initial claims (minor bs about "observed" a/c
altitudes around his home [Tony C caught that as a bit off]) that did
not make much sense (as usual). So, in the classical nospam manner he
goes off and researches and comes up with a silver bullet to back his
claim. He says things that somewhat make sense and things that don't
quite make sense. Well, I decided to be patient and leave the bait in
the woods and keep rustling the branches.

tony didn't catch a thing nor did i go off to research anything.

this began when i said there were planes over my house 1700-2000 feet.

obviously, that's agl. why would *anyone* think otherwise?

tony is *so* obsessed with attacking anything i say that he decided it
*had* to be msl and that i don't know the difference, which is of
course complete bull****. when i said it's easy to convert, he said
it's not a conversion, it's a subtraction, which is just stupid.

nobody in this thread has heard of such devices, including you, yet
they made all sorts of assumptions about how they work and getting
pretty much everything wrong.

2. I asked for a photo and then (coming to my senses) video of said
system in operation. None was proffered.

that's an outright lie. i posted a photo of both units.

2a. Instead a pretty crappy resolution photo of the system just laying
there (as if up for sale) was linked with the "explanation" that it was
"colour corrected" which I read as BS in pure unadulterated form. Not
sure WHAT the actual photo was. Perhaps he took an existing photo of
the kit found somewhere, laid the "proof" print (date/rpd) on top and
took a photo of that, then "colour corrected" (and reduced the
resolution) to cover it up? (and badly).

as i said initially, no matter what i do, you'll say it's fake, so i'm
certainly not about to spend (waste) time trying.

nevertheless and against my better judgement, i took a picture with an
iphone and it came out a bit blue. had i posted it the way it was, you
and others would have criticized it for being very blue, so i fixed
that (and the *only* thing i did).

now you claim i composited it??

even if poked the antenna through a hole in the paper (which would be
impossible to composite), you'd *still* claim it was faked.

you aren't interested in proof. you're only interested in arguing and
making a complete ass of yourself in the process.

2b. Not sure, but really: shouldn't a long standing "member" of the
photo groups be able to produce a competent photo with an iPhone or
better equipment? No corrections needed. Post the original unchanged,
at least, at full resolution. Indeed, show the RAW. Post several
photos at several angles. PROVE THAT YOU HAVE THAT ****. Not that you
can post an ambiguously equivocal photo that proves nothing and only
gains suspicion.

i did prove i have that ****.

had i set up for a fancy product shoot, you'd say the photos were 'too
good' and therefore they must be faked.

you aren't interested in proof. you're only interested in arguing and
making a complete ass of yourself in the process.

3. Operating the device he has on the ground would only (and in the
right circumstances) indicate the QFE altitude height of an aircraft
whose transponder the device detects. (eg: the 29.92" Hg setting
altitude of the aircraft as broadcast by its transponder). It CAN NOT
tell the difference (relative height as claimed by nospam) in height as
it has no altitude reference for itself [see AAA, BBB, CCC below].

that's completely wrong.

you're making all sorts of assumptions about devices you have never
used and didn't even realize existed a few days ago.

dig dig dig that hole of yours.

as i said *several* times, it has its own altimeter and it works quite
well on the ground.

4. Nospam claims it will show the differential between the two (and thus
AGL) however that is impossible unless [AAA] he has his own transponder
(aka "the host") and blind encoder or encoding altimeter to tell his
widget the host QFE height in order to calculate the difference. His
device is (by itself) totally ignorant of altitude.

also wrong.

as i said *several* times, it has its own altimeter and it works quite
well on the ground.

no local transponder necessary.

[In real use it needs the aircraft (host) transponder to tell it that.
(Assuming said transponder is connected to a blind encoder or to the a/c
encoding altimeter if so equipped - the later case are usually higher
end aircraft large twins, turboprops and jets.]

wrong again.

it doesn't 'need' a host transponder.

it uses a host transponder if it's there (along with its own internal
altimeter), but if not, it uses just its altimeter.

i already explained that.

4a. Even if nospam had a transponder and encoder (of either type) it
would not work well on the ground unless [BBB] close to the airport with
the SSR radar. Therefore, even if he had a transponder (he doesn't -
or has omitted the fact) or an encoding altimeter (he doesn't - or has
omitted the fact (hahahaha - now he'll tell us he didn't think it
pertinent to mention that he has one of those too?).

dig dig dig. you keep getting more wrong!

you *clearly* have *no* idea how they work. you're *so* off in the
woods.

once again, no transponder is needed.

go buy one off ebay. you'll see i'm right, not that you'll ever admit
it.

5. At some point he claims [CCC] the ATD-300 Traffic Watch device has
its own baro altimeter as a cross check against the a/c transponder
altitude (mode C).

i never claimed anything about the atd-300, other than it's one of
several models.

I don't believe that at all. It's nonsense! a) it
is not at all mentioned in the spec

the only nonsense is that you're arguing about a device i never said i
had!

you're *so* intent on arguing that you stumble over the simplest stuff
and get it all wrong.

that's *really* ****ed up.

i don't have an atd-300. i never said i had an atd-300.

go read the specs of the two units i said i *do* have, and if you'd
been paying *any* attention, you'd know which ones they are, as it's
been mentioned several times. i'm intentionally not saying it again.

and b) why would the manufacturer
bother with the added expense?

even more stuff wrong.

the added expense is negligible. a few bucks in parts, if that much.

keep on digging!

and c) owners would hate having to
connect it to the static port as d) that in itself would (i) be
expensive to get done because it (ii) could upset the airworthiness
(certification) of the aircraft therefore requiring aircraft type by
type certification and case-by-case STC for the installation.
Expensive, wot.

dig dig dig dig

you're wrong yet again!

they're mainly designed to be used in a non-pressurized plane, so
there's no need to connect it to anything other than power or use
internal batteries.

for a pressurized plane, the internal altimeter needs to be disabled,
otherwise it won't work properly, and not all support that.

one model has a port to connect to the static port when it's panel
mounted, and if it's not panel mounted, it's internal altimeter has to
be disabled.

you're *so* lost.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 19:35:16 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:


Well, where nospam is concerned I call BULL**** about him and his
transponder receiving device. Yes, such exist. And yes, they work
reasonably well. However, there were various flies (as mentioned) in
nospam's tale which raised the BS alarms (as usual) as he replied to
various challenges. We shall new add them up.

1. It all developed over a few days as he frantically researched his way
around challenges to his initial claims (minor bs about "observed" a/c
altitudes around his home [Tony C caught that as a bit off]) that did
not make much sense (as usual). So, in the classical nospam manner he
goes off and researches and comes up with a silver bullet to back his
claim. He says things that somewhat make sense and things that don't
quite make sense. Well, I decided to be patient and leave the bait in
the woods and keep rustling the branches.

2. I asked for a photo and then (coming to my senses) video of said
system in operation. None was proffered.

2a. Instead a pretty crappy resolution photo of the system just laying
there (as if up for sale) was linked with the "explanation" that it was
"colour corrected" which I read as BS in pure unadulterated form. Not
sure WHAT the actual photo was. Perhaps he took an existing photo of
the kit found somewhere, laid the "proof" print (date/rpd) on top and
took a photo of that, then "colour corrected" (and reduced the
resolution) to cover it up? (and badly).

2b. Not sure, but really: shouldn't a long standing "member" of the
photo groups be able to produce a competent photo with an iPhone or
better equipment? No corrections needed. Post the original unchanged,
at least, at full resolution. Indeed, show the RAW. Post several
photos at several angles. PROVE THAT YOU HAVE THAT ****. Not that you
can post an ambiguously equivocal photo that proves nothing and only
gains suspicion.

3. Operating the device he has on the ground would only (and in the
right circumstances) indicate the QFE altitude height of an aircraft
whose transponder the device detects. (eg: the 29.92" Hg setting
altitude of the aircraft as broadcast by its transponder). It CAN NOT
tell the difference (relative height as claimed by nospam) in height as
it has no altitude reference for itself [see AAA, BBB, CCC below].

4. Nospam claims it will show the differential between the two (and thus
AGL) however that is impossible unless [AAA] he has his own transponder
(aka "the host") and blind encoder or encoding altimeter to tell his
widget the host QFE height in order to calculate the difference. His
device is (by itself) totally ignorant of altitude.

[In real use it needs the aircraft (host) transponder to tell it that.
(Assuming said transponder is connected to a blind encoder or to the a/c
encoding altimeter if so equipped - the later case are usually higher
end aircraft large twins, turboprops and jets.]

4a. Even if nospam had a transponder and encoder (of either type) it
would not work well on the ground unless [BBB] close to the airport with
the SSR radar. Therefore, even if he had a transponder (he doesn't -
or has omitted the fact) or an encoding altimeter (he doesn't - or has
omitted the fact (hahahaha - now he'll tell us he didn't think it
pertinent to mention that he has one of those too?).

5. At some point he claims [CCC] the ATD-300 Traffic Watch device has
its own baro altimeter as a cross check against the a/c transponder
altitude (mode C). I don't believe that at all. It's nonsense! a) it
is not at all mentioned in the spec and b) why would the manufacturer
bother with the added expense? and c) owners would hate having to
connect it to the static port as d) that in itself would (i) be
expensive to get done because it (ii) could upset the airworthiness
(certification) of the aircraft therefore requiring aircraft type by
type certification and case-by-case STC for the installation.
Expensive, wot.


http://sarasotaavionics.com/avionics/atd-300
"When there is no traffic activity the ATD-300 will automatically
indicate the host transponder MSL pressure altitude or squawk code.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 6/2/2016 6:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
[Alan's list of issues snipped to get to this]:

http://sarasotaavionics.com/avionics/atd-300
"When there is no traffic activity the ATD-300 will automatically
indicate the host transponder MSL pressure altitude or squawk code.

LOL! OK... I'll bite. What do YOU think that means?

--
Best regards,

Neil