Shoot that drone down

On 2016-06-02 19:54, nospam wrote:
In article , 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.

completely wrong.


Dingbat, I've already conceded that the device you claim to have does
what you say. I wrote the above before seeing your other message.
Really, you are the master of over-write.


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

On 2016-06-02 19:54, 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.

i'm not on any 'path to victory' nor is this some sort of game i'm
trying to 'win'.

what i wrote is absolutely correct. end of story.

i don't give a **** if you believe it or not.

i own what i said i own, the specs are as i said they are and they work
the way i said they do.

Prove it. See below. Your soft photo (from such a photo expert)
doesn't cut it at all.


if you actually *used* one rather than *guess* how they work (getting
almost all of it wrong), you'd see that *everything* i've said is
correct.

As I say above, you're right about the spec of the device you *claim* to
have used. Let's see the video proof that you have one and not some
poor quality photo that's been "colour corrected".

Post a full resolution, uncorrected video of the device in operation and
showing one aircraft's altitude (relative or otherwise). Voice it over
with "Alan Browne is a complete ****ing idiot and knows nothing about
these devices!" or whatever gets your fancy. Include the piece of paper
from the other day.

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

On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 09:36:37 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2016-06-02 19:54, nospam wrote:
In article , 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.

completely wrong.


Dingbat, I've already conceded that the device you claim to have does
what you say. I wrote the above before seeing your other message.
Really, you are the master of over-write.

I've never seen anyone accuse nospam of that before!
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , 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.

completely wrong.

Dingbat, I've already conceded that the device you claim to have does
what you say. I wrote the above before seeing your other message.
Really, you are the master of over-write.

you know now, but when i wrote that you didn't.

at least you concede that i was right all along.

On 2016-06-05 15:46, nospam wrote:
In article , 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.

completely wrong.

Dingbat, I've already conceded that the device you claim to have does
what you say. I wrote the above before seeing your other message.
Really, you are the master of over-write.

you know now, but when i wrote that you didn't.

at least you concede that i was right all along.

About such devices, sure.

Still waiting on the proof (video of yours working) that you actually
have one as claimed. Your "fuzzy" photo (from a photographer) that was
"colour corrected (how convenient) at far less than resolution than an
ordinary iPhone is very unconvincing.


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

On 6/10/2016 3:59 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2016-06-05 15:46, nospam wrote:
In article , 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.

completely wrong.

Dingbat, I've already conceded that the device you claim to have does
what you say. I wrote the above before seeing your other message.
Really, you are the master of over-write.

you know now, but when i wrote that you didn't.

at least you concede that i was right all along.

About such devices, sure.

Still waiting on the proof (video of yours working) that you actually
have one as claimed. Your "fuzzy" photo (from a photographer) that was
"colour corrected (how convenient) at far less than resolution than an
ordinary iPhone is very unconvincing.



You will have a long wait.

--
PeterN