-Caveat Lector- Critics of the Flight 800 missile theory at alt.disasters.aviation (ADA) have organized their analyses in to a formal critique of the F800 missile theory that has been included in the FAQ (frequently asked questions) for the ADA newsgroup. The following are my responses to key sections of the ADA FAQ (draft version 2). My responses are listed from most- to least-important issues, and will also be posted to ADA, where I'll probably get flamed. (ADA FAQ: http://deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=685111440&fmt=text) ======================================================================= > The Alt.Disasters.Aviation FAQ **DRAFT VERSION 2** > 2.1.2) What about the eyewitness accounts? > > Contributed by Dr. George O. Bizzigotti > > Here's an interesting example of why some of us with technical > backgrounds are skeptical of some of the eyewitness reports. Paul Adam > has made this point before, but I would like to go into detail here so > that hopefully everyone can appreciate the arguments. > > Ms. Perry was _at least_ 10 miles from TWA 800 when it exploded, but > let's give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she was exactly 10 > miles from TWA 800. Because she was on the ground, and TWA 800 was at > 13,500 feet, she was at least 54,500 feet from TWA 800. A Boeing 747 > is 232 feet long and 64 feet high, so the largest that it could have > appeared in Ms. Perry's field of view was 14.6 arc-minutes high by 4.0 > arc-minutes wide (if she was further away, the image would have been > correspondingly smaller). > > Now let us digress into the world of bio optics. Our eyes work because > photoreceptor cells on our retinas absorb light. we are only capable > of telling whether or not a cell absorbs the light, so each cell > corresponds to a pixel in an image. The maximum density of the > photoreceptors in the human eye is 160,000 per square millimeter. This > translates to a minimum distance between these receptor cells of 2.8 > micrometers. One degree of visual angle is equal to 288 micrometers on > the retina, so the minimum distance between receptor cells corresponds > to 0.6 arc-minutes. Based on this, the image on Ms. Perry's retina > likely covered something like 80 to 100 cells out of the 100 million > receptor cells in her field of vision. > > In addition, the angular resolution of one's eyesight is limited by > Rayleigh scattering of light. With a 2 mm pupil diameter and 500 nm > light (near the center of the visible spectrum and the wavelength that > maximally excites the receptor cells), the minimum angular separation > required to resolve two points is 1.1 arc minutes. Thus, the physical > properties of light dictate that even someone with absolutely perfect > eyesight cannot distinguish between objects less than 17 feet apart at > 54,500 feet. > > By either argument, being able to distinguish the fine detail implied > in Ms. Perry's statement is unbelievable. Have someone slam a frozen > six inch candy bar on a table 118 feet away from you, and see if you > can "see the spaces in between the parts." How can one hundred pixels > in a 10,000 x 10,000 image be anything more than an indistinct blur, > with little recognizable detail? Note that there's nothing ideological > in this argument; Bill Clinton has nothing to do with how retinas work > or how light is scattered by an aperture. This is simply what a > century of science has shown us about how our eyes and the universe > work. > > As a result of this, we are left with only two possibilities: > > (1) Ms. Perry has eyes that are literally superhuman, or > > (2) Ms. Perry has embellished her story. > > Believing option (1) requires us that Rayleigh scattering of light be > temporarily suspended for the first and only time in the history of > scientific record keeping. Believing option (2) requires us to believe > nothing more than that Ms. Perry is human. Thus, I would cast my vote > for option (2), that Ms. Perry has embellished. That being the case, > scientists and engineers tend to place somewhat less credence in her > eyewitness account than in the physical data that is available. This > is why we have stated that physical data trumps eyewitness accounts. > IAN: Witnesses could see a 747 ten miles away. Dr Bizzigotti's math is correct, the length of a 747 ten miles away is 14.6 arc minutes, however, 14.6 arc minutes is equal to a quarter degree, which is equal to the width of a half moon. A half-moon's width is NOT smaller than the human eye can see, and anyone with good eyes can see details on it's surface, just as they could along a narrow band across the half-moon representing a jet's shape. "The moon is 31 minutes of arc in apparent size or half a degree." (http://www.theskyguide.com/astrophotography/lunareclipse.html) So the apparent size of a half moon = 15.5 arc minutes and the apparent size of a 747 ten miles away = 14.6 arc minutes, thus the apparent length of a 747 ten miles away from the viewer is roughly equal to the width of a half moon, which is very visible. Two years ago I posted the math for this, [*] which agrees with Bizzigotti's numbers, but once we know that 14.6 arc minutes is equal to the width of a half moon we have some means of testing the hypothesis that a jet appearing that size would be invisible; and the half-moon test confirms the invisible hypothesis is false. Eyewitness accounts of seeing Flight 800 from 10 miles distance are therefore examples of predictable, not superhuman, eyesight. Some relevent data: 1 degree of arc = 60 minutes of arc .25 deg. of arc = 15 minutes of arc 747-length at 10 miles = 14.6 arc minutes Moon = 31 arc min, half = 15.5 arc minutes http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9802&L=flight-800&P=R14628&D=1&H=0&O=D&T=1 ========================================================================= > Contributed by Paul J. Adam > > Forty witnesses said it came from the sea, ten said it came from land. > > 146 gave a direction. 77 said it ascended, 11 said it descended, 47 > said it both ascended and descended, 9 said it flew level. > > Direction of travel... total shotgun approach. > > North: 7 > Northeast: 2 > East: 12 > Southeast: 12 > South: 7 > Southwest: 3 > West: 18 > Northwest: 3 > > If you average them out... which is akin to saying that immersing one > hand in molten lead and the other in liquid nitrogen is, on average, > comfortable... > > The trouble comes when you try to fit a missile to the statements. IAN: See this missile exhaust trail: http://Flight800.org/ar2sq.jpg The missile traveled to the right, left, and inbetween; it traveled upwards, level, and downwards. Here's a trajectory I illustrated shortly after the crash based on available accounts, and it shows (http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-800.gif) a missile that traveled both up and level. Is it a contradiction for a missile to travel in several different directions and angles over the course of its trajectory? No. Is it a contradiction for some witnesses to only see some parts of the trajectory of a missile? No. Therefore, a listing of multiple directions the streak traveled according to witnesses doesn't constitute evidence that witness accounts are contradictory. It seems easy enough to understand that across the duration of the trajectory of a missile, there can be a time when the missile shoots upwards, a time when it was flies level, and a time when it descends onto the target. Furthermore, Mr Adam says "The trouble comes when you try to fit a missile to the statements," to fit a (ie, one) missile. Virtually all the missile theorists talk about TWO missiles, not one. We should also consider that if you ask a dozen people to recall a location each was standing and estimate where a building was relative to that spot (was it to the north, the northeast or...?), you're going to get a range of estimates. What is relevant is that, according to the NTSB: "Of the 183 who observed a streak of light, 102 gave information about the origin of the streak. Six said the streak originated from the air, and 96 said that it originated from the surface." So 94% of witnesses who indicated an origin said the streak came from the surface. ------------------------------------------------------------ GODDARD'S JOURNAL: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/journal.htm ____________________________________________________________ Asking the "wrong" questions, challenging the Official Story <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
