International News
See other International News Articles
Title: RED SMOKE, COMMIE MIRRORS
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch ... rect=on&utm_term=.1f470add6f8c
Published: Dec 8, 1991
Author: George Lardner Jr. December 8, 1991
Post Date: 2018-07-11 10:30:07 by VxH
Keywords: None
Views: 14866
Comments: 79
THE COLD WAR isn't over for Anatoly Golitsyn. Since last summer's failed coup in Moscow, he has been churning out memos for the CIA, warning them of what he regards as the true import of the tumultuous events taking place in the former Soviet Union. It is all "pretense," he says -- an elaborate exercise in strategic deception, designed to gull the West into embracing what is still an evil empire, still run behind the scenes by communist ideologues. Mikhail Gorbachev is in on the scheme. And so, too, says Golitsyn, is Boris Yeltsin. "At the end, when they win," Golitsyn declares, "they {will} get rid of capitalists forever." Golitsyn, you may remember, is the KGB defector whose assertions about Soviet moles at Langley once threw the CIA into a turmoil. The great mole hunt, actively pursued by the late CIA counterintelligence chief James J. Angleton, Golitsyn's indefatigable sponsor, lasted more than a decade, but never unearthed a single mole at the agency. According to the recently published "Cold Warrior" by Tom Mangold, a detailed study of Angleton's work, Golitsyn was actually a "minor and undistinguished KGB officer" whose paranoid fingerpointing ruined the careers of many of the CIA's finest officers and blackened the credentials of genuine Soviet defectors who threatened his standing.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 68.
#18. To: VxH (#0)
Everything is over for Golitsyn. He died 10 years ago. Spymaster: The Life of Britain's Most Decorated Cold War Spy and Head of MI6, Sir Maurice Oldfield, Transworld Publishers (May 1, 2018) By Martin Pearce [Excerpt] For Oldfield, the most relevant of the traitors was the largely anonymous Vassall.
https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-art-deal-ghostwriter-tony-schwartz- says-putin-owns-trump-725615 New Lies for Old.
Go get a source that is not just another discredited conspiracy theorist. Newsweek, what a source. The whole damn magazine sold in 2010 for one dollar, $1.00. It ceased print publication in 2012. https://www.glaad.org/mediaawards/20/factsanfigures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Schwartz_(author) Tony Schwartz was full of shit then, he is full of shit now.
Credited co-author of WHAT, Nolu Clump?
As full of shit as he was last year saying, "Trump's presidency is effectively over. Would be amazed if he survives till end of the year. More likely resigns by fall, if not sooner." Indeed, nearly as full of shit as you. Epicly full of shit.
The Art of the Deal = full of shyte. You sure?
Play it again, Sam.
The Art of the Deal = full of shyte. That your final answer?
Cadet Bonespur got Hillary in jail yet?
Hillary Clinton, May 2013 speech to the Brazilian bank Banco Itau, [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p.28]
Comrade Clinton's "Dream" is whatever her handlers at the Central Party tell her it is. Got Dialectic Crisis?
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7874 From:Roy.Spence@gsdm.com IRS was hacked. I think the State Department was hacked. Sony hacked. Banks hacked. As we try and close the Benghazi Chapter and the email drip drip. Is there ever a moment in Time not to Defend the decision but layout the fact.... HRC servers were not hacked. Know this is a naive thought but just thinking. Sent from my iPhone
Face it. (D)onaldo The Magnificent, Freeedy Drumpf's Poodle Dog heir - is a typical, LYING, shyster, con-artist buffoon who has a predictable and exploitable history of thinking with his dick. His LGBT Sodomite agenda pushing daughter and Son-in-law are a reflection of that morally RELEVANT FACT. And Putin is operating on a whole other INFORMED level.
As if you would know anything about operating on an informed level. )))
LOL.
))) Still too inept to effectively use the Google. You appear to make pretty, if absurd, graphics with Google sketchup, even featuring a triangle with a side longer than the hypotenuse. You are a genius.
Do the math, Donkey Breath. https://libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C186
))) Still too inept to effectively use the Google. You appear to make pretty, if absurd, graphics with Google sketchup, even featuring a triangle with a side longer than the hypotenuse. You are a genius. https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=176#C176 It came along quite well. Anything that travels 1950 feet in 1.06 seconds travels an average velocity of 2122.64 feet per second. The formula is distance divided by time. How are you coming along with your bullet going splat at ~520 feet ground distance from Mandalay Bay? How did you work out that negative 33º angle? Side a represents the vertical height of Paddock's vantage point. At the 32nd floor, and at 10.9 feet per floor, (32-1) x 10.9 = 338 feet. The VxH specified shooting angle was -33°. This should probably be expressed as a positive angle of declination. Not all ballistic calculators will even accept a negative angle value, but specify 0 to 90 degrees. For another calculator, see: http://gundata.org/blog/post/223-ballistics-chart/ It appears that VxH drew an imaginary horizontal line d at a vertical height of 338 feet from the ground, and an imaginary 338 foot line e down to the ground, bringing into view a rectangle with a mirror image triangle to that above. VxH guessed 33º as the acute angle formed at the junction of sides c and imaginary side d at point B. VxH guessed very wrongly. With a specified shooting angle of 33º at the junction of lines c and d, the angle made by sides c and b would also be 33º, and angle ß, made by sides a and c would be 57º. (The right angle at point A is 90º. The other two angles must add up to 90º.) With side a being 338 feet, side b would be 520.4743578 feet, and side c would be 620.5944 feet. As may be seen, disregarding gravity, if the bullet flew downward at the specified 33º from a height of 338 feet, it would fly a straight line of sight path into the ground at ~520 feet from the Mandalay Bay at ground level. Calculating the bullet velocity after that point may be difficult, even with secret Klingon math. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=181#C181 Yep. You're almost right - I've been meaning to take another look at the angle with a model in Google Sketchup... which says At 1290' from a height of 338' is -14.7 Damn, you are more screwed up than I thought. Now you are presenting a triangle with side a being 338 feet, side b being 1290 feet 7 inches (1290.5833 ft), and an hypotenuse of 1009 ft 4 in. I positively can't remember the last triangle I saw where the hypotenuse was shorter than one of the sides. Your Klingon math is magic, and Google Sketchup is a miracle worker. If side a is 338 ft, and the angle of elevation of 14.7º rises to that height of 338 ft, side b will be 1264.283557 feet. So, the hypotenuse is impossible, and side b is whack by 26 feet. If the angle of elevation is 14.7 degrees, and the range is 1290' 7", then the height would be 345.0311072 feet and each floor would be over 11 feet. Put down Google sketch and pick up a scientific calculator and do some trigonometry. You can actually get correct results with trig. You are supposed to be dazzling me with your math skills, not some shit like Google Sketchup. Google Sketchup? Really?
Do the math, Donkey Breath. https://libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C186
Any right triangle must have sides and angles where the Sine, Cosine, Tangent, C-Tangent, Secand, and Co-secant correctly compute. If side a is 338 ft, and the angle of elevation of 14.7º rises to that height of 338 ft, side b will be 1264.283557 feet. So, the hypotenuse is impossible, and side b is whack by 26 feet. Please do demonstrate the trigonometry behind your childish Google Sketchup nonsense. Do the math. I will get you started. Sine Cosine Tangent Co-tangent Secant Co-Secant You appear to make pretty, if absurd, graphics with Google sketchup, even featuring a triangle with a side longer than the hypotenuse. You are a genius. https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=176#C176 It came along quite well. Anything that travels 1950 feet in 1.06 seconds travels an average velocity of 2122.64 feet per second. The formula is distance divided by time. How are you coming along with your bullet going splat at ~520 feet ground distance from Mandalay Bay? How did you work out that negative 33º angle? Side a represents the vertical height of Paddock's vantage point. At the 32nd floor, and at 10.9 feet per floor, (32-1) x 10.9 = 338 feet. The VxH specified shooting angle was -33°. This should probably be expressed as a positive angle of declination. Not all ballistic calculators will even accept a negative angle value, but specify 0 to 90 degrees. For another calculator, see: http://gundata.org/blog/post/223-ballistics-chart/ It appears that VxH drew an imaginary horizontal line d at a vertical height of 338 feet from the ground, and an imaginary 338 foot line e down to the ground, bringing into view a rectangle with a mirror image triangle to that above. VxH guessed 33º as the acute angle formed at the junction of sides c and imaginary side d at point B. VxH guessed very wrongly. With a specified shooting angle of 33º at the junction of lines c and d, the angle made by sides c and b would also be 33º, and angle ß, made by sides a and c would be 57º. (The right angle at point A is 90º. The other two angles must add up to 90º.) With side a being 338 feet, side b would be 520.4743578 feet, and side c would be 620.5944 feet. As may be seen, disregarding gravity, if the bullet flew downward at the specified 33º from a height of 338 feet, it would fly a straight line of sight path into the ground at ~520 feet from the Mandalay Bay at ground level. Calculating the bullet velocity after that point may be difficult, even with secret Klingon math. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=181#C181 Yep. You're almost right - I've been meaning to take another look at the angle with a model in Google Sketchup... which says At 1290' from a height of 338' is -14.7 Damn, you are more screwed up than I thought. Now you are presenting a triangle with side a being 338 feet, side b being 1290 feet 7 inches (1290.5833 ft), and an hypotenuse of 1009 ft 4 in. I positively can't remember the last triangle I saw where the hypotenuse was shorter than one of the sides. Your Klingon math is magic, and Google Sketchup is a miracle worker. If side a is 338 ft, and the angle of elevation of 14.7º rises to that height of 338 ft, side b will be 1264.283557 feet. So, the hypotenuse is impossible, and side b is whack by 26 feet. If the angle of elevation is 14.7 degrees, and the range is 1290' 7", then the height would be 345.0311072 feet and each floor would be over 11 feet. Put down Google sketch and pick up a scientific calculator and do some trigonometry. You can actually get correct results with trig. You are supposed to be dazzling me with your math skills, not some shit like Google Sketchup. Google Sketchup? Really?
Do the math, Donkey Breath. https://libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C186
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - As soon as you publish your proof for your mathematical formula c < b. Even a complete jackass, such as yourself, can see from your original play picture, from your #181 to which I linked, that you showed a hypotenuse of 1009' 4". Your original play picture shows part of a circle with a radius of 338'. Your second play picture displays the same radius of the circle as 338' on an up/down line. On a somewhat downward slanting horizontal line, you added a new measurement of the radius of that same circle at 324' 6". How the radius shrinks on one side by 11' 6" is not explained. It's a magic circle, or magic math. 1009' 4" + 338' is 1347' 4". 1009' 4" + 324' 6" is 1333' 10". Keep changing that side radius distance, make believe it was part of the original hypotenuse, until you get your math to work. What the magic circle with the changing radius is doing there is a mystery. The difference between level travel to end point and travel from elevation to end point is c - b, not the vertical distance of the elevation. The 338' up/down radius of the circle indicates the elevation of the shooter, and the circle indicates you had an irresistable impulse to draw a circle and make believe the radius was something other than 338' at another angle. 338' was a stated distance of elevation. 324' 6" appears to be a figure plucked from your ass. Given angles A (14.70°) and C (90.00°) and side a (338') — A = 14.70° a = 338.00 ft A + B + C = 180º b = sin(B) * a / sin(A) c = sin(C) * a
Poor vociferous goon. The sides of my triangle add up just fine. All your effort to obfuscate the fact that... Does your one hit "expert" think Putin's alleged affinity with Alexander Solzhenitsyn is legitimate or Solzhenitsyn "debunked" too?
Ivan Petrovich Sidorov getting only one hit. ))) Such incompetence. ))) ))) ))) Where's your math? Ain't got none? How did you get a circle with one radius 11' 6" less than the other?
Hear ya go, Donkey Breath:
Hear ya go, Donkey Breath: WRONG. Your claim of a radius of 324' 6" is just bullshit pulled out of your ass. Your incorrect hypotenuse is still 1009' 4" + the actual radius length 338' = 1347' 4". Your newly minted hypotenuse of 1333.83 feet, using data pulled from your ass, is still WRONG. If you change the circle to a 324' 6" radius, the 1009' 4" section of the hypotenuse would need to expand 13' 6" to 1022' 10" to reach the radius circle. In any case, I gave you the formulas and your "calculations" leave out any calculations and all your results are wrong. You still have both 338 and 324' 6" in your number puzzle. On the first line you list 338 and 114244. Nobody asked you what the square of 338 is. On the second line you list 1290.5833333333 and 1665605.34027778. Nobody asked you what the square of 1290' 7" is. You were asked to solve for side b, not pull the figure 1290' 7" out of your ass and square it. Use the trig function and discover that the figure 1290' 7" is mathematically impossible. An angle of elevation of 14.7° does not reach an elevation of 338' at a distance of 1290' 7". I gave you the formula. I can't help it if you are too dumb, stupid, ignorant, and incompetent to use the formula. Pulling 1290 feet out of your ass is not a mathematical solution to side b. On your third line you list the sum of 338 squared and 1290' 7" squared. This would be the hypotenuse if you had properly solved for side b using the trig formula b = sin(B) * a / sin(A). That does not give 1290' 7". The hypotenuse, solved with the formula c = sin(C) * a is not 1333.83. Indeed, your wacky diagram at the bottom shows the distance of 1333' 11" and at the top of the rectangle shows 1009' 4" and 324' 6" which adds to 1333' 10". Of course, this relied on you fudging the 324' 6" distance by 13' 6". Unfortunately, c = sin(C) * a does not solve to 1333 anything using the known, given figures of A=14.70°, C=90°, and a=338'. The three given figures dictate what the remaining sides and angles MUST be. Side a can be 338 or 324' 6", but it cannot be both. It is 338' as the given height of the window. 324' 6" is just a bullshit number, pulled out of your ass. It does not belong to anything but your imagination. You are a mathematically incompetent nincompoop. Trig, TRig, TRIG!!! Do the math!!!!! Or just admit that you do not know how to work with basic trig functions.
BTW- No, it was the dimension of the circle in the model prior to changing the elevation to 338' which YOU pulled out of your wherever. IIRC I estimated the 326' 6" from the model of the hotel in google earth. But your 338 sounded sooo authoritative, I just changed the elevation and didn't bother with the circle. Are you not appeased? If you take a compass and measure the 338 and 326' 6" segment, the lengths will differ accordingly. BUT LOL! I love how 324' 6" is all it takes to TRIGger your pathetic tantrums. It's hilarious.
BTW- No, it was the dimension of the circle in the model prior to changing the elevation to 338' which YOU pulled out of your wherever. IIRC I estimated the 326' 6" from the model of the hotel in google earth. But your 338 sounded sooo authoritative, I just changed the elevation and didn't bother with the circle. 338 feet was calculated by a given floor/ceiling measurement of 10.9 feet per floor, multiplied by 31 = 337.9 feet, which would put Paddock standing on the 32nd floor. After you shorten side a to 324.60 feet, and retain hypotenuse c at 1333.83, and side b at 1290.58 feet, it is impossible to retain a right traingle as it is a mathematical certainty that angle C will be greater than 90°. You will also have changed angle a to 14.08°, angle b to 75.36°. Angle c will be 90.56°. And Paddock will fall to the 30th floor. As you changed the triangle so it is no longer a right triangle, the formula for right triangles a2 + b2 = c2 no longer works. Congratulations, your spider infested mind just gave birth to a misshapen mess which I shall christen Gollum's Triangle. As can readily be visualized, if you shorten side a by 13½ feet, and keep the dimensions of b and c, side a must leave its vertical position and fall away from point A as that is the only way the two lines remain connected. The 13½ foot shortening drops Paddock to the 30th floor, and the departure from the vertical drops him some more. Line B-C is supposed to be representing the elevation from the ground to Paddock's window. You can arbitrarily just change a figure on your cartoon, but Paddock's window did not actually move. If you shorten side a to 324.60, and you retain the vertical side to a right triangle, and retain the angle of elevation at 14.70°, then you must get side b at 1237.30 feet and side c at 1279.17 feet. The hypotenuse, side c or line B-A has been shortened 54.66 feet. ))) I love how you think changing one measurement of a triangle does not change anything else. There are only 3 sides and 3 angles to a triangle. All of the miscellaneous lines you drew beyond that are just surplus bullshit. You have presented Gollum's Triangle, a misshapen pile of shit. Just because you draw it in the shape of a right triangle does not mean the associated data makes a right triangle possible. Where's your MATH? A = 14.70° a = 324.60 ft A + B + C = 180º b = sin(B) * a / sin(A) c = sin(C) * a
LOL. I just dragged the top of the line until the dimension corresponding to elevation was 338. Which is why the sides of my triangle add up. Boo hoo for you, comrade, and your 1 hit state-school indoctrinated "solution". In America, we improvise! >>Where's your MATH? Right here Donkey Breath: A^2+B^2=C^2
WRONG. Get the fuck out of here. If A=14.70°, side a = 338' and side b = 1290.58' then angle B = 75.68° and angle C = 89.62° and hypotenuse c = 1331.95' Of course, with angle C being 89.62°, you have another misshapen Gollum Triangle, not a right triangle. With your given data, it is a mathematical impossibility to have a right triangle. It is impossible to have angle C be 90°. Trig does not lie. You do. Your stipulated angle of 14.70 and sides of 338 and 1290.58 cannot make a right triangle. As you cannot possibly have a right triangle, you application of a formula applicable only to right triangles yields bullshit results. You get two different figures for hypotenuse c, 1334.11 and 1333.83, both of them wrong. With sides of 338, 1334.11 and 1290.58, you cannot get a right triangle with an angles of 14.70 and 75.30. Provide 3 sides and 3 angles that are not mathematically impossible to work with each other to form a right triangle. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - You created two radii, one being 338' and the other 324.5'. All radii of the same circle are the same length. You get your choice of one. If the radius is 338', then the hypotenuse is 1009.33 + 338 = 1347.33 as shown in your cartoon #1. You can't fudge your figures by 13.5' by claiming two radii of different lengths. Your figures are still a mess. With angle A = 14.70°, angle C = 90° and side a = 338', Angle B = 75.30°, side b = 1288.38' and hypotenuse c = 1331.98', as sure as c = sin(C) * a Try it with trig when you learn how. The figures actually work. Side b is not 1290.5833 if the angle of elevation is 14.70° or you do not have a right triangle. You have yet to describe how you determined the length of side b is 1290.5833 feet. Hypotenuse c is not 1334.1099. Nor is hypotenuse c is 1009.33 + 338 = 1347.33' as per your first cartoon. Nor can you even make believe hypotenuse c is 1009.33 + 324.5 = 1033.8 as per your revised cartoon with two different radii. With a 324.5' radius you lose your right triangle. With a 338' radius your bullshit cartoon yields a hypotenuse of 1347.33.
Do the Math Comrade Donkey Breath.
I can observe the truth is that wormholes are all around us, only they're too small to see. Wormholes are very tiny. They occur in nooks and crannies in space and time. You might find it a tough concept, but stay with me. Nothing is flat or solid. If you look closely enough at anything you'll find holes and wrinkles in it. It's a basic physical principle, and it even applies to time. Even something as smooth as a pool ball has tiny crevices, wrinkles and voids. Now it's easy to show that this is true in the first three dimensions. But trust me, it's also true of the fourth dimension. There are tiny crevices, wrinkles and voids in time. Down at the smallest of scales, smaller even than molecules, smaller than atoms, we get to a place called the quantum foam. This is where wormholes exist. Tiny tunnels or shortcuts through space and time constantly form, disappear, and reform within this quantum world. And they actually link two separate places and two different times. But this is only introductory to the theory that "time is a derivative function of state-change which progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) it is observed in." - - - - - - - - - - https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=55999&Disp=139#C139 Or I can observe that Time is a derivative function of state-change which progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) it is observed in. And that God's inertial frame isn't yours! :-/ VxH posted on 2018-06-14 20:12:43 ET Reply Trace Private Reply - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://www.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=39740&Disp=62#C62 Who/whatever it is that says water freezes consistently at 32 degrees F, that objects fall and accelerate at 15 ft per second per second, that time is a derivative function of state change that progresses relative to E within the (billions of years old) inertial frame(s) where it is observed, that V = I x R, and that Nature selected HETEROsexual reproduction for humans - and not the mutual masturbation selected and worshiped by reprobate perverts of Nature. The Creator of the self-evident laws of the universe who doesn't require interpretation by, or the intercession of, some parrot adorned in vestigial plumage left over from the Roman/Egyptian/Babylonian empires -- perched atop a self-serving, man-made, state-established, fallible and uninspiring religious hierarchic pyramid of Ba-al shyte. The ONE God. VxH posted on 2015-05-21 4:47:55 ET Reply Trace Private Reply - - - - - - - - - - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3007479/posts?page=7#7 Bullshyte. Time is a derivative function of state change which progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) that it is observed within. NO SALE 7 posted on 4/13/2013, 10:53:56 AM by TArcher ("TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, governments are instituted among men" -- Does that still work?) - - - - - - - - - - http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3561255/posts?page=75#75 Try the English version: So simple a 2nd grader could understand it without being relatively special. 75 posted on 6/15/2017, 4:05:50 PM by HLPhat (It takes a Republic TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS - not a populist Tyranny of the Majority) - - - - - - - - - - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/3548338/posts?page=92#92 That’s what “time travel” is super genius. Fictional, government grant funded, Bullshyte. 90 posted on 4/29/2017, 7:13:24 PM by HLPhat (It takes a Republic TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS - not a populist Tyranny of the Majority) - - - - - - - - - - To: HLPhat Hopefully some interesting “math” will fall out of this guy’s work! String Theory may be a dead end in cosmology but the “math” behind it is finding uses elsewhere, e.g physics of surfaces and other “interfaces”. 91 posted on 4/29/2017, 7:21:49 PM by Reily - - - - - - - - - - To: Reily Time is a derivative function of state change that progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) in which it is observed. State change always goes forward. Grant-funded mathemaconartists can’t change that self-evident fact. 92 posted on 4/29/2017, 7:38:32 PM by HLPhat (It takes a Republic TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS - not a populist Tyranny of the Majority) - - - - - - - - - - To: HLPhat I’m sorry but the way you stated that makes no sense. And new mathematical concepts may have use whether they are physically realizable or not. I am amazed you can judge his work without having read a single paper produced. Jealous perhaps? 93 posted on 4/29/2017, 8:01:39 PM by Reily - - - - - - - - - - To: Reily It make sense just fine to anyone who understands the difference between special relativity and fictional Bullshyte. 94 posted on 4/29/2017, 8:04:48 PM by HLPhat (It takes a Republic TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS - not a populist Tyranny of the Majority) - - - - - - - - - - To: HLPhat I understand both special & general relativity but am willing to listen to someone tell me something new. I will judge its validity only after that. 95 posted on 4/29/2017, 8:12:28 PM by Reily - - - - - - - - - - To: Reily Then you shouldn’t have any trouble understanding that Time a derivative function of state-change that progresses relative to E within the inertial frames in which it is observed. And that state change always moves forward. 96 posted on 4/29/2017, 8:22:40 PM by HLPhat (It takes a Republic TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS - not a populist Tyranny of the Majority) - - - - - - - - - - To: HLPhat Not the way you state it! Do you mean this d(Some State)/dt vs E - energy inside the inertial frames is greater then zero when t- time is greater then zero? 97 posted on 4/29/2017, 8:33:57 PM by Reily - - - - - - - - - - To: Reily Nope I mean what I said. That T is a function of state-change that progresses relative to E. Meanwhile, in the space-time of the emperor’s new lavender underwear.. “Most of the published paper is about picking holes in it. so, if anything, the paper says time machines are less possible than ever.” What does this mean? 98 posted on 4/29/2017, 8:39:47 PM by HLPhat (It takes a Republic TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS - not a populist Tyranny of the Majority) - - - - - - - - - - To: HLPhat I’m done talking to you. 99 posted on 4/29/2017, 8:43:23 PM by Reily - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://www.facebook.com/ArrivalMovie/ FACEBOOK page of Arrival, the Movie. See COMMENT by William Burke. Time is a derivative function of state change that progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) in which it is observed. State-change always moves forward. Despite what FICTION psychotically imagines, there is no time travel and you can't tell the future because (surprise), it hasn't happened yet. Reality, deal with it. FAIL. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Replies: June 5 at 2:58am David Bouley All based on what we think we know. But if it makes you more comfortable to live a closed-minded existence, by all means... - - - - - - - - - - July 14 at 3:18pm William Burke It's science FICTION. Time is a derivative function of state change that progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) in which it is observed. State-change always moves forward. July 14 at 3:41pm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
No. It was the radius of a circle in a sketch; a circle which I didn't erase from the sketch before revising the elevation triangle in the sketch with your 338 elevation. Easily TRIGgered much? Do the Math OComrade Donkey Breath. http://mathforum. org/library/drmath/view/57232.html
Do the Math OComrade Donkey Breath. A Squared + B Squared = C Squared. EPIC FAIL. Your Dr. Math shows you how to do a2 + b2 = c2. It does not show you how to create a right triangle with acute angles of 14.70° and 85.30°. Your grammar school math does not work for that. You still provide no means by which you derived side b of 1290.583333333 feet. Given only one side, 338 feet, it is not possible to derive either of the other two sides using a2 + b2 = c2. So you just made up 1290.583333333 which looks impressive with seven decimal places, but what did you use to "calculate" it. Don't be bashful. Do tell. Show us the "math" that you used. Your right triangle, with those sides, is incompatible with the given angle of elevation of 14.70°. So, still, all you have is a pile of incorrect shit. At a 14.70° angle of elevation, and at a distance of 1290.583333333 feet, the altitude reached in not 368 feet. Keep fucking that football while the stadium looks on. Keep trying with the grade school math, super genius. And remember you have specified angles of 14.70° and 90° and opposite the 14.70° angle you have a specified side of 338 feet. Those are given data, not variables. As you know all about "Time is a derivative function of state-change which progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) it is observed in," surely you have the math skills to find the sides and angles of a right triangle. Let's see your three rib-tickling sides again: Entering side a=338 feet and side b=1290.583333333 feet and hypotenuse c=1334.1099430998 feet we get, Angle A = 14.68° Still fucked! The resulting triangle is incompatible with the angle of elevation of 14.70°. Your triangle is the wrong size and shape. When solving for an angle of elevation of 14.70° and an elevation of 338.00 feet, results incompatible with 14.70° or 338.00 feet are shit. You've got shit. The VxH Gollum Triangle is incompatible with the specified angle of elevation, the elevation itself, or the necessity of a 90 degree angle to make a vertical line and a right triangle.
Yawn, as has been explained multiple times - the model was a SKETCH with left over elements that were not re-scaled when I updated the model with your 338 elevation. Do the TRIGgered Math, OCD Donkey Breath.
Given angle A [14.70°] and side a [338 feet], you state side b at 1290.583333333 feet. Provide the calculations for that one without trig, Mr. Mathematical Super Genius. VxH - mathematics super genius The only mathematics super genius who And with all the mathematical super genius horsepower that implies, he has not a mathematical clue how to derive the sides and angles of a right triangle, given angle a and side a. It summons a vision of Einstein faced with the same problem, sitting there utterly stumped by a problem requiring nothing beyond high school math. With angle a stated as 14.70 degrees, and side a stated as 338 feet, VxH simply summons side b at 1290.583333333 feet, an impossible value with the given, stated values and a right triangle. VxH did not use trig, and offers no explanation of how side b could be mathematically derived without trig. Indeed, he offers no explanation or computation regarding how side b was derived. He states a right triangle with incompatible sides and angles. And jackass continues to make believe he has not been proven to be absolutely full of shit. https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=55999&Disp=139#C139 Or I can observe that Time is a derivative function of state-change which progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) it is observed in. And that God's inertial frame isn't yours! :-/ VxH posted on 2018-06-14 20:12:43 ET Reply Trace Private Reply - - - - - - - - - - https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53046&Disp=133#C133 As per what I said in https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53046&Disp=105#C105 the next step in the quest is to explore methods of deriving Time relative to the slope of the DIFFERENCE between Vmin and Vmax for a given vector segment. [...] VxH posted on 2017-11-05 6:36:35 ET - - - - - - - - - - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/3548338/posts?page=90#90 Fictional, government grant funded, Bullshyte. 90 posted on 4/29/2017, 7:13:24 PM by HLPhat - - - - - - - - - - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/3548338/posts?page=92#92 State change always goes forward. Grant-funded mathemaconartists can’t change that self-evident fact. 92 posted on 4/29/2017, 7:38:32 PM by HLPhat - - - - - - - - - - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/3548338/posts?page=94#94 It make sense just fine to anyone who understands the difference between special relativity and fictional Bullshyte. 94 posted on 4/29/2017, 8:04:48 PM by HLPhat (It takes a Republic TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS - not a populist Tyranny of the Majority) - - - - - - - - - - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/3548338/posts?page=133#133 Public school 2nd graders back circa 1967 were able to understand and articulate the answer. But not you. Gag on that, Jethro. 133 posted on 5/1/2017, 12:02:59 PM by HLPhat - - - - - - - - - - https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53046&Disp=143#C143 There is no 33 degree angle involved. Using your trajectory, Paddock would have come closer to shooting off his big toe than hitting anywhere in the festival venue. [...] nolu chan posted on 2017-11-08 23:55:22 ET - - - - - - - - - - https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53046&Disp=145#C145 The object could have sped up and slowed down between 0 and 1950 feet in any manner and it makes no difference. If the object covers the 1950 feet in 0.86 seconds, the average velocity for the 1950 foot distance is 2267.4419 [feet per second]. Recall the Khan Academy video you previously referenced: - [Instructor] Pretend you are a physics student. You are just getting out of class. You were walking home when you remembered that there was a Galaxy Wars marathon on tonight, so you'd do what every physics student would do: run. You're pretty motivated to get home, so say you start running at six meters per second. Maybe it's been a while since the last time you ran, so you have to slow down a little bit to two meters per second. When you get a little closer to home, you say: "No, Captain Antares wouldn't give up "and I'm not giving up either", and you start running at eight meters per second and you make it home just in time for the opening music. These numbers are values of the instantaneous speed. The instantaneous speed is the speed of an object at a particular moment in time. And if you include the direction with that speed, you get the instantaneous velocity. In other words, eight meters per second to the right was the instantaneously velocity of this person at that particular moment in time. Note that this is different from the average velocity. If your home was 1,000 meters away from school and it took you a total of 200 seconds to get there, your average velocity would be five meters per second, which doesn't necessarily equal the instantaneous velocities at particular points on your trip. In other words, let's say you jogged 60 meters in a time of 15 seconds. During this time you were speeding up and slowing down and changing your speed at every moment. Regardless of the speeding up or slowing down that took place during this path, your average velocity's still just gonna be four meters per second to the right; or, if you like, positive four meters per second. [snip] nolu chan posted on 2017-11-09 0:11:22 ET - - - - - - - - - -
I didn't summon it, I sketched it. LOL.
[VxH #65] I didn't summon it, I sketched it. Given angle A [14.70°] and side a [338 feet], you state side b at 1290.583333333 feet. Provide the calculations for that one without trig, Mr. Mathematical Super Genius. HOW DID YOU DERIVE THE LENGTH OF 1290.583333333 FEET, Super Genius???? The resulting triangle is incompatible with the angle of elevation of 14.70°. Your triangle is the wrong size and shape. Try CosSinCalc.com Why do your shit numbers NOT WORK? When solving for an angle of elevation of 14.70° and an elevation of 338.00 feet, results incompatible with 14.70° or 338.00 feet are shit. You've still got shit. Show us your math, shithead. Dazzle us with your brilliance using Google Sketchup. Show how you used that renowned mathematical tool.
HOW DID YOU DERIVE THE LENGTH OF 1290.583333333 FEET, Super Genius???? "With angle a stated as 14.70 degrees, and side a stated as 338 feet, VxH simply summons side b at 1290.583333333 feet, an impossible value with the given, stated values and a right triangle" --- nolu chan posted on 2018-07-25 16:13:22 ET LOL. Do the math OCDonkey Clump.
#69. To: VxH (#68)
Your bullshit example here says, REQUIRED DATA ENTRY sin A = opp/hyp = a/c sin B = adj/hyp = b/c Where did you get the value of B which was data entry on this bullshit????? You can draw whatever you want with your etch-a-sketch, but that does not mean it reflects reality. Your right triangle calculator states that you must enter the values for TWO sides and one of the two angles, a or b. Your chosen calculator automatically enters 90 degrees for angle c, and is not subject to user modification. Your problem is that you are given angle A of 14.70 degrees and side a of 338 feet, and you must solve for sides b and c. You cannot just pull 1290.583333333 out of your ass to nine decimal places, and just enter it and make believe you just solved for it. With number of decimal places set to 1, the value of side b of 1290.583333333 is OBVIOUS DIRECT DATA INPUT. With side a of 338 feet and angle A given as 14.70, the 90° angle C is impossible, as is the 75.30° angle B. As you have here used a calculator which does not calculate angles based on trig functions, it does not recognize angle incompatibility. On the bright side, your new calculator does give you the trig tables they say are needed for side and angle functions of a right triangle, as when you only know one side value. Try using them. If you can figure out how to use them, you will not look like such a fucking yukonesque idiot. As you have chosen to use a CALCULATOR OF RIGHT TRIANGLES, the value of angle C is forced to 90°. Your chosen calculator makes it 90°. Your calculator assumes the jackass operator is actually inputting data for a right triangle. http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html TAKE THAT SHIT AND GET IT OUT OF HERE. Try harder to present phony bullshit. - - - - - - - - - - sin(14.70°) is 0.253757945 The value of sin(14.70°) does not change. You have sides: sin A = opp/hyp = a/c sin(14.70) is 0.253757945 Congratulations, you established a new value for sin(14.70). Not. Where sin A = opp/hyp = 0.253757945, the actual value of sin(14.70) When the correct value of sin(14.70) is used, your opp/hyp vales are shown to be incompatible is angle A of 14.70°. - - - - - - - - - - sin(75.30) = 0.9966373868 The value of sin(75.30) does not change. You have sides: sin B = adj/hyp = b/c sin B = 1290.583333333 / 1334.1 = 0.9673812588 sin(75.30) is 0.9672677528 Congratulations, you have established a new value for sin(75.30). Not. Where sin(B) = adj/hyp = 0.9672677528, the actual value of sin(75.30) When the correct value for sin(75.30) is used, your adj/hyp values are shown to be incompatible with angle B of 75.30°. - - - - - - - - - - Just for good luck, let's try tan(14.70) = 0.2623450899 The value of tan(14.70) does not change. You have sides: tan(a) = opp/adj = a/b tan(14.70) = 338/1290.583333333 = 0.261897075 tan(14.70) is 0.2623450899 Congratulations, you have established a new value for tan(14.70). Not. When the correct value for tan(14.70) is used, your opp/adj values are shown to be incompatible with angle A of 14.70°. - - - - - - - - - - None of the calculations, based on the side values, yields the correct sine or tangent value for the given angle. Congratulations, you have proven that you cannot use a Right Triangle calculator to derive the values for a triangle not known to be a right triangle. If you force a data entry of an angle of 90 degrees where no such angle exists, you get bullshit. Garbage in, garbage out. Your calculator states that angle C is ALWAYS 90 degrees and is not user modifiable. What you excised from your calculator. http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttricalc.html This calculator requires the use of Javascript enabled and capable browsers. This calculator is designed to give the two unknown factors in a right triangle, assuming two factors are known. This calculator is for a right triangle only! The factors are the lengths of the sides and one of the two angles, other than the right angle. All values should be in positive values but decimals are allowed and valid. Fill in two (only two) values then click on Calculate. The other two other modifiable values will be filled in, along with the angle 3 field. In a triangle, all interior angles total to 180 degrees. No two angles can total to 180 degrees or more. Angle C is always 90 degrees; angle 3 is either angle B or angle A, whichever is NOT entered. Angle 3 and Angle C fields are NOT user modifiable. Again, this right triangle calculator works when you fill in 2 fields in the triangle angles, or the triangle sides. Angle C and angle 3 cannot be entered. In case you need them, here are the Trig Triangle Formula Tables, the Triangle Angle Calculator is also available for angle only calculations. The problem presents sides b and c as unknown factors and cannot be solved by using your Right Triangle Angle and Side Calculator. http://www.csgnetwork.com/trigtriformulatables.html These tables are the formulae needed for side and angle functions of a right triangle. In case you need it, here is the Triangle Angle Calculator, and the Right Triangle Angle And Side Calculator. [snip] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - You used a calculator which requires that you direct enter TWO known sides to a RIGHT triangle. You only had one known side of 338 feet. Only one conclusion is possible. You fucked up again.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestTHE COLD WAR isn't over for Anatoly Golitsyn.
It's easy to see why Angleton became intoxicated with Golitsyn and his theories, and equally easy to see why the official historian of MI5, Professor Christopher Andrew, was to describe him as 'an unreliable conspiracy theorist'. Golitsyn began by confirming the identities of two Soviet spies the CIA and M16 had known of but whose activities they had never been able to prove legally, and who were already safely in Russia: Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean. He then gave details of some spies who had not been unmasked, including the Briton John Vassall and a Russian double agent who had operated mostly in Germany named Aleksander Kopatzky. Vassall. a relatively low-level official at the Foreign Office. was later arrested, convicted and jailed. The case against Kopatzky was unproven and after a brief period seeking refuge in the Russian Consulate he braved it out and lived peacefully in Virginia for the rest of his days. Golitsyn also gave enough clues for the authorities, at last, to unmask Kim Philby — a spy who, having been effectively neutered a decade earlier, had arguably outlived his usefulness to the Soviets.
#19. To: nolu chan (#18)
TRUMP'S 'ART OF THE DEAL' GHOSTWRITER TONY SCHWARTZ SAYS 'PUTIN OWNS TRUMP'
“So the Russians pursued Trump as an asset as early as mid-80s,” Schwartz tweeted this month after a story was published about Trump’s 1987 trip to Moscow hosted by the KGB’s travel agency. “His deep compromising connection with a sworn enemy is going to unravel soon in ways that boggle the mind,” he wrote.
#20. To: VxH (#19)
Newsweek received more nominations for the 20th Annual GLAAD Media Awards than any other newspaper or magazine: one for Outstanding Magazine Article and one for Outstanding Magazine Overall Coverage, as well as two for Outstanding Digital Journalism Article and two for Outstanding Digital Journalism – Multimedia.
In August 2017, Schwartz predicted Trump would resign, saying "Trump's presidency is effectively over. Would be amazed if he survives till end of the year. More likely resigns by fall, if not sooner."
#21. To: nolu chan (#20)
(Edited)
Tony Schwartz was full of shit then, he is full of shit now.
Just how full of shyte was he THEN?
#22. To: VxH (#21)
Just how full of shyte was he THEN?
#23. To: nolu chan (#22)
#24. To: VxH (#23)
#25. To: nolu chan (#24)
#26. To: VxH (#25)
#27. To: nolu chan (#26)
#28. To: VxH (#27)
#29. To: nolu chan (#28)
#30. To: VxH (#29)
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the Hemisphere....”
#31. To: nolu chan (#30)
(Edited)
My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the Hemisphere....” Hillary Clinton
#32. To: VxH (#31)
Hey bro quick question.
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2015-10-16 20:34
Subject: Hey bro quick question.
#34. To: nolu chan (#32)
(Edited)
#35. To: VxH (#34)
And Putin is operating on a whole other INFORMED level.
#36. To: nolu chan (#35)
#37. To: VxH (#36)
LOL
#38. To: nolu chan (#37)
You appear to make pretty, if absurd, graphics with Google sketchup, even featuring a triangle with a side longer than the hypotenuse. You are a genius.
#39. To: VxH (#38)
How you coming along with that Average Velocity for the 75 foot segment ending at 1950 ft?
#181. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#179)
VxH guessed 33º as the acute angle formed at the junction of sides c and imaginary side d at point B. VxH guessed very wrongly.
#40. To: nolu chan (#39)
#41. To: VxH (#40)
SOH - opposite/hypotenuse
CAH - adjacent/hypotenuse
TOA - opposite/adjacent
CAO - adjacent/opposite
SHA - hypotenuse/adjacent
SHO - hypotenuse/opposite
How you coming along with that Average Velocity for the 75 foot segment ending at 1950 ft?
#181. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#179)
VxH guessed 33º as the acute angle formed at the junction of sides c and imaginary side d at point B. VxH guessed very wrongly.
#42. To: nolu chan (#41)
#43. To: VxH (#42)
You do the math.
side B and angles b and c may be readily calculated —
just not to the values you give them.
B = ?º
C = 90.00°
b = ? ft
c = ? ft
A + B = 90º
B = 90-Aº
B = 75.30º
#44. To: nolu chan (#43)
(Edited)
#45. To: VxH (#44)
Does your one hit "expert" think Putin's alleged affinity with Alexander Solzhenitsyn is legitimate or Solzhenitsyn "debunked" too?
#46. To: nolu chan (#45)
A 338 114244 B 1290.5833333333 1665605.34027778 A^2+B^2 1779849.34027778 1334.1099430998 324.5+1009.33= 1333.83
"I didn't rescale the circle for the purpose of determining the angle. So - No bigee with the radius 324' 6" - the dimensions still add up for the hypotenuse."
https://libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C1860
#48. To: VxH (#46)
A 338 114244 B 1290.5833333333 1665605.34027778 A^2+B^2 1779849.34027778 1334.1099430998 324.5+1009.33= 1333.83
"I didn't rescale the circle for the purpose of determining the angle. So - No bigee with the radius 324' 6" - the dimensions still add up for the hypotenuse."
#51. To: nolu chan (#48)
(Edited)
324' 6" appears to be a figure plucked from your ass.
#52. To: VxH (#51)
324' 6" appears to be a figure plucked from your ass.
B = ?º
C = 90.00°
b = ? ft
c = ? ft
A + B = 90º
B = 90-Aº
B = 75.30º
#53. To: nolu chan (#52)
(Edited)
is impossible to retain a right traingle as it is a mathematical certainty that angle C will be greater than 90°.
A 338 114244 B 1290.5833333333 1665605.34027778 A^2+B^2 1779849.34027778 1334.1099430998 324.5+1009.33= 1333.83
#54. To: VxH (#53)
b = sin(B) * a / sin(A)
#56. To: nolu chan (#54)
(Edited)
Simplified with the irrelevant circle removed. 
#58. To: VxH (#56)
#139. To: A K A Stone (#38)
You can believe God is a liar.
#62. To: Don (#58) (Edited)
Who is your God?
To: BCW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies] To: mad_as_he$$
Time is a derivative function of state change that progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) in which it is observed.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies] To: bobby.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]
You’re purposely being an pass!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies] William Burke SMH. This movie exemplifies why kids these days can't even apply science well enough to understand what sex they are.
June 5 at 2:58am
David Bouley
William Burke
#59. To: nolu chan (#58)
(Edited)
324.5 is the imaginary radius of a circle
LOL
A Squared + B Squared = C Squared.
Simplified with the irrelevant circle removed.
#60. To: VxH (#59)
LOL
Angle B = 75.32°
Angle C = 90.00°
#61. To: nolu chan (#60)
(Edited)
When solving for an angle of elevation of 14.70° and an elevation of 338.00 feet,
#64. To: VxH (#61)
Yawn, as has been explained multiple times - the model was a SKETCH with left over elements that were not re-scaled when I updated the model with your 338 elevation.
#139. To: A K A Stone (#38)
You can believe God is a liar.
Nope. Try to keep up - - I've moved on with a revised curve that reconstructs time from Velocity and Distance, ...
That’s what “time travel” is super genius.
Time is a derivative function of state change that progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) in which it is observed.
To: Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies] What happens to M and T as E approaches [infinity], and what is the associative effect upon relative inertia?
[...]
The average velocity of any object covering 1950 feet in 0.86 seconds is 1950/0.86 = 2267.4419 feet per second. It could be a flying refrigerator. If it goes 1950 feet in 0.86 seconds, the average velocity is 2267.4419 [feet per second].
Video transcript
#65. To: nolu chan (#64)
VxH simply summons side b at 1290.583333333 feet
#67. To: VxH (#65)
VxH simply summons side b at 1290.583333333 feet
#68. To: nolu chan (#67)
The "Impossible" 1290.583333333 feet? 
Replies to Comment # 68.
a = 338
b = 1290.3333333
c = 1334.1
338 / 1290583333333 = 0.261897075
sin(14.70) is not 0.261897075
sin A = 338/hyp = 0.253757945
hyp = 338/0.253757945 = 1331.978
a = 338
b = 1290.583333333
c = 1334.1
sin(75.30) is not 0.9673812588
sin(B) = 1290.58333333/hyp = 0.9672677528
hyp=1290.583333/0.9672677528 = 1334.256549
a = 338
b = 1290.583333333
c = 1334.1
tan(14.70) is not 0.261897075 Right Triangle Angle And Side Calculator
Trig Triangle Formula Tables
End Trace Mode for Comment # 68.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]