International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Once Again, President Trump Is Magnificently Right—This Time About Russia
Source:
PJ Media
URL Source: https://pjmedia.com/spengler/once-a ... -right-this-time-about-russia/
Published: Jul 16, 2018
Author: David P. Goldman
Post Date: 2018-07-16 19:51:31 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 10905
Comments: 69
Once Again, President Trump Is Magnificently Right—This Time About Russia By David P. Goldman President Trump offended the entire political spectrum with a tweet this morning blaming the U.S. for poor relations with Russia. “Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity,” the president said, and he is entirely correct. By this I do not mean to say that Russia is a beneficent actor in world affairs or that President Putin is an admirable world leader. Nonetheless, the president displayed both perspicacity and political courage when he pointed the finger at the United States for mismanaging the relationship with Russia. Full disclosure: I was a card-carrying member of the neoconservative cabal that planned to bring Western-style democracy and free markets to Russia after the fall of Communism. As chief economist for the supply-side consulting firm Polyconomics, I got an appointment as an adviser to Boris Yeltsin’s finance ministry and made several trips to Moscow. Of course, the finance ministry really was a family office for Yeltsin’s oligarch friends, who were too busy stealing Russia’s economy to listen to advice. The experience cured me of the neoconservative delusion that democracy and free markets are the natural order of things. Unfortunately, the delusion that the United States would remake Russia in its own image persisted through the Bush and Obama administrations. I have no reason to doubt the allegations that a dozen Russian intelligence officers meddled in the U.S. elections of 2016, but this was equivalent of a fraternity prank compared to America’s longstanding efforts to intervene in Russian politics. The United States supported the 2014 Maidan uprising in Ukraine and the overthrow of the Yanukovych government in the hope of repeating the exercise in Moscow sometime later. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland pulled whatever strings America had to replace the feckless and corrupt Victor Yanukovych with a government hostile to the Kremlin. She didn’t say it in so many words, but she hoped the Ukraine coup would lead to the overthrow of Vladimir Putin. Evidently Nuland and her boss, Hillary Clinton, thought that the Ukraine coup would deprive Russia of its Black Sea naval base in Crimea, and did not anticipate that Russia simply would annex an old Russian province that belonged to Ukraine by historical accident. [...] The Maidan coup was the second American attempt to install a Ukrainian government hostile to Moscow; the first occurred in 2004, when Condoleezza Rice was secretary of State rather than Hillary Clinton. As I wrote in Asia Times a decade ago, “On the night of November 22, 2004, then-Russian president - now premier - Vladimir Putin watched the television news in his dacha near Moscow. People who were with Putin that night report his anger and disbelief at the unfolding 'Orange' revolution in Ukraine. ‘They lied to me,’ Putin said bitterly of the United States. ‘I'll never trust them again.’ The Russians still can't fathom why the West threw over a potential strategic alliance for Ukraine. They underestimate the stupidity of the West." [snip]
PJ Media
July 16, 2018
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 53.
#6. To: nolu chan (#0)
(Edited)
It's all great... unless Anatoliy Golitsyn was right.
Golitsyn's decades old conspiracy theories were debunked by Ivan Petrovich Sidorov.
Survey Says, meet the New Nolu Bullshyte... Same as the Old Nolu Bullshyte.
Old? Golitsyn's book is 34 years old and Golitsyn is dead. Ivan Petrovich Sidorov remains current.
Show us the URL to his "current" debunking or STFU.
Show me the URL to Golitsyn's "current" debunking of Trump or STFU.
LOL. How many results, Nolu Chow? Maybe if you Google it with your trusty TI calculator you can pull some "facts" out of your arse? Or NOT... as usual.
I see you are still incapable of using the Google to find Ivan Petrovich Sidorov and still have no clue who it is. Pathetic.
Well wire up that calculator and show us how it's done, Igor!
Your apparent use of a calculator to search the internet may explain your continuing inability to identify Ivan Petrovich Sidorov. Here's an Ivan Petrovich Sidorov that your calculator failed to find: https://www.facebook.com/people/Ivan-Petrovich-Sidorov/100004557936311
Yawn. A FB link with no content. Is he as Current as Vlad Putin? The decision to nationalize this library was made by the first Soviet government, whose composition was 80-85 percent Jewish," Putin said June 13 during a visit to Moscow’s Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center.
What a stupid comment. Ivan Petrovich Sidorov is always current. He may be one of the most cited people in Russian litigation. You may be one of the least competent users of Google ever.
And yet with regards to his/your alleged "debunking" of Golitsyn... LOL. FAIL.
Pearce, Spymaster (2017) at p. 283: - - - - - - - - - - ))) 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
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...? ArtNum=56433&Disp=46#C46
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.
GFYS Douchebag, The Sides add up.
The sides no longer add up to a right triangle, shithead. Now how, no way. What an arrogant but stupid prick who can't do simle math. 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
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...? ArtNum=56433&Disp=53#C53
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.
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...? ArtNum=56433&Disp=55#C55
VxH #55 and #56 Title: RED SMOKE, COMMIE MIRRORS BZZZT! 324.5+1009.33= 1333.83 324.5+1009.33= 1333.83 324.5 is the imaginary radius of a circle in your cartoon when the radius is not 338 on the other side of the cartoon circle. It is useful to obtain imaginary results. - - - - - - - - - - VxH #56 - - - - - - - - - - Very well shithead. Here is the math which confirms you are a mathematics illiterate shithead. The mission was to find a right triangle with Angle a being 14.70 degrees and side a being 338 feet long. You look like you are monkey, standing in a crowded stadium at centerfield, fucking a football. You FAILED. The problem is given an elevation of 338 feet and an angle of elevation of 14.70 degrees, find the right triangle which accurately depicts the given two pieces of data, with accurate angles and accurate lengths of the remaining side and hypotenuse. There are only six data points. They are the three sides of a right triangle representing length, and the three angles of the triangle. All else on your cartoon was surplus bullshit. For the given data of 338 feet and 14.70°, and 90° for a right triangle, the other three data points are a calculated mathematical certainty. The certainty is that your stated results are incompatible with the given data points. To make this simple for those not mathematically inclined, one may use CoSinCalc.com and enter data and let them present a triangle with all sides and angles presented. CoSinCalc.com gives results to two decimal places, plus the mathematical formulas used to derive the unknown data. At the link is their depiction of the triangle that results from entering angle A 14.70° and angle B 90°, and side a 338 feet. Angle B = 75.30°. Side b [AC] = 1288.38 feet. Hypotenuse c [AB] = 1331.98 feet. http://cossincalc.com/#angle_a=14.7&side_a=338&angle_b=&side_b=&angle_c=90&side_c=&angle_unit=degree Just hit the "Calculator" button to reset for data entry of whatever you choose, such as the VxH imaginary data. It does not work for a reason — it is bullshit. - - - - - - - - - - For the more mathematically inclined, The sine, cosine, tangent, cosecant, secant and cotangent values of an angle are constants, not variables. To find sin(14.70) on a scientific calculator - - - - - - - - - - sin(a) = opp/hyp cos(a) = adj/hyp tan(a) = opp/adj csc(a) = 1/sin(a) = hyp/opp sec(a) = 1/cos(a) = hyp/adj cot(a) = 1/tan(a) = adj/opp - - - - - - - - - - sin(14.70) is always 0.253757945 cos(14.70) is always 0.967267753 tan(14.70) is always 0.262345089 csc(14.70) is always 3.940763319 sec(14.70) is always 1.033839903 cot(14.70) is always 3.8117733280 - - - - - - - - - - sin(75.30) = 0.9672677528 sin(90.00) = 1 In a right triangle, one with a 90° angle, given the length of one side, and either acute angle, one may accurately calculate the remaining angle and the lengths of the other two sides. With a specific acute angle, such as 14.70°, the sides are always in a specific relational proportion. Knowing the length on any one side absolutely dictates the lengths of the other two sides, to be compatible with the given angle. Point A of our triangle is at ground level. Point B is represents the stated elevation of 338 feet. Point C is at represents level directly below Point B. A line drawn from point A rising at 14.70° will eventually rise to a height of 338 feet. Walking along the horizontal line AC eventually leads to the point where a vertical line upward would transect the rising line AB precisely where the elevation of 338 feet is reached. The line BC ends at the given elevation of 338 feet. The results from CoSinCalc.com were: Angle A = 14.70 Side a (B to C) = 338 feet - - - - - - - - - - Using the scientific calculator to more decimal places, the same calculations are: Angle B = 180° - 14.70° - 90.00° = 75.30° side b = sin(B) * a/sin(A) side c = sin(C) * a/sin(A) - - - - - - - - - - Now let us examne the VxH nonsense. His original angle of elevation was 33°, but I pointed out that would mean Paddock's shots would have been closer to his own big toe than the fairgrounds. Then the angle of elevation was changed by proclamation to 14.70° VxH has never explained how his side b distance of 1290 feet 7 inches or 1290.5833333333 feet was derived. Although asked for, no calculation or explanation has been provided. Using side 1290.583333333 and 338, and an angle of elevation of 14.70 degrees, the trig functions reveal that, at said angle of elevation, the elevation itself is not reached at a distance of 1290.583333333 feet, but at 1288.500613 feet. The side b length is whack by 2 feet. https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=56433&Disp=53#C53 His hypotenuse is calculated as a2 + b2 = c2 or 1334.1099430998. This is calculated using the mysteriously appearing side b data, which is whack by 2 feet. Then it is alternately stated as 324.5+1009.33 = 1333.83 What 324.5 or 1009.33 represent is left a mystery. Added together, they equal 1333.83, representing nothing in particular. The cartoon has a circle with radius 1 and radius 2; and a triangle with hypotenuse 1 and hypotenuse 2; and a side just dropped in with no explanation of how it was calculated, or if it was calculated or just proclaimed. In any case. the claimed side b length is whack by 2 feet. When drawing a right triangle with side a of 338 feet, angle A of 14.70 degrees, and side b of 1290.5833333333, CosSinCalc.com provides the resulting Gollum Triangle: As one may see, with Angle a specified as 14.70°, and sides a and b specified as 338 feet and 1290.583333333 feet, Angle B is 75.68° and Hypotenuse c becomes 1331.95 feet, as opposed to his stated result of 1334.1099430998 feet. This is because his sides, combined with the specified angle of 14.70 degrees, requires that the 90° angle b change to 89.62°, and what was a vertical line to transect the hypotenuse is now tilted toward point A, shortening the length of the hypotenuse. As I previously pointed out, a2 + b2 = c2 only works for right triangles. His length of hypotenuse c is calculated with an inapplicable formula as his side b, and when combined with the stipulated angle a of 14.70°, is incompatible with a right triangle. We can try to fix this using angles 14.70° and 90° and side 1290.583333333 feet. Oh dear. As one may see, with Angle a specified as 14.70°, and Angle c specified as 90°, and side b as 1290.583333333 feet, the right triangle is forced by data entry of the 90° angle, but side a, the elevation of 338 feet is now impossible and must be raised 7 inches. 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. Well, hell, let's just try the three VxH sides: Entering side a=338 feet and side b=1290.583333333 feet and hypotenuse c=1334.1099430998 feet we get, Angle A = 14.68° Oh shit again! The resulting triangle is incompatible with the angle of elevation of 14.70°. 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. 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. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
There are no replies to Comment # 53. End Trace Mode for Comment # 53.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#7. To: VxH (#6)
It's all great... unless Anatoliy Golitsyn was right.
#8. To: nolu chan (#7)
#9. To: VxH (#8)
Same as the Old Nolu Bullshyte.
#10. To: nolu chan (#9)
(Edited)
#11. To: VxH (#10)
Show us the URL to his "current" debunking or STFU.
#15. To: nolu chan (#11)
#31. To: VxH (#15)
#32. To: nolu chan (#31)
I see you are still incapable of using the Google to find Ivan Petrovich Sidorov
#33. To: VxH (#32)
Well wire up that calculator and show us how it's done, Igor!
#34. To: nolu chan (#33)
(Edited)
"I thought about something just now: 
#35. To: VxH (#34)
Yawn. A FB link with no content. Is he as Current as Vlad Putin?
#37. To: nolu chan (#35)
(Edited)
He may be one of the most cited people in Russian litigation.
#38. To: VxH (#37)
And yet with regards to his/your alleged "debunking" of Golitsyn...
Even when Golitsyn's claims that the Sino-Soviet splid had been a cunning ruse to foil the West were comprehensively debunked — something that should have sent alarm bells ringing — Angleton and his followers agreed that everything else must still be true. They'd invested their whole reputations in their pet defector.
LOL. FAIL.
#39. To: nolu chan (#38)
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.
#40. To: VxH (#39)
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 (#40)
#43. To: VxH (#42)
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.
#44. To: nolu chan (#43)
#45. To: VxH (#44)
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
#46. To: nolu chan (#45)
#47. 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."
#48. To: nolu chan (#47)
(Edited)
#49. To: VxH (#48)
GFYS Douchebag, The Sides add up.
B = ?º
C = 90.00°
b = ? ft
c = ? ft
A + B = 90º
B = 90-Aº
B = 75.30º
#50. To: nolu chan (#49)
#51. To: VxH (#50)
b = sin(B) * a / sin(A)
#52. To: nolu chan (#51)
(Edited)
#53. To: VxH (#52)
With a 338' radius your bullshit cartoon yields a hypotenuse of 1347.33.
Do the Math Comrade Donkey Breath.
With a right triangle, the length of the side opposite angle a, divided by the length of the hypotenuse, equals 0.253757945.
Angle B = 75.30°
Angle C = 90.00°
Side b (A to C) = 1288.38
Hypotenuse c (A to B) = 1331.98
side b = sin(75.30°) * 338 / sin(14.70°)
side b = 0.9672677528 * 338 / 0.253757945
side b = 326.9672677528 / 0.253757945
side b = 1288.500613 feet
side c = sin(90.00°) * 338 / sin(14.70°)
side c = 338/0.253757945
side c = 1331.978 feet
Angle C is 89.62°
and the triangle contains no angle of 90°
Oh shit, that's not good.
Angle B = 75.32°
Angle C = 90.00°
Replies to Comment # 53.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]