[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Signin] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: The irrational hysteria over Trump and Putin The irrational hysteria over Trump and Putin By Steve McCann I spent a good part of yesterday watching the vast army of those incapable of generating an original thought – namely, the majority of talking heads on radio and television as well as politicians in both parties, droning on about the disaster that was the TrumpPutin press conference in Helsinki. Once the first narrative was proffered by one of this gaggle, the rest dutifully repeated the talking points as if they were ventriloquist dummies. The bottom line: Trump is a buffoon inalterably subservient to the puppet master, thus betraying his country. Having watched the press conference, I did not come away this inane version of events. I come to this subject matter of Donald Trump as someone, during the primary season of 2016, who was unalterably opposed to him, going so far as to write an article, "Why I cannot vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton." However, in November, when standing in the voting booth, staring at the ballot and the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency, I voted for Trump. I am still bothered by some of his mannerisms and, at times, his buffoonish governing style as well as his refusal to address outofcontrol spending. But, on the whole I am gratified that he has successfully pursued a predominantly conservative agenda at home and an America First agenda overseas, despite the constant anklebiting by the mainstream media and the Washington Establishment's determined use of its considerable arsenal to marginalize and ultimately obliterate his presidency. Regarding the Helsinki press conference and his performance, I come to that issue from the perspective of someone who has experienced firsthand the horrors and the travails of those who survived the most devastating war in human history and the travails extant in the immediate aftermath. I do not wish to see, in my lifetime or in the future, the world again subject to a conflict of that magnitude, made possible by a careless remark or insult or the egocentricity of a megalomaniac. There is no question that Russia and China are this nation's primary geopolitical foes. While the current Russian Federation is not as powerful as its predecessor, the Soviet Union, it is, nonetheless, a formidable adversary, particularly with Putin at the helm. There is little doubt that the Russians spied on the United States and attempted to sow the seeds of discontent during the 2016 election. Almost as soon as the old Soviet Union was born in the 1920s, it, as national policy, cast a wide net of espionage and destabilization throughout Europe and America. America responded slowly and did not fully reciprocate with its own espionage activities until after World War II and the dawning of the Cold War. This chess match is now approaching its 90th anniversary. However, it was the Obama cabal, including the hierarchy of the intelligence services, together with the now leftwing Democratic Party in alliance with the mainstream media that changed the understanding and rules of the game. In a planned and well executed strategy highlighted by shouting from the rooftops about fictitious collusion with Russia by the Trump campaign, the old rules were discarded as the special counsel, Robert Mueller, has been forced, in order to justify his existence, to criminally indict numerous Russian nationals who will never stand trial in the United States. This derisible tactic is not only unprecedented in the international spy and destabilization game, but foolish beyond measure, as similar retaliation for American spying is now on the table. Listening to the reaction of the rabble to Trump's performance at the Helsinki press conference, one would assume that the only acceptable course for him to take was to verbally punch Putin in the nose. Why are those so eager to see Trump humiliated and undermined so willing to denigrate and provoke this nation's historical rival? What purpose would it have served to gratuitously insult Putin in front of the entire world? Is destroying Trump of such paramount importance that the potential of Russian retaliation could escalate into further reprisals on both sides leading to a possible lethal conflict as Putin is first and foremost a nationalist and not the most stable of international leaders? Could Trump have chosen his words better regarding his confidence in the American intelligence community? Yes. But after nearly 18 months of unrelenting leaks and harassment, this same group, led by Robert Mueller, has made it exceedingly difficult to govern, and his annoyance and frustration bubbled out. It should not have, but, nonetheless, it is understandable, as 14 months of Mueller's investigations has revealed no criminal activity by the Trump campaign despite desperately seeking collusion under every rock. Unlike so many others, I do not want any president of the United States to gratuitously and publicly insult an adversary, be it Russia or China, but instead to hammer out difficult issues in private. Over the history of mankind, too many conflicts and resultant casualties have occurred because of the egocentricity of the leaders over minor issues. Regardless of the hysteria, the Russian attempt to sow chaos during the 2016 election season is a minor issue, as the attempt was not only largely unsuccessful, but amateurishly executed. Thank you, Donald Trump, for not succumbing to the rabble and instead leaving the door open for candid communication with Russia when and if a major crisis rears its ugly head. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Was Trump being irrational... or just Trump? Not that those are selfevidently mutually exclusive features of the Tweeter In Chief.
#2. To: VxH (#1)
#3. To: nolu chan (#2)
#4. To: VxH (#3) https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784535760418603012?lang=en
“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, May 2013 speech to the Brazilian bank Banco Itau, [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p.28]
#5. To: nolu chan (#4) (Edited) Hillary's dream is not bad in and of itself. The problem is that getting from the real state of affairs to that ideal state requires going down the path of us heavily investing in, and developing, Latin America first, to bring them up to the North American level. THEN you can open the borders and not have a flood of refugees from desperation and poverty. Open borders between France and Germany are fine, because nobody is driving tanks across that border anymore, and because the standard of living in both places is equally high. The differences between France and Germany, today, are basically climatic, linguistic and cultural, but not economic. If the Germans are more pulled to move to France than vice versa, it is because Paris is a more appealing place than Frankfurt (this is objectively true), and the weather of the French Mediterranean is much better than the weather on the Baltic Coast (this is indisputable). And so the Germans vacation and retire in France, more than the opposite. This is not a problem. The differences between Latin America and the USA today are not like that. There is a wide economic gulf. Latin America is Christian  it shares moral values with the USA. It's Western  the legal and economic systems are essentially the same. But it's very poor, for a variety of historical, demographic, and climatic reasons. Hillary and her Democrat want to get the order of development wrong, and open the border NOW, as though the conditions already exist between the US and Mexico as exist between France and Germany. But they don't. And opening the borders NOW means they never will. We do have to bring up Latin America. It is very much in our interests to do so. Hillary isn't wrong about wanting hemispheric free markets, free trade, green energy, and  eventually  the free flow of people. She's wrong in that she wants to start with the easy part: open borders, and she assumes that somehow that will lead to the rest. It won't. What it will lead to is the mass migration of Latin Americans into North America, to escape the poverty of their homelands. That is the INEVITABLE result of opening borders now. Sure, that will effect a leveling of North and Latin America  DOWNWARD towards the status quo of Latin America. Wrong answer. Now, of course, the conservative right is also wrong. They don't give a good goddamn about our neighbors, and are content to let the hemisphere fester forever. There is a significant racial component behind their thinking  economically, their attitude is as dumb as a post. CLEARLY it would enormously benefit America  white America  to have a hemispheresized free trade zone IF that zone were like Europe. America would be the Germany of the Western Hemisphere: the most populous and productive place. Mexico would be like Spain  the sunny place to which people go to retire and have vacations. Everybody would live well, and believe me, Hispanics would not be leaving their sunny tropical paradises for the shitty weather and cold manners of North America if they had the economic opportunities in their home countries: the Spanish and the Italians do not migrate en masse to Germany, even though legally they CAN  they don't. Life in Spain and Italy is SO MUCH MORE pleasant than life in Germany, nobody makes the move North in Europe. But that's ONLY because Italy and Spain and Southern France, while not AS rich, penny for penny, as industrial Germany, are pretty rich. They're well enough off, not feeling any pain, and half the pay is the view of the bay, so to speak. THAT is the condition under which open borders can work. We're not there yet in the Americas. We COULD be. Our foreign aid and direct investment should be pouring into Latin America, not the Middle East. We should be striving at a governmental and private level to make Latin America our Southern Europe, to develop it, bring it up. That will stop the mass migration and give us huge markets. Everybody wins. THEN the border won't MATTER. Hillary's dream is laudable, but the way Hillary and her ilk would go about it is pathological. Opening the borders will benefit Democrats electorally. But even on that the Democrats are shortsighted. The Democrat party as it exists is a liberal, whitecontrolled party of the educated upper middle class. Blacks and Amerindians and immigrants of all stripes are part of the "plantation" of voters who keep the Democrats in power, but the white liberals assume without thought that they will always remain the intellectual leaders of the party. And sexual libertinism, abortion and feminism are THE core values of the white liberal left  THAT is the liberalism THEY find central. They support social welfare in order to get Black, poor and Latino votes. Because THEY are racists, they assume they are superior to the plantation voters below them, and when it comes to the blacks, they do have such a huge wealth and education superiority, and superiority of numbers, that they will never lose control of the party. But Latinos are a different matter. As long as their numbers are limited by the fact of that Border that Hillary and her ilk hate so much, the white liberals will indeed hold the Democrat party. However, they make the erroneous assumption that Latinos will simply fall in line behind their leadership, so leaving the border open simply means the victory for the Democratic party with them, the white liberals, at the helm. That's why they are so gung ho for the open borders. They're half right. Open borders DOES mean Democratic victory in election after election. And that means all of the social welfare any socialist could hope for. BUT  and this is the huge but  Latinos are better educated, have better social systems: they take family seriously, accumulate quite a bit more money, fast, are very hardworking and have good business sense, and they come from political cultures in which they fight for dominance. The notion that a Democrat Party whose base is 51% Latino is going to follow the leadership of old white lesbians, San Francisco gays and New York Jews is risible. The Latinos will take over the party, and change it to suit THEIR values. Open Borders will get Hillary her dream of Democrat victory forever. But the Democrat party will be a Latinomajority, socialistic morally conservative party. Socially conservative, economically liberal. Hillary and her ilk would scream with rage  impotent rage  to find this happening. Blacks are appreciative of "what the Democrats have DONE for them" (this is misguided, but it isn't going to change). But Latinos simply need social welfare, and the Democrats provide it, so they vote for them. There is no loyalty AT ALL among Latinos to the social ideals of San Francisco and New York. Latinos have the moral values of Alabama coupled with the economic needs of poor blacks. And unlike the Blacks, who will never be a majority, leave those borders open and the Latinos will be. Which will mean that Hillary's dream of a prosperous Latin America will never be achieved with open borders, her hidden dream of Democrat Party dominance will be, but the Democrat Party of the Latino future will have the current Democrats' economic values, but the social values of the right wing of the Republican Party. Hillary and her ilk are too arrogant to understand that. They really believe that, somehow, old whites like them will retain power, and retain the social libertinism that is their raison d'etre. But Latinos don't buy the social liberalism stuff, and they are not changing into white Democrats. They're changing the Democrat Party into the PRI. Sensible people need to prevail, keep that border closed, and mainline the foreign development aid into Mexico and Central America and South America. Bring the South UP, and we all prosper in the end. Walling it off to rot harms us. So does opening up the border to let all of that move here en masse. They are our neighbors and our brother and sister Christians. It is in all of our best interests to bring them up, fast. Then the border won't be NEEDED. Opening the Border is the LAST piece of the equation, an afterthought. We don't really need the border with Canada, but we DO need it with Mexico, for the time being. Our goal  for our OWN best interests  should be to develop Mexico such that we don't need that border anymore. We can get there, but not any time soon. Lowering the border means we have arrived, not that we're on our way.
#6. To: nolu chan (#4) (Edited) Hillary's "Dream" is whatever Central Control tells her it is. Just like "flexible" Comrade Obama...
#7. To: nolu chan (#4) Notice how the Marxist crowd wasn't wearing their red uniforms for Obama's speech?
Even the collective wardrobe is scripted.
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
Hillary's dream is not bad in and of itself. The problem is that getting from the real state of affairs to that ideal state requires going down the path of us heavily investing in, and developing, Latin America first, to bring them up to the North American level. THEN you can open the borders and not have a flood of refugees from desperation and poverty. What was very bad was it came out in the midst of a political campaign and it contradicted Hillary's public position, and the "dream" is not politically marketable and largely thought of as a nightmare; an invasion of cheap labor in competition with U.S. citizens, and a drain on U.S. taxpayers. France/Germany is more or less descriptive of the U.S./Canadian border, but open borders instantly brings up visions of the U.S./Mexico border. "Open borders" does not go well with claiming to be a moderate. And having Hilary's words published that she has a public position that covers for her private position exacerbated the "open borders" problem. https://wikileaks.org/podestaemails/emailid/927
Clinton: “But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.” Also from the leaked emails:
SECRETARY CLINTON: We need two parties.
Opening the borders will benefit Democrats electorally. The illegal aliens do not enjoy a right to vote, but they largely settle in Democrat controlled areas. They swell the census with their numbers and contribute to the acquisition of more House seats simply by their numbers. California gets several congress critters by virtue of their alien population.
The notion that a Democrat Party whose base is 51% Latino is going to follow the leadership of old white lesbians, San Francisco gays and New York Jews is risible. The Latinos will take over the party, and change it to suit THEIR values. You are 100% correct. There will come a tipping point where there is a rapid change to the Democratic party. In some states, notably Tejas, there may come a sea change where it converts to a Democratic majority state. When the Texas legislature starts acting like California, pass the popcorn. Immigration, accompanied by assimilation, works fine. Immigration without assimilation creates competing factions.
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#5) But they don't. And opening the borders NOW means they never will. We do have to bring up Latin America. It is very much in our interests to do so. Hillary isn't wrong about wanting hemispheric free markets, free trade, green energy, and  eventually  the free flow of people. She's wrong in that she wants to start with the easy part: open borders, and she assumes that somehow that will lead to the rest. Yes she is wrong and you are a globalist shill. Puke.
#10. To: VxH (#7) https://wikileaks.org/podestaemails/emailid/7874
Hey bro quick question.
#11. To: A K A Stone (#9) you are a globalist shill I'm a Catholic. It means "universal". If course I believe in bringing everyone up, especially longsuffering Christians like Latin Americans.
#12. To: nolu chan (#8) What was very bad was it came out in the midst of a political campaign and it contradicted Hillary's public position What's bad for Hillary Clinton is good for America. Just sayin'
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#12) What's bad for Hillary Clinton is good for America. Just sayin' Maybe some day Julian Assange will be free and tell the world who did the American electorate a favor with a truth bomb.
#14. To: nolu chan (#10) Putin looks pretty current. Don't you agree?
#15. To: VxH (#14)
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#11) If course The if Should be of Oh universal communism CaTholicism No Thanks If you ... don't use exclamation points  you should't be typeing ! Commas  semicolons  question marks are for girlie boys ! #17. To: BorisY (#16) The if Correct. It should be "of". My spelling is being corrected by BorisY? We are down the rabbit hole now! Catholicism is not universal Communism. Not even close, really.
#18. To: nolu chan (#15) LOL.
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#11) (Edited) I'm a Catholic. It means "universal". If course I believe in bringing everyone up, especially longsuffering Christians like Latin Americans. You're a liar  like the father of lies to whose body you and your Jesuit pope belong. Your reprobate world view is raised in the spirit of antiChrist, not by the temporal body and bride of Christ which is His Church.
#20. To: VxH (#19) You're a liar Project much?
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#20) Your reprobate world view is raised in the spirit of antiChrist, not by the temporal body and bride of Christ which is His Church.
#22. To: VxH (#18) 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.
#23. To: nolu chan (#22) even featuring a triangle with a side longer than the hypotenuse.
Do the math, Donkey Breath.
https://libertysflame.com/cgi bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C186
#24. To: VxH (#23) ))) 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/cgibin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=176#C176
                                        https://libertysflame.com/cgibin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=181#C181
#181. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#179)
#25. To: nolu chan (#24)
Do the math, Donkey Breath.
https://libertysflame.com/cgi bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C186
#26. To: VxH (#25) Any right triangle must have sides and angles where the Sine, Cosine, Tangent, CTangent, Secand, and Cosecant 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 Cotangent Secant CoSecant 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/cgibin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=176#C176
                                        https://libertysflame.com/cgibin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=181#C181
#181. To: VxH, A K A Stone (#179)
#27. To: nolu chan (#26)
Do the math, Donkey Breath.
https://libertysflame.com/cgi bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C186
#28. To: VxH (#27)
You do the math.
         
         
          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
#29. To: nolu chan (#28) libertysflame.com/cgibin...? ArtNum=56433&Disp=46#C46
#30. To: VxH (#29)
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.
#31. To: nolu chan (#30) GFYS Douchebag, The Sides add up. libertysflame.com/cgibin...? ArtNum=56433&Disp=49#C49
#32. To: VxH (#31)
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 a^{2} + b^{2} = c^{2} 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 BC 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 BA 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
#33. To: nolu chan (#32) libertysflame.com/cgibin...? ArtNum=56433&Disp=53#C53
#34. To: VxH (#33) 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
b = sin(B) * a / sin(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.
#35. To: nolu chan (#34) libertysflame.com/cgibin...? ArtNum=56433&Disp=55#C55
#36. To: VxH (#35) Title: RED SMOKE, COMMIE MIRRORS
With a 338' radius your bullshit cartoon yields a hypotenuse of 1347.33. 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
Do the Math Comrade Donkey Breath.           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
With a right triangle, the length of the side opposite angle a, divided by the length of the hypotenuse, equals 0.253757945. 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/cgibin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=56433&Disp=53#C53 His hypotenuse is calculated as a^{2} + b^{2} = c^{2} 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, a^{2} + b^{2} = c^{2} 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. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
#37. To: VxH (#35) 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 statechange which progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) it is observed in."           https://libertysflame.com/cgibin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=55999&Disp=139#C139
#139. To: A K A Stone (#38)                     https://www.libertysflame.com/cgibin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=39740&Disp=62#C62
#62. To: Don (#58) (Edited)           http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3007479/posts?page=7#7
To: BCW           http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3561255/posts?page=75#75
To: mad_as_he$$           http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fbackroom/3548338/posts?page=92#92
To: bobby.223           https://www.facebook.com/ArrivalMovie/ FACEBOOK page of Arrival, the Movie. See COMMENT by William Burke.
William Burke SMH. This movie exemplifies why kids these days can't even apply science well enough to understand what sex they are.                    
#38. To: nolu chan (#37) libertysflame.com/cgibin...? ArtNum=56433&Disp=59#C59
#39. To: VxH (#38)
LOL EPIC FAIL. Your Dr. Math shows you how to do a^{2} + b^{2} = c^{2}. 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 a^{2} + b^{2} = c^{2}. 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 statechange 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 ribtickling 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.
#40. To: All (#39) https://libertysflame.com/cgibin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=56433&Disp=61#C61
Yawn, as has been explained multiple times  the model was a SKETCH with left over elements that were not rescaled when I updated the model with your 338 elevation. 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. And jackass continues to make believe he has not been proven to be absolutely full of shit. https://libertysflame.com/cgibin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=55999&Disp=139#C139
#139. To: A K A Stone (#38)           https://libertysflame.com/cgibin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53046&Disp=133#C133
Nope. Try to keep up   I've moved on with a revised curve that reconstructs time from Velocity and Distance, ...           http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fbackroom/3548338/posts?page=90#90
That’s what “time travel” is super genius.           http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fbackroom/3548338/posts?page=92#92
Time is a derivative function of state change that progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) in which it is observed.           http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fbackroom/3548338/posts?page=94#94
To: Reily           http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fbackroom/3548338/posts?page=133#133
What happens to M and T as E approaches [infinity], and what is the associative effect upon relative inertia?           https://libertysflame.com/cgibin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53046&Disp=143#C143
[...]           https://libertysflame.com/cgibin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53046&Disp=145#C145
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].          
. . . Comments (41  48) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest 

[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Signin] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
