The military-industrial complex may want to put an end to the POTUS tweets.

All you triggered shitbags can STFU about Trumps trweets. Don’t like um? TFB, don’t read them outside of your safe space.

Using Ike's suggestion as a historical backdrop:

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

What Trump has performed is AWESOME. He cut through the military-industrial complex of the USA.

FU

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.

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.

The US Constitution was written based upon...

Based upon the presidents right (1st amendment) to piss you off with his tweets. Stfu

We had an honest-to-Gawd GENUINE opportunity to become allies with Russia on the level we are with England, but those two and the DNC backers were more interested in stealing all the wealth in Russia for their personal bank accounts than they were world peace.

It ain't like anybody thought the Russians weren't paranoid to start with,and with VERY good historical reasons,and what we SHOULD have done was dealt with them in an honest way and earned their trust. Instead we robbed them blind.

I agree. Except that it was not just Clinton and Gore. It was also the Right.

I agree. Except that it was not just Clinton and Gore. It was also the Right.

I disagree. The Clinton Machine held the keys to that vault,and they weren't sharing with anyone not in their gang.

Then again,you may consider a LOT of the fascist left to be from the "right" because our news outlets and the Dim Party has convinced everyone that right-wingers are fascists,and that the left hates wealth.

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.

The Clinton Machine held the keys to that vault,and they weren't sharing with anyone not in their gang.

Plastics. That's the future.

Maybe if you Google it with your trusty TI calculator you can pull some "facts" out of your arse?

Maybe if you use your trusty Google Draw, you can present another triangle with a side longer than the hypotenuse as a display of your inner genius.

1 result. I am not responsible for your inability to use the Google better than you do. The Russian Ivan Petrovich Sidorov is much better known than Anatoly Golitsyn. Virtually all of Russia knows Sidorov.

As for your crap the unreliable conspiracy theorist Golitsyn spewed, the guy has been dead for 10 years, and he has not said anything in the last ten years, and can reliably be expected to not say anything about the the Trump presidency and Making America Great Again.

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]

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.

For Oldfield, the most relevant of the traitors was the largely anonymous Vassall.

you can present another triangle with a side longer than the hypotenuse as a display of your inner genius.

LOL

You're a Lying Sack of Donkey Shit.

==========================

Do the Math, Professor DonkeyDung.

https://libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C186

Virtually all of Russia knows Sidorov.

You Bolshe-commie disinfo shills were more entertaining back in the 70's when the manure you were spreading at least had entertainment value with UFO's and stories about Bigfoot.

Do you think Vlad Putin's alleged affinity with Alexander Solzhenitsyn is legitimate - or just more smoke and Bolshebullshyte?

Putin: Maybe Jews or minorities behind US election interference

By Madison Park, CNN

Updated 6:50 AM ET, Mon March 12, 2018

(CNN)Jewish groups are criticizing Russian President  Vladimir Putin  after he suggested Russian minorities such as Jews or Tatars could be behind alleged meddling in the 2016 US presidential election.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/12/politics/putin- comment-jews-russian-minorities/index.html

Spymaster: The Life of Britain's Most Decorated Cold War Spy and Head of MI6, Sir Maurice Oldfield,

Now there's a CURRENT thought for ya, Nolu Chimp!

You have never exhibited any thought.

Do the Math, Professor DonkeyDung.

I liked the old simple triangle with the side being longer than the hypotenuse as expounding your great intellect.

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]

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.

For Oldfield, the most relevant of the traitors was the largely anonymous Vassall.

What'a matta donkey breath - can't do the math?

https://libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C186

Britain's Most Decorated Cold War Spy and Head of MI6, Sir Maurice Oldfield,

Oldefield the alleged pedophile?

https://www.google.com/search? q=Maurice+Oldfield+pedophile

About 3,750 results  (0.42 seconds) 

Rutroh!

Somebody who actually WAS right about Russia:

NIXON:  "The Russians. Goddamn, they root 'em out. They don't let 'em around at all. I don't know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the communists and left-wingers are clinging to one another. They're trying to destroy us. I know Moynihan will disagree with this, (Atty. Gen. John) Mitchell will, and Garment will. But, goddamn, we have to stand up to this."

EHRLICHMAN: "It's fatal liberality,"

NIXON: "Huh?"

EHRLICHMAN: "It's fatal liberality -   And with its use on television, it has such leverage."

How're (D)onny's fatally liberal Poodle Tribe offspring and son-in law coming along with pushing the LGBTQXWhatever agenda from the White Kennel?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ivanka+trump+LGBT

Does Gold Man have any spewage describing how Herbert Marcuse and other tribe members subverted American culture via the Frankfurt School?

Herbert is especially notable in his role of instigating the Cold War via his "analysis" of Soviet Economics.... before he uncloaked as the "father of the New Left" and prepared the fattened Golden Calf for an easy slaughter.

After all what fun is it to BBQ a skinny cow... with horns!?

1963.

I see you are still incapable of using the Google to find Ivan Petrovich Sidorov

Well wire up that calculator and show us how it's done, Igor!

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

"I thought about something just now:

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pDtgWUtdUM

Yawn. A FB link with no content. Is he as Current as Vlad Putin?

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.

He may be one of the most cited people in Russian litigation.

And yet with regards to his/your alleged "debunking" of Golitsyn...

LOL. FAIL.

And yet with regards to his/your alleged "debunking" of Golitsyn...

Pearce, Spymaster (2017) at p. 283:

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.

)))

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.

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

---

#176. To: VxH (#175)

How you coming along with that Average Velocity for the 75 foot segment ending at 1950 ft?

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-11-07   16:14:00 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=181#C181

#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.

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?

nolu chan  posted on  2017-11-08   23:52:54 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Now that's clever.

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
SOH - opposite/hypotenuse

Cosine
CAH - adjacent/hypotenuse

Tangent
TOA - opposite/adjacent

Co-tangent
CAO - adjacent/opposite

Secant
SHA - hypotenuse/adjacent

Co-Secant
SHO - hypotenuse/opposite

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

---

#176. To: VxH (#175)

How you coming along with that Average Velocity for the 75 foot segment ending at 1950 ft?

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.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-11-07   16:14:00 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=53025&Disp=181#C181

#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.

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?

nolu chan  posted on  2017-11-08   23:52:54 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Do the math, Donkey Breath.

https://libertysflame.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=53025&Disp=186#C186

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') —
side B and angles b and c may be readily calculated —
just not to the values you give them.

A = 14.70°
B = ?º
C = 90.00°

a = 338.00 ft
b = ? ft
c = ? ft

A + B + C = 180º
A + B = 90º
B = 90-Aº
B = 75.30º

b = sin(B) * a / sin(A)

c = sin(C) * a

Hear ya go, Donkey Breath:

 

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."

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.

libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...? ArtNum=56433&Disp=49#C49

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°
B = ?º
C = 90.00°

a = 324.60 ft
b = ? ft
c = ? ft

A + B + C = 180º
A + B = 90º
B = 90-Aº
B = 75.30º

b = sin(B) * a / sin(A)

c = sin(C) * a

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)

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.