If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Oh, no, not this shiat again   (foxnews.com) divider line 205
    More: Unlikely, cable network, flights, documentary  
•       •       •

22898 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jun 2013 at 1:30 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



205 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-20 06:43:58 AM

Usurper4: There's a phenomena (I can't remember the name of it) where people's imaginations fill in the gaps, and it's fairly random in the way it works when there's more than one explanation.


I read an article by AAIB (Air Accident Investigation Board, UK) people about the unreliability of eye-witness testimony. It related to a helicopter accident in which the pilot said x (which would have exonerated him) but numerous eye witnesses in a group said y (which would have blamed him). Some time later a completely independent eyewitness turned up who also said x. The witnesses in a group had, naturally, talked about what they saw and without meaning to they had all changed their recollections to match that discussion.

Some time after that I witnessed a serious glider accident (complete destruction of a brand new Discus, pilot survived) and did what the AAIB article said to do: don't talk to anyone, and as soon as possible write down what you saw, not what you think you saw happening. So you don't say "I saw a plane in a spin at the end of the airfield" ("Objected to as calling for a conclusion of the witness" snapped Perry Mason. "Objection sustained" said the judge. Hamilton Burger glared angrily.) you say "I saw the plane in a nose up attitude with the wing nearly vertical and the tops of them towards me."

TL:DR; Eye witness testimony is unreliable because they will say what they think happened, not what they saw happening.
 
2013-06-20 06:49:56 AM

PunGent: I'm not an engineer, but isn't there a better way to measure your remaining gas than something using LIVE CURRENT?

I'd accept lower accuracy if I could avoid that, I'd think...heck, do car fuel tanks use similar systems?

I thought they were mechanical floats...


Measuring the level of a liquid as it slops around in a tank is not easy, and there are no really reliable systems for doing it. Cars use float gauges, and the float operates a variable resistor in the tank, often submerged in petrol. That's not as dangerous as it sounds: the upper explosive limit for petrol is about 8% and the vapour concentration above the liquid in the liquid in the tank is far, far higher than that.
 
2013-06-20 07:33:08 AM

orbister: TL:DR; Eye witness testimony is unreliable because they will say what they think happened, not what they saw happening.


yup.

I got t-boned at an intersection a couple of years ago. I told everyone how the impact spun my truck around almost 3 times. A couple of days later when I drove by the same intersection I could see the tire marks on the highway and realized how full of shiat I had been. I felt bad enough about it that I felt obligated to point out to everyone I talked to that I had been wrong.

But at the time I would have swore that's what happened.
 
2013-06-20 09:10:39 AM

Ricardo Klement: Plane vertical range: 4900 meters
Stinger total range: 4800 meters

Even if directly above the launcher, it ain't gettin' there.

If it was an SM-3, you'd have to kill or shut up hundreds of sailors.


This and thread over.

The only shipborne weapons really capable of shooting it down and basically blowing it apart in the sky would be large area defense missiles.  At the time, that would have been the American Standard series, French Mascurca, British Sea Dart, or Russian S-300.  None of those are carried on anything smaller than a destroyer, so you're talking about several hundred witnesses.

It's possible for a point defense missile like the Sea Sparrow to make the shot, but the aircraft would have practically had to overfly the launch platform, they're also only mounted on large warships (so again many witnesses), and they've got relatively small warheads.  The odds of an instant catastrophic destruction would be very low.  KAL-007 nearly survived being hit by two weapons of similar power.

MANPADs aren't even worth discussing.  They don't have the range to have even hit it.  If they had been in range and hit it, they lacked the warhead to bring it down.  The only successful use of MANPADS against civilian aircraft have been against low and slow targets (landing or taking off).  They're hell on helicopters but simply aren't very effective against jets.

The tin foil hats can try all they want but a missile didn't  do it.
 
2013-06-20 09:22:43 AM

WhoopAssWayne: When the tanks are full of fuel and with very little air, how does it explode? If you take a gallon of jet fuel in a gallon tank, toss in a lit cigarette and close the cap, would you expect it to explode? I'm not a conspiracy guy in any way, I just do not understand where the oxidizer is coming from here - initially I mean, before the breakup.


It is actually just the opposite.  You could toss a lit road flare in a full tank and nothing would happen.  The fuel/air mixture would be well above the upper explosive limit.  A nearly empty tank, on the other hand, is a bomb waiting to happen.
 
Displayed 5 of 205 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report