View of BP truck
Bob's view
Night view 1
Night view 2
Night view 3
Stereo View
Stream and tire
View from truck
Back towards Fabens
Ditch to the right
Ditch to the left P.S. You might notice two faint tracks into the ditch in the "view from truck" image. One is almost in the center.
Posted on 12/22/2007 4:13:22 AM PST by Man50D
Lord, I’m not even going to waste my time.
Stereo View
P.S. You might notice two faint tracks into the ditch in the "view from truck" image. One is almost in the center.
Great pics Andrew. We really appreciate your efforts.
Geometry is not your strong suit, I suggest you stay away from it.
Are you endorsing Andrew’s measurements and geometric calculations?
Your suggestions tend to be worthless as in this case. And, since what I used to calculate dimensions is more specifically referred to as trigonometry, I think that a request for evidence from you would be a futile endeavor. I won't hold my breath for your evidence.
The time of fall of a mass in earth's gravity is not trigonometry, however, and the fact that the time of fall measurement affirms the trigonometric calculations might give you a hint as to the success of your search for evidence that my calculations are wrong.
I made 6 measurements of length. There were two hypotenuses, 17 feet and 28.25 feet. I used a pair of measurements (20 inches and 7 inches) to get the tangent of one angle of the slope of the north side of the ditch(my rope). I used the sine and cosine of that angle along with the 17 foot measurement to get the depth of the ditch (~16 feet) and the horizontal distance from the lip of the north ditch slope to the north edge of the water(~5.6 feet).
I used another pair of measurements in addition to the 28.25 measurement to obtain the distance across the ditch. See below.
20 / 7 = 2.8571428571428571428571428571429 = A1 tan-1 of A1 = 70.709953780811266169683024040306 degrees opposite side / hypotenuse = sine A1 opposite side = sine A1 * hypotenuse 16.045592058222295907314040186006 = 0.94385835636601740631259059917684 * 17 opposite side is the depth of the ditch. adjacent side / hypotenuse = cosine A1 adjacent side = cosine A1 * hypotenuse 5.6159572203778035675599140651022 = 0.33035042472810609220940670971189 * 17 adjacent side is the distance the edge of the water is from the lip of the ditch. 10 / 34 = 0.29411764705882352941176470588235 = A2 tan-1 of A2 = 16.389540334034783042295755822625 degrees opposite side / hypotenuse = sine A2 opposite side = sine A2 * hypotenuse 7.9711986527612921792396382803408 = 0.28216632399155016563680135505631 * 28.25 opposite side is the distance from the top of the ditch to the level of the bag across the ditch. adjacent side / hypotenuse = cosine A2 adjacent side = cosine A2 * hypotenuse 27.102075419388393409414770153159 = 0.95936550157127056316512460719146 * 28.25 adjacent side is the distance across the ditch from the lip to the position of the bag. A final calculation is needed to determine the additional distance to be added to the adjacent side to obtain the width of the ditch. Simply this is the 7.9... foot distance using A1 to calculate that distance or 7.9 / tan of A1 7.9711986527612921792396382803408 / 2.8571428571428571428571428571429 = 2.789919528466452262733873398119 Add the above number to ~27.1 and you get 30 feet for the width of the ditch. Subtract 5.6 twice from thirty feet and you get the ~18 foot width of the water.Not hard is it?
Know when to give up, Bob.
It feels like that to me too, but maybe the country is threatened, not Bush's family. Just speculating.
Maybe you do know a thing or two about geo-... I mean, "trigonometry". ;>)
Please don’t ping me unless you have something of substance to offer.
If you take exception to Andrew’s observations and calculations, it might help
to state why and to indicate the relevance of any difference.
I don’t know if his measurements are accurate, but his record of supporting his arguments
beats your record one-thousand fold. Nuff said.
He claims the length of the side of this slope is 17 feet, he knows this because he measured it. He didn't measure the length across the water but claims it is 18 feet. He claims this only because it is the number that has to be to make his "trig" calculations work. Now if looking at this picture you can believe that the distance across that water is GREATER than the distance up the side of that slope, than you'll believe anything he says.
To me, it looks more like 8-10 feet. Plugging this number into the calculations and using Pythagoras, the height of the ditch from the water is more like 13 feet or so. Seeing as how the depth of the water changes, this is consistent with trial testimony.
Why it is important, I don't know. But it does prove that Andrew is willing to adjust facts to fit his theories and that you and others will bite it hook, line and sinker.
Another assinine number he throws out is that the angle of that slope is 70 degrees. Again using geometry, the angle at the bottom HAS to be 20 degrees since the sum of the three inside angles of triangle always equal 180 and drawing a straight verticle line up from the edge of the water and intersecting it with a straight horizontal line from the top of the slope will give you a right angle of 90 degrees, the third inside angle of that triangle.
Fo you have any idea how steep an angle of 20 degrees is? The angle Andrew mentions looks to be closer to 45, but it HAD to be 70 to make his numbers work.
LOL. Yes--your post was dumb. I wish you had left it intact so everyone could see just how dumb.
And what is your point? To me, Andrew's analysis and photos just confirm that this is one steep, deep, nasty, smelly ditch that is far deeper than Davila testified to. (You remember Davila--the guy who doesn't know how tall he is?).
Do some math, Bob. Whether it is algebra, geometry, or trig, I really don't care. If the water is 10 feet wide or so (It is at least that wide and certainly wider than 8 feet based on the size of the tire in the water), and the distance from the top of the ditch is 30 feet (I'll accept Andrew's measurement--will you? Or will you call him a liar?), then even if the slope is only 45 degrees, that ditch is 14 feet deep or so. To me, it looks steeper than 45 degrees, which sways me more to Andrew's numbers. But if it is 14 feet deep, or 16 feet deep, what the heck is the relevance to you? Both would support Andrew's conclusions about the testimony of Juarez and Davila being inaccurate (like we really needed anymore evidence to know the obvious!).
Or are you just here to try to justify whatever little Johnny Sutton and his lynch-mob says as gospel, argue with everyone who exposes his lies, and post juvenile pictures and whine about conspiracies when you can't back up your arguments? (Don't bother answering that--there are hundreds of posts already demonstrating your (cough) contribution.)
“If you have a problem with HIS numbers, TALK TO HIM!”
Talking to Andrew is like talking to a rock. Talking to you is slightly less diffucult, like maybe talking to limestone.
Of all the discussions we’ve had, this is probably the dumbest which says a lot because I have been drawn into quite a few really dumb discussions with you, Andrew and the lot.
The bottom line is Andrew’s implying that because some witnesses were innaccurate in estimating the depth of the ditch, that makes all their testimony a lie.
Now THAT’s dumb. And if you buy into that idiotic line of reasoning, there is no hope for you.
Really? Where did he "imply" that? Link and quote please.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.