Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: LOP-Possible stupid question  (Read 37772 times)

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: LOP-Possible stupid question
« Reply #45 on: August 25, 2011, 02:47:31 PM »

In fact you can download the entire artice at http://davidkbowman.com/wagner_noonan.pdf.
It was written by H.A.C.van Asten. It would be interesting to have Gary LaPook's opinion on this paper.
------------------------

Don't waste your time trying to work your way through the gibberish in Mr. van Asten's two published papers.


We have thoroughly discussed Mr. van Asten's theories on the  "Navigating the LOP with the offset method" topic, see:

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,169.120.html

starting with reply 120

and subsequent posts, especially reply 203 pointing out his 300 NM error in his computation of this "10 mile" error line and his admission of this error in reply 204.

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,169.203.html

We have also dicussed Mr van Asten's theories on the "Noonan navigation error" thread starting at reply 47 and continuing through reply 80.

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,383.45.html

The short answer, I can't believe he got his articles published because they are so full of errors. He wrote that he had a surface navigator review his papers prior to publication and I told him his problem was that he didn't have the papers reviewed by  a flight navigator, the procedures are quite different.

Here are links to better articles.

http://www.oceannavigator.com/content/celestial-air

http://www.avweb.com/news/avtraining/IFR_bySunAndStars_200781-1.html

gl
« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 06:43:38 PM by Gary LaPook »
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: LOP-Possible stupid question
« Reply #46 on: August 26, 2011, 12:13:54 AM »

Mr.gl says that he has "debunked" , always with many words and few arguments ,  the contents of two articles but in fact he has debunked nothing , neither the consistency nor the relevancy for probability , and without presenting any alternative from himself .
Logged

h.a.c. van asten

  • T4
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: LOP-Possible stupid question
« Reply #47 on: August 26, 2011, 03:07:03 PM »

Navigator could not determine about great circle and rhumb line distance in the equatorial region , but the principles are different : by great circle the true course is altered from one chord to another and a circle outline is flown ,  by loxodrome a constant true course is maintained throughout the flight length and an elipsoid outline is followed .
Logged

Jeff Scott

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 93
Re: LOP-Possible stupid question
« Reply #48 on: August 26, 2011, 10:43:55 PM »

Mr.gl says that he has "debunked" , always with many words and few arguments ,  the contents of two articles but in fact he has debunked nothing , neither the consistency nor the relevancy for probability , and without presenting any alternative from himself .

Mr. LaPook has methodically and systematically dismantled your entire argument, pointing out numerous flaws, faulty assumptions, mathematical errors, misconceptions, half-truths, and outright lies in your statements.  He's also written an entire site documenting his alternative, a site that is far better supported, documented, justified, and infinitely more readable than anything you've provided.  While I find some of your arguments mentally stimulating, they are usually written in such a confusing manner as to make them nearly indecipherable.  A course on technical writing would serve you well.
It's not too late to be great.
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: LOP-Possible stupid question
« Reply #49 on: August 27, 2011, 10:12:23 AM »

Mr.gl says that he has "debunked" , always with many words and few arguments ,  the contents of two articles but in fact he has debunked nothing , neither the consistency nor the relevancy for probability , and without presenting any alternative from himself .

Mr. LaPook has methodically and systematically dismantled your entire argument, pointing out numerous flaws, faulty assumptions, mathematical errors, misconceptions, half-truths, and outright lies in your statements.  He's also written an entire site documenting his alternative, a site that is far better supported, documented, justified, and infinitely more readable than anything you've provided.  While I find some of your arguments mentally stimulating, they are usually written in such a confusing manner as to make them nearly indecipherable.  A course on technical writing would serve you well.

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

Wow, thanks.

gl
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2909
Re: LOP-Possible stupid question
« Reply #50 on: August 28, 2011, 05:37:20 AM »

I have locked this topic.

The question about what a Line of Position is has been answered.

I have removed and/or edited a number of posts because they strayed into ad hominem remarks.

This is a moderated forum.  You may report any post and any poster to the moderators.  Please do not enter into contests of manhood and honor, no matter how much you may feel yourself to have been provoked.  If you find that you cannot tolerate the posts from a participant in the Forum, you may place that person on your ignore list. 
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP