NOAA and SFPORTS data that confirms Cheng!

[marlene]

Bring it on, Intro. Here's a thread just for you.

[marlene]

I know you're probably super busy, but I'm really anxious to see your data from the NOAA and SFPORTS that confirms Cheng's testimony.

That is the reason for peer publishing -- your peers can catch the fallacies in your argument or problems with your data. WAH has frequently told me I'm wrong, but never bothers to provide me with the correct information, and I'm not going to just take his word for it, especially since I have researched so many wind-recording sites in the area surrounding the recovery sites.

I was hoping you'd be a different kind of debater, Intro. I was hoping you would actually put up the data you say exists that confirms Cheng's testimony. At least a link . . .

You said my investigative abilities were lacking -- well, your integrity sucks if you don't put up the data you say exists. You say I misunderstood Cheng, well, explain him to me. But I think he was very plain spoken in his testimony. I don't see any room for misunderstanding.

Now, if Cheng was intentionally misleading us -- saying one thing when he meant something else, then you can't blame that on me.

Or if he was sloppy in his choice of words, or didn't explain himself well enough -- can't blame that on me, either.

But the fact of the matter is, Cheng grossly over-exaggerated the intensity and duration of that storm on the 12th. Question is, why did he feel the need to do so? To paraphrase Shakespeare, methinks the expert doth protest too much!

And why didn't he ever go to the Conner site and Laci site to view the peculiar dynamics of those two environments? That's just very poor science -- very poor science. Those bodies weren't found on flat beaches -- certain conditons had to exist at each site in order for a body to wash ashore WHERE THEY WERE FOUND! He didn't even bother to find out what those conditions were. Did he even know that there was a below-average higher high tide on each of those days? Did you? MHHW for that area is 6.05 feet above MLLW. The HHW for April 13 was only 5.88 feet, and for April 14 only 5.78 feet.

And why didn't he explain how a debris line is formed, as Distaso promised in his OS. Does Cheng even know how a debris line is formed? Did Cheng even know there was a well-formed debris line at the Conner Recovery site?

Cheng is going to be such an embarrassment to the USGS.

[marlene]

I guess that Intro doesn't have the data he says he has. If he has it, I invite him to post it here. If he doesn't, then he shows himself to be a fraud.

I've put all the data supporting my argument on SII. I've reviewed the data for every NOAA staton in the Central Bay, as well as other wind data stations operated by other agences -- 11 in total. I've also reviewed the SFPORTS wind pages. Nothing confirms Cheng's testimony.

Now they may confirm Cheng's calculations to derive the PVD -- but since Cheng did not make those known in his testimony, I can't confirm or refute the calculations. But his testimony, which he says represents what he did, IS NOT confirmed by any wind data station in Central Bay.

I suspect that Cheng may have accurately described the storm's duration as it moved across the area -- but that has NOTHING to do with why Laci and Conner allegedly washed ashore. Storm systems can cover a very large area, hundreds of miles. But that is grossly misleading, and if he doesn't understand that, then he's pretty ignorant, or intentionally deceptive -- either way, it's very bad science.

The only wind relevant to this case is what happened in the direct vicinity of the Recovery sites, and during the time this specific area experienced the storm. Anything else is irrelevant.

So, again, I ask Intro to post the data he says he has to confirm Cheng's testimony.