Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:8507 sci.misc:1094
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!mimsy!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm
From: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.misc
Subject: Re: Meteorlogy, refraction and Cuba: re to Meritt
Message-ID: <135@aplcomm.UUCP>
Date: 22 Mar 88 13:37:46 GMT
References: <3405@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <3895@whuts.UUCP> <3588@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <3904@whuts.UUCP> <3699@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <3925@whuts.UUCP> <119@aplcomm.UUCP> <3955@whuts.UUCP>
Sender: news@aplcomm.UUCP
Reply-To: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (James W. Meritt)
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Lines: 83

In article <3955@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (45263-SEVENER,T.J.) writes:
>Yes, there are atmospheric anomalies.
>So what?
"When you eliminate the impossible......."

>How many of you have ever lived near a fairly large body of water?
>Such as the Chesapeake Bay, any of the Great Lakes, or an Ocean
>coast.
Me.  For a few decades.  As well as spending (too) much time out in it.
 
>Could you see the other side?
Not of the Atlantic Ocean.  Pacific is tough to see across, too.
Most of the time I was below decks, in  CIC, so I didn't spend a lot
of time eyeballing.  I did get a bunch (translation: a large number) of
radar ranges at WAY past the horizon.  Equally impossible without
rafraction.  Electromagnetic radiation and such.  And I KNEW the
ranges there, as well as the (expected) optical horizon.
 
>How many of you have been to Key West?
>Please tap your keyboards.
Does in the water between the two count?  If so,
tap tap tap tap

>How many of you could see anything besides the horizon?
>
>Right.
>None.
>Except the Reaganistas like Michael Friedman....
Gee.  I'm impressed.  I didn't know that the optic raytracing
formula had a term for political leanings.  Is it before or
after the angle of incidence?

 
>I have already proven that under ordinary conditions it
>is *impossible* to see Cuba from Key West.
To whom?  "impossible" and "ordinary" in same statement?

>Is there anything to make us believe that Mr. Friedman's
>alleged "sight" of Cuba was under anything other than
>ordinary conditions?  Absolutely not.
Or that the conditions were ordinary?  I missed that, too.
>It was a clear, sunny day he said.
>Thermal inversions tend to occur, to my knowledge, in places like
>Denver near the mountains, Los Angeles, near the mountains,
>and so forth.
Yes. and so forth.  Like over water, perhaps?

>What are the chances for a thermal inversion near Cuba?
 
>I doubt it is very likely under a clear, sunny high-pressure
>system.
When was the atmospheric pressure reported?

 
>I am perfectly willing to admit to things I do not know when
>evidence is presented of their relevance.  I see nothing
>so far to merit such relevance or consideration.  I have
>lived close to large bodies of water for much of my life.
>My direct personal experience is that all I, with 20-20
>vision (which Mr. Friedman does *not* have) was able to
>see was the horizon.  Period.
1. williingness to admit the unknown is a good sign.
2. excellent choice of words, "merit"     ;~)
3. What is Friedman's corrected vision?  I must have missed that....
4. And how far away was this horizon, and how do you know?

>Who knows, if one wants to count Mirages, bizarre atmospheric
>conditions and everything else as "evidence" then perhaps
>Mr. Friedman saw a hologram of Cuba projected by those
>awful Commies to instill mindnumbing fear in all Americans :-)
Evidence that the "ordinary" is not the absolute.
Or even the average.... just a mode....
(hologram?  Nah.  Sun would wash it out.  Nice attempt at
diversion and political slamming on your part, though!)

 
>tim sevener  whuts!orb


Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
            Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5