KidEpoxy

804
Nice out of context sound bite,
but I can do that as well

804 admits:
more than a whoopsie

hmmm, when I pick & choose some of your words out of a full statement
it kinda is not really a citation anymore,
is it.

Lets see what KE actually said that 804 wants to trim-spin:

>Hey,
>if we are all just gonna say it was wrong
>and that was no more than a Woopsie on MA's part
>I'm cool with that.

Well, look at that,
it turns out 804s cite of me was inside a CONDITIONAL statement,
a condition that hasnt been met yet.

804, here is your chance to get toward that condition:
You can say the club and MA were wrong,
so we can all just have a chuckle instead of a 10page argument over unsupported hypothesis

Dude, he asked about the certainty of the plane being Non-PPP.
Of course we will use hard data and observations to determine that.
Rather than saying the plane looks like it might be "um, pretty fast",
we can say it IS the 80mph F27c.

Lets deal in facts rather than speculations.
Given the facts we have posted here, that bad boy is an 80mph plane.
If you have some facts to share that dispute this, well, share them.
If you have some facts to dispute a picture MA says is a PPP group with a 80mph plane... share them.
I am willing to agree with you saying MA is wrong about the picture, if you have supporting facts towards that.

Bob Mitchell

Good luck with that, KE. You be sure and let us know what you find out.

I for one will surely rest better at night knowing that someone has finally unraveled this mystery that is such a blight on AMA and PPP. The entire membership will be able to breath a huge sigh of relief.

Robotech

My Feedback: (9)

Yes, let's deal in facts. That would be a nice change.

The only "facts" we have is that one of the group is *holding/posing with an assumed non-PPP legal plane.

* not flying the plane, not proven to have been flown at the club, by a club member, that day or any other day.

End of factual, provable, verified facts.

This whole thread has been nothing more than yet another extended exercise in nit-picking the AMA and the PPP by those who seem to live and breath for no other reason.

It doesn't even earn your "whoopsie" rating.

Kemosobie

The picture proves that the PPP has worked. A club was formed and more will be formed.

Bob Mitchell

Exactly.

804

My Feedback: (1)

Didn't figure I'd have to 'splain it, dude, but in the first line, I was just having some fun(sarcastic, like), at the expense of the gentleman from the great Northwest (see post 207). If the "he" in the second line is Aeajr, certainly no disrespect was meant, since his input is about the only worthwhile information I've seen since you resurrected this thread.

As to facts vs. speculation, we now know, thanks to Aeajr, that the Stryker in question is probably the C model, and that it was in the hands of a person in a picture. That's it, nothing more.

Same as it ever was.

KidEpoxy

We do know the caption that AMA Insider put on that picture too.
And the description of the group in the picture that MA used.

Would you like to post that AMA Insider text,
or I'd be happy to do it if you prefer.

Overlaid into the picture, AMA Insider says:
"The first members of the Vegas Aces Park Pilot Club at their flying cite, Robert O. Gibson Middle School in Las Vegas, Nevada"

So when AMA Insider calls a group pic a PPP club,
what data do you have to contest that?
Do you have facts about that picture actually being a non-PPP group before they clubbed up?
Do you have facts that the guy with the Stryker isnt actually a member?
Do you have facts that prove AMA insider wrong about the message they put forth: This is a PPP club?

I didnt get that MA,
did it say the picture was a bunch of guys that may or maynot be PPP,
or did MA describe the picture as a PPP club?
Are there any facts to contest that?

I am not the one that said it was a pic of a PPP club,
that would be MA & Insider.
Feel free to prove them wrong, I'll help you shout out whatever proof you find.



Frank-
Again,
Anyone that would like to give facts how the hand in the cookie jar pic is not what it appears,
go ahead and post those facts.... they have said over & over how easy it would be to support their theories.... yet they wont. Last time 804 wanted me to get his proof I responded-
Not my place to prove YOUR points.
You just forwarded 3 points,
You prove them.


I have no need to to consult the pic of the PPP club with a Stryker again,
but to be fair I will reexamine the data put forth by AMA insider and MA.
<...>
Yup, they say that is a pic of a PPP club and there is a 80mph plane in it.
That is one side of the discussion's fact, Insider & MA declared it a pic of a PPP club
and we have been waiting for the other side (the side that proposes MA & Insider are incorrect)
to present facts to support their theories.





Every time I ask him to support his theories with some facts,
he repeats his unsupported theories
which in turn has me repeating asking him to show something that supports his theories.
Its getting old. Repeating a theory is not data supporting it.

Muroc1

Ken,

It seems to me if you have such a heartache about the photo, contact the individuals involved. I'd start with Darrell, Vegas Aces President, and see what he has to say about the photo. Perhaps the photo was taken long before the field became a PPP field. Then I would contact MA and see what they have to say about it. I think that would be the best approach. Don't you?

None of those folks post here so you can ask all the questions you want, but without going directly to the source, it seems like you are wasting you time. -Just trying to help you out.

Frank

KidEpoxy

I'm not having a heartache with the photo,
I'm taking it at face value
as presented by Insider & MA: a PPP club with a F27c
....which is a No-No


Others however, seem to have a need to change that value
... which I might agree with once I see their hard data.

I am not having a heartache with the photo,
I am going to have a coronary from the unsupported statements given as declaration:
Such as the rebirth of this thread with Robo declaring in another thread that this issue was resolved:
There was another case of someone holding a allegedly PPP illegal plane in a picture. That turned out to be bunk also
"Turned out"? Really?
Cause we'd all love to see the facts to support any debunking theories
that would change the face value of the Insider/MA photo

Muroc1

OK, so be it. If you're not willing to contact the people responsible for the photo, I guess we can let it go then?

Not that I care really, but to be honest, it's getting kind of old when the same old thing is drug up and over time and time again. I'd like to come here for some interesting conversation and even learn a thing or two here in the RCU AMA forum when I visit, but not much of that happening right now.

Yea I know, don't click on it, if you don't want to read it, blah, blah, blah.

Frank

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

I'll bet if I contact Darrell, we'll get a full confession and he will surrender to the authorities. I would have to take time out from my busy eating, sleeping, building and flying schedule in order to do that.
The only answer to the PPP speed issue is to make my patented on-board regulators mandatory equipment on all planes.
They retail at $28 and take only about 4 hours to install. Once an over-speed condition is sensed, a drag chute is deployed, plus a voice synthesizer screams out for all to hear, " BAD PPPer!, BAD PPPer!".

KidEpoxy

If by "let it go"
you mean "Discount their months old unsupported theories"
then sure, whynot

We we just ignore their imaginary rules and sets of circumstances
and move on taking the photo on face value as MA & Insider described it.

Or, if folks are shoveling imagination as declarations of reality
we can call them on it.

I'm not the one disputing what we see and what MA/Insider say.
It is upto folks like Robo & 804 to support their claims
against the integrity of the photo & the text describing it.

Just what did you exect me to ask Insider? Some line of confirming the article like this:
"Hey Insider, regarding the Vegas Aces article: Really?"
Uh, yes.
"Ok, thanx for your time"

ok, ball is back in the folks disputing Insider/MA court to support their claim
"Hey Disputers, really?
Uh... we dont have to answer that

Muroc1

Ken,

Perhaps Abel answered your question on post #2?

Case closed?

Frank

KidEpoxy

Closed?

Maybe the case is closed if MAYBE he was an open member
or maybe its not a ppp only club
or maybe the ppp only club allows nonppp for Opens
or maybe the photo was taken prior to clubbing
or maybe Pres DM granted executive privilege for the CompatPig Excessive PPP Speed Permit
maybe they got a waiver from the pope

maybe maybe maybe they will support their HYPOTHETICALS

Considering I just made up the hypothetical DM grant,
that would make it Franks or 804's responsibility to get the facts on, right?
Surely I shouldnt be called upon to support my theory of DM's possible involvement myself.... it must be the job of anyone that doesnt believe my hypothetical theory of DM involvement. Otherwise, until someone checks out my idea that DM got involved we must all just accept that as fact.

Like this theory:
Maybe DM completely agrees with me on this.
Who should provide facts in regard to that? ME? Seems that in this thread, the one making up theories is not to be asked to support their hypothetical maybe theories. So now we can all just assume my hypothetical is accurate until someone else gets some hard proof my wild guess is wrong.

Of course it is silly to assume I can just present hypotheticals as if they are fact,
and not be asked to back them up with some hard data.
Right?


As for SOME ppp club having a local rule making it ok, then it would be ok.
But as for THIS ppp club having that rule,
so far we have seen nothing to indicate that.... right?



Maybe maybe maybe maybe
No. Not closed.

Frank,
Is this what you are saying has happened?
Will you FRANK attest that what Abel theorized is the way things are, that the Strykerguy is Open?
Cause Abel didnt say that he WAS, just that he could be.
Are you saying as a fact that he was,
to close the case?

Or is this just more maybe maybe maybe

Blue_Sky

The Stryker was just the tip of the iceberg for that club, as this actual unretouched photo clearly shows. [X(]

Muroc1

Oh my, seems that club has run amok!

Frank

Stickbuilder

Naah,

He'll never surrender. When he realizes that they are closing in on him, he probably would commit honorable Hari-Kari, and take the PPP secrets with him.

Bill, AMA 4720

Robotech

My Feedback: (9)

What exactly is the case? Are you alleging that the Stryker C was flown by a PPP member? Are you protesting the Stryker being in the picture at all. Are you implying that the AMA's first PPP club is allowing the rules to be broken? Where can I find the PPP rule that addresses photographic limits? As an Open Member am I allowed to be photographed with a 60 lb. plane for which I hold no waiver and which may or may not be mine? I really don't understand your problem with the picture or the club. Where's the harm? Where's the travesty? Does it truly upset you or, as I stated earlier, do you merely see it as an opportunity to rag on the AMA in general and the PPP in particular?

You keep asking for "proof" that it was not flown there or that the gentleman in the photo is not an open member. You are making the accusations, you provide the "proof". Your "evidence" proves nothing more than some poor sap has ruffled your feathers by having his photo taken with his flying buddies. Everything that follows is rumor and conjecture.

KidEpoxy

CP-
It appears folks have been telling us that the Vegas Aces pres is already talking.
We just dont seem to get more than pasing reference and soundbites posted here though



We cant get Bob to post the rest of the story, or even a link to it,
despite Warningshot & me repeatedly asking him to.
Perhaps Frank would post a link, or some full quoting for us


It appears some folks say there could be data out there to resolve this issue,
and now we see some folks here have more data..... yet are not fully sharing it to resolve this thread.

CP, before you contact Darrel as you indicated,
perhaps you should contact Bob or Frank, since they post about data they have on the matter from other forums..


Robo-
Refer to the RED text,
explain how that statement from the VA Pres fits in your theories.

Both of those assumes the requirment of specific text in local rules: that any PPP limits the club have are restricted to "Flying" or there is a local rule that allows non-PPP planes at the restricted field.
We have no indication that your hypothetical cases are actually taking place at that club.
What we do have is Insider/MA calling it a PPP club pick, and you adding your own exceptions to that without supporting eveidence

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

All of their plane meet PPP criteria AND THEN SOME .

Kemosobie

There is nothing you or anyone else can post that will satisfy him. This has become argument for the sake of argument. If he was so concerned he would seek the answers but he will not do it.

Muroc1

Recreational Arguing perhaps?

Frank

Kemosobie

My big concern with the picture is the guy with no airplane. What's up with that?

Bob Mitchell

His trailer had a flat that day, so he couldn't get his 40% YAK to the field for the picture.

Kemosobie

Good one.Or is it Stealth?