The "Jury", The Law, and "William Seger"

[johndoeX]

If this forum is represented by a "Jury".....

Is anyone here familiar with the term voir dire?

"It also refers to the process by which expert witnesses are questioned about their backgrounds and qualifications before being allowed to present their opinion testimony in court."

If I am a, "B-List conspiracy huckster".... what type of "debunker" does that make "William Seger"? Especially when "William Seger" refuses to put a "Face with your name" and only have this to offer in rebuttal?

Given the fact "William Seger" refuses to verify any of his credentials, nor put a "Face to your name", yet we all can be verified here... and here.... why should anyone here listen to "William Seger"?

Is "William Seger" familiar with the process of voir dire?

I ask "William Seger" -

How much flight time do you have?

Can you be verified in the FAA Database?

"William Seger", again, why should anyone listen to you?

[William Seger]

1. I already called my expert witnesses

... the FAA itself and engineers on two professional forums. On your forum, you can pretend that didn't happen; not here.

It's your "impossible speed" bullshit that's "on trial" here and you want to call yourself as an "expert" witness? After demonstrating that you don't even understand the terminology, much less basic engineering principles?

[johndoeX]

2. Another "Willaim Seger" Fail

So, let me get this straight.

"the FAA itself" has actually verified your position?

I beg to differ.... http://www.democraticunderground.com/11357968#post3

Again, how much flight time do you have?

Are you only able to post clown pictures as a rebuttal?

William Seger says - "and engineers on two professional forums."

Oh really.... and who are those "Engineers"?

Keep "bumping" Seger....

[William Seger]

3. Where have we seen this tactic before?

Oh yeah, every forum where you've bullshat your way into a corner.

> So, let me get this straight.

> "the FAA itself" has actually verified your position?

It most certainly did, to anyone who actually has some understanding of the subject matter. You can "beg to differ" all you want. Someone who thinks "load" in structural engineering only means "weight" -- and that that's all the FAA cares about! -- is manifestly unqualified to understand either FAR 25 or the direct answer I got from the FAA about limit and ultimate loads.

But let's put that assertion to the test. In his response, Mr. Johnson said, "The loads then that are considered would include such loads flight maneuver, gust, torsion, delta P."

"Flight maneuver" would indeed be those g-loads you've been talking about, which are covered the Flight Loads section. Please explain the rest of that sentence in your own words, and then explain to me why you think they are excluded from the 1.5 factor of safety.

[William Seger]

6. Hmm, your "expert witness" wasn't expecting to be cross-examined? (n/t)

[AZCat]

4. Why should we care how much flight time William Seger has?

If I want to know how a car works, I don't just ask anyone who has a driver's license. That would be foolish.

[delphi72]

5. Flight Time

That is the only fallback Balsamo has to defend his crazy theories. To limit debate on these issues to only those with "flight time" is a coward's way to limit discussion. Balsamo cannot defend nor can he answer basic questions on his theories so he throws out the "How much flight time do you have?" bull. The fact that he never touts FAA or NTSB or DHS or any other agency support after almost 8 years of his bullshit is telling. Nobody in any position of authority anywhere believes his crap.

So what does he do? Spends his time on internet discussion forums asking people "How much flight time do you have?".

His anger management problems, the reason why he does not fly any more, are getting the best of him.

[MrMickeysMom]

8. I caught up on my Creative Spec's posts...

I see you've been presenting some good arguments. Too bad you keep getting the same no-nothing posters. For this and a few other crybaby reasons, I stopped talking to these people.

It's one thing to argue with stupidity, for these people aren't stupid, but it's quit another to argue with distractors, which is exactly what they wank to here.