EISPIRATEN

Hikin_Jim wrote:

AlanK wrote:I am an experimental physicist.

Alan is a physicist. FIGHT ON is a man-boob obsessed hiker. Let me think for a minute here on who's more credible ...

Alan is a what? a physicist? wow! and you can't see that a device on your wrist is less accurate than a device directly on the route to be measured? I wanna talk to your boss. what's his number. He needs to hear about this, asap!

FIGHT ON wrote:Alan is a what? a physicist? wow! and you can't see that a device on your wrist is less accurate than a device directly on the route to be measured? I wanna talk to your boss. what's his number. He needs to hear about this, asap!

It's always touching to learn that strangers one encounters on the Internet would be willing to intervene in ones career.

AlanK wrote:

FIGHT ON wrote:Alan is a what? a physicist? wow! and you can't see that a device on your wrist is less accurate than a device directly on the route to be measured? I wanna talk to your boss. what's his number. He needs to hear about this, asap!

It's always touching to learn that strangers one encounters on the Internet would be willing to intervene in ones career.

I know what let's do. lets tie a measuring device to the end of somebodys arm. And they can, I can't stop laughing, they will swing it all over the place while walking a route, and then announce how accurate it is. give, me, a, break!

AlanK wrote:

FIGHT ON wrote:Alan is a what? a physicist? wow! and you can't see that a device on your wrist is less accurate than a device directly on the route to be measured? I wanna talk to your boss. what's his number. He needs to hear about this, asap!

It's always touching to learn that strangers one encounters on the Internet would be willing to intervene in ones career.

FIGHT ON is "touched" all right.

FIGHT ON wrote:I know what let's do. lets tie a measuring device to the end of somebodys arm. And they can, I can't stop laughing, they will swing it all over the place while walking a route, and then announce how accurate it is. give, me, a, break!

Go ahead and make fun -- it does not make you look any less ignorant.

It turns out that quite a few runners use Forerunner and other GPS watches. It is quite common to get agreement on established course lengths comparable to what I have been claiming.

I suppose that, if I meet people with such experience, I can tell them that it can't work and that FIGHT ON is laughing at them.

AlanK wrote:

FIGHT ON wrote:I know what let's do. lets tie a measuring device to the end of somebodys arm. And they can, I can't stop laughing, they will swing it all over the place while walking a route, and then announce how accurate it is. give, me, a, break!

Go ahead and make fun -- it does not make you look any less ignorant.

It turns out that quite a few runners use Forerunner and other GPS watches. It is quite common to get agreement on established course lengths comparable to what I have been claiming.

I suppose that, if I meet people with such experience, I can tell them that it can't work and that FIGHT ON is laughing at them.

Better yet, Garmin must be notified that their devices can't possibly work. Renowned "scientist," FIGHT ON, has developed a "proof" that establishes their products as impossible flights of fancy. This will be big news. In fact, we should let FIGHT ON receive the credit. It's only fair. FIGHT ON, why don't you just go ahead and call Garmin and let 'em know the score, and if they don't pull the product immediately, perhaps you should notify the FTC. Your glory awaits you.

Hikin_Jim wrote:

AlanK wrote:

FIGHT ON wrote:I know what let's do. lets tie a measuring device to the end of somebodys arm. And they can, I can't stop laughing, they will swing it all over the place while walking a route, and then announce how accurate it is. give, me, a, break!

Go ahead and make fun -- it does not make you look any less ignorant.

It turns out that quite a few runners use Forerunner and other GPS watches. It is quite common to get agreement on established course lengths comparable to what I have been claiming.

I suppose that, if I meet people with such experience, I can tell them that it can't work and that FIGHT ON is laughing at them.

Better yet, Garmin must be notified that their devices can't possibly work. Renowned "scientist," FIGHT ON, has developed a "proof" that establishes their products as impossible flights of fancy. This will be big news. In fact, we should let FIGHT ON receive the credit. It's only fair. FIGHT ON, why don't you just go ahead and call Garmin and let 'em know the score, and if they don't pull the product immediately, perhaps you should notify the FTC. Your glory awaits you.

whats the #? we can do a conference call. or better yet. what do you office guys call it? oh yeah. LET'S DO LUNCH! INHALE

AlanK wrote:

FIGHT ON wrote:I know what let's do. lets tie a measuring device to the end of somebodys arm. And they can, I can't stop laughing, they will swing it all over the place while walking a route, and then announce how accurate it is. give, me, a, break!

Go ahead and make fun -- it does not make you look any less ignorant.

It turns out that quite a few runners use Forerunner and other GPS watches. It is quite common to get agreement on established course lengths comparable to what I have been claiming.

I suppose that, if I meet people with such experience, I can tell them that it can't work and that FIGHT ON is laughing at them.

I don't care who it is that thinks that way. I'll prove it to anybody. It's simple.
I stand my ground on this statement. I, FIGHT ON, (so funny dude), where was I? oh yeah. I, FIGHT ON, WILL PROVE TO ANYONE THAT A SIMPLE MEASURING WHEEL IS MORE ACCURATE THAN WHAT ALAN WEARS ON HIS WRIST FOR MEASURING DISTANCES ON TRAILS. (of course we have to use your wrist thing Alan and who ever uses it has to swing it to and fro the whole time) Any takers? I DIDN'T THINK SO! (and that's the biggest smile I can smile too!)

Tim wrote:FO, I don't think it's cool to keep posting Hikin' Jim's picture like that. You should take it down. People tease you about the nipple guy but we know it's not you so no one has been posting your picture.

I believe Jim secretly likes this particular shot. And because he has never objected to it shows how comfortable he is just being himself. His lack of any objections alone speak louder than any other response possible. (HE SIMPLY DOES NOT CARE!) he likes who he is.

FIGHT ON wrote:

Tim wrote:FO, I don't think it's cool to keep posting Hikin' Jim's picture like that. You should take it down. People tease you about the nipple guy but we know it's not you so no one has been posting your picture.

I believe Jim secretly likes this particular shot. And because he has never objected to it shows how comfortable he is just being himself. His lack of any objections alone speak louder than any other response possible. (HE SIMPLY DOES NOT CARE!) he likes who he is.

Well, FIGHT ON, honestly, that isn't the most flattering shot of me. All else being equal, I'd rather not have you repeatedly post it. I haven't gotten on your case about it simply because you're going to do what you're going to do and no one can tell you anything.

If anyone's wondering, that actually is me, and I really am that white (for you scientists out there, I merely refer to myself as a high albedo object). I had a heck of a good time on that trip and would rather have unflattering photos of me floating about the internet than to not openly share the joy that my wife and I had on that trip. Many people don't know about the thermal pools in and around Mammoth. One of my great pleasures is to share through my pics and TR's the joys of nature so that others too my partake if they so desire. If someone wants to pervert what those photos were posted for, that says more about them than it does me. (tan lines? Get real, FIGHT ON, I haven't had a tan in years. Dad and granddad both had skin cancer, and when some growths showed up on my nose about five years ago, the short sleeves went in the closet and the #50 sunscreen and floppy hat came out)

However, if you want to know what really makes me mad, it isn't an unflattering photo of me posted on the internet. Rather, it's when you ask a question and then when people respond, trying to help you out, you make fun of them. I think the way that you've treated Kathy, Alan, and others is down right shameful, and I think you owe them an apology. Some of the people that have tried to help you out are people who have a wealth of knowledge and experience not readily available and I think they deserve a little more respect, especially when they try to take the time to try to help you out.

So, if you want to post an unflattering picture of me or make fun of how I look while never posting a pic of yourself, you go right ahead. The way we treat others reveals more about us than any photograph ever will.

Jim -- I have to admire your attitude. It seems as if part of being a regular poster around here is getting abused by FIGHT ON. When he first showed up here, several people identified him as a troll. As time went by, people seemed to decide otherwise. However, every time things get mellow, he goes out of his way to walk like a troll and quack like a troll. A unique persona. Far be it from me to suggest censoring him, though.

Hikin_Jim wrote:

FIGHT ON wrote:

Tim wrote:FO, I don't think it's cool to keep posting Hikin' Jim's picture like that. You should take it down. People tease you about the nipple guy but we know it's not you so no one has been posting your picture.

I believe Jim secretly likes this particular shot. And because he has never objected to it shows how comfortable he is just being himself. His lack of any objections alone speak louder than any other response possible. (HE SIMPLY DOES NOT CARE!) he likes who he is.

Well, FIGHT ON, honestly, that isn't the most flattering shot of me. All else being equal, I'd rather not have you repeatedly post it. I haven't gotten on your case about it simply because you're going to do what you're going to do and no one can tell you anything.

If anyone's wondering, that actually is me, and I really am that white (for you scientists out there, I merely refer to myself as a high albedo object). I had a heck of a good time on that trip and would rather have unflattering photos of me floating about the internet than to not openly share the joy that my wife and I had on that trip. Many people don't know about the thermal pools in and around Mammoth. One of my great pleasures is to share through my pics and TR's the joys of nature so that others too my partake if they so desire. If someone wants to pervert what those photos were posted for, that says more about them than it does me. (tan lines? Get real, FIGHT ON, I haven't had a tan in years. Dad and granddad both had skin cancer, and when some growths showed up on my nose about five years ago, the short sleeves went in the closet and the #50 sunscreen and floppy hat came out)

However, if you want to know what really makes me mad, it isn't an unflattering photo of me posted on the internet. Rather, it's when you ask a question and then when people respond, trying to help you out, you make fun of them. I think the way that you've treated Kathy, Alan, and others is down right shameful, and I think you owe them an apology. Some of the people that have tried to help you out are people who have a wealth of knowledge and experience not readily available and I think they deserve a little more respect, especially when they try to take the time to try to help you out.

So, if you want to post an unflattering picture of me or make fun of how I look while never posting a pic of yourself, you go right ahead. The way we treat others reveals more about us than any photograph ever will.

Exactly. You posted the pic of the nipple guy with my name under it.
You did that. explanation please. See?

PROFOUND. but untrue! False even. Kathy? when? Alan? he's a staged victim. And you? You posted a picture of that the nipple man with my name under it. Remember? So cut the bs. I stand my ground. nobody pushes me around especially with garbage like this. And this is a bunch of garbage. You should apologize.

I won't post your pic anymore except when you post pictures with my name under them. frankly I am surprised you are ashamed of your body. I misread you. Guess I was wrong. And Alan? so transparent. What a phony bologna cry baby. I don't buy it.
Who did I make fun of that tried to help me? More garbage.
ps. im right about the wheel vs gps!

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

AlanK wrote:Jim -- I have to admire your attitude. It seems as if part of being a regular poster around here is getting abused by FIGHT ON. When he first showed up here, several people identified him as a troll. As time went by, people seemed to decide otherwise. However, every time things get mellow, he goes out of his way to walk like a troll and quack like a troll. A unique persona. Far be it from me to suggest censoring him, though.

what a bunch of bologna.
You are such a victim. boo hoo hoo. waaaaaah. Fight on abused me! boo hoo hoo.

Hikin_Jim wrote:You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

I can!

Let's be clear here.

I am not complaining about being a victim. No one has done me any damage.

I am commenting that you are behaving like a troll. You are damaging yourself.

AlanK wrote:Let's be clear here.

I am not complaining about being a victim. No one has done me any damage.

I am commenting that you are behaving like a troll. You are damaging yourself.

Funny, I feel the same way about you!

FIGHT ON wrote:Funny, I feel the same way about you!

Excellent.

Hikin_Jim wrote:...#50 sunscreen...

FTW!!!

you guys really messed up this thread.
Let's just get back the way it's supposed to go.

a hem.
adjust my collar,
cross my eyes,

Nice pics AlanK.











































(i think i'm gonna puke)

Hikin_Jim wrote:However, if you want to know what really makes me mad, I think the way that you've treated Kathy is down right shameful

Slander

FIGHT ON wrote:

Hikin_Jim wrote:However, if you want to know what really makes me mad, I think the way that you've treated Kathy is down right shameful

Slander

In my opinion, you are doubly wrong. First, written defamation is libel, not slander. Second, statements of opinion are not actionable at all. 8)

AlanK wrote:

FIGHT ON wrote:

Hikin_Jim wrote:However, if you want to know what really makes me mad, I think the way that you've treated Kathy is down right shameful

Slander

In my opinion, you are doubly wrong. First, written defamation is libel, not slander. Second, statements of opinion are not actionable at all. 8)

slander

1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.

In my opinion, you are doubly wrong. First, you were false with your assumption on the definition. Second, what you just said is slander. 8)

Thanks for clearing things up, Crystal.

Hikin_Jim wrote:However, if you want to know what really makes me mad, it isn't an unflattering photo of me posted on the internet. Rather, it's when you ask a question and then when people respond, trying to help you out, you make fun of them. I think the way that you've treated Kathy, Alan, and others is down right shameful, and I think you owe them an apology. Some of the people that have tried to help you out are people who have a wealth of knowledge and experience not readily available and I think they deserve a little more respect, especially when they try to take the time to try to help you out.

Hey Jim. I thought you might like to see what makes me mad.
What you posted when friend owl was looking for a place to camp WITH HIS 4 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER.
He was looking for advice from people on this board you said the following about going into a the Crystal Lake area that is well known to be posted CLOSED.


where would you go ?

friendowl



Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 111


PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:43 am Post subject: where would you go ? Reply with quote
if you had to spend a night outside in our local mountains...
with a 4 year old and 11 year old who can hike/backpack

id like to try a new place besides mt.baldy
any suggestions

id like to be somehwere up high preferably off trail

im kinda interested in the twin peaks area

any suggestions ?
_________________
Solvitur Ambulando

And then you posted this!
Talk about shameful?
It makes me sick.

Hikin_Jim
Shirokuma


Joined: 27 Sep 2007
Posts: 1022
Location: Los Angeles

PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:17 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
TacoDelRio wrote:
Twin peaks is aweful nice, if they're OK with it. I might actually choose the Crystal Lake area, since it's closed, so it's kinda got a cool air to it, plus there's water and shelter.

Hey, Taco, how about the saddle between Twin and Waterman? I seem to remember that as a good place to camp albeit no water. That might be a bit much for a 4 year old.

Crystal Lake might be a bit much too. You'd drive to Islip Saddle, hike to Windy Gap, and then descend to Crystal Lake. Be discreet. I don't think you're supposed to be in there.
_________________
Hiking? Aw, gee, do I have to?

Let me tell you Jim. I was stunned!
I posted the following after reading it.

FIGHT ON
SPIRIT OF TROY


Joined: 09 Apr 2008
Posts: 1363
Location: Pasadena

PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 5:30 pm Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
I have never seen a ranger off the highway in the Angeles Crest areas. My guess is that you would never see any ranger type person in Crystal Lake area. And I predict I will NEVER see a ranger anywhere around here. I say stay out of the closed areas for two reasons. 1. Because they are closed. 2. This is the more important reason. Because you have your child with you. To me to stand at the border of a restricted area with your child, and then knowingly enter it because you want to is teaching the child to break laws. It is symbolic to me. Sorry if my views are unpopular. If a ranger comes to Crystal Lake when you are camping there and tells you to leave, what kind of message did you send your child? These are the years to be a good parent. There are plenty of areas that are not closed. Go to those. I thought these message boards were supposed to encourage people to stay within the permit system. come on you guys! Sad

Talk about shame? If anyone needs to apologize it's YOU!
Not only should you apologize to friend owl but to this entire board!
What kind of advice is that any way? To advise an adult to go there is bad enough but with a child? A FOUR YEAR OLD CHILD!

As far as your picture is concerned. YOU posted it on the internet. For everyone to see. YOU DID. If you don't like the way you look then don't post pictures of yourself.

You are welcome to post my name under that picture anytime you want. Just don't be surprised when it is followed by your lovely self portrait. 8)

And the same goes for you and your son. What a shame!

I called Garmin. US Toll Free: 1-800-800-1020 and asked about their gps units including their best hand held Oregon units and the forerunner models. He is the expert in this department and I asked a lot of questions about measuring trails with them.
He could not give me any info that is posted on the internet about how accurate these are. Which is amazing.
So I asked how it all works and he said you just push a button, wait for the satellites and after you are done you push a button and it says how far you went. right. So I asked how far off could they be and he said they are accurate with 9 feet of where it is. So you have an 18 foot circle around you and this thing is tracking a line anywhere inside that circle. It only measures looking straight down. In other words you could walk uphill on a 45 degree straight line and it would not display what the actual distance is. So you have to guess what the angle of the trail is. And we all know that trails go up and down at different angles and distances which would be impossible to do while walking with one of these things.
He said the ones that you wear on your wrist, including he garmin forerunner 305 are the least accurate for trail measuring, not designed for measuring trails. and the oregon ones hand held are the best of what garman has but that even that one is only accurate within 18 feet and it only measures in two dimensions, looking straight down.
He also said that it only needs 3 satellites to be working at its best but 4 is better if that makes sense. I asked if you were to measuring a trail with one of these what would happen if less than 3 were in veiw. What would happen to the information collecting process. He said that the unit informs you that there are not enough satellites in view. I asked how it informs you, an alarm? No. it just says something on the gps like not enough in view. So how do you know that the thing is working all the time? You have to watch it the whole time when you walk? I guess. Never saw anyone watching their gps 100% of the time on a hike. Seems that's what you would have to do in order to make an accurate claim on a distance.
I don't know but next time you are on a hike look nine feet to your left and then to the right. And then imagine walking nine feet off the trail zig zagging from side to side crossing the trail as you go. What would you think of a guy who says that he is going to measure a trail with a wheel and walks off the trail back and forth randomly crossing as he goes. Dude. You would think this guy was nuts! And, and then sometimes he picks the wheel up and keeps walking and then puts it down because the satellites wern't working.
You can call garmin. Ask em for yourself! Call em! US Toll Free: 1-800-800-1020 Doesn't cost any money.

FO -- thanks for your efforts but I am well aware of all of that information. You are mistaken in a couple of your interpretations, but trying to engage you in a serious discussion seems to be impossible, so I will cut to the chase. What I reported at the beginning of this thread was that my Forerunner 305 produced a measurement of trail of known length that was within 1% of that length. I added later that I know of other examples on high school cross country courses. Those are empirical facts. I did not claim that any GPS always determines trail length to within 1%. What I did claim was that a GPS is generally more accurate than a pedometer and certainly more useful than a measuring wheel, which no one uses while hiking.

AlanK wrote:FO -- thanks for your efforts but I am well aware of all of that information. You are mistaken in a couple of your interpretations, but trying to engage you in a serious discussion seems to be impossible, so I will cut to the chase. What I reported at the beginning of this thread was that my Forerunner 305 produced a measurement of trail of known length that was within 1% of that length. I added later that I know of other examples on high school cross country courses. Those are empirical facts. I did not claim that any GPS always determines trail length to within 1%. What I did claim was that a GPS is generally more accurate than a pedometer and certainly more useful than a measuring wheel, which no one uses while hiking.

AlanK wrote:and certainly more useful than a measuring wheel, which no one uses while hiking.

I know the shadow makes it look like an alien but this is actually a person using a measuring wheel while hiking!

AlanK wrote:I added later that I know of other examples on high school cross country courses.

Where did you say that?

AlanK wrote:I did not claim that any GPS always determines trail length to within 1%.

Where did you get that? I just wanted everyone to know that I asked about ALL the Garmin trail gadgets and that he said that the forerunner 305, which is the one that you say that you use, is the least accurate for trail measuring.
And come to think of it, now knowing that you can be off by nine feet in any direction at any time, I guess you could swing your arm all over the place and it wouldn't change much. BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY OFF BY NINE FEET ANYWAY!

how do you know it was less than .01 mileage difference than those markers? does your thing show .001 readings? Being off 52.8 feet is a joke!
I swear some pro pedometer hiker should go hike up there and see how far off he is. It would be close. And again, who put those markers on that trail anyway? Do you know? You are making a comparison to an unknown with a device that is unreliable.
I'm gonna cut to the chase here. trying to justify these things is a dead end.
It just doesn't make sense! Even if these things were guaranteed to be accurate within one inch of where they were they still would be less accurate than a wheel. GIVE IT UP DUDE!

What I claim is that a pedometer and all those Garmen gps things are less accurate than a simple measuring wheel. Including the one that you wear on your wrist.

Well folks, I have been foolish enough to contribute to prolonging this conversation and it's time to stop. I stand by what I have written, here on this thread and elsewhere. If anyone is interested in actually discussing GPS, as opposed to playing "gotcha" games and repeating the same errors over and over, I would love to participate in a serious GPS thread. I've seen some real expertise on this board and would love to learn from the knowledge that is out there. I'm not sure how we keep the conversation on a meaningful track, but I know that two-way silly banter won't cut it.