Monday, June 15, 2009

SII temorarily unavailable

I am changing host providers for SII, and so it may be unavailable for a short period. We'll have it up again as quickly as possible.

Of course, the forum is hosted on the same site, so it may also be unavailable.

Sorry for the inconvenience.


Anonymous said...

Wearing A Halo said...

LOL MN, 'tis interesting that turns into SLP's plea for help is so laughable--"we need" this and that; I guess SLP was not impressed with your "Conner did not wash ashore" bit since he did not bother to mention it as being helpful.

Marlene Newell said...

Dear, dear WAH, you are so beside yourself with worry that Scott Peterson is going to be proven innocent.

And, speaking of my "Conner did not wash ashore" bit, how about your failure to produce documentation that supports Cheng's testimony. You've said you have it. Introspectre says he also has it. But where is it? It certainly isn't on NOAA or SFPorts.

I have PRODUCED all the documentation to back up my conclusions. You have PRODUCED none to refute those claims.

That's because it doesn't exist, and you know it and so does everyone else.

You cannot refute my research and that bugs the hell out of you.

Anonymous said...

Wearing A Halo said...

Nope, MN, you are wrong again!!! It is not me who is worried, in fact, it is SLP who is worried. You must read his plea for help again-- he is pressed for time (lol) and needs your help and you, MN, have not been helpful to him otherwise he would not be pleading for everyone's help. You, MN, have failed to grasp and understand the purpose of Dr. Cheng's involvement and testimony in this case and that is on you. I have the data from NOAA, SFPORTS, BAAQMD and so do you, as well as anybody else, so I am not hiding anything from you--it is all available on the net. MN, your premise is flawed from the start. You, MN, have absolutely no evidence that Conner was planted and since you have none you want to desperately prove Conner did not wash ashore when in fact Conner did wash ashore. You, MN, have stated that Dr. Cheng has lied, when he has not lied. At best Dr. Cheng mispoke and at worst Dr. Cheng was misquoted by the court reporter/transcriber when Dr. Cheng said "40 knots (kn)". It is my contention is that Dr. Cheng meant "40 kilometers (km)". 40 km fits with the data where 40 kn does not. If Dr. Cheng did state 40 kn, then he did not correct himself and neither did the prosecution to advise him of his mistake, furthermore, MG did not call him on his mistake at all to catch him in a "lie" or miscalculation(s). I am convinced that the transcriber is the one that was mistaken when kilometers are km and knots are kn, somehow the Dr. Cheng's statement was lost in transcription and not a lie at all. Anyone can read the testimony of Dr. Cheng and input "40 kilometers" and understand that this makes more sense with his whole testimony on direct and on cross and check the data, which, in fact, Dr. Cheng states to do so. The data on NOAA, SFPORTS and BAAQMD does back up Dr. Cheng's testimony thereof. Oh and also, your assertion that Dr. Cheng has Conner washing ashore at a wrong time on the PVD is wrong because the deltas (arrows) are not representing Conner, but the wind drift(s)--water movement. BTW--Dr. Cheng never stated what time Conner washed ashore, it is a given by the witnesses that testified that Conner washed ashore by the evidence. You, MN, must read the transcripts carefully before posting specious comments on SII and misleading SLP supporters--this is what bugs the hell out of me.

Marlene Newell said...

Oh my goodness, WAH, such a lecture!

Pray tell, who measures wind velocity in kilometers?

And you think a court reporter can't differentiate between knots, when Cheng used the term so many times, and kilometers? In case you haven't noticed, it's written out as knots in the testimony, not kn.

Knots and kilometers -- hmm, don't sound much alike to me.

You have really exposed yourself as a fool with that argument.

Anonymous said...

Wearing A Halo said...

MN, wind velocity is measured in MPH, Knots (kn) and in Kilometers (km) per hour--m/sec is used in calculations and then transformed into km/h. FYI--wind velocity includes gusts and it is the gusts that exceeded 40 kilometers per hour. On 4/12/03 on about 3 a.m. the start of the storm, the wind gusts measured at 23.132 knots, 27 mph, 12.1 m/sec=43.56 km/h!!! From 3 a.m to 9 p.m. (18 hrs.), the sustained gusts averaged 21.3 knots. From 3 a.m. to 5 p.m. (14 hrs.) the sustained gusts averaged 23 knots which equals 43 km/h!!! So yes, "wind exceeded 40 knots. 40 knots, wind exceeded..." very well could have been a correction of "wind exceeded 40 knots. (err) 40 kilometers, wind exceeded..." What you, MN, must realize is that court reporters do not write, nor type out every single word, they abbreviate (duh!) thus, knots is kn and kilometers is km, so it is very conceivable that the court reporter or the transcriber of the transcripts erred--40 kn or 40 km--and typed out the transcripts to read 40 knots. As I have stated before the data, which Dr. Cheng himself states, "you can see now the scientific records showed us...", from NOAA, SFPorts and BAAQMD corroborate each other.

Marlene Newell said...

WAH, sustained winds are not the same as gusts -- they are indicated as separate measurements on all of the data for the reporting stations.

If Cheng doesn't know the difference between sustained winds and gusts, he's not fit to be called an expert. And if you don't know the difference, then you'd best hang up your amateur websleuthing hat.

Why would Cheng use km for one wind speed and then knots for the others? Because he wanted to exaggerate the storm, so he could throw out the number 40 and the number 20? Methinks so.

Besides, Cheng is totally irrelevant to the question of whether Conner washed ashore -- he's an issue of junk science and prosecutorial misconduct, but the fact of the matter is, Conner had the unmitigated gall to be laying 24 feet behind a very sizable breakwater designed to protect that mudflat from the higher high tides on a day that saw a less than average higher high AND behind a well-formed, unbroken, and undisturbed debris line.

So you can argue till doomsday that Cheng accurately described the storm, which I believe is a total waste of your time because intelligent people can read the testimony for themselves and view the wind data and see just how much he exaggerated, as did Distaso when he called it a "very violent storm," but you can't nullify those 2 very objective realities -- the breakwater and the debris.

Next time you talk to Cheng, ask him if he knew about the breakwater and the debris line. Ask him if he knew about the NOAA Richmond station that is ever so much closer to the recovery sites than the San Francisco station.

Burkey said...

"It is not me who is worried, in fact, it is SLP who is worried. You must read his plea for help again-- he is pressed for time (lol) and needs your help and you, MN, have not been helpful to him otherwise he would not be pleading for everyone's help. You, MN, have failed to grasp and understand the purpose of Dr. Cheng's involvement and testimony in this case and that is on you."

Good grief, what the hell! I think Newell's blog is great and her research is excellent. Why are _you_ so worried about what does or doesn't show up on the Petersons' web site? How would you know what Peterson's defense is finding useful or not?

This case is in the public domain, and people who care about due process are getting interested in it. Why that has anything to do with any kind of personal pissing match is beyond me. Considering how little public discussion there has been in favor of Petersons' innocence, it's nice that there are observers willing to spend some time investigating and contributing to the public discourse. Whether or not Peterson's defense makes use of the information is besides the point.But needling someone who's done some really good work, what's the point of that? Seems like a waste of time.

Justyce said...

Scott is not innocent. That is why there has been little discussion.

Jut thought I'd clue you in.

Marlene Newell said...

Justyce, let me clue you in. Enough is said on SII and this blog to prove Scott is innocent, and your ignorance about the length of time the appellate process takes, as per your comments on another article, proves you are not intelligent enough to recognize real evidence when you see it. Go visit one of the forums where the less informed and less intelligent hang out so you can continue to convince yourself that Scott is guilty.