*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #180 on: August 16, 2017, 03:26:11 AM »
Asserting that it is accurate do not make it so.

If you have no further evidence then you are wasting your time posting.
You have no evidence that the WGS-84 shape of the earth is incorrect.  Still waiting for details of what equipment you need.

If you are claiming that some device or method is accurate, then you are obligated to post the evidence here rather than repeat "prove me wrong".

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #181 on: August 16, 2017, 03:27:39 AM »
Tom Bishop.  You claim that we cannot know the speed of an aircraft.  There are about 1000 radar stations in North America that disagree.  No GPS needed.  Radar is so reliable on tracking speed that police officers use it all the time to catch speeders.  Stop fixating on GPS and get to the point.

Post that evidence here and the appropriate study showing that the radar data agrees with the plane's groundspeed data. Do the necessary work before making such claims.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #182 on: August 16, 2017, 03:29:02 AM »
Flight data is also proven to be accurate and you should know that too.

If it is "proven" then there must be some data, evidence, or study you can provide showing it to be.

Quote
In particular the distance from New York to Paris is known and proven to be accurate. (3625 Miles)

I have been retired since 1999 and technology has probably progressed since then.
But at that time the radar displays in a typical FAA Air Route Traffic Control Center showed the speed of aircraft from computers in the aircraft which sent that information back to the ARTCC's. So we definitely know the speed of aircraft.

It is your obligation to demonstrate this information, provide associated explanations, and share any relevant data.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2017, 03:43:41 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #183 on: August 16, 2017, 03:38:28 AM »
If you do not understand why the proofs in this thread are proofs, then perhaps you should be asking for them to be explained instead of simply saying they are fake over and over.

No wait. Better option. If 3DGeeks information from working in the industry is incorrect, and planes are in fact traveling at a rate other than they are designed to fly. Prove it. Show us your evidence that a plane flies faster or slower than multiple different instruments show us it does.

"Prove me wrong" is a argumentative fallacy. You are claiming accuracy for a certain coordinate system, and it is therefore your burden to demonstrate that.

"3DGeek" has provided no evidence, other than appeals to authority.

Quote
Than it's designers created it to. Than science says it does. Because that's what your left with here Tom. Denying science. In which case there is no debate to be found here and your posts are indeed the waste of time to be listened to.

A more accurate portrayal is that I am asking for science, and I am receiving none.

Quote
Answer one simple question. What method would you deem allowable for determining distances? If you cannot answer that, then we are indeed wasting our time here, because you cannot concede a single point made in this thread without conceding them all and giving a flat Earth zero possibility to exist based on distances alone.

Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #184 on: August 16, 2017, 04:15:14 AM »
Answer one simple question. What method would you deem allowable for determining distances? If you cannot answer that, then we are indeed wasting our time here, because you cannot concede a single point made in this thread without conceding them all and giving a flat Earth zero possibility to exist based on distances alone.

Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.
http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html Surveying does not use Long/Lat for Triangulation and it uses simple trig to determine distances for mapping. An older map or road map would have used the method of laying known lengths of material down to measure the starting distance. If I can show a map from 1884 has the same distance information (within reasonable margin of error) as one done today, will you accept those distances? (US government offers maps from 1884 here but at the time of this post their system for retrieving older maps is down.)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #185 on: August 16, 2017, 04:21:32 AM »
Answer one simple question. What method would you deem allowable for determining distances? If you cannot answer that, then we are indeed wasting our time here, because you cannot concede a single point made in this thread without conceding them all and giving a flat Earth zero possibility to exist based on distances alone.

Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.
http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html Surveying does not use Long/Lat for Triangulation and it uses simple trig to determine distances for mapping. An older map or road map would have used the method of laying known lengths of material down to measure the starting distance. If I can show a map from 1884 has the same distance information (within reasonable margin of error) as one done today, will you accept those distances? (US government offers maps from 1884 here but at the time of this post their system for retrieving older maps is down.)

From your link:

Quote
because the distance between the survey points is generally long (typically about 30 kilometres) the calculations also allow for the curvature of the Earth.

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #186 on: August 16, 2017, 04:49:54 AM »
Answer one simple question. What method would you deem allowable for determining distances? If you cannot answer that, then we are indeed wasting our time here, because you cannot concede a single point made in this thread without conceding them all and giving a flat Earth zero possibility to exist based on distances alone.

Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.
http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html Surveying does not use Long/Lat for Triangulation and it uses simple trig to determine distances for mapping. An older map or road map would have used the method of laying known lengths of material down to measure the starting distance. If I can show a map from 1884 has the same distance information (within reasonable margin of error) as one done today, will you accept those distances? (US government offers maps from 1884 here but at the time of this post their system for retrieving older maps is down.)

From your link:

Quote
because the distance between the survey points is generally long (typically about 30 kilometres) the calculations also allow for the curvature of the Earth.

So you will disregard what you ask for simply because it mentions that the curvature of the earth is used in measurement.  If that is the case you are asking for evidence that you will reject out of hand because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion.  Catch 22 all.  He asks for studies and proof, but he won't accept any studies or proof because they take reality into account.  Any study on anything will be based in reality, and he prefers only studies that are based in fantasy. He asks for peer reviewed evidence and then rejects it because his peers with the same preconceived notion did not review it. 

Will you accept this article from the institute for physics on the reliability of radar?

https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf

Perhaps this one?

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980

Probably not this one because it mentions that the curvature of the earth must be taken into account when using radar.

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf

Perhaps the fact the Air traffic control systems used RADAR which provides the location, orientation, and speed of the aircraft so that they can be properly brought to ground without continual crashes?

http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar

How about the fact that the military uses radar in order to land aircraft in low visibility environments such as rain and fog?

https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/

RADAR is accurate with over 95% reliability, it is measurable, and it is repeatable. You can even build a fully functioning and reliable radar from coffee cans. 



Here are your articles and proofs.  Reject them out of hand if you will, but don't say I didn't provide them.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6523
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #187 on: August 16, 2017, 05:06:58 AM »
So you will disregard what you ask for simply because it mentions that the curvature of the earth is used in measurement.  If that is the case you are asking for evidence that you will reject out of hand because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion.  Catch 22 all. He asks for studies and proof, but he won't accept any studies or proof because they take reality into account.  Any study on anything will be based in reality, and he prefers only studies that are based in fantasy. He asks for peer reviewed evidence and then rejects it because his peers with the same preconceived notion did not review it. 

I asked for a method that did not use Round Earth assumptions. Please refer to my previous post:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.


Quote from: frodo467
Will you accept this article from the institute for physics on the reliability of radar?

https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf

Perhaps this one?

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980

Probably not this one because it mentions that the curvature of the earth must be taken into account when using radar.

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf

Perhaps the fact the Air traffic control systems used RADAR which provides the location, orientation, and speed of the aircraft so that they can be properly brought to ground without continual crashes?

http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar

How about the fact that the military uses radar in order to land aircraft in low visibility environments such as rain and fog?

https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/

RADAR is accurate with over 95% reliability, it is measurable, and it is repeatable. You can even build a fully functioning and reliable radar from coffee cans. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4

Here are your articles and proofs.  Reject them out of hand if you will, but don't say I didn't provide them.

You will need to provide more effort than generic informational articles about "Radar".

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #188 on: August 16, 2017, 05:11:31 AM »
So you will disregard what you ask for simply because it mentions that the curvature of the earth is used in measurement.  If that is the case you are asking for evidence that you will reject out of hand because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion.  Catch 22 all. He asks for studies and proof, but he won't accept any studies or proof because they take reality into account.  Any study on anything will be based in reality, and he prefers only studies that are based in fantasy. He asks for peer reviewed evidence and then rejects it because his peers with the same preconceived notion did not review it. 

I asked for a method that did not use Round Earth assumptions. Please refer to my previous post:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.


[quote  author=frodo467]Will you accept this article from the institute for physics on the reliability of radar?

https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf

Perhaps this one?

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980

Probably not this one because it mentions that the curvature of the earth must be taken into account when using radar.

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf

Perhaps the fact the Air traffic control systems used RADAR which provides the location, orientation, and speed of the aircraft so that they can be properly brought to ground without continual crashes?

http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar

How about the fact that the military uses radar in order to land aircraft in low visibility environments such as rain and fog?

https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/

RADAR is accurate with over 95% reliability, it is measurable, and it is repeatable. You can even build a fully functioning and reliable radar from coffee cans. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4

Here are your articles and proofs.  Reject them out of hand if you will, but don't say I didn't provide them.

You will need to provide more effort than generic informational articles about "Radar".
[/quote]

Yup. Confirmation bias claims another. No point arguing if he won't consider any data because he "knows "What he knows, except he doesn't know what he doesn't know and no amount of talking or evidence will change that. He has has belief entrenched and any consideration of opposing evidence simply causes a state of cognitive dissonance. Being comfortable in a lie is too damn comfortable.

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #189 on: August 16, 2017, 05:14:13 AM »
Answer one simple question. What method would you deem allowable for determining distances? If you cannot answer that, then we are indeed wasting our time here, because you cannot concede a single point made in this thread without conceding them all and giving a flat Earth zero possibility to exist based on distances alone.

Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.
http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html Surveying does not use Long/Lat for Triangulation and it uses simple trig to determine distances for mapping. An older map or road map would have used the method of laying known lengths of material down to measure the starting distance. If I can show a map from 1884 has the same distance information (within reasonable margin of error) as one done today, will you accept those distances? (US government offers maps from 1884 here but at the time of this post their system for retrieving older maps is down.)

From your link:

Quote
because the distance between the survey points is generally long (typically about 30 kilometres) the calculations also allow for the curvature of the Earth.
How about if I can find a map that uses only trilateration or traversing? Hopefully not too difficult. Neither method mentions the curvature of the Earth (although I would note this is why I mentioned comparing to older maps, as if the Earth was flat and surveying was used maps would not come out the same every time. As such older maps should show likely significant discrepancies as they didn't have the same 'base' locations as todays maps would.)

Second option. Give us a set of points and distances between them you know are accurate. If we can present a map that can match those distances, we can build outward from there.

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #190 on: August 16, 2017, 05:20:46 AM »
Have you ever flown on an airplane Tom?

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #191 on: August 16, 2017, 06:57:19 AM »
Asserting that it is accurate do not make it so.

If you have no further evidence then you are wasting your time posting.
You have no evidence that the WGS-84 shape of the earth is incorrect.  Still waiting for details of what equipment you need.

If you are claiming that some device or method is accurate, then you are obligated to post the evidence here rather than repeat "prove me wrong".
What equipment would you use to determine the shape of the earth?

Why do you not look for evidence and give us the details here?  What do you define as evidence?

Is the timeanddate.com correct for your location?
« Last Edit: August 16, 2017, 09:33:14 AM by inquisitive »

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #192 on: August 16, 2017, 01:00:29 PM »
Asserting that it is accurate do not make it so.

If you have no further evidence then you are wasting your time posting.
You have no evidence that the WGS-84 shape of the earth is incorrect.  Still waiting for details of what equipment you need.

If you are claiming that some device or method is accurate, then you are obligated to post the evidence here rather than repeat "prove me wrong".
What equipment would you use to determine the shape of the earth?

Why do you not look for evidence and give us the details here?  What do you define as evidence?

Is the timeanddate.com correct for your location?

I love timeanddate.com I can confirm that it is indeed correct in every location that I have used it in. I use it weekly for the last three years to determine sundown time on Friday nights and it has never once been wrong. I have used it in Minneapolis MN, Nashville TN, Greenville SC, Colorado Springs CO, and Kansas City, MO. Each and every time it is perfect.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 868
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #193 on: August 16, 2017, 01:39:19 PM »
So you will disregard what you ask for simply because it mentions that the curvature of the earth is used in measurement.  If that is the case you are asking for evidence that you will reject out of hand because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion.  Catch 22 all. He asks for studies and proof, but he won't accept any studies or proof because they take reality into account.  Any study on anything will be based in reality, and he prefers only studies that are based in fantasy. He asks for peer reviewed evidence and then rejects it because his peers with the same preconceived notion did not review it. 

I asked for a method that did not use Round Earth assumptions. Please refer to my previous post:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.


Quote from: frodo467
Will you accept this article from the institute for physics on the reliability of radar?

https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf

Perhaps this one?

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980

Probably not this one because it mentions that the curvature of the earth must be taken into account when using radar.

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf

Perhaps the fact the Air traffic control systems used RADAR which provides the location, orientation, and speed of the aircraft so that they can be properly brought to ground without continual crashes?

http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar

How about the fact that the military uses radar in order to land aircraft in low visibility environments such as rain and fog?

https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/

RADAR is accurate with over 95% reliability, it is measurable, and it is repeatable. You can even build a fully functioning and reliable radar from coffee cans. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4

Here are your articles and proofs.  Reject them out of hand if you will, but don't say I didn't provide them.

You will need to provide more effort than generic informational articles about "Radar".

What you are saying is you will disregard any science that doesn't go along with your superstition. 

A short list of Proofs that have been provided here

GPS accuracy
Mapping accuracy
Radar Accuracy
Flight duration accuracy

Of course, you have the luxury of hiding behind the "We don't have a map" concept.  The good news is that other than blind fanatics, anyone reading this thread will see right through the obvious fear and dishonesty you display.   Case in point,  I showed this thread to a few people and the common reaction was belly laughter.  "How can someone be so stupid?" was at the top of the list.






If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #194 on: August 16, 2017, 01:54:54 PM »
So you will disregard what you ask for simply because it mentions that the curvature of the earth is used in measurement.  If that is the case you are asking for evidence that you will reject out of hand because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion.  Catch 22 all. He asks for studies and proof, but he won't accept any studies or proof because they take reality into account.  Any study on anything will be based in reality, and he prefers only studies that are based in fantasy. He asks for peer reviewed evidence and then rejects it because his peers with the same preconceived notion did not review it. 

I asked for a method that did not use Round Earth assumptions. Please refer to my previous post:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.


Quote from: frodo467
Will you accept this article from the institute for physics on the reliability of radar?

https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf

Perhaps this one?

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980

Probably not this one because it mentions that the curvature of the earth must be taken into account when using radar.

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf

Perhaps the fact the Air traffic control systems used RADAR which provides the location, orientation, and speed of the aircraft so that they can be properly brought to ground without continual crashes?

http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar

How about the fact that the military uses radar in order to land aircraft in low visibility environments such as rain and fog?

https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/

RADAR is accurate with over 95% reliability, it is measurable, and it is repeatable. You can even build a fully functioning and reliable radar from coffee cans. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4

Here are your articles and proofs.  Reject them out of hand if you will, but don't say I didn't provide them.

You will need to provide more effort than generic informational articles about "Radar".

What you are saying is you will disregard any science that doesn't go along with your superstition. 

A short list of Proofs that have been provided here

GPS accuracy
Mapping accuracy
Radar Accuracy
Flight duration accuracy

Of course, you have the luxury of hiding behind the "We don't have a map" concept.  The good news is that other than blind fanatics, anyone reading this thread will see right through the obvious fear and dishonesty you display.   Case in point,  I showed this thread to a few people and the common reaction was belly laughter.  "How can someone be so stupid?" was at the top of the list.

Not to mention the absurdity of FE when compared to flight distances in the southern hemisphere.

geckothegeek

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #195 on: August 16, 2017, 05:27:39 PM »
So you will disregard what you ask for simply because it mentions that the curvature of the earth is used in measurement.  If that is the case you are asking for evidence that you will reject out of hand because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion.  Catch 22 all. He asks for studies and proof, but he won't accept any studies or proof because they take reality into account.  Any study on anything will be based in reality, and he prefers only studies that are based in fantasy. He asks for peer reviewed evidence and then rejects it because his peers with the same preconceived notion did not review it. 

I asked for a method that did not use Round Earth assumptions. Please refer to my previous post:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.


Quote from: frodo467
Will you accept this article from the institute for physics on the reliability of radar?

https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf

Perhaps this one?

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980

Probably not this one because it mentions that the curvature of the earth must be taken into account when using radar.

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf

Perhaps the fact the Air traffic control systems used RADAR which provides the location, orientation, and speed of the aircraft so that they can be properly brought to ground without continual crashes?

http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar

How about the fact that the military uses radar in order to land aircraft in low visibility environments such as rain and fog?

https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/

RADAR is accurate with over 95% reliability, it is measurable, and it is repeatable. You can even build a fully functioning and reliable radar from coffee cans. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4

Here are your articles and proofs.  Reject them out of hand if you will, but don't say I didn't provide them.

You will need to provide more effort than generic informational articles about "Radar".

What you are saying is you will disregard any science that doesn't go along with your superstition. 

A short list of Proofs that have been provided here

GPS accuracy
Mapping accuracy
Radar Accuracy
Flight duration accuracy

Of course, you have the luxury of hiding behind the "We don't have a map" concept.  The good news is that other than blind fanatics, anyone reading this thread will see right through the obvious fear and dishonesty you display.   Case in point,  I showed this thread to a few people and the common reaction was belly laughter.  "How can someone be so stupid?" was at the top of the list.

Not to mention the absurdity of FE when compared to flight distances in the southern hemisphere.

Not to mention also the absurdity of FE when compared to horizon and distances to the horizon.....Of the absurdity of FE....Period !

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8789
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #196 on: August 16, 2017, 06:03:29 PM »
Not to mention also the absurdity of FE when compared to horizon and distances to the horizon.....Of the absurdity of FE....Period !

Please try to stay on topic. Not every single thread needs you complaining about the horizon or reminding everyone you were in the navy.

Offline Smokified

  • *
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #197 on: August 16, 2017, 06:51:01 PM »
Not to mention also the absurdity of FE when compared to horizon and distances to the horizon.....Of the absurdity of FE....Period !

Please try to stay on topic. Not every single thread needs you complaining about the horizon or reminding everyone you were in the navy.

Stop derailing threads with your low content threats.  Not every single thread needs you complaining about how people choose to communicate.

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8789
    • View Profile
Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #198 on: August 16, 2017, 07:02:14 PM »
Not to mention also the absurdity of FE when compared to horizon and distances to the horizon.....Of the absurdity of FE....Period !

Please try to stay on topic. Not every single thread needs you complaining about the horizon or reminding everyone you were in the navy.

Stop derailing threads with your low content threats.  Not every single thread needs you complaining about how people choose to communicate.

I really have tried to be patient with your nonsense. I am done giving you warnings. Enjoy your promised 30-day ban. If you decide to come back next month, you will have a final chance to stop acting like a petulant child in literally every post. Permaban after that. Take care, friend!
« Last Edit: August 16, 2017, 07:04:07 PM by junker »

Re: Using airline flight data.
« Reply #199 on: August 17, 2017, 05:41:49 PM »
Asserting that it is accurate do not make it so.

If you have no further evidence then you are wasting your time posting.
You have no evidence that the WGS-84 shape of the earth is incorrect.  Still waiting for details of what equipment you need.

If you are claiming that some device or method is accurate, then you are obligated to post the evidence here rather than repeat "prove me wrong".
What equipment would you use to determine the shape of the earth?

Why do you not look for evidence and give us the details here?  What do you define as evidence?

Is the timeanddate.com correct for your location?
Tom, please reply.