flightoffancy wrote:
Jim, let me say about LCL (in cliche fashion) that you can lead a
horse to water but cannot make it drink.

He has barely begun flight training, claims his instructors are wrong
about what makes airplanes fly, claims that because instructional
materials at the beginner's level are incosistent therefore there is
no agreement about aerodynamic theory at all, and then essentially
dismisses NASA's explanations as "just another theory of many" and so
he has no reason to believe them either.

Hmmm. This puts me in a quandry because I actually understand the source of
LCL's frustration and don't fault him for that feeling - just some of his
approach. On one hand he is correct that many sources give incomplete or
inaccurate explanations for lift. So he's attempting to work out why lift
works on his own - which IMHO is a fantastic learning exercise. From my own
experience tackling a complex problem clarifies in a person's mind many of
the fine points of the problem (but for complex problems not normally the
correct solution). Once that is done, one has (IMHO) a better appreciation
for the sources and explanations that are more comprehensive and exact.
He'll understand at a base level the statement "It's a complex
subject." :-)

A complete neophyte stands up and claims he has no reason to believe
that what NASA publishes about flight is correct.

I think he's already addressed that in another post.

What can one say about someone who is willing to make such big claims
with so little knowledge?

A typical Usenet poster? ;-)

"Don't feed the trolls."

Not everything under the bridge is a troll. Some of them are pillars
holding it up. :-)