Cerebral Palsy maybe/maybe not

Actually, computed perfect data, was passed through a program to mimic possible recorder vibration. The results of this are quite visually obvious . But our inertial facts allow us a better computation of what happened, a far more probable graph of reality seen as the red curve. So, fudged smooth data is closer to reality than the actual data? Yes, in this case. The beginning assumption had not included camera wobble as contributing to what was measured. That is the big error. Rule of reasonable expectation quickly focuses on “Did anybody secure the camera mount?” or even think of it as a ‘noise’ source? So what did Shannon, Weaver, & Nyquist teach us? How fast to sample with our best tool, and how good does the tool have to be to not wash away truth. How do we see truth in a bath of noise? This is basic engineering. There is another trap. We have a sequential [array] of measurements of something which we can measure with accuracy & precision [not the same] – say – knee angle at points in time. A nice horizontal time line and a vertical scope to show the amount of angle of the measured thing (hip- knee-ankle).

AHA! Report that!! What? The angle seen along the time line !

Whoa. Did we come here to bathe in numbers devoid of relevance? Do you have a firm correlation of degree of 'knee angle' with what the leg is accomplishing with that angle changing? Are all angle deviations of angle scope equivalent in effect thype and scope? What if there were no knee, but instead a telescoping rod from hip to ankle that was made (magic?) to deliver the ankle/foot position exactly as it is was when using the knee? We would measure its LENGTH. Also we would