You can see the numbers in your pic well enough to see that they aren't the same as this Sky9 chopper. It's confusing though because the URL tag on that pic says "sky-2." When it comes to CBS I'm not sure it's possible to pin anything down for sure.
Posted on 11/13/2010 2:55:59 PM PST by DontTreadOnMe2009
Hannity was surprised to hear a famous ex Air Force General tell him “That Is A Missile, Shot From A Submarine!” I quote retired Air Force Lieutenant General Tom McInerney (ex commander of 11th Air Force in Alaska) “I spent 35 years flying fighters, and you can see the guidance system kick in, I have watched that film 10 times, I am absolutely certain that that is not an aircraft, but a sub launch ICBM missile!!!” See the video and judge his words for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LivRJOWrcpA&feature=player_embedded#! I will next post a clickable link.
odd should be odds
Better question is why he over saturated the color of the plume ? Anyone who sees that knows the image was played with by an amateur in photoshop. No professional would ever release an image like that. We need the raw unaltered images assuming he still has them. He has numerous other images where he cranked up the brightness and caused over saturation. But if he wants to leave tell tale signs he is amateur photo shopper, so be it.
What I say is based on 28 years of first hand experience in the US Air Force (the last 3 1/2 at the Pentagon).
Do you have the raw unaltered images that you did not photoshop ?
Does their camera have an oversaturation problem ?
I’m about ready to share my first pass analysis of the video editing. It is really something else! Timestamps would blow their whole scam...
You do realize the time stamps shown to the public are the time stamps that they are airing the recorded video to the public. Not the actual filming time stamps. You can only get the real filming time stamps from the original video. And only CBS has that. And this is not a scam. This is a life and death situation. And if the Chinese are indeed involved, .... You might want to think about that for a little bit, now.
Perhaps a request to station to *really* release the raw video (not their previously released edited “raw” video). Along with the altituted and coordinates of the helicopter.
If they won’t release them, why not?
Perhaps a request to station to *really* release the raw video (not their previously released edited “raw” video). Along with the altitute and coordinates of the helicopter.
If they won’t release them, why not?
If you are talking about the plane and its flight path, I would be 100% amazed if they did not align. I frankly don't see your problem with Warren's photos and Uncinus' Google Earth work. And I see the plane in the Warren composite as being only aligned with the first (yellow, brightly lighted) plume on the right.
BTW, I don't know the plume drift rate; if you do, please share it.
"So when we have the data, you deny the data. When we don't have the data, you create the data out of thin air." Those lies are not appreciated! :-(
As for the color hypersaturation and color shifts, I have the same questions about many frames in the videos.
Re saturation in the Warren photos: I tried "stacking" some of the video clips, and found that, no matter which transparency mode I used for the composite (after using "difference" mode for alignment), some of the colors always oversaturated. IMHO, it is the nature of the beast of image stacking -- without going to a LOT of work to avoid it... (FYI, I don't use Photoshop.)
FYI, I use blowup of the wide view and stacking to register and locate a zoom-in on the wide view. You should see some results soon...
There's no magic -- and certainly no deception -- to this stuff -- just a lot of repetitive, tedious detail work.
At least we have been working and trying to come up with answers and understanding-- and not just sniping and shouting over and over, "It's a missile!"
~~~~~~~~~~
Might as well get this out: All this questioning of hard-working folks' motives, and accusations of fakery are getting mighty da*n tiresome... Most of us are just FReepers, not professionals at this stuff, (who is?) and are just doing the best we can to make sense of this thing...
~~~~~~~~~~
BTW, I believe it was lbahneman who, a short while ago, posted links to Warren's raw images. Go back and check for yourself... Don't know about Warren, but, at this stage of analysis, I am much more concerned with alignment and registration in composites than I am with mere color anomalies...
You can throw every kind of east-bound airplane into the discussion, and it's like tossing in an ice cube into a boiling pot -- it creates the illusion of substance but ultimately, it's nothing but a whisp of steam. The fact is this: the object in the video was heading north west, more exactly, west north-west. The angle of the sunlight illuminating the moving object says so.
The aerospace and military folks who have reassured you that this was an airliner. I am no idea, but perhaps you can tell me: have ANY of them also said that the object was headed east?
Can anyone on this thread link to a sourced written quote or a video interview where one of them actually states that the object in the video was headed East? I know you can produce quotes and video where they say it wasn't a missile and that it was "probably" an airplane. Where are those pros, those guys with their reputations on the line, willing to go out on a limb and state unequivocally that the object in the video was headed east?
People who recognize that very material, physical essential of the story told by a setting sun and the shadows it puts on an object heading toward it, understand that what we're seeing here is an agressive and sophisticated effort to convince good and understandably gullible Americans of a lie.
For those of us who unhappily see that: WE would be just as gullible if the discussion was of something with which WE had only theoretical or armchair knowledge and zero real experience. For me, that could be a tornado or a harsh winter, neither of which I know a darned thing except what I've read in books or seen in films.
It should scare you and wake you up. Instead, you side with people who resort to personal attacks, i.e. calling people like me "conspiracy kooks!"
That, too, should tell you something. The cameraman filmed it because HE knew it wasn't an airliner, and because HE knew it was headed north-west (you can hear for yourself: he says it was headed "west" in a video interview that has been linked on this thread). For the past 11 years, that cameraman has made his living in probably one of the most competetive markets in the world. He didn't get there by being stupider than armchair theorists who've never seen a missile launch.
What would be helpful is if the missile theorists did half the work in trying to plot the trajectory, flight path and location of their missile as those who have done so confirming the airplane contrail theory.
Where is ionized gas cloud?
None of you missile boys have answered that.
Actually, you guys haven’t answered a whole lot of logical questions, you just deflect and scream “missile!”
You can see the numbers in your pic well enough to see that they aren't the same as this Sky9 chopper. It's confusing though because the URL tag on that pic says "sky-2." When it comes to CBS I'm not sure it's possible to pin anything down for sure.
Since you've never bothered to post an example of what you're talking about.
Amen to that! What we need is the full un-edited video in the highest quality format that can be uploaded to the internet. Let the American people see and play with that. Also, the coordinates and altitude of the Sky2 chopper and time stamps on the video. A compass heading for the direction the camera was pointed too.
That might or might not advance or retard any theories or add anything at all but I'll bet the odds are high that it would.
Absolutely!!
I just started sharing my analysis of the CBS video-editing with selected co-workers.
My guess is that when I'm done and share it here, quite a few of my fellow FReepers will be mightily PO'ed!
~~~~~~~~
lb -- FReepMail for you!
FReepMail for you -- showing "why not"...
"It was unique, it was moving, it was growing in the sky. As I zoomed in I used a two-times extender on the lens to get a closer look, and you could tell that the object, whatever it was, was spriraling up in the sky. You could see the clouds were kind of swirling and as I zoomed in and got tighter on it, it appeared that it was spinning and going in a westerly direction.
"Well, I realized that it was something that we saw earlier from the week before -- we saw something very similar the past Thursday, and immediately I realized that it was something very similar, and called on the 2-way there to our assignment desk to let them know that we were seeing it again. It's not as dramatic as the one from yesterday -- the one from yesterday was pretty spectacular. Like I said, it was growing in nature and continued to fly up into the sky, and at one point it seemed to separate. The smoke or the plume seemed to stop and then continue further up in the sky and then finally disappear."
BTW, if you have ever seen a launch at sunset, that is what the sky looks like afterward......
Sounds to me like you've lost your grip, pal
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.