Posted on 11/18/2010 6:19:00 AM PST by alg1921
Because there isn’t “video”. There is a video of a contrail in the sky.
The video is realy nothing more than a 10-second-long picture. Everything about “missile launch” is an interpretation of that image, an extrapolation back in time as to what might have generated the image.
But people keep saying “there’s a video” as if the video actually shows the contrail being created, when all it shows is a fixed image shot from a shaky camera from miles away that zooms in on the image.
Meanwhile, there’s another picture we can see, right here in this thread, showing the same contrail from a different angle, which you have to ignore to believe the silly story about a missile launch from NAS Point Magu that somehow NOBODY HEARD.
There are no flames anywhere on the video.
An airline contrail at sunset (when they're most visible due to their golden glow and darkening sky), flying at 30,000 or so feet, 30 to 40 miles away, heading in my direction will appear to be going straight up from the edge of the horizon. That perspective will gradually change the closer it gets to me until it's directly overhead...........
As it flies away, 30 or 40 miles into the distance it will then appear to be heading downwards towards the edge of the horizon...So, from the first time I saw it till it finally disappeared, it was still flying at 30,000 feet.......
I did wait for the hand-held video (valid question BTW! I was sorely tempted not to wait).
What we need to put this to bed is news-camera-quality video of an airliner that looks like the ‘launch video’.
That handheld video looked like a plane contrail being videod from miles away. We need a video that shows an evolving plume and a ‘flame’
There is no evolving plume and no flame on the video from the first day either.
The only thing moving in the 1st day's video is the helicopter and the zoom of the camera, with the object itself moving very slowly over time but shown for such a short period of time it doesn't matter.
My favorite part is where they do an extreme zoom into the object, and the camera is shaking so bad people think the object is dancing and moving -- but if you look at the plume, the entire plume is "moving" with the object.
This just goes to show that a lie makes it around the world before the truth can get out of bed, and that in the internet era, once a story has been told, you can't fix it for everybody no matter how many facts you give them.
LLS
San Nicolas island is part of NAS Point Mugu. That’s 100km off the coast and is a plausible location for the base of the ‘rocket plume’. NAS Point Mugu adds up to a big testing ground. You must have impressive hearing if rocket launches that far off make you turn your head, LOL.
The video shows an evolving plume and a flame. It shows a boosted payload of some sort. You don’t see it, I do. Other FReepers can make up their own minds - from the video, not from stills of contrails.
No need to argue the toss here. When someone shoots a video of an airliner that looks the same as the ‘launch video’, then this all goes away. If they can’t shoot such a video - perhaps because planes don’t look like rockets - then the boosted payload theory is the one to go with.
If by "evolving plume" you mean that the contrails of the jets are smaller in thickness than the video from last week, I can only offer you what I see in the sky locally (Albuquerque area).
We are located under a major east-west route for passenger aircraft. Some days, no contrails at all (rare). Most days, the contrails are nice and thin all along the route of the aircraft, and you can watch them develop as the aircraft moves. Other days, you can watch the plumes spread to several miles wide (thick or thin - depending on moisture) all across the sky due to the wind. The more moisture we get, the thicker the plume when it spreads.
One thing that bugged me is that even with 90 seconds of video, the object barely moves (given the pulse of a rocket, you'd think the plume nearest the object would change significantly over this time, as well), nor does the "flame" appear smaller and smaller with the distance change a missile should have in the amount of time captured.
Even at 35 to 50 miles out, the altitude of the helicopter filming this would certainly have been able to see the ground/ocean at the launch point and the plume should have been considerably wider up to the point the earth/water is not deflecting it.
Yes it's thicker at the "bottom." However, it is still rather linear, with no real change in profile.
That is not “raw video” by definition. There are clearly 4 edits. They’re complete perspective switches.
Quantico was exploding some ordinance last week, and freepers here were asking if there was an earthquake, as they heard and felt the blasts miles away.
A rocket launch would easily be heard 100 miles away, much less 100km.
I am familier with San Nicolas Island.
Of course, the story was that we didn’t know anything about the launch — it is hard to believe we wouldn’t know that we launched a missile from our own base.
Yet, there are only three threads on FreeRepublic covering the award ceremony last Tuesday of US Army Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta receiving the Medal of Honor, with an average of about nine replies each.
Jim, this troubles me. Should it trouble me?
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.