So here is what chaff really looks like. Are you still thinking that you can see it after its disbursed, and that is what you are seeing in the video?
Posted on 07/23/2014 4:21:00 AM PDT by logi_cal869
I was browsing video on Youtube of the MH17 crash scene and noticed something unusual.
The source of the video is Russian Television, but posted to Youtube on the 17th here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fjpB5gw3iM in line with the timeline of the crash.
Best views :16-:30 in.
I searched post-by-post here at FR back to the 17th and didn't see any Title asserting this had been observed.
Notice the Chaff falling from the sky...
So here is what chaff really looks like. Are you still thinking that you can see it after its disbursed, and that is what you are seeing in the video?
There was a SU25 shown near the commercial jet by Russian radar. And we have reports from aviation experts, not verified, that the Ukrainians were running CAP missions ever since they lost a fighter to the Russians.
We do not know exactly what happened yet, since the Ukraine will not release air traffic controller records or any of their air traffic radar records yet. Other then that, read post #15.
I’ve taught tactical application of radar countermeasures for 24 years, but if you saw it on Wiki then, yea, you’ve got to be right.
Psst. Don’t tell him what an F-22 can do it will blow his mind.
That picture was already posted on the previous thread that discussed the original blogger who pointed out the chaff videos. Two to three days ago. Again, Continuous stream saturation chaff. Also called wide area chaff. Deployed from a rail mounted pod. Could go into other speculative ways to deploy that kind of chaff, but we probably do not want to tread upon what could be tight lip areas. In summary, that could be chaff.
Have not posted anything from Wiki. That was Global Security.
You are talking to somebody who got his feet weight on the internet debating PhD College professors in the newsgroups about Marxism in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Guess I was supposed to assume they were right ?
And thanks for your service to our country.
I did a quick search of GS and presume that you took the information from the 1998 GAO environmental impact report?
Well, that is what it says will be happening in 2005-06 alright, but reality doesn't match.
There is really no way to see filament chaff from any appreciable distance in the quantities it is dispersed in. Also, it is so light that it tends to float around for hours, instead of settling back to earth. I wasn't trying to awe you with my credentials, rather just acknowledging that I can't effectively prove a negative.
What video is that? Who could have taken such a video?
It would have had to have been from another plane or somebody with a really good telephoto.
Much more likely is that the airplane was blown apart instantly when the missile struck. The Buk warhead is 154 pounds of high explosive.
Let’s try an exercise.
Please post a photo of a chaff cloud dispersed from an aircraft (post-WWII), so that we might be able to compare it to this video.
As radar SAMs use wavelengths of 1.5-3cm, also please explain why a tactical aircraft would be dispersing extremely long wavelengths and volumes of chaff that would only work against large search radar systems? The SAM systems already know you are there, and the search radars are going to report activity in the area either way.
I did a quick search of GS and presume that you took the information from the 1998 GAO environmental impact report?
Avoided posting anything from those because they were mostly chemtrail orientated. Might have used them to find the manufacturer web site though. So I ended up using the actual manufacturers web site. The guys that actually make the stuff you guys in the military use. Here is the source for Bundle chaff which led me to the picture. Think that is the source. My connection is too slow to verify that right now.
VAISC Esterline Radar Counter measures
Well, that is what it says will be happening in 2005-06 alright, but reality doesn't match.
They themselves state the US was planning too. But just because the US did not find the products usable, does not mean other countries did not find a use for the new technique and products. These companies sell to other countries beside the US. The point is, the product was at least considered feasible by the US at one time. No one is saying the US released that chaff.
There is really no way to see filament chaff from any appreciable distance in the quantities it is dispersed in.
Radar can see it, and it is part of the same electromagnetic spectrum that visible light is. At any rate, how could you not physically see the plane as you reported.
Also, it is so light that it tends to float around for hours, instead of settling back to earth. I wasn't trying to awe you with my credentials, rather just acknowledging that I can't effectively prove a negative.
Not talking about filament chaff. Talking about the continuous stream chaff that the US at least was planning to deploy in 2005/2006 time frame.
Already spent time 2-3 days ago looking for images and/or video of this type of chaff deployment. Could not find it. There were definitely tests done as the US was thinking about at least using the technique in 2005/2006. Bottom line is a company is selling the product today. Order a bundle.
The plane went down. The chaff deployment failed. And now, coincidentally we are sending pentagon advisers. Thing I will drop the discussion at this point since we are getting into gray areas.
Continuous stream was the same material, it is just cut when you need it. Why? Because it can be cut to the exact dipole length desired, making it more effective. The problem is, it was very complicated and the systems would fail. More effective to pack multiple precut lengths into each bundle and cover the whole spectrum.
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.