To: D-fendr
What's so different about it?1. It is completely illuminated instead of darkened on one side.
2. When the camera is zoomed back in each the first creates a much bigger profile in the sky and is thicker by comparison.
3. The second one makes a wide turn to the viewer's left as a plane coming in across Catalina should instead of arcing to the right.
4. The second one shows clear separate contrails for the multiple engines of an airplane.
5. The first goes down to the horizon, the second is entirely above and the tail of the contrail doesn't even look like it's pointing down to the horizon.
96 posted on
11/21/2010 3:15:45 AM PST by
TigersEye
(Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
To: TigersEye
1. It is completely illuminated ...I'm afraid you can probably guess my response in general:
All of the differences are explained by the plane contrail hypothesis with different angles, different times, different light from a setting sun, and/or different flightpaths. Still they all look like the same kind of object phenomenon.
That's what I see anyway...
103 posted on
11/21/2010 3:43:41 AM PST by
D-fendr
(Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
To: TigersEye
1. It is completely illuminated instead of darkened on one side.
2. When the camera is zoomed back in each the first creates a much bigger profile in the sky and is thicker by comparison.
3. The second one makes a wide turn to the viewer's left as a plane coming in across Catalina should instead of arcing to the right.
4. The second one shows clear separate contrails for the multiple engines of an airplane.
5. The first goes down to the horizon, the second is entirely above and the tail of the contrail doesn't even look like it's pointing down to the horizon. ----- I see it exactly as you see it, and cannot understand why the others cannot.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson