Replies

Not to interrupt your flirting, but...

a moving video

Is there any other kind?

taken at sunset of a west-bound missile launch is actually video of an eastbound UPS plane!

Take a look at the four photos of a "missile launch" I posted in post 339. Out of the four, all but the first have a plume that is illuminated in precisely the same way that you, Finny, say proves the CBS video shows a missile. You say it would be outright impossible, a violation of physics, for an eastbound aircraft contrail to be lit that way. Yet we know the object in those photos is an airliner, and it is headed in a roughly easterly direction. For certain, it is not headed west or northwest.

How is this possible?

"a moving video"

"Is there any other kind?"

~~~~~~~~~

Well, there are video stills, but they are generally inferior to camera stills -- especially in resolution -- and especially this video. Not only was Levyas' video shot from a moving platform with long, uncalibrated zooms, he added a "2X extender", which only provides "empty" magnification and further degrades the already low resolution image.

I must disagree with Finny's

"Yet they will watch as you throw still photo after still photo after still photo at us asking us to compare them to the original video, when common sense tells ANYONE that a video of a moving event, such as an airplane leaving a contrail or a missile leaving a plume, is going to convey more information than a still photo of a moving event."

Each medium has its advantages. Stills can provide much higher resolution and have "metadata" indicating details like time and focal length, Having multiple (still or video) recordings of the same event allow triangulation of viewpoints and such necessities as bearings to the point of sunset. But, I must agree: unrelated "examples ad infinitum" do tend to become wearisome...

~~~~~

A new, wide angle still photo taken from Hermosa Beach (north of both Levyas & Warren) shows the "sunset arch" and indicates the bearing to sunset. (Reducing brightness of the image makes the "arch" much more visible.)

The "missile plume" is at left, and there are other contrails also visible. The sunset point is at the midpoint of the white high altitude cloud (or horizontal contrail). This reveals that the sun's position is much farther to the north than one would guess from the video -- so the contrail is lit as much from the side as it is from beneath. This latest photo was taken with a 20mm (extra wide angle) lens, whereas even Warren's stills were taken at focal lengths of 210mm to 300mm.

The helicopter was obviously south of the contrail much of the time. Having multiple viewpoints up and down the coast is definitely beneficial -- if you are seeking understanding.

Of course, this new viewpoint makes interpretation of the contrail as a missile headed offshore much more difficult..

*sigh* Your photos are very distant, and I have only your word to take for the assurance that "this is an airplane" or "this is a missile," and that they are unretouched. Right.

So that "given" is taken away. I have no idea what the vehicle is in these photos, nor does anyone else. But I CAN tell the direction of the sun hitting the contrail or plume, and so can anyone looking at them. Sorry, I'm not going to play "ID the Photo" with you. Is the sun in the west, or the east? How much of the half-side of the plume that I can see is it illuminating? And HOW LONG HAS THE TRAIL BEEN THERE? See, that's where video means something and still shots go out the window.

So the exercise is futile and a distraction from the case in point: Leyvas' video. When it comes to judging contrails or missiles, as in proof that what we see in a "trust me" still photo is what it is claimed to be, YOU NEED VIDEO.

You expect the World to take you at your word that the photos you show are what you say they are. How on earth do I not know that you slipped an extra in there just for grins? But look at them and think, for heaven's sale! The brightest side is facing the direction of the light; the darkest faces the other way.

It sure would be nice to know whether what looks like shadow on the bottom of a brightly lit surface, is just a degenerated contrail that's been there for the past 30 minutes 5 miles high, or the solid darkness of a plume? Except ... there's sunlight on either side of it, from below, so it's probably degenerated in to a concave underside contrail. You can't tell because it's a still shot taken from a long distance.

Hello?