Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sto Zvirat; lbahneman; D-fendr; Mr. Silverback; r9etb; muawiyah; Alamo-Girl; The Comedian; ...
Here is something I saw almost immediately, but which has taken me quite a while and several iterations to get down on a 2-D screen in simple enough form that anyone with an IQ of at least 100 and a mind free of paranoid delusions should be able to comprehend:

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The graphics below use the characteristics of the recorded phenomenon -- as viewed from positions northward up the coast -- plus basic perspective -- to settle the question of whether the videotaped object was outward (westward) or inward (eastward) bound.

The first graphic depicts the trajectory of an object climbing outward bound. It is not significant, but I have approximated the "35 mile" offshore "launch point" distance estimated by the SeeBS camera crew. Notice on the right that, when viewed from a point directly east of the trajectory, it appears to be purely vertical in direction.

In particular, notice that, when viewed from the north the trajectory is to the RIGHT.

In this second graphic, I depict the trajectory of an inward (eastward) -bound object. As with the outbound case, when viewed from directly to the east, its trajectory appears to be purely vertical.

BUT, when viewed from the north its trajectory is to the LEFT.

This fact is clearly demonstrated by the CargoLaw webcam sited at LAX -- well to the north of the SeeBS video viewpoint:


However, it is not necessary to rely on static viewing locations to the north -- because the contrail was drifting rapidly to the south -- as seen in the GOES WEST satellite images and in the sequence of still images taken from Rick Warren's static location in Long Beach.

The following graphic uses a set of perspective views of an outbound track project both to the north and to the south of a viewpoint directly to the east of a westbound trajectory. The image at the bottom was used repeatedly to produce the perspective projections. The vanishing point used is indicated.

This final graphic depicts an incoming (Eastward-bound) trajectory in the same manner:

It is patently onvious that only the "incoming eastbound" examples match reality -- or, even, SeeBS's video abortion.

Perspective causes objects (or the farthest end of a contrail) moving across the field of view to appear to move slowly (low angular velocity). Conversely, objects near the viewpoint appear to cross the view field rapidly. Notice as the trail drifts southward, it appears to "lean down" to the left, That is caused by the fact that the perspective effect causes the contrail to appear to "pivot on" its distant vanishing point.

The "perspective leaning" effect is obvious in Mick West's composite of four static viewpoint frames made by Rick Warren: And, as the contrail drifts to the south of the viewpoint (is viewed from the north) the same left-pointing characteristic shown in the LAX webcam view is apparent.

To see these effects dynamically displayed with a larger set of images, view this GIF animation of the Warren photos created by Mick West.

http://consci.s3.amazonaws.com//images/clipped-animating.gif


The object videotaped and presented in a confusing video edit by SeeBS was not traveling from the sea surface near CA and headed westward (or northwestward) out over the Pacific Ocean.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, it was inbound eastward toward CA.

And it wasn't a "missile" of any sort (or nationality) -- it was the high-altitude contrail formed by the plain old MD-11 of UPS Flight 902 from Hawaii to Ontario, CA.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This been a challenging and fun exercise! -- I want to thank lbahneman, Mick West, and Rick Warren for their impeccable original analyses and for the use of their images.

And heartfelt thanks to Rokke and many other clear-thinking FReepers for fruitful conversations and other contributions to "wrapping ALL the data around" this non-mystery.

TXnMA

119 posted on 12/04/2010 9:54:17 PM PST by TXnMA (You don't have to be a California Condor expert to recognize a mockingbird when it sings...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies ]


To: TXnMA

When this thing first hit, I asked all the conspiracy theorists to come up with recorded sightings of this “missile” from San Diego to Santa Barbara, if it was a launch, it would have been seen far north and south.

Of course there were no sightings. Nor was there any ionized gas cloud, nor any witnesses on Catalina, etc etc etc.


120 posted on 12/04/2010 10:08:43 PM PST by Sto Zvirat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

To: TXnMA

Thank you oh so very much for this excellent explanation, dear brother in Christ!


121 posted on 12/04/2010 10:09:48 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

To: TXnMA
Outstanding work. The blessedly-few rational remnant salute you.

And for the record, if anyone, ANYONE, can come up with a data set, or single datum, of similar quality that refutes your analysis, I will publicly question your methods, assumptions, data, and ancestry.

So far, I'd say you're pretty damn safe.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

123 posted on 12/04/2010 10:37:47 PM PST by The Comedian (Government: Saving people from freedom since time immemorial.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

To: TXnMA

Fantastic job. This thread will die soon now that it’s been (once again) so thoroughly proven that it was a plane.

I’m sure another one will pop up in a day or 2 and there will be 30-40 posts from the cranks before anyone with sense comes in. And on and on..


127 posted on 12/05/2010 12:21:58 AM PST by Tolsti2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

To: TXnMA
...simple enough form that anyone with an IQ of at least 100 and a mind free of paranoid delusions should be able to comprehend:

It's really appalling that you can't post anything at all without a demeaning insult in it.

130 posted on 12/05/2010 1:48:42 AM PST by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

To: TXnMA
in simple enough form that anyone with an IQ of at least 100 and a mind free of paranoid delusions should be able to comprehend

Well, there's the problem right there....

133 posted on 12/05/2010 7:16:21 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

To: TXnMA
The first graphic depicts the trajectory of an object climbing outward bound. It is not significant, but I have approximated the "35 mile" offshore "launch point" distance estimated by the SeeBS camera crew. Notice on the right that, when viewed from a point directly east of the trajectory, it appears to be purely vertical in direction.

In particular, notice that, when viewed from the north the trajectory is to the RIGHT.

In this second graphic, I depict the trajectory of an inward (eastward) -bound object. As with the outbound case, when viewed from directly to the east, its trajectory appears to be purely vertical.

BUT, when viewed from the north its trajectory is to the LEFT.

______________________________________________________

That illustrates perfectly why Gil Leyvas' video shows a plume veering to the right. It was an outbound missile.


144 posted on 12/06/2010 8:41:13 PM PST by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/28/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

To: TXnMA

Wow. Great post. To anyone not convinced of a fallecy, that would be sufficient to explain the direction of the contrail. Undeniably so.


146 posted on 12/06/2010 8:58:18 PM PST by Rokke (www.therightreasons.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson