If the missile was traveling northwest, why is it traveling eastward in this pic?
Posted on 11/20/2010 11:34:24 PM PST by JohnKinAK
Glenn Beck said today that he has spoken to military experts about the mystery contrail from a few weeks ago and he says it’s definitely not a plane, but rather a two stage missile. He just wants to know where it came from, and he has a theory. Beck postulates that this missile was possibly from a Chinese sub off the coast of California, perhaps as a show of force to the world, but even more so to President Obama.
Click link for video
They were both pointed roughly west. And the Cargo Law cam was located north of the video location. This is enough information to determine from the pics that the target was traveling east.
What is the actual time this webcam took that pic?
5:16 pm, within minutes of when the video was taken...unless you think Cargo Law is in on the conspiracy...
How can you determine the direction of whatever is pictured there since it is a still pic?
Since the contrail shows position over time, all you need is two still pictures from two unique locations to determine direction unambiguously. It's called triangulation.
This case is closed. You just don't realize it.
If the missile was traveling northwest, why is it traveling eastward in this pic?
What was the location of the Sky2 helicopter since you seem to know it?
The Sky2 helicopter was east of of the contrail with its camera pointed west. In terms of ground track, the plane was flying almost directly towards the Sky2 position. That’s what caused the foreshortening effect in the video image that makes the plane looks like it’s traveling upward. That’s why people like you are confused. But it’s obvious what’s really going on when you look at the Cargo Law photo.
Do you intend to keep throwing up lame arguments until the end of time?
JPEG is a lossy compression scheme. If you got a JPEG, you could soon be griping it was not "the real thing"...
No good deed goes unpunished...
Ok, we're referencing the same video. At what seconds do you detect rapid vertical acceleration? Here's the link again... Leyvas video. If it was in the first 4 seconds, keep in mind that the same video segment is repeated at 30 seconds. Since there are actually other objects in that portion of video to compare relative motion, it should be easy to detect the movement of a missile moving vertically at several times the speed of sound. I'm just not seeing it. If your explanation for the lack of apparent upward movement is that the missile was already heading northwest bound, it must have started arcing very early in its boost phase. The problem is, at 14 seconds and 27 seconds, the trail is much longer than in the first 4 and 30 seconds. So if you believe the missile is arcing away from the camera to such an extent that it no longer appears to be "climbing" in the video (no visible relative upward movement), it is difficult to explain how the trail is significantly "taller" in subsequent pieces of video. Furthermore, if it is climbing into the stratosphere, toward the sun (which set at 4:54 and Leyvas said he started filming at 5:15), the trail would become white as it was hit by direct sunlight. That never happens.
I don't know how much video Leyvas shot either. But I do know that of the 52 seconds we are looking at, well more than half is actually the same pieces of video shown more than once. And the pieces shown the most show no relative movement of the object making the trail, even at the earliest stages of its appearance. Finally, if Leyvas did in fact watch a plume generating object for 10 minutes, there is no way he was watching a missile. Not even the space shuttle burns that long.
Look again. There was only apparent acceleration while the cameraman was zooming in -- big time!
The "early segments" of the video actually occurred very late in the flight sequence -- and when he was fully zoomed in (with hs 2X "blurbox" 'extender') there was no reference to allow estimation of speed.
When there was a reference (the forked cloud) the pace was glacial...
IF there was deliberate deception in the editing, it was by starting the video with that big zoom -- as if it were the beginning of observation.
QUESTION: How could shifting the viewpoint northward make a missile heading to the right switch to heading left?
ONLY ANSWER: The aircraft was heading eastward all the time.
Sky2 was flying to the east of San Pedro bay when the video was started.
And the “arch” is from the A/C flying at constant altitude — and following the curvature of the earth. The “arch” effect is only noticeable when you are almost (but not quite) directly under the flight path.
Why don’t we just ask the pilot of sky 2....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2630024/posts?page=1#1
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2630024/posts?page=21#21
and
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2630024/posts?page=34#34
Especially #21...
Look at he contrail in all frames relative to that "forked" cloud to determine "what came first"...
T’storm rolling in and about to block satellite. Unplugging. ‘G’nite...
I don't know him. But here's a video capture from an early portion of the video. It's not hard to identify.
And before the usual suspects accuse me of creating phony pictures, here is a link to the video from which the still was taken...KCAL news story Scroll forward to 1:34
Yeah, I know ;-)
I'm an engineer at a military test range. I design instrumentation systems that track flying targets (mostly short and medium range missiles). We think about these kinds of geometric problems every day. Unlike the average joe, we aren't fooled by foreshortening and parallax effects. I know this stuff forwards and backwards.
Yep, you can clearly see that the plane has moved further East in the 35 seconds or so that has elapsed between the shots.
Well, that's pretty pretty imprecise. What was its altitude?
Do you intend to keep throwing up lame arguments until the end of time?
A simple question about some basic information sure throws you into a tailspin doesn't it?
Lame strawman. Especially coming from the guy who came up with the amazingly lame theory that editing cuts in a news video equal some Oliver Stone conspiracy plot.
Link please, that information hasn't been posted before.
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.