Posted on 12/12/2010 10:47:16 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
Nope.
Well, maybe if you would start with the premise that in my opinion this never looked like anything but the contrail of a plance coming straight over the horizon towards the viewer, you would understand what you seem to be signally failing to comprehend from my posts.
Thousands of others, including several former military pilots, a Brigadier General who commanded NORAD and the editor of Janes, disagree. Your semantic games notwithstanding.
Yeah, I don't dispute this. What my drawing shows is that it's possible for the sun to backlight a contrail at sunset, and this doesn't disagree with that. Finny seemed to be saying that the contrail had to be lit from underneath and my drawing shows that that isn't true.
Here is a what I said a couple posts later:
The viewer on the ground will of course see the underside of the contrail. My point, which I think my drawing gets across pretty clearly, is that it's possible for a contrail to be lit from behind by the sun. To be honest, it's hard to tell exactly how the light is hitting it since it's coming in at such a grazing angle. It's either from slightly above or from slightly below, but mostly it's from "end on" -- i.e. in a direction running almost parallel to its length. It also appears to be getting light on its northern flank in some pics.
Not at that particular hour which is exactly when the video and pics were taken. The sunlight can't be both above and below an airplane contrail.
(Sorry, somebody had to say it...)
Cheers!
Good Grief!! Buy you books, send you to school, draw you pictures -- and you are still tossing up crap that I disproved long ago and over and over. Are you totally incapable of reading and learning?
That guy with the camera shot of his TV screen is talking about one of the "cross fades" or "cross wipes" that I show at :13, :29 and :33 here -- where I first exposed SeeBS's lie about their deceptively edited short film clips.
That is no second contrail. In a crossfade transtion, frames from two joined clips are simultaneously visible as they both pass through 50% transparency.
~~~~~~~~~~
All you did by pointing that stupid "video analysis" out is reinforcing the clear FACT that you "missile truthers" have been suckered by a SeeBS "sweeps week" LIE!
Okay, that’s fine. Like I said before, it’s hard to tell exactly what the light is doing. I’d have to do some calculations. And as I also said before, the lighting issue isn’t decisive.
Have you thought up a new argument against the Cargo Law pic yet — the one that shows the plane flying inland?
Better late than never.
B?TW, thanks for trying to inject some sanity into this.
Doublers increase image size through "empty magnification": they spread the image out over a wide area -- leaving only a small section of image to cover the entire film frame (or digital image sensor). It appears much larger -- but actually reduces resolution by a factor of 4 (for a 2X doubler). No wonder Leyvas could not see the A.C (or "missile") -- he killed his lens' sharpness by using that doubler.
I have several K$ of Nikon 35mm gear. The only time I will use one of my "doublers" is when I MUST fill the frame of a color slide. Otherwise, I get better sharpness by enlarging the image while printing.
TANSTAAFL!
So, the fact that the evidence proves it wasn’t a missile, Chinese or otherwise, doesn’t bother you?
And the fact that WND turned this guy’s article into a pro-missile piece doesn’tbother you?
Yeah, you're on his ASW Chinook Ping List.
Classy as ever, I see.
And yet, the overwhelming evidence clearly shows that this was an airplane contrail. Your semantic games notwithstanding.
Ah, so Hardraade hasmoved from the ASW Chook to the cruise missile that sedately rise thousands of feet in the air.
Ah, so Hardraade hasmoved from the ASW Chinook to the cruise missile that sedately rise thousands of feet in the air.
You should work for Jane’s.
Go away -- and do not come back until you find and post it.
That misinterpretation of the "shadowing and backlighting" myth is all those poor duped folks have left to cling to...
All you did by pointing that stupid "video analysis" out is reinforcing the clear FACT that you "missile truthers" have been suckered by a SeeBS "sweeps week" LIE!
Since I didn't see the "second contrail" analysis until weeks afterwards it couldn't have had anything to do with my estimation of what KCBS showed. What you are making clear is how amateurish your analysis is.
Thanks! That is a beautiful example — as is our contrail...
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.