It doesn't. Can you tell from the picture what the course of the airplane is? The orange line shows it moving along a consistant course. Do you know what heading that course is?
Posted on 12/12/2010 10:47:16 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
Uh, if altitude is what made the difference between contrail and no-contrail please explain why it stopped creating a contrail at least 8 minutes before it dropped any altitude.
Do you realize that the orangish area with the vertical orange lines leading up to the orange line with the small, circular images of the aircraft represents the exact flightpath of UPS902 on 8 Nov?
I know it’s supposed to. What is hilarious is that the “airplane” travels faster sideways than it does forward.
Show me a picture of the object when it wasn't producing a contrail. I have yet to see one.
I use your drivel as opportunities to compose or draw things that are being assembled as a presentation - on my website -- and share them with the FR public. Thanks for playing "Yahbut, the Straight Man". ;-}
I don't care what you admit to. You're free to post to me if you want to. I'm free to laugh at you when you say "my last post to you" over and over and continue to post to me. LOL
Leyvas' video here showing the change from a continuous plume to a short, quickly dissipating contrail.
Excellent! That's a perfect video cut, from around 0:45 to the end.
Show me any video anywhere of a SLBM, or any solid rocket booster that, after ceasing to create an exhaust plume, starts creating one again.
That part is several minutes after Leyvas says the object creating the contrail diappeared. Show me any video of a SLBM, or any solid rocket booster that remains in view four to five minutes after launch, even with doublers and high powered lenses.
From 0:45 onward, Leyvas maintains there is no object creating a contrail, but any objective viewer will look at 0:45 onward and say there is an object there creating a contrail, albeit a smaller contrail that dissipates quickly.
Again, this footage is several minutes after the 2-3 minutes of footage in which Leyvas maintains the object disappeared and was never seen again, and it overlaps Warren's images, which Leyvas claims were 8 to 10 minutes after the object disappeared from sight.
Meant to ping you to my last post also.
It is moving forward at 10 miles a minute. It certainly isn't moving sideways that quickly. In fact, its course is pretty consistant. The winds at altitude are pretty strong as evidenced by how quickly the contrail drifts. In order to counter the southerly wind as the aircraft moves east, it would actually have to turn into the wind to maintain a consistant course. Think about a boat crossing a fast moving stream. If it doesn't point into the current, it drifts downstream.
What you mean is show you one where the solid fuel motor stops making a plume of smoke and the hot spent motor and the speed of the vehicle creates enough heat to make a condensation contrail that dissipates quickly.
Then why does the multiple picture overlay show it making far more progress sideways, to the south, than forward, to the east?
No, that’s not what I mean.
Show me any video of what you just described, however, remaining in view for 8 to 10 minutes, and I’ll grant you your point.
IOWs instead of taking Leyvas at his word for the things he clearly said you don't consider him objective. Pot meet kettle. I think Finny was right you had an agenda before you ever interviewed him.
I think I'll stick with Gil Leyvas' estimate of 3 minutes maximum.
It doesn't. Can you tell from the picture what the course of the airplane is? The orange line shows it moving along a consistant course. Do you know what heading that course is?
I believe Leyvas formed an initial impression and has been unable to overcome that erroneous initial impression. That his initial impression was erroneous is obvious from a careful comparison of Leyvas’ video and Warren’s subsequent photos.
And don’t fret, I’m not overly concerned about your or Finny’s opinions.
1) I'm still not sure what the object is, jet or missile or for that matter, something else. What I can tell you is that the animation of frame 18 only shows the path the plume drifted and not anything in flight. The 30-45 seconds of video I captured in which I could see the object (the portion of the video showing the glow/flame of the object at its pinnacle) occurred 8-10 minutes prior to the animated images of frame 18 (if the time stamps are accurate). I have no way of telling if those time stamps are accurate since the raw video has no real-time time stamp associated with it. I can only go by an estimated time based on the time we launched out of John Wayne airport and the approximate time of our weather shot. My guess is that the time stamps are relatively close to the accurate time. However, what you are seeing in those images is the plume drifting and not anything in flight.2) My estimation is that the satellite image showing a plume forming and drifting to the south/southeast is in the same relative area as the plume I shot. Again, I'm no expert, it's simply my opinion.
The satellite image had its own time verification:
But this one does show a lot of similarity even though the second stage is powered flight. In the first stage there is a continuous plume, in the second stage there is a plume that doesn't persist long and very briefly after that there is a small tail plume barely visible even though the third stage is a solid rocket motor also.
I don't know why he's not mad at contrailscience guy for obviously ripping off his work.
Well good for you. Now you're a psychiatrist too. lol
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.