It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ufo appears to be chasing jet-short video

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: data5091

Ok after repeat viewing ive noticed the odd movement coincides with the movement of the camera.

Sidenote : 35 second mark I could be seeing things again but that looks like a grow to me.




posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: data5091

Contrails are virtually non existent with todays aircraft.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: gimcrackery

Contrails are MORE prevalent with today's aircraft.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: gimcrackery
a reply to: data5091

Contrails are virtually non existent with todays aircraft.


As Zaphod alluded to, todays jet engines are said to be "High bypass" engines. What that simply means is that much more of the air that is sucked into the front of the engine bypasses the combustion chamber, and is instead compressed in order to help turn the turbo fans before that air is exited out the back of the engine.

That means that more of the air exiting the back of the engine is cooler and wetter than in the past (cooler and wetter because it bypasses the combustion chamber). That cooler and wetter air is more likely to spawn a contrail.

Some of the highest bypass engines have up to 85% of the air sucked I that is sucked into the gaping fronts of those engines never go through combustion. That air will instead be as moisture-laden as it was before it got sucked into the engine; moisture-laden air = higher potential for contrails.

It's important to stress that point again...:
Most of the AMBIENT MOISTURE in the air that entered the engine intake will still be there when the air is exhaust out the back of the engine because it does not go through combustion (where they air would be dried up somewhat).

A high-bypass engine STILL HAS an old-fashioned turbojet engine at its core. The difference now being that more air is sucked in (hence the larger fronts to modern engines), so a smaller percentage of that intake air is used in the turbojet.

Having said that, the increase in trail production from a high-bypass engine is not tremendous. While the high bypass engine may add a bit to the increase in contrails over the past few decades, the main reason for the increase is due to increased air traffic.


edit on 2017-2-10 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

They actually go higher than that. The GE90-115B bypasses 90% IIRC. That seems to be the current upper limit for now. If they were to take ADVENT to the civilian world they might get higher.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: data5091

It looks like two airliners flying in the same direction at different altitudes, with one flying in conditions that are more conducive to producing a contrail. I see this sort of thing very frequently in the commercial air corridors above the western Mojave Desert.



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I'm thinking, in part because of the jerkiness of the object, that it just might be a reflection of some sort



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 05:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: data5091

It could be two planes. The one not leaving a contrail might be at a lower altitude than the one leaving a contrail.

The fact that the object not leaving a contrail appears to be moving faster than the one leaving a contrail is a hint that it could be at a lower altitude and closer to the camera; things that are closer to the camera/observer seem to be moving faster than farther objects, even if they aren't faster.

Yes! Here's a photo example of such planes:



A better view:



A close-up:




posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

With the size and the chase air craft maybe something being tested with some bright lights to obscure the real size and shape.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

Could be that too. It's almost certainly two aircraft though.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: data5091

As already posted by others this is simply two aircraft flying in the same direction with a difference in altitude. Absolutely nothing unusual in seeing only one aircraft contrail when there is a difference even of a few thousand feet.

From the video it is quite easy to work out the direction that the person was filming. The person was filming in an easterly direction over the ridge. I won't give away the exact house but they were filming from a raised porch. The buiding with the flag on it was the giveaway.



Rough location in Lincoln, New Hampshire showing the ridge. In the video the breaks in the forested slopes have snow in them. The Town Hall building is also visible.



Street view of Main Street Lincoln, NH link

The person is simply filming routine airlines using the upper air route to the east of Lincoln, NH. In this case upper air route J49.



See following for location showing the upper air routes and way point around Lincoln, NH.

Skyvector link showing area around Lincoln, NH

Also see navigational way points as can be seen on Skyvector.

Waypoint CAMTN link

Waypoint SQUAM link

Go to the following website. Ensure that the "World-Hi" is selected from the tab on the right and enter CAMTN in the "Flight Plan" box on the left and click "Go". It will centre the map on the way point south of Lincoln.

Skyvector link

Lincoln, New Hampshire was in Daylight Saving Time during 21st April, 2016.

1900 Daylight Saving Time = 2300 Greenwich Mean Time (-4 GMT)

Screenshots of airliners using the upper air route from Planefinder.

Lufthansa Boeing 747 and Airbus A340 at 1900 DST (2300 GMT) on 21st April 2016. Lincoln location in the star.

Boeing 747 at 32,975 feet and Airbus A340 at 35,000 feet



Nearest aircraft to the filming location. Predominately white Lufthansa Boeing 747, registration D-ABYT.

Lufthansa D-ABYT images link

Lufthansa Airbus A340, registration D-AIHA.

Lufthansa D-AIHA images link

Approx 20 mins later there was another pair of aircraft, but much closer. The person doing the filming could repeat this over and over again with the amount of traffic using the upper air route. You also have to factor in the quality of the camera device used and the distance that the airliners are. Approximately 12 miles to the Boeing 747 and approximately 25 miles to the Airbus A340.



Playback of the 21st April flights can be obtained from the following link.

Planefinder flight tracking link

Video for reference.





edit on 12/2/2017 by tommyjo because: additional info added



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo

Great investigation


If the explanation was in fact one of those two scenarios, I think the first one may fit netter, because the larger-appearing plane, which was larger-appearing because it was closer, was quiet a nit larger and moving (apparent motion) faster, which makes me think it was substantially closer than the other.

Anther thing that makes me think it may have been substantially closer was that it appeared higher in the video frame (the plane higher in the video frame was I think the lower and closer of the two planes). For something lower in altitude to appear higher in the frame would be due to a matter of perspective, and that perspective could occur if the lower plane was substantially closer to the camera/observer than the higher plane.


edit on 2017-2-12 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Thanks. I like these sort of investigations!

I agree with the first airliner match-up. I only put in the second as an example of airliners flying close together using that busy upper air route.

There is a lot of people out there that simply don't realize just how far away a contrail can be seen. In the video the aircraft producing the contrail is higher than the other aircraft but further away. The lower to the horizon the further away the aircraft is.

How Far Away is that Contrail

Metabunk link - What is the furthest distance a contrail can seen?



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That is B.S. I am an aviation expert



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: gimcrackery

And yet you have no understanding of high bypass turbofans. Then you should be able to explain how an engine that bypssses as much as 90% of the air, and pushes cold damp air is NOT going to leave a contrail. Or the fact that they've proven modern turbofan engines leave contrails where older engines didn't.
edit on 2/24/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

hey now there Z man, it's obviously chemtrails and not warm compressed moist air

obvious aviation expert is obvious



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

Damn that science for getting in the way.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: gimcrackery
a reply to: data5091

Contrails are virtually non existent with todays aircraft.


That makes little sense.

Today's high-bypass engines have an old-style turbofan engine at the core of it. The main difference (in broad, general terms) is that there is an extra cowling around the side of the old-style turbo fane that allows a greater amount of air in the front end that is expelled out the back end -- with most of that air not going through (i.e., bypassing) the turbofan part of the engine.

However, the turbofan part of the engine is still there, behaving much like the old-style turbofan engine from the 1950s through the 1980s -- and there is no reason to believe that that part of the engine would be any less capable of making contrails.

...so the new engines should be AT LEAST as capable of producing a contrail. But then add to that the fact that cooler and wetter air (the bypassed air) is being compressed and added to the stream of air coming out of that turbofan, and the result should be an increase in the capability to produce contrails.

Please explain why you say they would be less capable.

(and Zaphod, if you are reading this...you know more about these engines than I do, so correct any mistakes or oversimplifications that I may have made).



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: gimcrackery
a reply to: data5091

Contrails are virtually non existent with todays aircraft.


That makes little sense. ....


This mindset comes from the various chemtrail websites. It is almost a mantra chant!

Global Sky Watch High-Bypass Turbofans DO NOT Produce Contrails. So What Are Those Lines in the Sky? Link

Geo Engineering Watch Link Why High Bypass Turbofan Jet Engines Are Almost Incapable Of Producing Condensation Trails Link

Jack Buran a Canadian Chemtrail believer even produced this ridiculous video. No wonder the comments are disabled on it!



Of course these ridiculous claims have long since been debunked.

Metabunk Link



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: gimcrackery
a reply to: data5091

Contrails are virtually non existent with todays aircraft.


That makes little sense. ....


This mindset comes from the various chemtrail websites. It is almost a mantra chant! ...


...Jack Buran a Canadian Chemtrail believer even produced this ridiculous video. No wonder the comments are disabled on it!




Some of the things he says in that video are certainly ridiculous, or at the very least they are extremely uninformed.

For example, he says the following:

"The ratio or air to exhaust is much too high to facilitate condensation because ethe majority of the air expelled is not combusted/mixed with the fuel"

Going by that, it sounds as if he is under the mistaken impression that the water in a condensation trail is solely the byproduct of the combustion of the fuel. He is correct that some of the water comes from the combustion process (hydrogen in the fuel combines with oxygen during combustion, and creates water as part of the exhaust gasses)...

...HOWEVER, much more of the water present in a contrail, especially a persistent contrail, comes from latent water vapor that already exists in the ambient air through which the plane is flying. Like I said, some of the water for the contrail comes out of the combustion exhaust, BUT much of it condenses out of the air that is not combusted.

Much of the water visible in a contrail was already in that air, but in the form of invisible vapor until the plane passed through. The action of the plane and exhaust then caused the INVISIBLE vapor in that ambient air to condense into VISIBLE droplets of liquid water or frozen ice crystals.


Oh...he then goes on to point out how we mysteriously don't see contrails from helicopters. Well, that's a stupid point to make, considering that contrails form at very high altitudes (at least 25,000 feet -- but usually 30,0000 to 37,000 feet), and helicopters usually fly at only around 10,000 to 12,000 feet maximum -- usually lower (around 5000 feet or less). There are some exceptions with more extreme helicopters that can fly higher, but almost all commercial helicopters do not have pressurized cabins, which is one limiting factor in how high one can fly.

However, to bring up that helicopters mysteriously don't make contrails is either ignorance on his part, or just straight out intentional misinformation (i.e., outright lies).


edit on 2017-2-28 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join