It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Uncinus
A quick knock up in Google Earth shows the contrail at the horizon to be just four miles wide.
and that the head of the contrail is 100 miles away from Richard.
Originally posted by Uncinus
How high do you want the plume at 35 miles? The highest it got in the CBS video was 9,000 feet.
You can edit it yourself in GE, right click on the "9000 foot vertical contrail", under "Markers", then "Get Info", and then "Altitude"
Here's the view from Viewpoints/Rick's Balcony with the 0.5-4.0 mile contrail coming over the horizon, and a 9,000 foot "plume" at 35 miles from the coast.
And the same plume at 39,000 feet high
edit on 22-11-2010 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by hiddencombo
If CBS said the plume at 9000 feet high, why plot it as 39000 feet in GE?
I am more interested in your first picture, as shown here:
I am not sure if you set the offset angle at 5 degrees to the radar track. I plotted the same polygon on GE. When viewed from the coordinates of Richard Warren, the trail looks similar to yours in shape but leaning more to the left, i.e. more aligned along the track. Even in your picture, the simulated trail is very different from those in the orginal Richard Warren pictures. In many of his shots, the trail was leaning to the right. And you need a bigger offset angle to give that "effect".
You plotted the 9000 vertical plume as a rectangular, while in fact it should look small in its head and bigger in its tail. But let's use your picture for now. It shows that the vertical plume at 35 miles off the coast could look very much the SAME as a thick, wide and heavily-blown "contrail" at more than 100 miles away and an altitude of 39000 feet. It is much easier to explain the right-leaning of the plume if it is vertical. You don't need all this stichting of distances, altitudes and "incredibly acute angles" for a vertical plume.
Also, you didn't explain why the small contrail of the object did not appear bigger when it was supposed to be approaching the viewer. In fact, they became smaller after some minutes in Richard's pictures.
If we look at it in a different way, i.e. the object shot high into the atomsphere and leaving the viewer toward the sea, it is easier to explain why the small contrail became smaller, as well as why its speed appeared to be slow.
About another picture you posted a link:
You transposed the plume into a wide angle picture but you made it too small, if compared with the GE view of the polygon contrail. You made it into an neglegible minute scratch on the horizon. What are you trying to do here? :-?
You mentioned that Richard's camera has an 1.6x lens. But are you sure how much he had actually zoomed in when he shot the pictures, one by one?
Originally posted by backinblack
Yes it would be great if we could get a google view...I did wonder how Rick got such a good shot low on that contrail considering the land and building in front of him..