It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# UPS902 Contrail Science plane theory debunked

page: 10
19
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:23 PM

Is that at it's widest??
Still pretty darn wide for a trail that looks that solid...
BTW, thanks for the help

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 06:00 PM

Well, remember you are viewing it from an angle, so it might be lot thinner if you viewed it directly from above. Contrails can accumulate ice though, so can actually grow.

If anyone is interested in the Google Earth visualization, I've made a video explaining how to use it. Link to Google Earth KLM file is in the video description, so you play with it yourself.

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Uncinus
A quick knock up in Google Earth shows the contrail at the horizon to be just four miles wide.

Nice try. Now you started it, you gotta finish it. Regarding the second picture you linked, shown here:

I think I might want to trust your work. So please plot a view on your Google Earth, looking at the head of the yellow polygon from the position of Richard Warren. Take a snapshot and post it on this thread.

Contrailscience.com said Richard lived on the 10th floor. So let's set the viewing altitude as 30 metres. And set the yellow polygon you made on GE at an altitude of 39000 feet or 11887 metres (as per UPS902 radar bearings). Also don't forget to show us the offset angle of your polygon is actually at 5 degrees away from the radar track, and that the head of the contrail is 100 miles away from Richard. Make the tail of the contrail 4 miles wide.

After accomplishing those above, please plot another model on your GE resembling the plume from whatever going vertically upward, but at 35 miles off the L.A. coast, somewhere along the line connecting Richard and the head of the contrail.

Good luck.

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 08:14 PM
Hmm, well I guess that video link did not work, as that's one of the things I do in there.

and here's the Google Earth setup

contrailscience.com...

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)

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 10:29 PM

and that the head of the contrail is 100 miles away from Richard.

Actually at the time of Rick Warrens first pic it would have been more like 140 miles minimum..

His first pic at 5:19....At 5:15 flt 902 was 160 miles off the coast...
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..

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 05:44 AM

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)

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.

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?

ciao.

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:13 AM

Originally posted by hiddencombo

If CBS said the plume at 9000 feet high, why plot it as 39000 feet in GE?

Sorry I'm not communicating very well. CBS never said it was 9000 feet. They just said it was 35 miles off the coast. So I put a plume there, and adjusted the height until it matched the photo. The height came out at 9000 feet. The point is that is ridiculously low for a missile, which can travel 9000 feet in just a few seconds. A human can run 9000 feet in less time than the ten minutes the video was shot in.

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".

5 degrees was just a visual estimate. Because of the magnifying effect fo the acute view angle, very slight differences in the contrail angle make a huge difference to the visual angle. But, based on the photos of the actual contrail, it goes through all visual angles from 45 degrees right to 45 degrees left, so at some point in its transit, it matches what I plotted, regardless of the precise offset angle. I simply set it to match the satellite photo of the contrail.

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.

Sure it looks the same AT THAT POINT, but consider the other images. How does a "vertical" plume get from initially being 45 degrees right, then vertical, then 45 degrees left? Why is the missile moving slower than the wind? Why only 9000 feet high in 10 minutes? It just does not fit. Whereas the horizontal contrail explanation fits perfectly, but unfortunately is such an unfamiliar perspective that it's difficult to wrap your head around.

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.

I don't think it became smaller. Are you sure you were looking at photos at the same zoom level? Can you post an example?

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.

9000 feet is not "high into the atmosphere"

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? :-?

It's to scale. Look at the building next to the plume. That's what I used the align and scale the photos. The building is the correct size for that wide angle photo.

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?

His camera has a 1.6x multiplier (standard for digital SLRs). The lens was actually 70-300mm. You can tell he zoomed in be looking at the size of the buildings on the horizon. The precise zoom level is stored in the original images, in the EXIF data. But I just used the buildings, as that's all you need.

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 10:48 AM

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..

He's on the 10th floor of a beachfront condo. There's just some low hills across the harbor which obscure the bottom of the contrail.

contrailscience.com...

Explanatory video for Google Earth files.
edit on 23-11-2010 by Uncinus because: figured out how to upload photos

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 12:04 PM

Thank you very much for taking the time to do all that

Geez, wouldn't mind Rick's condo, looks like a nice location..

19