UPS902 Contrail Science plane theory debunked

Originally posted by howmuch4another
I like you doc...you certainly don't go down without a fight...

I feel you're misguided on this but wanted to encourage you to not give up! You will certainly win the hearts and minds of a few. Go Missile theory!!! You can do it!! Even if it was a plane...

This thread has nothing to do with wether its a missile or not.
It is simply pointion out a hoax..Isn't that one of the reasons for ATS?

reply to post by backinblack

Nice opinion but how about some facts..Remember the rules, attack the thread, not the posters..

The two of you refuse to look at evidence...it is a lost cause trying to talk to you two anymore.

There have been facts upon facts upon facts given....and then there is a purely speculative claim of a chinese sub. When someone chooses to believe a purely made up scenario over a scenario that makes logical sense backed up by evidence....there is no longer a debate...it is talking to a wall.


And I see you have dodged my question once more...I'll repeat it again.

What do you believe that object was in these videos/pictures and what evidence do you have to back up that claim?

NOTE: I'm not asking you why you DON'T believe the contrail theory...I'm asking you what you DO believe.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I will tell you again...I dont know what it was and no one has proven what it was...

Now you will AGAIN post that you dont believe me...

Now how about you showing evidence that THIS thread, not the chinese sub thread, is wrong...

reply to post by backinblack


Your post history says otherwise...all you have done is try to attack any evidence showing it is a jet contrail...while siding with people who think it is a missile...I never see you once question any "theory" put forth by people thinking it is a missile.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well Phage.Another scenario could equally be this.
The Chinese or another country sneak within firing range of a major US city and launch a missile to show the WH what they are capable of.
The WH knows instantly there was a launch but not by who, so it tells all agencies to NOT realease any information to the public.
Whether or not they find out who launched is irrelevant. They would still never tell the public it happened.
The delay in clearing up this matter only gives more credit to a missile theory..

To you...this is an equally possible scenario...with ZERO evidence. Why not just come out and say it...this is what you WANT to believe.

In other posts...you say you believe the camera man who said it was not a plane, it was a missile...because you somehow credit him as being a reliable source.

You also quote greeneyedleo over and over and over....somehow giving her ex more credibility than anyone else who is claiming it is not a missile.



Just admit it....you very much WANT this to be a missile. That is why you are attempting to attack any other explaination with such passion. I know it is hard to let go of something you WANT to be true...but it doesn't make it true.


So...hmmmm....you attack one theory...and give a pass to the other...I wonder which one you WANT to believe in???


You are just not taking a position because you KNOW you have no evidence to show that it is a missile...even though it is fairly clear from you post history that it is what you believe.

This thread has nothing to do with wether its a missile or not.

attempt at debunking...sure. and the reason for that attempt is????

don't worry I'll wait...

Originally posted by howmuch4another

This thread has nothing to do with wether its a missile or not.

attempt at debunking...sure. and the reason for that attempt is????

don't worry I'll wait...

Not sure what you're waiting for..The OP's on the front page..
So debunk it..Preferably with proof..

reply to post by backinblack


I think my lack of including the entire quote confused my question.

BDS is "attempting" to debunk this for what reason?..What is the motivation since you've been following the other threads also?

Between 5:10 and 5:30 the wind at Harbor City ( about 5 miles from the harbor seen in the images) was from the west-southwest at about 6mph.
www.wunderground.com...

UPS902 was flying at 39,000 feet. At 39,000 feet the wind over San Diego (the closest available sounding station) was 71 knots from 295º (NW). As can be seen the wind steadily increased with altitude above 3,500 feet.
weather.uwyo.edu...

With this animation it can be seen that the low level clouds show little, if any movement in the few minutes which the images span, as can be expected with such light winds at the surface. On the other hand, the contrail moves substantially.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6e2e2f42ada3.gif[/atsimg]


If the contrail were vertical, the "base" being in much lighter wind than the upper portion would be left behind as the upper levels moved in the increasing wind. The contrail would lean more and more to the left. It doesn't. This indicates that the contrail was all at one level, horizontal not vertical.

The OP has presented no evidence that the images across the harbor are photoshopped and he has demonstrated complete ignorance of meteorology. He has actually helped to demonstrate that the contrail is not vertical.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

....this thread is about a website
intentionally faking data for
an agenda.

AND your allegations of this, against that website, have NO MERIT!!!

The contrail, farther in distance (MUCH farther) and higher, is illuminated from below, mostly...because where it's located, the Sun has not YET dropped below the horizon!! We live on a round Earth, folks...it's not flat and monotonous...you must try to learn geometry and trigonometry, to better visualize this, if you haven't yet attained the real-life experience.

Finally, there is the concept of motion, and relative motion, and perspective resulting from the various distances involved. An art class can teach about perspective and illusion, but that is focused on the still aspects of that field.

Cinematography would be a better endeavor, to learn some things. OR, just get a video camera (they are getting so ridiculously inexpensive, just about ANYone can afford to own one, by now!) ** and experiment for yourselves....might be the best way to learn, and come to understand, these principles.

**I saw some morning TV segment about new consumer tech, and there was a (Sony< I think) video camera...small, like a deck of cards or just larger, took 5 mega-pixel stills and HD video....and the guy said it cost about $160!!!**

(Googled, found one for $141!!! www.google.com...#

Just one example.....

Look for books on it (or articles online too) in your local library

It seems to me that the plane believers are in panic mode, typical it only prove the point that you have agenda, it was a missile, if you cant accept that fact, its alright.

AND your allegations of this, against that website, have NO MERIT!!!

Right yet alot of plane believers kept spamming the contrail site on every reply on every thread about the missile contrail, which i can tell, isn't that against ATS Rules?

Promoting a website by spamming it and then claiming it has proof to back up your claims?


@At phage, please stop spamming that same reply on each thread ok? if you dont have anything new or even evidence proof of your plane, don't bother of posting.

Personally i am getting tried of your claims first it was a 808 air flight now a 902

NO Airports came forward to admit or pilots its now Nov 17.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


And where is the evidence that this was a missile?

I seemed to have missed that.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

And where is the evidence that this was a missile?

I seemed to have missed that.

Sigh why do i even bother of replying to you if you haven't read the whole thread? or the other two threads on this thing?

I bet you didn't even bother of reading this thread, you only replayed because i made a statement about being it a missile.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

And where is the evidence that this was a missile?

I seemed to have missed that.

Sigh why do i even bother of replying to you if you haven't read the whole thread? or the other two threads on this thing?

I bet you didn't even bother of reading this thread, you only replayed because i made a statement about being it a missile.

edit on 17-11-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

I've read every thread on this....and there is no evidence of a missile.

Do you have some to share? Or will you dodge this quesiton by telling me something like "go look for yourself"???? Which really just means "I have no evidence I can show you".

OK....

Firstly, I will state for the fact that I am not a meteorologist. I know next to nothing about clouds or weather, except for what I observe and learn. So I will not speak as to how the could should be moving, or what direction the wind is travelling, or how fast the wind is moving. These are things that are, at present, outside of my field of expertise.

Photoshop, however, IS my area of expertise. I have been using it since Photoshop 7. and went to school to study New Media Communications, which covered:

Audio/Video editing
Visual Graphics

So, while I will not say for certain that the photos ARE faked, I will tell you all that it is completely possible (in fact easy) to fake such a picture using a program like Photoshop. For someone experienced and skilled, it would be MAYBE a half hour worth of work. An hour if you wanted to fiddle with it and make it look as clean and believable as possible. In fact, because such technology is available, Photos are no longer accepted as legitimate evidence in a court of law...they can be faked, and faked well.

So there you have it...showing this picture as proof that what was seen off the coast of LA was a plane is not proof at all. No court of law would uphold it, and neither will I. Not saying it wasn't a plane, mind you...just saying that these photos do NOT prove the opposite.


GtkP

reply to post by boondock-saint


The only useful thing you posted was the contrailscience.com link that shows it's a plane that produced the contrail.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

 

And where is the evidence that this was a missile?

I seemed to have missed that.

Sigh why do i even bother of replying to you if you haven't read the whole thread? or the other two threads on this thing?

I bet you didn't even bother of reading this thread, you only replayed because i made a statement about being it a missile.

edit on 17-11-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

I've read every thread on this....and there is no evidence of a missile.

Do you have some to share? Or will you dodge this quesiton by telling me something like "go look for yourself"???? Which really just means "I have no evidence I can show you".

Do you have something to share if you dont bother of replying by stating it was a plane, because there is no proof, and dont re take my words by claiming i am trying to dodge you, which i am not, and i am sorry but i highly dobut you did even bother of reading this thread.

Because you responded so quickly, some members on here already posted about the navy admitting it was a missile

It seems to me you have a problem with the word missile.

As for the plane theory, sorry i am not buying it.

Its now Nov 17 no Airports came forward admitting it was one of there flight, no Pilots came forward admitting it or the FAA, by now the pilots would heard it that there plane made it to the news how they made a contrail and made international news.

So far that hasn't happened.

And also the plane believers kept changing there flight number from 808 to 902, which tells me they are just playing with it.

As for the contrail website, that photo does indeed seemded to be fake.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

Because you responded so quickly, some members on here already posted about the navy admitting it was a missile

This is all you got huh?

Well guess what....the Navy never admitted it was a missile. The thread you are refering to ((www.abovetopsecret.com...)) is talking about a "notice" that is released every month to notify about possible missile tests taken place in the area listed.

No where in that thread does the Navy give a date of testing...no where does it "confirm" that they did a missile test on that date.


So what else do you got....or was that it?

reply to post by Phage


I appreciate your explanation...but the photo "progression" you present doesn't make sense...it looks as though the "projectile" is flying sideways relative to it's apparent direction of travel. Maybe I'm missing something here.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


So what evidence do you have if it was a plane?, a photo of a contrail doesn't even count as a evidence, i am still standing by the missile theory and it seems you plane believers have a problem with that

reply to post by empireoflizards

You are missing:
a) The plane is flying in a cross wind
b) The effects of perspective

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

So what evidence do you have if it was a plane?, a photo of a contrail doesn't even count as a evidence, i am still standing by the missile theory and it seems you plane believers have a problem with that

LOL...nice try to deflect the question.

I'm asking YOU what evidence there is that this is a missile...please answer THAT question. If you don't have any evidence...then just say so.