UPS902 Contrail Science plane theory debunked

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by backinblack

 

Does the government need to confirm that today is Friday? They could not care less whether backinblack on ATS has an official answer from them on what this nonevent was. I hope you aren't holding your breath for that statement, because I doubt they will ever make one.

No, but they should care what the rest of the world thinks and provide proof of what this event was.
It wasn't just me that questioned this event.
The US Goverment have been made to look like complete fools. Even Government officials were reported as saying they didn't know what it was..
So yes, I would think they would like to clear it up with an official response...
I think we all know Friday comes after Thursday but we are not all so certain that we saw a contrail the other Monday..

reply to post by backinblack


If you ask the population at random I bet 1% would even know what you were talking about. Actually I am not even going to continue to discuss this anymore. I know what you think, you know what I think I say we leave it at that. Like I said I wish you luck in your journey to find out the truth. Maybe just try and keep in mind that this isn't nearly as important to everyone else, as it is to you. You see some huge problem that needs to be rectified. Everyone else is looking forward to football tomorrow and turkey next week.

**edit** I just had a thought black. Even if the Government came out tomorrow and confirmed it was flight blah blah blah, would that really be sufficient for you? I have to believe that you would then tell us that they are lying or covering something up. I don't quite understand why you are waiting for official confirmation from a government you most likely wouldn't believe anyway? Please tell me if I am wrong, as I am not trying to say I know you well enough to make this guess or anything I just have a feeling your response would be along those lines.


**edit 2** Also I have to say when it is all said and done, it really isn't the government that looks like the fools....

reply to post by sputniksteve


If the Government said it was flight 902 then I'd expect they would do so with proof..
I think they haven't done so because they still don't know and if they did say it was flight 902 or any other flight then they know that flight would be closely checked by people with more knowledge than me..
Staying quiet is their best option if unsure..

BTW, not everyone that dissagrees with you is a fool..Pretty lame comment.

Originally posted by hiddencombo
I am sorry but are you kidding me? Your explanation is just crap. Contrail blown SLIGHTLY south? 5 degrees? "crabbing" in aviation?? Now take a look again at this picture from contrailscience.com:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/57963fd3b300.jpg[/atsimg]

Tell me why the small contrails from the object is PERPENDICULAR to the trajectory of the alledged radar track of UPS902 on most points??

From the POV of the camera, the UPS902's radar track does not come directly toward the viewer. It traverses diagnally across the sky, at an angle of about 30 degree or less from the horizon. The small contrails, which is supposed to be fresh and strong, should align with the trajectory of the radar track. But what do we see in this picture? A strange comet forced to follow the radar track?? hahaha

I don't think the viewing angle is greatly exaggerated. I think it is your "crabbing" theory that is so superbly exaggerated that you even try to link the small contrails with the radar track.

I know, it's quite counter-intuitive. But it's an optical illusion. Remember the head contrail is 150 miles away, and the curvature of the earth is bringing it down over the horizon 100 miles beyond that. It's an incredibly acute angle.

Here's a simple experiment you can do to demonstrate this.

First, draw a straight line across a piece of paper, then draw some more lines off this at a shallow angle. The first line is the track of the plane, and the angled lines are the position of the plane and contrail at various points.



Then, with your camera on maximum zoom, take a photo from as far away as possible, and at a shallow angle.



The contrail lines now appear at right angles to the track line. This is especially apparent if you zoom in more and view it upside down - the angle the contrail is viewed from.

reply to post by backinblack


It's hard to take this debate seriously when explanation from all levels of education have explained exactly what was seen and why, yet people will continue to beat a dead horse because they want to believe in conspiracy more than learn something.

And that seems to be what all threads about this issue have turned into. The people who KNOW the science, the aviation, the math, and people who want to "believe" in something they cannot prove. Because they have "open-minds", which I'm sure is mentioned more than once on the 300+ pages this issue has produced.

By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out. ---Richard Dawkins

Originally posted by Uncinus
I know, it's quite counter-intuitive. But it's an optical illusion. Remember the head contrail is 150 miles away, and the curvature of the earth is bringing it down over the horizon 100 miles beyond that. It's an incredibly acute angle.

Here's a simple experiment you can do to demonstrate this.

First, draw a straight line across a piece of paper, then draw some more lines off this at a shallow angle. The first line is the track of the plane, and the angled lines are the position of the plane and contrail at various points.



Then, with your camera on maximum zoom, take a photo from as far away as possible, and at a shallow angle.



The contrail lines now appear at right angles to the track line. This is especially apparent if you zoom in more and view it upside down - the angle the contrail is viewed from.

So, your "optical illusion" theory of the incident is based on these premises:

1. The object is very far away from the viewer (as you said, head of contrail 150 miles away, tail 250 miles.)

2. The trajectory of the object is at "an incredibly acute angle" toward the viewer.

3. The view needs to be zoomed in in order to make the "optical illusion" obvious.

Questions to your premise 1 - Distance:
Why is the tail of the contrail appears much wider than its head, if the tail is 250 miles away from the viewer, and the length of the trail as long as 100 miles??
With a distance of 250 miles away, that damn tail must be as wide as tens of miles. Don't you think? And the whole contrail looks thick throughout its length. What a BIG contrail the "plane" had produced over 100 miles away!! Or is it you who created the conjob ... I mean contrail?
By the way, 100 miles is really really far away. Can you actually see anything that far with naked eye?

Questions to your premise 2 - Acute Angle:
If the trajectory is at "an incredibly acute angle" toward the viewer, the object and the viewer should be at the SAME altitude. Since the camera is at ground level, why is the contrail in the picture traversed so high into the sky?
Now combine your premise 1 and 2, i.e. the object is 100 miles away AND almost directly toward the viewer. For the object to give such an "optical illusion" high in the sky, it would be virtually cruising outside of the earth's atomsphere! So, may I say you just proved it yourself that it is not a plane? ;-)

Question to your premise 3 - Zoom In:
In the picture of contrailscience.com that I linked to in my post, the camera is not zoomed in. So, how do you explain the "optical illusion" when the view was NOT as zoomed in as in your "experimental" paper exercise?

All your premises are so far-fetched, if not downright wrong!

A better explanation is that the object, from the POV of the camera, first traveled vertically upward (not an illusion) and then angled away from the viewer (into the direction of the sea). It continued to travel higher and farther away from the viewer, probably left the earth's atomsphere in the end. That's why the small contrails in the latter pictures becomes smaller and smaller.

If the object is approaching the viewer, the small contrails should appear bigger as it gets closer. But the pictures actually shows the contrary to what you claimed.

Sorry to bust your cover-up exercise again. And good luck to your plumbing work on the "plane theory".

Originally posted by hiddencombo
Questions to your premise 1 - Distance:
Why is the tail of the contrail appears much wider than its head, if the tail is 250 miles away from the viewer, and the length of the trail as long as 100 miles??

It has been spread by the wind.

With a distance of 250 miles away, that damn tail must be as wide as tens of miles. Don't you think? And the whole contrail looks thick throughout its length. What a BIG contrail the "plane" had produced over 100 miles away!! Or is it you who created the conjob ... I mean contrail?

It's probably a few miles wide back there.

By the way, 100 miles is really really far away. Can you actually see anything that far with naked eye?

You can see the Moon, and thats 250,000 miles away. But seriously, yes you can, although things closer to the horizon tend to get obscured by haze. This is higher up, so more visible, as the air is less dense.

Questions to your premise 2 - Acute Angle:
If the trajectory is at "an incredibly acute angle" toward the viewer, the object and the viewer should be at the SAME altitude. Since the camera is at ground level, why is the contrail in the picture traversed so high into the sky?

It's not. It traverses about 2 vertical degrees of the view field. It's just zoomed in.

Now combine your premise 1 and 2, i.e. the object is 100 miles away AND almost directly toward the viewer. For the object to give such an "optical illusion" high in the sky, it would be virtually cruising outside of the earth's atomsphere! So, may I say you just proved it yourself that it is not a plane? ;-)

No, it's actually very low on the horizon.

Question to your premise 3 - Zoom In:
In the picture of contrailscience.com that I linked to in my post, the camera is not zoomed in. So, how do you explain the "optical illusion" when the view was NOT as zoomed in as in your "experimental" paper exercise?

Zoom makes no difference to perspective. It just makes far away things bigger, so you can see them. Zoom is essentially cropping. It does not change the angles.

reply to post by Uncinus

It's probably a few miles wide back there.

No, if flight 902 then it was over 240 miles away at the horizon.
The widest part of that trail was pictured near or on the horizon..
This is what you see from around that distance.


I'd say " a few miles" doesn't even come close to describing how wide that would have to be..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Uncinus

 

It's probably a few miles wide back there.

No, if flight 902 then it was over 240 miles away at the horizon.
The widest part of that trail was pictured near or on the horizon..
This is what you see from around that distance.


I'd say " a few miles" doesn't even come close to describing how wide that would have to be..

That's what you see with a wide angle lens. Zoom in, and smaller things are visible, like this detail of the 9/11 smoke plume, about a mile wide.

www.examiner.com...

reply to post by Uncinus

That's what you see with a wide angle lens. Zoom in, and smaller things are visible, like this detail of the 9/11 smoke plume, about a mile wide

That pic from near the ISS looks like a natural pic to me as do the pics from Rick Warren..
The CBS video shows the same proportions so I'd assume it all looks natural..
That 9/11 plune appears to be pictured from much closer that 240 miles so not sure how that compares..

If you have a pic of something from around 240 miles away to compare then that would be great...
The ISS was the only thing I could find thats close..

reply to post by backinblack


HIS photo is a (zoomed) pic taken from onboard the ISS.

ISS orbits at an average 343 kilometers above the Earrh's surface!

That's about 214 miles.

Any more questions??

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

HIS photo is a (zoomed) pic taken from onboard the ISS.

ISS orbits at an average 343 kilometers above the Earrh's surface!

That's about 214 miles.

Any more questions??

How can a zoomed pic compare with an unzoomed pic?
And No, no more questions, I'd just like answers to the ones I've already asked..

Originally posted by backinblack
How can a zoomed pic compare with an unzoomed pic?
And No, no more questions, I'd just like answers to the ones I've already asked..

The 9/11 photo and the "mystery missile" photos and video are all zoomed in, so you are comparing like with like. You were asking how wide something would have to be in order to be visible at 240 miles. I provided an example of the 9/11 smoke trail which is clearly visible, and is only a mile wide. The contrail is likely several miles wide at its most distant point, and about 250-500 feet wide at the very tip.

Rick Warren's photos were taken with a 300mm lens, x1.6 in camera, so effective 480mm. The helicopter camera shots are mostly at a similar zoom lens.

Originally posted by backinblack
That pic from near the ISS looks like a natural pic to me as do the pics from Rick Warren..
The CBS video shows the same proportions so I'd assume it all looks natural..

Here's a photo showing the contrail zoomed in, and the same contrail where it actually appears in a "natural" (wide angle) shot from the same location (Warren's balcony). You can see it was not actually very large to the naked eye.

reply to post by Uncinus





That is not zoomed in much, if anything..




Neither is this pic..

Both give a view of what we see from around the 200+ mile mark...

That trail at the base would seem to be a lot more than sereral miles wide given what we see from the ISS position is at around the same range..

That trail at the base would seem to be a lot more than sereral miles wide given what we see from the ISS position is at around the same range..

The zoom levels are NOT the same. The ISS shot you post looks like an ultra wide angle.

But let's take your argument to its conclusion.

Let's say a "lot more than several" is 20? So, if it were actually 35 miles away, and not 240, then the base would have to be 20*35/240 = 2.9 miles wide.

Hence you have a 3 miles wide column of smoke, just off the shore of Los Angeles, and NOBODY NOTICED?

You know you can solve a lot of these problems simply by going into Google Earth, and adding some objects at the proposed distances.

reply to post by Uncinus

Hence you have a 3 miles wide column of smoke, just off the shore of Los Angeles, and NOBODY NOTICED?

You know you can solve a lot of these problems simply by going into Google Earth, and adding some objects at the proposed distances.

Thanks for that, I will try google earth

IMO, yes it's hard to believe very few people noticed this huge trail "if" it was flight 902 because that would mean it was visible for over 20 minutes..
Looking at the Rick Warren pics it is hard to imagine very few people noticed that...

reply to post by backinblack


Here's the shot in Google Earth duplicating the space station shot. It seems actually you were more correct in the zoom levels. I'd mistaken the land at the bottom for Central America, when its actually Italy.



BUT, if I put down a 4.2 mile wide measure (below the box), you can see it would easily be visible, and not too different in width to the contrail in the Warren shot. So the point still stands. Something only a few miles wide is quite visible from 240 miles away. (and especially if you zoom a bit)

reply to post by Uncinus


Thanks for that..Shows a good perspective..
Although it does say alt 167 miles it's still a fair way..

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