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.
originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
the casino is best i tell 13 stories tall, looking at pictures of it. you can see with the naked eye 13 miles from 130 up.i say a camera is just as good as the naked eye in that aspect
also if you watch the video at 1/4 speed at the 7 sec mark you can see it appears to land behind the furthest what you called road sign and came back past the closest and then turned right.
ETA: if you watch really close in full screen at 1/4 speed,you can see the thing moving in flight and sometimes it appears to be banking.to the right and in order to land behind the furthest "sign" and come back toward the casino it would have to have turned some where in flight.
originally posted by: intrptr
Edit: Oh yah, I reviewed your post too, you found the buildings in camera view, I saw that too on Google map because of your work...
originally posted by: Bullshark012
Where is the ARMAP correlation? Who are they? Artic mapping? Dude anybody with good observation skills can clearly see the probable meteor passing over the horizon AFTER it dims out (passes behind something) , reemerges, then exits over the tree covered horizon as it dims out the final time.
Edit: ARMAP is from NASA...so you are trusting our gov't (NASA) for your source? LOL
originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
yea i've seen your stack frame picture in about four posts. doesn't really show anything.
one other thing i would like to point out, if a meteor landed where your implying. behind the road signs. don't you think that someone in that line of traffic would have said something about a meteor landing and moving, bouncing, skidding, sliding down beside the road. i mean the signs are only like 15 20 feet off the edge and surly if a meteor landing there and traveled that far at least the 6 vehicles right there, not counting the one moving towards that point, someone would have seen it and reported it.
it would be a uncommon sight and draw peoples attention, where as a aircraft is a everyday thing and doesn't warrant that much attention.
originally posted by: Bullshark012
ARMAP is what the prior poster said ...so I looked it up. Not ArMaP (you) sorry he threw me off track..ARMAP is some sort of NASA software for artic mapping...sorry for that. Google it if u care to.....
But....Not sure how you created that trajectory ...
All I can say is it follows yours, but it blacks out somewhere Behind the red light, reappears then ends behind the trees (or hill) about halfway from the red light to where your trajectory ends.
The final portion of your trajectory does not fit with what I can clearly see. I can see it go behind the hill right before where your trajectory has it hitting...sorry...my eyes don't lie.....either way, your end point or mine, it's not a plane .
originally posted by: ArMaP
originally posted by: intrptr
Edit: Oh yah, I reviewed your post too, you found the buildings in camera view, I saw that too on Google map because of your work...
And don't you think the camera is pointing to the opposite direction, pointing to Oklahoma City instead of Shawnee?
originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
here are some screen shots taken from the 6 sec frames. these very well could be tail and wing tip lights that you can clearly see if played at 1/4 speed and full screen. you can tell that they are not connected to the main body of light.
if you blow them up before they become pixelated, you can see them better.
originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: intrptr
OK, I understand it now, I forgot about that you were mentioning that it was a reflection.
If it was a reflection it could be almost anywhere, just not in the camera's field of vision.
originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
There are no airfields on that area.