-
Posts
541 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by kolga
-
I can't get it to measure consistently thinner no matter how i do it. Where is the smaller piece? Anywhere, the plane, the cloud of debris ect. There is a world of difference in measuring between identifying a single thing with no reference other than itself, and measuring change between frames or measuring something with a known reference, like a tank or a plane or a truck. Yes, but combustion works differently, the more fuel you have the longer it takes to develop and lasts longer. The title is a description of the video, the description is the context. Notice it says "series of fast moving targets traveling up to 70 mph" but in the title it indicates it is the 70MPH stike. Prove it. So you chose the lowest quality and most glow-y video you can find which is still only around 43m? If they were similar you would think they would average around 5m, not like 37m. So 30% different is basically the same? Then why do you freak out about 2%? No, i had one missile with zero reference other than itself, so the only way to measure was to measure proportions, which i deviated from 2%. No need for humility, this is the internet!!! :lol: No it is indisputable knowledge of something, there has to be risk for it to be a bet. So it just couldn't stay lit with all those flames gushing out? :lol: Completely different measuring techniques, hardly comparable. That is like me saying "you can't see the screen with all that fog" it is just pointless and rude. Its a very big testing area, you can't help a ditch here and there. I just suggested it could be, not "it is definitely a flash 100%". Yeah, i wish we had higher quality ones. Wow, 2 right, good job, too bad they have little to do with the actual discussion. You have been wrong a fair bit of times also, far from being right quite a lot. Haha, so you can still only prove one measurement wrong? What happened to always? The R 27 video had a much much smaller error margin, I never tried to measure the puff in the -9X video, only suggested it could be a flash. I know, but for its relative motion to sharply decrease at 0:10, the missile would have to go away from the target, regardless of up or down. Because you were trying to say there was no hit. So? The missile clearly was still flying after the trail stopped. The measurement was 2% wrong, And i never measured the -9X puff, I can't be wrong on something i never addressed. Just because it is an ET doesn't mean the burn time is 10 sec. Withe the less than 40m thing i was exaggerating in your favor to be extra extra careful. And i never "measured" burn time either. You have no idea who the "contractor" is and what they know, you chose to believe an av mag and a video which you can't stay decided on it's validity. 2% out on 27, never measured burn time, what the heck does the flash thing have to do with measuring? Yes, you can still only disprove one measurement after claiming i was "always" wrong, what a glowing resume considering you still deny glow factor. Do you know how much force a stab has to endure compared to a window? Like i said, absence of evidence is not evidence, just because we haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it doesn't happen, especially since we have no inert FLIR hits. 1. it wasn't in the ditch when it stopped 2. how did they git it there if it didn't hit a ditch 3. obviously all they had on hand was a remote control truck, a FLIR camera, a slow-mo camera, and a brimstone missile.
-
But it doesn't measure thinner though. We also know that tend does not mean always. Yep, one piece in, one smaller piece out. You are the same amount wrong as my r 27 measurements :megalol: No, there is not a whole lot of blur in the 27 video. It takes far longer for a space travel rocket to explode, since there is like 50,000 times more fuel. :doh: But the original video uploaded by the manufacture says "strike", non plural: Look at the non-FLIR video of this hit, the truck is next to a van. Neither would I, but that isn't going to stop a truck going 70MPH in 15ft. Yes, and by less than 40m i meant about 32-35m, where is your video producing a flash 45-55m? No, my measurement was off by 2%, if you went to buy tires for your pickup truck and accidentally got semi truck tires were you off by 29% or 65%? (the tire size is 29% different and the truck length is 65% different) A truly profound statement. That is not a bet. You realize the ignition system has nothing to do with the fuel flow right? As long as you handle everything the same way you still get pretty accurate numbers, what would be flawed is measuring a low-res picture and then applying that to a high-res picture. You keep suggesting that i am deprived of oxygen or water. Ditch<Canyon, You can't just say they would reject an area because it has a small ditch. No, i claimed there was a flash until i realized the missile was burned out. Most of your replies sound like a monotone-grouchy-old-curmudgeon which only cares about being right. It is the only measurement you can prove i got wrong, and it was only off by 2%. The lengths of what? Yes, i could have, but i was using the low-res video that you posted, so there was no discernible difference. What i keep saying is, that the missile should go up, but up and in the same direction as the target, not up, away, and behind the target. Doesn't matter. Also doesn't matter, the missile stopped trailing before it stopped flying. Show me the measurement that is 20% wrong. Circular reasoning. I could say the same thing to you, you are the one denying the contractors assessment. Where is the 40m one? And no that is not similar, and you still deny glow do you? We are also yet to not see it, and who knows how much acceleration it takes to detonate the motor. Yeah, it looks like it is in some type of depot away from the test site.
-
As i have said many times, there is evidence for it being shorter, but by no means is that evidence conclusive because of mentioned factors (blur, speed, deflection angle) But there is also zero evidence for it staying the same, so does to balance of evidence point towards it being shorter? Yes, but just barely. 18% larger, and let me explain something, the error margin for the 27's is 2%, since the fins are 23% of the 27ET and 25% for the 27T, so there is only a 2% difference in what i was actually measuring for, so my 27 measurements were 2% wrong. Frames, we were talking about frames. You claimed the brimstone video had multiple hits in it (that the inert hit in the earlier part was different from the 0:40 part) because in the video title it said "targets", but in the original video uploaded by the manufacture says "strike", non plural. That is still nowhere near changing 130ft to 15ft. And to paraphrase you, until you show a video of an inert missile stopping a 70mph truck in 15ft, you have no case. And what exactly are those forces then? I was going off the hull and the hull length, if i measure the length including the gun (which seems less precise) it is 3.4 times the length and still less than 40m Before you said it was always wrong. And you can only come up with once where there was a 2% deviation? Yeah, i had just seen that video right before replying, so i thought i'd post it. When you feel you have a large enough margin to where you can do something without great danger of failing. And why didn't it continue? The fuel wouldn't have been cut off. I use low quality videos because that is what i have been able to find, using a precise form of measuring on a low quality video is a lot better than having a high quality video and not measuring at all, or using a ruler on your monitor. I am pretty sure attacking someones health and how it effects your mental processes probably violates a forum rule. *missile testing person surveying possible test track "HOLY CRAP! A DITCH? WHAT THE HECK! WE CAN"T TEST MISSILE HERE!!!" That missile had burned out, so maybe the the motor would have exploded if there was any fuel left. Ok, guess i'll never learn then :lol: Ok, its OT, so we can discontinue. If there was a 27T sitting on the ground you would have a point, but there was 0 reference other than the missile, so all i could measure was the fin proportions, which were 2% different. There is an obvious and irrefutable difference in the white blur's size, is the actual missile smaller? who knows. So it either goes up and right or not-up and left? (you don't have to answer since it is OT) 1. it is much more visible when actually watching the video. 2. It is of no consequence weather it hit or not, it proves the missile can smoke for longer than burn time and less then total flight time, weather you like it or not. I have never said the video is fake, just that it looks potentially doctored. I Deviated 2% once, i must be a failure :lol: Not proven. And would love to if i could find one. And i remind you, you haven't produced a similar sized FLIR flash either. But succeeded in proving that if it did with 1.5 sec of fuel, it could produce the OP flash. By your logic, it is since the title in the original video says "strike", non plural.
-
I have never claimed the missile was obliterated. There is evidence for it being smaller after intercept, there is zero evidence for it remaining intact. Have you not been listening at all? As i have said like 3 times, the T is 15% smaller than the ET, and the ET is 18% bigger than the T, it just depends on which direction you go. The one at 0:33 takes like 3: Ever considered that the manufacture has more accurate titles then the news ("Strike" not plural)? As i have said many times, locking your tires up at 70mph will stop you in more than 100ft, not 15 or less, and down force will do very little to change that. On pavement tests of trucks on pavement being intentionally braked stopping in about 130ft, so with some down force it will cot that down to 15ft, right?:lol: http://special-reports.pickuptrucks.com/2015/01/2015-annual-physical-braking.html You overestimate how much of that momentum was transferred to the truck opposite it's velocity vector. So the slow moving truck gets obliterated but still not enough damage to stop it fast? The tank hit? That one is about 5 tank lengths, which is under 40m. And what did you come up with? Lose the baseless accusations, or actually prove my measurement false. These guys survived: So, from 100% never fly low, to i would gamble on it? Why would that produce a single flash? Define ballpark. My measuring is garbage? That means a lot coming from you, the ballpark-ruler guy. You said missile motor's do not make a flash, and the stinger video proves that false. Absence of evidence is not evidence. Yep, so my cardiovascular system is more efficient :lol: You just have to accept that you know very little about ditches in deserts ;) Yep, as i have proven, only 1.5 sec of fuel can produce the flash and sustain the after glow even without residual heat of KE. Because the a/c is traveling left, and if the missile made a maneuver resulting in the trail movement between 0:10 and 0:12 the missile would be giving up energy for absolutely no return. Because you keep bringing it up :) I am guessing you are talking about the fin proportion measurements? Yeah, as i have said, after some experimenting i decided that the angle did matter and abandoned that, but i still think it is hilarious that the angle was soo perfect to produce exactly what you would expect from a 27T, even though it was a 27ET. And why would it turn away and up? Instead of towards and up? I am starting to worry about your eyesight, look at the white puff i circled at 0:36 One might say, wrong on scale images, wrong on size of aim-9x, wrong on motors exploding, wrong about inert FLIR hit, changed opinion on detonation, changed opinion on video being fake multiple times ect.... And which direction was the missile traveling?
-
There has to be something more going on with all these air crashes. Praying for the pilot and family.
-
I have already proven it as much as possible, I have produced the images and detailed how i processed them, if you think they are fake, go make your own scale images. As far as i can tell it is the same width in both photos. Also, i just said there is no way to prove anything about the missile length, due to blur speed and possible deflection. Those are for the radar guided 27's :lol: Neither do a lot of normal explosives. That is funny, there is a ford f250 parked about 80ft from where i am sitting right now, the transmission is in the front right behind the engine (It is the large silver colored funnel shaped thing): Give me a break, the suspension hardly moved, Something landing straight down on a moving truck does hardly anything to the forward speed, and if the wheels were simultaneously locked up it would stop much slower, like 100 feet minimum. In this at 0:35? In the time left in that clip it had already gone farther and was traveling much slower. Where are all the videos of a 50m hellfire/brimstone flash? This one at 0:32 is less than 20m: You still deny glow factor even though it is necessary for your argument. It goes like this: Here is happy terrorist truck rampaging Here is truck getting hit Here is truck crashing and the bad dudes lose I meant it as silly, and you have given no actual proof that they never fly low, just logic, does it make sense to fly at 30k all the time? of course, but do they do it? Probably not all the time. No, and almost all of the flash is external ie not coming from the plane. Cloud of what? Water vapor? The missile was heading rear of the engine: Did you just forget the entire conversation? I originally used the wrong frame(8.9m), and then you posted another wrong frame and so i went back and found the proper frame (20m). And remember, even if your exaggerated 5.7 times the vehicle length figure was right, you are still 12m short and therefore you need glow factor. Haha, no, i live in the mountains, but grew up in what i guess would be considered a dry plain near the Owyhee desert. Or it is just the simple answer: The missile did not detonate. I see what you are saying, but it does not apply in this case. Sure. I would say yes, the balance of evidence points to an ET, the only thing that doesn't is the extremely low probability freak accident "coincidence" of the fin proportions manipulated by the angle being exactly the same as the 27T. And what i was saying is that there is only loss in turning directly away from the camera at 0:10. White puff in the center, and it is still irrelevant if it hit because the MANPADS smokes for 10 sec and then continues not smoking. One might say, about a quarter as clear as the ditch in the FLIR :lol: So hitting 1140kg in the front is going to do less than getting hit with 50kg from the top?
-
Why has there been so many air crashes recently? Praying.
-
RIP, praying for family.
-
1. Prove the images are not to scale, you made an accusation, back it up. 2. The video is too low quality to prove either way, so the only thing that is certain is the white blur came out smaller than it went in, weather caused by angle, or video quality or actual missile size. And where did you get them? That was the question. You originally said missile motors don't explode, and there are multiple flashes which cause shockwaves it that video. Ok, enlighten me on how the rear axle just freezes when disconnected to the driveshaft. You might stop pretty fast if you get hit opposite your velocity vector, but the vehicles in the video get hit from the top-back and the top-side. Not convenient at all, even some of the live hits did not stop the truck. And you do? Based upon what? The Dutch av mag? Ever heard of a conclusion? So 1 video shows how high they fly generally? I can show you a video of one landing, does that mean they generally fly at 100ft AGL? Yeah, i said it didn't work, looks like the video was taken down. No, and i was being very conservative, the engine is actually about 7.8 ft up: Logic would dictate i was talking about the flash when i said 8.9m, who would think a pickup truck was 30ft long??? I just picked the max length of a f 250 which is 6.75m. And also even if the flash is 38m like you imply, you are still 12m short of 50m, and so you need glow. Again, you must not be around deserts much, there are many ditches and valleys and gulleys and the like. At what angle would it be possible to say? So you are saying the missile definitely wasn't close, but it is impossible to know how far away? It was pretty obvious, you said it ain't straight, i said you said that before and laughed, you said the same thing again, so i thought i would play dumb since you seemed to be going along with the joke, or did you just forget? No, you need to prove your point, the trail starkly slows in between 0:10 and 0:12, why would it do that when the missile is supposed to go the other way? Yes, it is close, but questionable. After measuring it it seems you are right, it is about 2 px smaller at the top, it looks like the problem was i was using the low-res youtube video you posted. What i keep saying is, that the relative motion gradually slows, then basically stops, then far slower than before begins to meander forward. And again, i am not arguing against the ET, it seems you were right about that, i am just casually saying the burn time still looks wrong, you can completely disregard all about the 27ET vs 27T if you want since it is OT. At 0:36? A floating white puff of launcher user flying in the sky!!!!!!!!!!:lol: I wouldn't say it is clear, but it seems to be there. A nail weighs, more like a quarter of a mouse, and a brimstone weighs more like a 56th of the truck, but is an analogy so i will let that go... 1. A truck weighs closer to 2800Kg 2. Very little to no KE of the missile would be against forward motion. 3. Here is a lighter truck going farther after hitting a car:
-
A ruler is less precise. Ok, well, ummm.... why not prove it? The image is to scale, each was created by making a crop the exact same pixel dimensions and then scaling each up 200%. What i am saying is, the white blur is around 20% shorter after, Is the missile shorter? We cant be sure, the quality is too low, you claimed the white blur was the same size as when it went it, which is false, and all i was doing was proving that it was false. As for angle, it is just as likely that it was more angled before intercept, broke off more than 20%, and then veered more perpendicular to the camera and appears bigger than it would be had it gone straight. If my measurement thinking is always wrong you should have no problem disproving 2 or 3 of my previous ones. Where did you get those numbers? Also, they don't change the % by hardly anything so i don't know what you are bringing them up. The 27T is about 15% smaller than the ET, the ET is about 18% bigger than the T, it just depends on which way you go. Don't argue with me, argue with the rocket exploding video. Ok, that changed nothing. You realize the engine connects to the transmission near the front and from the trans there is a driveshaft that goes all the way back to the rear axle (in this truck), right? If you are going 70mph on dirt and slam on the brakes, how fast will you stop? Probably a lot, but remember, not much of the energy is transferred going through sheet metal, as you have said. Yeah, i obviously said if a missile touches a vehicle it cant help but crash, and they don't show long enough. I would love to find an inert hit on FLIR, but i haven't been able to find one yet. Neither does showing it driving straight in the first part of the video. But you can't prove that, in my first post in this thread i showed the video with an F15 flying around pretty low (although the video doesn't seem to be there anymore). And i have personally looked down the tail pipe of a shooting star, and the last turbine was at least 3-4ft up (probably more). That is its biggest point, what frame are you using? Yes, and the truck is 150 px (taking angle into account) the flash is 492 px so it is 3.28 vehicle lengths, and if the truck at most is 6.75m then the flash is 22m. And even if your exaggerated measurements are right that still makes it 38m, so you still need glow factor. Yes, and if it is off road, it is in great danger of hitting very rough terrain ie a ditch. They cut out to soon to tell in that video. So how far do you think it was away? I thought the sarcasm was kinda obvious, but i guess i wasn't clear enough. Ok, prove me wrong, i am dying to hear your plethora of expert knowledge on the subject. Like i said, it seems to be an ET, but the burn time is messed up. Yeah, either way. ;) So a hellfire would obviously launch and go down for a long range target, right?:D The missile would have to go right to cause the relative movement in the video, and that is called losing energy, not gaining it. So? It proves my point either way, and there is a puff after the camera loses focus. Yes, but like you say, the missile is angled, so it is impossible to measure proportions :lol: Speaking of stubbornness, you still think a 100lb inert missile can stop a 70mph truck in 5m? Someone please back me up, it is a ditch. So since we have been here for 17 pages, hit me with your absolute best proof of detonation.
-
Why are you still using a ruler? Use gimp, its free and open source and has a nice measuring tool to get the exact amount of pixels. These pictures are to scale, the difference is obvious, even to the naked eye: The measurements themselves weren't wrong, the method i used in that instance was problematic, prove one of my actual measurements wrong. 3.79m divided by 4.49m = 84.4% 100 - 84.4 = 15.6 It depends on if your going by the 27ET or the 27T, i would think you would know some basic math if you were involved in missile testing. Unless it is. Real explosives have a similar flash development time to a lot of the rockets in the video, its just that they have so much fuel to sustain for a long time. If you sever the driveshaft coming from the transmission the wheels will spin freely. Are you saying that the missile acts like a spear and stakes the truck to the ground? that is preposterous. BTW, i have proof (go to 1:53) : Also, how can you not see he ditch? it is in plane sight. The amount of mental gymnastics you're going through to deny the ditch is almost sad. 'Cause it looked cool. (to them) (what do you mean by hit in different place?) I said good info. That is why i brought up altitude in the second video, if the OP is ground launched it has to be much much lower. No it doesn't, it hits about as fat back as it can without missing. Are you objecting to the results or the frame i used? To get the result you got you would have to measure from the black marks in this image: Probably didn't care much if it crashed after it was hit, or they wanted "cool" video of a crash. Answer me this: if they didn't want it off road, why was it obviously off road? How close roughly does it have to be to proxy detonate? I don't think i understand what you are trying to say :megalol: I know, we already talked about that, it has too far to go in too little time for the relative motion to be that slow between 0:10 and 0:12. So the burn time is 10 because the trail seems to get longer for 10, and the burn time of the 27ET is 10, so the motor must be burning for 10. That is called circular reasoning. The plane is left of the missile, are you saying that it decided to turn the opposite way from its target for 2 seconds? Did you watch the video? Nothing you said pertains to the video i posted: I am saying things don't match up, I lean towards it being a 27ET, but there are some holes in the arguments on both.
-
Then measure the aim-9x and prove me wrong. You have yet to prove any of my actual measurements as wrong. Was the method i used on the r-27 proven problematic? Yes, and i immediately admitted that when i realized it. And history has proven my actual measurements to be very precise: I claimed the 27T is about 15% smaller by measuring the scale drawing that Weta43 posted. Going by listed dimensions the 27T is about 15% smaller. I know, and if the surface area is large enough ie the material is crushed, the combustion will happen rapidly enough to imitate an explosion. You said those were different hits though, and that hit would have severed the drive shaft in between the trans and the axle, so the tires would be free-wheeling ie no resistance. Go to 0:35 even a warhead can't stop a truck going slower: You have no case. No, it won't, if you lock up the brakes in dirt going 60mph you will slide a very long ways, and it doesn't hardly get pinned down at all, look at the slow-mo normal video hit earlier in that video, the suspension hardly moves (if at all). I don't, but there is zero good info about the alleged MiG-29 sneak attack, so we can't assume it was an unlikely pilot.;) There is not any fuel being burnt at the nozzle in a non afterburning engine. I am still getting 3.5 lengths, 4 at the absolute max, are you using this frame (it is the largest and easiest because the flash is mostly opaque): Yep, and if you look closely there are hot pieces of something flying around right at the start of the FLIR indicating it was hit just before the start of the FLIR. Yes, but is still has to be close enough to do damage to the plane, and by you account detonate in a flare, so no matter what it has to be very very close. Ok, i think you may have mentioned that before possibly :lol: Burn time is a very shakey argument, the trail very abruptly stops at 0:10, and than appears to continue very very slowly untill 0:12, indicating the motor burning out at 0:10 and the wind bending the trail into view until 0:12. Veeeeeerrrrrrry Sllllooooooww powered flight :lol: And since we know that, we can conclude a missile can produce a trail longer than its burn time, but less than its flight time, its just that simple.
-
The heck? Is that an afterburning private jet?
-
Well, if you go off the 27T it is 18.4% longer, but if you go off of the 27ET it is 15.5% longer, so you guessed wrong and then corrected and we were both right. Well, yeah, of course, it had much more fuel to sustain and prolong the flash, and remember, Brimstone flashes take around 3 frames. 1. You realize hitting the in between the powerplant and the transmission is a very low probability shot, right? 2. You realize that it is impossible no matter what the tires are doing to stop a truck going that fast unless it hits something solid ie a ditch bank? That happened once and it was a professional pilot, not a rebel, your case for probability is pretty cute. We are talking about flash, not general problems, it is definitely flame. You are seriously using a ruler aren't you. What axis are you measuring? Use Gimp or photoshop or something to get accurate numbers. You have no case for the 0:40 FLIR truck crash, its almost sad. Yeah, they probably thought it was cool or something. So how far off? like a few meters? that is not much. Speak English, Man! :D That is why i started to question the reliability of that method, but if it was that bad, wouldn't it crap up any conclusions you have made also? Exactly, the wind is swirling it around, the trail abruptly stops at 0:10. In the video the missile smokes for 10 sec and then stops smoking, then the camera pans and there is a puff a very great distance away, so yes, i did, unless you just decided MANPADS burn for 10 sec :megalol:.
-
Go and stinking measure it yourself, you will come up with the fin length being 25% of the total length, and the 27T is 15% smaller than the 27ET, not 20%. Look at 0:36, instant flash. It looks like it is after it got hit and it ran off the road into the ditch. You keep mentioning KE, how does a 50kg missile stop a 2800kg truck in 5m? Yeah, like an inexperienced rebel flown MiG-29 sneaking up on an F-15 and hitting it with an R-73 that detonates on a flare that jettisoned out of time with the first two? Its is a fireball, like i said. A debris cloud doesn't go from bright orange to black smoke. And its in slow-mo, and its a puny stinger. I don't know ask the stinger, it did. Ok, show proof of one assessment you made that was proven accurate. What are wrt dimensions? The truck is about 150 px long The flash is about 505 px wide That makes it 3.36 vehicle lengths. Its on you now, prove me wrong, or stop the baseless accusations. We have zero inert FLIR hits, the 0:40 was bogus. Watch it frame by frame and interpolate, it is perfectly in line with the plane. Also, if it detonated on a flare like you claim, it would have to be right at the plane because the flares are ejected downwards. As for fin length ratios, the angle shouldn't matter in theory because the fins are attached to the missile, but by some freak accident (which obviously could never happen because its not likely :megalol: ) maybe the image distortion changed the proportions to that of a 27T. Yeah, like i said before, draw a straight line along the edge. As i said, the proportions should in theory remain the same regardless for angle. Sorry, At 0:10 the trail stops, and then the wind is bending the trail, watch an earlier part of the trail, it is bending also. Goldfish much? We just resolved that as wrong 2 pages ago (contrails are also very altitude dependent):
-
If you are tired of it why don't you get some image processing software and prove me wrong? No, there is an about 15% difference. Nope: Haha nice one! And nice divert attempt, it is clearly a ditch, an inert missile wouldn't stop a truck in 5m. There are no coincidences... You claimed it had burned out like 30 pages ago and there is no exhaust flame. Start at 4:18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyrDh2K7b8M Sure. Not even close, at the very maximum 4, but maybe you should actually measure it instead of using your fingernails or something. Even if it was 6 times the vehicle length that is still only 40m and therefore you still need glow. We still have no inert FLIR hits, so nothing to compare. It doesn't really matter. So are you saying the missile by some freak accident was perfectly in line between the camera and the plane but was actually 20m away? High probability FTW!!! Ok, it definitely looks straight, but from what Weta43 posted it looks like a ET. I was going off length of fins, not width. Go measure it yourself and you will come up with the fins length being 25% of the total length, which matches the 27T. I was talking about how the relative motion seems to gradually and consistently slow and then sharply slows, indicating the missile stoping smoking and the wind carrying the trail. It has been proven smoke time is not always an indicator of burn time so no, it was not really solid evidence. And It looks like the missile stops smoking at 0:10 so more like 8 sec of burn time which presents a problem for you. Also, the liveleak video is much better resolution, so watch it there for good picture.
-
Interesting info, thanks! But i doubt he is supersonic with flaps down.
-
There is an almost 20% difference, measure the dang thing yourself, i am getting tired of your laziness. If they are clearly wrong why don't you do it yourself and prove me wrong? Ok, so to sum up, it won't explode but it will but it won't? The point is combustion can look a lot like explosion under the right circumstances. I see you don't spend much time around deserts, yes, there are many ditches and the like in "deserts". I couldn't be much more obvious in the video, the truck runs off the road and into the ditch. 1. So? That doesn't mean they work flawlessly every time. 2. There was nothing to explode, hence no explosion. 3. Then why do inert stingers in tests bake a fireball? 4. Yeah, as i have said it is possible that the warhead was spoiled ie unexplodable. And what was the result of your measurement? I see no evidence contradicting his claim either. I mean it is between the camera and the plane, "in line", and yes we can tell that. Maybe, maybe not. It shouldn't matter, but experimenting i am not so sure the proportions are preserved. That is what i was saying, it has too far to go in too little time to slow down like the trail appears to at the end. I word of advice: Weta43 posted actual evidence which actually convinces me, if you provide actual evidence instead of snarky 3 word answers you might be able to actually convince someone (me). It is debatable weather it is the exact time of a 27ET, but i agree the trail lasts for at least 8 seconds.
-
Oh, you might be right then. It doesn't explain the fin proportions matching the 27T, but looks like it could be the 27ET.
-
Couldn't have said it better. There is too much money involved with meds instead of fixing problems and until people understand a lot of the pharma/doctors don't have their best interest in mind and are only want to sell you drugs the problem is just going to get worse. My dad had a doctor recommend a drug and then say "i am obligated to tell you i get kickbacks from the drug company" which was a little crazy.
-
It is not my imagination, it is called actually investigating instead of being like "look pretty similar, guess it is" you don't get an almost 20% difference from imagination. Maybe try actually measuring and bring some real data to this discussion instead of just claiming you know the dimensions of everything 'cause you can kinda see it. Umm, yeah, that is what i just said, if something burns really fast it looks like an explosion. You just said a petrol station explodes, and now it doesn't? I see absolutely nothing happening at 0:40, at 0:41 the truck hits a ditch and kicks up some dust, is that what you're talking about? Well, if its a pinto...... You have gone from missiles never explode to "the motor is in the back tho!" We have 0 confirmed inert its on FLIR. You have a brimstone making a 20m flash but the op is around 50m, you need glow to exist. Mfezi claims he has inert motor burned out hits that are similar to the OP, do you think he is lying? So are you saying it is anywhere between the camera and the plane? It is perfectly in line with the plane, and it is homing on the plane, so we can assume it was very close to the plane. It is straight, open it up in and zoom in and draw a straight line down the side of the missile. The fins are attached to the missile therefore they remain at the same proportion to the length. The fin to length ratio is the 27T, the missile body is as straight as the 27T, and i have proven missile trails can last longer than burn time but shorter than flight time. Your turn to produce some actual evidence. My mouse must have not been over the video when i took the screen. The trail behind the end is bending from the wind, is seems a little suspicious that the missile would be going a certain speed and then suddenly goes very slow for 2 seconds and then reappears in an explosion far away from the trail. Yes, the motor would burn out at 6s, but that doesn't mean the trail stops (as i have proven) watch it at normal speed and follow the missile, why would its relative movement change so rapidly for 2 or 3 sec?
-
I will put this here to make sure you see it:
-
Oh, ok, good, just checking. Then why is the white line smaller after? It definitely can, earlier today i burning some slash and threw some redwood sawdust on it and since the particles were so fine and in the air it flashed at a similar speed to the OP video. But i thought you just said it burned not exploded???? Yes it will make an "explosion" and so do rocket motors. I am still not seeing it, are you talking about when the truck slams into the ditch? There is more evidence for breakup than no breakup. You are forgetting a very important detail, the motor is burned out at the intercept so nothing to flash in normal video. My measuring is fine (and a lot better than you not measuring), i was just measuring the wrong frame. You need glow factor just as much as i do. The missile is literally at the back of the plane in the frame before the flash, it was VERY close. Not altered, only zoomed in. Are you trying to accuse me of messing with evidence? On the 27ET the fins are 23% of the length, on the 27T they are 25.6% of the length, i measured the one in the video and came up with 25.8%, within 2 tenths of a percent of the 27T. My job is done, its on you now. Would be glad to, i seem to be the one doing all the work around here anyway :lol: I looks like some wind happens in between 0:10 and 0:12 The one you think is fake? I am confused about that.
-
Yeah, if they aren't watching us then who are they watching? :megalol:
-
That is why it is so dangerous, they know they can hold people hostage and sell their data to make their enormous amounts of money. We may have to make sacrifices in the name of truth and justice.