kolga

You quoted an old post not my last so i will just assume you were replying to my new post? Then why are you saying that you can? IIRC I measured from the end of the blur, but what is important is i measured the same way for both, which i did. Can the blur cause a 17% difference? Maybe, maybe not. One thing is for sure, and that is we don't know weather it came out the same size as it went in. Yep, but combustion can look a lot like explosion under the right circumstances. You have said a petrol station explodes so its not like you're free of word misuse (as am I). I'll ask again: Then where is the missile? In most of the other FLIR hits we can see the missile coming in. Ok, so i finally understand exactly what you are trying to say here. I was responding to the motor burned out scenario, which would have little or no visible light. As i have said many times, the motor would be the prime flash generator. And glow, which you don't believe in, apparently afterburners are 10m x 15m to your eyes. It does not, as i will show. Yeah, i originally thought that was just kind of a pre-flash blinding, but i was wrong, i found this frame: It is about 20m, you need glow factor just as much as i do. What would be more curious is a warhead detonating and leaving no burn marks. Nope, measure it yourself. And look at this: No, because the trail lasts for more like 8.5 sec, not 10. And i will remind you that your position is based on believing a video you claim is fake ( and i tend to agree) and trusting a av mags anonymous source over the contractor doing the repair. If that is not a low probability event then i don't know what is.

None, run away. :lol: I would never buy a module on steam because a would think steam would take a cut and i want as much of my money for aircraft going to ED as possible.

Voluntary common possessions and forced equalization are not anywhere near the same thing. And those in the US who would identify as liberals are very much pushing socialism/communism.

Yes, very blurry, but if you zoom in there is a definite difference, weather caused by blur or breakage, how did you measure (just curious)? If you drop a long rod on the concrete floor, the yes, it is much more likely to break in the middle, but we are talking about a high speed non-uniform object hitting an uneven surface and passing through a very non-uniform medium. The theme i see is you throwing probability out the window whenever it doesn't match your belief. I was using the term "explosion" loosely, I have a basic understanding of the difference, but i am not going to claim to be an expert. Because it is subtle it is hard to tell the difference thus making it hard to tell. Then where is the missile? In all the other FLIR hits we can see the missile coming in. Did i say all? no. Still a "heck" of a lot more scientific than "plume". I posted a brimstone flash which is barely bigger than the truck (8.9m), you need glow factor to exist if you think the OP was a similar warhead. I was talking about from the blast. The missile is not hanging around the plane going "I'm gonna stick here and burn you!" Also, Did i ever say all? Are you talking about the MANPADS video i just posted? It doesn't matter if it hit or not, the missile smokes for 10 sec and then continues, after the camera loses focus you can see a grey puff (0:36). Also, the tail fins of the R-27 non-E are 25% of the length, i measured the r-27 in the video and guess what i came up with, 25%. I am only talking about altitude, not trying to argue for MANPADS, There is like a less than 2% chance of MANPADS in my mind so you don't have to try convince me. What does the thickness of the smoke trail have to do with anything? Nope, it is not (I measured).

It probably has more to do with fuel residue smoking (unless of course MANPADS burn for 10 sec): Who is clutching at straws?

Me and Hummingbird are not some type of gang, we agree on some stuff, but we are not affiliated. What about burn marks? Your statement looks like you are being sarcastic and saying "this is the dorky stuff most people believe, including Kolga". Forgive me if i misunderstood.

Well, guess what, i measured it and it is about 59 px long before and about 49 px after, so it is not all intact. Wait a second, before you were saying rocket motors never explode and now you're saying they explode but longer? A huge space travel rocket is going to take longer to blow up than a tiny missile, and also warhead explosions last longer that 1 frame too. The truck is next to a van when it is hit, there is no van in the 0:40 flir, and in all the other flir hits we can see the missile but no missile in this one. Also motor is burned out. Of course there isn't, there isn't anything to react and make visible heat. I said an inert strike could produce the flash in the OP video which glows like heck. Its a lot better than your not measuring, and what are you trying to say with the picture? That the FLIR is much more blinded than in the OP video? Go measure it yourself before attacking my measuring skills. It is a heck of a lot more scientific than "plume". If there is no more glow than other FLIR videos how come we can never see any smoke or blast?

I have said i don't think the video is 100% real many times. And all i have said is that it is perfectly possible for the flash in the OP to be caused by an inert missile (based on the contractor and Mfezi) Back to the goldfish are we?

Not gradual at all, if it had another 5 sec it wouldn't have smoke for the last 5 sec either, watch it again with the pride filter off.

Speaking of goldfish length memory, i just said in the post above yours the motor is burned out, so nothing to explode, and you have claimed it was burned out before also. I am more convinced than ever that rocket motors explode: Show the inert FLIR video, the one you posted before had no hit in it. Basically irrelevant, what do small test warheads have to do with the op? Umm, nope. I measured this brimstone hit ( ) at 0:35 and came up with 8.9m: :doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: I can;t facepalm that enough, the glow factor is obvious and irrefutable, you see absolutely no smoke or blast in the op, only glow.

So in summary, you don't like evidence that doesn't support your position, you don't like (and can't admit to) being wrong, and so you try and move the conversation away from the holes in your argument. Yes, if it is even real. No, on the basis of the contractor and Mfezi and math. Which you have yet to show one not (the aim-9x doesn't count, the motor is burned out) The motor is burned out. If it is a test warhead then it is basically irrelevant. You have shown no footage of a FLIR hit with similar glow factor making a similar sized flash. I will say it again (more clearly): If blast size is 10 for 9kg WH if blast size is 1 for motor if apache FLIR glow is 25% if OP glow is 1300% (conservatively) then the op video with motor explosion would be 13 with a 9kg WH it would be 117 and the motor on apache would be 1.25 and a 9kg WH would be 11.25 (hypothetical situation)

The speed probably has something to do with it, look at this MANPADS, it stops smoking before impact but it smokes for like 8 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZAUb9iA5TM&has_verified=1

FTC opened an investigation: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/03/26/ftc-announces-facebook-investigation-citing-substantial-concerns-about-privacy-practices/

It looks like it detonated, but heck, i don't know, i would think that big of warhead would make a bigger explosion. But I thought missiles in their envelope never ever missed? ;)

it starts at about 2.5 sec and there is visible vapor until 11 sec at the very latest. I think you summed it up nicely:

Are you still saying that has anything to do with exposure? ok And neither do you. :lol: (Just for the heck of it) How exactly would you say they cause a retargeting? Do they have some type of datalink? Your math which "proved" that, was proven to be garbage, what is this new proof you have? Then what are those white dots after the intercept then? And you can't even remember that we resolved that 14 pages ago, my first post about detonation was about the motor exploding. We all can forget stuff from time to time, and i try to post a correction when i do, but he amount of hypocrisy coming from you is starting to get a little tiring. Solid rocket motor burn rate is determined by the surface area, if you smash the motor it will burn pretty darn fast. Err... no that is not the hit that is the truck driving off the road, the truck gets hit right by a van and there is no van in the 40 sec FLIR. The amount of glow in normal video is like 1 or 2% of the blast, in the OP FLIR its more like 200% or much more. And the apache FLIR is like 20 to 50% Most of the unclassified missile test videos are old. When was the last time debris left a cloud of thick black smoke? I don't think a janitor qualifies as "the contractor doing the repair". Yes, it goes from no blast to full bast in 1 or 2 frames and then continues to burn for a few seconds. Yep, i have shown you an inert puny stinger hit in normal video exploding, and in the aim-9x fuselage hit the motor looks burned out anyway, so its sorta irrelevant when referring to motor explosions, and you have yet to show a video of an inert missile (non space travel, although i still haven't seen one of those either) with motor left not exploding. Yeah, its possible, but we haven't seen any credible sources stating otherwise. And as for RFCLOS i think you said it best: I don't need to assume glow, its right in front of my face, the burners are like 15m x 25m in the op and the missile motor is like 10m x 5m, and during and after the flash you can never actually see any flames. In the apache videos there is 1 or 2 frames of slight glow and the flames all the way. I would say they know something is wrong, but not exactly. You said on numerous occasions that there was a 0% chance of MANPADS and that the reason was altitude, i have never argued that it was MANPADS, just that altitude was a lame argument. The second video shows that the intercept happened around 20k ft, so the OP must be quite a bit lower. Yeah, do they get interviewed? Of course, but they are not the investigators.

Guy on internet has pictures.

I don't think so, there are 16 territories.

I got rid of FB years ago for mostly the same reasons as now, I think they will get hit pretty hard, they may come back a little if some kind of IBOR is passed, but their reputation has been tainted. Perhaps the storm is upon us...

Look at the video, it is definite, (absolutely no doubt) the missile burn time is around 6 or 7 sec.

That still has basically nothing to do with exposure, buddy. Ok, you sounded like you knew all about small test warhead so i thought i'd ask. And neither do you. It may have been losing lock and had to claw at whatever it could lock, its testing. Looking at it again, it look like you may be right, it looks like the motor may be spiraling after the intercept, the one caveat may be there doesn't seem to be a trail after the intercept, indicating it may not actually be the motor. That math was proven to be nowhere near legit. Ok, give me an example. If you know what you said you can just do a thread search. Irrelevant, rocket motors have an oxidizer. It is FLIR, but the hit is not in the FLIR part. Except for the fact that there is almost no glow in any of the live FLIR hits you have shown, in the op there is loads of glow. Take a look at this again: What if you are the av mags source? (kidding) For all we know the source could be floor sweeping dudes. It goes from 0 to huge in 1 or 2 frames. Yep, go ahead. I think you're right about the AIM-9x though. The biggest problem is in the hellfire videos there is some type of flash suppression. I know, i just said that. But it would make sense that it was a similar setup in both. Lets just make up a completely hypothetical situation to show my point: Lets say the blast size is 10 lets say the glow factor is x2 so blast + glow = 20 So if we have a video with little or no glow we get more like 10 or 12. What i am saying is blast + glow = op and blast + no glow = not same size. I would say no on the knowledge. Umm, yep! Why do you only like probably when it suits you? I doubt the pilots are directly involved in the investigation.

Oh, ok thanks for clearing that up!

Like Dutch magazines?

You hadn't heard? they are manufactured in all 57 states!:megalol:

To build on what Mfezi has said, if you are right behind a plane and launch, if the missile is near the plane and it pulls a 9g turn, the missile will have a very hard time following it.