EarthlingX":1i467fdu said:
:shock: The crazy gene is strong in this one . It's as if she really believes the crap she's spewing .
- Status
:shock: The crazy gene is strong in this one . It's as if she really believes the crap she's spewing .
SteveCNC":10pjeoz7 said:
Well she borked the Woo-meter ! Let's see the count :
Bilderberg Group - check
The Illuminati - check
CIA conspiracy - check
chemtrails - check
reptillian alien infestation - check
friendly alien helpers - check
humans as food - check
war in Earth space - check
She fails for not mentioning the Trilateral Commision agents absconding with a neon lighted bicycle but I guess there's only so much time alloted in such interviews.
Home health admin by day, physicist by night, mother to Pleidians on the side and full time WooWoo queen. She's one busy lady.
Wow.. She's AMAZING!
How can one person be so filled with Woo? Surely, she is at the Woo Singularity!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJB2Woe5zeQ[/youtube]
On Nov 8, the US will asspload due to dirty bombs and Pleidians and something and some war and something.. woo'ish.. And Sons of Satan, SS, Secret Service and the Pope... and the aliens ate all the victims of the Sumatran Tsunami.
WTF!
HOW DID WE MISS HER ALL THESE YEARS!
(A bunch of Colleen Thomas vids, talking about all sorts of wacky things..F1Movies - Colleen Thomas on Being Oppressed by Dark Forces Note: Some of it is a personal life kind of thing... Sort of sad, really. But, it sounds like she had a mental break somewhere.)
How can one person be so filled with Woo? Surely, she is at the Woo Singularity!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJB2Woe5zeQ[/youtube]
On Nov 8, the US will asspload due to dirty bombs and Pleidians and something and some war and something.. woo'ish.. And Sons of Satan, SS, Secret Service and the Pope... and the aliens ate all the victims of the Sumatran Tsunami.
WTF!
HOW DID WE MISS HER ALL THESE YEARS!
(A bunch of Colleen Thomas vids, talking about all sorts of wacky things..F1Movies - Colleen Thomas on Being Oppressed by Dark Forces Note: Some of it is a personal life kind of thing... Sort of sad, really. But, it sounds like she had a mental break somewhere.)
bmk1245":3c48qyyr said:
There's a line from Forbidden Planet that comes to mind...something along the lines of "that's OK, you don't have to be a genius to be a commander, just have a good loud voice"
a_lost_packet_":izoy57fm said:
Damn. She managed to sneak in Nibiru and Nazi and Satan and FEMA camp references ! I wouldn't have even imagined it was possible to do in a single 3 minute rant and yet... You go girl !!
{nevermind it's now past the assplosion date and my 'tronics are still working}
We're gonna need a Woo-meter that goes waaaaaaaay beyond plaid (or even argyle).
ps - Despite her airbags I wouldn't let her touch my peepee. She's got a nasty streak and I suspect ... needle teeth.
Going back to the object filmed off the coast of California, I've been looking at it again and, in spite of what some "experts" say, I don't personally see how it can be a contrail from an aircraft. Take a look at the footage again ...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL6OvDCXKLg[/youtube]
Look at the way it's ascending and in my opinion going a little too fast to be a contrail. And even though it was filmed from a helicopter, the helicopter would have to be at an altitude of some 25,000 ft minimum to film it at that sort of angle if it was a contrail wouldn't it? Because that is the minimum altitude at which contrails can normally form.
And how often do helicopters - if at all - go that high?
And yes, I've studied the website here that tries to make a case for it being a contrail, but to me none of the photos and examples given there closely match what we have here in this video. So although Mr Occam tells me it can't be a missile, I'm now going with the guy from Janes and all the other experts who say that that is what it is.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL6OvDCXKLg[/youtube]
Look at the way it's ascending and in my opinion going a little too fast to be a contrail. And even though it was filmed from a helicopter, the helicopter would have to be at an altitude of some 25,000 ft minimum to film it at that sort of angle if it was a contrail wouldn't it? Because that is the minimum altitude at which contrails can normally form.
And how often do helicopters - if at all - go that high?
And yes, I've studied the website here that tries to make a case for it being a contrail, but to me none of the photos and examples given there closely match what we have here in this video. So although Mr Occam tells me it can't be a missile, I'm now going with the guy from Janes and all the other experts who say that that is what it is.
There sure seems to be a heat signature under it that can't be a reflection at that angle if it's a contrail. That's what has bothered me from the start.
Smersh":11oroqpe said:
Too me it looks to be going to slow to be a missile (and I've seen quite a few). But it's hard to say for sure because I can't get a solid sense of scale from the video. The smoke trail left behind is too big to be one from an SM2 and that's what the Navy has to shoot up that high.
I'd say it looks a lot like the contrails on the aforementioned website.
What makes you say the 'copter had to be at 25kft ?
I believe the flight paths of all the airliners in that area are known. The question now is whether "we" can determine the location of the mystery trail well enough to rule in, or out, an airliner. Given the publicity this has had, I doubt it will take too long before someone does just that.
I never liked it for "a missile". It was labeled that by those that don't know the difference betwixt missile and rocket.
Mee_n_Mac":2utbey8c said:
That's what I thought at first but looking at them again I would say it isn't like those at all. Those contrail pictures are of aircraft coming towards the camera, which is why they appear at the angle they do but the object in the video appears very much to me like it's going away from the camera.
Mee_n_Mac":2utbey8c said:
To be able to film a contrail at that angle which appears to me to be going away from the camera, because contrails can only form at high altitude.
If this was a contrail, I think it would have disappeared off the news by now, but it is being very persistent indeed and has a lot of people debating it. The editor of Janes Missiles and Rockets says it's a missile. A former US Deputy Defence Secretary says its a missile. The Pentagon even eventually bothered to issue a statement saying it's a contrail, but would they normally even make any statement at all if it had disappeared of the news programmes after a day or two?
Smersh":3bsmn81m said:
So it would seem that we need to first determine whether the trail leads towards or away from the camera. Where was the Sun in relation to the trail ? One side was illuminated, one was in shadow. I recall someone said the trail left a shadow on a nearby cloud. If true we should be able to answer the question of direction.
There are two things that bother me:
1) The "red flash" seen in part of the video. I don't know if they switched to some ambient thermal setting or not. But, that red flash seems awfully strong to be a reflection from the setting sun or a anit-collision light at the distance this object is supposed to be.
2) The lower end of the "contrail" does appear to be further away from the camera than the object. That would lead to a conclusion that it could be an aircraft. It's also a bit more diffuse than I'd expect for a rocket. The contrail itself is also a bit more scattered than I would expect from a rocket, showing the influences of the airstreams much quicker than I'd expect. Also, it appears to spread both right and left of the point of view, indicating contrasting currents. BUT, we don't see the entire path of this object and have no idea how long it took to make that contrail.
I'm still up in the air. But, I only have a few clips and none of them are suitable enough for me to make a judgment call on. Someone else better versed may need less information than I would.
I've seen missiles, rockets, aircraft, etc.. I've seen weird contrails and such. But, I haven't seen enough to make a straight shot call here, either way. I'm heavily in favor of an aircraft explanation. But, every time I see the vid, I want to change my mind. /shrug
1) The "red flash" seen in part of the video. I don't know if they switched to some ambient thermal setting or not. But, that red flash seems awfully strong to be a reflection from the setting sun or a anit-collision light at the distance this object is supposed to be.
2) The lower end of the "contrail" does appear to be further away from the camera than the object. That would lead to a conclusion that it could be an aircraft. It's also a bit more diffuse than I'd expect for a rocket. The contrail itself is also a bit more scattered than I would expect from a rocket, showing the influences of the airstreams much quicker than I'd expect. Also, it appears to spread both right and left of the point of view, indicating contrasting currents. BUT, we don't see the entire path of this object and have no idea how long it took to make that contrail.
I'm still up in the air. But, I only have a few clips and none of them are suitable enough for me to make a judgment call on. Someone else better versed may need less information than I would.
I've seen missiles, rockets, aircraft, etc.. I've seen weird contrails and such. But, I haven't seen enough to make a straight shot call here, either way. I'm heavily in favor of an aircraft explanation. But, every time I see the vid, I want to change my mind. /shrug
I'm in the same place, but coming down on the other side. I think we're out of phase with one another.
adrenalynn":1t9gzekv said:I'm in the same place, but coming down on the other side. I think we're out of phase with one another.
Dangit! If you're going to install three-phase hookups, at least have the decency to warn me first!
Don't worry, an equilibrium will establish itself. It's natural law. A nice, rhythmic harmony will be attained as interference patterns merge and the truth is revealed.
Eventually, someone is going to find out. The FAA can certainly be given the time/location information and pull their tapes. If that comes up blank, hordes of FOI requests will certainly be filed and someone might get a hit on something.
The only thing I have against an independent rocket launch in the location. Are there sea-launch platforms that some independent has built and towed out from the West Coast? Any islands out there leased for such activity?
If it was a sub launch, and I have no idea why they'd bother so close to the coast unless they were working with shore-based tracking systems, then we're not going to have that confirmed.
Smersh, the reason you "think" it's moving away is because of the way the human eye-brain system is designed and works. We naturally assume "big" is close, and "small" is further away. But if the wide contrail (where it has spread out) is 20 miles away, of course the newer, closer origination point of the contrail would be smaller. It's just not the way we nomally interpret things.
As far as the helecopter at 25 K, another optical illusion caused by a highly zoomed :long" lens. They cause perceptual distortions as well. Ever watch a NASCAR or horse race when they have a shot looking at the whole field as the head toward you? They look like they are right on top of each other, yet an overhead shot shows tens of meters between them.
Re the red flashes.... remember the side of a jet is covered with dozens of reflective surfaces (windows) each at a slightly different angle. As the angle between the sun, the jet, and your eye changes, each window will cause it's own reflection. I've seen it many times. As for how bright it can get, ever see an Iridium flare? That's from 775 km (not 7 like in this case, so the Iridium is 10,000 times dimmer...that makes up for the fact a window is smaller than a door), from a door sized object, and it can get as bright as -9, bright enough to see at noontime if you look at the right spot (not easy, but I've done it a few times). In this case, your eyes are drawn to the head of the contrail, so any reflections are much easier to see, and since it's near sunset, the sky is a much darker background.
MW
As far as the helecopter at 25 K, another optical illusion caused by a highly zoomed :long" lens. They cause perceptual distortions as well. Ever watch a NASCAR or horse race when they have a shot looking at the whole field as the head toward you? They look like they are right on top of each other, yet an overhead shot shows tens of meters between them.
Re the red flashes.... remember the side of a jet is covered with dozens of reflective surfaces (windows) each at a slightly different angle. As the angle between the sun, the jet, and your eye changes, each window will cause it's own reflection. I've seen it many times. As for how bright it can get, ever see an Iridium flare? That's from 775 km (not 7 like in this case, so the Iridium is 10,000 times dimmer...that makes up for the fact a window is smaller than a door), from a door sized object, and it can get as bright as -9, bright enough to see at noontime if you look at the right spot (not easy, but I've done it a few times). In this case, your eyes are drawn to the head of the contrail, so any reflections are much easier to see, and since it's near sunset, the sky is a much darker background.
MW
MeteorWayne":10prkjcq said:
Yes I understand what you're saying Wayne, and the possibility that optical illusions can play a part here, but the object in the video has a trail of what looks like smoke that is fatter at the start of the footage than it is at the end! The optical illusion factor is in my opinion the main reason why this story has generated so much debate in the media and on the net.
It's possible I'm jumping the gun a bit here, and adding two and two together and making five, ( :shock: :lol: ) but last night I accidentally came across an entry on the Janes Missiles and Rockets website, when I was checking to see if there was anything there from the editor about the object filmed near California. (Doug Richardson, who said it's a missile is the editor by the way - that was one of the reasons I checked the website.)
If you scroll down the list of article headings currently on view there on the link I just gave, there is this:
(The site is subscription only so unless you reach for your credit card you can't read the actual article.)
Furthermore, early on in this thread there is this post:
keeper96":10prkjcq said:
The dates of the reported missile sighting and the date of the test reported in Janes are about a week apart, but is it possible there could be a clue here somewhere? Ongoing tests or whatever? I believe the US Navy were quite quick in denying it was anything to do with them. Also the Pentagon did issue a statement saying it was a contrail, so it does seem they were quite sensitive about a mere speculative media report that was getting an awful lot of attention ...
That's an awful lot of exhaust for a rocket-assisted tomahawk. The rocket assist package just gives it a necessary boost then the jet engine kicks in. AFAIK, normally the rocket booster wouldn't fire for that long.
My two cents:
I originally thought it was a missile myself but doc's link, some input here, and our miltary's denial have me leaning the other way. I would like to think that our government would be above-board about a foreign "show of force." To try to cover that up would be an unacceptable (to me anyway) "wimp-out" to a provocation that would require a robust and very public response of our own. I also don't think our military would conduct their own missile test so close to home if they wanted to keep it under wraps. I admit I'm not savvy regarding any "private" capabilities and know things like our satellite surveillance system is classified but think our missile detection abilities should have nailed any private venture here.
I originally thought it was a missile myself but doc's link, some input here, and our miltary's denial have me leaning the other way. I would like to think that our government would be above-board about a foreign "show of force." To try to cover that up would be an unacceptable (to me anyway) "wimp-out" to a provocation that would require a robust and very public response of our own. I also don't think our military would conduct their own missile test so close to home if they wanted to keep it under wraps. I admit I'm not savvy regarding any "private" capabilities and know things like our satellite surveillance system is classified but think our missile detection abilities should have nailed any private venture here.
Cameraman saw it for 10 mins (Sept. 10th thedailyshow compilation of news bits on that matter), and we saw footage of ~1 min. Where is full footage? Hmmm...
Thanks to Lori at Larger-Than-Life who just found this and posted it ...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyMz-bphdtc[/youtube]
Subject closed then - it's a missile.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9282440/wethepe ... 5-2010.pdf
The original document on the .mil site is here:
http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/Stati ... 5-2010.pdf
You might have to download it and view it in Acrobat, which I just did because I couldn't get it to appear in my Opera browser. But all the info about the missile tests is there, exactly as in the link and video given by the YT poster above.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyMz-bphdtc[/youtube]
Subject closed then - it's a missile.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9282440/wethepe ... 5-2010.pdf
The original document on the .mil site is here:
http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/Stati ... 5-2010.pdf
You might have to download it and view it in Acrobat, which I just did because I couldn't get it to appear in my Opera browser. But all the info about the missile tests is there, exactly as in the link and video given by the YT poster above.
That's not proof; all it means is it could have been a missile. If the 10 minute report is correct, I still need an explanation for that. Even the shuttle is 1000 km downrange by 8:30, and it launches much slower than any military test.
We need to see if that is in the area that the object was observed. I agree it's not "proof" even if it was within the area. But, it does lend credibility to the possibility of a test in that area, if they match. It's not conclusive, but it does raise the stakes a little bit.
But, that birds fly in the same field as someone throws a frisbie, that doesn't mean frisbies are birds... We need a bit more direct examination of the video evidence. (Though, MeteorWayne has made some very good points.)
But, that birds fly in the same field as someone throws a frisbie, that doesn't mean frisbies are birds... We need a bit more direct examination of the video evidence. (Though, MeteorWayne has made some very good points.)
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 190
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram