6153 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

I'll have to look at this again in the morning.  Bedtime for Bonzo.

But yes, I think that there would still be a need to determine another triangle for image manipulation purposes unless I'm mistaken, which is entirely possible.

At any rate, cheers and good night.

[lost_shaman]

booNyzarC, on 30 April 2011 - 07:01 AM, said:

I'll have to look at this again in the morning.  Bedtime for Bonzo.

But yes, I think that there would still be a need to determine another triangle for image manipulation purposes unless I'm mistaken, which is entirely possible.

At any rate, cheers and good night.

Hey booN,

We must use a triangle to calculate how an Obstruction obscures our view of the horizon. Then we must use a separate formula to calculate how far sea level drops below our view at a distance.

We can talk about this later though, it is late here on my end too.

[Mangoze]

lost_shaman, on 30 April 2011 - 07:22 AM, said:

Hey booN,

We must use a triangle to calculate how an Obstruction obscures our view of the horizon. Then we must use a separate formula to calculate how far sea level drops below our view at a distance.

We can talk about this later though, it is late here on my end too.

You should be able to work out the formula based on the fact that one nautical mile, at sea level, subtends an angle of one minute of degree.

Circumference of the glode equal 21,600 nmi.  Radius ('R') of the globe equals 3437.747 nmi.

Drop over one nmi should be R(1 - cos(1/60)).

Not very elegant, but that's just off the top of my head.

Edited by Mangoze, 30 April 2011 - 09:16 AM.

[bee]

new equation just in



X ed   =





  

[DONTEATUS]

bee, on 30 April 2011 - 10:39 AM, said:

new equation just in



X ed   =





  

As always Im going with Bee`s equation ! ITs the Real Deal !

Attached Files

•  ap11-KSC-69PC-442.jpg   189.55K   0 downloads

[skyeagle409]

bee, on 30 April 2011 - 10:39 AM, said:

new equation just in



X ed   =


  

Yepper, Just look at that tall skyline reaching high into the sky in the distance......ah, where is my telescope?

A picture can be worth a thousand words, or should I say, numbers.

[skyeagle409]

booNyzarC, on 30 April 2011 - 12:20 AM, said:

Finally you at least acknowledge that you understand the notion that the flares could have been jettisoned.  Thank you for that skyeagle, much appreciated.  I actually consider that progress.

That story was made up by the AIr Force. Had the A-10s truly been dumping flares at hight atltitude, the Air Force would have acknowledge to the reporters when asked for an explanation. As it was, the Air Force denied any involvment and refused to get involved. Many weeks later, the Air Force came back and said, "oh yes, one of our A-10s was responsible for dropping flares from 6000 feet, which were ignited at 3000 feet.

When the Air Force saw that its expanation was flawed becauase there was no way that flares at 3000 feet could bee seen in Phoenix from behnid the mountain, the Air Force came back with yet another explanation that some A-10s were dropping flares from a HIGHER ALTITUDE because they can't land with flares aboard, however, that creates a bit of a problem when there were no A-10s airborned at 10 PM. Operatiing around the 10 PM time frame would have been cutting in on the Tucson folks quiet hours.

Quote

Regarding the inconsistencies, it is fairly simple.  The initial people asked simply didn't know because the A-10's that ditched the flares were based out of Tuscon, not out of Luke Air Force Base.

The Air Force was responsible,  so let's do a recap.

The Air Force initially denied nvolvment, and then later the Air Force had said, that  the "Phoenix Lights" were flares, which were dropped from 6000 feet and  ignited at 3000 feet, and then, the Air Force came back and said, that A-10s dropped flares from a high altitude.

Those lights were NOT indicative of flare drops by multiple aircraft at night. You know, there is a very good reason why pilots wear sunglasses during the day, it helps their night vision.

Quote

  The people initially asked responded as expected, by describing operations run from Luke.  There is no conspiracy here, it is pretty simple really.

Oh yes there was. No aircraft at Luke AFB were involved, so all the Luke PR folks  Luke had to do was to make a simple phone call to DMAFB, and I am very sure they did just that. and yet many weeks later, the Air Force came back with flare drops at 6000 feet, not 15000 feet. Then, its explanation changed again when they determined their altitude figure was too low, so the Air Force had to make some adjustments to its altitude explanation and there you are, a full-blown Air Force cover-up on the level of the Roswell incident.

BTW, I happen to pass through Phoenix last night and there was no way that those lights were over the BGR.

[skyeagle409]

booNyzarC, on 30 April 2011 - 12:20 AM, said:

Finally you at least acknowledge that you understand the notion that the flares could have been jettisoned.  Thank you for that skyeagle, much appreciated.  I actually consider that progress.

Regarding the inconsistencies, it is fairly simple.  The initial people asked simply didn't know because the A-10's that ditched the flares were based out of Tuscon, not out of Luke Air Force Base.  The people initially asked responded as expected, by describing operations run from Luke.  There is no conspiracy here, it is pretty simple really.



This argument doesn't make any sense.  Ditching flares at night interferes with the pilot's night vision?  You are joking right?  When flares are deployed at night for legitimate use are you saying it doesn't interfere with their night vision?  Do you see how this argument doesn't make sense?

I explained the initial confusion regarding the conflicting answers provided when Luke was originally asked.  Very simple.



No cover-up.  Very simple reasons for the initial confusion.

As for the distance between flare 1 and flare 2 has been estimated to be about 7.5 miles.  I'm working on a recalculation over the weekend hopefully to confirm or more precisely identify this distance, but as far as rough estimates go it is probably fairly accurate.



Speaking of side profile depictions...  I've done a bit more with one.

Consider this image (courtesy of Google Earth) showing an elevation profile from Krzyston's house at 1640' elevation (1637' in the profile) extending about 80.3 miles at a heading of 205.26 degrees and a straight line representing line of sight above the highest point of elevation (about 4200') between him and the last flare dropped (light 9 in the Maccabee analysis).


Click Me for a Larger Version of the Same Image


This picture of the curve is grossly exaggerated by a magnitude of about 45 times, to 1.64 degrees, because the actual curvature would be visually negligible at a more accurate calculation of 0.036 degrees (and the lowest I could get it to even go with GIMP was somewhere around 0.14 degrees, virtually invisible curve).

Even with this exaggeration, at a rounded distance of 80 miles and not considering atmospheric refraction (thank you for the terminology correction bmk1245, very much appreciated! ) we can see that the lights would still be visible at an altitude of about 9700' or 9800'.  Considering refraction, light 9 would still be visible after dropping below this altitude as well.

I haven't done the math yet to compare with the visual of this sideview from Google Earth, but I doubt if it is too far off.

Nope, as addressed earlier, there was no cover-up.  It was just simple confusion and to be fully expected.

One of the reasons I posted that photo, was to show that even the top of a 1400-foot building is barely visible above the horizon, and that with no obstacles in the foreground. Now, multiply that height 10 times, and see where the top of such a building would  be in that photo.

Next, measure the distance between the two furthers lights in the Phoenix video and calculate their distances from one another. What are the distances between them if those lights were 50 miles away?

Once again, the Air Force's revised flare drop cover story was to make up for its 6000-foot error in its earlier cover story.

Edited by skyeagle409, 30 April 2011 - 08:02 PM.

[booNyzarC]

As response for your post #2542...  Nope.  No conspiracy.  I already explained this to you.  Go back and read my previous response.

skyeagle409, on 30 April 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

One of the reasons I posted that photo, was to show that even the top of a 1400-foot building is barely visible above the horizon, and that with no obstacles in the foreground. Now, multiply that height 10 times, and see where the top of such a building would  be in that photo.

That Chicago photo you posted is still just as irrelevant now as it was when you originally posted it.

skyeagle409, on 30 April 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

Next, measure the distance between the two furthers lights in the Phoenix video and calculate their distances from one another. What are the distances between them if those lights were 50 miles away?

You don't pay very close attention do you?  I already answered this.  They were about 7.5 miles according to Maccabee's analysis.

skyeagle409, on 30 April 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

Once again, the Air Force's revised flare drop cover story was to make up for its 6000-foot error in its earlier cover story.

Once again, there was no cover story.  There were incorrect answers because the people being asked didn't have the answers.  And at no point did the Air Force make a statement that a single A-10 dropped the flares at 6000 feet that night.  This has been pointed out to you before...

Did you read lost_shaman's post #2257 which references the actual source of this 6,000' statement you keep on bleating about?

Here is the original source.  And here is lost_shaman's post...

lost_shaman, on 26 April 2011 - 07:15 AM, said:

The actual quote... "(Our pilots) told me that at 6,000 feet and using those types of flares, you can see them from 150 miles away on a good night," Shepherd said."

http://kenny.anomaly..._ANG_GUILTY.htm


Here is a question for you... Could such a statement be true?

(I say it is.)

And a bonus question... If so what was the 'clue' that you picked up on?

So you see skyeagle, this isn't an official statement of when flares were dropped that night.  This is an explanation of normal usage of flares and how far away you would be able to see them.

[Hazzard]

Taking the family on a short vacation...






When the going gets tough, hazz goes to spain.  

[Slave2Fate]

Hazzard, on 01 May 2011 - 07:58 AM, said:

Taking the family on a short vacation...






When the going gets tough, hazz goes to spain.  

Didn't you go to Greece just a few months ago? Must be nice to travel like that. Post some pics this time.   

[Hazzard]

Slave2Fate, on 01 May 2011 - 08:02 AM, said:

Didn't you go to Greece just a few months ago? Must be nice to travel like that. Post some pics this time.   

Greece was beautiful... This is where we are going this time.
  

http://www.molon.de/...Spain/Mallorca/

[Slave2Fate]

Hazzard, on 01 May 2011 - 09:26 AM, said:

Greece was beautiful... This is where we are going this time.
  

http://www.molon.de/...Spain/Mallorca/

As if I didn't envy you enough already!

Enjoy yourself Hazz, although I'm sure it would be tough not to in a place like that.

[booNyzarC]

Place looks beautiful.  Have a great trip Hazz!

[mcrom901]

booNyzarC, on 01 May 2011 - 12:34 PM, said:

Place looks beautiful.  Have a great trip Hazz!

touché

bee, on 30 April 2011 - 10:39 AM, said:

new equation just in



X ed   =





  

    

we have a winner..... prizy linky




coming back to the flare theory... *cough* were the videos authenticated by any chance?