6153 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

Paxus, on 20 April 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

*LMAO* Well I don't, so I will gently steer it back to our previous discussion;

Really? I was quite stunned at the impressive work from LS and Perc. That the calcs matched up close enough to match is a significant push forward with the Phoenix lights, they have now determined the speed, which was an ETH argument against the flare theory. Just awesome work from these fellows, I would like to see such from the likes of Friedman, who makes a living from peddling crap not half as impressive. Not even all his work tied together and folded over is as impressive or insightful as a simple discussing any UFO subject with any one of these fellows.
What I have witnessed here is indeed, best evidence. The Phoenix lights I feel now exclude ET as a possibility. And that be the aim of this thread - to determine best evidence. Best evidence is right under our noses on that one.

Paxus, on 20 April 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

quillius  - Absolutely there could be intelligence deep down in the ocean. We just wouldn't know.
It's like saying, 'well lizardmen could live under the Earth' though...
Evolved down there? That I couldn't say, maybe a biologist could better speculate....
It's nice and fun to think about.
I'm running the whole USO thing through my list of filters at the moment.
I've been steered in this direction by UM because of the arguments against ETH (from some far off planet).

Perhaps try talking with members Mattshark and Cetacea. Marine Biologists who will tell you pretty much what I told Quillus, as they taught me a great deal about Ocean depths in past conversations about cryptids and the Sea Shepard.

Paxus, on 20 April 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

psyche101 - Ok, so you relate USO with crashing ET stories. I don't.
Regardless of what either of us believe, strange machines are said to be seen all over the world by thousands of witnesses of all walks of life. A large portion of them involve water. Unless they are lying or delluded this leaves us with few possibilities (Man made secret, alien, dimensional or time travelor).
I don't believe that all of the people are lying or delluded or mistaken so I have to try to decide which  of the other theories fit best.
Interplanetery sounded good but had it's problems like size of space, FLT problem, hardly ever seen coming into our atmosphere from space or vice versa etc etc....
So it should hardly be surprising that one would start considering the USO theory which doesn't suffer from those arguments..

How does the USO argument not suffer from the same constraints? One still has to get here to hide in the Oceans? It would simply offer a hiding place once here. Unless of course you are going with the "evolved here" ideal that 747400 touched on. I got the impression that was not your argument.
I do not think the large majority enter water bodies, I have heard reports of UFO's "sucking up" water, that is a markedly different description. I do think many are lying or deluded, one of the first argument you hear, and one we will hear about here no doubt is the Christopher Columbus tale, which is plainly not ET. Also, by deluded, I am not thinking like the cat lady on the Simpson's, but forced into an alternate mindset by way of personal preference and pop culture. Many are simply drawn to the ideal of ET, and that is good enough for them, and we have seen such here *cough viper2 cough* There may be one or two intriguing tales, but I do think the majority can be explained here on earth, and the strong minority where total sightings are tallied. As such, I can put those fewer instances down to embellishment. I do feel that you have a tendency to believe people's personal interpretations quite readily as opposed to looking at the many possibilities? Who are "all these people" that you believe saw something that cannot be readily explained? Personal interpretation skews investigation, as an example, I woud cite that some still claim the failed rocket launches, like the more recent example from Norway, are alien dimensional vortexes. How are you determining the zealots from the genuine articles here. Should they not all be regarded as simply a UFO, and then we take the step to ET, Natural Phenomena or other? Albeit that step might be our discussion, but I get the impression that you are pushing that some are likely Alien, which is an assumption and at this point no more than a preference. I do not think you can move forward with investigation based on such a loose assumption, as I do not see what else has been seriously considered. Peoples first impressions might be good enough for you (I mean that in a respectful way), but personally I need more meat in that sandwich.

I do not think that this only leaves us with the above, in addition to Man made secret, alien, dimensional or time traveller, I would like to add natural phenomena. Twisters and the like funnel water up into the sky, and for an abstract tie in, what about all the fish, frogs, and other water creatures that "rain down" from time to time, or red rain - where does this come from? Could this strange phenomena be explained by a natural process very much like this?

Paxus, on 20 April 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

Simply writing off the theory because some people who believe it also say ET crash a lot is unscientific and frankly, not like you!

Hey, both theories come from the same crowd! They are nominating ET to begin with. You may pick and choose what seems more plausible to you, but is that being objective? One must consider the common denominator here. I do feel I offered much more than that, which I am sorry to say you seem to have missed. As in the very next paragraph - shallow waters, and where these things actually are sighted mostly.
What I am not seeing is why ET always the first instance, let alone at all? Where is the tie in past "we cannot do that". How do these people reporting things like this know the forefront of technology, and what is being experimented on at the moment? How do they rule out all other processes? ET is but one possibility, and to me way down the list when saddled on it's own supporting evidence

Paxus, on 20 April 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

Regarding your mention of cases where USO have been seen in open/shallow water etc etc
So what?
This doesn't mean they couldn't have bases in the deepest parts of our oceans.
I will also state, as I do so often, that we couldn't possibly know why they do what they do and it's a serious investigative mistake to make assumptions about their motives.

It is not logical though is it? Why would a craft that went to all the trouble to hide from us by building som e incredible undetectable base at the bottom of the Ocean, and then scoot along under the surface to breach close to shore in full view of those you just put all this effort into hiding from?

Do you not think ET itself is a very major assumption?

Paxus, on 20 April 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

Bump into forcefields?? really??
REALLY??!?
Come on dude... If an ADVANCED race wanted to hide in our ocean, they would.
(maybe even under the ground under the ocean... not that it matters because they have high tech)
I'm not going to keep goin back and forth about this, sorry dude

Well I do not think you have any arguent at all there. You are imagining that something might be able to hide an imaginary being! The "tech we do not understand"argument is less sensible than Greek Gods man! I know you do not like the analogy, but we were very wrong on that one, and I ask that you point out to me the major difference? All I can see is this explanation bruises egos?
How are you proposing they do hide? If using this as a solution, surely it is not out of line to ask you to justify the/a solution? You do not want me to just say "well, something we have not thought of yet!" Surely! How is that any better than Greek Gods?

Paxus, on 20 April 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

Not to digress, but remember the time travellor or interdimensional travellor theories are still there if you don't like USOs...
The sightings seem a bit too physical, in my personal opinion, to be those....

Some do sound intruiging, but seem to have a better and quite earthly explanation. One of the best cases I can tink of is Shag Harbour, and that object was tracked from Siberia.

Quote

According to one military witness, he was allegedly briefed that the object had originally been picked up on radar coming out of Siberia.

LINK

Paxus, on 20 April 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

RE: Cloak and dagger BS - I still disagree and think that Gene Rodenberry got it spot on with the 'Prime Directive'.

Mate, that is not what I said. I said that the UFO/America conspiracy BS is ridiculous, and far from and advanced race, and would violate GR's prime directive.

Paxus, on 20 April 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

I have to ask:
You are personally, on a ship in the middle of the ocean when you see lights zipping around underwater, then suddenly something YOU deem to be a metallic craft breaks through the surface hovers briefly and then flies off at a great rate of knots...
What do you think it is? What is your best guess or explination?
(This is what we are trying to answer - I simply don't buy, that everyone who has seen things like this is lying, mistaken or delluded! - And I don't want to hear anything about plasma or greek gods! )

My first thought? This



I feel such would be an amazing sight, and probably not what one would expect to see. Firing from beneath the waves could have many advantages in war. I have little doubt much research is placed in this arena.

Paxus, on 20 April 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

Where's my invitation to check out stuff  on your telescope?! Hrm??

See your PM.

[psyche101]

DONTEATUS, on 20 April 2011 - 08:19 PM, said:

So thats It ? Nobody even wants to know the Truth?
Your just going to let it end at this ! "Flares"
Come On , theres got to be some in here that want to know what really happened that night in Phoenix .
I bet we havent heard the end of this thread?
As for the the Kool photo psyche101 I`ve actually seen a front just like that at sea about 20 years ago in the Southern Pacfic.
It was a wild ride!

Damn I bet that was some ride mate!

[skyeagle409]

Pericynthion, on 20 April 2011 - 07:35 AM, said:

Ah, yes ... the rest of the story.  Well, that story must come from your big book of fairy tales. [/qu9ote]

Only in your dreams

It's certainly not a technical book because you've shown over and over again here that you're just not able to present a technical argument.


See, here's an example.  You berate the skeptics for not doing a "time/distance calculations," yet you provide no calculations of your own (and you're ignoring that fact that other posters in this thread and researchers like Bruce Maccabee HAVE provided calculations).



Regarding the descent rate of the flares in the video clip posted by booNy, I'll let you in on a little secret which you have utterly failed to recognize:  that video isn't real-time; it's sped up by a factor of about 20.  Here's a quote you made in your last post:


So you, with your VAST personal experience with flares   , believe that booNy's video clip shows objects only a few miles from the camera.  Since we're dealing with small angles here, the fact that the video is ~20x real-time means that your distance estimate is off by about the same factor.  Your "few miles from the camera" needs to be multiplied by 20.  Congratulations, you've just confirmed that the objects' motions are indeed consistent with flares at a distance of about 75 miles from the camera.  





Again, you present no calculations -- just more unsubstantiated opinion.

I thought I'd try a somewhat different approach to try to show you that the lights in the videos are indeed consistent with flares dropped by an A-10 over BMGR.  I've been playing around with Google Earth and a three-dimensional model of the light pattern.  Google Earth uses a very accurate terrain model overlayed on a WGS84 reference ellipsoid (the same datum used by most GPS receivers).  I used Bruce Maccabees's report to locate observers "K", "L", and "R" on the map.  I also placed a point at the approximate location of his triangulation result (his estimate of the objects' location).

Using Maccabee's estimated position as a starting point, I placed one "light" as a point in space and moved it until it matched the position of light 8 in the "K" video.  I then assumed that the A-10 dropping these flares was on a course back home to Tuscon and using that heading as a baseline, placed another dot along that line so that it corresponded to the position of light 4 in the "K" video.  (Note:  I'm using the same line of five lights that lost_shaman used in his analysis).  Once I had the start and end points placed, I filled in the remaining three lights and then adjusted the absolute altitudes of all five points to roughly match the pattern seen in the videos.

Here's an overview map of the area showing the BMGR North Tactical Range, the Gila Bend airfield, Bruce Maccabee's triangulated positiong, the video observer locations, and my five "flares" (shown as red dots just southwest of the Maccabee location):



And here's the resulting view from ground level at observer K's location:



For reference, I've included a scaled inset photo from booNy's video clip showing the lights just before they disappeared behind the mountain.  I placed my lights a bit higher to represent their position shortly after they were dropped.

Here's the same set of lights as viewed from observer L's location:



For reference, I've placed flare 8 (the last dropped) at an altitude of 14,000 feet.  Flare 4 is at 12,500 feet.  The other three are evenly spaced between those two altitudes.  The horizontal distance between flare 4 and flare 8 is about 11,800 feet.  (These are WGS84 ellipsoid altitudes which are very close to the same as altitudes above mean sea level).
  
This whole exercise is just a rough estimate of one possible solution, but it confirms three things:

1)  Lights near 15,000 feet altitude over the BMGR definitely ARE visible over the Estrella mountains.
2)  As lost_shaman also showed with his analysis, the light pattern and spacing is consistent with a set of flares dropped by an A-10 on a course back to Tucson at about 200 knots and climbing at about 3000 ft/min.
3)  Google Earth is a lot of fun to play with  

No, that's not true.  You're going by early reports for which the Air Force had only checked the status of local aircraft, and on early generic comments about the tactical use of illumination flares.  You're ignoring later, more detailed reports.  The Maryland A-10s didn't land until 10:30 (just before your quiet hour started):

What Bienz found out about was Operation Snowbird, which brings in aircraft from bases in the northern United States from November to April. Hence the name.
A flight schedule from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, shows that a squadron of planes from Operation Snowbird left at 8:15 p.m. on March 13 and returned at 10:30 p.m.
A spokesman for Luke Air Force Base confirmed that the Maryland planes were authorized to use the Barry Goldwater range from 9:30 to 10 p.m. on March 13.
Source:  Ruelas, Richard, "Air Guard Unit Sheds Light on Valley's UFOs", The Arizona Republic, July 25, 1997

Do you even know why I posted the link of the Chicago skyline from 50 miles? I guess you didn't.   You  know,  there is this tihing about skeptics falling into traps because they don't do their home right and here is yet another example.  

A bit difficult when at the time that video was taken, the A-10s were still the ground at DMAFB. Ever wondered why the Air Force initially denied its involvment in the "Phoenix Lights" sightings??

If you don't know the rest of the story,, then it is time to take a seat and watch the action on the sideline.   Seems. you have never seen real flares in real life.   If you are going to post in a debate, for goodness, sake, at least understand what it is, that you are posting about.

Why did I post that Chicago skyline from 50 miles away? And,

How long would it take a flare, that suspended from a parchute, to fall 1400  feet?

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 April 2011 - 02:43 AM.

[lost_shaman]

Pericynthion, on 20 April 2011 - 05:58 AM, said:

Hi LS,

Very nice bit of work you've done here.  I've been playing around with a slightly different method tonight and am getting basically the same answers you worked out.  I'll post my details shortly.  I'm getting a slightly higher speed of about 210 knots (240 mph), but that's mostly because the  distance from observer "K" to the mountains is actually about 26 miles, not 30 miles.  I think Bruce Maccabee either rounded off or overstated the distance in his analysis.  "K" is listed in the phone book, so his location can be pinpointed almost exactly.

Using 26 miles instead of 30 miles, your method comes up with a speed of about 180 knots (210 mph), so we're in very good agreement -- well within the margin of error for this sort of analysis.  I think it's pretty safe to say that the target is doing somewhere in the ballpark of 200 knots which, as you said, is comfortably within the capability of an A-10.

P.

Hey Pericynthion,

Yeah, running the numbers with K's position @ 26 miles from the Mountains and at 77 miles from the lights then I get ~208 mph. However, if this also means K's position is 4 miles closer to the lights as well then @ 73 miles I calculate 197.4 mph. Which again this is the minimum Air speed needed if Flying perpendicular to the camera to cover the angular distance of 1.377 degrees. Therefore if I revise my original estimates of true Air speed up this much then I estimate something around 214 mph - 244 mph. However that may be somewhat unconvincing as a guess so the true Airspeed depends on the angular offset from perpendicular to the camera that the Aircraft was flying so then @ 15,20,25 degrees offset I get 204.3 mph, 210 mph, and 217 mph respectively. At 30 degrees 227.9 mph and at 35 degrees 240 mph.

So we are definately in close agreement using K's revised position.

[booNyzarC]

skyeagle409, on 21 April 2011 - 01:52 AM, said:

Do you even know why I posted the l nk of the Chicago skyline from 50 miles? I guess you didn't.   You  know,  there is this tihing about skeptics falling into traps because they don't do their home rigtht.

Wow...  you didn't even read what he wrote there did you?  And if you did, you certainly didn't appear to understand it.

[booNyzarC]

lost_shaman, on 21 April 2011 - 01:54 AM, said:

Hey Pericynthion,

Yeah, running the numbers with K's position @ 26 miles from the Mountains and at 77 miles from the lights then I get ~208 mph. However, if this also means K's position is 4 miles closer to the lights as well then @ 73 miles I calculate 197.4 mph. Which again this is the minimum Air speed needed if Flying perpendicular to the camera to cover the angular distance of 1.377 degrees. Therefore if I revise my original estimates of true Air speed up this much then I estimate something around 214 mph - 244 mph. However that may be somewhat unconvincing as a guess so the true Airspeed depends on the angular offset from perpendicular to the camera that the Aircraft was flying so then @ 15,20,25 degrees offset I get 204.3 mph, 210 mph, and 217 mph respectively. At 30 degrees 227.9 mph and at 35 degrees 240 mph.

So we are definately in close agreement using K's revised position.

Just to clarify LS, the difference in distance from K to the mountains doesn't impact the triangulation positioning of the final light at ~77 miles.  Peri's revised distance to the mountains (I believe) stemmed from his looking up K's actual address.  My 30 mile estimation was from eyeballing the map and using Maccabee's positioning descriptions, Peri was far more precise by looking for the guys actual address.

Still, awesome calculations.  I've decided that I need to learn how to make these kinds of calculations.  My brain hurts from the study, but it is doing me some good I think.

[lost_shaman]

Quote

booN said:


Just to clarify LS, the difference in distance from K to the mountains doesn't impact the triangulation positioning of the final light at ~77 miles. Peri's revised distance to the mountains (I believe) stemmed from his looking up K's actual address. My 30 mile estimation was from eyeballing the map and using Maccabee's positioning descriptions, Peri was far more precise by looking for the guys actual address.

Hey booN,

BM estimates K's distance to be between 71 - 77 miles, after that he just uses the higher number, but 73 miles is still nicely tucked into his range estimate.

But if you want to know the offset angle to speed range @ 77 miles is 215.6 mph @ 15 degrees and 254.2 mph at 35 degrees.

Edited by lost_shaman, 21 April 2011 - 02:45 AM.

[booNyzarC]

skyeagle409, on 21 April 2011 - 01:52 AM, said:

Do you even know why I posted the link of the Chicago skyline from 50 miles? I guess you didn't.   You  know,  there is this tihing about skeptics falling into traps because they don't do their home right and here is yet another example.

A bit difficult when at the time that video was taken, the A-10s were stilling on the ground at DMAFB. Ever wondered why the Air Force initially denied its involvment in the "Phoenix Lights" involvment?

If you don't know the rest of the story,, then it is time to take a seat and watch the action on the sideline.   Seems. you have never seen real flares in real life.   If you are going to post in a debate, for goodness, sake, at least understand what it is, that you are posting about.

Why did I post that Chicago skyline from 50 miles away? And,

How long would it take a flare, that suspended from a parchute, to fall 1400  feet?

Oh, you edited.  I suppose I should have waited...

Let's hear it skyeagle.  What is your latest bit of drivel going to consist of?

Edit:
But to answer your question...  the LUU2B flares which were dropped that night have a descent rate of roughly 8.3 feet per second, so if we were to take an average estimate it would take about 168.67 seconds to drop 1400 feet, or about 2.8 minutes.

Considering that this estimate can have some variation, it may take a little more or a little less time.  How long was it between the appearance of the lights in the K video and their disappearance?  Well, I didn't clock them all, just the last light.



It appeared at about :48 seconds and disappeared at about 2:49.  So about 2 minutes of camera time.  Would make sense when you consider that the flare dropped for some distance before the parachute would have deployed.

Your point?

Edited by booNyzarC, 21 April 2011 - 02:21 AM.

[skyeagle409]

lost_shaman, on 20 April 2011 - 05:23 AM, said:

I should add that the 180 mph figure represents the shortest path @ 77 miles needed to cover the 1.19 degrees cited. The video, if an A-10 dropping flares, shows the flight path was not perpendicular to the video camera. So 180 mph is the minimum Air speed needed and the true Air speed this Angle represents likely falls into a range of maybe around 190 mph - 220 mph.

At 50 miles, and if we are using the distance scale between the two outermost lights, there is no way that an aircraft would be traveling  anywhere near 180-220 mph when the time factor is used.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 April 2011 - 02:17 AM.

[skyeagle409]

booNyzarC, on 21 April 2011 - 01:55 AM, said:

Wow...  you didn't even read what he wrote there did you?  And if you did, you certainly didn't appear to understand it.

I read what you posted and noted your mistake when you posted:

"The video, if an A-10 dropping flares, shows the flight path was not perpendicular to the video camera. So 180 mph is the minimum Air speed needed and the true Air speed this Angle represents likely falls into a range of maybe around 190 mph - 220 mph."


Do you even know why?  Your mistake is very evident and significant.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 April 2011 - 02:23 AM.

[skyeagle409]

booNyzarC, on 21 April 2011 - 02:08 AM, said:

Oh, you edited.  I suppose I should have waited...

Let's hear it skyeagle.  What is your latest bit of drivel going to consist of?

Edit:
But to answer your question...  the LUU2B flares which were dropped that night have a descent rate of roughly 8.3 feet per second, so if we were to take an average estimate it would take about 168.67 seconds to drop 1400 feet, or about 2.8 minutes.

Considering that this estimate can have some variation, it may take a little more or a little less time.  How long was it between the appearance of the lights in the K video and their disappearance?  Well, I didn't clock them all, just the last light.



It appeared at about :48 seconds and disappeared at about 2:49.  So about 2 minutes of camera time.  Would make sense when you consider that the flare dropped for some distance before the parachute would have deployed.

Your point?

You can post all you want about the LUU2B flares, but at this point, you are trying to throw away the laws of physics. Do you know why? Use the time/distance method at 50 miles, and you will find that there is no way those lights are falling at the rate of speed of flares more than 50 miles away,and once again, use the reference scale in regards to the Chicago skyline.Yo u will find that hardly any movement would be noticed from that distance and yet, look at the rate of movement in regards to the "Phoenix Lights."

How long would it take  a suspended flare to fall 1400 feet? You skeptics are completely missing the point in regards to time/distance factor , and range distances and it seems that none of you have even figured it out, so I am giving you a hint of the rate of movement of 1400 feet from 50 miles away.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 April 2011 - 02:31 AM.

[booNyzarC]

skyeagle409, on 21 April 2011 - 02:16 AM, said:

At 50 miles, and if we are using the distance scale between the two outermost lights, there is no way that an aircraft would be traveling  anywhere near 180-220 mph when the time factor is used.

I'm no math expert, but when the figures were so clearly explained by LS and Peri even I could understand.  I sure hope that your day job doesn't require complex math.

skyeagle409, on 21 April 2011 - 02:22 AM, said:

I read what you posted and noted your mistake when you posted:

"The video, if an A-10 dropping flares, shows the flight path was not perpendicular to the video camera. So 180 mph is the minimum Air speed needed and the true Air speed this Angle represents likely falls into a range of maybe around 190 mph - 220 mph."


Do you even know why?  Your mistake is very evident and significant.

I'm sure that you'll try to tell me even though I didn't say that.  If you are talking about speed capabilities of the A-10 and stall speed, I'm ahead of you (as usual) and even if Peri and LS have the estimate wrong on the low end the planes wouldn't have stalled.  I checked for that after reading their analysis.  And no, I don't think their analysis is wrong.  Nor do I think you are capable of putting numbers together which defend your position.

skyeagle409, on 21 April 2011 - 02:27 AM, said:

You can post all you want about the LUU2B flares, but at this point, you are trying to throw away the laws of physics. Do you know why? Use the time/distance method at 50 miles, and you will find that there is no way those lights are falling at the rate of speed of flares more than 50 miles away,and once again, use the reference scale in regards to the Chicago skyline.

How long would it take  a suspended flare to fall 1400 feet? You skeptics are completely missing the point in regards to time/distance, and range distances and it seems that none of you have even figured it out, so I am giving you a hint of the rate of movement of 1400 feet from 50 miles away.

I don't really care about your Chicago skyline picture, although I probably know more about that picture than you do as well.

I've already answered the descent rate question.  If you didn't understand that basic bit of math, there is little hope for you understanding the superior calculations that Peri and LS have put together and I honestly question whether you should ever be allowed to pilot an aircraft again.

[psyche101]

skyeagle409, on 21 April 2011 - 02:16 AM, said:

At 50 miles, and if we are using the distance scale between the two outermost lights, there is no way that an aircraft would be traveling  anywhere near 180-220 mph when the time factor is used.

Perc and LS have posted some impressive calcs to show us their perpective on the case, and how they came to their agreeing information there, where are yours?

[skyeagle409]

Pericynthion, on 20 April 2011 - 05:58 AM, said:

Hi LS,

Very nice bit of work you've done here.  I've been playing around with a slightly different method tonight and am getting basically the same answers you worked out.  I'll post my details shortly.  I'm getting a slightly higher speed of about 210 knots (240 mph), but that's mostly because the  distance from observer "K" to the mountains is actually about 26 miles, not 30 miles.  I think Bruce Maccabee either rounded off or overstated the distance in his analysis.  "K" is listed in the phone book, so his location can be pinpointed almost exactly.

Using 26 miles instead of 30 miles, your method comes up with a speed of about 180 knots (210 mph), so we're in very good agreement -- well within the margin of error for this sort of analysis.  I think it's pretty safe to say that the target is doing somewhere in the ballpark of 200 knots which, as you said, is comfortably within the capability of an A-10.

Redo your figures because an aircraft moving along at 220 mph will not transverse the distance between the two outermost lights if those lights were 50 miles away. You go to any international airport at night and watch with your own eyes from 10 miles away that an aircraft flying along at 250 mph is not tranersing such a distance within the timeframe of the video.

[Czero 101]

Sky... No one is impressed with your unsubstantiated geandiose declarations and open-ended questions.

If you want people to pay attention, do what LS and Peri have done and SHOW SOME ACTUAL EVIDENCE AND CALCULATIONS.

We all know what your opinions are and guess what? NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK... JUST WHAT YOU CAN PROVE.

The sooner you get that through your head, the better off we all will be because so far all you have proven is that you are prone to "fabrication", believe only that which confirms your fairy tale beliefs (also called Confirmation Bias), ignore facts that prove you wrong, are incapable of admitting errors / mistakes, and your best talents include dancing around the topic and blowing smoke out your hind quarters.



Cz