Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen - Page 37 - ED Forums


Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-19-2018, 04:26 PM   #361
SinusoidDelta's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 780

Originally Posted by Weta43 View Post
Even though I have on occasions got caught up in the argument when I realised "Someone is Wrong on the Internet" & so understand your collective desire to get the other person to realise their mistake, you realise that if after 356 posts, and reaching the point that you're just going round and round re-hashing the same arguments, that if you haven't convinced each other yet, you're probably not going to, don't you ?

Having the last word is not the same as being right.
You can be right, and let the other person have the last (wrong) word.
I don’t disagree with you Weta, however this quote comes to mind:

Arguing with an engineer is a lot like wrestling a pig in the mud. After a couple of hours you realize the pig likes it.
SinusoidDelta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2018, 11:28 PM   #362
kolga's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Depends on where I am.
Posts: 435

Originally Posted by Emu View Post
In the F-22 video, it expands outwards.
That is because its over exposed and glowing.

You'd be hard-pushed to snap it near the end.
Depends on the circumstances.

Yes, an AIM-9X is IIR and sees a greyscale image of the target.
Ok, the target is crossing pretty darn fast so it seems feasible that the missile wasn't able to pull all the way to the fuselage therefore catching the stab. Just a possibility.

You don't know that if you can't see anything.
But we can see it, its not a long white tube, but its still visible before and after.

I'm not apart to waste time dredging through back-posts.
Then don't make claims your not prepared to back up.

The fuel doesn't burn in 3 frames though, it continues burning until it goes off shot after the initial flash from the warhead.
But the flash is big for just one frame and in my calc the flash is huge for 3 full frames therefore its perfectly feasible.

The balance of probability is always relevant in determining what likely happened. Footprints in the snow are likely made by someone walking on their legs, not their hands.
But only up to a point, if someone said they saw tracks in the snow you could guess that they were made by feet, but without actually looking at them you couldn't tell. Also footprints are always made by feet.

You are still avoiding what Mfezi has said, Do you believe he is lying or what?

You're making assumptions to validate your claim again. You have no evidence of this. The possibility of them being different is one you introduced to refute compelling evidence that you are wrong. Do you see how desperate that is?
look at apache FLIR video, flashes are greyed out, that is very different from what we see in the OP. Remember, you are claiming afterburners are 2m in diameter, if that is not desperate i don't know what is.

V2s had warheads, 1000kg warheads.
It was early testing so i highly doubt they had warheads, plus there is other clips in your video of rockets exploding (something to keep in mind is a lot of them are in slow motion, so they look slower)

So why does the same weight of explosive make a bigger flash in both normal video and FLIR?
Bigger than what?

If it was two chassis welded together you mean?
Well, if you get in your "new" rolls and the steering wheel says little tikes on it you know something is wrong but you don't know if the engine is gone or not, you have to open the hood.

I've read several stories about it.
But did you read the document?

Yep. Cleaning the toilets in physics department doesn't make you know more about physics.
Unless you talk to the physicists once in awhile.

They usually are regarded as credible actually, they just need to sack the person who provided that photo.
It was provided by the Iranian news, so the dude that wrote the article needs to get his butt fired (and the editor who checked it, in any).
"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." review for milk translated from Japanese
"Amidst the blue skies, A link from past to future. The sheltering wings of the protector..." - ACE COMBAT 4
"Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight"-Psalm 144:1 KJV
i5-4430 at 3.00GHz, 8GB RAM, GTX 1060 FE, Windows 7 x64
kolga is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2018, 11:01 AM   #363
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 944

So is the video with the flash from the small test warhead that causes it to break after hitting a thin stab.

Not at all, long things tend to snap in the middle.

An AIM-9X can pull 50g, an F-4 can pull only 9g at best, at sea level, whilst clean, not wearing drop tanks.

In the clip with no flash, yes. In the other clip, you can't see it at all but things don't generally stay in one piece after exploding.

They are supporting, you just have to read back, I'm not going to waste my time doing it, having already wasted enough of it talking to you.

But the fuel can't all be used in those 3 frames if it's still burning for a full second afterwards. You obviously don't understand the principle chemical equation behind combustion. You can't burn the same fuel twice.

Someone could have been wearing shoes on their hands - that is the nature of your argument in this thread.

Where's the proof? We have proof of a Hellfire making a similar sized flash in 2 FLIR videos and a large flash in non-FLIR videos (bigger than the AIM-9X with test warhead). We also have a Hellfire with no warhead making zero flash in normal video. We also have an inert AIM-9X smashing staright through an F-4 fuselage intact. The balance of evidence is just hugely stacked against you.

Which Apache video? There were two remember. And let me add a third. 9.5m long tank. Explosion flash about 4-5 tank lengths.

They were probably targeted at the UK just in case they worked.

Bigger than an inert strike.

You wouldn't buy it either way though. Dodgy is dodgy.


Yes, physicists often have long conversations with janitors about physics research. Have you watched Good Will Hunting too many times?

A bit like the person who provided the spliced FLIR video.
Emu is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:22 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.