Jump to content

Saudi F-15 shot down over Yemen


red_coreSix

Recommended Posts

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:

Brim2.png

 

 

 

: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.

This missile isn't going to explode if it remains intact.

 

A petrol station will explode too, but it doesn't emit a sudden flash lasting one frame.

 

Hit at 0:40.

 

You can also see there isn't even the slightest hint of a spark in normal video.

 

You said an inert strike can make as big a flash as a live warhead, yet even inert + small warhead doesn't.

 

Your measuring sucks.

 

7mhJJXb.png

 

No, glow factor is something you invented. It is not a scientific term at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 512
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

 

manpads.png

I see a feint trail. You're clutching at straws, there are gaps elsewhere in that contrail too. Why, because it's a contrail. in fact, if you look at near where the missile has turned, the gaps appear there, so just before impact, it's probably turning too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Well you and Hummingbird need to go away and decide whether the video is real or not. But frankly the idea of an R-27 scoring a direct hit is almost as unlikely as the warhead failing.... and the missile exploding anyway.... with a flash that mimics a warhead perfectly.... and not leaving any burn marks.

 

No goldfish, my statement in no way contradicts yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you and Hummingbird need to go away and decide whether the video is real or not. But frankly the idea of an R-27 scoring a direct hit is almost as unlikely as the warhead failing.... and the missile exploding anyway.... with a flash that mimics a warhead perfectly.... and not leaving any burn marks.

 

No goldfish, my statement in no way contradicts yours.

 

My position has been one and the same since the beginning. You're really the only one in here who needs to decide which one of your many theories you wanna stick to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This missile isn't going to explode if it remains intact.

 

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.

 

A petrol station will explode too, but it doesn't emit a sudden flash lasting one frame.

 

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.

 

Hit at 0:40.

 

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.

 

You can also see there isn't even the slightest hint of a spark in normal video.

 

Of course there isn't, there isn't anything to react and make visible heat.

 

You said an inert strike can make as big a flash as a live warhead, yet even inert + small warhead doesn't.

 

I said an inert strike could produce the flash in the OP video which glows like heck.

 

Your measuring sucks.

 

img

 

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.

 

No, glow factor is something you invented. It is not a scientific term at all.

 

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?

"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you and Hummingbird need to go away and decide whether the video is real or not. But frankly the idea of an R-27 scoring a direct hit is almost as unlikely as the warhead failing.... and the missile exploding anyway.... with a flash that mimics a warhead perfectly.... and not leaving any burn marks.

 

Me and Hummingbird are not some type of gang, we agree on some stuff, but we are not affiliated. What about burn marks?

 

No goldfish, my statement in no way contradicts yours.

 

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.

"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a feint trail. You're clutching at straws, there are gaps elsewhere in that contrail too. Why, because it's a contrail. in fact, if you look at near where the missile has turned, the gaps appear there, so just before impact, it's probably turning too.

 

It probably has more to do with fuel residue smoking (unless of course MANPADS burn for 10 sec):

 

 

 

 

Who is clutching at straws?


Edited by kolga

"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got the same length before and after but the blur is so bad it makes measuring difficult. And you seem to forget that it has already been mentioned that a long thin object is hugely unlikely to snap near it's ends. So again you opt for the low probability event. Seems to be a theme.

 

There is a subtle difference between combustion and explosion that few understand and you aren't one of them.

 

Different strike. Title says 'targets' plural.

 

So all the fairly random energy transfer during the strike goes into non-visible light. That's a remarkably selective chaotic energy transfer.

 

Glows like heck. Very scientific. I'm yet to see this second example of an inert strike producing such a flash. Until I do, you have no case.

 

There is smoke in the OP video. Note missile tail.

 

A missile producing all the infra-red heat on impact, must surely have left burn marks.

 

A saw no hit in that test. And I think we can agree that an R-27 of any variety has a greater range and speed than any MANPADS. You'll also notice how thin that trail is and how quickly it dissipates afterwards. The R-27 trail is thick and pronounced and lingers longer.

 

You can also see that the rear half(ish) of the R-27 after launch is wider than the front half, therefore R-27E.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got the same length before and after but the blur is so bad it makes measuring difficult. And you seem to forget that it has already been mentioned that a long thin object is hugely unlikely to snap near it's ends. So again you opt for the low probability event. Seems to be a theme.

 

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.

 

There is a subtle difference between combustion and explosion that few understand and you aren't one of them.

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.

 

Different strike. Title says 'targets' plural.

Then where is the missile? In all the other FLIR hits we can see the missile coming in.

 

So all the fairly random energy transfer during the strike goes into non-visible light. That's a remarkably selective chaotic energy transfer.

Did i say all? no.

 

Glows like heck. Very scientific. I'm yet to see this second example of an inert strike producing such a flash. Until I do, you have no case.

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.

 

There is smoke in the OP video. Note missile tail.

I was talking about from the blast.

 

A missile producing all the infra-red heat on impact, must surely have left burn marks.

The missile is not hanging around the plane going "I'm gonna stick here and burn you!" Also, Did i ever say all?

 

A saw no hit in that test. And I think we can agree that an R-27 of any variety has a greater range and speed than any MANPADS. You'll also notice how thin that trail is and how quickly it dissipates afterwards. The R-27 trail is thick and pronounced and lingers longer.

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?

 

You can also see that the rear half(ish) of the R-27 after launch is wider than the front half, therefore R-27E.

Nope, it is not (I measured).
Edited by kolga

"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

Nope, it is not (I measured).

You can't possibly measure from that video all you can give is a ballpark assessment. Did you measure to the end of the blur or the start of the blur?

 

They undergo combustion, which is a slower process than an explosion.

 

Read the title. "Targets" plural, i.e. more than one shot.

 

Funny that there is when it explodes with a live warhead then. So in your opinion, a live warhead explodes with visible light and IR light but an inert strike has no visible light, but the same amount of IR light?:lol:

 

How exactly, when live warhead only produce a flash the same size?

 

The instant flash is bigger than 8.9m in the picture I posted.

 

Ah, the missile gave off an instant brief flash, but left no burn marks, how curious.

 

As I said, your measuring sucks. It's definitely an R-27E as noted by wider rear section diameter and burn time.

 

I mean, do you not consider it curious that this burn time/contrail lasts for exactly the specified burn time of an R-27E? But you like low probability explanations, which are the foundation of your very shaky case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You quoted an old post not my last so i will just assume you were replying to my new post?

 

 

 

You can't possibly measure from that video all you can give is a ballpark assessment. Did you measure to the end of the blur or the start of the blur?

 

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.

 

They undergo combustion, which is a slower process than an explosion.

 

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).

 

Read the title. "Targets" plural, i.e. more than one shot.

 

I'll ask again:

 

Then where is the missile? In most of the other FLIR hits we can see the missile coming in.

 

Funny that there is when it explodes with a live warhead then. So in your opinion, a live warhead explodes with visible light and IR light but an inert strike has no visible light, but the same amount of IR light?:lol:

 

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.

 

How exactly, when live warhead only produce a flash the same size?

 

It does not, as i will show.

 

The instant flash is bigger than 8.9m in the picture I posted.

 

Yeah, i originally thought that was just kind of a pre-flash blinding, but i was wrong, i found this frame:

Brim3.png

 

 

It is about 20m, you need glow factor just as much as i do.

 

Ah, the missile gave off an instant brief flash, but left no burn marks, how curious.

 

What would be more curious is a warhead detonating and leaving no burn marks.

 

As I said, your measuring sucks. It's definitely an R-27E as noted by wider rear section diameter and burn time.

 

Nope, measure it yourself. And look at this:

27Z.png

 

I mean, do you not consider it curious that this burn time/contrail lasts for exactly the specified burn time of an R-27E? But you like low probability explanations, which are the foundation of your very shaky case.

 

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.

"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does it matter so much what missile did it?

 

The whole debate started because a certain someone claimed the footage to be fake, which there is zero evidence of.

Apart from the sudden abrupt roll that all took place behind the flash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

Brim3.png

 

 

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:

27Z.png

 

 

 

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.

The answers are all the same.

 

The entire missile came out and still travelling in the same direction and in a straight line, hence in one piece, perhaps minus fins.

 

The flash will not occur so fast.

 

Technically true. A petrol station will rapidly combust emitting a fireball.

 

You can see the dust when it hits. Black missile on black and white.

 

The missile doesn't break up though. And the motor is at the back of the missile, so even by your theory that the missile came out slightly shorter, it would be the bit at the front affected. So not only is there no flash when crashing through the fuselage, and the missile exiting in one piece, the motor is at the wrong end of the missile to be affected (unless the warhead goes off). And the one in the OP allegedly only crashed through a thin stab. A quarter ton missile being so badly disintegrated after hitting a thin sheet of metal/composite that its rear end explodes?

 

Wow, so 8.9m became about 20m? Like I said, your measuring sucks.

 

Not if it was a proximity burst.

 

Altered image - look at the lower side behind the front fins and before the rear fins. And are you seriously suggesting that the missile's trail just happens to last for the specified length of time of an R-27E burn time, even though it's actually an R-27. How very convenient.

 

Show it at 0:10 and 0:12 then.

 

Well yes. I'm going only by the video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, measure it yourself. And look at this:

 

I can't believe this discussion on the variant is still going on. Unless the video is very skewed, from the proportions on that image it's pretty obvious it's the longer R-27ET.

 

It certainly makes much more sense to use that variant as the basic R-27T already has a rather short effective range and when launched from the ground, it probably wouldn't have enough energy to intercept anything not coming straight at it.


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answers are all the same.

 

Oh, ok, good, just checking.

 

The entire missile came out and still travelling in the same direction and in a straight line, hence in one piece, perhaps minus fins.

 

Then why is the white line smaller after?

 

The flash will not occur so fast.

 

It definitely can, earlier today i burning some slash and threw some redwood sawdust on it and since the particles were so fine and in the air it flashed at a similar speed to the OP video.

 

Technically true. A petrol station will rapidly combust emitting a fireball.

 

But i thought you just said it burned not exploded????

 

Yes it will make an "explosion" and so do rocket motors.

 

You can see the dust when it hits. Black missile on black and white.

 

I am still not seeing it, are you talking about when the truck slams into the ditch?

 

The missile doesn't break up though. And the motor is at the back of the missile, so even by your theory that the missile came out slightly shorter, it would be the bit at the front affected. So not only is there no flash when crashing through the fuselage, and the missile exiting in one piece, the motor is at the wrong end of the missile to be affected (unless the warhead goes off). And the one in the OP allegedly only crashed through a thin stab. A quarter ton missile being so badly disintegrated after hitting a thin sheet of metal/composite that its rear end explodes?

 

There is more evidence for breakup than no breakup. You are forgetting a very important detail, the motor is burned out at the intercept so nothing to flash in normal video.

 

Wow, so 8.9m became about 20m? Like I said, your measuring sucks.

 

My measuring is fine (and a lot better than you not measuring), i was just measuring the wrong frame. You need glow factor just as much as i do.

 

Not if it was a proximity burst.

 

The missile is literally at the back of the plane in the frame before the flash, it was VERY close.

 

Altered image - look at the lower side behind the front fins and before the rear fins. And are you seriously suggesting that the missile's trail just happens to last for the specified length of time of an R-27E burn time, even though it's actually an R-27. How very convenient.

 

Not altered, only zoomed in. Are you trying to accuse me of messing with evidence?

 

On the 27ET the fins are 23% of the length, on the 27T they are 25.6% of the length, i measured the one in the video and came up with 25.8%, within 2 tenths of a percent of the 27T. My job is done, its on you now.

 

Show it at 0:10 and 0:12 then.

 

Would be glad to, i seem to be the one doing all the work around here anyway :lol:

 

I looks like some wind happens in between 0:10 and 0:12

 

Smoke1.png

Smoke2.png

 

 

Well yes. I'm going only by the video.

 

The one you think is fake? I am confused about that.

"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe this discussion on the variant is still going on. Unless the video is very skewed, from the proportions on that image it's pretty obvious it's the longer R-27ET.

 

It certainly makes much more sense to use that variant as the basic R-27T already has a rather short effective range and when launched from the ground, it probably wouldn't have enough energy to intercept anything not coming straight at it.

 

 

I will put this here to make sure you see it:

 

...On the 27ET the fins are 23% of the length, on the 27T they are 25.6% of the length, i measured the one in the video and came up with 25.8%, within 2 tenths of a percent of the 27T...

"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why is the white line smaller after?

 

It definitely can, earlier today i burning some slash and threw some redwood sawdust on it and since the particles were so fine and in the air it flashed at a similar speed to the OP video.

 

 

But i thought you just said it burned not exploded????

 

Yes it will make an "explosion" and so do rocket motors.

 

 

 

I am still not seeing it, are you talking about when the truck slams into the ditch?

 

 

 

There is more evidence for breakup than no breakup. You are forgetting a very important detail, the motor is burned out at the intercept so nothing to flash in normal video.

 

 

 

My measuring is fine (and a lot better than you not measuring), i was just measuring the wrong frame. You need glow factor just as much as i do.

 

 

 

The missile is literally at the back of the plane in the frame before the flash, it was VERY close.

 

 

 

Not altered, only zoomed in. Are you trying to accuse me of messing with evidence?

 

On the 27ET the fins are 23% of the length, on the 27T they are 25.6% of the length, i measured the one in the video and came up with 25.8%, within 2 tenths of a percent of the 27T. My job is done, its on you now.

 

 

 

Would be glad to, i seem to be the one doing all the work around here anyway :lol:

 

I looks like some wind happens in between 0:10 and 0:12

 

Smoke1.png

Smoke2.png

 

 

 

 

The one you think is fake? I am confused about that.

Your imagination. Different blurring effect. Nose cone came off. The motor section is in the rear though.

 

Honestly? I don't know what to say to your ad-hoc guesswork on measurements.

 

No, it's rapid combustion. You should watch the episode of Mythbusters where they produce a movie car bomb explosion and then a real car bomb explosion to understand the difference.

 

0:40 is when the missile hits and it's a desert.

 

There is more evidence that when you crash into something head-on, it is not your ass that explodes or gets damaged.

 

Not really. No flash vs flash in FLIR. You haven't one single inert missile impact glowing in FLIR.

 

It's literally impossible to tell how close it is due to the angle.

 

Well look at the lower side of that missile between the front and rear fins.

 

You're measuring single %s from a missile image where the bottom of the missile isn't even straight to within 5%. Confidence inspiring.

 

Looks like there's and extra bend in the smoke trail more like and where is the timer?

 

Non-E rocket motor ends here after 6s.

SXUGQbO.png

 

4kUgZpK.png

 

wAUKxln.png


Edited by Emu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your imagination. Different blurring effect. Nose cone came off. The motor section is in the rear though.

 

It is not my imagination, it is called actually investigating instead of being like "look pretty similar, guess it is" you don't get an almost 20% difference from imagination.

 

Honestly? I don't know what to say to your ad-hoc guesswork on measurements.

 

Maybe try actually measuring and bring some real data to this discussion instead of just claiming you know the dimensions of everything 'cause you can kinda see it.

 

No, it's rapid combustion. You should watch the episode of Mythbusters where they produce a movie car bomb explosion and then a real car bomb explosion to understand the difference.

 

Umm, yeah, that is what i just said, if something burns really fast it looks like an explosion. You just said a petrol station explodes, and now it doesn't?

 

0:40 is when the missile hits and it's a desert.

 

I see absolutely nothing happening at 0:40, at 0:41 the truck hits a ditch and kicks up some dust, is that what you're talking about?

 

There is more evidence that when you crash into something head-on, it is not your ass that explodes or gets damaged.

 

Well, if its a pinto......

 

You have gone from missiles never explode to "the motor is in the back tho!"

 

Not really. No flash vs flash in FLIR. You haven't one single inert missile impact glowing in FLIR.

 

We have 0 confirmed inert its on FLIR.

You have a brimstone making a 20m flash but the op is around 50m, you need glow to exist.

 

Mfezi claims he has inert motor burned out hits that are similar to the OP, do you think he is lying?

 

It's literally impossible to tell how close it is due to the angle.

 

So are you saying it is anywhere between the camera and the plane? It is perfectly in line with the plane, and it is homing on the plane, so we can assume it was very close to the plane.

 

Well look at the lower side of that missile between the front and rear fins.

 

It is straight, open it up in and zoom in and draw a straight line down the side of the missile.

 

You're measuring single %s from a missile image where the bottom of the missile isn't even straight to within 5%. Confidence inspiring.

 

The fins are attached to the missile therefore they remain at the same proportion to the length. The fin to length ratio is the 27T, the missile body is as straight as the 27T, and i have proven missile trails can last longer than burn time but shorter than flight time. Your turn to produce some actual evidence.

 

Looks like there's and extra bend in the smoke trail more like and where is the timer?

 

My mouse must have not been over the video when i took the screen.

The trail behind the end is bending from the wind, is seems a little suspicious that the missile would be going a certain speed and then suddenly goes very slow for 2 seconds and then reappears in an explosion far away from the trail.

 

Non-E rocket motor ends here after 6s.

 

IMG

IMG

IMG

 

 

Yes, the motor would burn out at 6s, but that doesn't mean the trail stops (as i have proven) watch it at normal speed and follow the missile, why would its relative movement change so rapidly for 2 or 3 sec?

"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not my imagination, it is called actually investigating instead of being like "look pretty similar, guess it is" you don't get an almost 20% difference from imagination.

 

 

 

Maybe try actually measuring and bring some real data to this discussion instead of just claiming you know the dimensions of everything 'cause you can kinda see it.

 

 

 

Umm, yeah, that is what i just said, if something burns really fast it looks like an explosion. You just said a petrol station explodes, and now it doesn't?

 

 

 

I see absolutely nothing happening at 0:40, at 0:41 the truck hits a ditch and kicks up some dust, is that what you're talking about?

 

 

 

Well, if its a pinto......

 

You have gone from missiles never explode to "the motor is in the back tho!"

 

 

 

We have 0 confirmed inert its on FLIR.

You have a brimstone making a 20m flash but the op is around 50m, you need glow to exist.

 

Mfezi claims he has inert motor burned out hits that are similar to the OP, do you think he is lying?

 

 

 

So are you saying it is anywhere between the camera and the plane? It is perfectly in line with the plane, and it is homing on the plane, so we can assume it was very close to the plane.

 

 

 

It is straight, open it up in and zoom in and draw a straight line down the side of the missile.

 

 

 

The fins are attached to the missile therefore they remain at the same proportion to the length. The fin to length ratio is the 27T, the missile body is as straight as the 27T, and i have proven missile trails can last longer than burn time but shorter than flight time. Your turn to produce some actual evidence.

 

 

 

My mouse must have not been over the video when i took the screen.

The trail behind the end is bending from the wind, is seems a little suspicious that the missile would be going a certain speed and then suddenly goes very slow for 2 seconds and then reappears in an explosion far away from the trail.

 

 

 

Yes, the motor would burn out at 6s, but that doesn't mean the trail stops (as i have proven) watch it at normal speed and follow the missile, why would its relative movement change so rapidly for 2 or 3 sec?

Only you think there's 20% difference and your R-27 measurements are clearly wrong so...

 

Technically no. Petrol will only explode when in a fine mist under extremely high pressures. That's what causes 'knock' or detonation in engines.

 

A ditch in a desert? For drainage?:lol:

 

Well that's basically why your argument fails on every front. 1) The warhead is dual fused and very unlikely no to explode on impact. 2) Evidence shows an inert missile is likely to crash through with no explosion. 3) The only thing besides the warhead capable of exploding is in the rear, and the missile impacts from the front. 4) Your theory requires the rocket motor at the rear to explode without triggering the warhead at the front.

 

20m is by your terrible measuring.

 

I see no evidence of such.

 

You can't tell if it's in-line with the plane or not from that angle.

 

I'm afraid it is not straight.

 

How do you know what angle the fins are at?

 

The explosion occurs at 0:19, at least 5-7s after trail ends 0:12-0:14. It is impossible to tell how far that distance is but the missile could theoretically (based on speed) do 4-5km in 5s.

 

So the trail just happens to continue for the same length of time that an R-27E burns for? Again, your theories rely on perverse twists of fate and low probability events compounding each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ET...

 

IMG

 

 

Oh, you might be right then. It doesn't explain the fin proportions matching the 27T, but looks like it could be the 27ET.

"Long life It is a waste not to notice that it is not noticed that it is milk in the title." Amazon.co.jp 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...