Normally I'd say compost this one. But the baker of the other bread is spamming up his own bake with BakerWars poo.
Two windows, one private or incognito window so the filter machinery doesn't get tangled up.
Upload it to anonfile or filedropper.com or any other short-tern file hosting website.
Hmm. It appears in exactly one frame. From that we could work out a minimum speed, which is clearly faster than any helicopter. But it's not that dramatic missile-rising-into-the-sky I was hoping or.
As a side effect, YouTube transcoded it down to 4.8MB.
At first I assumed vertical. Then I tried calculating the distance based on the width of the object in the image and the size of a Trident II. I got a distance that puts it RIGHT IN FRONT of the camera. If it came out of the water there then there should have been a lot of smoke and splashing around (see any YT vid of a Trident launch). And to have been that low (if it was smaller than a Trident then it mush have been even closer) after having been launch from the other side of the island then it must have been traveling nearly horizontal. So I dunno WTF it is.
>There is a distortion in perspective becasue of the framerate. The smoke trail is older and has moved a bit so have the clouds
I thought of that. But I don't know how to adjust for it. It needs to be part of the explanation because of the shape of the 'exhaust' end of the missile.If it's flying up, and we're seeing the underside of the cylinder, then it would make sense of the curve to be as it is. If it's flying horizontally over our heads then the curve should be the other way. It cannot be vertical. So this shape of the curve at the missile/exhaust interface must be the result of some optical or compression/enhancement distortion.
Here are two zooms. The higher rez on is from a twitter image (4096 pixels wide). The camera they use can't produce that resolution. So I think the 2048x1152 image I found floating around is most likely to the original.
>The sub that launched it could have been over the horizon from where the photo was taken.
Not Whitby Island. Wrong direction. See first image: >>10978936
I was attempting to estimate the location. But the answer I came too is much too close. The second graphic is unfinished because it made no sense after that. So there must be some blurring effect making the object appear larger (and closer). I think I'm at the end of what I can do with the information I have.. other than wild ungrounded speculation.
>The sub that launched it could have been over the horizon from where the photo was taken.
Musta been. But then it could also have been a ground-based battery, too, that was shooting at some other sub-based missile (but if that's the case then it must have been unsuccessful or else there would have been no need for the "F-16 intercept" to save the day).
Just down load the pic and zoom in for yourself. It's the same image.
My only other explanation is that "Think hack" applies to the weather site, ie: the good guys fabricated and planted a false image, thereby using a lie to tell the truth.
But… naaahh. Too contrived and too much of a stretch to make it fit with what Q was saying.
This is from 9 breads ago.
>noise
That was another reason I had to doubt that it was a Trident launching vertically. That part of the coast is well populated with sleepy little cottages. At a 130,000lb missile being fired at 4AM about 2 miles off shore would not have gone unnoticed. It must have been launch from out of sight farther north and was flying southbound on a fairly low path.
>Seems like a pretty thin plan, if that was their plan.
Like horseshoes and hand grenades: you only have to be close.
And the Trident II can carry multiple warheads. Up to 14 (but currently (officially) only load with 4 live ones). That could fuck up flimsy passenger jets over a pretty good area. So it's viable, even if tricky to blame on NK.
>where's the vid of that launch?
The vid is a sequence of stills taken 45 seconds apart. See: >>10978866
>missiles don't have that long jet trails.
They do time lapses at night.
https://www.skunkbayweather.com/About.html
Oh shit. That means they could have been using their other camera, a Canon T3 Rebel DSLR, for that pic. That camera has a higher resolution. So the 4096 image from Twitter could be the original. If so, then it's much harder to dismiss the curvature of the exhaust end as a optical or digital distortion.
>the jet trail is time lapsed. while the flying object is not
You don't seem to understand how photography works.
>The light is not centered at that
Illumination is from the left.
Okay, sure. Maybe NK drove their submarine across the Pacific so they could shoot at AF1 from the Washington coast. Could be, but I doubt that. It seems unlikely that they'd go to such effort to frame themselves and to give Bolton, or whoever, an excuse to nuke NK to oblivion. But who owns the sub isn't the question right now.
>you can see the flash from launch
No, that's a meteor four days before. See the date at the bottom of the frame.
You write like you don't know what these words mean.