Because the water beneath that spot, based on bearing and distance, does not show that expected exhaust cloud usually seen with a Trident launch (see video). Therefore the sub that launched it must have been on the other side of the island. In order to get from where it was (in the sub) to where is is (about 7km away) it must have traveled some distance South. And it must have done so on a fairly depressed trajectory. This indicates that it was not headed to Singapore.
>Would there be a difference in the plume for a surface launch vs a submerged launch?
The D4 Trident II officially only launches from submerged submarines. I supposes it's possible to recombobulate it to be launched from a secret silo. But Q gave us a pic of an Ohio-class sub. So there is no reason to go there.
On the other hand, if the target was much closer than the great range of a D5, then there are a wide variety of other smaller missiles from land and sea platforms that could fit the bill. If that's the case than my distance estimates based on the dimensions of a D5 should be discarded.
>A shot on the reciprocal bearing also produces the same apparent plume. It's just an optical illusion.
Explain?
What I'm saying is that if the missile path is straight up (ostensibly intending to turn later) then the sub and exhaust cloud lingering on the water should be right THERE (pic related). It isn't. all that must be behind the island.
Optical illusions aren't really the issue. We know the distance to the missile at the end of the exposure, about 5-7km. I don't care about the bright line. I'm only looking at were it is and where it must have come from. It can't be vertical. And is definitely not northbound.
You know you spend too much time on twitter when you finish reading a news article and realize that you read the paragraphs in reverse order.
>Now explain why your 2nd picture wouldn't be a more accurate representation of what you should see with a launch to the south,
The second picture IS what I'm saying is happening. It launched from an unknown location somewhere further north and was headed roughly south…. not to Singapore, where AF1 was near at the time.
>too much cloud cover to say for sure.
But not too much for be to estimate the distance based on the width of the fiery plume. The yellow line in the third image >>11024119 marks the angle and distance. And as you can see the the left image there ain't no fuckin submarine and huge smoke cloud at that spot.
>are relatively low for an ICBM to be flying through
This is called a "depressed trajectory" shot. Used for hitting a target at relatively close range. Here is video of such a test:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30170/amazing-cockpit-video-of-unusual-trident-ballistic-missile-test-may-point-to-new-warhead
It can be compared to throwing a fastball:
https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/question-about-depressed-trajectory-shots-from-ic-slbms.443428/