This news will take about 3 weeks to percolated down to state governments.
The day after the election they'll need an excuse to suddenly change their minds about masks.
When all else fails play dumb.
>time lapse photos for other rocket launches. they are perfrct arcs.
What would it look like to be underneath this on a partly cloudy night?
Normally I would be making an argument just like that. If Q hadn't given this a nod I would have analyzed the pic, determined that the missile is way too close, and pronounced it Fake & Gay long, long ago. But Q did give it a nod.
>do you realize that for a 20sec time lapse photo the clarity for a missile fuselage would be zero because of how fast it moves.
Yes. That's why is discounted my earlier estimate that was based on the fuselage diameter and instead used the width of the fiery exhaust plume. I don't know what the lighting is, what effect the long exposure would have, or what the enhancement efforts working with so few pixels in the original image would do, or how to adjust for it.
>there is a subtle change in trajecory just before it goes behind the cloud in background. impossible for a missile speed
You mean after it emerges and while it's accelerating.
>the fact its in front of that cloud pretty much rules out any SAM or ICBM.
Alright, you're going to have to find someone else to pay this game with.
>The pix is real. What's being debated is what it is. Will a helicopter make this image on a weather cam?
A spotlight aimed downward would not be directing light into the lens. It needs to scatter of something, presumably the weak fog that appears at night. So we should see the integrated image of a shaft or cone of light. I'm skeptical that it would add up as seen here.
We also need to consider the altitude of the helicopter relative to that cloud mass. For reference, the land on the other side is over 9km away. The helicopter needs to flying at a remarkably high altitude.
>i ws wonderng myself how they shot down an intercontinental ballistic missile?
It's relatively easy in the boost phase. It was flying directly over a MAJOR navy base.
Once it's established that the missile doesn't need to be one with a 7,500mi range then smaller missiles are a possibility. But remember that AF1 was nowhere near the area (it was nearing Singapore at that time). What else is worth hitting with anything smaller than a nuke?
My interpretation of that is that there was a second incident near Alaska while AF1 was flying back from Singapore. If they just tried such a massive FF attack and failed then they'd be especially desperate to take out POTUS immediately.
He's correct about it being a 20 second shot. Third paragraph of the guy's blog:
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2018/06/was-there-unannounced-missile-launch-on.html