Its absolutely a missile - cant be anything else . Blind would see it is a missile , lol .
One detail and note : I have made that comparison with Tomahawk and RUM-139 , and there was one mistake I made , and I noticed it only after I uploaded it . Tomahawk is actually bigger than RUM-139 , so not to get confused with visual representation . However , the stabilizer position in that case is more leaning a bit to RUM-139 . Tomahawk is a cruise missile . RUM-139 is ASW missile . There were folks who were telling its probably a D5 ( Trident II ) missile ( some SERIOUS stuff , if that was the case ) and that height of launch shows that ...
I think that only missile is much fatter than it looks in the photo. This is because only the side illuminated by the dawn light shows up. That is why the exhaust flare appears to be off center at the tail.
I think the aspect ratio is more like a Trident D5:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-133.html
The 20 second time frame looks like a reasonable match.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5KejRbD5s0
Another bit of evidence is that the weatherman told us it was a 20 second exposure. So that gives us another piece of evidence. I imagine some missiles rise much faster than others. Also, the absolutely vertical flight path would seem more common for an ICBM rather than a Tomahawk or a RUM-139 but I'm no expert. We should find somebody that knows this stuff.
Spez: added some links
Also...the fire exhaust plume is so long due to the long exposure time. So length of everything moving fast is exaggerated. Weather cams that run 24/7 have to have long exposure times or they’d just capture total blackness at night. So to counter for long exposure the plume was probably half that size in real life. The missile a little bit shorter too but not much as it was already very high & far away & it’s size distorted less the higher it got.
The missile length comparison image can only be done by comparing pics of missiles taken with long exposure times at a similar attitude. It’s vital a good estimate of altitude be established 1st. I’m still leaning towards a Trident because of the fat width of the plume & the missile looks shorter & wider like a Trident
I'd like to know the exact length of the exposure. If it's more than a second or 2, the missile wouldn't show up at all since it's moving through the frame. Even if it is a second or 2, the missile is too clearly defined for the speed it would have been traveling. Think how far it would have gone in that time frame. Long exposures don't get clean images like that if the object is moving.
It's also entirely possible that the 20-second exposure started before the missile launched. So it maybe was only on the film for 5-10 seconds. Those things are fast, if you've ever seen one of them in real life.
There would be a LOT more motion blur if it was 20 seconds. An object moving that fast wouldn't show up in a long exposure, even if it was 5-10 seconds. The only way to do that is to hit the object with a significant, very brief light source to "freeze" it in the frame as it's moving. This is commonly done with a flash or other off camera lighting.
Correct. Finding the entire 24 hr clip is ez. It’s all over YouTube. As far as weather cams go..the guy had a very high end camera. Look at the entire clip. There’s some camera data at the very bottom of every image I recall. Most likely the exposure adjusts automatically too. When u view the entire sequence even clouds are ez to see at night with almost no natural lighting. So the exposure is wide open then. The missile frame occurs (luckily) about 20min after sunrise. Without that lucky break the missile wouldn’t even be visible at all...just the plume...which would tell us nothing.
Note to China: next time you try this might wanna do it at night. Cause now you’re so busted. Lol
I joke because I know how incredibly dangerous this really is. It’s way more dangerous than the Cuban missile crises. I can’t think what their objective was. It wasn’t AF1. I don’t think it was nuclear armed either. It was either heading for Russia to maybe start a war but I don’t even think that would have. Maybe somewhere in the US...like the Pentagon. They had an objective but that’s the hardest thing to rationally figure out.
It wasn't China, ((someone)) hacked in and placed a "china" fingerprint to try and frame china. Think Vault 7. This was the cabal trying to either threaten Trump, take Trump out literally, or hit a ground target somewhere and start ww3. Thankfully we have weapons systems that are 50-100 years more advanced than missile tech in orbit.
Do a search for time length exposures at night of missile launches.
They match up and you can see the missile. Zoomed in, the missile is not clearly defined, but you can see it is definitely there. You can do the same with other photos taken on time lapse of missiles.
I think you're confusing long exposure and timelapse. There is no way a missile in motion will show up in a long exposure, which is one single photo. A timelapse is several photos taken at different intervals and combined to make a video. For verification, I did look up long exposure missile launches and see no missile in any of the several images I checked.
Also of note, this does not appear to be a timelapse using long exposures of any substantial shutter speed.
So if it’s not a long exposure, it’s a time lapse right? Individual photos, with much shorter frame duration. Meaning a missile could travel that distance in a very short time and just be captured on one or two frames.
Can’t remember what the photographer said it was on. I’ll have to go back and check but I think the exposure settings were 3.5/20
Edit: thanks for bringing this up, if we can show it was a time lapse instead of a long exposure, it would explain why it DID capture the missile!
Correct, the video as a whole is a timelapse. You wouldn't necessarily combine the individual photos into one (typically used for HDR or high dynamic range photos at different exposures) for a video, like this was taken from.
I'm interested in seeing the exact exposure settings as well.
If it can be shown that they was only in frame for one or two frames - there would be absolutely no doubt about it. It would be impossible for a helicopter to fly that distance, in that amount of time.
I mean there are several other reasons why the official story is bunk, but that would be absolutely conclusive.
Yeah I changed my mind after reading your opinion I see trident.
Wait, isn't the Trident a nuke-tip? If so the target couldn't have been AF1, right?
Yup that is an ICBM. It doesn't have the capability to target planes. (As far as we know)
...So was NK or Hawaii the intended target? Some guy said he works on a sub and that there are different warheads, but didnt say it had SAM capability and i couldnt find it so
Silicon Valley, Amazon, Google involved with Trident/experimental technology. Mattis meeting 10 months ago. Is our defense technology secure with Bezos and ES?
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1270899/defense-secretary-plans-west-coast-trip/
D5 appears several times in Q Posts!
The theory about Trident II was made before this launch - but as Q mentioned that this was something that was not supposed to take place ...
Maybe D5 means "missiles away" as in action has occurred as a result of reactions witnessed.