Drone video of missile fired at UAP bouncing off..

[Syne]

Again, if you could only read worth a damn, you'd know that that was just refuting your claim that all balloons simply go up until they burst.

That's what weather balloons do. All of them. And you trying to argue otherwise is the same as saying it was a weather balloon. Which I totally proved wrong. So go slither back into your cesspool. You lost again.

Illiterate and can't remember what you tried to read in the same day.
Pathetic moron. I already told you about communication, surveillance, and scientific balloons that do hold stable altitudes.

You must think everyone here is as dumb as you, but no one is buying it. You're just deluding yourself. Typical Dunning-Kruger dipshit.

[confused2]

Looking at the distances 3 and 5 seen in the vid. I'm going to guess the lower is the horizontal distance to target and the larger is the the distance as the missile flies. With them being 3 and 5 we can guess the elevation is about 4 miles .. not the 600 feet or so I was originally thinking. I think that is too high for helicopters so the camera is on (probably) a reaper and it could be in a very different airstream. I'm still thinking the thing can outpace the reaper [at its current speed] which makes it a powered device .. which would be why they're trying to shoot it down.

[Syne]

No, parallax motion accounts for all the apparent motion of the object, as I've already shown.

[Magical Realist]

How do you know it's not real motion? The uap appears to be moving to me. Was the drone and the missile standing still too? lol

[confused2]

How do you know it's not real motion? The uap appears to be moving to me. Was the drone and the missile standing still too? lol

Get a cocktail stick, spike a pickled onion half way up it. Stab a stationary sausage with one end and move the top forward at 2 inches a second. The pickled onion moves at 1 inch per second and looking down the cocktail stick you see the same sausage behind the onion. If you detach the pickled onion and move it at less than 1 inch per second it moves backwards in the sausage field, and more than 1 inch per second it appears to gain on the sausage.

Agree or not agree?

[Magical Realist]

All assuming the sausage is stationary. What if the sausage were not stationary. Wouldn't it appear to be moving again? IOW, the uap is obviously moving because the drone is moving to keep up with it. Right?

[confused2]

All assuming the sausage is stationary. What if the sausage were not stationary. Wouldn't it appear to be moving again? IOW, the uap is obviously moving because the drone is moving to keep up with it. Right?

The onion is the uap
My intention is to inject some sense into Syne's .. er .. whatever it is. We can work on the sausage later . For now, imagine the plate with the sausages on is the sea, you can move your chopstick from sausage to sausage but you aren't allowed to move the sausages (the sea).

---

IOW, the uap is obviously moving because the drone is moving to keep up with it. Right?

Or Vice Versa. Yes, 'obviously' .. good word. Not sure where Syne is with this though.

[Magical Realist]

All assuming the sausage is stationary. What if the sausage were not stationary. Wouldn't it appear to be moving again? IOW, the uap is obviously moving because the drone is moving to keep up with it. Right?

The onion is the uap
My intention is to inject some sense into Syne's .. er .. whatever it is. We can work on the sausage later .

LOL Okay!

I personally am fed up with Syne's convoluted crap--that it is/isn't a weather balloon that is somehow remaining stationary at an altitude of 3 miles. As usual the debunk becomes more implausible than an actual UAP.

[confused2]

I personally am fed up with Syne's convoluted crap--that it is/isn't a weather balloon that is somehow remaining stationary at an altitude of 3 miles. As usual the debunk becomes more implausible than an actual UAP.

Yup.
I added things to my previous post .. nothing important though.

[Syne]

Obviously two people who don't understand simple parallax motion. The video literally said the footage was from a Reaper drone. Reaper drones are fixed-wing aircraft that have to cruise at 120 mph to stay in flight. They cannot hover. These are all indisputable facts. Aside from the waves (which do not move anywhere near 60 mph), the ocean obviously is not moving.

I have a post on my back porch. It is obviously stationary. Looking at it through my backdoor, simply moving my head from side to side makes it appear to move, relative to the stationary background of my backyard and fence. If the post (object) were also moving, it would appear to be moving at it's own speed plus the speed of my head moving (drone camera).

Since we know the drone has to be flying at a minimum of 120 mph airspeed, we know that the object (which appears, according to C2, to be moving at around 60 mph) cannot be moving in the direction it appears to be moving. If it were, it would appear to move faster than 120 mph (drone speed plus object speed), which it obviously does not. Now, it could be moving in the same direction as the drone. And (depending on the distances involved) subtracting it's speed from that of the drone still allows a parallax that makes it appear to move in the opposite direction. In that case, it would still have to move slower than the drone.

But considering that the object is not maneuvering, and it's motion seems to be relative to the drone the entire time, it's a more reasonable assumption to assume it relatively stationary compared to the filming drone. And if the footage shows distance to target, the distances alone rule out the object moving the same direction is the filming drone.


Don't like it? Learn some basic physics.