0
0

[–] 17043777? ago 

Yeah, I have like 40 pages worth of solid facts, and you use one article I linked to conclude I'm a shill, even though I literally described that article as 'almost unquestionably proves'... meaning I'm conceding that it doesn't 100% prove it's a helicopter. Ok.

Facts are facts. That article provides the facts for both the helicopter theory, and the missile theory. There is far more support for the helicopter theory.

Your 'compare to other long exposure shots', and '2000 mph' comments tell me you didn't even read it, because all that stuff is addressed within it. Glad to debate the facts if you want, but read the article first.

0
1

[–] 17051702? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

"If the mystery object was a missile, we would not expect the body of it to be captured on a long exposure shot."

Really? Try this:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6f/ab/13/6fab13850a19702d79f005a0d00a5941.jpg

The point is that you have the camera's location, and you can guesstimate a reasonable height for the helo. From this, you can determine perspective, and from that perspective (plus the exposure time), you can calculate a reasonable distance that a helo could travel based upon the image. Since you also have the camera's settings, you can go out and photograph similarly-lit objects (aircraft) traveling at known speeds. From one known-speed and two known-distances, you can calculate a reliable speed of the object at Whidbey, which you will then realize is moving too fast to even be a jet, let alone a helo.

The point is that you could be thinking for yourself and verifying these facts for yourself (as I did), but instead you are posting articles filled with inconsistencies, and that were likely fabricated by DS assets providing a cover story. Whether you are a shill or not, the point is that until you get better at researching and logical thinking, there is little point in reading all of your "40 pages of solid facts" when some of those "almost unquestionable solid facts" are so very easily destroyed by even a cursory review.

Also, the article never mentions the "speed" theory even once. So, that again, either makes me think that you are a shill, or that you need to work on your reasoning faculties. Maybe both.

0
0

[–] 17058754? ago 

The point is that you could be thinking for yourself and verifying these facts for yourself (as I did), but instead you are posting articles filled with inconsistencies, and that were likely fabricated by DS assets providing a cover story.

First of all, I wrote everything up there with the exception of some of the human trafficking stuff. I can assure you that nothing contains inconsistencies. They are fact based, sourced, and contain very little (if any) of my personal feelings towards the Q movement in their presentation. Post an inconsistency and prove me wrong.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Your picture is missing the point of the statement you quoted.

"If the mystery object was a missile, we would not expect the body of it to be captured on a long exposure shot."

I didn't say we wouldn't expect to see the body of an airplane/helicopter/boat on a long exposure shot, I said we wouldn't expect to see the body of a missile on a long exposure shot.

As I explained, and as the anecdotal expert opinions I referenced confirmed, a missile would be moving too fast for the body to be captured on a 20 second exposure. The body of the missile would not be in frame long enough for the sensor to receive a defined image.

Immediately following that quote, I 'proved' this concept by using boats from the same video.

As you can see, the boat completely disappears because of how long the exposure is. The disappearance of a slow moving boat, supports (confirms, really) that the body of a fast moving missile would not be visible during this length of an exposure.

https://i.imgur.com/unZUQwi.png

If that doesn't satisfy you, then consider this... these are both long exposures of aircraft taking off. Do they look like aircraft, or missiles? They look like missiles, because the exposure is too long to capture the body of the airplane.

https://i.imgur.com/KYII5hQ.png

https://i.imgur.com/6VAR9g1.png

Your example is of a relatively short long exposure, or some other technique, that allows the body of the aircraft to be visible.

All of this is consistent with the claim that the body of a fast moving missile would not be captured on an exposure of this length.

From one known-speed and two known-distances, you can calculate a reliable speed of the object at Whidbey, which you will then realize is moving too fast to even be a jet, let alone a helo.

Not sure why you think a helicopter couldn't travel that distance in 20 seconds. Perhaps it's because the perspective of the movement gives the illusion that it is traveling vertically? The helicopter is moving horizontally, directly over the camera, towards the land in the background.

https://i.imgur.com/mm8M6BR.png

The distance traveled by the slower moving boats over the 20 second exposure, dont conflict with the distance a fast moving helicopter could be expected to cover.