And who are
YOU? Someone who needs to take a basic photography class.
Here is another one...
Look at the single vertical line and try to imagine a different viewer perspective. How do you know that a shift in viewer's angle will not produce a shift in supposedly descent angle?
I will answer your stupid question to prove the photograph of the peacekeeper MIRV reentry is indisputable proof of ballistic missile warheads impacting at different angles. Look carefully at the MIRV photograph below.
Peacekeeper MIRV reentry
In the photograph, the horizontal baseline (e.g. the horizon) is clearly discernible. If you have ever taken a math class, you know that you can draw your X-axis along the horizon.
To calculate the angle of impact for each ballistic missile warhead, take out your protractor to measure the angle between the X-axis and each ballistic missile trajectory. You have to place the center of the protractor at the point of impact (e.g. intersection of missile trajectory with X-axis/horizon).
Try it at home. Print out the photograph and go through the math exercise as stated above. You will notice the missile warhead on the far right impacted at a much steeper angle than the warhead on the left side of the photograph.
In all of these cases, none of the missiles impacted vertically. Since you can see the horizon, for a missile to fall vertically, you should see a vertical trajectory; which does not exist in the Peacekeeper MIRV photograph.
For comparison, I have seen photographs of skyscrapers in New York City where the horizon is discernible and all of the skyscrapers look vertical, as they should. Similarly, if the Peacekeeper MIRVs had impacted vertically then we should have seen vertical trajectories.
With a discernible horizon/X-axis, vertical skyscrapers in New York City look vertical. If the Peacekeeper MIRVs had fallen vertically then their trajectories would have looked vertical, like the skyscrapers.
It is ludicrous for Gambit to claim that an indisputable photograph of MIRVs impacting at different angles is an illusion and that they are actually falling vertically. His argument is clearly fallacious.
I should mention that it is possible, even with a clear horizon, to change your point of view to align with the plane of a ballistic missile warhead trajectory to make an angled flight look like it's falling vertically. However, the converse is not true. When there is a clear horizon, it is impossible to shift your point of view to make a vertical trajectory look like an angled trajectory. It is obvious to me that Gambit does not understand this asymmetry.
I view Gambit as someone who is autistic. Sometimes, he says something important. However, many times, he says things that are dead wrong.
----------
Gambit is just strange. Even after I confronted him with indisputable photographic proof, such as the top part of the SR-71 nose having been shaped in accordance with "continuous curvature," Gambit still insists it obeys faceted/diamond principle.
Unfortunately, I'm stuck with the crazy guy. I never know when he will make another important post, such as the one which showed that my RAM citation (which occurred on another forum) was wrong and not applicable to all wavelengths and/or military aircraft.
Lockheed SR-71A Blackbird has a curved upper-nose (based on "continuous curvature" principle), not faceted diamond-shape.
I would not even go that far in language. The man cannot even answer with much simpler in mine. As for equipment placements, he has no experience upon which to base his 'debunking'. The man violated his own rule in using looks to judge 'stealth'.
