Actually you also don't see a trail in front of the fighter.
And this seems a good argument to dismiss the photoshopped SU27 missile firing scene:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5437 ... ost8743949
and found this clip that pretty much substantiates this (go to 1:07)
Depending on atmospheric conditions and the missile used, you may not see a smoke trail beyond the immediate vicinity of the missile anyway.
Smokeless AAM's are available on the market. India has them for their Flanker fleet.
I've seen that animation before I made my first post but I didn't get fooled.DIBO wrote:this animated photo proves that point very clear I think:teach wrote:It's a 767. I'll tell you even more: it's the 767 prototype, in Boeing colours.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5437 ... ost8743115
So tell me, whom was the animation made by? A Group of self-declared debunkers who would go all the way to show that this is fake?
It's not because it has a B767 paint job that it's a B767!
Ever heard of "the eye sees what it wants to see"?
Here's an exercise for you. Try to discern which one's the B767 and which one's the B777.
You will immediately learn to see everything that's wrong with the animation you provided.
(BTW, don't be fooled by the markings that are on the above picture!)
Look at the wingspan. That's definitely a B777 wing there.
Also look at the cockpit windows. The B777 has this typical cockpit window structure that hides its windows if seen from above.
The left inboard aileron was drawn to give it the shape of the B767 aileron. On the original image it's not that clear.
As for the white markings on the wing extrado's root. Well it's really drawn, because it could just have been the reflection of the sun situated South-West at the time.
It doesn't take much to fool people.
If this was real evidence, the reactions we see would exactly be what we see now.
Wrong assumptions over wrong assumptions.
I'm not saying that it's real yet; it does however look possible.
And sorry, I still don't see the cloud. Please make the effort to put it in a visible way instead of saying it's Southeast of the runway. I just don't see it.
Even if it's there, who's to say that it wasn't planted on the 2012 version of the Google maps? After all, this debunking is being organised by intelligence agencies, and they have access to whatever they want from any U.S. company.