What an unconvincing job by Mick. I see another person who doesn't apply critical thinking skills to the cover story, or even bothering to understand the difference between the types of flares a plane will carry. He should have started out asking some simple questions. Why would a plane be deploying flares over this location? Why would THREE planes be deploying flares in this location, and flying in formation? You don't deploy flares except for evasion purposes or lighting the battle field, and you don't normally deploy flares in formation.
Here are flare deployments from different aircraft.
Mick seems to miss the fact that burning magnesium or phosphorus both generate very distinguishable and easy to see residual smoke and drift from the flares.
Starbursts - the flares used to light the battlefield are dropped from a low elevation, NOT at cruising altitude. Burn time for flares is relatively short and intense, leaving tell tale signs of deployment in the trail of smoke.
And why would the plane not be visible? If you can pick out the deployment of the flare, you will be able to see the aircraft, especially backlit like this. The flare deployment story doesn't fit. No reason to make the deployment in that location, no reason to do it in formation, and there is no residual evidence of it being a flare. No evidence of a plane being in the picture either.
|