Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
05:04 AM
12/16/09
It's probably a mock up which was originally intended to have the sky inserted as the background but instead someone used a ground scene.
Look at the perspective as the missile sinks through where the ground should be. The worst example of how botched the footage is comes at 1:14 on the first video. The missile at this point has shrunk (presumably into the distance) yet we see it pass in front of objects we know to be at relatively close range.
12/16/09
12/16/09
Seriously, take a full-scale IQ test and when you utterly fail the POI portion please come back and retract your worthless comment.
Use the objects the missile passes in front of as a point of reference. There is no way the missile would appear that small compared to things farther away than it.
This isn't a matter of conspiracy, it's a matter of someone making a mock-up for demol purposes and someone else mistaking it for the real thing. Nothing nefarious, just poor fact checking.
12/16/09
IQ tests are shitty, and used very infrequently in actual psychometric evaluations, so stop trying to sound smart.
On-topic, you do realize this video is in slow-motion, right? And the sled is raised pretty high above the ground, giving the missiles a ways to drop and fan out to the sides? And that the missiles are very small in comparison to the sled?
There's nothing remotely questionable about these videos. Not that you've brought up, anyway.
12/16/09
I'm aware the missile is less than two feet long. The fact that this is slow motion has nothing to do with any of it. It's all a matter of geometry.
Do me a favor, estimate the distance from the camera to the launch sled's top edge and the horizontal distance from the base of the launch sled to the line of ground that passes just behind the top edge of the sled.
Work it out, even basic napkin math will do. You'll realize that the missile is shown to continue gliding, fading slowly into the distance after it should have made contact with the ground.
12/16/09
The moment the missile disappears behind the launch sled and falls out of sight it is passing across the straight red line. This line meets the ground at point B. The horizontal distance from the sled to this point we'll call XB.
If the missile has traveled less than XB horizontally then when it dips below the launch sled it disappears at point A, impacts out of frame, and all is well.
If the missile has traveled further than XB horizontally it should impact the visible portion of ground (point C) rather than disappearing behind the sled while still in flight.
The third option is that the missile has traveled more than XB horizontally and yet it still dips below the launch sled. This means it mysteriously fails to impact at point C and dips out of frame at point D.
Now, the missile shrinks to about a tenth it's size as it crosses the straight, red sight line. Similar triangles tells us that this means it is ten times farther away from the camera when it crosses this line than when it comes into frame.
So, look at your estimate for the distance from the camera to the launch sled and your distance from the launch sled to the point of ground just behind the top edge of the sled.
If the latter is less than nine times the former this means:
1) XB is less than the X distance the missile has traveled.
2) The missile is vanishing at D and, like I believe, failed to impact at point C when it should have.
3) QED. The footage is fake.
Of course this depends on your estimate of the distances from camera to sled and sled to point B, but again, if you have good spatial recognition/reasoning I think your answers will match mine.
12/16/09
Email Lockheed-Martin about this and post their response.
I look forward to the revision of your armchair-mathematics postulates when you get confirmation that the video is real.
12/16/09
If there is a building with taliban, bank robbers, serial killers and they are shooting AK bullets at you... No man in uniform has enough time to push this through a freaking app.
0/10.
12/16/09
Thank god you aren't in the military.
12/16/09
12/16/09
Ok troll, What carrier would you use in afganistan? Do you expect every marine to dish out $200 for an Iphone? What are the chances of fucking reception? I don't have reception in Malibu or Hollywood and you speak of "information on battlefield" while in the mountains of Afghanistan.
When you are under fire, loud shout, bullets bouncing. the last thing you think about is taking out your iphone and hoping/crossing yoru fingers that your partners would either feel the vibration or hear their JLo ringtone.
12/16/09
12/16/09
edit: Of course... it would have to work that way for me to ever think about using it... otherwise its just another piece of gear I have to keep up with (or make someone else keep up with)
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
Have you even considered for a second that maybe, just maybe they would use this while they weren't under fire as a precautionary application?
Seriously, there's no need to be a dick to those 2 other users man. They're just pitching a new idea and working out the kinks.
12/16/09
Wow, your ignorance and discourtesy to others is appalling.
I'm a US Army Captain, and I laughed out loud when I read your ignorant comments.
Yes, you're absolutely right, who would rely on AT&T wireless signals in Afghanistan? Certainly not the US Army, who would likely use the new and wide range of high frequency radio and wireless technologies it has developed with the defense industry, rather than simple 3G towers that don't exist in the Middle East.
And yes, not every soldier will carry this. It would likely be Squad Leaders, Platoon Leaders, Captains, and their Radio Officers, the people who need to know information and direct teams.
Please don't let your lack of military education bring judgement against technologies beyond your understanding.
12/16/09
Hell, such concept have been visualized in movies and even games (Ghost recon 2) where they seemed more practical then a 4.99 app on a freaking iphone.
12/16/09
12/16/09
Remember we a re talking about an Iphone. Not a military device, suitable for battle.
12/16/09
I don't care who you are, but the thought of anyone Platoon leader with iphone apps is beyond moronic. you'd much rather stick Ghost Recon Advance war fighter's version of this software which looked much more useful and practical.
If the military needed such information and software, they would rather rely on more sophisticated, battle hardened and durable devices.
An iphone would never play a roll in in war. Devices with same capabilities as an iphone and some more, will.
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
Laptops, cell phones, satellite radios, etc are used all the time in the modern American military. You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
12/16/09
12/16/09
They're not testing for ground deployment. The test is for a lighter missile to be carried in an air drone
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
[jalopnik.com]
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/12/09
12/12/09
12/12/09
12/12/09