Mystery missile launch': Chinese missile test or airline contrail?

examiner.com ^ | 11/12/10 | Joe Newby

[Korah]

A report posted today at a CNN website claims the "mystery missile launch" on Monday was actually a Chinese missile test. According to the report:

China flexed its military muscle Monday evening in the skies west of Los Angeles when a Chinese Navy Jin class ballistic missile nuclear submarine, deployed secretly from its underground home base on the south coast of Hainan island, launched an intercontinental ballistic missile from international waters off the southern California coast. WMR’s intelligence sources in Asia, including Japan, say the belief by the military commands in Asia and the intelligence services is that the Chinese decided to demonstrate to the United States its capabilities on the eve of the G-20 Summit in Seoul and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Tokyo, where President Obama is scheduled to attend during his ten-day trip to Asia.

However, the report - placed on CNN's user-generated iReport site - has yet to be vetted or confirmed by CNN, and is full of un-named, unquoted sources. The only link provided goes to a site with basically the same report - again, with no corroboration.

The source of the report is one Wayne Madsen, who once claimed Wikileaks was a CIA operation, and that Al-Qaeda was a front for the military-industrial complex.

No other news organization is reporting the incident as part of a Chinese missile test at this time.

A much less sinister explanation is provided by a site called "Contrail Science".

According to a report at that site, the CBS camera crew probably captured Flight AWE808 from Hawaii to Phoenix, and the perspective of the the viewer made the contrail appear to be a ballistic missile being launched, possibly, from a submarine.

The site reports a very similar incident:

An interesting contrail cropped up off the coast of San Clemente, Orange County, California on December 31st 2009. The curious shape led.......

(Excerpt) Read more at Examiner.com...

[TigersEye]

It is a serious camera and he said he used his “doubler” lens if I have the right term. You can see the power of the zoom in the video.

[justa-hairyape]

The point is that the next day, same time, there was the same contrail, and its documented.

Why are you avoiding answering the question I posted to you in post #183. Do you not know the correct answer ? It is relatively simple.

Now, if it was a rocket, where is an ionized gas cloud? I’ve seen plenty of launches, at night or sunset, when the rocket hits the ionosphere, it creates a glowing cloud that stays for 30-40 minutes.

We have no idea what altitude the rocket obtained. We do not know its speed. We do not know its launch point. We do not know the launch vehicle. We do not know if it was successful or a failure. You cannot compare it to successful launches.

Also, if this was a launch, it would have been visible from San Diego to Santa Barbara, yet no reports? Why? Because it was a contrail, when viewed from a different angle, it looks no different than any other contrail.

The CBS blog itself has numerous people reporting that they saw it.

You have no proof of a missile, absolutely no proof. There were two planes in the area, and we know that contrails sometimes look like this, and there are plenty of pictures from many places.

Wow. You big proof that this specific event was not a rocket is that planes can make rocket like contrails. What does that have to do with determining if a specific event was a rocket or plane ?

[RobRoy]

>>What you feel when you fly doesn’t have any bearing on what a person sees from the ground does it?<<

I’m talking about what I see, not what I feel. When I see my airplane turn, it is turning. Interestingly, most people do not know it is turning because they are not paying attention, and the pilot controls the yaw effectively enough that your water in your wine glass doesn’t even tilt. But a simple look out the window shows the change in the horizon.

You are arguing straw man.

Frankly, this debate is so much like arguing with liberals it’s kind of creepy. I see straw men, red herrings, ad-hominem, appeals to authority. It’s all fascinating. Anything to ignore the raw evidence which overwhelms the speculation seems to be the order of the day.

[MestaMachine]

I would be extremely surprised if cbs still had the original video.
The thing malfunctioned. That is why they didn’t shoot anything down. It fell out of the freaking sky somewhere. Need to be watching for a recovery attempt along the trajectory route.

[RobRoy]

>>I lived a mile from and international airport for 27 years.<<

So, you see a lot of contrails coming from the planes taking off and landing? ;)

[TigersEye]

I suspect they are laughing about it while being patted down in TSA checkpoints. :)

Comments like that really elevate the discussion here at FR don't they? /s

You mentioned new readers coming to threads to see what it's about yet you want everyone who has studied this and doesn't agree with you to shut up. Interesting.

You say you've seen lots of contrails TOO and your opinion differs from mine. Good for you.

[RobRoy]

>>We have no idea what altitude the rocket obtained. We do not know its speed. We do not know its launch point. We do not know the launch vehicle. We do not know if it was successful or a failure. You cannot compare it to successful launches.<<

Of course, if it wasn’t a rocket, it all becomes pretty clear.

Imagine, for a moment, that it was not a rocket. See where it takes you. Once I did that, I know where it took me. And suddenly all my questions had answers. One of them was that I said to myself, “if it is an airplane, I’ll bet it’s coming from Hawaii and is probably going to a western inland airport - probably Phoenix”.

And less than an hour later, well, you know the rest of the story. :)

[MestaMachine]

Gee. You see all that, but refuse to see what is becoming pretty obvious. There are many geopolitical dots to connect here. You see one frame and don’t look at the entire picture. That is called tunnel vision.

[RobRoy]

>>Yes, things seem to be hushed up.<<

If there is nothing to hush up, it can appear that things are “hushed up”. :)

Just sayin’.

[justa-hairyape]

The only difference is the density of the trail, due to different atmospheric conditions.

Nope. There is another difference. Big one which blows the whole plane theory right out of the sky. Answer my question in post #183.

[TigersEye]

When I see my airplane turn, it is turning.

From inside your plane? How does that have anything to do with viewing a contrail from the ground. Most contrails are very straight apart from the wind blowing them around they rarely look like the pic I showed that you are taking me to task over. So rare I've never seen on in many thousands.

Frankly, this debate is so much like arguing with liberals it’s kind of creepy.

Then find a thread about another subject.

[justa-hairyape]

No doubt. But my point is they are much stronger now. And if you look at pictures of Anna Chapman, better looking.

[TigersEye]

So, you see a lot of contrails coming from the planes taking off and landing? ;)

What would that have to do with flight 808 from Hawaii to Phoenix flying at 37,000 ft.?

[Seven plus One]

It was just before dawn and I expected it be gone in a minute or so, ...it seemed like a good 4-5 minutes before I lost sight of of the flight. I may have gauged it wrong...

I never got the chance to watch a shuttle launch. That would have to be the coolest event ever. It's climbing into orbit, unlike a commercial jet that's limited to the troposphere, so the horizon as we normally view it would not be an issue. That humongous belly tank of fuel feeding those engines would make some spectacular hell-fire for those 4-5 minutes. I doubt that you gauged anything wrong.

You are right; quality film can be analyzed practically to infinity, it seems. A commercial news-cam is better than a cell phone, of course, but not in the same league as a dedicated rocket tracking crew. But I know little about this, so I'll decide when I see it. Sooner or later. More information is always better thas less.

[RobRoy]

>>From inside your plane? How does that have anything to do with viewing a contrail from the ground.<<

You’re joking, right?

Um, when the plane turns, it, uh, creates a curve in the contrail.

And yes, I’ve seen LOTS of them from the ground. I’ve even seen military flights take virtual 90 degree turns at high altitude. I’ve even been paranoid about a particular contrail’s path (and wide zig-zag path) to the point of pulling out my telescope to see what kind of airplane it is. I actually got pretty good at following them with a 70 power eyepiece.

[justa-hairyape]

And suddenly all my questions had answers.

And I am still waiting for an answer to my simple question.

[RobRoy]

You mentioned that you live next to an airport, as though that made you an authority on the appearance of contrails. Airports are where aircraft fly at low altitude. Yes, they MAY fly at high altitude there, but no more than anywhere else in the US. In fact, flyover country is probably where you will see the most contrails

[RobRoy]

>>And I am still waiting for an answer to my simple question.<<

Which one.

[Seven plus One]

It's good. There was enough detail left in a magnification of the source of the smoke trail to convince me that this was no airplane, and that it was not heading east. And this was casually available on the web.

[justa-hairyape]

See post 230.