Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Mystery" Contrail Was Either US Airways Flight 808 or UPS Cargo Flight 902
Time to Think ^ | 11-09-10 | Liam Bahneman

Posted on 11/18/2010 6:19:00 AM PST by alg1921

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last
To: agere_contra

Because there isn’t “video”. There is a video of a contrail in the sky.

The video is realy nothing more than a 10-second-long picture. Everything about “missile launch” is an interpretation of that image, an extrapolation back in time as to what might have generated the image.

But people keep saying “there’s a video” as if the video actually shows the contrail being created, when all it shows is a fixed image shot from a shaky camera from miles away that zooms in on the image.

Meanwhile, there’s another picture we can see, right here in this thread, showing the same contrail from a different angle, which you have to ignore to believe the silly story about a missile launch from NAS Point Magu that somehow NOBODY HEARD.


41 posted on 11/18/2010 8:48:28 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MissH

There are no flames anywhere on the video.


42 posted on 11/18/2010 8:49:32 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: alg1921
Welcome to FR. Don't be pimping your blog here. You are allowed to reply too.
43 posted on 11/18/2010 8:52:04 AM PST by Arrowhead1952 (De fund the TSA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alg1921
I'm still trying to grasp why the only observation of this mystery object came from 30 to 40 miles away. The only answer I've been able to come up with is that the individuals within close proximity and/or directly underneath the mystery object saw it for what it was....a plane.

An airline contrail at sunset (when they're most visible due to their golden glow and darkening sky), flying at 30,000 or so feet, 30 to 40 miles away, heading in my direction will appear to be going straight up from the edge of the horizon. That perspective will gradually change the closer it gets to me until it's directly overhead...........

As it flies away, 30 or 40 miles into the distance it will then appear to be heading downwards towards the edge of the horizon...So, from the first time I saw it till it finally disappeared, it was still flying at 30,000 feet.......

44 posted on 11/18/2010 8:53:47 AM PST by Hot Tabasco (There's only one cure for Obamarrhea......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS

I did wait for the hand-held video (valid question BTW! I was sorely tempted not to wait).

What we need to put this to bed is news-camera-quality video of an airliner that looks like the ‘launch video’.

That handheld video looked like a plane contrail being videod from miles away. We need a video that shows an evolving plume and a ‘flame’


45 posted on 11/18/2010 8:56:19 AM PST by agere_contra (...what if we won't eat the dog food?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
No evolving plume, no flame. Instead they were stills of distant contrails.

There is no evolving plume and no flame on the video from the first day either.

The only thing moving in the 1st day's video is the helicopter and the zoom of the camera, with the object itself moving very slowly over time but shown for such a short period of time it doesn't matter.

My favorite part is where they do an extreme zoom into the object, and the camera is shaking so bad people think the object is dancing and moving -- but if you look at the plume, the entire plume is "moving" with the object.

This just goes to show that a lie makes it around the world before the truth can get out of bed, and that in the internet era, once a story has been told, you can't fix it for everybody no matter how many facts you give them.

46 posted on 11/18/2010 8:57:37 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS
Be careful. A few days ago, I was accused of being "a disinformation mavin for a liberal fascist executive branch" for daring to testing the missile facts theories. ;)
47 posted on 11/18/2010 8:57:51 AM PST by Fundamentally Fair (If exercising the right to free speech invites violence, then girls in short skirts invite rape.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: alg1921
Sorry... I no longer believe anything the government or certain “eggspurts” say... why should I? They lie to us everyday about everything.

LLS

48 posted on 11/18/2010 8:59:05 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

San Nicolas island is part of NAS Point Mugu. That’s 100km off the coast and is a plausible location for the base of the ‘rocket plume’. NAS Point Mugu adds up to a big testing ground. You must have impressive hearing if rocket launches that far off make you turn your head, LOL.

The video shows an evolving plume and a flame. It shows a boosted payload of some sort. You don’t see it, I do. Other FReepers can make up their own minds - from the video, not from stills of contrails.

No need to argue the toss here. When someone shoots a video of an airliner that looks the same as the ‘launch video’, then this all goes away. If they can’t shoot such a video - perhaps because planes don’t look like rockets - then the boosted payload theory is the one to go with.


49 posted on 11/18/2010 9:11:13 AM PST by agere_contra (...what if we won't eat the dog food?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
No evolving plume, no flame. Instead they were stills of distant contrails.

If by "evolving plume" you mean that the contrails of the jets are smaller in thickness than the video from last week, I can only offer you what I see in the sky locally (Albuquerque area).

We are located under a major east-west route for passenger aircraft. Some days, no contrails at all (rare). Most days, the contrails are nice and thin all along the route of the aircraft, and you can watch them develop as the aircraft moves. Other days, you can watch the plumes spread to several miles wide (thick or thin - depending on moisture) all across the sky due to the wind. The more moisture we get, the thicker the plume when it spreads.

One thing that bugged me is that even with 90 seconds of video, the object barely moves (given the pulse of a rocket, you'd think the plume nearest the object would change significantly over this time, as well), nor does the "flame" appear smaller and smaller with the distance change a missile should have in the amount of time captured.

50 posted on 11/18/2010 9:19:32 AM PST by IYAS9YAS (Liberalism can be summed up thusly: someone craps their pants and we all have to wear diapers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
Also, flight time to that altitude would be relatively short for any military missile/rocket. What I don't see is the significant spread of plume near the ground that's produced when the exhaust has nowhere to go but out (even in launches from the water, the plume spreads out faster closer to the water). This relative thickness differential is not noted in this plume. It is relatively linear in thickness for the whole trail.

Even at 35 to 50 miles out, the altitude of the helicopter filming this would certainly have been able to see the ground/ocean at the launch point and the plume should have been considerably wider up to the point the earth/water is not deflecting it.

Yes it's thicker at the "bottom." However, it is still rather linear, with no real change in profile.

51 posted on 11/18/2010 9:28:35 AM PST by IYAS9YAS (Liberalism can be summed up thusly: someone craps their pants and we all have to wear diapers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

That is not “raw video” by definition. There are clearly 4 edits. They’re complete perspective switches.


52 posted on 11/18/2010 9:36:33 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

Quantico was exploding some ordinance last week, and freepers here were asking if there was an earthquake, as they heard and felt the blasts miles away.

A rocket launch would easily be heard 100 miles away, much less 100km.

I am familier with San Nicolas Island.

Of course, the story was that we didn’t know anything about the launch — it is hard to believe we wouldn’t know that we launched a missile from our own base.


53 posted on 11/18/2010 10:09:06 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: alg1921; Jim Robinson
I want to take a moment to point out that these ludicrous "Chi-Com Missile" threads have been going on coming up on two weeks already and have generated several thousand replies in total. Over a dozen threads devoted to this lunacy.

Yet, there are only three threads on FreeRepublic covering the award ceremony last Tuesday of US Army Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta receiving the Medal of Honor, with an average of about nine replies each.

Jim, this troubles me. Should it trouble me?

54 posted on 11/18/2010 10:42:28 AM PST by The KG9 Kid (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson