Exploding the “That Wasn’t A Missile” Myth

FreeRepublic ^ | November 10, 2010 | Gargantua

[Gargantua]

Exploding the “That Wasn’t A Missile” Myth

By Gargantua

What appeared to be a missile rose from below the horizon, streaking into the sky off of California leaving a condensation trail identical to the kind that have been filmed being left by a ground-or-sea-to-air launch of a Minuteman missile or ICBM.

First, the Government was inexplicably mum on the topic. Next came a series of sometimes contradictory explanations. Now, days after the event, the finally agreed-upon explanation hits every news station all at once. “It’s the con-trail of a jet returning from across the Pacific.”

There are two glaring problems with this obviously false “explanation.”

First, the shape and density of the con-trail.

A missile launch would be more dense and wide at its base, just as we see in the images we’ve been shown. A jet’s con-trail would be thinner and smaller the further away as it trailed off toward the horizon. We see the opposite in the availale video footage.

Second, the lighting.

In the video footage, we see stratus clouds out over the ocean behind the rising missile. The setting sun is shining on, and illuminating, the bottom of those clouds. On the con-trail, however, the illumination from the sun appears on the right-hand-edge; just as it would if this were a launching missile’s vertically rising con-trail. There is no illumination of the underside of the “jet’s horizontally oriented con-trail” because it is not a jet’s con-trail, it is a vertically-oriented missile’s launch contrail with the sun lighting up the side away from us. Very obviously so.

The Government must think we are at least as stupid as they are if they think this lame explanation is going to “fly.”

;-\

[JoeProBono]

WASHINGTON, Nov. 10, 2010
“Mystery Missile” Was a Plane, Pentagon Says
Military and Civilian Experts Now Say It Was an Airplane, Not a Missile, that Left Mysterious Vapor Trail off Calif. Coast

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/10/national/main7041217.shtml

[thecabal]

This photo seems to show a moon shadow much like the ones that were seen on Space Shuttle launches. I also heard a report on some other website (sorry, can't remember which one) about a local who saw a "beam" originating from the moon at the time in question. This is the same thing that other people described when seeing that Space Shuttle moon shadow. I used Stellarium to wind back the clock to see where the moon was in the at the time of the alleged missile launch.

The moon seems to have been in the correct position to get the moon shadow as posted in your photo (keep in mind that these KCBS shots are extreme zooms, so the FOV won't be the same as my Stellarium screenshot). If that is a moon shadow as I suspect, doesn't that support a ground launch? There are a lot of self-professed contrail experts here. Can you point me to a moon shadow from a high-altitude contrail?

[RobRoy]

>>Sorry Rob but on this one you are completely wrong.

My ex worked on the MX missle program.<<

And my wife works in the airline industry.

And I’ve flown ABOVE commercial contrails and noticed the unique optical illusions created from that altitude - they look almost like snakes.

And I have examined contrails with binoculars and telescopes and photographed them my entire life (I’m 56).

And my wife and I are both aircraft enthusiasts.

I understand the people that have not really ever paid attention to this sort of stuff thinking it is a missile. What amazes me is the pilots and other “experts” claiming, with enthusiasm, that this is clearly a missile. Sheesh.

Has objectivity completely left the American psyche?

[Straight Vermonter]

A jet’s con-trail would be thinner and smaller the further away as it trailed off toward the horizon.

Have you ever seen an actual contrail? They tend to be narrow near the jet and wider further back as the moisture dissipates and spreads outwards.

[ICCtheWay]

Oh - I have an open mind on the subject. To me the speed of the object in front of the contrail seem to be going much faster than an airliner. Maybe an optical allusion - but

I am not a conspiracy guy... but I have questions - that your answer and many others do not really answer...

[thecabal]

Since when is an honest questioning of a dubious situation "tin foil"? That's a liberal-like tactic of shutting down debate. The truth is that you (and others) have one theory and other people have a different one. There is no "settled science" or "consensus" on this yet.

I admit that there are some compelling arguments from the "it's a contrail, stupid" clan, but I'm not 100% convinced. Smearing others who don't automatically buy into your beliefs as a conspiracy nutter is insulting.

[ml/nj]

TWA Flight 800 was not shot out of the sky.

No. Of course not.

And those ~200 witnesses who just happened to see a missile rising up to TWA 800 were all nuts. In fact, every week 100s of people report seeing missile fired off the south shore of Long Island. (Don't they?)

It was the Center Fuel Take, that done it. That's why they grounded all those 747s and made all those emergency repairs. (Didn't they?)

And those Navy subs that the Navy LIED about just happened to be in the area; along with the tooth fairy. (Right?)

ML/NJ

[TigersEye]

The video zoomed in on it. I’ve actually used a 70 power telescope to watch airplanes create contrails. Sometimes they appear pretty close to the plane, and sometimes they don’t start until a ways behind the plane.

But there is always a gap, even if only a few tens of feet behind the plane, before the exhaust condenses water vapor in the air. And there are always separate trails from each jet engine for a distance before they merge into one. Nowhere in this film, even when zoomed, is there a gap between the vehicle and the contrail or separate trails from multiple engines. The contrail immediately billows from the vehicle instead of gradually dispersing as a vapor trail does. It looks nearly identical to the contrail of a shuttle launch.

[moehoward]

"LOL OK sure."

While on the Constellation I had opportunity to witness missile launches. Looked very much like this footage.

[RobRoy]

>>The contrail clearly passes in front of what you call haze.<<

“Clearly” we disagree on that.

[Ramius]

And yet the furthest west part of the contrail (assuming a jet contrail coming from the horizon) is in shadow and in front of all the clouds in the picture. But you ignored the main point. Why is one edge illuminated and the other edge of the contrail dark? If the light source was from below and as far away as the sun wouldn’t it illuminate the entire contrail evenly?

There's no particular reason why it should be even at all. Just as the undersides of clouds aren't necessarily evenly lit. It depends on the perspective of the viewer and the position and shape of the cloud. The cloud (contrail) here isn't in a direct line of sight to the sun, but off to one side. Could be that the plane was descending as well, adding another angle to the mix. This would also explain why it just stops, too. The plane likely passed down to some altitude where the conditions were no longer right to produce a contrail.

[TigersEye]

Have you never seen a contrail that resembles a dashed line, because the plane keeps going in and out of different conditions?

But this contrail has no such dashed appearance and the vehicle does not continue on ahead of the contrail. There was a front moving in from the coast that had reached the east slope of the Rockies at about the same time this video was shot. The upper level atmospheric conditions of temp and humidity would have been pretty uniform from off the coast to 700 miles east of LA. The contrail did not continue on overhead or to the east. It simply ended at the top of the spike apparently still miles to the west.

[Linda Frances]

On a boat?

[TigersEye]

Only in your case, you’d be asking for proof it didn’t make a noise. lmao

I didn't make the first claim of fact. You don't seem to understand what 'proving a negative' means.

[ml/nj]

It’s a common contrail.

Since it's so common, I assume you will be able to take a picture similar to the ones we've see and post it for all to see just how common it is. I've lived in the NYC metro area most of my life. The only thing I've seen live that even approximates the video from LA is a Space Shuttle launch. I'm also a pilot (albeit inactive now). I've never seen anything like that in the air either. (And if you haven't flown in a major metropolitan area like NYC, you just cannot imagine how attracted your eyes are to anything in the air that is moving while flying approaches and departures.)

ML/NJ

[moehoward]

Even if this turns out to have actually been a threat, I wont be surprised the threat level was not raised.

Was it raised after the Times Square bomber?

[humblegunner]

Then perhaps you meant “surface to air”.

The ocean has a surface. It does not have ground.

[TigersEye]

Compared to clouds jet contrails are very thin, very even and very small. Of the thousands of contrails I have seen I have never seen one that was unevenly lit from edge to edge. Along the length is another matter. Which you will notice is very evenly lit apart from the ‘bottom most’ point.

[thecabal]

Not ground launch, but surface launch (before the grammar nazis pounce)

[ml/nj]

ICBM’s are loud — very loud. Someone would have heard it.

Depends which way the wind is blowing. I got to see a Shuttle launch on the base from five miles away. I was expecting a huge roar. I barely heard anything. I since seen others from within Melbourne (a lot more than five miles away). None was ever really loud, but at least some were louder than that one I saw on base.

ML/NJ