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.”

;-\

[Names Ash Housewares]

“Not sure where I read it this morning but it was confirmed that particular flight entered the airspace of the video about an hour later.”

Sounds like a time zone confusion.

The flight the next day did the same contrail type effect.

[TigersEye]

If I had any money I would take that bet.

[TigersEye]

I’m as confident about this as I am that Dan Rather’s documents were fake.

All of your confidence rests on the assumption that the government is telling all it knows.

[DelaWhere]

>>>I have seen ‘similar’ contrails when F-16 (from what used to be Carswell AFB) fly over my area. <<<

LOL, I still remember almost being wiped out by an F-111 over Carswell as he did an overhead approach as I was flying across the base (scary)...

Close look at the video sure looks like single rocket engine to me. Plus, contrails don’t form right at the engine - exhaust has to cool and moisture freeze - gap seems to be missing, as it would with a solid fuel rocket.

But, what do I know...

[The Comedian]

Dude, I promise you, it was NOT a missile contrail.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Hardraade]

Then somewhere today I read that the CBS helicopter camera man filmed this for 10 minutes.

BS. I watched the original video, and the thing was over in seconds. Straight up, almost, first stage. Visible stage separation and course change.

As for why and who: here's a thought. What would happen if "somebody" was to vaporize DC while BarackaFlacka was having his whole administration and loyal apparatus over in his old country? Chaos. Nartial law. Blank slate, most opponents gone.

Easy enought to sneak a missile-capable sub up there from, say, Venezuela. Iran, for example, is supposed to be building their own but have been buying subs for years. And there's starting to be a good many missile systems available for firing from a torpedo tube.

Obviously, a strike didn't happen. Malfunction?

[TigersEye]

Doggone! I figured you had already seen all the video and pics available. You're welcome and I'm sorry I didn't link it earlier.

A point I made before is that the apparent distance in the sky covered in the time frame of the flight would be tremendously long if it were a plane flying parallel to the earth. That would indicate a rate of flight far above the capability of a commercial jet.

However, a vertical flight would cover more of the sky more quickly even without factoring in the much faster air speed of a missile.

[TigersEye]

...Pike said. “But at one place you can see it has changed course — rockets don’t do that.”

Pike reveals extreme ignorance of missiles with that statement. They are specifically designed to make frequent course corrections.

[TigersEye]

No. It only APPEARS thick and opaque.

ROTFLOL Why, yes! In fact all contrails only appear. It is their appearance we are all discussing.

[RobRoy]

Hey, I thought you might enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJi2L4QC_fk

Same place. Same time of day. Different day.

[RobRoy]

Precisely. ;)

[RobRoy]

Well, I agree with your post, except for the part about the tooth fairy. She’s a personal friend of mine.

Oh, and she is quite offended by the way they characterize “her” in The Santa Clause.

[TigersEye]

Easy enought to sneak a missile-capable sub up there from, say, Venezuela. Iran, for example, is supposed to be building their own but have been buying subs for years.

Here is where Iran was at in 1999.

New Iranian Missile May Outflank U.S. Defenses

Iran has test-fired a sea-launched ballistic missile, according to classified U.S. intelligence reports, which could be used in a devastating stealth attack against the United States or Israel for which the United States has no known or planned defense.

[RobRoy]

>>All of your confidence rests on the assumption that the government is telling all it knows.<<

Nope. I’m not even taking that into consideration. I don’t trust them.

[RobRoy]

>>It is their appearance we are all discussing.<<

And how appearances can be deceiving. A perfect example is the poster that sees the “base” as “in shadow”. :)

[TigersEye]

Yes, that is an interesting video. It was filmed off of the coast looking east instead of west. At least it says it was at sunset. There are breaks in the contrail which did not exist in the missile contrail. There is an evident twin contrail for part of its length, from multiple engines, that did not exist in the missile contrail. It was all highly illuminated with no thick opaqueness to it. The video ended while the plane was still visible and flying. The missile video continued after the vehicle simply vanished in the sky and the contrail ended at that time.

Can you find a video with more inconsistencies? /s

[TigersEye]

At this point, my favorite is the folks who think the contrail is “in shadow” close to the horizon.

Precisely? So you weren't referring to me with that statement? lol You can have everything both ways if you want to.

[TigersEye]

Nope. I’m not even taking that into consideration. I don’t trust them.

Baloney! You have rested your case on the fact that the government has denied any knowledge of this "event" in numerous posts. You are stretching wanting to have things both ways into outright BS now.

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

NORKs

[ICCtheWay]

I am no expert on this subject... but much of what I see in the video looks more like billowing smoke - not moisture... I have lots of experience flying in aircraft - not as a pilot - mostly jumping out of them... But never the less I have watched B-52s, F-18s and LOTS of F-16s fly very high overhead for 40 years... and when those F-16s zoomed to altitude at what seems like a 45 degree or steeper angle the speed of the aircraft itself is quite noticeable - very much faster than passenger aircraft... so I just cannot be convinced that one can rule out a rocket as what was in the video...