Posted on 11/10/2010 12:45:55 PM PST by 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.”
;-\
I can see I am not able to convince you.
Closing thought: If a tree fell in downtown Manhattan, would someone hear it?
A speculation is the least convincing thing anyone has said about it. The circular logic you are using has convinced me of other things.
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.
Right
Even though the CBS affiliate reported the cameraman observed the contrail for ten minutes, there’s no way to know how much of that time the aircraft that created the contrail was in sight, unless someone could specifically ask him. The Department of Defense seized the tape for analysis. Only about a minute of the flight is seen online. If that minute represented the entire flight time, and the other nine minutes was simply filming the leftover contrail, its still possible it was a missile.
But without further clarification, its likely he observed the craft for ten minutes.
The missile rose from the surface of the ocean, 35 miles away, from over the horizon, going straight up, for one minute. Then the smoke remained in the sky for 8 more minutes but the missile had disappeared out of sight, heading to the north west...
The video of what looks for all the world like the contrail of a missile was shot Monday evening by KCBS cameraman Gil Leyvas from a news helicopter over Los Angeles.
"I saw a big plume coming up, rising from looked like beyond the horizon and it continued to grow," Leyvas said.
He zoomed his camera in and stayed on it for about 10 minutes. To him it looked like an incoming missile.
"It was unique. It was moving," he said. "It was growing in the sky."
I'd like to see the other nine minutes of the video. If its nine minutes of footage of the object creating a contrail, then its definitely an airliner contrail. If only one minute of the ten minutes of footage shows a craft creating a contrail, and the rest is just footage of the contrail itself, then its probably a missile.
Ah, that changes everything, if that is what the cameraman stated. Where did you find that nugget? (Link?) All I could find was in my last post, #285.
To: TigersEye
Wow. Thank you for that video. Entire flight time until burnout, less than 2 minutes. Both the spiraling and the way the flameout (ehxausetd fuel burnout) display so clearly here shows that this is definitely a missile. If that glow was the “sun reflecting off the fuselage,” it would have kept reflecting instead of going dark (burning out) at precisely the same moment that the “contrail” stops (when the solid or liquid fuel propellant runs out).
Thank you so much for now posting this. I’ve downloaded it and will start the forensic examination immediately.
It’s a missile, folks.
;-/
245 posted on November 11, 2010 8:56:26 AM GMT+09:00 by Gargantua
If it was an airplane contrail the apparent end of it would still be far to the west IMO.
Where is the proof of the claim that
The missile rose from the surface of the ocean, 35 miles away, from over the horizon, going straight up, for one minute. Then the smoke remained in the sky for 8 more minutes but the missile had disappeared out of sight, heading to the north west...
What you posted does not prove the missile had disappeared after one minute, unless I'm missing something. All we have is an edited excerpt(s) totaling one minute out of 9 or 10.
The video that has been made available is only excerpts of a 9 or 10 minute film. There's no way to prove the "entire flight time" from the edited/excerpted video available.
On the contrary, the cameraman stated,
"I saw a big plume coming up, rising from looked like beyond the horizon and it continued to grow," Leyvas said.He zoomed his camera in and stayed on it for about 10 minutes. To him it looked like an incoming missile.
"It was unique. It was moving," he said. "It was growing in the sky."
If anyone can prove from the cameraman's statements that
The missile rose from the surface of the ocean, 35 miles away, from over the horizon, going straight up, for one minute. Then the smoke remained in the sky for 8 more minutes but the missile had disappeared out of sight
then the debate is over. But that cannot be proven from the edited/excerpted 1 to 2 minutes of video from the 9 to 10 minutes of video shot by the cameraman.
I give up. You have fun. Make sure the tin foil is tight to ensure greatest effectiveness..
:)
“A jet would certainly remain in view for ten minutes, but would a missile launch?”
Uh...no. As an expert is west coast missile launches, having completed dozens of them, that missile is more than 1,700 miles away in ten minutes, over the horizon and looking for a place to crash. This wasn’t a missile.
Its an airplane, the very next day there pictures of the same flight with the same contrails. If it was a missile, there would be an ionized gas cloud that can be seen. If it was a missile, you would have sightings hundreds of miles north and south of it.
Its US808, a 757. The video shows a slow moving object, missiles move fast, 757’s coming in from HNL go about 500MPH.
I can’t believe all the kookery around this. Contrails happen, every day, go outside, given the right conditions and a backlit setting sun, you will see them.
Its an airplane, the very next day there pictures of the same flight with the same contrails. If it was a missile, there would be an ionized gas cloud that can be seen. If it was a missile, you would have sightings hundreds of miles north and south of it.
Its US808, a 757. The video shows a slow moving object, missiles move fast, 757’s coming in from HNL go about 500MPH.
I can’t believe all the kookery around this. Contrails happen, every day, go outside, given the right conditions and a backlit setting sun, you will see them.
Acting like you know more than anyone else about sums up the essence of your position. Being a smart ass is not the be all and end all of the intellect.
>>Uh...no. As an expert is west coast missile launches, having completed dozens of them, that missile is more than 1,700 miles away in ten minutes, over the horizon and looking for a place to crash. This wasn’t a missile.<<
That’s just crazy talk! ;)
/s
BTW, did you see this from the following day. The same flight 808 one day later:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJi2L4QC_fk
Check out an airway map. Check out ship traffic. Check out airline flight traffic.
>>Acting like you know more than anyone else about sums up the essence of your position. Being a smart ass is not the be all and end all of the intellect.<<
Yep, you got me. ;)
And its also impossible to arrive at a total flight time for the object based on a chopped up 2 minute excerpt of a ten minute video of the object's flight. I'll be happy to be proven wrong if there is some credible data out there proving the object "disappeared after one minute," but that claim does not correspond with any public statements I've seen from the cameraman, and it cannot be deduced from a chopped up video excerpt.
Why not?
The Reds surfaced a sub right in the middle of a carrier battle group a few years ago.
Undetected, I do believe.
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.