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.”

;-\

[RobRoy]

>>They only offer a bit of a psychological profile on the one who dishes them out.<<

Yep. My “ass handed to you” remark was a bit of tongue in cheek. That thread I created on that site turned out to be huge, so I don’t expect you to read it. But the arrogant ignorance was really on display there. Those guys that hung on to the end just would not listen to reason, no matter what. However, many of the warmers did finally back off, either overtly admitting it may be a fraud, or they just disappeared.

The ones hanging on ‘till the end posted so much dribble for future embarrassment that it was actually laughable. To be fair, many of them are young and will mature. I’m hoping the thread was a part of that maturing process. Still, many of the ones that held out the longest are “gray ponytails”.

Which is why I include the quote in my sig: With age comes wisdom. But sometimes age comes alone.

[TigersEye]

Same here. It is why I said you I think you are just pullin’ my chain or are an idiot, but it is probably the former.

For the most part it hasn't been either. I have simply tried to offer information and my POV and give a reasoned response to the contrary arguments presented to me. If I pulled your chain a little it was because you have kept up a constant banter of digs from the start and you passed over a number of points with no substantive response. That's irritating.

But you haven't engaged in outright insults so it hasn't been too big of a deal. Plus you have a great Scots moniker. At least it explains your stubbornness. ;^)

[justa-hairyape]

Found the source for that top image. Even have the persons name who took it. Was taken New Years Eve December 31st 2009. Not last September. Taken by Loretta Rieger.

Rocket launch or contrail offshore: Answer, contrail

The above article and opinion is from a Weather Examiner.

We also have a short video taken by Blaine Reiger in the report below.

Mystery deepens with video of ‘launch’ off O.C.

The opinion there was that we do not know what it was. By a Science Editor for the OC Register. So we apparently have seen these events twice in the past year, at least. And apparently this issue remained unresolved back in January and it did not get national attention back then. No conclusive proof that it was NOT a missile back on December 31st. Only speculation. And that does appear to be Catalina Island.

[TigersEye]

Maybe there's a forum somewhere on the net where people with different views discuss things with respect for each other.

Bwaaaaahahahahaaaaa! Now I'm yanking your chain. Nothing like a little tinfoil now and then. ;-)

[Sto Zvirat]

It was a snippet from a helicopter and using telescopic lens.

Where is the video from on the ground, either head on, or n or s of LA? Whenever they have a launch at VAFB there are tons and tons of pics from all over S. California. The exhaust trail has even been seen from Phoenix, I have seen launch exhaust from Phoenix.

Where is the ionized gas cloud?

[eyedigress]

I have witnessed the same from Phoenix. The same being from white sands. I was on the road to the ranges and the launch was quite visible during sunrise. This was different and never had the same “float”. I waited to respond to anyone because I understand anomaly’s in action or sight.

[RobRoy]

>>...you passed over a number of points with no substantive response.<<

It may because I had already answered them or I didn’t consider them worthy of response. The problem is that I just get tired of typing and I “choose my battles”. Sorry if it is irritating. But I also know what you mean. It fried me when a guy posts two pictures, one of a VERY similar contrail from a year ago that IS accepted as an airliner contrail, and another with a nice blue sky that looks nothing like it, and someone ignores the former and attacks the latter. Sheesh.

And you will notice, if you look at my position on AGW, that Appeal to Authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority is not at all persuasive to me. Heck, the IPCC was “the authority”, and they were full of sh!!.

[RobRoy]

Actually, I try it at harmony-central. I NEVER use profanity there, though it is thrown at me in spades. But, to be fair, it’s not that hard due to the way I’m wired. In my “real life” arguments with people, the more emotional the other side gets, the more calm I get. I go into “Mr. Spock” mode. And I literally think, at the time “If I show emotion, I have lost.” I think it is one thing that drove my first wife crazy. Her argument style was to ramp it up, yell and scream, etc., and the angrier she appeared, the calmer I appeared. Her parents argued a lot (Mine never did) and I think it is something she just expected...

Even when I used the word “idiot”, I was referring to Beck’s definition. I think we are all idiots on one subject or another, to one degree or another, within the context of his definition.

[RobRoy]

What I glean from your post is that if this is actually a rocket, it is almost certainly not the first time.

With all the air and boat traffic out there, I cannot imagine that this could be a missile. Heck, the “flight 800 missile” had hundreds of witnesses and it is STILL accepted that there was no missile. Here we have, really, NO witnesses. Just a video that looks a LOT like many airplane contrails I have seen, and NOBODY that would have been much closer saying anything whatsoever.

The5re is nowhere near enough evidence yet to remotely compel me to even consider that this is a missile.

Again, I thought it was a missile - until I saw the video. And that stupid video is edited in such a way as to confuse, not clarify.

[justa-hairyape]

....and another with a nice blue sky that looks nothing like it, and someone ignores the former and attacks the latter. Sheesh.

What is more annoying are people who post images of inconclusive events and try to insinuate that they were conclusive. Not saying you did that, someone else did. And I also choose my battles. Time constraints. :>

[TigersEye]

Well, we've gone around enough about how we dealt with each other today. It was a pretty decent exchange in most respects. I take your points and have a similar tale to tell re marriage.

The "appeal to authority" is definitely overused and shaky without some other backing for the authority. I would trust experts on aviation and aeronautics more easily than a scientist in a theoretical field. The context of the argument is a factor too. Airplanes rockets and their contrails comprise a much simpler subject than the climate of the whole planet.

[Gargantua]

How very unlike you, Comic.

You missed the irony of my italicised quote in your reprimand. I had already stated emphatically, in my article here, that it was definitely a missile several hours before McInerny opined on it.

I know it was a missile, as I'm sure you do. And my knowledge of that fact had nothing to do with "deferring to authority," which, as Jim Robinson can confirm after almost thirteen years of dealing with me here on FreeRpublic, I don't believe in.

Something tells me you don't either. Ooh-rah.

In fact, I now have a hard drive version of the original video which actually shows the missile rising from very shortly after it leaves the water. It is a very high-definition bit of video. Under intense magnification, shortly before the propellant burns off, there is a brief burst of bright flameout, identical to the way a liquid-fuel cell rocket evacuates the last bit of fuel as the mixture becomes overly oxygen-rich at the tail end of the burn, as the thrust from burn drops precipitously allowing air to "back-burn" through the tail section up into the combustion chamber.

The vehicle was traveling at close to 1,500mph (Mach 2) heading W-NW at nearly 55,000ft at burnout. Passenger jets from Hawaii don't fly that fast, that high, or that direction.

The chance that that was a jet flying east from out over the Pacific is about as great as the chance that I'm your Tio Pedro. Screw authority.

;-\

[justa-hairyape]

The ocean off the coast of Kalifornia can have very limited visibility at times. Marine layer was a big problem for most of the summer. Lots of marine layer normally on that big old Pacific Ocean. Offshore winds can move it away from the coast. We just had a weather system come off the Pacific. Was cold. Visibility was limited in some locations. The previous unresolved case on December 31st had a short amateur video. This new case has a professional news helicopter recording the event from altitude. Have also seen images from other observation points. We have 4 possibilities. Both events were contrails. Event A was a jet contrail and Event B was a rocket launch. Event A was a rocket launch and Event B was a jet contrail. Both events were rocket launches. The problem is that if jet contrails can look like rocket launch contrails, how are we gonna be able to tell when the real thing is launched ? Wait for the flash ?

[TigersEye]

Do you have a link to a fuller video? I sure would like to look at it. The video that is. ;-)

[Alice in Wonderland]

TWA 587...shoe bomber.

It was AA 587 . . . and yes, I think it was a shoe bomber too.

[The Comedian]

I like (no, scratch that, LOVE) your attitude, but not your science my FRiend.

It's not unlike me at all to question the herd mentality. And, as much as I distrust the construct of the "state" and its upper echelon, I distrust common emotional reactionism even more.

Gimme some math. Gimme some hi-res video that disproves the aircraft contrail assertion, and I'll apologize to you publicly in every forum you choose.

Hell, I'd find it really, really fascinating and exciting. Not to mention valuable as a variable replacement exercise for my primary project, which trumps all that personal emotion stuff.

[RobRoy]

>>The problem is that if jet contrails can look like rocket launch contrails, how are we gonna be able to tell when the real thing is launched ? Wait for the flash ?<<

Simple, really, those that see it from north, south, east and west will all see what looks like a rocket launch. If this was a contrail (which is what I believe), then from north and south it would be immediately apparent that that is what it is, meaning nobody would really notice it.

Which is exactly what we have here.

There are a LOT of people living in this vicinity (millions, actually), many of which were MUCH closer to this (if it were a rocket) than the helicopter taking the video. It was also the type of sunset that many would be noticing as “beautiful”, especially tourists. Yet nobody else noticed the rocket? That is not plausible.

[Alice in Wonderland]

Although they fished the tail section out of the bay, the rest of the plane crashed into the Belle Harbor section of the Rockaways.

Being from the Rockaways I had the pleasure of watching (and listening to) thousands and thousands of planes taking off from and landing at JFK. None of the contrails I witnessed over the years looked like the one in LA.

[justa-hairyape]

Yet nobody else noticed the rocket?

I have no idea how many people saw it or did not see it. Cannot argue that point. Can only point out that visibility was not 100 % due to the weather system. And around here people typically do not look at a sun that is close to setting. It tends to blind you when you do that. Causes real problems when driving westward. And sunsets here when the sun starts going below the horizon are very short. Usually about 15 minutes. Amazing actually how fast it sets. Remember hearing a logical explanation for that, but do not remember it off the top of my head.

[RobRoy]

“And around here people typically do not look at a sun that is close to setting.”

We do it constantly.