Hey bud, it all contributes to your 500 Posts prize! ;-)
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
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.”
;-\
8^D
Hey bud, it all contributes to your 500 Posts prize! ;-)
;-\
“you’ve obviously had some really despicable examples set for you. You need prayer.”
There you go again, acting like you know me and what I need. This really is pure entertainment.
“Praying for people isn’t a character flaw, Wee one”
I never said praying was a character flaw. But when you say something like “Wee one”, you are acting like you are above others. And that, on your part, is indeed a character flaw.
When one makes a statement that includes "obviously," that implies not a close personal knowledge, rather that the substance of the statement appears to be "obvious" from the appearance of the subject being commented upon.
My appraisal that you have had bad examples set for you is based upon your comportment, which I have observed here on FreeRepublic. Ridiculing people who pray for others is something reprobates do, and many of them learned it from their parents. That's all. Wee-one.
I'm glad if you're entertained, because I only need a dozen or so more replies for this thread to hit 500. Thank you! RSVP.
;-)
“I’m glad if you’re entertained, because I only need a dozen or so more replies for this thread to hit 500.”
Congratulations. “Obviously” that’s all you live for.
8^D
“My hoardes of fans might disagree”
Might disagree with what? That you live for this?
Hordes of fans? lol, ok, whatever you say movie star.
Oh, yeah.., and that was a missile.
8^D
I loved your tagline "recipe"
"I enjoy progressives, especially in a light cream sauce"
Yours, by the way, the "Austen quote," is not only hilarious (and true), but also quite applicable to much of what goes on here at FreeRepublic.
Have a great night, and a Happy Thanksgiving.
You, too. You can call me Magna.
Just 7 more...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ocean_rick/5165540970/?reg=1&src=comment
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ocean_rick/5165538062/in/photostream/
I contacted him via PM at Flickr. Here’s his response:
Subject: Re: contrail photo question
Date: 26th November, 2010Hi Dr. Kopp
I really wasn’t sure what I had at the time. I was shooting with a telephoto lens and looking through a viewfinder so I never really saw the seperation of the object and the contrail untell I looked at the photos but I’m sure that this whole thing lasted way to long to be a missile. I see lots of contrails from my 10th floor balcony but the difference in this one was that it “seemed” to be going up. I then gave Mick West ( of Contrail Science) the use of all my photos to work with to try and figure this thing out. I’m now of the opinion that it was indeed a plane. Here’s a link to his site in case you haven’t seen it yet.
Hope this helps. Rickhttp://contrailscience.com/los-angeles-missile-contrail-explained-in-pictures/
This photo proves conlusively that it was, indeed, a missile. No "jet contrail" would have that much mass at it's furthest-away point (close to 400 miles from this perspective if it were from a jet at 30,000+ feet). Plus the base is way in the foreground compared to what this photo shows as the "horizon."
Also, you can see even more clearly that the trail is backlit, as would be a launch efflux rising vertically, and not underlit as would be a jet contrail stretched horizontally at 30,000+ feet at this time of day.
Thank you for clearing this up. I knew it was a missile launch, and this photo proves it.
;-\
8^D
8^D
Still and all, I hope that your thread will finally make it to 500 comments...
8-O
No, thanks, I'll let someone else...
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.