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.”

;-\

[Gargantua]

LMAO!!! Thank you. Merry Christmas!

8^D

[MaggieCarta]

LMAO!!! Thank you. Merry Christmas!
8^D

I am very glad that you are laughing, but I really thought I had hit the private reply thingy instead.

Joyeux Noël, Monsieur Gargantuesque!

[MaggieCarta]

"Misile" thread hits 500 replies, all of FReepdom in awe...

LOL!

[Gargantua]

Prospero año a ti, corazôn.

8^D

[Gargantua]

Prospero año a ti, corazôn.

8^D

[MaggieCarta]

You actually are quite amusing.

I am laughing at your Spanish/Italian/Portuguese greeting, "mi estimatado."

[aruanan]

This photo proves conlusively that it was, indeed, a missile. No "jet contrail" would have that much mass at it's [sic] 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."

Do you know the maximum distance that something at an altitude of 30,000 feet (9,144m) above the earth's surface can just be seen over the horizon? It's not 400 miles. The earth's radius is about 6400 km. The distance of such an object from the horizon in a straight line view is the base of a triangle having 6400km as the opposite leg and 6409.14km as its hypotenuese.

a² + b² = c²

The base, therefore, is the square root of the difference of squares of the hypotenuese (6409.14km) and the opposite leg (6400km).

b(the distance of the object from the horizon)² = c(the radius of the earth + 9.14km altitude)² - 6400km²

b² = 41,077,126.8km² - 40,960,000km²

Or

b² = 117,126.8km²

Find the square root of each side

b (distance from horizon of an object at 9.144km altitude) = 342.2km or ~188 miles (plus the few miles from the viewer's vantage point to the horizon)

[Dagnabitt]

Thank you for your wonderful service exposing this secret missile conspiracy involving the MSM, military, and every level of civilian government.

When I was growing up on the beach in Southern California we were attacked by such mystery missiles on a regular basis (though strangely always late in the afternoon). Despite these frequent nuclear missile attacks by secret foreign enemies in secret foreign submarines, the MSM-government-military conspiracy ensured no one ever learned THE TRUTH.

Part of the problem is also that the secret-enemy secret-missile launches always missed the USA (and Mexico, and the sea and anywhere else on earth for that matter) on purpose, because...well because that's what secret enemies do.

Keep up the good work. You are the beacon in the darkness. Do not let these naysayers' so-called overwhelming facts and evidence, or your total lack of evidence dissuade you. You know what you saw (on that one video) with your own two eyes. You know THE TRUTH.

[The Comedian]

How does your "missile contrail" compare to UPS902 flight trajectory?

Any divergence, any at all?

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

[Brian Kopp DPM]

I was convinced it was a missile until I realized the helicopter camera man said he filmed it for ten minutes. Then my question was, did he film the object creating the contrail for ten minutes, or did he film a missile for one to three minutes then just filmed footage of the contrail for 7 or 8 minutes.

I've looked at a bunch of launch clips. That's why I came to the conclusion that what would settle the debate would be talking to an eyewitness and asking how long the object was in view. From all the launch video footage I can find, ICBMs only stay in view for two or three minutes, at most. Solid rocket missiles only fire for two minutes or less.

So if this object was actively creating a contrail for 8 to 10 minutes, it could not possibly be a missile.

I asked that photographer how long the object was in view. Here's his response:

Subject: Re: contrail photo question
Date: 27th November, 2010

Glad I could help Brian. Yes on the time stamps. That's how Mick West was able to line the plane tracking to the photos. The 2 that are on my Flickr Page were a bit over 4 min apart. At first there was a bit of confusion over that but it got settled when I realized and hadn't reset the time for Day Light Saving Time. Then they fit. Ric

If anyone can find a video clip of a solid fuel missile staying in view and creating an exhaust plume for over 4 minutes, then there's nothing to debate, its a missile.

I have a first hand eye witness saying he has time stamps to prove the object that created the contrail was in view for over 4 minutes, and the helicopter camera man said he filmed it for ten minutes.

Have you seen any video clips where a solid fuel SLBM/ICBM stays in view for over 4 minutes? If so, please provide a link.

[Gargantua]

Salamancan Spanish, from the birthplace of the language, also its purest form. I learned it over several years in Spain from a family of Madrillanos whose line have lived in their home for well over the past 450 years.

Laugh away, su intelligencia excedé solamente para ti belleza. Macaca.

;-\

[Gargantua]

So where is the "10 minute" video? The only one I've seen is about 2.5 minutes long.

As for the "suddenly located photos" from the convenient mystery dude, I can photoshop a blurred plane into any jet-launch photo you give me, and you'll believe it, too.

Just the fact that it took 2 days for them to figure out this "Hawai'i Flight-vs-UPS Flight" salespitch is all I need to know. The rest is nothing but more lies, and I ain't buying it. You still haven't explained the lighting on the clouds (27,000-33,000 ft) in the background versus the backlighting on the efflux cloud.

I know, I know, "don't believe my lying eyes."

:-\

[MaggieCarta]

Are you sure that they weren't Madrileños?

You really didn't have to call me a monkey, either...

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Yeah, never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

:-\

[TigersEye]

Yeah, Rick Warren. There are only two pics there. Someone said he took about 57 pics of it where are the other 55? Why would anyone take 57 pics of an airplane contrail?

[Gargantua]

Why would I? Why would anyone?

All kidding aside, you're postings contain no "facts." None.

Rather, they spout for the zillionth time the official most-recently-agreed-to "explanation" (which differs greatly from what we were told during the first 48 hours of this controversy) as now told by some mysterious, suddenly-located "photographer" just in time to refute all the experts who state unequivocally that that is a single-source missile efflux.

You and your ilk make me want to puke.

Happy Holidays!

8D

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Published December 2, 2010

Actually, that was published by WND on November 19, 2010.

And all those vaunted experts saw was a 1 minute excerpt of a ten minute video clip. SLBMs/ICBMs don't stay in view for ten minutes, but airliners do.

When you have access to all ten minutes of video, and these experts evaluate all ten minutes of video, please get back to me.

Until then, don't bother pinging me again. Thanks.

[Gargantua]

PING!

[Gargantua]

Oh, by all means, do post the "ten minutes" of video that you pretend to have access to. Please! We'll wait...

...not for you to post the non-existent "ten minutes" of footage, but to come up with some phony, lame-assed excuse why you can't.

You fool noone, "Doctor"!

LMAO!!!

8^D