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.”
;-\
"A former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot and commander of an F-15 squadron and an F-16 wing, Cash was assigned to NORAD as an assistant director of operations at the Cheyenne Mountain complex near Colorado Springs, Colo., and is fully knowledgeable of NORAD procedures.
"There is absolutely no doubt that what was captured on video off the coast of California was a missile launch, was clearly observed by NORAD, assessed by a four-star general in minutes, and passed to the president immediately," he said.
Really? NORAD watched "only a minute of the ten-minute video," and then passed that to the President? Do you really" think we're that stupid? Just because you are? Get a life!
8^D
If this was a missile, why was there no early warning system activation and no strategic forces response?
Or do you believe that our normal response occurred, and it was later covered up?
If you believe THAT, then you must know that tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors, guardsmen and airmen are all in on it.
Does that seem likely to you?
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
The timestamps on these two photos are 4 minutes apart.
How far do YOU think an SLBM/ICBM travels in four minutes?
Awfully slow "missile" you got there.
By the way, I do not have access to the unedited ten minutes of footage the cameraman stated he shot, and neither have I claimed to.
No he didn't.
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.
Quotes are usually punctuated with quotation marks and not stated in the third person.
I put a call in to the cameraman. I’ll let you know if he gets back to me.
I thought the same thing. Interesting to watch people create facts (literally in this case) out of thin air.
Sounds good. I hope you get a reply.
I just got off the phone with the cameraman. We talked for 50 minutes.
Wow. You guys were right. The object was only in view for 2 to 3 minutes.
I might write it up as an interview and submit it to WND (they printed something I wrote several years ago.)
Ping to post # 531.
Thank you very much for your reply and even more for doing the work. I wouldn’t have thought he would reply to me. I guess I should think more boldly. You ought to go for the interview/article idea. Your self-confidence and effort paid off once. Again, my thanks to you.
You should contact the flight crew of UPS902 and ask them if the "missile" flew past them, considering they had the exact same flight path.
He thinks it was far out to sea, behind/northwest of UPS902. He does believe he saw UPS902 far to the south of the object he was viewing, because he specifically compared that contrail, which was obviously a jet liner, to this object, which was NOT obviously a jet liner.
He was adamant that he is not claiming it was a missile, but that he has seen too many jet contrails, including the one he assumes was UPS902, to accept the jet contrail explanation at face value.
That accords with the recorded route of UPS902 on Airport Monitor. It is supposed to fly well south of Long Beach and it did.
Gil vaguely recalls reading an article the following day that quoted an FAA report that stated there was no flight activity in the area where he was shooting this video.
He reviewed the video footage repeatedly and that leads him to believe he was fairly exact in marking the location of the contrail. He said the LA harbor jetty is clearly in view in part of the video (that was not shown on TV or online), and he lined up the contrail in question with the curvature of that jetty from their position and 1200 foot elevation.
I'm no pilot, and have no background in anything military or avionic, so I'm just going by what the first hand eyewitness told me.
Also, to his knowledge his pilot at the time was NOT the pilot some internet sources claim had extensive military background, and the pilot was only able to view the footage on a 4 x 6 monitor in the cockpit in the live feed from his camera. The pilot did not see it first hand.
I keep reading "believe" and "thought", and "opinion".
I see no *data*. Just one, single, objective datum that counters the flight UPS902 data set, and I become skeptical of the contrail explanation.
I've seen nothing. Not a single smidgen, iota, or tittle of contrary data. Come on, help me out here. Help me get my conspiracy on, yo.
Did NORAD really believe the president was that interested in the "cool lighting" on the UPS902 contrail?
Wow. Put it that way, and your explanation makes sense...
:-|
There are dozens. You ignore them. That is why you are The Comedian. Funny joke, huh ?
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.