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.”
;-\
So we have to do your homework ? Do you have a phone ?
There are dozens. You ignore them. That is why you are The Comedian. Funny joke, huh ?
Dozens eh?
Cite two. Just two, and I'll shut up. Cite three and I'll apologize.
They lost the vertical stab because of “excessive rudder inputs.” The same thing happened in France. If I remember, Airbus put the new limitations/ procedures into the documentation but it was never incorporated into the pilot training. Sounds like a dangerous design flaw to me.
If the Pope said he saw Jesus working the counter down at the 7/11, would you assume that Jesus needed the extra income, or might you assume that the Pope was wrong, and demand something other than his fevered rantings about the Messiah selling Lotto tickets?
And let's not forget that Brigadier General Cash (retired for almost 20 years now) writes for Joseph Farah, who, although a nice guy, doesn't have the best reputation for publishing non-fantastic truth (African Ark of the Covenant anyone?).
He makes a couple of absolutely false statements : That no flight was in the area at the time, and that the contrail was "clearly observed by NORAD, assessed by a four-star general in minutes, and passed to the president immediately". No such thing happened, because there was nothing out of the ordinary to track, report, or "cover up".
Opinion, unsubstantiated assertions, and zero data.
Unless you Missile Truthers can come up with at least one fact to argue, there isn't much of a conversation to be had.
Here, I'll make this very, very simple. Fill in two facts (not opinions) that either falsify the UPS902 contrail explanation, or support the missile contrail/alien starship/elves assertion:
1.
2.
I'm not the one claiming extraordinary explanations for an ordinary event. You are. Prove your extraordinary assertions. Produce a fact for a change.
He said that typical jet airliner contrail, in comparison to the one he videotaped, was like "comparing a tree to an ant." The contrail he was filming was nothing like the other jet airliner contrail he had in view at the time to the south.
Frankly, contrailscience.com has done a fine job presenting their case, and it is very credible.
But it too is simply an opinion. It is not fact. They have taken photos and created a hypothesis to fit known data. It is not 'data' itself but an opinion based on data.
Likewise, the camera man has offered an opinion based on his first hand eye witness acount.
There is no hard data in this case, no facts of the kind you are demanding. Neither side knows for certain what he was filming that evening.
The only "facts" are that something appears in Gil's video and Rich Warren's photos.
Beyond that, there lies only opinion, not fact or data.
Doc, I have to respectfully disagree. Although your point is cleverly presented, it is incorrect.
The actual data presented by our own lbahneman and our own TXnMA is in the form of trajectory, timeframes, and captured (and peer reviewed) information sufficient to perfectly describe and re-enact *repeatable phenomena* in accordance with the theory.
This is the definition of data in the scientific method. Additionally, it is data supporting a theory describing a repeatable event, which is usually termed a *fact*.
Your interview with the pilot is interesting, but it is anecdotal and supplies non-verifiable and non-repeatable assertions. It might work in a courtroom, but it would get you kicked out of any lab.
A logical conclusion is expressible as a formula. An opinion is not. If I took the time, I could show you the proof formula for the Not-Missile theory. If you took the time, you could not construct the It's-A-Missile theory proof, because there are no values to plug into the logic equation.
I do appreciate your intellectual effort on this subject though. Keep it up. You are the closest thing to a rational argument on the Missile Truther side on all of FR.
On the contrary, I've been trying to debunk the "missile theory" all along, if you look at my posting history on this thread. I went to the effort of contacting both known eyewitnesses to do so; I've exchanged emails with Rick Warren, and I had a lengthy phone conversion and subsequent email exchange with Gil.
I'm not aware anyone else has done that, be it lbahneman, TXnMA or contrailscience.com. (By the way, are you saying that lbahneman runs contrailscience.com?)
Frankly, I still lean towards the explanation of contrailscience.com. The reason I contacted Gil was to confirm their take on it.
I was shocked to find that he was not convinced by their reconstruction of the facts, and that is the only reason I have continued the discussion, given his eyewitness viewpoint.
On the other hand, we have continued our email exchange since our phone conversation, and I think I've found a problem with his perspective that leans towards the credibility of contrailscience.com's explanation.
Once I iron that out, I'll report back.
Until then, I would appreciate it if you would not mischaracterize my posting history on this thread as belonging to the Missile Truther camp.
Doc, my apologies, I did not intend to portray you as one of the True Missile Believers, and if I did, it was quite unintentional. I know your posting history, and was quite impressed with the intellectual honesty you've displayed, including your apparent "switch" (or at least consideration of the the interview POV).
What I meant was, nobody on the missile-assertion side came close to your credibility, until you arrived, seemingly, on their side.
No offense intended, please.
trident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utTb7AOszac
out of view in two minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TPHQ2GFxMw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaCtyfr9veI
titan iv start at 1:00, out of view in 2:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn2ULNGBww4&feature=related
titan start at :30 almost out of view in 2 min http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bvImsY9shE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NXBnLMGfm4&feature=fvw
Unfortunately, all of the ICBM and SLBM video online is less than a minute in length.
Regardless, if the object in the video remained in view for ten minutes, there's just no way it could have been a missile.
So I tried to track down the eye witnesses. Rick Warren has time stamps spanning more than 4 minutes for his photos. So I figured if Gil had seen the object for that amount of time or more, then the case was closed.
But Gil is adamant that the object was only in view for 2 to 3 minutes. That threw a monkey wrench in proving my hypothesis, so in my hypothesis the missile theory is not ruled out regardless of the other hypotheses.
I'm not sure Gil witnessed the subsequent views captured by Rick Warren's photos and overlayed by contrailscience.com:
Gil says what he saw was 11 minutes prior to the views above, according to the time stamps attributed by contrailscience.com to those latter images.
And that's probably the bottom line: Gil might not have witnessed the tiny object in the top of the final images captured by Rick Warren. I don't know if his front mounted camera would have captured them that high:
I still have to specifically ask him about that.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Epoxynous#p/a/u/1/rkZE3GrnnpwGil Leyvas said that KCBS owns the rights to the video footage, and probably still has the unedited ten minutes of video available on their server.The available footage and photos originally supplied by CBS of the "Mystery Missile" UPS902 contrail, arranged in chronological order.
This is NOT how it was broadcast - the "raw footage" was heavily edited for dramatic effect. You can see where the missile is in relation to the clouds.
Judging by the final 30 seconds of this video, I would have to revise my statement above, "
"I'm not sure Gil witnessed the subsequent views captured by Rick Warren's photos and overlayed by contrailscience.com"
Obviously he did see the object at the very top of the last photo images captured by Rick Warren, yet he still maintains the object only remained in view for 2-3 minutes total.
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.
Gargantua, I'm sitting here giggling. A contrail pusher asked me to show to someone I know as a world-class professional in the arena of lighting and airborne phenomena, review some data he had assembled. What you wrote above is pretty much what he remarked quickly and impatiently about what I showed him. He was half disgusted and half annoyed (with me!) that three weeks later I'm even still drawn into the discussion. He cannot understand why anyone would even engage in debating the point with someone who so clearly didn't understand the basics.
And because he's a good teacher and I'm a good listener, I understand the vertical-vs-horizontal story in the video. I've explained to him I'm not really debating the contrail folks, but am puzzling over their different motivations. The thing that gets me is the concerted, aggressive, coordinated, and sophisticated effort of the contrail pushers. That worries me as much, if not more, than the missile.
You can’t debate because you have zero data to prove your silly conspiracy. Its easy to be a conspiracy theorist, you never have to prove anything, you just ask others to disprove you. And when they do disprove you, you can just accuse them of being part of the conspiracy or question their motives.
Then you can just make up a new conspiracy.
Still trolling with spam. That spam content had 0 calories.
Dr, Kopp: are you reporting that Gil said he only had the object that separated from the "plume" in view for only 2-3 mnutes?
Or, or you implying that his entire taped sequence was only 2-3 minutes in duration?
Thank you for having the initiative to contact Leyvas directly, and for sharing his comment with us -- and TIA for helping clear up the above question!
We have video of a missile launch. Experts have agreed it is a missile. That is evidence. Only a fool would deny its existence. You on the other hand have a photo shopped blog page construction that has claimed at least two different planes now.
Personally posted an original observation to Freerepublic that proved 100 % that it was a vertical launched missile. Posted to at least 10 threads now. You apparently missed it every time. The physics of lighting. The right side of the plume is bright. The left side is dark. End of story. Was a mostly vertical launch arcing westward toward the sun setting below the horizon. 100 % proof. You cannot deny physics. It has no sense of humor. So the debate was over for me 2-3 weeks ago.
And I come back here because of some new additional evidence and still see foolish posts from people with their heads buried in the sand still denying any missile evidence. Even if there was a 10 % chance this was a missile, it must be investigated. Do you not care for your country ?
Or it proves that the aircraft was coming from the southwest on a northeasterly heading while the sun was setting due west. So the sun would hit the north (right)side of the contrail, leaving the southern (left)side in the dark.
Which is exactly how the aircraft was supposedly heading! Surprise,surprise, surprise!
Thanks for the additional information you uncovered. So when they stated they were on the object for 10 minutes, that probably meant they got clearance to cover the object from their home base for 10 minutes. They apparently contacted the base right away. By any chance did you get any actual time stamps for any of the videos (ie - exactly when they were taken). To date all we have is around 5:15 pm.
Video Evidence of a Missile Launch - Some experts say definite missile. Thus we have professional video evidence.
Lighting in the rocket plume. Cannot be from a plane at an altitude of over 30,000 feet. Absolutely impossible. After launch - Right side of plume bright, left side dark. Only one way that can occur.
Geometry of the missile plume bends to the right. That bend to the right would be impossible from a viewpoint of Los Angeles Harbor. You can use the Flight Track Monitor to verify that. The bend if any should have been to the left from the Helicopters point of view.
That is all you need to know. Anything else is carnival side show.
Cite the URL please, so there is no confusion.
Lighting in the rocket plume. Cannot be from a plane at an altitude of over 30,000 feet. Absolutely impossible. After launch - Right side of plume bright, left side dark. Only one way that can occur.
OK, I didn't see this one. Could you please cite the URL that supplies the geometric proof?
Geometry of the missile plume bends to the right. That bend to the right would be impossible from a viewpoint of Los Angeles Harbor. You can use the Flight Track Monitor to verify that. The bend if any should have been to the left from the Helicopters point of view.
My understanding of this characteristic is due strictly to explainable atmospheric drift (wind) which matches the atmospheric conditions at the altitude UPS902 was flying.
I'll say this much: You're getting warm. You've got my attention at least.
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.