Posted on 11/10/2010 12:45:55 PM PST by Gargantua
Exploding the That Wasnt 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. Its 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 weve been shown. A jets 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 missiles vertically rising con-trail. There is no illumination of the underside of the jets horizontally oriented con-trail because it is not a jets con-trail, it is a vertically-oriented missiles 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.
;-\
If you read on to the tenth and eleventh paragraph they reveal that their radar showed no objects of a type that would be a missile. There were, however, several aircraft in the area at the time.
The "missile":
Same angle, same time, next day:
The blogger seems to think it was US Airways Flight 808.
More here:
http://blog.bahneman.com/content/it-was-us-airways-flight-808
Since the sun has set it must be lit from behind not underneath. So, where does it go? If it were headed straight for the coast why doesn’t it continue on overhead? It is obviously a pic taken after the vehicle has passed and is breaking up.
>>Hey, FAA said there were no aircraft (that means airplanes) in that area.<<
Really?
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWE808/history/20101108/1955Z/PHNL/KPHX
U.S. Air flight 808 from Hawaii to Phoenix.
There was even a picture posted of the contrail of the same flight a day later.
LLS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2624967/posts?page=10#10
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWE808/history/20101108/1955Z/PHNL/KPHX
This thing is embarrassing me for my country but hitting me harder regarding FR. I thought we were above this tin foil crap. Sure, we joke about it, but I didn’t realize there was so much of it genuinely in existence on this site.
I feel like a liberal that caught the NYT lying for the first time. I threw up a little in my mouth.
He took the original pic from the news report of the incident, shown here
and compared it to an image taken from a webcam 24 hours later, when flight 808 was going by, shown here
The similarities would seem to suggest that the original incident was US Airways Flight 808.
I gotta admit that is pretty funny! Thanks.
Not sure where I read it this morning but it was confirmed that particular flight entered the airspace of the video about an hour later.
I’m with you. Some people just really want to believe things...
The sun has set from the POV of the camera, but not from the POV of the contrail which is both miles west toward the sun, but more importantly probably ~30,000 feet higher than the camera. So you see the sun light reflecting off the bottom of the contrail.
I'm pointing out the lighting discrepancy that gives lie to the explanation we're being fed. Apparently, there are more remarkably inobservant dullards here than I anticipated.
But if the discussion offends you, or somehow isn't to your liking, you can always get the fu@& out of here and quit bitching about all the bitching. You poor tortured simpwad.
8^D
We'll assume you mean "ground to air".
Now tell me where the ground is 35 miles out to sea?
Yes, now I think it is a 100% certainty that was a common contrail, probably from 808. The illusion was a strong one!
8^D
The launch of a friendly missile would not be such a big deal. We do tests all of the time.
The launch of a hostile missile would have resulted in some scrambling that would be hard to dismiss. Airmen, sailors, and ATC people would have been moving all over the place. It would have been talked about in public by now.
I find it hard to believe that there were no ships in the area, or boats, or pleasure boats that have not reported hearing and seeing the large missile rise over the horizon.
I find it hard to believe that there were not at least a couple of aircraft in the area. This certainly would have resulted in a “WTF” moment that would have been reported to be media by now.
The fact that most of the military were saying, “huh?” at the outset tells me that none of the bells and whistles that should have gone off, did not. Not one? Not a single one? That just does not seem reasonable.
The fact that the defense establishment is pretty much saying, “We don’t know what it is, but we know what it wasn’t” seems to make sense to me.
I would love the believe that this is a huge Obama conspiracy, but the lack of evidence and the lack of at least one other person commenting on what they saw just makes me think that it was a contrail.
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.