Replies

Look at the bottom of the photo (the top photo in this sequence of 2 you posted). You can still see the massive efflux "reverse mushroom" at the base of the blast trail, just over the landmass in front of it, but way closer than the pictured horizon.

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.

;-\

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)

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.

... No "jet contrail" would have that much mass at its 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.

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.