Replies

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.

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."

:-\