Posted on 11/10/2010 8:24:09 AM PST by MindBender26
California Contrail Explained - Not Missile
After having about 10 experienced pilots and another 20 of us who are accustomed to watching missile launches from Cape Canaveral review tape, we have most probable answer for the mysterious California contrail. Tape was also reviewed by senior official at NGA.
It is not a missile. It is the contrail of a airliner at altitude moving toward the camera, at an angle of about 30 degrees off center to the right. Retired TRANSPAC airline pilots and USAF types said it was a rather common sight to see as they are climbing out over water on a westerly heading at sunset.
A few clues:
1. This is not as new event. The photographer who took video said in interview that it was very much like others he had seen week earlier.
2. Expanding contrail plume gives illusion that bottom/rear of plume is closer to observer than the top/newest part of plume, that which is near the aircraft. It is an illusion.
3. The light emanating from the object that looks like rocket flame is a reflection of the sun off the aluminum bottom of the a/c fuselage. The clues that it is not a rocket flame are that it is not hidden by contrail, and more importantly, is the same color temperature as the sun's other reflections.
4. There were no alarms from the DSP satellites. They detect heat from rocket launches from geostationary orbit. They are very good, so good in fact that when Sovs had a fire in an ICBM silo a few years ago, it was reported at NORAD immediately.
5. No radar, and there are numerous ATC and air defense radars in that area, had any track, primary or transponder, of any object on a course as speculated.
All in all, a false alarm. A very interesting one, but a false alarm.
Not the first false alarm, either. In the 60s, we went to DEFCON 2 based on DEW and PineTree line radar returns indicating Sov bombers inbound over Greenland. Was really delayed radar echoes off the rising moon.
But the entire question of “area” and “west” or “east”, is all about how you perceive the image you are seeing, which is the point I am trying to make.
It doesn’t matter what you or I heard. Those people who SAID it was moving west didn’t say that because they have physical evidence that shows an object moving west. They said it because that’s what they think they see on the video.
There IS a radar track for flight 808, and it apparently conforms with the contrails we wee, and that flight was moving from west to east.
If it was the plane travelling west to east, then it’s location wasn’t where people assumed the contrail was; you can’t really TELL where the contrail is, because looking at things from a distance over the horizon doesn’t give you references that work.
As I have noted elsewhere, watch the moon as it rises out of the ground at night. See how much bigger it is than when it is up in the sky. Our brains simply process what we see based on our most common visuals, which are near-field visuals with lots of contrast and different objects at different but close ranges.
We don’t do nearly so well when looking up into the sky and judging things. We think airplanes are going to collide when they are simply different sizes and miles apart. Watch the video, and you’ll see at some point a plane come SHOOTING ACROSS the video. The first time you see it, it should probably startle you, because at that point you think you are watching a very fast-moving rocket, and suddently here comes a plane moving so much faster. Then your brain processes it, and suddenly you are looking at a plane flying across a field with a contrail sitting still in the image.
Take high moisture content cold air at high altitude, super heat it and then dump it back into subzero air at high velocity, and you have what you claim is a rocket contrail. Only this time, it is purely and simply a jet airliner cruising from West to East. It's very normal and boring physics.
If the FAA tape showed Flight 808 in-bound from Hawaii, the FAA official would say "It's Flight 808 in-bound from Hawaii."
The FAA didn't say that. The FAA says there were no fast-moving unidentified objects in that area.
The FAA doesn't know what this was, or isn't saying what it was. Within that context, the cover story that this is Flight 808 makes no sense.
I have no interest in the direction of travel -- the FAA looked at the radar tapes and declined the chance to provide a simple explanation for this event. There is a coverup.
While I tend to agree with you, it is just this type of thinking that makes an incident all the more dangerous.
How many times have you read of people dismissing something they shouldn’t have based on one or two mistaken premises? One, this looks just like something else that is non-threatening. Two, this hardly every happens and can’t be happening now.
Whether we like it or not, perfect storms do come along. That still doesn’t mean this is one. I just think there should be a whole lot less talking at this point, and a whole lot more listening for further information.
If this turns out to be exactly what you think it was in the end, I will be happy about it.
I’m not sure those are vapor trails produced by the same physics that creates the vapor in over-wing low-pressure areas on a F-18, say, during high alpha maneuvers. The pressure-related vapor is extremely ephemeral and is present only in the exact location of the pressure reduction, certainly not extending much behind the aircraft. And I have a hard time believing the tips of those big props are going supersonic, as a 540 Lycoming might do in an airshow. Will check on the tip speed.
As would more than two people in a city of nine million 30 miles away from it.
Okay, if you say so;
It’s a cover up! We are being invaded my nuclear Chinese space alien rockets, tipped with mind controlling chemical warheads. We will now give everything we own to China.....Oh wait!
Yes, it was an airliner.
Look at how much blooming of the plume there was at the base — suggests a long period of time from one end of the plume to the other.
No footage of the ‘missile’ actually moving fast across the sky, because there was no missile.
I’ll bet the airplane was on an airway too.
What I can’t remember is whether the airspeed of the aircraft is added to the rotational speed of the prop tip in analyzing that. Tip speed below supersonic is desirable, of course, because of efficiency reasons, and these were constant speed units. Have to research...
As far as you thinking that those big Pratt Whitney props cruising at 2700 RPM can't generate those kind of prop speeds, look at the length of the props. There you will find the speeds to well exceed that of the IO-540 Lycoming.
I think you are missing the point. The FAA says there was no radar signature in the area that people were SPECULATING the rocket was fired from.
Nobody asked them if there was a radar signature for a regularly scheduled flight from Honolulu, which in fact there was. The question was about whether there was a radar signature within the area that was ASSUMED to be the launch point for the missle that people thought they were seeing the smoke plume from.
Since now the argument is whether it was a missle from catalina or a plane from honolulu, arguing that the FAA didn’t see a radar signature near catalina does NOT support the missle from catalina theory.
?????
It's heading towards the camera, but at the same time heading west? Wouldn't the photographer have to be out at sea then?
Retired TRANSPAC airline pilots and USAF types said it was a rather common sight to see as they are climbing out over water on a westerly heading at sunset.
Where did you see or read this?
I am a retired Alaska Bush pilot and have seen this happen first hand. Especially when I took off of some short lake, heavily loaded on floats, with air/moisture levels off the chart.
Sooooooooooooooooooooooo, this aircraft executed a combat extraction after flying 35 miles off the coast?
AH, OK I get it!!
What I find frightening is the number of people who refuse to look at all the evidence. If I wake up out of a dead sleep to the sound of a crash and instantly think "Holy Crap! There's a bear breaking in one of my windows!", I'll get out of bed and start investigating, with that as my assumption. When I find that it was only the sound of my cat knocking something over in the closet, I go back to bed and go back to sleep without a care. I don't cling to my initial belief that I thought I heard a bear breaking a window, so that's what it must be, and then have to start figuring out who was working in cahoots with the bear to quickly replace the window he broke, since I can't find any broken windows.
It seems to me like there's two possibilities here. 1) A missile launch. 2) An optical illusion. An airplane contrail that has the appearance of a missile launch.
It looked to me like a missile when I first saw the video, but I'm not going to continue to see what isn't there in the face of what I see as overwhelming contradictory evidence. Looking through the threads on the subject, I'm seeing too many people clinging to the belief there's a bear in the house somewhere. They heard the sound of the window breaking. End of debate.
Do you have a link on the Oslo thing?
Has Obama ever given a reason for acting as if he was taking the government in exile on this trip to India? Has any other president ever been like this?
Seems to me like they’re acting as if they expect something big to happen.
Somebody else mentioned the cruise ship that had a fire in this same area around the same time. I always wonder what’s going on when you’ve got lots of strange things happening in the same place at the same time.
And I think the fact that people EXPECT disinformation from the official government sources tells us all where we’re at as a nation. The Obama coup has damaged any trust the people might have had in the integrity of the government. We know we’re a banana republic, and it’s not going to be easy to rebuild the confidence and trust of the American people.
That’s what the people who think Obama needs an Oklahoma City don’t realize. This administration has so scorned the concerns of the people, has so consistently lied to us for political ends, and has so actively sought the destruction of this nation that it wouldn’t surprise us much at all if Obama caused or allowed a terrorist strike just for political ends. He’s already done that to the economy so why not do it to planes or buildings?
This situation is not sustainable. Something has to give, and probably pretty soon.
Those who are arguing that this is definitely a missile, I might buy into your premise. Those that are not going to make up their minds one way or the other in the first 24 hours don’t bother me all that much.
I was pretty strident in the first few hours after the report. When another explanation was lofted, I backed off. There are still some questions that I don’t see being answered.
Until they are, I’m going to keep an open mind on the subject.
Plug in “california missile launch false flag” in Yahoo and take your pick.
They really love this stuff.
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.