Posted on 11/13/2010 2:55:59 PM PST by DontTreadOnMe2009
Hannity was surprised to hear a famous ex Air Force General tell him “That Is A Missile, Shot From A Submarine!” I quote retired Air Force Lieutenant General Tom McInerney (ex commander of 11th Air Force in Alaska) “I spent 35 years flying fighters, and you can see the guidance system kick in, I have watched that film 10 times, I am absolutely certain that that is not an aircraft, but a sub launch ICBM missile!!!” See the video and judge his words for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LivRJOWrcpA&feature=player_embedded#! I will next post a clickable link.
Gotcha — I’ll bear it in mind (and well and nicely said, too!). You may be correct, but so many of these pro-contrail folks are FReepers I’ve respected and admired, if not AGREED with all that often, over the years. On the other hand, that contrail science site looks a whole lot like geek-speek intimidation nonsense overload to me, and at least one of the contrail pushers joined FR apparently just to shill for it. THAT is someone I am much less inclined to trust than, say, TXnMA or one of my faves, kanawa, with whom I often disagree but who I also have come to hold in high regard over the years — frankly, I would trust kanawa to always be at our backs if push came to shove.
Thanks (((Finny)))
Great article about Patrick Minnis from your NASA story link. He, like General McInerney, were positive it was a missile, but Minnis talked to people and did some research and concluded it was most probably an aircraft.
If they are then there are a lot of un-announced and un-NOTAM'd missile launches in the US?
You are also focusing on the part of the video that some people claim is the plume of a booster. That edited part appears to be shown in slow motion? It is very misleading as it is suggested that the trail is moving away from the coast. Even the Pentagon spokesman was confused and stated what ever it was it was not threat as it was moving or appeared to be moving away from the US. The LAX web cam shows the true perspective and that it was moving towards the coast.
To go back to the claimed booster seen in the video. As an aviation photographer I've had scores of images ruined by glare and reflection. Airliners and their highly reflective paint schemes can cause large reflections and glare.
Watch the following two videos and consider the extreme range and angle that Gil Leyvas filmed from?
Now consider that Gil Leyvas has zoomed in at extreme range on an airliner still producing a persistent contrail? During that filming a reflection has appeared off the airliner for a short period. The media highlight this segment and slow it down.
Yes it looks like a booster, but it could also be glare and reflection off of a UPS MD-11? It just happens to fit what a ballistic missile should look like and subsequently many were fooled by this edited footage.
No, not to my knowledge.
It is moving away from the coast. That is undisputed. The sound wave does NOT cross the coast. That’s how.
Silverback, please answer me yes or no to one question:
Have you ever witnessed a missile launch live?
I grew up and spent half of my adult life within variable 25 to 50 miles of VAFB. I saw many, many missile launches. Funny, I never even thought about it until reading your post, but upon reflectionk, I don't recall ever hearing a sonic boom associated with the launch. The only sonic boom I remember hearing with regard to missile-launched aircraft, in fact, is the wonderful, thrilling, signature double-boom (it goes, *boom-BOOM*) when the space shuttle has come home. Heard it often when I lived in Central Florida, and it always made me smile and think, "welcome home, guys! Thanks, God, for bringing them home safely."
At this point, I gather that you trust the CBS (MSM) video reporting -- and various folks impressions of it -- more than you trust any analytical work that has been done.
Suffice it to say that I do not trust the CBS reporting, and that my own analysis (begun well before I saw contrailscience.com) convinces me that, not only were conditions (post-sunset lighting + high-altitude moisture) combined to produce confusing visuals, the reporting was highly deceptive and prejudicial.
I plan to do some more analytical work offline to test those (tentative) conclusions, so my FReeping may drop off for a while.
When I return, be prepared to have your confidence shaken... '-)
I would say no.
You would be wrong. Causing missiles to spin was a major advancement in rocketry technology.
How Do Rockets and Missiles Work?Missiles' precision was improved in 1844, when William Hale introduced the stabilized torsion. The curbed propellers in the mouth of the evacuation hose made the rocket spin during its flight. This conferred stability, like the spin of a gyroscope. Shape or density irregularities were no more a problem. The spinning technique for stabilization had been achieved in 1400 for bullets, and in ancient times for arrows and spears.
I was not the one who did so, but it was my impression that lbahneman was invited by other Freeper(s) to come and join our discussions. I, for one, welcome his participation. Who knows -- if he isn't maltreated too much, he might turn out to be a fine fellow FReeper... :-|
From that overlaid set of pics that you show I can understand how the wind could blow the contrail to the south. What I don’t understand is how the wind blew the airplane itself so far south perpendicular to its line of flight. More so than its forward progress even.
I agree with most of that. I don’t think it was an SLBM. The spectral emissions weren’t right for that.
Been wondering when someone was going to call you guys on that "spinning missile" foolishness... '-)
Been wondering when someone was going to call you guys on that "spinning missile" foolishness... '-)
Getting a missile to go super sonic at low altitudes is possible but a waste of energy. They typically wait until higher altitudes when the air density is lower and the drag is correspondingly lower.
November 9, 2010
This corkscrew effect can only be caused by the body of an airframe slowly rotating as it ascends, a highly unlike trajectory for an airliner. Jeff Id and others point out other signs that this is a rocket, not a contrail, as well. Such as the fact that one can clearly see the flame of the rocket’s engine and that there is no gap between the rocket’s body and the plume as one normally sees in a pressure wave induced condensation trail behind a high altitude jet.
The contrail hypothesis is like the AGW hypothesis. If a single observation-such as the fact that the plume spirals at one point into a corkscrew shape-occurs that can’t be explained by the hypothesis, then the entire hypothesis must be discarded in favor of a new one that better fits the observed facts. It’s called the scientific method. I’m always amazed at how few otherwise finely educated dolts actually picked up a course in the philosophy of science while at uni. Sure would make rational analysis on all manner of topics more fluid.
The principle of parsimony does not necessarily support the contrail illusion hypothesis either. Since thousands of high altitude jets transit this airspace daily the contrail illusion must be fairly common and local observers well versed in sorting out illusion from truly anomalous events. Moreover, as Boballab makes clear, US military activity in the area is dense and arcane. Making the missile hypothesis even more parsimonious than a once in a lifetime optical illusion that defies the usual physics of condensation trails.
Personally, given Obama’s Asian tour and the unprecedented (for foreign policy limp-wristed Obama) anti-China saber rattling that he and Hillary are doing along the way, my long money is on a rogue Chinese sub commander hyped that he made it through to LA letting loose a signal to the world that China is ascendent. Sure, it’s a 10 to 1 punt, but anyone got a better idea?
Ironically, the proof for Chinese submariner’s hubris might well be the Pentagon declaring that Yeah, Unicus the obscure blogger got it right all along. It was a contrail! Nothing to see here folks. Move along…
November 9, 2010
ScottH says:
November 10, 2010 at 9:21 am
Don’t pay attention to the contrail/exhaust that is a misdirection.
Look at the top of the exhaust where the object should be, see that bright orange burn? That is NOT a jet burn, and it isn’t the burn from any commercial aircraft I am aware of.
That burn is akin to a reasonable size rocket/missile engine burn.
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.