Posted on 11/19/2010 10:10:35 AM PST by TXnMA
<SNIP>
Video posted on the CBS Los Angeles website shows an object flying through the evening sky Monday that left a large contrail, or vapor trail. While cruising the skies Monday at sunset, Sky2 captured on video what appears to be a missile making its way up into the sky from over the Pacific Ocean off the California coast.
Pentagon officials were stumped by the event. “Nobody within the Department of Defense that we’ve reached out to has been able to explain what this contrail is, where it came from,” Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said.
<SNIP>
(Excerpt) Read more at losangeles.cbslocal.com ...
Um...dude...do you think that maybe, just maybe, the 702 thing is a typo? Look down and note how close the 7 is to the 9 on your keyboard.
As for the AWE808 thing one blogger said it was AWE808 and another said, "No, UPS902 looks like a better bet" and then when the Warren photos showed up it was clear it was 902. The only change has been that new evidence has excluded one of the flights.
If the aircraft was a UPS MD-11 with a white fuselage (and it was) what color would the white, high gloss fuselage reflect back toward the viewer around sunset? And what would the effect of the light passing through engine exhaust and/or wake turbulence be?
Let me make sure I understand this: The only evidence you have available is a 40 second clip which the author of this thread has shown is heavily edited. From this clip you have determined what the vehicle is and the country of origin, and apparently you think the fact that a TV station is putting up an edited clip and calling it "raw video" is no big deal.
Good grief.
OK, if it's a Chinese missile, that means it's a JL-1 or a JL-2. Both of those missiles are two stage missiles. An ICBM or SLBM burns through its first stage in about 1 minute, maybe 2...for example, a Minuteman discards its first stage at T+62 seconds...so where is the stage separation? It should either be visible on the video, have been seen by the helicopter camera guy (who "stayed on it for ten minutes") or be visible in the Warren photos. But we don't see one or hear about one.
Moreover, if it was a Chinese SLBM, it would be expected to transit to its target in 10 to 15 minutes...how could Warren photograph a vehicle several minutes after firing that is designed to be thousands of miles away and in space at that point, and do so with a $900 off-the shelf Nikon?
Gil Leyvas mentions something very interesting in his CBS interview. He mentions seeing something similar on Thursday (4th November). Was it UPS902 McDonnell Douglas MD-11 on route to Ontario, California?
See Finny's post #1398
Snippet from Finny's post - Gil Leyvas interview transcription.
"Well, I realized that it was something that we saw earlier from the week before -- we saw something very similar the past Thursday, and immediately I realized that it was something very similar, and called on the 2-way there to our assignment desk to let them know that we were seeing it again. It's not as dramatic as the one from yesterday -- the one from yesterday was pretty spectacular..."
Interview link at following.
UPS902 using a McDonnell Douglas MD-11 flew the same route/time on the 4th from Honolulu to Ontario, California. I wonder if Gil Leyvas still has film from 4th November as it might just put this whole event to rest? Was Gil filming the UPS MD-11 on 4th November at sunset?
From 4th November - UPS902. I had to register to view so possibly the link won't form? Details recorded have the 4th November flight arriving at Ontario (KONT) at 18:05 PST. On the 8th November UPS902 arrived at Ontario (KONT) at 18:02 PST.
Link to UPS902 tracklog 4th November
8th November for comparison.
Whatever the accuracy of the report, I think what can be said without dispute is that the Raw Video released by KCBS is not raw. With the edits it can be reasonably deduced that some video has been edited out, there is more.
Exactly how long the cameraman shot the phenomenon and what was shot is still unknown and will remain so absent more from KCBS.
Thanks for proving that Gil Leyvas never said that.
Very perceptive.
However, it is stated as the reporter's opinion, in an article on CBS's website.
The photographer works for CBS. If they say he took 10 minutes of footage, then they are speaking for him.
If they are lying, so be it.
You have put your faith in the edited 2 minute or less video, trusting CBS, not me.
So... the only thing you have proven is that when someone provides you with acceptable proof of their claim, you won't believe it , even though it comes from the same source as the video have seen.
IT'S A FACT that CBS/the Reporter representing CBS/The Cameraman who works for CBS and was being interviewed are claiming they have 10 minutes or more of footage.
Your only ability to argue is based on the fact they didn't provide a direct quote from Leyvas. So, are you now saying CBS and the reporter are lying?
I'm open to that. Are they?
Sure. I have proved that Gil Leyvas, during the 'interview' with his co-worker, did not state, "Oh, did I tell you I took over 10 minutes of video?". The reporter, who had already been informed, gave this information in the article on CBS's website.
So... that proves it was a missile.
True.
Are you going to continue to post, over and over again, that Gil Leyvas said he shot ten minutes of video?
Heck no.
I'm going to post that CBS says they have 10 minutes of video that Gil Leyvas took.
Have you got any more evidence other than “gee that looks like a missile”?
You got me. Pat yourself on the back. You proved me wrong.
There is a world of difference between Gil being quoted in the article saying “I TOOK 10 MINUTES OF VIDEO”, and the reporter stating that Gil took 10 minutes of video.
Surely anyone can see that proves it was a missile.
Something else ‘odd’ that occurs to me is that the helo is flying right over the coastline. The statement has been made by CBS/the pilot/the cameraman that this ‘thing’ was 35 miles away.
Uh.... how did they determine that?
It’s not like it appeared on their radar and gave them the separation distance.
Opinion as far as we know. It "looked like" it was that distance.
If we had the altitude and coordinates of the camera - Bahneman has done a good job of trying to determine coordinates earlier - we could begin to do some calculations based on real data. Camera specs and optics would help also.
But, again, that's not forthcoming from the tv station.
We can assume the distance and the spot they claim and look to validate or falsify it, but that's about it. My goal here is to illustrate that Catalina should have had a ringside view, and in the next post that Rancho Palo Verdes could be expected to have some notice of the event.
But, you're right, we have precious little to go on for real facts from the source of the video.
Sorry! I missed your question "while the fur was flying" early on... :-(
~~~~~~~~~
Yep, in the off-FR discussions between us folks who are seriously and methodically trying to gain a full understanding and explanation of this event, folks have used several radar-tracking websites to track the air traffic in the area -- including the helicopters...
One of the more comprehensive publicly-available websites showing "radar stuff" (even flight paths shown in 3-D on Google earth) is this one.
Here is an example of a radar track (UPS Flight 902, IIRC) rendered in 3-D on Google Earth.
None of the radars that I am aware of ever detected anything other than routine (Air-Traffic Controlled) air traffic in the area. (FYI, in many cases, even if a missile is "stealthy" the hot, ionized exhaust plume shows up on radar... I have even seen large ground fires that showed up clearly on weather radar because of the lower density of the hot air above them.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Most folks would be astounded at the top-rate scientific talent and effort that has been appied to this issue pro bono. AFAICT, it has all been just because folks are curious, have a good understanding of things like cloud formation, video editing and analysis, post-sunset lighting geometry and sky coloration, etc., have some graphics capability -- and just enjoy "sorting out a puzzle".
The preponderance of it has been done away from FR. Sadly, that was because some FReepers -- who merely looked at this bogus video and can only repeat "It looked like a missile!!!" ad nauseam -- maligned the motives of anyone who disagreed with their conspiracist rantings as "Government shills", "sily" and "drinking the Fed Kool-aid".
No one likes to have their honesty, integrity and patriotism questioned. I, for one, wasted far too much time trying to share factual analysis here on FR with folks who will probably never admit they were deceived by this video and MSM hype like "it lit up the sky"...
Even after I have demonstrated the video to be edited to confuse viewers, we still have posts like # 86...
If there was ever a classic case of "My mind is made up -- so don;t confuse me with facts" this is it. The only thing I can think of that comes close is the "Fire won't melt steel!" cult surrounding the collapse of the WTC. :-(
Anyway, work is ongoing, and we now have identified timewise overlap images between the video and the stills -- so that we can now show continuous tracking of the same object from near Catalina all the way back over the horizon.
Maybe someone ought to call Ontario, CA and ask to see the crater where that "missile" landed there... '-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apologies for using my (delayed) answer to your good question as an excuse for a rant -- but the sniping gets old after a couple of weeks-- especially when you're working diligently and the other side contributes nothing of import... :-(
Thanks!
Yes, a missile launches off the coast of a city with 10 million plus people and no one noticed except for a doctored video from CBS. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence pointing to china, russia, nk, Martians, etc.
Who needs details when WND has already told us what it is. I’m just waiting for Art Bell to weigh in, then I can die happy. /s
Uh, yeah - CBS invented another wild and crazy story because...they're "See-BS." I forgot - my bad. Oh, and Dan Rather's behind it. AGAIN. What was I thinking??
Next time we'll commission Michael Savage to interview a million winesses, and then that'll confirm it.
Better?
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.
