Posted on 11/19/2010 10:10:35 AM PST by TXnMA
>>...and you determined all that based on the above news video — even though it has obviously been altered radically and leaves out much of the event?
Wow! Just...WOW!!<<
Welcome to how I felt last week. Glenn Beck calls it “Arguing With Idiots”. And he gives a clear definition of what he means by that.
>>This was NO aircraft. An airctaft does not rise in that way, leave a trail in that way, nor have “fire” belching from it back end that way.<<
;)
>>Note that in frame 5, (shown firat and repeatd) the endpoint (even at wide zoom level) is far beyond (after) the crossing.<<
Um,it’s closer. It is also not an end point. It is where the contrail was when the video clip ends.
Why is it that the first, widest, and (for a missile) lowest altitude part of the "plume" is -- well after sunset -- still the most brightly illuminated part of the "plume"?
The obvious answer is:
"BECAUSE IT IS AT 35K+ FOOT ALTITUDE, IS THE ONLY THING STILL ILLUMINATED BY FULL SUNLIGHT -- AND IS THE CONTRAIL OF AN AIRCRAFT APPROACHING (COMING TOWARD YOU) AT THAT ALTITUDE FROM OVER THE HORIZON (HAWAII)..."
Ignore my last response to your post regarding “closer”. I missread what you were relating it to.
>>What would the shadow and light of the contrail from a plane look like when it flies parallel to the ground, vs. what would the shadow and light of the contrail from a missile look like when it flies perpendicular to the ground?<<
That is one of the things that convinced me this is a contrail. You notice in the op snapshot that there is a dark streak just “above” the contrail that goes all the way to the right alongside the contrail. This is what happens when the clouds (and in this case, clouds and haze) at one level is below the contrail. Because both are parallel to the earth, you get a shadow that looks like the contrail’s reverse image mate. In this case, the clouds are not all that much lower than the contrail, so the shadow is close. I’ve seen situations where the shadow was in a layer of clouds far lower than the contrail and there is a significant gap, but the contrail and shadow are always parallel, as in this case.
If it were a missile launch, it COULD be parallel, depending on the angle of the sun in relation to your viewing angle, but generally speaking the shadow is usually not parallel and can range from parallel to perpendicular to the plume. It also adjusts in shape based on altitude.
I’m making it too complicated. Sorry...
An experienced retired misilleer who is a fairly longtime FReeper stated from the git-go that the object in the video looks like a missile, and it looks like it's headed west-northwest. Then folks pointed out that talking heads have said that the camerman said he "stayed on it" for ten minutes, although the cameraman (who stated unequivocally in an interview taped the day after the event that the object was heading "in a westerly direction") quite reasonably could have filmed the event AND the lingering plume for a total of 10 minutes. Old Missileer, being a pro with no agenda, noted that if the cameraman filmed it for 10 minutes, it couldn't be a missile because such a missile could only burn for about five minutes. It woud be interesting to see if the complete video shows the object moving for a duration of 10 minutes.
OldMissiler also FReeped, a few days after the launch: I would like to point out, and tell me if I am seeing it wrong, but many here have stated that it was a flight to Arizona. Given the position of the setting sun and the angle to which it reflects off the contrail would not the object in question be flying WNW or somewhat North? I thought Phoenix was to the Southeast from there (to the left of the video).
(We agree.)
There is almost no way to say that succinctly and in such a manner that it cannot be misconstrued. Believe me -- I tried many variant wordings...
This typing time lag is a killer! LOL!!
>>There is almost no way to say that succinctly and in such a manner that it cannot be misconstrued.<<
I agree. And I think that is how the missile theory was able to hang on so long.
I took a communication class back in 1982. In one experiment, everyone was given six shapes that, when organized a certain way, would form a triangle. Several students were told, one at a time, to go to the front of the class and, with the answer on a podium in front of them, instruct the class, using ONLY WORDS, on how to put it together correctly. After three students tried (I was the first) and NOBODY in the class could get it together, a fourth student was told to do it and he could hold up the pieces to illustrate. It took less than a minute to get the entire class to finish.
If everyone on this thread could be in a room with a projection of a couple of these images on a wall, we’d have had this put to bed in no time.
Wouldn't the contrail appear to dim towards the east because the sun is rapidly setting in the west, even if the plane is at 35K feet? Wouldn't it dim more quickly than the sunset rate because the plane is also flying at 500mph in the opposite direction? Would you really expect to see a uniform reflection along the entire contrial if it is reflecting from the setting sun? At the end of the contrail, we even see the flare of relfection off the plane/missile. Is this really expected from an object at the furthest eastern part of a setting sun?
Wouldn't the reflection appear uniform only if the object were continuosly rising to remain in the direct sunlight?
-PJ
-PJ
You wanted info on the video on which folks (including your "expert") have based their conclusions, Why not address the published video - instead of pushing your pet "expert"?
That the video looks like a missile is the starting point for whole controversy. It does look like a missile. Both to laypersons and some experts.
But then: What in the video doesn’t look like a missile?; what else does it look like?; which hypothesis fits the facts better?
On this thread, the point is offered that the video is not a very good source for reaching factual conclusions. The “raw video” offered as “raw” is not raw. This and other basic information is not forthcoming from KCBS. Why?
Thus far, the work done matching time, location, flight path, etc. are all on the side of contrail vs. rocket exhaust. To support the missile hypothesis some, at least, similar work is needed; otherwise, it still falls to stronger evidence.
Jim —
FR’s own “CBS Videogate” expose’ — as promised...
Well, and not only that, why is it that we can see fire shooting from its bottom if this aircraft is supposedly heading to Phoenix?
He says the lighting and perspective show that it's a vertical plume of an object heading north-west, more precisely, west north-west. Since he makes a living knowing such things, I'll take his word for it over guys like Rob, TX and Mu, I believe NONE of whom have ever seen an actual missile launch, and I believe whose first-hand knowledge of L.A. area skies (and their contrails!) is limited to nonexistent. Though all three certainly have a high opinion of their own abilities!
“That’s absolutely a rocket contrail because how it was made shows rapid course correction that could occur at high speed, with stabilizing fins.”
You are now qualified to be an Air Force General. Congratulations.
Think I'll call the In-Laws and see what they have to say about this. Good grief, I've even seen a Mexican Eagle flying through Oceanside/Vista/Carlsbad cruising for little puppy dogs to eat.
You don't get to see that with quick landings and takeoffs.
It's a contrail of a plane coming toward the photographer. This is just at Sundown as the Sun has slipped below the horizon. It's still lighting up the contrails and the airplanes though.
This sort of thing happens every day no matter where you are. Low altitude clouds go black while high altitude clouds are still shiny from Sunlight.
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.