Glenn Beck: They’re lying to us about the mystery contrail

Hot Air ^ | 11/19/2010 | Right Scoop

[JohnKinAK]

Glenn Beck said today that he has spoken to military experts about the mystery contrail from a few weeks ago and he says it’s definitely not a plane, but rather a two stage missile. He just wants to know where it came from, and he has a theory. Beck postulates that this missile was possibly from a Chinese sub off the coast of California, perhaps as a show of force to the world, but even more so to President Obama.

Click link for video

[Finny]

I know ... if you ask me, half the pictures (none of which are credible except for anything from the video) that these folks present as "proof" of their proposition that the video could't have been of a vertical contrail, do more to confirm it, but they're banking no one will use their noggins.

I sure hope most people see through such despicable stuff.

[Dagnabitt]

Good post.

Unfortunately facts and evidence are wasted on the missile cultists. They know what they saw on that video and no evidence or common sense (world's slowest missile to nowhere?) is going to budge them.

This is their Bigfoot, their Alien Abduction. They know the TRUTH and you are just part of the vast conspiracy against that TRUTH.

[Names Ash Housewares]

I double checked, he did indeed use video grab from the CBS footage. I compared myself. You do need the portions that provide ground reference of course.

Also someone else did the correlation to the UPS flight track with the CBS vid...

http://blog.bahneman.com/content/it-was-us-airways-flight-808

It was a UPS Jet.
Extremely conclusive.

I’m done here.

Gotta go collect my big gubmint check for my part in the coverup. ;)

[Names Ash Housewares]

“Unfortunately facts and evidence are wasted on the missile cultists.”

Seems so, if you figure out why, please explain it to me. LOL

[muawiyah]

Hmm, some people are so easily fooled by TWO CBS videos designed to fool them into believing a missile was launched.

You want to continue believing in a mile wide missile go ahead I suppose.

Now that I have your attention I have some special insurance policies only available to you and your closest friends.

[Rokke]

"Blatant lie and "disinformation" posing as "truth." This guy wants me to respond and compare SIX photos, none of which come from the original Leyvas video as seen HERE ......... or at this CBS NEWS story."

It doesn't take you long to reveal how weak your analytical skills are and how poorly you are able to absorb information that doesn't fit into your own very narrowly (and in this case inaccurately) defined view of reality. Throwing out terms like "Blatant lie" and "disinformation" would seem a lot less hysterical if you could back them up. But have you ever even bothered visiting the website of the television station that took what you believe is the only acceptable source of data for the contrail event off the LA coast? Here is a link to their website where they have posted stills they captured from their video...http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/gallery/2010/11/09/mystery-missile-launch-off-california/#photo-1. And here's the photo...

I'll bet you've never even seen the rest of the photos they captured from their video. You've been assuming all along that the portions of the video they pasted together on their news broadcast was all they had. For someone so convinced of their theory, that is incredibly closed minded and weak. Below are a few other stills, from their website, from their video. You aren't going to like them, because they make it clear that the pieces of the video clip they broadcast do not accurately represent the entire event.

This still from the video was from a portion when the camera wasn't zoomed in. It gives perspective of the actual size of the contrail. Looks a lot different doesn't it? Amazing what changing the zoom level of a camera will do.

This still from their video is taken later. The aircraft is no longer leaving a contrail because it has begun its descent into Ontario. You can see it in the picture. Are you going to claim it is actually a missile body? If so, how big do you suppose it is and where did it land. If you can see it at altitude, it must be enormous. Kind of hard to miss it hitting the Earth somewhere

So there you have it. Video stills from the only source of information you will accept regarding the contrail, taken from the website of the broadcast company that took the video. Ironic that you are the person claiming people are engaged in sophisticated disinformation efforts regarding this event. At least on FR, the greatest source of disinformation regarding this incident is you.

[aruanan]

Holy crap, Batman! Look, there were at least two other earlier missile launches to the north of the LA one! Ha ha ha ha.

[aruanan]

Have you noticed the massive font size...red bold print and underlining? When someone does that I ignore everything they say...if you can’t make a point without the cyber version of screaming...you obviously don’t believe a word you are saying~

Obviously, then, you haven't been following what has led up to this or you have and are offering your comment above as a spurious means of saying that the opposite of what you don't believe must, therefore, be true. It doesn't work this way.

[Finny]

At least you're consistent. You're quite right, the "video capture" was not captured from the videos linked in my post, but it WAS taken from still shots in your linked CBS page of 13 -- count them, 13 -- still shots from the video. Odd that so many still shots from the video are MISSING from that gallery, such as the one with what looks to be a Chinook helicopter hovering. MISSING from that gallery are still shots of what you claim is the reflection of the setting sun on the underside of the plane that look for all the world just like the burn of a missile. But nevermind THAT, right, Rokke? Right, NAH? Those things would be a little too difficult to foist off as optical illusion in still shots, so you just pretend that their absence in the still shot gallery isn't pretty telling.

That's where you're consistent, as you and the airplane folks fail to come out and openly challenge Gil Leyvas, who HAD TO HAVE KNOWN from the instant he started that camera rolling that he was perpetrating fraud, if what YOU perceive in the still-shots is accurate. Why aren't you calling for Gil Leyvas' head? Why isn't the guy fired, out of here, hounded out, for premeditated lying? Because, AGAIN, there is zilch, zero, nada way that at any point he could have been confused.

So you stick to STILL SHOTS, by very difinition more misleading than the video with regard to comparing condensation trails with missile plumes. Nevermind that there ARE NO CAPTIONS with those photos to ID the time or location or event. And in spite of your loudest shouts and claims, a number of those still shots prove conclusively that the plume was vertical and headed northwest ... the sun proves it. I know, you pretend otherwise and hope that if you say it long enough, it will stop being a lie. But even YOU, Rokke, cannot move the sun, although folks CAN reverse the photos, as (interestingly!) it looks very much like someone did in the very FIRST still shot in the second CBS video I linked -- the still photo behind the anchor.

You cling to the still shots because they're the only way you can push your fraud, and even then, half the time they don't cooperate and the only way you can push your airline cover is by just ignoring it.

[Finny]

Rokke, you sure must live to hope that most people don't actually investigate your sources.

Folks, here's the link to what Rokke and others here cite as authentic "proof" to show you how your eyes and brain are lying to you. I clicked it and explored.

1. The ONE caption for 13 still photographs that Rokke and others purport are video captures form the Leyvas video, says: "What appeared to be a missile launching off the coast of California was captured on video by Sky 2's Derek Bell. Was it a missile? Who launched it? And why Californians want to know."

Derek Bell? Huh?

I thought Gil Leyvas captured the video that we've been talking about. In the caption I quoted above from the page linked, the word "video" is a link, one would think to the video, right???? So naturally, I clicked on it to see who Derek Bell is and to see Derek Bell's video. So obviously we're not talking an identification of video from Gil Leyvas.

Guess what? I clicked on it about five or six times, waited, explored ... and THE LINK IS TO AN AD FOR CITI. That is all it is. As Ralphie would say, "A crummy commercial?"

Okay, so that leaves us with 13 still photos on lossangeles.cbslocal.com. that Rokke and NAH say are from Leyvas's video on Nov. 8. Yet these still shots are very clearly NOT identified as being from the Leyvas video.

[Finny]

So was I correct, then, in saying that NONE of the six photos you wanted me to compare were from the Leyvas video.

Some of them were still shots from losangeles.cbslocal.com, and the single caption for 13 shots implies, though doesn't outright state, that they are from someone only identified as Derek Bell. There is not a single mention of Gil Leyvas.

Man. Talk about "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

You mislead with awesome calculation and semantics; obfuscation is your goal.

[Rokke]

"Odd that so many still shots from the video are MISSING from that gallery, such as the one with what looks to be a Chinook helicopter hovering."

Odd? What is more odd are the assumptions you leap to from grainy, highly zoomed in video excerpts. A hovering chinook helicopter?!? Seriously? And to my knowledge I've never discussed the reflection of the setting sun on the aircraft. But on that topic, CBS did include this still...

The picture clearly shows the flying object leaving a trail. Some people who believe it's a missile, believe it is actually heading eastbound. If it is a missile, how is it possible that it is still expelling exhaust, but even in a highly zoomed in video, you can't see flame from the rocket motor? As an experienced observer of missile launches, you must know that one of the most prominent means of tracking a missile is the bright flame of its burning engine(s). Where is that flame in the image from the video? Regardless, since I obviously don't control what images are posted on the CBS website, your questions would be better directed at them. But you are implying that you don't trust their motives. Do you think they are hiding something or trying to influence what their viewers might think? If so, hold that thought. I think you're on to something.

With regard to Gil Leyvas, nice try but don't try to blame your confusion on him. All he did was shoot the video. He explains in an interview that he'd seen similar events in the past and wanted to capture it on film. He says he doesn't know what he filmed. And the CBS news folks never claim to know what is on the film either. They simply pieced together a short video clip from what is supposedly over 9 minutes of Leyvas video, and asked their viewers what they think is depicted. It isn't their responsibility that people like you believe a mystery missile was launched somewhere off the coast of California. That is your responsibility. And I hold you accountable for your opinion. Not Leyvas.

Finally, you say the sun proves the contrail is vertical. What is the elevation of the sun in the video? Where did it set along the horizon? Why doesn't the contrail color change from orange (low altitude) to white as it climbs to an elevation where the setting sun strikes it directly? You can watch that video non-stop for the rest of your life, but it won't provide proof of anything you say it does. It will always remain a very zoomed in, pieced together excerpt of a much longer event. Its few seconds provide a very short, soda straw view of an event that can't be accurately assessed without viewing a much broader picture. For now, the only way to view the broader picture is to consider stills taken from video shot by the same cameraman, of the same event, but not included by his editors in their short video clip. You refuse to do that. Probably because it interferes with your demonstrated habit of viewing the world through a soda straw similar to that of Leyvas' zoomed in lens. In your world, if something exists outside of your soda straw view, you don't want to know about it, and anyone who asks you to consider something different is a blatant liar or agent of disinformation. That is an extremely myopic perspective. I prefer not to share it.

[TXnMA]

Dagnabitt:“Unfortunately facts and evidence are wasted on the missile cultists.”

NAH: "Seems so, if you figure out why, please explain it to me. LOL"

~~~~~~

That's easy -- it's because they are in this mode:

'-)

[TXnMA]

Underlining = HTML link...

[Rokke]

Finny, Derek Bell is the pilot of Sky2. Leyvas is the camera man on Sky2. It’s the same video. Pilots don’t man cameras while they fly. That took me 15 seconds to figure out looking at their website. Do you really believe the photos on the CBS website are from a different event?

[Ransomed]

“He says he doesn’t know what he filmed. And the CBS news folks never claim to know what is on the film either. They simply pieced together a short video clip from what is supposedly over 9 minutes of Leyvas video, and asked their viewers what they think is depicted.”

If he viewed the event for around ten minutes I would be suprised if he didn’t really know what it was. He would either be seeing a lingering smoke trail after the boost stages or he would be seeing a jet.

Has he given any reason why KCBS has chosen to only release less than a minute of heavily edited and repeated video as “raw” footage of the event? I mean, I suppose that would be frustrating for a camera guy, you shoot this astounding event and they only show a tiny little bit of it. I mean, it doen’t take much effort to stick a ten minute video on you tube.

FReegards

[Finny]

Leyvas said it was headed in a westerly direction. He's on tape saying it. Airplane contrailers here LIED outright about that, writing that Leyvas said it was headed east -- until Tiger linked the video where Leyvas stated uniquivocally that it was headed in a westerly direction. Here are Leyvas' exact words from a taped interview I think on Nov. 9, in a story on CBS news:

"It was unique, it was moving, it was growing in the sky. As I zoomed in I used a two-times extender on the lens to get a closer look, and you could tell that the object, whatever it was, was spriraling up in the sky. You could see the clouds were kind of swirling and as I zoomed in and got tighter on it, it appeared that it was spinning and going in a westerly direction.

"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. Like I said, it was growing in nature and continued to fly up into the sky, and at one point it seemed to separate. The smoke or the plume seemed to stop and then continue further up in the sky and then finally disappear."

I never heard him say that he didn't know what it was ... but I know, and you know, that Leyvas HAD TO HAVE KNOWN within a second or two whether or not he was filming an airplane. And when it all comes down to reality, you're making a lot of unfounded assumptions regarding a baker's dozen of uncaptioned still shots on the CBS site that you purport are from about 10 minutes of video that no one has seen. Hmmmmmm ... as for the Chinook ... again, you want me to believe you, or my lyin' eyes? I'm not going to waste my time posting the links again. It's obvious in the youtube video of the Leyvas footage. The Leyvas footage was clearly edited. You think it was to mislead people into thinking an airplane contrail was a missile shot. It looks to me like what was edited was intended to hide something entirely different. What if the video parts edited out proved beyond doubt that it was a missile, and that it got deflected by something shooting at it?

Something stinks when CBS's own site doesn't ID the cameraman/photographer who shot the pictures and doesnt' even ID the pilot, but instead conpsicuously leaves the photographer/cameraman's name out of it and puts in the pilot's name without identifying his role. You act as if that's perfectly normal and understandable. Some of us here recognize it as a form of obfuscation and ass-covering.

So Leyvas either shot video of a missile plume ... or deliberately LIED into the camera, because he would have known within nanoseconds (as would you or I) if it was a plane. ANYONE WHO HAS WATCHED MISSILE LAUNCHES FROM RELATIVELY CLOSE UP KNOWS THIS FOR A FACT, the same way that they know that water is wet and snow is cold.

If YOU believe that Leyvas saying (which actually, I haven't heard in any interviews) that "he doesn't know what he filmed," you make a huge assumption. Has anyone asked him point blank: "Do you know what it wasn't?" Gee, maybe it was Santa's Sleigh! Leyvas doesn't know, remember?

The shot in your post of the short contrail -- THERE AGAIN, still shots tell zero, zilch, nada. To be an airplane leaving a contrail, it must be many, many, many miles away in that photo. Or it may be close, in which case it is most emphatically a missile leaving a plume. As EXPERIENCED MISSILEERS (or at least, FReepers who identify themselvs as such -- and don't ask me to link; I've already wasted too much time and you can do your own reading and homework) have noted, plumes from missiles exhibit a variety of phenomenon, depending on the missile and the temperature and humidity of the air. Indeed, one of those fellows pretty much shut ol' muawiyah up way back in early days of discussion. Happly for Mu, the fellow has moved on. That still shot at the top of the post (the only one I'm even going to bother with) could as easily be of a missile as it could be of a contrail. YOU CANNOT TELL from the photo, although the photo shown is much more indicative of a missile than an airline contrail, in my opinion from personal eyewitness experience of a whole lotta missile launches and a whole lotta airplane contrails.

Rokke, we're where we started: you have 13 uncaptioned still shots that are scrupulously NOT ATTRIBUTED to the Leyvas video. In a roundabout way, you present them as if they were.

And as for the angle of the sun lighting the plume, already been over that. No matter how often you repeat a lie, it's still a lie. The sun reveals an object headed the direction the cameraman said it was: WESTERLY.

[Rokke]

I have no idea what Leyvas "knew" when he filmed the contrail. In the quote from him that you provide, he calls it "the object". He also says he'd seen it the week before. I would never assume he knew anything within a second or two of filming. Frankly, only an idiot would make that kind of assumption. Leyvas hasn't provided any evidence that I'm aware of that he's an idiot.

Where do you suppose CBS got the pictures they say are stills captured from video taken from Sky2? And you think the video from Leyvas has an "obvious" chinook hovering in it? Hovering over what? LA? For what reason? Of all the strange things I've heard about this incident, that may well be the strangest. If there really is a chinook hovering that has any connection whatsoever to the contrail in the video, than you must believe the US Army (they are our only military service that flies chinooks) must have known in advance that whatever took place was going to take place and prepositioned one of the largest and most recognizable helicopters in our inventory to hover over LA to accomplish who knows what. The funny thing is, you accuse me of making unfounded assumptions.

So, you believe a missile was launched from somewhere off the coast, toward the mainland (or at least on a westerly heading), and subsequently disappeared without a trace. And your only proof of that is a few seconds of grainy, edited and zoomed in video and the sun (which is in a location you can't identify). Got it.

[Niteflyr]

Underlining = HTML link...

Ohh..that makes it all better..(sarc.)

[Finny]

One other thing to indicate that the photo in your post 472 is of a missile, NOT an airliner leaving a plume:

THE LIGHT. If it is a horizontal path with the sun coming from below ... how come the underside of this supposedly horizontal high-elevation (five miles above the earth) contrail is dark? Wouldn't the underside of a horizontal high-elevation condensation trail at sunset be very brightly lit? Gosh ... why do I predict you're going to spin that ... well, obviously (cue Rokke: " harrumph hum! If you could see the video which we categorically reject as evidence, you'd know this ...") .. it's because of some sort of shadow cast by a cloud far below on the horizon but which you can't see in this photo because it's from doctored video!!! Yeah, that's the ticket!!!

HALLLLLLOOOOOOO!! The dark part of the plume in that video is facing away from the sun (that's why it's called SHADE, dude!) and is therefore facing east if this shot is taken at sunset. The illuminated part of the plume in the photo it is facing away from the camera -- it is facing west.

Higgmeister, yet another example of these people posting photos that supposedly refute a vertical missile plume, but which actually CONFIRM IT!!!!

It's like he's telling people, "this red hat is actually a green snowmobile." And they're going, "Oh, yeah .... I see it!" Remarkable. Simply remarkable.