"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.
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.