L.A. contrail a missile launch? Retired general thinks so (op-ed)

Daily Inter Lake.com ^ | Sunday, November 21, 2010 2:00 am | Updated: 8:13 am, Sun Nov 21, 2010. | Jim Cash, retired brigadier general, U.S. Air Force

[TigersEye]

Sliding silently under the mud, muck and fog of national politics, is a current event that makes Bill Clinton’s excursion into the world of elderly sex look tame in comparison. This time the nation’s national security is truly threatened in my opinion, and it involves not only a weak president with limited problem-solving ability, but leadership at the highest levels in the Pentagon as well. The American people would do well to demand a full investigation by an unbiased group, and let the chips fall where they may.

I am referring to the “missile shot” taken off the California coast recently, and the lame response by NORAD, the Pentagon and the White House itself.

(snip)

In my opinion, there is absolutely no doubt that what was captured on video off the coast of California was a missile launch, was clearly observed by NORAD, assessed by a four-star general within minutes, and passed to the president immediately. That is the way the system works, and heads fall if there is a failure. This is one of the most important tenets of national defense and its sole purpose of protecting the American people. Even the smallest failure in this system gets intense scrutiny at the highest level.

Now, the question that still must be answered is why NORAD’s muted response was simply that North America was not threatened, and later our government approved the lame excuse that the picture recorded was simply an aircraft leaving a contrail. This decision was made far above the four-star level, and because the system in place demands it, was made by the president himself.

(More at link)

[TigersEye]

Where did I ever say it was a Chinese missile? Go read all of my posts on this.

[TigersEye]

The more I explain it? You obviously can’t even read plain English.

[TigersEye]

How embarrassing! I am so sorry, Finny. It’s just so hard to tell without a scanner on FR. ;^)

[Ronald_Magnus]

“I’m a she”

Whew. That’s comforting to hear. I was somewhat disturbed when you called me “dear” in another thread. Soooo, what are you doing tonight?

[Finny]

Scanner??? YIKES!

[TigersEye]

I think we should just stick to those X-ray glasses you could get in the back of comic books in the '50s and '60s. Then no matter who you are you look great! ;^) lol

[Finny]

Nothing with a guy who allows himself to be persuaded that a moving video taken at sunset of a west-bound missile launch is actually video of an eastbound UPS plane! :^)

No offense.

[Rokke]

“The more I explain it? You obviously can’t even read plain English.”

There is a consistent quality to the conclusions you draw.

[Mr. Silverback]

Not to interrupt your flirting, but...

a moving video

Is there any other kind?

taken at sunset of a west-bound missile launch is actually video of an eastbound UPS plane!

Take a look at the four photos of a "missile launch" I posted in post 339. Out of the four, all but the first have a plume that is illuminated in precisely the same way that you, Finny, say proves the CBS video shows a missile. You say it would be outright impossible, a violation of physics, for an eastbound aircraft contrail to be lit that way. Yet we know the object in those photos is an airliner, and it is headed in a roughly easterly direction. For certain, it is not headed west or northwest.

How is this possible?

[TigersEye]

Yes, I was right.

[TXnMA]

"a moving video"

"Is there any other kind?"

~~~~~~~~~

Well, there are video stills, but they are generally inferior to camera stills -- especially in resolution -- and especially this video. Not only was Levyas' video shot from a moving platform with long, uncalibrated zooms, he added a "2X extender", which only provides "empty" magnification and further degrades the already low resolution image.

I must disagree with Finny's

"Yet they will watch as you throw still photo after still photo after still photo at us asking us to compare them to the original video, when common sense tells ANYONE that a video of a moving event, such as an airplane leaving a contrail or a missile leaving a plume, is going to convey more information than a still photo of a moving event."

Each medium has its advantages. Stills can provide much higher resolution and have "metadata" indicating details like time and focal length, Having multiple (still or video) recordings of the same event allow triangulation of viewpoints and such necessities as bearings to the point of sunset. But, I must agree: unrelated "examples ad infinitum" do tend to become wearisome...

~~~~~

A new, wide angle still photo taken from Hermosa Beach (north of both Levyas & Warren) shows the "sunset arch" and indicates the bearing to sunset. (Reducing brightness of the image makes the "arch" much more visible.)

The "missile plume" is at left, and there are other contrails also visible. The sunset point is at the midpoint of the white high altitude cloud (or horizontal contrail). This reveals that the sun's position is much farther to the north than one would guess from the video -- so the contrail is lit as much from the side as it is from beneath. This latest photo was taken with a 20mm (extra wide angle) lens, whereas even Warren's stills were taken at focal lengths of 210mm to 300mm.

The helicopter was obviously south of the contrail much of the time. Having multiple viewpoints up and down the coast is definitely beneficial -- if you are seeking understanding.

Of course, this new viewpoint makes interpretation of the contrail as a missile headed offshore much more difficult..

[Rokke]

Oh my. This new picture is a shocking development. Obviously the west coast wasn't threatened by a rogue missile launch. It was threatened by a salvo of missile launches. At least three. And based on the shading and lighting contrast depicted in each missile plume, I am nearly certain they were missiles launched by Somalian pirates. The only thing left to do at this point is to contact all the noted experts who publicly stated a missile had been launched off the Californian coast and thank them for their brilliant assessment.

[Mr. Silverback]

I haven’t looked yet, but let me guess: The missile crowd says this Hermosa photo is “an obvious fake,” right?

[Finny]

*sigh* Your photos are very distant, and I have only your word to take for the assurance that "this is an airplane" or "this is a missile," and that they are unretouched. Right.

So that "given" is taken away. I have no idea what the vehicle is in these photos, nor does anyone else. But I CAN tell the direction of the sun hitting the contrail or plume, and so can anyone looking at them. Sorry, I'm not going to play "ID the Photo" with you. Is the sun in the west, or the east? How much of the half-side of the plume that I can see is it illuminating? And HOW LONG HAS THE TRAIL BEEN THERE? See, that's where video means something and still shots go out the window.

So the exercise is futile and a distraction from the case in point: Leyvas' video. When it comes to judging contrails or missiles, as in proof that what we see in a "trust me" still photo is what it is claimed to be, YOU NEED VIDEO.

You expect the World to take you at your word that the photos you show are what you say they are. How on earth do I not know that you slipped an extra in there just for grins? But look at them and think, for heaven's sale! The brightest side is facing the direction of the light; the darkest faces the other way.

It sure would be nice to know whether what looks like shadow on the bottom of a brightly lit surface, is just a degenerated contrail that's been there for the past 30 minutes 5 miles high, or the solid darkness of a plume? Except ... there's sunlight on either side of it, from below, so it's probably degenerated in to a concave underside contrail. You can't tell because it's a still shot taken from a long distance.

Hello?

[Mr. Silverback]

It gets worse: Chicom SLBM’s launched just such a salvo (3 missiles) from the Mississippi River sometime on Saturday (I saw the remains of the three vertical rocket plumes) and one from Lake Michigan on Tuesday afternoon. I saw that one arcing over my house close to sunset; it even had the “telltale rocket” corkscrew and I saw some flame...definitely a Chinese SLBM.

[Sto Zvirat]

I haven’t looked yet, but let me guess: The missile crowd says this Hermosa photo is “an obvious fake,” right?

That is how conspiracy theorists operate. When they have no proof for their argument, they deny the proof by saying its faked (without, of course, proving that its faked). Its soooo easy to be a conspiracy theorist, you never ever have to prove your point, instead, you can demand that the normal people disprove your silly theory.

[Rokke]

"I haven’t looked yet, but let me guess: The missile crowd says this Hermosa photo is “an obvious fake,” right?"

You were 2 minutes and 21 seconds premature.

[Sto Zvirat]

And, again, the missile crowd has zero proof, no data, nothing other than “gee that looks like a missile”

But..it must be a conspiracy that no one takes the missile folk seriously anymore.

[Rokke]

"YOU NEED VIDEO."

Except in this case, the video makes it even more obvious that what occurred off the coast of California had NOTHING to do with a missile. The video reveals the relative motion of the object making the trail, and clearly reveals how slowly it is moving. Any missile still burning fuel is accelerating. Rapidly. As a rough gauge, the space shuttle accelerates from 0 to 17,000mph in about 8 minutes and reaches low Earth orbit during that time. It reaches 150,000ft in just the first 2 minutes. Smaller rockets accelerate at an even faster rate.

So compare that to the Leyvas video. What is depicted in that video is nothing like a missile in flight. In fact, if a person was hoping to convince someone that a the video showed a missile in flight, they would be far better off showing stills from the video. And even then, only stills that didn't give the viewer the opportunity to view the whole trail or an indication of how long the object had been in flight.

[TXnMA]

And, again, the missile crowd has zero proof, no data, nothing other than “gee that looks like a missile”

~~~~~~~

For shame! They do also have 14 seconds of time-scrambled, low-resolution video at unknown magnifications, viewpoint and timing -- that CBS lied about! (And a few Generals who were suckered into calling it a "missile".)

And, although they don't really know the spatial relationship of the sun to the "plume" -- they have shadows...

...and the sad burden of mistrusting the honesty and motives of FReepers who have otherwise proven to be reliable conservative patriots...,

So, don't be so hard on 'em, FRiend...

~~~~~~~~~

Happy, blest and safe Thanksgiving, all!