Assuming it was an airplane, under these dramatic circumstances would there not be continuous footage of the plane at least passing overhead? Well, first of all the November 9th video was shot from a news helicopter, and news helicopters have their cameras mounted in a ball under the nose of the helicopter, preventing them from shooting overhead.
Second, if this was an airplane, the destination of the airplane was LAX, so by the time it got to the Los Angeles area it would have landed, again preventing it from being shot flying overhead. So, no, there would not be continuous footage of the plane passing overhead.
Hopefully you've continued to read all of this thread, including posts 85 and 119.
Especially Post 119. TXnMA did a fantastic job, and the new (to me) image from the CargoLux security cam of the November 8th "missile" is the final nail in the missile theory coffin for any open-minded person.
Your top one corresponds to a position just south of the left-hand projection im ny last graphic. The bottom one corresponds to the right side of that same graphic-- just before it started drfting south of the photographer.
Merely a south-drifting cloud (contrail) and perspective...
My point is that unless the object disappeared mid-flight, I don’t understand why there’s no additional ground footage of the object given the serious nature of the original claim of an apparent missile.
Let me put it this way rhetorically: Is there any footage of the object going completely out of view? If not, why?
I’m not interested in the forensics. I want to know more about the credibility of the reporters, and omissions of details.