Here you can see the missile engine burning very hot as it high above us and is moving away from us. This is much brighter and better seen in the video...
Posted on 11/13/2010 2:55:59 PM PST by DontTreadOnMe2009
Hannity was surprised to hear a famous ex Air Force General tell him “That Is A Missile, Shot From A Submarine!” I quote retired Air Force Lieutenant General Tom McInerney (ex commander of 11th Air Force in Alaska) “I spent 35 years flying fighters, and you can see the guidance system kick in, I have watched that film 10 times, I am absolutely certain that that is not an aircraft, but a sub launch ICBM missile!!!” See the video and judge his words for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LivRJOWrcpA&feature=player_embedded#! I will next post a clickable link.
The characteristics of sonic booms is apparently a complicated business.
Sonic boomGreater altitude also increases the boom's lateral spread, exposing a wider area to the boom. Overpressures in the sonic boom impact area, however, will not be uniform. Boom intensity is greatest directly under the flight path, progressively weakening with greater horizontal distance away from the aircraft flight track. Ground width of the boom exposure area is approximately one statute mile for each 1,000 feet of altitude (5 m/m); that is, an aircraft flying supersonic at 30,000 feet will create a lateral boom spread of about 30 miles, or at 10,000 meters a spread of 50 kilometers.
This perfectly explains why a sonic boom from a missile launched 35 miles out to sea heading west-northwest would not be heard in LA.
It might be.
... could easily be convinced by hocus pocus to believe that what is, isn't. IN THE SAME WAY THAT I COULD BE CONVINCED by such hocus-pocus, regardless of my armchair/ivory tower theorizing and calculating, that something about a tornado or a harsh winter (neither of which I've ever even seen or experienced in any way, shape, or form). If the even were different, our roles could very well be reversed. THAT is why I'm not surprised.
It's not personal, TX.
You don’t have to convince me. I have been certain that it was a missile from the beginning.
TX, here’s a perfect example. Silverback wants to know “Where was the sonic boom?” IF he had actually seen some missile launches, he’d know that the lack of one is the norm. My guess: he’s never seen one, so he’s easy prey for contrail anti-conspiracists. Those of us with real-world experience aren’t such easy prey.
Yes I do know someone who is a retired Air Force General Officer, my uncle.
He is no fool.
What you say is wrong and ridiculous and needlessly insulting -— I think Gen Thomas G McInerney knows more about jets and rockets and launches than you, and I do not think he is a fool as you have implied, he seemed very sincere and intelligent and knowledgeable when I heard him speak-— “Go ask any Air Force or Navy squadron in the world and you will find they agree with me”.
and I believe this.
and I agree with what he has said.
The winds at the altitude of the jet are pushing the contrail to the south, which is why the contrail does not follow the line of the flight path. The farther away (i.e. older) the contrail is, the more it has deflected from the original path of the airplane. A airplane flying in a wind of this type will appear to crab, or appear slightly askew, from head-on in order to maintain its intended direction of flight. It has to account for the wind.
Without resorting to making my own animation to explain this (and avoid it being called a fabrication) I will let this video show what an airplane flying in to a cross wind (a wind that is more or less perpendicular to the fuselage) looks like.
While dramatic, this shows a DC-10 flying against what might be a 30-60 mile per hour crosswind, this is fairly mild compared to what an airplane might encounter at cruising altitude (100kt+) (every day). It looks dramatic because those winds aren't normal at ground or near ground level, so you can't perceive this deflection from the ground all the time, unless you line up a jet-forming contrail with a fixed item like the eave of a house and watched it drift.
So looking at that video, imagine it at 39,000 feet, the contrail streaming out behind that airplane in a straight line that matches the fuselage toward the horizon. It will not line up with the airplane's direction of flight.
I couldn't resist creating an illustration. The diagram is for illustration purposes only and does not line up with the events on Nov. 8, but illustrates why the contrail does not align with the flight path:
Not quite. I don't have to be "convinced." I -- like some other FReepers and a whole helluva lot of Californians -- have seen many, many missile launches along a l-o-n-g stretch of California coast over a l-o-n-g stretch of years. "Convinced" has zero to do with it.
More to the point, this isn't a debate. The object in the video is headed north west -- the sun proves it, not me or some anonymous people on a website with a name like "Above Top Secret," which raises red flags in every direction. The fact that the object was heading northwest pretty much makes "debate" moot, unless you're suggesting that an airliner headed northwest caused the "contrail."
“Rear Admiral John Stufflebeem, retired US Navy, has also given his opinion that it was an aircraft contrail. Rear Admiral Stufflebeem has given TV interviews after reviewing the footage.”
After 3 seconds of Google search:
Vice admiral fired over false testimony
By David Brown - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Mar 30, 2008 10:12:43 EDT
The three-star director of the Navy staff was fired last Friday for providing “false and misleading information” during a Defense Department inspector general investigation, the Navy’s top spokesman confirmed Monday.
Vice Adm. John “Boomer” Stufflebeem was relieved by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead due to the testimony Stufflebeem gave during the investigation, said Rear Adm. Frank Thorp, the Navy’s chief of information.
“As a result, the CNO lost confidence in Admiral Stufflebeem’s judgment and his continuing ability to lead in the office of the CNO,” Thorp said.
Also did a search on Google for the good Admiral and “News” and got: “No results found”.
Funny.
Of course the video is in question. Where is the full footage? I don't criticise the TV station. Obviously people would become bored if they had to sit through the full footage, but it is edited for effect.
If they have nothing to hide then they should release every portion of it. CBS should have provided full copies of the footage to all parties that they interviewed. They should also be sending all the footage to the likes of Jane's Rockets and Missiles if they are so positive that this is a missile. The LAX web cam images prove that it headed inbound. Rick's images also prove that but you have dismissed them simply because it doesn't fit with your missile theory. Correct?
Also consider that the portion where the claimed rocket boost is has also been slowed down for dramatic effect? All you are seeing is edited video that resembles a ballistic launch. Even Jane' Rockets and Missiles have dumped their initial missile quote after seeing the later footage after the persistent contrail.
Why do you dismiss Rick Warren's images when the later portions of the CBS video show the object in the same perspective as Rick Warren's images? Rick was 10 stories up and obviously the helo was at height.
Watch the video from 0:45 section. This is why Jane's Rockets and Missiles are no longer calling it missile footage
Even just before the 0:45 point you can see the object (my take airliner) cease it's persistent contrail and continue with a non-persistent contrail. The MD-11 at this point would be up at around 39,000 feet.
Based on your observations these two aircraft contrails would also be ballistic missiles? Perspective and edited video have fooled observers of this MD-11 plain and simple.
December 2009 California footage
Aircraft example from 2008 - Florida
And searching for a long time for any change in Jane; thinking turned up No Results.
Went to Jane’s web site.
Nothing.
Don’t Tread On Me (not me!!!) a coincidence ...
Libertarian rantings on a variety of issues
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2010
Editor of Jane’s Missiles and Rockets says it was a missile not a plane
Some people are claiming the mystery missile from Monday night was a plane. Personally I have never seen a plane that glows red like a space shuttle. Apparently Doug Richardson, editor of Jane’s Missiles and Rockets, and an expert on military technology feels the same way.
The Pentagon spends billions of dollars a year making sure it is never surprised by a missile launch - so finding out what the camera saw became a top priority. Both the Navy and the Air Force insisted they had not launched any missiles and the North American Air Defense Command - which is supposed to track incoming missiles - declared it had not been fired by any other military. But nobody could say what it was.
But Doug Richardson, the editor of Jane’s Missiles and Rockets, examined the video for the Times of London and said he was left with little doubt.
“It’s a solid propellant missile,” he told the Times. “You can tell from the efflux [smoke].”
Richardson said it could have been a ballistic missile launched from a submarine or an interceptor, the defensive anti-missile weapon used by Navy surface ships. more...
This is how it would appear to lengthen and drift in the wind as the jet progressed forward.
If you are subscribed to Jane's Rockets and Missiles then you will see that they no longer support the missile theory after witnessing the later released portions of the video. The edited video is at fault. If CBS had been up front they would have sent copies of all the helicopter footage to everybody that they interviewed. In fact they should have released and also hosted it on their website. It didn't fool Vice Admiral John Stufflebeem though!
“It didn’t fool Vice Admiral John Stufflebeem though!”
“Rear Admiral John Stufflebeem, retired US Navy, has also given his opinion that it was an aircraft contrail. Rear Admiral Stufflebeem has given TV interviews after reviewing the footage.”
BUT
After 3 seconds of Google search:
Vice admiral fired over false testimony
By David Brown - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Mar 30, 2008 10:12:43 EDT
The three-star director of the Navy staff was fired last Friday for providing “false and misleading information” during a Defense Department inspector general investigation, the Navy’s top spokesman confirmed Monday.
Vice Adm. John “Boomer” Stufflebeem was relieved by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead due to the testimony Stufflebeem gave during the investigation, said Rear Adm. Frank Thorp, the Navy’s chief of information.
“As a result, the CNO lost confidence in Admiral Stufflebeem’s judgment and his continuing ability to lead in the office of the CNO,” Thorp said.
Also did a search on Google for the good Admiral and “News” and got: “No results found”.
I laughed.
BTW You subscribe to Jane’s Missile and Rockets and they have already sent you an update?
Why not share?
And again, no offense, but you signed up here two days after the event we're discussing. You have no track record on FR, and you don't see that the thing is headed northwest. I can see it, but as I am as prone as anyone to confusion in that area, I confirmed it with an expert in aviation perspective and lighting; he explained WHY *any boob should be able to tell* (I roll eyes ... what seems obvious to him is not so obvioius to me!) it is heading north west. You know what? If he says it was moving northwest ... it was heading northwest. He makes a living knowing such things.
Tommyjo, the light of the setting sun makes it clear that thing was headed north west. Anything predicated on "data" that it was mistaken for an object headed east, is smoke and mirrors. Shiny objects to distract from what's really going on.
See post from Mercurius on the following
The Jane’s account of the event has now gone up online on the Jane’s Missiles & Rockets website, and they are accepting the airliner-contrail explanation.
Apparently the initial short section of the recording their editor had seen did look like a missile, but a longer-duration version that later emerged convinced them it was an aircraft contrail. So we must assume that the Jane’s opinion being quoted by newspaper accounts was based on that initial viewing and can now be dismissed.
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.