Drift, due to northerly winds, is evident as time progresses. (Which is why the first visible portion of the contrail does not line up with the flight path, it has already been pushed south)
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.
Which facts are they lying about?
The photos are lies?
Flight UPS902 is a fabrication?
The flight path of UPS902 is a lie?
What is their motivation for deliberately misleading me?
Finny, my first impression was that it looked alot like a missile
but I hope you by now know that I don’t take things on first impressions,
mine own or other peoples’.
It quickly became apparent that the contrail hypothesis fit the available facts
and that there were gapping holes in the missle hypothesis.
As time went on and new information became available
it further supported the contrail hypothesis
Therefore I went and continue to go with the mostly likely explanation...it was a contrail.
I do not wish to disabuse you of your opinion.
I believe it is inaccurate but you must come to that conclusion on your own.
OK, here’s John Coleman, (Weather Channel founder, now at KUSI-TV San Diego), with his explanation of the event. Ignore the “Press any Button” message on the video and FF to the 45 second mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGqAI06YX64&feature=player_embedded
The missile shot was heading northwest. It wasn't going over L.A.m it was heading away. It's safe to say that the vast majority of So Cal folks in the sightline of VAFB missile shots and San Nicolas shots don't notice them. Remember, too, that there are areas in the L.A. - O.C. county metropolis that aren't in much line-of-vision for missile launches and never see much of them at all but the tail end if they're lucky. Some of us, on the other hand, who've lived in direct line of sight not only notice them but love watching them with binocs when possible because they're so very, very cool to witness. Generally we're the kind of people who will grab binocs to look at any object in the sky that looks interesting or unusual.
That no other witnesses' testimony has been made public on broadcast media is easy for me to believe -- super easy, actually. On the other hand, that a sky-roving cameraman with 11 years' local experience and aided by professional zoom lenses confused an airliner contrail with a missile launch plume, is beyond the realm of believability.
Now: how about that five-word answer?
I did something very simple which I found convincing to me and others ~ I said "Hey, how many degrees does that contrail cover over there in the part where the pro-missile crowd claims it all started".
Now you see I have to start with that question because to me it looks like the contrail goes over the horizon so I don't really see where it started, but I can start with the oldest, earliest visible part of the contrail.
If that part of the contrail is "x degrees" wide, then how many feet is that". This is a trivial question to answer with nothing more than basic trigonometry (an ancient process used by the Egyptians to redraw property lines after the Spring Flood of the Nile).
We know that the horizon for the camera is "Y miles" at a given altitude. If we assume the copter is on the ground at the average elevation of Los Angeles (less the Santa Monica mountains) then the horizon is about 35 miles away. If the copter is at 1500 feet, the horizon is at about 42 miles, and if the copter is at 2500 feet, the horizon is at about 62 miles. The higher the copter the further the horizon.
The claim is that there's been a missile launch at some point between the copter and the horizon.
Now there are missiliers here who have argued that maybe the missile was launched BEYOND the horizon which is why we don't see the normal surplus of smoke at the point of departure ~ instead we see some clouds at some appreciable altitude over the ocean ~ and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the "base" of the contrail column seen from where it is clearest, with an assumption any possible launch were made this side of the horizon (where the Earth looks like it falls off our screen).
Although tornadic winds might be sufficient to scatter the contrail in a few seconds, if this is a missile and there's no source of very high winds, we are looking at a missile contrail just a few seconds old ~ and it's wide because the missile is big, not because the wind is blowing hard.
Obviously I can't know what part of the horizon is covered by that contrail if I have no idea what part of the horizon is covered by my camera. Is this a wideview camera, or telephoto, or what.
Here's where we get into "ranges" and that'll give us an idea of how big the missile had to be for its engines to produce a contrail the width of the one we see.
(NOTE: There's an easier way to do this that's used all the time by the Army to lay in mortar or artillery fire, but that would require us to know where the specific settings on the telephoto unit on that camera were set so I won't go that way).
What we are going to have to do is find out what the minimum width is, as well as a maximum width, and by knowing only an estimated distance of 35, 42 or 62 miles from the helicopter to the "missile".
We know, by definition, that the circumference of the horizon is divided into 360 degrees. The camera, accordingly, is bringing in some part of that 360 degrees ~ somewhere from 1 to 360.
Given our knowledge of cameras, we can be pretty sure this one is taking in no more than 180 degrees ~ but when we look to the sides of the picture framed for the video it's most likely no greater than 120 degrees, and for argument's sake I'll even take 60 degrees ~ or, if you want, 30 degrees for a tight telephoto picture.
We know that Circumference divided by Diameter always equals 3.14159265. C/D = Pi
In all cases if we know two factors we can find the third. We don't presently know C, but we know D, and we know Pi. D is going to be twice 35 miles, twice 42 miles, or twice 62 miles with the camera at the center of the circle.
That means that the size of the circle is going to be the double the distance of the camera from the "missile" (proxied by "horizon") times Pi.
My original computation suggested that the width of the exhaust (at the base of the rocket) was 3220 feet with an aperture of 120 degrees and a distance of 35 miles. A bit of refinement reveals that if the camera has a telephoto lens yielding effective aperture width of 30 degrees, then at a distance of 35 miles the missile exhaust is about 4800 feet (or almost a mile wide).
If you increase the aperture width to 180 degrees (half the sky) then at a distance of 35 miles if the exhaust looks like it's as much as 1% of the horizon, it's even more enormous ~ GINORMOUS even.
if the rocket has an exhaust nearly a mile wide I think we have something else ~ like an airplane coming at us.
BTW, all the missile assumptions have it that the widest part of the contrail is nearest the observer. The airplane assumptions have it that the widest part of the contrail is furthest the observer and has simply expanded by being blown by the wind over a period of time, not the few seconds expected with a missile launch.
You can't get a mile wide contrail out of a rocket unless it's really big!
But you said that the SKIES around LA are busy. No one else in a plane or boat noticed the "missile launch" either?
That no other witnesses' testimony has been made public on broadcast media is easy for me to believe -- super easy, actually.
Is it easy for you to belief that their testimony has also been censored from the Internet?
Now: how about that five-word answer?
I have already said that a whole roomful of air force pilots could be wrong about this if they weren't there and have no other hard data than a picture. Likewise to anyone who answers yes to all of your five questions.
Drift, due to northerly winds, is evident as time progresses. (Which is why the first visible portion of the contrail does not line up with the flight path, it has already been pushed south)
For one, civilian aircraft are not painted with matte colors.
Dark blue, black, or gray aircraft still reflect sunlight, even more so at a shallow angle. That is elementary. It has nothing to do with the color of paint.
Please be the first to provide a plotted trajectory... bearings, speeds and altitudes of this ballistic missile derived from the statements by the camera man and the video he has provided. That seems to be all the evidence you seem to require to do so. Once you have that, please correlate that with the photographic imagery, both webcam, security camera, hand-held camera and satellite that are all available from that day.
What can more can I say? You see a problem that you've calculated on paper; I see perfect normality within the context of real observed comparisions. I hate to keep asking this because it sounds so snotty, but honestly ... how many missile launches have you seen live? Perhaps you've already answered me on that and I've forgotten the answer; if so, please excuse the repeat query. But really -- how many launches have you observed live and from what range of distances? MORE to the point, how often have you used binocs to observe both airliners AND missile launches within the scale/distance showin in both the still shots and the video? See, all the math and figuring and time-lapse photos in the world become houses of cards when compared to the reality of that. There is zero liklihood of someone equipped with binoculars confusing a missile launch with an airliner contrail, and therefore zero liklihood of a professional camerman with zoom lenses making that mistake.
And how in the wide, wide world of sports do you know that no one else in a plane or boat noticed the launch? It's just plain laughable for you to make that claim. If you really want to know, why don't you go hang out at the docks and marinas and talk to some boaters? Then you'd know. And you'd probably be surprised to learn that most of those folks neither call in to talk shows, post on the internet, or demand coverage from the local news station. You assume a lot of facts not in evidence, it seems to me.
Show me that their testimony has been censored on the internet. I've read enough outside of FR, and saw plenty of folks who live hear talk about what they saw, and indeed some of them agree with you, that it was an airliner. Others laugh at people like you for being so gullible in the ignorance you are unable to acknowledge -- I notice you did not provide a simple five-word answer, but a 42-world rationalization of why you shouldn't need to.
Also, it would be nice if you kept up with current events. I was amused that people thought the blue belly of the airliner would reflect less light than a white belly because I have seen a whole helluva lot of the phenomenon of sun reflecting off a plane. I am very familiar with the illusion, and I would venture to say AS, if not very probably MORE, familiar with it than you. Where have you lived and observed aircraft and missiles, if you please??????? I have lived within two miles of the ocean most of my life in various places, and many years beneath the glide paths of international air traffic landing at nearby airports as well as inbound to more distant airports. How many years have you lived in such a location? One? Two? Ten?
BECAUSE of that experience, I had to shake my head when I saw folks who thought the color of the plane would make any difference, and indeed SAID SO in one of my posts on one of the threads -- you'll have already seen if if you've been keeping up. It's the polish of the surface that reflects the sunshine, it seems to me, not the color of the plane, although an aluminum-body plane most assuredly reflects quite a lot more than a painted one.
Plotted trajectory? What in the hell are you talking about? Here's the deal, coming from someone who has personally witnessed DOZENS of missile launches in this very region: it is wholly believable judging from the video and EXPERT speculation from folks who make a living in aviation-related fields, that the thing fired off heading north northwest from an area about 80 miles west south-west of the general Los Angeles coastal area. YOU figure out its trajectory. You are sadly mistaken if you think the video is showing something headed toward the mainland.
My guess is that you are doing ivory-tower figuring, while some of us have been on the front line and have real experience to draw from.
Here’s a CBS news video of the event. At approx. the 2:50 mark, they interview cameraman Gil Leyvas. Leyvas said it appeared to come from over the horizon and “continued to grow”. The commentator on the video said of Leyvas: “To him, it looked like an incoming missile”. WHAT?? I thought you people said this thing was heading AWAY, northwest or even west. This guy was flying near LA so he is basically saying the object is flying EAST. Please explain. Also, the commentator said Leyvas “zoomed in and stayed on it for 10 MINUTES”. WTH? What self respecting missile takes 10 FREAKING MINUTES to traverse the sky? Please explain this also. Thanks.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7040407n&tag=related;photovideo
“Plotted trajectory? What in the hell are you talking about?”
I’m not sure either, but I think he’s talking about reproducible science.
I didn’t call you silly, dumbass.
I am not so much presenting my opinion to you, as I am trying to WARN you that there are forces at work deliberately trying to mislead you with regard to this event. In the past, we've sparred over inconsequential things like pit bulls. This missile thing is consequential.
I say the same to all other fellow FReepers who are putting so much trust in a poorly identified, unvetted source that is practiced and skilled at spinning convincing-looking animations, photo-overlays, time-lapse photography, and red herrings via mislabeled photos.
I and others here are on the front lines, have knowledge of missile phenomonon by pure luck of the draw of living here, and we are doing our best to give you a heads-up: you're being jacked around by folks who know that most of you are too unfamiliar with missile launches vs air contrails to know, just like I am too unfamiliar with some aspect of where YOU live to know if I was having my leg pulled or not.
If something serious happened in your neck of the woods that you saw being aggressively whitewashed with all kinds of "proof" that would be very convincing to people unfamiliar with the reality of the particulars in question, I trust and hope you would do the same: give the rest of us a heads-up.
Very affectionately yours,
Finny
Got a five-word answer for the questions in my post #803? I'd be interested to see it, just out of curiosity.
It appears your accusation is based solely on the investigators conclusions differing from your own.
the one from Hawaii to Phoenix, exists, but as soon as it was discovered that the underbelly of that plane was dark blue, that theory disappeared
Show the sequence of cause and effect by examples please.
My recollection is that as further data points became available
it became less likely that AWE808 was the culprit
and the search for a better fit to the data led to UPS902.
Which it turns out fits the data remarkably well.
but it has a whole 'nother flaw -- it's a flight heading into Ontario airport, which is only 40 miles beyond LAX. Ooops
Actually I took it as further evidence for the contrail hypothesis
as it solved a nagging problem I had with the Phoenix flight.
AWE808 overflew at constant altitude of 37000' and yet the contrail 'disappeared'. Why?
The UPS plane on the other hand began its approach descent into Ontario...
the contrails no longer formed when the plane left high altitude.
On the other hand, you refuse to take the word of, or you assume gross incompetence on the part of, a local professional airborne camerman with more than a decade of experience
LOL You bet I do!
One of my avocations has given me ample reason to question media reporting.
The CBS employee who stated the contrail "lit up the sky",
the CBS employee, who ipso facto was speaking without embellishment,
after all what possible motivation could he have for sexing up his report.
The US military on the other hand is obviously lying and covering up the truth.
That's what your opinion is based on: trust of an unproven, unvetted source of internet consipracy-disprover geeks, over trust of a) military officials b) Janes' missile expert c) many dozens of your fellow FReepers with a considerable wealth of actual on-site first-hand witness experiences on which to base their take of the origional video, and d) a pro airborne cameraman who's made a living by knowing what he's doing and what he's looking at in a very competitive market.
No my opinion is based on rudimentary knowledge of geography, physics, perspective and optics,
enhanced by the willingness to keep an open mind while doing some investigative work of my own,
and reinforced by a plethora of other images of similar occurrences..all being contrails.
Appeals to authority and denigrating those positing solutions differing from your own doesn't sway me.
You accuse me of not trusting military officials yet the military says there was no missile...
it appears that you're the one not trusting military officials.
A fellow FReeper's shared knowledge and opinion is valued
but not taken as final proof of anything...
if it were, then the FReeper who reported seeing this with his own eyes
and declaring it a plane would have settled the matter to your satisfaction.
May I suggest examining two of your premises...
Your interpetation of the visual data as indicating...
the object is moving from east to the west
and that the object is increasing in altitude.
Things are not always as they appear and the simpliest answer is often the correct one...
...................... 
Cheers
As for looking like an incoming missile ... AGAIN, a simple 5-word answer to my post #803 would be instructive. Are you aware of how, viewed from Santa Monica, an object at high altitude going north-northwest from would look? It would look like it was going inland. LOOK AT A MAP, DEAR. See, I LIVE down here. I know this coast, I know what things look like from a variety of vantage points, from Huntington Beach to San Simeon.
How about you?
Thanks for taking time to respond in the face of vitriolic attacks on your integrity.
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.