I’m the author of the blog post that (prematurely) identified US Airways 808 and settled on UPS902 as the source of the contrail.
I’m not a pilot or a missile tech, but I was able to use resources available to virtually anyone to solve the mystery of the contrail.
Yet, there are people who still believe this was a missile plume. If you’re qualified to make that statement, you should probably be sufficiently able to provide proof. There are enough fixed data points now (fixed cameras, time of day, distances, directions) to triangulate a launch position, the missile velocity and bearing. Given the calculated speed, the missile class should also be evident.
One should be able to find ample tools and data available to anyone to provide trajectories, even theoretical, plotted on a map, 2D or 3D, that support your theory, and also match the dozens of documented photographs of the Nov. 8 “plume” from various angles. Why hasn’t anyone stepped up to do so? With all these self-proclaimed pilots and missile experts out there, seems like they should be able to provide even a simple diagram of a rocket launch off the coast of California that could reproduce the contrail, as photographed, up and down the coast.
The contrailscience.com editor and I have backed up our claims, independently, using separate reference photographs to support our shared conclusion that it was UPS902. Where are the same, fact-based findings from the missile theorists? Seems like the Jane’s guy could make a single phone call to a contact to get that kind of report. It isn’t the type of research that takes days and days of work.
For just about every rocket launch, a contrail photo could be provided that looks similar, and vise versa. That’s not substantial evidence. Lets see a flight path.
Do you have or have you heard of any plans for further observation of UPS902 ?