Replies

Get off your high horse, dude, making all your demands of plots and correlations, etc., as if they would prove a thing -- see the contrailscience page of how such things are so great at creating illusions over truth. Also see my post #803 and meet my five-word answer challenge. It will take a lot less time and provide a lot more insight than what you've presented so far.

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

I've been living under the glide path for KPAE, KSEA as well as KBFI for the past 11 years. I'm an aviation photographer, so I am intimately familiar with flight tracking and understanding of flight plans in order to allow myself to be positioned properly for the arrival of inbound aircraft, whether it is to photograph it landing, taxiing, or while it is in the air. Hardly a week goes by where I haven't stepped on to my back deck to snap a few photos of an interesting international livery as a new Boeing jet out of PAE or RNT makes a round-robin test flight between PAE/RNT/BFI/MWH, depending on which test flight it might be. As for your strange, qualifying questions, that range from observing actual missiles, to having viewed youtube videos: 1) no 2) I believe answering #1 makes this redundant 3) no 4) both? missiles: no, aircraft: on a weekly basis. 5) of course I know you're not a mathematician, but here's some basic math (using speed and distance calculations that you might use, say, to drive to a relative's house) If the object in flight left the surface of the earth 35 miles away from the observer, and was observed for 10 minutes, heading toward the viewer, elementary math, says that this object would be travelling, with relation to the ground, no more than 210 miles per hour. The object was never viewed directly overhead or to pass the viewer with relation to the origin, so this speed would actually be lower. If the object in question left the surface of the earth beyond the horizon, the speed in relation to the ground would also be lower. So, if the cameraman, who you seem to hold in such high esteem, was correct in saying this object was traveling toward his camera, west to east, why was it traveling so slow? Which of the stated facts by the cameraman are you NOT accepting to support your theory? I really, really must say how impressed I am that you feel no need to provide scientific data to support your argument under the guise that it, too, could be faked to support your own theory, so why bother, because no one would believe you anyways? The fact that you may or may not be more qualified than me is not the point here. I make it very clear that I am not a pilot, I am not a meteorologist nor have had anything to do with missile or rocket launching. What I do make clear is that all of my data comes from publicly available information using off-the-shelf tools that have resulted in what I believe to be clear-cut evidence of my theory. I am also aware that there are margins of error in all of my calculations. Hell, I was even wrong on the first airplane I called out. However, I believe my methods are sound, reproducible and independently verifiable. That's all I ask of you. Provide sound, reproducible and independently verifiable scientific data to support your theory. It is not a lot to ask.