Replies

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.

Thank you for answering the questions.

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?

I have yet to see any evidence that the camerman said it was moving west to east. Heck, I haven't even heard a talking head say it! All I have seen is a news report with a talking head who said the camerman said it looked like an incoming missile. The camerman was I think in the Santa Monica area, where something launched vertically in a northwest direction from the area of San Nicolas Island could certainly look like it was headed for the mainland and toward you. Actually, San Nicolas is about 75 miles southwest of Santa Monica; Santa Catalina is about 38 miles nearly due south of Santa Monica.

The lighting of the object in the video clearly shows that it is headed northwest. The sun was setting at the time.

A sea-level launch a mere seven miles out would be "beyond the horizon" as seen from the beach.

From reports I've seen, no one has said the object was seen for ten minutes. What I've seen said is that the camerman filmed for 10 minutes. What seems probable is that the majority of the film shows only the remaining missile plume, and that's why we haven't seen the entire 10 minutes.

Sound data is in the video where the angle of the sunlight shows that it is moving in a northwesterly direction.

As for the speed, once again, eyewitness experience of many missile shots over many years tells me that the speed of the object in the video is moving entirely too fast to be a plane, and SURELY you must know, with all your experience photographing aircraft, that THE NAKED EYE could probably determine whether an object supposedly headed for Ontario airport (50 miles due east of Santa Monica), in clear skies, was a plane or a missile and ABSOLUTELY eyes aided by binoculars could tell. If you need a set of mathematical calculations to prove that, then it's a wonder you can accurately identify 10 percent of what you come across ever day.

You know about cameras, I don't; tell me -- would a professional set-up for airborne camera work include zoom lenses of the same power as a pair of binoculars?

It's moot in any case, because the object in the video was headed northwest, not east, as a plane coming from San Nicolas toward Ontario would have to be doing.

You are asking me to "prove" something I don't even claim!

If the object in flight left the surface of the earth 35 miles away from the observer, and was observed for 10 minutes,

None of these assumptions are known to be true.

No accurate numbers have been ascertained at all, and so your huge “mathematical” posts are all baseless.

And by the way, before you violently and viciously attack me, I was a very advanced mathematics star university honors student up until the age of 20 when I stopped and switched to comparative linguistics ...

If the object in flight left the surface of the earth 35 miles away from the observer, and was observed for 10 minutes,

None of these assumptions are known to be true.

No accurate numbers have been ascertained at all, and so your huge “mathematical” posts are all baseless.