Posted on 12/02/2010 6:21:47 AM PST by yoe
The Department of Defense is slamming the door on questions about the mysterious contrail filmed Nov. 8 by a KCBS television crew near Los Angeles after questions were raised about a warning from the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence Agency that there could be missiles fired in that area at that time.
The official government position has been that the contrail, which appears to have been made by a single source, was from a jet passing by.
And the refusal to provide answers to specific questions suggests a cover-up of potential secret missile testing in the area – contrary to official jet contrail explanation.
For weeks, experts have examined the billowing plume and the single-source white-hot exhaust which they contend was from a missile, not a jet.
It was in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin intelligence report where the story was broken that several experts who examined the video of the mysterious contrail confirmed it was not from a jet but a missile.
The experts who examined the video have had extensive experience working with missiles and computer security systems for various sensitive agencies of the U.S. government.
They even went so far as to suggest that the missile may have been shot from a submerged Chinese nuclear submarine, coinciding with an increasing level of confrontation between the United States and China and designed to send a message to Washington:
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
For a missile launch I would expect people to be calling the police, TV news, talk radio hosts...
I've seen pencil thin contrails that stay that way all across the sky, I've seen contrails that spread out rapidly into both thick and thin trails that could easily be as wide as that in the video. I even observed one aircraft within the last two weeks that put off a very similar corkscrew pattern coming west from over the Sandia Mountains (to the east of Albquerque). Wind to the east was causing the contrail to do this.
The zoom of the camera lense compresses things. To top it off, the video has been proven to be anything but raw. If, as they say, this cameraman shot ten whole minutes of raw video, where is it? It would certainly answer the questions. As it is, the nearly two minutes of video don't show a launch, don't show significant rise in altitude (for a rocket that large, with that kind of "plume", it should have been long gone in two minutes, from ground to disappeared, but the fact is, it hardly moves in that two minutes).
There have been no eye-witnesses come forward to corroborate anything. How is it nobody on Catalina Island saw or heard anything? Nobody on the multitude of boats in the area? Nobody else on land? Where are the other witnesses?
Even more so for an unannounced launch.
And like I said, this isn't the first time that an aircraft contrail in the Los Angeles area has been mistaken for a contrail. It also happened on December 31st, 2009.
The Earth is not flat.
I don’t know what to think about all this. I think your link is very good and makes a very good argument for contrail... but at the same time I do have a tendency to distrust anything that comes out of this administration.
As for WND... that “report” is extremely light on both facts and “experts”.
If it was a Chinese missile, or if it was anything other than a contrail, it’s not proven by anything in WND.
If you follow the internal links, you find that you too can be updated by the experts for only $99 per year.
Answered 10,000x in other threads. Most of that traffic was not high enough to produce contrails.
Anyone here paying the linked 'expert' the $99 per year for the true facts?
Don't upset a good conspiracy theory with FACTS!
The facts just show how WIDE and DEEP the conspiracy is!!!
-———Queue sinister music———
Follow the embedded links. $99 for the experts newsletter ...
Debated to death on the following Freeper threads.
The helicopter cameraman, Gil Leyvas, also reported that he saw a similar event on the 4th November. On that date Flight UPS902, a McDonnell Douglas MD-11, was flying the same route and time as the UPS902 MD-11 on the 8th. Was Gil Leyvas fooled twice by an MD-11 contrail twice within the space of a few days during sunset?
The type of aircraft is important here. The McDonnell Douglas MD-11 is a tri-engined airliner. It has been known to produce unique blended contrails due to the three engines and has confused many sky watchers.
See analysis by contrail experts from NASA.
It has all been debated to death on the Freeper threads posted above.
They closed Adak?! Jeez I didn’t know that! Wow.
“Follow the embedded links. $99 for the experts newsletter ...”
Are you implying that these “experts” are doing this for the money?
I see you don’t deny the facts of my post. Thank you.
Aw, crap...really?
You are absolutely right. Then all those agencies would contact the PIO at Vandenberg who would refer the question to the test operations people.
Questions to you both as representatives of the contrail thesis:
If people close to former US presidents and current executive-level folks in sensitive positions are saying we (the Feds) know it was a sub-launched, Chinese missile, and that we are ignoring it publically, since the launch accomplished what the Chinese intended (show of capability in a non-war-inducing scenario), does that at all change your thinking? Would you have to hear this from these sources with your own ears before you believe it?
If there is 10 minutes of video, but the public, general concensus is it was a plane, is it more likely the video was not released because it backs up the plane scenario, or debunks it?
Why did it take two days for the official story to become “it was a plane”? This after much frantic activity going on in defense circles, with leaks from high-level Pentagon sources saying it was, in fact, a missile before the official story was solidified?
Are you aware that the guy behind contrailscience.com is not actually a meterologist or scientist in the field of weather or aerospace? As such, why would you lend more credence to him than to the actual military experts who have stated that it WAS a missile? Does a preference for a specific answer color your trust or belief to those who support versus oppose your preferred answer? This last one is rhetorical, being meant not in a perjorative sense, but to highlight potential observational bias.
Would enjoy a response to these in detail, as a single post that does so would encapsulate in one place the pro-contrail response to the pro-missile position. Addressing only a small portion while ignoring the remainder probably won’t change any minds. Thanks in advance!
The contrail doesn’t start at the surface, it is coming in over the horizon.
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.