Posted on 12/12/2010 10:47:16 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
California contrail: Four conflicting eyewitness reports
One month after the KCBS video purporting to show a missile contrail off the coast of California went viral, a heated debate over what exactly created the contrail persists. Experts have offered convincing analysis supporting the theory that the contrail represents an SLBM launch, while internet pundits have assembled a formidable collection of evidence that the contrail was created by UPS flight 902. The debate is seemingly at an impasse, and it might be a good time to step back from the intense data analysis and review the basic facts of November 8, 2010.There are two known eyewitnesses who captured images of the contrail. Gil Leyvas is the helicopter camera man for KCBS in Los Angeles who videotaped the contrail and Rick Warren lives on Long Beach and photographed the contrail from his tenth story balcony. A 50 minute phone interview with Leyvas was obtained for this report and discussed further via email, and Warren was also contacted by email.
According to Leyvas, his video was obtained while filming a sunset view for a KCBS weather report. As he was filming, Leyvas noticed an object on the horizon that appeared to be climbing vertically out of the ocean, and he zoomed in on the object. He videotaped the contrail for a total of ten minutes and subsequently continued to view the contrail for an additional ten minutes. Leyvas maintains that the object itself that created the contrail only remained in view for two to three minutes. For 30 to 45 seconds, the object glowed brightly and then seemed to disappear from view. His initial impression was that the object was traveling east towards the coast. On reviewing the video later, he had the impression the object may instead have been heading away from the coast, towards the northwest.
The highly unusual appearance of the sunset contrail shown on TV and posted online, combined with Leyvas perception that the object creating the contrail only remained in view for two to three minutes, constitutes the primary basis upon which many observers believe the object was a Sub Launched Ballistic Missile.
Rick Warren wasnt sure what the object was that he was photographing on November 8th. I was shooting with a telephoto lens and looking through a viewfinder so I never really saw the separation of the object and the contrail until I looked at the photos, but Im sure that this whole thing lasted way too long to be a missile. I see lots of contrails from my 10th floor balcony but the difference in this one was that it seemed to be going up.
Having seen many contrails, what stood out for Warren was the vertical nature of the contrail, not that it looked like a missile exhaust plume. Some of his photos of the contrail were posted on the local ABC7 website, and were utilized by Mick West of Contrailscience.com to create a composite image of the flight progression of the object. The time stamps on Warrens photos were used to establish that the object creating the contrail remained in view for 4 minutes 43 seconds in Warrens photos. Based on altitude and position, the object first appeared in Leyvas video at least five minutes prior to Warrens photos. After seeing Wests analysis of the images, Warren says, Im now of the opinion that it was indeed a plane."
At this point, one of the most glaring discrepancies between these eyewitness accounts must be addressed. Most observers looking at Warrens images agree that the small dark object which appears at the top of each of his later photos is the same craft creating the plume that was seen in his earlier photos as well as that which was seen in Leyvas video.
If the object that created the contrail was still visible in Warrens photos, then the object itself is not likely to have been a missile. Solid fuel engines such as those used in an SLBM create an uninterrupted exhaust plume for two to three minutes, after which time the solid fuel is spent, and the missile is usually out of view.
On the other hand, when an airliner transitions from cold moist air to warmer drier air, the dew point changes and contrail formation decreases. In the case of USP902, the airliner would have been transitioning from moist cool air at altitude over the ocean to warmer, drier air over land. This could explain the contrail disappearing as the object moved farther east.
Mick West created a "chronological cut" of Leyvas video and posted it to YouTube. The transition from moist cool air over the ocean to warmer, drier air over land may have occurred at 1:17 to 1:20 of the chronological cut, which Warren referred to as the separation of the object and the contrail. When still images from Leyvas video are compared to the overlay of Warrens photos, there is a remarkable similarity and continuity between the two sets of images, providing a better time frame for Leyvas video within the context of Warrens time stamps:
When Leyvas was initially queried regarding these later photos, he replied,
the [Contrailscience composite] animation only shows the path the plume drifted and not anything in flight. The 30-45 seconds of video I captured in which I could see the object (the portion of the video showing the glow/flame of the object at its pinnacle) occurred 8-10 minutes prior to the animated images of the animation (if the time stamps are accurate). I have no way of telling if those time stamps are accurate since the raw video has no real-time time stamp associated with it. I can only go by an estimated time based on the time we launched out of John Wayne airport and the approximate time of our weather shot. My guess is that the time stamps are relatively close to the accurate time. However, what you are seeing in those images is the plume drifting and not anything in flight.
Leyvas still maintains the object creating the contrail is not visible in Warrens photos 8 to 10 minutes later:
The separate smaller trail that is separate from the main body of the plume and that was captured by Warren in his photos, which makes it seem as if the object continued in flight, appears in my video to possibly be the top portion of the plume that partly dissipates leaving a segment of the tip adrift - detached from the main body of the plume. (I highlight "possibly be" because during that portion of the video, I zoom in and out and pan off and back onto the plume, so I'm not sure if what we are seeing is a stage of separation like that of a missile or if it's the tip of the plume separating from the main portion). I did zoom into that portion to see if I could see a craft of some kind (at the time I thought that there was a chance the object was still making condensation/exhaust) but there was nothing there creating that segment. Had there been, I know I would have been able to see it with the high-powered lens I was using. Add to that - if it was traveling toward us, the closer it would come the easier it would be to see it, but there was nothing there. That's why I said it was merely the plume adrift and not anything continuously flying.
Though there was no time code associated with the raw footage I shot, you are still able to accurately time the footage from the moment I started the recording (as we departed John Wayne airport) to the final moments of the mystery missile story. When I play the video I can time the duration of the object in flight which was between 30-45 seconds of "Glow Time" - which is inclusive within, and at the end of the 2-3 minute estimated flight time from which the plume was visible at the horizon ... I can rely on the raw footage as it plays to gauge my estimated times since it plays back in real time on the player deck's control track timer.
There were also two unknown witnesses who captured images of the contrail, both anonymous posters on the image hosting website Flickr. A photographer on Hermosa Beach, north of Leyvas and Warren, uploaded a photo of the November 8 sunset and only subsequently realized he had captured the same contrail due to media reports. From his vantage point, without the setting sun directly back-lighting the contrail, it apparently appeared similar to the other contrails in his sunset photo.
Another anonymous photographer uploaded photos of clouds at sunset on November 8, and noticed a bright horizontal contrail that he subsequently associated with the media reports regarding the contrail. Notice that in the case of these latter two eyewitnesses, the first noted nothing unusual about the contrail until he read media reports about it, and the second viewed a horizontal, not vertical contrail.
Finally, the opinions of the known military experts must be taken into consideration. Several highly credible experts have stated their opinion that the contrail in question represented the launching of an SLBM.
A little further background from Leyvas might shed more light on the way the video was edited and presented to the public. Leyvas related that the video was taken during sweeps week in his TV market, and part of his job during sweeps week is to go out and look for and capture video of interest for sweeps week ratings. The video he captured of the contrail was subsequently heavily edited before being aired, and less than two minutes of the ten minutes of video has been seen by these experts. From the perspective of garnering sweeps week ratings, the footage was certainly successful.
It may be that the experts would modify their opinion based on viewing the entire footage. The footage is owned by the local CBS affiliate and nothing was found by the Department of Defense in reviewing the footage that would prevent its release to the public. According to Leyvas, it might still be available on their server. If that is the case, it should just be a matter of uploading the unedited ten minutes of video to YouTube to put an end to the debate.
MATTERS OF NATIONAL SECURITY
Mysterious missile launch baffles even eyewitnesses
Video, still photographers watched contrail soaring over Pacific Coast
Yeah. They link their 'facts' to a dude that sells $99 a year newsletters. Wonder how much they get on kickbacks.
“Gil Leyvas is the helicopter camera man for KCBS in Los Angeles who videotaped the contrail and Rick Warren lives on Long Beach and photographed the contrail from his 10th story balcony.” WND
They quoted both men. So you don’t know where the fabrication is either?
I don't remember either guy saying it was a missile.
“I was shooting with a telephoto lens and looking through a viewfinder so I never really saw the separation of the object and the contrail until I looked at the photos, but I’m sure that this whole thing lasted way too long to be a missile.”
— WND. Is that the hoax?
Who did they misquote? Leyvas? They quote him as unsure. So where’s the misquote? Where’s the fabrication?
I personally don’t have feelings about WND one way or the other. I’m just amazed how folks that have been presented with a MOUNTAIN of evidence debunking the missile theory, continue to believe in it. I have to wonder if you people believe there was another gunman on the “grassy knoll”, or that 9/11 was an inside job. If so, it would go along way in explaining why you people think the way you do.
You left out the 747 that was ‘downed by the missile’ over Long Island Sound.
Can you provide a link to that statement? I couldn't find it.
Ignore my last request. I found it. I was surprised that WND supported the jet plane viewpoint. I remember before everyone was citing WND to prove it was a missile.
Who did they misquote? Leyvas? They quote him as unsure. So wheres the misquote? Wheres the fabrication?
That first quote was Rick Warren, some guy in Long Beach with a camera hobby. And he's backed up by so much glorious science!
As for the cameraman, Leyvas, here's what he said, how "unsure" he was:
Though there was no time code associated with the raw footage I shot, you are still able to accurately time the footage from the moment I started the recording (as we departed John Wayne airport) to the final moments of the mystery missile story. When I play the video I can time the duration of the object in flight which was between 30-45 seconds of "Glow Time" - which is inclusive within, and at the end of the 2-3 minute estimated flight time from which the plume was visible at the horizon ... I can rely on the raw footage as it plays to gauge my estimated times since it plays back in real time on the player deck's control track timer.
I'm pretty sure he's sure it wasn't Santa's Sleigh. Bottom line: Kopp seems just a tad obtuse. *rolls eyes*
Yes, they sure do. Both corkscrew plumes and wide plumes at the base are two of the easiest things to find in videos of missiles.
Delta 2 STSS Demo Rocket Launch - SpaceflightNews.net
A great example of corkscrewing of the plume begins about 1:25 into the video. The differences in plume thickness and consistency can clearly be seen later.
I posted the following to Ronald_Magnus before. No response then so I guess he had no answer for it.
Title : Stability of Spinning ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) in First Stage Boost Phase.Corporate Author : AIR FORCE INST OF TECH WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB OH SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
Abstract : A computer program is developed to model a spinning intercontinental Ballistic Missile (IICBM) during the first stage boost phase. The equations of motion are derived and presented and a full rotation matrix is used to show the relationship between a launch-centered, nonrotating earth inertial reference frame and the missile body reference frame.
Subject Categories : SURFACE-LAUNCHED GUIDED MISSILES
You do realize that TXnMA busted that pic as a crossfade aka crosswipe which is an editing tool used to transition smoothly between two separate pieces of video tape. What you see there is not two vortices from the two wings of an airplane it is two separate pics of the same plume overlaid one on the other like a double exposure.
Wide plumes at the base look a lot wider when you are close enough to actually hear the rocket launch you are filming. Even then, and even in a rocket the size of a Delta 2, they aren't even close to as wide as the contrail in the Leyvas video (the earliest portions of which are actually over 100 miles away from LA). Nor does the trail of an actual missile look ANYTHING like what was filmed by Leyvas. Below is a picture of the missile from your video and a picture of what Leyvas filmed. Would someone please point out to me where the Leyvas video shows "corkscrewing"
The willful ignorance required to continue to argue that the contrail filmed by Leyvas was a missile launch is a testament to the kind of stubborness required to believe 99.9% of the conspiracies out there. But because it is kind of fascinating to watch it all play out, I'm going to feed the fire a bit. In a FR exclusive, I am going to reveal a test firing of what many conspiracy theorists believe was launched (probably by China) off the coast of California. Be sure to watch for the evident corkscrewing of this mystery missile. Nov 8 rocket launch solved
Yes. Neither did I see that in the LA jet contrail.
Everyone else sees it. Or are people showing us examples of wing vortices for nothing?
Wide plumes at the base look a lot wider when you are close enough to actually hear the rocket launch you are filming.
The question was about being bigger than the upper part of the plume.
As far as camera position for some odd reason NASA and the DoD like to get fairly close to take film and video of them and use much higher quality cameras. So do amateurs when they know they will be taping a launch. Consequently it's extremely difficult to find video of a missile launch taken from miles away.
Even then, and even in a rocket the size of a Delta 2, they aren't even close to as wide as the contrail in the Leyvas video ...
You are another one asking for video that exactly duplicates the Leyvas' video. As if all the same conditions exist whenever a missile is launched. I spent three hours viewing missile videos last night at the request of Dr. Brian Kopp and his response to my efforts was basically to brush me off as not worth responding to.
It's pretty clear that most of you are purposely trying to run your opposition in circles and deflect from any points made to you. Forgive me if after ten years on FR I find that to be a rather shopworn tactic.
(the earliest portions of which are actually over 100 miles away from LA).
That is entirely your opinion based on your own biased assumptions. Leyvas estimated it to be about 35 miles off of the coast. He was there, you weren't. He isn't claiming to know what it was, you are.
Furthermore, you need to ask any aviation /missilery guy wnat spinning the airframe does to gyro-stabilized inertial guidance systems. except as a trick to degrade performance (to kep the missile within a small test range).
I defy and challenge you to produce evidence of a guided missile that is designed to operate in a spiral motion during boost phase. Unguided rocket powered projectiles...maybe... Guided missiles? No way.
Careful there, R_M — you know that fire can’t melt steel. Nor, apparently can truth melt tinfoil...
BUT, see #357 for photos that unequivocably support your position.
Hey, got any proof or data that proves your missile theory?
Of course not, you never had.
Where was the massive military response? Where were all the firsthand reports from boaters, etc. Where is the ionized gas trail?
LOL
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.