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
Typical conspiracy theorist claptrap, you can't provide any proof, so you have accuse the person that disproved you of something. Has NOTHING to do with the point. And the point is: Where is your proof? Where is your data? Prove your theory, show your work. The other side has. Conspiracy theorists are the laziest persons in the world, they demand that others disprove them, but they don't do diddly to prove their side.
What is worse is when they don’t even try to back up what they post. I can accept when they post a theory; I do it myself on occasion. But when everyone is a liar if they disagree? That crosses a line that should not be crossed.
If you are wrong, admit it. I have been wrong on more than one occasion, and made an absolute fool of myself at least once. But when reality smacked me in the face, I admitted it willingly. Nothing is worse than being wrong and doubling down.
One of them wanted me arrested for treason! Because I didn’t buy the completely unproven kook line that it was a missile.
FWIW, I have seen rocket launches, and I have been to coastal California hundreds of times. That makes me as much of an expert as Finny.
That has been dutifully ignored.
And while we're on the topic of ignoring, maybe you can also answer the question I asked you in Post #382...So tell, me...what evidence ARE you relying on to believe the event took place 35 miles of the coast?
Just trying to run this in more circles aren't you?
I'm being obtuse?! When I acknowledged your answer in #356 here... Post 367 ("You, on the other hand, rely solely on Leyvas' guess that the event happened 35 miles off the coast."), it resulted in you posting an obscenity and telling me not to make "a fool of myself". So obviously, that wasn't the answer you liked. But let me quote your original answer exactly, "Leyvas estimated it to be about 35 miles off of the coast." So...is that it? Is that your source of data for the yellow marker on the illustration posted by Niteflyer?
With respect to answering "where I came up with 100 miles of the coast", I absolutely did answer that. I answered that in the same paragraph where I tried to clarify your 35 mile statement. I will quote myself..."That is my opinion supported by multiple sources of evidence, information, data...etc. All of which point to the very well supported conclusion that the contrail Layvas filmed came for UPS902." But I'll be more specific. The list includes the Cargo Law photo and its projected line of sight to the known groundtrack of UPS902; the Leyvas video shot over Long Beach harbor and its projected line of sight to known groundtrack of UPS902; the lat/long plots each minute of UPS902 taken from Flightaware; the photos of the UPS902 contrail taken by Rick Warren; the excellent photo compilations put together on Contrailscience and by TXnMA; descriptions of the event from Gil Leyvas, and finally, the triangulation of both lines of sight from the Cargo Law camera and Leyvas' own video, which intersect almost exactly at where the Flightaware data says UPS902 is at 5:16. All of which place the contrail at roughly 175 miles from Long Beach harbor at a Latitude of 32.81N and a Longitude of 120.97W.
Now, I'll ask again...what is the specific data source for the yellow marker on the illustration posted by Niteflyr? Are you going to stick with "Leyvas estimated it to be about 35 miles off of the coast."?
The “contrail” line is the official line when government officials suggest it as the “alternative” to a missile they Know Nothink! about. And that’s what they did.
More whining about forum protocol. Take your distractions somewhere else. You have nothing of substance to add.
At the time of the event that was the location graphic used on virtually all the news outlets accompanying the report. No where did I hear it reported to be sighted over Catalina much less the south end of the island turning to the south as in the flight track of UPS 902...just sayiin'
Good Lord. Is this *still* being discussed? Really?
Wow...
So your contention is all the initial location reports were in error?
How could whoever made the graphic make an error like that? Over Catalina is over Catalina ...not northwest of Catalina...better go back and research the initial sighting reports...I didn’t hear of one “initial report” that claimed the event happened over Catalina as the flight track of UPS 902 obviously was. And if you add the south procedure turn by 902 it is getting even further away from the sighting location.
Yep...funny when you distort the basics things like this die a slow death...:o)
It's a simple question. I've asked it several times now. You said the point was being ignored. Well I'm all over it. I'll ask you once more...What is the specific data for the yellow marker labeled "35 Miles West of Los Angeles?
Tigerseye can't do it. Maybe you can. What were the initial location reports? And which of those reports corrolate to the yellow marker in the illustration you provided?
"How could whoever made the graphic make an error like that?"
The Flightaware graphic matches the UPS902 track. It is accurate. The yellow marker in the other graphic is as far away from Catalina as it is from LA. You must believe it is accurately plotted or you wouldn't have brought it up. Based on what data was it plotted?
Geez that's easy...just contact the major news media...how the hell should we know where they came up with the coordinates? 1) Chopper crew reports sighting of strange event 2) Reports event to media 3) Media constructs graphic to represent location of reported sighting 4) But no one could tell the difference between "over" Catalina and "northwest" of Catalina so it was mis-reported or they just lied about it At no point was 902 north of the island...in fact actual tract information shows it passing over the south end of the island turning to the south...
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.