Skip to content
November 9, 2010 / Mick

Jet contrails from some angles look like missile trails


THIS IS AN OUTDATED OVERFLOW SITE. PLEASE GO TO
contrailscience.com

UPDATEAfter geting a new photo of the trail, Liam Bahneman told me he was now siding with it being his second choice, UPS902.  Having reviewed the evidence, I fully agree that UPS902 is a much better fit than AWE808, especially when viewed against the composite photo.

UPS902 Turns out to be a much better fit

Note to the media – since this was almost certainly Flight UPS902 from Hawaii to Ontario, why not have a camera crew somewhere in the vicinity (does not need to be exact, or a chopper), next time the flight is scheduled to go by, and if the weather is right you’ll see the same trail again. (or check the web cam)

Note to everyone else – If you have photos of the Nov 8 contrail from any angle, please email them to uncinus@gmail.com

[This post was originally from Jan 19th, 2010.  I’ve updated it with information about the “Mystery Missile” contrail of Nov 8, 2010, at the bottom of this post.  Clearly it’s the same thing]

An interesting contrail cropped up off the coast of San Clemente, Orange County, California on December 31st 2009. The curious shape led some people to think it’s a missile launch, which it does kind of look like (all taken from San Clemente)

"Missile-like" contrail. Note this is the Dec 31st contrail, not the Nov 8th CBS one. That's at the bottom of the post.

This kind of contrail confusion is nothing new. This article appeared in The San Mateo Times, Jan 12, 1950:

Here’s some more shots of the same contrail. Click these for larger images:

The idea that it’s a missile launch comes from three misconceptions. Firstly that the trail is vertical – it’s not, it’s a horizontal trail, at around 32,000 feet (about six miles). It’s the same as this:

This contrail is no more vertical than the road is, and nor are the power lines at 45 degrees. Everything is horizontal – it’s the just the angle you are viewing it from. All of these show horizontal contrails.

Secondly there’s the misconception of direction, that it’s flying away from the viewer, when it’s actually flying towards the viewer. This is because the “base” of the contrail seems wider than the tip. Perspective tells the brain that this mean the base is closer. But actually you can see the base has been greatly spread by the wind. Since it’s so far away the effects of perspective are greatly diminished, meaning the actual width of the contrail is what is creating the illusion. Imagine if a plane with a 100 mile long spreading contrail were coming towards you; what would it look like? It would look exactly like this.

Thirdly there’s the idea that it goes all the way down to the ground. Now that might be true if the Earth was flat, but the Earth is round, and things go beneath the horizon eventually, no matter how high they are. A plane 200 miles away but five miles up is always below the horizon. If the horizon is raised (as it is here, with Catalina Island), then the distance is less. Here’s some math:

This diagram is not to scale, but the math is the same regardless. The solid curved line is the surface of the earth. The dot at the top is San Clemente. The little triangle is Catalina. “d” is the distance to Catalina (d=35 miles). “c” the amount of Catalina that is visible above the horizon (c=0.05 miles, really a bit more, but let’s be conservative). “a” is the altitude of the plane, (a = 6 miles). “r” is the radius of the earth (r=3963 miles).

The green wavy line is the contrail. Notice it’s at a fixed height above the surface of the earth, and is going directly towards the OC.

The point labeled (0,0) is the center of the earth. (0,0) means X=0, Y=0, where X is horizontal and Y is vertical. What we want to know is how far away the plane is, the value x. We do this with cartesian geometry, noting that the lowest visible point of the trail is at the intersection of the dotted line, which is a circle of radius (r+a), hence the equation x^2 + y^2 = (r+a)^2 and the line labeled “sight line”, which is has the equation y=r+x*c/d. Combining these equations to solve for x yields a quadratic equation, which we can solve with Wolfram Alpha:

intersection of (y=r+x*c/d) and (x^2+y^2 = (r+a)^2)

and with the real numbers:

intersection of (y=r+x*c/d) and (x^2+y^2 = (r+a)^2) where a=6 and d=35 and c=0.05 and r=3963

Which gives x = 212, meaning that the bottom of the contrail is around 200 miles away. So if the front of the contrail (the actual aircraft) is somewhere above and behind catalina, then that means the contrail is over 100 miles long. At 500 mph, that means it could have formed in 12-15 minutes, which seems consistent with the descriptions in the discussion above. (feel free to play around with the numbers there to see the affect of various assumptions)

Looking at the satellite image for noon on that day (12/31/2009) and the next day (1/1/2010), we see contrails in approximately the same position, and around 100 miles long, showing it’s quite possible, given the right weather.

Really what makes this odd looking is the position of the people taking the photo. Obviously the same contrail would be visible all the way up the coast, however the only people who though it was really odd were those who were lined up with it, in OC. People in LA would see a dramatic looking contrail, but more obviously just a contrail, so less worthy of writing to the newspaper about. I actually saw it myself, but was in a car, and could only get a poor cell-phone snapshot:

A cell-phone photo I took of the New Year Eve contrail, from an angle that shows it's just a jet contrail

That was from somewhere around San Diamas, on the 210 freeway, so I’m looking South West, probably around 45 degree the the contrail, which you can only see a bit of behind the Home Depot sign. It looked quite impressive at the time.  But  there are other photos of it from various other angles which show it’s contrail-ness more clearly, here’s one taken from Santa Monica (click photo for original):

The actual New Years Eve contrail, viewed from Santa Monica. This is what the CBS "missile" contrail would have looked like to most people in LA, which is why nobody reported it.

You can see from this angle (and taken a bit earlier) it looks far less interesting, as it’s very apparent it’s just a contrail.

Scott Methvin sent in these two images which shows the contrail in all it’s missile-like glory, but from a better angle.

The Dec 31st contrail, from Laguna Beach

Same contrail slightly later.

Here’s another angle of the New Year’s Eve contrail, this view is from Corona del Mar, about 20 miles Northeast of San Clemente:

Another angle on the New Years Eve contrail. See, it's all about perspective.

Here’s a similar photo (of a different contrail, obviously) on the same day at the other side of the country:

Not a missile launch.

Here’s some more contrails at sunset (From a very nice set of contrail photos), note how they look exactly the same as sections of the New Year contrail:

Obviously not missiles. But look at sections of the trails.

Not a missile launch, in Michigan.

[Update Nov 9 2010]

Now here’s the one everyone is actually talking about.  From Monday Nov 8th 2010, this time it video taken a local CBS news crew in a helicopter, so they were able to zoom in.

Jet contrail, misidentified as a missile launch, again.

Note it’s pretty much in the same location. Note also it’s not exactly moving at missile speed.  Note also it’s practically identical to the photos of plane contrails, above.

Same as last time, maybe even the same scheduled flight.

And once again millions of people failed to notice, because from any other angle it looked like what it was, a contrail, from a plane.  Must be a slow news day, as this went all the way up to Jim Miklaszewski asking people at the pentagon about it.

There are occasional flashes of light, which I think are reflections of the sun off a flat surface on the plane.  There’s also portions of the video where a bit of the trail behind the plane seems to glow.  I think thats just the last rays of the setting sun lighting that portion of the trail. See Scott Methvin’s photos, above for how the trail can be oddly lit from minute to minute.

Here’s a better video. You can see after about 0:50 it’s out of the contrail-persisting region of air, and is just leaving a short contrail. It’s also now out of the sun. It looks exactly like the short contrails of a jet coming towards the camera with perspective foreshortening.  The camera crew lost it in the darkness shortly after that.

http://www.necn.com/11/09/10/Mysterious-missile-launched-off-Californ/landing_scitech.html?blockID=348833&feedID=4213

The most likely flight is US Aiways flight 808 from Hawaii to Phoenix.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWE808

US Airways flight 808, at around 5PM PST (Sunset)

I snapped the above web image at around 5:05PM today, about the same time as the video was taken yesterday.

Here’s the actual track from the 8th:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWE808/history/20101108/1955Z/PHNL/KPHX

And here’s a photo I took (Nov 9th) two minutes earlier from Santa Monica.  I think it’s the same flight, just 24 hours later.  Note that the angle is exactly the same as the Dec 31st contrail that produced the original “missile” story.

Contrail from flight 808

Obviously the video would have to have been taken from way off to the right in this photo (I’m looking South West). The chopper would have been somewhere like Torrance.

[Update again]
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/11/cameraman-who-filmed-mystery-missile-describes-spectacular-sight.html

The cameraman reports:

Cameraman Gil Leyvas shot video of a luminous point hurtling through the sky followed by a long vapor trail. He said he was aboard the television station’s helicopter shooting footage of the sunset over the ocean about 5:15 p.m when he noticed the spiral-shaped vapor trail and zoomed in to get a better look.

The onboard camera showed a plume twisting up from the horizon and narrowing as it climbed into the sky near Catalina Island, about 35 miles west of Los Angeles, he said.

“Whatever it was, it was spinning up into the sky kind of like a spiral,” and was easy to distinguish from condensation trails from jets, he said. “It was quite a sight to see. It was spectacular.”

I suspect what he saw (which can only be what is on the video, I’d like to see it in HD) is the twisting of the contrails, this can be quite dramatic, especially from such a head-on angle. See this video of a similar perspective, and note the swirling twists in the contrails directly behind the jet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl6iR7w7a_Q

Here’s a grab from that video, showing the twist, and how it as accented by low sun.

Twisting contrails in low sun.

Liem Bahneman gives this excellent description of how flight AWE808 exactly matches the observations, including producing a near identical contrail the next day (which I also photographed, from Santa Monica, above)

This pretty much explains it.

And here’s some excellent points from a real rocket scientist, posting as “Michael”:

I’d like to add to all the evidence above that it was just a jet, because the plume is nothing like a rocket plume to the trained eye. I was a rocket safety inspector for 3 years, have seen countless launches and failures, and have a master’s degree in Astronautical Engineering. Here’s why it’s not a rocket:

It’s too slow (<— biggest reason).
There’s no engine flare.
There’s no expansion of the plume (as the chamber pressure exceeds the atmospheric pressure more and more during flight).
There’s no staging event.
There’s no sunset striations across the plume (which would look like this: http://tinyurl.com/2vklwu5).
In the wide shot there’s two contrails (off each wing!) instead of one.
The plume at the plane is twirling in different directions (very un-rocket-like).
The plume at the plane is twirling too much — that only happens in the case of a motor burn-through, which is a failure mode, meaning it would be seconds from exploding if it were a rocket.
The wind-blown plume is all wrong, vertical plumes go through several different wind shear layers, which makes it look very different than what the video shows.

The apparent direction of the jet is a bit of an illusion, as the trail is greatly distorted by the winds at altitude, which can also vary greatly from place to place. At 37,000 feet the wind can easily be in the 50-100 mph range.

Richard Warren of Los Angeles shot four close-up photos of the trail from a fixed position in Lon Beach. I’ve combined them here into one photo, where you can see the trail move with the wind, and the actual path that the plane takes is much more obviously passing to the south of Long Beach, matching flight 808.

And the fact that it’s a plane is way more apparent once it stops making a contrail (which is due to it moving between two regions of air – it’s colder and/or more humid out to sea than inland)

Richard took a fifth shot at a wider angle that shows the greater context. The jet is still visible as a dark speck (it’s still got a very short contrail). There’s also a very impressive crepuscular “edge” shadow that’s probably cast by part of the contrail that is over the horizon.

711 Comments

  1. cijo / Nov 9 2010 7:02 pm
    cijo's avatar

    yes…chemtrails…the first in official media…

  2. Steve / Nov 9 2010 7:14 pm
    Steve's avatar
  3. Uncinus / Nov 9 2010 7:30 pm
    Mick's avatar

    Why, because a missile launch a few days ago was cancelled, and this wasn’t it?

    Look at the photos.

  4. Lance / Nov 9 2010 7:45 pm
    Lance's avatar

    If it was a jet contrail, rising up off the horizon, it would have leveled off from vertical appearance to that of near horizontal. Moreover, the contrail would have continued to traverse across the sky. From the news media photos/video, it doesn’t appear to do that. Also the single light at the birthpoint of the contrail being caused window reflection is difficult. Seems the angle does not match with the sun out behind the object, and a reflection would be momentary since the object is moving. Even if the reflection was from the fuselage of the aircraft. It’s hard to tell with the media footage slightly blurred for a moment as the camera person attempts to focus…

    The placement of the plume does not correlate with jets coming out of the Southeast or those from Hawaii from the arrival/departure corridor along Catalina Island. Even if it was a profile decent into LAX out of the Southwest, there would not be a dot at the start of the plume…unless it was a reflection. Jets do make a profile decent out of the West and then turn slightly Eastward to follow the coastline paralleling Ventura for a 090 degree intercept of the Santa Monica VOR…the contrail would disappear or end as the jet left cruise altitude far off the coast…

    If there were longer live video of this it would reveal a clearer story here…

    Where did you take your photo from? Ventura? looking West towards Santa Cruz Island?

    -Lance

  5. Dayton / Nov 9 2010 7:50 pm
    Dayton's avatar

    Did you watch the video? Are you paying attention to the official statements coming from Pentagon on down?

    If it was a contrail from an airplane, don’t you think the military would have cleared it up by now?

    The video is clearly not an airplane. You can actually see a regular contrail crossing the picture. There is also a helicoptor in part of the video giving a nice horizontal reference. Everyone that should know what they’re looking at is saying “missile” – ruling out airplane and rocket.

  6. JD Clark / Nov 9 2010 7:52 pm
    JD Clark's avatar

    So you’re saying that the admissions by NORAD and the Pentagon that they were “aware of the launches” after the fact were wrong?

  7. JD Clark / Nov 9 2010 7:52 pm
    JD Clark's avatar

    Should say “launch” instead of “launches”

  8. Uncinus / Nov 9 2010 7:55 pm
    Mick's avatar

    It’s coming towards the camera, so would not “level off” until it was very close.

    Most of the photos above are of the New Year’s Eve Contrail.

    It’s probably not going to LAX, just passing over.

    If the light were a rocket, it would be much more apparent.

    The contrail is also far to widely spread to be a rocket, look at some Vandenberg delta launches. Due to the speed to of the missile there is very little time for the trail to spread.

    And, it looks exactly like other aircraft contrails.

  9. Uncinus / Nov 9 2010 7:56 pm
    Mick's avatar

    Didn’t they say they were NOT aware of any launches? Link please.

  10. Dayton / Nov 9 2010 8:03 pm
    Dayton's avatar

    Fox News is now siting an unnamed source confirming that it was a missile and that it was launched from a submarine.

  11. Charles Martel / Nov 9 2010 8:09 pm
    Charles Martel's avatar

    Thanks for letting me know that you are a Fraud! How can you even say it was a Contrail. I saw it launch off my Balconey last night…..You guys had me believing Chemtrails were false, now I am sure there are not…Youll make everything into a contrail..SHAME ON YOU!!!! YOU’RE A JOKE!!!

  12. good one / Nov 9 2010 8:11 pm
    good one's avatar

    thank god for all the internet experts out there. lol.

  13. chuckie / Nov 9 2010 8:20 pm
    chuckie's avatar

    What about the flames coming out the back of the object. I don’t see that on planes.

  14. TB / Nov 9 2010 8:23 pm
    TB's avatar

    Has anyone tried to find radar pictures from the time this mystery missile was launched? If it was an airplane, wouldn’t there be an image of it at the same place and time the video was taken? I would think that would be provide a possible explanation.

  15. Uncinus / Nov 9 2010 8:26 pm
    Mick's avatar

    The “flames” are reflections. Note the contrail is brightly lit on one site. That’s because it’s high enough to be illuminated by the setting sun.

    When the sun reflects off a flat metallic surface or a window on the plane, then it will look like a bright flash, the color of the setting sun (fire colored).

  16. Will / Nov 9 2010 8:49 pm
    Will's avatar

    Thanks you, thank you, thank you! Occam’s Razor prevails again! Science people! Science!!! Listen to Science, not a bunch of glorified teleprompters.

  17. Bob Knob / Nov 9 2010 8:59 pm
    Bob Knob's avatar

    A Delta Rocket? Are you kidding? Do you have any idea how much larger a Delta rocket is from a Surface to Air missile? A Delta is nearly 200 feet in height were a a standard Navy SM-2 if about 15 feet in length. So obviously the heat plume is going to be much smaller. Stop generalizing.

    Occom’s Razor says that the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one and the simplest explanation here is that you are an IDOIT!

  18. Uncinus / Nov 9 2010 9:03 pm
    Mick's avatar

    Compare with an actual rocket launch.

    http://www.air-and-space.com/20061214_VAFB_Delta-II_NRO.htm

  19. ral / Nov 9 2010 9:10 pm
    ral's avatar

    After 30 plus years of watching shuttle, missile & rocket launches from various distances, angles and times of day from Cape Kennedy, I am very comfortable saying that this ain’t no jet contrail!

    I also have military experience tracking submerged sea traffic – subs, in other words. That launch came from right about the right area for the submerged patrols that are ALWAYS off our coasts. Right now, as this is being read, there are sub patrols off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Some of the subs are ours – but some aren’t. We’re doing the same thing off of other coasts as well

    I think this is a major screw-up of an accidental launch – might have been ours, might not have.

    My question is – where did it go? I don’t believe for a minute that we didn’t track it and I know for a fact that we can reconstruct not only where it came from, but what traffic, including submerged, was in the area it came from.

    If the military is being tight-lipped, they probably have a reason to be – they either don’t want to reveal that it was a screw-up of ours, or they don’t want to reveal what they know about the traffic that may be out there.

  20. NoJoe / Nov 9 2010 9:10 pm
    NoJoe's avatar

    So… How much you guys want to bet it was US Airways flight 808, a Boeing 757-200 from Honolulu (PHNL) to Phoenix (KPHX).

    http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWE808/history/20101108/1955Z/PHNL/KPHX

    It arrived in Phoenix around 6:45 pm (5:45 Pacific time), which would put it over Catalina around 5-ish. Sunset yesterday was just before 5, and that’s about when the video was taken. Look at the track on FlightAware.

    The plane probably wouldn’t have started its descent into Phoenix until after the videos, but maybe it got an early step-down (lower altitude) in preparation. That could explain why the plane stopped leaving a persistent contrail in the later video (or maybe it just flew into different atmospheric conditions, as Unicus said).

    I don’t know, seems like it could fit. [shrug] At least this could give us a fun new game: Figure out which flight it was! 🙂

    –NoJoe

  21. Alex / Nov 9 2010 9:11 pm
    Alex's avatar

    Its Iron Man

  22. stinky pete / Nov 9 2010 9:13 pm
    stinky pete's avatar

    love it.. made with a hushmail account, no creator accounts and never existed before today, and no other stories or anything and only being used to paste into comment other websites.

    So,, did the Pentagon or others create this blog just to cover something up?

  23. NoJoe / Nov 9 2010 9:17 pm
    NoJoe's avatar

    No, this article existed before today: it’s on ContrailScience.com. I remember reading it a while back. But as that server seems to be down it’s been mirrored here.

  24. concerned for passengers / Nov 9 2010 9:21 pm
    concerned for passengers's avatar

    The passengers in that plane are lucky that they didn’t get hit by the missile! 😉

  25. dave in dallas / Nov 9 2010 9:23 pm
    dave in dallas's avatar

    in one video you can see the flicker of the yellow-orange flames coming out the bottom of the missile.

    End of “jet contrail” theory. No jet blasts flame out the back, except maybe a military jet on afterburner… but they don’t do that 35 miles offshore of LA. That is for heavy takeoff or else in combat to evade.

    This vehicle was going upward, slowly, with lots of flames coming out the back, leaving a heavy fume trail, not just vapor. It’s a missile.

  26. ral / Nov 9 2010 9:24 pm
    ral's avatar

    “The “flames” are reflections. Note the contrail is brightly lit on one site. That’s because it’s high enough to be illuminated by the setting sun.

    When the sun reflects off a flat metallic surface or a window on the plane, then it will look like a bright flash, the color of the setting sun (fire colored).”

    You can’t say for a fact that it is a reflection – you’re hypothesizing. That’s fine, if you want, but I have seen too many shuttle & rocket launches to agree. The light that reflects off the tiny window of a fast moving jet is a very brief flash that is rarely seen on the ground. In fact, when you see contrails, the actual jet the contrails comes from is barely visible at all, let alone seeing a flash from the sun reflecting off a jet window. That was no brief flash of reflection, that is a steady fire. The flames from a rocket are a constant fire visible whenever the exhaust doesn’t block it – as is seen here.

  27. Uncinus / Nov 9 2010 9:24 pm
    Mick's avatar

    Yeah contrailscience.com could not take the load. This is an old article though. I originally wrote it about the New Year’s Eve contrail “missile”, which got some similar press, just not quite as much.

  28. Mike / Nov 9 2010 9:30 pm
    Mike's avatar

    OMG, it almost hit the Golden Gate! Think of the children!

    Regarding several of the comments above. Can any of you guys give me directions to Loon Lake? Thanks a bunch.

    But seriously, thanks for having a page I can direct my slightly dim acquaintances to (with strict instructions to bypass all the comments). Saves me time.

  29. Matt / Nov 9 2010 9:31 pm
    Matt's avatar

    @unicus

    “Why, because a missile launch a few days ago was cancelled, and this wasn’t it?

    Look at the photos.”

    The article explains the canceled Delta II launch would be rescheduled for 7:30PM Monday if weather was clear. It fits the time and location.

  30. Uncinus / Nov 9 2010 9:35 pm
    Mick's avatar

    Well, you’d think the Navy would have noticed if they had actually fired a Delta II. And look at an actual launch. It looks nothing like it.

    http://www.air-and-space.com/20061214_VAFB_Delta-II_NRO.htm

    In particular, look at the times.

  31. Uncinus / Nov 9 2010 9:38 pm
    Mick's avatar

    That was no brief flash of reflection, that is a steady fire. The flames from a rocket are a constant fire visible whenever the exhaust doesn’t block it – as is seen here.

    Er, which video are you looking at? I just see a few flashes.

    Or are you mistaking the sun illuminating the contrail for rocket flame illumination?

    This video shows a lot more of the flight:

    http://www.necn.com/11/09/10/Mysterious-missile-launched-off-Californ/landing_scitech.html?blockID=348833&feedID=4213

    There’s no flame.

  32. submandave / Nov 9 2010 9:51 pm
    submandave's avatar

    If it was a contrail from an airplane, don’t you think the military would have cleared it up by now?” – Dayton

    No. The military authorities know they will be accountable for what they say, and, as such, will not say “it was just a contrail” until they are sure and can support it with objective evidence. By that time, of course, all the conspiracy types will insist they had enough time to manufacture their proof and won’t believe them anyway.

  33. Will / Nov 9 2010 9:54 pm
    Will's avatar

    We’ve called the Air Force to chase an optical illusion, I’m not the idiot here…

  34. Bomzi / Nov 9 2010 9:54 pm
    Bomzi's avatar

    Sasha and Malia were sitting around the Grand Taj Hotel bored out of their minds. So they found Daddy’s special briefcase and started pressing buttons. The next thing they knew, a missile was launched.

  35. concerned for passengers / Nov 9 2010 9:57 pm
    concerned for passengers's avatar

    Unfortunately, Uncinus’ blog’s web server was on the plane that got hit by the missile, that’s why it’s offline now. Luckily, Elvis lives and has kept some backups of some of the older versions of the website. Check out Elvis’ server here: http://web.archive.org/web/%2A/http://contrailscience.com The US armed forces do not believe that Elvis still lives, that’s why they haven’t come up with the condensation trail explanation so far.

  36. Skeptic / Nov 9 2010 9:59 pm
    Skeptic's avatar

    The one good thing about this incident has been to expose and discredit the govt conspiracy nuts. It really flushed them out like dumb quail and shot them down.

  37. Henry / Nov 9 2010 9:59 pm
    Henry's avatar

    So how much did you get paid to try and convince people that whatever they saw, is not what they saw?

  38. Dan Rush / Nov 9 2010 10:00 pm
    Dan Rush's avatar

    I’ve seen plenty of missile launches in my years of service and I agree that this is not a missile.

  39. dskjd / Nov 9 2010 10:01 pm
    dskjd's avatar

    If it was a jet contrail, it can be verified through flight paths and radar. All we have to do is find out what flights would be in that area at that time, whether military or commercial airliner.

  40. chuck / Nov 9 2010 10:01 pm
    chuck's avatar

    No f’in way. Engineer and former boomer submariner here. Clearly a sub launch. Cheers.

  41. bung karno / Nov 9 2010 10:02 pm
    bung karno's avatar

    Wouldn’t most planes flying over LA airspace land in LA? What other vectors would they be flying? LAX is a major international hub where overseas travelers land before winging it to another US city. The plane coming from the west would have to have originated in either Hawaii or points further west. I don’t think there are too many Singapore to Denver flights, and can say with absolute certainty that Sydney to Reno is not a route on any airline.

    Still, the angle the picture was taken at should explain a lot. How many UFO’s turned out to be simply airplanes or helicopters once everything was factored in. As a boy, I saw a Russian satellite burning up in orbit and it looked just like a jetliner with an engine on fire about to crash into the Idaho mountains. There is an easy explanation for this, but conspiracy types won’t ever buy it.

  42. JA / Nov 9 2010 10:03 pm
    JA's avatar

    I feel compelled to leave a comment for a single reason. While the auther of this piece leaves some very compelling evidence to make his.her point, the one thing that they do not seem to account for is why it is taking sooooo long for the gov’t/military to just come out and say that it was a plane???
    Somebody, somewhere knows exactly what it was. If it was as simple as the way that the camera was viewing it and that it is in fact a plane, wouldnt you think that they would just come out and say that?
    I aint buying it. You may be 100% correct in your assessment, but something stinks about this, period!

  43. spiffy / Nov 9 2010 10:04 pm
    spiffy's avatar

    Your explanation is very thorough and appreciated.

    If it’s a plane — any chance you could comment on the air traffic notification;

    KZLA LOS ANGELES A2832/10 – THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS ARE REQUIRED DUE TO NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER WEAPONS DIVISION ACTIVATION OF W537. IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, ALL NON-PARTICIPATING PILOTS ARE ADVISED TO AVOID W537. IFR TRAFFIC UNDER ATC JURISDICTION SHOULD ANTICIPATE CLEARANCE AROUND W537 AND CAE 1176. CAE 1155 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1316 & CAE 1318 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. CAE 1177 WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION. W537 ACTIVE, CAE 1176 CLOSED. SURFACE – FL390, 09 NOV 20:00 2010 UNTIL 10 NOV 01:00 2010. CREATED: 08 NOV 20:52 2010

  44. chuck / Nov 9 2010 10:06 pm
    chuck's avatar

    LAX has about 1200 planes per day landing and taking off. Roll the dice, people. If this were a plane, we would have seen it before, and again. Waiting….

Trackbacks

  1. The mysterious California missile launch that wasn’t - SmartPlanet
  2. Mystery Missile Launch Appears To Be U.S. Navy Test [Update: Or, Maybe Just A Contrail]
  3. Un missile tiré au large de la Californie? | Zone Militaire
  4. Bloodstar » Was there a Missile Launch By California? Very Likely Not.
  5. Mystery missile fired off CA coast - Page 2 - AllDeaf.com
  6. Usa: è mistero su un missile balistico lanciato dalle coste della California / The mysterious California missile launch that wasn’t « Solleviamoci’s Weblog

Comments are closed.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started