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THIS IS AN OUTDATED OVERFLOW SITE.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. fairlycrazy23 / Nov 10 2010 5:54 pm
    fairlycrazy23's avatar

    Also, how it appears to have happened again 24 hours later, and seems to match up perfectly with US Airways flight 808.

  2. Probaway / Nov 10 2010 5:58 pm
    Probaway's avatar

    After reviewing this video footage it looks like a high flying jet airplane contrail coming in from a distant location like Hawaii. That would have been obvious to the people who shot this video but by presenting it in its clipped form it is easy to make an inappropriate interpretation, which I did. The way the video was shot and edited for broadcast made it seem that the reporters had seen the vapor trail begin at the ocean’s surface. Watch the video clip href=”http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/09/national/main7036716.shtml” at 0:04 seconds into the obviously longer original video. Their cropping of time and borders made the vapor trail appear to be coming from the nearby ocean rather than from above the distant ocean.

    This was crappy reporting at its most manipulative and disgusting and I was totally duped by it. These guys’ careers should be terminated for clearly lying to their public and I should be chastised for being duped.

  3. Jorge / Nov 10 2010 6:00 pm
    Jorge's avatar

    @james in Germany,
    ” I’ve seen thousands of planes in my life leave contrails and I’ve seen the sun reflect off of aircraft…that video was in now way similar”
    that’s your opinion and that’s fine, but what people are not realizing is that what they are looking at is an extreme close up of the image (beyond the point where the camera can properly focus). How many times have you looked at a airplane with contrails in the distance through the viewfinder of your camera? It’s out of focus, any reflection/point of light will become mangnified, looking much bigger than it is.
    A sidenote for the “it’s obviously the fiery exhaust from the missile” argument: looking at the original CBS video (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/10/earlyshow/main7040379.shtml) at about 1:03 there is an airplane that is in view closer..wait a minute, there is a bright exhaust a the tail of it… it must be another missile… they’re all over the place… why aren’t we talking about that one also??
    Seriously, the media is, as usual, making a big deal out of it so they have a story to talk about – and they know government incompetence/conspiracy are big draws.
    The government is, as is their usual also, taking too long to figure it out and not saying much about it because, really at this point they know whatever they say will not be accepted as the truth.
    The camera guy, well… he just made a precipitated conclusion from an optical illusion of the sunset illuminating the contrails that probably had been there for a while already in the distance and getting closer (but still far) to him.

  4. fairlycrazy23 / Nov 10 2010 6:03 pm
    fairlycrazy23's avatar

    Here’s a link to the psuedo-infographic that Liem Bahneman put together, it is for the next day 24 hours later

    Sure, I guess the one on the 8th could have been a missile, but isn’t it much,much more likely that it too was just the contrails from 808, the whole idea of contrail science, is that sometimes these contrails don’t look like contrails from planes

  5. Jeremy / Nov 10 2010 6:11 pm
    Jeremy's avatar

    Please don’t refer to Orange County as the OC. Don’t call it that.

  6. Boris in Miami / Nov 10 2010 6:26 pm
    Boris in Miami's avatar

    UPDATED~: “Ballistic Missile” IDENTIFIED as -FTUS-A-808! Military Clueless as always!

    Conspiracy theorists say “It was a False Flag!!!”

    Christian fundamentalists disagree and say it was…

    “Chuck Norris Farting!!!”

    http://dailyteaparty.com/2010/11/09/balistic-missile-shot-on-california-coast-or-misunderstood-contrail-perspective-military-clueless/

  7. yoda / Nov 10 2010 6:27 pm
    yoda's avatar

    looks like a contrail from a commercial jet to me….the only compelling evidence that it could be a missile is at the end of the video when the camera zooms in it appears that you can see the cone of a rocket or missile …..it is colored solid black or very dark grey…..who knows………i would still put money on it being a jet if i had to bet on it…..

  8. Dave / Nov 10 2010 6:28 pm
    Dave's avatar

    It’s truly amazing to me just how many government bloggers are up on all of the news feeds about this. I have already said in previous posts that this was 100% a missile. I was on the coast in Santa Barbara on the pier with dozens of witnesses. This was either the US, China or Russia…or a much scarier thought, an Iranian sub bought from the Chinese. This administration is asleep at the wheel.

  9. BillyBob / Nov 10 2010 6:33 pm
    BillyBob's avatar

    Probaway,

    You are correct. The media really does not care if anything they report on is correct or not.
    The media used to report news. Now every supposed “news report” is actually an editorial
    by the “reporter”. Very sad, but if you ask any reporter today what there goals are,
    if answered honestly, they will say “to change the world”. When they should be trying to
    accurately report the news.

  10. Emily / Nov 10 2010 6:41 pm
    Emily's avatar

    I already posted this last night but felt i should post again:
    I live in the high Desert about an hour and a half from fort irwin and 2 hours from LA where this “mystery missle” was seen… yesterday tuesday November, 9th 2010 my husband and I saw on bear valley going towards the free way from Hesperia/ Apple valley, fighter planes in the sky scrambling in different directions which is very unusual. My husband is a retired soldier and he was telling me that it didn’t look right that a whole bunch of fighter planes are scrambling. We counted how many fighter planes there were and there were about 6 plus a strange object coming down out of the sky, coming straight down. Out of the 6 fighter planes that we had seen… as we drove closer we ened up seeing two. As we got closer one of them went straight up the fighter plane and the object came closer and closer. The fighter plane continued up in the sky then headed in our direction as that happened the second fighter plane made a u shape as if it turned towards the object they began to head towards each other. As the two came closer the object had made a sharp turn towards the fighter plane and just missed the second fighter plane by an inch. After that happened the second fighter plane continued in the same direction and the object had disappeared behind a building out of our sight.. we have no idea what had happened or what happened to the object or what it was but someone needs to investigate a little bit more into this because this was no optical illusion..my husband and I saw this with our own two eyes

  11. Alpheus / Nov 10 2010 6:44 pm
    Alpheus's avatar

    I find it funny that commentators are complaining about the name-calling of those who accept the jet contrail explanation, against the missile-believers–and claim that it hurts their case–but ignore all the name-calling that the missile-believers are making against the jet contrail believers.

    It’s also amusing to see all the comments that say “I saw lots of rocket launches in my lifetime–and this is/isn’t a rocket launch.”

    From the latter statement, I’m inclined to conclude that it’s difficult to distinguish between a contrail produced by a rocket, and one produced by a jet.

    I, for one, am convinced that there’s sufficient evidence to believe it was flight AWE808.

  12. Ustas / Nov 10 2010 6:55 pm
    Ustas's avatar

    BGM-109 (Tomahawk) subsonic cruise missile was launched from a US Navy Ohio-Class submarine operating off the coast of California.
    It was reply on Chinese EMP subsonic anti-ship missile attack from Type 041 submarine against cruise ship Carnival Splendor.

  13. LainaLain / Nov 10 2010 7:00 pm
    LainaLain's avatar

    Wonderful. People are shooting at us and how lovely of our government to keep us in the dark about it.

  14. hacksaw / Nov 10 2010 7:00 pm
    hacksaw's avatar

    Dave and Emily,

    For me probably the most interesting aspect of the mystery is the eye witness accounts. Dave, did you say you and the other people on the pier could feel the rumble of the missile? If you would have shot video of it with a cell phone from the pier would it have been so small on your screen that it would have been useless?

    Emily, what did the object that you say came straight down from the sky look like?

    How far away was all this action by the fighter jets from your position? Were you close enough to see the canopies on the jets or just the outline of the planes?

    Why do you think it would even be related to the missile/contrail thing on the 8th?

    There are a few other people that have commented that also say they were there to witness the missile/plane on the 8th. What eventually happened to the flight of this thing? I am wondering if it just went out of sight, up and to the right, into the higher atmosphere. Did it eventually come overhead or horizontally across the sky to the right and over the horizon.

    I am leaning towards the airplane theory just because there has been little news about it since.

    You would think if someone fired a missile, and it was another country, they would have taken responsibility for it by now. And if it was our military, I’m not sure what they would be saying. Probably nothing.

  15. Radiation Joe / Nov 10 2010 7:31 pm
    Radiation Joe's avatar

    Well folks…. where are the photos from aircraft showing this missile? Do you believe there were no people in commercial aircraft anywhere near this event???? Do you believe none of them would have photographed this so-called missile out of their aircraft windows?

  16. Вовка / Nov 10 2010 7:45 pm
    Вовка's avatar

    Мы скоро придем к вам за гречкой! это был тестовый пуск =))
    Страшно?

  17. Christopher / Nov 10 2010 7:53 pm
    Christopher's avatar

    Hey kids!

    Let’s learn about Bayes’s Rule*!

    What’s the probability of a giant mystery rocket flying undetected by NORAD and unbeknownst to anyone in the military or FAA off the coast of the most populated city in the country? P(mystery rocket) = pretty darn small. Maybe not impossible, but I would guess nearly so.

    What’s the probability of a jet flying at, say, 30,000 feet off the coast of southern California? P(airplane) = nearly always true or, to use the complicated technical jargon, almost 1.
    What’s the probability of rocket launch that looks like a giant billowing plume surmounted by a little flame-like fleck of light at the top, P(plume | rocket) = high — gotta be close to 1.

    What’s the probability that an airplane contrail will look like a giant billowing plume surmounted by a little flame-like fleck of light at the top, P(rocket-like plume | airplane) = not too likely, improbable, but not impossible with weird lighting. Planes make contrails. For a few minutes around sunset the sun will illuminate both contrail and plane from below to someone standing a few dozen miles to the east (see Earth, curvature), which will cause the contrail to look different from what it normally does 99.9% of the rest of the time, and unfamiliar to all of us contrail connoisseurs. The bottom of the plane will also light up with the sun’s reflection, possibly making it look like the flame in a rocket’s exhaust. I’ve seen this many-a-time myself.

    Now here’s the fun part! We can put it all together!

    Bayes’s Rule:
    P( R-like plume | R )*P( R )
    P(Rocket| R-like plume) = ——————————————————————————-
    P( R-like plume | R )*P(R) + P(R-like plume | A)*P(A)

    I got bored of writing “rocket” and “airplane” over and over so I wrote R and A instead. Means the same thing, though.

    To make things simpler, let’s approximate everything that we agree is probably true with 1 (that is, rockets almost always look like rockets, and jets are much, much more common in the sky above LA than mystery rockets). So now,

    P(R)
    P(R| R-like plume) = ———————————————-
    P(R) + P(A | R-like plume)
    Rearranging a bit….

    1
    P(R| R-like plume) = ———————————————-
    1 + P(A | R-like plume) / P(R)

    So, what does it all mean, now?

    Whether or not it’s more likely the video shows a rocket than a plane (i.e. P(R-like plume | A) > .5, meaning a better than 50% chance it was a rocket ) depends on whether it’s more likely that someone would shoot an undetected (by everyone but a CBS news helicopter) mystery rocket off the coast of LA ( =P(R) ) or whether under some unusual lighting conditions, such as just after sunset, a jet contrail might look like a rocket plume (=P( R-like plume | A) ). They’re both rather unlikely, which makes it hard to decide which is more likely, but if you’re interested in taking bets on this, I’d be happy to put all of my money, and then some, on P( R-like plume | A).

    *WARNING: Avoid Bayes’s Rule if you’re strongly committed to the idea that aliens are among us, or that Barak Obama is a foreign-born madrassa-trained fundamentalist muslim communist.

  18. Ustas / Nov 10 2010 7:53 pm
    Ustas's avatar

    Вовке пошел вон, придурок. Go off fool.
    Russian people with you, America.
    Good luck!

  19. Mike / Nov 10 2010 7:53 pm
    Mike's avatar

    Steal our Buckwheat? I didn’t even know Eddie Murphy was still alive. Scared? You bet I am: This means he may yet do a sequel to “The Golden Child.”

  20. Manfred / Nov 10 2010 7:57 pm
    Manfred's avatar

    Thanks, this explains, why so many people believe in UFO’s. They just have no idea about unexplained natural phenomenas. But a quick explanation: E.T. was back. *~~B=| <
    You explained it quite well.

  21. Alpheus / Nov 10 2010 8:00 pm
    Alpheus's avatar

    *WARNING: Avoid Bayes’s Rule if you’re strongly committed to the idea that aliens are among us, or that Barak Obama is a foreign-born madrassa-trained fundamentalist muslim communist.

    Hmmm…I don’t believe that aliens are among us, and I believe Barak Obama is an American-born Chicago-trained fundamentalist Chicago communist. Hey, I get to use Bayes’s Rule!

  22. Steverooski / Nov 10 2010 8:00 pm
    Steverooski's avatar

    We (Americans) are nearing a point in our culture where no one will be capable of expressing a viewpoint or opinion about something that is not 100% to one extreme or the other. Reasoning, among other things, is the capability to retain some sort of grasp on the possibility of alternative explanations for things. I believe what happened was likely a jet contrail. But I can reasonably consider alternatives. Go figure :o) “They” don’t need chemtrails to spread the religion of Moronism. We have the Internet.

  23. Michael / Nov 10 2010 8:00 pm
    Michael's avatar

    Thank you for being the voice of intelligence in a large, festering pool of stupid.

  24. Вовка / Nov 10 2010 8:00 pm
    Вовка's avatar

    я не могу уйти! я должен вам рассказать что холодная война не кончилась, а только
    начинается 😦

    Вас травят фтором, делают толстяками в МАКе… травят ГМО… а вы все как дурачки – у нас все хорошо? надо смотреть на вещи реально!

    Понять меня можно при помощи translate.ru =) Если интересно!
    Ваше правительство вас точно за идиотов держит.. самолет от ракеты отличить не могут… ребенок в 5 лет это сделает без ошибочно!

  25. Christopher / Nov 10 2010 8:03 pm
    Christopher's avatar

    Ah, the indenting was a bit off, but you get the picture

  26. The Gates of Lodore / Nov 10 2010 8:06 pm
    The Gates of Lodore's avatar

    Thanks for this. I’m always amazed when people naturally jump to more irrational explanations.

  27. Mike / Nov 10 2010 8:07 pm
    Mike's avatar

    Now, Бобка, you must tell us the truth. Вы двенадцать лет?

  28. Manfred again / Nov 10 2010 8:09 pm
    Manfred again's avatar

    If I will ever see a UFO or have E.T. at my door, I’ll let you know immediately. *~~<( 😉
    However, if it would be Alph, I would send him back…

  29. TAXSHEEP / Nov 10 2010 8:11 pm
    TAXSHEEP's avatar

    This Blog brought to you by UNICUS at The Ministry Of Truth.
    Anyone not accepting these proven facts will be visited by agents of The Ministry Of Love and escorted to THE ROOM!

  30. Вовка / Nov 10 2010 8:14 pm
    Вовка's avatar

    Вашему вниманию:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B6q9mwBMSo
    поищем сходства?

    PS не обязательно пытаться на русском, я прекрасно понимаю на английском 🙂
    Не надо пытаться оскорбить меня! =) мне не 12 лет…

  31. Michael / Nov 10 2010 8:18 pm
    Michael's avatar

    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.

    I could go on and on, because I'm an actual expert. (As opposed to "I've seen a shuttle launch on TV once, so I know everything there is to know about rocket plumes." — which is apparently the dominant mindset here.)

    CBS owes everyone an apology for not fact-checking their story with actual experts before running it.

  32. Uncinus / Nov 10 2010 8:38 pm
    Mick's avatar

    Thanks Michael, those are excellent points.

  33. Christopher / Nov 10 2010 8:39 pm
    Christopher's avatar

    Alpheus: Yes you do!

  34. hacksaw / Nov 10 2010 8:44 pm
    hacksaw's avatar

    I’d have to say Michael’s points are the most convincing yet. I’ll put my money (if I had any) on airplane. Too bad all my fun is now over. I’ll have to google the Belgian UFO sightings or the Building 7 WTC collapse for any more conspiracy fun when I get bored at work again.

  35. Richard / Nov 10 2010 8:45 pm
    Richard's avatar

    The amazing thing is that a perfectly sensible explanation, supported by facts and scientific analysis, has been posted, and still people are insisting that this was some sort of accidental missile launch. The persistence of folly is sobering.

  36. Bret / Nov 10 2010 8:48 pm
    Bret's avatar

    If you think the skies are full of “contrails” you are part of the problem… Don’t believe these blogger-experts spewing this garbage-they are probably online spooks!

  37. Paul the Brit / Nov 10 2010 8:57 pm
    Paul the Brit's avatar

    You Yanks, make me laugh so much. Next you’ll be trying to teach us Intelligent Design, and that the Deep Horizon disaster was caused by BP alone, and not the pitiful regulation of the oil industry in the Gulf. Just guessing, but I suspect that none of you who thinks it was a missile has a passport and the last person you shagged was your sister?

  38. BillyBob / Nov 10 2010 9:06 pm
    BillyBob's avatar

    I love British humor! LOL and thank you for that one Paul! 😉

  39. Paul / Nov 10 2010 9:12 pm
    Paul's avatar

    Что это все-таки было?

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

    Uncinus, nice summary. Being military and a space guy, I was wondering how long it would take people to figure it out. I have to admit my initial assumption after seeing a still pic from the news that I mistakenly first thought some sort of small ship to ship HRAM gone awry, but after seeing a few seconds of the video, you could immedeatly discount a rocket (for the obj is way too slow) or missle (too slow and contrail all wrong). Unfortunately you will never convince all the arm chair experts. I got a heck of a chuckle from the blogs.
    SMO

  41. Bill McGonigle / Nov 10 2010 9:43 pm
    Bill McGonigle's avatar

    The contrail theory certainly does seem like the best explanation, but the GOES sequence seems to contradict it. Too many guesses are being made based on low-grade YouTube videos. I presume the raw HD video will make this all clear, but am reserving judgement until a theory that can satisfy all the data is presented.

    Has somebody calculated the helicopter’s position based on the locale shown in the beginning of the footage and the direction the camera was pointing based on the location of the setting sun?

  42. George / Nov 10 2010 9:45 pm
    George's avatar

    Damn! I really wanted this to be a missile. That would have been awesomely exciting! So I can understand people that want to believe that theory. But seriously. I think that a fair amount of evidence has been presented to discount the missile theory. There is no problem wanting excitement and being optimistic towards things like: “the Chinese are giving us a show of strength,” but ignoring plausible explanations is just plain foolish.

  43. Tim / Nov 10 2010 9:48 pm
    Tim's avatar

    I’m not completely convinced of the contrail explaination, however on any given clear day if you watch the skies, it’s not only flat surfaces on aircraft that “flash” brilliantly. When the sun is at a low angle sunlight can reflect off large surface areas of the aircraft for extended periods of time creating the “flame” look. Not much diferent than a passing satelite flaring at dusk. I’m not saying this is the case here, but it’s a possibility.

Trackbacks

  1. Why was a missile launched from Los Angeles harbor? « Probaway – Life Hacks
  2. Pearl Harbor III, Belshazzar and Chinese ICBMs — UPDATED « New Wineskins
  3. Pendulet
  4. Experts: Unexplained ‘Missile’ May Just Be a Jet Plane | BaptistIS.com
  5. Who shot the mystery missile off the CA coast last night? by JoMo - Page 7 - TribalWar Forums
  6. Southern California. Was it a missile launch or a contrail? (merged) - Page 4 - PPRuNe Forums
  7. Mysterieuze ‘raket’ was condensspoor van een vliegtuig | Astroblogs

Comments are closed.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started