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THIS IS AN OUTDATED OVERFLOW SITE.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. Steve / Nov 10 2010 10:01 pm
    Steve's avatar

    Has anyone seen my tin foil hat?

  2. Buddy / Nov 10 2010 10:07 pm
    Buddy's avatar

    For Paul – well done on presenting such a fine British face to the world…..[/sarcasm]

    For Uncinus – no sarcasm this time – seriously well done, in the face of an astonishing unwillingess to accept, y’know, facts and stuff. I try to do a similar thing wherever possible, but with far less knowledge than you, and it’s good to see someone showing this kind of “citizen research” against a sensationalist media and a public that can be sometimes, erm, strangely willing to look for the most outlandish explanation.

    This story was reported on the BBC early this morning in the UK, as “Pentagon investigating mystery missile launch off the coast of LA”, and even from my half-awake state I immediately thought “I was reading about that two weeks ago on contrailscience”. I assumed someone had recycled the December 31 contrail, and only when I had time to get to the site tonight did I realise it was a new “sighting”.I actually saw a similar contrail early last Saturday morning in southern England – sadly the train I was on moved off before I could get a picture.

    Like I say, keep up the good work!

  3. Buddy / Nov 10 2010 10:21 pm
    Buddy's avatar

    Oh, and for Paul’s benefit, I should say that “conspiracy commenting” is not restricted to American blogs, as shown here….

  4. Rickachae / Nov 10 2010 10:21 pm
    Rickachae's avatar

    FOOD FOR THOUGHT – No #1:so this was the only “plane” to fly through the atmosphere at sundown, at what ever altitudes, in all that sky, over ? hrs, in a very bizzy airspace??? Very bizzy air space!!!
    (yes i understand enviromental laps rates and inversions and the temp decresses with hight n air parcel densitys verses saturation of water molicules per parcel of air… and contrails vs plume heat… bla bla bla – i could give you all some interesting maths to play with…) but instead – just some food for thought… 🙂

    No – #2: Personely I lean towards the missile launch, alot o people have good points about jet vs missile, how ever – i think the ex military person in the news bulleton would not make himself a laughing idiot by being wrong, he refers to it as a Rocket/Missile plume… and this is his credibility at stake not a coverup! all points to missile – but with some interesting contrail signatures included.

    Its in the eye of the beholder.. 😉

  5. BillyBob / Nov 10 2010 10:23 pm
    BillyBob's avatar

    But, my hat is AL U min EEum! Should it be Tin?

    Maybe that’s why I hear voices and have strange dreams! 😉

  6. Think Perspective from TheAussie / Nov 10 2010 10:25 pm
    Think Perspective from TheAussie's avatar

    Sun sets in the west, “Plane” was flying W to E… Camera was E facing W. (hope we all can atleast agree on that…)

    How would that camera pick up these “reflections” (even from an indirect E-W viewing position) considering the sunlight would be hitting the back end of the “plane”. If they were fuselage reflections, they would not be that bright or colour or appear longer than a very quick flash like a plane’s wing lights during the night. (Why didn’t that object have the wing lights on if it was a jet? It was more dark than light…)

    I think this may be a missle but am still undecided after reading all these posts but the FACT that NORAD nor the Pentagon nor the DoD have even said anything but “We dunno shit…” is kinda worrying… Either they fucked up and shot their load accidentally or you guys came really close to an attack and their withholding info because obviously that would make everyone go nuts.

    Obama leaves America to goto Norway to pick up a VERY undeserved prize and bam… Some fkn spiral thing in the sky. Leaves to India and bam… More things in the sky. Pattern starting to evolve in that aspect…

    Props to James from Germany who deserves The Best Posts Award.

    I’m sick of people calling Conspiracy Theorists nutjobs also. Granted alot are pure bullshit BUT just because someone can see patterns you cannot see just makes you a closed minded fool. For example, the NWO is still just a “theory” but anyone who can’t see the evolution and depth of the NWO deserves what is coming too them.

  7. Bob Barker / Nov 10 2010 10:30 pm
    Bob Barker's avatar

    Your website contrail-science was created to mislead people. Your physics argument fails. This website here was created by the DoD to, once again, mislead the masses.

    I’m really surprised that no one here uses common sense. How come the offical response is “we don’t know what it was”, however some non-credential website appears out of the blue which explains everything?

    How come this website is even being referred by the Media? What kind of strings has one to pull to get over 100,000 traffic hits on merely one hour?!

    This is all a cover-up. Believe what you want, but remember the US government has ALWAYS lied to us citizens, ALWAYS.

    Time to leave this POS country and migrate to Europe.

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

    You are discounting the major reason it is an airplane and therefor not worth the military wasting time on the episode. The speed of the object is way to slow to be a missile or a rocket!

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

    Hi there

    @ uncinius, appolo may bad english, i´m from germany. I have only one question… where is the Afterburner? I was a mechanic for the Tornado Aircraft engine Rolls Royce RB 199 MK 101 – 103. I have never seen it before. Without an Afterburner you can´t see this light. its inpossible.

    best regards.

  10. Think Perspective / Nov 10 2010 10:45 pm
    Think Perspective's avatar

    @BB

    If it was an airplane, why no flashing wing lights…

    Posted 6 min before you, you would have seen my post before yours..

  11. anonymousephotographer / Nov 10 2010 10:46 pm
    anonymousephotographer's avatar

    I took a photo of the exact same contrail as your November 9 photo (the day after the “missile”). I was just inland from Oceanside, about 100 miles south of your vantage point. Around 5:05pm. It’s broken up just like yours.

    Photo here: http://tinyurl.com/2b7lwv5

    It is much cloudier today, but I will try to take another today if I see one, and post it here.

  12. Matt / Nov 10 2010 10:47 pm
    Matt's avatar

    In all honesty, it can very well be an airplane. Most of you, are over analyzing the video shown on the news. I can personally attest to witnessing a so called “missle,” flying through the air a few years ago. I was stationed on the USS Kitty-Hawk, and we were in the middle of a deployment. The conditions were almost exactly the same, the sun was setting and I could see a large trail in the sky, which at the time looked like a missle. One of the benefits of being a lookout for the ship, is having your own set of binoculars. After further examining what looked to be a “missle,” I could clearly see that it was an airplance.

    How many of you could actually see that close on the video? Nobody could, which is why so many were quick to believe it was in fact a “missle.”

    Unless government officials reveal that without a shadow of doubt it was a “missle,” I personally believe that it was an airplane.

  13. JetPilot1 / Nov 10 2010 10:52 pm
    JetPilot1's avatar

    The reason the Department of Defense has not made any official statement on this matter is because they are still discussing how monumentally stupid the populace of the nation has become, and what to do about it. I’d estimate that well over 50% of you people have become risks to our National Security. Congratulations!

  14. dave / Nov 10 2010 10:56 pm
    dave's avatar

    Definately an airplane contrail…for all those who still think differently and that this is just another government conspiracy…I hear Wal-Mart is having a sale on lives..go get one!

  15. TheAussie / Nov 10 2010 11:10 pm
    TheAussie's avatar

    Still waiting for one of you fucktards like “Dave” to explain why it didn’t have it’s wing lights on if it was a commericial jet… They would’ve been totally visible with that flightpath.

    If you can answer that… I will fly to America, goto wal-mart and pick a life up. Does America sell lives that aren’t fat and diabetic with 1 foot?

    I’m seriously starting to contemplate what the poster Bob Barker was saying and he is 100% about the American government lying to the citizens. It’s common practice for them asshole. Guatemalan Syphilis injections is just 1 of a million horrible things that government is responsible for. Even fucking Clinton lied about just getting sucked off…

  16. JB / Nov 10 2010 11:20 pm
    JB's avatar

    Believe what you want. Just stop and think. If it really was a missile from a rogue nation making a point (see China), do you think our government would tell us? We will never know if it happens until it happens! Secrecy = safety. Look at all the things with WW2 that came out 40+ years later about enemy subs of the coasts. Panic = disorder. This country cannot handle something like this. Everything has an explination if someone wants to explain it. Look at JFK, UFOs, etc. I chose to believe that it was an agressive show of military ability by an enemy, no matter what people try to prove different.

  17. John Martin / Nov 10 2010 11:22 pm
    John Martin's avatar

    “What in the world are they spraying?” FREELY DISTRIBUTABLE ONLINE DOWNLOAD-ABLE FILM
    Don’t just believe me.
    Don’t just believe these guys.
    Don’t just believe the above movie.
    Just watch it and see if it makes any more sense to you than most of the stuff posted here.
    1 1/2 hours of your time to set to rest any of your fears or to begin anew with a perspective not given to you by this obviously partisan site.
    Yes, I am partisan as well.
    The movie, however, is at least an interesting watch.
    You must be informed of the most propaganda on both sides before you can determine who makes any sense at all.
    This is the best film I’ve seen on this subject yet.
    It’s free. It’s short.
    Believe it or don’t. At least try it.
    What have you got to lose?

  18. Timo / Nov 10 2010 11:48 pm
    Timo's avatar

    I live in the San Francisco Bay Area at the 220′ elevation above the bay- from which I can look north and see all of the take off and approaches from SFO at a distance of 35 miles. I have lived here for 40 years, and I cannot tell you how many times in the fall of the year, when there is a cold air inversion layer formed over the bay in the evening, that it looks like missles are being launched all over. This sight is so common that I am surprised at the controversy. It sure does look like missles, I’ll give you that, but I can’t be the only one who sees it. It did freak one of my friends out though once, she thought the world was ending… What are we collectively so afraid of anyway?

  19. TheAussie / Nov 10 2010 11:49 pm
    TheAussie's avatar

    You guys have gone awfully quiet now…..

  20. Uncinus / Nov 10 2010 11:54 pm
    Mick's avatar

    John Martin, regarding “What in the World are They Spraying”, see this:

    http://contrailscience.com/what-in-the-world-are-they-spraying/

  21. BillyBob / Nov 11 2010 12:02 am
    BillyBob's avatar

    Timo,

    Thank you, it seems very strange to me that….. oh well, not really,
    That people in CA have never noticed this, Except that most people
    in your state are wacko’s that look to the government to take care of them.
    Do all of you out there (CA?) have NO mind to think for yourself at all?

    Obviously you have at least looked at the sky, and enjoyed the outdoors.
    Does NO one else in your state do this?

  22. Michael / Nov 11 2010 12:24 am
    Michael's avatar

    @TheAussie
    Several things.

    1. Nav lights are not required except between sunset and sunrise. The sun had not set yet. (Federal Regulations Section § 91.209, subsection (a)(1))

    2. Nav lights wouldn’t be visible from that distance anyway without the higher-intensity landing lights or strobes turned on.

    3. Pilots only turn on landing lights and strobes below 10,000 ft MSL. The cruising altitude of most passenger jets is around 30,000 ft. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_light)

    4. Your tone is way too arrogant for being so blatantly wrong. But don’t worry about owning up to your Walmart bet — we don’t want you here anyway.

  23. Jon / Nov 11 2010 12:29 am
    Jon's avatar

    Pentagon says it was most likely a contrail according to CNN

  24. BillyBob / Nov 11 2010 12:39 am
    BillyBob's avatar

    Uncinus Seriously, thank you for putting up with all the BS, name calling, and joking around.

    This is the Most entertaining web commenting I’ve read in way too long!
    Please keep it going, this is great! 😉

  25. Mike / Nov 11 2010 12:42 am
    Mike's avatar

    @TheAussie

    Sorry, some of us need to take a break from our hearty chortling to wipe down the monitor after the odd involuntary spit-take. And the Cheetos dust…the Cheetos dust! My stars, what a mess. Tsk.

  26. Caetano J. / Nov 11 2010 12:44 am
    Caetano J.'s avatar

    Oh my god, the world is FULL of idiots! 518 comments, and i think about 500 of them are perfect no-life, live-in-basement, brainwashed conspirationist morons!

    Uncinus, please don’t reply these guys, all the evidences are there to point that it’s a simple contrail. Anyone with half a brain can see it, based on the facts gathered here, all the rest isn’t worth wasting your keyboard with.

  27. Paul Bryant / Nov 11 2010 12:48 am
    Paul Bryant's avatar

    The main reasons everyone says it isn’t a missle or rocket is that it is going to slow and it didn’t show up on radar. Well, it could have been a test of a stelth missle and as part of the stelth paramaters it would run slower then a regular missle or rocket to enhanse it being seen as something other then a missle or rocket. Seeing as how stealth radar defeating aircraft are known to exist I find it possiably the case that this was either an indaverdent launch of a stelth missle/rocket or a test launch of a stelth missle/rocket with the test to include the visable aspects of what the public would see and what they could or would be capable of beeing told and believe it to be.

  28. BillyBob / Nov 11 2010 12:51 am
    BillyBob's avatar

    See what I am talking about? Thank you Paul Bryant! Thank you!
    You are Hilarious! 😉

  29. Mike / Nov 11 2010 12:54 am
    Mike's avatar

    Slow missiles? Why, that is pure genius. You oughta put a patent on that.

    Say, if we slowed it down to about 70mph and put a shell around it about yay big, say in the shape of a car, we could fool even more people.

  30. Michael / Nov 11 2010 12:57 am
    Michael's avatar

    Do all these people vote? That explains so much in this country…

  31. Caetano J. / Nov 11 2010 1:00 am
    Caetano J.'s avatar

    Paul Bryant, what is “an INDAVERDENT launch”?

  32. stephen / Nov 11 2010 1:03 am
    stephen's avatar

    con means to trick or decieve. trial means path or way. see where i’m going with this i don’t call me.
    actually i’m more concerned about the CONtrail Polosi, Boxer et al. are leaving in California then vapor trails off it’s cost.

  33. Ray Provence / Nov 11 2010 1:09 am
    Ray Provence's avatar

    My brother and I saw this identical, and I stress identical, thing happen in late 1970s or early 1980s, and should not be difficult to prove for for it caused a similar uproar until the news stated that it was missile launched and aborted at Pt. Mugu. We had stopped for a moment on interstate 5, 100 miles south of the SF bay area, and saw a plume of smoke south west of us that was absolutely, and I’ll lay my life on that, identical to current videos, etc.

    Note: It was in the late afternoon, and it looked to us as if it was headed directly over us toward Nevada. It was moving slowly and there was no sign of a propulsive devise, just billowing smoke that fanned out behind it. contrary to some suggestion here that should have given the illusion that it headed west, away from us.

    We watched fo a few moments and went on south for we were in a hurry. I would have sworn that it was above us headed east, which will demonstrate how deceptive distance and earth curvature can be if what the government said was true and the devise was indeed aborted to the west over the Pacific ocean.

    I have witness several such abortion from my home 40 miles north of Pheonix. It was always late evening when a slowly rising plume that seemed wide spread and burning against the already setted sun.
    Thw episodes were always slow and left a zigzag pattern before they soon exploded with a huge flash . These were always launched in California, and the prevailing west wind seemed to scatter the burning remnants in our direction. In as much as it is only a couple hundred miles from Phoenix to where all the military facilities are in the California desert, everyone thought the nuclear war had begun.

    What I would like to stress is that all these launches were almost in slow motion, as was the one we saw on I-5 years ago. Also. as I stated above, I would have bet then, and almost would now that rocket was out of control and headed north and east!!

    I would like to ask, is where and how far out in space do they abort these things. Of course the Pacific tuns east at a strong degree so it’s not far from the Southern Calif. desert to get over water. Is that desireable? Do they shoot them into outer space? Of course that is not very far in miles.

    At least they admitted then that it had, indeed, happened.

  34. Paul Bryant / Nov 11 2010 1:09 am
    Paul Bryant's avatar

    I will not get into a flame war with pea brains that think spelling denotes brain power, a reduction of a few hundred miles per hour would be enough for the computer identification systems to NOT identify it as a missle and would not change the efectiveness of the missle much. Along with othre things a case could be made for a stelth missle launch. btw, einstine was a poor spellers and as a famous man once said “Spelling, that’s what secatries are for”

  35. stephen / Nov 11 2010 1:13 am
    stephen's avatar

    why idaverdent is slang for in da money of coarse. verdent being green and green a slang for money.

  36. Tim / Nov 11 2010 1:26 am
    Tim's avatar

    If the “flame” was a reflection like I previously suggested, it wouldn’t have been off the rear of the aircraft, but due to the angles, from the underside. You see these reflections very frequently on sunny days when the sun is low in the sky.
    Like I said previously the supposed “flame” could be accounted for in the same way as an Iridium (or other) satelite flare, but due to the relative speeds could last much longer.

  37. Caetano J. / Nov 11 2010 1:32 am
    Caetano J.'s avatar

    LOL Stephen

  38. stephen / Nov 11 2010 1:37 am
    stephen's avatar

    my brother and i saw stuff in the seventies too. man those were the days. ok ok no humor out there. alright about two years ago i called the authorities after seeing a weird light trail at night, it seperated and then sped up. no explanation from anyone. but the slower light trail followed the faster one perfectly after a spectacular seperation .very eerie.two of us saw it or i wouldn’t mention it

  39. Bob Knob / Nov 11 2010 2:43 am
    Bob Knob's avatar

    Retired Air Force General Tom McInerney just proclaimed that this was absolutly a missle. He stated that you acn clearly see see course correction (where the con sprirals ) and the guidance system then kicking in!

  40. BillyBob / Nov 11 2010 2:50 am
    BillyBob's avatar

    Yo, Knob Bob, oh sorry, Bob Knob. Really, that’s how you want to be known? OK!

    You are saying, that you can look at the video, and not see that this is way, way too slow
    to be an airplane?

  41. BillyBob / Nov 11 2010 2:56 am
    BillyBob's avatar

    And really, is it not possible for people to know how to spell, capitalize, or use punctuation?

    Oh never mind, that fault seems to be One-sided also, and adds to the humor! 😉

    Jeez, you all are way more entertaining than any comedy act I’ve ever seen!

    Thank you for all of the laughs! 😉

  42. BillyBob / Nov 11 2010 2:59 am
    BillyBob's avatar

    Ok….. “acn clearly see” means what? Please? Go back to grade school!

  43. Dave / Nov 11 2010 3:14 am
    Dave's avatar

    I don’t understand how you can say it is a plane flying towards you. All the videos show a single orange flame from the back of the rocket. I’ve never see flames shooting out of a airliner. It’s a rocket and a big one to see the flame from that distance.

  44. Mike / Nov 11 2010 3:22 am
    Mike's avatar

    BillyBob, while I always enjoy a good spell each time I set pen to paper or fingers to keyboard, I’m actually far less concerned with the spellos and careless — some say nonexistent — grammar here than I am with the rampant thinkos. Many of them have me wondering if people are putting several sciencey words written on pieces of paper into a hat, taking four or five out at a time, attempting to form sentences or at least sentence fragments from each group, and then pasting their results on up to a dozen web sites at one go.

    One piece of advice I might give — but only if asked, lest I appear rude — is that people who know little of science should not speak as if they know something of science.

    I always look on the positive side of things, however, so one thing we can take heart in is the fact that none of the people in question build jet engines or…oh, let’s say, maintain elevators for a living. One sincerely hopes, anyway.

  45. Ryan / Nov 11 2010 3:26 am
    Ryan's avatar

    If this was an airplane, then it should be possible to figure out what flight it was. Why has this not been done?

  46. Mike / Nov 11 2010 3:28 am
    Mike's avatar

    Ryan, you just haven’t been paying attention, have you? Now go back up there and read some more. Use the scroll bar, there’s a good chap.

  47. Hacksaw / Nov 11 2010 3:28 am
    Hacksaw's avatar

    I packed my bags and headed back to reality but decided to come back here and read what’s going on. I think Ray Provence’s post has got me interested in this once again. Is it a plane or is it a missile? The debate continues.

    I watched the evening news (or should I say propaganda) tonight and it got me to thinking. Of course something about this particular contrail got a lot of people in CA up in arms. I’m speaking mainly about the guy who filmed it and other witnesses. These people no doubt had seen contrails from airplanes before, but there was something different about this or they wouldn’t have went bonkers over it.

    This should never have grown to this proportion if it was just another optical illusion, at least I don’t think it would have.

    If the military was going to test something, I would think they would capitalize on the contrail illusion effect in order to do this thing in broad daylight. If it was a true launch of a missile, that’s the perfect way to get away with it.

    Remember that 2.3 trillion dollars the Pentagon couldn’t account for in their budget? It would be no fun building a secret weapon if you never got to fire the thing off.

Trackbacks

  1. Top Posts — WordPress.com

Comments are closed.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started