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THIS IS AN OUTDATED OVERFLOW SITE.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. Mark / Nov 9 2010 10:06 pm
    Mark's avatar

    So, what flight then? It would seem there shouldn’t be too many flights in that location at that time and the actual plane/flight number could be established.

    Radar hits as well from ground control. Those who saw it live called it a missile launch, why? Did they see more of the event then what was recorded? Why did the new scramble a helicopter to video tape vapor from a jet?

    No, it seems more likely this was a missile launch to me. I hope it was a test and not saber rattling.

  2. Dr. David Mulhearn / Nov 9 2010 10:07 pm
    Dr. David Mulhearn's avatar

    The vapor trail over So. Cal. Nov. 8, 2010 is neither plane nor jet. It is obvious the author of the above article did not look at the video closely. When examined a clear spiral can be seen in the contrail. This is typical for the pattern left by a rocket launch. Tail blades of rockets are designed to rotate the fuselage for stability like a football being thrown. Whatever this is it appears to be missle-like deffinately not jet or plane.

  3. glenn / Nov 9 2010 10:07 pm
    glenn's avatar

    You obviously did not look at the actual video showing the motion of the projectile/missile. It is traveling far too fast with a far too big thrust plume to be a jet.

    This is obviously a missile launch. Stop your nonsense and try to seek the truth.

  4. Mark / Nov 9 2010 10:08 pm
    Mark's avatar

    So, what flight then? It would seem there shouldn’t be too many flights in that location at that time and the actual plane/flight number could be established.

    Radar hits as well from ground control. Those who saw it live called it a missile launch, why? Did they see more of the event then what was recorded? Why did the news scramble a helicopter to video tape vapor from a jet?

    No, it seems more likely this was a missile launch to me. I hope it was a test and not saber rattling.

  5. NoJoe / Nov 9 2010 10:09 pm
    NoJoe's avatar

    Let me just reiterate from before:

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

    US Airways flight 808.

    There. This flight was near there near the time of the video, so we now have a possible airline flight that could explain the contrail.

    See my above post.

    –NoJoe

  6. Gary Wiltshire / Nov 9 2010 10:11 pm
    Gary Wiltshire's avatar

    Finally a voice of reason appears. Of course that will make no difference to the conspiracy theorists here who will buzz on in their self-important (and nonexistent) expertise. As far as our government or our military taking it seriously let me tell you a story. Forty or so years ago I was on my back playing on our lawn in base housing in Hawaii when a bright tiny multicolored spot appeared which rapidly expanded into a menacing purple cloud. The local Air Force told everybody not to worry — it was the intersection of 3 searchlight beams in a cloud! It later came out that the navy had launched a barium vapor sounding rocket conducting tests on the upper atmosphere — the most interesting part was seeing that the Air Force has a file of stock answers to hand out on UFO reports. The barium vapor cloud was the real explanation and I’m quite sure this “rocket launch” is a jet contrail with perspective tricks like the gentleman demonstrates.

  7. snerdly / Nov 9 2010 10:11 pm
    snerdly's avatar
  8. Uncinus / Nov 9 2010 10:11 pm
    Mick's avatar

    I think the news helicopter was already in the air, and they just happened to see it and zoomed in (which gives even more perspective foreshortening).

    Have a look at this wider shot of a similar event, from more of any angle. It’s far away.

  9. mike1 / Nov 9 2010 10:11 pm
    mike1's avatar
  10. Ron Ralston / Nov 9 2010 10:11 pm
    Ron Ralston's avatar

    This is very interesting stuff. Is there anyone I can contact to discuss this further?

  11. John / Nov 9 2010 10:12 pm
    John's avatar

    For this to have been an aircraft contrail, it would have needed to fly towards the camera in the pic, but its going away from the camera. It clearly originates from the “horizon” aka the sea. streaks upward and away from the camera.

    In the video you can see the glow of the engines as burn. You can also tell its moving away from the camera not towards it.

  12. supersonicf111 / Nov 9 2010 10:13 pm
    supersonicf111's avatar

    Nice work! It is moving way too slow for a missile!

  13. concerned for passengers / Nov 9 2010 10:16 pm
    concerned for passengers's avatar

    @Skeptic / Nov 9 2010 9:59 pm:
    It really flushed them out like dumb quail and shot them down.

    A Freudian slip: more evidence that it was a missile.

  14. CRM / Nov 9 2010 10:17 pm
    CRM's avatar

    Looks like swap gas.

  15. Gary / Nov 9 2010 10:18 pm
    Gary's avatar

    Simple grade school science will tell you contrails dissipate they do not form clouds. Once a contrail reaches ambient temperature of surrounding air it dissipates it does not continue to form a cloud. The only way you have cloud formation is to add particulate to vapor the moisture needs something to attach to in order to form a cloud. Try this on a cold day go outside and breathe ;it forms a water vapor ( condensation) because the air coming out is warmer that the surrounding air it does not form a cloud it dissipates when that breath reaches ambient temperature of the surrounding air. This is the same principal of a jet contrail the air coming out of the engines is warmer than the surrounding air thus it condenses and forms a contrail and when that exhaust cools it dissipates the only way it would not dissipate is if there is something present for that vapor to attach to….Welcome to fifth grade science folks These are Chemical/Particulate Trails not contrails.

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

    Same time of day, same light and weather conditions, same distance from an international airport as the surface to air missile that shot down TWA Flight 800 July 17, 1996. This time they missed.
    Having read the suppressed Report to Congress on that shoot-down, I have to surmise that a SAM launched from a small, fast surface vessel with a mobile launcher fired an SA2 sized missile at an aircraft, probably a 747 or aircraft of similar size headed for Hawaii, and missed. The missile which knocked down Flight 800 was homing on the transponder beacon’s radar reply signal and detonated forward of the left wing inboard of the #2 engine. The pressure wave from the warhead hit the aircraft at 44 Lbs per square inch at a closing rate exceeding the speed of sound, blowing the nose off TWA 800 crushing the inboard wing tank which ruptured and flooded the center tank which then ignited.

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

    From my experience, this was definitely a hobby rocket or just a jet. There’s no question about it. Consider the refracted light and time of day.

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

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

    Bull.
    I lived 22 miles from Cape Canaveral and used to watch the same scene from my backyard on a bi-monthly basis.

    This is a f’n launch. Wake up.

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

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

    Just to add something from the news reports:

    “To add to the mystery of what’s on KCBS’s videotape, the FAA said a radar replay of a large area west of los Angeles did not reveal any fast moving unidentified targets in that area. They also did not report says receiving any reports of any unusual sightings from pilots who were flying in the area on Monday afternoon.”

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

    You keep referring back to a Delta II launch which has a liquid oxygen main engine. Navy surface to air missiles and sub mariner vessels with surface to air missiles use a solid fuel. Each produces a completely different burn result and the trail from a solid fuel rocket is NOT composed of just condensation but also smoke residue from the chemical reaction. This smoke will react differently then a standard contrail. Have you seen a SAM launched in person before. I have. Plus if this is a contrail from a jet who’s flying it – a short Asian woman making random lane changes?

  21. zota / Nov 9 2010 10:21 pm
    zota's avatar

    So just to be clear…

    The thesis here is that this was a jet at 30,000 feet which was heading towards the helicopter which was filming this. And that this jet must have therefore flown directly over the heads of these observers in a linear path. But that they failed to figure this out, as did everyone at the Air Force and Navy.

    And when the object, seeming to get smaller (due to foreshortening, since it is actually flying towards the viewer) continues onward after its contrail ends — as it has when I’ve seen orbital rocket launches — you’re saying what is actually happened is a jet that is “out of the contrail-persisting region of air.”

    Do I have that right?

  22. snerdly / Nov 9 2010 10:21 pm
    snerdly's avatar

    From my experience, this was definitely a hobby rocket or just a jet. There’s no question about it. Consider the refracted light and time of day.

    Nonsense. Google me one youtube vid of an amateur rocket that approaches this:

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

    What is this place? Disinfo Central?

  23. Thor / Nov 9 2010 10:22 pm
    Thor's avatar

    Gary- Simple high school physics will tell you that if the ambient air is humid enough the contrail will persist, spread and even cover the sky in a haze of cirrus cloud…the ice crystals of the contrail cannot dissipate if the air is already saturated.

    This has been observed ever since planes have flown high enough-

    research the term “contrail cirrus”

  24. pepper / Nov 9 2010 10:22 pm
    pepper's avatar

    After lifetime of watching planes leave contrails (like everyone else under the sun). I can tell just watching this contrail being formed that whatever is creating it is cruising really fast and is putting out allot of exhaust- and a very thick/dense exhaust at that.

    Someone screwed up big within the military and because they did something they weren’t supposed to do, or they missed something they weren’t supposed to mis.

    I remember two sonic booms going off over my city years ago- it took two years for the military to admit it and another year to tell us they didn’t know which F16 did it.

    Really?

  25. Mike H. / Nov 9 2010 10:24 pm
    Mike H.'s avatar

    Mike, Loon Lake is up on hwy 2 going to Sandpoint, ID

  26. snerdly / Nov 9 2010 10:24 pm
    snerdly's avatar

    So just to be clear…

    The thesis here is that this was a jet at 30,000 feet which was heading towards the helicopter which was filming this. And that this jet must have therefore flown directly over the heads of these observers in a linear path. But that they failed to figure this out, as did everyone at the Air Force and Navy.

    And when the object, seeming to get smaller (due to foreshortening, since it is actually flying towards the viewer) continues onward after its contrail ends — as it has when I’ve seen orbital rocket launches — you’re saying what is actually happened is a jet that is “out of the contrail-persisting region of air.”

    Do I have that right?

    Amazing, eh?
    I guess P. T. Barnum was right.

  27. Gryphon / Nov 9 2010 10:25 pm
    Gryphon's avatar

    This would all be a nice explanation if the helicopter were not in the air and able to see the trail coming up. Looking at something from the ground would be different but the copter is in the air and has perspective unlike looking upward.

  28. DR / Nov 9 2010 10:25 pm
    DR's avatar

    For lance The contrails are made when the hot exhaust comes in contact with very cold air Sometimes you may see a contrail for hundreds of miles and all of a sudden they stop for a few minutes and start up again. That is due to going from very cold air to warmer air back to very cold air. The wavy contrails are due to the upper air currents breaking up the contrails or making them expand. You people are just a bunch of the sky is falling type of people.

  29. Smark / Nov 9 2010 10:25 pm
    Smark's avatar

    Well the newscast report interviewed a former Deputy Secretary of Defense that said it’s definitely NOT an airplane contrail. His best guess was an ICBM. So while I appreciate your calm and deliberate explanation, I think I’ll stick with the FACTS. If the DoD looked at it and didn’t immediately recognize a plane’s contrail and no other US Official is out there espousing your theory, I’ll reserve judgement. Nice try though. If your’s turns out to be the “official” version, then you’ll probably get a call to join the Incompetent’s team. Congrats!

  30. Bob Knob / Nov 9 2010 10:27 pm
    Bob Knob's avatar

    Now you keep refering everybody to look at this “similar event”. It’s not similar! Instead show picutes of the actual event. It’s like a murder trial and you’re saying look at these pictures from a murder 3 years ago. They look the same so it must be the same killer!

  31. SmithWill / Nov 9 2010 10:30 pm
    SmithWill's avatar

    Hmmm. I like the idea of faux thermonuclear missiles being lobbed to and fro just like back in the saber-rattling cold war days. The real-world military killing and destruction is just too real.

  32. Uncinus / Nov 9 2010 10:30 pm
    Mick's avatar

    Not similar?

    and

    Look pretty similar to me

  33. Gary / Nov 9 2010 10:32 pm
    Gary's avatar

    Nice try thor I’ve lived for 57 years now and always was fascinated when planes went over this cloud formation is a new animal not a contrail look up terraforming.(“ecosynthesis”)

  34. Smark / Nov 9 2010 10:34 pm
    Smark's avatar

    Unicus, those pix do look similar but they aren’t the one on the video that shows a fire ball coming out of it’s tail like we see on the video. HUGE diff.

  35. fairlycrazy23 / Nov 9 2010 10:36 pm
    fairlycrazy23's avatar

    Looks very similar to the earlier one and is consistent with the explanation of it being a jet contrail, this seems like the most likely cause.

  36. Uncinus / Nov 9 2010 10:37 pm
    Mick's avatar

    Where’s this fireball? Could you give me a link and time please?

  37. NoJoe / Nov 9 2010 10:37 pm
    NoJoe's avatar

    Especially since we have a possible jet to attach it to! 😉

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

  38. Thor / Nov 9 2010 10:39 pm
    Thor's avatar

    its not a try…its a fact.

    Its basic physics…its been observed and studied for over 60yrs…just look at the persistent contrails from WW2.

    The water vapor condenses, freezes into ice crystals and either dissipates or persists depending on ambient humidity levels.

    You cant wave away physics simply because you don’t remember clouds looking like this.

    DO THE RESEARCH- contrail cirrus, ice saturation etc…

    Ever heard of ice fog?

  39. smokEM / Nov 9 2010 10:41 pm
    smokEM's avatar

    Like wow, man! Moonbeam said he’d cause great things…..that’s just Jerry exhaling some locally grown sensa. After all, man, Brown wants all the bud legal. And weeze makin butts illegal, man. Daze no good fo ya, man. No job, no taxes, script weed, man. Weeze set in C-A foa bit, man.

  40. Icepick / Nov 9 2010 10:41 pm
    Icepick's avatar

    Uncinus, it may or may not be a jet contrail. But I live about fifty miles due west of Kennedy Space Center and have witnessed a few hundred launches in my life, dating back tp the Saturn V days. That contrail looks just like a great many of the rocket contrails I’ve seen through the years. The bit where it stops could be what you suggest. But it could be the rocket falling away from the viewer as it heads out to sea, too.

    Like I wrote at the start, it could be a jet contrail. But nothing in the video I’ve seen (and I’ve followed your link in the comments) is inconsistent with a rocket launch.

  41. NoJoe / Nov 9 2010 10:41 pm
    NoJoe's avatar

    Unicus –

    He probably means this video, around 11 seconds

    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7038111n

  42. F8 / Nov 9 2010 10:44 pm
    F8's avatar
  43. Cyto / Nov 9 2010 10:44 pm
    Cyto's avatar

    @59 Gary – This is wildly inaccurate. Others have mentioned “contrail cirrus”, but studies done in the last decade show that a major source of global cloud cover (and earth albedo). When they grounded the jets on 9-11 the amount of cloud cover over the globe was seriously diminished. Contrails do not always dissipate, they often seed the growth of high altitude clouds that will end up being many miles wide.

  44. Bob Knob / Nov 9 2010 10:44 pm
    Bob Knob's avatar

    Plus that’s not the picture you put up 20 minutes ago that you said was similar.

  45. Knowledge Saves / Nov 9 2010 10:44 pm
    Knowledge Saves's avatar

    The pictures in this article are ChemTrails. Take a look at video “What in the World are They Spraying?” at http://www.realityzone.com

  46. Rich / Nov 9 2010 10:45 pm
    Rich's avatar

    Liar.

  47. hacksaw / Nov 9 2010 10:48 pm
    hacksaw's avatar

    Look at the 1:43 mark in the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2qKMchcgzk. This image proves the object was traveling horizontally, not vertically as a the missile theory would expect. You can tell because there is a faint shadow on the topside of the contrail, meaning the angle of the sun’s rays are coming from below. This is what you would expect if this were a plane traveling horizontally to the earth’s surface with the sun setting behind and below.

    Case closed, it’s a plane.

  48. Eric / Nov 9 2010 10:49 pm
    Eric's avatar

    Who is the author of this blog, and what are your credentials? You don’t appear to have the background to assert this was an airliner contrail.

Trackbacks

  1. “Mysterious missile” launched off of California coast « The Rocketry Blog
  2. Mystery Missile Launched Near California - Page 2 - JeepForum.com

Comments are closed.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started