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THIS IS AN OUTDATED OVERFLOW SITE.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. chuck / Nov 9 2010 10:50 pm
    chuck's avatar

    I don’t understand how anyone who disagrees with a stock answer must somehow be a nutty conspiracy theorist off his or her rocker. Certainly we agree that government does not enlighten us all with everything they do. If this is true, then there must be some things they do that we are not enlightened about. Knowing that we do a lot of things outside the public eye, and suggesting this may be one of them, does not make me or anyone else Ross Perot. I served on an FBM sub. We did things you don’t know about, and I won’t tell you about. People are free to guess, it doesn’t make them crazy. To my mind, what is crazy, is the reflexive denial that anything other than the stock answer is a possibility. If humans didn’t consider remote possibilities, we never would have figured out that the earth was round, or rather, an oblate spheroid, but I digress on that note.

    As for planes, as I’ve said, at any time, there are more than 4,000 large planes in the air above the United States. Anomalies such as the one proposed here, I would think, would be a little more frequent. Either that, or we have to accept the notion that the atmosphere is extraordinarily dynamic and unstable, which blows all the global warming B.S. out of the water.

  2. Charlie / Nov 9 2010 10:53 pm
    Charlie's avatar

    Aliens finally decided to leave planet earth as they realize it is just impossible for humans to agree on anything.

  3. concerned for passengers / Nov 9 2010 10:53 pm
    concerned for passengers's avatar

    With all the media and web fuss this is making, it shouldn’t be too hard to find passengers of AWE808: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWE808/history/20101108/1955Z/PHNL/KPHX and ask them if they were in a plane or a missile, and whether any of them noticed a helicopter somewhere a km or so below them and slightly to the right.

    If the plane had some built-in reverse pointing video cameras (in the tail or wings?), then maybe the pilots could be interviewed and/or sued: “Did you or did you not leave condensation trails behind your aircraft? Are you aware of the panic that you caused by doing this? You are warned that any answer may be taken down and used against you.”

  4. chuck / Nov 9 2010 10:53 pm
    chuck's avatar

    Dear Hacksaw. Rockets can travel horizontally, and planes can travel vertically. Cruise missiles fly just like planes. We have lots of rockets that can do lots of things. Hence my favorite military motto: “Don’t run, you’ll just die tired”

  5. Icepick / Nov 9 2010 10:55 pm
    Icepick's avatar

    Hacksaw, missile rarely travel straight up for long. They start to fall into a horizonal path rather quickly.

  6. zota / Nov 9 2010 10:55 pm
    zota's avatar

    Look, seriously. Help me out here.

    The hypothesis here that it was a passenger jet from Hawaii to Arizona, which means it was flying directly towards and over the observers shooting this footage. Just like hundereds of other jets, every day. And yet no one — the pilot of the helicopter, the reporters, the entire Pentagon, the former Ambassador to NORAD — none of them are willing to point out that it’s an ordinary jet?

    Not even asking to be snarky. I’m just really trying to figure out if that’s the hypothesis.

  7. NoJoe / Nov 9 2010 10:56 pm
    NoJoe's avatar

    Concered For Passengers:

    I like your style. 🙂

  8. SS / Nov 9 2010 10:57 pm
    SS's avatar

    An interesting and thorough explanation. Too bad it doesn’t explain why you can pretty clearly see the missle and the fire coming out of it’s tail in the video.

  9. Richard / Nov 9 2010 10:58 pm
    Richard's avatar

    Atmospherics!

  10. Tom B / Nov 9 2010 10:58 pm
    Tom B's avatar

    That’s all well in good with your explanation. Except one thing. The recording of what appears to be a launch was taken from a helicopter in flight. Everything you show is from ground perspective. I’m sure we’ll all hear that it was a weather balloon and everything will be right with the world again.

  11. NoJoe / Nov 9 2010 11:00 pm
    NoJoe's avatar

    Zota,

    Maybe none of them have considered that it may have just been an ordinary jet. Though there are at least a few articles out there that are now saying “Maybe it was a jet.”

    I don’t know. I’d be nice if one of the pilots saw these articles and spoke up, eh? 🙂

    And that’s not necessarily *THE* hypothesis, but just my hypothesis. I’m not even sure if it was in the right place at the right time (but it was probably pretty close).

  12. Anonymoous / Nov 9 2010 11:01 pm
    Anonymoous's avatar

    http://www.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DU2qKMchcgzk&v=U2qKMchcgzk&gl=US

    0:41-0:44

    That is not a reflection.

    0:58 – 1:01

    Different camera and angle. not a reflection again.

  13. NoJoe / Nov 9 2010 11:01 pm
    NoJoe's avatar

    And Tom B,

    The helicopter was probably only a couple thousand feet up at the most. New choppers hang out near the ground for good reasons (they’re usually filming stuff on the ground anyway). Just sayin.

  14. Boris in Miami / Nov 9 2010 11:02 pm
    Boris in Miami's avatar

    Balistic Missile Shot Off California Coast or Misunderstood Contrail Perspective? Military Clueless! Surprise ending!

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

  15. Helveticus / Nov 9 2010 11:02 pm
    Helveticus's avatar

    Geneva launch: up they go!

    Here’s a photo of a jet contrail that looked exactly like a missile launch. I grabbed my camera – within 30 seconds the illusion was gone as the plane passed overhead.

  16. hacksaw / Nov 9 2010 11:03 pm
    hacksaw's avatar

    O.k. I’ll admit, rockets travel horizontally and planes fly vertically too. It was just a thought, so I take that back—the case is not closed.

    I wonder though, why haven’t we heard of any boats or anything seeing a missile? And where did the thing go? Wouldn’t someone have seen something else, and contacted the media by now?

    I’m not sure what to think of it.

    Where I live we have a lot of open space and blue sky and I’ve seen some strange contrails left by planes that do exactly what this blog is describing.

    But I also personally saw what I would call a UFO one night while star-gazing on the roof of my house.

    So I’m open to all options on this one.

  17. Tyrone Slothrop / Nov 9 2010 11:03 pm
    Tyrone Slothrop's avatar

    These aren’t the chemtrails you’re looking for…..move along….

  18. zota / Nov 9 2010 11:06 pm
    zota's avatar

    As you can see from the growing list of trackbacks, this post is the primary evidence other people are using to assert that it was a jet. I would feel better about that if this post were not primarily the repeated posting of unrelated images from a different day and different perspective.

    If it was a jet, so be it. But this anonymous blog post is being used as a piece of evidence now, and the author seems to have a pretty serious ax to grind.

  19. Icepick / Nov 9 2010 11:06 pm
    Icepick's avatar

    Hacksaw, the lack (so far) of witnesses from boats is very interesting.

  20. zota / Nov 9 2010 11:10 pm
    zota's avatar

    Helveticus: “within 30 seconds the illusion was gone as the plane passed overhead.”

    Exactly. You’d also think a helicopter pilot would be pretty well aquatinted with the whole “airplanes in the sky” thing.

    Another thing I can’t figure out — where’s the raw footage? It looks like there’s several minutes of it, but I can only find short, edited clips.

  21. NoJoe / Nov 9 2010 11:10 pm
    NoJoe's avatar

    Zota,

    I realized I didn’t answer your question from a few moments ago!

    Yes, my hypothesis (and I’m just me; I’m not affiliated with this website or anything; I’m just bored at work) is that this trail is from a jet that flew more or less over the top of the helicopter that filmed it. Why they didn’t realize it was a plane when that happened… I have no idea!

    I also have no idea why the DoD or Pentagon or whoever didn’t mention “Oh, maybe it’s just a jet”.

    I do like this quote, though:
    “Things are not always what they seem to be, but you can always count on the government and the military to be absolutely clueless as to what is really going on! It takes the free market and the general community to find the truth!”

    –NoJoe

  22. NoJoe / Nov 9 2010 11:11 pm
    NoJoe's avatar

    Maybe the phrase “Media Overhype” applies to this story…

  23. Smark / Nov 9 2010 11:13 pm
    Smark's avatar

    Unicus: Explain the fire trail, thanks NoJoe:

    NoJoe: Unicus – He probably means this video, around 11 seconds

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

  24. Steve / Nov 9 2010 11:13 pm
    Steve's avatar

    wow Ral said it best and was exactly what I was thinking. Had to bump this one…

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

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

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

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

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

  25. NoJoe / Nov 9 2010 11:15 pm
    NoJoe's avatar

    Smark –

    Just to throw my 2 cents in (again):

    I think the shiny light in that video is just the reflection of the sun off the plane. It’s such a short clip, but it does seem to sort of “flash” like a reflection would. It also does look like firey exhaust.

    BUT THEN WHERE IS IT IN THE OTHER VIDEOS?

    There’s no “visible exhaust” in the other videos; just that one. I’d say it’s a reflection off the plane.

    –NoJoe

  26. Bruce / Nov 9 2010 11:17 pm
    Bruce's avatar

    Uh question for all you contrail believers. Can you absolutely with 100% certainty PROVE that it WASN’T a missle? Didn’t thunk so…

  27. Smark / Nov 9 2010 11:17 pm
    Smark's avatar

    Okay, NoJoe. I’ll calm down. 🙂 Thanks for your post.

  28. jimg / Nov 9 2010 11:18 pm
    jimg's avatar

    Oh, and the clear burn showing towards the end is not a second stage but rather just some sort of glint off the plane window…..

  29. NoJoe / Nov 9 2010 11:20 pm
    NoJoe's avatar

    Smark –

    Hehe, I will too. 🙂 You’re welcome, and thanks for the thanks!

    🙂

    –NoJoe

  30. Sam / Nov 9 2010 11:20 pm
    Sam's avatar

    Who wrote this blog post? Publish your name and credentials. Why is an anonymous blog post being referenced in news stories? How did a ‘private citizen’ like yourself get yourself inserted into the news cycle so easily?

  31. Fred R. Eichelman, Ed.D. / Nov 9 2010 11:20 pm
    Fred R. Eichelman, Ed.D.'s avatar

    Definitely this is a cover up and has already been refuted on some other news sources using qualified experts. I wish it were true, but suspect it was a missile and that it was done by folks in our government for some reason or another. Then again, it could have been a warning from a foreign power. “We can get you when we need to.”

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

    Bruce, don’t get me started again. NoJoe just calmed me down. But, to answer your question, no…you can’t say it wasn’t a missle, just like you can’t say it was Iron Man. Just sayin’

  33. Sam / Nov 9 2010 11:25 pm
    Sam's avatar

    Let’s see. All this ‘jet contrail’ stuff started showing up in the news around 5PM eastern today. Drudge report linked to this “anonymous blog” by some un-credentialed and unknown person, and then “John Pike” of globalsecurity.org gets himself quoted in CNN at roughly 5:30 PM saying that this was “certainly a jet contrail”. It’s amazing how a few government sources can so easily insert themselves into the press news cycle and change the subject so dramatically, by making unsubstantiated claims.

  34. W0X0F / Nov 9 2010 11:27 pm
    W0X0F's avatar

    30 year meteorologist, air traffic controller, weather observer, that ain’t no contrail! It is a vapor plume from the exhaust of something? Obviously, fired into the sunset so that it would be brilliantly visible. Somebody is sending a message!

  35. Steve / Nov 9 2010 11:28 pm
    Steve's avatar

    Classic case of mass gullibility. I mean seriously, someone had the “stupidity” of using trigonometry to try and explain this thing??? How about we just use Occam’s Razor (i.e., the simplest reason is the answer). A “jet” flying off the coast of Los Angeles is not a black box event. If it was “probably a “jet,” then stop using trigonometry and convoluted “science” and just have the airline and/or the pilot of that “jet” just confirm that it in fact was them. If it really was a “jet” then whoever was responsible for that “jet” knows who he or she is as they were there. Its a national story now. Clearly, the airline and the pilot(s) know everyone is talking about “them.” All we have to do is wait for the “jet” “Hey everybody…that was me streaking across the sky!” We don’t need the Pentagon to “speculate.” Unless, of course, the Pentagon simply does not want to admit to launching the missile, which what is really going on here. BTW, this is not sinister in an of its self on the Pentagons part. But the game of denial just ups the drama.

  36. Dan / Nov 9 2010 11:29 pm
    Dan's avatar

    This is comedy. Drudge report must be having a VERY slow news day. Still fun to see he drudgies getting their panties wound tighter than they already are and a senile Ellsworth pointing at his computer.

    My fav nuthead post goes to Charles Martel … “Thanks for letting me know that you are a Fraud! How can you even say it was a Contrail. I saw it launch off my Balconey last night….. ”

    ROFL!!

  37. Rock / Nov 9 2010 11:29 pm
    Rock's avatar

    Pure BS, contail my butt.
    I’ve observed over 1000 missile lanches living here in Central Florida for the last 65 years.
    It’s missile…………

  38. Uncinus / Nov 9 2010 11:30 pm
    Mick's avatar

    Steve, the trig is to explain WHY it looks like it does. There are thousands of jets that fly in that space. A few possible jets have already been identified on FlightAware

  39. Andrew / Nov 9 2010 11:31 pm
    Andrew's avatar

    OK, I learned something. Thanks for the post.

    NoJoe
    “Things are not always what they seem to be, but you can always count on the government and the military to be absolutely clueless as to what is really going on! It takes the free market and the general community to find the truth!”

    How true, and laughing out loud!!

  40. Adam / Nov 9 2010 11:33 pm
    Adam's avatar

    After watching the videos of this event, I offer the following tips to help identify what it was:

    1) If it was a jet, the jet should have been tracked by someone, either by radar, GPS, or something. Knowing the location of the photographer, the distance away (say 35 miles), the direction, and the time of day, there is enough information to determine if anything appropriate was there (i.e., a commercial or military jet, etc.). This should be fairly easy to determine.

    2) If the object appears to be getting closer, then it is probably moving horizontally. If it appears to be moving vertically and is getting smaller, it is probably moving truly vertically, and would therefore likely not be a jet (except maybe an F-15).

    3) Given the distance away (estimated), the apparent speed of the object should be easy to determine. Compare that to the known speed of a typical jet or missile.

    Before determining whose missile it is, first you need to know what it is. Then you can track down the owner or operator.

    That’s just my 2 cents…

  41. Get a Life / Nov 9 2010 11:37 pm
    Get a Life's avatar

    It is clearly a jet contrail, not a missile. The same pattern was produced in Michigan and in the New Year’s Eve contrail.

  42. Icepick / Nov 9 2010 11:38 pm
    Icepick's avatar

    If the contrail were from a jet coming toward the vierer shouldn’t the entire underside of the contrail be in the light from the setting sun? As it is half the contrail looks to be in shadow as though the Sun were behind the contrail, i.e. from a contrail of a missile starting nearby on the surface and flying away?

    On the other side, hasn’t the LAX Control Tower reported that they didn’t detect anything unexpected? I can see a government cover-up being able to keep the guys at NORAD in line, as welll as the submariners. But the LAX Control Tower staff too? That and the lack of eyewitnesses at sea are good arguments against a submarine launch.

  43. Super Man / Nov 9 2010 11:39 pm
    Super Man's avatar

    Sorry folks!!!

    I didn’t mean to alarm anyone!!!

    I ate a burrito that was bugging me all day and I finally had to let it out in a big way. Next time I’ll just do a crop duster.

Trackbacks

  1. Mystery missile launch
  2. Mystery “missile launch” off California | Watts Up With That?
  3. Belmont Club » Duck and Cover
  4. Mystery Missile Launch Seen off Calif. Coast
  5. The Mystery Missile: Bloggers Buzzing, Military Still Stumped | Home Post
  6. Mystery missile caught on video near L.A. - Dateline Zero

Comments are closed.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started