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THIS IS AN OUTDATED OVERFLOW SITE.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. Falcon195 / Nov 10 2010 4:33 am
    Falcon195's avatar

    Please explain the “physics” to us all NotDelutional.

  2. VillageIdiot / Nov 10 2010 4:35 am
    VillageIdiot's avatar

    If this was simply a legitimate “jet contrail” FAA could have produced information on it as FAA tracks ALL aircraft in CLASS A airspace to provide separation. FAA would simply say… yes that is flight ABC. This would save the military from admiting to tests or have egg on their face for not knowing or screwing up.

    The FAA has not come forth with this information. So… the question still remains.

  3. ab / Nov 10 2010 4:39 am
    ab's avatar

    I think the helicopter was over San Pedro/Rancho Palos Verdes, CA covering a water main break the street.

  4. Falcon195 / Nov 10 2010 4:43 am
    Falcon195's avatar

    Sorry NotDelutional, times up (Wikipedia must be lsow tonight). Your argument that the plume was not a contrail because it persisted is clearly wrong because persistent contrails are extremely common.You either did not read the excellent presentation here or failed to understand it.

  5. Falcon195 / Nov 10 2010 4:43 am
    Falcon195's avatar

    Sorry NotDelutional, times up (Wikipedia must be slow tonight). Your argument that the plume was not a contrail because it persisted is clearly wrong because persistent contrails are extremely common.You either did not read the excellent presentation here or failed to understand it.

  6. NotDelusional / Nov 10 2010 4:43 am
    NotDelusional's avatar

    Falcon195 – Well ya know what? Ya got me – you’re right now that I consider it. But now I’m really concerned that if FAA doesn’t know, the Pentagon doesn’t know, NORAD doesn’t know and the Department of Homeland Security doesn’t know then I’m wondering just how safe we Americans really are… Time to get all scared yet…?

  7. Ihaverobothands / Nov 10 2010 4:45 am
    Ihaverobothands's avatar

    John Pike, a defense expert who is director of GlobalSecurity.org:

    “It’s clearly an airplane contrail,” Pike said Tuesday afternoon. “It’s an optical illusion that looks like it’s going up, whereas in reality it’s going towards the camera. The tip of the contrail is moving far too slowly to be a rocket. When it’s illuminated by the sunset, you can see hundreds of miles of it … all the way to the horizon.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/09/california.contrails/index.html?hpt=C2

  8. Uncinus / Nov 10 2010 4:47 am
    Uncinus's avatar

    Ab, that sounds about right for either Hawaii flight.

  9. Uncinus / Nov 10 2010 4:49 am
    Uncinus's avatar

    NotDelusional, I’m sure NORAD knew HREF was no missile launch, they just did not know what the “unexplained contrail” was, exactly.

  10. Will_C / Nov 10 2010 4:52 am
    Will_C's avatar

    This guy doesn’t even know the difference between “too” and “to”, so we can all move along now. Don’t know how this site got linked on Drudge.

  11. Falcon195 / Nov 10 2010 4:54 am
    Falcon195's avatar

    The reason for the governments confusion is they are prepared to identify and confront real threats i.e. miltary satellites, 7/24 missle launch detection, etc. A jet contrailis not a threat. if it had been a missle launch they would have known it immediately. Yes, they too were probably baffled by the initial wonder of the video, but only because their systems indicated no launch. I understand your concern, I though for an hour or so that we were probably going to war. Hey, there is enough obviously threatening things confronting us as a nation to keep us busy for a long time 🙂

  12. shane rankin / Nov 10 2010 4:59 am
    shane rankin's avatar

    ok, i don’t know what it was but i did a quick google search of boeing 757 contrails and came up with these links. a 757 has a rather distinct contrail pattern due that doesn’t look like what’s in the video. the most obvious difference is that you can clearly make out two trails, one per engine.

    here are some pictures of other kinds of passenger jets and their contrails, none which resemble what was in the video.

    http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/boeing,contrail

    on the other hand, here’s a picture of a talos missle in flight after being launched from a navy ship.

    here’s a video of a minuteman missle launch and while it’s a larger faster moving object than what’s in the video, i thought it’s flight path was pretty interesting….central california to the marshall islands, much like the proposed 757’s los angeles to hawaii route.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChhYOO1s-nY

    i’m no scientist so i only offer these up as observations. i would also like to say that i don’t believe in chemtrails so i’m not a conspiracy nut grasping at air here, just making an observation or two. i’m not sold on the idea that it was a 757 though.

  13. Falcon195 / Nov 10 2010 5:01 am
    Falcon195's avatar

    “Hey knuckleheads….these comments are all lame. I WAS IN SANTA BARBARA and saw the whole thing. It was 100% a missile …a very LARGE missile that blasted out of the ocean. You could hear the rumble of the engine as it climbed out of the sea and headed northwest until it was out of view.”

    *** BOLOGNA ***

  14. K Provance / Nov 10 2010 5:01 am
    K Provance's avatar

    It’s the Illuminati. We should all just calm down. The GFL will not allow a war with nukes to ever happen.

  15. Randy / Nov 10 2010 5:06 am
    Randy's avatar

    I just read through this whole thread and then discovered the whole ‘chemtrails’ conspiracy subculture and read up on it too. It’s pretty interesting and I just have one quick question on this contrail/chemtrail/missile coverup thing:

    What is wrong with all y’alls brains?

  16. Corky Boyd / Nov 10 2010 5:11 am
    Corky Boyd's avatar

    You’re right on, thought I had a scoop with the same info. Good reporting

    Monday’s flight of USA 808 passed over Catalina Island at about 5:03 pm. The timing is right. Surprised DoD hasn’t come up with the same thing. Track is here, click on track on the right:

    http://flightaware.com/live/flight/USA808/history/20101108/1955Z/PHNL/KPHX

  17. Bill V. / Nov 10 2010 5:15 am
    Bill V.'s avatar

    Long time follower here Ucinus. Thanks for everything you do. You should ask some of the aliens living among us to sponsor this site with some advertisements. Will all the crazies hitting your site, you’d make a killing!

  18. phyllis / Nov 10 2010 5:16 am
    phyllis's avatar

    People have to lay off the weed, seriously. Not everything is a conspiracy.

  19. J. Woods / Nov 10 2010 5:16 am
    J. Woods's avatar

    Oh good lord, people. It’s clearly, unambiguously demonstrated that this is an airplane. Since you conspiracy pushers appear to lack the real-life social network which traditionally serves as a check on the public promulgation of such embarrassing absurdities, let me exercise my duty as a citizen and fill the void with hard-earned and much-deserved ridicule.

    Before that, though, I’ve got some other ones for you: Global warming is a hoax! Obama is a Muslim! Aliens landed at Roswell! Israel attacked us on 9/11! Vaccines cause autism! Fluoride is poison!

    Idiots. You’d all be entertaining if not so very sad. But rather than growing up, we all know you’re going straight to your web-based or cable news enablers to reinforce the notion that, shucks, it’s just you guys against the world. KFB is right: please don’t vote, any of you.

  20. Scott L. / Nov 10 2010 5:19 am
    Scott L.'s avatar

    While this site seems to contain quite a bit of legit info, the legit info is only used to legitimize their dis/misinformation, of which this article is one.

  21. AlexanderS / Nov 10 2010 5:25 am
    AlexanderS's avatar

    You show great empirical evidence but it was not a plane. If you watch the video you can clearly see bright flames from the end of this ufo. Haven’t seen too many commercial planes with rocket boosters attached to them..
    I could go on but.. it’s not a plane. Don’t you think the FAA, Navy, Pentagon, etc would have cited this exact information to the media to clear speculation? The people at these organizations are not dumb and definitely took this type of empirical approach to this. To deny that would baffle me.
    Now, the Pentagon definitely knows about this; but some things are better off not disclosed to the masses. As the former ambassador to NATO said, “…to demonstrate to Asia we can do that (launch an intercontinental ballistic missile).” We would do “that” because of the G-20 Summit.. This is the most logical explanation in my opinion.

  22. lgstarn / Nov 10 2010 5:35 am
    lgstarn's avatar

    chuck…

    “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.”

    The atmosphere IS extraordinarily dynamic and unstable. You put it very, very well. Ever heard of the whole butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo causing a thunderstorm in the United States? It is a little thing called “chaos.” I highly suggest you read the following website:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/chaos.htm

  23. Falcon195 / Nov 10 2010 5:43 am
    Falcon195's avatar

    “You can clearly see bright flames from the end…”

    I’m a pilot with over thirty years experience flying the So Cal basin. In fact, I have routinely flown in and out of LA area airports. it is not unusual to catch the reflection of the setting sun on the belly of a heavy jet transport. Been there and done that – have you?

  24. lgstarn / Nov 10 2010 5:48 am
    lgstarn's avatar

    Most of the conspiracy arguments (the ones that aren’t hopelessly misguided as to what contrail are – look up “supersaturation” please) come down to, “the US government hasn’t figured this out yet, and they are gosh darn real smart. So your analysis must be wrong.”

    But that’s not really a valid scientific rebuttal, is it?

    To put it another way, someone says “the earth is round” in medieval times, but the rebuttal is, “no it isn’t, because our government would have found out it was round. So it must be wrong.” Can you see now how that is completely backward?

    Just because someone else hasn’t found it out doesn’t mean it is wrong. If you read up and use your math and science skills, you might just be the first one to discover some amazing truth!

  25. katmandu / Nov 10 2010 5:53 am
    katmandu's avatar

    Thanks for such elaborate explanation. Now me goes to sound sleep!

  26. AlexanderS / Nov 10 2010 5:55 am
    AlexanderS's avatar

    Wow, what a team of charlatans to discredit the fact that it’s not an airplane. I don’t need to go into details to prove this reasoning as many other posters already have. To call every organization and person in the MAIN STREAM news and government liars is quite a statement. Calling anyone who disagrees with your evidence “retarded” seriously reveals the bigotry and lack of perspective among you. I am recieving my mba in may and to have my reasoning belittled proves even more so the motives behind this BLOG.

  27. DAve / Nov 10 2010 5:58 am
    DAve's avatar

    GOD…what idiots. I SAW IT WITH MY OWN EYES. “Bologna”….you sir are an a**hole. I know a missile when I see AND hear one. I see that the gov bloggers are all hard at work trying to sweep this under the rug. Sorry. I wasn’t the only one who witnessed it. Everyone on the pier saw it too. It was uprange from our position and we all watched it traverse the sky in an UPWARD direction. What…were we all seeing things? It was a frikkin’ missile and anyone who thinks otherwise is a mind-controlled zombie or a government agent blogger trying to cover it up. Some have video from their phones. I’m sure they will be loading the videos up on Youtube soon. As for all of the idiots who are saying it’s a “contrail”, shut the f**k up and watch the video and NOT look at all of the pictures that “they” have now posted to deceive you. Something BIG happened yesterday and it was serious enough to have all of these gov blogger knucklehead traitors to start up this deception campaign and spin story.

  28. Falcon195 / Nov 10 2010 5:58 am
    Falcon195's avatar

    “I am recieving my mba in may and to have my reasoning belittled …”

    GET USED TO IT!

  29. Falcon195 / Nov 10 2010 6:02 am
    Falcon195's avatar

    I’m sure they will be loading the videos up on Youtube soon.”

    I’ll BELIEVE IT WHEN I SEE IT. YOU DO HAVE A TALENT FOR CREATIVE WRITING.

  30. AZRedhawk44 / Nov 10 2010 6:10 am
    AZRedhawk44's avatar

    Your premise is incorrect because of the sunlight/coloring of the contrails.

    All your anecdotal aircraft-sunset contrails are illumated brightly on the south side, where they reflect sunlight.

    This recent contrail is dark on the south side, and only has a hint of sunlight that is extremely bright along the northern edge. This contrail is reflecting sunlight out into the Pacific ocean, and that’s because it is rising between us and the sun.

  31. Falcon195 / Nov 10 2010 6:12 am
    Falcon195's avatar

    Ok, I’m tired and want to go to bed. To those I have offended I apologize. If you are right and it’s the end of the world then we will all definitely know you were right — good luck.

  32. Uncinus / Nov 10 2010 6:13 am
    Mick's avatar

    shane, the shape of the contrails will be very different when viewed from the front (perspective foreshortening), and they also vary with the atmospheric conditions (being bigger).

  33. Uncinus / Nov 10 2010 6:16 am
    Mick's avatar

    AZRedhawk44, it just depends on which side of the sun it is. The michigan photo has the sun on the other side, but not by very much. If the observer were a few miles to the north, then the picture would be the other way around.

  34. Truckee / Nov 10 2010 6:19 am
    Truckee's avatar

    Erm… I don’t think anyone buys your bs. That ain’t an airplane.

  35. lgstarn / Nov 10 2010 6:19 am
    lgstarn's avatar

    In addition AZRedhawk44, the light reflected off of the ocean is only in one particular area approximately the size of the sun in the sky. Think of a watch reflecting sunlight back on the wall in a dark room – it only lights up one little circle, not the entire wall.

  36. AlexanderS / Nov 10 2010 6:20 am
    AlexanderS's avatar

    @ Falcon195– Get used to trolls believing they just proved the whole world wrong with some pictures and highschool geometry? LOL. I don’t care how many reflections you’ve seen; you’ve never seen beyond the shadows. Figure it out. Not wasting any more time with this. As I originally posted, I believe it was a political message aimed at the G-20 Summit. You can show all your pictures and basic geometry but IMO theres a 95% chance that it was a missle. If I’m wrong, so be it. I’ll accept being wrong and won’t go around calling people who were right retards.. Good night

  37. geom / Nov 10 2010 6:27 am
    geom's avatar

    The Government knows exactly what it was. The Government can see us picking our nose at a stoplight. The most important question is, why has not the Government waited 24+ hours to make a statement?

  38. interested / Nov 10 2010 6:29 am
    interested's avatar

    Maybe there was a communication error within the DOD and the truth is the most simple and plausible: it was a military rocket and the people answering for the DOD and military services were not adequately informed concerning a routine event.

    My initial thought on seeing the video was that it was obviously a rocket (no reason to assert it is a weapon). I still think so but I don’t have any particular conspiracy to assert or defend.

    I understand perspective and optical illusion. The telling parts are the corkscrew characteristic of the trail and the rapid expansion of the trail from the body of the object. These don’t seem consistent with airplane contrails.

    Remarks about the speed of the object being too slow to be a missile don’t make sense to me. You have to assume some altitude and range to judge speed. I think it was entirely consistent with a rocket launch. In fact I think the apparent speed combined with the rapid bloom rules at the airplane theory. A few years ago I saw a dusk launch from Vandenburg that looked very similar to this (viewed from San Diego). I did not see this event live.

    I would not assume anything based on what a spokesman for the DOD or military service doesn’t know. It is possible or even likely this was a planned routine event and a communication error was made at the public affairs level. Immediate knowledge of what the public might consider routine facts at high levels is not always possible.

    If a rocket went airborne it is certain the truth is known concerning all of the flight data. If it was just an airplane you won’t hear that story from the DOD as there is no incentive to reconcile flights with the video. Even if it was a routine DOD launch we might not hear “the truth” unless it is a slow news day tomorrow.

    My prediction is we will hear nothing more about this as either way it was a nonevent and not worthy of discussion. Most likely tomorrow a blond hair blue eyed girl will be abducted somewhere and media pressure to answer will disappear like a rocket plume in the atmosphere. Just because some public affairs personnel or bigwigs were not adequately informed to answer immediate media questions does not mean there is cause for alarm or some mischief afoot.

  39. Falcon195 / Nov 10 2010 6:30 am
    Falcon195's avatar

    Good night AlexanderS.

  40. idotretart / Nov 10 2010 6:34 am
    idotretart's avatar

    Yes, USA808 was crossing the CA border at this very time.

    Los Angeles Latitude/Longitude 33° 56′ N 118° 24′ W

    From Flight data http://flightaware.com/live/flight/USA808/history/20101108/1955Z/PHNL/KPHX/tracklog

    Recorded position at 8:03pm Eastern (5:03pm LA time)

    Time Lat Long HD DIR KTS MPH ALT LOC
    08:03PM 33.41 -118.08 82° East 506 582 37,000 Los Angeles Center

    Also, the trail ‘disappears’ at a certain point in the video because the aircraft (and it’s contrail) crossed the earth’s shadow at that point (as it was traveling east, it would…)

    Had it been moving vertically, the trail would not have ‘vanished’ but would have continued to be visible as it rose further and further ABOVE the earth’s shadow, especially as it was ‘apparently’ trending to the northWEST.

    As a side note, this is Los Angeles. Everyone and his dog has a cell phone with camera capability, and if this huge plume had towered ominously above the county FROM EVERY ANGLE – there would be 50,000 corroborating pictures/videos flooding the internet since last night. I have searched quite a bit, and this seems to be the ONLY angle and only image captured? Come on…

    The helicopter cameraman just happened to be at this curious angle (and his added height meant he saw a great deal more contrail coming over the horizon, which having spread so significantly, looked like an initial launch plume).

  41. A4 / Nov 10 2010 6:35 am
    A4's avatar

    Unlike everybody else here, I claim no expertise and have no idea whether the vapor trail is from an aircraft or a missile, but I can say that the smug name-calling from the contrail advocates diminishes their position. Also, they’ll have to explain this quote from the LA Times: “Aerospace experts who reviewed the footage said the size of the plume suggests it was a large military rocket or missile.”

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/11/la-mystery-missile-may-have-been-errant-launch.html

  42. Jimmy Vick / Nov 10 2010 6:41 am
    Jimmy Vick's avatar

    2 months ago I saw something almost exactly the same as this. It was sunset and I was looking west into the setting sun when I thought I saw what looked like a missile going up in the sky. I ran up and got on a 10″ telescope and sure enough it was a contrail of a plane coming straight toward me up over the horizon. It was all an optical illusion between the sunset, the approach of the plane, and the huge honkin contrail it was leaving.

    When I saw the story and the pics, it cracked me up.

  43. bdog / Nov 10 2010 7:12 am
    bdog's avatar

    really ..a contrail….FAIL….

  44. charles fort / Nov 10 2010 7:24 am
    charles fort's avatar

    It was a whirlwind, a mariah, a mere zephyr.

Trackbacks

  1. Mystery missile launch reported off California coast « Follow The Money
  2. mystery missile : : Mystery Missile The Science The Pathos - Hit Stuff!
  3. mystery missile | idleworm
  4. The Missile Launch Edition « State of Occlusion
  5. Experts: Unexplained ‘Missile’ May Just Be a Jet Plane | The Blaze | huddlepress
  6. That was no missile « Standing Pat

Comments are closed.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started