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THIS IS AN OUTDATED OVERFLOW SITE.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. illogicbuster / Nov 10 2010 7:26 am
    illogicbuster's avatar

    Interesting analysis by this blogs author. Unfortunately, it is incorrect. I live 50 miles north on the coast and behind an East-West mountain (against the North face, do the math as per the diagram) and saw the missile at the same time. Not a contrail.

  2. idotretart / Nov 10 2010 7:27 am
    idotretart's avatar

    Pics or it didn’t happen.

  3. helo cam data / Nov 10 2010 7:44 am
    helo cam data's avatar

    If the TV station released the altitude, azimuth, and timestamp from that fancy camera on their helicopter, an 8th grader could do the math. It’s a conspiracy by .mil + .gov to make you stupid.

  4. Ben / Nov 10 2010 8:01 am
    Ben's avatar

    When looking at the NECN.com video at approx 38 sec. in there is another plane crossing the field of view at that point it becomes clear that the object in question is coming at the the camera. I just got back from a job where i worked 4 months at Cape Canaveral A.F. station and saw plenty of missile launches. What is in this video is NOT a missile launch. If it was then the people on Catalina would have definately hread it based on proximity, especially if it was a delta heavy or bigger. But I have heard no one on the mainland or Catalina stating of hearing it.

  5. Erik de Ridder / Nov 10 2010 8:05 am
    erikderidder's avatar

    Everyone can say what they want. It’s called a debate for a reason. At least someone is trying to analyse this from a scientific or mathematical grounding and not just scrounging around on the internet seeking various news links from which they could draw half-contrived and semi-meaningful conclusions.

    Just saying.

  6. JetPilot1 / Nov 10 2010 8:14 am
    JetPilot1's avatar

    I am very happy this evening after reading all these posts. I am happy because I have reaffimed in my mind that most members of the General Public in this nation are the most uneducated, blathering fools to ever take a breath, and as such, they will be easy targets for any crazy scheme I dream up. I am now confident that I will become rich by selling all of you “experts” out there some really dumb inventions on late-night TV, and you will eagerly buy them for three easy payments of only $19.95. Look for them soon.

    By the way, it’s a contrail, numbskulls.

  7. Emily / Nov 10 2010 8:31 am
    Emily's avatar

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

  8. You People Make Me Want To Move To Canada / Nov 10 2010 8:34 am
    You People Make Me Want To Move To Canada's avatar

    You people seriously want the Pentagon to devote time and resources to confirm that this was an airliner? Get real. It would take more than 24 hours for the one disinterested intern they assign to this idiotic task to compile the data, much less for that information to get into a press release. The answer is simply that the Pentagon has better things to do than appease the sensationalists that got fired up over a local news report from the ONLY cameraman on the west coast who saw this from that particular angle. The pilots aren’t talking either because they don’t even know about all this, because this isn’t exactly newsworthy, or they do know and are getting too much a laugh out of it to kill it just yet.

  9. Mike / Nov 10 2010 8:49 am
    Mike's avatar

    I posted this on the main site, but I’ll repeat it here as it’s actually more relevant to the comments here on the spillover site:

    These demands for definitive statements by the military and author credentials are silly. If military spokespersons had said (or do say tomorrow), “Of course it was an airliner” or if the author said, for instance, “I’m an atmospheric scientist,” would the response from any of the missile enthusiasts be “Oh, well, then, that’s fine. Never mind.” Even one or two of them? Of course it wouldn’t. The response would be more along the lines of “See? They lied just like I knew they would” or “Yeah, fine, a scientist, but tell us, who exactly paid you to say this stuff back at the beginning of the year, knowing they had the secret launch coming up this month?”

    The thing you have to understand about conspiracy theorists is this: The vast majority are going to believe what they’re going to believe until the day they die. Present well thought-out arguments and unequivocal physical proof all you want — until you’re blue in the face if you like — and it won’t matter one whit. The entrenchment is especially firm in the minority of people reduced to quivering blobs of jelly at the prospect of terrorism, which they might be doubly horrified to learn is the primary aim of terrorism.

    How many lunar landing disbelievers have changed their minds upon seeing the recent photographs of the Apollo landing sites taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter? For that matter, how many even looked at them? My guess is very close to zero for both numbers, because, of course, the government fabricated those images or they flew robots up to the moon to plant this evidence to be photographed. If you flew those enthusiasts to the moon and hovered over each of the sites for an hour or so, I’m sure most would prefer to believe later that you had drugged them and implanted false memories because “Total Recall” as scientific fact, not fantasy, is a much more preferable thing to believe as it would lend credence to their theory, not your demonstrable facts.

    Once you realize that you cannot and will not be allowed to win the argument (or, in the more extreme cases, even have blatantly obvious facts accepted as such), life becomes more pleasant and you waste a lot less of your time as you learn to simply detour around folks who are at their happiest when they spend hour upon endless hour spinning specious circles around you.

  10. James / Nov 10 2010 8:53 am
    James's avatar

    Now if only planes were propelled by balls of fire you might be believable onthis most recent one. Sadly for you and the people trying to hide this, they are not.

  11. anomie / Nov 10 2010 8:59 am
    anomie's avatar

    Yeah, lots of things seem like missile trails. This was taken from my front yard :),

  12. AlexanderS / Nov 10 2010 9:00 am
    AlexanderS's avatar

    @ Ben de Ridder and helo cam data— Do you really not think the helicopter data was not taken into consideration when analyzing this? If some random web surfer considers these variables I’m pretty sure the “aerospace experts who reviewed the footage (and) said the size of the plume suggests it was a large military rocket or missile” took these variables into consideration also. I’m not saying these “experts” are right, I’m trusting the diligence of these objective third-party aerospace profesionals.

    @ Ben– I love science and math, especially when used in debate because it has rules and laws that are quantifiable and can be proven. But when it is in the hands of smuggish and biased humans with a motive (web hits) it loses it’s value. This contained argument defending the notion its a plane loses its “..grounding” when there are exogenous factors from experts (that are sourced and have no motive to persuade) clearly stating it was in fact a rocket or missile, then rationally and MEANINGFULLY I would trust their opinion.

    So, basically the method of “scrounging around the web” and finding better suited sources, allows one to “contrive” a very grounded and meaningful conclusion. Just saying.

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

  13. GregR / Nov 10 2010 9:02 am
    GregR's avatar

    This was a contrail lit up by the setting sun. Look at the video right at the beginning, or at one of the screen captures showing a still frame (before the camera zoomed in). That portion of the contrail which appears to be closer to the ground is brighter than the surrounding sky. Looking into a western sky at dusk, the only reasonable way that the portion of the contrail which appears “lower” in the sky to actually be brighter is for it to be at high altitude further west, past the terminator. I’m going to cast my lot in with those saying that this was US Airways flight 808 heading from Hawaii to Phoenix, which was transiting the area at the time.

  14. AlexanderS / Nov 10 2010 9:28 am
    AlexanderS's avatar

    I’m not stating that it is a missile. I’m basically regurgitating opinions (most from better sources) as a rebuttal to this blog and the smug creatures going out on a limb to discredit any argument that doesn’t match theirs. From an argumentative perspective I could care a less whether it was a plane, missile, or a pack of aliens picking up hookers. Doesn’t matter. I’m posting because of self-righteous people like jetpilot1 or move to canada who won’t even consider the fact that there is empirical evidence against them. Please, move to Canada, your posts are just as ignorant as any others.

  15. TAXSHEEP / Nov 10 2010 9:41 am
    TAXSHEEP's avatar

    I dont trust the goverment or big business to ever tell the truth

  16. Pieter / Nov 10 2010 9:53 am
    Pieter's avatar

    Not everything is a conspiracy. 😉

  17. Jorg / Nov 10 2010 10:05 am
    Jorg's avatar

    Thanks for the article. Maybe you should explain why in some photos, there is what seems to be a missile-like shape at the tip of the contrail, as that had me puzzled for a while. For example the 1st photo by Scott Methvin, or even the 0:50 mark in the NECN video.

    I guess these are simply contrails that happen to be in the shadow at that time, that remain perfectly straight because the wind hasn’t spread them yet, and that the plane is way too small to be visible. But I’m pretty sure that to most people, it will appear to be a huge-ass missile, so it might be a good idea to clear that up.

  18. MQBitsko / Nov 10 2010 10:18 am
    MQBitsko's avatar

    Obviously a contrail. Sheesh. Gotta love those Drudge “headlines”.

  19. Keith Warner / Nov 10 2010 10:54 am
    Keith Warner's avatar

    Thanks for confirming what I already concluded.I’m an old Navy controller stationed at NAS Pt Mugu in the early 70s. I’ve seen my share of contrails, as well as Minuteman II launches at Vandenberg.

    If someone wants to shoot spectacular video they should try a night launch. I saw one at about 9PM when it was totally dark. The sun illuminating the exhaust plume was awesome.

    LOL @ ‘chemtrails’. I think MK Ultra is over by now, but I still keep my tinfoil hat just in case….

  20. Tim David / Nov 10 2010 11:00 am
    Tim David's avatar

    Wow, certainly quite impressive with all the math equations and the totally irrelevant photos of other contrails that look like what was show in the video…except…not…quite. The video shows something that looks like flame, or light, at the back end of the object producing the trail. But go ahead, continue to try and dazzle all us rubes out here with your megamind like intelligence. The trail behind the object in the video starts out thick and billowy, unlike how the contrails in your pictures START. Yes, after upper level winds start to dissipate them, the contrails will look like that. But you can see the object producing this trail, and the altitude is too low for it to be a contrail, vertical or horizontal.

  21. Falcon195 / Nov 10 2010 11:00 am
    Falcon195's avatar

    DAve — You must have seen the Vandenburg launch on Friday evening the 5th at 7:20 pm. It would have been just as you described from Santa Barbara. The subject of this thread is the launch/contrail event that occured Monday night the 8th at 5:03 pm. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

  22. mujokan / Nov 10 2010 11:19 am
    Mujokan's avatar

    Reminds me of all the weird things people managed to talk themselves into seeing in the WTC collapse videos.

  23. Steve in La. / Nov 10 2010 11:23 am
    Steve in La.'s avatar

    Since when does an aircraft leave contrails at take off that low to the ground? You usually only see that at much higher altitudes where the air is very cold.

  24. Mike / Nov 10 2010 11:33 am
    Mike's avatar

    If you can imagine an aircraft over the horizon, at high altitude, coming nearly straight toward you, and that the Earth curves over the horizon, and that the aircraft follows that curvature, and then what that might look like, I guarantee you’ll have a big leg up on other folks. If not…well, I don’t know what to tell you.

  25. George Jones / Nov 10 2010 11:49 am
    George Jones's avatar

    George Bush signed off on the “False Flag Attack” on 9/11. Dick Cheney made Norad stand down.
    People in WTC are saying that controlled demolitions were going off all around them.
    See Google Video “9/11 Mysteries” and “Loose Change Second Edition”. Israel Mossad was involved also.

    Also, these disk are two miles in diameter. Watch the “raw footage” video.
    http://www.edgrimsley.com

  26. John Smith / Nov 10 2010 12:12 pm
    John Smith's avatar

    Excellent asessment………. Should this be REAL which I agree that it is REAL; this looks like a “”Dry Run” for “America Haters”…… Our President is dancing half way around the World…….. He’s a Micro-manager (What Marxist isn’t?) ……… No one here in the militaryn will lift a finger until he says to lift it.
    Am I frightened? Of course I am frightened. As a child , I participated in daily, Nuclear Bomb Drills, for almost all of my 1st and Second Grade experience. That leaves a mark on you. Something like this and that old sickening stomach upset come =s home to roost.

    May God Bless each of our souls. and see us all safely home.

  27. N / Nov 10 2010 12:23 pm
    N's avatar

    you’re awesome! Finally someone who is not making this into a new big ‘we got attacked’ by whomever they want to blame this time.. but just looking at scientific facts.. love it.. and for the others that believe in missels… you’re stupid

  28. Benjamin / Nov 10 2010 12:28 pm
    Benjamin's avatar

    It’s good to see that at least a few people are taking this missile launch seriously. Even if it turns out to be nothing, it is such a rarity for this to happen without corresponding to an announced or confessed missile launch by the United States military. Seeing as how they have denied it was them, we should be at least somewhat alarmed. It definitely wasn’t an airplane. Now if it were the Chinese or the North Koreans, I feel like they would be claiming it by now and bragging about it. Who knows?

  29. dt / Nov 10 2010 12:30 pm
    dt's avatar

    The Pentagon does not know, the FAA does not know, We can just look at the radar and Sat views and figure this out? The FAA should know if it is a plane…. There should be NO question. We know where it was when is was… we have a helo in the area filming it… This should not be that hard to confirm IF in FACT it was a PLANE!

  30. kanawa / Nov 10 2010 12:33 pm
    kanawa's avatar

    It’s an ‘Obama Object’…something that’s not what it appears to be on first glance.

  31. Barry Morris / Nov 10 2010 12:50 pm
    Barry Morris's avatar

    Get real! When is the last time you saw a jet leave the ground horizontally at over Mach 4 and take a near 45 degree turn. This contrail shows grouped engines and not those mounted on rear fuselage or wings. This thing has all the characteristics of an on board guidance system. If folks believe this is an aircraft, then they will certainly believe anything they are told.

  32. James in Germany / Nov 10 2010 12:51 pm
    James in Germany's avatar

    If you look at just still pics, you may conclude that this is just a jet contrail…but, I believe the video shows a missile with a large bellowing plume of exhaust gasses as they exit the missile with a fireball that is visible consistently for several seconds of the video footage. Furthermore, a jet contrail tends to develop behind the flying jet with some distance between the jet and contrail…sometimes you can see this as you watch a jet fly over-head and the plume seems to be more streamlined until the wind has a chance to spread the contrail. As far as the fireball being a reflection, well, I think somebody here already stated that a reflection from a jet tends to be more of a flash than a consistent fiery glow. In fact, as you watch the video where you can see the glow, there is a flash. That may have been a stage being blown off.

    Now, add my humble amateur analysis to the fact that CBS and the LA Times don’t question whether or not it was a missile launch. In fact, ONE of the EXPERTS they asked made this strong statement,”The launch of a rocket that size doesn’t belong to any commercial entity without them issuing a press release,” said Marco Caceres, analyst with Teal Group Corp., a Fairfax, Va.-based aerospace research firm. “It can’t belong to anyone but the military.” If that’s not enough, a former Secretary of Defense seems to be convinced it’s a missile.

    I suppose the experts and the SoD are nutjobs too.

  33. cohenner / Nov 10 2010 12:51 pm
    cohenner's avatar

    Spiffy,
    Your notification that you posted has the TFR in effect from 09 to 10/11. The event occurred on 08/11. Sorry.

  34. James Waldrop / Nov 10 2010 12:56 pm
    James Waldrop's avatar

    You have got to be kidding me!! What a bunch of BULL_ _ _ _!!! I’m not a conspiracy theorist by any means but anyone that doesn’t KNOW that this was a missile is delusional!!!!! Why not try to convince us that it was a large bird passing gas. This was a missile and beware of anyone that tries to convince you otherwise. They are not someone you can trust.

  35. Mike / Nov 10 2010 1:31 pm
    Mike's avatar

    On board guidance system? Holy moley, is that anything like one of them autopilot doohickeys, which I’m pretty sure are powered by black magic? Anyway, autopilots are a big myth. Theycouldn’t possibly turn something as big as a jet. I mean, look at that one foot cube of electronics with a few circuit boards and wires. Are you seriously telling me that can turn a 747 weighing three-quarters of a million pounds? Get serious!

    Also, Mach 4? 45 degree turn? You know what I think? I think you’d have to know its exact course — in all three dimensions — to be able to state that. Say, just who the heck are you, anyway? What kind of instruments did you use to measure this? Can I get some on eBay? I demand my right to know. C’mon, spill!

  36. koz / Nov 10 2010 1:43 pm
    koz's avatar

    Forget this,
    Did we really go to the moon?

    Is Elvis really dead?

    Where can I find the End of a Rainbow? I need some money.

    These aren’t the contrails you are looking for!

    Simple and obvious. This is a rocket launch.
    By whom? Don’t know.
    Reason? Don’t know.

    But trying to pass this off as a contrail is basically saying
    that humans truly are sheepishly stupid. I cannot believe that even one person
    here identifying this as a “contrail” really believes what they are saying.

Trackbacks

  1. Mystery Missile Launch Off California Coast a Jet Contrail? | DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercuts - DBKP
  2. Missile misterioso in California (o forse no…) « Paoblog
  3. missle launch california : : It Was Just A Contrail - Hit Stuff!
  4. Mystery Solved? Missile Launch Could Be a Jet Contrail
  5. L.A.’s Mystery ‘Missile’ Is Probably a Jet
  6. UFO « The Tilman Times
  7. LIVE AT FIVE – 11.10.10 : The Other McCain
  8. » Blog Archive » Experts: Unexplained ‘Missile’ May Just Be a Jet Plane
  9. The mysterious contrails
  10. Unknown Missile Launch ? - The RadioReference.com Forums
  11. Mystery Missile Launch - PPRuNe Forums
  12. Mystery Missile Caught on Video Near LA - Page 2 - FlyerTalk Forums
  13. Mystery missile launched of californian coast
  14. Eyecatching « Atomic Spin

Comments are closed.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started