Mysterious Missile Launch Over California - 11/8/2010

reply to post by Phage

It has been quite well confirmed that the contrail on the 8th was from UPS808. The timestamp on the LAX webcam is 5:15. The images looking across the harbor were taken between 5:19 and 5:23. Right when UPS902 was there.

Whats going on here Phage..When I first saw this lax web cam pic and you posted that flight902 was 160 miles off the coast at that time, I argued that that did not look like a pic of an event over 160 miles away...You argued it was!

NOW, you are trying to sneak in that the date stamp was wrong and the actual time was between 5:19 and 5:23?
A good 4-8 minutes later and bringing flight 902 into range????

Is there any evidence that you can't twist to suit your theory???
Actually, is there any evidence unmolested that fits your theory?

reply to post by backinblack

Goodness, you really are having trouble tonight.
Please read that quote again.
The LAX webcam shot was from 5:15.
The other shots taken across the harbor (remember, the ones you claim are fake?) were from 5:19 to 5:23.

reply to post by Phage


You know what..It's pretty obvious what you are doing.
I'm going to leave this thread to you so it can carry on to it's blissfull conclusion which was evident from day one, regardless of the lack of difinitive evidence...

reply to post by backinblack

I don't know what you think I'm "doing". I'm trying to answer your questions.

The evidence is definitive. The location of UPS flight 902 at around 5:15 on November 8 corresponds to the image from the LAX webcam and the images taken looking across Los Angeles Harbor.

There is another image of a contrail taken on November 9th. I don't know what time that image was made. If I did it would help to identify which flight created it.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

 

I don't know what you think I'm "doing". I'm trying to answer your questions.

The evidence is definitive. The location of UPS flight 902 at around 5:15 on November 8 corresponds to the image from the LAX webcam and the images taken looking across Los Angeles Harbor.

There is another image of a contrail taken on November 9th. I don't know what time that image was made. If I did it would help to identify which flight created it.

edit on 11/15/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Two days ago you had the same definitive evidence that it was flight 808..
Now it's definitive evidence of fligh 902 based on this image,
blog.bahneman.com...
Personally I do not believe that is a pic of flight 902 over 160 miles away..

No official is prepared to claim what plane caused this event but you clam "definitive" evidence...
I'd lean 80% to it being a plane and would just like to see REAL definitive evidence, not opinions that are changed and twisted....Not really much to ask....

The following is a contrail produced by a McDonnell Douglas MD-11. It shows how the tri-engined airliner can produce large contrails. Note that under certain conditions the three engine contrails merge rather than producing individual contrails.

www.airliners.net...

TJ

I was just looking on redicecreation and they are saying that the air plane has been id as a chinese missel off of a su, just off the coast of Califoria.
Has anyone else picked that up on ATS.

They said the chinese also dropped the US credit rating from AA to A plus, that was a little extra kick in the drawers for the US getting caught with their pants down,

This is just what I heard, that never looked like contrails to me from the start, itlooked like the norway spiral to me.

Originally posted by googolplex
I was just looking on redicecreation and they are saying that the air plane has been id as a chinese missel off of a su, just off the coast of Califoria.
Has anyone else picked that up on ATS.

They said the chinese also dropped the US credit rating from AA to A plus, that was a little extra kick in the drawers for the US getting caught with their pants down,

This is just what I heard, that never looked like contrails to me from the start, itlooked like the norway spiral to me.

reply to post by zorgon
Hey
I'm just behind on things, that sure is a nice looking girl in that picture, is she chinese, is that your sister by chance.

Well don't tell me the chinese did not drop our credit rating from AA to just A plus.

reply to post by Phage

OK, I did some research..
LAX field is 126' ASL
I don't know where the web camera is so I'll assume top of the air traffic tower at 277'.
That makes it about 400' ASL
And a visible horizon of about 25 miles...

That makes this a pic of a plane contrail around 140 miles over the horizon...Obviously further at the visible start of the contrail..
www.cargolaw.com...
Now I know that it is physically possible to see an object at that altitude given that equation, the perspective still baffles me. It simply does not look that far away and if it is then at the base which look quite wide, it must be huge..

Originally posted by googolplex
Well don't tell me the chinese did not drop our credit rating from AA to just A plus.

Okay I won't
www.newser.com...

But no missile No Chines sub in LA harbor

Phage and tommyjo - still no "blow up" from anyone about what is at the head of the contrail.
I have with my limited equipment done so - and I see no plane, just a dark elongated shadow inside the head of the contrail and no wings!

No half baked techno mumbo-jumbo anymore - just show us the plane for pete's sake. Until you do, we dont believe you. Simple really - put up or shut up.

And trust me , everybody wants to believe it is a plane, so show us the plane.
And if the plane was really 160 miles away, how come it left this HUGE contrail behind.
No contrail I have ever seen is wider than the plane in front of it.
Must have been some plane!

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
I see no plane, just a dark elongated shadow inside the head of the contrail and no wings!

If you enlarge an image with an object that's only portrayed by a few pixels, all you get are a few really large pixels. If a plane is 160 miles away I don't expect to see the wings.

And if the plane was really 160 miles away, how come it left this HUGE contrail behind.
No contrail I have ever seen is wider than the plane in front of it.

No offense but you need to get out more, I've seen lots of contrails bigger than the plane, they are smaller than the plane soon after forming, but over time they dissipate, and that's how they get so big.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

No offense but you need to get out more, I've seen lots of contrails bigger than the plane, they are smaller than the plane soon after forming, but over time they dissipate, and that's how they get so big

But this one at 160 miles away was huge...Look at the base, it must be miles across and still looks reasonably solid....Thats an awful lot of condensation...

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW
reply to post by Strype

 

You're claiming that it has been 'settled' since Zorgon posted some similar photos of a very rare event where a jet contrail resembles a missile trail.

I claimed it was 'settled,' because there is ample evidence proving that this was a plane and not a missile. You've been following along in the thread, right? Also, I was more referring to the fact that the photos provided by zorgon indicate that the contrails do NOT resemble a missile trail.

It very well could be.

But we need confirmation of what flight it was, it's heading, what airlines, and such. The fact that the military, FAA, Norad, and all related agencies can't confirm or link data is making people uneasy.

The evidence pertaining to this information was posted previous to our posts. I assumed you knew this.

And your posts also has this feeling that since this looks VERY much like a missile launch, they must be stupid or moronic in thinking so.

Well I have news, life is NEVER that definite, and even brilliant people can make mistakes.

Stop acting like you're above it all.

This was not my intention. I apologize if I came across that way. It's just frustration coming out in words. I unintentionally do that from time to time and meant no harm. However, aside from the great points you did make, I suggest you gather all of the information discussed in the thread before you criticize my post next time.



Cheers friend,
Strype

reply to post by Strype

The evidence pertaining to this information was posted previous to our posts. I assumed you knew this.

So what is this evidence you speak of?
What flight do you say it was?

Originally posted by backinblack
But this one at 160 miles away was huge...Look at the base, it must be miles across and still looks reasonably solid....Thats an awful lot of condensation...

Yes it must be miles wide, we saw it on the satellite images earlier in the thread, and it must be wide to see it there.

It's the same amount of water vapor as always, just more spectacular and persistent than usual, that's why this thread is 175 pages long.

WW3

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by backinblack
But this one at 160 miles away was huge...Look at the base, it must be miles across and still looks reasonably solid....Thats an awful lot of condensation...

Yes it must be miles wide, we saw it on the satellite images earlier in the thread, and it must be wide to see it there.

It's the same amount of water vapor as always, just more spectacular and persistent than usual, that's why this thread is 175 pages long.

The satellite image that was said to be the right timeframe for Flight 808?
I remember that...But this was Flight 902 which was 30 minutes later..
Now how would that fit in ?
Thats what bothers me..For 3 days all the facts were shown to exactly fit flight 808 down to a few minutes/miles..
Now we are supposed to allow the same facts to fit flight 902 on a slightly different flightpath but a full 30 minutes later...

I presume you guys know already about the document from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency advising about missile tests on the California coast for that week:

www1.nga.mil...

Funny thing is, the document was removed since then. Maybe just a coincidence, maybe not.

Here is a copy of the same document:
www.scribd.com...