Was NOT an Airplane (as per General)

Originally posted by Human_Alien
So, even though it LOOKS like a missile and information comes out to support that it was indeed a missile../

What information has come out to support it is a missile? You have a single retired general who gives his opinion that it is a missile along with testimony self-proclaimed experts in this forum (and I'm a Chinese fighter-pilot) who don't know the differences between missile exhaust and airplane contrail (as Zorgon pointed out; thank you Zorgon) along with exaggerated claims about the entire military claiming it is a missile. That is not evidence.

However, over and over, evidence has been presented showing it is an airplane contrail. All this evidence is consistently ignored because as you say, "it can't be an airplane" but never telling us why it can't be, just dismissing it in favor of people who quite obviously have no idea what they are talking about. Then you have the audacity to proclaim that anyone who disagrees is spreading disinformation.

Originally posted by zorgon
Seriously? You DO know that a missile launched at sunset going UP will catch the sunlight as it gets higher and the trail will get BRIGHTER not DARKER?

not really !!!
It depends on whether or not
there is another cloud blocking
the sunlight's path. That is how
you can sometimes see 2 clouds
side by side and only 1 is lit up.
The other is in it's shadow.
strawman argument

reply to post by zorgon


Wow that chick is on RT? I am all for free press and free sharing of opinions and ideas, but out of all the people to bring on TV... I don't know what to say. I guess it is good to get people thinking about conspiracy and collusion between government and corporations.

Originally posted by Phage
Your perceptions are selective.

This corresponds with the conclusion of John Pike, a defense expert and the director of GlobalSecurity.org.

"It's clearly an airplane contrail," Pike said Tuesday.

"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.

www.cnn.com...

oh yeah, it's that same Col. Lapan in all the MSM articles
stating it is an airplane, Is he the only SOB that works
at the Pentacon? There are more retired military analysts
on TV claiming it is a missile and only 1 Pentacon employee
claiming it's a plane. Seems like a lop-sided argument to
me. And also, this John Pike fellow, isn't he the one who
was involved with the dual use controversy?
And Congress dismissed his critique???
Wow, what a snub!!! Congress wouldn't listen
to him, why should we ????

So to me it sounds like your perceptions
are selective.

ok, I am switching to the other thread to see this evidence of an airplane. At this point, I don't have an opinion either way...however...it sure looks like a rocket trail to me. For comparison:






and the more spectacular:





Having said that, just because something resembles something else, doesn't mean it always is. For example:




No, it's not a raccoon. It's a dog.


But if this is a plane, why can't it be identified? And where exactly did it launch from, in the middle of the ocean like that? Must have been an aircrft carrier....but that would make it a military jet/ scramjet, right? (Doh!) What non-military aircraft can take off from the middle of the Pacific?

Or was the "Astronaut Farmer" not a complete work of fiction? (Doh! Doh!)

Originally posted by Tnewguy
Ok, I know Im crazy for writing this but just hear me out.

There have been multiple "missile" sightings now. Not just the one in Cali. With multiple witnesses.

What If, and I say what if the "agency" warning is true and the U.S. is blasting missiles thru the "portals"?

I'm no expert but if these are missiles they should be landing somewhere, shouldn't they?

the "agency"? lmfao

u mean the same agency that warned us to stay indoors cuz there was a green non-comet heading for us that could not be stopped...yet they stopped it? the same agency that sed to prove their real wud fly a craft over munich and again failed? the same guys who were going to send a drone to mr von helton? again failed.


the agency hold absolutely no water, they or he/her were a
sham or it was a lonely guy sitting in his bedroom making up storys to get some attention.

oh and as for the missiles landing somehere yea they should, maybe way outat sea, in the dessert or mountains, where there are no people......

reply to post by A55A551N


the one with the helicopter in the video....not being funny but a) why was it there? it was obviously showing an intrest and b) if it was a plane surely it would have been bigger than the chopper? and i dont see wings....thus i come to the conclusion that it is NOT an airplane.

Everyone go see the latest video from the station that started this mess. They seem to be deliberately pushing this, even admitting this has gotten them the most hits ever on their network.

www.760kfmb.com...

Can someone record this? It seems the original story is gone now

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by subby

 

Your perceptions are selective.

This corresponds with the conclusion of John Pike, a defense expert and the director of GlobalSecurity.org.

"It's clearly an airplane contrail," Pike said Tuesday.

"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.

www.cnn.com...

Too simple a statement to be credible. The Plane "Theory" is just that - a theory - no different than the missile theory. No impartial effort was put into really determining the source.

Problems I have with the plane "theory":

1. The "Contrail" seems more substantive than the normal white contrails, more like that of a solid propellant rocket
   
2. "It's actually horizontal" theory, in order for the horizontal theory to work, the object must be traveling towards the camera which would make the "bottom" of the contrail farther away and appear smaller.
   
3. The "Contrail" is substantailly larger and shows enough definition to appear that the bottom is closer than the top and thus the object is moving away
   
4. Since the horizontal thoery seems weak, it would lead to a more vertical flight path being credible
   
5. Flight path seems too vertical for a commercial plane on a routine flight path
   
6. At 30 miles out, planes leaving LAX should have already achieved a much higher elevation than the "Contrail" origination near sea level.
   
7. Incoming aircraft to LAX circle and land from the East. Planes taking off all go West, but again should have already gained much more altitude by the time they are 30 miles out.
   
8. the Flare at the tail of the object looks more like the space shuttle than reflection from an aircraft.
   
9. The angle of the sun does not seem to match up with the reflection theory to explain the flare.
   
10. If this is a plane, where are the other contrails from planes on same/similar flight paths. (most airliners follow the same general flight paths in and out of airports)
    

The Plane "Theory" is no more or credible than the missile theory.

Real scientific analysis of the video by smarter people than I could provide many answers.

Like:

1. Does the object location fall within commercial flight paths?
   
2. Analysis of "Contrail," is it more substantive than a regular vapor trail?
   
3. Wind direction and speeds that day to refine perspective of contrail
   
4. Angle/Trajectory of "Contrail" is it possible/probable/feasable for airliner to go that vertical
   
5. What aircraft are capable of that trajectory
   
6. Would military fighter/strategic bomber aircraft with afterburners kicked in produce such a flare at that estimated distance?
   

I caution those pushing the plane theory so hard to still remain objective because I still see many holes in your theory. When that scientist guy on FOX blew it off as optical illusion of a plane going towards us which was actually horizontal, I lost respect for him. A good scientist analizes all the data impartially first before drawing a conclusion and rarely just states something as fact. Scientific method draws theories based on as much hard data as can be had and is open to change when new data warrants a different conclusion.

There is currently no information or basis to form the conclusion that this object is anything other than an aircraft's contrail being viewed at certain angles. DoomsDayRex even posted flight tracking information about the flight in his thread; highly detailed information about the type of aircraft, it's destination, decent rate, course and altitude. I have yet to see ANY evidence supporting this to be a missile launch.

The MSM has created an uninformed opinion by jumping the gun and calling this a 'missile launch'.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


I would just like to know why no one has been able to locate what plane it was.
The best anyone could come up with was one plane south of the sighting.

Originally posted by AP-Chris
Too simple a statement to be credible. The Plane "Theory" is just that - a theory - no different than the missile theory. No impartial effort was put into really determining the source.

Problems I have with the plane "theory":

The "Contrail" seems more substantive than the normal white contrails, more like that of a solid propellant rocket

Nice list but did you actually see the rest of the images posted by the station that started this? Where did the rocket go?



Why does the contrail break up shortly after the point the filming was cut off on the original video?



losangeles.cbslocal.com...-1

But I suppose we can all just toss reason out the window and believe what the News media is doing is right

The object is clearly not a rocket. Rockets look like this (or so goes the official story):

reply to post by AP-Chris


Co-incidentally enough, someone else asked a similar question, another thread, and I researched a bit into this, and have answers:

....If this is a plane, where are the other contrails from planes on same/similar flight paths. (most airliners follow the same general flight paths in and out of airports)

Let me start by clearing up what looks like a misconception re: contrails. The "in and out of airports" is not relevant, when discussing contrails, since they will only form above ~25,000 feet, or so. Therefore, arriving and departing airplanes, within the roughly 50-mile radius of the departure/arrival airport, when they are too low to form contrails, won't be relevant.

I did a little looking, and knowing what I know about the airline biz, it was a snap to pull up the Honolulu Airport published departure schedule, online:

hnlairportweb.com...

This page indicates that it updates each time you access it, and displays the next 24 hours' worth of departures.

As I write this, it is 1630 EST, so it's 1130 HST. On Thursday, 11 November 2010.

It has tentatively been determined that the airplane making the contrail on Monday, 8 November 2010 was USAir flight 808, HNL-PHX. That particular flight does NOT operate on a daily repeat schedule, as you can see it does not appear on Thursday's list. I also checked the date (11th, Thursday) on the USAir website, and the flight is not listed. It DOES operate on Friday. Normal scheduled departure time is 0955 HST.

That makes sense, as the time range needed to leave Honolulu, and be in the vicinity of LA, and Southern California, in the time frame when the contrail was spotted, against the backdrop of the setting Sun. Roughly 1700 PST.

Looking at the departures from HNL, around that time (1000 HST) there show only inter-island flights, and two to Narita (Tokyo, Japan).

Unless we can find any other departures to the Mainland from Honolulu (besides US808) that leave other days, at around 1000 HST, then the only flight that would be there, to make that contrail, is US808.

This whole story just is not sitting right with me.
1) The Pentagon and NORAD both allowed themselves to look like incompetent idiots. Do any of you really believe they would allow that unless it was intentional?
2) Some foriegn countries are convinced we launched a missle, yet they are not doing any damage control (not openly anyway)
3)Conflicting experts (weatherman knew more than NORAD, no f'in way)

What if this entire thing was an experiment to see how the public would react to a missle launch off our shores.

reply to post by AP-Chris


I agree with you Chris. Very vaild points!

reply to post by zorgon

Nice list but did you actually see the rest of the images posted by the station that started this? Where did the rocket go?

I'm confused, since we don't know where it went it can't be a missile?

Why does the contrail break up shortly after the point the filming was cut off on the original video?

Good question, what does this prove or disprove? Do plane contrails disappear like that? Does the time elapsed between stages of a multistage rocket give that visual effect? ICBM and submarine based rockets are multi stage, I believe.

Jocko Flocko:

There is currently no information or basis to form the conclusion that this object is anything other than an aircraft's contrail being viewed at certain angles. DoomsDayRex even posted flight tracking information about the flight in his thread; highly detailed information about the type of aircraft, it's destination, decent rate, course and altitude. I have yet to see ANY evidence supporting this to be a missile launch.

You lost me at "decent rate," the object was obviously ascending. To think otherwise is contrary to reason without clear scientific data to back it up.

You haven't seen any evidence of a missile launch because you have vested yourself into the plane theory for whatever reasons and are not looking for evidence of a missile launch.

reply to post by AP-Chris

1) Here are some examples of "substantive" contrails.




2) Persitent contrails spread over time. The older, more distant portion of the contrail is wider than the fresher portion.


3) Because the older more distant portion is wider it creates a illusion of perspective that it is closer to the the camera when the opposite is true.

4) The horizontal "theory" is not weak.

5) The flight path is horizontal.

6) The plane is inbound from Honolulu to Phoenix. It is at an altitude of 37,000 feet.

7) The plane is going to Phoenix.

8) I have never seen a rocket engine flicker.

9) An aircraft has many surfaces at different angles which can reflect light from and to many directions.

10) There are not too many flights from Honolulu to Phoenix.

Originally posted by AP-Chris
Good question, what does this prove or disprove? Do plane contrails disappear like that?

yes they do... as the moisture from a vapor trail evaporates quickly unlike smoke form a missile or when the plane moves into different air and no longer produces a contrail

Does the time elapsed between stages of a multistage rocket give that visual effect? ICBM and submarine based rockets are multi stage, I believe.

No a second stage ignition does not give the same effect. there are many spectacular videos of that on the tube

You lost me at "decent rate," the object was obviously ascending. To think otherwise is contrary to reason without clear scientific data to back it up.

No it is not obviously ascending. A plane moving towards the viewer would give the appearance of it moving up... until it passed over head... but then the camera man cut the recording at that point The science of that is covered here in great detail. Its all about perspective and viewer position

uncinus.wordpress.com...

You haven't seen any evidence of a missile launch because you have vested yourself into the plane theory for whatever reasons and are not looking for evidence of a missile launch.

I realize there are a lot of pages of thread on this issue but the real missile launches have been presented many times. Defcon5 showed the best examples and I have linked to videos of stage separations at sunset that were posted as UFO sightings. I personally see missile launches a lot when Vandenberg launches and I live in Las Vegas so look west into the sunset when they appear above the horizon. Vandenberg is 4 hours drive from me yet they look like they are just over the hill. Its all about perspective

It was a jet contrail. It was in the air WAY TO LONG to be a missile. Missiles travel more than 10000 mph. It wouldn't be visible for as long as it was. The person who filmed it said they watched it for 10 minutes. Missiles would be in a different part of the country in 10 minutes.

This video is funny, watch the whole thing:

Missile Impossible:
www.thedailyshow.com...

By the way, a US missile expert said it was a jet.