Was NOT an Airplane (as per General)

reply to post by Phage


Phage do you still believe this was flight 902?

reply to post by backinblack

Isn't that obvious?
I have no reason not to think so.

reply to post by Phage


Well you are wrong buddy. I feel sorry for you Phage.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by Phage

 

Well you are wrong buddy. I feel sorry for you Phage.

I feel sorry for those who are too closed-eyes or too closed-minded to be thrilled by the week's long pursuit == and capture = of this snark. There were valuable, original contributions by more than a dozen well-informed participants on these threads, along with many dozens of sincere testimonials of pure faith in the decaying and now defunct missile theory.

Reason trumps faith, once again. Well done to those who moved the process along.

'Reason' led to the plane contrail explanation. Blind faith is all that's left for the missile theory.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

 

Isn't that obvious?
I have no reason not to think so.

You still believe this entire contrail, from start to finish, is over 160 miles away?
www.cargolaw.com...

I also think my horizon calculation would not be too far off at 25 Miles..
That really makes this contral look much closer IMO..
The tail appears very near the horizon..

reply to post by JimOberg


Jim I have to be honest with you. I don't even understand what it is you said. I think you are in support of the missile theory but I can't tell. You really confused me. I for 2 am also glad this is all put to rest though. Do you know anyone at DoD or DoHS because I am pretty sure we need to warn the authorities what really happened. Just send me a personal message with the phone number. Don't worry I will credit you when I call. =)

reply to post by sputniksteve


I assure you Jim does not think it's a missile..

I have lived in the Orange County CA my entire life. I live on a rather large hill with a good100 degree view of the greater orange county/ LA area. I have witnessed NUMEROUS ICBM launches from vandenburg airforce base. I also witnessed this contrail. ICBMs move much faster than this contrail did, and it was at the wrong angle for a missile trajectory. Contrary to popular belief, ICBM launches have a far shallower angle of attack than this contrail did. Missiles inteded for exiting the atmosphere go up at about 45-50 degrees, this was much closer to 90. Now, I don't know what type of plane it is, or if it is anything else. But I can guarantee that it is in fact not a missle.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Violater1

 

I'll ask you again:

What other aircraft were at that location, at an altitude conducive to contrail formation, at 5:15PM. You say they were there. Flight US808 was in the vicinity but 30 minutes prior.

And I will tell you again, please refer to the Flightaware software. I know you have it.
I will ask you a third time, with all of the aircraft at the mentioned class A altitude in that sector, why is there only one exhaust plume? All aircraft approaching the very well known Contiguous U.S. ADIZ (AIR DEFENSE IDENTIFICATION ZONES) and especially flying in Class A altitudes, are under control of ATC. Why do you think the military took a long time to give an official answer? Why do you disbelieve all of the credible Air Force Officers and pilots that say that it was a missile? And lastly, I will ask you again, please explain to me, why the exhaust plume starts out thin, widens, and then thins out again. Please roll it to mw, I'm not as smart as you.

reply to post by Violater1

Yes, they are west bound, but at the same altitude. Yet for all of the similar aircraft in the area, only one contrail.
And you don't find this suspicious?

NO. Did you miss a few important details, pointed out my myself, and Phage, and I think others??

ALL three of those flights, UAL 43, AAL 123 and 73?? They all passed NORTH of LAX. United 43 was way up in the San Francisco Bay area. There is simply no possiblity that they would make a contrail seen where the UPS 902 contrail was seen!

Hang on, will post details.....

Flight plan routing for AAL 73 on 8 November 2010:

MZV LMN J64 PGS J64 HEC J6 PMD RZS C1176 DINTY R576 DENNS

'PMD' is Palmdale VOR, well north of LA, in the High Desert. 'RZS' is the San Marcus VOR, up in Ventura County, also well north of LA. (It's east, and slightly south, of Vandenberg AFB). 'RZS' coordinates are: N34 degrees 31 minutes, W119 degrees 46 minutes.

'DINTY' is the waypoint. out over the ocean, that begins the Hawai'i track route labelled "R-576". DINTY is at N33 degrees 29 minutes, W122 degrees 35 minutes.

The LAX Airport's N latitude is 33 degrees 56 minutes. By W118' 26".

American 123 flew the same route, on 8 November 2010.

American 73's track log, from about the area of the 'RZS' VOR, to the waypoint 'DINTY':

08:23PM 34.48 -119.34 250° West 434 499 34,000
08:24PM 34.43 -119.49 252° West 444 511 34,000 ^720
08:25PM 34.39 -119.63 250° West 439 505 35,500 ^960
08:26PM 34.35 -119.76 251° West 439 505 36,000 ^240
08:27PM 34.31 -119.90 249° West 439 505 36,000
08:28PM 34.27 -120.03 251° West 439 505 36,000
08:29PM 34.23 -120.17 249° West 434 499 36,000
08:30PM 34.19 -120.30 251° West 434 499 36,000
08:31PM 34.15 -120.43 250° West 427 491 36,000
08:32PM 34.11 -120.56 250° West 422 486 36,000
08:33PM 34.07 -120.69 251° West 422 486 36,000
08:34PM 34.03 -120.83 249° West 422 486 36,000
08:35PM 33.99 -120.96 249° West 422 486 36,000
08:36PM 33.95 -121.09 250° West 422 486 36,000
08:37PM 33.91 -121.22 250° West 422 486 36,000
08:38PM 33.87 -121.35 249° West 422 486 36,000
08:39PM 33.83 -121.48 249° West 422 486 36,000
08:40PM 33.79 -121.62 251° West 422 486 36,000
08:41PM 33.75 -121.75 250° West 422 486 36,000
08:42PM 33.70 -121.89 248° West 422 486 36,000
08:43PM 33.66 -122.02 248° West 427 491 36,000
08:44PM 33.62 -122.16 248° West 427 491 36,000
08:45PM 33.57 -122.29 250° West 433 498 36,000
08:46PM 33.53 -122.42 250° West 433 498 36,000

(In that log, the Lat/Long are in decimals. I.E., "122.42 degrees west longitude" is = to W122 degrees 25.2 minutes. It is digital, base ten versus base sixty, for the minutes). Each one/tenth of a degree = six minutes.

Times there are EST (subtract three hours for PST, the LA time reference).

Contrail. South of LA, off the coast to the West, was seen at ~1715 PST.

American 123:

07:35PM 34.39 -119.25 253° West 421 484 34,000
07:36PM 34.36 -119.38 253° West 421 484 34,000

[skipping to the end....]

07:58PM 33.56 -122.30 251° West 427 491 34,000
07:59PM 33.52 -122.42 252° West 421 484 34,000

American123 passed north of LA at between ~1630-1645 PST.

End of story.

I originally posted this on another thread, but I am reposting it here because it may give you some idea where Jim Oberg's research may be leading him. For the record, I started out assuming it was a rocket because it looked like a rocket.Rockets get launched at sea all the time, so it was perfectly plausible. Would a local TV news anchor lie? After examining the facts, I am now of a much different opinion.

FACTS:
1. The only source for this story is Los Angeles local news affiliate KCBS.
2. This story claimed that this event was taped on November 8.
3. This story also implied the missile was launched 35 miles off the California coast.
4. No-one but the photographer in the helicopter claimed to see it.
5. The reporter claims he "observed it" for ten minutes.
6. The news editor did not get any confirmation that the object taped was seen on radar or reported by anyone else.

QUESTIONS:
1. Why did no other station report this story?
2. Why was this not reported live? Was it not important?
3. How did they determine this? Or did they just choose a number at random? Why show a graphic?
4. Why did no-one but the photographer notice?
5. Did he actually see it launch, or merely observe a trail that had been in the sky for an indeterminate length of time already?
6. If the editor was not able to get independent confirmation, why did he run the story?

Initially, I thought it was sloppy journalism. I am increasingly of the opinion it was a deliberate hoax.Other things to ponder: Why call it a "missile?" Why not "rocket?" Is it because "missile" sounds more threatening? Why make up a specific number and show a graphic if you don't have specific information? Could it be an attempt to convince people of a story you know is not true? And if they lied about the "launch point" can we be sure they didn't lie about the date the tape was recorded? Might they have had this entire story "in the can" for weeks waiting for a slow news day to use? If we don't know when it was taped, is there any point in speculating what flight it was? Why have they not released the original footage, with date and time stamp? Why are they so vague as to the exact location and altitude of the copter?

All of the news, analysis and opinion out there revolve around the accuracy and veracity of this story.And it smells worse every day.

reply to post by DJW001
Nice run-down of the facts and very good questions.

Great post. star on that

Originally posted by JimOberg
I feel sorry for those who are too closed-eyes or too closed-minded to be thrilled by the week's long pursuit == and capture = of this snark. There were valuable, original contributions by more than a dozen well-informed participants on these threads, along with many dozens of sincere testimonials of pure faith in the decaying and now defunct missile theory.
Reason trumps faith, once again. Well done to those who moved the process along.
'Reason' led to the plane contrail explanation. Blind faith is all that's left for the missile theory.

Who is Jim Oberg?
Oh, my apologies, I forgot that he is the esteemed journalist that was contracted by NASA to write a rebuttal of Apollo Moon landing conspiracy theories. NASA later dropped the project.
Never A Straight Answer

reply to post by Violater1


WoW!!!! Just....well....WoW!!!!

Really? WoW!!!

Well, that wraps it up, folks!! Case closed! Has to have been a missile,and all the intelligent observers on Earth who can realize it was an airplane, and a contrail, are either incredibly wrong, or "dis-info" (ironic, since the WHOLE "missile" STORY to begin with was dis-info!!!)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Violater1

 

Yes, they are west bound, but at the same altitude. Yet for all of the similar aircraft in the area, only one contrail.
And you don't find this suspicious?

NO. Did you miss a few important details, pointed out my myself, and Phage, and I think others??

Again, of all of the aircraft in that sector, why did only one leave an exhaust plume?
Or do you believe, that in these photos, that cover hundreds of square miles, only one object produced an exhaust plume?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Violater1

 

WoW!!!! Just....well....WoW!!!!
Really?

WoW!!!
Well, that wraps it up, folks!! Case closed! Has to have been a missile,and all the intelligent observers on Earth who can realize it was an airplane, and a contrail, are either incredibly wrong, or "dis-info" (ironic, since the WHOLE "missile" STORY to begin with was dis-info!!!)

From The LA Times,
latimesblogs.latimes.com...
"Pentagon officials are looking into what they have called an "unexplained contrail"
"Each branch of the military has denied involvement, and the Pentagon has been cryptic about the object and who may have launched it"

And this from the New York Post,
www.nypost.com...
US Defense Department official told Fox News that a missile has not been ruled out.

Yes there are more news agencies quoting the military.
But then what do they know.

But by the way you sound, you are taking this too personally and sound emotionally upset.
Perhaps you need to take another pill, there small.

reply to post by Violater1

Again, of all of the aircraft in that sector, why did only one leave an exhaust plume?

(Sorry, didn't repeat the underline)

Simple. Atmosphere isn't the same everywhere. This is a basic fact of contrails, contrail formation and persistence, etc.

It is science, readily research able, both online and from other venues.

There is not a Human being alive (that I know of, anyway) who can look at the air with naked eyes and predict whether a contrail will form, or not. Water vapor is invisible, of course...BUT can be measured with instrumentation. SO, weather balloon soundings (radiosondes) data can be used for predictions.

The frequency of actual soundings, though, makes it spotty at best...there is no "minute-by-minute" data being collected, only trends (sometimes AFTER the fact...or forecasts of approaching, increasing relative humidity conditions, sometimes based on other observations and readings, too)...combined with the very dynamic nature of the atmosphere, always changing....

The proof of contrail formation is usually BECAUSE they form!! Clouds that are prevalent beforehand can be good indicators, too. Signs of potential. Because, since jet airplane contrails differ very little from normally-occurring cirri form clouds, if the Cirrus are there, then contrails are logical too.

AND, even as few as a couple hundred feet vertically can mean a big difference, a "Yes" or "No" for contrails (and clouds). Same with distance. Several miles, dozens of miles, etc. ALSO, air can be layered in many different ways....it's not always perfectly horizontal, like a layer cake ... can be like a layer cake after a car accident!! Any number of different patterns...think of rivers, and how they flow, and all the differences you can see (since water is much easier to see, than air).

reply to post by Violater1


Dude!!!

Both those news article links (well, LA Times, IS a newpaper, even though that was a blog. NY Post?? Meh...but, in this case, they got it pretty much right...where they say it is a CONTRAIL from an airplne!!!)

Anyway....Dude! Those both are from only ONE day after the incident. Meaning, they were written THAT NIGHT, (the 8th) for publication the next day!!!

It's been over a week, now! Hardly "breaking" nor current news, yes???

My illustrious and prestigious Base commander did some digging for me today while I was in the cockpit.
This link that he sent me should clear things up.
I was wrong. Thanks to B.G. Bob to set it straight.
contrailscience.com...

reply to post by Phage


It's not only the wings Phage. No aircraft has a contrail that thick, and even looking at the contrail close to the booster we see no break in between the contrail, which shows this was just one engine, and not four... Not to mention the firing up of the booster in one of the stages which was captured by the camera, which is not a naviational light....

You are doing here the same thing you tried to do with your post claiming that the Sun's activities does not cause earthquakes, when real scientists, and several peer-reviewed research papers say the oposite to your claims...