Mystery missile caught on video off L.A. coast

[eburacum45]

And I believe that the flight info above proves beyond a reasonable doubt it was the contrail from AWE808, subject to any new data as to when the actual video was taken.

Ahem; an analysis here favours UPS902
http://blog.bahneman.com/content/it-was ... flight-808

 

[MeteorWayne]

My mistake, I should have said it's beyond a reasonable doubt that it was a contrail.

With finally an image with a timestamp, (BTW the 5:15 PST would be correct, as the analysis suggested; it would be quite a bit darker at 6:15, nearly an hour and 20 minutes after sunset...that's almost astronomical twilight) it seems UPS902 is more likely, arriving a few minutes later than AWE808.

BTW, I see no contrail in the GOES image. They are very hard to see unless they expand rapidly. I have seen the much larger shuttle contrails in images though in the past.

 

[CalliArcale]

(Offtopic.) Oh, that is awesome -- I never even thought of looking for Shuttle contrails on GOES imagery! I'm totally gonna do that after Discovery finally launches. :geek:

 

[DrDil]

DoD Statement on California Contrail Nov. 8, 2010
(by NORAD and USNORTHERN Command on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 at 08:06

While there is nothing at this time that leads the Department of Defense to believe this is a missile launch, the department and other US government agencies with expertise in aviation and space continue to look into the condensation trail (CONTRAIL) seen and reported off the coast of southern California on Monday evening.

All DoD entities with rocket and missile programs reported no launches, scheduled or inadvertent, during the time period in the area of the reported contrail. NORAD and USNORTHCOM confirmed that it did not monitor any foreign military missile launch off the California coast yesterday and has determined that there was no threat to the US homeland.

In addition, the FAA ran radar replays from Monday afternoon of a large area west of Los Angeles. Those replays did not reveal any fast-moving, unidentified targets. The FAA also did not receive reports of any unusual sightings from pilots who were flying in the area Monday afternoon.

If any new information comes to light in the coming days, we will update the press and public.

DoD statement attributed to Col. Dave Lapan, DoD spokesman.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=456547113098

 

[Smersh]

Thanks for the info Doc. Strange choice of wording the DoD have in that statement I think:

" ...the department and other US government agencies with expertise in aviation and space continue to look into the condensation trail (CONTRAIL) seen and reported off the coast of southern California on Monday evening ..."

But it WASN'T a contrail that was reported. It was reported as a missile. Why do the DoD need to investigate contrails? I guess the DoD must be pretty busy then, if they spend their time investigating thousands of contrails seen over the US every day. :lol:

That said, it's quite an old report now as it's dated 8th Nov.

 

[DrDil]

Thanks for the info Doc. Strange choice of wording the DoD have in that statement I think:

" ...the department and other US government agencies with expertise in aviation and space continue to look into the condensation trail (CONTRAIL) seen and reported off the coast of southern California on Monday evening ..."

But it WASN'T a contrail that was reported. It was reported as a missile. Why do the DoD need to investigate contrails? I guess the DoD must be pretty busy then, if they spend their time investigating thousands of contrails seen over the US every day. :lol:

That said, it's quite an old report now as it's dated 8th Nov.

It’s old but it was reported on the 10th, not the 8th.

And regarding, “But it WASN'T a contrail that was reported” that’s semantics at best, by the same token if they said they were investigating a missile you could have said, “Aha, so it was a missile.” :-*

In my opinion it’s obvious what they were stating and what they thought it was.

If you don’t think they were right then that’s fair enough but too try and prove that they were lying by misconstruing the obvious intent of an official press-release seems a little naïve.


Cheers.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Read all about it here on SDC.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/m ... 01116.html

With the help of other Langley researchers, Minnis also learned that on Nov. 9, conditions were "ripe" for persistent contrails over the Pacific west of Los Angeles, but that the contrails would only survive for a short time closer to the coast.

"As it turns out, the high clouds seen in the background of the video were actually behind the contrail because the plane had flown north of the clouds, and changed course to the northeast, so that the clouds were behind the contrail as viewed from Catalina Island," Minnis said. "All of that information changed my mind."

Based on his research, Minnis said he can't definitively prove that the contrail came from an airplane. But, it is the "most likely" scenario given the data.

"Later, while viewing some blogs, I found that the contrail corresponded remarkably well with flight AWE808, which flew from Hawaii to Phoenix; it showed the change in course to the northeast at the same location, further confirming my conclusion."

 

[brandbll]

I have it from an extremely reliable source in the know that would like to remain anonymous that it was actually a missile that misfired while still attached to a fighter jet. That's correct people, it was a contrail and missile combined.

 

[silylene]

Read all about it here on SDC.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/m ... 01116.html

With the help of other Langley researchers, Minnis also learned that on Nov. 9, conditions were "ripe" for persistent contrails over the Pacific west of Los Angeles, but that the contrails would only survive for a short time closer to the coast.

"As it turns out, the high clouds seen in the background of the video were actually behind the contrail because the plane had flown north of the clouds, and changed course to the northeast, so that the clouds were behind the contrail as viewed from Catalina Island," Minnis said. "All of that information changed my mind."

Based on his research, Minnis said he can't definitively prove that the contrail came from an airplane. But, it is the "most likely" scenario given the data.

"Later, while viewing some blogs, I found that the contrail corresponded remarkably well with flight AWE808, which flew from Hawaii to Phoenix; it showed the change in course to the northeast at the same location, further confirming my conclusion."

Please read this article if you believe it was a missile. It wasn't.

The 'mystery' contrail is visible as a horizontal white streak in the middle of the lower left quadrant of this image, captured by the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite 11. The satellite is a partnership between NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Credit: NASA/NOAA [Full Story]

 

[DrDil]

Happy Birthday Smersh!!

 

[Smersh]

Thanks very much Doc.

Btw, I have rested my case re this topic and I'd quite like it to just go away now. (Not that I had much of a case in the first place apparently. :shock: ) I think we'll have to just agree to disagree because if I'm right and it WAS some sort of missile, we won't find out for at least 30 years anyway when the documents get declassified.

 

[MeteorWayne]

The 'mystery' contrail is visible as a horizontal white streak in the middle of the lower left quadrant of this image, captured by the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite 11. The satellite is a partnership between NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Credit: NASA/NOAA [Full Story]

That's much higher resolution than I get on my pooter. Thanx!

 

[Archer17]

Thanks very much Doc.

Btw, I have rested my case re this topic and I'd quite like it to just go away now. (Not that I had much of a case in the first place apparently. :shock: ) I think we'll have to just agree to disagree because if I'm right and it WAS some sort of missile, we won't find out for at least 30 years anyway when the documents get declassified.

Hell, you'll be a centenarian by then.

The missile-plane debate is no biggie. "Herd" forums where everyone agrees wouldn't be much fun at all, would they?

Happy Birthday.

 

[Smersh]

Thanks very much Archer. In 30 years I will be 91 and not QUITE a centenarian. I'll probably need to find somewhere to put my zimmer frame though before I can operate my computer. :lol:

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

If it is missile, you would be answering to
Fed investigation(s)
Congressional hearing(s)
Fame hungry reporters
Law suits.

If it is contrail, you would be doing nothing.
So, pick your option.

The bottom line is,
If it is a contrail, it would be treated as contrail.
If it is a missle, it would still be treated as contrail for the above reason(s).

 

[brandbll]

If it is missile, you would be answering to
Fed investigation(s)
Congressional hearing(s)
Fame hungry reporters
Law suits.

If it is contrail, you would be doing nothing.
So, pick your option.

The bottom line is,
If it is a contrail, it would be treated as contrail.
If it is a missle, it would still be treated as contrail for the above reason(s).

As you can clearly see in my post above i already solved this. It was infact a contrail AND a missile.

 

[adrenalynn]

consille? emtrails?

 

[MeteorWayne]

As you can clearly see in my post above i already solved this. It was infact a contrail AND a missile.

Since there were not two different trails in the video (and no targets that were detected with a missile velocity) I ain't buying this.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

As you can clearly see in my post above i already solved this. It was infact a contrail AND a missile.

Since there were not two different trails in the video (and no targets that were detected with a missile velocity) I ain't buying this.

Branbll was suggesting (not seriously) a hangfire.

 

[brandbll]

As you can clearly see in my post above i already solved this. It was infact a contrail AND a missile.

Since there were not two different trails in the video (and no targets that were detected with a missile velocity) I ain't buying this.

As i explained, it was from an extremely reliable source that would like to remain anonymous, so you can trust me when i say, Case Closed.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I still don't see two trails with different velocities, so the "case closed" doesn't sell me. I see one typical slow jet contrail. Can you point to a place in any of the videos where a second object is indicated?

A "source that is reliable but doesn't want to be identified" is an anecdote at best, IMHO.

 

[brandbll]

I still don't see two trails with different velocities, so the "case closed" doesn't sell me. I see one typical slow jet contrail. Can you point to a place in any of the videos where a second object is indicated?

A "source that is reliable but doesn't want to be identified" is an anecdote at best, IMHO.

What if i told you this anonymous source was not only reliable but in the know? I bet that would change your opinion.

 

[MeteorWayne]

No, until someone is willing to explain themselves, it's just another unsupportable anecdote.
Worth=0
Besides, isn't that the same thing you said before?

" have it from an extremely reliable source in the know that would like to remain anonymous that it was actually a missile that misfired while still attached to a fighter jet. That's correct people, it was a contrail and missile combined."

 

[brandbll]

No, until someone is willing to explain themselves, it's just another unsupportable anecdote.
Worth=0
Besides, isn't that the same thing you said before?

" have it from an extremely reliable source in the know that would like to remain anonymous that it was actually a missile that misfired while still attached to a fighter jet. That's correct people, it was a contrail and missile combined."

Well yes it's the same thing as the first thing i said. But why fix something that ain't broke, ya know?

 

[MeteorWayne]

It's not a definitive solution to the question.