Skip to comments."Mystery" Contrail Was Either US Airways Flight 808 or UPS Cargo Flight 902
Posted on 11/18/2010 6:19:00 AM PST by alg1921
It was US Airways flight 808 Or was it? New evidence points to UPS902
One of my commenters below has given me some critical information that has lead me to update my assessment of what flight caused the "mystery missile" contrail. Make no mistake, I stand by my assertion that the event was nothing more than a contrail, however, new, solid data has come in that has me changing my theory that the contrail in question was not caused by US Airways flight 808 (AWE808) but rather my second contender, United Parcel Service flight 902 (UPS902). In fact I believe I can definitively say that UPS 902 was the flight that created the contrail on November 8, 2010.
In my investigation of this event, there have been a number of uncertainties, which I have been clear about:
* the position of the helicopter * the direction of the news camera * the field of view of the news camera * the field of view of the Newport Brach camera * the time and date of the news video
The new webcam image that has me changing my initial assessment is a fixed camera at the Los Angeles International Airport operated by the Countryman & McDaniel law offices (www.cargolaw.com). This camera has given me a known, fixed point of view and an exact timestamp to work with.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.bahneman.com ...
Yep, by SLBM.
It appears to mirror the radar track of USAir 808:
I really wish it had been a contrail....but it wasn’t.
I’d bet my life on it.
You didn’t see what you saw, 2+2=5 and we’ve always been at war with East Asia.
The video shows a payload rising on a solid-fuel booster rocket. Distance to rocket, maybe 30 to 40 miles seen from a chase angle. You can even see a flame.
It's either a missile, a lone booster or a boosted payload, launched from the middle of the ordnance testing range: NAS Point Mugu.
San Nicolas island (part of NAS Mugu) is right under the putative launch point.
Don't know why FReepers are so quick to credit 'exhaustive investigations' and ignore the evidence of their own eyes. There's video.
Because interpetation of visual data can be faulty.
It can be influenced by preconceived notions, perspective illusions, contrast and color effects.
All we need now is polarik to tell us it was a forgery. And provide “proof” that changes by the minute...as soon as the last “proof” doesn’t pan out.
And digital artifacts. A digital video camera essentially does approximations between frames and records only a limited set of differences. At extreme ranges, extremes in contrast, and limited bandwidth, the artifacts can become significant.
I do not like being lied to.
I am inclined to agree with you - I have never seen a plane with flames coming out of the back end! There is no getting around that fact on the video.
Of course it wasn't.
Probing and testing the enemy is an essential preliminary to combat.
How could they tell that it was UPS 902? Was the smoke brown? :-)
Dude it was a missile. Numerous experts have viewed the film footage and have said without a shred of doubt it was an ICBM missile launched from a submarine. It was not flight 808 or the UPS. It was most likely the Chi Coms expressing their displeasure with the US for trying to do a stealth default on our debt to them by devaluing our dollar. Stop with the plane scenario already. We are all grown ups. It was a missile. The world is a dangerous place. It just got more dangerous.
I find it awfully coincidental that this happened right around the time there was talk for restarting the START talks with Russia.
I know Ubama doesn't have the nads to send Russia a message so I know WE didn't launch it.
Our reaction time was like Sonny Liston vs Cassius Clay.
Hey, wait a minute, Sonny took a dive, didn't he?
“I do not like being lied to”.
Me either but I guess I am getting used to it. I have no expertise in this sort of thing but I don’t believe the government at all. They tell us what they want us to believe and they can make any sort of documents/photos/statements look like what they want us to believe. Nothing here folks, just move along. Just a thought.
You apparently didn't notice the quotation in my posting about preconceived notions affecting your perception?
Thanks for reinforcing that point.
“the time and date of the news video”
It was reported that the camara man stayed on the object for around ten minutes. There is some dissent about what he might have meant by that. Has it been clarified anywhere?
But the bottom line is that if there is NOT 10 minutes of footage, all CBS/the camera guy has to do is say that. If the footage shows the object disapearing into the west, and the camera guy filming the smoke trail for the other 8 minutes, just show that. If the footage shows a moving object heading east for around 10 minutes, I would say that is a plane, and much too slow to be a missile.
Just show the whole film. If we already have the whole film, even though it seems a weird place to stop filming, tell us that.
Thanks for reinforcing that point..."
All I have to go on is my past experience, and according to my past experience, the plume mirrors that of an ICBM/SLBM.
Did you view the video of the same flight 808 (or UPS flight) from the next day? That video, with similar weather patterns and filmed from a roughly similar location showed a very similar pattern of plume. It was certainly a plane the next day.
On the other hand, he's dumb enough to give a launch command inadvertently. Although, I think that a launch command would have sent more than one missile up!
If there is such a video, it would be good to get a link. That would make this whole thing go away.
None of the footage shown shows any launch, launch vehicle or platform or anything more than something already in the air. The actual footage I've seen runs 90 seconds or less and already shows something in flight. If this were 10 minutes of video, where's the rest of it? Where's the missile coming up, where's the video of it disappearing from view, where's the remaining 8 minutes and 30 seconds?
Not only that, but in that 90 seconds, that plume really doesn't appear to get much longer or larger (camera platform movement, pan and zoom aside).
This is a question, as I'm no expert in missiles, but wouldn't something, going as fast as a missile can go, at that point in flight basically disappear from view in that 90 seconds if it was heading away from us?
Could you find out for me if that aircraft's engines have afterburners. Until then I’m calling bullshit on this “exhaustive investigation”.
Oh and don't anyone even bother replying with the sunlight reflecting off the fuselage BS.
From last week: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2625121/posts
Granted the shot is a web cam, but IIRC, there was actual video floating around.
My understanding is that there are only ~ two minutes of interesting video.
If there was any more (I don’t know) then it’s all like the last shot: 40 mile separation and at a chase angle, which is not very exciting.
Also, check out the link in post 46. The site's been updated since the link was posted, with four day's worth of the same aircraft flight pictures shown in a composite shot (toward the bottom of the page).
“If this were 10 minutes of video, where’s the rest of it?”
Exactly. Seems like if there is around 8-9 more minutes of footage it would solve a lot of the mystery. If there’s not additional footage, it seems like a weird place to stop filming, but tell us anyhow.
The spinning dancer illusion is the perfect way to point out that something may be coming or going and perception is the key.
What makes you so sure?
Sunset was at 4:54 PM PST in Los Angeles on 2010-11-08. This video was shot at 5:15 PM PST. That means the sun was below the horizon from the camera's point of view, but not necessarily from the aircraft's point of view.
A reflection from a sun near the horizon would have the same orange color as a flame, due to the particulate matter in the atmosphere near the surface. And it would flicker like a flame, due to variances in the atmosphere, the irregularities in the surface of the aircraft, and/or maneuvering by the aircraft.
Reflections off satellites look like stars to the uninformed. You don't think that a reflection off an aircraft could be mistaken for something else?
Actually, the link isn't four day's worth of pics. It's four pics taken the same day, of the same flight, a few minutes apart, aligned showing both the aircraft, and contrail movement due to wind. Pretty good details.
Dang, that was disappointing. I was hoping for a video of a known airliner which looked similar to the ‘mystery launch’ video. One that showed a real-life airliner looking exactly like a rocket speeding away.
The link is not that. For the thread: its a still image of a distant contrail. Still images of distant contrails and still images of distant rocket plumes are practically identical.
Airliners fly along that coast every day. If the ‘launch video’ was in fact an airliner, it would be easy for a camera to take a similar ‘rocket’ video the day after - one that showed an evolving plume and a ‘flame’.
A video like that would settle this issue. This webcam image just reinforces the fact that stills of distant plumes and contrails look the same.
“My understanding is that there are only ~ two minutes of interesting video.”
Where did you hear that? (not saying you are wrong)
“If there was any more (I dont know) then its all like the last shot: 40 mile separation and at a chase angle, which is not very exciting.
Where did you hear that, and if that is the case, that’s still not really a reason not to post the whole thing to you tube, is it? I mean if that is the case then it would prove beyond a doubt that the object was going west, at any rate.
Did you wait for the video in post 42. I was disappointed, too, at first, but half-way through the video it changes from a still image to video taken by a hand-held camera (not the fancy helicopter-based version). Also, weather was similar, but not exactly identical. We got a big cold front through from Monday to Tuesday in our area (Albuquerque) that came west from Cali. That alone may account for slight variation in the plume size. Check out the link in post 46.
I checked out the links on the other thread.
Thanks for the links, seriously. However they contain nothing that remotely resembles the video of the ‘launch’.
No evolving plume, no flame. Instead they were stills of distant contrails.
The launch video strongly resembles a boosted payload seen from 40 miles away at a chase angle. The video does not look like a plane, and still images of plane contrails are not useful counter-evidence.
Right now I’m where I was a week ago. This was a SF booster launch from NAS Point Mugu.
Because there isn’t “video”. There is a video of a contrail in the sky.
The video is realy nothing more than a 10-second-long picture. Everything about “missile launch” is an interpretation of that image, an extrapolation back in time as to what might have generated the image.
But people keep saying “there’s a video” as if the video actually shows the contrail being created, when all it shows is a fixed image shot from a shaky camera from miles away that zooms in on the image.
Meanwhile, there’s another picture we can see, right here in this thread, showing the same contrail from a different angle, which you have to ignore to believe the silly story about a missile launch from NAS Point Magu that somehow NOBODY HEARD.
There are no flames anywhere on the video.
An airline contrail at sunset (when they're most visible due to their golden glow and darkening sky), flying at 30,000 or so feet, 30 to 40 miles away, heading in my direction will appear to be going straight up from the edge of the horizon. That perspective will gradually change the closer it gets to me until it's directly overhead...........
As it flies away, 30 or 40 miles into the distance it will then appear to be heading downwards towards the edge of the horizon...So, from the first time I saw it till it finally disappeared, it was still flying at 30,000 feet.......
I did wait for the hand-held video (valid question BTW! I was sorely tempted not to wait).
What we need to put this to bed is news-camera-quality video of an airliner that looks like the ‘launch video’.
That handheld video looked like a plane contrail being videod from miles away. We need a video that shows an evolving plume and a ‘flame’
There is no evolving plume and no flame on the video from the first day either.
The only thing moving in the 1st day's video is the helicopter and the zoom of the camera, with the object itself moving very slowly over time but shown for such a short period of time it doesn't matter.
My favorite part is where they do an extreme zoom into the object, and the camera is shaking so bad people think the object is dancing and moving -- but if you look at the plume, the entire plume is "moving" with the object.
This just goes to show that a lie makes it around the world before the truth can get out of bed, and that in the internet era, once a story has been told, you can't fix it for everybody no matter how many facts you give them.
San Nicolas island is part of NAS Point Mugu. That’s 100km off the coast and is a plausible location for the base of the ‘rocket plume’. NAS Point Mugu adds up to a big testing ground. You must have impressive hearing if rocket launches that far off make you turn your head, LOL.
The video shows an evolving plume and a flame. It shows a boosted payload of some sort. You don’t see it, I do. Other FReepers can make up their own minds - from the video, not from stills of contrails.
No need to argue the toss here. When someone shoots a video of an airliner that looks the same as the ‘launch video’, then this all goes away. If they can’t shoot such a video - perhaps because planes don’t look like rockets - then the boosted payload theory is the one to go with.
If by "evolving plume" you mean that the contrails of the jets are smaller in thickness than the video from last week, I can only offer you what I see in the sky locally (Albuquerque area).
We are located under a major east-west route for passenger aircraft. Some days, no contrails at all (rare). Most days, the contrails are nice and thin all along the route of the aircraft, and you can watch them develop as the aircraft moves. Other days, you can watch the plumes spread to several miles wide (thick or thin - depending on moisture) all across the sky due to the wind. The more moisture we get, the thicker the plume when it spreads.
One thing that bugged me is that even with 90 seconds of video, the object barely moves (given the pulse of a rocket, you'd think the plume nearest the object would change significantly over this time, as well), nor does the "flame" appear smaller and smaller with the distance change a missile should have in the amount of time captured.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.