Pentagon Can't Explain Missile Off California

AOL News ^ | 10/11/10 | Pauline Jelinek

[gandalftb]

Rocket contrails consist of chemical products of combustion, not water vapor. Those solid products reflect light, water vapor passes it through. I don't have a good explanation on the lighting because I can't tell the perspective of the observer to a known horizon.

The only apparent evidence of movement is: is the object getting bigger or smaller as it moves? It seems to be getting smaller or going away from the observer.

Pinning down movement is subjective here. What seems more telling is the density of the contrail and the explosive lateral expansion of the apparent hot gases as they are issued. That contrail is much more aggressive than a water vapor or ice crystal contrail.

Again, the unity of the contrail is more that of a rocket motor.

[jimbo123]

At least we know the background of the person making the claims from Russia and judge his statements accordingly. We know his agenda.

Why can’t we know the background of the Anonymous blogger at ContrailsScience so we can judge his statements accordingly, too? What is his agenda? How is he making his money? Don’t you want to know?

[SeeSac]

If it were a contrail, that shape is only possible from a center line thrust aircraft. Problem with that theory is there are no centerline thrust aircraft used in the flight profile being touted as the “answer”. Only acft like 747, 757, 767, airbus 3XX, etc.

How about this one?

[gandalftb]

It’s a password access only forum rather than a blogsite.

[jimbo123]

Do you have video of the photo in #103?

[SeeSac]

Those solid products reflect light, water vapor passes it through.

Uh, the contrail of a jet cruising at FL39 is formed by solids.

[SeeSac]

It’s a password access only forum rather than a blogsite.

Send me the link. I will sign up.

[SeeSac]

What seems more telling is the density of the contrail and the explosive lateral expansion of the apparent hot gases as they are issued. That contrail is much more aggressive than a water vapor or ice crystal contrail.

Like this one?

[mbarker12474]

Why can’t we know the background of the Anonymous blogger at ContrailsScience so we can judge his statements accordingly, too? What is his agenda? How is he making his money? Don’t you want to know?

For an anomalous incident that occurred a few days ago? No.

Have a blessed weekend.

[RetSignman]

Yeah, that’s the ticket.

[gandalftb]

BTW, several of the posters are military pilots in the area. They also agree that it is not an aircraft. They agree that the area is a naval-launched missile test area centered around San Clemente Island Training Area.

Again, all of those experts are just guessing here, like us.

[SeeSac]

BTW, several of the posters are military pilots in the area.

Link please. Thanks.

[Pagey]

bttt

[Pagey]

bttt

[jimbo123]

[gandalftb]

It’s not a “sign-up” forum, I was sponsored in. The forum has considerable skepticism that there could be an accidental launch, and a purposed launch should not take place in crowded air space. If this was a planned military event, there would be NOTAMs and they agree there were none issued. They have little doubt that is a solid-fuel rocket contrail.

[SeeSac]

It’s not a “sign-up” forum, I was sponsored in. The forum has considerable skepticism that there could be an accidental launch, and a purposed launch should not take place in crowded air space. If this was a planned military event, there would be NOTAMs and they agree there were none issued. They have little doubt that is a solid-fuel rocket contrail.

I am starting to be skeptical that your 'forum' really exists.

[gandalftb]

BTW, it is being referred to as a plume, not a contrail, because of the cone shaped discharge. Contrails are more parallel sided.

On close-up, the plume is too side-expansive right on discharge to be a jet exhaust and you can actually see the explosive rotational turbulence, on discharge. Jets don't do that, their thrust is more stable and linear.

[gandalftb]

OK, the message is more important than the messenger. I am not an expert, or even learned on this subject. Obviously, I got these ideas from somewhere. Not playing I've-got-a-secret.

What do you think of these ideas? I don't think the credibility of the source matters, since we are all guessing to a great degree. Can we just discuss the merits of the observed evidence and allow me to throw out any enlightenment for judging by all?

[chessplayer]

I don`t care what the Pentagon claims. That was NOT a plane contrail.