Military slams door on mystery missile questions

WND ^ | December 1, 2010 | F. Michael Maloof

[yoe]

The Department of Defense is slamming the door on questions about the mysterious contrail filmed Nov. 8 by a KCBS television crew near Los Angeles after questions were raised about a warning from the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence Agency that there could be missiles fired in that area at that time.

The official government position has been that the contrail, which appears to have been made by a single source, was from a jet passing by.

And the refusal to provide answers to specific questions suggests a cover-up of potential secret missile testing in the area – contrary to official jet contrail explanation.

For weeks, experts have examined the billowing plume and the single-source white-hot exhaust which they contend was from a missile, not a jet.

It was in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin intelligence report where the story was broken that several experts who examined the video of the mysterious contrail confirmed it was not from a jet but a missile.

The experts who examined the video have had extensive experience working with missiles and computer security systems for various sensitive agencies of the U.S. government.

They even went so far as to suggest that the missile may have been shot from a submerged Chinese nuclear submarine, coinciding with an increasing level of confrontation between the United States and China and designed to send a message to Washington:

[Rokke]

"Why didn’t you use the other side of that island? To the left. It would have changed the line of sight by about 20 degrees to the north."

You've never shot a bearing have you? Done any land nav? I'm not trying to be facetious here. I'm just trying to figure out how to explain to you how to plot a line of sight. Imagine the picture below is a window and you have a laser pointer. If I asked you to stand at the center of that window and point the laser at the contrail, what would the laser light cross over on its way to the contrail? Certainly not the other side of the island. A photo is like looking through the scope of a gun. The center of the photo is the bullseye you are aiming at. You are on the other side of the camera, looking at that bullseye. So point your laser through the view of the camera at the contrail in the background, and figure out what geographic references you could use to depict the resulting line of sight from you to the contrail. Once you've got those references, plot them on a map (or Google Earth) and you have a line that depicts your line of sight to whatever it is you're looking at. With two lines of sight, you can figure out if the object you are looking at from two different locations is the same object.

[TigersEye]

If what he was filming was beyond that (and heading westbound), it DEFINITELY wasn't a missile. Maybe a volcanic eruption.

LOL Now, that's funny! I guess 11 years filming over LA in a news chopper doesn't guarantee that you have any sense of direction or perspective but ...

[TigersEye]

You've never shot a bearing have you?

Not from a still pic with no compass references, no.

Done any land nav?

Lots. But only by my own sense of direction and topography. I have spent hundreds of hours alone in the wilderness and never have lost my way although I rarely take out my compass.

If I asked you to stand at the center of that window and point the laser at the contrail, what would the laser light cross over on its way to the contrail?

That was my point in asking why you didn't use the other side of the island. The starting point you used was right of center. But it's a photograph anyway so the landmarks you cross would not be the same as they would if you were actually there shooting a laser line across the landscape. Foreshortening in the foreground of the photo changes the relative size of objects in terms of distance (or length as you measure from near to far). If you had a photo taken from directly above the landscape you could get a fairly accurate line if you had two identified points.

[Finny]

TX says: ...simple enough form that anyone with an IQ of at least 100 and a mind free of paranoid delusions should be able to comprehend ...

TX has zero idea of the tested IQs of the people whose conclusions he is challenging.

I do.

TX thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.

He's very much mistaken. Although his is probably the most arrogant, inflated ego in the room.

[Finny]

Just a heads-up for lurkers:

One of the most prolific pushers of the airline contrail "scientific" hocus-pocus, Rokke, had gone for 21 months on Free Republic without making one, solitary post -- his most recent was on Feb. 13, 2009.

Then on Nov. 11, 2010, two days after CBS shows the Leyvas footage, he went ballistic and has remained there.

Since then, he has made 76 posts to Free Republic, every one of them on the missile threads. NOT ONE SINGLE POST, after a nearly 2-year hiatus, has been made on any other topic. That's right. One of the noisiest and most desperate proponents of the airline contrail hoax ... Silence for nearly two years ... and then all the sudden more than 75 posts on exclusively ONE subject in one month.

Rokke claims that he has ... 15 years flying fighters including several combat tours, fly the MD-11 for FedEx and am currently back on long term military orders, so I avoid posting on FR for Hatch Act issues (most of the threads on FR are political in nature). It is safe to say I have probably spent more time in my life creating giant contrails and dodging missiles than you've spent dreaming up conspiracy fantasies."

There is a pungent stench of bullsh*t about this guy.

[TXnMA]

As folks say here in East Texas, "It's the hit dog that yelps..."

[Rokke]

"LOL Now, that's funny! I guess 11 years filming over LA in a news chopper doesn't guarantee that you have any sense of direction or perspective but ..."

Ask any experienced aviator and they will tell you that one of the fastest ways to get yourself in trouble while flying is to trust solely in what your eyes tell you. Leyvas may not be an aviator, but I'm sure he knows that as well.
You quote Leyvas as saying that what he was looking at made the UPS902 contrail look like an ant compared to a tree. You also say he believes what he filmed was northwest of the UPS902 contrail. Ok...where is the gigantic contrail he's looking at that is over 175 miles away from Long Beach harbor (the distance UPS902 was at the time). For once, you provide some actual evidence to support your theory.

[Rokke]

"Lots. But only by my own sense of direction and topography. I have spent hundreds of hours alone in the wilderness and never have lost my way although I rarely take out my compass."

Ok, that explains some of your confusion regarding concepts like lines of sight.

" But it's a photograph anyway so the landmarks you cross would not be the same as they would if you were actually there shooting a laser line across the landscape."

That doesn't make any sense. Do you believe the landmarks in the picture don't actually exist? They are in exactly the same spot on Google Earth.

"Foreshortening in the foreground of the photo changes the relative size of objects in terms of distance (or length as you measure from near to far)."

Again, this makes no sense. Who says there is "foreshortening"? And if there is, are you saying the objects are moved in the X or the Y axis?

"If you had a photo taken from directly above the landscape you could get a fairly accurate line if you had two identified points."

I identified three points and plotted them on the direct overhead imagery of Google Earth.

[Rokke]

Finny, you are a train wreck. Totally void of any useful input, you've resorted to stalking me and plotting my posting history. For all your imaginary lurkers out there who you believe are too stupid to click on my name and review my posting history, here's a link...Rokke's Posting History since he signed up in July 2001. But for some reason I suspect even the least intelligent of your imaginary support team have better things to do with their time than count my posts. You obviously don't, so have at it. And I think the count is up to 82 now.

[TigersEye]

Ask any experienced aviator and they will tell you that one of the fastest ways to get yourself in trouble while flying is to trust solely in what your eyes tell you. Leyvas may not be an aviator, but I'm sure he knows that as well.

It's not a question of him relying solely on his eyes, he said straight out that he does not know what it was, the point I raised is that it's a little absurd to think that he has no idea what he was looking at or where in the sky it was.

You quote Leyvas as saying that what he was looking at made the UPS902 contrail look like an ant compared to a tree. You also say he believes what he filmed was northwest of the UPS902 contrail.

That is what he said.

Ok...where is the gigantic contrail he's looking at that is over 175 miles away from Long Beach harbor (the distance UPS902 was at the time).

It's pretty obvious that he was speaking of what he videotaped. I didn't think there was any confusion about that.

For once, you provide some actual evidence to support your theory.

For once? I may not have done the lion's share of research on this but I have posted quite a number of things that I found before anyone else has. I don't consider it any big deal because that's how FR has worked for as long as I've been here. FReepers do some digging and bring what they find to the forum. How much original material have you posted to this subject? Any?

[TigersEye]

Ok, that explains some of your confusion regarding concepts like lines of sight.

So, because it's almost impossible for me to lose my way in the deep woods you conclude that that is the root of my inability to understand a line of sight? I don't follow your logic on that.

That doesn't make any sense. Do you believe the landmarks in the picture don't actually exist? They are in exactly the same spot on Google Earth.

I'm pretty sure I explained that. The closer together two reference points are the more inexact the line of sight they form will be for a distant object. Since both reference points are very close together and are in the foreground of the pic there exact position when mentally transferred to an overhead view is distorted by the foreshortening caused by the long focal length of the lens being most accurate at its center. This is made very clear through a fisheye lens but the same thing occurs in any lens just to a lesser degree that's not noticeable.

Again, this makes no sense. Who says there is "foreshortening"? And if there is, are you saying the objects are moved in the X or the Y axis?

As explained above there is always foreshortening around the perimeters of a round lens. Objects viewed through that lens scattered through various areas of relative distortion and various distances from the lens are distorted to different degrees in their relationship to each other. When you don't even start from the center line of the image to project a sight line from the camera you are adding a significant error into an image that isn't perfectly rendered in the first place.

Add to that that camera's perspective is not horizontal to the objects you chose, it's several hundred feet above and we are looking down from the camera's actual aiming point at an angle that is not horizontal or vertical, and we don't have any accurate way of assessing whether a line between two objects you choose from the pic are a straight line back to the camera's location. Then you want to project that line out to 150+ miles from the camera.

I identified three points and plotted them on the direct overhead imagery of Google Earth.

Using some flawed techniques for choosing them.

[Rokke]

"It's not a question of him relying solely on his eyes, he said straight out that he does not know what it was, the point I raised is that it's a little absurd to think that he has no idea what he was looking at or where in the sky it was."

Soooo...what was he using to establish what he was looking at and where in the sky it was?

"It's pretty obvious that he was speaking of what he videotaped. I didn't think there was any confusion about that."

Ok. Then he's talking about two contrails. Where are they? I only see one, that happens to correspond exactly to the UPS902 contrail. Which he says is like an ant compared to a tree with regard to the other contrail.

" How much original material have you posted to this subject? Any?"

We're discussing it right now and have been for multiple posts. The line of sight diagrams from LAX and Long Beach harbor.

[Rokke]

"So, because it's almost impossible for me to lose my way in the deep woods you conclude that that is the root of my inability to understand a line of sight? I don't follow your logic on that."

You lack experience with plotting bearings and lines of sight. No logical thought process required to figure that out. You simply admitted it.

"The closer together two reference points are the more inexact the line of sight they form will be for a distant object. Since both reference points are very close together and are in the foreground of the pic there exact position when mentally transferred to an overhead view is distorted by the foreshortening caused by the long focal length of the lens being most accurate at its center. This is made very clear through a fisheye lens but the same thing occurs in any lens just to a lesser degree that's not noticeable."

If you know where two objects are, and have a source where they are accurately plotted (satellite photos in this case), it doesn't matter how close they are to create an accurate line of sight. Two points three inches apart are far enough apart to create an infinitely long line of sight. But in the case we are talking about, the points are over 5 miles apart. Leyvas was not using a fisheye lens and I don't think you know what "foreshortening" is with respect to photography.

"As explained above there is always foreshortening around the perimeters of a round lens."

False. The rest of your paragraph on this point is moot. But there is no "mentally transferring" required. The reference points are fixed points, more than 5 miles apart and easily observable on a satellite photo. Again, it is apparent that you are not familiar with basic concepts of fixing positions. Not a big deal.

"Add to that that camera's perspective is not horizontal to the objects you chose, it's several hundred feet above and we are looking down from the camera's actual aiming point at an angle that is not horizontal or vertical, and we don't have any accurate way of assessing whether a line between two objects you choose from the pic are a straight line back to the camera's location. Then you want to project that line out to 150+ miles from the camera."

The helicopter could be at 5000' or 30,000'. The contrail is at 39,000'. The altitudes of both are irrelevant. The line is drawn using references at sea level. You are taking a very simple concept and confusing yourself with irrelevant terms and ideas you don't understand. This isn't difficult... when you know two points, you can draw a line. Fixed points don't move, and if you really think photographs distort reality to a point where they can't be used to spatially locate objects, you need to stop arguing about where the contrail is located or what direction it is "leaning".

[Rokke]

Finny and Imaginary Lurker army...

This is my post #85 on this topic.

[TigersEye]

Soooo...what was he using to establish what he was looking at and where in the sky it was?

If you want to ask him if he recognizes the difference between the sky and the ground, the sea and the land, LA harbor and offshore islands you probably ought to start your own conversation with him. LOL

What next, Rokke, do want my opinion on whether he knows the difference between a Kodak disposable camera and a 16mm movie camera? Between boxers and briefs? Are we sure he actually works for KCBS or is he actually a homeless schizo who just tells people he does for attention?

[Rokke]

Nice try, but it was you who stated..."LOL Now, that's funny! I guess 11 years filming over LA in a news chopper doesn't guarantee that you have any sense of direction or perspective but ..." I simply pointed out that every aviator knows they can't rely solely on their eyes to determine things like direction and perspective. I don't doubt he knows the difference between all the things you pointed out, but that isn't what we were discussing.

[RobRoy]

>>Nothing to see here, move along.<<

Actually, I agree. There really IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE. Which is probably why the government is not interested in fielding questions about this any more than fielding questions about a missile hitting the pentagon.

I think they’ve finally gotten to the “You believe what you want to believe. We’ve got work to do.” point on this.