World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

Faith, Reason, and Health ^ | 12/12/2010 | Dr. Brian Kopp

[Brian Kopp DPM]

World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

I've been following the California contrail saga closely since the original video was captured in early November. I was never fully satisfied with any of the explanations, so I tracked down the two known first hand eyewitnesses and spoke to them about what they actually witnessed. As a result of these interviews, I contacted World Net Daily (because they were still writing about the subject a month later, from the bias that the contrail was indeed a missile, and I had written for them once before) and asked them if they would be interested in an article based on these first hand eyewitness accounts. They asked me to submit my article, and were eager to use it.

At this point, I was thoroughly convinced that the contrail was nothing more than UPS flight 902, back-lit by the setting sun. The object remained in view to the eyewitnesses far too long to have represented a missile launch, despite several credible military experts who had stated the contrary. Because WND was following the lead of these experts, and continued to insist the contrail was a missile exhaust plume, I knew I had to be extremely diplomatic in presenting a countering view, if I wanted them to actually publish it. So I used terminology that was deliberately non-committal.

Furthermore, Gil Leyvas had given freely of his time in presenting his side of the debate, and was very kind and gracious during our phone interview as well as multiple subsequent email exchanges, so I wanted him to have "his day in court." I gave him a lot of column space to explain his perspective.

Here is the article, as I submitted it to WND, with the graphics I recommended (the first of which was graciously supplied by FreeRepublic.com poster TXnMA) and for which I had obtained permission. I was not blatantly militating for the airliner contrail argument, because WND would not have published such an article, but any objective reader would see from the manner in which I presented the facts that, despite Leyvas' good faith, the evidence underpinning the "missile exhaust plume" side of the debate was exceedingly weak at best:

California contrail: Four conflicting eyewitness reports

One month after the KCBS video purporting to show a missile contrail off the coast of California went viral, a heated debate over what exactly created the contrail persists. Experts have offered convincing analysis supporting the theory that the contrail represents an SLBM launch, while internet pundits have assembled a formidable collection of evidence that the contrail was created by UPS flight 902. The debate is seemingly at an impasse, and it might be a good time to step back from the intense data analysis and review the basic facts of November 8, 2010.

There are two known eyewitnesses who captured images of the contrail. Gil Leyvas is the helicopter camera man for KCBS in Los Angeles who videotaped the contrail and Rick Warren lives on Long Beach and photographed the contrail from his tenth story balcony. A 50 minute phone interview with Leyvas was obtained for this report and discussed further via email, and Warren was also contacted by email.

According to Leyvas, his video was obtained while filming a sunset view for a KCBS weather report. As he was filming, Leyvas noticed an object on the horizon that appeared to be climbing vertically out of the ocean, and he zoomed in on the object. He videotaped the contrail for a total of ten minutes and subsequently continued to view the contrail for an additional ten minutes. Leyvas maintains that the object itself that created the contrail only remained in view for two to three minutes. For 30 to 45 seconds, the object glowed brightly and then seemed to disappear from view. His initial impression was that the object was traveling east towards the coast. On reviewing the video later, he had the impression the object may instead have been heading away from the coast, towards the northwest.

The highly unusual appearance of the sunset contrail shown on TV and posted online, combined with Leyvas’ perception that the object creating the contrail only remained in view for two to three minutes, constitutes the primary basis upon which many observers believe the object was a Sub Launched Ballistic Missile.

Rick Warren wasn’t sure what the object was that he was photographing on November 8th. “I was shooting with a telephoto lens and looking through a viewfinder so I never really saw the separation of the object and the contrail until I looked at the photos, but I’m sure that this whole thing lasted way too long to be a missile. I see lots of contrails from my 10th floor balcony but the difference in this one was that it “seemed” to be going up.”

Having seen many contrails, what stood out for Warren was the vertical nature of the contrail, not that it looked like a missile exhaust plume. Some of his photos of the contrail were posted on the local ABC7 website, and were utilized by Mick West of Contrailscience.com to create a composite image of the flight progression of the object. The time stamps on Warren’s photos were used to establish that the object creating the contrail remained in view for 4 minutes 43 seconds in Warren’s photos. Based on altitude and position, the object first appeared in Leyvas’ video at least five minutes prior to Warren’s photos. After seeing West’s analysis of the images, Warren says, “I’m now of the opinion that it was indeed a plane."

At this point, one of the most glaring discrepancies between these eyewitness accounts must be addressed. Most observers looking at Warren’s images agree that the small dark object which appears at the top of each of his later photos is the same craft creating the plume that was seen in his earlier photos as well as that which was seen in Leyvas’ video.

If the object that created the contrail was still visible in Warren’s photos, then the object itself is not likely to have been a missile. Solid fuel engines such as those used in an SLBM create an uninterrupted exhaust plume for two to three minutes, after which time the solid fuel is spent, and the missile is usually out of view.

On the other hand, when an airliner transitions from cold moist air to warmer drier air, the dew point changes and contrail formation decreases. In the case of USP902, the airliner would have been transitioning from moist cool air at altitude over the ocean to warmer, drier air over land. This could explain the contrail disappearing as the object moved farther east.

Mick West created a "chronological cut" of Leyvas’ video and posted it to YouTube. The transition from moist cool air over the ocean to warmer, drier air over land may have occurred at 1:17 to 1:20 of the chronological cut, which Warren referred to as “the separation of the object and the contrail.” When still images from Leyvas’ video are compared to the overlay of Warren’s photos, there is a remarkable similarity and continuity between the two sets of images, providing a better time frame for Leyvas’ video within the context of Warren’s time stamps:

When Leyvas was initially queried regarding these later photos, he replied,

“…the [Contrailscience composite] animation … only shows the path the plume drifted and not anything in flight. The 30-45 seconds of video I captured in which I could see the object (the portion of the video showing the glow/flame of the object at its pinnacle) occurred 8-10 minutes prior to the animated images of the animation (if the time stamps are accurate). I have no way of telling if those time stamps are accurate since the raw video has no real-time time stamp associated with it. I can only go by an estimated time based on the time we launched out of John Wayne airport and the approximate time of our weather shot. My guess is that the time stamps are relatively close to the accurate time. However, what you are seeing in those images is the plume drifting and not anything in flight.

Leyvas still maintains the object creating the contrail is not visible in Warren’s photos 8 to 10 minutes later:

”The separate smaller trail that is separate from the main body of the plume and that was captured by Warren in his photos, which makes it seem as if the object continued in flight, appears in my video to possibly be the top portion of the plume that partly dissipates leaving a segment of the tip adrift - detached from the main body of the plume. (I highlight "possibly be" because during that portion of the video, I zoom in and out and pan off and back onto the plume, so I'm not sure if what we are seeing is a stage of separation like that of a missile or if it's the tip of the plume separating from the main portion). I did zoom into that portion to see if I could see a craft of some kind (at the time I thought that there was a chance the object was still making condensation/exhaust) but there was nothing there creating that segment. Had there been, I know I would have been able to see it with the high-powered lens I was using. Add to that - if it was traveling toward us, the closer it would come the easier it would be to see it, but there was nothing there. That's why I said it was merely the plume adrift and not anything continuously flying.

“Though there was no time code associated with the raw footage I shot, you are still able to accurately time the footage from the moment I started the recording (as we departed John Wayne airport) to the final moments of the mystery missile story. When I play the video I can time the duration of the object in flight which was between 30-45 seconds of "Glow Time" - which is inclusive within, and at the end of the 2-3 minute estimated flight time from which the plume was visible at the horizon ... I can rely on the raw footage as it plays to gauge my estimated times since it plays back in real time on the player deck's control track timer.”

There were also two unknown witnesses who captured images of the contrail, both anonymous posters on the image hosting website Flickr. A photographer on Hermosa Beach, north of Leyvas and Warren, uploaded a photo of the November 8 sunset and only subsequently realized he had captured the same contrail due to media reports. From his vantage point, without the setting sun directly back-lighting the contrail, it apparently appeared similar to the other contrails in his sunset photo.

Another anonymous photographer uploaded photos of clouds at sunset on November 8, and noticed a bright horizontal contrail that he subsequently associated with the media reports regarding the contrail. Notice that in the case of these latter two eyewitnesses, the first noted nothing unusual about the contrail until he read media reports about it, and the second viewed a horizontal, not vertical contrail.

Finally, the opinions of the known military experts must be taken into consideration. Several highly credible experts have stated their opinion that the contrail in question represented the launching of an SLBM.

A little further background from Leyvas might shed more light on the way the video was edited and presented to the public. Leyvas related that the video was taken during sweeps week in his TV market, and part of his job during sweeps week is to go out and look for and capture video of interest for sweeps week ratings. The video he captured of the contrail was subsequently heavily edited before being aired, and less than two minutes of the ten minutes of video has been seen by these experts. From the perspective of garnering sweeps week ratings, the footage was certainly successful.

It may be that the experts would modify their opinion based on viewing the entire footage. The footage is owned by the local CBS affiliate and nothing was found by the Department of Defense in reviewing the footage that would prevent its release to the public. According to Leyvas, it might still be available on their server. If that is the case, it should just be a matter of uploading the unedited ten minutes of video to YouTube to put an end to the debate.

Now compare the article I composed and submitted above to the sensationalistic manipulated (and frankly, fabricated) version WND actually published:

MATTERS OF NATIONAL SECURITY
Mysterious missile launch baffles even eyewitnesses
Video, still photographers watched contrail soaring over Pacific Coast

One thing to note, as I implied in my original closing paragraph. Both CBS and WND know that Gil Leyvas has a back up copy of the original unedited ten minutes of raw footage. CBS knows they duped credible military experts into stating publicly that the contrail was formed by a missile by deliberately editing the raw footage for ratings. CBS has also conveniently let the impression persist from the first week that the video was seized by the Department of Defense for analysis (implying they no longer had a copy.)

WND also knows from my correspondence with them that a back-up copy exists, but they left that important fact out of their version of the story.

Frankly, both media outlets are acting like ... typical mainstream media outlets.

I never trusted CBS to begin with.

Unfortunately, I can no longer trust World Net Daily as a news source.

And I sure as heck will never submit anything to them in the future for publication.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

That’s already been established. Read my article as I submitted it, and compare it to the article WND published. My article was clearly intended to lay this thing to rest. As written, it made a cohesive argument that the object in question remained in sight far too long to be a missile. WND knew my opinion on this from my submission as well as our phone conversations.

On the other hand, by their edits and additions, WND turned my work into an argument in favor of the missile conspiracy theory. They misrepresented my work.

If they wanted to publish another story propping up their failed missile conspiracy theory, they had every right to do so.

They did not have the right to cherry pick and re-write my article and turn it into part of their body of missile conspiracy theory rhetoric, and then put my name on it.

They should not have put my name on something that does not in any way represent that which I submitted to them.

That is grossly unethical on their part.

They have harmed my good name and reputation by publishing this fabricated report under my name.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Ridicule is a two-way street — one side’s contempt feeds the other’s. Only natural. And I am guilty of it myself.

But one thing I cannot abide is DELIBERATE slander. Are you concerned that Dr. Kopp might be slandering WND? “Fabricated” and “tale” — strong words.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

What is your real grudge against a Christian conservative zionist news site?

---

Doctor, you are “Kopping out” on me.

“Read my article as I submitted it, and compare it to the article WND published. My article was clearly intended to lay this thing to rest.”

Intentions are not what your headline is based on. Your headline was “Fabricates”. Either there is a fabrication, or you slandered WND.

“As written, it made a cohesive argument that the object in question remained in sight far too long to be a missile. WND knew my opinion on this from my submission as well as our phone conversations.”

So ignoring your opinion is a fabrication? No, Doctor. You are not God.

“On the other hand, by their edits and additions, WND turned my work into an argument in favor of the missile conspiracy theory. They misrepresented my work.”

They quoted doubts. So once again, perhaps you should rephrase your claim that they are “fabricating a tale”. I can understand if you ranted in the heat of the moment. I think we all can.

“They have harmed my good name and reputation by publishing this fabricated report under my name.”

Where did they misquote you? Where did they change what you wrote other than to cut out some lines? All editors cut out lines. If they had rewritten your words as concluding it was a missile, then yes — you would be correct — fabrication and destruction of reputation. I didn’t find that.

That’s not ‘fabrication’. How long have you been speaking English?

What’s the headline?

“Mysterious missile launch baffles even eyewitnesses”

What’s the hoax in that headline?

What’s the closing sentence?

“The video he captured of the contrail was subsequently edited before being aired, and less than two minutes of the 10 minutes of video has been seen by these experts.”

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=238189

Sounds like a final note of skepiticism to me. You approached them pretending to have an open mind. You wrote that yourself. Who’s the phony here? Did you think could be a worm in their belly to eat them from the inside and somehow gain fame from it? Was that the plan?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Whatever you say, FRiend. Have a Merry Christmas.

[fabian]

I don’t give a rats ass what someone else says.I have commonsense and watching that video shows me that is obviously the trajectory and contrail not of a plane for heaven sakes! Yikes...how far have we fallen? OMG

[TigersEye]

Well, obviously, (lol) based on all the data available, (none) there must have been some change in atmospheric condition that caused it to stop leaving a contrail (a new theory is needed) since it appears that an altitude change didn't cause it. (apparently. obviously)

There was an actual missile launch from VAFB yesterday, someone should see if they can find photos of that to compare and contrast.

I don't think we can expect to have had the same atmospheric conditions a month and a half later for that comparison. So far no one has found a source for good meteorological data in that area for Nov. 8th. I spent a good deal of time looking for it if no one else did.

[Niteflyr]

The "plume" was never reported over Catalina Island -- nor has anyone claimed that it was.

So ...you're saying 902 overflew Catalina but the plume was sighted northwest of the island by miles? I still say it is astounding that any of you here would accept the explanation that the "sighting" was "near" Catalina Island from the guy who filmed it...when the precise location was easily observable...

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

You aren’t alone.

[TigersEye]

And why were people so eager to back up this slander?

Minds were made up and an attack was initiated almost immediately. Second post the day after the story broke.

[TigersEye]

-- because UPS 902 passed from a region where persistent ice crystals were formed into a region where only volatile water droplets were formed.

Link please. Where is your data to back that up?

[TigersEye]

No one could underestimate yours. We're talking diamond¹⁰ hard. ;-)

[Niteflyr]

Ala Occam’s Razor ...keeping it simple...there would be two things I’d want to ask the cameraman. What he thought the object was (since I’m sure he like all of us here in LA basin has seen countless airliner contrails before...but he made a big deal out of THIS particular one) and precisely where he said this took place. I wouldn’t get an answer of “near” and let it go at that...when the whole debate hinges on flight 902 of which we know the exact location at the time. Instead people are playing semantics with the word “near”...reminds of Clinton defining what the definition of “sex” was...I thought someone here talked to him? Ask him again. All I have is the yellow dot northwest of the island and all you have is flight tracking of a heavy jet in the area. Damn ...give me his email address and I’ll ask him if for some reason you people don’t want to.

[TigersEye]

He can’t or won’t point out any hoax or fabrications so he’s simply not going to answer those questions.

[Rokke]

The guy who started this thread (Dr. Brian Kopp) has been talking to the cameraman. He has already asked him the questions you asked (what and where). Here are the cameraman's answers...

What: "I'm still not sure what the object is, jet or missile or for that matter, something else."

Where: "He said there were details in the video that had not been shown on TV or online, such as how at one point the contrail lined up parallel with the LA harbor jetty, which was how he was certain of the location of the contrail when he first spotted it." And, of course he has also been quoted as saying "The onboard camera showed a plume twisting up from the horizon and narrowing as it climbed into the sky near Catalina Island, about 35 miles west of Los Angeles, he said."

But since we have actual stills from the video he shot, we don't have to rely solely on his memory. They are obviously going to be more accurate anyway. I've posted it before, but here it is again...

That is a still taken from his video with some easily identifiable geographic references and the contrail. You can go with his pictures and what he says...or a media graphic that goes against both.

Finally, UPS902 didn't fly over Catalina Island until roughly 5:30 and it was descending through FL290 from its original altitude of FL390. A. that was after he was filming, B. It is extremely doubtful the con layer was 10,000 feet thick. Conversely, UPS902 was almost exactly at the intersection of lines plotted from Leyvas' position to the contrail he filmed (in the posted picture) and the Cargo Law camera at LAX, at exactly the time stamp of the LAX camera. If you want to use Occam's Razor, you can do the simple math and agree that two lines of sight and a time stamp that correlate to the known position of a known object equal that known object, orrrr, you can ignore Occam's Razor and create a theory involving an unknown sub, firing an unknown missile, from an unknown location, at an unknown target for unknown reasons based solely on 14 seconds of zoomed in video edited from 10 minutes of actual video, and presented by a local television affiliate during sweeps week.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

“Mysterious missile launch baffles even eyewitnesses”

What’s the hoax in that headline?

The hoax? That it was a missile.

It wasn't. It was a contrail, that some folks want to believe might have been a missile launch, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It was not a "mysterious missile launch" that baffled Leyvas, it was an unusual contrail.

And the other eyewitnesses weren't baffled. They knew it was not a missile.

Calling something a "missile launch" that obviously was not, is a hoax, a fabrication.

Twisting an entire article that establishes it was a contrail, not a missile, into an article that claims it was a "mysterious missile launch" is a fabrication, a lie and a deception. It is unethical.

[TigersEye]

...orrrr, you can ignore Occam's Razor and create a theory involving an unknown sub, firing an unknown missile, from an unknown location, at an unknown target for unknown reasons based solely on 14 seconds of zoomed in video edited from 10 minutes of actual video, and presented by a local television affiliate during sweeps week.

That's a straw man isn't it, Niteflyer? I don't recall you ever proposing or supporting that theory. I know I haven't.

[Finny]

Oh, well said! Nailed the whole mindset.

[Rokke]

What is your theory?

[TigersEye]

I don’t have one.

[Rokke]

"I don’t have one."

Nice.