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.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I repeat: “Feds and their operatives verbally work him over.”. Not exactly “got to”. People can be manipulated even via television — feeling isolated, etc.

[Rokke]

We're discussing where the event took place and you say, "That is entirely your opinion based on your own biased assumptions. Leyvas estimated it to be about 35 miles off of the coast. He was there, you weren't. He isn't claiming to know what it was, you are."

I respond by saying, "You, on the other hand, rely solely on Leyvas' guess that the event happened 35 miles off the coast." which prompts you to respond with a post that violates FR posting rules. So tell, me...what evidence ARE you relying on to believe the event took place 35 miles of the coast?

"Don't make a complete fool out of yourself like Stove Rat."

Um hmmm. So do you think I should take up name calling and posting obscenties?

[Rokke]

We're discussing where the event took place and you say, "That is entirely your opinion based on your own biased assumptions. Leyvas estimated it to be about 35 miles off of the coast. He was there, you weren't. He isn't claiming to know what it was, you are."

I respond by saying, "You, on the other hand, rely solely on Leyvas' guess that the event happened 35 miles off the coast." which prompts you to respond with a post that violates FR posting rules. So tell, me...what evidence ARE you relying on to believe the event took place 35 miles of the coast?

"Don't make a complete fool out of yourself like Stove Rat."

Um hmmm. So do you think I should take up name calling and posting obscenties?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

There are two known eyewitnesses. Here are their statements:

1)"I'm still not sure what the object is, jet or missile or for that matter, something else."
-Leyvas

2)"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...I’m now of the opinion that it was indeed a plane."
-Warren.

Neither witness has ever stated it was a missile, but Warren has stated it was indeed a plane.

And from these eyewitnesses, you conclude...its a missile!

And declare anyone who disagrees with your opinion "obtuse."

And you think I came into this with an agenda? LOL!

[Finny]

You know, as much as Kopp tries to make it LOOK like the Leyvas was "unsure," Leyvas' actual words reveal somebody who's pretty sure that he saw something highly unusual, and in So Cal skies, an eastbound airliner leaving a dramatic contrail is as everyday as McDonald's. In any case, the VIDEO is the only true and indisputable evidence, not Leyvas' word, and sure as hell not some hobby photographer in Long Beach with a bunch of unverifiable photos. The video Leyvas shot tells you everything you need to know because of the angle of the setting sun. It reveals a vertical plume arcing northwest -- among other things.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of people who've seen missile launches and who've weighed in on virtually every online forum, from YouTube to LA Times to FR to the San Fran Chronicle, state immediately and confidently: the video looks like the missile launches they've seen.

The majority of FReepers who think it was a contrail have never seen a missile launch (ask them -- I have), but -- like every cognizant American with decent eyesight -- have seen lots of airline contrails that, when frozen in a still photos, LOOK like pictures they've seen of missile plumes. They are flattered (or flatter themselves) that a) they are being calm and reasonable, and that b) they are smarter than the average bear, including that poor dumb bastard cameraman who coudn't even tell the dif between a common airline contrail and a missile plume. Their condensation trail conclusion, built on all kinds of pretend things including an imaginary "optical illusion" involving the curvature of the earth, is ENTIRELY SELF GRATIFYING on three counts: they get to think they're smarter, they get to think they're calmer, and they get to think they're safer.

And those of us who've lived in close range to frequent missile launches laugh at people who "reasonalby" point out as proof, "Well, if it was a missile launch, why didn't anybody hear a sonic boom, huh? That's proof right there that it must have been an airliner!" *sigh* In my 53 years, I've seen many dozens of missile launches, with the naked eye and with binoculars, from distances ranging from 19 miles to 160 miles, not including a shuttle launch in Florida at a distance I estimate of 10 to 12 miles. And do you know, in ALL of those launches, I never once heard a sonic boom. See, those of us who've seen missile launches are a lot harder to fool than those who haven't, especially those who haven't who ALSO think they're the smartest guys in the room and everybody else is pretty stupid.

As for Leyvas supposedly being "unsure," if he had claimed to be "sure" of what it was, red flags should have gone up all around. OF COURSE HE'S NOT SURE WHAT IT WAS! He'd be lying if said he was, just like these contrail folks are lying when they say they're sure it was an eastbound airliner. I'm only 99.9 percent sure it was a missile, myself, and come to that conclusion by elimination of other possibilities. But back to how "unsure" Leyvas was -- I'll bet there are several things Leyvas is sure it wasn't, though nobody put the question to him that way. I venture to say he was 99 percent sure it wasn't a commercial jet heading east, a common occurance that the guy sees probably a dozen times in any working day.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

I wouldn’t expect a cameraman to tust what he saw after the Feds and their operatives verbally work him over.

I specifically asked Leyvas if the government told him not to talk about it. He said the government didn't tell him what he could or could not say, one way or the other. he was quite open and frank throughout our correspondence. He didn't have to return my first call, and did so on his own.

Furthermore, the government did not "seize" KCBS's raw video or his copy of it, and did not forbid them from showing it. If they were trying to cover up the video, Leyvas wouldn't still have access to his copy of it.

If .gov are trying to "cover up" the missile theory, they are being awful complacent about it.

KCBS has access the raw, uncut video, and they could release it if they wanted to. But that would show how they manipulated the video for sweeps weeks ratings.

[Finny]

That said, while I'm 99.9 percent sure it was a missile, I am far less sanguine that I know whose missile it was. Myself, for a number of reasons, some of which I won't divulge here, think it was one of ours and one of several test launches that the cameraman finally caught. Another thing that folks who live way inland just don't get -- how distances appear on an ocean horizon. If a small boat is only four or so miles offshore, it's invisible to anyone on the beach because it is below the horizon. Thirty-five miles out at sea from the coastline is WAY below the horizon from a sea-level POV on the beach.

And the object creating the plume was heading AWAY from So Cal, not toward it. It's to be expected that it was barely noticed by So Cal's millions -- at least, if you're familiar with the area and the ocean. Folks who've never lived here nor lived oceanfront, have zero idea of the on-site realities.

ON THE OTHER HAND, other folks I know who are more knowledgeable than I am with regard to military defense, aviation, and missiles, think it wasn't one of ours. *sigh* None of them thinks it was an airliner and in fact, snort in amused contempt when they learn that there are people who've actually seen the video and still think (or claim) it was an eastbound airliner!!!

Having watched Vandenberg missile launches for many, many decades, however, I've come to be pretty impressed with our missileers and still think that what Leyvas caught on film was a test that probably bodes ill for our enemies. :^) But I am disgusted and dismayed at an "official" line so lame that it tries to pass it off as an eastbound UPS plane. It's an insult to people's intelligence.

[Rokke]

So you think what Leyvas filmed was a missile launched about 35 miles off the coast of California?

[TXnMA]

"But I am disgusted and dismayed at an "official" line so lame that it tries to pass it off as an eastbound UPS plane."

~~~~~~~

Post your link(s) to the article(s) where ANYONE in an "official" position claimed it was UPS 902.

And if you even dare suggest that I, TXnMA, am in any way in support of the US government -- (specifically the socialist regime of Øbozo the Usurper) -- I'll simply refer you to my ten-year posting history here on FR and recommend that you read the OKC report section mentioned in my FRProfile. Then ask the USGovt. how they liked it! LOL!!!

In fact, quote one singe pro-government statement I have made. On this thread, I have deliberately remaned technical. I have no (zero) political agenda on this subject.

OTOH, based on your postings on these threads championing that CBS video hoax as the ONLY evidence, should we be asking what CBS entity you work for?

~~~~~~~~~

You are barking up the wrong stump, missy...

[TigersEye]

...but Warren has stated it was indeed a plane.

His opinion. He even said it was his opinion.

"...I’m now of the opinion that it was indeed a plane." -Warren."

[Finny]

You're up to 98 posts, now, Rokke, after almost two years of complete silence on FR up until two days after the video hit the news! Yes, I can waste time with the best of them, actually counting your posts on "in forum"! ;^)

I don't really post to you, if you hadn't figure it out, because I know you for the black hole you are. You are designed to waste time, create eddies of confusion, toss in wondrous amounts of hooptidoodle (I know TX likes that word -- he's got good taste; it is an excellent word!). I don't write to you, I write to lurkers, if any are left (which is doubtful).

Your array of colorful and even kinetic posts (the one with the eye-trick of optical illusion, the squirmy thing, was over the top, IMO! Kudos!) has been entertaining and enraging, which is a strange sensation.

You stink like yesterday's diapers.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

Are you still on this line of ‘If you don’t believe its a missile you are a liar/fraud/ignorant/uninformed because I say so’ line of bovine scat?

It was an airplane. Everything that makes a modicum of sense says it was an airplane. And to allay your irrational fear of “OMG the Chi-Coms launched a SLBM to eliminate 7 generations of my family’ fears, if you can see the launch plume of such a missile, you aren’t the target. It will be far beyond you before it reaches apogee. PCA is not going to be where you can see the launch unless it is a short range surface to surface missile, which aren’t going to be launched from a boomer.

If it was one of ours, there would have been a NOTAM, not just a notice to mariners. There would have been no commercial traffic at that time, and there was.

I do not believe you have ever really seen a missile launch up close. You may have seen the residuals, but never the real thing. I also do not believe you have spoken to an ‘aviation lighting expert’. Post his name, but I think you will say he hasn’t given you ‘permission’. You have accused far too many people of lying that haven’t a single reason for doing so.

It is time to put up or shut up. Stop your BS and put some real flesh on the line. If you can’t you are a lying sack. Which is what I think you are, because you have been nothing but bluster. Put up or shut up time.

[Finny]

Nice chest pounding, there!

[Rokke]

"and have seen many contrails that look like what you imagine a missile plume would look like, if you ever actually saw one. "

You are very confused. People who are 100% certain (like me) that the contrail Leyvas filmed was a contrail do not believe it looks like a missile plume at all. Real...imagined...you name it. It looks nothing like a missile plume, unless you zoom in on it from over 100 miles away, and patch together a confusing video of 14 seconds worth of still images and momentary flashes from over 10 minutes of actual video. Amazingly, those 14 seconds are enough to convince a gullible few that what would be an easily noticable and hugely significant event occured within 35 miles of one of the largest cities in the world...but only two people of nearly 20 million bothered to get a picture of it.

[Rokke]

"I don't write to you, I write to lurkers, if any are left (which is doubtful)."

And that is part of your problem. You choose not to live in the real world, but instead focus on a world of your making. That is what allows you to ignore reams of analysis and factual data that point in a thousand different ways to the conclusion that what Leyvas filmed on 8 Nov was a contrail. Instead, you focus entirely on a badly edited 52 second string of 14 seconds worth of zoomed in video to conclude you are seeing a missile in flight.

You can ignore the real people posting to you on FR, and instead engage in lectures to an imagined audience of lurkers, but as I have pointed out before, that simply adds validity to the conclusion that you are delusional.

[fabian]

Sorry, if you think that video is a plane you have lost some commonsense along the way!

[ex 98C MI Dude]

As I thought. You have nothing but your 'word'. Sorry, it isn't going to cut it anymore. You have been all to willing to challenge everyone else, but when the time came to put up your proof you have nothing but Nice chest pounding, there!

Not going to cut it any more. I call you out as a liar. Prove what you say, or STFU.

[Sto Zvirat]

Actually, there is no need to discredit the missile “theory” as its crap. But, you go ahead and apply your “government lies” about every possible thing.

Next time the government issues a hurricane warning, I want you outside to prove how they always lie...lol

[Sto Zvirat]

The one thing a Conspiracy Theorist hates more than anything is when someone asks them to prove their point.

That is when they try to distract, hem and haw, accuse you of being a conspirator, call you names, and change the subject.

Finny and Tigerseye have not an ounce of proof beyond “gee that looks like a missile”

And neither of them have the stones to admit they are wrong.