Here's a "missile launch" in North Carolina:
Posted on 12/12/2010 10:47:16 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
LOL You prove yourself insane.
Actually, that depends. For example, a path that takes the missile high in the start to get the orientation right and then brings it down for the final leg with ground matching is common. The physical configuration also varies - the Klub is different from the Tomahawk is different from the Scalp. I think someone else covered why the initial speed isn't all that great, so I'll just assume you can read.
Of course, to know any of this stuff I probably ought to be a Dr. Divinity or a Bishop (or at least a Pastor) or something.
Thank you...
Doubler, schmubler.
1. I am judging speed past the little thin cloud.
2. Assuming the “airplane” was at 30,000 ft, the “contrail” would be visible for over 200 miles.
3. Assuming 600MPH, the “contrail” be visible for 20 minutes
4. If the disturbed part of the “contrail” had been blown apart by the upper winds for 20 minutes, it would have dissipated much more.
5. An aircraft transiting LA at FL30, or more, is not going to descend to a low enough altitude to stop producing a “contrail.”
6. The only characteristic this item shares with “contrails” is that it is long, and sort of cloud shaped.
DG
Here's a "missile launch" in North Carolina:
You need some more info about contrails. The article is aimed at “chemtrail” people, but the contrail info in the links is very informative.
http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/health_risks/Contrail_Controversy.html
Contrails can persist for 10 hours or more, depending upon temperature and humidity. Those can change even when a plane is at a constant altitude.
Search on “contrail persistence.” Do image searches on “contrails” and “wide contrails.”
Ah, thank you for providing me the opportunity to discredit you further...though truth be told, you've done almost all the work yourself over the past month.
I wonder why you're lying here.
You see, you know I'm not a chemtrailer. You know the folks at Contrail Science are not chemtrailers, that they in fact debunk chemtrail crapola. I know these things because I've told you.
Though that is the only time I personally told you, you have made this assertion that Contrail Science is a pro-chemtrail site numerous times, which means you either haven't checked their evidence or you are knowingly mischaracterizing them and FReepers who find their evidence compelling.
Now, if I were one of those conspiracy kook types, I would take you repeatedly and knowingly mischaracterizing people as an indication of something dark, evidence that you are part of a sophisticated effort to convince Americans of an imminent threat that doesn't exist. Perhaps so Obozo can yell, "Chinese attack" and declare martial law.
The good news is, I'm not a conspiracy kook, so I realize you're just a bloviating butthole.
The Royal Navy says "Hi."
Actually, I have not read WND in years. I don’t read websites that disguise marketing as news.
I did as you ordered, for about an hour, but I neither saw, nor read, anything that would make me think differently.
Has anyone bothered to check whether the UPS plane changed altitude, or, if the OAT (at altitude) changed over LA, or even humidity? OR is it easier to just ASSUME that such happened?
Did anyone as themselves how the UPS plane could be moving obviously faster than sound, when it passed the little cloud?
Did anybody wonder why the “contrail” is thicker, not thinner, 200 miles away (and presumably, 20 minutes later)?
DG
The theory is not that UPS902 descended enough to cease creating a contrail, but that it passed from cold moist air over the Pacific to drier warmer air (changing the dew point) as it approached land.
If that was a reference to me, I am a foot surgeon ("DPM" - Doctor of Podiatric Medicine, i.e., a Podiatrist.) I have never claimed to be an expert on anything related to this debate. I just talked to the first hand witnesses, and related their opinions.
One of them thinks it might have been a missile, but he's not sure. One of them said it definitely was not a missile, based on the fact it was in view for almost five minutes in his photos. My contention all along has been that SLBMs do not create an exhaust plume for 5 to 10 minutes.
No one has proven Leyvas' main point, that the object disappeared from view after 2 to 3 minutes.
On the contrary, the opposite view has been established: the object creating the contrail continued creating a contrail throughout Leyvas' video as well as throughout Warren's photos, which represents a time frame of over ten minutes.
Missiles do not create exhaust plumes for over ten minutes.
Airliners do create contrails, given the right atmospheric conditions, as long as they are flying in those atmospheric conditions.
Every possible scenario that could "prove" this was a missile has been dismissed. There's nothing left to debate.
It was coming in for a landing at Ontario, California, and its altitude was dropping, as recorded in the FlightAware.com logs. Nobody is assuming anything.
The contrail appeared thicker 200 miles away because the winds aloft were about 80mph that day based on images from the GOES weather satellite, and they'd had about 20 minutes to spread out the distant part of the contrail.
If you look at a contrail from an actual missile launch, the difference between surface winds and winds aloft causes the upper portion of the contrail to spread differently than the lower portion.
... by armchair theorists with enormous egos who refuse to accept the proof of the video itself and the lighting direction of the setting sun that proves a vertical plume created by an object headed north-west. They deny this in part by way of a pretend "optical illusion."
Kopp, you had me fooled for a little while that you were approaching this in real seek-the-truth, objective curiosity via investigative reporting. The reality: You went into your interviews with Gil Leyvas WITH YOUR MIND ALREADY MADE UP that no matter what he told you, you were going to "discover" that he was mistaken, that he was fooled, that he was too dim to understand that he was shooting footage of a common airliner condensation trail instead of a missile.
From YOUR article, words Leyvas said TO YOU: 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.
You're a phony-baloney as non-agenda reporter, Kopp, and your contempt for Leyvas' intelligence and competence is disgusting.
But even before your WND article was published, and you had mentioned here on FR that it was "in the works," and I was still under the illusion that you had no agenda, no fore-gone conclusion to confirm, you slipped up in a FReeper post somewhere on these thread, when discussing that Levyas had INDEED told you (what some of us knew he would) that he only saw the object creating the plume for two or three minutes before it disappeared, not ten minutes, though he shot video for about ten minues, mostly of the lingering plume.
That's when you mentioned that there was another person you were hoping to interview, another "expert" who could explain how/why Levas (the poor dumb bastard!) was fooled by optical illusions into thinking it was a missile launch. *sigh* In other words, you went into it determined to prove Leyvas didn't know what he was doing, and by gosh and by golly, THAT'S WHAT YOU THINK YOU PROVED.
I never was a fan of WND, and now I see why. YOU are a perfect representation of WND's flaws.
On the contrary, I thought it was a missile from the very beginning. The appearance of the video was compelling in that regard.
Then I stumbled on a quote from an article that said Leyvas filmed the object for ten minutes, which seemed to indicate it was not a missile.
Then someone here on FR said Leyvas only witnessed the object for 2 to 3 minutes. Which brought my opinion back into the missile camp.
So I contacted the photographer Warren. He was convinced it was an airliner because the contrail was being formed for almost five minutes in his photos.
Given the discrepancy, I tracked down Leyvas himself, and we spoke by phone for almost an hour, and subsequently exchanged about a dozen emails.
When I got off the phone with Leyvas, I was convinced he had the best explanation, but even then there was this glaring discrepancy between Leyvas' view (wasn't sure what it was, could have been either a contrail or a missile) and Warren's view (was a plane, definitely stayed in view too long to be a missile.)
So I went back and compared Leyvas' video and stills from his video to Warren's photos.
That's how I came to my conclusion:
One of them thinks it might have been a missile, but he's not sure. One of them said it definitely was not a missile, based on the fact it was in view for almost five minutes in his photos. My contention all along has been that SLBMs do not create an exhaust plume for 5 to 10 minutes.
No one has proven Leyvas' main point, that the object disappeared from view after 2 to 3 minutes.
On the contrary, the opposite view has been established: the object creating the contrail continued creating a contrail throughout Leyvas' video as well as throughout Warren's photos, which represents a time frame of over ten minutes.
Missiles do not create exhaust plumes for over ten minutes.
Airliners do create contrails, given the right atmospheric conditions, as long as they are flying in those atmospheric conditions.
Every possible scenario that could "prove" this was a missile has been dismissed. There's nothing left to debate.
If your opinion differs from mine, that's fine.
But I'm not going to ascribe nefarious motives to the reasons you formed your opinions the way you did. We simply disagree, and I hope you would refrain from ascribing nefarious motives to the reasons I arrived at my conclusions.
I see now you've continue down the line from ascribing motives to personal insult with your subsequent post.
So be it. It does not help you build your case in this debate.
You do not know what you are talking about. Leyvas was adamant that he is not sure what it was, airliner, missile, or something else. He said repeatedly, "I'm still not sure what the object is, jet or missile or for that matter, something else."
You are going further into personal insult and conjecture with your posts here, and I won't go there with you.
Have a Blessed Christmas.
Here: Watch this video, generated with Google Earth, to get a beginner's view of what was going on. At the same time, try to gain a clue about trivia like perspective and angular velocity. Meanwhile, you will get a glimpse of the (free) tools and level of capability we are applying to this issue.
You are floundering in the dark with guesses and untutored impressions. We are applying data, facts, and sound engineering and graphical principles.
Watch the video (which was generated as a tutorial for those who are just learning Google Earth). The flight track was generated and plotted using actual RADAR data. The viewpoints were established by matching the viewpoints of the actual images and video stills discussed.
Everyhing in that video matches what was recorded by Leyvas and various still photographers. Nothing matches an outgoing missile -- and no missile could match reality as recorded on 08NOV..
Work with FACTS. Try to grasp how magnification of the image affects apparent angular velocity aross the sensor/screen. If you can't get on sound enough scientific ground to ask reasonably intelligent questions, don't expect us to do your work of providing the answers.
That's the theory now. Last week it was that UPS902 dropped from 39,000 ft to 37,000 ft. Oddly enough their source for that, FlightAware.com now shows that flight, on Nov. 8th, traveling most of its flight at 37k ft and ascending to 39k ft for the last portion of its flight.
Even the contrailscience guy used that argument on his Youtube page.
# EpoxynousEpoxynous
2 weeks ago@zerotolerance4u That's the average cruising altitude. You need to click on "Tack log and graph" UPS902 was at 39000 feet from 4PM PST (listed as 7PM EST)
FWIW, DoorGunner, I tried to find weather info for that date everywhere I could and none was available that I could find. I do know that a huge front had come in from the Pacific at that time and was over the Front Range of the Rockies in Colorado at 5:00 PM PST. I know because the humidity in it was coming down in white flakes here.
Except for the point where it stopped making a contrail and he continued to tape its ascent.
Leyvas' video here showing the change from a continuous plume to a short, quickly dissipating contrail.
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.
