Was NOT an Airplane (as per General)

if this is a missle or a plane, what the hell this have to do with Aliens and UFOS?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

 

I don't know about "perfectly accurate" but a couple of minutes either way is reasonable.

For reference; a Minotaur missile fires its second stage 58 seconds after launch at an altitude of 15 miles. The second stage burns out 1:57 after launch at an altitude of 55 miles and a distance of 95 miles from launch. At 2:12 the third stage ignites at an altitude of 66 miles. The third stage burns out at 3:27.

What was he watching for about 10 minutes?

Just to add a little more info to this. This is the timing of the Minotaur IV from Link




I know no one is claiming that this is what it was, but this is just an example. In 14 min. this missile has an altitude of 458 statute miles and is 2906 miles down range.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by tommyjo

 

I still get down to the real simple questions.

We're to consider, a seasoned chopper pilot, who knows MORE about aircraft than the average person, was bedazzled, baffled and bewitched by a regular plane, with a regular contrail, who flew off into the sunset that was playing an optical illusion on him?

Is that the official explanation as to why this person took the footage (and how it's been explained away) to begin with?

I wonder if he'd like to be a guest on here to set the record straight as to his incompetence and/or misunderstanding (and where the other 8 minutes of the film ended up)

The cameraman Gil certainly was. I have no doubt that if he wanted to he could replicate the contrail video by regularly filming contrails off the Californian coast. As an aviation photographer I've witnessed countless airliners producing contrails of this nature. If I was to have take images of them and present them on a webpage many observers would immediately think that they were missile launches.

One of the best times to see them in the part of the UK that I live in is during the late Summer evenings when the aircraft transit across the country and head out over the North Sea and out into the transatlantic routes. It is all about perspective. If I wanted to I could have produced a whole web page full of them. They could all be interpreted as ballistic missile launches.

24 hours after the event people in California were taking images of contrails and still claiming that they were missiles. This illusion is nothing new it is just that a lot of observers can work out perspective and that the aircraft is not rocketing into the sky. As a result of Gil's video we will probably see a marked increase in people filming them and crying missile!

Gil would have been impressed by the persistent contrail so he filmed it. In my opinion he was fooled by it. He states that the object was moving away. The LAX webcam image and the other stills show that the object was heading towards the mainland. People, regardless of experience, can be fooled and misinterpret what they see. Gil got caught up in the moment and thus we have the video.

Probably if someone sat down with Gil and went through all of his footage he could interpret it from a different perspective? Has he seen the stills? Has he seen the LAX webcam footage? At the moment he only has one perspective and that is in front of him a missile plume emerged on the horizon and that the 'missile' headed out to sea.

TJ

Originally posted by Human_Alien

News report from KCBS:
Back to the eyewitness who filmed the ‘missile’, KCBS news photographer Gil Leyvas who stated he believed the object wasn’t a flock of birds or a jet. Leyvas stated when he zoomed in on the tip of object it was ‘spinning in a trajectory like maybe a bullet or football’. Leyvas’ bio at LinkedIn states Leyvas has been an aerial news photographer filming from news helicopters in the LA area since 1999. Based on Leyvas’ type of work and the area he covers, the skies over LA and the LA International Airport, Leyvas has seen countless jets departing and arriving at LAX, and, their contrails.

sorry, i don't know of any military or civil missiles that 'spin like a bullet' since about 1959 or so.

Can anybody find any description of such a maneuver?

Originally posted by tommyjo

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

The video shows that there is no break in the contrail of this missile ...

Watch the video of this incident from the 0:45 point.

It clearly shows that the persistent contrail dissipates and the 'object' continues towards the coast with a non-persistent contrail.

TJ

That footage was added later..It was not in the initial release..I wonder though how a cameraman in a "moving" helicopter managed to zoom in that far and still keep the object in near perfect frame...
Do you really think that is possible? Or maybe the film came from somewhere else??

I note after I went offline Phage got a little confused..We were debating the distance from the object of the below web cam pic but then I see he confused it with the cameraman..My perspective does not think that contrail is over 160 miles away..BTW, its the lax webcam so quality is not great..
blog.bahneman.com...

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Wow this is how it all ends huh? What a surprise when I get to the last 10 posts, Human_Alien pulls out completely due to the enormous loss of face and william edits all his text out of his posts and asks for flags for his upcoming area 51 thread and I don't think I saw anything out of black. Hilarious. I know this is wrong but I just can't help myself.

I do sleep you know..Very constructive post...
I'll tell you what though, I'll give you a simple question...
You and the other experts have spent the last 5 days convincing us that this was nothing more than a plane.
Phage and Weedwaker did a sensational job convincing us there were two planes, both in perfect positions given their flightpaths,times and weather patterns at their altitudes.

So where's the SECOND contrail ????????
At least two planes on identical flightpaths (so the experts say) and almost the same time and conditions yet only ONE giant contrail...

Now that's just mind blowing.......

Originally posted by backinblack


That footage was added later..It was not in the initial release..I wonder though how a cameraman in a "moving" helicopter managed to zoom in that far and still keep the object in near perfect frame...
Do you really think that is possible? Or maybe the film came from somewhere else??

I note after I went offline Phage got a little confused..We were debating the distance from the object of the below web cam pic but then I see he confused it with the cameraman..My perspective does not think that contrail is over 160 miles away..BTW, its the lax webcam so quality is not great..
blog.bahneman.com...

edit on 14-11-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

See my post on the following. The helo cameraman featured in the video is Gil Leyvas

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes It would be no problem with the helo camera system for Gil to film it.

TJ

reply to post by tommyjo


I watched the vid, yes I see what you mean..He has good equipment and seems to be a good operator given his bio and awards..
I just wonder why he could be so wrong about this event or that he may be part of a deliberate hoax...
It doesn't seem right but then stranger things have happened...

Originally posted by Tnewguy
Ok, I know Im crazy for writing this but just hear me out.

There have been multiple "missile" sightings now. Not just the one in Cali. With multiple witnesses.

What If, and I say what if the "agency" warning is true and the U.S. is blasting missiles thru the "portals"?

I'm no expert but if these are missiles they should be landing somewhere, shouldn't they?

That my friend is the real question. IMHO the target is non-terrestrial.

Whichever way you want to slice this story whether----real enemy missile, misunderstanding a missile, bogus missile or accidental missile--- this entire story is nothing more than "poisoning the well".

There is an intentional push and promotion of lies to blend with the truth in order to discredit and cover it up.

We may never know the 'truth' (what else is new?) so step right up and pick your poison. After all, it's the very last choice still free in America!

Originally posted by JimOberg
sorry, i don't know of any military or civil missiles that 'spin like a bullet' since about 1959 or so.

Can anybody find any description of such a maneuver?

No offense Jim but I don't feel like talking/typing anymore so for your perusal (or entertainment) I insert this:

"It's not an aircraft contrail," says Theodore Postol, a professor of science, technology, and international security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also in Cambridge, Mass. "That I'm confident of. It looks like a big missile, but who knows what a contrail looks like from long range."

It's hard to know for sure, he acknowledges. But the contrail had features reminiscent of a submarine-launched ballistic missile, similar to the US Navy's Trident II.

After reviewing the video, he noted twists to the contrail that could have been caused by wind. But, he adds, it also is consistent with a twisting maneuver that solid-fuel, long-range missiles perform to control their speed and range.

In the early days of solid-fuel motors, engineers built ports into the missile body near the nose. The ports could be opened on command to bleed off some of the hot gases that would have gone out the nozzle, thus controlling the rocket's velocity. But the ports also represented a weak spot in the missile's body, which led to missiles destroying themselves.

As guidance and navigation systems improved, missiles could be programmed to perform the cork-screw-like maneuvers to bleed their speed – so-called general energy-management maneuvers.

The contrail "has the spirals you would see in an advanced solid-rocket missile," he says.

reply to post by backinblack

So where's the SECOND contrail ???????? At least two planes on identical flightpaths (so the experts say) and almost the same time and conditions yet only ONE giant contrail... Now that's just mind blowing.......

Originally posted by Human_Alien
No offense Jim but I don't feel like talking/typing anymore so for your perusal (or entertainment) I insert this:

No offense taken, it's a good quotation and I'll follow up. Thanks much!!

reply to post by backinblack

So where's the SECOND contrail ????????
At least two planes on identical flightpaths (so the experts say) and almost the same time and conditions yet only ONE giant contrail...

I see someone gave you two "thumbs up" for that.....

But, let's look again. We have the first airplane that passed the area, same route, a bit earlier (and was tentatively identified as the contrail maker, until the times were nailed down more precisely)...USAir 808. A Boeing 757. IT cruised by at 37,000 feet.

Later, and at the proper time (people were focusing on passenger airplanes, at first)...UPS 902. An MD-11. IT was cruising at 39,000 feet (later, nearing the coast, began initial descent, levelled briefly at 29,000).

Two airplanes, two thousand feet apart...on same route. It is often seen that contrails will form at one altitude, but not another just feet above or below...even a few hundred makes a difference, sometimes.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

So where's the SECOND contrail ????????
At least two planes on identical flightpaths (so the experts say) and almost the same time and conditions yet only ONE giant contrail...

I see someone gave you two "thumbs up" for that.....

But, let's look again. We have the first airplane that passed the area, same route, a bit earlier (and was tentatively identified as the contrail maker, until the times were nailed down more precisely)...USAir 808. A Boeing 757. IT cruised by at 37,000 feet.

Later, and at the proper time (people were focusing on passenger airplanes, at first)...UPS 902. An MD-11. IT was cruising at 39,000 feet (later, nearing the coast, began initial descent, levelled briefly at 29,000).

Two airplanes, two thousand feet apart...on same route. It is often seen that contrails will form at one altitude, but not another just feet above or below...even a few hundred makes a difference, sometimes.

I will post the same reply I posted on another thread.

With this answer it would appear that you have proven that it would be difficult to prove that either plane left a contrail.

Oh, yeah, that was me with the thumbs up.

reply to post by butcherguy


A contrail formed. The timing, after paying very close attention, studyng the historical flight records data, and with the addition of the time reference from the law firm camera located at LAX nailed it down.

UNTIL then, it was the vague time of the actual photography, as related by the cameraman. SO, the time reference wasn't pinned down....

BTW...besides THAT imbroglio (made up, by him and his TV News station and editors), WHO ELSE in the Los Angeles area looked West, and said "Oh My Gawd!!" and then came forward additionally....? Were there an inrush of phone calls to 911 switchboards??

reply to post by weedwhacker
In the end, you can not prove that either of those flights left a contrail.

The other thread is huge and there is still no proof of a missile launch OR that any plane left that contrail.

I just think that it has been "killed to death" and there aren't going to be any additions to the evidence at this point.

My take on this is that it was a missle that may of had some kind of malfunction and needed to be ejected to avoid it destroying the sub, after all the US navy wouldnt want there own "kirsk"

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

So where's the SECOND contrail ????????
At least two planes on identical flightpaths (so the experts say) and almost the same time and conditions yet only ONE giant contrail...

I see someone gave you two "thumbs up" for that.....

But, let's look again. We have the first airplane that passed the area, same route, a bit earlier (and was tentatively identified as the contrail maker, until the times were nailed down more precisely)...USAir 808. A Boeing 757. IT cruised by at 37,000 feet.

Later, and at the proper time (people were focusing on passenger airplanes, at first)...UPS 902. An MD-11. IT was cruising at 39,000 feet (later, nearing the coast, began initial descent, levelled briefly at 29,000).

Two airplanes, two thousand feet apart...on same route. It is often seen that contrails will form at one altitude, but not another just feet above or below...even a few hundred makes a difference, sometimes.

Firstly I find it odd that you are now trying to give explanations why flight 808 did not make a contrail when only a day ago you were trying to convince us why it did...Sort of leads to the idea that you are starting with a set theory and twisting the facts to fit...

Second, I dont see how a few hundred feet would make much difference when (If you believe the lax pic is flt 902) that contrail is more than a good few miles thick.