Mystery missile contrail stumps Pentagon

[Entropy]

Probably not a missile.

[AdamG]

Reasonable explanation, but it should have taken less than an hour for the FAA to whip out the flight plan of whatever aircraft was on that vector - as seen from the angle of the film.

Right?


*
If we're playing "Most Likely/Most Dangerous", here's something asymmetrical to think about...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...cks-a-reality/

[slapout9]

Reasonable explanation, but it should have taken less than an hour for the FAA to whip out the flight plan of whatever aircraft was on that vector - as seen from the angle of the film.

Right?


*
If we're playing "Most Likely/Most Dangerous", here's something asymmetrical to think about...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...cks-a-reality/

AdamG,that is interesting because "IF" it is a missile it seems to act more like a solid fuel rocket than some type of a sub launched missile as the media say may have happened. Could very well be contrails too.

[Fuchs]

AdamG,that is interesting because "IF" it is a missile it seems to act more like a solid fuel rocket than some type of a sub launched missile as the media say may have happened.

Many SLBMs have solid fuel rocket engines. It's safer and more durable.

[slapout9]

Many SLBMs have solid fuel rocket engines. It's safer and more durable.

We were talking about SCUD's


I think this guy did it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9uPv3x2eDo

[Entropy]

Personally, I like Jeffrey Lewis' translation of the DoD statement:

I should render this statement in English:

DOD: “While there is nothing at this time that leads the Department of Defense to believe this is a missile launch …”

English: It wasn’t a missile.

DOD: … the department and other US government agencies with expertise in aviation and space continue to look into the condensation trail (CONTRAIL) seen and reported off the coast of southern California on Monday evening.”

English: But we will take this very, very seriously because we are professionals. After work, however, over a beer, we might use the term “nutjob that doesn’t know a jet contrail from his ass on fire.”

DOD: “All DoD entities with rocket and missile programs reported no launches, scheduled or inadvertent, during the time period in the area of the reported contrail.”

English: Look, we didn’t launch anything.

DOD: NORAD and USNORTHCOM confirmed that it did not monitor any foreign military missile launch off the California coast yesterday …

English: Nor did we see anyone else launch anything.

DOD: and has determined that there was no threat to the US homeland.

English: Did we mention that we are taking this very, very seriously because we are professionals? At least until we get to the bar?

DOD: In addition, the FAA ran radar replays from Monday afternoon of a large area west of Los Angeles. Those replays did not reveal any fast-moving, unidentified targets.

English: Don’t you think it is odd that the FAA radars only show airplanes?

DOD: The FAA also did not receive reports of any unusual sightings from pilots who were flying in the area Monday afternoon.

English: Or that no one else, other than the helicopter crew, say anything but airplanes?

DOD: “If any new information comes to light in the coming days, we will update the press and public.”

English: Time for that beer.

[Entropy]

Reasonable explanation, but it should have taken less than an hour for the FAA to whip out the flight plan of whatever aircraft was on that vector - as seen from the angle of the film.

Right?

Probably, assuming they have the correct time for the sighting.

You can actually track aircraft live and you can see there are always a lot of flights heading toward LAX from the Pacific. Historic data is available if one is willing to pay.

[AdamG]

Probably, assuming they have the correct time for the sighting..

One would think that a minion of the Pentagon would have been all over this like the proverbial white-on-rice in the first hour : if a layman such as I can point out 1) the hard position, bearing and time of the observer (KCBS TV helicopter crew, time marked digital tape) and 2) the database of all flights (from your aforementioned FAA database) within +/- 5 degrees of the observers' camera bearing , match target's travel vector (from point first observed to where it leaves the film frame) to one of the FAA radar tracks and it'd be real simple to say "Oh, that was Flight XXX from XXXX".*

Failure to do so has left the folks responsible for Pax Americana's perimeter security looking like smacked asses.

* Yes, I've done this before - with surface vessels. Made the E4 RTO put down his undergrad coursebook and work up the math, just to make life interesting in the TOC.

*
What the spot reports probably sounded like -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiWQZhUmmRw

[carl]

The reference cited by Entropy states that an aircraft would have taken 12-15 minutes to lay a contrail like that. If it was a missile it would have taken much less time to lay a smoke trail like that. Does anybody know how long the video in question was?

[bourbon]

Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

[Stan]

Entropy, great links with math to boot. Nothing like logic to dispel rumor and flawed intel

It was only a matter of time before this missile thread got hijacked but Bourbon has beat me to it

This video should at the very least clear any misconceptions about nuclear war and what happens to California

Regards, Stan