E-Mail 'More on the Mystery Missile - and a Poll!' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'More on the Mystery Missile - and a Poll!' to a friend

Loading ...

3 Responses to "More on the Mystery Missile – and a Poll!"

Matt McDole says:

November 11, 2010 at 3:41 pm

I grew up in that area, and am quite familiar with seeing missile launches in the evenings, it’s done from more than one place in that general area.

I also lived near both Ontario (ONT) and Los Angeles (LAX) airports and am even more familiar with contrails and jet takeoffs as I’ve lived in the flight paths of BOTH airports.

While I’m not screaming “ZOMG CHINESE!” I think it’s pretty sheepish to believe that this is a jet taking off. The trail looks very much like what I’ve seen during missile launches and nothing like any ascending airliner’s con-trail. Additionally, the “optical illusion of an aircraft flying TOWARD the camera” theory is all well and good until you look at a few of the photos and realize you can see the glow of an engine. Could be a jet engine burn as easily as a rocket engine burn, sure. But NOT if said jet is coming toward you as supposed by the jet theory.

Lastly; who cares if it’s a missile? As stated before, it’s not a new thing in that area. You have an airbase, a naval base, and a coastline dotted with empty (supposedly) silos that housed Nike missiles. I think it’s absolute folly to expect transparency from the DoD, they don’t operate with too much oversight for VERY good reason. I’d only hope that if it WAS a foreign missile we’d know about it and the government wouldn’t hold out on us.
Phineas says:

November 11, 2010 at 6:19 pm

Matt,

Good points. About what looks like an engine burn, I thought the arguments at bahneman and Ccontrail Science were persuasive, even if not decisve: that the glow may have been the sun reflecting off the plane, which was at (IIRC) 39K feet. It had set from our perspective, but would still catch a object that high.

I have a feeling this will be one of those great dinner arguments for years to come.
Matt McDole says:

November 11, 2010 at 6:33 pm

Yea, the argument suggesting the “engine burn” is a reflection might work for the footage shot from the news chopper, I wouldn’t dispute that. I thought I’d seen photos of the object shot from the deck though (I’ll have to see if I can find them,) and a jet on takeoff on a trajectory toward the camera wouldn’t substantially reflect from the fuselage given its shape and wouldn’t reflect at all from the wings.

I agree wholeheartedly on a great topic for dinner arguments. There is certainly too little evidence one way or the other to be sure. Unfortunately, Occam’s Razor doesn’t even apply here given that both scenarios are likely.

Comments are closed.