General McInerney: It was a missile
Posted by iusbvision on November 11, 2010
General McInerney is correct that aircraft do not leave a fat con trail at low altitude.
Many times this very writer has witnessed F-15’s, F16, F-111’s do vertical climbs many times while in the military. I have also worked with and around those fighter aircraft as well as the T-38, the T-37 and the big tankers. I have training in AGE equipment, aircraft armament systems and airborne munitions. I graduated at the top of my class in every military tech school I attended.
It took me a while to finally see a real copy of the video and not just the snippets that have appeared on TV and in my experienced, and educated opinion General McInerney is very likely to be spot on. The plum being so thick at the lower altitudes indicates solid rocket fuel or a liquid rocket propellant. Jets use a very different type of engine that just doesn’t behave like that. The object is likely going away and to the right of the camera at about a 48 degree angle. It appears to have less speed since it is traveling out to sea to the northwest away from the camera.
The course correction at altitude is also indicative. This was a keen and experienced observation from the general. A missile makes a course correction at a programmed altitude when its guidance system takes over from the launch sequence. A plane in the kind of optical illusion would not have had a change in course in the way that we saw. For a plane to do that it would have had to have decided to break from its straight line course and follow the edge of a small half circle and then come out with a slight course correction. A plane out to sea would be flying in a straight line at an altitude that no one else was, so no course correction of that kind of maneuver would have been necessary. If it was a plane doing that kind of course correction an Air Traffic Controller would have had to have ordered it and it would have been recorded.
I have seen high altitude con trails a thousands times. At that altitude one would not see the flash from a rocket engine at the tip of the con trail if it were a jet. This indicates that it started at lower altitude. Even with afterburners on in the case of a fighter jet, jet engine exhaust flash is not nearly as bright as that of a rocket as you can see in this video here (the music in the video is irritating so feel free to mute it):
If it was a plane what plane was it, tracking the flight path of something so big isn’t difficult, yet they cannot tell us. They tell us that they are sure it is not a missile but cannot explain how they came to that determination, and they will not confirm what it is. No parent would tolerate such evasiveness from a child so why should we from the government?
Here are some missile launches for comparison.
ICBM Peacekeeper launch
Trident I C-4 Launch
This is the actual footage. When the camera zooms in you can see the missile and you can see the bright light rocket fuel plume burning quite clearly.
This is a genuine aircraft con trail in the same sky from another night for comparison and as you can see it is quite different. Notice that this is a measured slow and long course change; nothing like a missile doing a course correction when the guidance system takes over from the launch sequence.
Now compare this with a SECOND video of the missile launch from 10 miles farther away
I shot this from Mission Viejom, CA (which is about 10 miles from the pacific ocean as the crow flies) Really had no idea what it was until I read about it…hounddog1011 11/13/2010
Last but not least, those who believe it was a con trail show some other photo’s with a similar effect but there are two problems with their photos: the first is that in order to get a con trail to start to look like that it needs to be exposed to the wind for some time to generate the effect, and even so the visual differences are there. In the missile picture we see that effect happening as the missile goes upward in pretty much real time.