Glenn Beck: They’re lying to us about the mystery contrail

posted at 1:30 pm on November 19, 2010 by The Right Scoop

Glenn Beck said today that he has spoken to military experts about the mystery contrail from a few weeks ago and he says it’s definitely not a plane, but rather a two stage missile. He just wants to know where it came from, and he has a theory. Beck postulates that this missile was possibly from a Chinese sub off the coast of California, perhaps as a show of force to the world, but even more so to President Obama.

Cross posted at www.therightscoop.com


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

If it were a missile, someone would have seen it. NOBODY saw anything out of the ordinary in the sky, except for this one person who happened to be perfectly aligned with it in an f’ing helicopter (further exaggerating the head-on effect).

DaveS

Correct, there would have been probably dozens of airliners at cruise altitudes that would have had a great view if it had been a ballistic missile launch. jets within 300 miles each way would have seen it, and it would have looked verticle to any one of them regardless of their location.

It was the position of this video, looking at the contrail relatively head on, giving the illusion that its vertical.

firepilot on November 19, 2010 at 8:38 PM

Beck is jumping the shark. It’s a plane: http://contrailscience.com/

PCWilliams on November 19, 2010 at 8:39 PM

So you and the good doctor Mike West claim but Thomas McInerney, Janes Defence, Russian missile experts, and a former Undersecretary of Defense have stated otherwise as have numerous military personnel familiar with both aircraft and missiles.

Gee, who to believe?

sharrukin on November 19, 2010 at 8:27 PM

I believe the guy who made a detailed case, presented evidence, took the time to reconstruct the scenario using various media, and who presented a perfectly believable, common-sense hypothesis. There is not a single compelling argument that this was a missile, and anyone who actually believes it was is mentally ill.

DaveS on November 19, 2010 at 8:41 PM

BTW, not only did the blogger present a hypothesis, he (or someone else) went the next day a reproduced it. Whoever was asking me what my definition of the “scientific method” is… that is about as close as you will get in an argument between mentally ill conspiracy theorists and reasonable people on the internet. It is roughly analogous to the SM in an actual scientific setting as well.

DaveS on November 19, 2010 at 8:42 PM

DaveS on November 19, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Calling people that you disagree with “mentally ill” means that you just lost the argument.

azkenreid on November 19, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Calling people that you disagree with “mentally ill” means that you just lost the argument.

azkenreid on November 19, 2010 at 8:59 PM

No, it means that there was never a sane premise about which to argue (and therefore nothing to “win”).

Again, I’m not saying this to be a troll. I genuinely believe that the people who are clinging to this bizarre “missile” nonsense have a mental illness. They sound very similar to 9/11 truthers and the moon people.

There is overwhelming evidence that this was not only an airplane, but that it was a specific flight, which reproduced the same visible phenomenon the next day. There is no evidence that it was a missile: no agency has announced that they detected a missile, nor did any entity claim to have launched a missile; no people on the ground claimed to see a missile; no people in aircraft off the coast claimed to see a missile; it didn’t behave as a missile would behave; and on and on.

DaveS on November 19, 2010 at 9:08 PM

DaveS on November 19, 2010 at 9:08 PM

If you are unwilling to give any ground and at least contemplate the idea that they might be right and you might be wrong, that could be interpreted as a mental illness.

azkenreid on November 19, 2010 at 9:11 PM

If you are unwilling to give any ground and at least contemplate the idea that they might be right and you might be wrong, that could be interpreted as a mental illness.

azkenreid on November 19, 2010 at 9:11 PM

I would consider it if there were the slightest amount of evidence that it might be true. There isn’t, at all. I contemplated it long enough to see that there was no evidence that it was true, which was a few days after the fact. At this point, it is an absurd, baseless claim that they are making and it is without merit.

Why on earth would any reasonable person “give ground” to such nonsense? Would you “give ground” to someone claiming that the moon was made of cheese?

DaveS on November 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM

DaveS on November 19, 2010 at 9:08 PM

You have a website by a guy who isn’t a meteorologist, who isn’t a missile expert, who isn’t a defense expert, who runs another site claiming to be a doctor and you think we are delusional?

Pictures and graphics and what mighta been are the stock in trade of the truthers and when you combine that with name calling and ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY on your part… well, it isn’t our side that is drifting into nutbar territory.

sharrukin on November 19, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Maybe it came from Dick Cheney’s super secret missile launcher?

I don’t know . . . when I first saw it I was not inclined to think it was an airplane. I’m not as sure as I was initially that it’s a missile, but I still lean in that direction. I get that the earth is curved and therefore a plane’s contrail could appear curved as well; I’ve seen many times with my own eyes contrails at angles that don’t seem logical. OTOH, the pitch of this contrail seems particularly steep. So count me in with those who believe there’s not enough information available to us to really make a firm conclusion one way or the other.

That said, if it is a missile, I think attributing it to the Chinese may be a little too tinfoil hat for me. I would be more inclined to believe it was one of ours.

NoLeftTurn on November 19, 2010 at 9:22 PM

DaveS on November 19, 2010 at 9:15 PM

Because the things that we think we know with absolute certainty sometimes turn out to be completely wrong. For the record, I think that it was a plane and always did. Maybe I’m more willing than usual to entertain differing viewpoints on this is because I just re-read Freakonomics. It does tend to expand the mind somewhat regarding conventional wisdom.

http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2009/science-mistakes/science-mistakes.html

azkenreid on November 19, 2010 at 9:24 PM

You have a website by a guy who isn’t a meteorologist, who isn’t a missile expert, who isn’t a defense expert, who runs another site claiming to be a doctor and you think we are delusional?

Yes, I think you are delusional if you think that expertise in missiles or defense is a requirement discussing something that has nothing to do with missiles.

I have no idea what you’re talking about with the doctor bit, nor do I care, really… the reproducible “open source” evidence he provides renders any ad hominem directed towards the blogger meaningless. It’s all right there in the open, and the hypothesis he presents has since been independently reproduced.

Pictures and graphics and what mighta been are the stock in trade of the truthers and when you combine that with name calling and ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY on your part… well, it isn’t our side that is drifting into nutbar territory./blockquote>

These are pictures and graphics of the exact incident, augmented with actual data that was gathered at the time from the aircraft in question, presented using freely available tools. There are also photographs of other known aircraft producing the exact same phenomenon in different locations. There is no “what mighta been” here. It is you who is pushing this completely baseless, fact-free lunacy about a missile that nobody saw, nobody launched, and nobody detected, which didn’t even behave anything remotely like a missile.

DaveS on November 19, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Beck is right but this is only one spaceship out of thousands of Pod People who have invaded California from the planet Skeeziks. Weird as California has been they have gotten even weirder as the pod People have taken over human bodies as exact replicas. These aliens have filtered into Nevada as well.Look at Harry Reid!

MaiDee on November 19, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Except it wasn’t, it was an airplane. Nobody saw a missile. There was no missile. It was an airplane that looked just like every other airplane, which is why nobody reported seeing a missile.

DaveS on November 19, 2010 at 6:55 PM

It wasn’t a plane; the trajectory matched this picture of an antiballistic missile. No one will see a missile fired from an undisclosed location.

Plus, subsequently after that test, NATO and Obama agreed upon having a missile defense shield.

Cr4sh Dummy on November 19, 2010 at 9:46 PM

Correct, there would have been probably dozens of airliners at cruise altitudes that would have had a great view if it had been a ballistic missile launch. jets within 300 miles each way would have seen it, and it would have looked verticle to any one of them regardless of their location.

It was the position of this video, looking at the contrail relatively head on, giving the illusion that its vertical.

firepilot on November 19, 2010 at 8:38 PM

There was no air traffic within the radius of the missile.

Cr4sh Dummy on November 19, 2010 at 9:48 PM

[A] It wasn’t a plane; the trajectory matched this picture of an antiballistic missile.

[B] Plus, subsequently after that test, NATO and Obama agreed upon having a missile defense shield.

[C] There was no air traffic within the radius of the missile.

Cr4sh Dummy on November 19, 2010 at 9:48 PM

[A] You’re joking right? You mean, simply, that it appeared to be going “up”-ish?

[B] You are claiming that this is evidence of something?

[C] I’m not sure what you mean by “radius of the missile”, but certainly there were aircraft in the area… for example, the aircraft that actually was the “missile” (UPS902), as well as AWE808 which was the original candidate due to its proximity.

DaveS on November 19, 2010 at 10:02 PM

A little reason and a scientific mind can go a long ways to combat completely unreasonable, unscientific BS. Regardless, one needn’t be an expert in “missiles” to discuss a scenario that doesn’t involve any missiles.

DaveS on November 19, 2010 at 8:22 PM

Without internet searching…

I would absolutely be tickled to death to hear your definition of the scientific method.

Inanemergencydial on November 19, 2010 at 8:35 PM

Inanemergencydial on November 19, 2010 at 10:04 PM

There was no air traffic within the radius of the missile.

Cr4sh Dumm

What?? This is SoCal, some of the busiest airspace there is in the world.

If you could see this from the ground, then you could see it from even further from the air, and if it was a missle, it would be visible for hundreds of miles from the air.

You would have had dozens of reports from aircraft.

firepilot on November 19, 2010 at 10:04 PM

China couldn’t penetrate into our waters, just wouldn’t happen.

Why do people keep repeating this when there is a real world case of it being false.

The Chinese penetrated the Kitty Hawk carrier group that was on alert for submarines!

Keep plucking that chicken pal.

gdonovan on November 19, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Inanemergencydial on November 19, 2010 at 8:35 PM

Without internet searching… I would absolutely be tickled to death to hear your definition of the scientific method.

This is the problem with you people… you don’t read.

DaveS on November 19, 2010 at 8:41 PM

I believe the guy who made a detailed case, presented evidence, took the time to reconstruct the scenario using various media, and who presented a perfectly believable, common-sense hypothesis. There is not a single compelling argument that this was a missile…

Not only did the blogger present a hypothesis, he (or someone else) went the next day a reproduced it. Whoever was asking me what my definition of the “scientific method” is… that is about as close as you will get in an argument between mentally ill conspiracy theorists and reasonable people on the internet. It is roughly analogous to the SM in an actual scientific setting.

DaveS on November 19, 2010 at 10:15 PM

My husband, the naval aviator, took one look at it and said “That’s no plane.” He thought it was a missile, just looking at the video. But he didn’t think twice about it. Just knew it wasn’t a plane. From what he has told me, quite a few subs come into our waters all the time. When we lived in Virginia Beach, you could go to the beach and see the Russian “fishing” boats with all of their electronic gear, sailing up and down the coast.

megthered on November 19, 2010 at 10:29 PM

And if it was a plane, why didn’t the airline acknowledge it right away. I haven’t heard a word from any airline saying it was one of theirs and not to worry. Surely pilots or passengers would have said something.

megthered on November 19, 2010 at 10:40 PM

DaveS on November 19, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Whelp, that’s embarrassing.

Thanks for playing!

Inanemergencydial on November 19, 2010 at 10:41 PM

Every Christmas tree light in NORAD would have or should have lit up upon a launch. Even a bunch of military guys can’t keep something like a Chinese missile launch under their hats for too long no matter how hard the generals might lean on them.

kens on November 19, 2010 at 10:43 PM

Just a question.

The video was taken “just before sunset” which for Los Angeles California would be 4:54 PM.
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=137&month=11&year=2010&obj=sun&afl=-11&day=1

UPS 902 doesn’t even reach Catalina Island until 5:30 and is still far out to sea around 4:50. That would be something like 300+ miles away if UPS 902 was going 500 mph.

Even the pictures they are looking at over at that site Contrails Science are from 5:19 and one of them (the web cam from LAX) is from 18:15:44 PST (6:15) which doesn’t make a lot of sense.

sharrukin on November 19, 2010 at 11:28 PM

Beck has seriously hurt his credibility with this :-(

Al in St. Lou on November 19, 2010 at 11:31 PM

DaveS….
You’re my hero.

12thMonkey on November 20, 2010 at 12:00 AM

hey, did anyone see that missile near LA a week and a half ago, that was something, huh?

tommer74 on November 20, 2010 at 12:14 AM

rabbit season!
duck season!
rabbit season!
duck season!

tommer74 on November 20, 2010 at 12:18 AM

I honestly believe the guy is mentally unbalanced. Remember his breakdown after surgery? Remember him talking about how he was thinking about suicide? Oversharing everything as tears poured down his face, so he’d get a little press, way back in the pre-Tea-Party days? Glenn Beck is an emotionally unstable attention whore, and for my money has actual mental health issues that he’s not doing a good job of treating. The guy is going to crack, and I don’t want him anywhere near conservatism when he does.

Well-Armed Lamb on November 20, 2010 at 2:46 AM

He just wants to know where it came from

X-COM: UFO Defense

BDU-33 on November 20, 2010 at 2:52 AM

Sharrukin, you wonder why an airline didn’t say its theirs? On what basis would any airline make that claim? There was a video… It isn’t like they had a lat/lon and altitude–that had to be figured out by a blogger with too much time on his hands.

Speaking of altitude, the plane was 6 or 7 miles in the air… “sunset” up there is not the same as sunset on the ground (it would be 6 or 7 min later), plus the plane was to the west.

DaveS on November 20, 2010 at 4:34 AM

Oops, that first point should have been directed to megthered.

DaveS on November 20, 2010 at 4:37 AM

Inanemergencydial, sorry… My intent was not to embarrass you. There were lots of posts. I’m sure you just weren’t keeping up. It’s tough sometimes.

DaveS on November 20, 2010 at 4:40 AM

If it had been as simple as an airplane, why all the questions? LAX ATC could not explain it? NORAD did not know? Aren’t THESE the people who are supposed to know?

It takes a “blogger” and DaveS to “explain” this object to us?

What’s wrong with this picture?

Roy Rogers on November 20, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Speaking of altitude, the plane was 6 or 7 miles in the air… “sunset” up there is not the same as sunset on the ground (it would be 6 or 7 min later), plus the plane was to the west.

DaveS on November 20, 2010 at 4:34 AM

We are talking half an hour and hundreds of miles not 6 or 7 minutes. The video crew were the ones who stated that it was “just before sunset”, not UPS 902, so it would be relative to them that we would establish the time of the sighting. The altitude of UPS 902 would affect their visibility to an observer, not when an observer experienced sunset.

UPS 902 would be far out to sea at sunset and the pictures they are analyzing over at contrails science are from 5:19 when the plane would have been more than 300 miles out to sea.

The LAX webcam isn’t close to the time in question at 6:15 and I take it they are assuming that LAX didn’t send Gomer Pyle out to wind up the webcam clock? They don’t have computers that automatically set the time over there at one of the busiest airports in the world?

sharrukin on November 20, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Not an airplane.

eaglesdontflock on November 20, 2010 at 1:25 PM

It was a plane, and there isn’t and there isn’t even any real question about it. It is perfectly explained by the fact that it is a plane, and noone presented a single coherent argument argument otherwise.

If there are any smart people who wish to have a go I’m game, but at this point I’m just encouraging your depressing idiocy. Roy Rogers, I think you’re the worst… LAX ATC couldn’t explain WHAT? They had nothing out of the ordinary to explain. You people are just not that smart if you don’t understand the underlying ridiculousness of those sorts of questions.

DaveS on November 20, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Let’s just summarize again:

We have:
0) a contrail that didn’t behave as it would from a missile
1) an airplane exactly at the source of the contrail
2) no ATC that saw any untracked, out-of-place flying objects
3) no people on the ground that saw anything that looked out of place, like a missile
4) no people in the air (aside from this one guy in helicopter) who saw anything that looked out of place, like a missile,
5) no government agency or military that launched a missile
6) no gov agency or military that saw or tracked a missile

And yet you think it was a “missile”. You guys are freakin’ bright, let me tell ya.

DaveS on November 20, 2010 at 2:37 PM

When people start throwing insults and calling other’s opinions stupid, they’re usually at the wrong end of the argument.

eaglesdontflock on November 20, 2010 at 2:57 PM

And yet you think it was a “missile”. You guys are freakin’ bright, let me tell ya.

DaveS on November 20, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Thousands of people saw it and there are others ‘fools and idiots’ who took it very seriously.

The mystery of a missile launch last night off the Southern California coast deepened today as US military officials said they were still checking to see if the missile was one of theirs.

Contacted by ABC News, a Navy official said today they were still looking into the report, but, a preliminary check indicated it was not a Navy asset.

US Northern Command said it’s investigating. They say there was no launch last night from Vandenberg Air Force Base which is a regular launch point for the testing of missiles.

So the military, including the Navy, NORAD, and US Northern Command were checking their missile inventories to determine if they launched.

That’s about as serious as a heart attack.

A Navy spokesperson told KFMB it wasn’t their missile. He said there was no Navy activity reported in the area Monday evening.

The US military has so far been unable to explain an apparent missile contrail off the coast of California and is still trying to determine its cause, a Pentagon spokesman said Tuesday.

Yeah, nothing here at all. Just move along you silly people because there was a plane in the sky and maybe it coulda been that, or swamp gas… maybe?

sharrukin on November 20, 2010 at 3:11 PM

When people start throwing insults and calling other’s opinions stupid, they’re usually at the wrong end of the argument.

eaglesdontflock on November 20, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Yep.

Not an airplane.

Roy Rogers on November 20, 2010 at 3:29 PM

So the military, including the Navy, NORAD, and US Northern Command were checking their missile inventories to determine if they launched.

That’s about as serious as a heart attack.

sharrukin on November 20, 2010 at 3:11 PM

They should have checked with DaveS. He’d set them straight. [/sarc]

Roy Rogers on November 20, 2010 at 3:31 PM

They should have checked with DaveS. He’d set them straight. [/sarc]

Roy Rogers on November 20, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Yeah, I forgot he has a website with pictures and everything! /

I have been to other websites absolutely proving that 911 was an inside job as well. They impressed me just as much.

sharrukin on November 20, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Just because it’s not an “airplane” (assuming for the sake of argument that it’s not one), doesn’t mean it has to be a rocket or missile. I can think of a number of things it could easily be that don’t fit into either category – which doesn’t rule out either of those categories, either.

SoCal isn’t all that far from a large number of the best American aerospace R&D labs and test ranges. Many of which, for reasons that should be patently obvious, can’t really go into full detail about what they’re doing at any given moment. And while they’re in the desert, traditionaly you want to test things where it won’t fall on people’s heads if something goes awry. For which the open ocean is better than even the most barren desert.

Lastly, I find it very interesting to see what was really said – and more importantly, what wasn’t – when you parse the exact language the USN and certain other federal agencies have used in their statements.

Just saying.

Blacksmith on November 20, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Just because it’s not an “airplane” (assuming for the sake of argument that it’s not one), doesn’t mean it has to be a rocket or missile. I can think of a number of things it could easily be that don’t fit into either category – which doesn’t rule out either of those categories, either.

Exactly. At this point we really have no idea what it was.

Lastly, I find it very interesting to see what was really said – and more importantly, what wasn’t – when you parse the exact language the USN and certain other federal agencies have used in their statements.

Just saying.

Blacksmith on November 20, 2010 at 4:00 PM

The delay in making any statements is also interesting. It was almost as if they were waiting for something to happen or for a story to gain strength before they committed one way or the other. They still haven’t made a statement regarding what it was. What they said seemed to shift the burden over to an internet website, which is rather strange.

sharrukin on November 20, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Why did NORAD notify President Obama immediately? Why is NORCOM saying no comment?

eaglesdontflock on November 20, 2010 at 5:56 PM

Why did NORAD notify President Obama immediately? Why is NORCOM saying no comment?

eaglesdontflock on November 20, 2010 at 5:56 PM

They did not check with DaveS first, much to his chagrin.

Roy Rogers on November 20, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4