Missile Launch Off California Coast

Sorry you are having such a difficult time understanding the issues here. This is from the CR4 FAQs:

• Please stay on topic. Posts and comments should be of a technical nature and engage some aspect of engineering, science or technology. If you are going to delve into other topical areas (business, entertainment, sports, etc.), please do your best to tie them back to one of the main focal points of this site. Posts focusing on politics or religion will likely be removed. There are plenty of places on the Web to talk politics or religion This isn't one of them.

Your posts in this thread have not been "of a technical nature" and do not "engage some aspect of engineering, science or technology". Comments about liberals, progressives, Chinese, Muslims, conservative patriots etc are not OK here.

Your only on-topic assertion has been that you "believe" that the airplane contrail was actually from a missile. However that comment alone is of little utility, because you give no reasons or rationale for why you would believe such thing. Engineers want to see plausible evidence, but you provide none.

Comments that state that the members of any political or religious group (liberals, progressives, conservatives, libertarians, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, etc) are "a sorry lot" are not allowed on this forum. The FAQs say: There are plenty of places on the Web to talk politics or religion This isn't one of them.

If you have evidence to present that (for example) shows that the video was slowed down dramatically to make a missile look like an airplane, then present that... but simply repeating the same belief over and over, without supplying any rationale, just contributes to the noise.

This is not "shouting down". It is simply alerting you to the nature of this forum. I hope to see some positive contributions from you in the future.

Thank you, point well taken, I was answering KY responce. But you already knew that.

The downside to #1 of course is that you have showed your hand and given your enemies (us) a chance to find a counter to your technology.

Rorschach,

remember we (the US) did the same thing to show Russia our capabilities. Thats why its a warning shot, no body wants to go to war so we make a show of force by doing warship games in the south China sea.

Spacecannon

True up to a point, but you don't show off your "secret weapon" during those warning shots. you hold those in reserve for when you really need them because once you show them off, the element of surprise is lost..

Obviously the age old Duck question here: IF it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck and tastes like duck, then it's a duck!

I've seen enough rocket and missile launches in my lifetime (at Whitesands, and then later during the Persian Gulf War of '91....Scuds and the Army's MLRS) to know a actual missile from a supposedly aircraft contrail. My vote is that it's a missile with a solid fuel propulsion engine.

Problem is "Who owns it?" Given the US Military's penchant to wrap a blanket so tightly around this puppy due to "National Security" issues most undoubtedly the true story will not surface for at least 50 to 60 years downrange.

Let's add a bit of fuel to the conspiracy fire...

If we assume that the US government agencies have been honest in their statements (and yes I understand that's a BIG "if")... and state a few additional facts...

1. All branches of the US military have denied any involvement in this.

2. The CIA is not part of the DOD.

3. The CIA is already known to have military type capabilities (i.e. Drones and the MISSLES launched from them)

Perhaps this clandestine group is expanding a bit to include larger weapons....

Let us also not forget DARPA as well as Boeing and Lockheed's "skunk works" operations who also have such capabilities. The X-37B is a DARPA project, not an Air Force project per se. It all depends on how you frame the question and couch the answer, assuming that the answer you get is honest to begin with.

This is even more loopy than the Gulf oil spill threads!

If anyone had just one fact to work with it would really get wild I suppose!

Makes me think of the blind men describing an elephant.

Something I have noticed floating around silently,

The damage caused by commercial passenger aircraft on 911 has gone far beyond what could ever be imagined, It is in the minds and hearts, the very soul of everyone. The damage is still expanding. The damage cannot be forgotten.

Remember the Veterans and the victims.

Good morning All,

As I see the reports and headlines this morning I am appalled at the ability of the Govt to pull strings on anyone under their payrol. Talk to experts out side of the US and Ametuer Rocketeers, this is a rocket trail. So many dont want to believe it they have their heads in the sand and scream "IT WAS A JET".

I honestly have to say anyone who says this is a jet contrail is either on a govt payrole or doesnt understand contrails. Multiengine jets dont form a contrail like that immediatly out of the back, there is always some residual separation close to the point of origin, even after mixing a person can make out striations. No question about it, it was a solid fuel rocket/missle.

I can see why the govt - people would not want this to become a controversy, if the public saw it for a missle from a foreign country there would be outrage and possibly war. (on the other hand our govt would probably say "oh we forgive you, no problem" .

The obvious answer as to who, N.Korea or China, probaly China cause N.Korea sank that S.Korean ship and is still feeling the heat from that. It was an empty warhead so it was a warning shot about our financial policies. If you understand what is happening regarding our national monitary policy then you would understand this is valid. I dont think Iran has the sub to do it. A surface ship would be an obvious tell, too much evidence. But a surface launch from a sub would work.

Watching the media this morning I realize this will be swept under the rug. Its like having a dangerous neighbor that everyone denys is theatening.

They could nuke a US city and we would call it a local accident to avoid public outrage and a war.

Thx and good luck All

Spacecannon

It's flight 808. It looks exactly like the contrail from 808 published previously (end of last year?), as well as the one published the day after the video (from the beach cam), which is at just the same angle. The video makes it appear that the contrail is growing more quickly than it is because the camera is being zoomed, but once the zoom is finished, the "missile" suddenly seems dead in the air, just as a jet often seems when approaching. The speed is far to low to be that of a missile.

If the traffic helicopter guys really believed it was a missile launch why didn't they continue to shoot video? If they really believed it was missile launch, wouldn't they shoot 'til the missile began to go out of sight? The alternative explanation seems so incredibly convoluted.

At least the various fantasies being proposed and the incredible stories to go with them are entertaining. Note that the news reports called it a missile launch even before they had any idea whether it was a launch or not, and without any confirmation of any sort that it was in fact a launch. Makes great TV... What drugs was Elsworth on? He says "Maybe it was ICBM from a sub to demonstrate to Asia that we can do that??!! Of course we can do that. If we wanted to make such a demonstration, then why not in their backyard instead of ours?

TV news exists only to sell ad time.

Moronicbumbler,

The speed seems slow cause it is going directly away from the camera, THAT IS WHY YOU CAN SEE THE FLAME, or is the front of the plane on fire? They reported it as a missle cause it was so obvious. it walks like a duck...

Go ask the reporter he stoped taping, thats not a valid argument for it not being a missle. why are you grasping at straws to explain away the obvious?

Do you read what you are writing, before you post it?

Logic & reason have been replaced by conjecture & paranoia

Perhaps we are talking about a different video. The video I watched, shot from a traffic report helicopter, shows the brief metallic flash (like that from a signal mirror) that is very often seen near sundown at the front of contrails, due to simple reflection off the plane. But when the camera zooms in, there is no bright spot, because these flashes from the undersides of planes are fleeting (they can only happen when the sun, plane and observer are in the right locations). There is nothing remotely or vaguely close to the flame from a missile or rocket. The plane is going toward the camera, with the contrail wider in the distance, from the standard and common dissipation and dispersion.

Here's a pic from the video I watched. Did you watch a different video?

It shows nothing remotely close to a missile's exhaust signature. And looks exactly like a contrail that is illuminated from below the horizon (the sun's apparent location) against a sunset sky. For people who are unaware that the earth is round (such as those reporters that said that the "missile lit up the sky") this could appear to be something moving upward, rather than a plane at cruising at altitude (where the plane actually is). They'd be wrong, but then so would the 80% of Americans who believe that the earth was created 4000-5000 years ago. Were you thinking that the brilliant yellow cloud (the brightest thing in the shot above, stretching horizontally in the frame) was the flame you referred to?

Here's a contrail from a plane (flight 808) from a similar location taken on New Year's eve. It looks even more "rocket like" (I'd think) to someone who knows nothing about things such as contrails, sunsets, science, etc.

Here's another view of the same flight, taken from a different angle.

I suppose to some people who have never given any thought to perspective, both these shots airplanes appear to be going upward rather than cruising at altitude, which is what they are really doing. The geometry is adequately explained in numerous places, but the contrailscience site does a good job, so I'll recommend that, if you are actual serious re your thories.

To agree with your funny conspiracy theory, I'd have to believe numerous things that are counter to my observations and counter to logic. I'd have to believe that "the government" and thousands of people in the government are lying with their official version, that "the media" is in cahoots with the government, and on and on. The North Korea idea is ludicrous. Clearly it was China, demonstrating that they can blow us up is we keep complaining about toxic toothpaste.

Here is a screen shot from a YouTube of one of the numerous broadcasts, (many of which add layer upon layer of assumptions and idiocy -- such as the "lighting up the sky" bit, which is obviously flat wrong -- the thing lighting up the sky is that bright thing that these people must think orbits our planet).

I have circled the area of the THE FLAME that you claim to be able to see. I have also circled the (obviously) military aircraft that you and your conspiracy theorist friends seem to have missed. Clearly, this aircraft was dispatched to shoot the missile out of the air, and the proof is right there in the video. The only reason no one saw the subsequent flash was because all observers were memory flashed MIB style -- it's the only explanation that fits!

Here is what appeared to be a contrail to me, (I think these things are beautiful) but clearly, from your perspective, this is a missile trail, (left from missile passage three minutes before) and the red sky is from the huge conflagration of the island (just over the horizon) hit by the nuke, in one of Iran's tests in the Med.

Turns out, in this case, you are right. How much more obvious can it get?? -- the sky is red, and that can only come from a conflagration. It was also intended by Iran to be symbolic of their relationship with Russia, the "red" country. This test has been well-documented (if you are some naysayer, I'll leave you to find the documentation), but even if it were not, it should be obvious that this is a test by Iran. You can go ask the person who took this shot, if you don't believe the obvious. If anyone tries to claim that this is just a sunset, they are grasping at straws to explain away the obvious.

More beautiful contrails can be found here. Many look even more like rockets or missiles* than the jet contrail over LA does.

Perhaps it is time to say you are joking... aren't we just wasting CR4 bandwidth? Keep this going, and people will start to think you are serious!

*or the previously secret Death Laser Vapor trails now in testing by Korea -- in fact three of these pics, on the first page of images, are from the Korean testing of the DLV. You will be able to pic them out immediately.

You make a very convincing argument! ga for that.

but you are trying too hard... and from this we can conclude... you are one of 'them'.

Theory?

conspiracy 'vision'?

At least the OP is right about one thing, his signature line:

"The person who wrote the above is not resposible [sic] for spelling, grammar or puncuation [sic], ......"

"...an unknown missle [sic]" and quite a few other such errors.

I don't think he's "resposible" for the quality of his musings, either.

***

I didn't see any flames in the video, only about 3 or 4 very brief glints, as off a metallic object. If this were an accelerating missile, moving away, there should have been a much brighter and more consistent flame.

This kind of cockamamie conclusion-jumping is the sort of thing that causes rumors, urban legends, panics, lynch mobs, and the like. Very irresponsible.

I like Spacecannon's idea... let's explore Occam's razor (for those who don't know it, this is the philosophy that, all else being equal the solution that makes the fewest assumptions is most likely correct).

So let's make a list of possibilities and the required assumptions and see where Occam leads us!!!

Occam's razor (for those who don't know it, this is the philosophy that, all else being equal the solution that makes the fewest assumptions is most likely correct)

This might be better stated as the solution that makes the fewest new assumptions, Another way of putting it: the simplest explanation is the best. In comparing the two photos below (and in interpreting them to represent some facet of reality) we make hundreds of assumptions, so I am not interested in listing those.

Why not just keep it simple. If we have a contrail photo taken from the same location and at the same time of day and with similar meteorological conditions... and find that it looks just like the image from the video, then without making additional and highly implausible assumptions, we can say that it is very likely a contrail. If it looks just like a contrail, if probably is a contrail.

We should refrain from accepting or repeating descriptions like "lights up the sky" because there is nothing in the video (or the even brighter contrail photo below) that indicates that the contrail is lighting up the sky -- that honor goes to the sun in both cases. We should also refrain from accepting an old defense secretary's statement that it is us proving something to the Chinese, or the opposite statement, also offered, that it is the Chinese proving something to us, because there is no evidence of that in the video or the photo -- such an assumption is just wild imagination.

Known contrail from flight 808, which flies over LA:

This looks even more like a rocket (to people who do not watch sunsets and contrails) than the recent video, mainly because the image quality is better.

Pic from recent video:

They look very nearly identical, because they are very nearly identical: same time of day, similar clouds and other meteorological conditions. Same contrail shape: wide and darkish in the distance, bright in the middle from illumination from below (in the sense that the sun is "below" the horizon -- same reason the middle clouds are bright) darker, grayish near the east-flying aircraft in both cases.

See 0:36 in this video.

No new and wildly imaginative assumptions needed... just observation, and the ability to compare one image with another.

Good answer and start for Occam!

Why would anyone put this much effort into trying to proove something wrong unless they were a shill for the govt.

Those pictures you presented do not look convincing, to location and photo shop, you have to present the source not just flash some pic you found that supports your theory. for example the LA shot, given the sun sets in the west out here, where was that shot taken from?

And since the sun sets in the west and the missle was flying NW it would be pritty tough to get the suns reflection off it since the sun would be in back of it.

The video shot and referenced above from CBS shows flame at the tip if you cant see it well get new glasses.

This is a tail end shot other wise you would see the plane, given the size of the plume in relation to the plane at the point of origin, they are about the same size to each other as it comes out of the plane, and you can see no plane there.

Moronicbumble i trully suspect anyone putting this much effort into it unless they are getting paid to do so.

Spacecannon

Why would anyone put this much effort into trying to proove something wrong unless they were a shill for the govt.

Hard to know what you mean here. I think you have the largest number of posts here.

given the sun sets in the west out here

Incredible coincidence!! Here too!

where was that shot taken from?

The photos are of flight 808, flying eastward. The shots were taken in the LA area. looking west, toward Honolulu, where the flight originates.

And since the sun sets in the west and the missle was flying NW...

I'm not arguing that the jet was a missile... that's your gig. Try to keep up. I am arguing that the plane was a plane. The plane is flying east on its way to Phoenix. The sun is illuminating the underside of the clouds where they are brightest in all the shots. I gather you do not fly, but if you did, you would see that "grey" clouds are bright white from above. In the same way, contrails during sunsets are bright where they are illuminated from below, and grey when illuminated from behind. One of your photos shows a bright contrail blocked by a "grey" cloud. You'd have a hard time explaining the image without resorting to rational thought.

You have not read the contrail science site, I gather. Trust me, the stuff described there is very ordinary, and the kind of stuff you see all the time if you fly, if you are a sunset admirer, or a sunset photographer, etc.

The video shot and referenced above from CBS shows flame at the tip if you cant see it well get new glasses.

Oddly enough, I just had my eyes tested today. Corrected to better than 20-20. Post the part of the picture that shows the flame. All I saw was the brief flash from a reflection - something I have seen perhaps in the low hundreds of times from on the ground and in the air.

This is a tail end shot other wise you would see the plane, given the size of the plume in relation to the plane at the point of origin, they are about the same size to each other as it comes out of the plane, and you can see no plane there.

Google "sunset contrails". Sometimes you see the plane, many times you do not.

So you are thinking that the contrail expert, who's site has been up for years, is a liar, and "the government" found him (perhaps a couple years ago) to prepare him to come up with the ridiculous assertion that a contrail is a contrial... so that at some point in the future (where we have arrived now) "the government" could hide the fact that "they" know that this is really a missile from China. Then they found me and paid me off to further support the notion that a contrail is a contrail. I wonder why are the Chinese not paying me to say that the contrail is a missile?

Novel.

About 2 years ago a jerk accidentally fired a anti-hail rocket near to the EZE airport here in Buenos Aires... nearly hitting an incoming flight from Lufthansa. As (fortunately) nothing happened this episode was swept under the carpet by our authorities, being recently unveiled by a free-lance journalist. Have you considered the possibility of a guy at the Calif coast fooling around with a RED Button?

CBS News needs to get a better editor; too many misspellings in that column.

--Editor Crankshaft

do you have a link to the original source?

Yes. I should have included that. (again note this is a REPLY to the CBS article, not CBS or the editors)

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2010/11/10/pentagon-mystery-missile-contrail-was-probably-airplane/

I'm all for the simplest explanation, which tends to be an airplane. The only issues I have with this is what Mr. Bill above touches on... If this were a commercial flight that has been flown daily for numerous years (with minimal research I can find these flights going back to at least 2002) SURELY contrails would have formed one of those days in the past 8+ years and one of the people in the second largest city in the US would have seen it before.

This guy must have spent too long in the desert. He is thinking just like Mullah Momtazy, who "smelled me out" as a CIA agent.

Somebody please send him a camel for companionship....

Tornado,

These are all missile launch pix from Googles photo archieve

Resorting to personal insults does not help your position, it only shows a grade school mentality.

Spacecannon

Sigh. At the risk of falling prey to a quotation attributed to both Mark Twain and Woody Allen, allow me to answer this.

These are all pictures that are word associated by the Google search engine with the word "missile". Some of these are pictures of missiles and some of these are pictures that look like but are not missiles. Both will be associated with the word missile.

These photos clearly show the differences between sunset contrail photos (the two reddish ones) and actual launch photos (the three which show the launch site). The extra photo (showing a plume of some sort running downhill) adds nothing -- it could be contrail, reentry plume, part of a launch taken from an odd angle, etc.

The contrails disperse (and get very wiggly) with time. The wide end that extends over the horizon and out of sight was generated tens of minutes ago, so they expand, drift, and show the effects of wind shear. This site will help you calculate the possible distance to the horizon -- although Catalina Island obscures the horizon in one case, and haze obscures it in the other. The furthest part of the contrail you can see is probably 75 miles away, (out over the pacific in both cases) perhaps a little more. In both contrail photos, the weather conditions are good for contrails, and the (apparently) cirrus clouds have formed because of that.

The launches show less than a minute of plume, and in the last photo the time is even shorter: the rocket is visible enough that you could scale the altitude to less than a mile, I'd guess. Perhaps you can look these over and do the math: my job as a shill for the government does not allow me the time to do so. I gather that you might have more available time, and are having a good chuckle.

1, 3, 4, and 6 are clearly missile, as we can see launch point; 2 and 5 are uncertain.

I think there are differences in the way in which these display in different browsers. There are two obvious sunset contrail sunset photos, which on my screen are images 2 and 4, in reading order. Number 5 is the one running "downhill and to the left," and which doesn't support Spacecannon's spoof, and doesn't contribute anything meaningful: the camera angle is strange if it is a launch, and if it is a missile coming down or a reentry, then it has no bearing on the current thread. The other three are actual launches, and are distinctly and obviously different than the sunset jet contrail photos.

Number 4 was in sunset, but the low end of the contrail was below the horizon, in front of the distant hills, and thus looks like a missile.

I agree that the TV show video looks more like several of the other identified airplane contrails than the missile contrails in Spacecadet's selection.

I see you use Latin in your tagline. Does that mean that you too are ex-military or active? He also seems to think you must be paid to contribute here. Ho ho.

I think the Latin is more of a sign of sense of humor!

Qua operor ego adicio pro officium?

_{(obviously belongs to a post much earlier - but I've been laughing too much ...)}

Check this out - Discuss amongst yourselves - there will be questions later, followed by a pop quiz, with extra points given for the most creative answers.

http://www.youtube.com/?v=ncswE3UCp2E

clearly thats a lens issue. it is moving at exactly the same speed that camera is tracking...

new yorkers are just paranoid about flying things.

Greetings Citizens of Earth, Please to be not worried by recent speculation regarding "missile launch" off your continental discontinuation. Photos obviously not spacecraft, most likely airplane or jet-ski or weather balloon , not vanguard of intergalactic invasion fleet. Please to go and sleep now , rest now , lack of agitation assures our preferred food resources are not tough and stringy when harvested. GLXZX, Vice-Admiral Alpha Centauri Squadron

good points bruce!

is there any input from civilian or military authorities that anyone can find?

chris

is there any input from civilian or military authorities that anyone can find?

Of course there is the Pentagon version, but I have been paid to write this, so take it with a grain of salt.

One of my team members (we are paid from the same fund) is now trying to convince people that the flight in question was the UPS flight, not flight 808. You will see that his approach to the puzzle has all the earmarks of a cover-up, however: logic, reason, thoroughness, etc.

Hi Redfred,

As to the screenshot, I had no idea. I simply picked a random youtube video to show that these things are recorded. I apologize for any other aspects, as that was certainly unintentional.

As for the validity and disputability of any evidence brought forward, I think that the closer the authorities get to transparency, the better it is for the public. I'm all about continuous improvement, and I don't care one whit whether the authorities are afraid of viral conspiracies. The truth shall set you free. Tell the truth to the people in 100% of the requests, and there wouldn't be a problem.

There are conspiracies about government because government must necessarily think in war terms and scenarios. The public becomes divorced from government in these scenarios because of the necessity for secrecy in conduct war. This is fundamental 'art of war' stuff. The public doesn't like secrecy; they like transparency. People may not always like the truth, as Obama has found out, but it is highly preferable to the other choice.

I am personally willing to accept the aircraft explanation, but as with religion, a little proof goes a long way. If one isn't a little paranoid about certain things, one simply haven't been keeping one's self up to date. It may not be logical, but that doesn't make it go away. (paranoid = heightened caution and awareness)

Do you think Churchill was paranoid about the Nazis, right up until Chamberlain was told "Leave". He certainly suffered for his awareness, and it was his preparations that saved the free world, imho (along with FDR). There are those who are willing to make themselves aware of the activities and motivations of those who do not have the public's best interest at heart. I am less afraid of the man with an opinion than I am of the man with an agenda, and the means to enact it. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

The simple facts are that this contrail in the sky was questionable. An intelligent person will inquire as to the source, and follow it to its conclusion, in order to rule out any possibility of threat. That is all I see the OP doing. (other than getting entangled in schoolyard activities here.)

I've been a quality auditor. It is not enough to say to an auditor 'we gots quality here'. You have to provide evidence, and I see no convincing evidence yet. The only evidence so far is the video itself, which is obviously controversial. Why can't they show an actual and planned flight path for the aircraft in question? I don't personally care what the final answer is, so long as there is solid evidence for the weird contrails, that answers all questions. Really, is that too much to ask? ]

Chris

How can anyone be transparent when every statement gets labeled as a lie.

I offer to you a word of advice. As a rule of thumb in any argument if you have to resort to the era of Nazi Germany to support your argument, you have likely lost the argument. The world politics at the time and festering of pure evil were so extreme prior and during WWII that one must be really careful using anything from this era as a sound reason to support anything.

The simple fact is that this entire discussion started with a wild unproven assumption. Several individuals understandably did not recognize that an assumption was made and continued the thought presented. This acceptance of a hidden assumption is a natural human trait exploited by magicians and illusionists all the time. I do not put any blame on spacecannon for not recognizing the assumption either.

I do blame the CBS news service for presenting the images without doing their due diligence to research what could explain the contrail their photographer photographed. They are paid to present validated information, not speculation.

What I've found distasteful is how many people have refused to acknowledge that an initial assumption was made.

I find it amusing that your "flight path" link highlights a slight deviation of the missile trajectory versus flight 808's flight plan. With two airborne objects (the helicopter was airborne and in transit) subject to different changing winds this seems to me to be more of a proof for flight 808 being the contrail and not a missile. Unless the missile was hiding in flight 808's contrail.

Godwins Law

Hi Redfred,

Actually, I chose the era of Churchill and the Nazis because.. well because it is still highly relevant, but more because I was avoiding the cliché of Noah and the Ark.

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. (or is that cliché too?)

Those who are given freedom without paying a personal price for it, give it up whimsically, sometimes without even knowing they are doing it. It requires regular reminders of the cost of freedom to avoid the return of oppression.

as to my link... it was just a sample again, of what I'm waiting for; evidence. In the absence of evidence, absurdities prevail, which is why I keep hammering at it. It is the responsibility of those agencies of government to conduct their due diligence regards to security, and publish as much of those findings as will not aid any enemy in the conduct of aggression against [us.] This must be done with as much incontrovertible evidence as is necessary to meet all outstanding questions.

Chris

Yep, I have proof. Met the leader of the Cone Heads Party. Caught him unplugged from his tinfoil hat. He reckons he's too busy to find out what happened but "not to worry" he said "the prices for native cone will go up"

Who can you believe, aih?

You have it backwards extraordinarily claims require extraordinarily proof

Claiming that the "incident" was caused by a missile would be the claim requiring proof

For a couple of years planes would come up along the sierra's hang a left & head to SanFrancisco right at sunrise, I've seen plenty of similar contrails at sunrise. the contrails from multi engined, change so much as the light & view angle change

I request (not require) proof of what it was. I am not even trying to classify it as ordinary or extraordinary. (although I agree with this thoughtful idea)

It is what it is... but what is was it.. based on the evidence?

Chris

My position?

Sitting in the front

My height? 5'7"

Whats that bloody bird doing there?

Its a male thing.

Its a male thing. Penetrating the unknown and wanting true answers to our questions.

No borders need apply, Ky.

GA , and thank you. Instead of rumors, suspicion's and innuendos, you worked with what was known, and a solid logic flow chart followed.

Two things I wish to add, and I am not sure who to attribute them too.

-"When one rules out the ridicules, all that is left, is the obvious"

-"Two people can keep a secret, as long as one of them is dead"

As it was noted before: The conspiracy theorist's will have a field day with this one. Let them go, as they are not interested in logic, facts or the truth. Besides when I get bored and need some fun and a good laugh, I look towards their blogs as comic relief.

Whoops... left out the link to CBS video blaming the hysteria on others:

"Who's to blame for hyped up trail in the sky."

I think you have ruined it with all that logic and resorting to facts. ^{_{(grudgingly, GA)}}

It is a stellar work of logic... fantastic... I'll even give a ga for it.

but as I laid out before all that work he put in, words don't count as evidence. If they did, the bible...

chris

Just don't go there.

yup, we gots quality here.

Grate stuff Bruce

A few of the pictures were a bit on the dark side so I put an enhancement here. Maybe others will appreciate it. Hope you don't mind.

A sign of peace maybe?

Yes, clearly it's a message

Yep, just not as cryptic as some.

Yar - well was going to say

but that would be "religion"

That's just the Hiragana representation. Those same sounds can also be represented by a different character set called Katakana used for words of foreign (non-Japanese) origin. On top of that, the Japanese use Kanji (essentially a Chinese character set) to represent words. So a word can be spelled out in Hiragana phonetically and then replaced with an equivalent Kanji character.

Katakana Chart

True - _{but they don't look much like the cloud shapes}

That's true. So maybe the cloud shapes are originated in Japan (hence the Hiragana-like form).

Are you telling us we even import cloud shapes :D