Contrail was recorded in this image by KCBS-KCAL in California
The Department of Defense is slamming the door on questions about the mysterious contrail filmed Nov. 8 by a KCBS television crew near Los Angeles after questions were raised about a warning from the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence Agency that there could be missiles fired in that area at that time.
The official government position has been that the contrail, which appears to have been made by a single source, was from a jet passing by.
And the refusal to provide answers to specific questions suggests a cover-up of potential secret missile testing in the area – contrary to official jet contrail explanation.
For weeks, experts have examined the billowing plume and the single-source white-hot exhaust which they contend was from a missile, not a jet.
It was in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin intelligence report where the story was broken that several experts who examined the video of the mysterious contrail confirmed it was not from a jet but a missile.
The experts who examined the video have had extensive experience working with missiles and computer security systems for various sensitive agencies of the U.S. government.
They even went so far as to suggest that the missile may have been shot from a submerged Chinese nuclear submarine, coinciding with an increasing level of confrontation between the United States and China and designed to send a message to Washington:
But it was in late October that the NGA issued the maritime warning for the Eastern North Pacific off California about “intermittent missile firing operations.” While the notice gave time frames and days of the week as well as areas for missile firings, there was no specified time limit as to when they would end.
“Intermittent missile firing operations 00001Z to 2359Z daily Monday thru Sunday in the Naval Air Warfare Center Sea Range,” the warning said. “The majority of missile firings take place 1400Z to 2359Z and 0001Z to 0200Z daily Monday thru Friday.”
The contrail sighting by the KCBS television crew occurred during these time periods.
Karen Sinn of the NGA told WND that the NGA only issued the missile launch advisory as a courtesy for its customer, the Naval Air Warfare Center Sea Range at Point Mugu in California.
Point Mugu, which is located some 50 miles northwest from Los Angeles, is a massive facility that includes a weapons division and the Sea Range Operational Area, comprised of the main base complex at Point Mugu which includes the Laguna Peak complex, the offshore islands and the adjacent 36,000 square nautical miles of controlled operational air space.
At the Naval Air Warfare Center Sea Range, spokeswoman Becky Hall was asked by WND whether the sighting of the contrail occurred during the period of the NGA warning, and did the coordinates mentioned in the warning notice conform to the area in which the contrail was sighted.
She also was asked whether the Navy, in fact, had launched any missiles in the area during the warning period.
Hall, however, refused to answer any of the questions or make any comment on its warning issued through the NGA.
“I am sorry to say that I will be unable to help you with this request (for information),” she told WND, and referred the inquiry to the press desk of the Office of the Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon.
At the time of the sighting of the contrail, the Department of Defense said that it had checked with all the services involved with missiles and dismissed the contrail as coming from a jet, and not a missile.
At the Pentagon, Lt. Col. Robert Ditchey from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs reaffirmed DOD’s original statement by saying that inquiries were made with each of the services and the Department of Homeland Security which includes the Federal Aviation Administration and it was concluded that there were no launches that day.
When told about the NGA notice, however, he admitted to WND that he was unaware of it and asked for a copy which was sent to him for comment.
But in a followup e-mail, he merely said that “NGA provided a report back on 10 Nov during the initial media coverage, that their Maritime Watch Desk had no information that would link the NAVAREA XII 453/2010 warning to the contrail reported in the media.
“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,” Ditchey said.
“In addition, the FAA ran radar replays from Monday afternoon (of Nov. 8) of a large area west of Los Angeles,” he added. “Those replays did not reveal anything unusual. The FAA also did not receive reports of any unusual sightings from pilots who were flying in the area Monday afternoon.”
But Ditchey referred only to the NGA warning notice which he wasn’t aware of until it was brought to his attention. In addition, he would not address the fact that the NGA had issued the warning at the request of the Naval Air Warfare Center Sea Range at Point Mugu, even though he was informed of that development.
Ditchey also refused to comment on whether the Naval Air Warfare Center Sea Range, in fact, had conducted any missile launches at the time of the contrail sighting.
According to the initial report in G2 Bulletin, the situation sparked several provocative questions about the government’s official response.
“The question that still must be answered is why NORAD’s muted response was simply that North America was not threatened, and later our government approved the lame excuse that the picture recorded was simply an aircraft leaving a contrail,” said retired U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Jim Cash.
A former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot and commander of an F-15 squadron and an F-16 wing, Cash was assigned to NORAD as an assistant director of operations at the Cheyenne Mountain complex near Colorado Springs, Colo., and is fully knowledgeable of NORAD procedures.
“There is absolutely no doubt that what was captured on video off the coast of California was a missile launch, was clearly observed by NORAD, assessed by a four-star general in minutes, and passed to the president immediately,” he said.
Even more ominously, cautioned Cash: “We must question the timing of this shot across our bow. The president was abroad being diplomatic, which means trying to placate China which is becoming overly concerned with our handling a totally out-of-control deficit in spending.”
Also, Wayne Madsen, a former naval officer who has worked at the National Security Agency and the Naval Data Automation Command, said the inability to pick up what he described as a Chinese Jin-class submarine-launched ballistic missile isn’t the first time U.S. Navy anti-submarine warfare sensors have failed.
Madsen, who today is an investigative journalist, said the Pentagon is working “overtime with the media and on the Internet to cover up the latest debacle. However, even some reporters who cover the Pentagon full-time are beginning to question the Pentagon’s version of events … over the skies west of Los Angeles.”