But.
It is wrong of the military, whom we count on for so much of our security to simply pass judgement without a complete explanation as to why and how they came to those findings. If the military wants a good relationship with the people of the USA and the global community COMMUNICATION is key. If someone is spending time figuring it out, then they should be DOCUMENTING it and releasing it to the public UNLESS it is classified and then the military needs to simply state CLASSIFIED or UNKNOWN AND INVESTIGATING. If the military identified objects that were 'curious' on a regular basis this would not be such a huge issue now.
Okay, that is the soapbox.
Now, why do I believe it is what I said it is.
One more thought, we pay the military to figure this mess out and that has to come with some form of accountability.
To begin, the EVIDENCE, while one is trying to find out what the 'glistening' object is at the end of the trail is in the vapor trail. I didn't believe it was a hover-craft or anything else due to the 'object' but the vapor trail.
I also believe the helicopter pilot is important in all this and should be able to place the object GEOGRAPHICALLY from land or sea and ABOUT the location, unless this was indeed a missile, such as a Star Wars Exercise which could be seen for a long distance given the current climate conditions.
But, as to the evidence in the vapor trail.
There are two loops in the vapor trail. AND. There is a 'significant puff of exhaust emission' as well. The first loop is in the dark horizon and the second loop is in the clouds. I don't know of any aircraft that would produce that pattern of vapor trail (or contrail if that is what one prefers). Why would an aircraft circle in such a tight radius and is there one capable of doing that? Actually there are three, aren't there? The smallest of the loops is below the first one I mentioned in the dark horizon. So, the circles are small and then get bigger and then there is that exhaust BUBBLE, if you will.
Now, I would expect the loops to become progressively bigger from bottom to top and not the other way around. Why? Because the longer the loops are in the atmosphere the more 'dissipated' they will become and take on a larger diameter. But, that isn't what occurred in EVIDENCE. Therefore, the amount of PROPULSION being used to attain 'height' (break gravity) is greater as the aircraft achieves higher altitudes. So, while the loops are ALSO dissipating and becoming larger in diameter in the atmosphere there is also greater use of PROPULSION to achieve the height and TRAJECTORY to leave Earth's gravity and/or simply attain a higher altitude..
Now, let's put this into context before imagination gets too carried away. I heard the former Captain Sully speak yesterday and he stated he never saw one UFO in his entire and lengthy career. That means something, okay? Definately. It could be he wasn't looking for anything like that and he was a dedicated pilot and the sighting don't happen that easily, but, rarely of anything one could call a UFO, but, his observation capacity is significant over a long period of time and counts for evidence all by itself. THE question here is does Captain Sully have enough RANDOMNESS in his life to witness such events? THAT is the "null hypothesis" to begin an investigation to his FACTUAL reporting.
That said.
The 'flight patterns' of any commercial airline leaving from that vacinity is well known AND in observing the progression of the vapor trail - additionally, do any of those airlines have events in their take off and landings that indicate progressive increases in their PROPULSION to fly a course? If I recall my flights on such aircraft there is a significant acceleration at 'take off' that attains a 'coasting' velocity. The question here is there that type and frequent increase in thrust during a commercial flight that would leave this curious vapor trail? I don't recall such accelerations and it would be contrary to a SMOOTH flight to have that occur and I don't recall any significant weather pattern that would demand that kind of 'rescue' propulsion, especially, if there was a helicopter in the air at the same time and in a fairly 'nearby' location. So, to 'casually' state this was an airline vapor trail is somewhat and reasonably questionable. There is a reason, through their own experience, that the public (on a global scale) is concerned about this incident and its reporting to conclusion.
Personally?
I believe it is a missile of some kind. But, to explore the 'hover-craft' scenario, which could lend itself to UFOs, let's go there. Oh yeah, if the USA is stating they don't know of any missile firing yesterday at the time of this incident and MEAN IT. Then it wasn't a USA missile.
Now, if a 'hover-craft' of some capacity is taking off it would use a minor amount of fuel INITIALLY. Why? Because to use enough propulsion at higher altitudes when one is so near the ground would only send the object up for a short distance and then slam it back into the ground without a significant and rapid computer guidance system that would compensate for all the variables needed to keep a hover-craft upright to progressively 'lift off' out of Earth's orbit. An aircraft has to be light enough to fly and there is no capacity for a large number of super computers to accommodate that kind of calculation IN FLIGHT while continuing to 'maintain' its 'attitude' in midair. The most the shuttle uses is five on-board computers for its guidance system. Got that?
I am not going to repeat or rewrite any of this. So, figure out what you need to from what is being typed now.
Now. The hover-craft as I see it would lift off at a remote location simply because it has to be 'housed' somewhere and we already know there is the theory that any alien presence on Earth would be 'housed' in an underwater environment that humans don't have capacity to invade. Granted we haven't gone to every nook and cranny of Earth's subterrainian environment, but, that seems a little far fetched considering all the military submarines and 'use' of the waters of Earth. The 'echo' location of radar would have SOMETHING, somewhere of such an encounter and it would be logged as 'miscellaneous' or something of that nature in a library within the Pentagon or some military records area.
The 'idea' this is a UFO is somewhat estranged from realty when one considers the vast amount of information accumulated over long periods of time with high amounts of randomness. Additionally, there is a layer of water about 1000 feet down in the ocean whereby any sound generated within that 'so-far' layer is carried globally if one is listening. As a matter of fact that layer of ocean is used by whales and submarines as a 'listening post' to global traffic. SOMETHING would have turned up over this many decades for the number of UFO's that have been reported over the years.
So, if this is a UFO taking off, it would go something like this.
Initial lifeoff to an altitude where 'stability' was achieved in a fairly short period of time, then additional 'thrust' to achieve a higher level of altitude before lifting off to a greater altitude in a use of more ample propulsion. Interesting so far? Sound right considering the EVIDENCE of the vapor trail? Yes? Maybe it seems strange that I find the 'incident' completely implasible to be a UFO, yet realize the evidence could point to it? Well, that is simply being a mind questioning the evidence and what the 'known' capacity of any known aircraft that could have achieved it being unrealistis to be a contrail of a commercial aircraft.
Now, what is really interesting about this picture is the 'vapor bubble' or puff of smoke at the middle loop.
It makes complete sense actually. Because the 'length' of distance between the second loop within the dark horizon and the loop at the level of the clouds is significantly longer than the two initial thrusts of propulsion. Follow?
One other thing. The PROPULSIVE force doesn't have to be traditional FUEL SYSTEMS either. I believe of the most interesting aspects to inventing a space vehicle is the use of 'hydrogen' that converts to 'water vapor.' after burning with oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere, as a fuel of choice. Hydrogen for thrusters to maneuver in space is an excellent choice because hydrogen is somewhat abundant in outer space where oxygen would not be IN A VOID. Our sun emits hydrogen into its solar wind.
Have a better day.
