Just Spoke W/ Very Senior Ret. USAF Officer. Says USAF, NORAD, Etc. Have "No Clue" About Missile.

Friends and Fiends | Friends and Fiends

[MindBender26]

Just spoke with old friend, very senior retired USAF general officer/pilot. Says his contacts, many of whom were his "boys," have no idea what Pacific missile is/was

As I was calling him, he was calling me to run my old network traps to see if anyone at the network desks in NY or DC have any idea what this was!

Data from video seems to be that it was large, ballistic, (not cruise) sub-launched. Course seemed to be trans-polar, so could have impacted in Arctic, Russian Far East, China, etc.

Current guesses... and these are wild guesses (some from the O Club at his lunch)

1: Crazy Russian or Chinese sub captain. No explosion because they didn't want one, or captain did not have correct codes for the PAL.

2: Islamic.......... ????? Demonstration?????

3: Hoax... but that seems way to far fetched.

Navy is also supposedly bat sh*t over this because there was no acoustic detection of sub!

NORAD scratching head ????

There may be an explanation, but no one knows what it was... or is!

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the link and the ping. Enjoyed the comments - here’s one of my favorites:

Bruce Cobb says:
November 9, 2010 at 5:33 pm
It changed course at one point, so definitely not a rocket. ….
*******
Rockets, whether liquid, solid, or hybrid easily can change course if equipped with thrust vector control systems – which most are.

Having spent my professional life in rocketry from war stuff to Space Shuttle, I’m in the Jeff Id/shunti camp. This was a rocket, probably solid and appeared to be launched from a submersible or sea platform. I’m not quite ready to go for the most exciting possibility, that of a foreign sub tweaking us. Someone in the defense establishment has the answer – count on it. As to when or if they will let the rest of us in on it, that’s a big question.

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the link and the ping. Enjoyed the comments - here's one of my favorites: Bruce Cobb says: November 9, 2010 at 5:33 pm It changed course at one point, so definitely not a rocket. …. ******* Rockets, whether liquid, solid, or hybrid easily can change course if equipped with thrust vector control systems – which most are. Having spent my professional life in rocketry from war stuff to Space Shuttle, I’m in the Jeff Id/shunti camp. This was a rocket, probably solid and appeared to be launched from a submersible or sea platform. I’m not quite ready to go for the most exciting possibility, that of a foreign sub tweaking us. Someone in the defense establishment has the answer – count on it. As to when or if they will let the rest of us in on it, that’s a big question.

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the link and the ping. Enjoyed the comments - here's one of my favorites:

Bruce Cobb says: November 9, 2010 at 5:33 pm It changed course at one point, so definitely not a rocket. ….

*******

Rockets, whether liquid, solid, or hybrid easily can change course if equipped with thrust vector control systems – which most are.

Having spent my professional life in rocketry from war stuff to Space Shuttle, I’m in the Jeff Id/shunti camp. This was a rocket, probably solid and appeared to be launched from a submersible or sea platform. I’m not quite ready to go for the most exciting possibility, that of a foreign sub tweaking us. Someone in the defense establishment has the answer – count on it. As to when or if they will let the rest of us in on it, that’s a big question.

[little jeremiah]

The best China news is here (IMO):

http://www.singtomeohmuse.com/viewtopic.php?p=305011#305011

Thread is called “China is Risky”. News from Chinese sources and often commentary by the two mods.

[little jeremiah]

Best China thread IMO, ongoing daily, note link above.

[Candor7]

Anything s possible,

But if it was not a US lauch, you would now be seeing some movement of USN Stategic assets. The thing went inland.

Perhaps a sub will soon have an accident in the Pacifc Ocean, not one of ours.

[little jeremiah]

Did you read to the end of the comments?

I don’t see how anyone could think it’s jet contrails after reading the whole thread there.

[little jeremiah]

It’s a very interesting thread. Knowledgeable comments (in between the other ones).

[BlueLancer]

"It’s a very interesting thread. Knowledgeable comments (in between the other ones)."

Ah, but that's the challenge --- to know which is which.

[little jeremiah]

With a bit of motherwit and character reading, even a non-scientist can get the gist of it. Plus comments on these threads.

[TigersEye]

Thanks for the link, lj. I’ll take a look at it.

[Drago]

"Given time, this illusion will happen again, so I think that is the most powerful evidence that time will produce the same dealyo again for all to see,..."

Here is a video shot the NEXT day from Southern California:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJi2L4QC_fk

 

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

I did. I have a different opinion. Sue me. :-)

[Drago]

"At the CBS site in the comments section there are comments from different vantage points. One on the beach, one on a balcony, one from a tall building. Perhaps these might lend more data for you to analyze?"

If I could get locations for the vantage points combined with the time code from the TV station video, I could triangulate the location/time. From that the flight # could be determined using radar data from Monday: http://www4.passur.com/sna.html

But I think all that work would be non-convincing to the "missileers".   I'll let the FAA/NORAD do it for me since the missileers are demanding to know why it is still "unidentified"...last time I checked NORAD wasn't very interested in regularly scheduled commercial flights from Mexico to SFO, or from Hawaii to LAX/SAN.

BTW: There was apparently ANOTHER missile launch the NEXT day!  See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJi2L4QC_fk

[HKMk23]

Whether the aircraft is moving toward or away from the observer, the contrail will be more or less vertical in BOTH cases; that the contrail is vertical doesn’t contribute to the basis of my argument.

My argument is based upon three OTHER features apparent in the video: changing size, changing speed, and the position of the object in relation to the contrail.

Let me address these in order keeping in mind that, in all cases, the observer is at a substantively lower altitude than the observed craft:

SIZE:
An aircraft moving toward an observer will seem to increase in size as it approaches.
An aircraft moving away from an observer will seem to decrease in size as it recedes.

The object in the video appears to grow smaller, consistent with a receding aircraft.

SPEED:
An aircraft moving toward an observer will seem to gain speed as it approaches.
An aircraft moving away from an observer will seem to slow down as it recedes.

The object in the video appears to go slower, consistent with a receding aircraft.

CONTRAIL RELATIONSHIP:
The contrail of an aircraft moving toward an observer will appear to be trailing BELOW the craft; the aircraft will be at the “top” end of it.
The contrail of an aircraft moving away from an observer will appear to be ABOVE the craft; the aircraft will be at the “bottom” end of it.

The object in the video is at the “top” end of its contrail, which — if the object were an aircraft — is inconsistent for a receding aircraft.

So, we have a conflict in our observations. Both size and speed indicate the object is receding, but its position in relation to the contrail is inconsistent with that scenario.

The issue is that the three factors I discussed, above, assume that the observed aircraft is in straight, level flight throughout the period of observation. What if the aircraft were changing altitude during the observation?

Since the video seems to show an ascending aircraft, let me limit the impact on size, speed, and contrail relationship to just the case of an ascending craft

FOR AN ASCENDING AIRCRAFT, and keeping in mind that, in all cases, the observer is at a substantively lower altitude than the observed craft:

SIZE:
An aircraft ascending toward an observer will seem to increase in size as it approaches.
If the rate of climb of an approaching aircraft is such that its altitude relative to the observer grows faster than its horizontal distance from the observer shrinks, it will seem to decrease in size, because it is actually ascending away from — not approaching — the observer.
An aircraft ascending away from an observer will always seem to decrease in size as it recedes regardless of rate of climb.

The object in the video appears to grow smaller indicating that EITHER its altitude relative to the observer is growing faster than its horizontal distance from the observer is shrinking, OR its horizontal distance from the observer is actually growing.

SPEED:
An aircraft ascending toward an observer will seem to gain speed as it approaches.
If the rate of climb of an approaching aircraft is such that its altitude relative to the observer grows faster than its horizontal distance from the observer shrinks, it will seem to slow down, because it is actually ascending away from — not approaching — the observer.
An aircraft ascending away from an observer will always seem to slow down as it recedes regardless of rate of climb.

The object in the video appears to go slower, indicating that EITHER its altitude relative to the observer is growing faster than its horizontal distance from the observer is shrinking, OR its horizontal distance from the observer is actually growing.

CONTRAIL RELATIONSHIP:
The contrail of an aircraft ascending toward an observer will always appear to be trailing BELOW the craft; the aircraft will be at the “top” end of it regardless of rate of climb.
The contrail of an aircraft ascending away from an observer will appear to be ABOVE the craft; the aircraft will be at the “bottom” end of it.
If the rate of climb of an aircraft ascending away from an observer is such that its altitude relative to the observer grows faster than its horizontal distance from the observer grows, it will appear to be at the “top” end of its contrail — like an approaching craft — even though it is receding.

The object in the video is at the “top” end of its contrail, which indicates that EITHER its altitude relative to the observer is growing faster than its horizontal distance from the observer, OR its horizontal distance from the observer is actually shrinking.

Looking at the either/or qualifiers, it becomes apparent that the approaching/receding conflict in the observations is easily explained if the craft is, in fact, ascending at a high rate of climb; it its altitude relative to the observer is increasing faster than its horizontal distance from the observer, AND its horizontal distance from the observer is also increasing.

Our military assets include manned aircraft fully capable of that kind of flight path, so it’s possible that some jet jockey out over the pacific was airing out his afterburners for the evening commute crowd in L.A. (and I’d accept this explanation because of the apparent glow of en exhaust flame at some portions in the video), and I would buy into the assertion that some high-end business jet could pull off such a performance, but I flatly reject that this was any kind of lumbering commercial jet liner.

This was either a missile, a military jet flaunting hot cans, or some millionaire up there enjoying a real “WOO-HOO!” departure from Shakeytown.

[Red Steel]

On Hannity - FOX, Air Force Lieutenant General (ret) Thomas McInerney said he looked at the video 10 times who said it is a missile. The General also said it could be US black project. There is also a clown who says it is some kid’s rocket or a contrail from a plane. That guy is on the government payroll or has a relationship with Gov. insiders.

[D-fendr]

I believe this Fox report is the closest yet to nailing it down.

"I did a lot of extrapolation of what flights could be at the right position (off the coast) at the right altitude (for contrail formation) and came down to two possibilities: UPS Flight 902 (UPS902) or America West Flight 808 (AWE808)."

He concluded: "As I was researching tonight (24 hours later), I realized that today's (Tuesday's) AWE808 current position (at around 4:50 p.m.) was almost the same as it was the day of the incident. I quickly pulled up a Newport Beach webcam and found that (apparently) AWE808 was making an identical contrail, 24 hours later!"

At right, the footage of a mystery craft that has captured the public's imagination. At left, footage from a webcam taken 24 hours later that one blogger is convinced explains the mystery event.

[TigersEye]

The difference in those contrails shows that some condition was very different.

To: saganite

Here's the location of US Air flight 808 at around 5:00 p.m. http://i52.tinypic.com/2hh11cy.jpg

If the plane was heading east, the CBS (Los Angeles) helicopter would have to be far south of Catalina Island to capture that shot. We'll need to know the helicopter's precise location as well as the exact time that the videotape was shot. If the helicopter was in the LA basin and the plane was headed east, the plane was probably over the San Fernando Valley (or even farther north) and was a different flight.

47 posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 6:10:45 PM by CALawyer

Here's the location of US Air flight 808 at around 5:00 p.m. http://i52.tinypic.com/2hh11cy.jpg

[little jeremiah]

Did you read the Watts Up With That thread about it?

I posted a link on one of these threads... maybe this one!

I can find it if you want it. That’s a great site for science stuff and even *I* can understand some of it!

[little jeremiah]

Here’s the link for your easy reading if you want:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/09/mystery-missle-launch-off-california/#more-27630

Best discussion I’ve seen, go all the way to the end. Knowledgeable people discussing rationally.