Amazing Interview: Air Force General says "Sub Launched Missile, 100% Certain"

Fox News Interview with Air Force General Tom McInerney | November 14th 2010 | Fox News Hannity Interview

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

If it was an unauthorized flight without a transponder signature or a flight plan, why didn’t we see a pair of F-15s chasing it down to identify it?

[Tolsti2]

Sarcasm. At this point I’m just going along with the general silliness for the most part.

[eyedigress]

I did watch that video and that is no commercial jet. I’m sorry, but to say that is an inbound for Phoenix is ridiculous.

[dragnet2]

Pardon my French, but holy sh*t. That is soooo incredibly cool.

Thanks...It's a lot of fun and a little mind bending when the data is processed and revealed.

[eyedigress]

Exactly, watch the video just posted and tell me that is an airliner. Heck, I’ll post it.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/11/video-catches-mystery-missile-launch-off-la-coast.html

[ex 98C MI Dude]

This bird was traveling through that airspace at altitude, whereas most in that airspace are domestic and taking off and landing to the east of this event. Facing west from the nearest airport will eliminate most if not all contrails from domesctic travel.

We do have flight data from several possibles, especially an US Airways Flt 808 and a UPS bird flying a similar track. I am certain there is an ATC track with the proper Mode 3/C data. FAA may or may not provide it on request.

There was a very wet front moving in, so there was more than just the disturbance from the jet engines occuring. The whole jet was roiling the air, so you wouldn’t be able to pick out just the engines. It happens on occasion.

As far as it being an old Luftwaffe V-1, all I can say is it is highly unlikely.

[Tolsti2]

I watched that video and it’s an airliner. Look at any real launches, the things don’t just sit there all day as you zoom in on them. It’s clearly CLEARLY a plane going subsonic.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

-My biggest problem with all of the ethereal explanations...

How does an unidentified aircraft get into US airspace without a transponder signature and no immediate challenge by the Navy or Air Force?

How does a slow moving subsonic aircraft that is supposedly at least a two or four engine configuration only show one contrail?

How does an international airport the size of LAX fail to identify any commercial flight traveling through the area?

[Tolsti2]

Your first and last questions are strawmen. Nobody reported missing any planes that day, period. Nobody has reported any radar or visuals of anything besides a few pictures and this video of a plane.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I think there is a huge security hole here no matter what the object was.

If LAX or the Pentagon cannot immediately identify something moving at subsonic velocity, Houston we have a problem...

Arguing about what it is doesn’t solve this.

[eyedigress]

Compliance is word one. A single contrail would signify outbound from the source. Thirdly, that ain’t no dual or triple jet big bird coming from Hong Kong or anywhere else.
That is a launch.

[TXnMA]

"My opinion, for what it's worth, after spending many years examining, observing and imagining objects in the sky, is the event that occurred off the coast of California recently, was a missile launch."

Thanks for calibrating your opinion for us... '-)

~~~~~~~~~~~

FWIW, the closest I've come to "playing" with a "toy" like that is my friends 17" Dobsonian...

IMHO, your "Veil" is not too shabby -- even when compared to Lopez's 01 DEC 09 APOD .

~~~~~~~~~~~

But you're still kidding yourself about that aircraft contrail...

[ex 98C MI Dude]

Airspace security has been a joke since the end of the cold war, maybe even before that. Massive holes in surveillance, and the inability to scramble quickly even if an unknown is detected. The government knows this, but haven't made any moves to correct this.

If this had been a hostile, or a spoofed bird like Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, there would have been little we could do about it.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

That is what I tend to think.

But no matter what it is, there is a gaping security hole that needs to be fixed.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

That is what I tend to think.

But no matter what it is, there is a gaping security hole that needs to be fixed.

[eyedigress]

That “aircraft” sure had a boatload of vapor. That was a launch. For the first time in 50 years we get this look off of Malibu. Well, is must be the new Dreamliner right........Oh...Wait....

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Airspace security has been a joke since the end of the cold war,...

That is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Airspace security has been a joke since the end of the cold war,...

That is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.

[RaceBannon]

your own descriptions fail on a few points, though

the size of the contrail would be thin when close to the aircraft, dispersed more the further you go away from the aircraft and where it’s just been

the longer time to disperse, the wider the plume

that plume is created too fast, is too wide for a simple aircraft, and remains consistant in size when even by your arc/chart, the distance travelled to be seen as big by the relative observer would have that contrail old and blown apart to appear that long over the horizon over x period of time forr the aircraft to appear at y

Over that time period of the aircraaft’s vector, the contrail would disappear, beblown away, and yet, it is still almost consistent throughout it’s entire appearance

that means high velocity of the aircraft making that contrail and high output of conding material as exhaust

[RaceBannon]

good grief, I hope you dont repeat that too often to explain this! :)