U.S. warned people to avoid mystery missile zone

World Net Daily ^ | 12/01/2010 | F. Michael Maloof

[Sprite518]

LOL! Great photo!

Yeah that looks like an airplane that I always see flying over. (sarcasm off)

[dead]

Believing the government sometimes tells the truth is not the same as believing the government always tells the truth.

Logic 101. Enroll now.

[Sprite518]

Yeah only two people saw it.... I guess you never read any of the articles?

[D-fendr]

Oh yeah... WND is just making it up, and all those people that saw what they saw that day too.

WND is being dishonest in it's treatment of the facts, as my previous post shows. And, if an ICBM were launched 35 miles from a city of 10 million, I'd expect a lot more reports and videos of it. That there weren't is evidence that it wasn't an ICBM launch.

That was normal. It happens every single day...

Not every day, but often enough. I posted a picture of it happening before, google "contrail sunset" for more.

Hey if you want to believe the government

I pointed out that WND and it's quoted sources are not accurately reporting what the government said. That's a strong leg in their thesis and they got it wrong.

This government lies all the time and get caught left and right.

When you cry wolf, you're destroying your credibility; this furthers - not hinders - the ability of government to lie. If you say the government lied, you need something evidence - WND appears incapable of really investigating it honestly.

That is what happened here.

So you say, but that's not enough.

[Sprite518]

If someone lies to you on a regular basis, then how do you know if they are ever telling the truth or not? Logic 101

You base it off the evidence and not what B.S. they tell you.

[Sprite518]

So in your world the government tells the truth and WND lies. I see how you think.

[D-fendr]

So in your world the government tells the truth and WND lies.

No, you check them both. There are numerous threads and investigation of the event that you can peruse here on FR to compare the missile vs. contrail theories. What I showed in my post about this article was that WND is either sloppy or dishonest in their reporting of this case.

[fso301]

There are numerous little “proofs” floating around that prove “mathematically” that 1 = 2, or 1 = 0, and each of them begins with a logical fallacy, much like the obvious fallacy above from your post.

The fallacy is not obvious to me or others on this thread. Please point it out for all our edification. On any given day, there are many ships of all size inbound, outbound and just passing by Southern California ports. Why didn't any of them report seeing anything?

[aruanan]

The only part of the video that was live flight was so far away, and by that point, on such a flat trajectory that no visual data is of use. (how good is your depth perception for something hundreds of miles away?)

The video begins with the vehicle a long distance away, in great circle flight. The initial launch was shown only in pan.

Again, everything that was shown was powered flight. If you were watching this from sea level, the farthest you can see past the horizon (of something at 30,000 feet just as an example) is about 180 miles and it would appear right on the horizon. If it was traveling away from you from launch onwards and was that far away, you'd never see anything. If it was at 30,000 feet (in your "flat trajectory") when first spotted and remained under observation for the next 10 minutes, it would have to be traveling between that distance with part of its vector toward the east where you are observing it. If it was traveling westward from an initial point "hundreds of miles away" it could not have been observed over the course of 10 minutes. If it had been traveling in an easterly direction from hundreds of miles away and was visible for at least 10 minutes and was still under powered flight (as evidenced by the exhaust trail) and in a flat trajectory (which wouldn't be the case with a ballistic missile), after 3 to 5 minutes, less if a solid rocket booster, it would be traveling at almost 16,000 miles per hour. If this had been traveling under power for more than 3 to 5 minutes, it would be traveling even faster. Start at 200 miles away and see how far it would travel at over 15,000mph for 5 to 7 minutes. Answer: 250 miles per minute or 1250 to 1750 miles over the course of 5 to 7 minutes. If the "missile" appeared in the west, "hundreds of miles" away and was traveling with some degree of easterly travel, then after 3 to 5 minutes, or less if solid rocket boosters were used, it was traveling at about 16,000mph, it would have traveled far to the east of the observer in the amount of time it was being observed. It didn't do this. If a jet was spotted on the horizon at 30,000 feet traveling toward the viewer at sea level, it would cover a distance of about 190 miles. If it was traveling at, say, 461 knts (461X1.15mph= 530mph), then it would take 21 minutes from first appearing at altitude over the horizon to pass overhead. If it was being observed for at least 10 minutes, then during this time it would have flown about half the distance and been about 95 miles or about 10 minutes away. If it had been a missile traveling in the same direction, then, after 3 to 5 minutes, it would have flown another 5 to 7 minutes at 16,000 mph, putting it at a distance in the same trajectory at least 1250 to 1750 miles farther less the 90 miles that a jet would have traveled--in other words, at the end of 10 minutes an incoming jet would still be seen to the west out over the Pacific. At the end of 10 minutes, a missile under boost in a "flat trajectory" would no longer be seen.

[dead]

WND is running neck and neck with the government in the truth telling business. Check their head-to-head record in the Y2K era for a solid government win.

I don't automatically believe either, but I don't assume they're lying either.

I evaluate the facts in hand and decide what I believe the most likely truth to be. In my own judgement, the missle theory is without facts to even be evaluated. There's an edited, inconclusive video of a vigorous contrail. That's it. That's the whole enchilada, despite what WND wants you to believe.

I believe if it was a missle, somebody would be able to prove it, or at least produce some shred of additional evidence to back up the theory quite easily. Nobody has done so. There is no other evidence of a missle launch because there was no missle launch.

I am more than willing to change my opinion, if somebody produces some facts.

[Sprite518]

No you did not originally say “sloppy or dishonest”... You said “WND uses sleazy methods” (see post #74) because you did not like what they said.

[fso301]

Do you honestly believe IF it was a missile launch by a Sub from China do you really think the government/Obama administation would admit it??? LOL!

If you doubt the government, look elsewhere. One such elsewhere would be reports from ships off the Southern California coast. Lot's and lot's of ships off the Southern california coast at any given time of day. None reported seeing anything.

[D-fendr]

LOL! Great photo! Yeah that looks like an airplane that I always see flying over. (sarcasm off)

Then you believe that photo is another missile launch - it was taken over a year ago.

How about this one?

Missile or plane?

[Fundamentally Fair]

Logic 101. Enroll now.

Now that's funny.

[D-fendr]

No you did not originally say “sloppy or dishonest”... You said “WND uses sleazy methods”

Or both or either take your pick. Sloppy and dishonest is pretty sleazy in my lexicon.

because you did not like what they said.

No, because of the evidence I posted.

They completely mischaracterize the NORAD response, they are "dishonest" about what the FAA said (in their original story that this one is hyping), they claim "the Department of Defense is slamming the door on questions" and then post paragraphs of response from the DOD.

A major point of their story is the government being cagey or unclear about whether it was a missile - just not true. Read the actual statements.

And the lead of the story making some big conspiracy about the Navy warning about missile launches in a major test site is, well, sleazy reporting.

[TankerKC]

Check their head-to-head record in the Y2K era for a solid government win.

The missile theory folks act a lot like the Y2K kooks. Unfortunately, there will be no January 1, 2000 to shut (most of) them up.

[Sprite518]

I strongly disagree with your opinion about WND.

It was the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that was pushing the Y2K event. How you call that a win for them is beyond me?
Trust me I worked for a company that was being told all sorts of B.S. from our government. I don’t even know what WND said at the time. I was not surfing their web page then. Thought I think it is funny that you have to go back 10 years to find anything enlight of your statement that WND is on par with the Federal government when it comes to truth.

Just looking at the picture speaks for itself. That picture on post #62 does not look like an everyday jet. Like I said before if this regular occurrence, then would see it all the time and it would not make national news. However, if you want to believe it’s an airplane, then you go right ahead.

[Sprite518]

The Federal Government pushed Y2K. Trust me they were the main group that was extremely concerned about it. That was a terrible example...

[Sprite518]

But you know what is really funny is when you click on, “Fundamentally Fair” name you get the following message,

“This account has been banned or suspended.”

I think you should change your account name from Fundamentally Fair to Fundamentally Flawed. LOL!

[D-fendr]

that picture on post #62 does not look like an everyday jet

Friend, that is the whole reason for the story. But you have to go beyond that to give real evidence that it is not and that it is a missile.

Jet contrails, particularly at sunset, coming towards you, appear to be vertical when the plane is flying horizontal to the earth.

The illusion this creates is well documented. Therefore you have to compare the evidence for this possible cause with the evidence for a missile.