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

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

Hannity was surprised to hear a famous ex Air Force General tell him “That Is A Missile, Shot From A Submarine!” I quote retired Air Force Lieutenant General Tom McInerney (ex commander of 11th Air Force in Alaska) “I spent 35 years flying fighters, and you can see the guidance system kick in, I have watched that film 10 times, I am absolutely certain that that is not an aircraft, but a sub launch ICBM missile!!!” See the video and judge his words for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LivRJOWrcpA&feature=player_embedded#! I will next post a clickable link.

[editor-surveyor]

You may well be a chemist, but no scientist would join a propaganda opp like this. Many have degrees and training in technological fields but fail to ever become true scientists. We see them posting here as ‘evolutionists’ frequently.

Contrail Madness is a clone to Global Warming, and shares its scientific method to a T.
.

[Fundamentally Fair]

So the 3 star General is a fool? Did you tell him? Would you say it to his face?

Do you know anybody who is general officer? They are just like anyone else. They speak in areas where they have no expertise and make mistakes. Before they retire, they have staffs with lots of intel and fancy gadgets that try to keep them straight. Afterward, they are on their own.

The general may be right in the case, I just warn against putting too much faith in him simply because of the rank he attained.

[editor-surveyor]

If it over-flew VAFB without being shot down, it has to be of US origin.
.

[Mr. Silverback]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Could you elaborate? Oh, and could you explain why there was no sonic boom heard even though an SLBM moves through Mach 1 less than a minute afterlaunch? Why there is no stage separation seen even though China's SLBMs are two stage and ours are three stage? Can you explain why a weapon designed to reach a target thousands of miles away in 10-15 minutes is still visible from Long Beach (in the same small portion of the sky, no less!) several minutes after launch?

If this was a missile, it was a missile especially designed to stay below Mach 1 and hang in the sky for a long time instead of going anywhere a missile would go. No sale.

[MilleniumBug]

I agree. There is a lot of confusion because in some early reports from NASA they were looking at GOES satellite tracks which do not even see down to the size of a plane contrail but they still eventually were reported as having concluded that they were seeing a plane contrail. The smaller missile launched near L.A. does not appear on the GOES satellite video. That was probably also American and it could have been a test launch of one missile against another.

[muawiyah]

I cannot help but notice that your ire is restricted to situations involving “boating families”. Now, does that mean you enjoyed it when you got to deal with drunken hillbillies and biker gangs?

[Mr. Silverback]

The UPS MD-11 seen in this film is headed toward Honolulu. It is not traveling at 500 mph toward a spot near the camera, it is headed to a spot approximately 2,500 miles from the camera in a WSW direction. So, there’s only so much lateral movement to be seen from the camera’s position. Plus, the plane is moving to cruise altitude, so it’s probably not even at cruise speed yet, still building steam.

BTW, could you answer these questions?

Do you think that the flight track data showing that UPS 902’s track matches that of the “missile” exactly has been faked? Or do you just believe in coincidence so much that it seems reasonable to expect an SLBM to appear in the exact same spots in the sky where a cargo plane would be onserved?

Were are the sonic boom reports? An SLBM moves through Mach 1 less than a minute after launch.

Why there is no stage separation seen even though China’s SLBMs are two stage and ours are three stage?

If this was a missile, it was a missile especially designed to stay below Mach 1 and hang in the sky for a long time instead of going anywhere a missile would go. No sale.

[muawiyah]

I'm reading from his own puff piece and there's suspiciously nothing in there about ROCKET MOTORS and that sort of thing.

You have to learn to read critically. I'm sure Janes has some folks out there to advise them on ROCKETS but this guy is an editor and he, himself, makes no claim to any sort of expertise in rocketry.

I recommended that YOU PEOPLE get him to read our thread and get back to us with something more concrete.

[editor-surveyor]

.
> “Now, does that mean you enjoyed it when you got to deal with drunken hillbillies and biker gangs?”

.
Now that would have at least been interesting, but those scotch-drinking hypocrites would never have gotten near anyone that would have presented any challenge.
.

[muawiyah]

You were definitely not matched up with the right group. I’ve heard there are parts of the Chesapeake where the Auxiliary has to call in the State Troopers from time to time ~

[papertyger]

It is physically impossible for this object to be an SLBM and still be photographed several minutes after launch, much less in the same part of the sky with an off-the-shelf camera.

What kind of camera was it?

[Mr. Silverback]

I don’t know, but the only camera that could track an SLBM that far after launch that clearly would be a camera using a long lens that would make it impossible to see the building that is prominent in Warren’s photos.

When the shuttle is at the same altitude that an SLBM could be expected to achieve in a couple of minutes (about 90 miles downrange and 240,000 feet in altitude) the only cameras tracking it are special stabilized cameras designed specifically for tracking space launches. I doubt the camera crew on the CBS chopper was packing one of those, and we can be certain (because we can see the building in Long Beach) that Warren wasn’t using one, or even a telephoto lens.

An SLBM that was still visible with a non-telephoto camra that long after launch is the equivalent of a transatlantic airliner with a 50 gallon gas tank. The photos and video fit an aircraft and don’t fit a missile.

[Tommyjo]

Speed has nothing to do with it. It must have been the slowest ballistic missile in the world to believe your version?

Gil Leyvas claims that he observed it for 10 minutes. The LAX webcam shows that the object was travelling towards the mainland. Remember that Gil Leyvas was positive that it was going away from the coast.

That would mean that this claimed ballistic missile was heading inland over mainland US. In that space of time then such a ballistic missile travelling at speeds would be by then thousands of miles away.

Gil Leyvas stated

"Leyvas said he zoomed his camera in and kept it on the vapor trail for roughly 10 minutes. "It was unique. It was moving. It was growing in the sky."

This video is from December 2009 off California. Again it would be the slowest ballistic missile in the world. Yet another example of how people can misinterpret an aircraft contrail.

Link to video

Aircraft example from 2008 - Florida

Link to video

The following link is to a report from Patrick Minnis, a contrail expert in the Science Directorate at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. It highlights the point that even experts can be initially fooled.

Link to NASA story

[Tommyjo]

Gil Leyvas is featured in the following video. You can see what the camera set up probably was?

Link to video

It appears to be a Gyro-Stabilized Cineflex V14 HD Camera System?

Link to Cinelex Camera System

So far all that has been released is edited footage. If Gil observed it for 10 minutes then surely there is a lot more footage than the snippets released?

The full raw footage should be released with a time counter in frame. This was filmed by powerful optics producing foreshortening on an airliner that was at the time producing a persistent contrail.

[Mr. Silverback]

Ah, thanks for the info, and I second your suggestion that we see raw video with a time index.

[D-fendr]

Well done, Bahneman. Thanks for your work in searching for facts. TXnMA: Maybe post 1199 and the GEOS data, other research calculations, etc. could be re-posted on your separate thread :) for more objective discussion and further factual info. Missile theorists could post their data, trajectories, speed, etc. also.

[papertyger]

I don’t know, but ...

Which illustrates the point I'd like to make.

You've spent the past few days making numerous generalized assumptions you can't validate, then declared the logical consequences forces others to share your conclusion.

Sorry, no amount of internet speculation can take the place of expert testimony.

[Tommyjo]

No problem. Thanks for the reply.

[Finny]

Before you toss ad hominem grenades like the above at several FReepers who have been here several years longer than you ...

Granted, the "scientific mind" is different than the literary mind. I respect you too much, TX, to even THINK that you've posted fraudulent photos -- and I NEVER SAID YOU DID. I put you in the camp of someone being convinced by the ContrailScience efforts and putting in effort on your own part to confirm it, and furthermore, because I know you are a patriot and a long-time fellow FReeper whose posts I've read for years, I know that you are truly seeking truth and have zero intent to deceive. But someone has the intention of deceiving you, and they are using carefully constructed "math" to do it.

Justa has much more technical ability to dispel the veracity of the photos on ContrailSci than I do. I write them off as fraudulent because:

1. There is ZERO, ZILCH, NO WAY to confirm that the photos on the site are authentic -- there is no way to verify it. One is limited to taking the website creator's word for it. On the other hand, the video footage of the missile isn't even in dispute with regard to the date, time, and authenticity.

2. I am close to someone who certainly qualifies as a world-class expert in perspective and lighting with regard to aviation. If he says the object in the video is moving north west (which, incidentally, is the same direction that FReeper Old Missileer -- actually, Missiler says west-northwest, which is a more fine-pointed way of saying the same thing), then the thing was moving north west, or more accurately, WEST northwest. So I am POSITIVE that any photos purportedly "proving" that the object was moving in an easterly direction, involve some form of fraud, and that any mathematical "proof" of it has been calculated either by someone intending fraud OR by someone who hasn't done the calculations correctly.

I trust math; everyone should trust math. In my opinion, math is the closet to God we can get in the material sense (spiritual is a whole 'nother ballgame!). But the people who DO math are just humans, they are not God. Math is always correct; it's the mathemeticians who make mistakes.

[TigersEye]

I understand that the coastline hooks to the west north of LA and forms an east-west beach for many miles. I just have a bit of confidence that a helicopter news photographer with years of experience has a pretty good handle on the area and the compass points in relation to it. Being an LA news chopper I figure he was somewhere in the LA area where the coast runs pretty close to north-south and Catalina Island is generally to the west.

When you have a second witness give the same approximation that the launch was north of Catalina Isle. that just adds to the credibility of the first witness. If we knew exactly where they both were we could increase that credibility especially if they were separated by a good number of miles north to south.