Gawd, really.
How about presenting a *fact* that supports the missile assertion?
How about countering any single *fact* presented here?
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 11/30/2010 10:28:55 AM PST by bigbob
During the late eighties I was assigned to NORAD, as a Command Director initially and later as the assistant Director of Operations for NORAD. The NORAD operation was located inside the Cheyenne Mountain complex just outside Colorado Springs, Colorado. Twenty four hours a day a team of approximately 150 highly trained individuals, lead by a Brigadier General, monitored one of the most sophisticated computer systems in the world. This system was fed data from many different sensors that were able to detect missile shots from any point on the globe. All this data was taken into consideration when making the "assessment" as whether or not North America and/or Canada were threatened by such a launch. If the launch was assessed as a true threat, the President was contacted immediately by NORAD through a military individual always close to the President who carried what we called, "the football", a black brief case with release codes for our nuclear forces. I know the system well, as for near three years I led one of those teams.
[snip]
I understand the difference in an aircraft contrail and a missile launch contrail.
In my opinion there is absolutely no doubt that what was captured on video off the coast of California was a missile launch, was clearly observed by NORAD, assessed by a four-star General in minutes, and passed to the President immediately. That is the way the system works, and heads fall if there is a failure. This is one of the most important tenets of National Defense and its sole purpose of protecting the American people. Even the smallest failure in this system gets intense scrutiny at the highest level.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanconservativedaily.com ...
Wrong. This is Naval Base Ventura County now. And it is not a naval rocket base. It is an air base.
It seems likely therefore that it was an unscheduled firing of a SF booster (perhaps even a cook-off).
Really? "Unscheduled"? "Likely"? Wrong. Any U.S. missile test is going to be openly scheduled, cleared with the FAA and announced so as to avoid risks of impacting U.S. airliners or general aviation.
No damage was done, there’d be no reason to make a big deal of it either way.
If so,m there would be no 'big deal' about telling the truth either. Since clearly, it wasn't a U.S. launch...this explains the concealment, but the cover-up duplicity seems a standard democRAT practice. Mustn't let the American citizenry wake up to their existential threat.
Exactly. It was an ICBM - not a firecracker. You CAN'T "accidentally" "cook off" that level of missile. For reasons obvious to a 4th grader, the launch sequence is divided and divided again to require a team process, commanded by top officers with top clearance.
We fired it, and we did it on purpose.
What the purpose of such a massively witnessed, yet massively denied, launch was... is the real question. As is whether the goal of the mission succeeded, or failed - and why.
Weapon designed for urgent threats
By Shaun Waterman-The Washington Times6:22 p.m., Thursday, November 25, 2010Defense Department scientists are set to conduct a second test launch next year of the Falcon HTV-2
Actually, that is not a known test area.
Gawd, really.
How about presenting a *fact* that supports the missile assertion?
How about countering any single *fact* presented here?
Yes, really. How does one go about disproving any opinion?
I haven’t a clue, since I have zero knowledge of these things, so I am going with this expert who says it was a missile.
Doug Richardson
Editor, Jane’s Missiles and Rockets
Doug Richardson is the editor of “Jane’s Missiles & Rockets”. After a career as an electronics engineer working in areas such as the development testing of radar and EW antennas for combat aircraft, integration of rocket engine electrical controls, the design of computer peripheral hardware, and the planning and post-flight analysis of guided missile trials, he became a journalist in 1976.
Since then he has served at various times as the defence editor of “Flight International”, editor of the German magazine “Military Technology”, managing editor of “Jane’s Defence Systems Modernisation” and technical editor of the Swiss magazine “Armada International”.
His work has appeared in many UK, US and international defence magazines. It covers a wide range of military technologies including military aircraft, guided missiles, radar, electronic warfare, information warfare, communications, satellite navigation systems, stealth technology, tanks, artillery, warships, submarines, small arms and ammunition, and more exotic areas such as space warfare and intelligence gathering.
Although missiles and missile-related technology are his primary interest, he also specialises in military electronics and optronics, and writes regularly on these topics for “Armada International” and other magazines.
Since 1981 he has written more than 20 books on aerospace and defence topics. Most have been published in British and US editions, but several have also appeared in French, German, Japanese and Portuguese versions.
I agree, it's a non-nonsensical challenge.
One can only disprove assertions based on facts or through falsification. Opinions are not falsifiable. They are all true, although the assertions they make are not.
1. It was under powered flight too long (more than twice and almost three times as long) to be an ICBM but consistent with a jet leaving a contrail.The real question is why there are so many people who are so desperately in need of something threatening and inexplicable that they'll grasp at the flimsiest of explanations and ignore everything substantial in order to maintain the delusion.
2. The lighting of the contrail at this time of day was completely inconsistent with the exhaust trail of a launched rocket (which would go from a more yellow/orange color near the ground to a brilliant white upon entering the upper atmosphere out of the earth's shadow) but consistent with the contrail of a jet flying at gradually decreasing altitude in the late afternoon/early evening.
3. There were gaps in the contrail consistent with jet contrails as the jet passes through pockets of warmer air not conducive to condensation, but not with rocket exhaust.
4. The flight path and the time of occurrence (because of 2) were consistent with that of a scheduled incoming air flight from the Pacific.
5. Satellite photos demonstrate this but without showing an additional exhaust trail of a rocket proceeding out over the Pacific. 6. The same thing was witnessed on succeeding days.
7. Other, similar contrails, same color, same general location, were present in the sky to the north at exactly the same time but were not claimed to be multiple, successive launches from several different launch platforms (subs).
You can lead a horse to water, but....
There has been plenty of speculation, but no one to date has published a single fact that is evidence that it was anything other than a cargo plane.
I wish someone would publish a "missile facts" list. It is getting boring watching all the facts pile up on the "aircraft" side.
Come on, folks; in all the opinions posted here so far, there is not a single "missile" fact.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Would someone please post just one?
The easiest way to "cover up" a secret test launch would be to merely call it a routine missile exercise. Nobody would care.
What about all the other "launches" since this video? Other photographers have captured the same kind of sunset contrail a couple of times a week since then. Are those all missiles too?
Where are all the Janes news articles saying the same thing -- on the record, putting Janes' reputation on the line?
Hmm, not a one, you say? That says volumes...
I can't argue with you because I could not tell a contrail, from a cloud, or a missile!
Near the end of the video the bright exhaust can be seen. Note how it changes color.
Solid rocket missile.
Did.
No jets scrambled, no SAM's launched (or whatever they are that are sent from land to intercept foreign missles), no retaliatory action whatsoever.........sounds to me that either NORAD was asleep or the president didn't answer his phone.
And as for the coastline folks who were closest to the missile launch and had the best vantage point for identification, well, they aren't talking............
Please correct me if I'm wrong but the only accounts of "witnesses" come from individuals who only viewed the same disclosed minute or so of the 10 minute video that you and the rest of us have seen........
I've yet to read any sea side witnesses closest to the alleged launch area giving their accounts............or ANY actual witnesses for that matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.