Mystery missile launched off California coast

[null0010]

did it kill anyone?

no.

who cares?

[Alter-Fox]

Environmentalists.

[Ferno]

With all due respect Ferno, weren't you the one going on at one time about 9/11 being a conspiracy....a inside job? I am quite surprised that some of you here are actually believing the Pentagon over a outside source. Would you like for me to list a compendium of lies from the military starting with the enemy body counts in Vietnam to present day?

Do I see a conspiracy here? I see the possibility of a conspiracy, yes. The military is excellent at cya.

irrelevant.


and since you seem to talk a lot about outside sources, did you ever read the other blog that was linked to here? or did you disregard that one because the facts didn't fit your view?

It was tracked for ten minutes. no glow at the head of the trail. and the trail is too thick.

The first fact should have tipped you off that it wasn't a missile, because you simply can't track a missile for ten minutes straight. The second fact should have cemented it, seeing as there's always an exhaust glow when it comes to missiles.

So in conclusion, the cameraman doesn't know the difference between a missile and an airplane, and the news organizations took that ball and ran with it like the sensationalizing buggers they are.

You don't know what you're talking about woody. just give it up already.

[Krom]

One has to ask: If it was a conspiracy, then who benefits from it? What was the motive? What was the objective? How can this possibly make any difference in anything?

The only group that could even remotely benefit from a mystery missile launch would be the press/media because it is something they can hype and use to sell advertisements. However if it was the press/media plotting a conspiracy to make more money they would probably make up something a bit harder to shoot down.

[woodchip]

Krom, you also have to ask, \"who benefits if it was not a missile\". If it was in fact a missile from a un-named source then the pentagon looks pretty bad for allowing it to happen.

[Sirius]

If it was a missile from an un-named source, who fired it, why, and why there of all places?

[VonVulcan]

Another story...


China flexed its military muscle Monday evening in the skies west of Los Angeles when a Chinese Navy Jin class ballistic missile nuclear submarine, deployed secretly from its underground home base on the south coast of Hainan island, launched an intercontinental ballistic missile from international waters off the southern California coast.


edit:

http://real-agenda.com/2010/11/12/china ... nia-coast/

[Ferno]

http://real-agenda.com/2010/11/12/china ... nia-coast/

lol. they're really trying for the missile angle. that's funny.

the biggest blow to that story is intercontinental ballistic missiles are NOT launched from a submarine. ICBM's are land based that blogger obviously does not know his facts. that blog entry introduces too many assumptions into the mix.



http://blog.bahneman.com/content/it-was ... flight-808

here's your mystery missile.


yep, an aircraft.

[Xamindar]

Wow Ferno, you sure you don't work for the tabloids? Might as well say that little \"triangle of smoke\" is an UFO.

[VonVulcan]

I think I can see the ste, er, flight attendant waving through the window over the wing...

[Isaac]

lol @ thread

[woodchip]

I'm curious as to why Ferny is so hell bent on proving it was not a missile? Also Fernman:

\"An submarine-launched ballistic missile (ICBM) is a sea-based missile, in practice fired from an extremely quiet nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN). While the first SLBMs were of fairly short range, the current generation has range comparable to that of an intercontinental ballistic missile.\"

Or:

\"The Bulava is designed to have a range of 10,000km (6,200 miles) and carry six individually targeted nuclear warheads.\"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6251082.stm

So now instead of hyperbole you want to argue with semantics? Sub launched SLBM's are ICBMs but not as large. They both send a rocket to the upper atmosphere where multiple warheads are released on a ballistic trajectory. Once again Ferno, your argument falls flat. And FYI, I did read the other links and nowhere was anyone 100% convinced the vapour trail was not by a rocket.

[Ferno]

so now you think it's a nuclear missile that was launched?

seriously dude you've gone into a holocaust of crazy.

\"Sub launched SLBM's are ICBMs but not as large\"

I know the difference, but the blogger sure doesn't.

\"Might as well say that little \"triangle of smoke\" is an UFO.\" your words xamindar, not mine.


One thing is clear here: you obviously do not know the difference between a jet contrail and a missile plume, woodchip.


Missile plume.

missile plume.

missile plume.

missile plume.

and you simply cannot track a missile for ten minutes straight.

[Xamindar]

That looks almost exactly like this event. It even has the bright fire as you also see in the video. For some reason the people trying to say this is a plane only select pictures where you can't see the rocket fire. I guess Ferny has changed his mind to proving that it was a missile.

[Ferno]

does not look like




Let's get something straight here. an icbm's boost time is three to five minutes, and it would have at least three distinct colors to it's trail.

the cameraman tracked it for ten minutes

five does not equal ten.

any kind of ICBM trail would have at least three bands to it. the first being the sunset colors. red, orange, and a little yellow. the second would be the yellow/white band of daylight. and the third would be a dark band where it enters space.

And in order to track a missile launch, especially an ICBM, you would need a radar/IR/long range visual tracking system. something not found on a news reporter's helicopter.


Xaminder: have you been to an airport or watched any planes fly overhead in the last year or so? Judging by your replies in this, I'd say you haven't

[Xamindar]

Again, you are only selecting a picture where you can't see the fire from the engines.

[Ferno]

Again, you are only selecting a picture where you can't see the fire from the engines.

same picture they were using. but if you want, i'll dig them out of the blog that you guys didn't bother to read.





same trail. not a missile.

lay off the conspiracy crack, dude.

[Sirius]

The biggest thing I'm learning from this thread is that it's amazing what kinds of crazy things people can get wound up about.

[Xamindar]

There. That is why I don't think it's a plane. Never mind the fact that all these plane reports are from no-name bloggers.

[Ferno]

There. That is why I don't think it's a plane. Never mind the fact that all these plane reports are from no-name bloggers.

key word here: you think[/]. but you thought wrong.

yep. no-name bloggers that know what the difference is. no-name bloggers that did their research using radar reports from flight tracking sites. no-name bloggers who also get their information from people who know what they're talking about.

like this:

It’s too slow (<— biggest reason).
There’s no engine flare.
There’s no expansion of the plume (as the chamber pressure exceeds the atmospheric pressure more and more during flight).
There’s no staging event.
There’s no sunset striations across the plume (which would look like this: http://tinyurl.com/2vklwu5).
In the wide shot there’s two contrails (off each wing!) instead of one.
The plume at the plane is twirling in different directions (very un-rocket-like).
The plume at the plane is twirling too much — that only happens in the case of a motor burn-through, which is a failure mode, meaning it would be seconds from exploding if it were a rocket.
The wind-blown plume is all wrong, vertical plumes go through several different wind shear layers, which makes it look very different than what the video shows.

[woodchip]

Yet the real missile expert from Janes says it was a missile. Are your no-name bloggers experts or guessers? If you need a cavity filled do you go to the dentist or to some no-name blogger who thinks he knows how to fill your tooth?

[Xamindar]

Yeah, everyone believes what they want and ignores some of the facts, like Ferno's last post that stated there was no engine flare while you can clearly see it on the video.

I honestly don't know what it was but considering the facts, I am thinking it was not a plane.

[Grendel]

UPS902

[Ferno]

Yeah, everyone believes what they want and ignores some of the facts, like Ferno's last post that stated there was no engine flare while you can clearly see it on the video.

you've never seen a rocket, have you?

There's three problems I see with your position. one, you'd rather talk than listen, two you don't know what you're talking about and three you're not reading the links people post. otherwise you wouldn't be posting what you have.


the point is, i was around rockets for a good number of years. almost got my amateur rocketry license too, which would have allowed me to launch multistage rockets that obtain over thousands of feet of altitude. So knowing what rocket exhaust looks like and knowing how fast rockets accelerate pretty much comes with the territory. and that trail is in no way a missile trail.

generally it takes roughly four minutes for a high power amateur rocket to reach about 25,000 ft of altitude, depending on motor, staging, payload, and body design. much faster than the ten minutes of footage this guy filmed.

now:

Did you see any rapid acceleration in the video? any motor staging? any motor burnouts?

no?

that's because they weren't there.

anyone who has even a basic knowledge of rocket thrust knows that as the fuel is burned away, the vehicle becomes lighter and since objects accelerate faster given the same amount of thrust but lessening weight can conclude that it would lead to rapid acceleration.






now before any of you guys try and pull a red herring, the difference between a rocket and a missile is a guidance system and a warhead.


woody, show us this link to janes that you keep talking about.

[flip]

I imagine if that had been some unknown missile fired that close to the US, within minutes, that area would have been swarming with US military planes and ships.

[woodchip]

Ferno, as reported by CBS news:

\"But Doug Richardson, the editor of Jane’s Missiles and Rockets, examined the video for the Times of London and said he was left with little doubt.

\"It’s a solid propellant missile,\" he told the Times. \"You can tell from the efflux [smoke].\"

Richardson said it could have been a ballistic missile launched from a submarine or an interceptor, the defensive anti-missile weapon used by Navy surface ships.\"


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/ ... 0379.shtml

And a short Bio of Richardson:

http://www.janes.com/events/OnlineSemin ... akers.html

So Ferno, you think you have more expertise than Richardson?

[Krom]

Here are the results of a recent survey about the origin of the trail:

[null0010]

I like the Richard Branson answer.

[Ferno]

So Ferno, you think you have more expertise than Richardson?

well if I can tell the difference between a rocket plume and a jet contrail, and be able to determine the difference between the sun reflecting off a body and the flame coming out of a rocket, then yes.


and efflux? that's a microbiological thing.

[Sirius]

Can we just say Krom wins the thread?

[d3jake]

Yes.

[Neo]

Smoke wins. :P

[Alter-Fox]

Did you hear that someone moved Bush's memoir to the \"True Crime\" section in Chapters?

[roid]

a few years ago i stopped the car while driving home one evening, to stare up at the sky at what looked like a shiny rocket flying through the air complete with a flaming exhaust plume behind it.
I didn't know wtf it was.
But turns out it was just an airplane with it's shimmering contrail being illuminated by the setting sun, and locals see it all the time.
i am a gigantic idiot.