It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Lights in the sky above LA

page: 25
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 10:06 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58

I read that link Sir...I confirmed back to you too that I read it.


posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 10:09 PM
a reply to: game over man

Then you should know exactly what information was given under that agreement.

posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 11:24 PM
I think gameoverman and I just want to know for sure, and it does seem likely the US did follow standard procedure.

Two reasons, one being the lack of media "awareness", and the other being the intel advantages of a unannounced launch.

It's partly the way the story was broke and covered by mass media or social media....everybody referred to it as a "big surprise", and ATS getting the full picture by asking solid questions is good policy.

But nfw would US want to change the rules or set a bad precedent.

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:09 AM
So now I'm wondering about the reports of strange bodies found in Cali...

Perhaps this was a weather missile, and they wanted to of course retest the Roswell dummies... lol

Something odd going on fake news does not disapear as fast as these tales have...
edit on 10-11-2015 by 5StarOracle because: Word

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 08:13 AM
a reply to: FlyingFox

You don't mess around when it comes to nuclear missiles. We've been a lot closer than most people know because of stupid things like no notice missile tests.

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 10:36 AM
I'm presuming there was not a single eyewitness report on the second launch?

What was the San Diego area cloud cover?

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:03 AM
On the other hand, not every adversarial party is privy to the treaty and might have no warning mechanism. I'm picturing the Norks....freaking out. There must have been some sort of covering force activated in the Western Pacific, like Aegis....just in case some other country was feeling stupid. Some of these guys are no too sophisticated.

As an observer of the launch, I'd be scared #less....thinking it was maybe an interceptor launch. Duck n Cover.

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 11:06 AM
a reply to: FlyingFox

North Korea probably didn't even see it. They don't have any kind of early warning coverage unless China notifies them, and none of the Pacific ranges are within their radar range.

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:05 PM
Now this is something to question, not an obvious missile launch.

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 03:27 PM

originally posted by: FlyingFox

I guess I'm pointing out, or asking why, the press didn't pick up on it....since it was such a "big surprise" for everyone.

Probably because journalists (defence journalists) weren't looking at the navigational warnings? If they had and actually plotted out the areas then some of them would have twigged that a ballistic missile launch was pending.

It pays to keep an eye on the likes of US Notice to Mariners.

091600Z TO 100300Z NOV IN AREAS:
32-09N 119-30W, 32-36N 119-30W,
32-27N 117-34W, 32-00N 117-34W.
B. BETWEEN 32-18N 32-36N AND 122-30W 120-48W.
C. BETWEEN 32-12N 32-54N AND 131-00W 127-12W.
29-42N 159-12W, 30-42N 159-24W,
31-54N 152-00W, 30-54N 151-42W.
12-30N 151-00E, 13-30N 150-00E,
17-15N 157-30E, 16-15N 158-30E.
2. CANCEL THIS MSG 100400Z NOV 15.

JimOberg plotted them out at the following link.

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 04:10 PM

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: Zaphod58

Why should you or I, trust anyone?

How do you know those countries were informed if they didn't announce those countries were informed to the public? Are you two not the public?

I don't understand how you and Jim Oberg know the exact same stuff as those heading up the nuclear weapons in China and Russia. "Oh we know those countries were informed..." Ok...sure....Where is Jim Oberg's proof that China and Russia were part of the launch. I will phrase it that China and Russia are part of the launch if they knew it was happening, at the exact time, exact location as you two are claiming. If they did and they produce their own nuclear weapons ballistic missiles they are going to closely watch every second of the launch to learn about the US launching capabilities.

If they knew every detail about the launch as you two are claiming, does that not concern you? Do you not see the bigger picture if what you're claiming is true?

OK you are sceptical. All this information is out there and for some members of ATS is nothing new. What Jim Oberg and Zaphod58 is telling you is all factual. I get it that some people find it puzzling that potential adversaries would share and announce data on ICBM/SLBM launches but that is the reality. Did you even know that treaties between the US and Russia allowed for the open monitoring of the missile telemetry? Yes the frequencies were provided and the channels open (not encrypted) so that the respective sides could monitor the missile data as per the agreed conditions of the treaty. This was on top of the time window passed on for the intended test launch.

Have a read of the NEW START Treaty signed between the US and Russia.

Section IV - Notifications Concerning Launches of
ICBMs or SLBMs and the Exchange of Telemetric Data

Section IV consists of six paragraphs. One paragraph covers launches of ICBMs and SLBMs while the remaining five paragraphs cover the exchange of telemetric information conducted in accordance with Part Seven of the Protocol and the Annex on Telemetric Information to the Protocol. Paragraph 1 provides for the advance notification of any launch of an ICBM or SLBM in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Notifications of Launches of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles of May 31, 1988 (the Ballistic Missile Launch Notification Agreement).
Data regarding telemetry broadcast frequencies and modulation types must be provided for those launches for which telemetric information may be provided to the other Party in accordance with Part Two of the Annex on Telemetric Information. While launches of ICBMs or SLBMs that are not subject to the Treaty, such as of Trident I SLBMs, are not subject to this provision, they remain subject to notification pursuant to the Ballistic Missile Launch Notification Agreement itself. The Parties have agreed in Part Eight of the Protocol to provisionally apply this paragraph from the date of signature of the Treaty. Telemetric broadcast information will not be included in notifications provided prior to entry into force of the Treaty because, in accordance with the Annex on Telemetric Information, telemetric information will only be exchanged for launches conducted after entry into force of the Treaty.

It is very likely that the telemetry for these two launches were passed on the Russians as per the 5 missile test transparency agreement. The Russians do the same for their release of telemetry.

For missile-generated flight test data, known as telemetry, START I called for telemetry to be openly shared, with limited exceptions, to monitor missile development. New START does not limit new types of ballistic missiles, and thus the old START formula for extensive telemetry sharing was no longer necessary. New START requires the broadcast of telemetry and exchange of recordings and other information on up to five missile tests per side per year to promote openness and transparency.

edit on 10/11/2015 by tommyjo because: Spacing on text corrected

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 04:22 PM

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
Now this is something to question, not an obvious missile launch.

Not really. It was the US Navy Seals parachuting into the LA Coliseum for USC's first football game of the 2015 season. The video you are linking to shows what it looks like at distance. The reality is very different.

edit on 10/11/2015 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 04:35 PM

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FlyingFox

North Korea probably didn't even see it. They don't have any kind of early warning coverage unless China notifies them, and none of the Pacific ranges are within their radar range.

I meant seeing it on social media, along with the overreaction of Americans who observed it.

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 06:01 PM
Lockheed-Martin press release

posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 11:49 AM

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: FlyingFox

So what about that agreement...All of a sudden the US, China, and Russia play by the rules...ok...Where is the proof that the US was notified for the Norway Spiral

Yes they were notified and the Russians also published the closure and warning areas for the Bulava missile that created the Norway Spiral.

The Russians will likely launch Bulava missiles again either tomorrow or this weekend. The NOTAMs and closure areas have been issued. The Russians have launch notification treaties with both the US and China.

DNC 22.
73-05N 051-00E, 72-30N 052-47E,
71-24N 049-25E, 72-00N 047-20E.
2. CANCEL THIS MSG 152200Z NOV 15.

G4359/15 NOTAMN
Q) UUXX/QRTCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/7215N05015E056
A) ULMM ULAA B) 1511111300 C) 1511151900
D) 11 14 1300-2100, 12 15 1100-1900, 13 1100-2100
720000N 0472000E-730500N 0511000E-723000N 0524700E-
712400N 0492500E-720000N 0472000E.

G4362/15 NOTAMN
Q) UUXX/QRTCA/IV/BO/W/000/999/6533N03730E042
A) ULAA ULMM B) 1511111100 C) 1511151900
D) 11 13 14 1100-2100 12 15 1100-1900
F) SFC G) 1500M AGL

G4364/15 NOTAMN
Q) UUXX/QARLC/IV/NBO/E/000/999/6547N03806E045
A) ULAA ULMM B) 1511111300 C) 1511151900
D) 11 14 1300-2100, 13 1100-2100, 12 15 1100-1900

posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 12:48 AM
I'm working on a major presentation on this flap. One thing I've just confirmed is the set of pictures showing the plume as viewed from left of track are actually photos of launches in Russia, posted by a tweeter to be helpful, but widely misinterpreted by the mass media as showing THIS event. Problem is, severwl of those views show snow-covered ground!!

Any oter favorite 'UFO interpretation' headlines or blog displays, I'd appreciate folks posting them so I can use them too.

And to be confirmed -- NOBODY reported seeing the second launch on Monday, right?

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 06:38 AM
As per the launch notification warnings and closure areas.

The Russian strategic submarine, the Vladimir Monomakh, has carried out a double Bulava ballistic missile test launch from a submerged position in the White Sea, successfully hitting two targets in the Kamchatka region in Russia’s Far East.

“Salvo firing from a submerged position was made in accordance with the plan of combat training. The parameters trajectory of two ICBM 'Bulava' worked normally. As confirmed by objective monitoring, the missile warheads successfully arrived at the Kura test site in Kamchatka,” the Defense Ministry’s press service reported.

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 09:44 AM
Here's my slides on the amusing misunderstanding that led to the widespread use of a snow-covered field in front of the 'California UFO'.

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 09:53 AM
a reply to: tommyjo


Any idea of the TIME of the launchings? Should we expect UFO reports from Scandinavia, NW Russia, and airliners over Moscow?

posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 10:05 AM
a reply to: JimOberg

They launched a salvo of two missiles from the White Sea to three Kura Test Range.

new topics

top topics

<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in