It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

It was an anti-ICBM test in California, not an ICBM test.

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
If you watch this poorly titled video you can clearly see something overtake the missile just as it explodes sending rocket fuel out which is ionized by sunlight creating the light show that freaked everyone out in California. The real story isn't the missile itself but the system the Navy is testing that kills ICBMs. I believe that is why they are being so tight lipped about the matter.





posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Wow!!

The anti-missile device was aircraft launched!!

Clearly one can see the nav. lights.

Also no exhaust from that intercepting 'device', or the launching aircraft, either.

A kinetic weapon?...No that doesn't make any sense either.

A non-visible directed energy??



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo
If you watch this poorly titled video you can clearly see something overtake the missile just as it explodes sending rocket fuel out which is ionized by sunlight creating the light show that freaked everyone out in California. The real story isn't the missile itself but the system the Navy is testing that kills ICBMs. I believe that is why they are being so tight lipped about the matter.



Testing an anti ICBM in full view of the populace so so someone like you can spill the beans on the www.

That makes a lot of sense....



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Good point.

Yet even firing the missile in the first place in plain view of all of Los Angles doesn't make much sense either.

Self-destructed is another possibility.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

The Navy admitted that there was a test of some sort but would not elaborate. Are you saying that the Navy is misleading the public or that I am falsely reporting this as a test?



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Obviously a test. Otherwise, an act of war? Accidental firing? Not bloody likely.

What the test entails is the question....probably none of our business....



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Its our business, if you pay taxes, we paid for the damn thing.

2nd.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Wow, I saw it! No idea what it is, not going to speculate, but that is definitely a cool video and I'm very interested to hear what experienced ATSers think that was.

I like the theory that is was done to show off to potential enemies, myself.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Hmm, not sure I agree with that one. Having an 'ace up one's sleeve' is lost when there's too much publicity.

When it comes to missile defense, I'm glad the boys are on the job. That's all I really need to know about that, personally.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

It's a three stage missile. The first stage separated. That's exactly what it looks like. The red light was probably an aircraft monitoring the MOA.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Sorry but I am not buying that, I have seen a longer version that shows the light approach from outside the frame. And you will notice that as the light overtakes the missile it begins to spin out of control throwing fuel out in a spiral pattern. It reminds me of the "failed" Russian missile test that Norwegians went crazy about. That test also had an unexplained light come towards it before spiraling out of control.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Of course! Thanks.


If it was some ABM test, it would likely be far away from any land. Much like the earlier ABM tests from Vandenberg....somewhere in the South Pacific.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Of course it appeared to go towards it, it's flying around the area looking for ships and planes in the danger zone.

As for the spinning once the stage separates it's aerodynamically unstable as it doesn't have the front portion anymore and is a large, flat surface pushing against the air.

An anti-missile system would have caused an explosion, it wouldn't have just caused it to spin out of control and flop into the ocean. It either would have caused the entire missile to explode or it to tumble and explode.

Where's the launch signature? Where's the exhaust? It would have had to have a very powerful engine to catch an ICBM launching so it would have had a large signature at some point that would have stood out.

As for the Norway spiral, that missile didn't need help failing. That was the 7th failure in 14 tests.
edit on 11/9/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

They are usually during mid course, or more recently terminal phase, but those are for TRBMs and SRBMs. We don't currently have a reliable system that will stop an ICBM.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The "object" has a similar apparent brightness that is similar to the thrust coming out of the missile (unless you think the missile has a spotlight on it). Based on your logic where is the thrust from the missile? One of the rules of weapon making is to make a shield that can stop it. Looks like we may have a reliable system now.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

The "spotlight" is the ICBM exhaust. The counter missile should have a bright yellow exhaust lighting up the sky behind it as it burns to intercept the ICBM. It was a tail chase, meaning it would have to be much faster than the launching missile, meaning a large signature.

There's still no evidence of an impact on the ICBM, or evidence of anything but normal stage separation. But let's say you're right. This is still a useless system. It would have to hit very early in the boost phase of flight. That means it would have to be practically on top of any launching missile. It MIGHT be able to be in place around a missile sub, but you're not going to get the position of all of them, and what are you planning to do about land based missiles?
edit on 11/9/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

If I am correct in my assumptions then it doesn't matter what stage of flight the missile is in. They would be able to intercept a warhead that is on its ballistic path. What the MSM has been reporting is that this test if part of a simulated attack on LA so what we may be seeing is a system that is designed to protect a specific area like Iron Dome.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Isn't it the norm to do missile tests in daytime so that engineers can visually record the flight and examine any failures.

The night time test does lend credence to an ABM test because visual evidence is more difficult for opponents to obtain.

JM 02 cents
edit on 9-11-2015 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

are you sure that wasnt a multi stage rocket, seems to be a seperation, then another rocket plume



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: BIGPoJo

You can't defeat an ICBM in all phases of flight with one defense system. The phases are far too different. You either hit it in the boost phase, or terminal phase, and that is proving almost impossible.

You still have no impact signature, no launch signature, no signature of the missile being shot down, no in flight signature.

Have you ever seen the SM -3 signature? Both the launch and flight portions have a signature you can see for a long way away. All that is missing here.




top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join