Mysterious Missile Launch Over California - 11/8/2010

reply to post by SarK0Y


I am not following you.

"righteous projection"??? I really don't understand your post at all.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

These are the facts. The photo is conclusive. The data is on record.

The Pentagon does not even state anything is "conclusive". The Chinese missile explanation is gaining traction if anything. It was just discussed on "The Weekend" radio program.

reply to post by weedwhacker


You haven't answered my question.
Do you honestly think this plane is over 160 miles away when this pic was taken??
blog.bahneman.com...

reply to post by weedwhacker

we don't know actual perspective of the cam.. moreover, to've records the flight from different points & to know real scale would be very useful to get real trajectory of object more precisely.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Not sure whta you are trying to say.

I referred to the people charged with the defense of the USA, they don't seem to know what it was either.
Seems they are having a "bet each way":
If it turns out to be a missile they will have less "egg on face" by not saying categorically it was a plane.
If it was a plane then they can say that "we told you so ".

reply to post by Sailor Sam

This seems to be quite an unequivocal statement:

"There is no evidence to suggest that this is anything else other than a condensation trail from an aircraft," said Pentagon spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan, who reiterated that there was no threat to America.

www.cbsnews.com...

reply to post by Sailor Sam

inexorably their mind went away w\o promises to return wtf to have said "we launched our new missile to test it with various modes of working"???

reply to post by backinblack


I am puzzling this out, still...I am having a bit of heartburn with that photo from the law firm, because of the apparent "darkness". I took it at face value that the time reference was "off" due to the Daylight Savings change-over.

BUT....without (as mentioned, I believe...if I understand the other ATS member's point) knowing exactly the camera specifications**, we are still left with a bit more investigating to do.

**(Lens focal length, exposure settings, etc. Would be useful to have more of the TV News camera footage, too)

I am looking for any other possible candidates that would be potential subjects of the law firm's photo, at the precise (and accurate) time of 1815 PST. Based on the info that the camera was located "at LAX"....I see a lot of land before the shoreline, so it must be at the far eastern edge of the airport proper. I can tell it's angle, (because there's a hint of a road, and most roads in LA are gridded, east/west and N/S....so the angle makes sense, given the route to arrive over Catalina, from where that airplane appears in the sky). So, we're looking to slightly southwest. I'm quite fmailiar with LA, but still hard to pick out recognizable landmarks to refernce.

Judging, at a guess only (lacking the camera details as noted) my eye tells me the airplane there is at a normal cruise altitude, typically 31,000 to 39,000 feet. I expect higher, but will depend on the ultimate destination...which will indicate how much fuel is remaining, based on the endurance needed to destination...and therefore, whether we can assume its gross weight has been reduced to allow it the higher cruise altitude. It's complicated, too, by the fact that higher is more fuel efficient, but sometimes you select an altitude based on the prevailing winds, if they are moire favorable at a lower altitude..it's a toss-up. Also, traffic conflicts can dictate final or desired cruise altitudes, too. First come, first served as it were.......

SO...at altitude, and offshore. The distance offshore? Hard to tell, but at 160 miles, would appear at a lower relative "height" to the horizon line, from ground-based view, I would think. It could be ~100 miles, but again....this is hard to judge, with what we have to work with.

I base that on knowing that from a typical 35,000 +/- altitude, direct line-of-sight (from airplane's perspective) can be as much as 220 nautical miles (253 statute miles). This is from experience with receiving radio signals from ground-based navigational stations, that have distance measuring equipment. Over-water, no obstructions, the range is the greatest. Altitude, of course, affects this range as well.

reply to post by weedwhacker

BUT....without (as mentioned, I believe...if I understand the other ATS member's point) knowing exactly the camera specifications**, we are still left with a bit more investigating to do.

moreover, my friend, we cannot get real trajectory, even if we know info, mentioned by you

The plane in the Bahnemann pic a few posts back doesn't appear to be 160 miles away. Using the sine or tangent function to get the angle, 7 miles high for the opposite side and 160 miles for the adjacent side or hypotenuse gives an angle of about 2.5 degrees. From the pic, it appears to be more like 15-20 degrees, no?

(note: this is my first post and I'm leaning toward the missile camp, so this can be taken with a grain of salt)

reply to post by cynic67

Here is an image from the webcam of a 747-200. The tail of that aircraft is 19.3 meters above the ground. The plane appears to be at the end of the runway which is a distance of about 3,150 meters from the camera (located at 5933 West Century Blvd) as measured on Google Earth. This makes the angle from the tarmac to the top of the tail only .35º


I've resized the images to fit here but in the originals the tail of the plane is 44 pixels above the wheels. The high end of the contrail is 220 pixels above the horizon, about 5 times greater. 5 times .35º is 1.75º, about what it should be (allowing for the estimate on the distance to the 747).

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/959952d8d637.gif[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Phage

This seems to be quite an unequivocal statement:

"There is no evidence to suggest that this is anything else other than a condensation trail from an aircraft," said Pentagon spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan, who reiterated that there was no threat to America.

www.cbsnews.com...

Actually, that statement is remarkable for what it doesn't say- exactly WHAT plane? If it was a plane it would be identified. Obviously they won't do that because it would too easy to disprove.

reply to post by Phage


Well, good. Helps me get oriented (the daylight shot...if only it would stop flashing!!!)

In the foreground is Terminal 7 (United). Further west, Terminal 6, then 5 (Delta and Continental...well, until the merger with United), and lastly, that side of the complex, is Terminal 4. (American). View is towards El Segundo, slightly south by south west.

Out of frame, left is Palos Verdes Peninsula, and south of that (about 25-30 miles) is Catalina.

reply to post by Phage

btw, image, posted by you, looks really proper aircraft contrail what we cannot say for discussed object

reply to post by SarK0Y

It's the same contrail. The image is from LAX, north of the video so the perspective is different.

reply to post by Phage

are any proofs being existed?
ADD: i completely have not argued perspective plays many funny tricks in the photo, but, let's dot all our i's
1. real trajectory was leaved unknown.
2. object speed is the same song (unknown too).
3. too noticeable incandescent point.
--------------------------------------
if it was passenger jet, what would issued so strong light there? Sun, really? this version needs to've well-reasonable proof with photometry. however, no one has put it at public eyes.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Sailor Sam

 

This seems to be quite an unequivocal statement:

"There is no evidence to suggest that this is anything else other than a condensation trail from an aircraft," said Pentagon spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan, who reiterated that there was no threat to America.

www.cbsnews.com...

Ah, but the Devil is (dare I say, Lies) in the details, does it not?

After years of working for a government agency (albeit, a state government agency), and privately, as an (unpaid) quasi-government contractor, I've learned that one should never take at face value anything said by a governmental (in these times, emphasis on the mental portion) representative.

To Wit:

The term "condensation trail from an aircraft", obviously conjours up the harmless, and common, image of the vapor trails left by high flying jet aircraft. The implication: Nothing to see here folks!


But, think about it; Are not the exhaust plumes generated by most of today's rocket motors also made up of Mostly Water Vapor?

Furthermore, are not rockets and missles also considered to be Aircraft, at least in the generic sense that they are, also, flying vehicles?



So, in the obtuse, obfuscatory, language of Official "Government-ese", the term condensation trail from an aircraft" could very easily be used to describe the Exhaust Plume from a rocket/Missle without fear of contradiction; while Implying that the source of the phenomenom was merely a common jet airplane.



I am late to this debate, and admittedly, I have not had the time, or inclination, to read over every post. But at the risk of seeming the fool, I would like to add my "two cents" as it were.

The photos I've seen do look alot more like the exhaust plumes I've seen, in person, from rockets (some of which I've personally built and launched), than the vapor trails I've seen over my many years; a number of which have been lived in close proximity to various commercial and military airfields.


I would like to recommend that we not be too quick to dismiss the possibility that this "unexplained" event was the result of an amature high-powered rocket launch; not a Secret government missle, or some Foreign power ICBM Show of Force/Disdain.

High powered "Hobbyist rockets" can rival many of their small-to-medium military counter-parts. In fact, many hobbyists actually try to duplicate at least the size, if not the power and destructiveness, of real military ordinance.


Now, to say the least, if this was a launch, not an airplane, and if the launch was from an amature, not one or another government, somebody is in deep Doo-Doo, if they are ever found!

Would the arrest be made public? Perhaps. But then again, perhaps not. Officials might be willing to "Down Low" the affair if they felt that the the details of the incident might best be kept out of the public eye for fear of imitation: perhaps by unfriendly forces?



On the other hand, an idea I've been playing around with might point to a considerably more dangerous possibility.

Perhaps this was a test of a "Submersible, Stand-off Short to Medium Range Missle Launch System".?


A solid fuel missile would be sealed inside a water-proof submersible "launch tube". The "Submersible Silo" could be dropped off by either surface ship or submarine, and would submerge to a "Lurking Depth" where it would remain silent, and vitually undetectable, until it receives the proper signal to surface and launch its payload. The silo would then flood, or self destruct, and sink to the bottom of the sea, leaving no trace of its existence.


Just a thought.

Mod note: Read the memo. -- Majic

reply to post by Bhadhidar


BRAVO Nice long speech...

Only one problem... the observed sighting was 10 minutes and after we see the plane continue in the ABC images. Like the one in Canada regurgitated in yet another missile thread that lasted 15 minutes

How fast do missiles fly? How fast do amateur rockets fly?

Show me a missile or rocket launch that can be viewed for 10 to 15 minutes

reply to post by zorgon


Honestly, I think your argument concerning the contrail "stopping" is more convincing than claiming the object was watched for 10 min. The contrail may have been watched that long (after the object was gone), but we have no 10 min long video to prove they were watching the "object" for 10 min. I could be wrong tho, I kinda stopped checking the updates on this one.