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.

 

US Navy CONFIRMS it was a Missle off Catialina

page: 3
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Play nicely, folks.

This is a very hot topic, but let's keep it cool here.

Just sayin'.




posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   
The military does lots of things that we arent aware of. The general citizen really knows very little about the military in general, much less operations. And face it...average citizens dont give a crap. They like there cable tv and video games.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack
 


The "suspicious photos" with EXIF data are available here:
www.flickr.com...

And you didn't happen to notice the EXIF data blatantly shows that first image (in it's original size) was edited with Photoshop CS5 on a Mac? Did you even look?

EDIT: Here a screenshot of some of the EXIF data, anyone can go here and check this:

edit on 17-11-2010 by WhizPhiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Grady - I want to thank you for helping get my post in it's proper structure. My computer skills are not as proficient as they should be.

For all of my friends at ATS the whole point of this post is to illuminate the active cointelpro propoganda we must wade through each and everyday on every issue.

Of couse this was a missle fired from a submarine. It was plain as the nose on your face, However, the news cycle was , Unknown missle spoted of CA coast, then Was it a Missle or Plane Contrail, then it became No Missle it was a Plane Contrail, Then it change once again to It was a missle but Black OPs Testing, now it is , Missle Yes, but just routine Navy testing when just a couple of days before the DOD had released that it was not a US missle but an illusion of the clouds.

At every turn there is DISTRACTION and DIVERSION. The only question is Whose Missle was it, and the sad truth is we will never know the truth, because even if the MSM and or US Government finally releasd the whole truth and noting but the truth NO ONE would believe them because they have NO CREDITABILITY. Sad state of affairs.isn't it ?

Now the moral of the story is : If the MSM or the US Government mouth is moving they are lying.

Here is a little wisdom: WHEN SOMEONE SHOWS YOU WHO THEY REALLY ARE - BELIEVE THEM - THE FIRST TIME.!



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





There is no evidence that a missile was launched. There is very strong evidence that the contrail was caused by UPS flight 902.


Phage - I'm curious, I thought you and a few other people were saying for a few days that it was a US Air flight? Why the change to a UPS flight? Did the US Air flight not "work" for some reason?

BTW - That must have been a very special contrail:

1 - A contrail expert from NASA said it was a missile.

2 - It was seen and photographed from Space, and other NASA scientists also thought it was a missile.

Here's the story regarding the above:

Infamous Contrail (aka 'the Mystery Missile') Spotted in Satellite Image

On a final note, this NASA contrail expert is still saying it's from flight AWE808, not UPS 902...

It appears the "experts" can't quite get their stories straight either. That's usually a pretty big red flag that something is wrong with the "official" line in my experience....



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Riffrafter
reply to post by Phage
 





There is no evidence that a missile was launched. There is very strong evidence that the contrail was caused by UPS flight 902.


Phage - I'm curious, I thought you and a few other people were saying for a few days that it was a US Air flight? Why the change to a UPS flight? Did the US Air flight not "work" for some reason?

BTW - That must have been a very special contrail:

1 - A contrail expert from NASA said it was a missile.

2 - It was seen and photographed from Space, and other NASA scientists also thought it was a missile.

Here's the story regarding the above:

Infamous Contrail (aka 'the Mystery Missile') Spotted in Satellite Image

On a final note, this NASA contrail expert is still saying it's from flight AWE808, not UPS 902...

It appears the "experts" can't quite get their stories straight either. That's usually a pretty big red flag that something is wrong with the "official" line in my experience....





Yay, I always thought it was a Missile.

I have been a Plane Spotter for 35 years and there is no way it's a Contrail lol.

Phage, question, are you a paid debunker?



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by WhizPhiz
 

No. That does not show it was edited. It shows that the photographer used Photoshop to download from the camera then used Photoshop to save it.

There is no easy way to tell from the EXIF data if the image was manipulated. It would be nice if that were true, but simply "saving" the image changes the "LastModified" parameter because Photoshop changes the metadata for the image when it is saved.

Notice that a more detailed look at the EXIF data shows that the image had been saved three times:

xmpMM:History

* rdf:Seq
o rdf:li
+ stEvt:action = "saved"
+ stEvt:instanceID = "xmp.iid:08801174072068118DBBC28B45CB8315"
+ stEvt:when = "2010-11-10T15:48:36-08:00"
+ stEvt:softwareAgent = "Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh"
+ stEvt:changed = "/"
o rdf:li
+ stEvt:action = "saved"
+ stEvt:instanceID = "xmp.iid:09801174072068118DBBC28B45CB8315"
+ stEvt:when = "2010-11-10T15:49:27-08:00"
+ stEvt:softwareAgent = "Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh"
+ stEvt:changed = "/"
o rdf:li
+ stEvt:action = "saved"
+ stEvt:instanceID = "xmp.iid:0A801174072068118DBBC28B45CB8315"
+ stEvt:when = "2010-11-10T15:50:05-08:00"
+ stEvt:softwareAgent = "Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh"
+ stEvt:changed = "/"


Notice also that all of Rick Warren's images show similar EXIF data.

edit on 11/17/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Riffrafter
 



1 - A contrail expert from NASA said it was a missile.

2 - It was seen and photographed from Space, and other NASA scientists also thought it was a missile.


No and no. What the article actually said was:


After watching footage of the Nov. 8 contrail, Patrick Minnis, a contrail expert in the Science Directorate at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., assumed it came from a missile, as many others did.


It then goes on to say:


With the help of other Langley researchers, Minnis also learned that on Nov. 9, conditions were "ripe" for persistent contrails over the Pacific west of Los Angeles, but that the contrails would only survive for a short time closer to the coast.
"As it turns out, the high clouds seen in the background of the video were actually behind the contrail because the plane had flown north of the clouds, and changed course to the northeast, so that the clouds were behind the contrail as viewed from Catalina Island," Minnis said. "All of that information changed my mind."

(Emphasis mine.)

Yes, everyone agrees that the clip looks like a rocket. It also looks like a dramatically lit contrail.

Because you were diligent and honest and provided a link to your source, I'm going to give your post a star.
This entire "mystery" revolves around sources, There is a single source for the video. If any portion of it is inaccurate or deliberately misleading, it becomes impossible to draw definitive conclusions.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 





Because you were diligent and honest and provided a link to your source, I'm going to give your post a star. This entire "mystery" revolves around sources, There is a single source for the video. If any portion of it is inaccurate or deliberately misleading, it becomes impossible to draw definitive conclusions.


Agreed re: sources.

My point was that even many of the "experts" either thought it was a missile or were seemingly confused throughout this ordeal.

BTW - I wasn't picking on Phage - I really like his participation in these threads and many of his posts are really informative or just plain cool as he seems to have an endless stream of excellent resources.

I was/am genuinely curious about the change re: which plane made the mystery contrail. It should be relatively simple to pin it down as there could not have been that many planes in that area at that exact time.

According to this new thread, both the US Air and UPS 902 theories don't hold water.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If true....the contrail theory seems to be falling apart.

On a final note - often (but not always), if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc - it just might be a duck.







edit on 11/17/2010 by Riffrafter because: Added info re: new thread debunking UPS 902 as source of contrail

edit on 11/17/2010 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Riffrafter
 





If true....the contrail theory seems to be falling apart.



No matter how you slice and dice it, it's a contrail. A contrail from *what* is the question.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




There is no easy way to tell from the EXIF data if the image was manipulated. It would be nice if that were true, but simply "saving" the image changes the "LastModified" parameter because Photoshop changes the metadata for the image when it is saved.

Yes, but there's never a need to save an image with Photoshop...unless of course you edit it or resize it etc...and 3 times? Seems real suspicious to me...who needs to save the same image 3 times, unless it was edited over a period of time in which it was saved 3 times...in any case, the credibility level of Ricks images is now 0. And as I said on another thread, to use them on a "contrail science" website is moronic.


edit on 17-11-2010 by WhizPhiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by WhizPhiz
 

1) Download image from camera using Photoshop
2) Save image to several locations on your computer (I do this myself). Notice it was saved three times in less than 2 minutes. Not a lot of time for tampering there.
3) Upload image to internet.

Without analyzing the images there is no reason to suspect the images are altered other than they cause problems for the missile hypothesis. Have you analyzed the images? Have you found real evidence of tampering? If so, perhaps you could present it.
edit on 11/17/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
This is nothing new. It originally appeared on a website back on 12th November.

It simply tried to prove that the Notice to Mariner publication number 45 was some sort of proof.

'NAVY CONFIRMS: US TEST MISSILE SEEN OFF COAST'

current.com...

This range area is nothing new and has been active for decades. For a ballastic missile launch it would also require a NOTAM to be issued.

www.navair.navy.mil...

This is from 1999. Does it look familiar? From the portal link please select any date from 1999 onwards and you will see the same intermittent missile notification.

From 1999

'220/99(18). EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC. MISSILES.
1. INTERMITTENT MISSILE FIRING OPERATIONS TAKE PLACE
0001Z TO 2359Z DAILY MONDAY THRU SUNDAY IN THE NAVAL AIR
WARFARE CENTER SEA RANGE. THE MAJORITY OF MISSILE FIRINGS
TAKE PLACE BETWEEN 1400Z TO 2359Z AND 0001Z TO 0200Z DAILY
MONDAY THRU FRIDAY. THE SEA RANGE IS BOUND AS FOLLOWS:
A. 34-02N 119-04W. M. THENCE 3 NAUTICAL MILES FROM
B. 33-52N 119-06W. AND PARALLEL TO THE SHORELINE TO:
C. 33-29N 119-07W. N. 34-24N 120-30W.
D. 33-29N 118-37W. O. 34-08N 120-26W.
E. 33-20N 118-37W. P. 34-08N 119-40W.
F. 32-11N 120-16W. Q. 34-00N 119-40W.
G. 31-54N 121-35W. R. 34-06N 119-13W.
H. 35-09N 123-39W. S. 34-06N 119-11W.
I. 35-29N 123-00W. T. 34-07N 119-10W.
J. 35-04N 122-43W. U. 34-07N 119-07W.
K. 35-37N 121-32W. V. 34-04N 119-04W.
L. 34-59N 120-42W.
2. VESSELS MAY BE REQUESTED TO ALTER COURSE WITHIN THE ABOVE
AREAS DUE TO FIRING OPERATIONS AND ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT
PLEAD CONTROL ON 5081.5 KHZ (5080 KHZ) OR 3238.5 KHZ (3237 KHZ)
SECONDARY OR 156.8 MHZ (CH 16) OR 127.55 MHZ BEFORE ENTERING
THE ABOVE BOUNDARIES AND MAINTAIN CONTINUOUS GUARD WHILE
WITHIN THE RANGE.
3. VESSELS INBOUND AND OUTBOUND FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PORTS
WILL CREATE THE LEAST INTERFERENCE TO FIRING OPERATIONS
DURING THE SPECIFIC PERIODS, AS WELL AS ENHANCE THE VESSEL'S
SAFETY WHEN PASSING THROUGH THE VICINITY OF THE SEA RANGE IF
THEY WILL TRANSIT VIA THE SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL AND WITHIN NINE
MILES OFFSHORE IN THE VICINITY OF POINT MUGU OR CROSS THE AREA TO
THE SOUTHWEST OF SAN NICOLAS ISLAND BETWEEN SUNSET AND SUNRISE.
4. CANCEL NAVAREA XII 212/99.'

Portal link

msi.nga.mil...

Recent Notice to Mariners

msi.nga.mil...

Number 45 that some websites use as 'proof'

msi.nga.mil...

1999 Notice to Mariners

msi.nga.mil...

TJ

edit on 17-11-2010 by tommyjo because: Additional info inserted



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




Have you analyzed the images? Have you found real evidence of tampering?

No, but I'm sure anything I find would be debunked as image artifacts anyway. This whole debate is dragging out into something I can't be bothered with anymore. Have fun.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


It is simply an example of how edited footage can and does fool experienced military personnel.

Rear Admiral John Stufflebeem, retired US Navy, has also given his opinion that it was an aircraft contrail. Rear Admiral Stufflebeem has given TV interviews after reviewing the footage.

www.navy.mil...

Contact him via

johnstufflebeem.blogspot.com...

Jane's Rockets and Missiles have also reversed their initial viewing of the edited video. They are longer promoting the missile theory. It shows how much edited footage can fool the experts.

Patrick Minnis, a contrail expert in the Science Directorate at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. was also initially fooled by the video.

www.space.com...

i.space.com...

TJ



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by WhizPhiz
 


STOP!

You do realise that many people use Photoshop to process their images? Photoshop, and other such software, is no different to darkroom processing with old style photography.

I fully understand that this is a conspiracy website, but please use some basic common sense! Photoshop can be used for such basics as saving a file to a certain size for web use or saving in different formats.

Images were taken on a Nikon D90

en.wikipedia.org...

TJ



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by WhizPhiz
 


How do you know he didn't shoot RAW format, save to a TIFF to preserve quality and then save as a JPEG.
Many digital photographers use different work flows. You are trying to create a conspiracy out of nothing. Why not contact him via his Flickr account and ask him to upload and host the RAW or unprocessed images on a download site?

TJ



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


I obviously understand that the photoshop EXIF could be totally legit, and no sneaky edits took place...HOWEVER, the EXIF data IS there showing a CS5 edit...thus, you CANNOT trust the images...it's really that simple.


edit on 17-11-2010 by WhizPhiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by WhizPhiz
 


If you think that the images are faked or manipulated then why don't you contact Rick Warren? Ask him to host his raw image files on a server. Will you be claiming next that the LAX web cam images have been faked?

www.flickr.com...

www.flickr.com...

Go over to the following and ask Boondock-saint why after inspecting the images he changed his opinion?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


TJ



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
OK guys, Rick Warren here. Those photos of mine that seem to be causing so much discussion ARE NOT MANIPULATED in the way some seem to think. I did do some color correction and resizing. I always keep the
original but the ones in Flikr were resized and color corrected. I also resized some that I sent in emails to friends. ATSs Uncinus did post all my ORIGINAL shots in an earlier thread. I had sent them to him so that he could post them for you who think I did something sinister with them. (Color crection & resizing only) but not in the originals. ok, got it. Anybody like to put some money on it. And thanks to all who have defended me.

About the 4th post from the top.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 19-11-2010 by Shoreline because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-11-2010 by Shoreline because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join