Lights in the sky above LA

a reply to: BlubberyConspiracy

Test Missle launched from Edward's AFB.

No.
1) Missiles aren't launched from Edward's. The Air Force uses Vandenberg for that.

2) This was a submarine launched missile.

a reply to: BlubberyConspiracy

It's not an arms race. It was a standard missile test. We test a certain number of missiles every year to ensure that they work.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: proob4

They didn't "showboat mass civilian sightings", they launched at that time for a reason. One of those reasons was that sea and air traffic was at a minimum then, so there wasn't much chance of interference with the launch.

Ok I understand that and do not agree with that. My question is and i'll say it again.
Did they expect the results of a gigantic aerial display that everyone and i do mean everyone saw? can i make that any clearer.
I am not interested in launch windows or all that, they knew all the repercussions of such a event. And if so why not do this launch at deep sea? i mean it was supposedly launched from a sub right, subs can go anywhere.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: proob4

Look i am going to hold off on posting any further till some others can chime in and see the deception you are trying to pull off on me.

Heh. You're calling me a liar now?
You asked me what I think. I told you what I think.

o I am not calling you a liar, but you seem to be contradicting what we talked about last night or are not grasping as to what i am trying to convey to you? Please don't take offense.

I think you are having trouble somehow understanding what I am trying to say by forcing your opinion over mine.
Just sayin'

a reply to: proob4

o I am not calling you a liar,

What do you think deception means then?

but you seem to be contradicting what we talked

Where have I contradicted myself?

I think you are having trouble somehow understanding what I am trying to say by forcing your opinion over mine.

Forcing my opinion over yours? You asked me what I think. I told you what I think.
I fully understand that you think the launch was done at the time it was done for the sole purpose of producing a "display." You have not been subtle about it.

a reply to: proob4

Because, as has been explained a couple of times, among other things, the point of a missile test is to land the warhead at as close to maximum range as you can, to verify that the navigation and targeting systems work as they are supposed to. If you move to deeper water, well off shore, you lose that range.

They also launched from there, because it's an MOA. If they move out beyond the 12 mile limit, which they'd have to do to get beyond where it could be seen from shore, they lose the ability to control the air and sea space around the launch area. That means that a stray boat, or plane could cause them to scrub the launch, leading to more cost, etc.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: proob4

o I am not calling you a liar,

What do you think deception means then?

but you seem to be contradicting what we talked

Where have I contradicted myself?

I think you are having trouble somehow understanding what I am trying to say by forcing your opinion over mine.

Forcing my opinion over yours? You asked me what I think. I told you what I think.
I fully understand that you think the launch was done at the time it was done for the sole purpose of producing a "display."

think I meant "deflection" OOPS. And yea that's what i think they did do the whole thing to showboat?
Let me ask you this? What was the purpose of the launch then, besides wasting 37.5 million tax dollars?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: proob4

Because, as has been explained a couple of times, among other things, the point of a missile test is to land the warhead at as close to maximum range as you can, to verify that the navigation and targeting systems work as they are supposed to. If you move to deeper water, well off shore, you lose that range.

They also launched from there, because it's an MOA. If they move out beyond the 12 mile limit, which they'd have to do to get beyond where it could be seen from shore, they lose the ability to control the air and sea space around the launch area. That means that a stray boat, or plane could cause them to scrub the launch, leading to more cost, etc.

again how come if it was a sub launch they did not do this out of civilian airspace and not out further in the pacific then?

a reply to: proob4

Let me ask you this? What was the purpose of the launch then, besides wasting 37.5 million tax dollars?

Like most of the other 150 tests. To test various upgrades and modifications as well as general operational factors.

Don't get me wrong guys i get your points. But still have a hard time understanding the logistics of this test. I know it was a long range fire too. But still i wonder how many people where scared to death from this event last night. Hell i even wonder if anyone did a war of the worlds over it?

a reply to: proob4

Did you read his first paragraph?

a reply to: proob4

Hell i even wonder if anyone did a war of the worlds over it?

People freaked out about a contrail a few years ago. Remember?


What's a war of the worlds?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: proob4

Let me ask you this? What was the purpose of the launch then, besides wasting 37.5 million tax dollars?

Like most of the other 150 tests. To test various upgrades and modifications as well as general operational factors.

After 150 tests @ 37.5 ml a pop and they still need to determine results? I would say scrub this waste of the publics money. Hell Imagine what projects we would have in space already if not for this garbage!

a reply to: proob4

It WAS out of civilian airspace. It was an MOA, meaning that for the duration of the launch, the airspace was military controlled, and restricted to civilian aircraft.

a reply to: proob4

They test every weapons system in use, no matter how old or well developed it is. It has nothing to do with it being a waste of money. If you don't test, then you may find that it doesn't work when you need it to.

They still test the AIM-7 and AIM-9, and both of those flew in the 60s. They still test the AIM-120, which flew 20+ years ago.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: proob4

Hell i even wonder if anyone did a war of the worlds over it?

People freaked out about a contrail a few years ago. Remember?


What's a war of the worlds?

Suicided over fearful events.

a reply to: proob4

Hell Imagine what projects we would have in space already if not for this garbage!

Yeah, well. We have to live in the real world, don't we? A world of nukes. In that kind of world, I'm glad we have good ones.

a reply to: proob4

Suicided over fearful events.

Not one suicide from the War of the Worlds broadcast. In fact the whole thing was a bunch of hype.
www.slate.com...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: proob4

It WAS out of civilian airspace. It was an MOA, meaning that for the duration of the launch, the airspace was military controlled, and restricted to civilian aircraft.

I guess i meant out of civilian sight. If they did that this would be a non topic right?
And again i believe they knew that, don't forget all the worlds a stage.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: proob4

Suicided over fearful events.

Not one suicide from the War of the Worlds broadcast. In fact the whole thing was a bunch of hype.
www.slate.com...

I don't want to go off topic too much on this but what? My great grandmothers sister took her life cause of that broadcast. At least that what I was told.

ETA: Well not so much being told but overheard discussions from my grandmother over it in the 70's. As i now recollect it.