Mysterious Missile Launch Over California - 11/8/2010

reply to post by obamuh


exactly..

now why still do we call this a plane?


BECAUSE THEY ARE TELLING YOU IT IS

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by SacrificeCertainty
Is there any evidence for it being a flight from Hawaii to Phoenix?
Maybe a flight schedule?

Not only documentary evidence, but a photo of the same-shaped contrail made by the SAME flight 24 hours later. As Arby just posted a little while ago [hat tip!].

US Airways flight 808, Honolulu to Phoenix. Just like Zorgon posted here last night.

See blog.bahneman.com...

If there's any intellectual honesty on this thread there will be a whole LOT of own-words-eating by a lot of foolishly over-confident proclaimers in the last 24 hours.

Check out the link.

edit on 10-11-2010 by JimOberg because: editing

that street goes two ways, or should i say dish. see above post, great work by BOONDOCK, NOT MINE!!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Boomer1941
I posted that this earlier this morning but everyone chose to ignore it and instead kept the debate going on whether or not it was a plane or missle...lol

Well if the dates don't match, why is it relevant and why did you even post it?

Evidently you don't read...

No. 45
6 NOVEMBER 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Published Weekly by the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

reply to post by Hack28

I don't know where Boondock got the location for the "launch" from. The cameraman estimated that the "launch" was slightly north of Catalina. Depending on where in LA the helicopter was, the incoming flight would appear to be north of Catalina.


The plane makes a right turn
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/78254cc16c92.png[/atsimg]

reply to post by Phage


the one in the keys?

no it was not exactly the same.

reply to post by Jubilation T Cornpone



I covered that, many pages back, in this thread. It was just yeterday when I wrote the post, less than 24 hours ago. Got buried in the pages and pages and pages since....

That NOTAM refers to an airea of airspace (a "Warning" area, active only when NOTAMed), "W-537", that extends west by southwest in a wide swath from the Point Mugu/Ventura area....all NORTH of the Los Angeles area.

Best estimate, as of yet, was the USAir flight 808, HNL-PHX arriving on routing that was very similar to what was reported to the the location of the so-called "missile"...that airline flight passed, from the west and slightly south of LA, and over Catalina Island, and continued on to Thermal, California, and on route to Phoenix after.

At 37,000 feet.

THIS is the potential culprit: flightaware.com...

HERE is a detailed log of that flight, form Monday, with time, altitude and latitude/longitude locations (all times are EST): flightaware.com...

LAX airport sits at about 33' 56" North, 118' 25" West.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From USAir 808 ATC flight log data:

.....
07:59PM 33.17 -118.89 62° Northeast 487 560 37,000 Los Angeles Center
07:59PM 33.23 -118.74 63° Northeast 487 560 37,000 Los Angeles Center
08:01PM 33.30 -118.59 63° Northeast 487 560 37,000 Los Angeles Center
08:01PM 33.36 -118.44 79° East 487 560 37,000 Los Angeles Center
08:02PM 33.39 -118.26 80° East 500 575 37,000 Los Angeles Center
08:03PM 33.41 -118.08 82° East 506 582 37,000 Los Angeles Center
08:04PM 33.43 -117.91 81° East 511 588 37,000 Los Angeles Center
08:06PM 33.45 -117.74 82° East 516 594 37,000 Los Angeles Center
....

Bolded parts. And times. "08:01PM" = 1701 PST (Five PM). At that moment, it was south of LAX, and slightly west. Etc......

Originally posted by Boomer1941
For what it's worth...

from Page 55 of the current Notice to Mariners report:

"434/10(18).
EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC.
CALIFORNIA.
MISSILES.
1. INTERMITTENT MISSILE FIRING OPERATIONS 0001Z TO 2359Z
DAILY MONDAY THRU SUNDAY IN THE NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER
SEA RANGE. THE MAJORITY OF MISSILE FIRINGS TAKE PLACE
1400Z TO 2359Z AND 0001Z TO 0200Z DAILY MONDAY THRU FRIDAY
IN AREA BOUND BY
34-02N 119-04W, 33-52N 119-06W, 33-29N 118-37W,
33-20N 118-37W, 32-11N 120-16W, 31-54N 121-35W,
35-09N 123-39W, 35-29N 123-00W, 35-57N 121-32W,
34-04N 119-04W.
2. VESSELS MAY BE REQUESTED TO ALTER COURSE WITHIN THE ABOVE
AREA DUE TO FIRING OPERATIONS AND ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT
PLEAD CONTROL ON 5081.5 MHZ (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 VICINITY OF POINT MUGU OR CROSS THE AREA
SOUTHWEST OF SAN NICOLAS ISLAND BETWEEN SUNSET AND SUNRISE.

This was put out on Nov 6, 2010.
It says "daily monday thru friday. So the dates would match, knowing that the notice went out on Nov 6, 2010.
Do the coordinates match?
If they do, they're clearly testing something, and it is classified, just like GreenEyedLeo said.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Jubilation T Cornpone

 

09 NOV 20:00 2010 UNTIL 10 NOV 01:00 2010. CREATED: 08 NOV 20:52 2010

The NOTAM was effective on the afternoon of the 9th. The "event" occurred on the afternoon of the 8th.

Area W537 is north the flight path of the aircraft. It is off the coast between Vandenberg and Santa Barbara. The plane passed over Catalina Island.

Gotcha ...Going back, I guess I was just trying to connect the NOTAM posting to this particular link earlier in the thread, which "seemed" to be at odds. (I'm not an aviation expert) :

blog.bahneman.com...

There is just a ton of confusion out there right now, which the Pentagon could clear up by just coming out and saying it was a plane instead of repeatedly saying they don't know what it was, while military experts insist it was a missile. The fact that they haven't confirmed nor debunked anything right now is a little bit strange, is all.

Carry on!

Originally posted by Sanjaya
What about those "UFO" (at least I was unable to identify the flying thing) @ : 02 sec and @:39 sec ?

edit on 10-11-2010 by Sanjaya because: vid

OK I'm in the plane camp i guess. After watching the video (way too many times) and digging around some U.S. Airways schedules I've decided that the flight 808 explanation makes the most sense. Although unless and until undeniable proof (does such a thing even exist) is presented, its just a matter of choosing the most likely scenario.
I guess I'll move onto something else.

Nevertheless, how crazy is it that no authorities have yet to confirm what this was? Even if it was just an airplane isn't it worth it for them to dig through flight schedules and air traffic records (I assume they record those things) rather than just let the story run out of control?

reply to post by JimOberg


Checked the link as requested. Checked the rest of this 'blog'

Nah, don't think so. None of that convinces me. This traffic cam that some how inexplicably caught this today but apparently did not yesterday. Any videos of it?

The reason they won't say anything, is because it wasn't a plane or etc. It was launch by SOMEONE/BEING of unknown. That is why they are unsure what to say, because who knows what can come in the next few days or week.

reply to post by Rocky Black

...It was a missle test period.

Perhaps...

Or...

... it was a known, planned response to an incoming threat. The defense mechanisms (militaristic, political, sociological, etc.) all did their job exactly as they were supposed to. Case closed. Now everyone can get back to their miserable little meaningless lives. The sooner the better.

If you were TPTB which would you guess the unwashed masses should be told:

A.) A curious, intriguing, bit of aerial phenomenon accidentally captured on video by a wayward helicopter news crew has all of the "experts" stumped, that is except for a few particularly photogenic pilots and such who will espouse eloquently on plausible explanations about airplanes and weather and such that should satisfy most (enough) of the 'little people' to quiet the issue and get folks back to worrying about Lyndsey Lohan, Jackasses, and other Desperate Dancing Housewives Surviving on Oprah. Stick with the airplane story. That seems to be gaining traction. It should hold until the shrinks tell us it's time to come up with a diversion to slam the lid shut on the story.

or, B.) A consortium of rogue international groups that hate Americans have planned, funded, and supplied a 9/11-style attack in the form of an intercontinental ballistic missile with an indeterminate payload. The threat has been building for months and in recent weeks intelligence suggested an attack was imminent. Coastal defense apparatus was mobilized, and on the evening of Monday, November 8th, an inbound target was identified and neutralized. The video under controversy shows the ascending interceptor. This is not the first time this system was utilized. The others were not filmed or publicized. This one wasn't supposed to be either.

A bit if fiction, perhaps. But it begs the question:

Is there such a missile defense mechanism in place? Would you trust the government to have voluntarily told the public about it had the helicopter film crew off Catalina island NOT chanced upon it?

Originally posted by ThinkItOut

Originally posted by SacrificeCertainty
Fox News: Michio Kaku putting it to rest...?

I'm not convinced, anyone else?

Kaku is coo coo for cocoa puffs. Dude has lost it...

2nd

Kaku is a media whore. He should step from in front of the camera and actually contribute some real number crunching!!

This though btw is quite defo a missile. I have a screen shot of the exhaust I will post when I get chance and you can quite clearly see a very very bright part just where the plume of smoke exhaust is coming, just like a missile...

No plane in history creates that kind of effect.

Contrails btw are water vapour; the exhaust of a missile should have particulate of the spent fuel. we could confirm what it was if we can get an analysis of the air.

Korg.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Jubilation T Cornpone

 

I covered that, many pages back, in this thread. It was just yeterday when I wrote the post, less than 24 hours ago. Got buried in the pages and pages and pages since....

That NOTAM refers to an airea of airspace (a "Warning" area, active only when NOTAMed), "W-537", that extends west by southwest in a wide swath from the Point Mugu/Ventura area....all NORTH of the Los Angeles area.

Best estimate, as of yet, was the USAir flight 808, HNL-PHX arriving on routing that was very similar to what was reported to the the location of the so-called "missile"...that airline flight passed, from the west and slightly south of LA, and over Catalina Island, and continued on to Thermal, California, and on route to Phoenix after.

At 37,000 feet.

THIS is the potential culprit: flightaware.com...

HERE is a detailed log of that flight, form Monday, with time, altitude and latitude/longitude locations (all times are EST): flightaware.com...

LAX airport sits at about 33' 56" North, 118' 25" West.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From USAir 808 ATC flight log data:

.....
07:59PM 33.17 -118.89 62° Northeast 487 560 37,000 Los Angeles Center
07:59PM 33.23 -118.74 63° Northeast 487 560 37,000 Los Angeles Center
08:01PM 33.30 -118.59 63° Northeast 487 560 37,000 Los Angeles Center
08:01PM 33.36 -118.44 79° East 487 560 37,000 Los Angeles Center
08:02PM 33.39 -118.26 80° East 500 575 37,000 Los Angeles Center
08:03PM 33.41 -118.08 82° East 506 582 37,000 Los Angeles Center
08:04PM 33.43 -117.91 81° East 511 588 37,000 Los Angeles Center
08:06PM 33.45 -117.74 82° East 516 594 37,000 Los Angeles Center
....

Bolded parts. And times. "08:01PM" = 1701 PST (Five PM). At that moment, it was south of LAX, and slightly west. Etc......

edit on 10 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

Thanks, Weedwhacker! It's hard to really get a read on all of what this is without a context of where the supposed flight path was and where the helicopter was so every little bit helps.

I'm going to keep an open mind to all possibilities. If it's a plane, (which I hope), the higher ups need to just come out and say it was a plane. Their pr department is really dropping the ball right now by letting this linger ...

Yes. It must be a plane. It just took 24 hours to figure it out. Our military must be a bunch of morons.
Move along people nothing to see here. Just a jet contrail.

Just like the crash at Roswell was just a weather balloon. Stupid military can't tell the difference.

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth" - Vladimir Lenin

Originally posted by Sanjaya

That video looks like it is shot from a different angle , besides the weird bits also in the video , it does look like the subject of discussion is indeed going up and that would go against the plane theory which states it is an optical illusion.
The chopper is also present in that video , the same which is in the original CBS video.

Weedwhacker, a pilot, is telling us that the airplane was in a different spot at that moment. Right?

This was reported in tonight's Evening Standard (UK) alongside a picture of a comet over L.A.

"A comet blazes a trail over Los Angeles. Called Ikeya-Murakami, it was first detected in Japan. Meanwhile, a mystery missile launch is being investigated in California."

reply to post by Rocky Black


Hello Rocky Black, thank you for your post, this leads me in to my "train of thought" this morning. I was up late last night and this thread was crazy... but anyway... here are my points:

You are 100% correct in your freedom to have your point of view, however I disagree and please take a moment to see why I disagree, I am definitely not trying to bash about here.

1. MISSILE LAUNCH?
If this were a missile launch by the US military, then it would have been known about in advance and announced as such, or acknowledged as such when the CBS crew propagated the video. My reasoning is that:
a. a missile launch close to land (especially LA!) would require a full announcement such that no aircraft would come into the space.
b. You don't want to create panic
c. If this were some top secret new vehicle being launched... wouldn't you launch it a long way away from land, where prying eyes (and helicopters) would not capture it.
d. If it were some secret launch, wouldn't you simply say that this were some typical rocket launch so as to NOT draw attention to it...
e. By the military saying that they don't know what it is actually draws attention to the incident (just look at all the wild media frenzy) therefore why would you do this... if this were some secret missile launch - the last thing you want is a bunch of media frenzy
f. And now the counter argument... well sort of... if you want to do some saber rattling (ie a show of force) then there is some logic in doing a launch of a missile, but wouldn't you annouce it as such rather than leave it wide open. OR perhaps you do leave it wide open to interpretation and fule a media frenzy... but I honestly think this is a wild card...
g. The bigger question is that I feel that the US military response was very poor, they clearly did not anticipate a media frenzy
h. The US military were also perhaps left wondering what this was - for a short time - and hence the situation that we have today... all kinds of conflicting reports!
i. Accidental launch... if somehow somebody managed to launch a missile accidentally or without notice, or it was some kind of malfunction... then we would have seen a cover up, I really think that the US military would have been in a complete panic and would have come out with a cover story very very quickly... they wouldn't want a media frenzy at all, and would simply announce that this was a typical launch and they would apologize about not announcing it sooner etc... basically if it were an errant launch - they' panic and they'd cover... they wouldn't say that they didn't know what it was (and they wouldn't acknowledge a mistake!) they'd cover it by saying "oops sorry, we should have told you about this launch"... they wouldn't want to do anything other than make it go away... by saying that they don't know what it is has create a frenzy... something they wouldn't want if this were an errant launch... just my opinion!

phew...

Now back to a post that I made yesterday...

2. A CONTRAIL - AND PERSPECTIVE:
I look through today and people are saying that it simply cannot be an aircraft, because - honestly - it really doesn't look like an aircraft... even my first impression was "wow - a missile launch and a big one!" but my own amazement was crushed very quickly because I soon remembered multiple (UFO) threads where the first view seems to show one thing, only for it to be a trick of perspective, and atmospheric conditions... please read on before commenting... I have taken a lot of time and I hope that you read this before commenting back...
My rational is as follows:
a. Time of day - clear skies, cold weather, therefore an aircraft will likely leave an impressive contrail
b. The object seems to show a flash of color in one video (at about 1:30 if I recall) and this is unusual but there is only a flash, and no evidence of a solid fuel booster falling away, this could be sunlight reflecting given the time of day and clear conditions.
c. Perspective. It seems impossible to think that what you are seeing is not going straight up... heck... it's going straight up... and sure enough you'd put money on that. But because we don't have enough points of reference we are completely fooled, because of the conditions we can see for miles and miles and because of the aircraft approaching the camera, then from this specific angle we see what you'd bet your life on... we see an object seemingly launching.
d. Please look at the website below, because many people think that there are no examples of anything like this, however there are and you can Google the following to find it yourself: new years eve contrail. The first link is this: Contrail Science Website - please take a look and in some posts in this thread, Zorgon has embedded some of the images... but the website itself gives a much better explanation that I can of perspective, and the almost incredulous reality that what you are seeing is approaching you and not ascending.

I realize that there will be people who might come back at me harshly and simply say no way is it a plane, but I am left with this, because... and this is of course only my opinion!:
a. The US military do not serve themselves any purpose in denying a launch, by denying it they create a media frenzy, if it were a typical launch then they'd simply announce it, if it were a secret new missile - they'd not launch it off the coast of LA, and they'd certainly not try to create a media frenzy by saying they don't know what it is (this is of course just my opinion...)
b. I 100% agree... it simply does not look like a plane... it looks like a big old missile... but please look at the link above and you do in fact see images that are a very close match to the video.

Finally one last thing...

3. PASSENGERS AND PILOTS COME FORWARD PLEASE:
If this is an aircraft - then why are the pilots / passengers not coming forward?
a. Well, if it is an aircraft, it is simply flying at altitude from the horizon towards the Pacific Coast, it is not doing anything at all that is strange, it is simply leaving a contrail that from the perspective of the viewer seems to be an ascending missile. Nobody in the aircraft perceives this, they are simply flying or are passengers on a typical aircraft that is approaching the Pacific Coast at altitude.

I do hope that people realize that I am not bashing anyone, I am not being mean to anyone, not trying to do anything other than present my opinions...

I welcome comments, but I really encourage you to look at the link first please.

askbaby
OUT!