Mysterious Missile Launch Over California - 11/8/2010

Team,

Here's a thought:

Perhaps if it was a missle and it was launched..it was because of a Back Door Hacker Program that was
inserted during its manufacture.

Maybe that's why all of the coverup. Can you imagine the result of a Nations Defense system if the Enemy has the ablity to Control its Missles using a back door program if there ever was some sort of Attack?

You would assure your own victory. Remember the biggest advantage one can have is a suprise attack that uses out of the box thinking and catches everyone off guard.

I can now understand why all the scuttlebut to keep it quite and why no one is really talking.

reply to post by backinblack


Well, I'm not so sure about that, Anyhow it does not matter since it was a plane and we are all happy about that are we not?

Originally posted by prosonic
reply to post by backinblack

 

Well, I'm not so sure about that, Anyhow it does not matter since it was a plane and we are all happy about that are we not?

Well myself and many others are very certain about that and as to it being a plane, well the Pentegon says they are "pretty sure" it was a plane...I'll leave it at that..

Some excellent analysis with the recent photographs shows that it was probably not US808 but UPS902.

If this has already been posted here forgive me:

China fired missle of california coast?

China flexed its military muscle Monday evening in the skies west of Los Angeles when a Chinese Navy Jin class ballistic missile nuclear submarine, deployed secretly from its underground home base on the south coast of Hainan island, launched an intercontinental ballistic missile from international waters off the southern California coast. WMR’s intelligence sources in Asia, including Japan, say the belief by the military commands in Asia and the intelligence services is that the Chinese decided to demonstrate to the United States its capabilities on the eve of the G-20 Summit in Seoul and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Tokyo.

Expert says no doubt it was a missile off the California coast

"It’s a solid propellant missile," he told the Times. "You can tell from the efflux [smoke]." If Richardson is right, and his resume leads one to believe that he may be, several questions arise, all of them troubling. The first is, who is responsible? An obvious, and likely answer is China.

so I know Info-wars cant really be used as a valid factual source on this one, & you have to be a member to read the full article on the original site it was posted on.

...just adding to the discussion I guess

reply to post by Phage


So do we now have the exif data for these new pics or are we to just accept them as 100% fact with no details whatsoever including time/date or if they have been altered in any way??
It does seem strange to me due to the fact it appears they were taken by someone who seems reasonably proffessional and yet he waited such a long time before making them available..

reply to post by Phage


Nice. either one, it doesn't matter anymore.

There are other - more interesing - threads afoot, as you have seen firsthand.

Im bookmarking the flightwise site now - what an amazing resource! Thanks, Virion, er phage.

reply to post by Moose318


Phage near instantly pointed out those were aircraft lights, as did many others.

However, to my own simple occipital lobe used to processing vast amounts of image data (radiology),

there is only 1 green flash burst.

reply to post by drphilxr

I've never commented on the flashes.

Navigation lights do not flash, they are constant. I think the color effect is from the camera itself, chromatic aberration of reflected light from the plane.

I've never seen an example of a rocket engine flickering or changing colors though.

reply to post by tommyjo


If the "green flash" is the starboard wingtip light, then by zooming in you should be able to see the wing itself.
Unless the green flash was the detonation of the missile in flight.
That fact that there is an apparent gap in the contrail does not disprove it is a missile, just that there is a gap.
Zoom in on the head of the contrail and there should be a plane in front of it. All I get is an elongated dense mass inside the contrail, nothing in front of it.
And if the plane is too far away to be seen, that makes the plume of the contrail immensely big, much bigger than any plane contrail I have ever seen.
As I have said all along - show me the wings and I and hundreds of others will believe you.
But interstingly no-one has done that yet.
We want to believe you, we don't want "rogue" missiles flying around.
Thus I keep asking the same question and to continually get responses that fudge around the edges does not "cut the mustard".
The Pentagon only says that it is "likely" it is a plane, leaving open the possibility that it is something else.
So even the world's "experts" are not sure.

That is why I ask the question again and again - where are the wings.

I think there is some arrogance being displayed for the planer side and maybe the missile side too. I don't think anyone can say for sure what this was. The planers may be right with their conclusions, but the same can be said for the missile camp. Showing contrail photos that "look like missiles" don't prove anything about this particular event. It only proves that a contrail can make some people mistakenly identify it as a missile, but does not by any stretch mean that is the case here.

The one thing that either hasn't sunk in or is being conveniently ignored is that there still has not been a definitive answer from the Pentagon, NORAD or anyone who should definitely know what this was. They aren't even sure, so how can anyone in this thread be sure? That's the sticking point for me and that's what makes me lean towards it being a missile because there is no reason why a plane couldn't be identified. "Probably", "possibly", "maybe" or any like words are not definitive. We've seen experts say it was a missile and experts say it was a plane, but the ones who should know that apparently don't.

For the ones saying that they would have just said so if it was a missile, why would they? What if it was a top secret launch of which the details are classified? They wouldn't say then. What if, by some chance, this was an enemy sub sneaking in and firing a missile? Would they say so? Absolutely not. If this was an ordinary missile test, they would have said so immediately. The fact is there are a ton more reasons why you would cover up a missile than there is for covering up an ordinary passenger or freight jet. I can't really think of a reason why you would cover up the latter. I just can't get past that point which leads me to believe it was a missile. Whether it was ours or not, who knows? I think more likely ours, but this is quite a strange situation. If it was a plane, this would have been a non-issue, not a worldwide news story and it would have been cleared up quickly and definitively. No such thing has happened which has left people like us and others to speculate.

reply to post by drphilxr

Im bookmarking the flightwise site now.

D'oh!! (forehead slap). Glad you mentioned that, so I looked it up. I focused on FlightAware so much, it's like monaural versus stereo surround sound!! Great extra resource to use, I will dig through and get acquainted...!!

Thnx both....

reply to post by drphilxr

Phage near instantly pointed out those were aircraft lights, as did many others...

Not I..and as he pointed out, not Phage either.

I kept mum about others who I respected, in their posts, referencing the Nav lights....because, honestly, my opinion was that those lights simply aren't that intense enough, at those distances and lighting conditions, to account for the "green flashes". Phage's explanation is more likely.

If you could get up close to an actual airplane, when they (mechanics) are up there changing bulbs, and actually SEE the physical size of the light bulbs that are used, then you'd see my point on that.

reply to post by weedwhacker


WW this is the new pic of flight 902..
Can you honestly say that is a pic of a plane/contrail 160 miles away??
I can't get my head around that..It looks much closer..At that distance it would take 15-20 minutes to be overhead and I just don't see it..
Your view?
blog.bahneman.com...

reply to post by Sailor Sam

So even the world's "experts" are not sure...

Problem with that, is you have to know exactly what any "expert" has been shown, and the context....

Some editing has occurred, in some presentations of this event, and thus some "experts" have been basing judgements accordingly, unaware of the fuller context, perhaps.

Say that you had a view of this animal....it will be cut-off, by ATS software, to fit the thread width, so a partial view:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d18464d3c99f.jpg[/atsimg]

Now, I re-size to fit, and you can see the entire animal:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0e8a86eef2b9.jpg[/atsimg]

Quick! What is that? (At first glance?)

reply to post by weedwhacker


an animal standing on a white sheet, but i'll assume you were expecting me to say snow?

reply to post by backinblack


Based on that newest photo, timestamp 1715 PST (allowing for the failure to set back from daylight savings). The photo attributed to the law firm, and from perspective near the LAX Airport.

We see an established contrail. The nearest point to the camera is where one will presume the actual airplane is located, at that instant of the photo being snapped. The contrail that has lingered extends far towards the horizon, in the distance.

At 1715 PST flight UPS 902 was approximately West 121 degrees longitude:

08:15PM 32.77 -121.14 75° East 506 582 38,900
08:16PM 32.81 -120.97 73° East 506 582 38,900

At its longitude to be abeam and south of LAX ( W118' ) time was 1732:

08:32PM 33.35 -118.28 98° East 542 624 29,000

Note it had descended 10,000 feet during that 16-17 minute interval.

Groundspeed at 121 west was 582 MPH (we'll stick with statute miles, for now). It was 624 MPH when abeam LAX.. Let's average that (603) and round down to 600, for simplicity. That is 10 miles per minute average G/S.

I re-looked at USAIr 808....at 1715 PST it was east of LAX, longitude W116 degrees.

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

The angle of the law firm's camera shows that the view the TV cameraman had gave the optical illusion of a trail that reached "from the surface". Trick of the angle.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Are you saying this pic is of a plane 160 miles away??
It looks a lot closer than that WW..

blog.bahneman.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by drphilxr

 

I've never commented on the flashes.

Navigation lights do not flash, they are constant. I think the color effect is from the camera itself, chromatic aberration of reflected light from the plane.

I've never seen an example of a rocket engine flickering or changing colors though.

edit on 11/13/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Nothing out of superNatural exists there, my friend rocket engine can change jet power to get another speed, to take other vector &, as outcome, above-mentioned by you

reply to post by weedwhacker

different projections shall give the various speeds, record has the lackful info to make any solid conclusions about righteous projection