Mysterious Missile Launch Over California - 11/8/2010

reply to post by zorgon
You should take a look at satellite photos for the boomer base at Kings Bay, Georgia.

I think there is a short tunnel there.

Originally posted by butcherguy

This is proof? of what? that you know?


Yes that is proof that I know... which is what you asked. I tend to take my observation skills seriously


As to that tunnel... I will have a look at that area. I hear there is one exit at San Diego where the NAVY base is and one rumored in Monteray Bay where there are reports of underground vibrations and many UFO/USO sightings. If you look off of Moss Landing Ca you will see that Monteray Canyon has a deep passage right up to the shoreline

But that is for another thread.

reply to post by zorgon

Yes that is proof that I know... which is what you asked. I tend to take my observation skills seriously

Oh, don't we all.

See you later. It is time for me to go home, throw my supper on the floor and go to the bar.

reply to post by zorgon

Yes I will bet some pennies on the sunlight because the film

uh, Amicus, i was not saying for the film, it's no a subj. of our dispute i meant photo if to touch above-mentioned video, no super problem to fake that effect what's parts of jet could have provided so brightful light reflecting when environmental illuminating was relatively more dark.

because the film was aired almost live from the chopper so no time to take it to the studio

what's basis for your assurance, did you there when record was making, or perhaps held cam?

can photoshop edit videos now

nope, but video can be splitted up into frames then frame-by-frame corrections for the best result.
--------
yet another viddy of sunlight reflecting

Its so silly at some of the reflection talk

LET ME SAY THIS CLEAR

THIS OBJECT WAS ABOUT 100 MILES FROM THE IMAGE TOOK . that means . The bright spot coming from the back of the object must have been a fire or flame .

If it was a reflected spot . It would have not look as big or bright . this can be seen with any image . look at ICMBS 100 MILES AWAY. then look at a plane reflection 100 miles away

OK, I watched the whole thing......as the aircraft appeared, it was obvious that that the lights were a combination of position lights and landing lights.....why is this an issue, people??????

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
Phage and tommyjo - still no "blow up" from anyone about what is at the head of the contrail.
I have with my limited equipment done so - and I see no plane, just a dark elongated shadow inside the head of the contrail and no wings!

No half baked techno mumbo-jumbo anymore - just show us the plane for pete's sake. Until you do, we dont believe you. Simple really - put up or shut up.

And trust me , everybody wants to believe it is a plane, so show us the plane.
And if the plane was really 160 miles away, how come it left this HUGE contrail behind.
No contrail I have ever seen is wider than the plane in front of it.
Must have been some plane!

How do you expect to see such detail from those images at that resolution? You will require the original images at their high resolution to make such a comparison.

Why not contact Mick West the creator of the following website. He will be able to contact the photographer Rick Warren and possibly Mick West will
host them at their raw size? Why not contact them, pose the question, and see if they are willing to do it?

contrailscience.com...

contrailscience.com...



Watch the video from 0:45 onwards.



Now take a look at the following image link. It shows a McDonnell Douglas MD-11 which is a tri-engined airliner as used by UPS (Flight 902). Look at the size of the contrail that the MD-11 is producing. Compare it to the above image and the video? Tri-engined airliners such as the MD-11 have caused all manner of excitement and confusion within the conspiracy community. Some of them are completely baffled because obviously they will produce a third contrail.

Under certain conditions as you can see in the following image the contrails will blend and mix. Now consider that the news cameraman has zoomed in as far as he can go? He is using high power optics and still can't get a close up of the 'object'. It show you how far away this 'object' was. Also consider that the MD-11 was up at 39,000 feet. Now consider what this aircraft would look like from below and at extreme distance?

www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...

TJ

reply to post by habu71

someones have said about sunlight reflecting

reply to post by tommyjo

completely funny what is that? some original viddy lest disputers should be confused
edition.cnn.com...
no differences???

Originally posted by nwobrazil
I presume you guys know already about the document from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency advising about missile tests on the California coast for that week:

www1.nga.mil...

Funny thing is, the document was removed since then. Maybe just a coincidence, maybe not.

Here is a copy of the same document:
www.scribd.com...

This is nothing new. That is a Notice to Mariners (NtM). The Eastern North Pacific has been used for decades. If the area was closed off for ballistic missile launches then there would be a NOTAM issued for airmen.

This is from 1999. Does it look familiar?

'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 where you can download them from 1999 to present. Note the standard reference to 'missiles'?

msi.nga.mil...

Latest issue

msi.nga.mil...

Number 45 in full - no dead link

msi.nga.mil...

Link to the 1999 issue.

msi.nga.mil...

www.navair.navy.mil...

TJ

most curious moment through whole that story is alogicalness or attempt to look like idiots of officials: they could've called record a fake &, no doubt, that assertion would seem strongly reasonable

reply to post by Sabreblade



When an aircraft is tracked it not looking for flight number. It is a signature when it is paited with radar. Its like a finger print sort of. And each shape size down to the peto tube is different. It would come as xprt4 and that would represent a type of aircraft 727 737 piper enemy mig29 scud missle and what not.

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by backinblack

 

really, i'm hella amusing how plane theorists have downplayed the fact of glowing point

It has been covered several times. Weedwhacker covered it and I and others also.

Airliners and their highly reflective paint schemes can cause large reflections and glare. As an aviation photographer I've had scores of images ruined by glare and reflection.

Examples already posted on ATS threads.





TJ

reply to post by tommyjo

well done, man! first of the all, that's beautiful; second moment, look at the behavior of real sunlight reflecting off fuselage not so durable, not so powerful

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by tommyjo

 

completely funny

what is that?

some original viddy lest disputers should be confused

edition.cnn.com...
no differences???

edit on 15-11-2010 by SarK0Y because: (no reason given)

Sigh! It should be blatantly obvious what part of the footage released I was referring too?

What the TV station has released is edited footage. This is what has caused all the confusion and resulted in some observers providing quotes on what they are shown. Some of them provided quotes and opinions based purely on the following version.



This version from 0:45 shows the later portions of the event. The 'object' is no longer producing a persistent contrail as it approaches the mainland. You can see the 'object' at 0:45 with the persistent contrail in the background. The cameraman then follows the 'object' as it continues towards the mainland. The 'object' is producing a non-persistent and shortened contrail.



TJ

reply to post by tommyjo

What the TV station has released is edited footage.

Cool! i was waiting this argument is that official version(about edited)? since what Time?

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by tommyjo

 

well done, man!

first of the all, that's beautiful; second moment, look at the behavior of real sunlight reflecting off fuselage

not so durable, not so powerful

edit on 15-11-2010 by SarK0Y because: (no reason given)

Again, Sigh! Consider that the 'light' portion shown in the media has been slowed down? Slowed down in order to highlight what 'appears' to be an engine or booster part of a rocket.

Think about it? We are being shown edited video!

TJ

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by tommyjo

 

What the TV station has released is edited footage.

Cool!

i was waiting this argument

is that official version(about edited)? since what Time?

Have you been following this story? I really have my doubts?

www.cbsnews.com...

"I saw a big plume coming up, rising from looked like beyond the horizon and it continued to grow," Leyvas said.

He zoomed his camera in and stayed on it for about 10 minutes. To him it looked like an incoming missile.

"It was unique. It was moving," he said. "It was growing in the sky."

www.nypost.com...

"Leyvas said he zoomed his camera in and kept it on the vapor trail for roughly 10 minutes. "It was unique. It was moving. It was growing in the sky."

No doubt you'll be coming back to inform the board that he wasn't recording for those 10 minutes.

TJ

reply to post by tommyjo

man, just a question for the Air (rhetorical) why should pentagon have been so retarded to not call it a fake in no Time? why did mass media allow to issue a fake which could've sowed out the panic among residents? & the most curious question who can prove what version of recs was first?

Highlighting on the cameraman's version of events of observing it for 10 minutes. Examine the first portions of this Minuteman III simulation. Note the time frame involved in the various initial stages? Think about that 10 minutes that Gil Leyvas stated that he watched this missile. It must have been the slowest missile in the world?



TJ