Mysterious Missile Launch Over California - 11/8/2010

reply to post by tommyjo

you missed it www.abovetopsecret.com... ? in any case, story stinks of something about funny "to be continue"

Originally posted by SarK0Y
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?

All the questions have been raised in various forms and answered several times in the various threads? The still images from independent sources answer your last question. It isn't that hard to work out? Remember this is being put out there as a ballistic missile launch. If you are happy with that theory then you should be fully conversant with how such a launch would pan out. Remember that Gil observed this missile for 10 minutes?

If you are that desperate for questions about the videos then why not contact Gil Leyvas via the TV station? Ask them about the bits of video that are causing you concern. Why not ask them to release or send you a copy of the full footage?

TJ

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by tommyjo

 

you missed it www.abovetopsecret.com... ?

in any case, story stinks of something about funny "to be continue"

The whole point of such quasi ballistic missiles is to get to their target as fast as possible, not slow down. I'll leave you to your missile theory!

No wait, I agree. They must be simply scare tactic missiles? Look! They plume like a large ballistic but then slow down to airliner speeds!

They've even been launching them off Florida!



Look another one off California!



/sarc mode off/

reply to post by zorgon


Could be any one of the three possibilities.
I am asking for proof of one of those.
Simple really.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


No it is totally different, that is why I am asking questions ands not making grandiose statements like some on this thread.

Seeing as there obviously is no anwswer to this riddle in the sky, we will have to call it a draw., No extra time allowed.
Planers 0 - Missilers 0

Originally posted by backinblack

Now we are supposed to allow the same facts to fit flight 902 on a slightly different flightpath but a full 30 minutes later...

Of course not! We're supposed to assume, without any tangible evidence, that it was an unregistered/unmarked enemy missile flying aimlessly through some of the most secure airspace in the entire United States. Because obviously that makes far more sense than a simple airplane contrail (which has been backed by quite a bit of direct evidence), viewed from an awkward perspective, right?

You're pretty quick when it comes to shooting the airplane contrail theory down. Exactly what specific "facts" are you able to provide that prove otherwise? By no means am I saying you're wrong, but where's your evidence, aside from the initial photo? Finding minute differences in the time scale isn't helping your case much. Hundreds of planes fly through that airspace daily. Have you anything else? If so, I'm most definitely interested in hearing about it, as I'm obviously not so much in favor of enemy ICBMs flying undetected over the coast of California.

Cheers,
Strype

reply to post by tommyjo

Amicus, first of the all, Thanks for sharp discuss, i appreciate it

The whole point of such quasi ballistic missiles is to get to their target as fast as possible, not slow down

speed determines maneuvering capabilities: the more speed the less maneuvering + more speed doesn't mean more effective assailing because "dilatory" missiles can use false trajectory strategy & flight in regard to landscape to evade radars

They must be simply scare tactic missiles?

perhaps, tactical nuke sounds more weighty doesn't it?

Look! They plume like a large ballistic but then slow down to airliner speeds

crucial word there is "like" we cannot recognize real trajectory of given rec, plume form is child of weather conditions & perspective playing

If you are that desperate for questions about the videos then why not contact Gil Leyvas via the TV station?

if my memory is correct, you asked me it early on but i would like to re-address your question to you: thou got original record?

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
Seeing as there obviously is no anwswer to this riddle in the sky, we will have to call it a draw., No extra time allowed.
Planers 0 - Missilers 0

Yeah if you're looking for absolute proof of what it was I'd agree with that, no proof for either claim.

However if you assess what is likely based on the evidence, it's something like:
Probability:
99.9% plane contrail
0.1% something else

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
Seeing as there obviously is no anwswer to this riddle in the sky, we will have to call it a draw., No extra time allowed.
Planers 0 - Missilers 0

Yeah if you're looking for absolute proof of what it was I'd agree with that, no proof for either claim.

However if you assess what is likely based on the evidence, it's something like:
Probability:
99.9% plane contrail
0.1% something else

I would have to say that is a pretty good assessment. star

I still find something very odd about the trail as it is being propagated when you watch the video. It is far from typical, as far as contrails go.

Originally posted by butcherguy
I still find something very odd about the trail as it is being propagated when you watch the video. It is far from typical, as far as contrails go.

Could that be because we are used to seeing contrails form 6-10 miles away, but this one is perhaps 160 miles away?

I think that's part of the reason for the distorted perspective along with the sunset illumination.

reply to post by Arbitrageur
Could be.

I wish I knew the answer, I'd post it to end the continued goofiness over what is likely a complete non-event.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Could that be because we are used to seeing contrails form 6-10 miles away, but this one is perhaps 160 miles away?

I think that's part of the reason for the distorted perspective along with the sunset illumination

Good point..But if we view a normal contrail at 6-10 miles away then how big does that make this contrail that is pictured from OVER 160 miles away???? Frikken HUGE is the answer..
So big infact that to me it doesn't even seem as far away as the horizon which in this pic is no more than 30 miles away...
The plane we are expected to believe formed this image was over 160 miles away,



And lets make this clear....
The Cameraman at no time has said he watched this thing for 10 Minutes!!!!!!
It was narration added later at the studio.

The reason he actually saw this thing is he was filming the Sunset.....
So YES, he may have been filming all up for 10 minutes..But there is ZERO proof that HE ever said that....

So lets talk FACTs, not continue to perpetuate a myth as some are doing by falsely stating as fact that he filmed a missile for 10 minutes.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Don't try and change the score of the game, we still await video replay and evidence from the impartial umpire, aren't we?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by butcherguy
I still find something very odd about the trail as it is being propagated when you watch the video. It is far from typical, as far as contrails go.

Could that be because we are used to seeing contrails form 6-10 miles away, but this one is perhaps 160 miles away?

I think that's part of the reason for the distorted perspective along with the sunset illumination.

This has probably been answered before, but if this is 160 miles away how large is the base of the contrail at the bottom. It must be the biggest contrail in history.

There is no real ‘base’ to a contrail. But there is the point farthest from the viewer.

Look at the picture in this link and judge how wide they are. Many miles wide IMO.


here

Originally posted by samkent
There is no real ‘base’ to a contrail. But there is the point farthest from the viewer.

Look at the picture in this link and judge how wide they are. Many miles wide IMO.


here

Wow, is that timelapsed and if so, for how long?
That's a lot of contrails..

Originally posted by backinblack
That's a lot of contrails..

They're contrails?

I haven't seen anyone post proof of every plane that caused every one of those.

Therefore they could all be missiles right?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6697b60c578b.gif[/atsimg]

Seriously though, I agree they must be miles wide to show up on satellite like that.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Therefore they could all be missiles right?

No wonder Obama left the country then

reply to post by Arbitrageur
Have you ever seen the weather satellite photos where multiple, parallel contrails spread out and actually thicken to create a layer of stratus clouds?

The particles in the contrails (water vapor and soot) create nuclei for the formation of clouds.

Yeah, they definitely spread out... a lot.