Mysterious Missile Launch Over California - 11/8/2010

Originally posted by Doyle
The biggest news network in the UK are reporting this and none of you have read the link...

www.bbc.co.uk...

Seriously this adds to the mystery.

I'm sorry but I don't see anything on that link that hasn't already been posted in this thread multiple times. Can you point it out for me?

Originally posted by Doyle
The biggest news network in the UK are reporting this and none of you have read the link...

www.bbc.co.uk...

Seriously this adds to the mystery.

my man are u kidding me? ive read your link if you think this adds to the story and deserves a new thread you must go apepoop when you find a penny, here is entrie article.

ATS u tell me new thread worthy? has the plot thickened?

9 November 2010 Last updated at 14:42 ET Share this pageFacebookTwitter ShareEmail Print Mystery missile launch reported off California coastClick to play
Click to play

AdvertisementThe vapour trail was seen not far off the coast of Los Angeles
Pentagon officials say they cannot explain reports of a missile launch off the coast of California on Monday.

A CBS News helicopter captured what looked like the vapour trail of a missile rising from the water about 35 miles (56 km) offshore.

"Right now all indications are that it was not [defence department] involvement in this launch" Pentagon spokesman Col David Lapan said.

The Pentagon does not consider the missile a threat.

"So far we've come up empty with any explanation," Col Lapan said. "We're doing everything we can to try to figure out if anybody has any knowledge of what this event may have been."

Under normal circumstances, the launch of a US missile would require several different authorisations and notifications, but none are evident.

It is unclear if the suspected missile was launched from land or sea

***thats the whole article****

reply to post by Prove_It_NOW


Well it still is an unidentified flying object but I don't think alien so yes the term is valid in this case. UFO does not mean alien to this planet

reply to post by Doyle


Yes interesting the BBC is definitly calling it a missile and saying their source is the Pentagon.

The Pentagon does not consider the missile a threat.

"So far we've come up empty with any explanation," Col Lapan said. "We're doing everything we can to try to figure out if anybody has any knowledge of what this event may have been."

Under normal circumstances, the launch of a US missile would require several different authorisations and notifications, but none are evident.

It is unclear if the suspected missile was launched from land or sea.

And this is recent news..

reply to post by Doyle


Dude, have read the link, they are also reporting the same on sky news., but you need to see the link a few pages back from CBS regarding a statement from the US State Department. More info there.

I like the BBC too, as a Brit, however at the moment they still have some catching up to do,

I mean ATS have it figured out already!

everyone should watch this ...does it relate?

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Doyle
The biggest news network in the UK are reporting this and none of you have read the link...

www.bbc.co.uk...

Seriously this adds to the mystery.

I think you did not read the thread...

News network around the world are reporting that...

Originally posted by Moose318
I found this on the Los Angeles Craigslist rant and raves...lol Maybe its an insider as to what it really was...

Link

www.youtube.com...

Well here's the lunch of one an old video, it almost looks the same in the news footage i am right?



i am also glad the 808 plane theory got debunked.

reply to post by phatpackage

Well maybe he should have checked his source better then. All the ones I read had the full quote. I will give him credit he researches very thoroughly but not in this case eh?

Maybe he did, who knows why he chose that source huh..

reply to post by backinblack

Except that the LA Times added to the direct quote. Notice no quotation marks around that added section regarding condensation trails. That means the cameraman didn't actually say that. That's called editorializing.

Naughty.

Well I must have missed the bit where CBS was linked even though I have read most of the 80 odd pages, so apologies if it's not all new info. I do still think the pentagon denial is worth linking to, so I stand by my posting of the BBC news link. Why bother to deny it was them? Why make people wonder if it was a hostile or accidental launch if they knew it was a test and could put people's minds at rest?

Hopefully this hasn't been posted yet?

Some excellent Flightaware analysis on the following. See webcam footage of another contrail plume 24 hours after the helicopter footage.

www.bahneman.com...

'Posted by: Liembo | 11/9/10 | 10:22 pm |
My research shows it as AWE808, or UPS902, their altitude (for contrail formation) and position are both pretty close, though I believe 808 is the stronger candidate. I base this one the way AWE808 appeared on the horizon TODAY (Tuesday, Nov. 9) on its same flight path at approximately the same time. I made a screen cap of a Newport Beach webcam with AWE808 making a very familiar contrail to the west.'

From

www.wired.com...

TJ

reply to post by backinblack


OK I will concede. The pace of this thread may have contributed. Although a lot times I don't agree with him I find him thorough & accurate!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

 

Except that the LA Times added to the direct quote. Notice no quotation marks around that added section regarding condensation trails. That means the cameraman didn't actually say that. That's called editorializing.

Naughty.

edit on 11/10/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Are you saying he didnt say what I posted?
Sounds like a strange add in.
I'll have to hunt back many pages to see where I quoted from.

from the wired link

"The short explanation is that we don’t see a lot of jet contrails head-on,"

ummmmm wouldnt almost every contrail be head on for somebody? purely angly subjective

As much as I have had a love hate relationship with ATS, I am glad for all contributors that use their investigate skills. ATS has it's gems.

Originally posted by butcherguy
When the former deputy Defense Secretary said that we did it " to show that we could ", I immediately thought, 'What a bunch of BS!' We have been able to 'do it' for decades and everyone knows that. Hell the Germans performed a submerged launch of a V-2 rocket in WWII!

For those trained to read between the lines in official or diplomatic double talk, the implication here is that somebody who was not known to have such capability may have proven they had in this way. Could this be a rogue group, certain US Military Black Ops factions, a prominent Illuminati who didn't like getting pushed around, the Chinese, or someone new to the nuclear chess board? From the terms of the declaration and its glaring inconsistency, he is discretely saying: "if you think this was ours, then you must conclude nobody knew we had this capability". Leading us to consider who else might want to demonstrate they had their own such capability?
.

FWIW

I know, it was a Rocket carrying a payload full of most of mankinds common sense, and it just left the earth.....buh bye

reply to post by backinblack

I'm saying that it is not indicated as a direct quote from the cameraman.
But even if it was it doesn't matter. There are plenty of people right here who insist it wasn't a jet contrail.

reply to post by backinblack


Phage is reffering to this quote.

"Whatever it was, it was spinning up into the sky kind of like a spiral," and was easy to distinguish from condensation trails from jets, he said. "It was quite a sight to see. It was spectacular."


i guess well nitpick over grammar Phage is correct that the part of easily distinguished is not a direct quote FROM THAT SENTENCE, but it clearly states "he said" so he said it in the interview just not at the point of that quote.