Unexplained Missile Launched Off LA

[LWM]

(Nov. 9) -- An unexplained missile shot across the sky off the coast of Los Angeles and was caught on video by a CBS News traffic helicopter during Monday night's rush hour. Today, the missile is still a mystery. A Navy spokesman told CBS affiliate KFMB that it was not theirs, and so far the Pentagon has not been able to explain it either. The missile was reportedly about 35 miles west of L.A. and just north of Catalina Island.

NBC's Pentagon correspondent, Jim Miklaszewski, reports that a missile launch would not have been planned so close to a major city, and at the very least, residents would have been warned a test was imminent. A senior Pentagon official told him, "This is bizarre."

Watch the dramatic video below:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyEvk-VTuEI&feature=player_embedded

[LWM]

Missile launch off L.A. coast is mysteryby KTAR.com (November 9th, 2010 @ 10:05am)

LOS ANGELES -- A missile launch off the southern California coast was captured by a television helicopter camera Monday evening and its origin remained a mystery Tuesday.

Spokesmen for the Navy, Air Force, Defense Department and North American Aerospace Defense Command said they were looking into a video posted on the website of southern California television station KFMB.

Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said Tuesday that officials can't confirm that there was a launch and if there was, by whom. He says officials are talking to the Air Force, Navy and NORAD as well as civil authorities who control and monitor air space.

KFMB showed video of the apparent missile to former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Robert Ellsworth, who is also a former Deputy Secretary of Defense.

"It's spectacular… It takes people's breath away," said Ellsworth, calling the projectile, "a big missile."

Ellsworth urged Americans to wait for definitive answers to come from the military.

The images were captured by the KCBS news helicopter in Los Angeles around sunset Monday evening. The location of the missile was about 35 miles out to sea, west of Los Angeles and north of Catalina Island.

A Navy spokesperson told KFMB it wasn't their missile. He said there was no Navy activity reported in the area Monday evening.

On Friday night, Vandenberg Air Force Base, in California, launched a Delta II rocket, carrying an Italian satellite into orbit, but a sergeant at the base told KFMB there had been no launches since then.

[cico7]

How did the helicopter happen to be there? Did anyone else see it?

[LWM]

How did the helicopter happen to be there? Did anyone else see it?

I used to live right there on the coast, you can see Catalina Island from the mainland so I would imagine thousands of witnesses saw this.

[Adondo]

From some of the news reports I've read, it seems the military is pretty blasé about it. You'd think an UNEXPLAINED missile launch would be cause of mass panic to homeland security. I tend to read the downplaying as a cover up. Either they really don't know what it is and they're trying to prevent a general panic by minimizing it. Or... they DO know what it is, but won't admit it.

[LWM]

I think if it is one of ours they should just say so, if it is not we have a serious problem with allowing anyone to get that close and launch a missle. If it was a terrorist they could have sent the missle into Los Angeles and and increased the property values in Arizona.

Serioulsly I think we need to know who this missle belonged too.

[cico7]

Well if it went right instead of left, we would know who it belonged to!

[NeilSmith]

Best case - a private individual into scale model rockets. those things go pretty high and fast
Worst case - a failed attempt with a Stinger. not good

[NeilSmith]

Best case - a private individual into scale model rockets. those things go pretty high and fast
Worst case - a failed attempt with a Stinger. not good

Just watched video. Holy Cow !! Someone needs to come clean on that, it's big !

[LWM]

Just watched video. Holy Cow !! Someone needs to come clean on that, it's big !

My guess is it was from a sub!

[powerslave1966]

My guess is it was from a sub!

Yup, probably hit the button by mistake, although I believe there are several safeguards for that...

[adamag25]

I agree that it was most likely from a sub or large ship. Probably a test fire of a missile that went wrong and instead of heading out over the ocean it went toward land. If the government admits to the error they would get in trouble for the error and putting lives at stake but they cannot blame an non Government agency because that means that homeland security should have picked up on it. Since they are stuck in the middle they chose to go with the old "ummm...I dunno" response. I find it hard to believe that they do not know the source or even where the missile ended up. Something that large doesn't go flying into the sky and just disappear, it had to have been tracked by someone.

[cico7]

(CBS) More than a day after a CBS camera caught video of an unidentified projectile (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/09/national/main7037857.shtml) leaving a condensation trail off the California coast, the situation remains a mystery, with the Defense Department insisting that it was not a missile (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/09/national/main7039021.shtml).

The Pentagon is still not sure what that was in the sky off the coast of California -- except that it was not a missile fired by the U.S. or some other country, reports CBS News Pentagon correspondent David Martin.

The video of what looks for all the world like the contrail of a missile was shot Monday evening by KCBS cameraman Gil Leyvas from a news helicopter over Los Angeles.

"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."

It wasn't a missle... (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/10/earlyshow/main7040379.shtml)

[cico7]

Expert Thinks "Mystery Missile" an Illusion (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/09/national/main7039034.shtml)

[powerslave1966]

Now the news reports are claiming that maybe it was just a jet taking off.... from the video that would be a pretty steep departure angle...

[NeilSmith]

Ive seen airliners in the far distance that because of their route looked like they were going straight up but the contrails look nothing like this one. Ive not seen a contrail this long and looks so low to the ground. Besides , where in the hell would he be taking off from ?

[Adondo]

I was just looking at the video again.

Okay, we can rule out airplane, or at least a large multi-engine 'plane. If you can see the source, (e.g. the speck of the airplane itself) the contrails are split. They do merge together behind it a ways as the vapor trail widens out. If the 'plane is a four engine, you can see four trails if it's close enough or you use binoculars. (two sets of two closed spaced trails)

But, the one in the video just leaves one single big fat contrail behind it. I can't see even a military aircraft such as an F14 (or whatever, something with a single source tail nozzle, single or dual engines) leaving THAT LARGE of a trail behind it. The thing was large, very much like the satellite launching rocket they compared it too.

[Sal-XK]

Jet engines don't leave contrails until they hit the super cold air of the atmosphere. Exhaust contrails usually occur at above 26,000 feet. where the temperature is below -40°F. So to cause a contrail like that from the surface speaks to the type of fuel being burned. Most likely a solid fuel (rocket Fuel) is being burned and no known air craft burns solid fuel in that way.

Now the other thing that confuses me is the speed at which the object seems to be moving. It is not moving fast enough or on the correct trajectory for leaving the atmosphere and entering space. It also way to big for a amateur rocket builder and also on the wrong trajectory that is normally associated with that hobby.

[El Comandante]

There is speculation that it was a US missile launched from a submarine in an attempt to demonstrate our capabilities while President Obama visited Asia. Kinda like saying don't even think about doing anything while I'm here because you'll find out how far our missiles can reach.

[Adondo]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40112161/ns/us_news-security/

I feel all better now, don't you?

[El Comandante]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40112161/ns/us_news-security/

I feel all better now, don't you?

I don't know if I believe that. Think about it, after so many years of aviation why hasn't this happened more often where a contrail is confused with something else?

Sounds like Roswell all over again.

[Sal-XK]

Well that is wrong in so many ways. There are no single engine commercial jet aircraft (its a safety thing). The military has very few single engine jets them selves. Contrails like I said don't even start until 25k in the air. Now for the first time this sounds like a cover up.

[LWM]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40112161/ns/us_news-security/

I feel all better now, don't you?

Pentagon: Mystery 'missile' likely a plane
Review concludes vapor plume that streaked across Calif. sky probably came from aircraft

Reuters
updated 11/10/2010 1:45:04 PM ET 2010-11-10T18:45:04

WASHINGTON — A mystery vapor trail that was filmed off the coast of southern California and looked like a missile launch was likely caused by a plane, the Pentagon said on Wednesday, closing its case on the incident.

"With all the information that we have gathered over the last day and a half about this condensation trail ... we have no evidence to suggest that this was anything other than a contrail caused by an aircraft," said Col. David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman.

The image was caught on tape by a KCBS news helicopter on Monday evening at rush hour. Video showed a billowing contrail apparently rising from the water about 35 miles west of Los Angeles and north of Catalina Island.

Contrails are created by streaks of condensation from the exhaust of jet aircraft flying at high altitudes.

Initial reports that the condensation trail appeared to be that of a missile prompted Defense Department officials to begin looking into the issue.
Video: Missile mystery an optical illusion?

Lapan said the Pentagon had tried to determine "whether our activities — missile, rocket, etc. — were the source of this."

It took 36 hours to investigate because officials had to talk to the different agencies and services that might have been involved — the Navy, Air Force, the Missile Defense Agency, U.S. Northern Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command as well as other U.S. agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration.
Story: U.S. sees no threat in alleged 'missile'

"It's a matter of ... running down all of those different leads," Lapan said. "I mean, going out and having everybody scrutinize everything that they had in terms of information to be able to piece together."

"Without getting into specifics, we have looked at lots of data sources," he said.

The ultimate conclusion?

"The Department of Defense ... is satisfied that the contrail was likely caused by an aircraft," Lapan said.

[LWM]

I call BS on the Government version of the facts!

[Sal-XK]

They say them selves that contrails appear at high altitudes. The contrail in the video starts well below the helicopter and I don't know of a helicopter that can get to 25k feet. Even if it could a news copter would not be doing much good at that height. You also see what looks like another copter in to foreground of the video which really shows how low the contrail really did start. Also putting the origin of this thing over water really puts this as a military thing. I just hope it was our military that did it.

[WanderingTs]

I worked in broadcast TV for almost 10 years. During that time, I logged hundreds of hours in a news copter of a network affiliate. Generally, news helicopters fly at 500 feet. This is due to VFR and FAA regulation. It is not always the case, but generally. One thing that does modify that altitude is other air traffic or heavy air traffic areas, and LA would be a high traffic area.

A talented (or sometimes untalented) photographer can make anything look like almost anything else, either on purpose, or sometimes by accident. Without getting too deep into things I am several years removed from and may not get the terminology right anymore, a combination of lens angle, light angle, filters, amount of zoom, and even the camera head itself can make a huge difference in the way things look. While it is slightly more difficult to play tricks during the day, it is not impossible. Just the odd angle of looking at something very ordinary can make it look mishapen or even longer, taller, or skinnier.

All that being said, it was SOMETHING. I also agree that the single engine jet thing is a load of hogwash. My only point is while the government may have an interest in covering things up, the media also has an interest in blowing things up (bad pun intended). Don't trust either side to tell you the truth about what they are selling.

[LWM]

Copied from the "other" forum:

I haven’t seen any news on this, but if this is what caused the contrail we should be concerned.

November 10, 2010 -- Pentagon and its embedded media covering up Chinese show of force off LA
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, where President Obama is scheduled to attend during his ten-day trip to Asia.

The reported Chinese missile test off Los Angeles came as a double blow to Obama. The day after the missile firing, China's leading credit rating agency, Dagong Global Credit Rating, downgraded sovereign debt rating of the United States to A-plus from AA. The missile demonstration coupled with the downgrading of the United States financial grade represents a military and financial show of force by Beijing to Washington.

The Pentagon spin machine, backed by the media reporters who regularly cover the Defense Department, as well as officials of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), and the U.S. Northern Command, is now spinning various conspiracy theories, including describing the missile plume videotaped by KCBS news helicopter cameraman Gil Leyvas at around 5:00 pm Pacific Standard Time, during the height of evening rush hour, as the condensation trail from a jet aircraft. Other Pentagon-inspired cover stories are that the missile was actually an amateur rocket or an optical illusion.


Experts agree that this was a ballistic missile being fired off of Los Angeles. Pentagon insists it was a jet aircraft or model rocket.

There are no records of a plane in the area having taken off from Los Angeles International Airport or from other airports in the region. The Navy and Air Force have said that they were not conducting any missile tests from submarines, ships, or Vandenberg Air Force Base. The Navy has also ruled out an accidental firing from one of its own submarines.

Missile experts, including those from Jane's in London , say the plume was definitely from a missile, possibly launched from a submarine. WMR has learned that the missile was likely a JL-2 ICBM, which has a range of 7,000 miles, and was fired in a northwesterly direction over the Pacific and away from U.S. territory from a Jin class submarine. The Jin class can carry up to twelve such missiles.

Navy sources have revealed that the missile may have impacted on Chinese territory and that the National Security Agency (NSA) likely posseses intercepts of Chinese telemtry signals during the missile firing and subsequent testing operations.

Japanese and other Asian intelligence agencies believe that a Chinese Jin-class SSBN submarine conducted missile "show of force" in skies west of Los Angeles.

Asian intelligence sources believe the submarine transited from its base on Hainan through South Pacific waters, where U.S. anti-submarine warfare detection capabilities are not as effective as they are in the northern and mid-Pacific, and then transited north to waters off of Los Angeles. The Pentagon, which has spent billions on ballistic missile defense systems, a pet project of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is clearly embarrassed over the Chinese show of strength.


Likely route of Jin-class submarine from Hainan base.

The White House also wants to donwplay the missile story before Presidnet Obama meets with his Chinese counterpart in Seoul and Tokyo. According to Japanese intelligence sources, Beijing has been angry over United States and allied naval exercises in the South China and Yellow Seas, in what China considers its sphere of influence, and the missile firing within the view of people in Southern California was a demonstration that China's navy can also play in waters off the American coast.

For the U.S. Navy, the Chinese show of force is a huge embarassment, especially for the Navy's Pacific Command in Pearl Harbor, where Japan's December 7, 1941 attack on the fleet at Pearl Harbor remains a sore subject.

In 2002, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice reportedly scolded visiting Chinese General Xiong Guankai, the deputy chief of staff for intelligence of the People's Liberation Army, for remarks he allegedly made in 1995 that China would use nuclear weapons on Los Angeles . Xiong denied he made any such comments but the "spin" on the story helped convince Congress to sink billions of additional dollars into ballistic missile defense, sometimes referred to at "Star Wars II."

[LWM]

By Bill Van Auken
16 November 2010

The New York Times carried its first article Monday on what appeared to be an unexplained missile launch off the coast of southern California. The article, buried at the bottom of page 16, came a full week after the event itself.


While the spectacular video of a giant contrail off the coast of southern California was shown by all of the major television networks, and the story was widely covered in most of the media, the Times maintained a discreet silence.


The article that finally appeared on November 14, entitled “How Smoky Plume in Sky Drew the Eyes of the World”, was more of a whimsical background piece than a hard news story.

Tucked within its fourth paragraph was the Pentagon’s vague explanation—delivered two days after the filming of the apparent missile launch by a television station helicopter—that “there is no evidence to suggest that this is anything other than a condensation trail from an aircraft.” This is followed by the Times’ observation: “Some experts chastised media outlets for running with a half-baked, whole-hyped story.”


The only expert cited was John E. Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, who offered an interesting explanation for the prolonged silence of the US military in the face of media demands for an explanation of the massive plume over the Pacific.


“I think it temporarily confused the Pentagon,” said Pike. “They had to triple-check to see if they actually did have something going on out there, to see if there was some black [top secret] program they should not talk about.”


This explanation of the Pentagon’s silence could be applied with equal validity to that of the New York Times itself. Either it suspected, or it knew, that there was something involved that it should not talk about.


When it comes to issues of “national security”—that is, the secret operations and crimes of the US military-intelligence apparatus—the New York Times will not be counted among those “chastised” for irresponsible journalism.


On the contrary, it has a well-established modus operandi, which was undoubtedly employed in relation to the mystery missile story. The paper’s motto, “All the news that’s fit to print” has been amended in practice to read “All the news deemed fit to print after consultation with the White House, the Pentagon and the CIA.”


This approach was certainly in evidence in relation to the greatest exposure of state secrets in the recent period, the release of the Afghanistan and Iraq documents by WikiLeaks.


In the case of the Afghanistan documents, the editors of the Times cleared its coverage in advance with both the White House and the Pentagon, earning the praise of both for its “responsible” journalism. This responsibility was manifested in a deliberate effort to bury the revelations contained in the mass of military logs on the killing of Afghan civilians and other war crimes. The paper even served as a conduit for the US government’s demand that WikiLeaks remove the primary documents from its web site.


In explaining its decision to report on the Iraq war logs made public by WikiLeaks, the newspaper’s public editor, Arthur S. Brisbane, said that, despite its disdain for the work of WikiLeaks, it had decided to “use its resources to organize and filter material that was going public, one way or another.”


In other words, if it had been up to the Times editors, the secret documents would have never seen the light of day. Given that they were going to be made public, the newspaper volunteered its services in presenting them in a manner that would be least damaging to the interests of the US ruling elite.


Six years earlier, the supposed newspaper of record rendered similar services to the administration of George W. Bush. At the request of the White House, it suppressed for over a year a story exposing the National Security Agency’s secret and illegal domestic spying operation, which placed telephone conversations and emails of American citizens under surveillance. Times editor Bill Keller, who personally went to the White House to discuss the story, agreed with others in the paper’s top management to withhold it until after the November 2004 presidential election, an action which may well have proved decisive in giving Bush a second term.


The Times’ prolonged silence on the missile story—which echoed the disturbing silence of the Pentagon itself—was in all probability the product of discussions between the paper’s editors and senior military and political officials. The decision was taken to wait until the proper authorities had come up with a plausible explanation.


Both the extraordinary length of this delay in covering the story, as well as the content of the article itself, make clear that this plausible explanation has not been forthcoming.


The Pentagon’s announcement that it was “satisfied” that what appeared to many scientists and experts on missile technology to have been the launch of an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile was nothing more than the contrail (condensation trail) of a jet airplane was less than convincing.


The military has yet to explain why it took two days to reach this conclusion, and why, if this is indeed the case, it is unable to specify what airplane produced the contrail. With the vast amounts of money that are poured into multiple agencies—the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD), the US Northern Command (NORTHCOM), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and others—to monitor US airspace, it is inconceivable that such information would be unavailable.


The most interesting information contained in the Times article came from Gil Leyvas, the photojournalist who shot the video of what the paper acknowledges “looked to him like the launching of a missile.”


According to the Times: “Mr. Leyvas said there were two copies of the unedited videotape of the Nov. 8 contrail, one that he has and one at the station. He and Scott Diener, the news director at KCBS, said there had been no effort by any government entity to obtain the unedited videotape, perhaps as part of an investigation into the incident.”


“The media are the only people begging for the video,” Diener told the Times.


In other words, there has been no investigation of the incident by the military, the civilian authorities or anyone in positions of governmental authority. What this suggests is that elements within the military and intelligence apparatus know very well what caused the plume and have no need to conduct such a probe. The airplane contrail explanation would appear to be not the product of objective evidence, but rather a useful alibi.


The original and highly disturbing questions raised by this incident remain in full force. Is the US military in control of its nuclear forces? And is the Obama administration in control of the military?

[LWM]

Pentagon calls mystery missile 'unexplained,' cannot rule out threat

THE Pentagon said a missile launch off the southern coast of California remained "unexplained" and that its mysterious origins meant that it was not possible to rule out any threat to the homeland.

Earlier yesterday (11/12/10), NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) and NORTHCOM (United States Northern Command) officials told Fox there was no threat.

However, Pentagon Spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan would not confirm that because the military does not know what the missile was or where it came from.

Col Lapan added that the incident did not appear to be a regularly scheduled test, as no warnings to mariners or airmen appeared to be issued ahead of its launch.

The contrail was caught on camera by a KCBS news helicopter at around sunset Monday evening, approximately 50km out to sea and west of Los Angeles.

The missile appeared to be launched from the water, and not from US soil, Col Lapan added.

The military was trying to solve the mystery using the video from KCBS as there was no indication that NORAD and NORTHCOM were able to detect it independently.

According to Fox News, NORAD and NORTHCOM would only say they were aware of the launch.

However one unnamed senior defense official added: "There was no threat to the homeland."

A navy spokesperson previously told KCBS that no navy activity was reported in the region.

A sergeant at Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County said a Delta II rocket was launched from the base last Friday, but insisted there were no launches since then.

On viewing the footage, former deputy defense secretary Robert Ellsworth speculated on KCBS that the launch could be a show of military muscle.

"It could be a test-firing of an intercontinental ballistic missile from a submarine ... to demonstrate, mainly to Asia, that we can do that," Mr Ellsworth said

[LWM]

Canadian government can't explain photos of missiles launched from sea near Newfoundland

Kind of hard to explain this photo of unexplained missile sighting in New Foundland as a ‘jet contrail’

We put this story in an update on a recent post of a news helicopter video shot in the skies of Manhattan the morning after the mysterious missile video was shot in southern California. The Manhattan news report dubbed by the press, “Fire in the Sky’, the report from CBS 2 News, an ‘unnamed top astronomer’ said the object was a jet contrail. The same official explanation from the Pentagon, the mystery ‘missile’ in southern California, ‘most likely’ a jet contrail. Also in our post, a news report from Canada’s CTV, NASA was investigating mysterious ‘fire balls’ sighted over Canada and the U.S..

Based on the above photo, it’d be a pretty hard sell the object, one of three sighted by two women in Newfoundland, was a jet contrail. The news report from CTV, extraordinary.

CTV:

No one seems to know what two neighbors saw off the coast of Newfoundland earlier this week, but the two are convinced three large bullet-like objects were missiles. And they have photos they say prove it.

It all began around 5 p.m. Monday when Darlene Stewart of Harbour Mille, N.L., was outside snapping photos of a sunset, when she saw a long, thin glimmering object in the sky that appeared as if it came out of water.

The photos she took show a thin object shooting into the air, with a tail of fire and smoke.

She called her neighbour Emmy Pardy, who went to get binoculars for a closer look.

“I went out on the patio and I zoomed in and I saw a humungous bullet, silver-grey in colour and it had flames coming out of the bottom and a trail of smoke,” Pardy told CTV.ca.

“I said to Darlene my God, this looks like it’s a missile or something.”

Stewart and Pardy said the objects were visible in the sky for about 15 minutes.

The women say they watched in fear and thought that a missile could be heading their way.

“I was sick to my stomach,” Stewart said. “If it was a missile, what goes up does come down, but where is it going to land?”

“If I hadn’t taken the pictures, they’d figure it was just another UFO sighting.”

Darlene was partially right, if she hadn’t taken the photos, they (the government) wouldn’t have had to respond to the media ‘firestorm’ which erupted after Darlene’s photos were viewed. Photos which included a clear shot of what seems to be a missile. The response from the government:

A spokesman for the Canadian Forces said they there have been no planned missile exercises off the seaboard.

“There’s no threat to the security of Canada,” Maj. Jason Proulx said from Ottawa.

Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said in an email that “there is no indication that there was ever a rocket launch.”

Gerry Byrne, the MP for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, is demanding to know if the objects were, in fact, missiles.

He wants to know whether the government knew about it and failed to inform residents, or was simply not told.

“The RCMP provided an initial report that it was some sort of rocketry that initiated from France,” he said.

“They subsequently retracted that story.”

Does part of the quote seem familiar? It should, as immediately after the footage of the California mystery missile footage was aired on KCBS News, citizens of the U.S. were told by NORAD, ‘There’s not threat to the U.S.’ while the Pentagon scrambled for 36 hours to come up with, ‘it’s most likely a jet contrail’. Case closed, end of media story. By November 11, two days after the southern California incident, the day New York City’s CBS 2 aired their ‘Fire in the Sky’ report–footage of an object streaking across the Manhattan skyline at dawn, less than 24 hours after the California ‘missile’ incident–CBS News 2 contacted an ‘unnamed top astronomer’ to get the official verdict of ‘jet contrail!’.

CBS News 2:

‘CBS 2 reached out to a top astronomer who looked at the video. He said it looks beautiful, but that is was like nothing more than what’s known as a “contrail” — condensation from a commercial or military jet.’

Back to the missile story out of Canada.

According to the report, the Newfoundland government initially claimed the missiles were fired from territory owned by the French:

Liberal Sen. George Baker said that the direction of the objects suggests a launch from nearby St-Pierre-Miquelon, which is French territory.

If true, Baker said such a launch could contravene international sovereignty rules. He added that Ottawa should be treating the situation seriously.

“Knowing that France has territory within our 200 mile (320 kilometre) zone in Canada, they should at least ask the French, ‘Look, are you launching these missiles?’ Because if they are, (and) everybody is denying knowledge of it, then the laws have been broken.”

Agence France Presse reported that France fired a missile on Wednesday – not Monday – and it was launched from Bay of Audierne in Northwestern France.

In a statement, the French Defence Ministry said the missile was fired from the submarine “Le Terrible.”

The report the government ‘retracted’ their France claim then dubbed the incident….. ‘unexplained’. An incident which happened to occur in area of a ‘major flyway for transatlantic aircraft’.

[LWM]

https://theultimatejeep.com/images/imported/2010/11/Trident_missile_launch-1.jpg

THE TRIDENT NUCLEAR MISSILE SYSTEM
The Trident missile, named after the trident, is an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) which is armed with nuclear warheads and is launched from submarines (SSBNs), making it a SLBM.

The Trident was built in two variants: the I (C4) UGM-96A and II (D5) UGM-133A. The C4 and D5 designations put the missiles within the "family" that started in 1960 with Polaris (A1, A2 and A3) and continued with the 1971 Poseidon (C3).

Both Trident versions are three-stage, solid-propellant, inertially guided missiles whose range is increased by an aerospike, a telescoping outward extension that halves frontal drag.

The Trident is carried by fourteen active US Ohio class submarines and (with British warheads) four UK Vanguard class submarines.

The launch from the submarine occurs below the ocean surface. The missiles are ejected from their tubes by gas pressure created by a "gas generator", a solid-fuel rocket motor attached to the bottom of the missile tube which heats a pool of water creating steam. After the missile leaves the tube and rises through the water over the submarine, the first stage motor ignites, the aerospike extends, and the boost stage begins. Ideally, the missile is "sheathed" in gas bubbles for its entire time in the water, so liquid never touches its fuselage. Within about two minutes, after the third stage motor fires, the missile is traveling faster than 20,000 ft/s (6,000 m/s).

Trident I (C4) was deployed in 1979 and phased out in the 1990s and early 2000s. Trident II (D5) was deployed in 1990; it is planned to be in service past 2020. As of 2005, a decision is expected soon about whether or not to replace the UK's missiles and submarine fleet. Critics from the peace movement and within the military establishment have questioned the usefulness of such a weapon in the current military climate. The use of (or threat of use of) such weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, according to an Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice in 1996.