Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: Unexplained Missile Launched Off LA

  1. #21
    Member Looking for Dirt El Comandante's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    39
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Adondo View Post
    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.
    - Oscar aka LuvMyCommander
    2008 Commander 3.7L V6
    Mods: OEM tow hitch, OEM 7 pin tow wiring, OEM fog lights, daytime running lamps enabled, 4xGuard Matrix Guard w/grill hoop kit, RC 2" lift kit, K&N drop-in filter, PIAA 510 ATP aux lights

  2. #22
    Lifetime Member Getting Dirty Sal-XK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Raeford NC
    Posts
    5,201
    Rep Power
    20
    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.

  3. #23
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    1
    Blog Entries
    36
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Adondo View Post
    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.
    2006 XK Limited, 5.7L Hemi
    Dark Khaki, QDII, Rocky Road 2.25" lift, Steel Armadillo front bumper with Warn PowerPlant winch, Steel Armadillo rear bumper w/ tire carrier, Rock Sliders, Light Bar & Front Fender Tube Fenders, 4xGuard belly skid plate & rear differential guard, BFG M/T A/T 255/75R17s on Rubicon rims, Spidertrax 1.5 inch wheel spacers, Rhino Rack Pioneer Tray with FoxWing Awning, Superchips VIVID Programmer, Air Flow snorkel, Steel Armadillo Secure Console, Cobra CB Radio, Lock Pick Video Programmer, ASFIR Skid Plates.

    Knappster's Garage


    Profile for Knappsters

    AKA: the Owner of The Steel Armadillo L.L.C.

  4. #24
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    1
    Blog Entries
    36
    Rep Power
    10
    I call BS on the Government version of the facts!
    2006 XK Limited, 5.7L Hemi
    Dark Khaki, QDII, Rocky Road 2.25" lift, Steel Armadillo front bumper with Warn PowerPlant winch, Steel Armadillo rear bumper w/ tire carrier, Rock Sliders, Light Bar & Front Fender Tube Fenders, 4xGuard belly skid plate & rear differential guard, BFG M/T A/T 255/75R17s on Rubicon rims, Spidertrax 1.5 inch wheel spacers, Rhino Rack Pioneer Tray with FoxWing Awning, Superchips VIVID Programmer, Air Flow snorkel, Steel Armadillo Secure Console, Cobra CB Radio, Lock Pick Video Programmer, ASFIR Skid Plates.

    Knappster's Garage


    Profile for Knappsters

    AKA: the Owner of The Steel Armadillo L.L.C.

  5. #25
    Lifetime Member Getting Dirty Sal-XK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Raeford NC
    Posts
    5,201
    Rep Power
    20
    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.

  6. #26
    Lifetime Member Getting Dirty WanderingTs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Gold Country, CA
    Posts
    208
    Blog Entries
    5
    Rep Power
    14
    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.
    The best things in life can not be found on a map; they can only be found while Wandering.
    __________________________________________________ ___

    2007 XK - 4.7L Flex Fuel // Rocky Road 2.25 lift // Rocky Road Super Sliders // Toyo Open Country 265/70R17 tires // 4xGuard Front Guard // 4xGuard Belly Guard // 4xGuard Matrix-HC with optional front hitch // Warn XD9000I hitch mounted winch // Graco Carseat for the Youngun

    http://www.xk-forum.com/blog.php - The Wild(life) Side of Jeeping

  7. #27
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    1
    Blog Entries
    36
    Rep Power
    10
    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."

  8. #28
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    1
    Blog Entries
    36
    Rep Power
    10

    The New York Times and the mystery missile

    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?

  9. #29
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    1
    Blog Entries
    36
    Rep Power
    10
    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
    2006 XK Limited, 5.7L Hemi
    Dark Khaki, QDII, Rocky Road 2.25" lift, Steel Armadillo front bumper with Warn PowerPlant winch, Steel Armadillo rear bumper w/ tire carrier, Rock Sliders, Light Bar & Front Fender Tube Fenders, 4xGuard belly skid plate & rear differential guard, BFG M/T A/T 255/75R17s on Rubicon rims, Spidertrax 1.5 inch wheel spacers, Rhino Rack Pioneer Tray with FoxWing Awning, Superchips VIVID Programmer, Air Flow snorkel, Steel Armadillo Secure Console, Cobra CB Radio, Lock Pick Video Programmer, ASFIR Skid Plates.

    Knappster's Garage


    Profile for Knappsters

    AKA: the Owner of The Steel Armadillo L.L.C.

  10. #30
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    1
    Blog Entries
    36
    Rep Power
    10

    And if that wasn't enough...

    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’.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •