Mystery missile caught on video off L.A. coast

Page 5 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Smersh

Guest
MeteorWayne":bk9yknow said:
That's not proof; all it means is it could have been a missile. If the 10 minute report is correct, I still need an explanation for that. Even the shuttle is 1000 km downrange by 8:30, and it launches much slower than any military test.
You're a hard man to to satisfy Wayne. :lol:

Lets's see now, we have the editor of Jane's Missiles and Rockets who said it was a missile (and if he doesn't qualify as an expert I don't know who does.) A former US Deputy Defence Secretary said it's a missile. Umpteen other experts said it's a missile. We have an official military document on an official military site, warning mariners about missile tests in that area on that date and to stay clear. The news video (to me anyway) looks like a missile, behaves like a missile and sounds like a missile, so I would say - it's a missile. ;)

To be honest, in retrospect I'm not really sure why such a hoo-hah has been made out of this, with people arguing about it and trying to pass it off as a contrail. What's so unusual about it? Isn't it to be expected that the military will test missiles from time to time?
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
"warning mariners about {POSSIBLE} missile tests in that area on that date ...

Emphasis, and comment mine. :)

PS, I'd like to thank the SDC community for rationally discussing this issue, even when may disagree. That's why I love and care about this place so much.
Wayne
 
B

bmk1245

Guest
Smersh":1bdmlk4y said:
[...]
Lets's see now, we have the editor of Jane's Missiles and Rockets who said it was a missile (and if he doesn't qualify as an expert I don't know who does.) A former US Deputy Defence Secretary said it's a missile. Umpteen other experts said it's a missile. We have an official military document on an official military site, warning mariners about missile tests in that area on that date and to stay clear. The news video (to me anyway) looks like a missile, behaves like a missile and sounds like a missile, so I would say - it's a missile. ;) [...]
Cameraman, sorry, narrator stated it was incoming thingy (in 10 mins, I think, even non-expert would be able to estimate direction). I'm no expert, but isn't safer to target something in Pacific and not in continental area?
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Yeah, pesky thing aircraft creating contrails...they insist on a runway, preferably on land :)
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
I admit, my first thought was "that's hardly PROOF of anything".

That said: there's a body of evidence that is stacking up. And Meteorwayne is as "bad" as any conspiracy theorist. He's a counterconspiracy theorist. There'll be slimy aliens dragging him off to a meat grinder and he'll be screaming "they're just swamp gas!!!"

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[edit: You know I luv ya, right, M-W?]
 
A

Archer17

Guest
Smersh":21464do5 said:
...To be honest, in retrospect I'm not really sure why such a hoo-hah has been made out of this, with people arguing about it and trying to pass it off as a contrail. What's so unusual about it? Isn't it to be expected that the military will test missiles from time to time?
Thanks for posting that link Smersh. Talk about a fly in the ointment! Here I rationalized myself into the 'plane camp' and was just getting comfortable and you post that! :) Anyway, while some food for thought, I'm still not completely turned around on this yet. In answer to your questions, it wasn't that simple. The military said they were not responsible. If they owned up to it I don't think anyone here would have disputed it, I know I wouldn't have. The link you posted does raise a couple questions. Is this a case of the military's left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing (possible) or is the implication that the link explains the video a tad presumptuous? I'll have to drink on it...

OK, who took my flask? :evil:
 
D

DrDil

Guest
Smersh":1kje5jbp said:
Thanks to Lori at Larger-Than-Life who just found this and posted it ...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyMz-bphdtc[/youtube]

Subject closed then - it's a missile.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9282440/wethepe ... 5-2010.pdf

The original document on the .mil site is here:

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/Stati ... 5-2010.pdf

You might have to download it and view it in Acrobat, which I just did because I couldn't get it to appear in my Opera browser. But all the info about the missile tests is there, exactly as in the link and video given by the YT poster above.
Seeing as you visit my regular haunts just to taunt me Smersh I thouhgt I'd return the favour….. :lol:

"Subject closed"?

You are correct that it is actually there:



However I had a quick look at the weeks before and:



Hmm, now that’s a little strange, so I had a look at May 2010:



Must be coincidence right?

What about August 2008:



Hold on a minute, how long have these announcements been occurring?

A quick look at the main page shows it was from July 1999!!



So a quick look at July 1999 and what do you know?



So, I think it’s safe to say that every document they’ve published since 1999 contains the same text. (Or of course alternatively, that’s not what it actually states ;) ).

The following is the only relevant NOTAM and unfortunately for the missile advocates it was scheduled for the day afterwards:

NOTAM setting up the area.

A2832/10 - THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS ARE REQUIRED DUE TO NAVAL AIR
WARFARE CENTER WEAPONS DIVISION ACTIVATION OF W537.
IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, ALL NON-PARTICIPATING PILOTS
ARE ADVISED TO AVOID W537. IFR TRAFFIC UNDER ATC JURISDICTION
SHOULD ANTICIPATE CLEARANCE AROUND W537 AND CAE 1176.
CAE 1155 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION.
CAE 1316 & CAE 1318 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION.
CAE 1177 WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR OCEANIC TRANSITION.
W537 ACTIVE, CAE 1176 CLOSED. SURFACE - FL390, 09 NOV 20:00 2010 UNTIL 10
NOV 01:00 2010. CREATED: 08 NOV 20:52 2010

Cheers.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
So I guess the next question is, were any vessels requested to change course? Or was there nothing going on? It would be in poor taste to say vessels might be asked to change course in case of operations, and then not make such a request if needed :)
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
Around North San Miguel and a couple of the smaller channel islands, the military has standing notice. They frequently bomb the crud out of the island. Which is really funny since the coast of the island is a marine preserve... [I sail out there and scuba dive the islands very frequently]
 
S

Smersh

Guest
DrDil":3dhg38bk said:
... Seeing as you visit my regular haunts just to taunt me Smersh I thouhgt I'd return the favour….. :lol: ...
Thanks Doc. I was going to request that you post all that here anyway but hadn't got around to it. Since I posted Lori's apparently contrail-busting YT video here, I hadn't got around to mentioning to the guys here about your post over at that other place that you made in reply.

Events are moving too quickly for me and it's getting late. I shall sleep on this now and hopefully return refreshed in the am to continue the battle ... ;) :lol:
 
D

DrDil

Guest
Smersh":1uecd39s said:
DrDil":1uecd39s said:
... Seeing as you visit my regular haunts just to taunt me Smersh I thouhgt I'd return the favour….. :lol: ...
Thanks Doc. I was going to request that you post all that here anyway but hadn't got around to it. Since I posted Lori's apparently contrail-busting YT video here, I hadn't got around to mentioning to the guys here about your post over at that other place that you made in reply.

Events are moving too quickly for me and it's getting late. I shall sleep on this now and hopefully return refreshed in the am to continue the battle ... ;) :lol:
Don't worry about it as I've got another 12 hour shift so you've got another decent headstart on me. :D

I should have mentioned that what Smersh originally posted was a *Notice To Mariners” whereas what I quoted on the foot of the post was a *Notice To Airmen* (what with it being an airborne missile and all…..)


Cheers.
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
Smersh":2ap57hel said:
Lets's see now, we have the editor of Jane's Missiles and Rockets who said it was a missile (and if he doesn't qualify as an expert I don't know who does.) A former US Deputy Defence Secretary said it's a missile. Umpteen other experts said it's a missile. We have an official military document on an official military site, warning mariners about missile tests in that area on that date and to stay clear. The news video (to me anyway) looks like a missile, behaves like a missile and sounds like a missile, so I would say - it's a missile. ;)

To be honest, in retrospect I'm not really sure why such a hoo-hah has been made out of this, with people arguing about it and trying to pass it off as a contrail. What's so unusual about it? Isn't it to be expected that the military will test missiles from time to time?
Well Smersh I worked SM2 for about 10 years, saw dozens of launches from both sea and the "Desert Ship" at WSMR so I'll toss my hat into the expert ring. From what I can see from the video, it wasn't a SM2/SM3. Not even the ER version with the big 1'st stage/booster. The trail is too large and the object is moving too slow. About the only missile it could have been (from our Navy) would have been a Trident II, from a sub. I'm thinking that if it was one (D5), the Navy would have been sure of it, as one of those babies doesn't come out of the tube w/o a lot of pre-planning. Moreover it make no sense for a sub to launch from that area. Long range stuff usually gets shot from PMRF (Hawaii) or Vandenberg (CA).

As for the Notice ... I've not checked out the co-ordinates given but when I was out that way the only place we launched from was about 65 miles north of LA @ Point Mugu NAWC. The news reported the purported launch was 35 miles west of LA, so it doesn't appear to be in the right place. When I have a chance I'll see where the lat/longs given in the Notice lie wrt LA but it would appear that the Notice doesn't mean a missile was even likely to have been shot (given it's been so posted since the glaciers retreated).
 
E

eburacum45

Guest
The notice to airmen/mariners proves nothing, as it is a repeated announcement dating back more than a decade.

If the object was visible for ten minutes it was a plane, not a missile. An optical illusion in the sky causes a media hoo-ha; well, that should be no surprise to anyone.
 
S

Smersh

Guest
Archer17":3k466zgi said:
... The military said they were not responsible. If they owned up to it I don't think anyone here would have disputed it, I know I wouldn't have ...
Hi Archer, the fact that the military, both the Pentagon and the navy, were quite quick to deny it is one of the reasons I think it WAS a missile. ;)

Mee_n_Mac":3k466zgi said:
... Well Smersh I worked SM2 for about 10 years, saw dozens of launches from both sea and the "Desert Ship" at WSMR so I'll toss my hat into the expert ring. From what I can see from the video, it wasn't a SM2/SM3. Not even the ER version with the big 1'st stage/booster. The trail is too large and the object is moving too slow ...
Perhaps it's some new type of missile that you're not familiar with Mee_n_Mac?

DrDil's post, although he points out that many tests have been cancelled over the years, does seem to show that the navy use that area frequently for weapons testing purposes. And as I said before, I don't understand why such a big deal is being made out of this. The military routinely develops new missile and warhead technology and has to test them sometimes. The tests are public knowledge because they have to be in order to warn ships and aircraft to stay clear of the area, although the Pentagon would no doubt like to keep the information as quiet as possible. The details of the tests are of course classified and there's no need for them to be made public.

In my opinion the media are responsible for making such an issue out of this: "SHOCK !! HORROR !! A MISSILE BEING FIRED OFF THE COAST OF LA !!" Then the story gets a life of its own by some people trying to make out it can only possibly be a contrail when there's really no need to debunk anything. In my opinion it's really no big deal at all and a mountain is being made out of a molehill.

Ironically, if it was being claimed that an alien spacecraft had being filmed by the news crew, I would imagine that debunkers would be quick to point out that it was just a missile! ;)
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
eburacum45":38spz6oc said:
The notice to airmen/mariners proves nothing, as it is a repeated announcement dating back more than a decade.

If the object was visible for ten minutes it was a plane, not a missile. An optical illusion in the sky causes a media hoo-ha; well, that should be no surprise to anyone.
I have to agree -- it's a contrail. I'm quite certain of it based on the time factor alone. Even Jon Stewart (who is hardly an expert) pointed that out on his show. Ten minutes to clear the horizon? Heck, ten minutes and it's still boosting, with no sign of a stage separation? That's no rocket. It's an airbreathing vehicle. An airplane.

Spaceweather.com reported on it:
http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=10&month=11&year=2010
UPDATE: There is mounting evidence that the "missile" was in fact an airplane contrail. First, take a look at these pictures comparing the Nov. 8th event to other known airplane contrails. They all look like missiles. Second, reader Rob Matson notes that "a Boeing 757-200 from Honolulu to Phoenix flew right over Catalina Island at 37,000 feet at the time in question. Here is a map of the flight."
 
A

Archer17

Guest
Smersh":15hzub6e said:
Archer17":15hzub6e said:
... The military said they were not responsible. If they owned up to it I don't think anyone here would have disputed it, I know I wouldn't have ...
Hi Archer, the fact that the military, both the Pentagon and the navy, were quite quick to deny it is one of the reasons I think it WAS a missile. ;)
Remember that the next time significance is attached to a "UFO" sighting because the military denies they had anything going on in the area at the time.

It's obvious that you missed the gist of DrDil's post. It doesn't strengthen the missile argument, it dampens it by showing the announcements are "repeaters" with nothing specific to the contrail we're discussing.

DrDil's post, although he points out that many tests have been cancelled over the years, does seem to show that the navy use that area frequently for weapons testing purposes. And as I said before, I don't understand why such a big deal is being made out of this. The military routinely develops new missile and warhead technology and has to test them sometimes. The tests are public knowledge because they have to be in order to warn ships and aircraft to stay clear of the area, although the Pentagon would no doubt like to keep the information as quiet as possible. The details of the tests are of course classified and there's no need for them to be made public.
You seem to be telling us that you accept a pseudo-cover up where the military would deny a test yet make public warnings about it. That doesn't add up. Nor does any speculation involving a "new" missile in this vein. If the military was engaged in testing such a system and felt strongly enough about keeping it under wraps that they would issue denials, then they would have conducted such tests away from the prying eyes of mariners and news choppers. It's a big ocean Smersh.

Ironically, if it was being claimed that an alien spacecraft had being filmed by the news crew, I would imagine that debunkers would be quick to point out that it was just a missile! ;)
What you're seeing on this board shows that we, as a group, are not your run-of-the-mill "debunkers." I've made several posts explaining how true skeptics think and how events are examined from a scientific angle. This means that we don't invent new missiles just to address problems in what was observed nor reject a government denial just because.
 
L

lildreamer

Guest
MeteorWayne":14zbwla2 said:
From the track log here:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWE8 ... X/tracklog

It would have passed LAX at about 5:01 PM on a heading just north of due east (079-080 degrees, not beginning it's descent into Phoenix until 20 minutes later.

Link to the map:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AWE8 ... /PHNL/KPHX

there are other bloggers out there like you wayne who agree its either AWE808 or UPS902
http://blog.bahneman.com/content/it-was ... flight-808

pretty detailed analysis...ithink....
 
S

Smersh

Guest
Archer17":18ytwl96 said:
... It's obvious that you missed the gist of DrDil's post. It doesn't strengthen the missile argument, it dampens it by showing the announcements are "repeaters" with nothing specific to the contrail we're discussing ...
To the contrary actually. I understand the gist of what he's saying but it's complicated. In my opinion there might well have been a missile test at that time because his post shows that the area is regularly used by the military. Furthermore, I can't understand why nobody is taking any notice of the editor of Jane's Missiles and Rockets who said it was a missile. Surely he knows what he's talking about doesn't he? And all the other experts who said it was a missile. And I did explain earlier why I feel the footage filmed by the news crew is unlike any of the contrail examples that have been presented. ;)

lildreamer":18ytwl96 said:
there are other bloggers out there like you wayne who agree its either AWE808 or UPS902
http://blog.bahneman.com/content/it-was ... flight-808

pretty detailed analysis...ithink....
AWE808 would have been cruising at about 30,000ft at that point in its flight. UPS902 would have been in a descent pattern prior to landing at Ontario Airport near LA, and would probably have been at too low an altitude for a contrail to form. The footage filmed by the news crew is, for me, that of an object that is clearly ASCENDING.

We know the estimated postitions of those and other flights because of the research that has been carried out. But do we know the exact time the object was filmed by the news crew? The blog you posted suggests there are "a number of uncertainties," including the exact time of the news footage.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
lildreamer":338d92c8 said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7038111n&tag=channelMore;latestRight

if you watch the video that was mentioned earlier in this thread - approx 1:06 there is a flying vehicle of sorts - can't tell if its a plane, copter or even blimp that looks pretty dam close to the flight path....

seems to even turn into the direction of the plume - therefore someone was close enough to see it go off....
After looking (the bbc video on page 3 of this thread seems to show it best), it looks like a flight leaving LAX, so it's motion was unrelated.
 
S

Smersh

Guest
MeteorWayne":qk4myq4c said:
... After looking (the bbc video on page 3 of this thread seems to show it best), it looks like a flight leaving LAX, so it's motion was unrelated.
But it looks nothing like a flight leaving LAX to me. I've seen lots of aircraft in flight shortly after take-off and I've never seen one leave a contrail like that, just after take-off. Contrails normally form once an aircraft has reached an absolute minimum altitude of about 25,000ft and when they are in cruise at altitudes well above that.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
One crucial piece of info, essential for a true analysis, is, what time was the video taken? Nowhere is it stated WHEN this 10 minute video was taken. Related, where is the 10 minutes of video? Or is only the edited 45 seconds available?

The only time stamp was when it was broadcast on KCBS which was 5:50 PM PST. So all we know is that it was taken before then.

It appears the sun hasn't set yet, but is very close to the horizon. Sunset for LA was 4:54 PM.

MW
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Smersh":14zhfi3b said:
MeteorWayne":14zhfi3b said:
... After looking (the bbc video on page 3 of this thread seems to show it best), it looks like a flight leaving LAX, so it's motion was unrelated.
But it looks nothing like a flight leaving LAX to me. I've seen lots of aircraft in flight shortly after take-off and I've never seen one leave a contrail like that, just after take-off. Contrails normally form once an aircraft has reached an absolute minimum altitude of about 25,000ft and when they are in cruise at altitudes well above that.
No,no,no,no...please don't get confused. :) She was referring to (and I was re-referring to) the object below and to the right of the contrail, not the contrail itself.

And I believe that the flight info above proves beyond a reasonable doubt it was the contrail from AWE808, subject to any new data as to when the actual video was taken.

I'm looking for the full video, or at the very least, what time it was taken.
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
Smersh":mqmxs6e1 said:
Perhaps it's some new type of missile that you're not familiar with Mee_n_Mac?
Certainly possible but such a new weapon would most certainly be tested on a closed range; WSMR, China Lake, UTTR, etc ... out of sight of prying eyes and where it would be easier to get data from (telemetry, optical and radar tracking) the test. You don't do initial testing out where there's no support for these things.

As for the Lieutenant General Tom McInerney, he's an ex-AF general. Nothing in his history make me think he knows anything about missilery, especially Naval versions thereof. Were we debating whether this was an F4, or even any fighter jet, I might acknowledge his background qualifies him to speak on the issue. As it is I don't see how he is anything more than a mouth piece with a uniform.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
According to KCBS, their entire raw video is here:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2010/11/ ... nia-coast/

It lasts a whole entire 40 seconds, with no time indication whatsoever.

Most of it is zooming from a wide shot to a closeup while trying to focus.

I did not see the shot that is on the BBC link showing another aircraft taking off, so will have to try and track down a source for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY