"Mystery'" missile launch of Los Angeles Coast (1 Viewer)

[Polynikes]

Mystery Missile Launch Seen off Calif. Coast - CBS News

Hmm, how can NORAD, the Navy or anyone in the DOD really claim they have no idea what this is?

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.

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

When asked, however, what he thought it might be, the former ambassador said it could possibly have been a missile test timed as a demonstration of American military might as President Obama tours Asia.

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

 

[Oozlefinch]

This is very simple, it is not a missile.

I have seen dozen of missile launches. And this was not a missile.

These are a few examples of what a missile actually looks like:

PATRIOT PAC-3 launch.
YouTube - Missile Launch


Series of launches from Vandenberg AFB.
YouTube - Vandenberg Launch Compilation


Delta II launch from Vandenberg AFB.
YouTube - Delta II Launch at Vandenberg: MDA Satellite STSS ATRR


And the newest missile in the US Aresonl, THAAD.
YouTube - THAAD Test


And a pair of Navy SM-2 missiles.
YouTube - US Navy Guided Missile Cruiser, missile launch

Now if that is a missile, it is the first slow-speed missile I have ever seen. I have never seen a missile that flys that slow, and see no reason to ever make one.

Simple reason, it is not a missile. It's an airplane.

 

[Thorgasm]

This is very simple, it is not a missile.

I have seen dozen of missile launches. And this was not a missile.

These are a few examples of what a missile actually looks like:

PATRIOT PAC-3 launch.
YouTube - Missile Launch


Series of launches from Vandenberg AFB.
YouTube - Vandenberg Launch Compilation


Delta II launch from Vandenberg AFB.
YouTube - Delta II Launch at Vandenberg: MDA Satellite STSS ATRR


And the newest missile in the US Aresonl, THAAD.
YouTube - THAAD Test


And a pair of Navy SM-2 missiles.
YouTube - US Navy Guided Missile Cruiser, missile launch

Now if that is a missile, it is the first slow-speed missile I have ever seen. I have never seen a missile that flys that slow, and see no reason to ever make one.

Simple reason, it is not a missile. It's an airplane.

I don't buy that it was an airplane. I do buy that they aren't going to tell us what it was, but I'm sure they know.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I don't buy that it was an airplane. I do buy that they aren't going to tell us what it was, but I'm sure they know.

OK, it was not an airplane. It also was very obviously not a missile.

So what was it?

 

[Thorgasm]

OK, it was not an airplane. It also was very obviously not a missile.

So what was it?

Something new I would guess. Maybe a slower rocket.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Excuse me, a slow rocket?

*walks in circles shaking head*

No such thing. This is real life, not an old 1970's Andy Griffith TV show. With only a few exceptions, a missile can't adjust it's throttle. And because it lacks things like airfoils that allow it to perform at slow speeds, it can't go slower. Any attempt would simply have it flipping back over and crashing. And that certainly happened enough in the early days (and still happens occasionally today).

And in case you did not get the reference, Andy stared in a series called "Salvage 1" in the 1970's. The main focus of the series was a moon/space rocket that was designed to work at low thrust ratios and speeds. It was not realistic in any scientific way, but it helps the special effects budget low.

YouTube - Salvage-1 A Second Clip from "Golden Orbit" Andy Grifith

 

[Thorgasm]

Excuse me, a slow rocket?

*walks in circles shaking head*

No such thing. This is real life, not an old 1970's Andy Griffith TV show. With only a few exceptions, a missile can't adjust it's throttle. And because it lacks things like airfoils that allow it to perform at slow speeds, it can't go slower. Any attempt would simply have it flipping back over and crashing. And that certainly happened enough in the early days (and still happens occasionally today).

And in case you did not get the reference, Andy stared in a series called "Salvage 1" in the 1970's. The main focus of the series was a moon/space rocket that was designed to work at low thrust ratios and speeds. It was not realistic in any scientific way, but it helps the special effects budget low.

YouTube - Salvage-1 A Second Clip from "Golden Orbit" Andy Grifith

Who knows? It could be new technology.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

We know what it wasn't. We just dont know what it was.

If you don't know what it was then how could you know what it wasn't?

It wasnt a flying house going in reverse from Kansas. Thats for sure.

Now if that is a missile, it is the first slow-speed missile I have ever seen. I have never seen a missile that flys that slow, and see no reason to ever make one.

Simple reason, it is not a missile. It's an airplane.

Only reason why'd i could think anyone would want to make a slow missle is to make it aquire tons more targets before it fully speeds up. Or maybe to make it juke certain auto defense reactions.

 

[RoccoR]

dirtpoorchris, et al,

Yes, obviously, we don't know "something(s)."

We know what it wasn't. We just dont know what it was.

If you don't know what it was then how could you know what it wasn't?

It wasnt a flying house going in reverse from Kansas. Thats for sure.



Only reason why'd i could think anyone would want to make a slow missle is to make it aquire tons more targets before it fully speeds up. Or maybe to make it juke certain auto defense reactions.

(COMMENT)

We're pretty damn sure it wasn't a SAM or a mistaken launch.

But there is nothing developed thus far that would suggest it is something that is not normal - with all the traffic it is (most probably) something undefined - unrecognized.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Thorgasm]

It was Mentos and a giant bottle of Diet Coke.

 

[Oozlefinch]

We know what it wasn't. We just dont know what it was.

If you don't know what it was then how could you know what it wasn't?

It wasnt a flying house going in reverse from Kansas. Thats for sure.



Only reason why'd i could think anyone would want to make a slow missle is to make it aquire tons more targets before it fully speeds up. Or maybe to make it juke certain auto defense reactions.

We already have "Slow Speed Missiles". For example, there is the various Cruise Missiles, like the Tomahawk. And do you know what those look like in flight?

Like an airplane. In fact, cruise missiles (going all the way back to the original, the V-1) are essentially unmanned airplanes.

When most people think of "Missiles", they think of Ballistic Missiles. And those all have the same flight characterists also. They leave the earth at a high rate of speed (at maximum thrist, between 4-6,000 mph). They all take off at maxumum thrust, because they have to. They have no air foils, no wings. They travel at maxumum speed, or they fall back to Earth.

And after they close in at their maxumum altitude, they run out of fuel then they coast. Their return is unpowered, and they fall until they hit terminal velocity, around MACH 10. There is no power, and no need of power. With no air foils, power does no good. They are on a Ballistic Trajectory, their destination predetermined by the characterists of where they were pointed when they were launched.

So it is not a matter of a "new missile", this would simply be an impossible missile. You can't make a Ballistic Missile behave in the way this track behaved. The only missile that could would be a Cruise Missile. And those are nothing more then unmanned airplanes.

It is simple physics. And unless somebody has invented a way to violate physics that they are keeping a secret, it is not a missile.

 

[Hoplite]

The "mystery missile" was US Airways 808 from Honolulu to Phoenix.
It was US Airways flight 808 | Time to Think

Mystery ****ing solved

 

[KevinWebb]

@oozlefinch, an airplane? You're really buying that crap?

Anyone who has seen a large missile launch understands that they are very slow moving on initial take-off. The speediness of a missile doesn't activate until it loses its initial burners. They eventually detach. It very much resembles a long-distance missile.

While it would be in my best interest to NOT discuss what I believe it to be, here is WHY it was NOT a plane. And I only need to leave you one point for now.

1) EVERY aircraft in the U.S., and even foreign aircraft, have extremely traceable flight signatures, especially that close to our coast. Every plane has an electronic flight path, itinerary, details on where it is going, etc.

If you remember correctly, during 9/11, we knew of all of the planes that went off grid, and were on incorrect flight paths.

So... why was there no record of the plane destination?

 

[theangryamerican]

The "mystery missile" was US Airways 808 from Honolulu to Phoenix.
It was US Airways flight 808 | Time to Think

Mystery ****ing solved

Good read, Hoplite. Thanks.

@oozlefinch, an airplane? You're really buying that crap?

Anyone who has seen a large missile launch understands that they are very slow moving on initial take-off. The speediness of a missile doesn't activate until it loses its initial burners. They eventually detach. It very much resembles a long-distance missile.

While it would be in my best interest to NOT discuss what I believe it to be, here is WHY it was NOT a plane. And I only need to leave you one point for now.

1) EVERY aircraft in the U.S., and even foreign aircraft, have extremely traceable flight signatures, especially that close to our coast. Every plane has an electronic flight path, itinerary, details on where it is going, etc.

If you remember correctly, during 9/11, we knew of all of the planes that went off grid, and were on incorrect flight paths.

So... why was there no record of the plane destination?

There is far more evidence for it being an airplane than a missile. Do a bit of reading.

 

[KevinWebb]

@theangryamerica - LOL... I've done much more than read what other people come up with. In my line of work, we analyze this kind of stuff all of the time, do studies, research, create analysis, brief what we've come up with, etc.

For something of this magnitude (aircraft, missile, etc.) to be a "mystery" in a country such as America with the highly advanced radar technologies that we possess is simply not possible.

Even civilians can track U.S. flights, paths, patterns and itinerary using searchable websites, so to think our government simply has no idea how to confidently explain the "missile" is nothing short of ridiculous.

If it was a plane, then it wasn't a U.S. plane... which would still be cause for alarm, as we do not allow unidentified aircraft, especially one large enough to leave a contrail like the one in the video, to be flown without permission in the U.S.

Maybe you should do a bit MORE than just reading.

 

[Deuce]

Missiles don't have blinking red/green NAV lights.

 

[theangryamerican]

@theangryamerica - LOL... I've done much more than read what other people come up with. In my line of work, we analyze this kind of stuff all of the time, do studies, research, create analysis, brief what we've come up with, etc.

For something of this magnitude (aircraft, missile, etc.) to be a "mystery" in a country such as America with the highly advanced radar technologies that we possess is simply not possible.
Even civilians can track U.S. flights, paths, patterns and itinerary using searchable websites, so to think our government simply has no idea how to confidently explain the "missile" is nothing short of ridiculous.

If it was a plane, then it wasn't a U.S. plane... which would still be cause for alarm, as we do not allow unidentified aircraft, especially one large enough to leave a contrail like the one in the video, to be flown without permission in the U.S.

Maybe you should do a bit MORE than just reading.

It's only still a mystery for those that are looking for some sort of conspiracy. The rest of us can see the more logical conclusions instead of chasing phantoms.

 

[Oozlefinch]

@oozlefinch, an airplane? You're really buying that crap?

Anyone who has seen a large missile launch understands that they are very slow moving on initial take-off. The speediness of a missile doesn't activate until it loses its initial burners. They eventually detach. It very much resembles a long-distance missile.

Yes, I am buying it, see above.

And yes, I have seen missile launches of all kinds. And that object was already at a high altitude. And it was flwing from West to East (or going up, this is where the human observations break from reality).

At that altitude, it would have already been going at over 1,000 MPH, and quickly become a speck in the sky. But this was very obviously not the case.

And even a multi-stage missile takes off very fast, with or without detachable booster engines. Look at any Space Shuttle Launch. In fact, let's look closely at one.

Now at about 55 seconds after launch, the rising shuttle hits "Max Q", where the engines are throttled down (from 100% to 70% power). This is to prevent overspeed and excessive stress while still in the lower atmosphere. But at this point, the shuttle is already traveling at 28,968 MPH! This lasts for about 12 seconds, when the engines are again throttled up to maximum power. And remember, this is while the solid boosters are still running.

Anybody old enough to remember the Challenger Disaster knows this part very well. The Challenger had just passed this phase, and the command "Roger, go throttle up" was given a moment before the fuel tank exploded. And as anybody who has seen this knows, the SRBs were still functioning, and went spiraling in all directions before they were remotely detonated.

On a shuttle, SRB seperation does not occur until T+126, almost a minute after return to full power.

Your ICBM works very differently though. Most do not have Solid Fuel, nor do they have boosters. They are liquid fueled, and take off at a much faster velocity then even a Shuttle. They also behave very differently.

Let's look at the flight characteristics of a Chinese DF-5 ICBM. This is a liquid fuel missile, utilizing liquid Nitrogen and liquid Oxygen.

Now the missile takes off from ground level, and at approximately T+90, the first stage cuts off. The stage is ejected by explosive bolts, then the second engine kicks in at around T+95. This engine carries it the remainder of the way until it is at almost maximum altitude. Stage 2 then cuts off, at around T+300 and is ejected.

Stage 3 kicks in when it prepares to descend. When it reaches the predetermined location to start descent, Stage 3 kicks in, turning the missile groundwards, giving it's initial speed to start it's downward plunge, then cutting off. Since Stage 3 is built into the main missile body, it will remain with the missile until either MIRV seperation, or until detonation.

And as I have said before, I have seen hundreds of missile launches. As many as 6 in one day. This looks nothing like any kind of ballistic missile, period.

Look up my nick, it might give you an idea of what I do for a living.

Oozlefinch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And FYI, in other forums I am known as "Mushroom" and "Mushroom0311". Mushroom was a nickname (sadly in use here) that I got in Panama in 1987. 0311, well, that should be obvious to you, being a Jarhead.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I know we've hashed this out again and again - about the actual location of launch for the Delta II.

Nonetheless - a McDonald's cup isn't a missile, either.

 

[KevinWebb]

I never asserted that it was, in fact, a ballistics missile, as I've seen reports that it was potentially a foreign aircraft. My conclusion is, and always has been, that the fact that it was called a mystery, and NOBODY in the DOD, DIA, NGA, FAA, etc. could CONFIDENTLY identify what it was despite the fact that we knew it's EXACT location.

The easier bit of logic I find it it NOT being a missile is that missiles tend to land somewhere, and something that large we may have been able to know where it landed. However, my sense of logic for it not being a "safe" aircraft are also that we have no idea where it ended up.

Simply put... things like this do not get called a "mystery", swept under the rug, and then forgotten about unless there was more to that what all these "experts" are saying.

Even ambassador Robert Ellsworth (former Secretary of Defense) could not properly identify the object.

 

[RoccoR]

KevinWebb, et al,

It is something that belongs there.

I never asserted that it was, in fact, a ballistics missile, as I've seen reports that it was potentially a foreign aircraft. My conclusion is, and always has been, that the fact that it was called a mystery, and NOBODY in the DOD, DIA, NGA, FAA, etc. could CONFIDENTLY identify what it was despite the fact that we knew it's EXACT location.

(COMMENT)

What we appear to know is that it is not a "missile launch" from a US POO and it appears that we know that it was not an inbound object that fits a threat profile.

Given that, it is most probably something very common that is being seen under unusual conditions or strange angle. But when examined by sensors, doesn't trigger anything threatening or unusual.

In my opinion, it is probably a contrail from a non-threat aircraft that the weather and the light is playing tricks with, fooling the observers.

Just My Opinion,
R

 

[Hoplite]

@theangryamerica - LOL... I've done much more than read what other people come up with. In my line of work, we analyze this kind of stuff all of the time, do studies, research, create analysis, brief what we've come up with, etc.

Our new resident "missileologist"?

For something of this magnitude (aircraft, missile, etc.) to be a "mystery" in a country such as America with the highly advanced radar technologies that we possess is simply not possible.

Agreed.

Even civilians can track U.S. flights, paths, patterns and itinerary using searchable websites, so to think our government simply has no idea how to confidently explain the "missile" is nothing short of ridiculous.

Agreed, which is why some civilian DID demonstrate this to be nothing more than a plane.