Mystery Missile

[mistermack]

Ian, you live in a fantasy world. I hope it's a nice place, but I'm happy with reality thanks.

Still want to say that in light of the Flight 808 information?

If you ever manage to prove that it was indeed a missile, then I'll stop thinking you're insane. Until then...

Is that what you call information? That confirms what I thought all along, you're a daydreaming fantasist.

I think someone fucked up and let one go. It just amazes me that it didn't land on british troops. like the rest of their "friendly" mistakes.

[Feck]

Right please anyone explain to me why the US would launch a missile without the normal advance clearances ,or a hostile force go to all that trouble to prove they could do it ,but not land the payload on US soil ? In fact ,would anybody like to give me an even remotely plausible explanation for this apart from the one we have ?


It fact if any of you guys want to be protected from this sort of attack just send me $50 and I will send you some special tinfoil that has been touched by a third level Rei-ki master (my EX ) to cover your heads with .
If you think that those things just go off because some one hits the wrong button then you should talk to Science Rob ,or one of the other time served bubble heads on the forum !

Sorry but ICBM carrying Subs do not sit just off the coast of California !

[Blondie]

Ian, you live in a fantasy world. I hope it's a nice place, but I'm happy with reality thanks.

Still want to say that in light of the Flight 808 information?

If you ever manage to prove that it was indeed a missile, then I'll stop thinking you're insane. Until then...

Is that what you call information?

"The FAA ran radar replays of a large area west of Los Angeles based on media reports of the possible missile launch at approximately 5 p.m. (PT) on Monday. The radar replays did not reveal any fast moving, unidentified targets in that area," said FAA spokesman Ian Gregor. "The FAA did not receive reports ... of unusual sightings from pilots who were flying in the area on Monday afternoon.

The guy writing that blog doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about.

I think someone fucked up and let one go. It just amazes me that it didn't land on british troops. like the rest of their "friendly" mistakes.

I don't know what it was, but that's still funny shit.

[Blondie]

Right please anyone explain to me why the US would launch a missile without the normal advance clearances ,or a hostile force go to all that trouble to prove they could do it ,but not land the payload on US soil ? In fact ,would anybody like to give me an even remotely plausible explanation for this apart from the one we have ?

Feck off.

I assume this isn't addressed to me because I haven't claimed it was a USN op. I don't know what it was - neither does the Pentagon or the FAA. Some idiot on a blog claims it was flight 808 which is flatly contradicted by the statement from the FAA spokesperson.

Sorry but ICBM carrying Subs do not sit just off the coast of California !

Is the water too shallow?

[GrahamH]

It seems the 'missile' was US Airways flight 808.

http://blog1.bahneman.com/content/it-wa ... flight-808
Right time and location, and repeated 24 hours later.

Right. I'll wait for the FAA to tell me what flight it was, not some quack on his blog. .

Wow, you really want it to be a missile huh?

US Airlines will tell you about flight 808
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/USA808

Do you dispute that the "quack"/"twat" showed us a picture of flight 808 in the webcam image, or Is it two missiles now?

The similarities are striking.

[Blondie]

It seems the 'missile' was US Airways flight 808.

http://blog1.bahneman.com/content/it-wa ... flight-808
Right time and location, and repeated 24 hours later.

Right. I'll wait for the FAA to tell me what flight it was, not some quack on his blog. .

Wow, you really want it to be a missile huh?

US Airlines will tell you about flight 808
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/USA808

Do you dispute that the "quack"/"twat" showed us a picture of flight 808 in the webcam image, or Is it two missiles now?

The similarities are striking.

"The FAA ran radar replays of a large area west of Los Angeles based on media reports of the possible missile launch at approximately 5 p.m. (PT) on Monday. The radar replays did not reveal any fast moving, unidentified targets in that area," said FAA spokesman Ian Gregor. "The FAA did not receive reports ... of unusual sightings from pilots who were flying in the area on Monday afternoon.

Anything else? I don't "really want it to be a missile". I really want a real source to tell me what it was. If you can't see the glaring errors in that idiotic blog post the statement from the FAA spokesman should be enough for you to bin it regardless.

ETA: Funny how their projected course doesn't show all those rapid wobbles we see in the video of the "missile".

[mistermack]

How anybody could take that blogman seriously is beyond me. You don't even know he's genuine and not a faker, but you're prepared to call it "information"?
I've still got doubts that the original video wasn't a fraud, but there is no way it's a jet. ( unless it was a very sick jet, and you would have heard of that ). The only jet I've ever seen that looked like that was the last flight of the Concorde, in Paris.

I've got doubts about the report. How come loads more people didn't see it, and get still pictures of it? How come the plane in the foreground is jumping about relative to it? Surely their cameras are better quality than that?
It looks doctored.

[Trolldor]

Oh mistermack, you're like a walking, talking Gabbo.

[Ian]

Ian, you live in a fantasy world. I hope it's a nice place, but I'm happy with reality thanks.

Still want to say that in light of the Flight 808 information?

If you ever manage to prove that it was indeed a missile, then I'll stop thinking you're insane. Until then...

Is that what you call information? That confirms what I thought all along, you're a daydreaming fantasist.

I think someone fucked up and let one go. It just amazes me that it didn't land on british troops. like the rest of their "friendly" mistakes.

Anthroban and Mistermack,

Let me be clear. I'm not saying what it was (although Flight 808 seems like a reasonable explanation), I'm just emphasizing what it is not: a secret military launch. It could not have been that. Period. End of story. Not math degree required, but understanding how such launches happen tends to help. And if you're convinced that's what it must have been, I can only ask you to take off your tin foil hats and re-read what I've already wrote.

[Blondie]

It couldn't have been flight 808 - the FAA already said as much. Suppose you're right: it is not a military launch (USN mind you), secret or otherwise. But why the hell has the Pentagon or the FAA not identified it?

[mistermack]

Anthroban and Mistermack,

Let me be clear. I'm not saying what it was (although Flight 808 seems like a reasonable explanation), I'm just emphasizing what it is not: a secret military launch. It could not have been that. Period. End of story. Not math degree required, but understanding how such launches happen tends to help. And if you're convinced that's what it must have been, I can only ask you to take off your tin foil hats and re-read what I've already wrote.

Fuck me, who's calling that a secret? Not me. I can't think of many worse kept secrets.
Why I'm suspicious of the original film is, if he got ten minutes of film, where is it?
And if it was clearly visible from LA, as one of the announcers said, where are all the independent photos, taken by other witnesses.
Something stinks. I still smell a hoax.
But it's certainly not a jet.

[Ian]

Anthroban and Mistermack,

Let me be clear. I'm not saying what it was (although Flight 808 seems like a reasonable explanation), I'm just emphasizing what it is not: a secret military launch. It could not have been that. Period. End of story. Not math degree required, but understanding how such launches happen tends to help. And if you're convinced that's what it must have been, I can only ask you to take off your tin foil hats and re-read what I've already wrote.

Fuck me, who's calling that a secret? Not me. I can't think of many worse kept secrets.
Why I'm suspicious of the original film is, if he got ten minutes of film, where is it?
And if it was clearly visible from LA, as one of the announcers said, where are all the independent photos, taken by other witnesses.
Something stinks. I still smell a hoax.
But it's certainly not a jet.

Fair enough. I think a hoax is reasonable. News outlets have been known to fabricate crap to get ratings.
But I do not think a military cover-up is reasonable at all. I do not think the military, US or otherwise, was remotely involved in this whole story.

[cowiz]

Anthroban and Mistermack,

Let me be clear. I'm not saying what it was (although Flight 808 seems like a reasonable explanation), I'm just emphasizing what it is not: a secret military launch. It could not have been that. Period. End of story. Not math degree required, but understanding how such launches happen tends to help. And if you're convinced that's what it must have been, I can only ask you to take off your tin foil hats and re-read what I've already wrote.

Fuck me, who's calling that a secret? Not me. I can't think of many worse kept secrets.
Why I'm suspicious of the original film is, if he got ten minutes of film, where is it?
And if it was clearly visible from LA, as one of the announcers said, where are all the independent photos, taken by other witnesses.
Something stinks. I still smell a hoax.
But it's certainly not a jet.

Fair enough. I think a hoax is reasonable. News outlets have been known to fabricate crap to get ratings.
But I do not think a military cover-up is reasonable at all. I do not think the military, US or otherwise, was remotely involved in this whole story.

Tis true. If Ian PM's you telling you to get out of the country fast, don't question him, just do it. He's in the know you know?

On an unrelated matter, Ian just PM'd me telling me to "Get out of the country now".

[Ian]

Tis true. If Ian PM's you telling you to get out of the country fast, don't question him, just do it. He's in the know you know?

On an unrelated matter, Ian just PM'd me telling me to "Get out of the country now".

Speaking of that, how was the G-20 meeting? Were there any riots?

Don't take long to write back. You need to get out of the country. Quick!

[GrahamH]

It seems the 'missile' was US Airways flight 808.

http://blog1.bahneman.com/content/it-wa ... flight-808
Right time and location, and repeated 24 hours later.

Right. I'll wait for the FAA to tell me what flight it was, not some quack on his blog. .

Wow, you really want it to be a missile huh?

US Airlines will tell you about flight 808
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/USA808

Do you dispute that the "quack"/"twat" showed us a picture of flight 808 in the webcam image, or Is it two missiles now?

The similarities are striking.

"The FAA ran radar replays of a large area west of Los Angeles based on media reports of the possible missile launch at approximately 5 p.m. (PT) on Monday. The radar replays did not reveal any fast moving, unidentified targets in that area," said FAA spokesman Ian Gregor. "The FAA did not receive reports ... of unusual sightings from pilots who were flying in the area on Monday afternoon.

Anything else? I don't "really want it to be a missile". I really want a real source to tell me what it was. If you can't see the glaring errors in that idiotic blog post the statement from the FAA spokesman should be enough for you to bin it regardless.

ETA: Funny how their projected course doesn't show all those rapid wobbles we see in the video of the "missile".

The FAA spokesman would obviously not report anything unusual on radar, since flight 808 was a scheduled airline! Nothing unusual about it, except how its contrail looked in the setting sun from an area on shore. From any other angle it probably looked like a typical contrail. Not something pilots report as unusual.

The "wobble" is likely an atmospheric effect.