http://www.prisonplanet.com/general-mcinerney-%E2%80%9Ci-am-absolutely-certain-that-is-not-an-aircraft%E2%80%9D.html


However, Retired Airforce Lt. General Tom Mcinerney, with no reservations stated that this object was clearly a missile saying:
“Well first of all, I do not agree with the assertion Sean. And your question is, we should get a definitive answer. You’re absolutely correct. Look, this is not an airplane because of the plume, and the way you see that plume. Airplanes do not con at sea level or 5000 ft like that. I spent 35 yrs flying fighters, and I never saw an airplane con like that. That is a missile – it’s launched from a submarine, and you can see it go through a correction course, and then it gives a very smooth trajectory meaning that the guidance system has now kicked in, it’s going at about a 45 degrees away from you that’s why you’re not seeing a lot of vertical velocity.”
When Sean interrupted Lt. Mcinerney, asking ” are you 100% certain? Mcinerney answered with 100% conviction:
“Sean… I’ve watched that film 10 times, I’ve watched 15 other Trident films, SM 3.. Standard missile threes, and T Lam launches…. I am absolutely certain that that is not an aircraft.”

It is not at all inconceivable diplomatic contact might have been made apprising the USA of what it was and essentially saying--what are you going to do about it? It is, after all, how these things are often done...America has never been weaker than it is today...


Just how is America weaker today?

Just how is America weaker today?

Lack of resolve and non-existent leadership from the "Commander" in chief...for starters...I see that North Korea understands this quite clearly...they sank a ship in March, now today's events...perception is everything...

The President was woken at 4AM this morning because North Korea was firing at South Korea where we have 36,000 troops. Have you seen a response from the White House or the US military? Just because the US government doesn't respond doesn't mean it didn't happen. I thought we learned this lesson after the USS Cole, Mogadishu, The US embassies in Africa, Kobar Towers, etc. We didn't respond to them, but they did happen.

I am sure it was North Korea that did this. They are planning an attack on South Korea and fired a warning shot at the US that lets us know they can reach the US mainland if they want to. However, if you feel more comfortable closing your eyes and hoping that by ignoring it that it will just go away, then more power to you.

I wonder what Obama did when they woke him up this morning. I wonder if he even cares.

...here is my answer...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_north_korea


Though the White House had strong words for North Korea, the administration was tempering Obama's direct involvement by planning a written statement from the president instead of having him speak publicly

Nothing will shut Obama up like a missile being fired off the coast.

I'll let you guess which character is Obama.

f7J6dRkJjOI

You're nuts if you think a missile being fired off the LA coast is even closely comparable to North Korea firing at South Korea. You're also delusional if you think we wouldn't have scrabbled aircraft and war ships if we even suspected an armed foreign military vessel was just off our coast.

Lack of resolve and non-existent leadership from the "Commander" in chief...for starters...I see that North Korea understands this quite clearly...they sank a ship in March, now today's events...perception is everything...

How then do you explain a US Army officer murdered by the Soviets in East Germany on Reagan's watch with no repercussions?

You're nuts if you think a missile being fired off the LA coast is even closely comparable to North Korea firing at South Korea. You're also delusional if you think we wouldn't have scrabbled aircraft and war ships if we even suspected an armed foreign military vessel was just off our coast.

I would like to think that, but what makes you think they didn't know it was there. One thing I found very interesting is that the 'airplane' crowd says the aircrafy was flying east, while the 'missile' crowd says it is going northwest, and NORAD initially said "it didn't pose a threat to the mainland" while they were still saying they didn't know what it was. The only way that is possible is if it was flying away from the coast. That makes the airplane story impossible.

It is often useful to think of Occam when trying to understand things.

1. A crisis is great for politics. Obama could guarrantee his reelection if there was a real foreign power launching missles off LA.
2. Contrails make for great optical illusions. Try looking at them sometimes.
3. A few years ago, there were three "mysterious" "hovering" lights west of Phoenix. Some folks said "Aliens." Others said "illuminating parachute flares from Yuma prooving grounds." Which do you suppose is the simpliest explanation and which turned out true?

Whoa, they lit up alien paratroopers over Yuma with flares?
Kinda Kewl.

It is often useful to think of Occam when trying to understand things.

1. A crisis is great for politics. Obama could guarrantee his reelection if there was a real foreign power launching missles off LA.
2. Contrails make for great optical illusions. Try looking at them sometimes.
3. A few years ago, there were three "mysterious" "hovering" lights west of Phoenix. Some folks said "Aliens." Others said "illuminating parachute flares from Yuma prooving grounds." Which do you suppose is the simpliest explanation and which turned out true?

1. Not if Obama's (and Hillary's) bungling of diplomacy are to blame. From the looks of Wikileaks, bungling is a kind word.
2. Contrail do make for great illusions. Take the missile contrail that some people still think is airplane for instance. Do you seriously have any doubt that this is anything other than North Korea?
3. Really? You want to relate a missile sighting with alien sightings. BTW, who was responsible for the Phoenix flares? You guessed it, the military. For your analogy to be correct USAir would have had to drop the flares.

Oh, of course it's Obama's bungling and of course it was north korea. Do they even have a Navy? You seriously believe our military notified the President the North Korean Navy fired a missle off the coast of California and the president said, the PResident said, "Golly, just let them go and make up a story about it being a contrail. I'm too scared to offend them."

Geeze. You'll believe anything.

Kerry, Obama doesn't want to you to buy my beach front property in Gotebo. He's afraid you'll get a great bargain if you buy it from me. But you're to smart to fall for that. Just send me $20,000 and you'll foil his attempts to keep you down!

1. Not if Obama's (and Hillary's) bungling of diplomacy are to blame. From the looks of Wikileaks, bungling is a kind word.
2. Contrail do make for great illusions. Take the missile contrail that some people still think is airplane for instance. Do you seriously have any doubt that this is anything other than North Korea?
3. Really? You want to relate a missile sighting with alien sightings. BTW, who was responsible for the Phoenix flares? You guessed it, the military. For your analogy to be correct USAir would have had to drop the flares.

I wish Jodie Foster had never made that movie with Occam's razor mentioned in it...fleets of folks who haven't a clue what it is all about now get all excited finding some oscrure place to pull the trigger on using it...it is what I mean when I say 90% of today's world--and about 96% of Americans under 40 get ALL their history and knowledge from Hollywood...a sort of "intellectual snipe hunt"...

JMR, I haven't the slightest clue what movie you are talking about. But, since you are clearly the smartest person on this forum and untainted by "hollywood," please explain why choosing the least likely explanations requiring the most rediculous and unprovable assumptions are most likely in explaining this common contrail.

Go ahead, impress us yet again with your vastly superior intellect.

EO - between a missile and airplane, the airplane is the least likely. It doesn't even look like an airplane. A commercial aircraft has at least 2 engines and this object clearly leaves only one vapor trail at the point of origin. Go outside an watch any aircraft flying by. Even if the contrail morphs into one, you can still see two just behind the aircraft at the point of origin.

BTW - yes North Korea does have a navy. The fact that you don’t know that indicates you might not be playing with full knowledge about North Korea. A North Korean submarine just sunk a South Korean ship in March. Here is a story about how Hillary didn't want to accuse Kim Jong Il so as not to 'play into his hands'. I even got the story from the NYT so you will believe it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/asia/23korea.html


So far, at least in public, both American and South Korean leaders have been careful never to link Mr. Kim to the sinking of the Cheonan in March, which killed 46 sailors. Officials said that was in part because of the absence of hard evidence — difficult to come by in the rigidly controlled North — but also largely because both countries were trying to avoid playing into Mr. Kim’s hands by casting one of the worst attacks since the 1953 armistice as another piece of lore about the Kim family taking on South Korea and the West.

Do you think it is possible that Hillary/Obama might not publicly accuse Kim this time so as to 'not play into his hands'? That is the problem with lying - once you start you can't stop.

EO - between a missile and airplane, the airplane is the least likely. It doesn't even look like an airplane. A commercial aircraft has at least 2 engines and this object clearly leaves only one vapor trail at the point of origin. Go outside an watch any aircraft flying by. Even if the contrail morphs into one, you can still see two just behind the aircraft at the point of origin.

BTW - yes North Korea does have a navy. The fact that you don’t know that indicates you might not be playing with full knowledge about North Korea. A North Korean submarine just sunk a South Korean ship in March. Here is a story about how Hillary didn't want to accuse Kim Jong Il so as not to 'play into his hands'. I even got the story from the NYT so you will believe it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/asia/23korea.html

Do you think it is possible that Hillary/Obama might not publicly accuse Kim this time so as to 'not play into his hands'? That is the problem with lying - once you start you can't stop.
Good lord. This is crazy even by your standards.

As much as you'd like to give Hillary magic powers and supernatural abilities, she's just not that big or scary. She doesn't have the liberal superpowers you are wetting your pants about nor could she single handedly bury information like you suggest. If she could, she'd know you are on to her and kill you with her super liberal mind bullets.

As appealing as that idea might be, she hasn't and she can't.

Tell me this, Kerry:
What is the nature of the North Korean Navy? Is it green water or blue water? Is it visible or invisible?

When did they get the ablility to sail undetected to the california coastline?

When did they get the ability ot cruise outside thier own coastline?

You're trying hard to make an ordinary event into wild eyed sci-fi. Keep going and let me know when you get to the nuclear unicorn theory.

Here's a good place for you to start. I got it from world net daily so you would believe it. (http://tv.disney.go.com/disneychannel/hannahmontana/index.html)

wow... some of you are pretty delusional and paranoid.

[QUOTE=Edmond_Outsider;380405]Tell me this, Kerry:
What is the nature of the North Korean Navy? Is it green water or blue water? Is it visible or invisible?

When did they get the ablility to sail undetected to the california coastline?

When did they get the ability ot cruise outside thier own coastline?

[QUOTE]

What makes you think North Korea sailed into US waters undetected? Do you think the US military would have intecepted a North Korean sub in international water? Besides, who says they fired the missile in US waters to begin with. 20 miles out they can do whatever they want. We won't even stop a shipment of nuclear material from North Korea to Iran. Don't you read Wikileaks?

wow... some of you are pretty delusional and paranoid.

two outta three ain't bad.

What makes you think North Korea sailed into US waters undetected? Do you think the US military would have intecepted a North Korean sub in international water? Besides, who says they fired the missile in US waters to begin with. 20 miles out they can do whatever they want. We won't even stop a shipment of nuclear material from North Korea to Iran. Don't you read Wikileaks?

ANything? Really?

Keep going, the invisible nuclear unicorns are getting closer.

Ran into this today...you might have seen it before--might not have--FYI...some might say if you can manage to put a virtual national stranger with no history into the White House...why not continue the assault with some military perfidy as well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GofjDDWX_M

I see absolutely nothing convincing in the video or anything else posted trying to proclaim it was a missile fired. I love when people put the word 'expert' in front of a person's name or title and all of a sudden they are credible. Want to see 'experts' in action? Just watch a handful of criminal cases in any county court room. Both sides set loose with dueling experts who have completely different opinions.

I see absolutely nothing convincing in the video or anything else posted trying to proclaim it was a missile fired. I love when people put the word 'expert' in front of a person's name or title and all of a sudden they are credible. Want to see 'experts' in action? Just watch a handful of criminal cases in any county court room. Both sides set loose with dueling experts who have completely different opinions.

FYI--ever seen that before...you must have a heavy load of "issues" to go off on a simple link like this...sad...might want to consider 'counseling'...

I see absolutely nothing convincing in the video or anything else posted trying to proclaim it was a missile fired. I love when people put the word 'expert' in front of a person's name or title and all of a sudden they are credible. Want to see 'experts' in action? Just watch a handful of criminal cases in any county court room. Both sides set loose with dueling experts who have completely different opinions.

I have yet to see an 'expert' not associated with the government call it an airplane.

I have yet to see an 'expert' not associated with the government call it an airplane.

Just because they have not, does not mean it is not an airplane.

I have yet to see an 'expert' not associated with the government call it an airplane.

That's either because you only see what you want to see or you don't bother looking.

How many examples do you want?
1. "What appeared to be a rocket blasting into the skies off the southern California coast on Monday was probably just an approaching plane, a Harvard astronomer who tracks space launches says."

2. "Expert Senior Meteorologist Henry Margusity From AccuWeathercom Says The Mystery Of The Missile Over Southern California Can Easily Be Explained As Only An Optical Illusion From A Passenger Plane"

Sorry BB, the only explaination is a missle and that you have "issues" since you don't believe the wildest possible explanation.

Is that horses I hear? No it must be NUCLEAR POWERED INVISIBLE URANIUM TIPPED UNICORNS!!! Quick, pass a tax cut for the billionaires---it's the only thing which will save us!

Sorry BB, the only explaination is a missle and that you have "issues" since you don't believe the wildest possible explanation.

Is that horses I hear? No it must be NUCLEAR POWERED INVISIBLE URANIUM TIPPED UNICORNS!!! Quick, pass a tax cut for the billionaires---it's the only thing which will save us!

Ha! I hear ya.

I took the photo below on Saturday. The pic (from my cell phone) didn't come out as convincing as seeing it in person ~ but did help show me a real world example of how a contrail can be very misleading.

While there are two contrails to the left that obviously follow the horizon, the one near the middle appears to be going straight up, from a single engine and the contrail is visible all the way down to the horizon line. OMG its a missile being fired from TAFB!!!!!!! Nope, just a jet actually flying towards us.

No, this isn't identical to the California footage but, for me, it certainly provides a similar example.

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/7596/imag0182t.jpg (http://img51.imageshack.us/i/imag0182t.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Brian - if your photo was better I am sure you would see two contrails (one from each engine) at the point of origin. Can you zoom in next time like the television camera can? Also, notice how none of the contrails in that photo go to the horizon and that there are multiple contrails in your photo. In the LA video the contrail goes all the way to the horizon and it is the only one in the sky despite hundred of planes in the area. What would really help the Califonria situation is if someone took a picture or video from a different angle.

Brian - if your photo was better I am sure you would see two contrails (one from each engine) at the point of origin. Can you zoom in next time like the television camera can?

Actually, you could only see one contrail and I've posted a link and seen many sites with photos that clearly show that many planes produce what appears to be a single contrail - so, mute point.

Kerry is right. This photo proves it.
http://www.cultofmac.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/missile-command-iphone.gif
Nuclear, uranium tipped, dirty invisible unicorn missles.

crazy good EO

After much hunting for info...my own personal opinion is...it was a launch of a missile, a ground (sea)-to-air guided missile from a cruiser for some testing purpose...most likely an ICBM or Medium range knock-down deterrent. It is laughable to look at the rate of climb and the exhaust and see..."aircraft"...despite the stock answers provided--question is--why did someone decide to mask it with a cover-story? BTW--it has become suddenly much harder to find the same video that was available right after it happened...

Jesus, now "the government is blocking our access to the video......" it isn't any harder to find the footage.

Jesus, now "the government is blocking our access to the video......" it isn't any harder to find the footage.

I appreciate your opinion...even though it has nothing to do with anything...there was a YouTube video that is gone that showed the missile rising very quickly...now only farther out shots are there...for whatever reason...

I appreciate your opinion...even though it has nothing to do with anything...there was a YouTube video that is gone that showed the missile rising very quickly...now only farther out shots are there...for whatever reason...

Maybe you were just sitting closer to the screen the first time!!!!!!

Jesus, now "the government is blocking our access to the video......" it isn't any harder to find the footage.

Try finding a Wikileaks site.

Try finding a Wikileaks site.

God, now you're blaming the gov't for pulling the plug on Wikileaks. Their providers pulled the plug due to the number of hackers hitting the site. I've even had my site dropped from two providers in the past for the same thing (so obviously it doesn't take much).

FYI - their site is up and running EXACTLY WHERE THEY MOVED IT TO THE OTHER DAY..... http://wikileaks.ch/

And just to show how ridiculous your last statement was..... here is a list of over 100 active mirrored Wikileaks sites...... http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html