OK...who has been playing with the buttons?
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Nov 10, 8:35 pm, "YukonBound" wrote:
"L G" wrote in message

...

bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 17:20:02 -0500, wrote:

Pentagon can't explain 'missile' off California

WASHINGTON (A) The Pentagon said Tuesday it was trying to determine
if a missile was launched Monday off the coast of Southern California
and, if so, who might have fired it.

has sarah palin been playing with grown up toys again?

That is off-topic Bob.

You're 'off topic' Kruger.
Post when you have something to say about boats.

Is this "about boats"?

"Those things are impressive.
Some in this country think Canada would be better off buying
pilotless
aircraft instead of the new F-35 planes we are considering.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/201...jets-ccpa.html "

You should practice what you preach, eh?

Say hi to the 'sisters' for me.

OK...who has been playing with the buttons?
 

On 11/10/10 5:36 PM, Gene wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 17:20:02 -0500, wrote:


Pentagon can't explain 'missile' off California

Maybe it was this thing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xFh7...eature=related

or this.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTHWB...eature=related

Everyone is missing the obvious answer.

http://tinyurl.com/3sesc




--
Spoofers can go to Hell in a handbasket

OK...who has been playing with the buttons?
 

"YukonBound" wrote in message
...


"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Nov 10, 8:35 pm, "YukonBound" wrote:
"L G" wrote in message

...

bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 17:20:02 -0500, wrote:

Pentagon can't explain 'missile' off California

WASHINGTON (A) The Pentagon said Tuesday it was trying to
determine
if a missile was launched Monday off the coast of Southern
California
and, if so, who might have fired it.

has sarah palin been playing with grown up toys again?

That is off-topic Bob.

You're 'off topic' Kruger.
Post when you have something to say about boats.

Is this "about boats"?

"Those things are impressive.
Some in this country think Canada would be better off buying
pilotless
aircraft instead of the new F-35 planes we are considering.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/201...jets-ccpa.html "

You should practice what you preach, eh?

Say hi to the 'sisters' for me.

I thought the sisters hung around your joint.

OK...who has been playing with the buttons?
 

In article ,
says...

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Nov 10, 8:35 pm, "YukonBound" wrote:
"L G" wrote in message

...

bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 17:20:02 -0500, wrote:

Pentagon can't explain 'missile' off California

WASHINGTON (A) The Pentagon said Tuesday it was trying to determine
if a missile was launched Monday off the coast of Southern California
and, if so, who might have fired it.

has sarah palin been playing with grown up toys again?

That is off-topic Bob.

You're 'off topic' Kruger.
Post when you have something to say about boats.

Is this "about boats"?

"Those things are impressive.
Some in this country think Canada would be better off buying
pilotless
aircraft instead of the new F-35 planes we are considering.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/201...jets-ccpa.html "

You should practice what you preach, eh?

Say hi to the 'sisters' for me.

Nice insulting, Don. I hope Harry will admonish you for that.

OK...who has been playing with the buttons?
 

A lawn chair and a bunch of balloons can get you over 15,000 feet.....


------------
Don't forget the pellet rifle!

OK...who has been playing with the buttons?
 

"HarryK" wrote in message ...

On 11/9/10 8:44 PM, Gene wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 20:31:07 -0500, wrote:

On 11/9/10 8:27 PM, Gene wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 20:21:10 -0500, wrote:

On 11/9/10 7:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 17:20:02 -0500, wrote:

The North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, issued a
statement jointly with the U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM, saying
that the contrail was not the result of a foreign military launching
a
missile. It provided no further details.

Of course that implies that they know what it was - probably some
classified test.


Or, just as likely, they're clueless. But I agree that it was some sort
of U.S. military "exercise."

Don't discount an amateur rocketeer that hasn't done his homework in
researching the FARs....






500 bottle rockets, rubber-banded together. :)

A lawn chair and a bunch of balloons can get you over 15,000 feet.....







At Warp
..000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,
maybe.
---------
It happened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Walters

OK...who has been playing with the buttons?
 

"Gene" wrote in message ...

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 21:20:08 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 20:21:10 -0500, HarryK wrote:

On 11/9/10 7:46 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 17:20:02 -0500, wrote:

The North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, issued a
statement jointly with the U.S. Northern Command, or NORTHCOM, saying
that the contrail was not the result of a foreign military launching a
missile. It provided no further details.

Of course that implies that they know what it was - probably some
classified test.


Or, just as likely, they're clueless. But I agree that it was some sort
of U.S. military "exercise."

NBC is saying this was just a commercial airliner contrail shot from
an angle that made it look like a rocket.

That really sounds far fetched..... I work at an airport and we do
enjoy watching contrails and discussing aerodynamics of same, given
appropriate metrological conditions.....

BUT, even with perfect metrological conditions, mistaking that for a
rocket/missile shot really tries the imagination....

------------
One of the reports I saw referred to smoke in contrails. That and having
witnessed a BUNCH of launches from KSC and Cape Canaveral AFS nailed the
"official" report as BS for me.

OK...who has been playing with the buttons?
 

"W1TEF" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:45:51 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 11/10/10 6:23 AM, W1TEF wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 17:20:02 -0500, wrote:

Pentagon can't explain 'missile' off California

That's because it's not a missile - it's a contrail.

http://uncinus.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/4/

Maybe.

No maybe about it.

Not to mention a contrail from a jet usually spreads out a ways behind
the aircraft. The front of the trail is usually thin until the wind
spreads it... This trail was thick right off the ass of the missile, and
make no mistake, it was a missile, as it headed west downrange... oh,
and they know what it was too...

Did you read the freakin' article Scott?

Unmentioned in this whole thing is that nobody HEARD anything. If a
missile supposedly as large as this one supposedly was (ICBM), you
would have heard it - even from 35 miles away. Those things aren't
quiet.
---------
If you're upwind you probably wouldn't hear it, especially in a place with a
lot of noise pollution.

OK...who has been playing with the buttons?
 

"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article m,
says...

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:45:51 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 11/10/10 6:23 AM, W1TEF wrote:
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 17:20:02 -0500, wrote:

Pentagon can't explain 'missile' off California

That's because it's not a missile - it's a contrail.

http://uncinus.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/4/

Maybe.

No maybe about it.

Not to mention a contrail from a jet usually spreads out a ways behind
the aircraft. The front of the trail is usually thin until the wind
spreads it... This trail was thick right off the ass of the missile, and
make no mistake, it was a missile, as it headed west downrange... oh,
and they know what it was too...

Did you read the freakin' article Scott?

Unmentioned in this whole thing is that nobody HEARD anything. If a
missile supposedly as large as this one supposedly was (ICBM), you
would have heard it - even from 35 miles away. Those things aren't
quiet.
---------
If you're upwind you probably wouldn't hear it, especially in a place
with a
lot of noise pollution.

Read the article... Saw dozens of reports, experts "on both sides" and I
believe myself it was "message" from some axis power saying "see, we can
sit in your back yard and you didn't even know we were there". That's
why it went due west.

Fact is, every single airliner is tracked to the inch by the second. If
there was a flight there someone would be able to say "this was flight
such and such" here is it's flight path... But they can't, there was no
plane...

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - Pain is temporary, Glory is forever!

mmmm.................... whoooo whoooo!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5aW08ivHU

OK...who has been playing with the buttons?
 

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:41:16 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

Read the article... Saw dozens of reports, experts "on both sides" and I
believe myself it was "message" from some axis power saying "see, we can
sit in your back yard and you didn't even know we were there". That's
why it went due west.

Interesting conspiracy theory but if fails the Occam's Razor test
which basically says that the simplest explanation is more likely to
be correct. The two most plausible (and simple) explanations are
that it was indeed a jet contrail observed from an unusual angle; or
two, that it was a classified US govt misile launch which take place
fairly often in coastal California. One of my old high school friends
is alleged to participate in that sort of thing (if they actually
exist). :-)