puppetmaster
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 6,658
is there any definitive outcome on this? Are MSM backing off?
Was it a news chopper that recorded this?
Was it a news chopper that recorded this?
Doug Richardson, the editor of Jane’s Missiles and Rockets, examined the video for the Times of London and said he was left with little doubt.
"It’s a solid propellant missile," he told the Times. "You can tell from the efflux [smoke]."
Richardson said it could have been a ballistic missile launched from a submarine or an interceptor, the defensive anti-missile weapon used by Navy surface ships.
Well, I'm disappointed.
I've been on slow speed internet connections for the past couple of days, so I haven't seen any of the video... until now.
In the video clip listed at the start of this very thread, the news chopper cameraman is quoted as saying he filmed the object "for about ten minutes" (quote is at approximately the 0:47 time frame) until he lost sight of it.
Uh, okay.
If it had been ANY sort of missile, IT WOULD NOT HAVE REMAINED IN SIGHT FOR TEN MINUTES!!!!
Anyone who has ever watched a space shuttle launch will know that after less than two minutes, the shuttle is downrange and basically out of sight even for the great big badass telephoto cameras used to record the launch. An ICBM or anything similar is even faster than that.
Maybe it was a plane. Maybe it was Superman with a bad case of gas... I dunno.
But if it was filmed for ten minutes, it wasn't an ICBM.
Well, I'm disappointed.
I've been on slow speed internet connections for the past couple of days, so I haven't seen any of the video... until now.
In the video clip listed at the start of this very thread, the news chopper cameraman is quoted as saying he filmed the object "for about ten minutes" (quote is at approximately the 0:47 time frame) until he lost sight of it.
Uh, okay.
If it had been ANY sort of missile, IT WOULD NOT HAVE REMAINED IN SIGHT FOR TEN MINUTES!!!!
Anyone who has ever watched a space shuttle launch will know that after less than two minutes, the shuttle is downrange and basically out of sight even for the great big badass telephoto cameras used to record the launch. An ICBM or anything similar is even faster than that.
Maybe it was a plane. Maybe it was Superman with a bad case of gas... I dunno.
But if it was filmed for ten minutes, it wasn't an ICBM.
That's VERY disturbing because it implies one of the following:
1- The government is outright lying to us
2- Left hand doesn't know what right hand is doing (not a good thing when it comes to nuclear warheads and the vehicles that carry them)
3- It was a government other than the United States that launched it.
I'm not liking this![]()
but doug richardson, the editor of jane’s missiles and rockets, examined the video for the times of london and said he was left with little doubt.
"it’s a solid propellant missile," he told the times. "you can tell from the efflux [smoke]."
richardson said it could have been a ballistic missile launched from a submarine or an interceptor, the defensive anti-missile weapon used by navy surface ships.
Why did no other planes that day make the same strange contrail?