5 ms·
The fact that the US military response was 'nope, wasn't us' instead of 'oh my fucking god can you believe somebody just fired a missile off the coast of LA!' p
by bl4k 16y ago
The fact that the US military response was 'nope, wasn't us' instead of 'oh my fucking god can you believe somebody just fired a missile off the coast of LA!' pretty much tells me it was them.
- vietor 16y agoPossible alternative explanation: http://www.examiner.com/weather-in-los-angeles/missile-launch-over-southern-california-explained http://www.examiner.com/weather-in-los-angeles/missile-launc... Fits with your point about the DoD being all kinds of crazy if they suspected it was an actual event they had no hand in. As usual the low quality of video and unreliability of eye-witnesses are going to make this way more crazy than it needs to be, regardless of the actual eventual outcome. EDIT: A better explanation with historical pictures: http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/thinking-tech/the-mysterious-california-missile-launch-that-wasnt/5646/ http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/thinking-tech/the...
- tibbon 16y agoSurely the FAA could verify if there was a flight taking off in that trajectory right?
- vietor 16y agoI would hope that the retain sufficient records to do so, and expect that they will. Whether that will get news coverage is a separate question... And I'm sure that, regardless, some fraction will insist that it's a cover-up and continue to talk about it for the next decade.
- roedog 16y agoA contrail webpage with the "jet contrail looks like missile if you look at it from one angle" theory. http://uncinus.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/4/ http://uncinus.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/4/
- tibbon 16y agoIf it is a missile, then clearly a group of people with a boat should go and recover whatever it is. Since the military denies that they own it, then it seems to be abandoned property. Surely someone would be interested in buying the remains of it for the technology. Since the military doesn't own it, then they can't really say anything about you selling/reverse engineering/posting online abandoned property that's probably sitting in international waters now can they? Either that, or the military is caught in a lie to the American people. I know if I see what looks to be an ICBM over my city, I'm headed for the closest fallout shelter and assuming the worst. Anyone putting up faux-ICBMs over major cities is clearly causing terrorism, as in causing terror, uncertainty and fear among the public by not explaining and warning them.
- metageek 16y ago>Surely someone would be interested in buying the remains of it for the technology. ...unless it, say, exploded. Personally, I wouldn't want to pick up an unexploded missile anyway; there'd be no way to know whether it didn't explode because it doesn't have a warhead, or just hasn't exploded yet.
- tibbon 16y agoI'd really hope that (if it was the US Military) that they wouldn't shoot live weaponry like that on US territory. Sounds like a great lawsuit- although not one that I'd want the damages (death, harm) originally from.
- nickpinkston 16y agoActually, that happens all the time. There are many live fire ranges for planes, artillery, etc. scattered across the US. No reason the Navy wouldn't light a few off from a sub.
- Pyrodogg 16y agoThere isn't a reason that the military can't test weaponry, they just usually do it in quarantined areas or with notice to the public.
- hartror 16y agoGiven how close to land it was and the time it was fired (just approaching the peak of the news cycle) certainly points to a publicity stunt of some sort.
- foenix 16y agoStandard military exercise, people. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.
- JabavuAdams 16y agoWhy would they admit their ignorance, rather than make discreet queries through private channels? This is probably a contrail.