Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Up in the Air! A Missle, Or A Plane, Or Another Government Cover-Up?
American Conservative Daily ^ | 11-28-10 | J.D. Longstreet

Posted on 11/30/2010 10:28:55 AM PST by bigbob

During the late eighties I was assigned to NORAD, as a Command Director initially and later as the assistant Director of Operations for NORAD. The NORAD operation was located inside the Cheyenne Mountain complex just outside Colorado Springs, Colorado. Twenty four hours a day a team of approximately 150 highly trained individuals, lead by a Brigadier General, monitored one of the most sophisticated computer systems in the world. This system was fed data from many different sensors that were able to detect missile shots from any point on the globe. All this data was taken into consideration when making the "assessment" as whether or not North America and/or Canada were threatened by such a launch. If the launch was assessed as a true threat, the President was contacted immediately by NORAD through a military individual always close to the President who carried what we called, "the football", a black brief case with release codes for our nuclear forces. I know the system well, as for near three years I led one of those teams.

[snip]

I understand the difference in an aircraft contrail and a missile launch contrail.

In my opinion there is absolutely no doubt that what was captured on video off the coast of California was a missile launch, was clearly observed by NORAD, assessed by a four-star General in minutes, and passed to the President immediately. That is the way the system works, and heads fall if there is a failure. This is one of the most important tenets of National Defense and its sole purpose of protecting the American people. Even the smallest failure in this system gets intense scrutiny at the highest level.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanconservativedaily.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: californiamissile; cashjdlongstreet; chat; contrail; coverup; jimmylcash; missile; missilemystery; missilenotmissle; mysterymissile; repost; tinfoilbrigade; ups902
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last
This article was received by email from a friend and also turns up on a number of conservative blog sites. When an Air Force Brigadier General with Gen. Cash's credentials speaks, I tend to listen, even though I've already formed my own conclusions that he reinforces here.

We can argue til the cows come home about whether this was a "contrail" or a missile launch but isn't it logical that something this spectacular would have been reported up the chain of command as Gen. Cash states? And if so, what is the reason for a non-response from Obama?

What say you? Can anyone disprove his opinions?

1 posted on 11/30/2010 10:29:00 AM PST by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bigbob
Can anyone disprove his opinions?

How does one go about disproving any opinion?

2 posted on 11/30/2010 10:32:26 AM PST by TankerKC (Part of the Soros funded Blog Police.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Missile.
Just one of a long line of Gub mint cover ups.
Nothing to see here, move along.


3 posted on 11/30/2010 10:32:34 AM PST by Joe Boucher ((FUBO) The more I see and know Obammy the more I think he's an a-hole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
It's been beaten to death, but I will add that the government's official position was "we don't know" for about 2 days. Then they decided it was a regularly scheduled flight from Hawaii to Phoenix. Then they decided it was a different flight.

1) "We don't know" was a lie. We have radar. We know.
2) Taking 2 days to determine that the FAA knew all about this is laughable.
3) Changing their mind about the flight is just clutching at straws.

One of the lamest coverups I've seen. But a lot of people bought it. Huh. They bought the whole TWA 800 "spark in the fuel tank" story too.

4 posted on 11/30/2010 10:34:30 AM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
" We can argue til the cows come home about whether this was a "contrail" or a missile launch but isn't it logical that something this spectacular would have been reported up the chain of command as Gen. Cash states? And if so, what is the reason for a non-response from Obama? "

Because he is not a true American president and didn't want to upset his Commie Chinese/Korean friends ?
5 posted on 11/30/2010 10:36:55 AM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
I don't know if it was a missle or aircraft contrail. I wasn't there to see it in person and video can be misleading depending on time, distance and perspective.

However if it was a missle, the Government knows it and almost certainly who launched it.

6 posted on 11/30/2010 10:37:34 AM PST by sjmjax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sjmjax

Whoever launched it probably shelled an island off of South Korea last week.


7 posted on 11/30/2010 10:39:59 AM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

The ‘missile’ launched from the approximate location of San Nicolas Island, which is part of NAS Point Mugu - a Naval rocket base since the 50s.

It seems likely therefore that it was an unscheduled firing of a SF booster (perhaps even a cook-off). No damage was done, there’d be no reason to make a big deal of it either way.


8 posted on 11/30/2010 10:40:13 AM PST by agere_contra (...what if we won't eat the dog food?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

Or maybe in this case there was no response because nothing happened. Just like nothing happens whenever this optical illusion appears over the coast.

I know, I’m just a government shill, blah blah blah...


9 posted on 11/30/2010 10:40:27 AM PST by linear (Sticklers Unite!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
Insert >>Awww Jeeez Not This Sh*t Again<< Pic Here
10 posted on 11/30/2010 10:43:59 AM PST by ▀udda▀udd (7 days - 7 ways Guero >>> with a floating, shifting, ever changing persona.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: linear

There’s a video that shows a boosted launch, with an evolving plume and a ‘flame’.

I don’t think it’s a significant event - I believe it was a rogue booster from Point Mugu, not e.g. a Chinese sub - but it was definitely a launch of some kind.


11 posted on 11/30/2010 10:44:10 AM PST by agere_contra (...what if we won't eat the dog food?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

I find it interesting that the President and over 100 of his closest people went out of the country when this missile was fired. Maybe, so that if anything went wrong, they would be protected. If this is true, then he knew about it before it happened. I also heard, if I heard correctly, that in the START Treaty, the President has agreed to cancel the new generation submarines. We can’t even detect Chinese subs and we want to cancel our next generation of subs? This is sucicide.


12 posted on 11/30/2010 10:51:41 AM PST by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ├čudda├čudd
"Insert >>

Ask and ye shall receive...:-)

13 posted on 11/30/2010 10:54:15 AM PST by EnigmaticAnomaly ("Mantra of the left: 'It's only okay when WE do it.'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
The only non-missle explanation I will believe is one like this.

Pentagon to test 2nd near-space strike craft

14 posted on 11/30/2010 10:54:41 AM PST by McGruff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

I wonder why KCBS has still only released less than a minute of edited and repeated footage of the event. They even called it “raw” footage for some reason. It was reported that the event was observed for around 10 minutes. In 10 minutes of unedited complete footage would either show a missile or a jet.

Freegards


15 posted on 11/30/2010 10:57:08 AM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Cover up just like flight 800!


16 posted on 11/30/2010 10:58:52 AM PST by 70th Division (I love my country but fear my government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TankerKC

You’re right, sorry for lousy phrasing on my part. Was just looking to see if any new info had come out on this story, as my friend was trying to find out if it was true or not.

We’ll probably never know for sure, is the likely answer.


17 posted on 11/30/2010 11:02:10 AM PST by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
Whoever launched it probably shelled an island off of South Korea last week.

It probably was their big brother and said it was ok cause they were pizzed off at all the money owed to them. They just got screwed out of 173 billion by QE2 lowering the dollar 20%, is pushing to cap their trade to us from 8% to 4% of their GDP and the guy that did all this was sending a nuke aircraft carrier to cut doughnuts in their front yard.

I do not understand folks that can not see how plain and out-in-the-open this thing was. Do they need the offender to print a full page newspaper announcement saying “WE DID IT. HA HA!” to get what happened?

.

18 posted on 11/30/2010 11:04:58 AM PST by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

I wouldn’t rule out someone accidentally placing their coffee cup on the firing button. This could simply be some major “Oops” and everyone involved is too embarrassed to own up to their incompetence. Stupid happens to the best of us.


19 posted on 11/30/2010 11:40:51 AM PST by Tar and Feathers (http://intensedebate.com/people/Tar_n_Feathers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

Why did it have to be “rogue”?

It’s not like our goverment doesn’t have hardware they don’t talk about. I’d suspect it was something in that category. They were testing something new and it just happened to get caught, and their spokesmen had nothing but sausage in their hand when asked about it.

Gee.. a launch from a KNOWN test area, with a NOTAM scheduled (but possibly mis-scheduled). It doesn’t HAVE to be a foreign launch.

The simplest answer is usually correct, and the simplest answer here is our own guys launched something secret and are trying to mislead their way out of it.


20 posted on 11/30/2010 12:23:36 PM PST by Mr Inviso (ACORN=Arrogant Condescending Obama Ruining Nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
which is part of NAS Point Mugu - a Naval rocket base since the 50s.

Wrong. This is Naval Base Ventura County now. And it is not a naval rocket base. It is an air base.

It seems likely therefore that it was an unscheduled firing of a SF booster (perhaps even a cook-off).

Really? "Unscheduled"? "Likely"? Wrong. Any U.S. missile test is going to be openly scheduled, cleared with the FAA and announced so as to avoid risks of impacting U.S. airliners or general aviation.

No damage was done, there’d be no reason to make a big deal of it either way.

If so,m there would be no 'big deal' about telling the truth either. Since clearly, it wasn't a U.S. launch...this explains the concealment, but the cover-up duplicity seems a standard democRAT practice. Mustn't let the American citizenry wake up to their existential threat.

21 posted on 11/30/2010 1:00:06 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mr Inviso
Why did it have to be “rogue”?

Exactly. It was an ICBM - not a firecracker. You CAN'T "accidentally" "cook off" that level of missile. For reasons obvious to a 4th grader, the launch sequence is divided and divided again to require a team process, commanded by top officers with top clearance.

We fired it, and we did it on purpose.

What the purpose of such a massively witnessed, yet massively denied, launch was... is the real question. As is whether the goal of the mission succeeded, or failed - and why.

22 posted on 11/30/2010 1:01:10 PM PST by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on its own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: McGruff
This DARPA project is not quite so black as you imply, they are explicitly giving us a rough timeline of scheduling:

Weapon designed for urgent threats
By Shaun Waterman-The Washington Times6:22 p.m., Thursday, November 25, 2010

Defense Department scientists are set to conduct a second test launch next year of the Falcon HTV-2


23 posted on 11/30/2010 1:08:09 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mr Inviso

Actually, that is not a known test area.


24 posted on 11/30/2010 1:09:54 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TankerKC
How does one go about disproving any opinion?

Gawd, really.

How about presenting a *fact* that supports the missile assertion?

How about countering any single *fact* presented here?


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

25 posted on 11/30/2010 1:12:20 PM PST by The Comedian (Government: Saving people from freedom since time immemorial.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ├čudda├čudd
My version...


26 posted on 11/30/2010 1:13:29 PM PST by kanawa (Obama - "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian

Or this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJwQNdadIv4


27 posted on 11/30/2010 1:15:17 PM PST by kanawa (Obama - "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian
Gawd, really.

Yes, really. How does one go about disproving any opinion?

28 posted on 11/30/2010 1:20:17 PM PST by TankerKC (Part of the Soros funded Blog Police.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

I haven’t a clue, since I have zero knowledge of these things, so I am going with this expert who says it was a missile.

Doug Richardson
Editor, Jane’s Missiles and Rockets

Doug Richardson is the editor of “Jane’s Missiles & Rockets”. After a career as an electronics engineer working in areas such as the development testing of radar and EW antennas for combat aircraft, integration of rocket engine electrical controls, the design of computer peripheral hardware, and the planning and post-flight analysis of guided missile trials, he became a journalist in 1976.

Since then he has served at various times as the defence editor of “Flight International”, editor of the German magazine “Military Technology”, managing editor of “Jane’s Defence Systems Modernisation” and technical editor of the Swiss magazine “Armada International”.

His work has appeared in many UK, US and international defence magazines. It covers a wide range of military technologies including military aircraft, guided missiles, radar, electronic warfare, information warfare, communications, satellite navigation systems, stealth technology, tanks, artillery, warships, submarines, small arms and ammunition, and more exotic areas such as space warfare and intelligence gathering.

Although missiles and missile-related technology are his primary interest, he also specialises in military electronics and optronics, and writes regularly on these topics for “Armada International” and other magazines.

Since 1981 he has written more than 20 books on aerospace and defence topics. Most have been published in British and US editions, but several have also appeared in French, German, Japanese and Portuguese versions.


29 posted on 11/30/2010 1:35:49 PM PST by roses of sharon (I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TankerKC
Yes, really. How does one go about disproving any opinion?

I agree, it's a non-nonsensical challenge.

One can only disprove assertions based on facts or through falsification. Opinions are not falsifiable. They are all true, although the assertions they make are not.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

30 posted on 11/30/2010 1:38:55 PM PST by The Comedian (Government: Saving people from freedom since time immemorial.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Talisker; TXnMA
What the purpose of such a massively witnessed, yet massively denied, launch was... is the real question. As is whether the goal of the mission succeeded, or failed - and why

Geez, in all of this no one has remotely demonstrated how it could be an ICBM whereas it has been demonstrated conclusively that it was not. Just the first two things should suffice:
1. It was under powered flight too long (more than twice and almost three times as long) to be an ICBM but consistent with a jet leaving a contrail.

2. The lighting of the contrail at this time of day was completely inconsistent with the exhaust trail of a launched rocket (which would go from a more yellow/orange color near the ground to a brilliant white upon entering the upper atmosphere out of the earth's shadow) but consistent with the contrail of a jet flying at gradually decreasing altitude in the late afternoon/early evening.

3. There were gaps in the contrail consistent with jet contrails as the jet passes through pockets of warmer air not conducive to condensation, but not with rocket exhaust.

4. The flight path and the time of occurrence (because of 2) were consistent with that of a scheduled incoming air flight from the Pacific.

5. Satellite photos demonstrate this but without showing an additional exhaust trail of a rocket proceeding out over the Pacific. 6. The same thing was witnessed on succeeding days.

7. Other, similar contrails, same color, same general location, were present in the sky to the north at exactly the same time but were not claimed to be multiple, successive launches from several different launch platforms (subs).
The real question is why there are so many people who are so desperately in need of something threatening and inexplicable that they'll grasp at the flimsiest of explanations and ignore everything substantial in order to maintain the delusion.
31 posted on 11/30/2010 1:42:53 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian

You can lead a horse to water, but....


32 posted on 11/30/2010 2:25:00 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bigbob; kanawa; The Comedian
The answer is simple: the object in the (confusingly-edited, but hyped as "RAW") seeBS video has been unequivocally identified as inbound UPS Flight 902 from Hawaii to Ontario, CA.

There has been plenty of speculation, but no one to date has published a single fact that is evidence that it was anything other than a cargo plane.

I wish someone would publish a "missile facts" list. It is getting boring watching all the facts pile up on the "aircraft" side.

Come on, folks; in all the opinions posted here so far, there is not a single "missile" fact.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Would someone please post just one?

33 posted on 11/30/2010 2:30:56 PM PST by TXnMA (You don't have to be a California Condor expert to recognize a mockingbird when it sings...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
What the purpose of such a massively witnessed, yet massively denied, launch was... is the real question. As is whether the goal of the mission succeeded, or failed - and why.

The easiest way to "cover up" a secret test launch would be to merely call it a routine missile exercise. Nobody would care.

What about all the other "launches" since this video? Other photographers have captured the same kind of sunset contrail a couple of times a week since then. Are those all missiles too?

34 posted on 11/30/2010 2:45:06 PM PST by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon
So Richardson (like several other hasty folks) shot off his mouth after seeing 14 (fourteen) seconds of mixed-up video and without engaging his brain. He can do that unofficially and get away with it.

Where are all the Janes news articles saying the same thing -- on the record, putting Janes' reputation on the line?

Hmm, not a one, you say? That says volumes...

35 posted on 11/30/2010 3:03:24 PM PST by TXnMA (You don't have to be a California Condor expert to recognize a mockingbird when it sings...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
You should write and ask them/him why he hasn't retracted his analysis.

I can't argue with you because I could not tell a contrail, from a cloud, or a missile!

36 posted on 11/30/2010 3:20:03 PM PST by roses of sharon (I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sjmjax

Near the end of the video the bright exhaust can be seen. Note how it changes color.

Solid rocket missile.


37 posted on 11/30/2010 3:54:09 PM PST by MontaniSemperLiberi (Moutaineers are Always Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

Did.


38 posted on 11/30/2010 3:57:03 PM PST by MontaniSemperLiberi (Moutaineers are Always Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
no doubt that what was captured on video off the coast of California was a missile launch,

No jets scrambled, no SAM's launched (or whatever they are that are sent from land to intercept foreign missles), no retaliatory action whatsoever.........sounds to me that either NORAD was asleep or the president didn't answer his phone.

And as for the coastline folks who were closest to the missile launch and had the best vantage point for identification, well, they aren't talking............

39 posted on 11/30/2010 4:05:17 PM PST by Hot Tabasco (There's only one cure for Obamarrhea......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
What the purpose of such a massively witnessed,

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the only accounts of "witnesses" come from individuals who only viewed the same disclosed minute or so of the 10 minute video that you and the rest of us have seen........

I've yet to read any sea side witnesses closest to the alleged launch area giving their accounts............or ANY actual witnesses for that matter.

40 posted on 11/30/2010 4:13:24 PM PST by Hot Tabasco (There's only one cure for Obamarrhea......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

On November 16th I sent the following to press.releases@janes.com
and to General Editorial at Jane’s.

“Have you done a detailed analysis of the Nov.8,2010 controversial (contrail?/missile?) occurrence off the coast of LA?
Your first impression is being touted as the final word on the occurrence.
Has there been any additional effort on the part of Jane’s to seriously investigate the occurrence?”

They haven’t gotten back to me.


41 posted on 11/30/2010 4:23:30 PM PST by kanawa (Obama - "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA; bigbob; kanawa; All
I'm telling ya, this episode makes me think *everyone* will fall for Project Blue Beam.

If the level of critical thinking visible around this subject is any indicator, most people would fall for the average Scooby Doo janitor-in-a-sheet gag.

And they'd get away with it too, if it wasn't for us meddling kids.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

42 posted on 11/30/2010 5:48:38 PM PST by The Comedian (Government: Saving people from freedom since time immemorial.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Talisker; TankerKC; Rokke; Yardstick; aruanan; lbahneman; Mr. Silverback
"What the purpose of such a massively witnessed, yet massively denied, launch was... is the real question."

~~~~~~~~~~~

Hyperbole, anyone?

"Massively witnessed"? Name anyone -- ANYONE -- with the exception of a handful of photographers who have shared their photos -- who has come forward as an "eyewitness" to this "launch"(...off the coast of one of the US's most densely populated areas).

"Massively denied"? Aside from the above few photographers, name over a handful of people who have actually collected, analyzed, and produced documents denying that this was a missile.

What is massive is the ignorance and gullibility of the numerous people who followed a few prominent "Pied Pipers" who watched 14 seconds of chopped and mixed up video (taken after sunset) and then opined that they had seen a "missile launch".

Purpose? To transport UPS-shipped goods from Hawaii to CA.

43 posted on 11/30/2010 6:32:10 PM PST by TXnMA (You don't have to be a California Condor expert to recognize a mockingbird when it sings...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon; kanawa
"You should write and ask them/him why he hasn't retracted his analysis."

See # 41

44 posted on 11/30/2010 6:38:55 PM PST by TXnMA (You don't have to be a California Condor expert to recognize a mockingbird when it sings...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
Thanks, maybe they/he would answer if a reporter asked? Or maybe the (Daily Mail?) reporter that originally interviewed him?

Just a thought.

The guys at NR sometimes answer me when I write, but I doubt they would respond to this.

45 posted on 11/30/2010 7:00:13 PM PST by roses of sharon (I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon
My guess is that some of the famous folk -- generals, media gurus, editors, etc. -- have seen the counter-evidence and realize they were suckered by a quick look at less-than honest reporting. Now, rather than face the embarrassment of correcting their very public faux pas, they are hunkering down and hoping it will all just go away and be forgotten...
46 posted on 11/30/2010 7:13:27 PM PST by TXnMA (You don't have to be a California Condor expert to recognize a mockingbird when it sings...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

Could be, or they all still believe it to be so.

Who knows.


47 posted on 11/30/2010 7:24:14 PM PST by roses of sharon (I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon
Perhaps so. I'm not concerned about what they believe, do or say. They are all big boys and can take care of themselves. '-)

My interest is in collecting ALL the evidence (not "expert" opinions) and in following where it leads. The facts so far have all been matters of somewhat complex physics and geometry and human perception (as in perspective effects).

Just keep your mind open -- and look for facts -- not opinions and politically-driven theories...

Nice chatting with you! :-)

48 posted on 11/30/2010 7:59:39 PM PST by TXnMA (You don't have to be a California Condor expert to recognize a mockingbird when it sings...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA

“My guess is that some of the famous folk — generals, media gurus, editors, etc. — have seen the counter-evidence and realize they were suckered by a quick look at less-than honest reporting. Now, rather than face the embarrassment of correcting their very public faux pas, they are hunkering down and hoping it will all just go away and be forgotten...”

Sounds plausible. But they also know that the absolute way to prove their original statements wrong is for KCBS to release the whole video; it would either show a missile or a jet. And they might not think it too likely that the original uncut video is still around, which, if indeed the footage was manipulated to create a story, is also plausible.

Freegards


49 posted on 11/30/2010 9:07:01 PM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed
Janes published a story about the “mystery missile” in which they concurred with the assessment that it was actually a contrail. Gens Cash and McInerney have been extremely quiet since making very early and very public announcements about their assessments of the edited video. Think about that for a second. If they really believed the country had been threatened by an enemy missile, wouldn't they continue to shout from every rooftop they could access that our country had been attacked? Instead...crickets.
50 posted on 11/30/2010 9:32:17 PM PST by Rokke (www.therightreasons.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson