If Norad or the US air force didn't have real-time tracking of the UARS
as it approached the west coast last night, you've got to wonder if they
have any real ability to detect a ground or submarine-launched russian
or chinese ICBM in a similar manner.

After all, then had precise time and position information as to where
this thing should have been.

They are claiming that it came down in the pacific ocean. Obviously
they have no real ability to detect this relatively large object, with a
shape that is probably ideal to detect with radar (as opposed to a
streamlined missle).

On Sep 24, 9:09*am, Home Guy wrote:
If Norad or the US air force didn't have real-time tracking of the UARS
as it approached the west coast last night, you've got to wonder if they
have any real ability to detect a ground or submarine-launched russian
or chinese ICBM in a similar manner.

After all, then had precise time and position information as to where
this thing should have been.

They are claiming that it came down in the pacific ocean. *Obviously
they have no real ability to detect this relatively large object, with a
shape that is probably ideal to detect with radar (as opposed to a
streamlined missle).

Next time you post about Portland, remember there are at least two,
one on the east coast and one on the west coast.

On Sep 24, 7:09*am, Home Guy wrote:
If Norad or the US air force didn't have real-time tracking of the UARS
as it approached the west coast last night, you've got to wonder if they
have any real ability to detect a ground or submarine-launched russian
or chinese ICBM in a similar manner.

After all, then had precise time and position information as to where
this thing should have been.

They are claiming that it came down in the pacific ocean. *Obviously
they have no real ability to detect this relatively large object, with a
shape that is probably ideal to detect with radar (as opposed to a
streamlined missle).

Do some study on what happens to a misshapen object when it encounters
the atmosphere.

As posts go, yours is pretty close to the bottom when it comes to
sanity.

Harry K

"hr(bob) " wrote:

Next time you post about Portland, remember there are at least two,
one on the east coast and one on the west coast.

There are probably at least 5 of anything (city, town, village) with the
same name in US/Canada if you magnify any map.

Harry K wrote:

They are claiming that it came down in the pacific ocean.
Obviously they have no real ability to detect this relatively
large object, with a shape that is probably ideal to detect
with radar (as opposed to a streamlined missle).

Do some study on what happens to a misshapen object when it
encounters the atmosphere.

If you know the answer to "what happens to a misshpen object when it
encounters the atmosphere" then tell us.

If you're speculating that there is something that happens when "a
misshpen object when it encounters the atmosphere" then the onus is on
you to do the research.

This thing would have been on the very edge of the atmosphere when it
was off the coast of Washington state. Radar can detect objects 100
miles in altitude for hundreds if not a few thousand miles away.

Why didn't they have an AWAX (sp?) plane in the air at the time?

As posts go, yours is pretty close to the bottom when it comes to
sanity.

Mine is a valid question.

You're the one that's insane by dismissing it.

On 9/24/2011 11:23 AM, Home Guy wrote:
Harry K wrote:

They are claiming that it came down in the pacific ocean.
Obviously they have no real ability to detect this relatively
large object, with a shape that is probably ideal to detect
with radar (as opposed to a streamlined missle).
Do some study on what happens to a misshapen object when it
encounters the atmosphere.
If you know the answer to "what happens to a misshpen object when it
encounters the atmosphere" then tell us.

If you're speculating that there is something that happens when "a
misshpen object when it encounters the atmosphere" then the onus is on
you to do the research.

This thing would have been on the very edge of the atmosphere when it
was off the coast of Washington state. Radar can detect objects 100
miles in altitude for hundreds if not a few thousand miles away.

Why didn't they have an AWAX (sp?) plane in the air at the time?

As posts go, yours is pretty close to the bottom when it comes to
sanity.
Mine is a valid question.

You're the one that's insane by dismissing it.

I think he was paying you a compliment. You're at the bottom, but you're
sane? The rock bottom of sanity? The foundation of sanity? I think
you're batty. :-)

On 9/24/2011 10:05 AM, Home Guy wrote:
"hr(bob) " wrote:

Next time you post about Portland, remember there are at least two,
one on the east coast and one on the west coast.

There are probably at least 5 of anything (city, town, village) with the
same name in US/Canada if you magnify any map.

There are five or more places named "Monkeys Eyebrow" in the
US/Canada??? (It's surprising, but there is more than one in the US but
5 would seem high.)

--

On Sep 24, 12:23*pm, Home Guy wrote:
If you know the answer to "what happens to a misshpen object when it
encounters the atmosphere" then tell us.

You two are sort of talking at eachother about different issues.
You're talking about being able to track it. He's talking about being
able to predict where it will go and when.

When it starts encountering the atmosphere, it will start to tumble,
spin and "skip" making it impossible to predict with any certainty
where it will land. You shouldn't need a government study to tell you
this... Wad up (loosely) a piece of paper and throw it across the
room.

On the other side, do you expect UARS to announce (truthfully) how
good their tracking is? Anyone who does should be replaced and
possibly prosecuted...

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:35:38 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 9/24/2011 10:05 AM, Home Guy wrote:
"hr(bob) " wrote:

Next time you post about Portland, remember there are at least two,
one on the east coast and one on the west coast.

There are probably at least 5 of anything (city, town, village) with the
same name in US/Canada if you magnify any map.

There are five or more places named "Monkeys Eyebrow" in the
US/Canada??? (It's surprising, but there is more than one in the US but
5 would seem high.)

I could only find one, in Kentucky.

My brother-in-law is startig a tour of places named after animals and
body-parts, so he really should know if there are others.

On 9/24/2011 12:06 PM, micky wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:35:38 -0500, wrote:
....

There are five or more places named "Monkeys Eyebrow" in the
US/Canada??? (It's surprising, but there is more than one in the US but
5 would seem high.)

I could only find one, in Kentucky.
....

That's one; AZ has another (at least I've been told so, but haven't
verified it).

--

On 9/24/2011 12:53 PM, Larry Fishel wrote:
On Sep 24, 12:23 pm, Home wrote:
If you know the answer to "what happens to a misshpen object when it
encounters the atmosphere" then tell us.

You two are sort of talking at eachother about different issues.
You're talking about being able to track it. He's talking about being
able to predict where it will go and when.

When it starts encountering the atmosphere, it will start to tumble,
spin and "skip" making it impossible to predict with any certainty
where it will land. You shouldn't need a government study to tell you
this... Wad up (loosely) a piece of paper and throw it across the
room.

On the other side, do you expect UARS to announce (truthfully) how
good their tracking is? Anyone who does should be replaced and
possibly prosecuted...

You may have overlooked that "Home guy" seems to be "Harry II" as there
isn't much he likes about the US.

But as you noted what gets fed to the public is a subset of actual
capability. To draw the conclusion that the Air Force and NORAD had no
clue based on public sources shows how far someone will go to express
their hatred.

I worked for a company that was making a "useful specialty product".
This was during an event in the space program where every talking head
was reporting "there is no information" about a specific thing while we
were reviewing recordings of the information that "didn't exist".

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:55:22 -0400, George
wrote:

On 9/24/2011 12:53 PM, Larry Fishel wrote:
On Sep 24, 12:23 pm, Home wrote:
If you know the answer to "what happens to a misshpen object when it
encounters the atmosphere" then tell us.

You two are sort of talking at eachother about different issues.
You're talking about being able to track it. He's talking about being
able to predict where it will go and when.

When it starts encountering the atmosphere, it will start to tumble,
spin and "skip" making it impossible to predict with any certainty
where it will land. You shouldn't need a government study to tell you
this... Wad up (loosely) a piece of paper and throw it across the
room.

On the other side, do you expect UARS to announce (truthfully) how
good their tracking is? Anyone who does should be replaced and
possibly prosecuted...

You may have overlooked that "Home guy" seems to be "Harry II" as there
isn't much he likes about the US.

But as you noted what gets fed to the public is a subset of actual
capability. To draw the conclusion that the Air Force and NORAD had no
clue based on public sources shows how far someone will go to express
their hatred.

I worked for a company that was making a "useful specialty product".
This was during an event in the space program where every talking head
was reporting "there is no information" about a specific thing while we
were reviewing recordings of the information that "didn't exist".

This is why so many people complain about waste in the federal
government. Why were people wasting their time reviewing information
that didn't exist?

Just kidding. I agree that a lot of things should be kept secret,
even from me.

George wrote:

On the other side, do you expect UARS to announce (truthfully)
how good their tracking is? Anyone who does should be replaced
and possibly prosecuted...

But as you noted what gets fed to the public is a subset of actual
capability. To draw the conclusion that the Air Force and NORAD had
no clue based on public sources shows how far someone will go to
express their hatred.

What a load of horse **** logic you have there. Both of you.

The US has nothing to gain by projecting (to Russia and China) that the
US *does not* have the capability to detect large projectiles as they
approach or re-enter from orbit along the western coastline if infact
the US *does* have such an ability. Under the MAD doctrine of war, you
always want your enemy to know that you can detect offensive action,
because that in and of itself is a deterrent for the enemy to start an
offence if they falsely believe you won't detect it.

And if the US can detect objects like this, then the Russians and
Chinese probably can do the same, so you're not hiding anything of any
stragic value by feigning that you didn't detect this satellite as it
entered the airspace over Portland.

If the US couldn't detect it, then yes you don't want to admit that
deficiency and ordinary you'd never be called on it. Except when a
satellite is tumbling toward you and forces you to reveal that you don't
have this detection capability.

On Sep 24, 3:56*pm, "hr(bob) "
wrote:
On Sep 24, 9:09*am, Home Guy wrote:

If Norad or the US air force didn't have real-time tracking of the UARS
as it approached the west coast last night, you've got to wonder if they
have any real ability to detect a ground or submarine-launched russian
or chinese ICBM in a similar manner.

After all, then had precise time and position information as to where
this thing should have been.

They are claiming that it came down in the pacific ocean. *Obviously
they have no real ability to detect this relatively large object, with a
shape that is probably ideal to detect with radar (as opposed to a
streamlined missle).

Next time you post about Portland, remember there are at least two,
one on the east coast and one on the west coast.

But the real one is here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Portland

On Sep 24, 5:35*pm, dpb wrote:
On 9/24/2011 10:05 AM, Home Guy wrote:

"hr(bob) " wrote:

Next time you post about Portland, remember there are at least two,
one on the east coast and one on the west coast.

There are probably at least 5 of anything (city, town, village) with the
same name in US/Canada if you magnify any map.

There are five or more places named "Monkeys Eyebrow" in the
US/Canada??? *(It's surprising, but there is more than one in the US but
5 would seem high.)

--

There is only one ******s Corner. Yes, it's in the USA :-)
Oregon in fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******s_Corner,_Oregon
I wonder if any ******s have been killed or injured?

On Sep 24, 6:06*pm, micky wrote:
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:35:38 -0500, dpb wrote:
On 9/24/2011 10:05 AM, Home Guy wrote:
"hr(bob) " wrote:

Next time you post about Portland, remember there are at least two,
one on the east coast and one on the west coast.

There are probably at least 5 of anything (city, town, village) with the
same name in US/Canada if you magnify any map.

There are five or more places named "Monkeys Eyebrow" in the
US/Canada??? *(It's surprising, but there is more than one in the US but
5 would seem high.)

I could only find one, in Kentucky.

My brother-in-law is startig a tour of places named after animals and
body-parts, so he really should know if there are others.

Well here's a couple for him then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****ing,_Austria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wank_(mountain)

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
If Norad or the US air force didn't have real-time tracking of the UARS
as it approached the west coast last night, you've got to wonder if they
have any real ability to detect a ground or submarine-launched russian
or chinese ICBM in a similar manner.

For one thing, the tracking is primarily of launches. We've got excellent
technology for detecting ICBM and ground-to-air missiles when they launch
and their probable target based on launch parameters. That's where the big
threat lies for now. No nation I know of publicly admits to having
space-based nuclear weapons but you never know. That's why we wanted to
base our missile shield close enough to Russia to make them nervous. The
time to catch an ICBM is right after launch, over the attacker's home
country and well before the payload MIRVs (splits into many warheads on the
way down). MIRV = Multiple Independently targetable Reentry Vehicle.

After all, then had precise time and position information as to where
this thing should have been.

They are claiming that it came down in the pacific ocean. Obviously
they have no real ability to detect this relatively large object, with a
shape that is probably ideal to detect with radar (as opposed to a
streamlined missile).

They aren't going to reveal the details of their tracking accuracy.
Besides, tracking an aerodynamically shaped missile under powered flight is
WAY different than an old satellite with lots of protruding parts "skipping"
the atmosphere, having bits torn off in flight.

--
Bobby G.

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:18:04 -0400, micky
wrote:

Just kidding. I agree that a lot of things should be kept secret,
even from me.

_Nobody Knows I'm Elvis_

--
Audio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke83cH1onQg&NR=1

On 9/24/2011 2:22 PM, Home Guy wrote:
George wrote:

On the other side, do you expect UARS to announce (truthfully)
how good their tracking is? Anyone who does should be replaced
and possibly prosecuted...

But as you noted what gets fed to the public is a subset of actual
capability. To draw the conclusion that the Air Force and NORAD had
no clue based on public sources shows how far someone will go to
express their hatred.

What a load of horse **** logic you have there. Both of you.

The US has nothing to gain by projecting (to Russia and China) that the
US *does not* have the capability to detect large projectiles as they
approach or re-enter from orbit along the western coastline if infact
the US *does* have such an ability. Under the MAD doctrine of war, you
always want your enemy to know that you can detect offensive action,
because that in and of itself is a deterrent for the enemy to start an
offence if they falsely believe you won't detect it.

And if the US can detect objects like this, then the Russians and
Chinese probably can do the same, so you're not hiding anything of any
stragic value by feigning that you didn't detect this satellite as it
entered the airspace over Portland.

If the US couldn't detect it, then yes you don't want to admit that
deficiency and ordinary you'd never be called on it. Except when a
satellite is tumbling toward you and forces you to reveal that you don't
have this detection capability.

Who revealed (someone with actual knowledge, not the media) it couldn't
be detected? Perhaps you have some inside information?

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:23:11 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

Harry K wrote:

They are claiming that it came down in the pacific ocean.
Obviously they have no real ability to detect this relatively
large object, with a shape that is probably ideal to detect
with radar (as opposed to a streamlined missle).

Do some study on what happens to a misshapen object when it
encounters the atmosphere.

If you know the answer to "what happens to a misshpen object when it
encounters the atmosphere" then tell us.

If you're speculating that there is something that happens when "a
misshpen object when it encounters the atmosphere" then the onus is on
you to do the research.

This thing would have been on the very edge of the atmosphere when it
was off the coast of Washington state. Radar can detect objects 100
miles in altitude for hundreds if not a few thousand miles away.

Why didn't they have an AWAX (sp?) plane in the air at the time?

AWACS. Why? How would "they" know where to put it? What would "they" do
with the information if they had it? ...a stupid waste of money.

As posts go, yours is pretty close to the bottom when it comes to
sanity.

Mine is a valid question.

LOL!

You're the one that's insane by dismissing it.

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:35:15 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:18:04 -0400, micky
wrote:

Just kidding. I agree that a lot of things should be kept secret,
even from me.

_Nobody Knows I'm Elvis_

Right. Even you.

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:05:34 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:35:15 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:18:04 -0400, micky
wrote:

Just kidding. I agree that a lot of things should be kept secret,
even from me.

_Nobody Knows I'm Elvis_

Right. Even you.

See what I mean!

Double top secret.

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:55:39 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:05:34 -0500, "
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 13:35:15 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:18:04 -0400, micky
wrote:

Just kidding. I agree that a lot of things should be kept secret,
even from me.

_Nobody Knows I'm Elvis_

Right. Even you.

See what I mean!

Double top secret.

"Cone of Silence ONLY"

On Sep 24, 2:22*pm, Home Guy wrote:
George wrote:
Except when a
satellite is tumbling toward you and forces you to reveal that you don't
have this detection capability.

How does that force them to reveal anything? Even perfect tracking of
the intact satellite would only give people a few minutes warning and
a very broad idea of where the chunks MIGHT land (maybe within a swath
a hundred by a thousand miles (WAGOMP)). There would be almost no
point to making an announcement other than to give people a reason to
panic for a few minutes before nothing interesting happened...

On Sep 24, 2:22*pm, Home Guy wrote:
George wrote:
Except when a
satellite is tumbling toward you and forces you to reveal that you don't
have this detection capability.

P.S. Personally, if they announced an expected debris area, and my
house were dead center, the main thing I would do to prepare would be
to put a fresh tape in the video camera and take a chair out to the
middle of the yard just on the remote chance that some flaming bit of
debris came close enough to be seen.

You make a decent point about MAD, but they already know we can track
(more like predict) ICBMs. But we might not necessarily want them to
know if we can detect something that they haven't admitted to having
(but then we might, debatable).

It's also not out of the realm o possibility that NORAD didn't
particularly care. At any given time, there are a few thousand
passenger jets over the US (maybe 50-250 tons each). A few hundred
pounds of satellite debris is really not very interesting from a
defense perspective (except possibly as a test of capabilities).