I just went to the patent office website to see if I could find any unmanned underwater missile-launch systems. I did. The Navy filed a series of patents in 1995 for an underwater missile launch system. The texts don't specify if the missiles include anti-aircraft missiles, but it says torpedos and missiles, which implies under- and over-water missiles. The drawings are so big I can only view a portion. If the URLs below don't work, you can place the patent numbers here: http://164.195.100.11/netahtml/srchnum.htm

A puzzle for witness researchers has been why there are almost no accounts of a visible launch platform, even in cases where the ocean is clearly in view. Of course it's a speculation that these platforms may have been involved, but it appears that they exist. One of these patents states this, which implies that (as Admiral Moore indicates) such unmanned launch systems have been in existence since before 1995:

"It is therefore an object of the invention to provide a new and improved unmanned undersea weapon deployment structure."

Perhaps no sailors spoke because there were no sailors.

Patent

5,786,545

5,698,817

5,690,041

5,686,694

5,675,117

5,675,116

Do you mean Admiral Moorer? (Least that's the way Bill Donaldson spells it).

He has been credited with being involved in the development of such systems - on this site I believe.

There again, I could be wrong, this subject came up some years ago, perhaps you missed it.

Perhaps many of you are too young to remember this Television program...............Perhaps the "Twilight Zone".......would be a better example.........But I do believe that show was hosted by Rod Serling, if I'm not mistaken. Just WHAT IS the purpose of all of this mindless conjecture?

Ian, you've missed your calling!

I think the problem is credibility, noone hits Ian harder than Mr Fudd, but Ian chooses to go after those who don't give him offensive cartoons.

Ian seems to be smarting, hurt, petulant, aggressive even. I wonder why that is? I've been smacked in public many times, I don't sulk, I think about the criticism I've been given and I answer the challenge.

If I'm wrong, stupid or embarrassed, I have to accept it, I make stupid mistakes sometimes, I screw up.

Some people are not prepared to admit that they are fallible - Ian seems to be on that trip at the moment, this is not a discussion it's trashing.

To be honest, this guy has seriously pissed me off, Tom Shoemaker is a serious guy, a guy I would never 'trash' as the wise one puts it.

Tom Shoemaker is hundreds of times more credible than the person calling itself Ian Goddard at the moment. Maybe he went on a course to have his insolence and anti-social behavior removed.

Who knows, but putting your efforts into attacking those who question your offerings makes you a very sad and paranoid individual.

Your lap-dogs are just that, yapping dogs. I suggest you call them off.

And get a haircut!