I checked out the links on the other thread.
Thanks for the links, seriously. However they contain nothing that remotely resembles the video of the ‘launch’.
No evolving plume, no flame. Instead they were stills of distant contrails.
The launch video strongly resembles a boosted payload seen from 40 miles away at a chase angle. The video does not look like a plane, and still images of plane contrails are not useful counter-evidence.
Right now I’m where I was a week ago. This was a SF booster launch from NAS Point Mugu.
There is no evolving plume and no flame on the video from the first day either.
The only thing moving in the 1st day's video is the helicopter and the zoom of the camera, with the object itself moving very slowly over time but shown for such a short period of time it doesn't matter.
My favorite part is where they do an extreme zoom into the object, and the camera is shaking so bad people think the object is dancing and moving -- but if you look at the plume, the entire plume is "moving" with the object.
This just goes to show that a lie makes it around the world before the truth can get out of bed, and that in the internet era, once a story has been told, you can't fix it for everybody no matter how many facts you give them.
If by "evolving plume" you mean that the contrails of the jets are smaller in thickness than the video from last week, I can only offer you what I see in the sky locally (Albuquerque area).
We are located under a major east-west route for passenger aircraft. Some days, no contrails at all (rare). Most days, the contrails are nice and thin all along the route of the aircraft, and you can watch them develop as the aircraft moves. Other days, you can watch the plumes spread to several miles wide (thick or thin - depending on moisture) all across the sky due to the wind. The more moisture we get, the thicker the plume when it spreads.
One thing that bugged me is that even with 90 seconds of video, the object barely moves (given the pulse of a rocket, you'd think the plume nearest the object would change significantly over this time, as well), nor does the "flame" appear smaller and smaller with the distance change a missile should have in the amount of time captured.