He must work for the IPCC too.
Even some experts are idiots. On their own subject. It also depends on the context in which the info is presented to them. He may not be an idiot, but was merely set up.
If someone had shown me this video with no preconceived notions, my first reaction would have been that it looks like an airplane contrail - or maybe a missile, depending on the context.
For me to even seriously entertain the idea that it is a missile launch, I’d need more evidence (not mere opinion) than just the video and stills I’ve seen. So far, there is none. Based on the evidence at our disposal, “airplane contrail” wins in a landslide.
Now, if more EVIDENCE presents itself...well, that’s different.
There are no lights on this object in the twilight which would show up. ...the contrail is under the one, meaning it is lower and can not have formed a contrail and the other is above the sirus cloud formation meaning this plume is gaining altitude, which jets do not do as sirus are high cloud formations.
This is a missile with one very large rocket propelling it as it arcs in sways guided by it's gyroscope on course. This is not Space Shuttle quality or American quality guidance. This is a foreign missile.
What is the problem America is the US warning systems did not detect the mother craft whether it was a submarine or dump craft (something offloaded from a cargo ship and used as a platform to launch the missile later). In the old days, Americans used to pick up crawl tracks off California which were made by Soviets launching underwater tanks doing all sorts of war provoking things America tried to ignore so not to start a nuclear war.
NORAD did not detect this system, and NORAD did not detect the launch, nor have an ability to track it.
I need some evidence that the editor of Jane’s was duped as you suggest.