The contrail itself is visible, factual evidence of atmospheric conditions at that altitude.
Posted on 12/12/2010 10:47:16 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
I think you got the answer in the bits you posted from the old missileer.
Personally I don't have a theory...my first reaction to the video is it looked like a missile...no contrail I'd ever seen had that appearance. Some prominent people said the same (and I thought your lighting observation had merit). And the debate began. I thought the official Pentagon explanation to be fishy...not like our government doesn't lie to us at any time, and sometimes for good reason. Personally I'd rather be sure it was a contrail as I live in the LA basin and errant missile shots are not confidence inspiring, no matter what the source. Anyway then you fill in with deductive reasoning (since getting the cold hard facts is often impossible)...like why the camera guy thought this was newsworthy if just a contrail. After all the debate the jury is still out for me. I'm not into conspiracy theory stuff but I'm not a dumb American who always buys the "nothing to see here move along" government mantra either~
That describes my feelings about it perfectly. In addition to impressing Gil Leyvas it impressed Rick Warren enough that he took over fifty photos of it. That can’t be sloughed off as “jazzing up the news for Sweeps Week.”
But conspiracies are so much more titillating than old Occam...
It's right there in the photos and video. The contrail stopped, therefore the airliner must have passed from a region where persistent ice crystals were formed into a region where only volatile water droplets were formed. QED.
You have no data. You are substituting an assumption for facts.
False accusations seem to be more self-satisfying than personal accountability for you.
Sorry, I’m just reacting in kind. Or had you missed all the false accusations and ad hominem being flung about on this thread before my mild retort?
The contrail itself is visible, factual evidence of atmospheric conditions at that altitude.
"Go read the article" isn't an answer it's an evasion.
You are assuming it was an airplane. You are assuming what the meteorological conditions were. Two assumptions are not a very good basis for a logical scientific conclusion.
Go read the articles and compare them, then see post # 495.
It must be fairly obvious to most objective observers; it was so obvious to the moderators here, that they moved this thread from bloggers to Front Page News.
That is something they rarely if ever do. They would not violate their own standards in this regard unless it was that blatantly obvious.
If you can’t see or refuse to see that which everyone else is seeing, my going through it line by line for you won’t be of much assistance to you.
Everyone else isn’t seeing it and I doubt that you can read the minds of the mods.
I would be happy to do a line by line comparison, but I was forbidden from posting the entire WND article on FR by Jim Robinson. WND does not permit posting of entire articles on FR, they must be excerpted. Jim Robinson would not grant a waiver on this for this article even though I was named as the "author" on the WND article.
So all I can do is point you to the two articles and tell you to compare them yourself.
(Apparently there is a history here between FR and WND to which we are not privy.)
The tiny cadre of missile conspiracists aren't seeing it, maybe, but then they have no incentive to see it either. Not much I can do to help that.
When you can't answer a question smear the opposition. Very Saul Alinsky of you.
I’m not assuming it was an airplane - that fact has been clearly demonstrated in a number of different ways.
And I’m not assuming what the meteorological conditions were, since the conditions are visibly illustrated by the contrail that the airplane left.
On the other hand, there are indeed a handful of vocal FReepers still defending the discredited missile conspiracy theory. That is simply a truthful statement.
One man's Saul Alinsky style is another man's honest debate, as this thread so ably illustrates.
Be that as it may, this thread is well past its best-if-used-by date.
A Blessed Christmas to you.
So instead you do it to me who has not done it to you. Nice.
On the other hand, there are indeed a handful of vocal FReepers still defending the discredited missile conspiracy theory. That is simply a truthful statement.
No, there is an intentional smear and false accusation in it.
A Blessed Christmas to you.
Obviously a very meaningful event for you. /s
I think Finny was right you had an agenda before you ever interviewed him.
So instead you do it to me who has not done it to you. Nice.
If you say so ;-)
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.