World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

Faith, Reason, and Health ^ | 12/12/2010 | Dr. Brian Kopp

[TigersEye]

Here's one I like to whip out on them:

And thus we learn just how serious your contributions are.

[Hot Tabasco]

The question I keep asking with none of the "believers" being able to give me an answer is that the only video accounts of this incident have been taken from cameras located miles inland......my estimate says approx. 30 miles.

Since this alleged missile was supposedly launched off shore, why have there been no accounts of first hand witnesses residing on the coastline, either with cameras or verbal testimony, who should have witnessed the launch first hand?

My opinion is that this was nothing more than a jet contrail and because it's such a common occurance in that area, nobody gave a second thought to it............

But then again, the thought of rogue Chinese missiles generates more news interest than airline contrails........

[TigersEye]

The question I keep asking with none of the "believers" being able to give me an answer is that the only video accounts of this incident have been taken from cameras located miles inland......my estimate says approx. 30 miles.

I did respond to you on that. I asked you where you got that since we know where the Sky2 chopper was and it was even one mile inland. Your response was {crickets chirping}.

[Hot Tabasco]

A typical aircraft contrail.

And the lens magnification for your picture that allowed the full disclosure of that jet was what?

There was no such magnification of the contrail in question.......If there was then all questions would have been put to and end.

Thus my original question: Why were there no photos or sightings of this missle from observers located directly on the coastline who would have had first hand sighting of this missile being launched off shore?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

That is from the WND article which Dr. Kopp didn't post here. Apparently that's something he didn't write and WND inserted.

No, actually, that's in my original post in this thread. If you had read the original post in this thread, you would know that.

[TigersEye]

I have read it through twice now and still don't see this paragraph anywhere in your post here.

Leyvas said he got the video while filming a sunset view for a KCBS weather report. As he was filming, Leyvas noticed an object on the horizon that appeared to be climbing vertically out of the ocean, and he zoomed in on the object. He videotaped the contrail for a total of 10 minutes and subsequently continued to view the contrail for an additional 10 minutes.

[TigersEye]

My apologies. It is in your post here. The difference in formatting made it hard to find.

[Hot Tabasco]

World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

I'm still waiting for WND to issue full disclosure of the Black, unmarked helicopters swooping thru midwest communities at night back in the late 1990's and the fleets of white vans that were supposedly being stored in hidden wooded areas out west.

And I'm not even going to bring up the alleged barbed wire detention areas that were being built and were going to be used to imprison conservative opponents of Bill Clinton back in the '90's ........LOL!

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Third paragraph of my version of the article after my title, “California contrail: Four conflicting eyewitness reports.”

Almost verbatim.

Surprised you missed it.

Twice.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

No problem. Disregard my last post.

[Yardstick]

And yet the "airplane" disappeared from his view through his video camera even though he stayed on it for another 8-10 minutes.

He never did see the actual airplane except for the 30-45 seconds when it caught a glint off the sun. And my impression is that he stayed mostly on the main part of the contrail. His explanation for the small contrail made by the plane as it continues on is that it's actually the tip of the main part that somehow broke off and drifted away:

"The separate smaller trail that is separate from the main body of the plume and that was captured by Warren in his photos, which makes it seem as if the object continued in flight, appears in my video to possibly be the top portion of the plume that partly dissipates leaving a segment of the tip adrift - detached from the main body of the plume. (I highlight "possibly be" because during that portion of the video, I zoom in and out and pan off and back onto the plume, so I'm not sure if what we are seeing is a stage of separation like that of a missile or if it's the tip of the plume separating from the main portion). I did zoom into that portion to see if I could see a craft of some kind (at the time I thought that there was a chance the object was still making condensation/exhaust) but there was nothing there creating that segment. Had there been, I know I would have been able to see it with the high-powered lens I was using. Add to that - if it was traveling toward us, the closer it would come the easier it would be to see it, but there was nothing there. That's why I said it was merely the plume adrift and not anything continuously flying."

This is implausible to say the least and when you look at the pictures it's clear that he is mistaken.

[CodeToad]

“Actually, any torpedo tube launched missile (for example the Klubs) are fairly sedate at starup.”

Not that slow and they don’t fly that high, either.

[Hot Tabasco]

I did respond to you on that. I asked you where you got that since we know where the Sky2 chopper was and it was even one mile inland. Your response was {crickets chirping}.

Was that you? I'm sorry for not responding so I will do so here.

Why was it that only Sky2 reported the observance? And where did you get your information as to the location of the chopper? View the video again and try to convince me that it was only a mile inland................

And if you can succeed in doing that, then explain why there were no reports from citizens living directly along the coastline who should have seen that "missile" being launched........

[Yardstick]

And thus we learn just how serious your contributions are.

My contributions are hugh and series.

[Fundamentally Fair]

...IMO WND is a tacky group interested mainly in sensationalism;...

They always have been. It amazes me how many Freepers have been fooled over the years. Many continue to be fooled.

[TigersEye]

And my impression is that he stayed mostly on the main part of the contrail.

The video was taken from so far away that if the vehicle was still coming towards him it would still be in the frame especially in the zoomed out portions. Even if the cameraman didn't see it his camera would have captured it. As he said, if it was getting closer it would get bigger. The same should hold true and be even more evident in Warren's time stamped pics which span a longer period of time. Yet the vehicle remains the same relative size and clarity.

[Hot Tabasco]

Here's a state of the art product you might be interested in.....eliminates the need for that antiquated aluminum foil and you get a scalp massage too......LOL!

[Talisker]

Obvious missile. I’m not sure why some many people are so passionate about debunking this one. Must be related to national security(?)

Yep. And the general rule of thumb about lying is - as Hitler pointed out - the bigger the lie, the easier it is for the masses to swallow.

So if they tried to argue about the type of missile, etc., it would raise a lot of very precise questions that might easily trap the liars.

Therefore, instead, they call it a plane. Why? Precisely because it looks nothing like a plane. So the excuse requires a clear choice, one or the other, and no level of rational argument can apply to it because no rational argument created acceptance of the lie - after all, you can't argue someone out of something they didn't think about to begin with.

In this way, the missile-versus-airplane argument actually hides a loyalty-versus-disloyalty situation. But in this case, loyalty to whom, or what? As another poster noted, a three-star Lieutenant General ex-head of NORAD called it a missile. So it's not so easy this time to say that it's a matter of being for-or-against the government.

But it's definitely for-or-against something.

The question is, what?

[Yardstick]

The video was taken from so far away that if the vehicle was still coming towards him it would still be in the frame especially in the zoomed out portions.

Not necessarily. You can see in the Warren pics that the plane gets separated from the main contrail by a fairly large distance.

And keep in mind what he's actually saying. He isn't saying that the smaller contrail isn't there (though he thinks it's not new contrail but rather a piece of the main contrail), just that the plane itself isn't visible at the tip of it. In that sense he is correct. It is too small to see. But it is there, as is evidenced by the small contrail it is making.

As he said, if it was getting closer it would get bigger.

True, when things get closer to you they get bigger. But it does not follow that within that span of time it got big enough for the camera to see.

[TigersEye]

Why was it that only Sky2 reported the observance?

They were not the only ones. No one disputes that.

Rick Warren took some 50+ pics of it that were used in Contrailscience.com's analysis.

There was this video that I just posted a link to a few posts back...
New footage of 'Mystery Missile' :: Nov 8, 2010, Off Southern California Coast (video; Nov. 9, 2010)

Then there were these pics linked in the OP of this thread. photos of clouds at sunset on November 8,

And yet another photographer linked in the OP ... uploaded a photo of the November 8

And where did you get your information as to the location of the chopper?

This still pic from Gil Leyvas' video shows the LA harbor in the immediate foreground just below the helicopter. I think we can all agree that these docks and the water surrounding it aren't 30 miles inland.