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.
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.
Leyvas' camera DID capture it!
Go to this YouTube version of the footage and watch it from 1:17 to 1:20 and compare that to Warren's photos.
Compare stills from Lehvas' video to Warren's first couple photos.
You do realize that the vehicle was coming "towards him" only in the sense of its ground track, right? I.e. it was on a path to fly over him, not into him. As such it would have been able to move upwards out of the frame.
As he said, if it was getting closer it would get bigger. Yet the vehicle remains the same relative size and clarity.
This is because at long distances an object's apparent (angular) size doesn't change much as it gets closer. Also because the conditions for contrail formation are changing as it gets closer. Its contrail is getting shorter which offsets the fact that it's getting closer.