Really?
In what sense does this look "nothing" like a typical contrail from a plane?
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?
The question is, what?
Truth. Some folks don't like being scammed by ratings hungry TV stations.
CBS scammed your experts with sweeps week video that they purposely edited for greatest effect during sweeps week.
Absent anything except that fragment of ten minutes of the total video, several experts called it as a missile.
If they could see the rest of the raw video they would change their opinion, because they know SLBMs do not create an exhaust plume for ten minutes.
It's for-or-against taking the "blue pill" vs. the "red pill".
Blue pill = dash of cold water on the face.
Red pill = staying in the nice cozy comfort zone (which also happens to be a fantasy).
Really?
In what sense does this look "nothing" like a typical contrail from a plane?
Very simple:
Very simple: