Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $75,573
85%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 85%!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Rokke

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Air Force: If A-10s stay, F-16s headed to the boneyard

    05/05/2015 6:30:15 PM PDT · 156 of 157
    Rokke to Hulka

    Bullets aren’t precision guided munitions. And while A-10’s are accurate strafers, they can’t match the probability of a kill on a strafe pass that they can achieve dropping a laser guided bomb. That is exactly why they now employ the same weapons in the same way as F-16s/15Es/18s/ B-1s/52s etc. and very rarely strafe. Are you aware that in the last decade, a vast majority of CAS has been conducted by aircraft other than the A-10? The argument that if the A-10 goes away, the Army will lose its CAS support has been invalidated by the simple reality that the A-10 has already largely been replaced in the CAS environment. And when it does perform CAS, it almost never does it from low altitude, or uses its gun. There are much better ways to perform CAS now, and all aircraft use essentially the same weapons and tactics to do it.
    During Gulf War 1, CAS was conducted almost the same way it was in Vietnam. The only aircraft employing precision guided bombs were F-15Es and A-6s. Now, every aircraft uses them, and employs them with roughly the same targetting pods and tactics. That includes the A-10. In Gulf War 1, one of the most challenging missions was night CAS. You are most likely familiar with A-10s dropping slow burning flares on the ground to create measurement “units” that were then used to talk pilot eyes onto a target that may or may not have been visible under airborne flares floating down in parachutes. With the advent of IR targeting pods, night vision goggles, and IR laser designators, it is now easier to perform CAS at night than it is in daylight. If you were working a CAS mission now, you would pass GPS generated coordinates to the aircraft you were working. You may or may not even have to talk on the radio to do it. You could mark that target with an IR laser and ask the fighters what they see. From an altitude of over 20,000’ agl, those fighters could tell you something like “I see a small two door pickup with a heavy machine gun in the bed. There are four personnel standing near or on the pickup and another doinking a goat behind the bush next to the pickup. The man firing the machine gun is smoking a cigerette” You simply respond, “That’s your target, cleared hot”. 35 seconds later, a 500lb bomb with an accuracy measured in single digit feet, takes out everything including the goat, and you move to the next target. Does that sound anything like the CAS you conducted in Gulf War 1?
    Loiter time is a key issue, but moving CAS out of the low altitude environment has significantly increased the loiter time of all aircraft involved. And note that moving CAS out of the low altitude environment didn’t decrease the accuracy of the weapons employed. It increased it. If loiter time is the most important factor, your favorite CAS aircraft should be the B-52. Dozens of laser and GPS guided bombs of all sizes employed using almost the exact same guidance systems as the A-10.
    That’s a long way of saying that people who argue the A-10 is the only aircraft that can effectively conduct CAS, have very little idea how CAS is now conducted. Their previous experience (or more commonly, their perception of how CAS is conducted) is obsolete. That’s a good thing, because the technological advances we now use to execute the CAS mission have vastly increased the accuracy of weapons delivered and greatly reduced the time it takes to deliver them.

  • Air Force: If A-10s stay, F-16s headed to the boneyard

    05/03/2015 7:57:03 PM PDT · 154 of 157
    Rokke to Hulka

    Well that depends almost exclusively on the target. One 500lb GBU-12 hitting a standard tank will destroy it. So why would you want to hit it with multiple strafe passes. One 2000lb GBU-10 will replace most buildings with a 50 foot deep crater. You couldn’t get the same effect with 100 strafe passes.
    What target are you thinking about where your weapon of choice would me a strafe pass over a PGM?

  • Air Force: If A-10s stay, F-16s headed to the boneyard

    05/01/2015 8:04:10 PM PDT · 152 of 157
    Rokke to pepsionice

    Pepsionice, I’m interested to hear your perspective on whether the AH-64 is a good CAS platform.
    Also, with regard to drones and long distance bombing, that is essentially the current role of a cruise missile. The Navy and Air Force have been employing them with great effectiveness for decades. Assuming we don’t already have long range, bomb carrying drones, what makes you think introducing them to the inventory in the future would “dissolve” the Air Force?

  • Air Force: If A-10s stay, F-16s headed to the boneyard

    04/29/2015 9:01:40 PM PDT · 144 of 157
    Rokke to Hulka

    “...not just one pass haul a$$”........

    Those days are pretty much over for all aircraft. Back in the old days when you had to drop a string of 6 or more Mk82’s in the hope of taking out a single tank (assuming you could even find the thing from a low altitude ingress to a pop to acquire while under fire from everyone on the ground with access to a trigger). Now, “tank plinking” is done with one or two LGBs at a time, dropped from an altitude that allows you to maintain almost constant situational awareness of friendless and the target, and doesn’t burn as much fuel, increasing loiter time significantly. And it allows 2-4 aircraft to coordinate attacks on the target at the same time using one forward air controller. There are very few CAS scenarios where a flight of four F-16’s or F-18’s don’t have enough ordnance to resolve the problem. And that includes a couple strafe passes per aircraft, with results that aren’t nearly as impressive as those provided by an A-10 strafe pass, but still manage to get a point across.

  • Air Force: If A-10s stay, F-16s headed to the boneyard

    04/29/2015 8:46:17 PM PDT · 143 of 157
    Rokke to Hulka

    I would argue the Marine Corps is the expert on the CAS mission for a lot of reasons starting with their heritage in developing many of the CAS concepts we still use today (the Banana Wars as an example). That heritage has carried all they way through today’s expeditionary maneuver warfare. Marine aviation isn’t a supporting component of a MAGTF. It is an integral part of a MAGTF. Combine that with the reality that “Every Marine is a rifleman” and you have a unique culture where Marine aviators performing CAS have actual experience performing the role of the men they are supporting on the ground. In my practical experience flying with Marines in a CAS environment, there is more of a bond between their pilots and the supported ground troops than there is between Navy or Air Force pilots supporting Army troops. In all cases, pilots of all services perform with a high level of dedication and commitment in performing the mission, but the bond between Manines supporting Marines increases the effectivness of their CAS missions.
    I’m not sure that makes any sense at all as written, but it is pretty evident when witnessed. And is a key reason why the Marine Corps is pretty adamant about limiting their CAS support to their own aircraft.

  • Air Force: If A-10s stay, F-16s headed to the boneyard

    04/29/2015 9:50:40 AM PDT · 112 of 157
    Rokke to Jet Jaguar

    This thread is both amusing and entertaining. For people clamoring that the A-10 should be given to the Marine Corps, the Marine Corps has already made its selection for its next CAS aircraft. It’s the F-35B. It will replace the AV-8B and older F-18C, both of which the Marine Corps has been using as very effective CAS platforms for decades (as a sidenote, the last major upgrade to the AV-8B was to give it a very nice radar which allowed it to employ AMRAAM missiles. For those in Rio Linda, that’s a beyond visual range air to air weapon. A capability the Marine Corps recognized as being important to even dedicated attack aircraft, and one the A-10 could never have). The Marine Corps is THE expert service on the CAS mission, so its decisions regarding how it will perform CAS are worth pondering. It doesn’t want the A-10, and got rid of its last slow moving, straight wing FAC/CAS platform shortly after it became obvious in the first Gulf War that flying those aircraft into anything but a low threat surface to air environment was a great way to put the whole CAS war on hold while you dedicated most of your assets to recovering downed pilots.
    As far as giving the A-10 to the Army...they don’t want them. No room in their budget to support taking on a fixed wing attack aircraft and all the support assets it requires. Dead issue.
    People who aren’t familiar with the modern CAS environment believe to be effective, it must be performed by aircraft flying low and slow. The advent of precision guided munitions changed that. Flying low and slow in a modern combat environment is about as tactically smart as employing horse cavalry in a modern combat environment. Looks really cool. Lots of chivalry. And then you permanently lose the asset you were counting on to help you win the war, when the enemy gets tired of looking at it. If the Army truly believed CAS was best performed by low and slow aircraft, it would use its AH-64s as dedicated CAS platforms. It never has.
    The primary objective of CAS is to support ground troops in close combat with the enemy. To do that, you need to deliver the right ordnance, precisely on target, as quickly as possible. We do that now with everything from artillary, ballistic missiles, drones, bombers, helicopters, fighter aircraft of all types, and yes, the A-10. Other than its appearance, there is nothing unique the A-10 brings to the equation that gets ordnance on target any more precisely or anymore quickly than any of the other CAS assets. In fact, with the exception of its gun, it uses the same weapons and guidance systems as every other fixed wing aircraft. And while the gun is cool, it is used more and more rarely because it is more accurate and more effective to employ other precision guided munitions options against most targets. That wasn’t the case when the A-10 was developed. But....it was developed 40 years ago.
    I love the A-10. Always have. But I also love the P-38, the F-4 and the Saturn V rocket.

  • Early voting ends, Coloradans should drop off ballots or vote in person (38,000 more reps than dems)

    11/05/2012 12:05:08 AM PST · 6 of 14
    Rokke to Ravi
    I just reviewed Barone’s summary of a Romney campaign conference call from a few days ago. ( http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-romney-conference-call/article/2512268 ) In that call, Beeson says Romney will when Iowa if Obama finishes ahead less than 130,000 in early voting. Romney takes Nevada if the Dems are less than 80,000 ahead in Clark county. I believe both those goals were met. Any thoughts on whether Beeson’s statements still stand?
  • Politico/GWU/Battleground Poll - O49/R48 w/leaners (BRIT HUME WAS WRONG!)

    10/29/2012 1:25:23 AM PDT · 53 of 89
    Rokke to profit_guy

    I assume you got your 49/48 numbers from page 5 of the link you provided. I’m not sure how the Battlefield folks determine their final reported poll results, but what they report almost never matches the raw data from their poll results. It is often close, but never the same. I’m sure they adjust for whatever weighting they determine is accurate based on other factors in their raw data. Wait and see what their actual commentary for the poll is before losing too much sleep.

  • Obama Campaign to Girls: <s>Have Sex with</s> Vote for O (w/video)

    10/25/2012 10:33:45 PM PDT · 44 of 44
    Rokke to All

    Last week Lena Dunham was apologizing for making tasteless jokes about dressing up as a murdered rape victim. This week the Obama campaign is using her as a campaign prop. This link details how she finds humor in rape... http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/10/18/lena-dunham-apologizes-twitter-halloween/

  • Obama's Sexually Themed 'First Time' Ad Getting Crushed on YouTube by Disgusted Voters

    10/25/2012 10:18:41 PM PDT · 139 of 151
    Rokke to All

    Last week Lena Durham was apologizing for making tasteless jokes about dressing up as a murdered rape victim. This week the Obama campaign is using her as a campaign prop. This link details how she finds humor in rape... http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/10/18/lena-dunham-apologizes-twitter-halloween/

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/29/2010 3:25:02 PM PST · 646 of 650
    Rokke to TXnMA

    Nice post. Builds off the information you had already compiled with the last “missile” contrail. The usual suspects would no doubt contribute their standard “I don’t have a theory but it’s not an airplane” line. All the arguments they made about the last incident (spiraling smoke trail, rocket motor flame etc etc) are present in the new pictures. So if their arguments had any validity then, they still should now. But I think it’s pretty clear their arguments were never valid.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/29/2010 3:12:00 PM PST · 645 of 650
    Rokke to Dr. Brian Kopp
    That is so obviously a missile. Just look at how the sunlight reflects off the spiraling smoke trail as the missile flies west toward its North Korean motherland. But it wasn't launched by a sub, because it doesn't start on the horizon. I think it was dropped out of the back of a transport plane. Or maybe a chinook helicopter. /sarcasm off

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/17/2010 7:40:33 AM PST · 553 of 650
    Rokke to Niteflyr
    "I can copy and paste too...see? :o) "

    Bravo. But there is a difference between posting legitimate sources (the official DoD statement delivered by its official spokesman)like I did, and posting comments from an unknown person from an unknown source. Where did you get your quotes? Who is "Pentagon source"? For all anyone knows, it could be the parking lot attendent for Pentagon Lot C.

    There is a difference between being ignorant and being willfully ignorant. I believe you are the latter. That makes you a perfect candidate for conspiracies like this. And a wet dream for "news" sources like The National Enquirer, WND and CBS news.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/17/2010 7:33:30 AM PST · 552 of 650
    Rokke to TigersEye
    "You lied about me last night and tonight you just lie. Or then you lied. Who knows?"

    I've tried, but I can't compensate for your lack of intelligence. That does not make me a liar. You have never understood what a line of sight is. That makes you ignorant of that topic, which apparently frustrates you. Here is the post where I explained the lines of sight to UPS902... Post #290. I posted it to TXnMA and started with "I extended your plotted line of site from the Leyvas video to the approximate location of the UPS902 flight path. Not surprisingly, it intersects almost exactly the lat/long of where Flightaware says UPS902 was at 5:15." He responded with "BRAVO!! Triangulation -- I knew you would figure out a way do it with the materials and tools at hand! My new tagline honors you! Is there any direction the "missle [sic] folks" can turn now to prop up their mania?"

    TXnMA obviously gets it. You don't. My response to his last question now would be, "Yeah, they won't get it and accuse everyone who does of being a liar."

    Now I won't call you a liar for repeatedly posting about 50 Warren photographs. You were mistaken. That is a trend for you, but you'll never admit.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 9:47:04 PM PST · 548 of 650
    Rokke to TigersEye
    "Thanks for admitting that you haven’t posted anything that hasn’t been posted fifty times before you did."

    I think you're getting your numbers confused with your bogus Warren photo count. But while you're researching, please point out anywhere someone else depicted the line of site from LAX or Long Beach Harbor to UPS902. I'll be satisfied with one. Not fifty.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 9:44:13 PM PST · 547 of 650
    Rokke to TigersEye
    That's easy. It wasn't an ordinary airplane contrail. It was interesting. Different. The sunset made it even more interesting. But it remains...an airplane contrail. And 12 pictures of anything by someone with a photography hobby isn't extraordinary. Especially not in the digital age.

    But one thing 12 pictures aren't...is 57. Or even 50. Keeeeeep lookin.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 9:36:13 PM PST · 544 of 650
    Rokke to TigersEye; TXnMA
    That little yellow helicopter wasn't mine. TXnMA did that. But I have posted so many pictures and videos of missile launches that Finny dedicated several posts to accusing me of trying to distract everyone away from the Leyvas video (you can follow her lead and check my posting history for that). I also posted all the photos explaining the lines of sight from the LAX camera and the Leyvas video that you don't understand. And just a few posts ago, I provided the actual DoD statement on the contrail. Most recently, I pointed out to you that Warren only took 12 pictures. So in a sense, I'm even doing work for you.
  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 8:59:08 PM PST · 542 of 650
    Rokke to TigersEye

    The difference between your research and our research apparently, is that we actually produce something. Good luck on the Warren search. I already looked.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 8:27:07 PM PST · 539 of 650
    Rokke to Niteflyr
    "I find it odd that those who are 100% convinced either way are still here debating this issue."

    I am 100% convinced there is a God in Heaven, the New World Order is not spraying the globe with chemtrails, and that Socialism in its purist form cannot compete with Capitalism in its purist form, but I'll happily debate those topics too. This isn't a running conversation. I get all kinds of things done during a FR debate that have nothing to do with computers or the internet.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 8:21:43 PM PST · 538 of 650
    Rokke to Niteflyr
    "Yeah and the Pentagon response "unlikely it was a missile"? What the @#!*% is that? I think I deserve as a tax-paying citizen living in the area a little more definitive answer from our "protectors"."

    Then why don't you read the actual statement?

    "The Dept. of Defense statement from Col. Dave Lapan, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, reads:

    "While there is nothing at this time that leads the Department of Defense to believe this is a missile launch, the department and other U.S. government agencies with expertise in aviation and space continue to look into the condensation trail (CONTRAIL) seen and reported off the coast of southern California on Monday evening.

    "All DoD entities with rocket and missile programs reported no launches, scheduled or inadvertent, during the time period in the area of the reported contrail. NORAD and USNORTHCOM confirmed that it did not monitor any foreign military missile launch off the California coast yesterday and has determined that there was no threat to the US homeland.

    "In addition, the FAA ran radar replays from Monday afternoon of a large area west of Los Angeles. Those replays did not reveal any fast-moving, unidentified targets. The FAA also did not receive reports of any unusual sightings from pilots who were flying in the area Monday afternoon.

    "If any new information comes to light in the coming days, we will update the press and public."

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 8:05:54 PM PST · 537 of 650
    Rokke to Dr. Brian Kopp
    "But conspiracies are so much more titillating than old Occam..."

    And ironically, conspiracy theorists are usually the first to mention Occam...as they ignore the simplicity of reality.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 8:04:11 PM PST · 536 of 650
    Rokke to TigersEye
    "it impressed Rick Warren enough that he took over fifty photos of it."

    Really? I'm aware of 12. Where did you read 50?

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 11:55:03 AM PST · 500 of 650
    Rokke to TigersEye
    "I don’t have one."

    Nice.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 11:49:39 AM PST · 498 of 650
    Rokke to TigersEye

    What is your theory?

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 10:43:40 AM PST · 494 of 650
    Rokke to Niteflyr; Dr. Brian Kopp
    The guy who started this thread (Dr. Brian Kopp) has been talking to the cameraman. He has already asked him the questions you asked (what and where). Here are the cameraman's answers...

    What: "I'm still not sure what the object is, jet or missile or for that matter, something else."

    Where: "He said there were details in the video that had not been shown on TV or online, such as how at one point the contrail lined up parallel with the LA harbor jetty, which was how he was certain of the location of the contrail when he first spotted it." And, of course he has also been quoted as saying "The onboard camera showed a plume twisting up from the horizon and narrowing as it climbed into the sky near Catalina Island, about 35 miles west of Los Angeles, he said."

    But since we have actual stills from the video he shot, we don't have to rely solely on his memory. They are obviously going to be more accurate anyway. I've posted it before, but here it is again...

    That is a still taken from his video with some easily identifiable geographic references and the contrail. You can go with his pictures and what he says...or a media graphic that goes against both.

    Finally, UPS902 didn't fly over Catalina Island until roughly 5:30 and it was descending through FL290 from its original altitude of FL390. A. that was after he was filming, B. It is extremely doubtful the con layer was 10,000 feet thick. Conversely, UPS902 was almost exactly at the intersection of lines plotted from Leyvas' position to the contrail he filmed (in the posted picture) and the Cargo Law camera at LAX, at exactly the time stamp of the LAX camera. If you want to use Occam's Razor, you can do the simple math and agree that two lines of sight and a time stamp that correlate to the known position of a known object equal that known object, orrrr, you can ignore Occam's Razor and create a theory involving an unknown sub, firing an unknown missile, from an unknown location, at an unknown target for unknown reasons based solely on 14 seconds of zoomed in video edited from 10 minutes of actual video, and presented by a local television affiliate during sweeps week.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 1:50:51 AM PST · 469 of 650
    Rokke to Niteflyr
    "My 350 HP R755 Turbo Jake burns 17 GPH in cruise and even that is more than I can really afford...and a Beech 18 sports two 450 HP Wasp Jr's....Lordy!!...Ka Ching Ka Ching Ka Ching!....:o)"

    Yeah, but you look good even sitting on the ramp. I've never flown a taildragger. Someday. But it's going to be a while before I can afford anything beyond LSA. A buddy just retired and bought a 210. It's burning 20GPH. I cringe at filling up my jeep.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 1:41:17 AM PST · 466 of 650
    Rokke to TigersEye
    "Your head is emptier than 0bama’s suit. :-)"

    Ok. You made me laugh there.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 1:40:27 AM PST · 465 of 650
    Rokke to Niteflyr
    "Got me there...my heaviest PIC is in a Beech 18...;o)"

    Again, I'm a wannabe. That is still one of the most beautiful airplanes out there.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 1:39:00 AM PST · 463 of 650
    Rokke to TigersEye

    Oh, that’s right...foreshortening. Which you believe makes it impossible to plot a straight line across known geographic points on a map. Again...keep bringing this stuff up. It’s like Finny and her post counting. It makes you your own worst advocate.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 1:33:40 AM PST · 459 of 650
    Rokke to Niteflyr
    "Owned my Cessna 195 since 1990...I don't think it quite fits in Light Sport category...;o) "

    OK, I'll admit to being a wannabe in owning my own aircraft. But almost all my time is in fighters or MD-11's. Generally didn't give position reports in fighters, and give all my position reports in the MD-11 in Lat/Longs (although ADS is a wonderful thing). Regardless, if I was 35 miles off on any position report, I'd be hearing all about it.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 1:28:03 AM PST · 455 of 650
    Rokke to TigersEye
    "I already did a de-construction of that graphic"

    All you did was demonstrate that you have no concept of plotting a bearing or line of sight. Talk about circular. You've already admitted that.

    "and why the little yellow helicopter isn't at all an accurate representation of where the actual helicopter is at that moment."

    Riiight. Forshadowing and all that. Again, all you proved was that you have no idea what you are talking about. Again...it's all in your posting history. And it just reinforces the thick as a brick statement. But feel free to dig it up again if you'd like.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 1:24:02 AM PST · 451 of 650
    Rokke to Niteflyr
    "Been flying for 40 years now...never used "near" in airborne radio communications as a position report bub..."

    Good. And since you're an experienced pilot, I'll assume you understand a point plotted 35 miles away from a stationary object would not meet an aviator's definition of "near". Given that Leyvas has 11 years experience filming from helicopters, it probably doesn't fit his definition either. I'll also assume you understand that trying to guess the range to a contrail or smoke trail over the water is an exercise in futility. So when he guessed 35 miles off the shore, he was really taking a WAG.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 1:16:01 AM PST · 449 of 650
    Rokke to TigersEye
    "Once again; to say that that is all I have put forth is as absurd as saying that a picture of a polar bear on a piece of ice is proof of Glowbull Warming. It's a lie and you know it's a lie."

    Actually, that is a good analogy to exactly what you are doing. Don't look at anything else. Disregard all other data. Just look at a 14 second segment of zoomed in video and form a conclusion. You've provided nothing else to support your conclusion and you reject any other input. As Finny will point out...your posting record is clear. You've got nothing.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 1:11:17 AM PST · 446 of 650
    Rokke to Niteflyr
    "Ahem...ok...define "near" then....so when I talk to ATC next time....and they ask me my location I'll see if it flies with them when I give them a: " I'm near" something or someplace for a position report..:o)"

    If you are talking to ATC, "near" would be within 500'. If they ask you for your position, and you say you are "near" an intersection, and you are really 35 miles off, be ready to copy their phone number to give them a call when you get on the ground. If you really are an aviator and don't understand that being 35 miles off does not qualify as "near", I hope you are limited to light sport.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 1:05:45 AM PST · 440 of 650
    Rokke to TigersEye
    "And the analysis is very weak."

    As opposed to the counter analysis which is simply "That looks like a missile because I say it does." Got it.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 1:03:30 AM PST · 438 of 650
    Rokke to Niteflyr
    "And you know that...how???....:o0"

    Funny.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 1:02:07 AM PST · 437 of 650
    Rokke to Niteflyr
    "That's it??? Well then you ought to press him for a better answer than little 'ole me..doncha think?....;o)"

    Actually, his first answer is sufficient given all the other data out there. Really, the single still from his video below is enough to determine the bearing of what he shot. Everything else he could provide is a guess. And guessing at ranges is almost always inaccurate. Especially over water.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 12:56:54 AM PST · 433 of 650
    Rokke to TigersEye
    "That's pretty much all you've got when it comes down to it."

    Sadly, that is pretty much true. I've hoped to find some faint ray of logical, rational thought process from you. But it just isn't there. Dense as granite. Fun to hammer away on. But basically thick as a brick.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 12:52:28 AM PST · 430 of 650
    Rokke to Niteflyr
    "Seem like such a simple question for him to answer. I am "brilliant" enough to not go chasing and wasting my time getting answers that could be easily gleaned from the horses mouth...;o)"

    He already did answer the question. He said "near" Catalina Island. MY point is that you cannot use a graphic produced by some media source to make a claim that the event Leyvas filmed was no where near the UPS902 flightpath, when the media graphic does not match the description of the person who filmed the event. The graphic is not accurate. The UPS902 flightpath was "near" Catalina Island. The yellow dot pasted on the media graphic is not.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 12:43:02 AM PST · 427 of 650
    Rokke to TigersEye
    "Where is your data about what was in Leyvas' video?"

    See the Flightaware graphic. For all the reasons pointed out here... Post 410 it is the data about what is in the Leyvas video.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 12:39:49 AM PST · 425 of 650
    Rokke to TigersEye
    "Since you like to run things in circles, as I said in my last post, I answered that in #356."

    Great. Your only source is a guess by Leyvas. That's exactly what I told you the first time you said it and you accused me of making "...the biggest horse ^#&$ statement anyone has made yet!" Looks like you actually are as dense as I first thought.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 12:35:15 AM PST · 424 of 650
    Rokke to Niteflyr
    "Geez that's easy...just contact the major news media...how the hell should we know where they came up with the coordinates?"

    Brilliant. You post two graphics that you say show a discrepancy between the location of what Leyvas filmed, and the flightpath of UPS902. But you have absolutely no idea how the location of the yellow marker was chosen in the first graphic. Here is THE reference from Leyvas that includes 35 miles..."The onboard camera showed a plume twisting up from the horizon and narrowing as it climbed into the sky near Catalina Island, about 35 miles west of Los Angeles, he said."

    So some media outlet selects a point at random, 35 miles north of Catalina island, and you think that proves what Leyvas filmed couldn't be UPS902. UPS902 was not only "near" Catalina Island. It flew right over it. So what more closely describes the only description of the event we have from the only reported eyewitness of the event. A point 35 miles to the north of Catalina Island, or an aircraft that tracks right over Catalina Island?

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 12:19:44 AM PST · 418 of 650
    Rokke to Niteflyr
    "So your contention is all the initial location reports were in error?"

    Tigerseye can't do it. Maybe you can. What were the initial location reports? And which of those reports corrolate to the yellow marker in the illustration you provided?

    "How could whoever made the graphic make an error like that?"

    The Flightaware graphic matches the UPS902 track. It is accurate. The yellow marker in the other graphic is as far away from Catalina as it is from LA. You must believe it is accurately plotted or you wouldn't have brought it up. Based on what data was it plotted?

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/16/2010 12:12:43 AM PST · 417 of 650
    Rokke to TigersEye
    "More whining about forum protocol. Take your distractions somewhere else. You have nothing of substance to add.:

    It's a simple question. I've asked it several times now. You said the point was being ignored. Well I'm all over it. I'll ask you once more...What is the specific data for the yellow marker labeled "35 Miles West of Los Angeles”?

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/15/2010 11:45:25 PM PST · 410 of 650
    Rokke to TigersEye; TXnMA; Niteflyr
    "You are being obtuse. You refer me back to #382 when I answered that point in #356 and asked you where you came up with 100 miles off of the coast. Something you never answered."

    I'm being obtuse?! When I acknowledged your answer in #356 here... Post 367 ("You, on the other hand, rely solely on Leyvas' guess that the event happened 35 miles off the coast."), it resulted in you posting an obscenity and telling me not to make "a fool of myself". So obviously, that wasn't the answer you liked. But let me quote your original answer exactly, "Leyvas estimated it to be about 35 miles off of the coast." So...is that it? Is that your source of data for the yellow marker on the illustration posted by Niteflyer?

    With respect to answering "where I came up with 100 miles of the coast", I absolutely did answer that. I answered that in the same paragraph where I tried to clarify your 35 mile statement. I will quote myself..."That is my opinion supported by multiple sources of evidence, information, data...etc. All of which point to the very well supported conclusion that the contrail Layvas filmed came for UPS902." But I'll be more specific. The list includes the Cargo Law photo and its projected line of sight to the known groundtrack of UPS902; the Leyvas video shot over Long Beach harbor and its projected line of sight to known groundtrack of UPS902; the lat/long plots each minute of UPS902 taken from Flightaware; the photos of the UPS902 contrail taken by Rick Warren; the excellent photo compilations put together on Contrailscience and by TXnMA; descriptions of the event from Gil Leyvas, and finally, the triangulation of both lines of sight from the Cargo Law camera and Leyvas' own video, which intersect almost exactly at where the Flightaware data says UPS902 is at 5:16. All of which place the contrail at roughly 175 miles from Long Beach harbor at a Latitude of 32.81N and a Longitude of 120.97W.

    Now, I'll ask again...what is the specific data source for the yellow marker on the illustration posted by Niteflyr? Are you going to stick with "Leyvas estimated it to be about 35 miles off of the coast."?

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/15/2010 11:07:07 PM PST · 408 of 650
    Rokke to TigersEye
    Ignored? I addressed it before you did. But since you must believe it is a useful argument, maybe you can answer the question I asked...What data was used to place that yellow marker labeled “35 Miles West of Los Angeles”? Specifically.

    And while we're on the topic of ignoring, maybe you can also answer the question I asked you in Post #382...So tell, me...what evidence ARE you relying on to believe the event took place 35 miles of the coast?

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/15/2010 10:11:10 PM PST · 406 of 650
    Rokke to Niteflyr
    What data was used to place that yellow marker labeled “35 Miles West of Los Angeles”? Specifically.
  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/15/2010 9:04:19 PM PST · 403 of 650
    Rokke to Sto Zvirat
    I get a kick out of Finny’s obsession with my posting habits. It is as close as she's ever gotten to providing any evidence to support one of her conspiracies. If she'll continue counting my posts, she'll eventually discover that since 31 July 2000, I've posted 110 threads and 8,770 replies (not including this one) covering topics from politics, to religion to silly conspiracies like this one. Like most Freepers, I enjoy the interchange with real people. She's not the first Freeper I've encountered who believes they are posting to an imagined crowd of lurkers about paid government “disinformationalists”. Heck, I go all the way back to Michael Rivero. Finny’s got nothing on that nutcase.
  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/15/2010 8:17:23 PM PST · 396 of 650
    Rokke to Finny
    "I don't write to you, I write to lurkers, if any are left (which is doubtful)."

    And that is part of your problem. You choose not to live in the real world, but instead focus on a world of your making. That is what allows you to ignore reams of analysis and factual data that point in a thousand different ways to the conclusion that what Leyvas filmed on 8 Nov was a contrail. Instead, you focus entirely on a badly edited 52 second string of 14 seconds worth of zoomed in video to conclude you are seeing a missile in flight.

    You can ignore the real people posting to you on FR, and instead engage in lectures to an imagined audience of lurkers, but as I have pointed out before, that simply adds validity to the conclusion that you are delusional.

  • World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

    12/15/2010 8:07:24 PM PST · 395 of 650
    Rokke to Finny
    "and have seen many contrails that look like what you imagine a missile plume would look like, if you ever actually saw one. "

    You are very confused. People who are 100% certain (like me) that the contrail Leyvas filmed was a contrail do not believe it looks like a missile plume at all. Real...imagined...you name it. It looks nothing like a missile plume, unless you zoom in on it from over 100 miles away, and patch together a confusing video of 14 seconds worth of still images and momentary flashes from over 10 minutes of actual video. Amazingly, those 14 seconds are enough to convince a gullible few that what would be an easily noticable and hugely significant event occured within 35 miles of one of the largest cities in the world...but only two people of nearly 20 million bothered to get a picture of it.