World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

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

[zeestephen]

“World Net Daily fabricates a “Missile” Contrail tale”

---

I just read WND’s article.

I don't see the deliberate fabrication you assert.

WND certainly leans toward the missile explanation.

However, at multiple points in their article they objectively present evidence for the UPS plane theory, too.

Your response to WND’s article, and to the editing they did on your submission, seems like a dramatic overreaction to me.

[CodeToad]

“Sorry but I still ain’t buying your airplane contrail explanation.”

So, can you name the missile that travels that slow?

[Right Wing Assault]

None of the missile folks have explained to us why, when viewed from the north, does it travel to the left (east) if the missile is going northwest? If you are looking south, things moving northwest must move to your right.

I asked this several weeks ago and no one came forth with an answer. So I ask again.

[Hardraade]

No, you are not on my pinglist.

Good. I was struck by your rather rabid attack on WND (be they a good or bad newssource) paired with the fact that you seem to be one of their writers. That sort of thing gives me hiccups.

[Hardraade]

So, can you name the missile that travels that slow?

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

[rockrr]

The reticence of the Øbongo regime to be honest or candid with the American people helped fuel the “contrail” controversy. It took forever before the aircraft was identified - something that should have been done immediately.

[Ol' Sparky]

Have you considered writing or contacting WND and requesting you post there what you posted here? I think WND deserves the chance to rectify the situation.

[Yardstick]

An airline contrail would have been above the sun, and the sun would have lit the underside of the contrail.

You guys make such basic mistakes.

In this case you're forgetting that the Earth is round and that the Sun is very far away.

BTW, here is the pic that by itself shoots down the missile theory:

It was taken by a webcam several miles north of where the video was shot. It clearly shows the contrail heading inland from the west. In the video the plane appears to be traveling upward, but that's because its ground track is pointed almost directly towards the viewer. In this pic we get to see the flight in semi profile, which makes the true direction obvious.

[Red Steel]

Whatever it is that's not the typical plane contrail.

A typical aircraft contrail.

What the critics haven't explained that we see a single plume and only one solid and large contrail from the source. Plane contrails dissipate faster. How many engines did UPS jet flight 902 have?

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Dr. Brian Kopp.

I never trusted CBS to begin with. Unfortunately, I can no longer trust World Net Daily as a news source.

[Finny]

People (not you, yardtick, you're a joker), look at that ridiculous drawing with the stick figure, the sun and the arrows, and the contrail. Then look at the photo below -- think about it, visualize in three dimensions. The photo FLAT OUT CONTRADICTS the drawing, for crying out loud!!! THINK ABOUT IT. COMPUTE. That which is brightly lit is facing the sun.

In this material world, that which is in shade is either facing away from the source of light, or has something between it and the source of light. You know this to be true yourself if you are a normally-sighted, normally cognizant human being.

Yardstick's kindergarten attempt at bullsh*tting an optical illusion has just "proven" that an underlit contrail would appear to us as if it was lit from the top, not from below, and that the side facing us would be in shade ... Right? LOOK AT THE DRAWING. The sun hits the TOP of the contrail; the bottom, the only part we can see, must then be in shade. The thing isn't opaque and glowing all 'round like a fluourescent tube -- or shall we expect another few hundred photo "proofs" from Yardstick and others married to the "airplane" fantasy that indeed, it is illuminated very much like a flourescent tube, thank you very much, because .. .I know!! I got it! I got it! It's water vapor, that's it!!! Yeah, that's the ticket! That's why it (though not regular clouds) look as if it's bottom was lit when the sun was hitting it's top!

THEN he shows a photo of a contrail that is bottomlit, and appears the opposite of what his ridiculous drawing indicates. LOOK AT IT AND THINK!!! It's just absurd, and it's why most of the time I ignore all of these ridiculous "proofs." They are hamster wheels -- going no place. I take one look and again am aghast at how blatantly absurd the "proofs" are, and I am sad that so many people shrug and figure the "science" looks impressive and I don't want to be considered a paranoid kook ... so, I'll go with "airplane" for $500, Alex.

Folks reading Yardtick and the rest of these contrail "provers" posts need to stand up to "we are men of science!" intimidation with brain-draining, energy-sapping crap pretend "proofs." YOU have all the expert you need IN YOUR BRAIN. Look at the video, think in 3-D. The audacity of Yardstick with that lame-brained illustration is absolutely breathtaking. Just stunning.

Good GRIEF!!!!!!!!!

[justa-hairyape]

WND has no more relevance to the video Leyvas shot than the man in the moon.

That video is the entire story. Everything else is just carnival side show. And the side show is run simply to counter the video evidence of a rocket launch.

[justa-hairyape]

Contrails being lit on their tops by a setting sun are immaterial. A viewer near sea level would not see them, since they would have to be at horizon. We are talking about contrails that extend far above horizon. Up to about 45 % above horizon. Viewer at sea level could only see their bottoms or nothing at all.

That contrail image is not the contrail in the video. The contrail in the video angled to the right. Your contrail image angles to the left just as flight UPS902 or AWE808 would have to angle to fly over Fallbrook when viewed from the Long Beach area. And as someone else pointed out, note the uniform lighting of even that contrail.

Guess you plane people are just gonna have to live with the fact that you will not convince everyone. Got Physics ?

[justa-hairyape]

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

That water would just tear them apart at top speed. Then of course, they are surrounded with steam. Lots of density to plow through without getting wrecked. So we now know it was filmed under powered flight for 2-3 minutes. Not the 10 minutes the planers proclaimed. Heck, 10 minutes would have been too slow for a plane at 35,000 feet and 600 mph. That is 60 miles in 10 minutes.

[justa-hairyape]

Sorry. Math mistake. That would be 100 miles traveled at 600 mph for 10 minutes. That is why we all need editors. Took me a while to realize the need for one, though.

[Finny]

I definitely want to see the video now.

Here you go.

[Red Steel]

Then your not to list should include The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, St. Petersburg Times, MSNBC, cBS, NBC, ABC, CNN....

[TigersEye]

You had your article published by World Net Daily yesterday.

Mysterious missile launch baffles even eyewitnesses

I'm surprised that you didn't post that as a thread.

[Red Steel]

The “not to [trust] list” that is.

[Yardstick]

Lol -- you are too much.

The thing isn't opaque and glowing all 'round like a fluourescent tube

No, but as you mentioned, it's made of water vapor that disperses and reflects light, even light coming from behind, which allows it to appear almost internally lit when seen against a darker sky.

Check out the edges of the cloud in this pic. Its edges are bright because they're scattering the sunlight that's coming from behind:

Now look at these stills from the video. Doesn't the contrail look like it could be similarly backlit? It even shares the characteristic of being darker in the middle where it's thickest:

The faint shadow it casts in the sky is also consistent with it being lit from behind.

But I don't think the lighting argument is decisive because the light is coming in at such a grazing angle that it's hard to judge exactly what it's doing.

To me the Cargo Law webcam pic is the clincher.