World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

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

[TigersEye]

There are two known eyewitnesses who captured images of the contrail.

Here is a third.

New footage of 'Mystery Missile' :: Nov 8, 2010, Off Southern California Coast (video; Nov. 9, 2010)

[TigersEye]

It may be that the experts would modify their opinion based on viewing the entire footage. The footage is owned by the local CBS affiliate and nothing was found by the Department of Defense in reviewing the footage that would prevent its release to the public. According to Leyvas, although the entire raw video may no longer be available on the local CBS affiliate's server, "We archive important video we shoot as a back up for the station, but the station maintains the rights to the video." If that is the case, it would just be a matter of uploading the unedited ten minutes of video to the internet in order to put an end to the debate.

That is the sum total of what WND changed/left out of your article and you're ripping them a new one over it? I don't get it. That isn't particularly significant information or a big editorial change. It doesn't alter the aim or meaning of the article in any way.

[Yardstick]

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.

The viewer on the ground will of course see the underside of the contrail. My point, which I think my drawing gets across pretty clearly, is that it's possible for a contrail to be lit from behind by the sun. To be honest, it's hard to tell exactly how the light is hitting it since it's coming in at such a grazing angle. It's either from slightly above or from slightly below, but mostly it's from "end on" -- i.e. in a direction running almost parallel to its length. It also appears to be getting light on its northern flank in some pics.

That contrail image is not the contrail in the video.

Yes, actually it is.

It's just that it's seen more from the side rather than head on.

[The Duke]

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

[TigersEye]

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.

The incredible disappearing airplane that's flying directly towards you. lol

[PhilDragoo]

Shades of TWA 800 wherein Kalstrom and the CIA animation assured us there was no missile.

Fired by a fast boat.

Seen by a hundred or more.

Centerline fuel tank. Nothing to see here.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Stop it. Don’t confuse them with the facts.

Actually, I hold out some hope that your simple yet revealing picture might help back them off the ledge.

People are way too quick to believe what they think they are seeing in pictures and videos. It’s kind of scary.

[CharlesWayneCT]

We know we won't convince everybody. We do hold out hope that over time people will come to their senses, but that's not how it works out in many cases.

Some people will never accept that their first impression has to be right, even when it's shaped by people telling you the wrong thing.

Like how people might watch the 1st 30 second of this you-tube video, believe we have invented anti-gravity, and NEVER accept that they didn't get the perspective -- unless they get to see the entire video: Impossible Motion

[kindred]

Interesting thoughts and arguments on both sides. WND certainly needs to protects it conservative image and simply may be mistaken though the tv and liberal media can not be trusted, not ever.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

You had your article published by World Net Daily yesterday. I'm surprised that you didn't post that as a thread.

That is the sum total of what WND changed/left out of your article and you're ripping them a new one over it?

You didn't actually read my original post and compare it to WND's version. If you had, you wouldn't be asking such silly questions.

[1rudeboy]

But, but . . . those marbles are going UP!!!

Nicely done.
[golfclap]

[TigersEye]

You might find this video analysis interesting.

Mystery Missile Flash & Explosion (update 12.11.10)

Now if we were to accept the proposition that the sunlight is hitting the contrail and the airplane from the top it sure created a brilliant reflection downward. Odd since reflected light usually bounces at an angle from what it hits rather than passing through a solid body like an airplane fuselage and bending downward, in basically the same direction it came from, as if it were passing through a prism.

Of course it is still one heck of a flash of light reflected off of a white-painted fuselage from sunlight striking it from below as sunset lighting is known to do.

[TigersEye]

You didn't actually read my original post and compare it to WND's version. If you had, you wouldn't be asking such silly questions.

I did read it all. The question remains; is that all they changed? If so it is not meaningful or significant.

[Yardstick]

The incredible disappearing airplane that's flying directly towards you. lol

Yeah that's great - except that the plane is clearly visible in the Warren photos. ContrailScience even indicates it with red dots so you know where to look.

The fact that the cameraman can't understand that the plane continued on is good reason not give his analysis much weight.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Finny,

You need to take a little time off...

You’re inner ritard is showing.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

The question remains; is that all they changed?

If you read my original post, then read WND's version, and cannot comprehend the differences between the two, there's not much I can do to assist you.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Thanks much for your excellent work on this.

I gave up trying to convince the tinfoil hat gang long ago...

[TigersEye]

The 30-45 seconds of video I captured in which I could see the object (the portion of the video showing the glow/flame of the object at its pinnacle) occurred 8-10 minutes prior to the animated images of the animation (if the time stamps are accurate).

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

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.

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

[Yardstick]

Yeah, that video is great!

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

Anyone who denies that this faucet is hovering in midair is either a ChiCom stooge or a CIA plant.