World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

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

[TigersEye]

Have you thought up a new argument against the Cargo Law pic yet — the one that shows the plane flying inland?

As you say about the lighting; I don't think it's decisive. The Cargolaw pic that is. It creates an interesting possibility but it's no more conclusive than the original video itself.

[Mr. Silverback]

People who believe the moon landings were faked will tell you the photos prove it. They say that all you need to see that they were faked in a studio on Earth is right in your brain.

People who believe the World Trade Center was brought down with planted explosives will tell you the proof is right there in the video. They say that all you need to figure it out is right in your brain.

BTW, I watched a National Geographic documentary where they dismantled every single piece of “evidence” that the Moon landing was faked. Then they presented the evidence to a prominent moon landing conspiracist. He not only ignored it, he told them it was obvious that the landings were fake because of a piece of evidence he had failed to debunk. In a vacuum, he said, the astronaut’s gloves would be too stiff to work. He even took out a vacuum pump and demonstrated his theory. Common sense. Science. Obvious to even the most casual observer, and anyone who says otherwise is carrying water for an evil government conspircy.

Now, I’m a big believer in intuition, but sometimes it fails us, tells us something was going on that wasn’t, and if we can’t plug in other facts and realize we misperceived, then we end up posting screeds about flourescent tubes and massive government photoshop conspiracies.

[TigersEye]

And yet, the overwhelming evidence clearly shows that this was an airplane contrail.

If you were confident of that you wouldn't spew out inane statements like this to bolster your position.

By the way, I just drove half way across the continent and saw multiple contrails that looked every bit as much the “missile launch” as the one in question here.

Then back pedal off of it.

I haven't either. Not one. So what's your point?

[TigersEye]

Go away -- and do not come back until you find and post it.

Anyone who has read these threads has seen it posted many times that it was an optical illusion.

Go away until you can be honest.

[TXnMA]

"See? Even I can make fun of your posts without adding anything of substance. You're not the only one."

True. SOP for you.

[TigersEye]

blah blah blah

Got anything but sniping?

[Yardstick]

As you say about the lighting; I don't think it's decisive.

Really? You sure argued against it as though it were decisive on the other thread. And I can see why -- that pic very clearly shows the plane flying inland from the west. You threw everything you had at it to discredit it. But now all the sudden you don't think it's decisive.

Nice try.

It creates an interesting possibility but it's no more conclusive than the original video itself.

Actually it's quite conclusive because it shows that the plane wasn't traveling upwards or westward as you conspiracy theorists claim.

[eyedigress]

Since the 60’s we have had the technology to “glide” missiles into orbit. I don’t understand why this isn’t regarded the same when we know the FAA is mum on the subject.

[TXnMA]

"Thousands of others, including several former military pilots, a Brigadier General who commanded NORAD and the editor of Janes, disagree."

You act as if it was a good thing that SeeBS fabricated "news" for "Sweeps Week" with a deceptively edited video and lots of good folks were suckered by their lie.

Au contraire! That is a national disgrace!

[TigersEye]

Or it shows a different contrail. Or it shows a missile plume headed away from land.

[TXnMA]

Intended to ping you in #229...

[EternalVigilance]

I’m not wasting any more time on this conversation.

[TigersEye]

Good, I wasted too much time on your pointless posts.

[Yardstick]

Or it shows a different contrail. Or it shows a missile plume headed away from land.

This is like Groundhog Day. These lame arguments have already been dealt with. The fact that you're repeating them means you've lost the argument.

But for the sake of those playing along at home...

The pics clearly show the same contrail. Every kink and twist is the same (taking foreshortening into account). The thin horizontal cloud to the left of the contrail is the same. Even the little cloud to the right of the contrail is the same. It's the same contrail, just seen from a different angle.

As for the object heading west, that's not possible. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Sky2 video shows it moving directly away from the camera out to sea, then the Cargo Law cam could only show it moving right to left if the cam were located somewhere south of Sky2's position. But it wasn't. It was located north of Sky2, at LAX. This means right-to-left translates into traveling either eastward or southward. And since the video shows it traveling along an almost due east-west line, then it must be traveling eastward.

Got any more lame or recycled arguments?

[TXnMA]

"First of all you show no evidence of any "crosswipe" in the video KCBS released. Secondly, none of the pics you label as "crosswipes" show a second contrail. Thirdly, the clip that is transitioned to is so vastly different an image that it couldn't possibly produce the image of a second contrail even if there were some double exposure going on."

You are full of ........

Just because you claim to be incapable of seeing the "dual contrails" in the crossfades I posted as thumbnails, that gives you no justification for besmirching the quality, honesty or integrity of my analysis.

Behold the crossfade transition at 00:13-00:14 in the SeeBS edited abortion -- and tell me you can't see the two contrails in one frame.

Just because you are unobservant and incompetent gives you no right to question the integrity of my work -- especially since you haven't contributed a da*n bit of original work on this entire issue.

[Yardstick]

I’m not wasting any more time on this conversation.

That sounds like wisdom to me. I'm out too.

[TigersEye]

-- especially since you haven't contributed a da*n bit of original work on this entire issue.

That's not true. You just can't be honest can you? Or reasonable or decent.

[TXnMA]

Since you demonstrably do not know the difference between the unrelated terms, "atmospheric distortion" and "optical illusion", (illusion is maintained in vacuo) you prove yourself to be incompetent to continue this discussion.

Your prattling warrants and deserves no further consideration. FIN.

[Hardraade]

Eff off, Kong. Don’t you have a plane to catch to somewhere, and some chemtrails to smoke?

[TigersEye]

Your prattling warrants and deserves no further consideration. FIN.

What is that the sixth time you've said you wouldn't post to me again? Bwaaaaahahahahahahaaaa! No self control at all.