Have you read ANY of the links I posted, or looked at ANY of the pictures I've posted?
You sound like the arguments I'd get from a blind person who couldn't respond to any visual data I supplied.
Why don't you refute some piece of evidence I've supplied, instead of these pointless rants you tend to go off on, demanding I adopt your Missile Truth position out of emotional conviction?
"when you hear that the tape might have been seized"
More unsubstantiated, unattributed rumors. Do you know what a *fact* is? Do you know how to differentiate it from a *rumor*?
. It was Flight AWE808 or more likely UPS902.
Or watch this video and then address its specific contents.
No more free education. Any more lessons, and you're going to receive a bill from me for tuition.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.Okay, I've viewed all the links and watched all the videos, and I've even read over a dozen reports. One thing strikes me.
When you're on a ship's conning tower (depending on the ship, 30-50 feet above the water for the sake of this example), and you look to the horizon, you can see approximately 30 miles before the curvature blocks your view of the surface. At 30,000 feet, you can see 200 miles or more.
According to the LAX Air Traffic Control Tower, there were no fewer than 4 dozen aircraft at 30,000-plus approaching LAX at that time of day.
Why is there only one "jet contrail"? We know that there were at least two jets approaching from the west at that time, and that the flights were within 200 miles of each other for both to be possible sources of the "contrail."
Yet there's only one. Defies logic. Defies physics. Defies science.
Another mistaken assumption you seem to make is that I care whether you or anyone else sees what I do. That ain't gonna happen. It is impossible for you to see anything from my perspective, because I'm the only one standing exactly here.
Filling the gulf between all these points of perspective is the discussion we engage in as we compare what we see to what each other sees. That is what intruigues me; that and trying to understand how you (or anyone else) comes to the conclusion that you do based upon a few very similar constants that we all share the view of, albeit from various perspectives.
I will admit that I allow a grudging respect to those who can stare down logic, physics and science and declare a victory. Whether or not that is "intelligent" we'll leave for the historians to debate. That it is interesting to me I make no apology for.
The one flaw I see in the most recent video you asked me to watch is that the MIT guy says that the entire contrail is evenly lit, unlike how it would appear were it indeed a ground-launched missile efflux. In the hi-res video on my hard drive (downloaded from the internet while the full-length version was still available) (?), the bottom-third of the efflux is in shadow.
It is what it is, and like the opinions of those still discussing it, it ain't gonna change. I accept that.
8^D