Replies

The eyewitness cameraman stated to me that he saw a jet airliner far to the south of the contrail he was filiming, that he believes was actually flight UPS902.

He said that typical jet airliner contrail, in comparison to the one he videotaped, was like "comparing a tree to an ant." The contrail he was filming was nothing like the other jet airliner contrail he had in view at the time to the south.

Frankly, contrailscience.com has done a fine job presenting their case, and it is very credible.

But it too is simply an opinion. It is not fact. They have taken photos and created a hypothesis to fit known data. It is not 'data' itself but an opinion based on data.

Likewise, the camera man has offered an opinion based on his first hand eye witness acount.

There is no hard data in this case, no facts of the kind you are demanding. Neither side knows for certain what he was filming that evening.

The only "facts" are that something appears in Gil's video and Rich Warren's photos.

Beyond that, there lies only opinion, not fact or data.

But it too is simply an opinion. It is not fact. They have taken photos and created a hypothesis to fit known data. It is not 'data' itself but an opinion based on data.

Doc, I have to respectfully disagree. Although your point is cleverly presented, it is incorrect.

The actual data presented by our own lbahneman and our own TXnMA is in the form of trajectory, timeframes, and captured (and peer reviewed) information sufficient to perfectly describe and re-enact *repeatable phenomena* in accordance with the theory.

This is the definition of data in the scientific method. Additionally, it is data supporting a theory describing a repeatable event, which is usually termed a *fact*.

Your interview with the pilot is interesting, but it is anecdotal and supplies non-verifiable and non-repeatable assertions. It might work in a courtroom, but it would get you kicked out of any lab.

A logical conclusion is expressible as a formula. An opinion is not. If I took the time, I could show you the proof formula for the Not-Missile theory. If you took the time, you could not construct the It's-A-Missile theory proof, because there are no values to plug into the logic equation.

I do appreciate your intellectual effort on this subject though. Keep it up. You are the closest thing to a rational argument on the Missile Truther side on all of FR.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

But it too is simply an opinion. It is not fact. They have taken photos and created a hypothesis to fit known data. It is not 'data' itself but an opinion based on data.

That is absolutely true. The only evidence are the two videos and the unpublished raw pictures that Rick Warren took. What Contrailscience has put out is "analysis" not evidence. There seem to be a lot of people who don't understand the difference between evidence and analysis.