How very unlike you, Comic.
You missed the irony of my italicised quote in your reprimand. I had already stated emphatically, in my article here, that it was definitely a missile several hours before McInerny opined on it.
I know it was a missile, as I'm sure you do. And my knowledge of that fact had nothing to do with "deferring to authority," which, as Jim Robinson can confirm after almost thirteen years of dealing with me here on FreeRpublic, I don't believe in.
Something tells me you don't either. Ooh-rah.
In fact, I now have a hard drive version of the original video which actually shows the missile rising from very shortly after it leaves the water. It is a very high-definition bit of video. Under intense magnification, shortly before the propellant burns off, there is a brief burst of bright flameout, identical to the way a liquid-fuel cell rocket evacuates the last bit of fuel as the mixture becomes overly oxygen-rich at the tail end of the burn, as the thrust from burn drops precipitously allowing air to "back-burn" through the tail section up into the combustion chamber.
The vehicle was traveling at close to 1,500mph (Mach 2) heading W-NW at nearly 55,000ft at burnout. Passenger jets from Hawaii don't fly that fast, that high, or that direction.
The chance that that was a jet flying east from out over the Pacific is about as great as the chance that I'm your Tio Pedro. Screw authority.
;-\
I like (no, scratch that, LOVE) your attitude, but not your science my FRiend.
It's not unlike me at all to question the herd mentality. And, as much as I distrust the construct of the "state" and its upper echelon, I distrust common emotional reactionism even more.
Gimme some math. Gimme some hi-res video that disproves the aircraft contrail assertion, and I'll apologize to you publicly in every forum you choose.
Hell, I'd find it really, really fascinating and exciting. Not to mention valuable as a variable replacement exercise for my primary project, which trumps all that personal emotion stuff.
