Replies

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.

You are the closest thing to a rational argument on the Missile Truther side on all of FR.

On the contrary, I've been trying to debunk the "missile theory" all along, if you look at my posting history on this thread. I went to the effort of contacting both known eyewitnesses to do so; I've exchanged emails with Rick Warren, and I had a lengthy phone conversion and subsequent email exchange with Gil.

I'm not aware anyone else has done that, be it lbahneman, TXnMA or contrailscience.com. (By the way, are you saying that lbahneman runs contrailscience.com?)

Frankly, I still lean towards the explanation of contrailscience.com. The reason I contacted Gil was to confirm their take on it.

I was shocked to find that he was not convinced by their reconstruction of the facts, and that is the only reason I have continued the discussion, given his eyewitness viewpoint.

On the other hand, we have continued our email exchange since our phone conversation, and I think I've found a problem with his perspective that leans towards the credibility of contrailscience.com's explanation.

Once I iron that out, I'll report back.

Until then, I would appreciate it if you would not mischaracterize my posting history on this thread as belonging to the Missile Truther camp.