Er ... that would be me. And the expert's area of specialty is perspective and lighting in aviation, which necessarily takes into account the curvature of the earth.
That expert came to the same conclusion that I independently had determined and had just postulated about here in a Freepers thread. Which is why apparently both me and the lighting expert knew the debate was over weeks ago.
You got that right! [^)) The last I mentioned it to him was a few days ago, when I got him to look over a painstaking calculated mathematical "proof" FReepmailed to me by an armchair theorist (who, incidentally, has never seen a live missile launch but has seen a LOT of contrails that look "just like" what he has never seen) who kindly requested that my expert look at them. The expert was totally disgusted with me. After looking at the "proof," he went off for a bit about how the light of the setting sun illuminates things and how the base of the plume was pretty obviously NOT 300 miles away and above the sun (!!!*rolls eyes*!!!!), and concluded with the words, "This guy's got too much time on his hands."
The debate is "over" in part because there never was one -- the sun settled it the minute the film was shot. To me, it's now a matter of giving lurkers something else to chew on than the spam being spun by the contrail delusionists, and also a matter of observing what looks very much to me like a concerted, sophisticated, organized effort at disinformation for political purposes ON A MOST DANGEROUS TOPIC.
Have your lighting expert post here. We have to take your word that you have some expert who knows all and sees all. Not a good persuasion tactic.
No one has answered any question about the complete lack of response by armed forces, or about the lack of witnesses on boats, on Catalina, or anywhere else in a mega metropolis like LA. No ionized plume, etc.
Simply put, the pro missile crowd, after 5 weeks has not produced one shred of tangible data, nothing. Just “look at that video!”. The conspiracy theorist is lazy, they ask others to disprove their theory, rather than prove theirs. And when they are disproved, they result to questioning the motives of those who disproved them (what is their agenda? who do THEY work for?). Also, the insults, etc. Its standard game for the CT.
Your lighting expert wasn’t there, millions of Los Angelinos were there and didn’t see anything. Its fascinating to watch you guys dig in and defend the indefensible, especially when you have offered no data to prove your point.