Just throwing it out there. I don't know the technical terms, but I know what I see and I see what you are saying.
Posted on 11/19/2010 10:10:35 AM PST by TXnMA
There are other factors, such as perceived trajectory of the missile/UFO, optical illusions, varied "professional" opinion and observation, and the questionable credibility of CBS - as well as the consideration the 0bama Administration is itself an untrustworthy source of clarification.
That said, I appreciate your efforts. You may will be correct.
IMO, it is essential that KCBS clarify the issue by making their their entire footage available w/time print. If they don't, the responsibility of who's "credibility" is on the line is theirs - NOT Beck's, and the weight of your theory/"proof" gains more plausibility.
The trajectory of the "flight" was a bit odd, no?
You know that conspiracy theorists will never concede that they are wrong. When proven wrong, they just claim that you are part of the evil doers in the conspiracy.
They need to believe it was a missile, they can’t use logic and reason. And, because I disagreed with someone, he wanted the feds to arrest me for treason! You can’t reason with someone like that, delusional thinking........
No, you can't film the passage of a rocket after it's gone out of sight! On the other hand, you can film the flight of an airplane for many minutes.
Nicely put.
See Conservative Tsunami’s post 141. He’s one of the folks willing to look ayt evidence rationally and should be treated as such.
Thank you, Sir.
You can use that information plus the apparent width of the "blast off" (that's claimed ~ use the cloud furthest out on the horizon that seems to be the base of the contrail) to figure out how many feet wide the rocket (if it was a rocket) had to be.
Even accounting for the 2X lens the CBS guy used, the rocket had to be about one mile wide at its base ~ if it left that cloud.
You don't need to use anything more complex than the sort of rectangular computation method developed by the Egyptians. They used it for thousands of years to successfully and quickly resurvey their fields after the annual Nile inundations.
You could use trigonometry, but I thought something basic and literally right out of the stone age might be more appropriate for converting the missile crowd away from their false path to satori.
Done also. Sent to Stu and Glenn. Thanks..
The screencap is from the following
In my old office we had an individual who always wanted the furniture moved in such a way that it was clear she thought of it as bendable.
Same here. If something is gone it is gone. If it's still around it is still around.
Actually, the question arose in the first thread ~ people who knew rockets said "Hey, that's not a rocket. They are entirely too fast to hang around for 10 minutes". Folks who didn't really know rockets started talking about Stage 1 and Stage 2 somehow bending the rules of nature in some perverse nature making it possible for us to see a rocket for 10 minutes or so.
No problem. Thanks for posting the great analysis and matching up the video with Rick Warren’s images.
Just throwing it out there. I don't know the technical terms, but I know what I see and I see what you are saying.
Despite obvious things in the video (why did the missile plume get darker at altitude rather than brighter, why could no other corroborating photos or videos support the claimed trajectory, etc), it was their magic bullet. Well, no more.
I have never seen more close-minded "experts" surround such weakly supported theory (the alleged "missile" theory). I mean, I do understand why they see what they see:
- The angle in the video does create the illusion of both a NW and a NE course
- The "spiraling"
- The flare
Yes, those do appear to be the hallmarks of a missile, but they also are the characteristics of a contrail. As time progressed, more and more evidence supported the contrail theory, while only the video itself, if your had tunnel vision, partially supported the missile theory.
My favorite retort which illustrates the strange narrow mindedness:
Get off your high horse, dude, making all your demands of plots and correlations, etc., as if they would prove a thing -- see the contrailscience page of how such things are so great at creating illusions over truth.
To what end? What would a trajectory prove? Nothing. You want reproducible science, go reproduce the phenomenon of a commercial airliner headed for Phoenix OR the latest, a cargo plane headed for an airport only 40 miles east of LAX, that does what that "airliner" did in that video.
(Apparently they dismiss the webcam image of a contrail 24 hours later as photoshopped, etc). No matter what evidence you present to these people, it is invalid, photoshopped or faked.
Ah well. Thank you for your footwork.
“Show your doubter the paper, hold it up for about 5 seconds and ask them what it says. They will repeatedly state it says PARIS IN THE SPRING.”
One of my friends showed me that when we were kids and I remember getting it wrong. I think I even read it two or three times! It’s funny how the brain sometimes makes a snap decision then refuses to accept contrary evidence even when it’s right in front of you.
I’m willing to consider that I’m wrong about this too. If only someone would make the missile argument that doesn’t think GPS and satellite imagery are the in the domain of the voodoo priest. I believe there was some brief mention of mathematics being less a science than an art.
Thank you for your effort. It’s good to have this heavily documented for more reasonable folks who may be undecided.
One side says, “Take my word for it. I know more than you”.
The other says, “Don’t take my word for it. Here’s the data and you can put it through whatever tests you want in order to make up your own mind.”
Which do you think the casual reader will respond more favorable to?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.