Most of the people who buy the airplane contrail, when asked directly, say they've never seen a live missile launch, but they've seen a lot of airplane contrails and they're awfully clever with slide-rules and computations and such. The unspoken implication is that they're obviously a lot more "sensible" than a bunch of "kooks" in California, an experienced news camerman in a very competitive market, a couple of Air Force generals, an editor of Jane's, veteran missileers, etc. It explains why you've actually seen contrailers naively crow, "Well, if it was a missile launch, Mr. smartypants, where was the sonic boom? Huh?" *sigh* All you can do is shake your head and think, "You've never seen a missile launch, have you?" But oops ... that's bragging, and meanwhile you marvel over their breathtaking, if generally civil and polite, arrogance.
Everyone has seen and mused over unusual airline contrails. We all have experience there. A person -- any person -- who has watched with binoculars missile launches 25 to 160 miles distant knows absolutely hands-down that it is FANTASY that any cognizant adult equipped with magnification in binocs or a professional camera could confuse a missile launch in that range with a commercial airline contrail. Pure fantasy.
THEREFORE, either there was premeditated malicious intent and considerably skilled and advanced technical tampering with the original footage on the part of CBS and/or Gil Leyvas, or this was a missile launch. The possibility of the former is so nil as to be discountable.
THEREFORE, anyone who's actually seen a lot of missile launches, military or civilian when they saw them, knows that every bit of hocus pocus and wishful thinking attempting to "prove" the video (photos from which appear almost not at all in proportion to the mountain of photos from other sources which claim to be this, that, or the other, but NOT from the video) is wrong.
Knowing this is not bragging, not ego, it's not "being smarter than you," it's not "You're such a dumb bunny." It's just plain being a human on the ground using the sense God gave you to assess what's going on. As for me, I confirmed and double-checked with folks as experienced and more informed than me, just to make sure. I looked at the light cast on the plume, and spoke at great length with a person who is a professional in a field involving aviation perspective and lighting. I grabbed a map. I talked to all kinds of people whose experiences in seeing missile launches have been different than mine -- from at sea, for example, and commercial fishing in the area. I come back here and I see the same tired old tactics -- still photos, distractions, shiny objects, emotional rants, ridicule, insults, and demands for theories as to who, then, fired the missile (I don't know; that's beyond my purview; I only know that calling Leyvas' video footage of a commercial airliner is pure unadulterated bullsh*t).
Assiduously avoided by the dedicated "disprovers" is footage of the actual video. They throw everything but the kitchen sink at viewers' eyes: pictures of this, that, and the other, graphs, diagrams, and more photos of things to compare. The possibilities in that kind of distraction are literally infinite. To add insult to injury, they work exclusively in still photos, which by definition cannot convey time or movement -- yet discount the Leyvas video completely because, apparently, it is a bunch of still shots that have been cleverly manipulated and "edited" in order to fool you and me into mistaking an airliner leaving a contrail for a missile. That is so very convenient for the contrail folks, since still photos are THE ONLY WAY that airline contrails can ever fool anyone on the ground into mistaking them for missile plumes.
Yet in the end, there's only ONE photographic image that is established absolutely as being what it is: that captured in the Leyvas video. Everything else -- all other images, comparisons, alleged views of the same event from different locations -- ALL, except from LAX webcam, I suppose, are either useless technically or unverifiable. They serve zero purpose but to distort, distract and confuse from the video in question.
Rick Warren took twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph below each one explaining that each one was to be used as evidence against the "phony" missile launch.
That's about it.
“THEREFORE, either there was premeditated malicious intent and considerably skilled and advanced technical tampering with the original footage on the part of CBS and/or Gil Leyvas, or this was a missile launch. The possibility of the former is so nil as to be discountable.”
The footage was manipulated whether it was a missile or a contrail, by KCBS, right? I mean, they edited it, and chose what parts of the footage to put on their newscast, no matter what it was. Seems like if KCBS would just show the whole thing uncut it would be easy to tell, it would either eventually look like a plane or the smoke would just stop, as the boost stages were over. I also think it’s weird that they didn’t choose to show a clip of the lingering smoke trail after the boost stages and the missile disappeared.
I think it likely that the reason they don’t is because it would show a plane, which would give the CBS name yet another black eye.
Freegards
Finny, good post, thanks for the ping.
As for some of the so called UPS contrail experts on FR, they are most likely government shills.
BTW: contrailscience’s website owner is still wet behind the ears. (see below).
Your so-called expert:
ContrailScience.com is just a place where I write about both contrails and science – which also includes some looking at the “chemtrails” theory, and the pseudoscience associated with it.
My name is Mick West, I’m a private pilot (in training, I have a solo certification, and have flown a 150 mile solo flight).
I’ve been training out of Santa Monica airport, so I know the airspace round here. I like writing, and figuring things out. See something odd in the sky? Let me know.
I’m not a scientist, or a meteorologist, but I like to think that what I post is comprised of independently verifiable facts. You can check the facts yourself. If you find ANY error on this site, then let me know and I will issue a correction immediately. < snip >
Talking about unverified data!!! Your whole position is built on a cBS LIE!!!
What proof do you have of cBS's video's validity? Please produce it.
Why are you putting your trust in the MSM -- when all reputable FReepers see them for exactly what they are: the ones who got the illegal Kenyan socialist who's squatting in our White House elected?
Have you noticed the massive font size...red bold print and underlining? When someone does that I ignore everything they say...if you can’t make a point without the cyber version of screaming...you obviously don’t believe a word you are saying~
Then perhaps you should educate them by providing lots of examples of what a missile launch actually does look like, so they will be more educated and more likely to agree with your assessment. But I seem to recall you have very adamantly argued against discussing any picture, video or experience that doesn't fit your assessment of what is depicted in the Leyvas video. The irony is, your approach to the topic actually reduces the chance that anyone will agree with your assessment. You are your own worst advocate. You believe that observing multiple missile launches gives you the authority to declare that what is depicted in the Leyvas video is a missile launch. Yet, despite being asked time and again to produce any photographic or video evidence of any missile launch ever that looks anything like the contrail in the video, you refuse. I read your repeated assertions that all the "experts" you talk to agree with you, but whenever you are asked to explain how you or they account for the fact that whatever was depicted in the video performs nothing like a missile (other than obviously being airborne) you refuse. Instead, you demand that everyone simply take it on yours and their authority as experienced observers that what has almost no characteristics common to a missile launch is absolutely 100% a missile launch. I'd give you credit for a nice try...but it isn't.
If I told you that I had 15 years experience flying Air Force fighters and am currently an LAX based FedEx MD-11 pilot and have more time observing weird contrails and missile trails from all altitudes and angles than a vast majority of the world's population, would it change your mind about what you think you see in the video? I didn't think so. That is why I have provided you example after example of what an actual missile launch looks like (in both photo and video format). I've tried to untangle your analysis of how sunlight from a sun of unknown location or elevation can reveal the horizontal or vertical orientation of clouds and contrails, but quickly realized that what is obvious to you does not necessarily reflect reality. That seems to be a trend with you.
And by the way, the editor of Jane's now says the contrail was a contrail.