The contrailer folks have a double standard in that regard as well -- they reject the video and still shots from it on the grounds that it has been edited somehow to promote a fantastic optical illusion ...
... yet rebut solely with still shots of other things, some of which they claim (but cannot verify) are of the same event in the Leyvas video, and other things they claim are comparison examples of missile plumes or airplane contrails, but which -- because they are still shots, generally taken from a distance, are pretty much empty of value for the discussion at hand. They could easily throw a distant shot of a missile launch plume, claim it was an airline contrail, and the only way of judging what it really was would be by knowing the photo's genuine source -- and then if I or you ID it wrong, could chortle "Aha! We fooled you on that -- how 'expert' are you?" or vice versa; still shots taken from a far distance especially are PERFECTLY SUITED for that kind of deception.
But not videos. Hence their conspicuous absence on the airplane contrail side.
See, people who've seen missile launches at relatively close range know this. It's why the vast majoritiy of folks climbing on the contrail bandwagon have zero or limited eyewitness experience with missile launches. Sorry if it hurts their pride or "self esteem" to have it pointed out, but that's just the way it is. Hey, I'd be just as gullible if the subject of illusion was a tornado or a harsh winter. I know as much about those two things as a lot of these midwesterners buying the contrail cover story know about differentiating missile launches from airline contrails.
You really think anyone reads these threads but the few people engaged in them? I don't. This issue died weeks ago to 99.9% of the population who realized then what it was.
Your paragraph on the validity of still shots is more irony considering your last post was a discussion of a still shot. But the video won't save your arguments either. It is just harder to discuss in this format because you can't hit a pause button. But, using the link you provided previously to a copy of the video that meets your standards, I'll use time cues to reference specific points on the video. Your link...Leyvas Video
1. 8 seconds in. Same question as I asked about the still you posted. Where is the flame from the motor?
2. 11 seconds in. Oh wait a minute. New view and what do you know...a bright light on the object. Is that flame or a reflection? If it's flame, why isn't it always there? A flame would be. A reflection can be blocked by clouds between the sun and the object making the contrail.
3. 14 seconds...new view...no flame again. And little to no relative motion. What's going on?
4.18 seconds in...wait a minute...that's the same scene as 11 seconds in. Or the object hasn't moved with respect to the clouds. Which is it?
5. 27 seconds...there's what I think your calling a chinook. You never have explained what it's doing. Here's your chance. I'm ready for just about anything.
6. 40 seconds...the reflection is back. Magically, it is exactly the same color as the clouds near it. Not the white light so commonly viewed in actual missile launches. And notice the rapid movement of what you describe as a vertically climbing missile? Or not...because it doesn't appear to be moving at all. Unlike any real missile at this point which would be moving at several times the speed of sound.
And that's it. Nothing but questions related to the only evidence you'll accept. The celebrated Leyvas video. Prove your analytical skill to all the "lurkers" out there. I'm ready.
And the missile crowd keeps flinging....well, nothing that would constitute any evidence. Still, not a single bit of hard evidence that it was a missile. Why would that be?
LOL