Replies

Keep on distracting with photos of outside events. The airplane contingent totally discount my and others' here first-hand experience of eye-witessing dozens, if not hundreds, of real missile launches to compare. The airplane side, MOST of whom have never seen a missile launch live, won't let us compare becuase they discount the validity of those comparisons.

Yet they will watch as you throw still photo after still photo after still photo at us asking us to compare them to the original video, when common sense tells ANYONE that a video of a moving event, such as an airplane leaving a contrail or a missile leaving a plume, is going to convey more information than a still photo of a moving event. I took the challenge and showed how, plain as the nose on your face, your classic contrail photo reveals how the setting sun underlights a horizontal trail as opposed to how the same setting sun lights a vertical plume.

But in the end, there's only one image, or set of images, that matter in this dispute: those in Leyvas' video. It appears as though you are doing everything you can to prevent people from watching the video and everything you can to get them to look at something else.

People have so much ego invested that when I and others note our personal experience witnessing real launches, those who haven't interpret it as "bragging" and thereby give themselves an excuse to discount our more qualified comparisons. I'm not bragging and neither is anyone else. What I AM doing is trying to enlighten lurkers that there is a sophisticated, deliberate efffort to deceive Americans into thinking a missile launch was an airplane.

I actually have no idea what your background is with respect to missile launches. But if your entire argument rests solely on Leyvas' video, then no wonder you are getting frustrated trying to convince people to believe that you know what you are talking about. The single still from that video is not only fuzzy, it doesn't show the whole event. It might fill a particular hole in your argument, but most people prefer to have as much information as possible about a topic before they draw a conclusion. If your argument is valid, you should be eager to have it tested with as many videos and pictures as you possibly can, because they would confirm what you are saying. Instead, all other evidence provides a strong case that the trail Leyvas filmed looks nothing like an actual missile launch, but has all the characteristics of a heavy aircraft contrail.

That you refuse to answer a single question I asked of you, but instead resort to complaints about completely legitimate comparison photographs (taken from a 2 minute Google search) and conclude by claiming that there is a "sophisticated, deliberate efffort to deceive Americans," puts the rest of your posts into context.

Well, try this: Put aside the persecution complex and answer Rokke's questions.

You also are campaigning against a strawman, whether you realize it or not. To discount your experience watching launches, one would have to say that this event obviously doesn't resemble a missile launch. I'm not aware of anyone who has said that, and if they did, they're a fool. What the question is, is does this resemble a missile launch because it was a missile, or does it resemble a missile launch for the same reason witnesses said this one below did?

"Missile launch" seen off Orange County on 31 December 2009 . Note how the "rocket exhaust plume" has many of the characteristics that missile theorists here have said proves it is a missile.

Before Finny and others cry out that this is a still and video is what makes the case, take a look at these:

Video of "missile" starts at the 10 second mark
You may want to mute this one...unecessarily loud, spooky music Note how many of the commenters on this one call it a missile. One guy even says he's a Marine and knows a missile trail when he sees one. And in both videos, it looks like a missile to me, too.

But it's not a missile. Here's a photo of the same event taken from Santa Monica:

So, as I've stated, the argument is not "You guys are dumb doodyheads and seeing and working with live missiles means nothing, doodyhead" the argument is "This looks like a missile launch even to the experienced eye because of the circumstances it was taken under, but it is in fact an airplane, and we can use other data to prove it."

Other photos of the 31 December event (including more proof it was a jet and not a missile) are here. What I find especially interesting on that page is a list sent to them by an actual rocket scientist who agrees it's an airplane. So here we have a guy who says he's seen many launches, yet says that the object is a plane. If you disagree, is that "a sophisticated, deliberate efffort to deceive Americans" or does it mean you disagree?

Bottom line? The whining from the poor, persecuted missile crowd is just chidish, as is the conspiracy theory BS. Deal with disagreement like a grown up or stop posting at FR. We already have too many children slinging poo around here.