Posted on 12/02/2010 6:21:47 AM PST by yoe
That's just dumb. Why does it suggest a cover-up? Why cover up missile launches, even if they're a secret new system...? Just call it a "routine missile exercise" and be done with it. There's no reason to do otherwise.
But they don't need to cover it up mainly because it wasn't a missile. It was an aircraft, just like all the other similar photos of aircraft contrails that come in over the horizon.
"Close to" doesn't mean they are any more in the know than anybody else. If it was China why wouldn't they be crowing about their accomplishment? Why would they be silent on the matter? Doesn't that negate whatever reason they would do such a thing?
If there is 10 minutes of video, but the public, general concensus is it was a plane, is it more likely the video was not released because it backs up the plane scenario, or debunks it?
Because it's more fun to hype what looks like a missile than to show how it is obviously an airplane. Look at all the fun we've had here about it.
Why did it take two days for the official story to become “it was a plane”? This after much frantic activity going on in defense circles, with leaks from high-level Pentagon sources saying it was, in fact, a missile before the official story was solidified?
Except that's not the way it happened. The USAF took the first reports and replied "we don't know what you're talking about". Because... [drumroll...] they didn't know what people were talking about. As it was just an ordinary airplane, why would they?
Are you aware that the guy behind contrailscience.com is not actually a meterologist or scientist in the field of weather or aerospace? As such, why would you lend more credence to him than to the actual military experts who have stated that it WAS a missile? Does a preference for a specific answer color your trust or belief to those who support versus oppose your preferred answer? This last one is rhetorical, being meant not in a perjorative sense, but to highlight potential observational bias.
Why would being a meteorologist be helpful? Neither contrails nor missile exhausts are meteorological phenomena and have nothing to do with weather.
A question for you, though: what about the pictures of exactly the same sort of contrail from all over the country at various dates? Are those all missiles too? Are there hundreds of these suspicious launches all over the country every year?
Oooh, Whirled Nuts Daily.
Answers to your questions in order:
#1 That didn’t happen, so no more answer required
#2 The general consensus IS that it is a plane. The general consensus of people paid to appear as “experts” on the news to say it wasn’t a plane is that “it wasn’t a plane”.
Do you need an expert to come on the news and tell you the sky is blue?
#3 It was a plane. It took two days for the idiocy to spool up to a level that an official response to state something should be obvious to people who are oblivious was required. I don’t see that as unusual.
#4 I lend credence to the contrail science guy because he is right. Being right tends to increase ones credibility, while being wrong, like the “expert missileers” tends to decrease ones credibility. Being wrong and not correcting yourself decreases ones credibility further still.
Other military experts such as retired Vice Admiral John Stufflebeem also gave on-air in-depth accounts of how this was not a missile, but an aircraft contrail.
Jane's Missle and Rockets Editor, Doug Richardson, after re-analysing the later footage reversed his decision. Jane's no longer go with the missile theory.
If people close to former US presidents and current executive-level folks in sensitive positions are saying we (the Feds) know it was a sub-launched, Chinese missile, and that we are ignoring it publically, since the launch accomplished what the Chinese intended (show of capability in a non-war-inducing scenario), does that at all change your thinking? Would you have to hear this from these sources with your own ears before you believe it?
If by 'people' you mean Doug Richardson, he was shown the helicopter footage from a laptop and he made his pronouncement from that single video clip. As the ContrailScience.com site proved, the same phenomenon, from the same general part of California, was observed and commented on nearly ten months before this most recent 'missile' flap. Therefore this is not a unique occurance, but is a rare combination of events that makes it an infrequent occurance. If it happened daily, it wouldn't have been news. If it never happned before, it wouldn't have been identified for what it was so quickly.
If there is 10 minutes of video, but the public, general concensus is it was a plane, is it more likely the video was not released because it backs up the plane scenario, or debunks it?
I don't know about "10 minutes" of video, but I did see the KCBS news story videos. It does look like a missile or shuttle launch. But looking like one and being one are two different things.
Why did it take two days for the official story to become “it was a plane”? This after much frantic activity going on in defense circles, with leaks from high-level Pentagon sources saying it was, in fact, a missile before the official story was solidified?
Try this: If you were the 'government,' and there was no Pentagon initiated launch, there was no NORAD alert of a foreign based launch, and you had no plans for a launch off of the coast of California, how long would it take you to get up to speed in just figuring out what you were being asked about?
Are you aware that the guy behind contrailscience.com is not actually a meterologist or scientist in the field of weather or aerospace? As such, why would you lend more credence to him than to the actual military experts who have stated that it WAS a missile? Does a preference for a specific answer color your trust or belief to those who support versus oppose your preferred answer? This last one is rhetorical, being meant not in a perjorative sense, but to highlight potential observational bias.
Again, the lone "expert" that I am aware of based his opinion on a single KCBS movie shown to him in his home then asked for immediate comment. He did not witness the "launch" first hand, nor was he given time to research the issue. He was shown a video then asked "is it a missile?"
When I first saw the video I too thought it was a missile. Then others on FR pointed to the ContrailScience.com website of the New Years' Eve "missile launch" flap and his explainations and photographs from December 31, 2009 "missile launch" that looked almost identical to the November 2010 "missile launch." After seeing the two side by side, and knowing that the first was posted on the web 10 months before the second event, that was enough for me to be convinced that after reviewing the KCBS video footage, it was an aircraft contrail after all. I don't need a certified meterologist to tell me its raining if I can look outside and see water falling from clouds.
Would enjoy a response to these in detail, as a single post that does so would encapsulate in one place the pro-contrail response to the pro-missile position. Addressing only a small portion while ignoring the remainder probably won’t change any minds. Thanks in advance!
Those who believe that it was a missile will continue to believe it was a missile. Those who believe it was a contrail have already moved on from this thread. The few who are undecided can look at the evidence, taking the prior almost identical event into consideration, and make up their own minds.
Yep, the video -- all fourteen (14) seconds of it -- chopped into three clips, that were mixed and looped out of time sequence to make up 40 seconds of confusing junk.
Then seeBS had the stupidity to hype that edited crap as "RAW VIDEO". (Allcaps courtesy of seeBS..)
Compare that "evidence" (plus a few "expert" hip-shot opinions based on it) -- to all the bulletproof scientific work and evidence indicating it was UPS Flight 902.
The facts say it was a contrail from a specific aircraft.
The 14 second video + hipshot opinions + a bunch of tinfoil = a "missile"...
~~~~~~~~~~~
Hey, but scheduled cargo flights aren't something exciting that suckers can get their panties in a wad about...
~~~~~~~~~~~
24 days -- and still waiting for the first fact...
On this topic on a previous thread I was informed that this was NOT a fact-based forum. It was an opinion forum.
Opinions not supported by facts are no better than lies.
“It was in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin intelligence report where the story was broken that several experts who examined the video of the mysterious contrail confirmed it was not from a jet but a missile.”
Only $99 per year. Hurry, Hurry, get them while they are hot.
Don’t know if you caught my post earlier, but the Chicoms now have very quiet subs with props that don’t cavitate much courtesy of American technology.
An American aerospace company SOLD the special milling machine to the Chicoms in the early 1990s. With that machine, the Chicoms can machine out props with precise curves and very smooth surfaces. The US Navy raised hell and said no way. GHW Bush’s State Dept. said, “The Chicoms are our friends, now.” and let the sale go through.
Contrails form at 30Kft+, Local traffic is much too low to form contrails.
“If there is 10 minutes of video, but the public, general concensus is it was a plane, is it more likely the video was not released because it backs up the plane scenario, or debunks it?”
As I see it, there are two possible reasons why the whole video has not been released.
1-The gubberment asked them not to. The edited,cut and looped section of footage that has been released got out before they asked them to not post the whole thing. If this is the case, the whole video is probably gone. The gubberment just got really lucky that KCBS chose to use no footage of the lingering smoke trail with the object disapearing off into the west in their report, and that they chose not to just stick all the uncut footage up on the web before they started threatening them.
2-The whole video would not show boost stages and then 8-9 minutes of a lingering smoke plume. It would show a jet. A local CBS station manipulated the video to make traffic for their website and give the story legs. If this is the case, the whole video is probably gone, in order to save jobs and more black eyes for the CBS name.
Freegards
~~~~~~~~~~~~
You've got that right! And we've hardly mentioned half the reasons the "missile" interpretation is provably wrong...
Some have been mentioned -- but people who never think for themselves totally missed the import. Now it's just a fun exercise -- to see how many ways we can demonstrate that these numbskulls are just blowing (missile) smoke...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And still no response other than "[Mumble says] It looks like a missile to me -- and my opinion is a divine edict because I useta be a..."
Or, worse, they decay into personal attack mode... ;-(
The missile crowd has yet to produce one actual piece of data to support their silly claim, despite being asked, daily.
Its easy to be a conspiracy theorist, you never have to prove anything, you just ask the rational people to disprove your silly claim. And when they do, you just call them names and claim they are part of the conspiracy. Then you make up a new conspiracy. Easy work, sure beats thinking.......
OBVIOUS_MISSILE_PING!
yes, it is true.
I went to your link there. There is no story that anyone ever mistook that pic for a missile. You made it up.
That is absolute baloney. You can go to Airport Monitor-Bob Hope Airport and run the air traffic patterns over LA for Nov 8th between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM and see literally dozens of flights over 39,000 feet. There are at least six in the air at that altitude or higher at any given time.
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.