Yeah, it was. Aircraft heading combined with wind shear gave the contrail its unusual appearance, but it was not unprecedented.
I know that I'm never going to change the minds of conspiracy theorists, but I at least have to try.
The issue isn’t the contrail but the video. Without that one happenstance video we’d not be discussing this. There’s no indication that any of the millions of people in that area noticed anything unusual.
The issue isn’t the contrail but the video.
I don’t know what to think about all this. I think your link is very good and makes a very good argument for contrail... but at the same time I do have a tendency to distrust anything that comes out of this administration.
As for WND... that “report” is extremely light on both facts and “experts”.
If it was a Chinese missile, or if it was anything other than a contrail, it’s not proven by anything in WND.
Questions to you both as representatives of the contrail thesis:
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 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?
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?
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.
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!
>> but I at least have to try.
And you should if you have a reasonable case.
Assuming it was an airplane, under these dramatic circumstances would there not be continuous footage of the plane at least passing overhead?