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!
"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?
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.
“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