Posted on 12/06/2010 6:26:46 AM PST by Sprite518
No it doesn't, that's another question. WND is using what the DOD has said as evidence of WND's assertions - when it is just the opposite. That's what is dishonest about the article. The facts they report don't support the editorial assertions they make about what the DoD has said.
They haven’t released a single thing to back up their position.
There position is they didn't launch any missiles in the area at the time and every agency that could have was checked with the same result. In addition the FAA and NORAD see no evidence of a anything odd on radar or any foreign launch respectively.
Nothing was launched. What do you have in mind that they should or could to would "back up their position"?
Geez... I simply cannot believe that this story still has any legs. It ought to be clue enough that when WND is the only source still willing to carry the water in some conspiracy theory... you’re done. It’s over.
Really, people. It’s time to let go of this one. It didn’t work out.
What in the article's facts - real facts from real sources - are sufficient evidence for these editorial statements by the author:
"The Department of Defense is slamming the door on questions about the mysterious contrail…"If the author, F. Michael Maloof, can't back this up, his editor should strike them from the article."…the refusal to provide answers to specific questions suggests a cover-up of potential secret missile testing in the area…"
They don't support that absolute statement they made that none of the questions they asked were answered but they made a good case that the answers were first made without really knowing all the relevant info necessary to give an informed answer...
"But Ditchey referred only to the NGA warning notice which he wasn't aware of until it was brought to his attention."
...and that the answers were very parsed in a way that gives the DoD a lot of plausible deniability...
"All DOD entities with rocket and missile programs reported no launches, scheduled or inadvertent, during the time period in the area of the reported contrail," Ditchey said."In addition, the FAA ran radar replays from Monday afternoon (of Nov. 8) of a large area west of Los Angeles," he added. "Those replays did not reveal anything unusual. The FAA also did not receive reports of any unusual sightings from pilots who were flying in the area Monday afternoon."
But Ditchey referred only to the NGA warning notice which he wasn't aware of until it was brought to his attention. In addition, he would not address the fact that the NGA had issued the warning at the request of the Naval Air Warfare Center Sea Range at Point Mugu, even though he was informed of that development."
It very much does come down to accepting the statements given by the DoD.
Yes, he should.
Yeah, I know.
And, in the same article, WND suggests it’s a cover-up of secret US missile - and a Chinese submarine-launched ballistic missile.
I’m close to leaving what little remains of this tar baby alone.
I give up.
Are you upset that I agreed with you now? lol
"It" was not taped for ten minutes. That question has been settled now. "It" was observed for at most three minutes.
There are lots of still pics like that, of airplanes and their contrails, that look similar to missiles but not one video. The lighting in that pic doesn't match either.
How many people in LA are a couple of thousand feet up in the air with a high-powered news camera? How many are oblivious to the sky? How many have buildings and other things obstructing their view of something that was barely observable from the helicopter?
That there weren't is evidence that it wasn't an ICBM launch.
That is a logical fallacy. What people didn't see is not proof of what something that did exist is or is not. It only proves that they didn't see it not why they didn't see it or what it was or was not.
Notice how that "missile" that was "launched from the sea surface and headed vertical, then northwest outbound over the Pacific"
-- is headed inbound toward the CA coast -- nice and level --when viewed from a camera to the north at LAX.
(*Most "grown-up" word written by Finny since Leyvas stepped out of his helicopter...)
It was the normal routine, though. There were no unusual warnings, and no unusual activity.
Nothing different was done to accommodate the claimed big launch, and a lot would have to have been done for such a launch.
A lot.
There would have been lots of activity on land and on the sea in preparation, during, and after such a launch.
Unless you believe the Chinese snuck up on us and launched a big missile. Then you’re free to dismiss the lack of US activity.
But then you still have to explain why the Chinese aren’t gloating...as they surely would be having pulled off such a move.
And why our command structure hasn’t been rearranged for allowing the enemy to do that...
Thank you for your encouragement, dear editor-surveyor!
It does appear bright white several times in the video. If the missile were headed away from your POV the efflux would obscure the light of the rocket flame.
“”It” was not taped for ten minutes. That question has been settled now. “It” was observed for at most three minutes.”
—TigersEye
“Gil said the object creating the contrail was in view for 2 to 3 minutes then was no longer in view. He took ten minutes of video total and the contrail was in view for an additional ten minutes. “
—DR. Brian Kopp, post 568 of this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2625028/posts?q=1&;page=501
I am confused!!
How many minutes did the camera guy shoot of the event? Was it 2-3 minutes of whatever was making the smoke and then 8-7 minutes of sunset footage with the lingering smoke plume still in view of Mr. L. but not recorded camera? Did he say anything about how the video was edited and presented to the public?
Great work in contacting the principles involved, DR. K. I don’t know what it was, but around a sixth of an hour of footage, if it was all of the event, would put the kibosh on either it being a jet or a missile.
Freegards, Catholic Freeper Kudos
No, I have have read several articles about this and they only mention the news cameraman seeing and filming it. Everyone is talking about the video and still shots, not an in-person viewing. I have not heard of even one other witness to the original event, even though it must have been visible over a wide area. Even the helicopter pilot from the same news station has remained silent.
If you think there are articles mentioned other viewers, post a link to one.
P.S. If you look at this only in recent posts, the sidebar to the right will obscure almost a third of the second photo.
We now have enough azimuth bearings on the contrail in question to have it pretty pinned down -- inluding matching results by different methods from several different investigators. (Will post more graphics soon.)
We can't say much about the other contrails to the north in the Hermosa Beach shot - (because we have zero data on their tracks) -- except that they appear awfully similar to the one at the left. IOW...the one on the left (and in the SeeBS video) was not unique that evening...
There is still zero credible evidence (including shadowing from an unspecified sun position) that the object was headed "outbound". We now have massive data indicating it was inbound -- including the two images you posted...
Thanks!
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.