[TigersEye]

That comes entirely down to believing that the DoD has told the complete truth. They haven’t released a single thing to back up their position.

[D-fendr]

That comes entirely down to believing that the DoD has told the complete truth.

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"?

[D-fendr]

I used to be an editor, I ask you to do what any good editor would do: ask for what facts you have to back up any conclusions you make (a journalist should avoid conclusions unless they are very very solid, and even then a good journalist doesn't make them.)

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…"

"…the refusal to provide answers to specific questions suggests a cover-up of potential secret missile testing in the area…"

If the author, F. Michael Maloof, can't back this up, his editor should strike them from the article.