World Net Daily fabricates a "Missile" Contrail tale

Faith, Reason, and Health ^ | 12/12/2010 | Dr. Brian Kopp

[Brian Kopp DPM]

That’s already been established. Read my article as I submitted it, and compare it to the article WND published. My article was clearly intended to lay this thing to rest. As written, it made a cohesive argument that the object in question remained in sight far too long to be a missile. WND knew my opinion on this from my submission as well as our phone conversations.

On the other hand, by their edits and additions, WND turned my work into an argument in favor of the missile conspiracy theory. They misrepresented my work.

If they wanted to publish another story propping up their failed missile conspiracy theory, they had every right to do so.

They did not have the right to cherry pick and re-write my article and turn it into part of their body of missile conspiracy theory rhetoric, and then put my name on it.

They should not have put my name on something that does not in any way represent that which I submitted to them.

That is grossly unethical on their part.

They have harmed my good name and reputation by publishing this fabricated report under my name.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Ridicule is a two-way street — one side’s contempt feeds the other’s. Only natural. And I am guilty of it myself.

But one thing I cannot abide is DELIBERATE slander. Are you concerned that Dr. Kopp might be slandering WND? “Fabricated” and “tale” — strong words.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

What is your real grudge against a Christian conservative zionist news site?

---

Doctor, you are “Kopping out” on me.

“Read my article as I submitted it, and compare it to the article WND published. My article was clearly intended to lay this thing to rest.”

Intentions are not what your headline is based on. Your headline was “Fabricates”. Either there is a fabrication, or you slandered WND.

“As written, it made a cohesive argument that the object in question remained in sight far too long to be a missile. WND knew my opinion on this from my submission as well as our phone conversations.”

So ignoring your opinion is a fabrication? No, Doctor. You are not God.

“On the other hand, by their edits and additions, WND turned my work into an argument in favor of the missile conspiracy theory. They misrepresented my work.”

They quoted doubts. So once again, perhaps you should rephrase your claim that they are “fabricating a tale”. I can understand if you ranted in the heat of the moment. I think we all can.

“They have harmed my good name and reputation by publishing this fabricated report under my name.”

Where did they misquote you? Where did they change what you wrote other than to cut out some lines? All editors cut out lines. If they had rewritten your words as concluding it was a missile, then yes — you would be correct — fabrication and destruction of reputation. I didn’t find that.

That’s not ‘fabrication’. How long have you been speaking English?

What’s the headline?

“Mysterious missile launch baffles even eyewitnesses”

What’s the hoax in that headline?

What’s the closing sentence?

“The video he captured of the contrail was subsequently edited before being aired, and less than two minutes of the 10 minutes of video has been seen by these experts.”

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=238189

Sounds like a final note of skepiticism to me. You approached them pretending to have an open mind. You wrote that yourself. Who’s the phony here? Did you think could be a worm in their belly to eat them from the inside and somehow gain fame from it? Was that the plan?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Whatever you say, FRiend. Have a Merry Christmas.

[fabian]

I don’t give a rats ass what someone else says.I have commonsense and watching that video shows me that is obviously the trajectory and contrail not of a plane for heaven sakes! Yikes...how far have we fallen? OMG

[TigersEye]

Well, obviously, (lol) based on all the data available, (none) there must have been some change in atmospheric condition that caused it to stop leaving a contrail (a new theory is needed) since it appears that an altitude change didn't cause it. (apparently. obviously)

There was an actual missile launch from VAFB yesterday, someone should see if they can find photos of that to compare and contrast.

I don't think we can expect to have had the same atmospheric conditions a month and a half later for that comparison. So far no one has found a source for good meteorological data in that area for Nov. 8th. I spent a good deal of time looking for it if no one else did.

[Niteflyr]

The "plume" was never reported over Catalina Island -- nor has anyone claimed that it was.

So ...you're saying 902 overflew Catalina but the plume was sighted northwest of the island by miles? I still say it is astounding that any of you here would accept the explanation that the "sighting" was "near" Catalina Island from the guy who filmed it...when the precise location was easily observable...

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

You aren’t alone.

[TigersEye]

And why were people so eager to back up this slander?

Minds were made up and an attack was initiated almost immediately. Second post the day after the story broke.

[TigersEye]

-- because UPS 902 passed from a region where persistent ice crystals were formed into a region where only volatile water droplets were formed.

Link please. Where is your data to back that up?

[TigersEye]

No one could underestimate yours. We're talking diamond¹⁰ hard. ;-)

[Niteflyr]

Ala Occam’s Razor ...keeping it simple...there would be two things I’d want to ask the cameraman. What he thought the object was (since I’m sure he like all of us here in LA basin has seen countless airliner contrails before...but he made a big deal out of THIS particular one) and precisely where he said this took place. I wouldn’t get an answer of “near” and let it go at that...when the whole debate hinges on flight 902 of which we know the exact location at the time. Instead people are playing semantics with the word “near”...reminds of Clinton defining what the definition of “sex” was...I thought someone here talked to him? Ask him again. All I have is the yellow dot northwest of the island and all you have is flight tracking of a heavy jet in the area. Damn ...give me his email address and I’ll ask him if for some reason you people don’t want to.

[TigersEye]

He can’t or won’t point out any hoax or fabrications so he’s simply not going to answer those questions.

[Rokke]

The guy who started this thread (Dr. Brian Kopp) has been talking to the cameraman. He has already asked him the questions you asked (what and where). Here are the cameraman's answers...

What: "I'm still not sure what the object is, jet or missile or for that matter, something else."

Where: "He said there were details in the video that had not been shown on TV or online, such as how at one point the contrail lined up parallel with the LA harbor jetty, which was how he was certain of the location of the contrail when he first spotted it." And, of course he has also been quoted as saying "The onboard camera showed a plume twisting up from the horizon and narrowing as it climbed into the sky near Catalina Island, about 35 miles west of Los Angeles, he said."

But since we have actual stills from the video he shot, we don't have to rely solely on his memory. They are obviously going to be more accurate anyway. I've posted it before, but here it is again...

That is a still taken from his video with some easily identifiable geographic references and the contrail. You can go with his pictures and what he says...or a media graphic that goes against both.

Finally, UPS902 didn't fly over Catalina Island until roughly 5:30 and it was descending through FL290 from its original altitude of FL390. A. that was after he was filming, B. It is extremely doubtful the con layer was 10,000 feet thick. Conversely, UPS902 was almost exactly at the intersection of lines plotted from Leyvas' position to the contrail he filmed (in the posted picture) and the Cargo Law camera at LAX, at exactly the time stamp of the LAX camera. If you want to use Occam's Razor, you can do the simple math and agree that two lines of sight and a time stamp that correlate to the known position of a known object equal that known object, orrrr, you can ignore Occam's Razor and create a theory involving an unknown sub, firing an unknown missile, from an unknown location, at an unknown target for unknown reasons based solely on 14 seconds of zoomed in video edited from 10 minutes of actual video, and presented by a local television affiliate during sweeps week.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

“Mysterious missile launch baffles even eyewitnesses”

What’s the hoax in that headline?

The hoax? That it was a missile.

It wasn't. It was a contrail, that some folks want to believe might have been a missile launch, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It was not a "mysterious missile launch" that baffled Leyvas, it was an unusual contrail.

And the other eyewitnesses weren't baffled. They knew it was not a missile.

Calling something a "missile launch" that obviously was not, is a hoax, a fabrication.

Twisting an entire article that establishes it was a contrail, not a missile, into an article that claims it was a "mysterious missile launch" is a fabrication, a lie and a deception. It is unethical.

[TigersEye]

...orrrr, you can ignore Occam's Razor and create a theory involving an unknown sub, firing an unknown missile, from an unknown location, at an unknown target for unknown reasons based solely on 14 seconds of zoomed in video edited from 10 minutes of actual video, and presented by a local television affiliate during sweeps week.

That's a straw man isn't it, Niteflyer? I don't recall you ever proposing or supporting that theory. I know I haven't.

[Finny]

Oh, well said! Nailed the whole mindset.

[Rokke]

What is your theory?

[TigersEye]

I don’t have one.

[Rokke]

"I don’t have one."

Nice.