Mu, really -- explain to me how a TEAM of people doing the math could "prove," repeatedly, that a design for a structure would fall down; the structure was built and has been standing for five years. Maybe because they weren't stone-age Egyptians? Look, I respect math, I really do. It's
mathemeticians I suspect.
Again: how about that five-word answer?
Make that standing for FIFTEEN years. It's not a shack, either. The mathematicians FINALLY got the math right and it was built in its original form; the structure didn't change -- the approach of the mathemeticians changed. Doubtless had the same structure been built before the mathemeticians gave their okay, it would have immediately collapsed, right? *rolls eyes*
And really, I won't even comment on the results, I just want to see your five-word answer.
I don't mean to get all high-horse and mathematical but here's a simple illustration of what a east to west rocket launch should have looked like, both from the ground and from a telephoto lens/binocular using observer. The inset "binocular view" is what an observer should have seen approximately 2 minutes after a ballistic launch. However, also inset is the actual KCBS view of the alleged missile, ~10 minutes after "launch".
Can you provide what bearing a ballistic missile would have taken to create the plume observed in the original KCBS footage?
Actually, here's a mathematics-free challenge for you:
Find me footage of a rocket or ballistic missile launched from the surface of the earth that matches the alignment of the plume and object in any of the KBCS footage, 10 minutes after launch. Hell, to make it interesting, 3 minutes.
This, literally, is not rocket science: 