Replies

You're playing games, buddy, the objective being to distract, and as you say of yourself, "I'm ready" -- you're ready to drag this on and on and on, and never address the question of why the very images you dispute in your post 492 are CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT from a site of still shots that CONSPICUOUSLY AVOIDS attribution or identification as being from Gil Leyvas' footage. That site instead attributes 13 uncaptioned still shots to helicopter pilot Derek Bell, and even then, to confirm that Derek Bell was the pilot, one has to google "derek bell helicopter," as the info is not provided at the link. Smells like deliberate obfuscation and ass-covering to me. Are you wearing noseclips? Or would that be a gas mask? "Debating" with you is a waste of time and energy, as per your own design.

However, it's not a waste of time to review your posting history "in forum." Until Nov. 22 of 2010, you hadn't made a single post since Feb. 13, 2009. So for 21 months, nary a peep from you. Since Nov. 22 to date, you have made 38 posts on FR, and every single one of those posts has been to convince readers that Leyvas was so stupid or duplicitous as to present a simple, common, eastbound high altitude aircraft contrail, as a missile launch.

You ask me for my theories about things like what the Chinook was doing there. I quote Werhner von Braun: "That's not my department." It would be well outside of my purview to speculate. However, it is well within my purview, having lived within 19 to 160 miles of VAFB and its missile launches for nearly all of my 53 years on this earth, to pronounce with solid certainty that anyone trying to convince me that the event in the Leyvas video is an eastbound UPS plane contrail, is up to his/her eyebrows in manure.

Hmmm. So stills of the Leyvas video and other pictures of the contrail event are "distractions" to discussions of this topic, but bringing up my posting history isn't?!?

What is clear is that after multiple posts in which you've accused anyone who doesn't agree with your position of purposely avoiding discussion of what you consider the only evidence worth discussing (the Leyvas video), it turns out the only person not willing to discuss the video directly is you. That doesn't leave room for much discussion.

Despite being an experienced observer of missile launches, if you really had any idea what you were talking about, it would be very easy for you to respond to any of the questions I asked you in post 492 about the video. Your refusal to do so speaks volumes. As I stated before, you are your own worst advocate.