Skip to comments.
Up in the Air! A Missle, Or A Plane, Or Another Government Cover-Up?
American Conservative Daily ^
| 11-28-10
| J.D. Longstreet
Posted on 11/30/2010 10:28:55 AM PST by bigbob
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
To: TXnMA
On November 16th I sent the following to press.releases@janes.com
and to General Editorial at Jane’s.
“Have you done a detailed analysis of the Nov.8,2010 controversial (contrail?/missile?) occurrence off the coast of LA?
Your first impression is being touted as the final word on the occurrence.
Has there been any additional effort on the part of Jane’s to seriously investigate the occurrence?”
They haven’t gotten back to me.
41
posted on
11/30/2010 4:23:30 PM PST
by
kanawa
(Obama - "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.")
To: TXnMA; bigbob; kanawa; All
I'm telling ya, this episode makes me think *everyone* will fall for Project Blue Beam.
If the level of critical thinking visible around this subject is any indicator, most people would fall for the average Scooby Doo janitor-in-a-sheet gag.
And they'd get away with it too, if it wasn't for us meddling kids.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
42
posted on
11/30/2010 5:48:38 PM PST
by
The Comedian
(Government: Saving people from freedom since time immemorial.)
To: Talisker; TankerKC; Rokke; Yardstick; aruanan; lbahneman; Mr. Silverback
"What the purpose of such a massively witnessed, yet massively denied, launch was... is the real question." ~~~~~~~~~~~
Hyperbole, anyone?
"Massively witnessed"? Name anyone -- ANYONE -- with the exception of a handful of photographers who have shared their photos -- who has come forward as an "eyewitness" to this "launch"(...off the coast of one of the US's most densely populated areas).
"Massively denied"? Aside from the above few photographers, name over a handful of people who have actually collected, analyzed, and produced documents denying that this was a missile.
What is massive is the ignorance and gullibility of the numerous people who followed a few prominent "Pied Pipers" who watched 14 seconds of chopped and mixed up video (taken after sunset) and then opined that they had seen a "missile launch".
Purpose? To transport UPS-shipped goods from Hawaii to CA.
43
posted on
11/30/2010 6:32:10 PM PST
by
TXnMA
(You don't have to be a California Condor expert to recognize a mockingbird when it sings...)
To: roses of sharon; kanawa
"You should write and ask them/him why he hasn't retracted his analysis."See # 41
44
posted on
11/30/2010 6:38:55 PM PST
by
TXnMA
(You don't have to be a California Condor expert to recognize a mockingbird when it sings...)
To: TXnMA
Thanks, maybe they/he would answer if a reporter asked? Or maybe the (Daily Mail?) reporter that originally interviewed him?
Just a thought.
The guys at NR sometimes answer me when I write, but I doubt they would respond to this.
45
posted on
11/30/2010 7:00:13 PM PST
by
roses of sharon
(I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13)
To: roses of sharon
My guess is that some of the famous folk -- generals, media gurus, editors, etc. -- have seen the counter-evidence and realize they were suckered by a quick look at less-than honest reporting. Now, rather than face the embarrassment of correcting their very public faux pas, they are hunkering down and hoping it will all just go away and be forgotten...
46
posted on
11/30/2010 7:13:27 PM PST
by
TXnMA
(You don't have to be a California Condor expert to recognize a mockingbird when it sings...)
To: TXnMA
Could be, or they all still believe it to be so.
Who knows.
47
posted on
11/30/2010 7:24:14 PM PST
by
roses of sharon
(I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13)
To: roses of sharon
Perhaps so. I'm not concerned about what they believe, do or say. They are all big boys and can take care of themselves. '-)
My interest is in collecting ALL the evidence (not "expert" opinions) and in following where it leads. The facts so far have all been matters of somewhat complex physics and geometry and human perception (as in perspective effects).
Just keep your mind open -- and look for facts -- not opinions and politically-driven theories...
Nice chatting with you! :-)
48
posted on
11/30/2010 7:59:39 PM PST
by
TXnMA
(You don't have to be a California Condor expert to recognize a mockingbird when it sings...)
To: TXnMA
“My guess is that some of the famous folk — generals, media gurus, editors, etc. — have seen the counter-evidence and realize they were suckered by a quick look at less-than honest reporting. Now, rather than face the embarrassment of correcting their very public faux pas, they are hunkering down and hoping it will all just go away and be forgotten...”
Sounds plausible. But they also know that the absolute way to prove their original statements wrong is for KCBS to release the whole video; it would either show a missile or a jet. And they might not think it too likely that the original uncut video is still around, which, if indeed the footage was manipulated to create a story, is also plausible.
Freegards
49
posted on
11/30/2010 9:07:01 PM PST
by
Ransomed
To: Ransomed
Janes published a story about the “mystery missile” in which they concurred with the assessment that it was actually a contrail. Gens Cash and McInerney have been extremely quiet since making very early and very public announcements about their assessments of the edited video. Think about that for a second. If they really believed the country had been threatened by an enemy missile, wouldn't they continue to shout from every rooftop they could access that our country had been attacked? Instead...crickets.
50
posted on
11/30/2010 9:32:17 PM PST
by
Rokke
(www.therightreasons.net)
To: Rokke
Forget about the experts—if KCBS thought they had an awesome piece of footage, the thing to do is to release only a minute of edited and recycled film?
Freegards
51
posted on
11/30/2010 9:44:59 PM PST
by
Ransomed
To: Ransomed
I agree completely. But I guess they are in the business of generating publicity. And they succeeded. It’s a good lesson in how trustworthy our media is.
52
posted on
11/30/2010 10:45:35 PM PST
by
Rokke
(www.therightreasons.net)
To: roses of sharon; Rokke
Check out # 50. I thought I had seen a retraction in Janes...
53
posted on
12/01/2010 6:45:29 AM PST
by
TXnMA
(You don't have to be a California Condor expert to recognize a mockingbird when it sings...)
To: TXnMA
I will keep my eye out for it!
54
posted on
12/01/2010 8:17:08 AM PST
by
roses of sharon
(I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13)
To: Ransomed
55
posted on
12/01/2010 12:33:10 PM PST
by
TXnMA
(You don't have to be a California Condor expert to recognize a mockingbird when it sings...)
To: TXnMA
Yeah, I saw the awesome work you did dissecting the “raw” video on the other thread. That’s what I was trying to say when I said “recycled”. You said it much more betterly than me!
Freegards
56
posted on
12/01/2010 12:42:56 PM PST
by
Ransomed
To: roses of sharon
Jane’s have retracted their analysis. After re-examination they go with an aircraft contrail.
57
posted on
12/02/2010 3:30:41 PM PST
by
Tommyjo
To: kanawa
Jane’s Rockets and Missiles have gone for the aircraft contrail. Their subscription website has the details. Jane’s has a very expensive subscription. Basically they dropped it like a stone after seeing the later footage and still images.
58
posted on
12/02/2010 3:36:35 PM PST
by
Tommyjo
To: aruanan
Yeah, you’re gonna be real popular: a sane guy on a government conspiracy thread.
To: Tommyjo
Thanks for the info...unfortunately I still haven't found their statement of retraction yet. (other than the DOD AP report on Jane's site...from a few days after the event)
I will keep looking, maybe someone with a subscription has posted it on a board somewhere.
60
posted on
12/02/2010 5:52:03 PM PST
by
roses of sharon
(I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson