Posted on 12/12/2010 10:47:16 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
Yeah. They link their 'facts' to a dude that sells $99 a year newsletters. Wonder how much they get on kickbacks.
“Gil Leyvas is the helicopter camera man for KCBS in Los Angeles who videotaped the contrail and Rick Warren lives on Long Beach and photographed the contrail from his 10th story balcony.” WND
They quoted both men. So you don’t know where the fabrication is either?
I don't remember either guy saying it was a missile.
“I was shooting with a telephoto lens and looking through a viewfinder so I never really saw the separation of the object and the contrail until I looked at the photos, but I’m sure that this whole thing lasted way too long to be a missile.”
— WND. Is that the hoax?
Who did they misquote? Leyvas? They quote him as unsure. So where’s the misquote? Where’s the fabrication?
I personally don’t have feelings about WND one way or the other. I’m just amazed how folks that have been presented with a MOUNTAIN of evidence debunking the missile theory, continue to believe in it. I have to wonder if you people believe there was another gunman on the “grassy knoll”, or that 9/11 was an inside job. If so, it would go along way in explaining why you people think the way you do.
You left out the 747 that was ‘downed by the missile’ over Long Island Sound.
Can you provide a link to that statement? I couldn't find it.
Ignore my last request. I found it. I was surprised that WND supported the jet plane viewpoint. I remember before everyone was citing WND to prove it was a missile.
Who did they misquote? Leyvas? They quote him as unsure. So where’s the misquote? Where’s the fabrication?
That first quote was Rick Warren, some guy in Long Beach with a camera hobby. And he's backed up by so much glorious science!
As for the cameraman, Leyvas, here's what he said, how "unsure" he was:
“Though there was no time code associated with the raw footage I shot, you are still able to accurately time the footage from the moment I started the recording (as we departed John Wayne airport) to the final moments of the mystery missile story. When I play the video I can time the duration of the object in flight which was between 30-45 seconds of "Glow Time" - which is inclusive within, and at the end of the 2-3 minute estimated flight time from which the plume was visible at the horizon ... I can rely on the raw footage as it plays to gauge my estimated times since it plays back in real time on the player deck's control track timer.”
I'm pretty sure he's sure it wasn't Santa's Sleigh. Bottom line: Kopp seems just a tad obtuse. *rolls eyes*
Yes, they sure do. Both corkscrew plumes and wide plumes at the base are two of the easiest things to find in videos of missiles.
Delta 2 STSS Demo Rocket Launch - SpaceflightNews.net
A great example of corkscrewing of the plume begins about 1:25 into the video. The differences in plume thickness and consistency can clearly be seen later.
I posted the following to Ronald_Magnus before. No response then so I guess he had no answer for it.
Title : Stability of Spinning ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) in First Stage Boost Phase.Corporate Author : AIR FORCE INST OF TECH WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB OH SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
Abstract : A computer program is developed to model a spinning intercontinental Ballistic Missile (IICBM) during the first stage boost phase. The equations of motion are derived and presented and a full rotation matrix is used to show the relationship between a launch-centered, nonrotating earth inertial reference frame and the missile body reference frame.
Subject Categories : SURFACE-LAUNCHED GUIDED MISSILES
You do realize that TXnMA busted that pic as a crossfade aka crosswipe which is an editing tool used to transition smoothly between two separate pieces of video tape. What you see there is not two vortices from the two wings of an airplane it is two separate pics of the same plume overlaid one on the other like a double exposure.
Wide plumes at the base look a lot wider when you are close enough to actually hear the rocket launch you are filming. Even then, and even in a rocket the size of a Delta 2, they aren't even close to as wide as the contrail in the Leyvas video (the earliest portions of which are actually over 100 miles away from LA). Nor does the trail of an actual missile look ANYTHING like what was filmed by Leyvas. Below is a picture of the missile from your video and a picture of what Leyvas filmed. Would someone please point out to me where the Leyvas video shows "corkscrewing"
The willful ignorance required to continue to argue that the contrail filmed by Leyvas was a missile launch is a testament to the kind of stubborness required to believe 99.9% of the conspiracies out there. But because it is kind of fascinating to watch it all play out, I'm going to feed the fire a bit. In a FR exclusive, I am going to reveal a test firing of what many conspiracy theorists believe was launched (probably by China) off the coast of California. Be sure to watch for the evident corkscrewing of this mystery missile. Nov 8 rocket launch solved
Yes. Neither did I see that in the LA jet contrail.
Everyone else sees it. Or are people showing us examples of wing vortices for nothing?
Wide plumes at the base look a lot wider when you are close enough to actually hear the rocket launch you are filming.
The question was about being bigger than the upper part of the plume.
As far as camera position for some odd reason NASA and the DoD like to get fairly close to take film and video of them and use much higher quality cameras. So do amateurs when they know they will be taping a launch. Consequently it's extremely difficult to find video of a missile launch taken from miles away.
Even then, and even in a rocket the size of a Delta 2, they aren't even close to as wide as the contrail in the Leyvas video ...
You are another one asking for video that exactly duplicates the Leyvas' video. As if all the same conditions exist whenever a missile is launched. I spent three hours viewing missile videos last night at the request of Dr. Brian Kopp and his response to my efforts was basically to brush me off as not worth responding to.
It's pretty clear that most of you are purposely trying to run your opposition in circles and deflect from any points made to you. Forgive me if after ten years on FR I find that to be a rather shopworn tactic.
(the earliest portions of which are actually over 100 miles away from LA).
That is entirely your opinion based on your own biased assumptions. Leyvas estimated it to be about 35 miles off of the coast. He was there, you weren't. He isn't claiming to know what it was, you are.
Furthermore, you need to ask any aviation /missilery guy wnat spinning the airframe does to gyro-stabilized inertial guidance systems. except as a trick to degrade performance (to kep the missile within a small test range).
I defy and challenge you to produce evidence of a guided missile that is designed to operate in a spiral motion during boost phase. Unguided rocket powered projectiles...maybe... Guided missiles? No way.
Careful there, R_M — you know that fire can’t melt steel. Nor, apparently can truth melt tinfoil...
BUT, see #357 for photos that unequivocably support your position.
Hey, got any proof or data that proves your missile theory?
Of course not, you never had.
Where was the massive military response? Where were all the firsthand reports from boaters, etc. Where is the ionized gas trail?
LOL
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.