Posted on 12/12/2010 10:47:16 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
Typical conspiracy theorist claptrap, you can't provide any proof, so you have accuse the person that disproved you of something. Has NOTHING to do with the point. And the point is: Where is your proof? Where is your data? Prove your theory, show your work. The other side has. Conspiracy theorists are the laziest persons in the world, they demand that others disprove them, but they don't do diddly to prove their side.
What is worse is when they don’t even try to back up what they post. I can accept when they post a theory; I do it myself on occasion. But when everyone is a liar if they disagree? That crosses a line that should not be crossed.
If you are wrong, admit it. I have been wrong on more than one occasion, and made an absolute fool of myself at least once. But when reality smacked me in the face, I admitted it willingly. Nothing is worse than being wrong and doubling down.
One of them wanted me arrested for treason! Because I didn’t buy the completely unproven kook line that it was a missile.
FWIW, I have seen rocket launches, and I have been to coastal California hundreds of times. That makes me as much of an expert as Finny.
That has been dutifully ignored.
And while we're on the topic of ignoring, maybe you can also answer the question I asked you in Post #382...So tell, me...what evidence ARE you relying on to believe the event took place 35 miles of the coast?
Just trying to run this in more circles aren't you?
I'm being obtuse?! When I acknowledged your answer in #356 here... Post 367 ("You, on the other hand, rely solely on Leyvas' guess that the event happened 35 miles off the coast."), it resulted in you posting an obscenity and telling me not to make "a fool of myself". So obviously, that wasn't the answer you liked. But let me quote your original answer exactly, "Leyvas estimated it to be about 35 miles off of the coast." So...is that it? Is that your source of data for the yellow marker on the illustration posted by Niteflyer?
With respect to answering "where I came up with 100 miles of the coast", I absolutely did answer that. I answered that in the same paragraph where I tried to clarify your 35 mile statement. I will quote myself..."That is my opinion supported by multiple sources of evidence, information, data...etc. All of which point to the very well supported conclusion that the contrail Layvas filmed came for UPS902." But I'll be more specific. The list includes the Cargo Law photo and its projected line of sight to the known groundtrack of UPS902; the Leyvas video shot over Long Beach harbor and its projected line of sight to known groundtrack of UPS902; the lat/long plots each minute of UPS902 taken from Flightaware; the photos of the UPS902 contrail taken by Rick Warren; the excellent photo compilations put together on Contrailscience and by TXnMA; descriptions of the event from Gil Leyvas, and finally, the triangulation of both lines of sight from the Cargo Law camera and Leyvas' own video, which intersect almost exactly at where the Flightaware data says UPS902 is at 5:16. All of which place the contrail at roughly 175 miles from Long Beach harbor at a Latitude of 32.81N and a Longitude of 120.97W.
Now, I'll ask again...what is the specific data source for the yellow marker on the illustration posted by Niteflyr? Are you going to stick with "Leyvas estimated it to be about 35 miles off of the coast."?
The “contrail” line is the official line when government officials suggest it as the “alternative” to a missile they Know Nothink! about. And that’s what they did.
More whining about forum protocol. Take your distractions somewhere else. You have nothing of substance to add.
At the time of the event that was the location graphic used on virtually all the news outlets accompanying the report. No where did I hear it reported to be sighted over Catalina much less the south end of the island turning to the south as in the flight track of UPS 902...just sayiin'
Good Lord. Is this *still* being discussed? Really?
Wow...
So your contention is all the initial location reports were in error?
How could whoever made the graphic make an error like that? Over Catalina is over Catalina ...not northwest of Catalina...better go back and research the initial sighting reports...I didn’t hear of one “initial report” that claimed the event happened over Catalina as the flight track of UPS 902 obviously was. And if you add the south procedure turn by 902 it is getting even further away from the sighting location.
Yep...funny when you distort the basics things like this die a slow death...:o)
It's a simple question. I've asked it several times now. You said the point was being ignored. Well I'm all over it. I'll ask you once more...What is the specific data for the yellow marker labeled "35 Miles West of Los Angeles”?
Tigerseye can't do it. Maybe you can. What were the initial location reports? And which of those reports corrolate to the yellow marker in the illustration you provided?
"How could whoever made the graphic make an error like that?"
The Flightaware graphic matches the UPS902 track. It is accurate. The yellow marker in the other graphic is as far away from Catalina as it is from LA. You must believe it is accurately plotted or you wouldn't have brought it up. Based on what data was it plotted?
Geez that's easy...just contact the major news media...how the hell should we know where they came up with the coordinates? 1) Chopper crew reports sighting of strange event 2) Reports event to media 3) Media constructs graphic to represent location of reported sighting 4) But no one could tell the difference between "over" Catalina and "northwest" of Catalina so it was mis-reported or they just lied about it At no point was 902 north of the island...in fact actual tract information shows it passing over the south end of the island turning to the south...
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.