UPS902 Contrail Science plane theory debunked

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Lets look at the evidence with some better clarity:

Evidence that it was a missile: Contradictory official explanations and failure to quickly and easily (as it would be) prove it was simply a jet. Suspect photo's and EXIF data showing Photoshop modifications in Ricks images.

Evidence that it was a contrail: Flight path data, wind speed and direction data, photo analysis, a vanishing contrail in later pictures, experts saying "That's NOT a missile".

And who says they didn't do it in a way where it could be debunked as something else...like firing it near a flight path...there is always a fail-safe plan...

Originally posted by jexmo
How man y missiles have you seen that don't have a plume of smoke behind them? This one just seems to stop ommiting smoke all of a sudden?

please show me ANYWHERE in the original
missile footage filmed by KCBS where there
is NO plume behind the missile?
You can't because there is no such footage.

You are interjecting into this thread what you
saw from a set of fake photos. In the fake
photos, the plume goes away, but
in the footage taken by KCBS, it does NOT !!
Maybe u should do ur homework like I did

PLEASE LOOK AT THE PICTURE IN THE LINK I HAVE PROVIDED AND THE TEXT JUST BENEATH IT.

Its all you need to see, its the proof its a plane that you were all craving. Its an identical image taken a year earlier that was proved to be a plane.

The fact this is being ignored just shows how pointless this debate is.

I genuinely am finished in here now. I can't argue with people who won't accept facts.

Wish you all the best and good night x

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by jexmo
How man y missiles have you seen that don't have a plume of smoke behind them? This one just seems to stop ommiting smoke all of a sudden?

please show me ANYWHERE in the original
missile footage filmed by KCBS where there
is NO plume behind the missile?
You can't because there is no such footage.

You are interjecting into this thread what you
saw from a set of fake photos. In the fake
photos, the plume goes away, but
in the footage taken by KCBS, it does NOT !!
Maybe u should do ur homework like I did

They did add extra video later but it didn't look right..Even the background colours changed.
And it wasn't a clean change into the new video, it was edited in...
If you went frame by frame you actually saw a double exposure where one video was spliced into the other,,

reply to post by jexmo


What link?
Post and I'll look

www.smartplanet.com...

reply to post by jexmo


I already saw the link you posted on the other thread and had a look...
Shame no one seems to have the original video posted on the 8th..All we seem to see is that other stuff added later with no background shots to prove its the same object..

That other contrail does look similar but the difference is that plane was much closer and we got to see it..
The flight number was also named, unlike this one over a week later...

Originally posted by jexmo
PLEASE LOOK AT THE PICTURE IN THE LINK I HAVE PROVIDED AND THE TEXT JUST BENEATH IT.

Its all you need to see, its the proof its a plane that you were all craving. Its an identical image taken a year earlier that was proved to be a plane.

it's NOT proof it was a plane.
You are doing the same thing Phage did.
he led me off to a bunch of images that
had either the origin of the plume cut
out of the pic or the origin was obscured
by some obstacle like a mtn, or building
or other etc.....

this is NOT evidence,
this is trickery cuz it hides the
true location of where the plume
comes from.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8a00475c4225.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by boondock-saint


Ok for arguments sake, I don't know how to post images so you can see them in the thread. If you are up for a sensible debate, then could you please get the picture from the link I have provided and then the original image of the supposed chinese missile and lets look. Its the same picture basically, just a little closer. You are making it obvious that you are just looking for a fight, especially with the patronising comments.

I would look up on the sitehow to do it but I am at work.

double post

reply to post by jexmo


Jexmo, do you mean the second pic down on this link?
www.smartplanet.com...

The San Clemente contrail?

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Lets look at the evidence with some better clarity:

Evidence that it was a missile: Contradictory official explanations and failure to quickly and easily (as it would be) prove it was simply a jet. Suspect photo's and EXIF data showing Photoshop modifications in Ricks images.

Evidence that it was a contrail: Flight path data, wind speed and direction data, photo analysis, a vanishing contrail in later pictures, experts saying "That's NOT a missile".

And who says they didn't do it in a way where it could be debunked as something else...like firing it near a flight path...there is always a fail-safe plan...

Ok...lol...let's look at your "evidence" that it was a missile...oh wait...you don't have any. Everything you listed as "Evidence that it was a missile" is just you being skeptical about the evidence that it was a jet contrail. Not ONE single piece of evidence to point to the fact that it was a missile besides some of you saying "That looks like a missile.". So please...look at the evidence again...and be honest with yourself and decided which has more evidence and is thus more likely.

Can you please explain to me how being skeptical of the jet contrail evidence proves it is a missile?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I don't care if it was a missile or not..
What I care about is a hoax useing shopped pics which is what this thread is about...
You can still go out and prove it was Flight 902. just not with this hoax information...
All 5 pics are the same image just altered slightly and moved to give the impression of a contrail at the correct height and wind speed.

You very much care that it is a missile...that is all you have cared about in all these threads.

Holding on desperately to some twisted hope or fantasy that this was a missile.

I asked you in the other thread, and you dodged the question a few times....I'll ask again...maybe you will give a straight answer.

What do you believe that object was in these videos/pictures and what evidence do you have to back up that claim?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jexmo

 

Jexmo, do you mean the second pic down on this link?
www.smartplanet.com...

The San Clemente contrail?

Yep

reply to post by jexmo


I'm sure Boon will do that for you If he's around..I'm like you with pics..

That pic is a bit missleading..It looks like there's hills in the background but that must be the pattern the clouds make..

Originally posted by jexmo
Ok for arguments sake, I don't know how to post images so you can see them in the thread. If you are up for a sensible debate, then could you please get the picture from the link I have provided and then the original image of the supposed chinese missile and lets look. Its the same picture basically, just a little closer. You are making it obvious that you are just looking for a fight, especially with the patronising comments.

OK, let me get this straight

u want me to d/l a pic from a blog that
promotes and corroborates Contrail Science,
who uses an image provided to them by
Contrail Science in an ATS thread that claims
they are faking pics??????

lmfao

Now why would I d/l more fake pics ????
They already claim in their disclaimer
that they alter images. And you want me
to use one as fact ?????



that's a good one,
asking me to use a pic from the
very site I'm debunking

I think you will find that exact pic and story on a lot of websites. But its ok, you win, its a missile. Nice work

reply to post by boondock-saint

that's a good one,
asking me to use a pic from the
very site I'm debunking

The only thing being debunked is your credibility.

And that goes for both of your threads and wild speculative theories.

I like you doc...you certainly don't go down without a fight... I feel you're misguided on this but wanted to encourage you to not give up! You will certainly win the hearts and minds of a few. Go Missile theory!!! You can do it!! Even if it was a plane...

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

that's a good one,
asking me to use a pic from the
very site I'm debunking

The only thing being debunked is your credibility.

And that goes for both of your threads and wild speculative theories.

Nice opinion but how about some facts..Remember the rules, attack the thread, not the posters..