If you knew more about audio from an audio engineer's perspective, you would know that I have given you the truth of why you did not HEAR the missile but heard an audio artifact. Did you look into how a micorphone/preamp will behave when recording transient audio of 70 to 150 db in 1/27th of a second?
The "audio artifact" matches exact to a cruise missile which my wife and I saw on tape. Please provide the initial time that you believe the "audio artifact" begins and the video for your reference. This is science, not just opinions Mr. Engineer. Please provide video of "one" different explosion that made an "audio artifact" like this one before exploding.
I stand by my statement that you have an opinion based paper. There is no way a 480 (w) x 640 (d) (or lower still) resolution video is showing what you think it is. You are offering an opinion. You did not show the proof. You only mentioned your opinion of what was going on based on the video then falsely stated that "you witnessed" it happening. You did not witness this event, you watched it on video. I assume you know the difference between watched on television and witnessed a crime.
Can you explain how low resolution video can show more detail than high definition? I cannot see what you see because the detail is lacking. You mention the size of the missile you didn't see but then saw and described on second later as 15ft long. Do you know the size of the explosion cloud you are trying to put that missile into? How does the scale fit into the smoke? Can you even tell me what position those cameras were recorded from?
I already explained this to the other poster which you cheered on. Please read my response to him so I don't have to type it over.
External Quote:
I pulled this next video to show how the missile lights the entire video frame a millisecond before hitting the plant. This video wasn't shown on any major media outlets that I saw. I didn't see this one until I did a web search. Many people when watching this explosion claim that the initial flash from the left, was somehow chemicals from the plant reacting and causing a chain reaction. If that is so, then the entire video frame shouldn't light up, before the football field gap sparks the explosion. The missile lighting the entire frame is proof that the left flare wasn't from the plant, but supports the missile my wife and I saw.
Except I cannot find a flash from a missile shot that is even remotely close in brightness as the frame you mention. Without a definitive type of missile, its very hard to locate a specific missile that has a very bright flash like that. A more reasonable assumption would be that the flash you speak of is caused by many tons of ammonium nitrate on fire that detonated. As has happened historically.
I also have spent a good deal of time studying the pepcon explosion you referenced as a comparison. I do not feel that they compare at all. The pepcon explosion was a different fuel and was ignited in a different manner, was fed by a natural gas line underneath the location, and was a much larger explosion as well. They do not compare at all physically, as well as size wise, and also in storage methods used for the "fuel". Nothing compares.
Please show "one" large scale explosion which ignites a football field away from the fire.
External Quote:
Undeniable evidence of the West Texas missile is in the smoke patterns. The picture frames clearly show the missiles entry point at the left. Notice the difference on the two sides in the smoke patterns.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/CENTER]
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AIsuPeoiLHo/UYwnqCaaWOI/AAAAAAAAAKk/Sf9C-DgL_u8/s1600/smoke+difference.png
You show split second images after the detonation saying that the missile is flying through the cloud. Tell me sir, which came first; the ammonium nitrate explosion or the warhead on the missile? Because if the ammonium nitrate explosion was already taking place; why would the missile need to shoot through the smoke? If the smoke from one explosion existed already; then why is the missile flying through that explosion. Which came first?
I clearly show in the images clipped that the missile came first in my blog "you already read". I also showed the difference and comparisons in dirt patterns to a cruise missile.
For me this is the biggest failure point of your theory. One would have to assume that the explosion was already taking place, so why even shoot a missile at it? It was already done from the perspective of your photograph; and as you state the missile is flying through the explosive cloud that has already happened.
