(12-15-2009, 05:41 PM)Lorna Wrote: i did notice that the wording they used on their statement about the rocket failure was very carefully constructed. they implied it was their rocket that caused this but did not explicitly say it was
as someone who lies for a living, ahem i mean as a pr professional, their statment, to me, smacked of them issuing an explanation knowing full well it was nothing to do with them - the statement was along the lines that there had been a rocket failure in the area of ???... not that the light display had been caused by the failure of a rocket in the area of etc etc...
I noticed the exact same thing. It just didn't seem handled in a plausible way. If it had really been their rocket, it seems that they would have been more open about it. It seemed to me more like they grudgingly accepted responsibility for it because no one else had an explanation.
(12-16-2009, 08:36 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: You're free to believe whatever you like, I agree that the rocket wasn't leaking fuel. This could not possibly create the enormous size of the phenomenon. Only a rocket exhaust can do this.
I assume you mean, that with the presupposition that it was a rocket, only a rocket exhaust can do this...rather than saying there is no other possible explanation besides a rocket?
Ali, I know how meticulous you are, so I can appreciate the steps you took to reach your conclusion. I think it's also important to note that, if correct, your conclusion proves only that it's possible it was a rocket, not that it really was a rocket.
Also, did your calculations depend on a certain type of rocket? Could an older generation rocket (from 1988, or whatever year the Chinese incident occurred) have met that criteria? And, why did no one claim 'rocket' when it happened before? (as far as I can tell from the available footage.) It seems to me that if it had been the same phenomenon that had happened in China, the media would have been quick to point out that it had happened before, since that would help legitimize their claim.
The bottom line is that, even if it does meet all the criteria for possibly being a rocket, still does not tell us conclusively what it actually was...since we don't have any way of disproving other phenomena that it possibly could have been.
I agree that sometimes the simple, mundane answer really is the answer...much to our disappointment when we find more glamorous possibilities more exciting. Then again, I think it's done that way intentionally...to allow those who would choose to not believe it to have an out. A perfect example is the crop circle phenomena. Sine there really are some man-made crop circles, those who wish to believe they're all man-made have a convenient vehicle to do so. Our holographic UniVerse really does accommodate us!