(12-27-2009, 11:12 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: I have explained this.
Oops, sorry!

(12-27-2009, 11:12 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: Needless to say I'm a little disappointed with David's production. I could not bring myself to read it in depth yet. But I've scanned through it. He's considering all the things I have asked myself and consequently explained as proof beyond doubt that it cannot be a missile. His research was mediocre at best.
Well, in all fairness to David, he's not actually a scientist, right? Maybe you are expecting a scientist's explanation from someone who is a great compiler/analyzer of info but not an actual scientist.
I thought he made some very good points, but I'm not qualified to analyze the scientific aspects. Perhaps if you did read the whole article, and were able to set aside expectations that he meet scientific rigor, you might find some useful points.
I'm much more interested in Hoagland's and Haramein's opinions, but I'm not sure whether they have addressed the issue in depth.
(12-27-2009, 11:12 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: Fortunately he did drop the "Infra Red" evidence.
Maybe the error was pointed out to him.
(12-27-2009, 11:12 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: I'm wondering if I should answer David's post point by point explaining how everything he considers so impossible could actually happen within the laws of physics and within comfortable margins of probability. But I'm half cynically expecting that I won't be allowed to post this on the DC forum anyway.
Don't they have a similar discussion over at DC? If we're discussing it here, I'm sure they're discussing it there too.
If you do decide to take it on, I'd be interested in reading it. I love point-by-point rebuttals (as opposed to generalizations that are often done in debates and don't address key points made).
(12-27-2009, 11:12 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: I had not seen him make these types of blatant errors before. And the feeling of disappointment is quite profound.
He's human!
