From Goatman
1. The cloud is split horizontally, while the missile is on an upward arc.
His refutation.
1) you SAY the cloud is split. Prove that it is.
My rebuttal: Prove that it isn't split. The observers that were there and wrote the article say the cloud was split. You disagree--prove your point. However, you didn't answer the main part of question 1., which was the cloud is split horizontally--how does a vertically rising missile contrail cast a horizontal shadow.
2. If you look at the distance the missile moves and the speed at which the cloud is split, it is obvious that whatever split the cloud is moving much faster than the missile.
His refutation:
2) I've already explained, bOoB. It's the geometry involved. Look at a right triangle and trig tables and you'll understand. Or if that is beyond your capability, pick up a stick off the ground at sunset or sunrise. The more the stick moves to vertical, the faster its shadow moves. Simple trig.
My rebuttal:
When you pick up the stick, does its shadow turn from vertical to horizontal, dUmMy?
3. The exhaust from the missile expands quickly, while the cloud split shows no sign of expansion.
His refutation:
3) It does. The shadow is clearly wider and thinner on the left.
My rebuttal:
Slightly--but not nearly the same expansion of the exhaust from the missile over the same distance.
4. The missile is headed in the direction of the cloud, so any shadow produced by the sun would be more vertical than horizontal.
His refutation:
4) Again, geometry, bOoB. Look at the shadow cast by the sun of baseball players on the diamond. The shadows aren't parallel and appear to be at contradicting angles.
My rebuttal:
Shadows may be off angle, depending on the terrain, but a shadow will never turn from a vertical line into a horizontal line. The missile was rising vertically, and the contrail would cast a vertical line from a single light source such as the sun. Only a true dUmMy would say that a vertical line could cast a horizontal shadow.
5. A shadow on a cloud would take on the contours of the cloud.
His refutation:
5) You assertion is true if looked at at an angle. If looked at straight on, this is not true.
My rebuttal:
Only if the surface the shadow was projected on was smooth and consistant. Clouds are not smooth and consistant, and any shadow cast upon it would be distorted by the contours of said cloud. This is the same effect that you site for the ballplayers--the shadows would appear on the surface at different angles according to the countours of the cloud.
6. A shadow on a cloud wouldn't take on the color of the sky behind the cloud. It would look like--wait for it--a shadow.
6) The shadow is a slightly different color. Even I can see that with my 54 YO eyes. Perhaps your old eyes can't discern the difference.
His refutation:
I would say that your response is tainted with bias against me. I would accept such an answer from someone with a balanced mind. Not many shadows I have seen are blue. I guess in dUmMyworld there are blue shadows, but not in this world.
I will answer your questions in my next post.
