Comment: The difference between evidence and proof...

(See in situ)


The difference between evidence and proof...

...conspiracy theorists provide evidence, some poignant, some easily debunkable. Some debunkers provide evidence, some poignant, some undebunkable(ok I'm really making up words now.) There are plenty on both sides of the issue that find what evidence they have as irrefutable. This video, to an asshole skeptic such as myself, leaves questions. I'd be more than happy to hear the answers. I'm not committed to either side, just gathering information.
Some very layman questions.1)only one frame showing the plane? 2)Based on the blurred single frame image,I've never seen an aircraft attempt a land so parallel to the surface of the ground; based on updraft I would think the nose would have to be pointing up at say, a thirty degree angle, to maintain control of the aircraft, and keep it from falling out of the sky 3) the near full profile of the blur is identical to your example image of the plane. Not angled away or toward the viewer. Coincidence? Probably. Maybe? Hmmm. 5) would it be relatively easy to superimpose an image into a frame of film? A blurry image at that? 6)if it is indeed from a 'fish eye' camera wouldn't the blur be less linear and form more of a distorted arc considering it's in the outside periphery of the lens?