Je suis d'accord avec le raisonnement de T.Printy, c'est tout à fait logique.
Pareil pour les recherches de Bob concernant le SLC :
http://sceptic-ovni.forumactif.com/medi ... .htm#26886
Un spécialiste s'est prononcé :
I’d like to add to all the evidence above that it was just a jet, because the plume is nothing like a rocket plume to the trained eye. I was a rocket safety inspector for 3 years, have seen countless launches and failures, and have a master’s degree in Astronautical Engineering. Here’s why it’s not a rocket:
It’s too slow (<— biggest reason). There's no engine flare. There's no expansion of the plume (as the chamber pressure exceeds the atmospheric pressure more and more during flight). There's no staging event. There's no sunset striations across the plume (which would look like this: http://tinyurl.com/2vklwu5). In the wide shot there's two contrails (off each wing!) instead of one. The plume at the plane is twirling in different directions (very un-rocket-like). The plume at the plane is twirling too much — that only happens in the case of a motor burn-through, which is a failure mode, meaning it would be seconds from exploding if it were a rocket. The wind-blown plume is all wrong, vertical plumes go through several different wind shear layers, which makes it look very different than what the video shows.
I could go on and on, because I'm an actual expert. (As opposed to "I've seen a shuttle launch on TV once, so I know everything there is to know about rocket plumes." — which is apparently the dominant mindset here.)
CBS owes everyone an apology for not fact-checking their story with actual experts before running it.
Source : http://uncinus.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/4/#more-4
Sans vouloir faire usage de l'argument d'autorité, c'est quand même tjs mieux d'avoir l'avis d'expert(s), même si ces derniers peuvent se tromper aussi. Bon, on dirait en tout cas qu'on est d'accord (Printy, Gilles, et moi) pour dire : liner u suckers

++
Buck