"I note with some degree of despair that said war lovers have ignored the fact that establishing a bearing for a missile does not prove the point of origin.

As I said, there were two separate missiles and each could have been fired from any point along those bearings which lies within their maximum and minimum range from the target.

So, if they were fired separately, the conclusion that they must have come from that area is not justified by the evidence.

More is needed than just the bearing." - >b>Don T

I would agree wholeheartedly if that indeed was the case - i.e. if all they had to go on was a line of bearing. But that was not the case was it Don?

(A)They (UN Inspectors) knew:

1: Type of Rocket
2: Range
3: Angle of impact
4: Trajectory of missile
5: Line of bearing

Now couple that to

(B) What the US knows from their intelligence satellite images

1: Who was firing on the 21st August
2: Where those firing positions were
3: The times of the various bombardments
4: The communications traffic within units of the Syrian Army before, during, and after the attack

Now combine both - we all know the weapon used was Sarin and we know that at least one of the missiles fired was Russian in origin. Eye witnesses on the ground can confirm timings and if any coincide with barrages from Assad loyalist positions then you have your proof, beyond what Keith refers to as "reasonable doubt" - which back in the days of capital punishment meant that you would have been hanged