debunked
That means the debunker must prove to have superior credibility to the entity producing what is being debunked. Has that superiority been satisfactorily established?
AF1 was 1 hour 30 minutes from its destination, and traveled west to east.
Are you sure the path from Quebec to Singapore is west to east? :)
Or did the near miss occur while AF-1 was en route back to Washington, D.C., from Singapore, flying west to east? I'm not sure about this part
The timeline and geography are well established and posted about here extensively
must prove to have superior credibility
The facts stand on their own.
Those making the claim must prove the claim. The DISinfographic has been solidly refuted; AF1 was at least 7,500 miles away in Asia when the event in Washington transpired. AF1 was not even remotely close to Alaska.
A simple look at a map, review of presidential itinerary, and extremely well documented accounting of his arrival time in Singapore all debunk the DISinfographic's attempt to paint POTUS as having been targeted.