TWA 800: Kabot Photo Analysis
Ian Goddard
See the new extended graphical analysis of the "Kabot
cruise-missile photo" taken on the night of the tragic
demise of TWA 800, which shows the most probable course
of the missile, plus a very likely accident scenario:
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
At FACT 7 select "Further analysis of Kabot photo."
Bill Shere
In article <58kvgk$k...@boursy.news.erols.com>, igod...@erols.com says...
Ian Goddard
wsh...@texoma.net (Bill Shere) wrote:
> >See the new extended graphical analysis of the "Kabot
> >cruise-missile photo" taken on the night of the tragic
> >demise of TWA 800, which shows the most probable course
> >of the missile, plus a very likely accident scenario:
> >
> > http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
> >
> >At FACT 7 select "Further analysis of Kabot photo."
> >
> You call it analysis. We used to call it cartoons. BS
IAN: Well there's compelling substantive argumentation: Comic
strips contain a series of images and are usually fiction. I prove
the trajectory of the Kabot cruise missile with a series of images.
Since fictional comics a series of images, and since Ian uses a
series of images, Ian proves that trajectory of the Kabot cruise
missile with a comic. Therefore there can be no Kabor cruise
missile trajectory. Illogical.
Get some clues: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
************************************************************************
IAN GODDARD <igod...@erols.com> Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________________________
TWA 800: THE FACTS --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
WACO - WTC - OKC ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/facts.htm
Larry Doering
In article <58ok8o$3...@boursy.news.erols.com>,
Ian Goddard <igod...@erols.com> wrote:
<wsh...@texoma.net (Bill Shere) wrote:
<
<> >See the new extended graphical analysis of the "Kabot
<> >cruise-missile photo" taken on the night of the tragic
<> >demise of TWA 800, which shows the most probable course
<> >of the missile, plus a very likely accident scenario:
<> >
<> > http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
<> >
<> >At FACT 7 select "Further analysis of Kabot photo."
<> >
<> You call it analysis. We used to call it cartoons. BS
<
<IAN: Well there's compelling substantive argumentation: Comic
<strips contain a series of images and are usually fiction. I prove
<the trajectory of the Kabot cruise missile with a series of images.
<Since fictional comics a series of images, and since Ian uses a
<series of images, Ian proves that trajectory of the Kabot cruise
<missile with a comic. Therefore there can be no Kabor cruise
<missile trajectory. Illogical.
<
<Get some clues: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
Ian, I've looked at your web page regarding the "missile".
There's one thing missing from your analysis. What altitude
do you think your missile was flying at? For it to appear as
an extended object in the Kabot photo, it would have had to
be pretty close to the camera (Tomahawk cruise missiles are
smaller than most light aircraft.) If, in fact, a cruise
missile flew over the outdoor party in the Kabot photo at
an altitude of a couple hundred feet, wouldn't everybody
there have noticed it? Wouldn't a whole bunch of people
have seen it as it flew across Long Island?
My question, of course, ignores all the other leaps of
faith that constitute your theory. For instance, even if
we assume that Lisa Kabot *did* photograph a Tomahawk flying
low overhead, how does that prove the Navy shot down an
airliner miles away? What, exactly does the photo of
the P-3 Orion on your web page prove, given that the only
missiles visible in the picture are Harpoon anti-shipping
missiles?
I still think you're making a mistake in not considering
the possible role of SPECTRE and Blofeld in the TWA 800
crash.
ljd
Bill Shere
On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 09:41:29 GMT, igod...@erols.com (Ian Goddard)
wrote:
>wsh...@texoma.net (Bill Shere) wrote:
>
>> >See the new extended graphical analysis of the "Kabot
>> >cruise-missile photo" taken on the night of the tragic
>> >demise of TWA 800, which shows the most probable course
>> >of the missile, plus a very likely accident scenario:
>> >
>> > http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
>> >
>> >At FACT 7 select "Further analysis of Kabot photo."
>> >
>> You call it analysis. We used to call it cartoons. BS
>
>IAN: Well there's compelling substantive argumentation: Comic
>strips contain a series of images and are usually fiction. I prove
>the trajectory of the Kabot cruise missile with a series of images.
>Since fictional comics a series of images, and since Ian uses a
>series of images, Ian proves that trajectory of the Kabot cruise
>missile with a comic. Therefore there can be no Kabor cruise
>missile trajectory. Illogical.
I revisited the referenced sites, in the hopes that I would find a
"clue". Color me clueless. The only thing that I argue is that there
is nothing about the ability to draw a cartoon that "proves" anything.
I can draw a cartoon of a giant gorilla climbing the Empire State
Building, but it doesn't prove the existance of King Kong. There is
no "proof" in your cartoons. I have seen a great deal of analysis
in my career, and I will assert that there is nothing at the
referenced site which remotely resembles "analysis". BS
Ian Goddard
doe...@xrayspex.nlm.nih.gov (Larry Doering) wrote:
> <> > http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
> <> >
> <> >At FACT 7 select "Further analysis of Kabot photo."
> Ian, I've looked at your web page regarding the "missile".
> There's one thing missing from your analysis. What altitude
> do you think your missile was flying at?
IAN: I believe the cruise missile was probably about 300
feet up. The image on my page is a significant blow up of
the original. The cruise is about 100 yards away from the
group, behind everyone, and at dusk when an object in
the sky is becoming less detectable due to a drastic
lessening of contrast.
> My question, of course, ignores all the other leaps of
> faith that constitute your theory. For instance, even if
> we assume that Lisa Kabot *did* photograph a Tomahawk flying
> low overhead, how does that prove the Navy shot down an
> airliner miles away?
IAN: It proves that there was military activity within
a few miles and minutes of the TWA 800 blast. This is
consistent with military warning zone W-105 and 107
being activated. What is more, this military activity
was missile-fire related. What Mrs Kabot captured was
a wayward cruise. It'spossible that the missile over
150 witnesses saw hit TWA 800 was an attempt to inter-
cept the wayward cruise fearing it might crash into
habitation as it flew inland. A tragic accident.
See the picture: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm
Kate was here
>IAN: I believe the cruise missile was probably about 300
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a missile at
that low an altitude make some noise? After all, even sail
planes make noise than can be heard several hundred feet
away (I know - I listen to them all the time). I would think
the rocket engine on a cruise missile would be audible at
that small a distance.
ttfn, Kate
Andrew Carol
In article <58r5qb$2...@boursy.news.erols.com>, igod...@erols.com (Ian
Goddard) wrote:
> IAN: I believe the cruise missile was probably about 300
> feet up. The image on my page is a significant blow up of
> the original. The cruise is about 100 yards away from the
> group, behind everyone, and at dusk when an object in
> the sky is becoming less detectable due to a drastic
> lessening of contrast.
>
Have you ever _heard_ a cruise missile fly by?
This is something which people there would be talking about
until the second coming. It would be the strangest thing
that's ever been seen in that town in a long time.
This would not be simply a 'streak' or 'flash'. They are
loud and quite good at attracting attention to themselves.
Bottom line: Any missile close enough to the shore to
be photographed could not have affected TWA800 which was
10 miles from shore.
At that distance a missile would be visible only by it's
exhaust trail.
News flash!!!! New theory!!!!
The Navy launched the missile, it flew all the way to shore,
whizzed by the people with the camera, then flew all the way
out to sea and upto TWA 800, in a giant loop!
Oh well.....
--
Andrew Carol "Could be worse. Could be raining."
car...@apple.com ca...@woz.org
TIMOTHY GUEGUEN
Ian Goddard (igod...@erols.com) wrote:
: doe...@xrayspex.nlm.nih.gov (Larry Doering) wrote:
: > <> > http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
: > <> >
: > <> >At FACT 7 select "Further analysis of Kabot photo."
: > Ian, I've looked at your web page regarding the "missile".
: > There's one thing missing from your analysis. What altitude
: > do you think your missile was flying at?
: IAN: I believe the cruise missile was probably about 300
: feet up. The image on my page is a significant blow up of
: the original. The cruise is about 100 yards away from the
: group, behind everyone, and at dusk when an object in
: the sky is becoming less detectable due to a drastic
: lessening of contrast.
: > My question, of course, ignores all the other leaps of
: > faith that constitute your theory. For instance, even if
: > we assume that Lisa Kabot *did* photograph a Tomahawk flying
: > low overhead, how does that prove the Navy shot down an
: > airliner miles away?
: IAN: It proves that there was military activity within
: a few miles and minutes of the TWA 800 blast. This is
: consistent with military warning zone W-105 and 107
: being activated. What is more, this military activity
: was missile-fire related. What Mrs Kabot captured was
: a wayward cruise. It'spossible that the missile over
: 150 witnesses saw hit TWA 800 was an attempt to inter-
: cept the wayward cruise fearing it might crash into
: habitation as it flew inland. A tragic accident.
: See the picture: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm
: ************************************************************************
: IAN GODDARD <igod...@erols.com> Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
: VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
: ________________________________________________________________________
: TWA 800: THE FACTS --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
: WACO - WTC - OKC ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/facts.htm
Sorry, I can't buy the above scenario. Any sort of test cruise missile
would be equiped with a destruct mechanism controlled by the range office
in case it did go off course. I also doubt it is standard practice to
have a ship or other craft armed with live missiles with armed warheads
to shoot down wayward test missiles standing by. And what would a cruise
missile be doing flying at 13,000 feet, which is not their standard
flight profile? After all it would have to be at the same height as
Flight 800 for the guidance system of a missile fired at it to
accidentally lock on to Flight 800. A fire control radar aimed at a
target at 300 feet altitude would not be looking anywhere near Flight 800
at 13,000 feet.
tim gueguen ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
reb...@earthlink.net
I think it's pretty obvious, as pointed out in the "flight 800 facts"
article, that the missile seen on the beach was merely a "drone" or
"target". The missile that hit flight 800 was supposed to go for the
cruise missile.
Pretty obvious to me that there is a cover-up going on. Isn't it ironic
that they are strongly blaming the fuel tank just one day after strange
streaks of light were seen by a Saudi Airlines crew over approximately
the same area that TWA flight 800 went down?!
Seems like about a day after the Pakistani pilots reported a similar
phenomenon, the NTSB also brought up mechanical failure. They know
something that we probably never will know! In the meantime, TWA and
Boeing will have to "pay-up" for something they did not cause!!!!!!
Harry Sweeney
Re the photo and the issues raised here in "analysis", I'm afraid I must
throw additional confussion into the fray. I try to do so objectively,
as I still favor the METC bomb theory.
I've worked a little with photo anlysis, but wouldn't want to be seen as
claiming anything solid based on this poor sample. Need the full
original negative, or at least a full original print thereof (very poor
second choice). But on the little avialable, and lacking the needed
tools (and being very behind the times with 1968 experience in the
"trade"), I observe thus...
The grain size (film speed and quality of film processing unknown) and
relative position in the frame, plus unknown focal length of camera,
could suggest an altitude much higher than 300 feet, but not likely the
kind of altitude needed for a target seeking surface-to-air per
scenario. However, the shape is not entirely different, including the
slight bends, to many drone targets.
So, just suppose Salinger's drone-bypassed theory were played against
this evidence. Could it be that a target drone is in the photo, the
bright spot higher up and right being flight 800, perhaps missile? If a
drone were missed, it is possible that it continued on course for a
brief time and then ran out of fuel. The drooped shape shown in the
high-contrast reduction is not inconsistient with swooped wings common
on most sub-sonic drones, though without comparing against specific
designs, I can't see what kind of odd attitude would allow the angle of
view provided. However, an odd attitude is likely what you would get
once such a device stalled and faltered.
NEED MORE INVESTIGATION in order to better consider/discard such
theories. The appearance is that instead of taking these kinds of looks
at the evidence, the system is instead deliberately ignoring them -- all
the more reason to think there is something to the notion. Those who
ridicule some of us who at least try to discuss the issue make me even
more suspicious.
They not only DO NOT offer/cite any concrete counter evidence, though
they speak as if from expert concrete knowledge it exists, but their
entire manner is exactly a match for several of the 13 known methods for
truth supression applied by intel. This does not add to my confidence
in either them or in governments handling... HMS
Ian Goddard
Harry Sweeney <swee...@teleport.com> wrote:
> I've worked a little with photo analysis, but wouldn't want to be seen as
> claiming anything solid based on this poor sample. Need the full
> original negative, or at least a full original print thereof (very poor
> second choice). But on the little avialable, and lacking the needed
> tools (and being very behind the times with 1968 experience in the
> "trade"), I observe thus...
IAN: Which is why the FBI zoomed in a swept off with
all the available negatives of missiles photographed
that evening. Heidi Kreiger's negative of the photo
she took of THE missile, that is, the thin white line
that streaked up to intercept TWA 800, was taken
by the FBI, as was Mrs. Kabot's photo of the cruise.
I suspect that, like all the photographs and X-rays
of dead Vince Foster, the FBI will loose them.
> The grain size (film speed and quality of film processing unknown) and
> relative position in the frame, plus unknown focal length of camera,
> could suggest an altitude much higher than 300 feet, but not likely the
> kind of altitude needed for a target seeking surface-to-air per
> scenario. However, the shape is not entirely different, including the
> slight bends, to many drone targets.
IAN: A very low altitude, just as the Kabot photo shows
photographed is a standard course of the cruise. If there
was anti-cruise missile activity in W-105, and if that
was a cruise flying from W-105, then that cruise is
flying at proper level of attack. It fits the bill.
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm
> So, just suppose Salinger's drone-bypassed theory were played against
> this evidence. Could it be that a target drone is in the photo, the
> bright spot higher up and right being flight 800, perhaps missile?
IAN: TWA 800 cannot be in the picture, the camera is
facing the wrong direction. The FBI got that right anyway.
I've proposed that the missile in the photo is a drone.
Many good questions raised by Harry Sweeney.
Nicholas Manousos
For all you you conspiracy nuts--an official reason as to the cause is coming
soon!
December 15, 1996 NY Times
Many Answers in TWA Crash Except
the One That Counts
In This Articles
First Hunch: Smell of Sabotage Was
Everywhere
Second Thoughts: Evidence Keeps Slipping Away
Related Articles
Cost of Jet Safety May Be High, Experts Warn
By MATTHEW PURDY
Five hundred law enforcement investigators have
hunted the globe to find out who did it. An army of
scientists and engineers has applied meticulous analysis
to find out what did it.
And in the five months since the crash of Trans World
Airlines Flight 800, investigators have divined deep
secrets from the wreckage of the Boeing 747.
They know the direction of every tear in the plane's
aluminum skin. They know much of the sequence in which
the 170-ton aircraft came apart, piece by piece. They
have even announced that the plane's center fuel tank was
filled with dangerous fumes, and exploded, possibly with
enough force to split the plane in two.
But the central question of the fiery crash still lingers
unanswered: What caused the rugged aluminum beast to
explode in midair without a single warning beforehand or
a clear explanation afterward?
From the heat of summer to the first snows of winter,
there has been a striking shift among many investigators,
from the initial presumption of sabotage with a slim
chance of mechanical malfunction to a presumption of
malfunction with a slim chance of sabotage.
On Friday, the National Transportation Safety Board
announced recommendations for keeping jetliner fuel
tanks from filling with dangerous fumes or heating to a
dangerous level -- a direct result of the Flight 800
investigation. And safety board officials said their
leading theory of the crash is that the fumes were ignited
by a spark of static electricity created by fuel leaking
into the tank.
But they offered no evidence to support that theory and,
in fact, they could not rule out a bomb or missile as the
cause of the explosion -- two other possibilities for
which there is no evidence.
The proclamation of a leading theory reflects the belief
of aviation investigators that a lack of evidence of a
cause makes a malfunction, rather than sabotage, the
most likely explanation. The FBI strongly disagrees. And
beyond that argument, the cause remains unknown.
After a briefing on the crash investigation early this
month, a member of the White House commission on
aviation safety said, "On the basis of the physical
evidence found thus far, the plane should still be flying."
With 95 percent of the plane recovered and no cause
apparent, the inquiry has become an effort to determine
what could trigger the destruction of a 747, yet leave
little or no evidence.
Investigators have seized on the idea of a static spark or
a tiny explosive device, neither of which would
necessarily have left enough evidence to be detected.
But they say even more remote scenarios remain
possible -- from an undetected explosive device in the
front cargo bay, to a catastrophic failure of a beam that
holds the wings together, to a sophisticated missile that
exploded but left little trace.
The investigation has become the most complex,
expensive and prominent air-disaster inquiry in the
nation's history, and officials are eager to keep it from
tumbling into the abyss of permanent mystery, forever
haunting air travel and feeding criminal conspiracy
theories.
"What you're dealing with here is much more than an
aviation accident because of the profile of the crash,"
said Jim Hall, chairman of the National Transportation
Safety Board. "What you have at stake here is the
credibility of this agency and the credibility of the
government to run an investigation."
When the plane crashed off the coast of New York's Long
Island on July 17, killing all 230 people on board, few
predicted that the investigation would wind up as a
monumental scientific riddle. The immediate suspicion
was sabotage, based on a potent combination of
preconceptions about the durability of the 747 and the
likelihood of the United States as a target for terrorists.
Criminal investigators long hoped to find the "Eureka
piece," a single discovery that would explain the crash,
and some still do as scallop boats continue pulling up
scarce wreckage from the ocean floor.
But in the absence of that discovery, a drama of small
acts has unfolded in an old hangar along a winding, rural
road in Calverton, N.Y. There, the lack of evidence of a
crime has, almost by default, increased the probability of
a mechanical malfunction.
Many of the clues are ambiguous and confusing. The
pattern of injuries to the victims' bodies reveals no
evidence of a bomb or missile. Soot in the vents running
from the center tank to the wing tips indicates a fire, but
not the direction it traveled, or when it happened.
Distinctive damage in one area of a fuel tank looked like
the location of a bomb -- until scientists found that the
damage happened after the explosion. The severe
bending of the thick metal floor under two beverage
carts has led some investigators to speculate that there
was an explosion in the front of the plane, yet they have
found no evidence of that.
The enduring conundrum of the investigation was
crystallized in a meeting in early September when White
House chief of staff Leon Panetta asked leaders of the
inquiry for their best guesses of the explosion's cause.
The safety board engineers said their hunch was a
mechanical failure, while FBI officials said it was probably
a bomb, according to officials who attended the meeting.
Why, Panetta asked them.
Because there is no evidence of a bomb, an engineer said.
Because there is no evidence of mechanical failure, an FBI
official replied.
Since then, the investigation has evolved from a
high-speed chase for evidence, culprits and justice to the
measured pace of a college seminar, with safety board
engineers talking about experiments they might conduct
"within the next six months."
The investigators are frustrated but say they are not
stumped. They are accustomed to difficult cases, but say
the stakes have seldom been higher.
"This was an airplane that people fly on," said James K.
Kallstrom, the FBI official in charge of the criminal
investigation. "They go to Thanksgiving holidays on it and
Christmas holidays, and they send their kids on French
club trips. There's a great need for us to know what
happened."
The crash has stretched the imagination of investigators.
They examined whether the jet was attacked by a small
remote-controlled airplane, or whether its fuel was
chemically altered to make it more combustible, or
whether metal shards were inserted in the tank to spark
an explosion.
Investigators have veered close to certainty -- or
wishful thinking -- that they had an answer, only to
realize hours later that they were wrong.
In late August, the discovery of traces of explosives in
the wreckage increased the FBI's confidence that the
crash was a criminal act. Hall, the head of the safety
board, suggested during a meeting in Attorney General
Janet Reno's office that given their confidence, the FBI
should declare the crash a crime and take over the
investigation. Two officials at the meeting said that Hall's
comment sounded like a challenge to FBI officials, who
refused the offer, saying that the traces were not
definitive proof.
Now, with mechanical malfunction considered more likely,
the investigation is squarely in the safety board's
domain. But the board's investigators warn that they may
never find the precise trigger for the Flight 800
explosion.
Even without it, they say they feel increasingly confident
that they will be able to rule out the possibility of
sabotage. And they say that their recommendations
Friday about ways to guard against a similar explosion
are meant to fulfill their mandate to improve aviation
safety.
"If we come up and say it's one of these five things," said
a top safety board engineer who, like many of those
interviewed, spoke only on condition of anonymity, "then
we solved it." But that could leave the crash an open
question for a public so used to believing that technology
and science can provide certainty.
Without a definite answer, a board official said, the crash
"goes the way of the Kennedy assassination: it becomes
one of the great mysteries of our time."
First Hunch:
Smell of Sabotage Was Everywhere
he immediate suspicion of terrorism had as much to
do with the atmosphere of the moment as with the
crash itself.
On the morning before the July 17 crash, the Federal
Aviation Administration convened a major meeting in
Washington to discuss security threats to aviation. In
Manhattan, federal prosecutors were unspooling a
terrifying plot to blow 12 U.S. airliners out of the sky at
the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the accused terrorist also
charged in the World Trade Center bombing. And in
Atlanta, the Olympics were due to begin in three days,
under heavy security.
When Flight 800 crashed at 8:31 that night, 11 minutes
after leaving Kennedy Airport for Paris, few believed
that the midair explosion on the reliable Boeing 747,
even one that was 25 years old, could have been
accidental.
That perception grew stronger overnight. Witnesses
reported seeing lights streaking toward the plane before
the explosion. Reports of two fireballs were the first
indication that the plane broke in two, as in the 1988
bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
And at 2 a.m. the next day, top intelligence and security
officials were told in a video-teleconference from the
White House situation room that radar tapes showed an
object headed at the plane before it exploded. (Days
later, the object was found to be an electronic anomaly.)
"It looked quite likely," a top FBI official said of the early
evidence suggesting sabotage. "We're all a creature of
what we know and what we see. We form opinions."
With the plane in a fragmented heap on the floor of the
Atlantic Ocean, the belief grew that the government was
dealing with an act of terrorism.
Two days after the crash, Sen. Orrin Hatch, chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee, after a briefing by
administration officials, and said it "looked pretty darn
conclusive" that a bomb or a missile brought down the
plane.
The following week, President Clinton met with families
of the crash victims in New York and then announced new
safeguards to keep explosives off planes.
And on Aug. 1, FBI Director Louis Freeh told a Senate
Committee that the Olympic park bombing and the Flight
800 crash -- while saying that it was not solved -- made
new anti-terrorism measures urgent. Most of the
proposals were not passed.
The few initial pieces of evidence seemed to sharpen the
picture of sabotage. The plane's two "black boxes"
showed no hint that there had been a mechanical problem,
only a final loud sound before the power died -- just like
Pan Am 103.
Then came what almost seemed like conclusive evidence
-- traces of powerful plastic explosives favored by
terrorists were found in the wreckage. The traces were
minuscule, but even that fit the expectations of
investigators, who figured that residue would wash off in
the ocean.
"It kind of fit our mindset that these are traces," a law
enforcement investigator said. "But there could have
been a whole lot more here and that we're just getting
these traces because it's been in the ocean."
But the traces were not blasted into metal, and there
were no signs of pitted or shattered metal, the signature
of a high-energy detonation. Chemists at the FBI
laboratory in Washington and at the British Forensic
Explosives Laboratory, where the traces were also
tested, agreed that they were not proof of an explosive
device.
Kallstrom bristled at that interpretation, according to a
senior law enforcement official in Washington. While
Kallstrom did not think the traces were definitive proof
of an explosive device, he felt sure that their discovery
was a step down that road.
After all, other explanations for the traces had been
ruled out. Navy boats and National Guard trucks hauling
wreckage to the hangar were tested for any residue that
might have got on the airplane parts and none was found.
Investigators knew that the FAA tested bomb-sniffing
dogs by hiding explosives on airplanes. But they checked
TWA's records, and found no indication that the plane was
used in any test.
The traces were convincing to some law enforcement
agents, no matter what the scientists were saying.
At a meeting of about half a dozen FBI agents and
scientists, a senior agent boasted, "So far the score is 3
to 0" -- bomb versus mechanical failure. He was referring
to the positive test results for three explosives -- PETN,
RDX and nitroglycerin.
"This isn't baseball,"an FBI scientist shot back.
Second Thoughts:
Evidence Keeps Slipping Away
n the hangar, however, the wreckage was not yielding
clues of terrorism. Ton after ton came in, mangled,
torn and full of holes, but none of it showed the telltale
signs of blast damage. The mystery that had appeared to
be shrinking was actually growing.
Cargo bins were ruled out as a location of a bomb or the
target of a missile when no blast damage was found there.
The cockpit was ruled out when the bodies of the co-pilot
and flight engineer were found intact, buckled in their
seats. The windows were cracked but not shattered.
The discovery in mid-August that fumes in the nearly
empty center fuel tank had exploded in flight gave FBI
investigators a focus. The FBI set up two teams of agents,
one to work the bomb theory and the other to work the
missile theory, and they were assigned to show how each
device could have blown up the tank.
A bomb under a seat in the middle of the plane could have
easily ignited the tank. And one of the explosive traces
had been found on the floor in that area.
Again, it was promising theory until the physical
evidence disproved it.
The cabin, filled with people, metal and plastic, would
show the clear imprint of a blast, if one existed. But as
the weeks passed, high-energy shrapnel was not found in
any of the human remains, and the pattern of burns on
seats did not indicate a blast.
In late September, the sabotage theory was dealt another
serious blow. The FAA informed investigators that weeks
before the crash, the plane had been used to test a
bomb-sniffing dog, possibly explaining the explosive
traces found after the crash.
The FAA first blamed the delay in disclosing this on the
lack of centralized records, but then acknowledged that
most every plane in the United States had been used for
these tests in the last couple of years.
The criminal investigators were furious. The test did not
necessarily explain away all the traces, but it diminished
their value and rendered them useless in any prosecution.
The best evidence of their initial hunch had essentially
been lost.
With evidence slipping away, the investigators honed
their hypotheses. Could it be that a saboteur planted a
small device under a seat that was designed to penetrate
the floor and the top of the fuel tank, igniting the fumes,
but leaving little evidence? This seemed possible since
large sections of the flooring were still missing.
But eventually, almost every piece of the fuel tank's top
was found, none with high-explosive damage, cutting the
chances of a bomb in the cabin. Investigators then began
focusing on other possible places, like a wheel well
behind the tank through which someone could literally
"pat the back of the tank," as a safety engineer put it. But
that possibility was discounted after Goodyear
technicians examined the tires, and again found no blast
damage.
Some parts are still missing from an area in front of the
tank, raising the possibility of a shattering blast. But the
condition of two fiberglass water containers in front of
that area argues against a bomb.
"One was almost totally intact, and the other one was
cracked like an egg shell" but not shattered, according to
an aviation official who has toured the hangar.
Many criminal investigators remained convinced that the
bomb was the most likely scenario for the crash, even
through November. They thought that after all the false
findings of bomb damage, one day a piece of wreckage
was bound to be the real thing.
"There were many, many days when I got a call that says
'I've got some interesting piece here' and it proved not to
be interesting," a senior criminal investigator said.
At briefings in Washington, officials could sense the zeal
of investigators to find evidence to back the theory that
they had believed in from the beginning. "The law
enforcement guys were hellbent to find it was a bomb," a
White House official said after a briefing in early October.
That mindset was reflected in numerous news reports, in
The New York Times and many other newspapers,
resulting in articles about pieces of metal or other
evidence that appeared to show that the plane had been
destroyed by a criminal act. Many were discounted later.
In mid-November, Kallstrom, who had exuberantly driven
his troops to search for evidence of a crime, said that
with 95 percent of the plane recovered, and no evidence
of a bomb or missile, sabotage appeared less likely. In
addition, the FBI's worldwide search had turned up no
leads to a conspiracy to attack the plane.
But he said he wanted "to get to zero" possibility before
pulling out of the investigation. The telltale blast damage
from the bombing of Pan Am 103 was the equivalent of
about three square feet of metal. As much as 10 tons of
Flight 800 was still missing.
The proof, Kallstrom said, "could be a tiny little thing."
And there were plenty of those still missing.
Copyright 1996 The New York Times Company
Paul Siller
igod...@erols.com (Ian Goddard) wrote:
>Harry Sweeney <swee...@teleport.com> wrote:
>> I've worked a little with photo analysis, but wouldn't want to be seen as
>> claiming anything solid based on this poor sample. Need the full
>> original negative, or at least a full original print thereof (very poor
>> second choice). But on the little avialable, and lacking the needed
>> tools (and being very behind the times with 1968 experience in the
>> "trade"), I observe thus...
> IAN: Which is why the FBI zoomed in a swept off with
> all the available negatives of missiles photographed
> that evening. Heidi Kreiger's negative of the photo
> she took of THE missile, that is, the thin white line
> that streaked up to intercept TWA 800, was taken
> by the FBI, as was Mrs. Kabot's photo of the cruise.
> I suspect that, like all the photographs and X-rays
> of dead Vince Foster, the FBI will loose them.
They FBI took them?
Maybe so, But she sold them to a New York paper first, who published
it. I recall the statement at the daily TWA800. I also recall the
account of how the Kabot's realized there was a serious sale potential
and her brother in law set up the deal.
The original was printed before the FBI found out about it. There are
original prints around.
Paul
I think you should re-examine some of your facts
--------
"Experience is not what happens to you,
it is what you do with what happens to you." >>>Aldous Huxley
Paul Siller
reb...@earthlink.net wrote:
>I think it's pretty obvious, as pointed out in the "flight 800 facts"
>article, that the missile seen on the beach was merely a "drone" or
>"target". The missile that hit flight 800 was supposed to go for the
>cruise missile.
What is not obvious is the need to shoot down the drone. There seems
to be no reason for a cruise missle to be flying in a built up area.
You only offer conjecture.
Back in the '80's Canada was a testing ground for the cruise The
missles were launched over the Beaufort Sea and made there way to
Alberta. A few of the missles failed but none were ever shot done.
Why would this be shot down and if on the outside chance that it was
to be shot down, why would the worlds most advanced anti-aircraft
technology be so inaccuarate?
>Pretty obvious to me that there is a cover-up going on. Isn't it ironic
>that they are strongly blaming the fuel tank just one day after strange
>streaks of light were seen by a Saudi Airlines crew over approximately
>the same area that TWA flight 800 went down?!
>Seems like about a day after the Pakistani pilots reported a similar
>phenomenon, the NTSB also brought up mechanical failure. They know
>something that we probably never will know! In the meantime, TWA and
>Boeing will have to "pay-up" for something they did not cause!!!!!!
Obvious?? I don't think so.
W.E. Nichols
Nicholas Manousos <mano...@gis.net> wrote:
+For all you you conspiracy nuts--an official reason as to the cause is coming
+soon!
+ December 15, 1996 NY Times
+ Many Answers in TWA Crash Except
+ the One That Counts
Although this article was done by the NY Times, it is the most accurate
public accounting of the events to date. It clearly illustrates the Major
Turf Battle between the NTSB and the FBI. And that is why this
investigation is taking so long.
Nick
Doug Haluza
Paul Siller <sil...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote in article
<591bgo$j...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
> reb...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>
>
> >I think it's pretty obvious, as pointed out in the "flight 800 facts"
> >article, that the missile seen on the beach was merely a "drone" or
> >"target". The missile that hit flight 800 was supposed to go for the
> >cruise missile.
>
> What is not obvious is the need to shoot down the drone. There seems
> to be no reason for a cruise missle to be flying in a built up area.
> You only offer conjecture.
>
Conjecture, yes. But there is good reason to test it in a populated
area--EMI (Electro Magnetic Interference). The weapon system would need to
defend the shoreline and operate in an environment full of TV and radio
broadcast stations, power transmission lines, etc.
TIMOTHY GUEGUEN
:c15e0$0f131a26@default>
Organization: Saskatoon Free-Net
Distribution:
Doug Haluza (dha...@pipeline.com) wrote:
: Paul Siller <sil...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote in article
You wouldn't have to test any piece of military equipment near a
populated area to test its resistance to such interference. Someplace or
another in the US is a giant chamber designed for testing the resistance
of objects to electromagnetic pulse effects similar to those produced by
nukes. Such a chamber could easily simulate a high RF environment.
tim gueguen ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
Ian Goddard
In article <32b0ba34...@news.texoma.net>,
wsh...@texoma.net (Bill Shere) wrote:
>> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm
> I revisited the referenced sites, in the hopes that I would find a
> "clue". Color me clueless. The only thing that I argue is that there
> is nothing about the ability to draw a cartoon that "proves" anything.
IAN: You don't understand that a series of images
can transmit something called "information."
> I can draw a cartoon of a giant gorilla climbing the Empire State
> Building, but it doesn't prove the existance of King Kong.
IAN: The meaningfulness of that information is
relative to the degree to which it corresponds
with physical things and events which we can
verify to exist. You see, things we imagine to
exist, like "godzilla" are different from things
we can verify to exist, like cruise missiles
and photographs of them.
Therefore, a series of images based upon things
that we can verify to exist are *different* from
a series of images of things we cannot verify
as being existent; ergo, the equivalence you
allege between all series of images is false.
Thinking, hay, it's not so bad.
Give it a try sometime.
>> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm
************************************************************************
IAN GODDARD (igod...@erols.com) Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________________________
TWA 800: THE FACTS --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
WACO - WTC - OKC ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/facts.htm
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
igod...@erols.com
In article <591b4i$m...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>,
sil...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca (Paul Siller) wrote:
> They FBI took them?
IAN: The FBI took the Kabot negatives within
an hour of the Kabots calling them, which
was right after they got them back from
the photo developer. The FBI also took
all the photos except the one they had
put aside. That is the one that made its
way out from under the FBI's blanket cover-
up, resulting in this shocking display:
Ron Katona
HedoBill wrote:
<SNIP>
> Kaastrom and his family WILL BURN IN HELL!! He knew from day 2 what
> really happened!!!!! This is the biggest Government coverup in
> history!!!!!!!!
>
> Bill
He'll probably be in the area right next to the special spot saved for
those who quote 253 lines to post a three line response.
--
Ron Katona ro...@cris.com
HedoBill
Nicholas Manousos
Ron Katona wrote:
>
> HedoBill wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > Kaastrom and his family WILL BURN IN HELL!! He knew from day 2 what
> > really happened!!!!! This is the biggest Government coverup in
> > history!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Bill
>
> those who quote 253 lines to post a three line response.
> --
> Ron Katona ro...@cris.com
The other day a piece of the Space Shuttle Challenger washed op on a Florida
shore. As I recall at the time the Challenger had its mishap NASA did not comb
the ocean, but instead allowed it to remain at sea. A sort of burial at sea for the
astronuats.
TWA 800 has had the most extensive underwater search in the history of the
world. It has been said that over 95% has been recovered. The evidence ( pieces
of the plane) will probably be destroyed--no smoking gun. You would not want
some nut with a chemistry set doing analysis on airplane parts. Right?
Just comparing.
Ian Goddard
sil...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca (Paul Siller) wrote:
> What is not obvious is the need to shoot down the drone.
IAN: Missile fly fast; missile hit people;
people hurt; people sue; must stop missile.
> There seems
> to be no reason for a cruise missile to be flying in a built up area.
> You only offer conjecture.
IAN: That statement is an obvious attempt,
however futile, to suppress the truth that
a PHOTOGRAPH is offered, NOT "CONJECTURE."
KABOT PHOTO --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm
> Back in the '80's Canada was a testing ground for the cruise The
> missles were launched over the Beaufort Sea and made there way to
> Alberta. A few of the missles failed but none were ever shot done.
> Why would this be shot down and if on the outside chance that it was
> to be shot down, why would the worlds most advanced anti-aircraft
> technology be so inaccuarate?
IAN: I propose that nothing is 100% faultless.
Lo and behold, several cruise missiles went
off-course in the Iraqi War--so we're right
and you guys are wrong... again.
If they did not try to intercept the missile
because it was in fact, as you propose, not
off course, then they tried to intercept it
because anti-cruise missile defense is a cut-
ting edge of the Ballistic Missile Defense
(BMD) program.
************************************************************************
IAN GODDARD <igod...@erols.com> Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
[at]
On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 21:15:24 -0500, Ron Katona <ro...@cris.com> wrote:
>HedoBill wrote:
><SNIP>
>> Kaastrom and his family WILL BURN IN HELL!! He knew from day 2 what
>> really happened!!!!! This is the biggest Government coverup in
>> history!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Bill
>
>He'll probably be in the area right next to the special spot saved for
>those who quote 253 lines to post a three line response.
That would be alt.hell.unmoderated, unless I'm mistaken. <g>
Ian Goddard
Harry Sweeney <swee...@teleport.com> wrote:
> I've worked a little with photo analysis, but wouldn't want to be seen as
> claiming anything solid based on this poor sample. Need the full
> original negative, or at least a full original print thereof (very poor
> second choice).
IAN: There's no question that the photo negative
is the best piece of evidence -- that's exactly
why the FBI swooped in and ran off with the nega-
tive of the cruise photo and the negative of THE
missile, seen as a thin white line streaking
upwards from the ocean, taken by Heidi Kreiger.
Even though the FBI has discounted a criminal cul-
pability in this case, they remain on the case and
have not returned the negatives to their rightful
owners. Because we keep getting hints that they
may never solve TWA 800, it stands to reason that
they will also never release the critical physical
evidence, as is customary pre-criminal trial, so
that the FBI can cook the evidence, the master
chefs that they are.
The image we have is actually quite substantial.
We have what is clearly a cylindrical object that
appears to have fins at the midsection -- in fact,
the owner of the photo says the fins are MORE vis-
ible in the photograph that in the scanned image
at my site--it's flying on a low and level course,
and light radiates from one end, while the other
end is a blunt curved end. It fits a cruise mis-
sile profile in every measure, it even has the
exact same width to lenght size ratio. In fact,
it's hard to imagine what more visual informa-
tion we could want in order to satisfy ourselves
that it's a cruise missile.
Gord Beaman
igod...@erols.com (Ian Goddard) wrote:
<snip>
> that streaked up to intercept TWA 800, was taken
> by the FBI, as was Mrs. Kabot's photo of the cruise.
<snip>
Here you indicate the Kabot photo is of a 'cruise'...
> photographed is a standard course of the cruise. If there
> was anti-cruise missile activity in W-105, and if that
> was a cruise flying from W-105, then that cruise is
> flying at proper level of attack. It fits the bill.
And again above...
<snip>
> IAN: TWA 800 cannot be in the picture, the camera is
> facing the wrong direction. The FBI got that right anyway.
> I've proposed that the missile in the photo is a drone.
> Many good questions raised by Harry Sweeney.
And now above you suggest (oh sorry, proposed) that the 'thing' in the
photo is a drone...
<snip>
> IAN: It proves that there was military activity within
> a few miles and minutes of the TWA 800 blast. This is
> consistent with military warning zone W-105 and 107
> being activated. What is more, this military activity
> was missile-fire related. What Mrs Kabot captured was
> a wayward cruise. It'spossible that the missile over
> 150 witnesses saw hit TWA 800 was an attempt to inter-
> cept the wayward cruise fearing it might crash into
> habitation as it flew inland. A tragic accident.
<snip>
And in the above post you intimate that it's a drone that was fired to
kill the cruise but went off course and hit flt 800...so where did the
cruise go?...my God you certainly do have one active imagination don't
you?...
I think I'm reasonably mentally agile but I find this slightly
dizzying...I noticed something in your sig about you being a question
authority??...I'll grant you that...an answer authority you surely
aren't.
Additionally you should be ashamed of that blatantly bullshit
statement of "It's possible that the missile that over 150 witnesses
saw hit TWA 800 was an attempt to intercept the wayward cruise..."
Get it through your thick skull that NOBODY said that they saw
ANYTHING hit flt 800!...what a ding dong you are...
--
Gord Beaman
PEI, Canada.
Damien Burke
On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 08:02:18 +0000, Nicholas Manousos <mano...@gis.net> wrote:
>The other day a piece of the Space Shuttle Challenger washed op on a Florida
>shore. As I recall at the time the Challenger had its mishap NASA did not comb
>the ocean, but instead allowed it to remain at sea. A sort of burial at sea for the
>astronuats.
But they recovered the cockpit, yes? I hear they actually buried all the shuttle
debris (that they've found so far) in an old missile silo to stop ghouls having
a bit of shuttle on their mantlepiece.
>TWA 800 has had the most extensive underwater search in the history of the
>world. It has been said that over 95% has been recovered. The evidence ( pieces
>of the plane) will probably be destroyed--no smoking gun. You would not want
>some nut with a chemistry set doing analysis on airplane parts. Right?
Actually this brings up an interesting point - what *does* happen to air crash
remains? UK's Channel 4 ran an excellent series called Black Box, and in the
last episode an NTSB investigator was showing some burnt instruments from the
KLM/PanAm crash at Tenerife. Apparently he'd rescued PanAm's corporate records
from being thrown away when the company folded, and pieces of wreckage were in
the records too.
--
Damien Burke - email: dam...@rnsett.demon.co.uk
Opinions are mine alone and do not represent RNSETT.
Ian Goddard
Here's an important analysis of the Kabot photo
from one who dares to think:
From: Thomas Shoemaker <rose...@IOS.COM>
Subject: missile notes
To: FLIGH...@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
There is a technique for radically narrowing down the possible
identities of the object captured in the Kabot photograph that each of
you could do if you are interested. As you will read in the description
below, I used a scanner; if you do not have a scanner, I think you could
still complete a sucessful analysis if you took the Kabot image as
printed in "Paris Match", "Panorama", or the "Star"magazines, and had it
scanned into an enlarged print at a good photo store.
I would not invest any time in attempting to draw conclusions from
the
images exhibited on television and those from the"Paris Match" web page.
The quality of those images is poor and distorted. I have worked with
the printed images fron "Star" magazine and "Paris Match".
I scanned the two images (“raw” and “enhanced”) from each source
into Photoshop. I greatly enlarged them, maintaining the original
proportions. I was surprised at how well the “mystery object” stood out
from the background in both scans. I then carefully previewed
application of various
combinations of brightness and contrast on the two color scans, and made
some simple measurements from the screen...over and over...before
converting the images to grayscale, printing them, and measuring them
again...over and over.
Here is what I found: the left end of the object has a rounded
nose.
The body has a uniform thickness. The body appears to narrow at the end
close to the patch of brightness. The patch is, in itself symmetrical,
and shows the most intense brightness close to the middle of the end of
the object...the farther up, down, and behind the object, the less
bright the patch of illumination becomes.The object is symmetrical:
equal portions appear above and below an overlaid center line. There may
be a small bulge in the last one-third (tail end) of the object’s body.
I see no explicit wings, although at ultra magnification the existence
of wing/fin structures along the body and at the tail is suggested by
"stubs". The "Star' image suggest wings more strongly than the "Paris
Match" image.
I took two simple measurements in the “over and overs” referred
to
above: length and thickness. I did this on both the ‘raw’ and the
“enhanced’ images. I simply wanted to determine the ratio of length to
width (or diameter, if it really was tubular as some persons, including
the Kabots themselves, I think, believed). This proportional
relationship turns out to be slightly more than 11(length) to 1
(width/diameter) (11:1) on both the “raw’ and “enhanced” images. I found
this ratio is shared by the "Paris Match" and the "Star' images.
Then I went running around the Web, obtaining lengths and
diameters of some known missiles. I derived the information below:
MISSILE PROPORTIONAL RATIO
SM2 (MR) 13:1
SM2 (ER) 23.3:1
HARM 16.4:1
AMRAAM 20.6:1
PHOENIX 10.4:1
SEA SPARROW 18:1
HARPOON 11.2:1
TOMAHAWK 10.7:1
You could help by checking the ratios I derived by calculating
them
independently, and also by computing the ratios for other missiles you
can get reliable dimensions for. Different sources quote varying
dimensions for many of the missiles.
The mystery object, as stated above, appears to have a nose
rounded on
a large radius, and not pointed. The image shows no obviously
discernable wings or fins althoughg possible 'roots' of such structures
do appear to be there. There is no conspicuous exhaust trail behind the
patch of
illumination. It hasa dull, non-reflective body. No markings are
visible. If the patch isactually exhaust, then the object was still
flying under power over LongIsland. The purported exhaust does not form
a long, thin trail behindthe object, but flares from the rear of the
object to a length of about
one-fifth it’s total length. The photograph did not catch the object
fully sideways; if it was a missile, the tail was somewhat (but not a
lot) closer to the camera than the nose (this fact would slightly
distort the proportion ratio), and it was flying towards a heading of
approximately WNW if Mrs. Kabot is certain she faced north when taking
the photo.If it was a missile with a length of 20 feet or less creating
the photographic image, then it may well have been close enough to
Docker’s to be heard. These characteristics may additionally weed out
missiles that could possiblybe rpresented in the image in the Kabot
photograph.
Based on the traits the photo images exhibit and the known
characteristics of missiles, the Harpoon/Slam missile and the Tomahawk
come close to the determined proportional ratio. Given that even the
most careful measuring is influenced by the resolution and grain of the
film and somewhat oblique angle of the object relative to the
photographer, both Harpoon/SLAM and Tomahawk come close enough to the
11:1 ratio to demand a second look. The wide radius of the nose, taper
at the rear, suggestion of "wings' rather than body fins, and overall
appearance and attitude make the Tomahawk a more likely identification
than the Harpoon/SLAM in my opinion.
There are many more missiles that can be evaluated for their
proportional ratios and compared with the 11:1 ratio of the published
images. There may be more that closely exhibit this ratio, but the vast
masjority will not....finding and eliminating those alone will be a
constructive step. If any of you would like to obtain missile
dimensions, comput the ratios, and send them along to me, I would make
and periodically post a more comprehensive chart to this list.
Tom
Shoemaker
--
"The greatest lies are told in silence."
Robert Louis Stevenson
Bill Shere
In article <59ekv2$3...@boursy.news.erols.com>, igod...@erols.com says...
>
>Here's an important analysis of the Kabot photo
>from one who dares to think:
>
>From: Thomas Shoemaker <rose...@IOS.COM>
>I took two simple measurements in the “over and overs” referred
>to
>above: length and thickness. I did this on both the ‘raw’ and the
>“enhanced’ images. I simply wanted to determine the ratio of length to
>width (or diameter, if it really was tubular as some persons, including
I'm curious when measuring the apparent length of the object, what was
used to determine the viewer's perspective? A normal technique would
be to work from known dimensions and use the apparent dimensions to
determine the orientation of the object -- but in this case that's
what you don't know. BS
Ian Goddard
gbe...@pei.sympatico.ca (Gord Beaman) wrote:
> And in the above post you intimate that it's a drone that was fired to
> kill the cruise but went off course and hit flt 800...so where did the
> cruise go?...my God you certainly do have one active imagination don't
> you?...
> I think I'm reasonably mentally agile but I find this slightly
> dizzying...
IAN: Your reasonably confused. Try to get it straight:
http:www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm
> Additionally you should be ashamed of that blatantly bullshit
> statement of "It's possible that the missile that over 150 witnesses
> saw hit TWA 800 was an attempt to intercept the wayward cruise..."
> Get it through your thick skull that NOBODY said that they saw
> ANYTHING hit flt 800!...what a ding dong you are...
IAN: Your also either ignorant or a lier, or both.
Ian Goddard
wsh...@texoma.net (Bill Shere) wrote:
> I'm curious when measuring the apparent length of the object, what was
> used to determine the viewer's perspective? A normal technique would
> be to work from known dimensions and use the apparent dimensions to
> determine the orientation of the object -- but in this case that's
> what you don't know. BS
IAN: The Tomahawk missile model I created that appears
in the image to the right of the Kabot photo here:
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm
is aligned at an angle most clearly identical to the
object/observer orientation in the Kabot photo. The
Tomahawk missile I recreated for the side by side
adheres to the dimensions of the Tomahawk, and also
matches precisely the dimensions of the object in
the Kabot photo. It therefore follows that the
Kabot object has the same proportions as a
Tomahawk cruise missile.
Ron Katona
Ian Goddard wrote:
> Of course since you hate my efforts, and since I
> verify virtually every claim I make, it follows
> that you hate verification and credibility, hence
> your religious avoidance of them.
Negative. You're just not important enough to me to have such strong
emotions as hate involved in it. BTW, searching web sites is indicative
of research, not credibility. Have you ever operated a jet engine? I
have. Have you ever seen a cruise missile up close? I have. Have you
ever received credit in jet engine maintenance from an accredited
university? I have. In your regular line of work, does your day normally
include spending time on a flight line? Mine often does.
> While you've been busy trying to persuade the readers
> that you know something, I've been gathering evidence
> for them that would allow them to know for themselves:
No, I've been busy getting training in the subject, working on live
weapons ranges, and working in and around jet aircraft in the Air Force.
You've been busy doing web searches.
>
> At http://pw1.netcom.com/~chadeast/missiles/agm109.html
> we find this statement regarding the cruise turbofan engine:
>
> Propulsion:
> Atlantic Research 6,000 lb static thrust solid-fuel
> booster that burns for 12 sec.
> Williams Research F107-WR-400 600 lb. static thrust
> turbofan engine
Yes, good site. We also find the quote "After the 12 second
rocket burn, the onboard jet engine starts, the wings protrude, and the
missile flies as a plane."
So, after the launch phase, (the rocket burn) the missile has wings
extended and flies as a plane. IOWs, it is powered by the small jet.
> When we go to http://www.am.wpafb.af.mil/museum/engines/eng58.htm
> we find the F-107-WR-10 turbofan engine. Nothing is said there
> about any "non-afterburning" feature.
Compare that description with this one Ian, also from that site:
SPECIFICATIONS
Model: J58
Compressor: 9-stage, axial flow, single spool
Turbine: two-stage axial flow
Thrust: 32,500 lbs. with afterburner
Weight: approx. 6,000 lbs.
Max. operating altitude: above 80,000 ft.
You see the mention of the afterburner Ian? You'll notice that little
fact is absent from the F-107 description. The F-107 is non-
afterburning. It does not have an afterburner. Only afterburning engines
have flames shooting out the rear. That's unless you count the time I
added a little too much fuel at low RPM on a J-33 in a test cell at
Willard Airport during start-up!
>
> It's hard to imagine that a turbofan engine that yields
> 600 lbs of propulsive thrust-force emits zero luminous
> radiation even IF it's called "non-afterburning." I'd
> like for you to verify your claim that (1) the cruise
> uses a "non-afterburning" engine, and (2) that such an
> engine emits zero luminous radiation. Until you do so,
> your input can only be quantified as noise and bluff.
I believe you already proved my point about the afterburner as noted
above, thanks. As far as the amount of "luminous radiation," don't be
silly. Go to any airport and at night and watch the 747's, with 45-60
thousand pound thrust engines take off. If you get at just the right
angle, from behind, you can see the glow of some hot turbine section
parts. A 600lb thrust jet is a tiny jet. No way would it leave a streak
of light in the dusk sky as viewed from the angle in the photo.
Remember, that's what we're talking about here. A visible trail of light
you claim is evident in the photo. Suddenly, you want me to prove zero
luminescence. Why zero? I just have to prove there would be no trail of
noticeable exhaust gasses from the small jet. By proving that it does
not have an afterburner, and by observing first hand other jet engines
both on aircraft and in educational environments, it's obvious to me
that you are the one who needs to gain some credibility.
P.S. My news reader crashed when I was reading your post. That's why
this reply it's not threaded correctly. Unfortunately, my knowledge of
Usenet is not as good as my knowledge of jets.
--
Ron Katona ro...@cris.com
Nicholas Manousos
"It was all very queer..., but queerer things were yet to come"
Night and the City,1950
Terminator wrote:
>
> Nicholas Manousos wrote:
> >The other day a piece of the Space Shuttle Challenger washed op on a
> > Florida shore. As I recall at the time the Challenger had its mishap
> > NASA did not comb the ocean, but instead allowed it to remain at sea.
>
> An interesting question to ponder regarding this episode is exactly
> HOW roughly 0.75-1.5 tons of wreckage travelled 20 miles AGAINST the
> gulf stream and hauled itself up onto the beach in the absence of major
> weather disturbance in the days preceding the finding.
>
> I find such an occurence happening of its own accord exceptionally unlikely.
> Decide for yourself!
>
> On a sidenote:
> >> HedoBill wrote:
> >> > Kallstrom and his family WILL BURN IN HELL!! He knew from day 2 what
> >> > really happened!!!!!
>
> Frankly, he wouldn't be worth the heating bill.
> It is best not to dignify his ilk with a reaction;
> merely recognize him for what he really is:
> clueless, paltry, and overweight
>
> >> > This is the biggest Government coverup in history!!!!!!!!
>
> Actually not, but it is certainly one of the most brazen; its intent
> to draw and dissipate the attention of the disaffected into their
> favorite 'ism' or cater to those who get off on it.
>
> This reminds me of the characterizations portrayed in Kubrick's movie
> 'Dr Strangelove' which are as poignant and dead-on today as they were
> in back in the late 60's when it was first released. It is not so much a
> testament to the brilliance (or insanity) of Kubrick (though that may be
> debated) as it is an indictment on the kit, kin and ilk who still to this
> day perpetuate the myth that it is 'cool' to be a spook in order to
> commit crimes against people who can't and won't fight back.
Gord Beaman
igod...@erols.com (Ian Goddard) wrote:
>IAN: Your also either ignorant or a lier, or both.
Well Ian, assuming that I've deciphered the above line into English
correctly, I must comment that it's (for you) a very snappy
intelligent remark.
bwe
igod...@erols.com (Ian Goddard) writes:
>KABOT CRUISE-LIGHT EXPLAINED
> So here's the answer:
> the particles of moisture of which this low-
> lying summer evening haze is composed are re-
> flecting the light from within the engine, in
> the same way a mirror, or thousands of small
> mirrors, would reflect the light from the in-
> side the engine to observes not aligned per-
> fectly with the missile's rear.
Such a convenient explanation, Ian. Your proof?
> Such atmospheric particulate reflection would
> explain why the shape of the light is not the
> shape of an afterburn,
What afterburn?
>which would be conical, but is instead spherical.
You do have all the evidence for this, do you not?
>The cruise-light mystery solved.
In your imagination only.
Ian Goddard
KABOT CRUISE-LIGHT EXPLAINED
Ron Katona <ro...@cris.com> wrote:
Note this first key sentance:
> If you get at just the right
> angle, from behind, you can see the glow of some hot turbine section
> parts. A 600lb thrust jet is a tiny jet. No way would it leave a streak
> of light in the dusk sky as viewed from the angle in the photo.
> Remember, that's what we're talking about here. A visible
> trail of light you claim is evident in the photo.
IAN: There is no "trail" of light in the photo.
Could we describe the sun as a "trail"? No. There-
fore, we cannot describe the slightly oval S P H E R E
of light at the end of what most clearly is a cruise
missile a "trail of light" as you allege that I have
called it, but I do not believe I've ever called it.
> Suddenly, you want me to prove zero
> luminescence. Why zero? I just have to prove there would
> be no trail of noticeable exhaust gasses from the small jet.
IAN: So we agree: the cruise leaves no "trail
of light." As you state, one could see a glow
of light in a nonafterburning turbofan at the
right angle. In pilot Sven Faret's report he
notes the presence of a low-lying haze on that
hot humid July eve. What is more, on a summer
evening you can observe a fairly heavy haze at
sunset. During the last summer I'd play frisbee
into the evening and at about exactly the time
in the photo, a very visible humid/haze would
build up, sometimes becoming very comfortable
and always getting the frisbee so wet, I'd
often bring a towel with me to dry it off
from time to time. An evening "dew."
So here's the answer:
the particles of moisture of which this low-
lying summer evening haze is composed are re-
flecting the light from within the engine, in
the same way a mirror, or thousands of small
mirrors, would reflect the light from the in-
side the engine to observes not aligned per-
fectly with the missile's rear.
Such atmospheric particulate reflection would
explain why the shape of the light is not the
shape of an afterburn, which would be conical,
but is instead spherical. The cruise-light
mystery solved.
Ian Goddard
T R Y T H O U G H A S T H E Y M I G H T
IT'S STILL A CRUISE MISSILE IN FLIGHT
Though the many military personnel and others here
might like to think otherwise, no amount of personal
cheap shots or smears of Ian Goddard can make the
Kabot photo object other than what it most clearly
is: a Tomahawk cruise missile. See for yourself:
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm
Even after one person called me the "village idiot,"
while my feeling were hurt, I observed that the Kabot-
photo object remained unchanged. See for yourself:
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm
When one person accused me of spewing drivel and then
hurled a string of curse words at me for my Kabot photo
analysis, I was so shocked and taken aback that I rush-
ed to the web site to see, but alas, the cruise missile
was still there, as obvious as ever. I know it's hard
to believe, but see for yourself:
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm
Even after another ill-mannered aggressor accused me
of hallucinating the Kabot object, I observed that
other people still saw it and still agreed that it
looked like a cruise missile. See for yourself:
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm
Odd though as it may be, even threats of violence have
not altered the content of the Kabot image. For example,
after someone threatened to beat me up if I didn't stop
talking about the Kabot missile and the missile theory,
while I was upset, the Kabot photo remained unshaken
-- as much a cruise missile as ever. I know it's
confounding, but see for yourself:
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm
Perhaps one day the opposition will discover that magic
insult or that super-powered cheap shot or threat of vio-
lence that will make the Kabot photo object not appear to
be what it most clearly is: a Tomahawk cruise missile. But
until that day, the Kabot photo object will continue to
look like the Tomahawk cruise missile that it IS. But
don't take my word for it, see for yourself:
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm
PJH
Ian Goddard <igod...@erols.com> wrote in article
<59i7c4$p...@boursy.news.erols.com>...
> T R Y T H O U G H A S T H E Y M I G H T
>
> IT'S STILL A CRUISE MISSILE IN FLIGHT
If it is a cruise missile in flight, then the next question would be
where did it come from? Can you buy one of these mail order or what? What
kind of platform and guidance systems would I need? Can your photo
analysis determine roughly where the missile was coming from? I suppose
I'd have to live in an isolated area, or own a small fishing boat.
Wouldn't want to bother the neighbors while doing launch testing eh? Maybe
it's a Russian missile? I hear you can go over there now and buy anything,
or even barter a million kraft dinners for one SU-27! What kind of budget
would I need to finance such an undertaking? TWA 800 was obviously not the
intended target, so what was the target of this cruise missile?? How long
can a cruise missile stay in the air? Can they think for themselves?? Maybe
this was just a berserk rogue cruise missle with an attitude eh?? Maybe one
of the tomahawks fired at Iraq got lost? Apparently the FBI say this was a
Havana cigar thrown in the air, and not a missile?? Are there any Havana
cigars that conform to your proportional ratios?? Would the glow from a
cigar fit your analysis, taking in to consideration the evening dew?? Has
anyone been arrested for smoking the Havana cigar?? Maybe the FBI has
agreed not to press charges, in return for being allowed to keep the
negatives??
Pete
kevin Stall
Ian Goddard wrote:
>
> T R Y T H O U G H A S T H E Y M I G H T
>
> IT'S STILL A CRUISE MISSILE IN FLIGHT
>
> might like to think otherwise, no amount of personal
> cheap shots or smears of Ian Goddard can make the
> Kabot photo object other than what it most clearly
> is: a Tomahawk cruise missile. See for yourself:
>
How about answering one question for me if you continue to insist that
it is a Tomahawk, how far away is it from the photographer? 1/4 mile?
1/2 mile? And a Tomahawk is what 12-18 feet long and maybe a foot or
foot and a half in diameter? Why don't the guest at the party react to
the noise? From the size of the object in the picture and the amount of
flame showing, it has to be close enough to hear.
It just doesn't add up!
Kevin
Ian Goddard
igod...@erols.com (Ian Goddard) wrote:
> So here's the [cruise missile engine light] answer:
> the particles of moisture of which this low-
> lying summer evening haze is composed are re-
> flecting the light from within the engine, in
> the same way a mirror, or thousands of small
> mirrors, would reflect the light from the in-
> side the engine to observes not aligned per-
> fectly with the missile's rear.
> Such atmospheric particulate reflection would
> explain why the shape of the light is not the
> shape of an afterburn, which would be conical,
> but is instead spherical. The cruise-light
> mystery solved.
IAN: Further corroborating the evening mist/haze
reflection scenario described above, I just spoke
with missile witness Tom Dougherty, who was on
Fire Island at the time of the TWA 800 missile
hit. Apart from his detailed account of the mis-
sile shot, he told me that there was a haze
hanging low over the ocean front.
Therefore, not only is the reflective theory
consistent with the photographic evidence, but
also with a witness account. So people can sling
all the juvenile insults they want, while
they may have won the smear-job battle,
they've lost the war over the facts.
See the cruise that was the likely intended
target for the missile that hit TWA 800:
bwe
igod...@erols.com (Ian Goddard) writes:
>igod...@erols.com (Ian Goddard) wrote:
>> So here's the [cruise missile engine light] answer:
>> the particles of moisture of which this low-
>> lying summer evening haze is composed are re-
>> flecting the light from within the engine, in
>> the same way a mirror, or thousands of small
>> mirrors, would reflect the light from the in-
>> side the engine to observes not aligned per-
>> fectly with the missile's rear.
We are waiting for evidence, not more assertions.
>> Such atmospheric particulate reflection would
>> explain why the shape of the light is not the
>> shape of an afterburn, which would be conical,
>> but is instead spherical. The cruise-light
>> mystery solved.
You've provided nothing to make such a claim.
>IAN: Further corroborating the evening mist/haze
>reflection scenario described above, I just spoke
>with missile witness Tom Dougherty, who was on
>Fire Island at the time of the TWA 800 missile
>hit. Apart from his detailed account of the mis-
>sile shot, he told me that there was a haze
>hanging low over the ocean front.
That's an observation, not evidence.
>Therefore, not only is the reflective theory
>consistent with the photographic evidence, but
>also with a witness account.
Now you call it for what it is, a theory.
>So people can sling
>all the juvenile insults they want, while
>they may have won the smear-job battle,
>they've lost the war over the facts.
Gee, first we have evidence, than just a theory, now it's
a fact. Perhaps it's time to pay attention to your
confusion.
> See the cruise that was the likely intended
> target for the missile that hit TWA 800:
> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm
>************************************************************************
> IAN GODDARD <igod...@erols.com> Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
Question Goddard
Les Aker
Ian Goddard wrote:
>
> Therefore, not only is the reflective theory
> consistent with the photographic evidence, but
> all the juvenile insults they want, while
> they may have won the smear-job battle,
> they've lost the war over the facts.
>
The only thing not consistent is that a Tomahawk
cruise missile uses a turbofan engine system, which
does not have any emission in the visible light spectrum.
Therefore, the white spot near the end of the blurry
stick shape could not be the exhaust from a cruise
missile regardless of the moisture in the air of the
viewpoint of the observer.
--
Les Aker
la...@ubmail.ubalt.edu
http://ubmail.ubalt.edu/~laker/
Greg Goss
gbe...@pei.sympatico.ca (Gord Beaman) wrote:
>igod...@erols.com (Ian Goddard) wrote:
>
><snip>
>> that streaked up to intercept TWA 800, was taken
>> by the FBI, as was Mrs. Kabot's photo of the cruise.
><snip>
>
>Here you indicate the Kabot photo is of a 'cruise'...
>
>> photographed is a standard course of the cruise. If there
>> was anti-cruise missile activity in W-105, and if that
>> was a cruise flying from W-105, then that cruise is
>> flying at proper level of attack. It fits the bill.
>
>And again above...
>
><snip>
>
>> IAN: TWA 800 cannot be in the picture, the camera is
>> facing the wrong direction. The FBI got that right anyway.
>> I've proposed that the missile in the photo is a drone.
>
>> Many good questions raised by Harry Sweeney.
>
>And now above you suggest (oh sorry, proposed) that the 'thing' in the
>photo is a drone...
It is clear to anyone reading his message what his hypothesis is.
1) A cruise missile, deliberately launched as a target. An aircraft,
even a cruise missile, being used as a target is often referred to as
a "drone". He is consistent in this usage.
2) A high-speed missile, perhaps an standard 4A, perhaps a
non-announced type is launched to attempt to prove that you *CAN*
shoot down a cruise missile.
3) The cruise missile, and some indications of the high-speed missile
are both visible in the Kabot photo. He is a bit blurry
distinguishing between the "high speed missile" and the cruise
missile.
4) The high speed anti-cruise-missile missile locked onto the wrong
target and took out an object at 14,000 feet instead of 1000. I
forget whether Gord is the guy who claims that the kill mechanism was
an unfolding continuous-rod that cut the nose off the aircraft.
Now, you and I can both disagree with his hypothesis. But he does
state it clearly enough that it can be discussed. The important
points to make are that no anti-cruise weapon would activate at two
and a half miles up. The trigger would be likely to reject such
targeting as outside its design paramters. Nobody drives cruises that
high.
Also if the cruise (drone, target) missile was over the Kabots, and
the high-speed missile (standard?) was approaching it when TWA800 got
in the way, then the traces of the intercept missile he thinks he sees
would have to be more than ten miles away. I don't know if the
direction of the Kabot photo was ever determines.
It is easier and more effective to shoot down arguments. Ridicule
doesn't convince either him nor the teeming millions of spectators.
----------------------------------
Please, no mail from AT&T, Earthlink, or Powernet accounts.
Greg Goss
fRon Katona <ro...@cris.com> wrote:
>You see the mention of the afterburner Ian? You'll notice that little
>fact is absent from the F-107 description. The F-107 is non-
>afterburning. It does not have an afterburner. Only afterburning engines
>have flames shooting out the rear. That's unless you count the time I
>added a little too much fuel at low RPM on a J-33 in a test cell at
>Willard Airport during start-up!
There's a guy who makes the rounds of the various air shows and drag
race circuits. He has a large jet engine (DC-10 comes to mind)
mounted on his Peterbilt. Part of his show involves him playing with
the fuel mixtures while he's "warming up the engine". I think that
the crowd is supposed to think that the forty-foot flame followed by a
boom and a ball of white smoke are something unplanned. Then he gets
down to business and runs the race with no flame showing at all. If I
recall the brochures about it, I think that they claimed that he pulls
over 5 G of acceleration in his land vehicle.
But yes, I have seen flames come out of a non-broken jet engine.
PJH
> igod...@erols.com (Ian Goddard) wrote:
Therefore, not only is the reflective theory
consistent with the photographic evidence, but
also with a witness account. So people can sling
all the juvenile insults they want, while
they may have won the smear-job battle,
they've lost the war over the facts.
Sorry, I was rather confused with my juvenile insults, but
after I read your articles below, must say I'm convinced!! I wasn't aware
you were talking about two different missiles! Someone states that your
cruise missile isn't a cruise missile, because what appears to be a missile
is bent?
It's this other missile I'm still confused about (fact 17)
(Fact 18)What boat?? It's pretty hard to hide a boat?!
I saw this FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom being
interviewed on PBS, at that time I took his word that all you missile
freaks were a bunch of loonies, now I'm not so sure!?? Has anyone seen the
Navy in Long Island Sound looking for a cruise missile? Could it still be
there??
Finding that cruise missile would clinch it for me!
K A B O T P H O T O A N A L Y S I S
The following graphic displays a series of images
that define the trajectory of the "Kabot cruise
missile," assuming that it follows a straight course,
which, due to the operational nature of cruise mis-
siles, is far from certain. Nevertheless, this gives
us a rough idea of the most probable trajectory.
The first image (1) shows the cruise missile I modeled
at the angle appearing in the Kabot photo. Mrs. Kabot
stood facing North slightly to the East. In images (1)
through (5) the camera angle, while being constantly
aligned along the same NE axis, moves steadily upwards
over the missile. A map of the area oriented relative
to Mrs. Kabot's position is placed below the missile
so that when we look down from above we can see its
probable trajectory relative to the surrounding area.
This trajectory would have the "Kabot cruise missile"
heading straight out of the military warning zone
W-105, which, according to Aerospace Daily (8/28/96),
was activated at the time of the blast. The Airman's
Information Manual (Section 3:43) states that such
activation can denote the firing of guided missiles.
A not unlikely scenario is that the cruise missile, in-
tended for missile tests far off-shore, was off course
-- as happened a few times during the Gulf War. In an
effort to prevent it from crashing and killing people
on land, the Navy, in a state of panic, attempted un-
wisely to intercept the wayward missile with another
missile as it flew out of the areas reserved for tests.
The second intercept missile missed the cruise but hit
TWA 800. Unintercepted, the cruise missile continued
onward flying over Southampton where Mrs. Kabot caught
a veiw of it with her camera. The cruise then, most
likely, crashed harmlessly into Long Island Sound.
The accident may have been covered-up to prevent public
turmoil so close to a presidential election, or simply
to prevent a public outcry against the Navy that might
compromise funding of, or impose costly restrictions on,
anticruise-missile defense research currently underway.
T W A 8 0 0 C R A S H :
J U S T T H E F A C T S
By Ian Williams Goddard
Contents:
I. MILITARY CULPABILITY
II. WITNESS REPORTS
III. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
I. MILITARY CULPABILITY
FACT 1: July 17th breaking news reports, rarely to
resurface, stated that naval maneuvers were being
conducted off-shore near the explosion of TWA flight
800, which killed 230 people around 8:48 PM, EDT.
FACT 2: Confirming early reports, TWA 800 exploded
near the naval warning zones W-105 and W-107, both
of which were activated for military maneuvers on
the night of the explosion. The professional avia-
tion publication Aerospace Daily (08/28/96) reports:
[ Area W-105 ] is designed to keep
aircraft departing New York safely
north of any military activity...
FAA sources and the Navy acknowledged
yesterday...that the area known as
Whiskey 105, or W-105, was activated
at the time of the TWA accident...
The New American (10/14/96) reports that the FAA's
"Warning and Restricted Areas Information Log" shows
that nearby W-107 was also activated at the same time.
FACT 3: The Airman's Information Manual (Section 3:43)
defines a warning zone as follows:
[Warning zones] denote the existence
of unusual, often invisible, hazards
to aircraft, such as artillery firing,
aerial gunnery, or guided missiles.
FACT 4: Radar detected an object merging into TWA
flight 800 before the explosion. As the Associated
Press (07/19/96) reported:
Radar detected a blip merging with
the jet shortly before the explo-
sion, something that could indi-
cate a missile hit.
However, Pentagon officials, asking the AP not to re-
veal their names, condemned the blip as "spurious."
Radar and satellite-image evidence remains concealed.
FACT 5: Satellite images also proved that a soph-
isticated guided missile tracked and hit TWA 800.
As the Times of London (07/22/96) reported:
An American spy satellite position-
ed over the Brookhaven National Lab-
oratory on Long Island is said to
have yielded important information
about the crash. A law enforcement
official told the New York Post
that the satellite pictures show
an object racing up to the TWA jet,
passing it, then changing course
and smashing into it.
The existence of such images was also confirmed in-
dependently by Newsday, which reported (09/01/96)
that the images show "something rising, tracking to-
ward the plane, circling to the front of the plane
and then disappearing in the plane's underbelly."
It's hard to imagine what more proof of a missile
hit, and by default of a cover-up, would be needed.
Unfortunately the FBI keeps all the radar and sat-
ellite images hidden. They also rounded up all
the negatives of key photographs taken that night.
FACT 6: From a boat, Heidi Krieger photographed the
missile seen by dozens of witnesses as it streaked
toward TWA 800. It appears as a thin "white line"
rising upwards. The FBI swooped in to take the nega-
tives and never contacted her again. She later told
Newsday (09/01/96), "I think it is a missile only be-
cause I have this photograph; otherwise I would be-
lieve whatever is on television."
FACT 7: A few miles to the north, and within a few
minutes, of the TWA 800 crash, Linda Kabot took a
photograph of what appears to be a Tomahawk cruise
missile flying low over Southampton only a few yards
from the ocean. It is possible that such as cruise
missile may have been the intended drone, or test
target, for the missile that many saw hit TWA 800.
In fact, The Independent (07/24/96) of East Hampton
reported that witnesses saw a "smaller plane" fly-
ing near TWA 800 around the time of the crash.
The image to the left is the object Ms. Kabot photo-
graphed. The object to the right is an exact scaled
3D model of a Tomahawk cruise missile I made, placed
at an identicle point of view. It's quite obvious.
Missile defense against incoming ballistic and cruise
missiles is the latest "arms race." If there were mis-
sile test firings in the area reserved for military op-
erations off the NY coast, it would likely be part of
the anticruise-missile missile tests. If so, and if
the intended cruise drone was missed but TWA 800 hit,
then a stray cruise missile should be observed flying
out of that zone. Such a cruise missile was observed.
For further analysis of the Kabot photo.
FACT 8: Only hours after the crash, investigative
sources stated that "The leading theory is that the
airliner was destroyed by a...anti-aircraft missile"
(Reuters, 07/18/96). Yet White House spokesman Mike
McCurry attacked those in-the-know, saying, "There's
no American official with half a brain that ought
to be speculating on anything of that nature."
FACT 9: Some residents were not surprised by the
massive explosion of TWA 800 because military oper-
ations in the area are not unusual. As the East
Hampton, New York paper The Independent (07/24/96)
learned from a South Beach resident, John Bauman,
"people continued fishing" after the blast think-
ing it was probably "the Westhampton Air Force
Base doing some kind of testing offshore."
FACT 10: The Jerusalem Post (07/21/96) says French
Defense Ministry agents believe that flight 800 was
shot-down by a Navy missile. While many victims were
from France, French investigators have been, in vio-
lation of routine international protocol, prohibited
from assisting the FBI-NAVY-NTSB secret investigation.
FACT 11: The St. Louis Post Dispatch (11/09/96) inter-
viewed TWA pilots who "said members of the crash invest-
igation committee and sources in the Pentagon had told
them that wreckage supported the Navy missile theory."
Consistent with an AP report (09/23/96), one TWA pilot
of 20 years said investigators found a hole going in
the plane believed to be caused by a Navy missile.
One pilot told the St. Louis Post Dsipatch:
"At least nine out of 10 pilots will
tell you they believe this was a
missile. We know of military prac-
tices where they will lock (missile
systems) onto commercial aircraft
for testing, but then do not deto-
nate the missile."
The pilots told the Post that the evidence indicates
that "people who had information concerning the explos-
ion, including those who reported seeing a missile,
had been pressured to remain silent." A pilot said:
"[Investigators] know what a missile
looks like. They're trained to recog-
nize them. How come they talked once
and haven't said anything since?"
The Workers World News Service (09/19/96) reported
that many TWA and airport workers blame the Navy.
FACT 12: Former United Airlines pilot and crash invest-
igator Richard Russell learned via inside connections
that TWA 800 was hit by a Navy missile in the course
of test firings. His report was widely condemned and
anyone who even considers it, such as former reporter
Pierre Salinger, has been viciously smeared and labl-
ed as mentally imbalanced, even as key information
in his report is consistent with known facts and with
events reported by dozens of witnesses. The only case
against the report is: the Navy denies the charges.
FACT 13: Exactly as Captain Russell's report stated,
a P-3 Orion near TWA 800 and a guided-missile ship
were working together. The Discovery Channel's pro-
gram on the TWA 800 investigation (11/17/96) said:
The Navy had a P-3 and a guided
missile carrier in the area on
some kind of exercise.
It's hard to imagine how else a guided-missile ship
would be relating to a far point in the sky--the P-3
near TWA 800--apart from some exercise involving the
firing of missiles at or near that point, which is
exactly what Captain Russell reported (08/22/96).
FACT 14: WCBS-TV of New York reported (09/05/96) that
information leaked from the top-secret crash invest-
igation indicates that TWA 800 was shot-down by a
Navy missile. Top officials condemned the idea as
totally absurd and a sign of mental imbalance.
FACT 15: When asked if the area TWA 800 exploded is
used as a missile testing area, at a news conference
(11/08/96), Navy Admiral Edward Kristensen said the
area is "not typicality used for missile training."
While also saying he is not aware of tests ever oc-
curing in the area, he did not deny that they do.
FACT 16: While the region was activated for maneuvers,
a Navy spokesmen claimed Navy ships were too far away
to have hit TWA 800 with a missile, but then in his
next breath he makes a claim proven to be false re-
garding naval weapons capabilities in the area. The
Associated Press (11/08/96) reported this:
Lt. Cmdr. Rob Newell, a Navy spokes-
man...said...an Aegis-type missile
cruiser, was 185 miles to the south...
[and that] the only aircraft in the
area was a P-3 Orion anti-submarma-
rine plane, which he said does not
carry missiles. But the military
reference, Janes All The World's
Aircraft, states the P-3 is cap-
able of carrying missiles.
While the P-3 is not a likely suspect, it would
seem that the Navy is being less than forthright
when a full accounting of missile capabilities
in the area is of the utmost necessity.
FACT 17: The Navy claims it's guided missile cruiser,
at 185 miles south, was too far for a missile strike.
That is false: the Standard Missile 2 Block IVA is
capable of covering this distance. Designed to kill
targets in orbit, it has a vertical range well over
320 miles! The SM-2(IVA) is a state-of-the-art SAM
compatible with standard launch systems. It is a
self-directed radar-guided missile that locks on to
the center of mass of its target. It fits the pro-
file of the TWA 800 killer in every category:
a) Naval assets present
b) trajectory witnessed
c) physical crash damage (also see below)
While the SM-2(IVA) is not in service, it has been
test fired off the N.Carolina & VA coast and likely
also in the activated off-shore testing zones where
dozens of witnesses saw a "skyrocket" hit TWA 800.
II. WITNESS REPORTS
FACT 18: Witnesses saw a missile-like object shoot
up from the ocean, apparently from a boat, initi-
ating the TWA explosion. According to eyewitness
Lou Desyron (ABC World News Sunday, 07/21/96):
We saw what appeared to be a flare
going straight up. As a matter of
fact, we thought it was from a boat.
It was a bright reddish-orange color.
...once it went into flames, I knew
that wasn't a flare.
Another witness said (N.Y. Daily News, 11/09/96):
It looked like a big skyrocket go-
ing up, and it kept going up and
up, and the next thing I knew
there was an orange ball of fire.
FACT 19: The St. Louis Post Dispatch (07/18/96) re-
ported that, while on his boat, "Victor Fehner won-
dered who was shooting flares in the sky...THEN he
saw the flash overhead and watched a fireball that
grew larger and larger..." (emphasis added).
FACT 20: Sven Faret, piloting a private plane with
passenger Ken Wendell, saw a "pin flash of light"
near the shore below TWA 800 seconds before it ex-
ploded. Sven told me that the flash looked "like a
rocket launch at a fireworks display." Ken's first
impression was that "the National Guard...shot down
one of their own planes." Click here for more.
FACT 21: Over 100 eyewitness reported seeing this
rocket streaking toward TWA 800 just before it ex-
ploded. As The Washington Times (07/24/96) states:
Several witnesses...saw a bright,
flare-like object streaking toward
the jumbo jet seconds before it
blew up. ABC News said yesterday
that the investigators had more
then 100 eyewitness accounts sup-
porting the [ missile ] theory.
FACT 22: Witnesses noted the existence of a con-
trail indicative of a solid-fuel missile. Newsday
(09/01/96) reported that Roland Penney along with
many family members witnessed a "pencil-thin white
trail rising up...that hit that plane."
FACT 23: Missile witnesses were highly credible and
gave uniform accounts. The New York Post (09/22/96):
Law-enforcement sources said the
hardest evidence gathered so far
overwhelmingly suggests a surface
-to-air missile...
The FBI interviewed 154 "credible"
witnesses -- including scientists,
schoolteachers, Army personnel and
business executives -- who described
seeing a missile heading through the
sky just before TWA 800 exploded.
"Some of these people are extremely,
extremely credible," a top federal
official said.
FBI technicians mapped the various
paths -- points in the sky where the
witnesses said they saw the rising
"flare-like" object -- and determined
that the "triangulated" convergence
point was virtually where the jumbo
jet initially exploded.
FACT 24: The witnesses said the "streak of light"
hit the plane. The New York Times (07/19/96):
[ Witnesses reported ] a "streak
of light" hitting the plane just
before it blew up.
The St Louis Post Dispatch (07/19/96) states:
The officials say the strongest
indications suggesting this pos-
sibility are witness reports of
a "streak of light" hitting the
plane just before it exploded.
Roland Penney (Newsday, 09/01/96) said that the
"thin white line... hit that plane."
FACT 25: Two National Guard pilots in the area also
saw the streak. CNN News Interactive (11/08/96):
...the 106th Rescue Wing based at
Gabfbreski Air National Guard Sta-
tion at Westhampton, New York, said:
"The two helicopter pilots...Major
Frederick Meyer, the pilot, and Cap-
tain Cristian Baur, the co-pilot,
both saw a streak of light, moving
from east to west prior to the ini-
tial explosion."
At first Major Meyer said it was a missile, but
then he changed his story saying it looked more
like a shooting star (Times of London, 07/22/96).
FACT 26: Not unlike a guided heat-seeking missile,
witnesses reported that the missile curved across
space prior to the hit, leaving a trail of smoke
along its path. The New York Times (07/19/96):
Paul Angelides, who lives in West
Hampton Beach...saw what he describ-
ed as a "red meteor with a smoke
tail" that followed the course like
the outline of "a parabola" [curve].
[ Major ] Meyer...told reporters
that he saw an arch of light mov-
ing moving toward the plane.
He said, "Almost immediately there-
after I saw in rapid succession a
small explosion and then a larger
explosion."
The fact that some witnesses reported seeing the
missile fly straight up and some saw it curve, is
is a logical result of different points of view.
It's impossible to fathom why it is that the missile
theory is said publicly by the FBI to be on an equal
footing with the bomb and mechanical-failure theories,
both of which, unlike the missile theory, are said to
have "no supporting evidence." How is the witness of
over 100 people and radar equal to no evidence ??!!
III. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
FACT 27: Investigators found multiple "fist-sized
holes" above the center fuel tank (Discovery Channel,
11/17/96). The SM-2(IVA) missile, currently undergo-
ing off-shore testing, is a radar-guided missile that
locks onto the center of mass of its target. It em-
ploys a fragmentation warhead designed to rip apart
its target with a barrage of fragments that would
leave multiple "fist-sized holes" around the cen-
tral area, which is what investigators discovered.
FACT 28: While investigators claim that there is no
evidence that a missile or bomb exploded inside the
plane, information was leaked to the AP that a prac-
tice guided missile with no warhead that locks onto
the center-of-mass may have passed through the plane
without exploding. Such a missile would leave two big
clues: (a) the missile would strike "the center fuel
tank, touching off the explosion," and it (b) "would
only leave a small hole" (Associated Press, 9/22/96)
where the body of the missile passed through.
FACT 29: (a) "The explosion that brought down TWA
Flight 800 occurred in the center fuel tank area,
the lead investigator [said]." Reuter (08/22/96).
FACT 30: (b) Investigators reconstructing the debris
say there is a hole going into the plane and a hole
going out of the plane. Associated Press (09/23/96):
...a source...said on condition of
anonymity.... ``There's metal bent
in, metal bent out. Metal you can't
tell. I see a hole going in and a
hole going out...''
Consistent with this report, the St. Louis Post Dis-
patch (11/9/96) interviewed TWA pilots who said that
"investigators had found a hole in the center of the
aircraft they believed was caused by a missile."
It's even possible that the missile exploded outside
the plane, thereby requiring no in-out holes:
FACT 31: An aviation disaster expert speaking live
on CNN (07/17/96) shortly after the TWA explosion,
said he believed that it was a missile-hit and that
the eyewitness reports of two explosions, one small
then one large, was consistent with a heat-seeking
missile exploding near the plane's heat-radiating
exhaust. Armed with a "proximity fuse," such a mis-
sile would first explode outside the plane, leading
to the subsequent eruption of the fuel tanks, caus-
ing precisely the sequence of explosions observed.
FACT 32: While the official story is that there was
no significant damage to any of the jet's engines-
exhausts, The New American (10/14/96) quotes a re-
liable private investigator who said:
"I watched the television coverage
when they brought up the fourth en-
gine and half of the engine was gone,
as if it had been hit by a missile,
even as they were announcing that
it was entirely intact."
A federal air crash investigator who
also observed the engine recovery told
The New American that the fourth en-
gine did indeed look as if it could
have been hit by a missile.
MY CONCLUSION, based upon the current knowledge, is
expressed in the statements of reporter Hillel Cohen:
FACT 33: At a press conference (11/08/96), moments
before the FBI's Assistant Director James Kallstrom
ordered him removed from the room, reporter Hillel
Cohen asked, "Why is the Navy not a suspect?" In
response, Kallstrom said, "Remove that man." As
about 10 security guards surrounded him, swiftly
removing him from the room, he could be heard to
say: "We want an independent investigation."
Recommended TWA 800 web site:
http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/CRASH/TWA/twa.html
--
Pete *-)
"I was to weak to defend , so I attacked"
Tony P
Jeez, Louise! A "Cruise missile" couldn't hit a moving jet if it's
life depended on it. A CRUISE MISSILE is a ballistic weapon used to
destroy large, stationary targets. Maybe you could hit a ship, if it
sat still. You knock down AIRPLANES with Surface-to-air anti-aircraft
missiles, air-too-air, etc. Not cruise missiles. Cruise missiles can
carry nukes, for God's sake. But they go really slow (like 4-500 mph)
while anti-aircraft missiles go fast enough to overtake a departing MIG.
How do you catch a 500 mph jet with a 500 mph missile longer than your
living room, whose maneuverability is limited to a few degrees?
"Evasive action" to a cruise missile is moving across the street before
it arrives at the spot it's programmed to hit (i.e before launch).
I hope this fellow menat "TOW missile" or surface-to-air missile or
something (not even sure a TOW missile could hit a fast plane actually
flying, as opposed to just taking off and going slow: aren't they
designed for tanks at relatively short-- a mile or two -- range?)
Anyway, if the whole idea makes sense, the description "cruise missile"
doesn't.
Tony P.
"Do not despair -- not even over the fact that you do not despair." --
Kafka
Michael E. Davias
Tony P wrote:
> Cruise missiles can
> carry nukes, for God's sake. But they go really slow (like 4-500 mph)
>
> doesn't.
I am trying to stay out of this, but has anyone here really looked at
these photos? I stand by my earlier proposal that the vision is only
that of a small plane moving towards Gabriski field. The most prominent
thing about a small general aviation plane is the WING. If one looks
closely at the photos published on the web since August (and ignore the
recently "refined" pics) you will see the wing (no -it doesn't look
"cylindrical", just flat) and you can see the much smaller fuselage
cutting across due to the viewing angle. There is one navigation light
blazing at the camera from one wing tip (downward, not along the axis) ,
and another “glow” at the far end of the wing that is barely
perceivable.
No one at the party took notice because this particular "vision" is
_very_ common from this location - visit it if you must - I did.
Regarding the speed: taken from several hundred feet, a 400 mph object
would surely present no more than a smudge to a small camera with a very
slow shutter speed - it was after sunset for gosh sake - look how bright
the lamp globe is! Are we to expect Mrs. Kabot was using a 1/1000
shutter speed with ASA 16,000 film?
I suggest the "blurring" is more appropriate for a 80 to 100 mph object
- a general aviation airplane.
The readers should do all of us a favor and do a little experiment -
simply look at a general aviation plane at 1 mile as it turns - note
your observation and report back to the group.
In closing I will again state my belief that IAN's presentation of the
"Kabot" photo is a forgery, and yes - surprise - it does look like a
curise ;)
Ian Goddard
At x time someone wrote:
> We do _not_ have evidence of a conspiracy at this time...
IAN: I'd say that (1) hiding (a) the debris, (b) the reconstruction,
(c) the radar and (d) satellite images, (e) the photo negatives, and
(2) the preference throughout the investigation for a bomb on-board
or mechanical failure over a missile even when there was 0 evidence
for a bomb or mechanical problem and 154 consistent uniformly tri-
angulated eyewitness accounts of a missile hit, all constitute
physical evidence of a conspiracy to cover-up the truth.
The FBI made sure that visual information about debris was kept as
much out of public site as possible. According to Newsweek (8/5/96):
FBI men stopped NTSB officials from photpgraphing
the wreckage because "they didn't want our people
taking pictures and sending them out to Snappy
photo" as opposed to a secure FBI lab, says Francis.
Now add in this evidence from The Spokesman-Review (7/21/96),
which describes a boathouse that was used to store evidence
that the Navy crash-recovery team was bringing ashore:
Windows in the boathouse are blocked with cardboard,
and the media is forbidden to take pictures because
investigators don't want evidence photographed.
What did the FBI-NAVY-NTSB crew do to the windows? They covered
them up. What did they do to our eyes by default? They covered
them up. What does the physical evidence prove that the FBI-NAVY-
NTSB was conducting? The physical evidence proves they were con-
ducting a cover-up, a conspiracy to cover-up the truth.
************************************************************************
IAN GODDARD <igod...@erols.com> Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
Les Aker
Ian Goddard wrote:
>
> At x time someone wrote:
>
> > We do _not_ have evidence of a conspiracy at this time...
>
> IAN: I'd say that (1) hiding (a) the debris, (b) the reconstruction,
> (c) the radar and (d) satellite images, (e) the photo negatives, and
> (2) the preference throughout the investigation for a bomb on-board
> or mechanical failure over a missile even when there was 0 evidence
> for a bomb or mechanical problem and 154 consistent uniformly tri-
> angulated eyewitness accounts of a missile hit, all constitute
> physical evidence of a conspiracy to cover-up the truth.
>
1. The rumors of satellite images is just that, a rumor.
2. The rumors of radar tapes is just that, a rumor.
3. The 154 "consistent uniformly triangulated eyewitness"
were not consistent in their statements or uniformly
distributed, triangulated or otherwise, to view the
aircraft disaster.
4. Possible bomb, mechanical, or missile solutions have been
presented by official investigators since the time of
the aircraft disaster. All three continue to the present.
To suggest otherwise is an exercise in wishful thinking by
Mr. Goddard. His attempts to "prove" his opinion via an
absence of data which has never been shown to actually
exist is less than compelling.
Doug Haluza
Les Aker <la...@ubmail.ubalt.edu> wrote in article
<32C1BB...@ubmail.ubalt.edu>...
> To suggest otherwise is an exercise in wishful thinking by
> Mr. Goddard. His attempts to "prove" his opinion via an
> absence of data which has never been shown to actually
> exist is less than compelling.
You mean to say that repeatedly plastering the newsgroup and mailing list
does not constitute proof?!?! Is quantity no substitute for quality?!?!
Does this mean a lie repeated often enough does not become the truth?!?!
bwe
igod...@erols.com (Ian Goddard) writes:
> At x time someone wrote:
> > We do _not_ have evidence of a conspiracy at this time...
>IAN: I'd say that (1) hiding (a) the debris, (b) the reconstruction,
>(c) the radar and (d) satellite images, (e) the photo negatives, and
>(2) the preference throughout the investigation for a bomb on-board
>or mechanical failure over a missile even when there was 0 evidence
>for a bomb or mechanical problem and 154 consistent uniformly tri-
>angulated eyewitness accounts of a missile hit, all constitute
>physical evidence of a conspiracy to cover-up the truth.
Even if all of the above were true, Ian fails to eliminate other
possibilities. You can arrive at other conclusions other than
a conspiracy to cover up the truth.
>The FBI made sure that visual information about debris was kept as
>much out of public site as possible. According to Newsweek (8/5/96):
> FBI men stopped NTSB officials from photpgraphing
> the wreckage because "they didn't want our people
> taking pictures and sending them out to Snappy
> photo" as opposed to a secure FBI lab, says Francis.
How does a media report constitute evidence? Does Ian
have evidence that this might not be standard FBI procedure?
Has Ian checked FBI procedures to even know?
>Now add in this evidence from The Spokesman-Review (7/21/96),
>which describes a boathouse that was used to store evidence
>that the Navy crash-recovery team was bringing ashore:
> Windows in the boathouse are blocked with cardboard,
> and the media is forbidden to take pictures because
> investigators don't want evidence photographed.
This is an observation, not evidence of a conspiracy.
>What did the FBI-NAVY-NTSB crew do to the windows? They covered
>them up. What did they do to our eyes by default? They covered
>them up. What does the physical evidence prove that the FBI-NAVY-
>NTSB was conducting? The physical evidence proves they were con-
>ducting a cover-up, a conspiracy to cover-up the truth.
Sorry, Ian, nothing you have written here proves your case.
Paul Siller
igod...@erols.com (Ian Goddard) wrote:
> At x time someone wrote:
> > We do _not_ have evidence of a conspiracy at this time...
>IAN: I'd say that (1) hiding (a) the debris, (b) the reconstruction,
>(c) the radar and (d) satellite images, (e) the photo negatives, and
>(2) the preference throughout the investigation for a bomb on-board
>or mechanical failure over a missile even when there was 0 evidence
>for a bomb or mechanical problem and 154 consistent uniformly tri-
>angulated eyewitness accounts of a missile hit, all constitute
>physical evidence of a conspiracy to cover-up the truth.
(yawn)
Last month there was only 150 credible witnesses. with nothing stated
about triangulating or the results of that correlation. Boy, these
guys really work fast... With an accuracy (uniform) unheard of in most
other accident investigations... truly remarkable. Infact I would like
these 150 people to live in my community where only last week that was
a multi-vehicle pile-up during a snowstorm. Media, police and
eyewitness reports put the number of vehicles involved at 25, 35 38 or
50 vehicles (five injured -- none fatal).
With that kind of variation in observation I find the thought of 154
"uniform" observations a little much to believe.
Then the radar image that no one has seen and the resulting
interpretations made by people who have only seen radar on televsion.
Because they have seen radar working on televsion they can confirm
that a blip on a radar scope isn't noise and from that same blip, a
track was established...
All these nebulous factoids that are supposed to constitute "physical
evidence" (now there is double speak).
Unless of course some of these conspiracy "facts" are indeed
fabrications of their own. Media mis-reports stuff. Rumours and
heresay are not necessarily true. There are numerous urban legends
circulation but becaue the perpetuate on the USENET doen't make them
any more true. How many of the TWA conspiracy rumours are
substantiated? Not a lot because failure to substantiate seems to be
considered as
If everyone is so skeptical of the official reports, why is it
preferable to leap and grab unsubstantiated reports? Why do certain
theorists cling desperately to reports that viloate some basic laws of
physics? Incorrect information surfaces at every event, especially in
the initial reporting. It is normal to have The skeptic filters these
reports out of the media. There is truth and absence of truth in all
sources of information. I would assume the genuine conspiracy buff
would question all sources of information, that the same standards of
skeptcism would apply to official and non-official reports.
Or is the point of being a conspiracist buff really just to play
make-believe?
Paul
--Unsolicited Commercial Email will be subject to invoice--
Paul Siller sil...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca
Aviator, graphiste and occasional writer of children's stories
http://www.freenet.calgary.ab.ca/~siller/index.html
John M Bates
Just one small point
Tony P <ae...@mail.idt.net> wrote in article
<32BF77...@mail.idt.net>...
> Jeez, Louise! A "Cruise missile" couldn't hit a moving jet if it's
> life depended on it. A CRUISE MISSILE is a ballistic weapon used to
The whole point of a cruise missile is that it is not ballistic!
Broward Horne
bwe wrote:
>
> How does a media report constitute evidence? Does Ian
> have evidence that this might not be standard FBI procedure?
> Has Ian checked FBI procedures to even know?
The track record of the FBI at Ruby Ridge,
Waco, World Trade Center, OK Bombing, and
Filegate speaks for itself.
I'll Goddard's word over the FBI's.
> Sorry, Ian, nothing you have written here proves your case.
Right. I'm going to believe that 1:1000 event
occurred (static electricity) at the exact same
time that another 1:1000 event occurred (a "meteor"),
and somehow the union of those two events, 1 in
million, is somehow more likely than the alternate
explanation - "The FBI is LYING" - of which I've
already got a ton of empirical evidence.
Forget it, pal. I vote missile. I like that
a whole lot better than a string of "unlikely
coincidences", like "radar glitch", "150 people
pop out of the woodwork for attention", "a meteor",
"static electricity", and a "random cruise missile
passing by".
Criminy.
bwe
Broward Horne <bho...@cyberhighway.net> writes:
>bwe wrote:
>>
>> How does a media report constitute evidence? Does Ian
>> have evidence that this might not be standard FBI procedure?
>> Has Ian checked FBI procedures to even know?
> The track record of the FBI at Ruby Ridge,
> Waco, World Trade Center, OK Bombing, and
> Filegate speaks for itself.
> I'll Goddard's word over the FBI's.
I see. So the track record of the FBI proves Ian is correct. Yes,
that's it. How silly of me. I should have realized that 5 examples
of FBI performance out of many thousands of investigations has
firmly established the FBI's "track record." What could be more
statistically obvious?
>> Sorry, Ian, nothing you have written here proves your case.
> Right. I'm going to believe that 1:1000 event
> occurred (static electricity) at the exact same
> time that another 1:1000 event occurred (a "meteor"),
> and somehow the union of those two events, 1 in
> million, is somehow more likely than the alternate
> explanation - "The FBI is LYING" - of which I've
> already got a ton of empirical evidence.
Yes, of course. I love all this "evidence" that's floating around
here.
> Forget it, pal. I vote missile. I like that
> a whole lot better than a string of "unlikely
> coincidences", like "radar glitch", "150 people
> pop out of the woodwork for attention", "a meteor",
> "static electricity", and a "random cruise missile
> passing by".
It is apparent what you "like." I think you could settle this
quite quickly by taking a vote of what the evidence is. That should
solve this explosion quite readily, don't you think?
cp
> > igod...@erols.com (Ian Goddard) wrote:
>
>
> K A B O T P H O T O A N A L Y S I S
>
> The following graphic displays a series of images
> that define the trajectory of the "Kabot cruise
> missile," assuming that it follows a straight course,
> which, due to the operational nature of cruise mis-
> siles, is far from certain. Nevertheless, this gives
> us a rough idea of the most probable trajectory.
>
Tomahawks do not cruise at 13,000 feet....straight line and heads to the
first waypoint before landfall.
>
> This trajectory would have the "Kabot cruise missile"
> heading straight out of the military warning zone
> W-105, which, according to Aerospace Daily (8/28/96),
> was activated at the time of the blast. The Airman's
> Information Manual (Section 3:43) states that such
> activation can denote the firing of guided missiles.
>
Tomahawks are NEVER fired in W-105. The only East Coast operations are
conducted in Florida, Puerto Rico (anti-ship only), and Maine (no longer).
> A not unlikely scenario is that the cruise missile, in-
> tended for missile tests far off-shore, was off course
> -- as happened a few times during the Gulf War.
Very unlikely....
Tomahawk land attack missiles are/were tested exclusively in Florida and Maine.
Anti-ship missiles are no longer tested.
Land attack missiles that make land-fall on the CONUS all carry dual
redunant range safety systems....
In an
> effort to prevent it from crashing and killing people
> on land, the Navy, in a state of panic, attempted un-
> wisely to intercept the wayward missile with another
> missile as it flew out of the areas reserved for tests.
You waist much bandwidth with your hairbrained theories. The Standard
Missile is not a range safety device...
> The second intercept missile missed the cruise but hit
> TWA 800. Unintercepted, the cruise missile continued
> onward flying over Southampton where Mrs. Kabot caught
> a veiw of it with her camera. The cruise then, most
> likely, crashed harmlessly into Long Island Sound.
1500 pound missiles do not crash harmlessly. Even with a small amount of
fuel remaining they still kick up a good fireball when they impact.
>
> The image to the left is the object Ms. Kabot photo-
> graphed. The object to the right is an exact scaled
> 3D model of a Tomahawk cruise missile I made, placed
> at an identicle point of view. It's quite obvious.
>
If you scale it in the photograph, the missile is no more than a mile
behind Ms. Kabot and at a low altitude. Do you know the rate of climb of
a tomahawk?
Slow baby, and for it to climb to 13,000+ feet would take a few minutes.
> Missile defense against incoming ballistic and cruise
> missiles is the latest "arms race."
It's all done at White Sands and the Pacific ranges.
> "At least nine out of 10 pilots will
> tell you they believe this was a
> missile. We know of military prac-
> tices where they will lock (missile
> systems) onto commercial aircraft
> for testing, but then do not deto-
> nate the missile."
>
True, but not Tomahawks...big sky little missile theory pretty much rules
out hitting an aircraft with a Tomahawk. Only the ship tracking systems
and not active missile warheads participate in these drills.
>
> FACT 17: The Navy claims it's guided missile cruiser,
> at 185 miles south, was too far for a missile strike.
> That is false: the Standard Missile 2 Block IVA is
> capable of covering this distance.
IVA hasn't been operationally tested, and it would fall short at that range.
Designed to kill
> targets in orbit, it has a vertical range well over
> 320 miles!
Can't kill anything in orbit, only sub-orbital tactical ballistic
missile....and get the operational range right.
> III. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
>
> FACT 27: Investigators found multiple "fist-sized
> holes" above the center fuel tank (Discovery Channel,
> 11/17/96). The SM-2(IVA) missile, currently undergo-
> ing off-shore testing, is a radar-guided missile that
> locks onto the center of mass of its target. It em-
> ploys a fragmentation warhead designed to rip apart
> its target with a barrage of fragments that would
> leave multiple "fist-sized holes" around the cen-
> tral area, which is what investigators discovered.
Wrong again....IVA is a IR terminally guided hit-to-kill missile. No
shape charge explosives, just kinetic energy.
You're going after the wrong weapon system. It would be easier to hit a
commercial airliner at that altitude with Zuni rockets. A Tomahawk is
just a big old lumbering Torpedo with wings, just flying from waypoint to
waypoint.
Doug Haluza
Ian Goddard <igod...@erols.com> wrote in article
<5a1fh4$2...@boursy.news.erols.com>...
> IAN: It's just amazing how these people respond to posts
> filled with referenced citations linking readers to physical
> facts in the physical world. They simply avoid taking them
> on, or even offering counter facts; instead they just claim
> there are no facts presented, and don't even support that
> claim with the pretense of argumentation. The facts dictate
> that they not only believe but also exercise the theory that
> a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. Pathetic.
I've followed the links and they do not necessarily lead to facts in the
physical world. The long list of purported facts wreak of theory,
conjecture, supposition and exaggeration. What this site really needs is a
good spring cleaning done a little early. Whatever useful information there
may be is buried too deep to be of any use.
Let me pass on a pointer from a training session I once attended. Take out
a blank sheet of paper and write down the Ten Commandments from memory
(members of other religious affiliations can substitute an appropriate
equivalent). Most people can only remember about 5 out of 10. The
implication of this is that a list of items intended to convey a message
should not contain more than about five items. Ian should take this message
to heart and trim his seemingly endless list of "facts" down to five really
solid ones. This would make his case much more compelling.
I hope this argument has sufficient pretense.
Ian Goddard
At 06:15 AM 12/26/96 -0500, Doug Haluza wrote:
>Les Aker <la...@ubmail.ubalt.edu> wrote in article
><32C1BB...@ubmail.ubalt.edu>...
>
>> To suggest otherwise is an exercise in wishful thinking by
>> Mr. Goddard. His attempts to "prove" his opinion via an
>> absence of data which has never been shown to actually
>> exist is less than compelling.
>
> You mean to say that repeatedly plastering the newsgroup and
> mailing list does not constitute proof?!?! Is quantity no substitute
> for quality?!?!
>
> Does this mean a lie repeated often enough does not become the truth?!?!
IAN: It's just amazing how these people respond to posts
filled with referenced citations linking readers to physical
facts in the physical world. They simply avoid taking them
on, or even offering counter facts; instead they just claim
there are no facts presented, and don't even support that
claim with the pretense of argumentation. The facts dictate
that they not only believe but also exercise the theory that
a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. Pathetic.
************************************************************************
Les Aker
Ian Goddard wrote:
>
> IAN: It's just amazing how these people respond to posts
> filled with referenced citations linking readers to physical
> facts in the physical world. They simply avoid taking them
> on, or even offering counter facts; instead they just claim
> there are no facts presented, and don't even support that
> claim with the pretense of argumentation. The facts dictate
> that they not only believe but also exercise the theory that
> a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. Pathetic.
>
Mr. Goddard attempted to remove the core of my previous
response from this discussion. Those items were:
1. The rumors of satellite images is just that, a rumor.
2. The rumors of radar tapes is just that, a rumor.
3. The 154 "consistent uniformly triangulated eyewitness"
were not consistent in their statements or uniformly
distributed, triangulated or otherwise, to view the
aircraft disaster.
4. Possible bomb, mechanical, or missile solutions have been
presented by official investigators since the time of
the aircraft disaster. All three continue to the present.
Simply removing those items does not make them disappear from
the physical world. No amount of enhancement to the photography
can magically turn a blurry dark stick with a white spot on the
end taken at undetermined depth, shutter speed, and resolution
into a cruise missile either.
Having addressed several of the flaws in Mr. Goddard's assertions
on a point by point basis, I find it quite amusing that he has
been reduced to claiming that anyone challenging his ideas is
either pathetic or a liar. That appears to be far easier than
addressing the inconsistencies between the physical, testimonial,
and forensic evidence.
I will continue to address the areas where these assertions
defy the physical laws that exist in the real world as my time
that the need allows. Whether Mr. Goddard can address issues
instead of conceding the debate with personal attacks remains
to be seen.