[GarySpFc]

Not only that, but any missile that could have hit it would have produced an initial burn that would have lit up the entire horizon. On the other hand, fuel leaking from one of the tanks, when ignited by heat from the engines, could have produced the streak of light seen by so many people.

Your theory has long been discounted by independent investigators from reports given by witnesses. Too many people saw the missile rise on the horizon and travel for a long distance.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

Your theory has long been discounted by independent investigators from reports given by witnesses. Too many people saw the missile rise on the horizon and travel for a long distance.

No, I don't think so. They say they saw something, described variously as a "flare," or a rising point of light, rise up and end in a ball of flame. The nearest witness, to the best of my knowledge, was ten miles away. No one could have identified what they saw as a missile. And my original observation still stands: a missile with sufficient range to have taken down the airplane would have lit up the horizon. If the witnesses had seen that kind of event, along with a rising point of light, I might be inclined to think the object was a missile. But that isn't the case.