[ml/nj]

You don't give up easy (sic), do you?

Not when I'm right, I don't.

I don't have access where I am to my TWA files, so I don't know how much information I have on the provenance of the radar tapes that show the movement of the various objects in the area of the crash.

Have you never seen this data? If you have seen it, do you think it has been faked? I'm really not sure what your point is except maybe obfuscation. Do you doubt Reed Irvine's account? That's what your pull quote is. It is not the data itself, but rather Reed quoting Kallstrom. My own experience (including personal conversations, not just reading what he had written) with Reed Irvine was that he was very careful with his assertions.

ML/NJ

[Non-Sequitur]

I don't have access where I am to my TWA files, so I don't know how much information I have on the provenance of the radar tapes that show the movement of the various objects in the area of the crash.

But surely you can answer this, what radar? Civilian, government, military, foreign? You can't possibly mean that air traffic control radar picked up submerging subs, do you?

I'm really not sure what your point is except maybe obfuscation.

I'm here offering the benefit of 24 years commissioned service in the U.S. Navy and my experience with Navy weapon systems and operations in the Atlantic fleet. I'm here because it's fun to point out the enormous holes that exist in all these conspiracy theories and show how easy it is to do by merely asking a few simple questions.

Do you doubt Reed Irvine's account?

No, just his conclusions.

[BARLOCK]

I don't have access where I am to my TWA files, so I don't know how much information I have on the provenance of the radar tapes that show the movement of the various objects in the area of the crash.

You are a mad man. There are so many crazy statements in this thread, I'm having a tough time trying to keep them straight.

1. Ships/Subs on Radar - We're talking ATC radars here, which even in the best of circumstances often have inconsistent low altitude coverage - of airplanes. They're certainly not designed to see ships. In fact, based on the specific application (Secondary Surveillance - interrogating aircraft IFF/SIF) many of these are pulse-doppler radars. They're designed to see the airplanes transponder, and failing that, to get a "skin paint" on an aircraft above a certain radial velocity. Any ship or sub would get filtered out with the rest of the ground clutter.

2. SAMs - A SAM system is extremely complex, and often operates only within the smallest envelope of effectiveness. An SA-7 or SA-14 is going to be a rear-aspect shot only, and of extremely short range and low altitude. They will also either strike the engine or wing near the engine. It's also unlikely an SA-7/14 would cause an immediate catastrophic loss of the aircraft. They have very small warheads. Lastly, it's unlikely that the terrorists/Clintons/aliens would have deployed on SA-2 or SA-6 on the United States coast.