Posted on 11/27/2001 1:52:03 PM PST by sandydipper
"[Richard] GOSS: (On Bell show): It was the typical look of a firework going up.... As it reached its peak, it sort of leveled out, and the strangest part was it took a sharp veer left, and it was horizontal. It moved horizontally that way. It was only a second or two later that I saw a massive explosion in the sky."
"Reconciliation [of Meyer's report] with Eyewitness Goss's report. At any rate that's really all I am here to tell you. I saw a streak of light cross the sky and initially I wasn't certain that it was a missile and I'll tell you why. In my experience in Vietnam when you saw a missile in flight it had an erratic flight path. The guidance system was always correcting.
Another strange thing - I saw something moving from my left-center to my left. I talked to a number of people whom I know in the community who said yea we saw the missile go up from the water - we saw it go up from the horizon and turn West.
Well I was looking to the South West and that meant that they saw something which would have gone from my left across going from my left to my right. And what I saw went from my left to my farther left in a right to left direction. And the two stories didn't jive - they conflicted - and I said well look I know these people - I know they are telling me the truth - we'll just preserve what we know and when we know the whole truth the pieces will fall together.
And I think they are. Because about 7 to 8 months later I met this guy, Richard Goss. Now Richard Goss had been sitting on the deck - on the front porch of a yacht club .. farther to the west of me and he had been looking out on a heading of 159 magnetic and he had seen this (points to a diagram depicting what Goss had seen). 170 magnetic - 159 true.
OK. He had seen this and when he described it to me and we talked about it and we drew it - I realized what had happened. A missile is in an erratic flight path because it is always correcting except if it is in an overshoot correct. That is, if the target is at the extreme limit of the acquisition capabilities of the missile then the missile says to itself "Whoops, the target's over there - I got to make a hard turn to catch that target". So the control surfaces on the missile go full throw and they hit stops and they stay there. And as long as they stay there and they don't chatter and they don't flutter, that missile carves a smooth arc in the sky.
When I saw Richard Goss's depiction of what he had seen I knew why I hadn't seen an erratic flight path - why the arc was smooth and I knew that what I had seen was a missile. I picked it up - you see on the top here where it curves - I picked it up just about where it starts to turn.
And what you are looking at with him is the turn is not that tight but what he looked at was at an aspect that was actually heading to the South away from him so that from his point of view the turn appears tight whereas from my point of view farther to the East it was a smoother curve."
In short, Meyer and Goss met, compared what they had seen and they agreed that they both saw parts of the same sequence of fiery events in the sky.
Note that Goss estimated the elapsed time between the end of the fiery streak and the explosion of the Massive Fireball at only a second or two.
Meyer's meticulous elapsed time estimates included only 3-4 seconds between the end of the fiery streak and the explosion of the Massive Fireball, informally calculated to have been approximately 2000 feet in diameter, that filled the sky between about 5500-7500 feet at appropximately 8:31:47 - thirty-five seconds AFTER the 747 started coming apart at 13,800 feet.
While preparing to post this I see that you appear to have now finally abandoned your earlier allegation that a witness supports your sled towing P-3 U.S. Navy accidental shootdown fantasy.
"My whole 'stick' is based on the double radar returns."
You have an interesting concept of "intertainment".
Why thank you Barf. Here is your simple answer. GCA sites are actually composed of two radars. One tracks in a horizontal beam, the other in the vertical. The control actually has two presentations to look at to determine whether you are on course and glideslope, and he's not watching for altitude so much as monitoring deviation from a specific glideslope. GCA radars are focused on a relatively narrow azimuth, and are fairly high powered. This allows a rapid update rate.
Surveillance radars on the other hand, are typically composed of one large antenna that sweeps 360 degrees. Most ATC surveillance radars only look for range and azimuth and rely on transponders to assess altitude. If you are going to accuse me of lying about this, I suggest you call your local ATC facility and ask them.
And now the bad news...they are not. This link:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:OiySgBp1ql0:twa800.com/pages/radaranalysis.htm+ntsb+13a&hl=en
has a link that lists the tabular data of all the radar data provided to the NTSB. The tabular data link is a zip file, and after you unzip it you can find a file with Boston Center radar data tabulated. Each data point is listed using X/Y coordinates with respect to the Islip NY radar (just like page 42). Each data point also has a time associated with when it was recorded followed by the corrected time of -1.25 seconds. By plotting each point you can build the sequence of when they appeared on the radar. What you will quickly notice is the tracks for the P-3 appear sequentially just as they are depicted on page 42. If one of the contacts was a sled and one was a P-3 seperated by 1 mile than they would plot in a leapfrog pattern. Instead they plot 4 seconds apart. That is not possible, as in a 4 second period the radar beam moves 120 degrees. I'm sure you'll agree that the "double returns" are more than 120 degrees apart. Therefore, since the Boston Center radar data has points that it cannot have seen, and none of the other 7 radars record anything like a double return, I think it is safe to say the anomolies in the Boston Center data represent a data error, and not a sled.
What say you?
A 30 knot surfaced sub launched a KKV equipped, chaff emiting Standard missile at a target towed 1nm behind a P-3.
But there are no subs that can do 30knots on the surface, the Navy has launched a grand total of 2 KKV equipped Standard missiles since 1997, and there is absolutely no evidence of the P-3 towing anything. Basically, you have zero evidence to support your theory. But other than that, I think you might be on to something. I hope you are hungry, because here are some quotes I think you need to eat:
"Our own NTSB is either dishonest or incompetent since their own data shows why it happened"
"If the report writers are the wonderful people that you claim that they are, ask them to not write all of those 'lies' which you disagree with."
"Being blind to the facts is easy for idiots. Just close you eyes and pretend that they go away."
"You pretend to be knowledgeable but telling everyone what it wasn't doesn't take smarts; but telling us what it was does. Show us how smart you really are."
"Why the NTSB did not detail it indicates something to hide"
"It was a stupid lie when looking back on it because the radar evidence shows what really happened. "
"Relative to supplying a URL for the sled, please recognize that I alone discovered the sled in the radar data shown in NTSB Exhibit 13A. If you want an URL take this paragraph out. Some of us are not just brainless conspiracy nuts. I originally believed the government statements but after reviewing the actual data, came to the conclusion that they were either stupid or lying. There is no other way to put it. Their data tells us what happened."
"Please stay up to date on technology before mouthing off."
"The only thing suggested to me is that the sheeple don't have eyes. I took the time to look at the data. Most people likely don't and take the word of the government. I did that too in the beginning but learned that what we were being told was garbage. The data told a different story."
"Our government lied to us. Plain and simple."
"Please explain in terms that engineers might use rather than propaganda users might use."
"The evidence that the TWA800 was shot down is both accurate and cogent. The radar evidence in Exhibit 13E shows what 13A shows in plan, in elevation."
"The NTSB is pretty sneaky."
"Pretending to not see something that you do see is not being fair in a forum unless you have an agenda to dispute the truth."
"Your inability doesn't surprise me, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing against the facts."
No trig required. Here is the data broken down for you:
Data # / X axis / Y axis / Time
1. 22.137 / -7.188 / 1807.75
2. 22.009 / -7.322 / 1811.75
3. 21.265 / -7.943 / 1819.75
4. 21.138 / -8.06 / 1823.75
5. 20.519 / -8.697 / 1831.75
6. 20.393 / -8.831 / 1835.75
I could go on, but you get the picture. 1 and 2 are your first "double return". Note the timing differential. 3 and 4 are the second. Again, note the time. Also note that it takes 12 seconds from 1 to 3. But only 4 between 1 and 2, and 3 and 4. See, no trig required. Just simple math. Now maybe you can explain how a radar sweeping 360 degrees every 12 seconds could identify something as close as your "double returns" with 4 seconds between hits. It ain't going to happen.
By the way, this data comes from that great icon of TWA800 missile conspiracy kooks, the late CMDR Donaldson. It was good enough for him. Apparently, you know better.
What is you evidence there was any chaff involved in any way in the Flight 800 disaster?You initially also alleged that your sled towing P-3 U.S. Navy accidental shootdown allegations are supported by a witness but fell on your face because you couldn't even provide the name of any such witness, much less a supporting witness report.
The "shootdown" tinfoil hatters have been inciting suspicion, fear and hatred of the U. S. government and thousands of other Americans including members of the armed forces for nearly 5 1/2 years but have never been able to present the public with one atom of physical evidence of a "shootdown" during all that time. Neither have they ever been able to find even ONE expert witness report analyst who agrees with their "missile witnesses" allegations - the cornerstone of their "case".
Since 11 September 2001 this country has been at war with enemies who have already killed thousands of Americans and who are also intent on inciting suspicion, fear and hatred of the United States government and our military forces now in harms way. It's readily apparent from the 9/11 events, the Anthrax letter mailings and the reported biological and perhaps even nuclear capabilites of those enemies that ALL Americans are in grave peril.
By what logic are you and the other "shootdown" tinfoil hatters not giving aid and comfort to those enemies?
Tell that to the thousands of American families who have been grieving for their dead since 9/11, the American armed forced now in harms way and their families, the surviving members of the NYPD and FDNY and their families, President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft, etc., etc., etc., and, of course, the crewmembers of the U.S. Navy P-3 you have wildly and recklessly accused - without any evidence - of a criminal "coverup".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.