[Non-Sequitur]

Post a link to your evidence and I'll examine it. In the mean time let me ask you some questions on your conclusions and perhaps you can provide some clarification.

In reply 56 you identify the object behind the P-3 as a target sled. Setting aside for a moment my observations that the Navy doesn't use towed targets and that P-3s wouldn't be the first choice for towing them even if they did, what led you to the conclusion that it was a towed target other than it's proximity to the aircraft? Also, you identify the 30 knot target as a submarine. Were you aware that no submarines in existence can make 30 knots surfaced? That modern submarines by their very design go faster under the water than on the surface? And if they wanted to exit the area why would they do it on the surface anyway?

In reply 65 you make reference to a 'large diameter stealth propeller'. What do you base that on? If a submarine was trying to be stealthy then why is it on the surface anyway? Why would a stealthy sub even want to shoot a missile into the air?

Also in reply 65 you present your theory that the missile was drawn away from the target sled by the greater heat source of the 747. What was causing the heat source in the target sled? What would it use to create an even greater heat source than a P-3 a mile away with those four P&W turbofans a turnin' and a burnin' much less a 747 even farther away? And if the missile can be drawn away from the target sled that easily then isn't if a further indication of how foolish it would be to use such a target in such an exercise?

In reply 82 you offer the theory that the P-3 released a drone in an attempt to deflect the missile. Why would the P-3 have both a target sled AND a drone? Why not use just the drone?

In reply 83 you mention that the missile hit the 747 in the fuselage. If it was drawn away from the target sled by the greater heat source then why didn't it hone in on that source? Why didn't it hit an engine?

In reply 91 you say that the navy was the source of the 'guilty missile'. What kind of missile was the guilty one? Tarter? Terrier? Standard? Phoenix?

In reply 130 you say that a Lear jet was towing a target the day before. What is your source for this claim? Who owned the Lear? What sense does it make to use a jet with engines mounted in the rear to tow a target? Wouldn't the engines tend to interfere with the tow line?

That's just a start. Clear up some of those issues and I'm sure I'll have more questions for you.

[thatstan]

Commander, your very reasoned and well written response to barf's theory certainly impressed and convinced me, and I'm one of Elmer's missileconspiracywackos. I hope some knowledgeable navy type like yourself can tear to shreads equally the tale I was told about the culprit being a mispackaged prototype IR guided SM2 under development test from a destroyer test platform under the 747. Then I could forget the whole matter. The best argument I've heard so far against it is there is no purpose to have a test involving a motorless test item. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if that is true or false. And knowledgeable navy types like yourself have been rather scarce on this coverup.

[barf]

Re 56: Sub on surface for missile test. 30-knots was likely a 'balls out' condition. NTSB showed sub for only brief period of time. May have been submerged before and after. There are indications that three subs were running parallel with one another at the time. Re 65: Large prop penetrated surface of water while running on surface. The spray appeared to be foam to kid riding in US Air 217 at the time. Sled uses burner for IR homing. May have been that burner was turned on early as cause of crash. Re 82: Object dropped downward before accelerating forward similar to cruise missile dropping from B-1. Re 83: Missile had IR as initial guidance but switched to radar when closing in on B747. Re 91: See previous. Likely an SM-2 with dual homing capability. KKV test version. Re 130: Tow line is below wing and causes no interference with shoulder mounted engines. Line sag keeps tow line below aircraft at all times. Feds admitted that Learjet had been used for a tow on 17 July 96 as a result of FOIA request I imagine. You can answer one question for me: Do you have a financial interest in the crash of TWA800? Note to stan: traitor! And to think that I stuck up for you. I will still in the future. Us old farts have to stick together. Excluding Elmer,of course.