Replies

I had been hoping for some evidence instead of more opinion, however let me try again.

Re: Reply 56 who has identified it as a submarine other than you? What submarine can make 30 knots surfaced? Why wouldn't it submerge fist and then hit the gas? How did you determine that there were 3 subs running parallel?

Re: Reply 65 how did you determine that the propeller penetrated the surface of the water? Was this before or after the sub hit 30 knots on the surface? How could the propeller come out of the water since the sub's stern planes - which help it submurge - would have had to be out of the water as well? Have you ever been on a submarine? Have you ever talked to someone who had been on a submarine in the last 30 years who described an occurance like this ever happening?

Re: Reply 65 a P-3 is powered by four T407-GE-400 turboprops. What kind of burner could the target sled use that would put out more heat than that and not melt it but at the same time not enough to keep the missile from being drawn to the 747?

Re: Reply 82, I'll ask again. Why a target sled and a drone? Why not just a drone?

Re: Reply 83 and 91, the Standard doesn't use an IR guidence system. It uses a semi-active radar homing guidence system. Also, the Standard is a big missile, about 14 1/2 feet long. And the Standard requires initial guidance from the lauch platforms combat systems. A submarine has none of those radars installed.

Re: Reply 130, how about a source for that claim about the Lear? Who owned it? What kind of target was towed? Do you even have any idea how much weight is involved in the kind of towing rig that you have created?

Again, I am asking for support for your claims. Until I have a chance to see some sort of evidence then I'll repeat that your claims make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I tried to answer your questions. Where is the answer to my question? When a modern sub is hauled, they cover the prop with a shield. They are giant size. I believe that I stated that the missile was a test version which had dual homing. The IR was an addon. Relative to sub antenna capabiltities, are you familiar with those of the UK. Relative to three side by side subs, this was given to me by private Email. I am not able to confirm this. I stated that there was a possibility rather than a fact. Relative to how did I know it was a sub, that came from a passenger on US Air 217. As to what the P3 was carrying at that time, I have no idea of how many slung devices that it can carry. How many bomb shackles does one have? Didn't it seem weird to you that the P3 had its secondary radar transponder turned off while crossing a busy air corridor? Relative to a sled being used, the missile was not an exploding variety. The mystery aircraft which was flying back and forth may have been a drone to act as a backup target in case the missile missed the sled. Both the initial direction of the missile and the mystery aircraft were on a SE to NW course. Acting as a backup target seems feasible for a test vehicle with IR homing since a drone flying back and forth repeatedly should generate a zone of heated air. Heated air is likely what drew the missile into the B747. Witness data was that the missile flew in a zigzag course before intercepting following the hard turn which the feds went out of their way to discount. The feds stated that a missile could not make a hard turn but a KKV with vectored thrust could. To repeat my question: Do you have a financial interest in the crash of TWA800?