Replies

I feel like I am talking to a wall. Do you see double returns on page 42 in the P3 track of Exhibit 13A? Beating around the bush won't answer any question other than prove your attempts at disinformationalism. Do you see double returns? Do you see double returns? I know that you don't want to admit it but do you see it? In simple terms, do you see double returns? By now everyone else must see them but do you see them with your eyes open that is? If you are skilled at weasel wording you could claim that you don't see them because you are not looking at them. But I try to keep it simple. Do you see double radar returns in the P3 track? First you have to look at the P3 track. Now, do you see double radar returns repeatedly as any other cognizant member of the human species might see? Maybe you are blind so that may give you an excuse for not seeing double radar returns but I assume otherwise. Do you see double radar returns in the P3 track as coming from the BOSCTR radar? My whole 'stick' is based on the double radar returns.

You earlier alleged that a witness saw the fiery streak trail of your alleged U.S. Navy hybrid SM-2 missile with dual mode homing missile make a sharp turn course correction just before it intercepted TWA 800 at 13,800 feet at 8:31:12. When asked to name the witness and provide the readers with the reference source URL for the report you were supposedly relying on, you couldn't do either.
___________________________________________

"[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."

shtick also schtick or shtik (shtk) n. Slang An entertainment routine or gimmick.

You have an interesting concept of "intertainment".

I saved your more difficult question because you are not going to like the answer. First, lets get a little background information out of the way:
1. The radar used by Boston Center has a sweep rate of 12 seconds (eg it covers 360 degress every 12 seconds).
2. When a radar antenna is not looking at a target it cannot gather information about that target.
3. Page 42 of Exhibit 13A shows radar data from 8 different sources tracking the P-3.
4. Only the Boston Center radar has more than one data point logged per sweep.
5. You are claiming the multiple data points reveal a "sled" being towed by the P-3 approximately 1 mile back (which makes the sled return almost coincide with the P-3 return).
6. Therefore, the "double returns" are actually data recorded from different radar sweeps, with one being the P-3 and the other being the towed target.
7. That would mean that on a timeline, each entity of a "double return" should actually be seperated by 12 seconds.

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?