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."