I am not on trial here. You are. You are one of the folk who supports lies from our government. I don't. You agreed that something was wrong at the same place that turned me on to something being wrong. Now we agree and you can stop playing the 'gimme proof' 'gimme proof' 'gimme proof' game. I am only using my brain. The NTSB has the proof, ask them. You are only a younger copy of Elmer now. He is an even older old fart than I am. I think that he is an ally of the trial lawyers who don't want the truth to be known. Since the Navy caused the accident, the greedy lawyers should not be getting money from either Boeing or TWA. The Clinton administration was created to benefit the trial lawyers. Slick's first words were " all Americans deserve their own private health insurance". The trial lawyers would have had the maximum available money for expanding lawsuit awards if Hillarious had been successful. Slick Willie and Hillarious were a fraud team who wanted the use the Wh(or)e House for their advantage. Their being crooks was the primary reason for the NTSB to be crooked.
Now, my previous post to you notwithstanding, you are exactly
the person on trial as we are discussing
your theory. A theory for which you have absolutely no proof. Let me catalog some things for you which are not proven or flat out wrong:
1. A 30 knot surfaced sub (unproven)
2. A KKV missile launched the day of the TWA 800 disaster (unproven)
3. A target towing P-3 (unproven)
4. Exhibit 13E chart I-9 data that shows a P-3 or a "sled" (wrong)
5. A chaff emitting hybrid missile. Chaff is used to obscure radar targets, not "paint" them, and it drifts with the wind. It does not linger in place for 30 minutes (unless there is no wind) (wrong)
6. ATC primary radars track target altitudes (wrong)
7. The NTSB incorrectly plotted the radar data they were given (unproven)
8. Altitude data in Exhibit 13E was falsified by the USAF or NTSB (unproven)
I could probably go on, but what's the point. Your theory is already toast. You propose a theory (most of which is based on wrong information) and then defend it by saying you don't need to prove anything. Are you kidding me? Asking someone for proof isn't a "game". It is merely assuming that people wouldn't trash the reputations of countless people in several government and civilian organizations without some proof. I don't think that is too much to ask. So let me ask it again. To the list I just posted, where is your proof? If you don't have any, withdraw your completely unsupportable theory, and try another one.