Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: barf
Barf, having just spent 1.4 hours today strapped to an ejection seat, let me assure you there is absolutely no chaff anywhere near the seat. Why in the world would a guy who just got shot down want to announce his location to everyone with a radar? Remember, combat aircraft are designed for operation in a combat zone. As far as missiles, just think for a minute. Radar missile's are guided to targets using radar. That means that radars are actually tracking the targets. Those same radars are actually communicating to the missiles heading to the targets giving them updates on what vector to fly to impact their targets. Given that, why the heck would you want to obscure the point of an intercept with a chaff cloud, when you know exactly where that intercept occurred in the first place.

We have already established you are an expert in engineering domes. For that, I applaud you. But I have spent the last 12 years strapping myself to various ejection seats and training with the latest anti-air missiles. Give me credit where credit is due, and realize that you are wrong here.

Furthermore, as an engineer I assumed you would be capable of comprehending that returns separated by 4 seconds showing up 140 miles away from a radar with a 12 second sweep would be seperated by 240 miles. Therefore, the double returns depicted on page 42 are based on flawed data. On that point we agree. I assumed that given the fact that 8 radars track the P-3 and only 1 of those 8 indicate a double return, might lead a person to realize that perhaps that 1 oddball radar has some faulty data (proven by actually plotting the data provided which you are for some reason unable to do). The fact that the data from Boston Center is faulty, doesn't seem to phase you. You continue to use that very same faulty data as your only evidence that the P-3 appears to be dragging something. The fact that you are not bothered by balancing your whole flawed theory on faulty data convinces me to stay far far away from any dome you ever engineered.

Rather than spending most of your posts calling me brain dead and telling me to go back to school, why don't you offer proof of even one of the elements of your theory. I believe if you could, you would.

356 posted on 12/17/2001 7:18:11 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies ]


To: Rokke
It appears that tinfoiler barf's earlier adamant stance that he had discovered the evidence necessary to prove his sled towing P-3 accidental U.S. Navy shootdown fantasy has evaporated and that he's now resigned himself to waiting for confessions.

Yahoo twa800 - barf
Date: Sun Dec 16, 2001 5:15 pm
Subject: Re: [twa800] TWA 800 Coverup Is Finally Complete

I believe that any drone debris is purely ancillary and not directly causal. The back and forth vehicle was likely a drone. It flew as if programmed for 45 minutes. I am saddened if the entry point was destroyed along with other debris.

I still contend that Fritz Meyer did not see ordnance. There would be no reason to kick a dead horse. A missile which Meyer did not see had already done the dirty deed. It is likely that someone would have had to have been looking directly at the missile impact to have seen anything of value.

The guilty missile broke up the plane without any HE, only brute force. A drone could not have had the necessary mass or velocity to destroy the plane as an SM-2 hybrid would have. A drone impact should have allowed the crew to issue a Mayday. Even in the recent Russian crash, the crew spoke and was recorded after their fatal missile strike. Unless the CVR record had been doctored, TWA's crew did not have that opportunity. The TWA missile strike was too violent and likely killed all on board at the same time.

What happened was what I expected to have happen when it was announced that the reconstruction was going to a crash investigation school. The guilty have a need to destroy the evidence and they did it.

But people have memories and hopefully will need to relieve their own guilt and talk. We need to keep pressuring people like Loeb and Hall. Eventually their charade will crack. There must be others who are vulnerable. A small crack can lead to a large crack.

358 posted on 12/17/2001 8:18:36 PM PST by Asmodeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies ]

To: Rokke
I've spent some time in ejection seats myself but this was long before they were equiped with chaff. My reference is the NTSB Exhibit 13A, page 51. If what I write is nonsense blame the NTSB. If you are ignorant about what you may sit in I would recommend that you don't sit there any more. You know the old adage about old and bold pilots. I imagine that that could apply to stupid as well.
359 posted on 12/17/2001 8:26:13 PM PST by barf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies ]

To: Rokke
You will have to draw me a picture of your radar analysis. I used to work on military gun laying radar and can't understand the stuff that you describe with the funny returns that are four seconds apart. My stupid background told me that radar traveled at the speed of light and other stupid stuff like that. I never realized that a four second differential could be so important. It was a twelve second differential between the P3 returns and a twelve second differential between the 'sled' returns. The sled return had one mile less to travel than the P3 return. Is this where the four seconds comes in? This technical stuff is too much for me to comprehend.
363 posted on 12/17/2001 10:01:31 PM PST by barf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson