TWA 800 - Testimony of Commander William S. Donaldson III, (ret.)

Various

[coloradan]

It was the perception of some of the witnesses that the fiery streak ascended.

About a hundred people saw the streak rise from the surface. Cargo doors don't do that.

The diagram you provided is a picture. In two dimensions. It is impossible to rule out a given 3-D trajectory based on a single 2-D rendition. For example a plane flying directly overhead, passing through the exact zenith, can only "decend" towards the horizon after passing the zenith, no matter which direction it flies, since you can't get any higher than straight up. This is even true if the plane is gaining altitude as it flies - it will still be flying towards the horizon, "down," after passing the zenith.

It's an elementary consequence of perspective.

If you really wanted to know what the full 3D trajectory of the streak was, you would combine multiple witness accounts, complete with bearing lines and so forth, and plot out what the entire 3D trajectory had to be, in order that each individual witness saw what they saw, from where they were.

But for some reason, neither the NTSB nor the FBI seemed interested in doing this. Why do you suppose that is?

In fact, only Goddard and Donaldson seemed to have taken any interest in this; they made such plots but the FBI and NTSB didn't. Why do you suppose that is?

[Rokke]

The following is from Donaldson's own website:

"Of the 183 who observed a streak of light, 102 gave information about the origin of the streak. Six said the streak originated from the air, and 96 said that it originated from the surface. Of the 96 who said it originated from the surface, 40 said it originated from the sea and 10 said it originated from land. One hundred and twenty-eight witnesses reported an immediate end to the streak, 85 described it ending in an explosion, 32 said it ended in a fireball, and 11 said it ended in a flash."

Now if eyewitnesses are always reliable, and we should take their testimony as gospel, how come there are so many variances in just the 183 who said they saw "a streak." And what about the 550 witnesses who reported no such thing?

[coloradan]

"Of the 183 who observed a streak of light, 102 gave information about the origin of the streak. Six said the streak originated from the air, and 96 said that it originated from the surface."

This is from when they first noticed it. The (very) few who said it "originiated" from the air may well have simply missed the beginning. But those who reported that it originated from the surface (the vast majority) are not likely to have all seen something only airborne, and hallucinated a surface origin.

"Of the 96 who said it originated from the surface, 40 said it originated from the sea and 10 said it originated from land."

This could easily be explained by the horizon visible to those witnesses. If the view of the ocean is obscured, or if tehy misjudged the distance to the streak, they could easily place the origin on land even if it were from the water. Note that several thought it was a "firework" - which only goes a few hundred yards up into the air. If they were actually seeing a missile that ascended nearly three miles into the air, they will correspondingly infer that the launch site is that much closer. In any case, an investigator trying to determine what actually happened doesn't look at two contradictory statements and says "therefore, they are both wrong;" and it is unreasonable to imagine that any witnesses correctly understood the full 3D trajectory of a very unusual object that lasted only some few seconds. Instead, an investigator should try to triangulate each sighting, and construct for himself the full 3D trajectory of the object which these people saw. But as I mentioned, neither the NTSB nor the FBI had any interest in doing this; only Donaldson and Goddard actually attempted to do this. Why do you suppose that is?

"One hundred and twenty-eight witnesses reported an immediate end to the streak, 85 described it ending in an explosion, 32 said it ended in a fireball, and 11 said it ended in a flash."

All of these things are consistent with a missile whose rocket engine burned out before impact, which was an explosion.

Now if eyewitnesses are always reliable, and we should take their testimony as gospel, how come there are so many variances in just the 183 who said they saw "a streak."

Perspective and incorrectly inferring the 3D trajectory. The streak was so far away from most of the witnesses that they had essentially no accurate depth perception - however, they might have made assumptions about the scale of the event and (incorrectly) reported deductions based on these assumptions. Better would to for an investigator to filter out just the pure observations from each witness, and try to fold them into a consistent scenario that checks with all the observations. But again, the NTSB, FBI and for that matter CIA seemed only interested in discrediting the witnesses, leaving the job to Donaldson and Goddard. Why do you suppose that that is?

And what about the 550 witnesses who reported no such thing?

You have got to be joking! Of course not all witnesses saw the entire event - only those who were looking in the direction of the flare would have seen it at all. Those who weren't but who saw the explosion obviously doesn't either rule out a missile nor contradict the testimony of those who did see a streak.

[Rokke]

I've got two points:

1. How many people are able to see a 6 foot long pole flying 10 miles away at 13,000 ft at dusk (no smoke or flame since its motor had burned out)
2. Just within this small sub-group of 182 witnesses you've got several significantly different descriptions of the same event. The eyewitnesses argument states that eyewitnesses can't be wrong. Well, even within this small subgroup of 733 witnesses to the event, several must be wrong. Which ones?

[coloradan]

1. How many people are able to see a 6 foot long pole flying 10 miles away at 13,000 ft at dusk (no smoke or flame since its motor had burned out)

What does it matter how many can or can not see such a thing? Many of the statements speak of a "flare" "streak" or "firework" that a large majority saw "rise from the surface." What were they seeing? And why didn't the FBI or NTSB try to determine the 3D trajectory, or even the originating point, by triangulation.

It wouldn't matter if nobody could see supersonic pole 10' long, 10 miles away; they did see something. What was it?

2. Just within this small sub-group of 182 witnesses you've got several significantly different descriptions of the same event.

Why yes. The ones who were to the north said it was to the south, and the ones who were in the south put it towards the north. So, "some say it was south and some say it was north. Therefore, they saw nothing and the case is closed." Right?

The eyewitnesses argument states that eyewitnesses can't be wrong.

Wrong. Even if some are wrong, there is still a consensus about what they saw, unless all of them suddenly had a mass delusion. Even if each witness is only right 10% of the time, if there are 50 witnesses who simultaneously report a given event, there is a 99.48% that it actually happened. In this case, there are 96 witnesses who reported that the streak "rose from the surface." Here's the calculation.

Well, even within this small subgroup of 733 witnesses to the event, several must be wrong. Which ones?

It's far more likely that the 6 who said the streak originated in the air were mistaken, than the 96 who said it originated from the surface.

But even for those 6 people who saw it originate in the air, any which described it as a "streak" were probably not describing a 747 "in various stages of crippled flight" since the angular velocity of a 747 nearly 3 miles up, 10 or more miles away, is not nearly enough to look like "a streak."

So, the question remains, what did the witnesses see?

[Rokke]

"What does it matter how many can or can not see such a thing?"

It matters when people say they have seen something they couldn't have.

"It wouldn't matter if nobody could see supersonic pole 10' long, 10 miles away; they did see something."

Donaldson says it was a stinger or other shoulder launched missile. Nobody can see a six foot long missile at 10 miles. Therefore, if they say they saw something, it was not a stinger, thus debunking Donaldson's theory.

"Wrong. Even if some are wrong, there is still a consensus about what they saw"

Donaldson's summary is based on NTSB sample of 458 witnesses. Of those, 339 witnessed the fireball, but only 183 witnessed a streak of light. Of those, only 102 offered information as to the origin of the streak of light. Of those, only 40 said the streak of light originated from the surface of the sea. Only 40 people of 339 who witnessed the destruction of TWA 800 support Donaldson's claim. That is hardly a consensus.

"angular velocity of a 747 nearly 3 miles up, 10 or more miles away, is not nearly enough to look like "a streak."

When was the last time you witnessed an aircraft breaking up in flight? Drop a burning object from 13,000 ft and what do you think it would look like as it accelerates toward the Earth.

"what did the witnesses see?"

They saw a 747 self destruct over the Atlantic Ocean.

[coloradan]

It matters when people say they have seen something they couldn't have.

Not many reported seeing an object; most reported seeing a glow. Thus, what they reported is consistent with seeing the exhaust, not any missile itself. FWIW the sun can glint off small metal objects to be seen from miles away. To that extent the cargo door theory has some merit, except that the streak ascended, not descended.

Donaldson says it was a stinger or other shoulder launched missile. Nobody can see a six foot long missile at 10 miles. Therefore, if they say they saw something, it was not a stinger, thus debunking Donaldson's theory.

This is really quite a simple point that you are pointedly ignoring: what most people reported was self-luminous. Hence, it wouldn't have been a missile any way, it would have been missile exhaust. People can see road flares from ten miles away - but not when they aren't lit. (Are you going to tell me that it's impossible to see an object an inch in diameter and a foot long, from ten miles away now?)

Donaldson's summary is based on NTSB sample of 458 witnesses. Of those, 339 witnessed the fireball, but only 183 witnessed a streak of light.

Not everyone saw the beginning of the event.

Of those, only 102 offered information as to the origin of the streak of light.

...based on each witness's individual deduction of the 3D trajectory, based on each witnesses individual assumptions about how large the scale is. By chance have you correlated the location of each witness with whether they thought it came from land or sea?

Of those, only 40 said the streak of light originated from the surface of the sea. Only 40 people of 339 who witnessed the destruction of TWA 800 support Donaldson's claim. That is hardly a consensus.

It is a remarkable consensus given that you are taking each witness's statment as a stand-alone, finished, diagnosis. You are not allowing any combination of statements or any triangulation nor any other deduction - you are placing the burden of solving the entire scenario on each witness individually. Nevertheless, 40 separate people independently, and without benefit of the knowledge of others, conclude that an object rose from the surface of the sea. Every one of those 40 people saw something grossly inconsistent with a spontaneous self-destruction of the plane, and inconsistent with the cargo door theory, and the bomb theory.

You don't know what was in the foreground of those who reported the object rising from the surface of the land, but these people too, saw something completely at odds with the spontaneous explosion scenario also.

So the questions remain, what did these people see? and why didn't the FBI or NTSB attempt to triangulate the sightings?

When was the last time you witnessed an aircraft breaking up in flight?

I don't need to have seen one to know that they won't go any faster than planes in normal flight. A 747 3 miles up and 10 miles away lumbers across the sky quite slowly. Even if one were spitting out fire, sparks and explosions I don't think the overwhelming majority of people seeing it would describe it as a "flare," "streak" or "firework."

Drop a burning object from 13,000 ft and what do you think it would look like as it accelerates toward the Earth.

Why, it would look like it was dropping - falling out of the sky! You even used the word "drop" yourself! Many witnesses reported "orange flames falling" - consistent with the plane breaking up in descent, and you would expect this whether a plane spontaneously exploded or was destroyed by a missile. So these parts of the witness statements are not interesting because they do not enable one hypothesis to be distinguished from another.

Hence, we turn to those witnesses who saw something ascending rapidly from the surface because their statement allows us to eliminate several hypotheses: spontaneous explosion, bomb, and cargo door. Having eliminated these, what remains? Missiles.

They saw a 747 self destruct over the Atlantic Ocean.

Sorry, those don't ascend from the surface, rapidly. Can you tell me what does?

[coloradan]

By the way, when Vandenburg Air Force Base launches missiles, the plume and exhaust trail can be seen for hundreds of miles - not tens of miles. Are you going to try to tell me that this is impossible, because those missiles are too small to see from such a distance, especially at night when there's no light to see them with?

[Asmodeus]

Goddard and Donaldson both alleged that a missile intercepted Flight 800 at 13,800 feet at 8:31:12 and shot it down.

Here's where Donaldson contends the point of impact on the 747 was:

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, very much. Any final comments Commander Donaldson?

Commander DONALDSON. No, sir, I knew this was going to be a tough appearance. But I guess I would say just for a minute, I want to put it on record what I think actually happened. I think that somebody came in our waters. I think the boat that wasn't identified by the FBI probably contained the shooter. I think a missile was fired, that we have dozens of people that agree with the flight time of the missile, where it came from and where it went. I think it steered for the center wing tank. I think it veered forward and entered the number two main. There is 45 square feet of front spar missing in front of that tank.

If a missile exploded inside a full fuel tank, wouldn't it have resulted in an immediate and huge explosion then [8:31:12] and there - [13,800 FEET]? Goddard seems to have thought so as evidenced by his following animated graphics:

There were no credible witnesses to more than one HUGE explosion, the Massive Fireball. Note that ALL the Massive Fireball explosion altitude estimates by the Airborne witnesses were far below 13,800 feet.

Goddard and Donaldson have both left a long paper trail documenting their inept analysis of Flight 800 witness reports. As an example, Goddard's star "missile shootdown" witness at one time was Sven Faret - until it was pointed at to Goddard that all of Faret's observations of fiery events were below Faret's own flight altitude of 8500 feet.

Donaldson was so carried away with his inept analysis of witness Fred Meyer's report of what he saw that Donaldson made him a Board Member of Donaldson's "Associated Retired Aviation Professions" aka ARAP and made joint appearances with him on numerous talk shows - while never apparently noticing that Meyer did not and could not have seen a "shootdown" of the airliner at 13,800 feet at 8:31:12 only 3-4 seconds before Meyer saw the Massive Fireball explode in the 747's descending wreckage at about 5500-7500 feet at about 8:31:47 - and about 2-3 miles distance horizontally from where the 747 was when it started coming apart.

The paper trail of Goddard and Donaldson, Flight 800 witness report analyst legends in their own minds, speaks for itself as does the fact that no expert witness report analyst has ever agreed with them, not even one.

ex·pert (kspûrt) n. A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.

[coloradan]

The witnesses claimed their sightings were not consistent with the NTSB's analysis. Given that fact, what actually happened to the plane if not what the NTSB represented?

You posted a spiffy animation showing something rising from the surface. What was that object?

[Asmodeus]

"The witnesses claimed their sightings were not consistent with the NTSB's analysis. Given that fact, what actually happened to the plane if not what the NTSB represented? You posted a spiffy animation showing something rising from the surface. What was that object?

In the case of the portrayal of an actual missile in Goddard's animated map, it was a figment of Goddard's imagination. There were no credible witness observations of an actual missile - just fiery events. Then the inevitable tainting of the witnesses commenced [input from other sources], as it always does. Click here

[coloradan]

Nearly 100 people saw something rise from the surface. What did they see?

[Asmodeus]

"Nearly 100 people saw something rise from the surface. What did they see?"

That's a second hand allegation of fact.

You know how to provide the readers with quotes from witness reports and the supporting reference source URL's for the quotes.

In short, let's all see the witness reports you're supposedly relying on along with your quotes specifiying precisely what you're supposedly relying on in each of them.

[coloradan]

Rokke was kind enough to cite the number that 96 witnesses saw the streak rise from the surface, relaying Donaldson's analysis. If you seriously doubt the validity of this claim, why don't you take it up with Rokke?

It's kind of comical that you yourself insist on URLs for each statement, when the NTSB for years withheld the witness evidence entirely, even though they are required by law to release it.

Here's a witness statement that says the explosion was "white" first, and then an orange fireball. Why white first? Interview. I have an explanation. Do you?

[Asmodeus]

"Here's a witness statement that says the explosion was "white" first, and then an orange fireball. Why white first? Interview, I have an explanation. Do you?

The NTSB Exhibit 4A explained it years ago and it's been on the internet since at least 30 January 1998 when it was posted in the LSoft Flight 800 Forum. It states in part as follows:

* One hundred twenty-eight witnesses reported an immediate end of the streak, 85 described it ending in an explosion, 32 said it ended in a fireball, and 11 said it ended in a flash.

* Of the 201 witnesses who said they saw an explosion, 39 said they saw 2 or more explosions. Of the 39 who said they saw more than 1 explosion, 11 said they saw 2 explosions, and one saw 3 explosions.

* Of the witnesses who said they saw an explosion, 38 reported it was orange, 17 said it was red, 16 said it was orange/red, 7 said white, 7 said yellow/orange, 2 said yellow, 2 said yellow/red, 1 said orange/red, and one said it was white/yellow/orange.

Click here for NTSB Exhibit 4A in its entirety.

Get it? Witnesses routinely have differing perceptions of what they saw.

The witness statement you referred to is what sounds like a snippet of radio or TV recording of a woman (no video) with eileen.daly.eye above the screen. My own transcript of what she said was as follows but since the tinfoil hatters routinely accuse those who don't agree with them of being liars engaged in a criminal coverup of "the truth", be sure to double check it, make any corrections you believe to be appropriate and present the readers with your own transcript - and your own analysis of what she described.

"My son was standing on the beach and he says 'oh look, an explosion' and we turned and what looks like fireworks that were in the sky was the first impression of what you saw, it was like a big white splash and then all of a sudden it turned into the big orange fireball, brokeoff into two pieces and a large fireball about, you know, a big rectangular fireball going - stretched from the the sky down into the water . ."

Do you contend that she saw the [1] fiery streak [2] ascend from the surface?

Where are the rest of the reports and your quotes from them of the "nearly 100 people" who you allege "saw something "rise from the surface"?

You're off to a pathetic start. Imagine my surprise.

[coloradan]

I asked a question: why the white flash, when the fireball was orange? I said I had an explanation. What is yours? This lady saw the fireballs as orange. What did she see that was white? I'll get to the rising from the surface later.

[Asmodeus]

Read my last posting again and see if you can figure it out for yourself.

This is too good not to be shared here too although not related to this thread.

"The shoe salesman who sold the terrorist the lethal shoes declined to talk to reporters."

[coloradan]

Yeah, I've figured it out: You're ignoring evidence by saying that witnesses can't be trusted to accurately report what their own lying eyes showed them, therefore, they saw nothing and there was no missile, which just goes to show you how unreliable witnesses are. QED.

[Tymesup]

The calculation you link to in post 25 assumes that the probabilities are independent. While the witnesses are independent, what they are watching is not. For example, 10 people claiming a magician pulled a rabbit out of a hat doesn't mean that it actually happened that way.

This is not to say I don't agree that I doubt the witnesses or that at least one missile was involved.

[coloradan]

The calculation you link to in post 25 assumes that the probabilities are independent. While the witnesses are independent, what they are watching is not. For example, 10 people claiming a magician pulled a rabbit out of a hat doesn't mean that it actually happened that way.

To the extent that many independent witnesses report seeing a magician pull a rabbit out of a hat tends to refute a hypothesis that there is not one scintilla of evidence of a rabbit. True, they might not be able to put together the entire, correct, detailed scenario of how the magician did it. But should the NTSB (National Tricks and Subterfuge Bureau) categorically state the "card trick theory" is favored and that was no evidence of a rabbit at any time, and that therefore the witnesses must have been drunk, you may reasonably suspect that something is up.

This would appear to be the case with the missile theory and TWA 800 - except that there are also the matters of Mach 2 debris exiting the plane just before breakup, and the red residue and misrepresentation in court about it, and a secret evidence room for the FBI, and shrapnel removed from the victims, and some mysterious, fleeting radar hits prior to breakup, and the nose gear doors being blown inward and being among the first things off the plane, and fist-sized holes in some first-class seat-backs ... and the fact that aviation fuel puts out matches, and so on.