IRAQ INVITES U.S. DELEGATION TO DISCUSS GULF WAR P.O.W. PILOT

Associated Press Breaking Wire ^ | March 24, 2002 | Wire Staff

[Slam]

First, I am not a dude.

Second, If YOU wouldn't of told me I would of never known.

Third, My Dog is the smartest animal I have ever met...you must of meant "species of animal." Fourth, you are not on point..nor would anyone I know let you walk there.

[OkieDokieSmokie]

"That's the problem: the accounts of how they supposedly found the intact wreckage sound good unless you understand how satellite recon actually works."

Well, I guess they went to all the trouble to fabricate the pictures. I suppose they even went to all the trouble to put together an elaborate model of a wrecked airplane, flew it out to Iraq and placed it in the exact spot of the crash, so the search team that went there in 1995 would find a plane that not only duplicated the one that crashed, but also appeared to have been in the desert EXACTLY as long as the amount of time that has passed since the crash.

You're right...those guys are snakes. (sarcasm/off)

[Howlin]

Send Jesse with NO TV crew and I'm all for it!

[Poohbah]

Scott Barnes is the originator of the "Bring Home Scott Speicher" campaign way back in 1995, and all of the basic elements of this story (satellite imagery of the crash site, etc) are traceable to Mr. Barnes. That's why I bring him up.

You see, the source has a track record of spreading BS.

Oops. I'm using logic, reason, and common sense on a Free Republic hot-button issue. Nevermind, I forgot that I'm supposed to think with my limbic system on all matters related to Oceania's eternal war with Eastasia Eurasia Eastasia Eurasia Eastasia Eurasia Eastasia Eurasia Eastasia Eurasia Eastasia just who the heck are we supposed at war with this week, anyway?

[Slam]

Got it. I understand now.

[Poohbah]

Well, I guess they went to all the trouble to fabricate the pictures.

Have you actually seen the pictures? Or are you believing the story of how they supposedly exist?

I suppose they even went to all the trouble to put together an elaborate model of a wrecked airplane, flew it out to Iraq and placed it in the exact spot of the crash, so the search team that went there in 1995 would find a plane that not only duplicated the one that crashed, but also appeared to have been in the desert EXACTLY as long as the amount of time that has passed since the crash.

Well, there's the problem: this "team" that supposedly visited...I'd like to see a REALLY independent source verify that. I have a wee bit of trouble believing folks like Scott Barnes.

[OkieDokieSmokie]

"Well, there's the problem: this "team" that supposedly visited...I'd like to see a REALLY independent source verify that. I have a wee bit of trouble believing folks like Scott Barnes."

Am I to understand that you don't even believe a team visited?

[Poohbah]

Like I said, this story--in all of its particulars--was first surfaced by a phony Vietnam vet with a history of spreading BS on this topic (he supposedly was part of a quasi-private Vietnam POW/MIA recovery effort in the 1980s).

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me...

[Slam]

So what is your theory on United States lunar exploration? If Scott Barnes believes it then...? NASA has had more than its share of controvery...therefore....oh boy...why do I keep doing this?

Lets see, need to feel good. Think i'll listen to the girl.

[OkieDokieSmokie]

"Like I said, this story--in all of its particulars--was first surfaced by a phony Vietnam vet with a history of spreading BS on this topic (he supposedly was part of a quasi-private Vietnam POW/MIA recovery effort in the 1980s)."

Right, but my question was...am I to understand that you do not believe a search of the crash site ever took place?

[Slam]

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me..."

Sss Tee Uooo Cee Kat.

[Poohbah]

If the only evidence for this was a claim by Scott Barnes, without any of the TV coverage, information from NASA, and so on, I'd be sceptical. However, since there are, among other things, laser reflectors placed at each of the Apollo landing sites by the astronauts, and you can actually use your own laser to verify that they are there.

However, the fact that Scott Barnes started this story rolling, and taking into account his HISTORY of being a lying sack of fecal material on this sort of stuff, I have to remain dubious barring independent verification.

[Poohbah]

Right, but my question was...am I to understand that you do not believe a search of the crash site ever took place?

I haven't seen independent documentary evidence (i.e., if somebody purloined a copy of the team's report from Uncle's archives, or Uncle officially released it); I will have to reserve judgement until I actually do see same.

[piasa]

Well, I guess they went to all the trouble to fabricate the pictures

Can you give us a link to the pictures? I haven't seen them yet.

[Arioch7]

Yeah, I was there and I dont remember doubting the story at the time. Upon reflection I have come to a very different conclusion.

Listen Poobah this ones for you. VFA-81 and VFA-83 were phenomenal squadrons. Do you know HOW they handled SAM sites? They turned off thier ECM and let the SAM sites paint them. Once the SAM site locked on, the pilot would launch a HARM(High speed anti radiation missle, or something like that. :D) and the SAM site went KA-BOOM!!!

They did this HUNDREDS of times and no one else was shot down by a SAM site( I am talking just about the Strike-Fighter squadrons here.) Can you imagine how dangerous that mission was?

Dont you find it odd that a plane at that altitude with functioning ECM would get shot down by one of thier SAM sites, when they could not hit incoming F/A-18s that were getting themselves TARGETED ON PURPOSE!!!

Also, like I said... what if he is alive? When an American Servicemans life is on the line, you demand ABSOLUTE proof?

[Poohbah]

First of all, Speicher was apparently head-down, getting ready to shoot a HARM, when his plane was hit. Second, the culprit here wasn't a SAM site, it was a MiG-25 shooting an AA-6 Acrid--apparently there was poor coordination between Navy squadrons and Air Force AWACS planes for the first few days of the war, and that allowed an Iraqi plane to get in close.

If he didn't take a head-on missile shot as reported by his squadron mates, then just what DID happen?

[Poohbah]

As for the level of proof I ask: a LOT more than the unsupported word of Scott Barnes.

[Slam]

If you would read you would find out that statement to be false....Scott..?

[Poohbah]

Which statement is false? That he was lining up a HARM shot? That his plane took a head-on missile impact?

[Arioch7]

Yes, but the way it was reported when it happened was that he was hit by a SAM site.

Here is a quote from Cdr. Stumpf's article..."The likelihood of his survival from the shoot down is related to how he was shot down. Indeed, the circumstances of the shoot down are the first of many controversial issues that have surrounded the Speicher story from the very beginning. Initially the government's position was that he had been downed by a surface-to-air missile. Granted, many SAMs were launched in the general vicinity during the time of the mission. But in the exact area where Speicher was hit, U.S. intelligence was reporting no missile batteries, particularly of the type that would have reached up to Speicher's altitude near 30,000 feet. Then why would the government choose to report it as a SAM kill?"

Like I said, it might be good to question everything but what if it is true?