Replies

"my theory has made another turn. Something dropped away from the P3 shortly before the crash. Do you recall a retired Navy Captain Gray or something like that? He said that a missile was launched from the P3 and it collided with the B747. I now consider the possibility that the object was a supersonic Russian target drone. It should have the velocity to really mess up a B747 and should have the maneuverability that Rocky desired."

Those comments dramatize the problem you've always had. You think you recall something that somebody said but you don't want to take the time to use Search features to find it so you'll know what was said and what wasn't and, if it proves to be compatible with your recollection, quote from it and provide the reference source URL so the readers can verify it themselves. Instead, you wing it and try to patch together bits and pieces of that sort of stuff into a hypothesis always lacking in specifics following which you then cavalierly allege the entire mass of mess is indisputable fact, make foul accusations at those who disagree with you and routinely rant about others cutting and pasting from the paper trail you've left in your rampaging wake until you have to admit your hypothesis is flawed and you then start the same house of cards process all over again without ever appearing to notice that you've demolished your own credibility along the way.

Take a pill Elmer. Folic acid likely. You're becoming goofy. A retired Navy Captain stated this but I am not positive about his name. I am not making this up. Are you here to counter any reasonable argument or are you only a government shill? The quote is accurate; only the name associated with it may be wrong. You're the one who has all quotes on disk. Look it up before mouthing off. Have a nice Xmas. And stop getting drunk before posting. You're bound to have an aneurysm if you keep getting so excited. At the time that the retired Navy guy said this I passed it off as his being senile but now I think not. This could explain what dropped from the P3 shortly before the crash. It could also support other missile activity that many saw. A target drone is the best candidate for something to be shot at. It gets away from the objections of sled shooting. America apparently did not have the capability that Russia had. We had lots of potential Q type of military hardware but nothing like a supersonic drone. The sled may have been along for the ride as a backup target in case the drone turned back toward the P3. But the B747 did not have flares or any other defensive weapons. There is still one clinker in that there is no reason for a drone to have RF/IR homing. Could this have been only a freak closure after the drone leveled off at the altitude of the B747? Since the P3 was headed away from the B747, the drone would have to turn back to close on the plane.

A turning back could have been the hard turn that someone observed. TWA800 was instructed to climb to 15,000 feet and the drone mission folks may have felt that the 13,700 foot elevation would have been clear of other traffic when the drone was launched. But, another confirmation comes up in that I was informed that the target was launched early. This now fits if a drone was launched before the air space was cleared. All this time, I was assuming that the sled was turned on early but now it may be inferred that the drone was launched early. There is much to this theory that needs to be checked out. My prior theory had too many objections that are now obsolete if a drone was launched early. See, Elmer, not taking the time to use logic before sounding off doesn't help our discussion, does it? You could have come to the same conclusion if you had your head rather than your fingers engaged. Have a nice holiday anyway you older old fart. This is getting closer to the real story isn't it? Is this what upsets you? Lawsuits against the military don't yield much for the litigants. Do me a favor and look up the quote since you record all posts.