[JHL]

This is so sad because I used to have such a great deal of respect for Reid Irvine. In this case, however, he really is dead wrong. I was the weapons officer on board USS Normandy in 1991-1993, a few years before this alleged shoot down. Normandy is the usual culprit cited by conspiracy theorists as the alleged source of the missile. From my own experience as a Navy officer with extensive battle group experience, I can tell you that this Navy shoot-down theory is pure bunk. I know I'll never convince those who long ago wedded themselves to that bizarre and untenable theory, but it is so obviously implausible to any credible Sailor with a shred of USN experience that it just isn't worth even arguing over.

In my opinion, this submariner, if he does exist, has an axe to grind with the Navy. After his first interview with Irvine, he probably realized he was in over his head with his "sea story" and hence his reticence when Irvine tried to get his story on tape.

[Paradox]

I know I'll never convince those who long ago wedded themselves to that bizarre and untenable theory, but it is so obviously implausible to any credible Sailor with a shred of USN experience that it just isn't worth even arguing over.

Well thats just because YOU ARE STILL WORKING for THEM!! You must be part of the COVERUP! {/sarcasm}

Hey, dont you know that on FR we already have amateur aviation and military experts whose knowledge dwarfs yours? What, you worked on a sub? Heck, these guys read an article in popular mechanics about them!

[VectoRama]

In my opinion, this submariner, if he does exist, has an axe to grind with the Navy.

So I guess James Kallstrom also had an axe to grind with the Navy when he told Irvine that the Navy was conducting classified maneuvers under the crash..... Surely you can come up with a better cover story than that.