Posted on 06/12/2002 2:07:01 PM PDT by Asmodeus
Yahoo TWA 800 forum
Message #8272
From:Richard Savage
Date: Wed Jun 12, 2002 5:17 am
Subject: Fritz
Mustang sends.
Free Republic is funded solely by donations from readers.
Donations and official correspondence should be mailed to:
Free Republic, LLC, PO Box 9771, Fresno, CA 93794
Support Free Republic by secure credit card.
Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com
It worked in Waco, and there were even more witnesses, participants, and evidence of wrong-doing then.
As to the Congressmen who'd love to catch the current administration covering something up, remember that Flight 800 was originally a Clinton coverup.
Bush just took up the baton.
Not to worry, Mustang.
The best evidence is that Flight 800 went down as the result of a terrorist attack.
I suspect the gov't has a good reason.
"I saw a streak of light in the sky. I have no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?"
"Here's Meyer's reply to my e-mail:
"TYPO = I saw a streak of light in the sky. I HAD no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?"
World of difference, folks.
He had no way of knowing what it was at the time. It looked like a streak of light, and that's what he reported.
But he KNEW what ordnance looked like, and described it when the streak ended and after a space without seeing anything, further to the left, a hard explosion, military ordinance.
He admitted he had never seen the second explosion of "brilliant white light" before...It was totally new to him...
These explosions happened at TWA 800's altitude. The Massive Fireball was the LAST event to happen, further left, and lower down.
Let's take a little closer look Acehai's rant.
" . . . sneaking and peeking at the Yahoo Groups TWA 800 board".
He's referring to a forum open to the public to read just as FreeRepublic is.
"TYPO = I saw a streak of light in the sky. I HAD no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?"
The "shootdown" tinfoil hats have no idea what the real significance of that statement by witness Meyer is. 1. When he saw the fiery streak, it did not look to him like the exhaust or trail or a missile, dispelling the tinfoil hats' allegations that it was obviously a missile in flight. 2. Experts want to know what witnesses actually saw - and separate those actual observations from the witnesses' conclusions after input from other sources. Which is referred to by experts as tainting input.
But he KNEW what ordnance looked like, and described it when the streak ended and after a space without seeing anything, further to the left, a hard explosion, military ordinance.
If so, why did Meyer and his crewmates initially speculate that what they had seen was a MIDAIR COLLISION?
"In the first place we didn't know what we had. I think we speculated that we might've had a mid-air because we know from here a lot that aircraft from Easthampton Airport and Montauk Sky Portal and aircraft from west of here fly the beach, and they look at the mansions along the beach. And we know that it's very common to have aircraft flying at 1,000 to 2,000 feet, east and west, right at each other along this beach."
"It's very dangerous. It's all VFR traffic. It's unregulated. The only regulation at all occurs when they fly through the southern tip of a control zone. They'll call this tower for clearance through the control zone. They'll say, all right. I'm at 1,500 feet. And the tower will tell them, well, you got another guy westbound and he's at 1,500. So, why don't one of you change altitude. so -- Mid-airs are -- the potential is always there. It's a very dangerous situation. We thought we had one."
SOURCE.
Anne,
Fritz Meyer stated, correct me if I am wrong Ace, that he observed several bursts of ordnance a few seconds before the massive fireball.
Based on recognized history, the IE occurred at least 20 seconds before the MF. I do not consider this to be a few seconds, in any stretch of the imagination.
Ace hates me, along with many others no doubt, because I feel that what Fritz saw were emergency breathing O2 cannisters cooking off. They are positioned in sets equal to the number of seats which they supply, typically more than singular in a B747, in the overhead compartment structure. An O2 cannister exploding should look like the bright white light of ordnance exploding. Fritz's observation had the bias of his having seen ordnance while flying 'copters in the Viet Nam theater of operations. The best witnesses are likely people who have absolutely no experience in anything relevant. They can tell what they saw rather than what they think that they saw based on their own experiences.
{Elmer}If so, why did Meyer and his crewmates initially speculate that what they had seen was a MIDAIR COLLISION?
{Swordmaker} Asmodeus, there is a very simple explanation... these flyers were trying to assess (diagnose) a peculiar event... an event beyond their experience in the area they were flying.
In medicine, an old saying is applicable: "When you hear hoofbeats, look for horses, not zebras."
In this instance, they saw a streak of light, followed by an bright flash explosion. Their experience, in this flight area, is that it is filled with airplanes (horses) and that it would not be unreasonable to assume, initially, that what they had seen was a mid-air collision of two airplanes.
They DID NOT expect to see a missile (a zebra) flying before their eyes. The first inclination is to fit observed data into expected norms. It is only upon reflection that a rarer diagnosis can be made... that the hoofbeats were from zebras and not horses... when the observations DO NOT FIT the expected normal scenario. In this instance, the streak of light followed by the bright flash of an ordnance explosion DID NOT FIT the mid-air collision scenario expected. To make that conclusion one must shift time and place and situation.
Flying on a warm evening evening off of Long Island, one DOES NOT EXPECT TO SEE an AA missile! One's mind must shift gears and paradigms to realize what actually was seen.
{Elmer}You've given a classic example of "shootdown" tinfoil hat blabberbabble on a subject you know NOTHING about.
{Acehai} ...And you've given a classic example of how to recognize and expose a disinformationist. I'll simply invoke Number 5 of H. Michael Sweeney's 25 Rules of Disinformation, found at his excellent website by clicking...
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', tinfoil hats', [my addendum] radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
Swordmaker then responds to your faux pas with the following:
Your database is truly amazing... my compliments to your staff.
This article from the September 1, 1996 Newsday (article deleted in the interest of brevity, check Elmers post if truly necessary to recap [acehai])was part of the astounding coordinated effort to disparage and impeach ALL of the eyewitnesses to TWA-800. To believe this, NOTHING reported by a witness can be at all reliable in any way.
The true method of evaluation of eyewitnesses is to compare and contrast the various reports... not to totally discount everything stated and ignore the qualifications and training of those who are making the reports. ALL observations are filtered through the mind of the observer... and initial reports are best for raw data, however INTERPRETATION of that data requires input from other sources.
Now, let's look at your introduction to the article and see how you are less interested in presenting an objective discussion than you are in attacking anyone who disagrees with you. You said:
You've given a classic example of "shootdown" tinfoil hat blabberbabble on a subject you know NOTHING about.
Expert - "A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.
Objective readers are encouraged to compare the following with your wacky "analysis".
Your introduction is filled with "loaded" words... all designed to attack your oponents and are therefore ad hominem" argumental fallacies. They are intended to insult the person you are addressing and prejudice the idle reader against anything they may say.
YOU have no information at all about my background or fields of expertise... yet you, based on some articles in the popular press, call a well thought out analysis and opinion "tinfoil hat blabberbabble" and "wacky." It is neither.
Our system of justice DOES NOT RELY on experts. It relies on the judgement of ordinary people, weighing and evaluating the evidence presented which may include the OPINIONS of experts. In the case of TWA-800, the testimony, the evidence, offered by hundreds of eyewitnesses, regardless of its probitive value, was systematically distorted, devalued, obfuscated, and finally, uniquely, BANNED from presentation before the probitive panel, effectively preventing that panel from evaluating and weighing that evidence. Instead, they were given an "expert's" opinion and interpretation of that testimony that in most, if not all, instances was FALSE TO FACT and was based solely on what THIRD PARTY interviewers recalled of the statements sometime after the interview! The FBI 302 system does not lend itself to accurate reporting... it relies on the memories of the FBI agents as to what the witness reports. The NTSB was then presented with an "expert's" recollection of what the FBI agents wrote down of what they recalled the witnesses said instead of hearing what the witnesses have to say themselves. Absurd.
You continually present yourself as an "expert" on this case... I suggest that there is another definition of "expert" that fits:
And the best reply you could come up with, Elmer, was...
You continue to demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about.
Aw gee, Elmer...Whatsamatter? Won't these nasty old "tin-foil hats" play fair???
It's the role of a Jury to "weigh and evaluate the evidence presented which may include the opinions of experts".
The nature and extent of the evidence presented to a jury is determined by an expert, the Trial Court Judge. Jurors are routinely taken out of the Court while the issues of what they will be permitted to hear and see are argued by experts, the lawyers representing the litigants, following which the Judge decides what the jury members will be allowed to hear and see - and what they will not be allowed to hear and see.
It's NOT the role of eyewitnesses to "weigh and evaluate the evidence presented which may include the opinions of experts". They are routinely not even allowed to be in the Court prior to their own testimony. The purpose is to prevent them from being tainted by hearing the comments of the Judge and the lawyers or the testimony of anyone else.
The role of eyewitnesses is to tell only what they actually saw, no more, in response to questions they are asked by the lawyers for the litigants and sometimes the Judge and even members of the jury.
The NTSB is NOT a Trial Court. It's purpose is to determine the facts necessary to come to an informed conclusion about the cause or "probable cause" of a transportation event. In the case of Flight 800, the FBI seized control of the investigation because of James Kallstrom's knee jerk "missile shotdown" reaction to the initial reports of a fiery streak immediately followed by the Massive Fireball explosion. One of the consequences was that the NTSB eventually had to rely for the most part on FBI 302 form witness interviews that are nothing more than FBI agents' recollections and understanding of the responses of witnesses to the questions asked.
By the way, are you contending ALL of the 700+ witnesses should have testified - or just the mythical "missile witnesses"? Name those you wanted to testify. And WHO do you believe should have been permitted to question them in that event? YOU? Bill Donaldson? Reed Irvine? ALL of the hundreds of lawyers representing the lititgants?
Regardless, LONG BEFORE the NTSB's Baltimore Hearing, the material damage experts of various government agencies determined that NO EVIDENCE of a missile or bomb was found in the wreckage.
And, of course, the FBI "302's" and the NTSB's own interviews have been made available to the public on the internet along with the NTSB's voluminous "probable cause" report.
Why haven't you or any of the rest of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats ever publicly expressed ANY interest in whether Bill Donaldson's own 100+ witness interviews will ever be made public?
Yet, you and some of the rest of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats, ALL unqualified by training and experience to expertly interview the Flight 800 witnesses, much less to expertly analyze the witness reports yourselves, have continued your mantra that "the witnesses should have been allowed to testify" even though none of you have been able, after nearly six years of effort to publicly present ANY physical evidence of a bomb or missile or an expert analysis of of the witness reports that disagrees with the conclusions of the NTSB's Witness Groups.
In the interim, your house-of-cards "case" fell apart early on and your first perceived "missile witnesses" authority figure, Ian Goddard, made the following public statement:
LSoft Flight 800 Forum
Date: 4 October 1997
From: Ian Goddard
Subject: Getting over TWA 800
[excerpt]
Breaching the security of a criminal investigation, which all FBI investigations are, is a matter of National Security by definition.
Did Sanders illegally acquire evidence? Yes.
Did someone illegally give him evidence? Yes.
Is it the role of the govt to enforce law? Yes.
Because the answer to all those questions is "yes," the fact that the govt is pursuing violations of law proves only that the govt is guilty of enforcing laws.
The situation presents zero evidence of illicit cover-up and should not be measured as evidence of anything except that the govt is doing its stated job. If the FBI does not go after the violation, that would be derelict.
Another thing, it's been suggested that opponents of the Friendly Fire theory on the list are govt agents and that they work for some PR firm or some such hired to defend the Navy and the official case. Assuming that that is true, it is implied that this is yet more evidence that the govt is guilty of downing TWA 800 and has hired people to cover it up.
Let's think about it for a moment: if people started accusing Sears of killing people, and if it was false, would Sears have a duty to not defend itself? A duty not to hire a PR firm to defend itself? No. Would hiring a PR firm to defend itself constitute evidence of culpability? Absolutely not!
YET those who WANT to believe Sears is guilty will see it and paint it as evidence of guilt. That is in fact fascistic: any entity, private or public has a right to defend itself against charges made against it; to attempt to pervert that right to self-defence into evidence of culpability is a profound injustice. It is an effort to rape the opponent.
BTW, I'm not "switching sides." After taking time off to cool down from my TWA 800 fever, I've realized that I should look at things from the other side, make the other case, and then test the logic. Too much I was piling up anything I could to support the F-Fire theory with anything that felt like evidence, but which, upon a more objective analysis, might not even be evidence at all.
It's fun and even addictive to kick around the government, that big faceless establishment that your allowed to pummel with words; but that does not necessarily ensure logical conclusions.
Could the FF theory simply be a house of cards built upon a base of wishful yet errant analysis? It's not wrong to propose a theory. When I proposed the FF theory over a year ago (not the first to do so) I was viciously attacked, my reputation smeared and called insane 10 million times. That will cause the meek to quickly disappear, it caused me to go to war, to prove I was not wrong, it was an ego battle. So as a matter of fact, I started off on the wrong footing. The people who attacked me did everyone on all "sides" a disservice.
If no one had attacked me, I probably would have wandered off onto other things. Instead I had to prove my case by any means short of the unethical. I don't consider listing all the reasons to believe X unethical,even if the reasons not to believe it are omitted, so long as those for are true.
While not unethical, it's not objective, it is biased. The need to defend my reputation against such base assault compelled be to be as biased as ethics would allow. If I had to run everyone in the Navy into jail in the process, so be it. Which is not to say I did not induce belief in my case in myself. I was 99% sure.
Taking several weeks off my TWA 800 fixation has been the best thing I've done in over a year! I don't care to ever get involved inthe case again and will ignore replies to this, which I'm sure will accuse me of becoming a govt agent and therefore as more evidence that the Navy shotdown TWA 800... yawn. I've had enough of all that paranoia.
I think we all need to get over TWA 800 and let the families pursue the case in the fashion that they see fit.
Now, here you are, mimicing that self acknowledged nutcase - including his legendary crybaby complaints about "ad hominem attacks" - while continuing the efforts of some of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats for the past 6 years to incite fear, suspicion and hatred of those who disagree with you by stating that the "article from the September 1, 1996 Newsday was part of the astounding coordinated effort to disparage and impeach ALL of the eyewitnesses to TWA-800. To believe this, NOTHING reported by a witness can be at all reliable in any way".
It would appear that you include Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, one of the world's foremost authorities on the fallibility and tainting of eyewitnesses, in that shotgun accusation. Read my lips:
You and your ilk have FALSELY accused thousands of innocent Americans of the felonious criminal coverup of heinous crimes that took place ONLY in your own sinister imaginations.
That's why so many of the postings of you and other "shootdown" tinfoil hats have been deleted. Rather than come to grips with the issues, you've spent six years trying to breath life into your stillborn "shootdown" nonsense with malicious Storm Trooper efforts incite suspicion, fear and hatred of those who disagree with you . That's why every member of congress, past and present, has turned their backs on you, why all but the "green men from Mars" press have been ignoring your antics for years and why the public has walked away.
'It's NOT the role of eyewitnesses to "weigh and evaluate the evidence presented which may include the opinions of experts". They are routinely not even allowed to be in the Court prior to their own testimony. The purpose is to prevent them from being tainted by hearing the comments of the Judge and the lawyers or the testimony of anyone else.'
The preceeding quotation of YOUR post contains a quotation from my reply to you that, taken out of context (and with your replacement clause added), implies that I said that the eyewitnesses' role is to "weigh and evaluate" the evidence.
I did not. This is just another form of the ad hominem fallacy.
I point out to the idle readers that the stresses added above are Asmodeus's and his purpose is to portray me, to anyone who did not read my original reply to a question he posed, as ignorant of our judicial process. By presenting me as ignorant, he hopes to win his case before arguing it by getting readers to infer I do not know what I am talking about.
This is all part of Asmodeus speaking ex cathedra, in which pontificates on well known facts of the Justice system by giving us his interpretation of "trial court 101." He is playing a role. Asmodeus wants us to believe he is the wise professor, correcting and instructing the poor ignorant student. it is all a set up to make us believe HE knows what he is talking about. And he can't help but add a few zingers.
In his world, the trial court is composed of experts, the judge and lawyers, who from their absolute unassailable expertise, decide what the jury will hear. The now perfectly untainted testimony and evidence (Just the facts, Ma'am!) is presented before a jury who will make an unbiased and totally objective evaluation of what happened, with no application of their life experiences, education, and knowledge from other sources, just like little machines.
This brings us to the NTSB...
His purpose here is to establish that experts at the NTSB should have a similar role in selecting what the board should consider in making its decision.
Yes, Asmodeus, I know, the National Transportation Safety Board hearing is not a jury trial. It is more akin to a Coronor's Inquest. As you said: "It's purpose is to determine the facts necessary to come to an informed conclusion about the cause or 'probable cause' of a transportation event.
You, yourself, said: "The role of eyewitnesses is to tell only what they actually saw, no more, in response to questions they are asked by the lawyers for the litigants and sometimes the Judge and even members of the jury." - Professor Asmodeus
Yet, at the NTSB hearing... and even before, in the investigative phase... the TWA-800 eyewitnesses were allowed to play NO ROLE AT ALL. The lawyers, the judge, the jury... none got to question them. Only the FBI agents asked them any questions... and then wrote a report. What "eyewitness" testimony that was offered at the hearing was presented by a person with an agenda: he was apparently charged with making certain no witnesses testimony was reported accurately. The NTSB, the inquisitive body, was DENIED evidence. In fact, they were presented FALSE EVIDENCE. Some expert decided what evidence the board could and could not hear.
You agree that the FBI 302s are not ideal evidence. But you then make the total leap of logic off the deep end of the world when you claim: "...the NTSB eventually had to rely for the most part on FBI 302 form witness interviews that are nothing more than FBI agents' recollections and understanding of the responses of witnesses to the questions asked. "
THAT IS NOT TRUE! You say it is because it advances your agenda.
In a trial, best evidence is primary evidence. A witness deposition is not permited or admissable unless the deposed is NOT AVAILABLE and even if admitted, the jurors are told to give it less weight than actual testimony. A police officer's report of what a witness said is inadmissable as hearsay. In this case were the witnesses unavailable??? Were they dead? No? Then the NTSB did not have to "rely" on the flawed reports from the FBI.
"By the way, are you contending ALL of the 700+ witnesses should have testified - or just the mythical "missile witnesses"? Name those you wanted to testify."
I suggest that there are witnesses with more probitive value than others. I would believe it would be prudent to call those with the most detailed and complete accounts. I do not need to name them. There is a world of difference between NO EYEWITNESSES and even ONE.
"Regardless, LONG BEFORE the NTSB's Baltimore Hearing, the material damage experts of various government agencies determined that NO EVIDENCE of a missile or bomb was found in the wreckage."
Using evidence ALL FILTERED THROUGH THE FBI amid numerous and credible reports of the disappearance, suppression, alteration, and destruction of evidence! In addition, some of those experts deny the negative results attributed to them. If, at the evidence collection stage, there is a concerted effort to misdirect any evidence that does not fit a preconceived scenario, and there IS credible evidence such misdirection did occur, then the lack of evidence is not surprising.
GIGO. Garbage IN, Garbage OUT.
"Why haven't you or any of the rest of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats ever publicly expressed ANY interest in whether Bill Donaldson's own 100+ witness interviews will ever be made public?"
Ignoring your obligitory ad hominemslurs, we have and they have. I've read several. I will not do your homework for you and post any. Find them yourself. Enough said.
"Yet, you and some of the rest of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats, ALL unqualified by training and experience to expertly interview the Flight 800 witnesses, much less to expertly analyze the witness reports yourselves, have continued your mantra that "the witnesses should have been allowed to testify" even though none of you have been able, after nearly six years of effort to publicly present ANY physical evidence of a bomb or missile or an expert analysis of of the witness reports that disagrees with the conclusions of the NTSB's Witness Groups."
Ignoring your tiresome, knee-jerk slurs:
Asmodeus, WHERE are the government's expertly interviewed witnesses??? From what we have learned (and you admit) the witnesses were NOT expertly interviewed by anyone with any expertise in air disaster investigation. Where are the experts in ground-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft missiles, airliners being shot down by missiles, Centerwing tank explosions of 747s, parralax view, ballistic trajectory, etc., that were intimately involved in questioning the witnesses? Finally, how could the NTSB witness evaluation expert, expertly evaluate flawed and inexpertly interviewed witness reports???? Again, Garbage IN, Garbage OUT!
The Ian Goddard excerpt is a Non Sequitur and means nothing. He has not changed his view that TWA-800 was shot down. He is questioning his conclusion that it was the US Navy's "friendly fire" that was responsible.
"It would appear that you include Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, one of the world's foremost authorities on the fallibility and tainting of eyewitnesses, in that shotgun accusation."
Because any single person's work is co-opted by someone with an agenda does NOT mean that person is in agreement with that agenda. Dr. Loftus' work is irrelevant. The import here is the timing and purpose of the article reporting her work... not what she wrote. Would her obscure book been the subject of a NEWS article had not so many eyewitnesses reported similar sightings of something strange in the sky before the destruction of TWA-800? I doubt it.
"Read my lips: You and your ilk have FALSELY accused thousands of innocent Americans of the felonious criminal coverup of heinous crimes that took place ONLY in your own sinister imaginations.
Where, oh where, Asmodeus, have I uttered such a thing? In my view, it does not take thousands to cover up this... it takes only a few, properly placed. It is my viewpoint that it was a terrorist act. The cover-up may be the result of the US Navy's FAILURE to intercept and capture the occupants of the two missile firing boats or it may be because the administration did not want a failure on its record in the upcoming elections. Unlike you, I keep an open mind on this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.