Perhaps Asmodeus being the recipient of the infamous post #666 award wasn't so much a matter of dumb luck after all...

Logical Fallacies and Ethical Breaches

Lynn S. Crook, Richland, WA

Martha C. Dean, Sydney, Australia

We address Loftus' reliance on the ad hominem technique to establish a clear distinction between her characterization of us and the legitimacy of our concerns regarding the ethics of her research.

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
The ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy in which one attempts to discredit in-formation, opinions, or questions by discrediting the person who is raising the issue (e.g., Halpern, 1996). Loftus (this issue) describes our article (Crook & Dean, this is-sue) as a "partisan essay" by "women like Crook" who "complain," "deliberate[ly] attempt to distort [her] work," and who "attack" her to "personally and publicly create trouble for [her]." She proceeds further to "cast doubt on the process that led to the acceptance of [this] manuscript." The ad hominem tone of Loftus' reply follows her established strategy of response to most writers who disagree with her.

For example, in responding to Dr. Ken Pope's review of one of her books, Loftus disparaged the reviewer's integrity, making a false accusation about his ethics. After a thorough investigation of the matter, the journal published a correction and an apology for Loftus' "false statement disparaging Dr. Pope's ethics" ("Correction Notice and Apology," 1997). In another example, Loftus (1998) responded to an article by Dr. Laura Brown (1997) with: "The extent to which my ideas were repeatedly and grossly misrepresented makes it difficult to conclude that some accident or misunderstanding occurred" (Loftus, 1998, p.484). However, there is no evidence to support Loftus' accusation. As Brown said: "Readers who carefully check the original published sources will find that in my article (Brown 1997). I quoted Loftus accurately and in context" (Brown, 1998, p.488; for similar ad hominem arguments against other noted experts in the field, see Loftus' deposition in Vickie Turner and Michael Turner V Linda Honker, MEd; Art C. Aarauzo, MD; Charter Behaviorial Health System of Dallas, Inc.; Maryanne Watson, PhD; and Lee Smith, PhD, 1996, pp.83-S4, 141-142, 152-154).

Loftus has used the derogatory concept of "True Believer" (Loftus & Ketcham, 1994, p.31) to characterize those who disagree with her as irrational fanatics and has characterized therapists who use approaches of which she disapproves as "executioners" (Loftus, Milo, & Paddock, 1995). When an attorney asked Loftus during a Wisconsin civil case if she thought both sides were reasonable, she testified:

"Well, it depends. When they are not doing nasty evil things trying to get even with you for speaking the truth, they sometimes have reasonable moments" (Nadean Cool, Michael Cool, Kimberly D. Cool, and Michael J. Cool V. Blue Cross and Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, 1997, p. 191).
Loftus stated that "resistance" to her ideas is based not on evidence, reason, and good faith, but rather on prejudice and fear-for example: "I know the prejudices and fears that lie behind the resistance to my life's work" (Loftus & Ketcham, 1994, p.4). She has compared herself to someone who risked his life to save Jews from the Nazis: "'I feel like Oskar Schindler,' Loftus muses, referring to the German financier who rescued doomed Jews from the Nazis" (Kahn, 1994, p.80). "'I keep thinking of Oskar Schindler circling the lake with thousands of people,' she says without a trace of irony... "(Niemark, 1996, p.50).' We suggest that, in comparing herself to Schindler, Loftus leaves little doubt as to how she characterizes those who disagree with her. It is clear that those who question Loftus' work risk being confronted with attacks on their integrity and credibility.

CROOK V MURPHY

Loftus' (this issue) reference to a chapter in a book by Ofshe and Watters is parenthetical to our discussion of the mall study, and we suggest that her decision to mention it here is one more example of her ad hominem strategy. Loftus advises readers that this chapter provides a "description of Crook's recovered memory court case.

1. 'When asked under cross-examination in Donna Rodriguez et al. v. Robert Perez et al (l998) if she had "made public statements and referred to [herself] as the Oskar Schindler of [the] falsely accused?," Loftus replied: "That, that is absolutely false. It's been taken out context and distorted," and she offered to provide "the truth of exactly what [she] said." However, after reading tbe context of Lofus' other comments regarding Schindler, we conclude that the cross-examiner's assumption was reasonable rather than "absolutely false."

Crook (1995) previously addressed the most egregious aspects of Ofshe's unscholarly account of Crook V. Murphy. For the record, the judge found in favor of Crook, and his official opinion (Crook V. Murphy, 1994b) of the testimonies of Loftus and Ofshe is available online at http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Taubman_Center/Recovmem/Archive.html

However, Loftus' testimony in Crook V. Murphy did play an initiating role in this discussion. In reading Loftus' testimony in this case, Crook noted that the study's new chief research assistant had told Loftus that "somewhere between 15 and 18 percent of the subjects were [sic], at this phase of the experiment, had come to develop this expanded memory of being lost in the mall" (Crook V. Murphy, 1994c, p. 1621). This testimony appeared to contradict Loftus' earlier statement to the media (Associated Press, 1992) that the first five participants had accepted the false "lost" memory. Further examination of the mall study revealed still more problems regarding methodology, reporting, and the ethics of human participants research.

HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE (HSC) ISSUES

In her reply to us, Loftus (this issue) does not address the fact that a reporter (Goleman, 1992) quoted her regarding the preliminary results of the mall study nearly 3 weeks prior to the time that the study received HSC approval. Considering her failure to address such a significant point, we are left to wonder if her silence on the subject is indicative of her having no rebuttal to offer, or if she deems this issue as so inconsequential that it requires no comment.

Loftus (Loftus & Ketcham, 1994, p.96) suggested to her students that they might experiment with injecting entire false memories into someone's mind. The fact that this extra-credit assignment was "not formal research" does not negate its impact on the human participants. Indeed, any "experiment" on human participants ethically requires certain steps for approval. The fact that Loftus apparently feels free to disregard the ethics of human experimentation when she interprets the rules about human participants as not applicable to a given situation does not make such experimentation less of an ethical violation.

Furthermore, Loftus (this issue) reveals a surprising lack of knowledge about the actual rules of human participants experimentation at her university. In her deposition in Turner V. Honker (1996, p. 143), Loftus' testimony that "class observations" do not require HSC approval does not coincide with HSC regulations. The University of Washington's HSC requires that class assignments that involve student experimentation on human participants be presented for approval. If HSC approval was not requested prior to making the assignment, then permission should be requested retroactively prior to publishing these results. However, we have found no evidence that Loftus actually obtained such approval. Finally, these results, when published, should not include identifiers that might reveal the identity of the participants (University of Washington HSC staff, personal communication, May 14, 1998). Clearly, by revealing the exact identities of Jim Coan's younger brother and Linda Binet's daughter, Loftus has failed to follow this rule.

While reviewing Jim Coan's (1993) honors thesis (which we discuss in the next section), we uncovered yet another ethical issue related to methodological discrepancies in the original mall study by Loftus and Pickrell (1995). Simply stated, Loftus and Pickrell added a second interview and questions for a second evaluation scale to there-search protocol after the study was well underway and long after its approval date on August 10, 1992. Because the university's HSC requires submission of a new Human Subjects Application (UW 13-11) when changes in or additions to interviews are pro-posed, we contacted the Public Records Office at the University of Washington to determine if Loftus applied for HSC approval for these modifications.

We requested copies of all status reports related to the mall study subsequent to the study's approval on August 10, 1992. The Public Records Office provided copies of the five status reports that had been filed annually since 1993 and that extended approval for the study on a continuous basis through July 16, 1998. Each report indicates that no change to the original mall study, other than changes in the number of participants, was ever submitted to the RSC. Each status report application form includes the following advisory. "Valid only as long as approved procedures are followed" (e.g., Status report on human subjects application, No. 23-332-C, 1993). As a result, when Loftus and Pickrell modified the study's methodology, they began experimenting on human participants without the required HSC approval.

These five status reports reveal further discrepancies regarding the number of participants enrolled in the mall study. For example, according to the status report filed in 1994 (Status report on human subjects application, No. 24-316-C, 1994), "24 subjects have been run. About 8-9% have formed false positive memories. Another 1-l5% formed partial false memories."2 According to the 1995 status report (Status report on human subjects application, No. 25-401-C, 1995), 48 participants were enrolled in the study to date. The 1996 status report (Status report on human subjects application, No. 26 -0349-C, 1996) stated that 24 participants were enrolled in the study to date, whereas the 1997 status report (Status report on human subjects application, No. 27-0411-C, 1997) stated that 30 participants were enrolled in the study to date.

2. Notably, this status report provides information that was not included in the published version of the mall study. By converting the percentages, we can determine that 2 participants met the experimenters' criteria for fully forming a false positive memory and that as few as 2, or as many as 4, met the criteria for "partially convinced." Therefore, according to Loftus' status report to the HSC, we can conclude that 4, 5. or 6 of the 24 participants were either fully or partially convinced. This ambiguity in the reported total creates further questions about the experimenters' definition of what constitutes a positive case.

SELECTIVE REPORTING OF DATA

It is our understanding that the HSC approved a lost in a mall study for which Jim Coan served as chief investigator and on which he based his honors thesis (Coan, 1993). Coan (1997) reported that he participated in the HSC approval process for the mall study. In his honors thesis, Coan (1993, pp. 14-16) provided a description of the procedure3 that was used to determine the level of acceptance of the false memory. Coan (1993, p.16) reported the results of the 10 participants who completed the booklet process and the 6 who completed the interview process.4 However, Loftus, in her deposition in Crook V. Murphy (1994a), testified that none of Coan's results were included in the formal study because the "chief investigator left the project and ... paperwork [was] in somewhat of a disrepair" (p.60).

3. Level 0:"... no memory of the event"; Level 1 "....... the subject accepts the possibility"; Level 2:"...a clear memory of only what was suggested"; Level 3: " ... the subject remembers details closely pertaining to the suggested event which were not actually suggested."

4. For the 10 participants who completed the booklet process, 6 were coded Level 0 and 4 were coded Level 1. For the 6 who completed the interview process. 4 were coded Level O and 2 were coded Level 3.

Given that Coan apparently obtained only a minimal level of acceptance during the booklet phase and that the 6 participants who completed the study clearly either accepted or did not accept the false memory, we have to wonder why Loftus discarded all of Coan's data. In the methodology text Tactics of Scientific Research, Sidman (1960) stated that eliminating participants from consideration is justified "only when the experimenter can identify the conditions responsible for the behavior of the deviant participants. Otherwise he [or she] is open to the charge that he [for she] has selected data on the basis of preconceptions about the experimental results" (pp.189-190).

The disagreement Loftus has with us regarding whether 20.8% or 25% of the participants accepted the false memory centers around the extra step in the second interview. Our point is that Loftus, in her conclusion, has overstated her results. Loftus' own data suggest that the implanted memories tend to be weaker than the real ones, and these implanted memories weaken rather than strengthen with repeated interviews. Over time, they get weaker still; especially when the possibility is raised that one of the memories could be false.

Much of the data in the mall study fails to support Loftus' position. Our view is that a responsible scientist must maintain an attitude of scientific conservatism in discussions with all audiences and certainly with the media, who tend to overstate any scientific finding that might grab headlines.

EXISTENCE PROOF

Loftus' (this issue) defense of her use of the term existence proof merits a response as well. Loftus quotes Luce's (personal communication, October 2, 1997) definition of existence proof to support Loftus and Pickerell's (1995) claim that the mall study provides existence proof that false memories can be implanted. However, Luce is referring to axiomatically defined systems, clearly limiting his definition to pure mathematics. Furthermore, many mathematicians require more rigor in their existence proofs than Loftus has used in her own reasoning. In The Nature and Growth of Modern Mathematics, Kramer (1970) stated that: "Another feature in the situation is the use of an 'existence proof.' Some modern logicians refuse to accept a proof that something exists or something can be done ... Such critics say that a valid proof not only must show that a thing can be done ... "(p. 597) but that it must contain the exact mathematical process as well. Mathematical existence proofs serve a function that is totally irrelevant to the objectives of science and psychology. They are facets of pure logic that demonstrate that a particular configuration exists, assuming a particular logic system.

Few would claim that psychology, as a whole is a closed coherent system in the manner of logic or mathematics, fields in which deductions from axioms are appropriate. Professor Joseph D. Allen, head of the psychology department at the University of Georgia, told us:

I can tell you that if mathematics does subscribe to a principle of existence proof, there are psychologists who will buy it hook, line, and sinker and happily misapply it to situations where it has no right to be used. (personal communication, April 22, 1998)

Indeed, the term existence proof, when used in psychological research, may well be a step backwards from the scientific practice in which researchers specify the precise criteria for demonstrating a phenomenon and then discuss whether the evidence meets those criteria. This seems to be the case in Loftus' mall study.

Even in the loosest sense of the term, Loftus' (this issue) claims of proof are unjustified because she failed to use basic experimental controls in the design of the mall study (e.g., Campbell & Stanley, 1966; Rosenthal, 1976; Winkler, Kanouse, & Ware, 1982). We suggest that Loftus' use of existence proof is simply a convenient rhetorical device employed to lend the appearance of scientific authority to her hypothesis in the absence of clear and convincing data. It cannot be over-looked, after all, that in her reply to us, Loftus associates her own use of the term existence proof to its inscription on a silver cigarette lighter. Although such a reference may be a charming anecdote, it hardly qualifies as a scholarly source.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated that the ethics, methods, data, and assumptions in the mall study have not been subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny, and yet, the purported results of the mall study have been entered into sworn testimony and reported by the media to support a claim that therapists can implant false memories of childhood trauma. Although we acknowledge that inaccurate and mistaken memories may occur, we must conclude that Loftus and Pickrell's mall study does not support in any manner the notion that false autobiographical memories of abuse in childhood can be implanted by therapists. Finally, we suggest that any legal decisions that have been based on claims that the mall study provides such evidence should be carefully reexamined. Appellate courts should be especially wary of relying on or citing the study as authoritative support for the proposition that false memories of sexual abuse can be implanted, because once a study is so cited in an appellate decision, it takes on value that it may not deserve and may unduly influence other judicial decisions.

REFERENCES

Associated Press. (1992, August 14). Analyst doubts abuse "memories." Tri-City Herald, A5.

Brown, L. 5(1997). The private practice of subversion: Psychology as tikkun olam. American Psychologist, 52, 449-462.

Brown, L. S. (1998). Sacred space. not sacred cows, or it's never fun being prophetic. American Psychologist. 53, 488-490.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Coan, 3. A. (1993, August 18). Creating false memories. Senior paper, Psychology Honors Program, University of Washington, Seattle.

Coan, J. A. (1997). Lost in a shopping mall: An experience with controversial research. Ethics & Behavior, 7, 271-284.

Correction notice and apology. (1997, Fall). Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 4(3).

Crook, L. (1995). Letter from Lynn Crook. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4, 115-118.

Crook v. Murphy, No. 91-2-00l1-2-5, Deposition of Elizabeth F. Loftus, PhD, Benton Co., Washing-ton (1994a, January 24).

Crook v. Murphy, No.91-2-0011-2-5, Proceedings had before Superior Court Judge Dennis D. Yule, Benton Co., Washington (1994b, March 4).

Crook v. Murphy, No.91-2-0011-2-5, Trial testimony of Elizabeth F. Loftus, PhD. Benton Co., Washington (1994c, February 17).

Donna Rodriguez et al. v. Robert Perez et al., No. 98-2-074O-3, Trial testimony of Elizabeth F. Loftus, PhD, King Co., Washington (1998, April 27).

Goleman, D. (1992, July 21). Childhood trauma: Memory or invention? New York Times, B5.

Halpem, D. F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Kahn, J. P. (1994, December 14). Trial by memory: Stung by daughters' claims of abuse, a writer lashes back. Boston Globe, 80.

Kramer, E. E. (1970). The nature and growth of modern mathematics. New York: Hawthorn.

Loftus, E. F. (1998). The private practice of misleading deflection. American Psychologist, 53, 484-485.

Loftus, E. F., & Ketcham, K. (1994). The myth of repressed memory. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Loftus, E. F., Milo, E., & Paddock, J. (1995). The accidental executioner: Why psychotherapy must be informed by science. Counseling Psychologist, 23. 300-~309.

Loftus, E. F., & Pickrell, J. B. (1995). The formation of false memories. Psychiatric Annals, 25, 720-725.

Nadean Cool, Michael Cool, Kimberly D. Cool, and Michael J. Cool V. Blue Cross and Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, No. 94CV0707, Trial testimony of Elizabeth Loltus, PhD, Outgamie Co., Wisconsin (1997, February 20).

Niemark, 1. (1996, January/February). The diva of disclosure. Psychology Today, 29, 48-80.

Rosenthal, R. (1976). Experimenter effects in behavioral research New York: Irvington.

Sidrnan, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books.

Status report on human subjects application, No. 23-332-C. (1993, June 24). Seattle: University of Washington, Public Records Office.

Status report on human subjects application, No. 24-316-C. (1994, June 9). Seattle: University of Washington, Public Records Office.

Status report on human subjects application, No. 25-401-C (1995, August 3). Seattle: University of Washington, Public Records Office.

Status report on human subjects application, No. 26-0349-C. (1996, July 25). Seattle: University of Washington, Public Records Office.

Status report on human subjects application, No. 27-0411-C. (1997, July 17). Seattle: University of Washington, Public Records Office.

Vickie Turner and Michael Turner v. Linda Honker, MEd; Art C. Aarauzo, MD; Charter Behaviorial Health System of Dallas, Inc.; Maryanne Watson, PhD; and Lee Smith, PhD, No.95-03624, Deposition of Elizabeth F. Loftus, PhD, Dallas Co., Texas (1996, July 10).

Winkler, J. D., Kanouse, D. E., & Ware, J. (1982). Controlling for acquiescence response set in scale development. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 67, 555-561.

It is really a classic Clintonoid set-up/ploy, Kallstrom, by blowing the whistle, now looks like the white knight, and the public is, well confused, out of the loop anyway, and they get away with it. A CLINTON CLASSIC!!

BINGO.

Perhaps Asmodeus being the recipient of the infamous post #666 award wasn't so much a matter of dumb luck after all...

Asmodeus, Asmoday, Asbeel, Agares, Astaroth...you've gone and bedeviled the very devil, FL.

Memory as Evidence: Handle with Care
By Scott Gronlund, Associate Professor of Psychology

No detective would approach a crime scene and, upon seeing the murder weapon, pick it up and hand it to another detective. Instead, the detective picks up the murder weapon with tongs and carefully places it in a plastic bag to preserve the physical evidence of what happened.

However, that same detective would not take the same care with the memory of the eyewitness. For example, he might congratulate the witness upon choosing the suspect from the lineup. Unfortunately, research shows that this can make witnesses more confident about their identification and enhance their judgment of how good a view they got of the suspect.

Physical evidence is carefully preserved so that at the trial the murder weapon exists in much the same condition as at the time of the crime. In contrast, eyewitnesses' memory at the trial may bear little resemblance to their memory at the time of the crime, unbeknownst even to the eyewitnesses themselves.

The advent of forensic DNA testing has clearly demonstrated that an eyewitness cannot always be believed. A recent study by the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law found that faulty identifications contributed to 81% of the 74 convictions that were later overturned by DNA testing. It's happening in Oklahoma, too.

For example, Jeffrey Pierce was recently released from prison after serving 15 years for a rape he did not commit. Although the work of Oklahoma City police chemist Joyce Gilchrist appears to be the primary reason for Pierce's conviction, a faulty identification played a role. Pierce was doing landscape work near the scene of the rape. Because he fit the general description of the rapist, a police officer pointed him out to the victim from a short distance. The victim said that he was not the man. However, ten months later she picked him out of a lineup. Why?

Another example involves the Timothy McVeigh investigation. Employees at Elliott's body shop reported that another man accompanied McVeigh when he rented the Ryder truck on April 17, 1995. The FBI dubbed him John Doe #2. It now appears that there was no John Doe #2. Did the witness make him up?

These witnesses were not lying. They were responding truthfully based on what they remembered. The problem is that memory is not good at retaining the kind of information on which they were relying. People have poor recollection for the source of a memory because it is generally not relevant. When I give my college students an exam, I ask them to define an important concept, not to report whether they learned that definition from the textbook, in lecture, or from a classmate. The source of the knowledge doesn't matter.

The source of a childhood memory provides another example. Is your memory for the time you tipped over in your high chair a result of grandma telling you about it years later, or do you actually remember it happening? Who cares; it happened.

However, the problem arises when a witness is asked to make a determination that involves the source of a memory. Did Jeffrey Pierce look familiar to the rape victim in the subsequent lineup because he raped her, or because she had seen him 10 months earlier? Your memory informs you that he looks familiar, but not why he looks familiar. Was John Doe #2 at the body shop with McVeigh, or was he Todd Bunting, who rented a truck the next day, with Michael Hertig? In this case, events that happened at two different times were apparently mixed up and combined into one new event.

Can anything be done to make eyewitnesses more reliable? Although we cannot change the way our memory works, we can and should take steps to minimize the extent to which the memory of an eyewitness is contaminated. The Department of Justice recently published a set of guidelines for law enforcement officers. By following these guidelines, memory evidence would be treated with the same care given physical evidence. For example, witnesses should not talk with one another; if they do, they begin to incorporate aspects of what the other witness saw as part of their own memory, thus tainting their own account of what happened.

For the same reason, witnesses should avoid media accounts of the crime because events reported in the media may become confused with what the witness remembers. Another guideline to be adopted by the state of New Jersey this coming October involves having the person who conducts the lineup not know who the suspect is. That avoids the problem of the lineup administrator giving feedback to witnesses about their choices. Simple steps, but demonstrated to be effective.

Memory evidence can never be preserved as well as physical evidence. However, following the Department of Justice guidelines would help ensure that the memory the witness brings to the trial is as reliable as possible. It's time for Oklahoma to adopt these guidelines so that the next time the detective interviews an eyewitness, he'll know to treat the memory evidence with the same care as he currently treats the physical evidence.

____________________

19: You told me before they [FBI] never even asked you all these [questions]?

DWIGHT BRUMLEY: No, no, no, uh-uh....It wasn't until I talked to Commander Donaldson...it wasn't until he talked to me that I had anybody with any aviation expertise really sit down with me and really parse what I said and clarify and get me to, in my mind, go back through it, step-by-step.
Source.

____________________

http://twa800.com/news/ap-7-18-00.htm
DWIGHT BRUMLEY: "I could not positively say that what I saw was a missile. What I saw was a very bright flame of light moving parallel to my aircraft".

You know Asmodeus, you really should read the website you're linking from if you're trying to use it in a manner to case doubt over the fact that missiles brought down TWA 800..

Or are you retracting your "WitnessMyth Theory" and admitting that we have been right all along?

From Eyewitness Dwight Brumley: FBI questions answered, four years later:

Brumley: The fact that it [the flare like object] was overtaking, appeared to overtaking the US-Air flight, it really had to be moving. And also, something that really contradicts what the NTSB and FBI and whoever else is involved in trying to come up with what they think happened, or maybe they want to have happened is the fact that this definitely came from behind my...far to the right...if I was looking directly out the side of the plane, this thing was still behind my field of view and coming up and moving forward, so for them to try and keep everything focused on that center wing tank with nothing else involved....it just seems like they're really ignoring information that doesn't fit their theories, instead of gathering all the information, lay it out, and now what does this tell us...so they've got to get the witnesses to agree with what they say.

Memorandum
To: Thomas H. Jourdan
From: William A. Tobin
Date: 07-15-97
Subject: Metallurgical Status Report: TWA 800

The last FBI metallurgical examinations or evaluations conducted of any significance, relating to damaged TWA 800 components, were in approximately October 1996. As directed by you, on January 1, 1997, I elicited a commitment for the services of a retired research scientist and metallographic laboratory specializing in the aluminum alloys primarily comprising the Boeing 747-100.

Since May 1997, the scientist has been researching the location, morphology, and formation fracture mechanics of small holes with "spike tooth" fractures, the only metallurgically significant indicator present at a high strain rate. However, the holes are relatively small (none of which could reasonably have been responsible for "instantaneous" cessation of the recorders), exhibit no apparent preferred concentration, exhibit no apparent isotrophy, and are in matrices which exhibit no characteristics of impulsive loading or proximity to explosive (ordnance) materials.

The scientist has observed no indication of bomb or missile damage, and brings to ten the number of metallurgists officially examining and pronouncing the absence of bomb or missile damage, four from NTSB, three from Boeing, two from FBI Laboratory, and one scientist consultant.

It is noted that three of the aforementioned metallurgists could be considered to have a strong organizational interest in the finding that something other than mechanical failure initiated the catastrophic sequence of events.

The "spike tooth" failures, known to both the NTSB and FBI from other incidents to be the result if high velocity contacts from damaged aircraft components, have recently been duplicated in empirical tests conducted by the NTSB where metal pieces were brought in contact with the aircraft skin at strain rates already known to be available from the forward velocity of the passenger jet and velocities associated with free fall from 13,800 feet. In view of these observations, therefore, it is unreasonable to expect the "spike tooth" failures will be related to any criminal behavior which could have caused the disaster.
Source.

Secret FBI report refutes sworn testimony of William Tobin

A recently declassified FBI report appears to refute the sworn testimony of the FBI's former chief metallurgist assigned to the TWA800 crash case.

As disclosed in the recently declassified document (excerpts printed below) it appears William Tobin's testimony before the Senate during the Grassley hearings had little basis in fact.

Tobin testified that by September of 1996, approximately 4-6 weeks after his arrival on the case, there was a general consensus that there was "no bomb or missile damage" evident on the TWA wreckage. At the time frame indicated in Tobin's testimony, approximately one half of TWA800 was still at the bottom of the ocean.

The FBI's James Kallstrom, dismissed Tobin from the probe. Kallstrom believed Tobin's "conclusions" were hasty and unprofessional.

As evidenced by the once secret FBI report, it wasn't until November of 1996 that the FBI considered alternate investigative methods. This was two months after Tobin had already arrived at his conclusions. The report also states that even in November 1996, salvage efforts were still ongoing.

The document indicates that investigators had "little forensic documentation or guidance on large-body aircraft missile engagements, and no supportable mechanical or operational explanation for the crash."

FBI, TWA Flight 800 Brookhaven National Laboratory Examinations. Declassified FBI Report, 1997. (excerpts)

"It became apparent by the end of November 1996, about four months into the FBI's criminal investigation, that no aircraft debris recovered to that time had clear indicia of a high explosive event, although evidence recovery (i.e., ocean trawling for aircraft debris) and subsequent examination by bomb technicians for such indicia was continuing. In the face of no "classic" explosive artifacts little forensic documentation or guidance on large-body aircraft missile engagements, and no supportable mechanical or operational explanation for the crash of Trans World Airlines (TWA) Flight 800, FBI management decided that "... any investigative or scientific avenue that was reasonable and which could assist in providing a factual cause of the incident should and would be pursued."

The report goes on to say, that the initial metallurgical findings were reviewed, stating: A "cursory metallurgical peer review was conducted......" The report further states however, "No analysis or microscopic examinations were conducted." This would seem to indicate a review of the methodology used, and not a review of actual findings, as no further tests were performed.

Reproduced below, are excerpts from William Tobin's sworn testimony at the Grassley hearings.

Excerpts of FBI Metallurgist William Tobin’s testimony during the Grassley hearing.

GRASSLEY: Within 30 days of arriving at Calverton, what was your professional assessment of as to whether the cause of the crash was a bomb?

TOBIN: It progressed from an inclination of viewing the earmarks as possibly a bomb, but it changed rather quickly to confirmation within my mind that there was no indication of a bomb and unlikely to be that of a missile within the first 30 days.

GRASSLEY: At some point, did the bomb techs agree with yours and the NTSB's assessment that the cause of the crash was not a bomb?

TOBIN: Yes, Senator. I would estimate that probably four to six weeks -- after about four to six weeks, we were all unanimously or near unanimously on the same page. And all being the bomb techs, the National Transportation Safety Board and the metallurgy or the material science interests in the FBI laboratory. We were all unanimously -- we were united in our observations and conclusions that there was no bomb or missile damage evident on those aircraft parts.

GRASSLEY: The term four to six weeks brings you to what date on the calendar approximately? Just approximately.

TOBIN: My guess would be mid September, early to mid September.

It would appear that the FBI report and Tobin's testimony are at odds. This is just another glaring example of the inept and inconclusive investigation into one of the worst air disasters in history.

Copyright 2002, John E. Fiorentino -- All rights reserved. Distribution to wire services and recognized news media is allowed. No other use, distribution, or reproduction can be made without the express consent of the author.

FIRO's Tom Stalcup - LSoft Flight 800 Forum - 28 January 1998

" - - - - - - had an AMAZING story. She saw two objects rise from the water or land. The first object exploded near the tail and the second near the nose. She also saw a black submarine and its periscope. According to Ms. Pacholk, the periscope was looking in the direction of the plane, rotated about a 3/4 turn and saw her, then left the area. She believes that it is possible that at least one missile came from this sub. She also notice two large navy vessels in the ocean. One of which quickly left the area after the tragedy."

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:19:09 -0400
From: FLIGHT-800-REQUEST@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Subject: List is closing

This message is to announce the closing of this list to further postings effective last Friday. We apologize for the delay in posting it.

The FLIGHT-800 mailing list was started as a public service on July 19, 1996, to serve as a clearinghouse for information related to the crash of TWA Flight 800. The original mission statement for the list was:

* This is a list for discussing the flight 800 disaster and the
* steps needed to prevent further incidents of this kind. These
* discussions could include current airport safety standards,
* future prevention methods, and so forth.

Since that time it has performed that service well, but has also become a clearinghouse for speculation and conspiracy theories related to the crash (and other air disasters).

L-Soft international finds it no longer in its interest to continue to support the discussion in the direction it has taken.

While posting has been curtailed, the archives of the list will remain open as a historical record.

We thank all those who have participated over the years on this list.

Nathan Brindle
Sr Technical Support Engineer
L-Soft international, Inc.
Postmaster, HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
[end of last LSoft Flight 800 Forum posting]

The result of the outrageous conduct of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats.

Tinfoil hats - "conspiracy theorists"

From Lisa Perry's Letter:

October 17, 1998

Dear Commander Donaldson:

On July 17, 1996 we saw a United States military vessel travelling from the west towards the east, just outside the sandbar along the shore of Davis Park, Fire Island. It was about 6 or 6:30. We had returned to the beach with our children after a quick dinner so that they could play in the tidal pools on the beach. While they were playing, we noticed a boat just outside the sandbar towards the west. The bow was high and it cut smoothly into the water. We first noticed this boat because it was a rather large ship to be so close to shore. Initially each of us thought it must be some type of fishing boat. As it seemed to be taking its time getting close enough to see, we returned our attention to the children and our conversation.

We watched it as it moved directly in front of us from the west. It was moving moderately, not fast but not slowly. It was almost a sightseeing pace, from west to east along the shoreline. It was very subtle but it caught our attention because of both the type of ship it was and by how close it was. Once it was in front of us we saw that is was quite obviously a military fighting ship. It was battleship gray, with the characteristic I.D. numbers on the front; there was a lot of equipment on board such as the big globe which we assumed must be radar, and military gunnery. The ship was so big and close, that you couldn't capture the entire profile in one glance. It was large and complicated, and we were very impressed. It was a strong piece of equipment.

We discussed how neither of us had ever seen such a ship so close to shore, even though we have each spent many years at Long Island beaches. At the time we figured they must have been moving the ship from display in the Museum are on the West Side back to a base after the July 4^th holiday. It was close enough that sailors would have been able to see people on the shore, though we do not recall seeing anyone on deck (we would have had the children wave). It was longer then we had anticipated. As we saw the ship go on and on, a comment was made that another piece of gunnery towards the end of the ship was lie "the icing on the cake".

We are 100% sure the ship was a military fighting ship. In an effort to be of assistance, we separately looked at pictures of military boats from the book Jane's Fighting Ships, ('96-'97). Independently we each matched our recollections to the pictures of a destroyer. Attached are copies of the pictures.

Sincerely, Alice Rowe and Lisa Perry.

Composite drawing of what Lisa Perry witnessed

Photos from Jane's that Lisa Perry identified as being similar to what she saw..

And from How Did TWA Flight 800 Blow Up?:

How Did TWA Flight 800 Blow Up?

We Still Don't Know, Though the FBI and Navy Deny It Was a Missile

Robert Davey

When Dean Steward and his girlfriend Susan Smith set out for an afternoon at Gilgo State Park a couple of summers ago, they were looking forward to a day at the beach - sunbathing, tossing a Frisbee, strolling in the sand. The mid afternoon appearance of a naval warship about three miles offshore, slowly moving westward, didn't seem remarkable at the time to Seward and Smith, both of them airline pilots. The ship was an entertaining diversion that gave the 34-year-old Seward a chance to brag a bit, drawing on his eight years of navy experience, including two tours on carriers as a bombadier-navigator flying A-6 Intruders. In some detail, Seward described to Smith what kind of ship it was.

That evening, the off-duty pilots (Seward had recently joined TWA; Smith then worked at a Dulles-based commuter airline) were stunned by the news that 34 miles to the east and eight miles out from where, hours earlier, they had been enjoying a sunny afternoon, TWA Flight 800 had plunged into the ocean, leaving the sea full of burning wreckage, aviation fuel, and 230 corpses.

It was only months later, when the navy was defending itself the outrageous allegation that it had shot down Flight 800 with one of its own missiles, that Seward remembered the vessel. He wondered how the navy could claim that the ship nearest the crash, which took place at 8:31 p.m. on July 17, 1996, was the USS Normandy, then 185 miles away. The ship he had seen could barely have got that far from Long Island in the time available, even at maximum speed.

Looking back to the day on the beach, Seward recalled they got to Gilgo State Park around 1 p.m. and that it was at least a couple of hours before he saw the ship. In a recent interview with "The Village Voice", Seward remembered that Smith had just fetched the Frisbee from the car;a 15-minute walk away, where she'd noticed that the time on the car clock was about 3:10. Shortly thereafter, Seward says, "I pointed out to her that there was a navy ship out there, and just glancing at it more than anything, and having spent a lot of time looking at navy ships over the years,I thought that it was an Aegis-class cruiser."

Seward notes that Aegis is actually not a class of ship. Aegis refers to the ultrasophisticated missile-guidance system housed in the bulky forward superstructure on ships such as Ticonderoga-class cruisers. The USS Normandy, currently in the Persian Gulf, is a Ticonderoga-class cruiser. On the beach, Seward surveyed the ship's details with Smith - the rake of the bow and the staggered sets of jet-black exhaust stacks - that are characteristic of these cruisers, and of a destroyer class named Spruance. Both types are armed with similar Standard surface-to-air missiles, but only the Ticonderoga has the Aegis system. But whatever the specific designation of the ship he saw, Seward says, "I'm 90 per cent sure it was U.S. and 100 per cent sure it was a warship."

Others must have seen the ship too. "The beach was not crowded, but there were certainly plenty of people there", Seward says. It is not known whether anyone else on the beach that afternoon made a possible connection between the ship and the TWA disaster, and called the police or FBI.

For his part, Seward contacted his union, the Airline Pilot's Association, to let them know about the ship. (ALPA members were killed on Flight 800, and the union has been designated a party to the investigation.) This was in November, shortly after former White House press secretary Pierre Salinger attracted a chorus of derision when he claimed he had evidence that showed that the navy had shot down Flight 800.

"If the ship I saw at 1545 was the USS Normandy then it would have had to travel at least 150 nautical miles before the approximately 2045 TWA 800 accident," Seward wrote in a fax to Captain Jerry Rekart, who heads ALPA's TWA 800 investigation team. "This would necessitate an average speed of 30 knots, which such a ship is certainly capable of, but which in my experience would be unusual due to the dramatic increase in fuel consumption over a more normal transit speed of perhaps 20 knots".

The Normandy's log, available from the Navy Historical Center in Washington, D.C., appears to leave no doubt that the ship Seward saw could not have been the Normandy. The log indicates the USS Normandy left a naval weapons depot west of Sandy Hook, New Jersey, around 9 a.m. on July 17, and by mid-day was more than 40 miles south of Long Island. It continued toward Virginia and did not exceed 22 knots all afternoon.

Seward says an FBI agent came to see him, , but other than that he has received no response to his fax (dated November 18, 1996). He still feels sure that what he saw could be simply explained. "I told this to the FBI guy:"Not that you guys owe me an answer, but the navy could clear this whole thing up in 30 seconds as far as I'm concerned, if they said, "Well, the fact of the matter is at 3:30 the USS Dingdong was off Long Island but three hours later it pulled into port and by the time the 747 blew up half the sailors were in Manhattan getting drunk," " says Seward.

In fact, the only thing we do know for sure about the ship that Seward saw that day is that its crew did not get a night out on the town in New York. According to the U.S. Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service, no naval ship entered New York Harbor on July 17, 1996. And the navy denies that any of its ships were in the area the evening of the disaster. "We provided all the pertinent information to the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) and the FBI, and there were no ships in that area", said a spokeswoman. An FBI spokesman refused to comment, and the NTSB did not return phone messages seeking comment on the ship.

The unexplained sighting by Dean Seward deepens the Flight 800 mystery and contributes to the notion that the investigation has paid microscopically close attention to some areas of inquiry while completely ignoring others.

This was apparent the week of the hearings on the TWA Flight 800 investigation held by the NTSB in Baltimore last December. Those present heard days of testimony about potential electrical faults, both nothing of the reports from more than 150 eyewitnesses to the tragedy that assert a missile struck the aircraft. In published accounts, some witnesses describe a flarelike object rising from sea level, followed by a strange white flash in the sky, and then the 747 splitting apart and falling in flames. Other talk of a shooting star-like streak in the air, followed by explosions like "ordnance".

The FBI, which conducted the witness interviews, requested that they be excluded from the hearings because they may be needed as evidence, if, after all, Flight 800 becomes a criminal case. The NTSB complied. But it was hard to see how that reasoning applied to a separate set of interviews with eyewitnesses that the NTSB conducted on its own behalf. Asked in Baltimore why those interviews had not been considered during the hearings, NTSB director of aviation safety Dr. Bernard Loeb gave the extraordinary answer, "Because we didn't think they were pertinent to the intent of these hearings." Asked how he arrived at that decision, he said, "It's what we do for a living."

The NTSB's witness interviews still aren't available today, despite the fact that NTSB chairman Jim Hall assured reporters at a posthearings press conference that the Witness Group Chairman Factual Report, as the NTSB calls it, is now part of the public docket of NTSB findings about Flight 800. Repeated requests for a copy of the witness report have been ignored by the NTSB.

The FBI and NTSB both say there is absolutely no evidence that a bomb or missile exploded anywhere near Flight 800, or that an unarmed missile hit it. But despite spending 19 months and more than $27 million, the investigation has failed to plausibly explain how the fuel vapor in the center fuel tank ignited. The eyewitness accounts remain the potent element in the so-called friendly-fire theory of what happened.

A commonly-held view among skeptics is that an attempt to shoot down a drone missile went awry when a navy missile locked onto TWA Flight 800 instead. A report in "The Southampton Press" last July seemed to lend a wisp of credence to this theory. The news story described a goof by someone at a California defense contractor who dialed a wrong number and sent a fax intended for the FBI to Riverhead resident Dee Muma instead. She turned the fax over to the FBI and gave a copy to "The Southampton Press", which reported that the fax carried a diagram of a drone missile manufactured by Teledyne-Ryan of San Diego. The fax had been sent by the company's engineers to help the FBI identify some bright orange bits of debris. The company's drones, which are used by the military for target practice during exercises, are painted bright orange. At an FBI press conference held in New York last November to announce results of it Flight 800 investigation, assistant director James Kallstrom did not mention the Dee Muma affair but said, "All drones on the east coast were accounted for. No damage to the airplane was caused by a drone."

The best evidence yet that a drone was in the air near Long Island on the evening of the crash may be the photograph taken by Linda Kabot on the deck at Dockers Water Cafe on Dune Road in East Quogue. The personal assistant of Southampton Town supervisor Vincent Cannuscio was busy taking photographs of supporters at a fund raiser for her boss. After they were processed, her husband Lance noticed an image on one of them that looked like a missile, flying over the heads of partygoers and apparently heading north over the bay from the barrier beach. Kabot snapped the photos around 8:30, when Flight 800 exploded. Kallstrom said the National Imagery and Mapping Agency confirmed that there is an object in the photo. He said it appeared the object was an aircraft, although the authorities had been unable to identify it.

Kallstrom insisted emphatically, however, "The object is not a drone."

(source:"The Village Voice" : March 3, 1998, page 45)

Tinfoil hats - "conspiracy theorists"

Asmodeus - King of Tinfurmoil