Replies

"You're a paralegal. Do any of the lawyers representing those involved in the disaster agree with you?

'I won't answer for John, but I will ask you several questions in return. Do ANY of the eyewitnesses or THEIR lawyers agree with you?

Let's find out. Tell us who their lawyers are I'll provide them with The "Missile Witnesses" Myth.

"Do ANY of the victim's families or THEIR lawyers agree with you?"

The lawyers retained by the families are some of the best and most highly qualified legal experts in such matters to be found anywhere in the world. Experts know what they're doing. Amateurs don't.

"And WHY do you ignore the factual evidence presented thus far and continue to behave as if you have a legitimate argument?"

Those of you promoting the "shootdown" notion have been unable for over six years now to convince even one member of congress, past or present, that you have a "case", much less that you have supporting "factual evidence" or "legitimate arguments". John Fiorentino says he also hasn't yet seen any compelling evidence that Flight 800 was the victim of a missile shootdown. Trying to jam your "case" down peoples' throats hasn't been productive for the dwindling handful of you still trying to promote the stillborn "shootdown" notion either, has it. Under the circumstances, your last sentence has obviously not been proven to be factual.

Asmodeus, you refer to lawyers, but you neglect the simple fact that it is physically, scientifically, and factually impossible for your version of what occurred to be even remotely possible.

You ignore factual questions, and even here, imply that there is substance in relation to your assertions where there isn't.

Your "myth" website is just that, as your sources do not even agree with your "analysis".

And still, you assert that you are an expert in all of this, yet provide nothing in the way of proof that you are.

Get back to me on my questions concerning your timeline. Get back to me on questions related to witness statements that are in direct conflict with your interpretations of segnments of those statements. You still provide nothing in the way of facts, but abound in a systematic slew of factoids that bear no resemblence to reality.

The only person trying to "jam" anything here is Asmodeus, and that is readily apparent by following your trail throughout this thread.

"...convince even one member of congress..."

This is a strange proof of truth. I have never found Congress to be particularly interested in "truth" or even fairness for that matter.

Convincing 535 politicians is not the burden on those of us who are convinced something fishy occurred. Convincing the public is... Congress, as usual, will follow.

Asmodeus says.........

"Experts know what they're doing. Amateurs don't."

This of course is an over simplification, and PURE BUNKUM.

An excellent example of this relates to the last "offical" investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy, about which I have authored a forthcoming book.

Briefly, the HSCA employed a rather prestigious group of acoustic "experts" to examine some police dictabelt recordings taken during the assassination. It was a friend of mine, an "amateur" who at the time was a "rock-drummer" living in Ohio who provided the CONCLUSIVE refutation of these "experts" conclusions.

He has been so acknowledged by the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics of the National Academy of Sciences.

So don't even give me that "amateur"--"expert" garbage. As a rule, one would be safe to say (and pray) that experts are more often right than amateurs. But that is certainly NOT ALWAYS the case. To insist otherwise, is DOGMA, not science or truth.