Your belated explanation is that you blundered by making repeated typos. So be it. Take your meds.
Your explanation for horrendously distorting witness Meyer's report "to make it fit" your own "shootdown" theory dramatizes that you are a wannabe expert witness report analyst without the foggiest idea of how to do it.
What has my typographical error got to do with anything of any substance, Asmodeus? It proves nothing except that I made an error in typing. It has NO BEARING on the validity or invalidity of my timeline, or of objective data or the physical laws it is based on.
Your belated explanation is that you blundered by making repeated typos. So be it. Take your meds. (Asmodeus' Emphasis)
The only reason the obvious error in the hour wasn't corrected was that I did not notice it and no one pointed it out until now. Better a belated correction and explanation than your very obvious and knowing misrepresentation of my intended meaning. YOU are the one who, already knowing the fact that it was a typo, represented it as a true representation of my opinion. That is dishonest... and that means YOU are dishonest.
I again repeat: YOU ARE REPREHENSIBLE.
Even if the fact that I am human and make minor errors is a given, your attempt to ridicule ME because of those minor errors, has no place in this discussion. It is just a more subtle form of ad hominum argument, a falacious form of discussion.
Lately, I find myself the featured villain of almost every one of your comments on threads where you post your drivel. You seem to have fixated on my proposed timeline. Your attacks however always seem to focus on the trivial. I believe it is because you cannot argue the issues from the objective facts.
You have NEVER bothered to attempt to answer the conclusions based on the physics as I presented them. You have NEVER responded with any checkable facts on how the plane got from your large explosion at 5000- 7500 feet and into the ocean without bothering to echo back any of the radar pulses which YOUR extended timeline seems to require.
Your explanation for horrendously distorting witness Meyer's report "to make it fit" your own "shootdown" theory dramatizes that you are a wannabe expert witness report analyst without the foggiest idea of how to do it.
Please show me any posting where I claimed to be an "expert witness report analyst?" Since I am not and never have claimed to be a "witness report analyst," I cannot be accused of being a "wannabe." The only "wannabe" I see around here is YOU, Elmer, as you have NEVER posted any of your qualifications, yet claim to be an "expert witness report analyst."
Put up, or shut up, Elmer.