Posted on 03/12/2003 11:16:44 PM PST by JohnHuang2
That "same old rant" is quite telling, me foine grasshoppa. As long as you refuse to answer the simple question "Have you seen ALL the pertinent available radar data", I don't have to prove anything.
And Elmer Barr's Cargo Door theory has been debunked thoroughly. Besides, it was John Barry Smith's theory, but of course, you knew that.
Simple logic reigns here. Why would the government go to the trouble of covering up a "mechanical" with another "mechanical?" Seems to me that if you buy the JBS theory, then you're agreeing it was covered up. You can't have it both ways.
You are concentrating on "why this?" and "why that?" without looking at the ONE area where this dispute could be resolved totally.
Again, anyone confident in their position would desperately WANT that data, rather than worrying about "simple logic" or "what the government is covering up." Just follow the radar. That will give you your evidence.
However, the problem with this is as soon as you raise one issue like this, ten others pop up. ANY MISSILE would have left fragments and debris. I realize all the aircraft debris was not recovered, but surely in ALL the stuff they recovered (and pieced back together) there would have been some pretty obvious parts that did not fit and which were not evaporated in the explosion (say, a rocket motor, casings, and so on). Where is that? Any evidence whatsoever of that?
Now, let's say for a minute I agree with you that a) a missile hit; and b) we agree it could NOT have been a hand-held "stinger-type," but had to be either a drone or a "seeker/killer" missile. Only one source for that, right? A U.S. Navy ship.
First, as I explained, an "accidental" launch of one of these is nearly impossible, and there are some abort procedures after it leaves.
Second, if the Navy is culpable, then there are more than 100 sailors who know what happened, yet not ONE has said anything. Just a little suspicious, even given that they have been "threatened" by the government? Where are the courageous people who throw caution to the wind and (make millions in the process) tell their story on "Dateline" or "60 Minutes?"
Third, can we please pin this down, so I don't run all over hell on a fishing expedition: Do you assert that this was a runaway drone "pass through" missile (the only one that would explain, BTW, the "red residue") or do you assert that this is a rogue "hunter/killer" that just "escaped" its launch tube, ignored a PC-3 Orion right in front of it so it could lock on to an airliner 4.5 nm. away? Which is it? Or do you assert both?
I'll give you one more chance to respond with civility, because I have seen some interesting new evidence here. But please get rid of the "red letter" bash-type rhetoric and address my questions, and I'll try to address yours. I've been totally honest, although I probably have a little more expertise than a "typical" historian might have. Now, I've asked reasonable questions of you, and you really haven't answered, but continually shift the ground which does make me suspicious that you really don't want to have a conversation.
Let me repeat some that you have not addressed:
1) Radar tapes show an anomaly. We can agree there are probably a LOT of tapes out there, and that anyone who has seen most of them refuses to say EITHER that there was or was not a missile. That sounds like a wash to me. There is no proof so far made public, that I am aware of, of ANY "missile" on the tapes. I have repeatedly urged you and others to produce the tapes, because they are irrefutable evidence one way or another. My suspicion is that no one of the "conspiracy" crowd wants to do so, because it ends the discussion. But as I say, that is only a suspicion.
I have admitted that the explosion pattern looks odd and suspicious and would be wiling to pursue that discussion . . . but:
You did not address my point that there are NO missile parts, fragments, motor parts, or any other missile debris (that we know of) that has been recovered. I would think you would find that odd. After all, the people doing the dredging didn't know what they were looking at, and if there is a big conspiracy, then we should have had a big box on one side of the "reconstruction room" with a bunch of odd parts that don't fit the airliner. But apparently we didn't. I challenge you to explain this absence of evidence---the second conveniently missing evidence that would irrefutably MAKE YOUR CASE.
Other than shouting at me in red about James McDougall (!), you did not address why more than 100 sailors would ALL be quiet. Come on. Ten people can't keep a secret, let alone 100, even if there were threats. And please, to pull McDougall into this conversation is a little disingenuous, because you are today, right now, implicating the BUSH administration as well as the Clinton administration, and I don't think you really want to go that far.
You want me to believe that people can all be cowed, even when Clinton isn't in office and Bush has not shown the LEAST inclination to punish ANYONE for past crimes, and yet these "whistleblowers" would make MILLIONS if they had any evidence for their story. That seems far-fetched to me.
I mentioned to you the Orion---right in FRONT of the so-called "missile," yet it was ignored. Why? If this were a "seeker," it would be radar or heat activated to the nearest target unless it was laser guided. But do you really want to go there and assert that the U.S. Navy now did not accidentally shoot down a plane but painted it with a laser designator?
I have repeatedly explained to you the discrepancies and anomalies between a "passthrough" drone missile and a "seeker." The red residue could only come from the first, but such a missile would never be that high---or, if it were, there would be a SECOND missile on screen (the same radar screen that we cannot prove even ONE missile was on).
Now, before you blow a gasket again, I despised Clinton and distrusted his administration as much as anyone. But I do NOT distrust everyone in government. I know good, honest people who work in all parts of the government, and your implication that literally HUNDREDS of sailors, NTSB officials, White House career people (not Clinton appointees), CIA, FBI, and other personnel would ALL be involved in something as heinous as this is too far-fetched for me. I especially am concerned that you will not even go so far as to admit that people like Kallstrom did the best job they could and possibly came to different conclusions than you---but because they did, they are dishonest?
On the other hand, we have Sanders, who does stand to make a GREAT deal of money if he is "proven out." Seems to me the burden of proof, then, is on him and the conspiracy crowd.
As for the purposes of FreeRepublic, I bet I was here long before you. My understanding is that we can freely discuss all topics--that's the purpose---and yet you want to bash me because I simply call for some common sense evidence? That in itself seems Clintonesque.
Since you really don't want to discuss this, I'm outta here.
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.