Flight 800: Major breakthrough! Jack Cashill advises U.S. has conceded wrongdoing against Sanders

This has no indicator of who produced this, where it came from, and certainly has no impramateur of an official radar signature. But it is intriguing.

I know there are witnesses. Contrary to what many like acehai here think, I do NOT preclude the possibility of a missile strike. But the "red residue" is a "red herring." The KEY EVIDENCE is available, and can be produced: the radar. And you (not you personally, but advocates of the missile theory like Sanders) have an obligation to obtain multiple confirmations. This data exists.

My question is, if it supports the Sanders theory, where is it?

I am neither. I am a trained historian who looks at historical evidence. And from that perspective, it does not seem strange at all that some people think they "saw what they saw" or interpreted evidence different ways. (Just as a sidebar, you ought to see the MASSIVE debate now over new revelations about the Denmark Vesey "slave revolt" trial).

What this means is that good, sincere people can be sincerely wrong. I'm not questioning their motives---on EITHER side, as many Freepers do with Kallstrom. I am saying, produce the radar imaging. This is simple stuff, and it solves the problem. I don't see why you would be so resistant to something that could prove your point . . . or . . . disprove it.

Isn't it interesting how your side so quickly resorts to name calling. Acehai kept posting this phrase. Why not ask him?

BTW, if it is true there are multiple imagings of this, as the article seemed to indicate, these would overwhelmingly confirm or reject the missile theory.

But there are a ton of other things that need explaining, including the fact that a "cruise missile" as mentioned in the story is NOT an anti-air missile and has no such "lock on" capability to "light up" an aircraft. That is preposterous.

Second, a drone which I have always held out the possibility COULD have explained the "red residue" does not "lock on" to things either. For Pete's sake it's a drone and is meant to be shot down.

Third, if Sanders wants to claim that the Navy test-fired an anti-air weapon in a well-traveled civilian flight line, well, you tell me how logical that sounds.

Fourth, the "red residue," as I have explained for years now (it seems) is ONLY compatible with a "pass through" missile---i.e., a drone that severed the body, not an explosive missile, because (duh) an explosive type missile burns up seats rather than leaves red exhaust residue on them. There MIGHT be some chemical indicators, but they would be indicators of an explosion, NOT an engine exhaust.

Fifth, for the "red residue" "pass/through" missile theory to work, the only thing that makes sense is that it was a drone being followed by an explosive weapon. So we need TWO radar images, not one.

'Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.'xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I'll try, but I gave up anchovies for Lent and I'm a bit tense. Plus our species had a very bad day yesterday. The worst I've seen.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx LS wrote:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx BTW, if it is true there are multiple imagings of this, as the article seemed to indicate, these would overwhelmingly confirm or reject the missile theory.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This is true. The reason that only 1.68% of the people accept the official investigation (no coverup) is due to alleged withheld info. The navy VaCapes radar data at Riverhead (leased to Sikorsky and others via modem) and the closest radar to the crash and the most sensitive are the critical radar data. These data were denied Congress. A Sikorsky whistleblower claims that radar data clearly show one missile. FIRO (Dr. Stalcup) claims they eventually got a copy of these withheld navy radar data but everything near the crash are conveniently erased. The dozens of military radars in the area (from Norfolk to Boston) show the same thing but are covered up by the feds. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx But there are a ton of other things that need explaining, including the fact that a "cruise missile" as mentioned in the story is NOT an anti-air missile and has no such "lock on" capability to "light up" an aircraft. That is preposterous.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This is preposterous, as you say. A developmental SM-2 heat seeker without warhead (now in production) is the accused.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Second, a drone which I have always held out the possibility COULD have explained the "red residue" does not "lock on" to things either. For Pete's sake it's a drone and is meant to be shot down.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This is true. I doubt the drone fuel matches missile fuel, however. Solid rocket propellant is probably different from kerosene, whatever.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Third, if Sanders wants to claim that the Navy test-fired an anti-air weapon in a well-traveled civilian flight line, well, you tell me how logical that sounds.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This is true. It's about as logical as 'Love me or I'll kill you." That does not exclude test goofs, however.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fourth, the "red residue," as I have explained for years now (it seems) is ONLY compatible with a "pass through" missile---i.e., a drone that severed the body, not an explosive missile, because (duh) an explosive type missile burns up seats rather than leaves red exhaust residue on them. There MIGHT be some chemical indicators, but they would be indicators of an explosion, NOT an engine exhaust.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This is true. I assume your use of the word 'drone' really means a telemetry missile round (no warhead0 though. You already explained to us what a drone is. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fifth, for the "red residue" "pass/through" missile theory to work, the only thing that makes sense is that it was a drone being followed by an explosive weapon. So we need TWO radar images, not one.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The only thing that makes sense to me is that is was a single developmental telemetry (elex no boom) heat seeker (IR) Standard Missile test item bird that escaped its cage by error. I am unfamiliar with WND's twa800 ending. I do feel your arguments are reducing the number of people (1.68%) who still believe their government on this issue.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I admire your belief that history is a science, not cheap political propaganda garbage to be updated almost weekly. My field, navy reliability engineering, is also a science, not cheap political propaganda garbage. Well, except on this 747 shootdown. I hope this helps. www.stanclark.us xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PS Acehai is a good person. I don't care what everybody says about him offline. Cashill's article about the Sanderses case looks good to me, but I don't understand it either. I wish I spoke FReepers HMTL language.

Format. I may read this then.

I didn't say getting the radar data would be easy. But it would be conclusive. I agree the CIA/NTSB digitized film doesn't make a positive impression. (Keep in mind that until the 1990s, people were 100% wrong about the specifics of how the Titanic sunk, though.) Don't assume because some explanations seem murky they are necessarily wrong.

A "major reduction in speed" can occur when a LOT of things happen. Elmer Barr, for example, has a pretty plausible explanation that the front cabin door was defective and blew off; and he has a pretty good development of exactly how this would result in precisely the pattern TWA 800 showed.

My point remains: there is pretty conclusive evidence out there that would solve this, and the effort ought to be in getting that. My suspicion---and I'm not "calling names"---is that NOT having the radar evidence is convenient to the conspiracy crowd. But like I say, I'm certainly willing to believe it if the tapes show it.

BTW, I noted in the article that EVERYONE admits one of the "unidentified" signatures was a Navy P3, which is not part of the equation---except its radar was malfunctioning.

So all that remains is ONE unidentified signature that the FBI refused to comment on. Note that we are not talking about a signature that shows up repeatedly on a path heading to TWA 800 (as far as we are told in the article) but is a "one-time" sighting.

MY point is that missiles will give off fairly constant signatures, and as many radars as were operating that day, well, we'd have a boatload of evidence on a missile.

Yes. I agree a radar is going to show "blips," (obviously) and not "lines." But many radars would pretty much piece together a line.

Look, I "brought myself up to speed" some time ago for a book chapter I'm writing. I admit, in the last 6 months, I haven't been focused on that, but on other material in the book.

Still, I don't see any substantial new directions in the missile argument, and again, the ONE piece of data that solves this is/are the radar tapes. Not "eyewitnesses," not theories.

I don't question ANYONE's motives in the government, but that also should apply to the "pro-missile" side. Why do people automatically label Kallstrom a "CIA plant," a "dupe," or worse because he disagrees with them? I have yet to see ONE PERSON on the "pro-missile" side of this debate give Kallstrom any credit for being honest or sincere.

Finally---again, based on the article link you gave me---we NEVER see that the "insiders" quoted (unless I missed it) said for certain there was a missile on screen, only that there were anomalies or other unexplained blips (which we know ONE was the PC-3). The gist of the article as I read it was that they refused to say FOR CERTAIN that there "was" or "was not" a missile. That is very different from "they-knew-there-was-a-missile-and-wouldn't-be-bullied." It is a very honest reaction to, "I don't know what I saw, so I won't say for certain on the record."

No, I do not know what a "Bette" stamp is. I assume it means time and date?

There are no radar signatures of missiles

Are you sure??? Hmmmmm???

If you haven't seen ALL the available radar data how can you be???

We keep going over this. This is YOUR job to prove that the radar data exists. Go to it----I would think that something that would absolutely, beyond a doubt, prove your case would have you just all a-flutter. But here you are, with your same old rant. "Do you know?" Well, do YOU? Prove it.