Replies

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.