Posted by Elmer Barr on September 21, 19100 at 21:29:38:
[quote] Posted by TrevorJ on September 21, 19100 at 12:44:23:
In Reply to: Missile Hugger Warfare Now!!! posted by Part 1 on September 21, 19100 at 01:44:40:
I swear this looks like Elmers work, it's so negative, and he loves to repeat other peoples stuff, the more the merrier.[end quote]
Nonsense - and the anonymous poster of " Missile Hugger Warfare Now!!!" was not me.
The civil war between the "Friendly Fire" and "Terrorist" wings of the Missile Huggers has existed for over four years. It's not something new. The Super Mouth of the "Friendly Fire" advocates is Michael Rivero. Here are some examples:
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 09:06:30 -0700
From: Michael Rivero
Subject: Re: Commander Donaldson logic and truth problem
Commander Donaldson (USN) is laying a false trail to terrorists to save his
on Navy. The NTSB's center tank theory cover-up has utterly failed.
That the US Government is hiding something was proven when the NTSB was
proven in court fabricating evidence to conceal the red residue on the
wreckage.
Commander Donaldson's whole argument requires that people believe that the
US government would never cover-up an Navy accident but is willing to go to
such extreme lengths to protest terrorists.
Commander donaldson has himself been caught "fudging" the evidence. IN
order to sell the idea of a terrorist heat seeking missile, he has referred
to a thermograph, seen at
http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/CRASH/TWA/747heat.jpg
This is an image of a 747, which had sat on the runway with it's air
conditioners running to simulate the TWA 800 pre-takeoff conditions, just
moments after lift off. Based on the heat bloom from the overheated AC
units, Commander Donaldson has asserted that a terrorist launched heat
seeking missile would have ignored the engines and struck the center of the
747.
Perhaps it might have, had the missile been launched frmo where the camera
was located, at just this moment in time.
But this image is misleading. It doesn't show what TWA 80 would have looked
like by the time it reached 13,70 MSL, the altitude at which the missile
struck the aurcraft. Because the entire time the plane was climbing, the
engines would be getting much hotter, and the AC units, with the 300 knot
airflow through the heat exchangers would be getting much cooler.
Claiming that this thermograph image, taken near the ground, accurately
represents TWA 800 when it reached 13,700 MSL is a lie.
And if Donaldson is resorting to lies to sell his terorist missile theory,
then he is engaged in a cover up.
So, Navy was there and Donaldson is being untruthful.
* _ * _ *
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 09:28:05 -0700
From: Michael Rivero
Subject: Re: Commander Donaldson logic and truth problem
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Sammy Finkelman wrote:
> Michael Rivero said:
> MR> Commander Donaldson's whole argument requires that people believe
that
> MR> the US government would never cover-up an Navy accident but is
willing
> MR> to go to such extreme lengths to protest terrorists.
> Not WOULD not, COULD not. That's his argument. That's basically
> correct and indisputable I think, even if he is relying on
> Admiral moorer as his authority. The argument speaks for itself.
>I made a spelling mistake above. "Protest" should be "protect".
Donaldson (and the other 'save the Navy' types) keep insisting that our
goverment would never cover-up for the Navy, but are covering up for
terrorists. That's silly.
Especially given this administrations proven track record of exploiting
terrorist events for all they are worth politically. Clinton has turned
ever terrorist event that comes along into major gains for his draconian
agenda, and has even joked with reporters how the OK City bombing saved his
political life when he most needed it to.
The idea that the FBI, NTSB, and the Navy would somehow agree to cover up
for terrorists after flatly refusing to cover up for the Navy is a joke.
Commander Donaldson is a Navy man, and he's been caught skewing the
evidence to support his claim of a heat seeking missile, using a photo
which does not actually reflect the thermal condition of TWA 800 by the
time it reached the altitude where it was shot down.
Donaldson isn't looking for the truth. He's warping the fats to sell a
desired outcome, one that clears his Navy of any wrongdoing.
But one thing Donaldson cannot explain is why the Navy ship on the radar
tracks ignored the shootdown, and why, if the missile had really come from
an unknown source, why the Navy ships on the radar tracks didn't turn to
search for the source of that missile.
The Navy's reaction to the shootdown, as captured on the radar dat, proves
they knew there wouldn't be a second missile because they had to know where
the first one had come from.
Donaldson is the fall back position. His job all along has been to get
ahead of the collapsing CFT cover-up, and lay a new cover-up, a false
trail, pointing away from the Navy.
* - * - *
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 09:42:46 -0700
From: Michael Rivero
Subject: Re: Debris Field Plot
On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Richard Hirsch wrote:
> Sammy,
> If Flight TWA 800 dropped like a rock then how did the center section of
> the aircraft travel another nautical mile eastward after the large
> fuel/air cloud explosion occurred? Take a good look at the debris plot
> showing where the parts were found.
> It would seem Cmdr Donaldson is not looking at his own debris field >
plot.
Donaldson isn't interested in any facts except those which support his
desired outcome of "Terrorists guilty, Navy innocent (albeit incredibly
dumb to have let the terrorists sail into the middile of an abnti-missile
system test, shoot a missile at a 747 and then sail right back out without
even being chased)".
The games Donaldson played with the photo seen at
http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/CRASH/TWA/747heat.jpg proves his bias.
Donaldson claims that this photo proves that the air conditioning packs on
the 747 would attract a heat seeking missile away from the engines.
But Donaldson is being dishonest here. This photo was taken immediatly
after take-off, after the 747 had been sitting on the runway with the jet
engines at idle and the air conditioning running without any airflow
through the heat exchangers.
But by the time TWA 800 would have reached the point it was shot down, the
engines would be running much hotter, and with air flowing through the heat
exchangers at 300 knots, the air conditioning packs would be much cooler.
Donaldson's theory of a heat seeking terrorist missile requires one to
assume that this photo represents the thermal conditition of TWA 800 at
13,700 MSL. But it clearly does not. And Donaldson is certainly smart
enough to know it does not.
Donaldson is busted. He is a plant, laying a false trail away from the Navy.
-----
Although most of the Missile Huggers have always been "Friendly Fire" advocates, the critical postings of Rivero and others of the "Friendly Fire" wing have largely been studiously ignored by just about all of the "Terrorist" wing and most of the other "Friendly Fire" promoters to present a united front to the extent possible to those who disagreed with the "missile(s) shootdown" nonsense, as evidenced by the unified gang bang attacks and harassment on "the disinformationalists".
Now, however, the "Friendly Fire" Missile Huggers are trying to extricate themselves from the public relations disaster both factions have spent four years getting themselves into with their untenable reality impaired blabberbabble, by claiming that it is only the "Terrorist" Missile Huggers minority that are the kooks and nuts - and "disinformationalists".
But the present perception of most of the public that all of the Missile Huggers are kooks and nuts is irreversible. They brought it upon themselves by falsely claiming that they could prove Flight 800 was the victim of a "missile(s) shootdown" and failing for over four years to provide the public with any such "proof". The contentions that "government agents" have successfully hidden all of the "smoking gun" evidence for over four years and the continuing accusations that ever increasing numbers of people have actively aided and abetted the alleged "coverup" are properly viewed as limp excuses for the Missile Huggers' own collective failure to prove their "case".
The Achilles Tendon of the "missile(s) shootdown" notion has always been that [1] none of the Missile Huggers knows how to properly and thoroughly interview the disaster witnesses or analyze the witness reports, and [2] the reality impairment caused by their horrendous bias.
Simply put, the Missile Huggers all started on their long road to becoming perceived as kooks and nuts by erroneously assuming that the fiery streak PRECEDED the Initiating Event and thereafter pyramiding untenable sinister suspicions on top of that starting point false assumption. Following are some examples of what others are saying:
-----
Gord Beaman Well, Gord, I am fresh out of Civil War books for the moment, and So this tendency of the witness brain to make up what it doesn't Paul Gooding ----- Mary Shafer wrote: > bertiebunyip@usenet-performance-art.org (Bertie the Bunyip) writes: Double roger that, Mary. I was on four accident investigation boards in my ----- eugene@dynagen.co.za (Eugene Griessel) wrote: I agree 100%. It's shocking how wrong one can be, and even more shocking (and Reminds me of a witness story about an otherwise very calm sensible lady Reminds me of some of the Flt 800 so called 'witness' stories. Gord Beaman ----- Walter Bjorneby wrote: > > Concur.... An accident investigation abaoard SHANGRI-LA many years ago which ended Of course, as a three year old, I witnessed a P-38 crash right across * - * - * "Paul Gooding" What boggles my mind though is the absolute seamlessness of the 'insertion' or I'll say this though (to salve my ego?) I think that it's not that one's memory Gord Beaman ----- And then we have this from a Missile Hugger: Posted by acehai on September 21, 19100 at 16:49:28: His idol is H. Michaels Weeney, who was touting the "25 Rules of Disinformation" prior to "acehai" assuming that role, and both of them are not simply reality impaired Missile Huggers - they are also Loonies. He doesn't mention it but my first nickname for the Missile Huggers was ZoomBoomers because they, like their creator Kallstrom, erroneously interpreted the Zoom of the fiery streak as a missile trail and the Boom of the Massive Fireball as their imagined "interception" of the 747 at 13,800 feet by the streak. But, of course, the streak didn't even materialize until 30+ seconds after the Initiating Event at 13,800 feet and it was the ignition source of the Massive Fireball explosion at 5500-8500 feet. And the fiery streak didn't Zoom enroute to setting off the Boom as evidenced by the fact that it was first seen by the witnesses well after the wreckage started falling to the surface - including the main fuel bearing wreckage which it ignited at about the half way point of it's obviously descending trail. Naturally, my including of the word "Zoom" was interpreted by some of the Missile Huggers as confirmation of their allegations that the fiery streak ascended from the surface to the intact jetliner at 13,800 feet. Thus, the nickname Missile Huggers. Why did I nickname them? Because they nicknamed themselves "Citizen Investigators", "Independent Researchers", "Retired Aviation Professionals", etc. and thereby - intentionally or unintentionally - misled others into believing they were bonafide experts at properly and thoroughly interviewing the Flight 800 witnesses and analyzing their reports. NONE of them are. I am. And what the witnesses actually saw is the central issue. Which brings us back to Trevor. Thu, 21 Sep 2000 21:53:15 +0100 Trevor J tj@JOHNSTONT.FREESERVE.CO.UK What do we know to be true, where are the documents to prove it. I've trawled this stuff for years, and there are things that can be tied down, proved, from documents. I'd suggest we remove the visual stuff from the witnesses, I know that's not gonna go down too well with certain people, but I believe there's enough without them. The audible stuff is very important though, it needs to fit the NTSB scenario, and if it doesn't, what went wrong? Trevor now knows that "the visual stuff" doesn't support the Missile Huggers so he suggests that the focus be shifted away from that and to "the audible stuff" and goes on to contend that "the audible stuff needs to fit the NTSB scenario". The jumbled mass of mess "audible stuff" doesn't fit ANY of the scenarios. And it never will. It's far, far more difficult to determine what a witness actually heard and when he heard it in the sequence of events than it is to determine what a witness actually saw, where it was when he saw it and when he saw it in the sequence of events. Most if not all of the "ear witnesses" were also eyewitnesses, compounding the problem. It might - maybe - have been possible if the "ear witnesses" had been properly and thoroughly interviewed immediately after the disaster by a witness interview team that included a "sounds" expert but they weren't. On the contrary, none of the witnesses have ever been properly and thoroughly interviewed and most of the "credit" for that goes to knee-jerk "missile shootdown" reaction at the outset of the first Missile Hugger, James Kallstrom, coupled with the abysmal lack of supervision by Louis Freeh and Janet Reno of his horrendously biased, inept and unprofessional "leadership" of the investigation thereafter. Trevor also added the following question to his September 21, 19100 at 12:44:23 posting: " Elmer, answer me this: What do you believe was the initiating event?" I don't have the mechanical/technical expertise to evaluate the NTSB's official "probable cause" report but it's appropriate to point out that none of those who disagree with that report were surprised by it or able collectively to present any contrary evidence to head it off. The Missile Huggers have known for over four years that the burden of proving their suspicions and speculations was exclusively theirs. They all fell on their faces.
news:39c97df6.49019032@news1.pei.sympatico.ca...
> I agree 100%. It's shocking how wrong one can be, and even more shocking
(and
> humbling) when one considers himself/herself an expert on the subject
being
> viewed. Apparently your mind will fill in what it 'thinks' should happen
at this
> or that juncture, and even delete things that it cannot see a logical
reason for
> as the sequence of events unfold
nothing to do .... so I offer you this alternative perspective: Is it
really that shocking? Our brain really only understands when it has
models against which to play what it takes in. Filling in the
blanks seems odd, until you consider the alternative: What if
it didn't? What if you only saw exactly what you saw, and
nothing else ... imagine a totally literal brain that could not
put anything into context. A brain that had no "periphreral"
understanding of context at all. Where would insight come
from? I think what you'd have is essentially a lizard,
and not a very smart lizard at that.
have is a nuisance when it comes to reconstructing sudden,
complex events, but is very useful for many other things.
A literal brain could never have invented the idea that "all men
are created equal", for example. The notion clearly is not based
on data. All available data tends to disprove it. Yet the idea
has profound power. I don't think a literal brain could have
invented Brahms' Second piano concerto, or written Moby Dick.
Or handled the abstraction necessary to figure out ... and prove ...
that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way round.
Or used the word "widdershins" in a Usenet article. Eh?
>
> > I posted a few weeks ago that I have a friend who was a military
> > pilot and saw an accidnet, along with dozens of other pilots that
> > was also flimed.
>
> > Guess what, they all got the sequence of events wrong in their
> > debriefs and all had to admit same when they saw the film. All had
> > said that they had seen flames when the aircraft started to break
> > up. The numerous films of th accident (it was at an airshow) showed
> > clearly that there was no flame until after the aircraft, or what
> > was left of it, hit the ground.
>
> Seeing flames on an airplane in trouble is a reasonable expectation,
> so it's very commonly reported by witnesses. It doesn't really say
> much about the witnesses' intelligence, memory, or veracity, but it
> does say they're human.
>
> > Incidentally, several of them, including this person I knew, flew
> > the type.
>
> Doesn't help. May even hinder observation if the airplane has a
> history if in-flight fires.
>
> I just got out of a "Human Factors in Aircraft Accident Investigation"
> class about an hour ago. We talked a lot about witnesses and their
> expectations and how they're interviewed, etc, and the "seeing flames"
> thing is so common that it's almost universal. And the more people
> know, the more common are some errors they make as witnesses. The
> police say that small children are very good witnesses, perhaps the
> best, if handled properly, partly because they have so few expections
> to color their view.Mary Shafer
career and pilots unfortunately are not very reliable witnesses. The
totally 'aircraft-ignorant' person is usually the best witness because of
the lack of preconceived notions. Pilots keep trying to reinterpret what
they saw and their memories get skewed.
Walt BJ
--cut--
> But it was most disconcerting to hear almost every
>eyewitness - some of them pilots - give a different story at the board
>of enquiry! A very humbling experience as to just how easily one's
>mind is fooled under stress or excitment.
>
>Eugene L Griessel
humbling) when one considers himself/herself an expert on the subject being
viewed. Apparently your mind will fill in what it 'thinks' should happen at this
or that juncture, and even delete things that it cannot see a logical reason for
as the sequence of events unfold...certainly lends believeability to the
statement about children being good witnesses...they've got no preconceived
notions of what 'should' be happening...scary indeed...makes one doubt oneself.
describing an airliner crash that she witnessed at close range. Her description
of seeing one of the pilots 'standing' at a cockpit window waving a little red
flag was quite entertaining but rapidly disqualified her from the investigation.
PEI Canada.
>
> Mary Shafer wrote:
>
> > I just got out of a "Human Factors in Aircraft Accident Investigation"
> > class about an hour ago. We talked a lot about witnesses and their
> > expectations and how they're interviewed, etc, and the "seeing flames"
> > thing is so common that it's almost universal. And the more people
> > know, the more common are some errors they make as witnesses. The
> > police say that small children are very good witnesses, perhaps the
> > best, if handled properly, partly because they have so few expections
> > to color their view.Mary Shafer
>
> Double roger that, Mary. I was on four accident investigation boards in my
> career and pilots unfortunately are not very reliable witnesses. The
> totally 'aircraft-ignorant' person is usually the best witness because of
> the lack of preconceived notions. Pilots keep trying to reinterpret what
> they saw and their memories get skewed.
> Walt BJ
with a burning F8 draped over the Port catwalks received absolutely to
worst dope from some of the closest and best educated witnesses, the
folks on the LSO platform. PRIFLY observations were equally sketchy,
and at odds with the the recall of the best observers, folks watching
the then new video. As the OOD at the time, my perspective was heavily
skewed by collateral conditions, too much shit going on around me...
the road in San Diego, within about 300', really big Ronson Ad, and have
no recall (or memory of any previous recall) of the event, although I
clearly remember a gift I received about two weeks later, including
their position when I saw first saw it (a bow and arrow mounted on
cardboard, under the dining room table). Childhood memories are tricky,
but unless over brainwashed, prepared, or intimidated, can make more
objective witnesses, especially to events in which they perceive
themselves as external observers.
--cut--
>
>So this tendency of the witness brain to make up what it doesn't
>have is a nuisance when it comes to reconstructing sudden,
>complex events, but is very useful for many other things.
>A literal brain could never have invented the idea that "all men
>are created equal", for example. The notion clearly is not based
>on data. All available data tends to disprove it. Yet the idea
>has profound power. I don't think a literal brain could have
>invented Brahms' Second piano concerto, or written Moby Dick.
>Or handled the abstraction necessary to figure out ... and prove ...
>that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way round.
>Or used the word "widdershins" in a Usenet article. Eh?
>
>
Well...yes I gotta admit that this last accomplishment is indeed one of the high
points in the list of human triumphs...
'deletion' of events in the memory...one would think that one could, upon
closely studying ones recall of a sequence of events, see that 'Hell!...did I
add/delete something here?'...but it all flows very smoothly, I guess we've had
so much practice that we find it easy to fool ourselves. I for one sure don't
state (in latter years at least) "Oh yes!...it happened exactly like this" when
describing something like a car crash.
declines in reliability so much when one gets older (and wiser even) as that one
realises that memory can be fooled into adding/deleting events so seamlessly
that the 'even older and wiser' person cannot detect the anomalies. Therefore
it's the mark of a wiser man when he says "Well, I 'think' it happened like
this". I'd respect his narrative much more than the brash confident young man
who says "I watched it all and here's exactly how it happened".
PEI Canada.
Trevor, Elmers favorite attempt to sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule (Disinfo. Rule #5) is the use of the words "missile huggers". Sorry, Elmer, us missile huggers may disagree on WHO was responsible for the 800 shootdown, but we firmly agree as to WHAT the initiating event was.
Isn't it about time we started cataloguing what is real and removing what is hearsay?