Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

TWA 800 Shot Down by a Military Missile?


  • Please log in to reply
307 replies to this topic

#16    Travelling Man

Travelling Man

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  • Joined:03 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • And you are asking... Why?

Posted 14 November 2011 - 03:11 AM

I was with the Coast Guard for the recovery and aftermath. Outside of some horrid communication, a civilian posing as a Special Forces flight controller and jurisdiction squabbles (that almost ended in arrests), there wasn't really any problems - and there were no talks in the Incident Command Post about any Naval missile or anything like that. As the Federal On-Scene Coordinator's Representative for the pollution involved, I was there for ALL of the briefings for the entire time the ICS system was set up.

This story is bogus.

Superior firepower will win over superior numbers - every time!  G.A. Custer
Superior numbers will win over superior firepower - every time!  S. Bull

My credentials

#17    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 November 2011 - 03:14 AM

View PostTravelling Man, on 14 November 2011 - 03:11 AM, said:

I was with the Coast Guard for the recovery and aftermath. Outside of some horrid communication, a civilian posing as a Special Forces flight controller and jurisdiction squabbles (that almost ended in arrests), there wasn't really any problems - and there were no talks in the Incident Command Post about any Naval missile or anything like that. As the Federal On-Scene Coordinator's Representative for the pollution involved, I was there for ALL of the briefings for the entire time the ICS system was set up.

This story is bogus.

A civilian posing as a Special Forces flight controller. He get into any trouble for that? You ever wonder if perhaps he was working for a U.S. intelligence agency? CIA, NSA, something like that? Have -you- read Captain Russell's affidavit? There was also Pierre Salinger's statements as well.

Edited by Scott G, 14 November 2011 - 03:19 AM.


#18    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,008 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 14 November 2011 - 03:22 AM

View PostScott G, on 14 November 2011 - 03:11 AM, said:

Prove it.

Actually, its your job, or the job of the one putting forward the "alternate explanation" to prove that there WAS a US warship in the area. It a typical CT tactic to present a theory that has no verifyable facts (i.e. the name of the alleged ship that is so conveniently missing) and then say "Prove me / it / us wrong".

Unfortunately, the burden of proof doesn't work that way.

Quote

I took a look at that "analysis". It doesn't even -mention- Captain Richard Russell's email, not to mention his affidavit. It's easy to write some hit piece against those who disagree with the official story. What Captain Richard Russell did was much harder; he faced media scorn and even went so far as to file an affidavit, apparently against the government's version of events. Did you even read it?

Taken from the last paragraph of the previously linked Skeptiod page:

Quote

Of course, this doesn't change the mind of a die-hard conspiracy theorist, because this government-produced paper is simply part of the conspiracy. In fact, they consider the report's very existence as further evidence of the conspiracy. When you hear a conspiracy theory that provides no testable evidence of its own, but relies only on anecdotal testimonies, extrapolations of possible motivations, and non-evidenced claims of implausible coverups, you have every good reason to be skeptical.

So what if Russell filed an affidavit. So what of he "faced media scorn". All he's done is present an alternate theory that has no proof, from some unnamed source, about some alleged mystery US warship that allegedly fired some kind of missile.

Lots of allegation.

Zero proof.



Cz

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things .... However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf

#19    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 November 2011 - 03:35 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

View PostScott G, on 14 November 2011 - 03:11 AM, said:

View PostRafterman, on 14 November 2011 - 01:57 AM, said:

There's also the little issue of there not being an US Navy warships in the area of the crash.

Prove it.

Actually,  its your job, or the job of the one putting forward the "alternate  explanation" to prove that there WAS a US warship in the area.

Do you know anything about logic? To be valid, -any- assertion must be proven, not just ones that disagree with some official story. He says there were no Navy warships in the area? Let him prove it. Otherwise, it's possible that the Navy was lying and there was. That's the way reality works.


View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

View PostScott G, on 14 November 2011 - 03:11 AM, said:

I took a look at that "analysis". It doesn't even -mention- Captain Richard Russell's email, not to mention his affidavit.

Taken from the last paragraph of the previously linked Skeptiod page:

Alright, it mentions there was some "report". No link to the actual contents of that report, never mind Russell's affidavit. Neither is there any mention of Salinger. In summation, it's a shoddy piece of work.

View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

So what if Russell filed an affidavit. So what of he "faced media scorn".

You can say that; it's not -your- life that was turned upside down. Have -you- read Russell's affidavit? Have you read anything on what Salinger has had to say?

View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

All [Russell has] done is present an alternate theory that has no proof, from some unnamed source, about some alleged mystery US warship that allegedly fired some kind of missile.

Lots of allegation.

Zero proof.

You didn't read it did you? Why am I even bothering with you people? You don't want to learn the truth. You just want to say "no proof" and move along. Go ahead then, no one's stopping you.


#20    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,008 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 14 November 2011 - 04:05 AM

View PostScott G, on 14 November 2011 - 03:35 AM, said:

Do you know anything about logic? To be valid, -any- assertion must be proven, not just ones that disagree with some official story. He says there were no Navy warships in the area? Let him prove it. Otherwise, it's possible that the Navy was lying and there was. That's the way reality works.

The way the Burden of Proof works, since you are obviously unfamiliar with it despite having it explained to you before (if memory serves) is that the one making the extraordinary claim against the accepted fact is the one required to prove their point.

Accepted fact (whether YOU accept it or not is irrelevant) is that TWA 800 suffered a catastrophic explosion in its Center Wing Fuel Tank. There was no evidence found at all of a missile strike.

The ones who are proposing that something else happened - missile strike, on-board bomb, etc. - are the one's who are required to prove their point.

You can't just say "Well, this guy says that this happened, prove it wrong". Your insistence upon this tactic here and elsewhere shows me and probably others that is is you rather than me who is unfamiliar with logic.

Quote

Alright, it mentions there was some "report". No link to the actual contents of that report, never mind Russell's affidavit. Neither is there any mention of Salinger. In summation, it's a shoddy piece of work.

And yet the affidavit you rely on as your proof contains no name for the source of his information and no images of the supposed radar blip but is completely acceptable to you....?

Quote

You can say that; it's not -your- life that was turned upside down. Have -you- read Russell's affidavit? Have you read anything on what Salinger has had to say?

And it was Russell's choice to put himself in that kind of position to have his life "turned upside down".

Yes, I have read Russell's affidavit, and it appears that Salinger simply relied upon Russell's email / story and decided it was true. His initial claim was that the information he got was from "French Intelligence agent" who had gotten the information from an "American secret service agent stationed in France".

I also find it interesting that there is a "Peter Salinger Syndrome" where one seemingly believes whatever found on the internet to be true...

Quote

You didn't read it did you? Why am I even bothering with you people? You don't want to learn the truth. You just want to say "no proof" and move along. Go ahead then, no one's stopping you.

As has probably also been suggested to you before, if you would rather post your theories and then not have anyone dispute them, or at least control what people post in reply to your theories, start up a blog.

If you post them on a public forum such as this, then you must expect people to call your opinions and theories into question, especially ones such as this that are heavy on allegation and supposition, but significantly lacking in any evidentiary proof.

If you don't like that, too bad... deal with it.



Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 14 November 2011 - 04:17 AM.

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things .... However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf

#21    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 November 2011 - 04:18 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 04:05 AM, said:

The way the Burden of Proof works, since you are obviously unfamiliar with it despite having it explained to you before (if memory serves) is that the one making the extraordinary claim against the accepted fact is the one required to prove their point.

You seem to be suggesting that the Navy lying about the whereabouts of its ships is an extraordinary claim. That about right?

View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 04:05 AM, said:

Accepted fact (whether YOU accept it or not is irrelevant)

An assertion isn't a fact. But you can certainly accept is as such.

View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 04:05 AM, said:

is that TWA 800 suffered a catastrophic explosion in its Center Wing Fuel Tank. There was no evidence found at all of a missile strike.

According to the official sources, that is. There's a good saying on that actually:
"They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth." I think I'll get to the rest tomorrow. I admit that I'm tired. But every now and then it just gets to me how so many people are so willing to believe official stories. I guess it's easier; perhaps that's the reason.


#22    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,008 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 14 November 2011 - 04:39 AM

View PostScott G, on 14 November 2011 - 04:18 AM, said:

You seem to be suggesting that the Navy lying about the whereabouts of its ships is an extraordinary claim. That about right?
In part, but the wider perspective is that I am suggesting that the entire missile theory - of which the "Navy lying about the whereabouts of its ships" in this instance - is the extraordinary claim.

Quote

An assertion isn't a fact. But you can certainly accept is as such.
Perhaps, but the NTSB report that concludes that there is no evidence to support the idea that TWA 800 was brought down by a missile or an on-board bomb, is, in this case, the accepted fact that the claim you are supporting calls into question.

Quote

According to the official sources, that is. There's a good saying on that actually:
"They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth." I think I'll get to the rest tomorrow. I admit that I'm tired. But every now and then it just gets to me how so many people are so willing to believe official stories. I guess it's easier; perhaps that's the reason.

Here's another good saying:

"Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?" Yes, its a quote from Star Wars, but its relevant... admittedly (and objectively) to both sides of this debate, I suppose...

Perhaps its just easier for those who have a predisposition to question all "official sources" to fall in line with any alternate theory that supports their beliefs or further calls into question the official source, whether that alternate theory has any evidence to support it or even any basis in fact or reality.




Cz

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things .... However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf

#23    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 November 2011 - 10:09 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 04:05 AM, said:

You can't just say "Well, this guy says that this happened, prove it  wrong". Your insistence upon this tactic here and elsewhere shows me and  probably others that is is you rather than me who is unfamiliar with  logic.

I never use that tactic. But when someone says that something happened; whether it's that 400 or so crewmen (their number, not mine) would have known if an AEGIS missile brought down TWA 800 or that there were no Navy warships in the area that might have fired this AEGIS missile, the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. Appeals to authority are just that; appeals to authority. Authority figures have lied to the public since time immemorial and yet somehow, people think that just because an authority such as the government or an outlet of the mass media, states that something is true, it must be true.

Edited by Scott G, 14 November 2011 - 10:37 AM.


#24    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 November 2011 - 10:34 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 04:05 AM, said:

View PostScott G, on 14 November 2011 - 03:35 AM, said:

Alright,  it mentions there was some "report". No link to the actual contents of  that report, never mind Russell's affidavit. Neither is there any  mention of Salinger. In summation, it's a shoddy piece of work.

And yet the affidavit you rely on as your proof contains no name for the  source of his information and no images of the supposed radar blip but  is completely acceptable to you....?

It's true that it doesn't contain the name of the source. Given what happens to whistleblowers, I'm not surprised. Russell himself was already retired and so didn't need to worry about losing his job. However, you neglect to mention all the information it -does- have. Now that I see that you've read it, I'll bring it up later. I didn't want to before, if people wouldn't go to the link, was thinking they might just skip over it in a message; but since you've read it, it'll just be going over familiar ground.

View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 04:05 AM, said:

View PostScott G, on 14 November 2011 - 03:35 AM, said:

You  can say that; it's not -your- life that was turned upside down. Have  -you- read Russell's affidavit? Have you read anything on what Salinger  has had to say?


And it was Russell's choice to put himself in that kind of position to have his life "turned upside down".

Yes, but if someone is willing to do this, it suggests that they're doing it because they truly believe in what they're saying.

View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 04:05 AM, said:

Yes, I have read Russell's affidavit,

Awesome. I have to ask though, did you read it before or after I brought it up?

View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 04:05 AM, said:

and it appears that Salinger  simply relied upon Russell's email / story and decided it was true.

I'm not sure if Salinger's contact relied solely on Russell's email, or even if Russell's email had anything to do with it, although I did see one claim that it was the basis of the French intelligence agent he spoke to.

His  initial claim was that the information he got was from "French  Intelligence agent" who had gotten the information from an "American  secret service agent stationed in France".

View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 04:05 AM, said:

I also find it interesting that there is a "Peter Salinger Syndrome"  where one seemingly believes whatever found on the internet to be  true...

Ever wonder who came up with this saying? There should be an Official Story Syndrome (OSS, perhaps), wherein people believe what ever the government and the mass media tells them to believe. Honestly, it's a lot easier to just believe in official stories; sure, they may change given time, but atleast there's only one of them -at- a time. Alternate stories aren't so clear cut; there is frequently more then one of them for any given event and it's up to the reader to try and figure out which one best fits the evidence. It's the difference between following a set religion and philosophy.

View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 04:05 AM, said:

View PostScott G, on 14 November 2011 - 03:35 AM, said:

You  didn't read it did you? Why am I even bothering with you people? You  don't want to learn the truth. You just want to say "no proof" and move  along. Go ahead then, no one's stopping you.

As has probably also been suggested to you before, if you would rather  post your theories and then not have anyone dispute them, or at least  control what people post in reply to your theories, start up a blog.

No, that's not what I want; I like hearing what others have to say on a subject. But I -do- want to know that people actually care enough about the subject at hand (as well as my credibility) to actually read a link (the affidavit) on the subject that I found to be important. I'm not sure if you read the affidavit before or after I mentioned it, but either way, to me this shows that you're actually interested enough in the subject (and my credibility) to do some research instead of simply dismissing any claims that go against the official story on the subject.

View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 04:05 AM, said:

If you post them on a public forum such as this, then you must expect  people to call your opinions and theories into question, especially ones  such as this that are heavy on allegation and supposition, but  significantly lacking in any evidentiary proof.

If you don't like that, too bad... deal with it.

Laugh :-). As I mention, I do like discussing things with people who really get into the subject. And even before I got upset, I felt that, given your track record, you were pretty good at that; in a way, it's why I got upset with you; if -you- wouldn't look at the affidavit, I had felt that maybe I really was wasting my time on this subject.

Edited by Scott G, 14 November 2011 - 10:42 AM.


#25    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 November 2011 - 11:05 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 04:39 AM, said:

View PostScott G, on 14 November 2011 - 04:18 AM, said:

View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 04:05 AM, said:

The  way the Burden of Proof works, since you are obviously unfamiliar with  it despite having it explained to you before (if memory serves) is that  the one making the extraordinary claim against the accepted fact is the  one required to prove their point.

You seem to be suggesting that the Navy lying about the whereabouts of its ships is an extraordinary claim. That about right?

In part, but the wider perspective is that I am suggesting that the entire missile theory - of which the "Navy lying about the whereabouts of its ships" in this instance - is the extraordinary claim.

Alright, first back to your original statement; you keep on stating things like "accepted fact". But you haven't shown me anything in the official story regarding TWA 800 that's deserving of the name. This line of reasoning may work fine in places where the official story is the gospel, but we're not in such a forum. Given this fact, the official story is as suspect as any other story. You say that I have to "deal" with people questioning my theories, that's fine; but official stories can (and should) be questioned just as much, if not more. After all, the consequences of an official story being mistaken are much greater than if an alternate theory is mistaken.

View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 04:39 AM, said:

View PostScott G, on 14 November 2011 - 04:18 AM, said:

An assertion isn't a fact. But you can certainly accept is as such.

Perhaps, but the NTSB report that concludes that there is no evidence to support the idea that TWA 800 was brought down by a missile or an on-board bomb, is, in this case, the accepted fact that the claim you are supporting calls into question.

It's an accepted assertion, atleast amoung those who trust the official story of events. A fact is something that has enough evidence to make it so; I have yet to see evidence that this is the case here.

View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 04:39 AM, said:

  

View PostScott G, on 14 November 2011 - 04:18 AM, said:

According to the official sources, that is. There's a good saying on that actually:
"They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth."  I think I'll get to the rest tomorrow. I admit that I'm tired. But  every now and then it just gets to me how so many people are so willing  to believe official stories. I guess it's easier; perhaps that's the  reason.

Here's another good saying:
"Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?" Yes, its a quote from Star Wars, but it's relevant... admittedly (and objectively) to both sides of this debate, I suppose...

Exactly, laugh :-). I'm not against official stories per se; I'm sure that some of them are actually true. But I'm highly suspicious of stories that rely on one's trust in authority figures; that's just the type of thing that'll get a certain country into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya.. and I have a feeling that this won't be the end of the list, if history is any judge.


View PostCzero 101, on 14 November 2011 - 04:39 AM, said:

Perhaps its just easier for those who have a predisposition to question all "official sources" to fall in line with any alternate theory that supports their beliefs or further calls into question the official source, whether that alternate theory has any evidence to support it or even any basis in fact or reality.

Lol :-). I admit there are some conspiracy theorists who aren't all that interested in evidence. I'm not one of them, though.


#26    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 November 2011 - 12:06 PM

Here is Richard Russell's original document:
***

"TWA flight 800 was SHOT DOWN by a US NAVY AEGIS MISSILE fired from a guided missile ship which was in area W-105 about 30 miles from where TWA flight 800 exploded. W-105 is a Warning Area off the southeast cost of Long Island and is used by the military for military operations including missile firing. It is believed that, while W-105 is a rather large area, budget constraints have dictated that missile firings be done closer to land so that the flight time for the P-3 monitor and tracking aircraft can be reduced.

  Guided missile ships conduct practice firings on a regular basis and Navy P-3 radar planes track and evaluate the missile shots with their onboard instrumentation. A P-3 aircraft was on a southwest heading about over the top of TWA 800.

  There was a US Air Flight coming from the Southeast descending towards Providence, RI that had been cleared to 21,000 feet and Air Traffic Control (ATC) had determined that there would be a conflict. As a result of the traffic conflict, the TWA flight was restricted to 13,000 feet. ATC then requested the US Air flight to to turn on his landing lights. If TWA could see his lights and identify him visually, the controller could safely clear the TWA flight to continue his climb.

  The P-3 was SKIN PAINT or a non-beacon target. (This means that his transponder was turned OFF. Transponders reply to ATC radar and show a well defined radar target on the controller's scope, complete with ID and altitude. All civilian aircraft and airliners are required to fly with them when in controlled airspace. A skin paint target probably would not even be visible to the controller.) The P-3 made NO calls to ATC. After the explosion, he continued his flight to the west and then called ATC and asked if they would like him to turn around and assist with the "accident".

  You will remember that the first announcement about this accident came from the Pentagon. The spokesman mentioned that they were sending the Navy to the crash site. They immediately sent a Navy Captain, who was replaced the very next day by a one star Admiral from Norfolk. That admiral is still on the scene as of 8-23-96. At least 5 Aegis destroyers are based in Norfolk.

  The FBI has conducted about 3,000 eye witness interviews and the NTSB has not been able to be a part of these interviews nor have they any access to the contents of them. Some of those eyewitnesses reported seeing lights. Those were probably the landing lights of the US Air plane.

  The NTSB is there in name ONLY. All announcement made by Mr. Bob Francis say absolutely nothing and notice that the FBI is always standing beside or behind Mr Francis and it would appear that his job is to make sure that nothing is said that would give away "THE BIG SECRET!"

  Here is a list of the Aegis Destroyers based at Norfolk..... could one of them be the one which fired the fatal shot? USS Ramage, USS Arligh Burke (DDG 51), USS Barry (DDG 52), USS Stout (DDG 55), USS Mitscher (DDG 57) and USS Laboon (DDG 58). USS Ramage has a crew of 22 officers and 315 enlisted personnel."

***

Source: http://web.archive.o...file/fffax.html







#27    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 November 2011 - 12:10 PM

Here is the relevant part of Richard Russell's affidavit:
*****
Affidavit of Richard Russell

1. My name is Richard D. Russell. I was employed as a pilot for Capitol Airlines on June 27, 1955 which became United Airlines in 1961 until I retired on March 1, 1990. During this period, I was a member of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and served 8 years as a copilot representative while domiciled in the New York area.

2. Upon moving to Los Angeles, I was appointed as an air safety representative and served in that capacity for 26 years. ALPA jobs are all volunteer positions and no compensation is paid. Such representatives act as an interface between the various federal, state and local governmental agencies and, in this case, the Air Traffic Control System and the pilot group. The job involved my spending a good bit of time at various radar facilities where I learned how to interpret radar indications, to read the data blocks as well as the limitations of the various pieces of equipment.

3. I have also served as an ALPA accident investigator during the NTSB accident investigation group on the United Airlines DC-8 Freighter that crashed in Detroit, Michigan in 1981. I was assigned to the systems committee and later to the flight data and cockpit voice recorder committee. In 1989, I was an ALPA member of the NTSB accident investigation team on the United Airlines B-747 accident at Honolulu, HI.

4. I continue to serve as president of an aviation consulting business in Dayton Beach, Florida.

5. I was amazed to watch Ken Bacon, the Pentagon spokesman announce that TWA 800 had exploded over Long Island Sound shortly after departing John F. Kennedy Airport. I knew that there was something wrong and could not understand why the Pentagon was announcing the demise of a civilian airliner crash unless the military was involved.

6. I expressed my concern to many people and about one month later, a long time friend called and asked me to listen very closely. He related that he had just attended a high level briefing where a controller showed a radar tape on which he identified a rogue target as a missile in close proximity to TWA 800, just prior to the loss of the transponder signal from TWA 800.

7. I wrote down the information verbatim and the next day, called the ALPA Air Safety department, for who I had worked for 26 years, to pass along what I thought would answer many of their questions but was appalled by their response. They asked what I expected them to do with this information. After this rebuff, I decided to seek the advice of 11 former ALPA accident investigators and air safety representatives. One of them betrayed my trust and put the information on the Internet. That story went around the world in a couple of days.

8. My source of this information was employed at the time and asked to remain anonymous. I respected his wishes but continued to ask for a copy of the tape, and one day the tape appeared and it was as advertised.

9. To this day, it has never been released to the public nor has it been made part of this investigation. As a result, no one has ever been required to explain this rogue target.

10. My options were to go to the news media but soon found out that no one was interested in making a public showing. All network and independent stations would not air this tape.

11. Pierre Salinger had visited me prior to the arrival of the tape and I received a call from him in Paris. He invited me to visit and that Paris Match Magazine was willing to break this story. I made the trip and a couple of weeks later, the story was released along with still photos of the rogue target in close proximity to TWA 800.

12. In late March, the FBI came to my home, armed with a subpoena for me to appear before the Grand Jury in New York, but told me I could satisfy the subpoena if I would hand over the tape. Not wishing to make such an appearance, I gave them a "copy" of the tape. I sent one e-mail message about the FBI confiscation of the tape and predicted that they would probably announce that it was a fraud. Indeed they did but a few days later announced that the tape was authentic.

13. I do not remember the date that the subject radar tape was delivered to me but believe it to be some time in February 1997. The tape showed a non-beacon target in close proximity to TWA 800 just prior to the TWA B-747 target indicating a loss of a transponder signal.

14. The radar antenna turns at the rate of one revolution every 4.7 seconds which means that a new picture is presented at each turn. The tape shows the rogue target on only 3 sweeps of the antenna and they indicate that the target is travelog at a speed of approximately 600 kts.

15. It has been suggested that these targets are only "anomalies." An anomaly is presented towards the the end of this tape and it is quite different from this target that displays direction. An anomaly seems to always return to the same spot. The rogue target is moving in the same direction.

16. I believe that the original message that was sent out is accurate. No evidence has been presented which would make me change my mind as to the cause of this tragedy.

17. The tape showed a non-beacon target in close proximity to TWA 800. That target disappeared from the scope just prior to the loss [of] the transponder signal from TWA 800.

18. I knew that there was something wrong, something that was amiss. A controller had identified a target on the videotape as a missile. This information was given to me, and I went to a number of accident investigators, and finally talked with them. I sent out an e-mail message of 11 accident investigators….

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is correct

January 2, 2003 (Richard's signature)
*****

Source: http://www.twa800.co...ard-russell.pdf


#28    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 14,679 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Female

  • "To thine own self be true" William Shakespeare

Posted 14 November 2011 - 12:18 PM

Some clarification on burden of proof.

Actually, the burden of proof (onus probandi) isn't a fallacy in and of itself, it's a general rule in debate. The person making the claim carries the burden of proof. The person defending against a claim is not required to 'prove a negative'. If an alternate claim is made then the person making said claim carries the burden only for what he's claiming, he does not assume any burden for 'disproving' the original claim. Basically, one can't say, "X happened like this, now prove me wrong". One has to demonstrate that X did indeed happen and others do not assume any burden to "prove him wrong".

Edited by Lilly, 14 November 2011 - 12:19 PM.
addition

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

"All that live must die, passing through nature into eternity" ~Shakespeare~ Posted Image

#29    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 November 2011 - 12:39 PM

View Postskookum, on 13 November 2011 - 11:31 AM, said:

I was never happy with the official verdict on the cause of this crash.

This effected me a great deal as I had joined an up and growing company which I could only describe as a dream opportunity. Unfortunately (more so for the people on board) the owner of the company was on-board this very flight.  Soon after the family sold the company to a German outfit who moved operations to Germany leaving us all out of work.

Very sad and I must admit a very strange explanation given for this tragedy.

I'm sorry to hear of your loss skookum. It's for losses of this nature that I feel compelled to write on these subjects; I'm not satisfied to just swallow the stories that officials and the mass media give us.


#30    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 November 2011 - 12:59 PM

View PostLilly, on 14 November 2011 - 12:18 PM, said:

Some clarification on burden of proof.

Actually, the burden of proof (onus probandi) isn't a fallacy in and of itself, it's a general rule in debate. The person making the claim carries the burden of proof.

I agree. This is why I've pounced on people when they state that something is true without offering proof that this is so.

View PostLilly, on 14 November 2011 - 12:18 PM, said:

The person defending against a claim is not required to 'prove a negative'.

They do if they want to prove their claim. In essence, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, though it certainly does help. In wikipedia's article on Evidence of abscence, the following statement is made:
**In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event  had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified  investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take  the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its  non-occurrence.

Of course, in practice, it can be difficult to agree whether a  particular experiment was a sufficiently "qualified investigation".**

And here is the crux of the matter. In essence, people who believe in official stories believe that the investigations were sufficiently qualified. People who don't feel otherwise. There is frequently disagreement on what qualifies as evidence as well. Given enough time, and assuming that the people debating an issue use enough logic, I think that they can reach a consensus on any issue. The time span may be longer than any particular individual's lifetime, but if what's being argued about is history, I think that's a fair price to pay, atleast for those of us who believe that knowing the true history of events is very important.

Rafterman stated that if TWA 800 had been downed by an AEGIS missile, it would mean that "400 or so crewmen and women all had no problem living with the fact that  their ship shot down a 747 and killed several hundred innocent people". Because -he- was asserting that this would have been the case if an AEGIS missile had downed TWA 800, I asked him to prove it; he never did. When Rafterman stated "There's also the little issue of there not being an US Navy warships in the area of the crash", I asked him to prove -that- assertion; again, he didn't. To defend his claims, he would have to prove his assertions; otherwise, they're suspect for those who don't blindly trust in assertions made solely by posters here (I believe this is the case for his first assertion) or in official stories (his second assertion seems to be of this type).


View PostLilly, on 14 November 2011 - 12:18 PM, said:

If an alternate claim is made then the person making said claim carries the burden only for what he's claiming, he does not assume any burden for 'disproving' the original claim.

I agree with you there.

View PostLilly, on 14 November 2011 - 12:18 PM, said:

Basically, one can't say, "X happened like this, now prove me wrong".

One can, but it's a poor debater who uses it. I've seen it done here many times; it goes along the lines of "x is right, go read up on it". One way of putting it is asking your opponent to make your own case for you.

Edited by Scott G, 14 November 2011 - 01:07 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users