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

#46    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    A complete moral vacuum

  • Member
  • 30,127 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garmisch-Partenkirchen

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 15 November 2011 - 07:42 PM

View PostRafterman, on 15 November 2011 - 06:38 PM, said:

Well what exactly should the US Navy have done?  Decommission the entire fleet and disband?


Something slightly less crass than welcoming Captain Rogers home with garlands and brass bands, perhaps.

Edited by 747400, 15 November 2011 - 07:43 PM.

If, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.

- Philip K. Dick.


#47    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,619 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 15 November 2011 - 09:42 PM

View Post747400, on 15 November 2011 - 07:42 PM, said:

Something slightly less crass than welcoming Captain Rogers home with garlands and brass bands, perhaps.

Jeez... exaggerate much? :rolleyes:

Please show us where he was welcomed home "with garlands and brass bands".

He was given an award for two years of service. Granted, the Iran Air incident was not mentioned in his citation, but again, as you continually seem to avoid addressing, a military investigation found that he had acted appropriately given the circumstances.



Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan
"I'm tired of ignorance held up as inspiration, where vicious anti-intellectualism is considered a positive trait, and where uninformed opinion is displayed as fact." - Phil Plait
"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." - H. L. Mencken

#48    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    A complete moral vacuum

  • Member
  • 30,127 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garmisch-Partenkirchen

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:48 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 15 November 2011 - 09:42 PM, said:

Jeez... exaggerate much? :rolleyes:

Please show us where he was welcomed home "with garlands and brass bands".

He was given an award for two years of service. Granted, the Iran Air incident was not mentioned in his citation, but again, as you continually seem to avoid addressing, a military investigation found that he had acted appropriately given the circumstances.



Cz
have you seen the picture of the Vincennese being welcomed home to Pearl with the customary garland on her bow? And gosh, a mistake of that magnitude was not mentioned in the citation for Captain Rogers' decoration? I wonder why not? The man should have been given a court martial and dishonorably discharged for a mistake of that magnitude.  There's no two ways about it.  Of course the U.S. navy would "decide that he had acted appropriately". What would you expect them to say?

If, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.

- Philip K. Dick.


#49    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,409 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 16 November 2011 - 02:41 PM

View Post747400, on 16 November 2011 - 09:48 AM, said:

have you seen the picture of the Vincennese being welcomed home to Pearl with the customary garland on her bow? And gosh, a mistake of that magnitude was not mentioned in the citation for Captain Rogers' decoration? I wonder why not? The man should have been given a court martial and dishonorably discharged for a mistake of that magnitude.  There's no two ways about it.  Of course the U.S. navy would "decide that he had acted appropriately". What would you expect them to say?

That's the thing - it wasn't considered a mistake.  It was determined that he made the best decision at the time with the information he had at hand to protect his ship and the lives of his crew.

Perhaps if the Iranian Navy had not been firing upon the Vincennes' helicopter the entire event would have never happened.  Let's also not forget - as I mentione above - the USS Stark was almost sunk a year prior in these same waters by an Iranian F14.  So there was precedent to think that the Iranian Air Force would fire on US Navy warships.

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
                                                                                                                                           - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World:  Science as a Candle in the Dark

#50    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 16 November 2011 - 07:20 PM

View PostRafterman, on 16 November 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:

That's the thing - it wasn't considered a mistake.  It was determined that he made the best decision at the time with the information he had at hand to protect his ship and the lives of his crew.

It was a mistake and there was another case where it almost happened again when an AWACs cleared an F-14 to shoot down a bogie, but the F-14 pilot decided to take a closer look and he found that the aircraft was an airliner.

Quote

Perhaps if the Iranian Navy had not been firing upon the Vincennes' helicopter the entire event would have never happened.  Let's also not forget - as I mentione above - the USS Stark was almost sunk a year prior in these same waters by an Iranian F14.  So there was precedent to think that the Iranian Air Force would fire on US Navy warships.

That was an Iraqi jet that fired upon the USS Stark, not an Iranian F-14.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#51    coolguy

coolguy

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,393 posts
  • Joined:06 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:east islip , new york

  • Star trek rules

Posted 17 November 2011 - 12:28 AM

I live pretty close to the spot where the plane blew up we hread it from my house.
but anyways  there was a navy missle ship off the cost of long island the whole week.
so it could have blew up the jet line on mistake.  all the storys they said about the plane blowing up and going up in the air is all bull


#52    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,619 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 17 November 2011 - 12:35 AM

View Postcoolguy, on 17 November 2011 - 12:28 AM, said:

I live pretty close to the spot where the plane blew up we hread it from my house.
but anyways  there was a navy missle ship off the cost of long island the whole week.
so it could have blew up the jet line on mistake.  all the storys they said about the plane blowing up and going up in the air is all bull
Really...? It is completely impossible for it to have happened as stated by the NTSB?

And you've come to this conclusion how, exactly? Simply because you heard the explosion from your house...?




Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan
"I'm tired of ignorance held up as inspiration, where vicious anti-intellectualism is considered a positive trait, and where uninformed opinion is displayed as fact." - Phil Plait
"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." - H. L. Mencken

#53    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,409 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 17 November 2011 - 04:50 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 16 November 2011 - 07:20 PM, said:

It was a mistake and there was another case where it almost happened again when an AWACs cleared an F-14 to shoot down a bogie, but the F-14 pilot decided to take a closer look and he found that the aircraft was an airliner.



That was an Iraqi jet that fired upon the USS Stark, not an Iranian F-14.

The US Navy does not consider it a mistake:

http://en.wikipedia....m_C._Rogers_III

A subsequent US report by Rear Admiral William Fogarty, titled Formal Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988,[8] noted that Captain Rogers received some faulty information that he used to make the decision to fire. Specifically, he was told the aircraft was identified as an Iranian Air Force F-14A Tomcat descending in an attack profile, and that it was identifying itself with secondary surveillance radar / IFF mode-II codes exclusively used by military aircraft. The investigation noted that Rogers was focused on the ongoing surface engagement and was only aware of the inbound aircraft for less than four minutes. It also pointed out that Rogers thought that he had increased burden to act since he was also assigned to protect the frigate USS Elmer Montgomery (FF-1082). The investigation also concluded that Rogers acted in a prudent manner based on the information available to him, and the short time frame involved. He also acted within the prescribed rules of engagement for USN warship captains in that situation

I stand corrected on the Stark information - but, without a doubt, the incident would have played into the mindset of sailors serving in the Persian Gult at the time.

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
                                                                                                                                           - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World:  Science as a Candle in the Dark

#54    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 18 November 2011 - 11:08 AM

View PostLilly, on 14 November 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:

View PostScott G, on 14 November 2011 - 02:43 PM, said:

Oh, yes,  I certainly agree with that. I believe that I've provided a great deal  of evidence that supports the assertion that the official story isn't  correct, but I'm fairly sure there are those here who would disagree  with me.

However, evidence that the official story is incorrect isn't the same thing as evidence that the United States Military shot down a commercial airliner.

Agreed.

View PostLilly, on 14 November 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:

Because premise 'A' might be false does nothing to support that premise 'B' is correct.

Not necessarily. It all depends on how many possibilities there are. If there are only 2 possibilities, if premise A is false, it would mean that premise B -must- be true. I know that this isn't the case here, but we're talking logic here, so I thought I'd point this out.  Furthermore, eliminating any possibility helps in finding out the truth. Perhaps the one who put it best is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional investigator Sherlock Holmes, who said "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

View PostLilly, on 14 November 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:

So, logically speaking, refuting the official story does not automatically support that any other story must be true.

Agreed.

View PostLilly, on 14 November 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:

The burden of proof still remains to support the veracity of any other scenario being put forth as being true.

Agreed.


#55    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 18 November 2011 - 07:07 PM

View PostTravelling Man, on 14 November 2011 - 04:46 PM, said:

He didn't get into trouble for impersonating an officer - he got in trouble for impersonating a DOCTOR that headed a clinic on Long Island.  http://articles.lati...-impostor-crash  

I see.

View PostTravelling Man, on 14 November 2011 - 04:46 PM, said:

Yes, I've read Russell's affidavit AND Salinger's report. Both ignore perfectly sound science, evidence and reasonable reporting.

So you say, but I haven't found that there's any evidence to what you say.

View PostTravelling Man, on 14 November 2011 - 04:46 PM, said:

You accept them at face value because they fit your agenda.

My only "agenda" is to know the truth.

View PostTravelling Man, on 14 November 2011 - 04:46 PM, said:

You are missing Lilly's point. The investigators - the ones that actually had their HANDS and EYES on the recovered jet - found that the plane blew from the inside, out  - that no missile or projectile impacted it. Russell wasn't THERE.

Alright, I grant you that Russell wasn't there. Why don't we take a look at reports from some people who were? I found an article that describes what eyewitnesses saw. Let's see what they have to say:
*****

The First Hints
Almost at once, eyewitnesses were being interviewed on radio and TV who reported that something strange had preceded the explosion of the 747. Witnesses, many on the ground, reported seeing a bright object "streaking" towards the 747. The object in question turned in midair as it closed on the jumbo jet. Witnesses reported horizontal travel, as well as vertical. The broad geographical range covered by the eyewitnesses eliminates foreground/background confusion. To be seen as being near the 747 from so many different directions, the bright object had to actually be in the immediate vicinity of the 747.

Other pilots in the air reported seeing a bright light near the jumbo jet before it exploded.

In the days following the disaster, many industry executivesprivately concluded that TWA 800 had been shot down.

*****

The same article also mentions what was seen on radar:
*****

What Was The Bright Object Detected On Radar?
There was an initial report that something had been picked up on Air Traffic Control radar, but this report was quickly withdraw. Associated Press on (07/19/96) reported " Radar detected a blip merging with the jet shortly before the explosion, something that could indicate a missile hit."

It's important to remember that in normal operation, Air Traffic Control radar does not detect aircraft, but aircraft transponders. A transponder is a special type of radio in the aircraft that listens for a radar beam. When it detects a radar beam, it immediately sends out a coded signal with an identifying number (assigned by the Air Traffic Controller on the ground) as well as the altitude of the aircraft. The Air Traffic Control radar will then use this extra data to display useful information to the Air Traffic Controller.

All air traffic operating inside the Terminal Control Area is required to have an operating radar transponder. Unless the Air Traffic Controller displays the skin   paint return, any air traffic without a transponder will not be seen.

*****

So what could this bright object, seen by both witnesses and radar, have been? Again, let's turn to the article for some ideas...
*****

Was The Bright Object A Missile?
The descriptions given by the eyewitnessesand by pilots in the area (including an Air France crew) are not inconsistent with a missile. No alternative explanation for the bright object has been forthcoming.

ABC World News Sunday, 07/21/96, interviewed witness Lou Desyron, who reported, "We saw what appeared to be a flare going straight up. As a matter of fact, we thought it was from a boat. It was a bright reddish-orange color. ...once it went into flames, I knew that wasn't a flare."

The Washington Times, on July 24th, 1996, reported. "Several witnesses...saw a bright, flare-like object streaking toward the jumbo jet seconds before it blew up. ABC News said yesterday that the investigators had more then 100 eyewitness accounts supporting the [ missile ] theory."


*****


View PostTravelling Man, on 14 November 2011 - 04:46 PM, said:

Salinger is basing his info on a mystery piece of paper that a covert agent gave him in a cafe??

The mystery piece of paper (if that's the form he got it in) was actually Russell's report, or atleast that's what I've heard. This is why I focused on Russell's report, as it was apparently Salinger's real source of information. Russell felt strongly enough about it that he filed an afidavit regarding the issue.

View PostTravelling Man, on 14 November 2011 - 04:46 PM, said:

Like most CTers, you are calmly ignoring one glaring problem with your fallacy. An Aegis cruiser has a crew complement of how many? How about 250! Of these, only about 60 have security clearances. That leaves about 190 free to talk about shooting a missile south of Long Island on July 17th, 1996. How many have? Quick - hold up ZERO fingers and count them.

747400 addressed this point already; to whit:

View Post747400, on 14 November 2011 - 07:48 PM, said:

I think  that if an accident of this magnitude had happened during an exercise,  the first instinct would surely have been to deny everything; and only  the crew on duty with their eyes on the actual radar would have had any  idea that such a mistake may have been made, so it doesn't seem  completely outrageous that those in charge might have managed to cover  it up.

View PostTravelling Man, on 14 November 2011 - 04:46 PM, said:

My gods man! The most uber-secret thing in the history of the US was known for several years before the Manhattan Project was officially unveiled.

By very few. And that was kept secret not because they messed up but in order to avoid being copied by other world powers.


View PostTravelling Man, on 14 November 2011 - 04:46 PM, said:

Even oral sex in the oval office was known - and there were only TWO people involved!!

Again, even when that got out, it wasn't the end of the world for Clinton. Interestingly, on the issue of affairs, there have been cases where the lovers of politicians have ended up dead under suspicious circumstances.

View PostTravelling Man, on 14 November 2011 - 04:46 PM, said:

This level of secrecy, where the ONLY people that "know" anything are those that didn't have anything to do with the operation!

Who says that Russell's source didn't have anything to do with the operation?

View PostTravelling Man, on 14 November 2011 - 04:46 PM, said:

The only "conspiracy" I saw was from the media, where alleged journalists were cutting chain-link fences to get pictures of bodies as they were brought to the docks. The FBI was very proud of the collection of expensive cameras and recording devices that were confiscated and kept on display.

I think that's the only conspiracy you saw because you were satisfied with the official story and decided not to carry it any further. Perhaps, like a fellow official story supporter I talked to at one point, you would consider the government covering up something of this nature as if your own mother would have done something like that. I understand that people can be rather emotional on subjects such as the government, but the fact remains that the U.S. government has done far worse than accidentally shoot down an airliner. And as 747 has pointed out, this wasn't necessarily the first time a missile hit a passenger aircraft by mistake and then covered up:
http://en.wikipedia....avia_Flight_870

Or the last:
http://en.wikipedia....nes_Flight_1812

Edited by Scott G, 18 November 2011 - 07:25 PM.


#56    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,619 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 18 November 2011 - 07:49 PM

Regarding "eyewitness testimony"...

From the "Reassembling TWA Flight 800" page at Skeptoid.com previously linked by Rafterman on page 1:

Quote

The aircraft was two and a half miles up, and about nine miles offshore, when it exploded. That puts the coastline just about exactly one minute away at the speed of sound. The vast majority of the eyewitnesses were between one minute and two minutes away, as sound travels. The majority of the 38 eyewitnesses who reported a skybound streak that's been described as a missile trail only turned to look after they heard the explosion. This means that for at least two minutes after the plane exploded, something happened that looked to many eyewitnesses like a missile going up. Remember, the majority of people who reported that it looked like a missile struck the aircraft, did not start watching until at least one minute after the explosion happened. Therefore, in most cases of people who said it was absolutely a missile, the laws of physics make it impossible that they could have seen such a missile. We know for a fact that what the aircraft did one minute after it exploded, looked enough like a missile to convince many eyewitnesses that it couldn't possibly have been anything else. In all of these cases, whatever they saw happened after any theorized missile would have detonated.

One of the conspiracy web sites, Flight800.org, has a page giving testimony from witnesses who believe that they distinctly saw two separate objects, a missile and a plane, converge. As you listen, pay attention to when the witnesses heard the sound relative to what they saw:

Witness 73: ...While keeping her eyes on the aircraft, she observed a 'red streak' moving up from the ground toward the aircraft at an approximately a 45 degree angle. The 'red streak' was leaving a light gray colored smoke trail... At the instant the smoke trail ended at the aircraft's right wing, she heard a loud sharp noise which sounded like a firecracker had just exploded at her feet. She then observed a fire at the aircraft followed by one or two secondary explosions which had a deeper sound. She then observed the front of the aircraft separate from the back.

Witness 88: ...All of a sudden he heard an explosion. He glanced over to the southeast and observed what he thought was a firework ascending into the sky. All of a sudden, it apparently reached the top of its flight... At this point he observed an airplane come into the field of view. He stated that the bright red object ran into the airplane and upon doing so both the plane and the object turned a real bright red then exploded into a huge plume of flame.

Witness 675: ...Noticed an orange flare ascending from the south... trailing white or light gray smoke. He then observed the flare strike what looked like an eastbound Cessna airplane on the port side... Within five (5) seconds... he heard what sounded like thunder and felt the ground shake.

Witness 145: ...She saw a plane and noticed an object spiraling towards the plane. The object which she saw for about one second, had a glow at the end of it and a gray/white smoke trail... She heard a loud noise and saw an explosion just as the object hit the plane. The plane dropped towards the water and appeared to split in two pieces. A few seconds later, she heard another explosion.


Whether you're a conspiracy theorist or not, the 1-minute minimum delay required by the speed of sound clearly makes it impossible to corroborate what these people heard with what they think they saw. This illustrates why the witness testimony, while still valuable, cannot be relied on as the definitive explanation for what happened. Anecdotal evidence has value for suggesting directions to research, but it does not by itself constitute evidence, and cannot reasonably be treated as such.
Emphasis added.

From Wiki - TWA 800: Analysis of Reported Witness Observations:

Quote

The NTSB's review of the released witness documents determined that they contained 736 witness accounts, of which 258 were characterized as "streak of light" witnesses ("an object moving in the sky...variously described [as] a point of light, fireworks, a flare, a shooting star, or something similar.")[57] The NTSB Witness Group concluded that the streak of light reported by witnesses might have been the actual airplane during some stage of its flight before the fireball developed, noting that most of the 258 streak of light accounts were generally consistent with the calculated flightpath of the accident airplane after the CWT explosion.[58]

However, 38 witnesses described a streak of light that ascended vertically, or nearly so, and these accounts "seem[ed] to be inconsistent with the accident airplane's flightpath."[106] In addition, 18 witnesses reported seeing a streak of light that originated at the surface, or the horizon, which did not "appear to be consistent with the airplane's calculated flightpath and other known aspects of the accident sequence."[106] Regarding these differing accounts, the NTSB noted that based on their experience in previous investigations "witness reports are often inconsistent with the known facts or with other witnesses' reports of the same events."[107] The interviews conducted by the FBI focused on the possibility of a missile attack; suggested interview questions given to FBI agents such as "Where was the sun in relation to the aircraft and the missile launch point?" and "How long did the missile fly?" could have biased interviewees' responses in some cases.[108] The NTSB concluded that given the large number of witnesses in this case, they "did not expect all of the documented witness observations to be consistent with one another."[109] and "did not view these apparently anomalous witness reports as persuasive evidence that some witnesses might have observed a missile."[110]

After missile visibility tests were conducted in April 2000, at Eglin Air Force Base, Fort Walton Beach, Florida,[111] the NTSB determined that if witnesses had observed a missile attack they would have seen: (1) a light from the burning missile motor ascending very rapidly and steeply for about 8 seconds; (2) the light disappearing for up to 7 seconds; (3) upon the missile striking the aircraft and igniting the CWT another light, moving considerably more slowly and more laterally than the first, for about 30 seconds; (4) this light descending while simultaneously developing into a fireball falling toward the ocean.[110] None of the witness documents described such a scenario.[110]
Emphasis added. All reference numbers refer to relevant sections of the NTSB report.




Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan
"I'm tired of ignorance held up as inspiration, where vicious anti-intellectualism is considered a positive trait, and where uninformed opinion is displayed as fact." - Phil Plait
"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." - H. L. Mencken

#57    Travelling Man

Travelling Man

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,200 posts
  • Joined:03 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • And you are asking... Why?

Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:30 PM

There had been a flare sighting in the area - and the Coast Guard had a cutter underway to investigate the report. The problem was that the flare report came in TWO HOURS before TWA-800 took off. No verification of the flare was made and the search was suspended upon notification that TWA-800 had crashed. No subsequent reports came in that any vessels were overdue or missing or that people were missing in the area.

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

#58    JonathanVonErich

JonathanVonErich

    Telekinetic

  • Banned
  • 7,519 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:34 PM

I have an episode on DVD about this event. The DVD is "Conspiracy?", by the History Channel ( available on Amazon ).

Very interesting case indeed.  :yes:

Here's the episode I was talking about:




#59    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 19 November 2011 - 12:38 AM

View PostJonathanVonErich, on 18 November 2011 - 10:34 PM, said:

I have an episode on DVD about this event. The DVD is "Conspiracy?", by the History Channel ( available on Amazon ).

Very interesting case indeed.  :yes:

Here's the episode I was talking about:



Good video, thanks :-)


#60    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,409 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 19 November 2011 - 02:15 PM

View PostJonathanVonErich, on 18 November 2011 - 10:34 PM, said:

I have an episode on DVD about this event. The DVD is "Conspiracy?", by the History Channel ( available on Amazon ).

Very interesting case indeed.  :yes:

Here's the episode I was talking about:



And if they didn't find a conspiracy, they wouldn't have a show now would they.

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
                                                                                                                                           - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World:  Science as a Candle in the Dark




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users