News: TWA 800: I've always believed this, too...

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Folks, you can't just discredit and dismiss something by simply labeling it a "conspiracy theory".

Ever heard of someone being tried in a court of law for "conspiracy"? Using the logic of some on this post, the judge would just laugh at the prosecution and say "hey, I guess you think Elvis was abducted by aliens".

So, anyone who claims that they "do not believe in conspiracy theories" is very seriously kidding himself or herself.

Havig said that...of course there are all sorts of wild and ridiculous claims about a lot of things.

But, for things like this, we need to consider the evidence.

Scores (hundreds?) of credible and un-connected eyewitnesses, including pilots and military men, testify that they saw a missile strike TWA 800. The government, with no proof, says that it was the fuel tank. Can't be both, but I think I know who I believe.

But, hey, I don't have a pilot's license, so what do I know?

 

[Johnv]

Scores (hundreds?) of credible and un-connected eyewitnesses, including pilots and military men, testify that they saw a missile strike TWA 800. The government, with no proof, says that it was the fuel tank. Can't be both, but I think I know who I believe.

I'm equally amused how someone can say "there's no proof" when the forensic proof whas more than ample.

As for the witnesses, where are they? If there are "hundreds of witnesses" you'd think one of them had a camera.

 

[JamesJ]

Come on Johnv...

You know that's a red-herring arguement...

Carry a camera in downtown Chicago and see how many fender benders you can snap... They happen all the time.

BTW, who knows if any of 'em even had a camera?

Not a good arguement.

[ January 27, 2003, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: JamesJ ]

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Johnv:
...As for the witnesses, where are they? If there are "hundreds of witnesses" you'd think one of them had a camera.

 

[hrhema]

What I find strange is why does anyone question a conspiracy theory about many things in this question.

Look at the Waco siege. I lived in Texas at the time and saw for myself on live coverage that it was the government that opened fire on the compound. We also saw that it was the tanks that was injecting chemicals into the compound that caused it to catch fire. The local media did not do a good job of hiding truths from Texans.

Then you have the bombing in Oklahoma City. I was in Texas the day it happened and I heard a state senator from Houston say that he received a fax two weeks prior to this warning of something going to happen in a federal building in Oklahoma City but the ATF and FBI ignored the fax.

As far as the Kennedy Assasination it has been proven that the mafia did help get Kennedy elected but then Bobby Kennedy made the mafia a major target as Attorney General. Why would anyone doubt the validity to a cover up. Texas had a state law at the time that when there is a violent crime an autopsy has to be performed in the state. Why did the federal boys refuse to allow this to happen? Also why did Jack Ruby had free access to the police station. There is pictures of Ruby running free the day of the assassination? Why is it also that one of Kennedy's men O'brien was taping the motorcade right behind Kenndy's car and will not release the tape and left an order in his will when he died that no one would get the tapes.

THis is the problem with this country. Too many people want to ignore what our government does and this is exactly why the Anti-Christ will come on the scene and deceive so many people.

 

[Johnv]

I don't think my question about witnesses is a red herring, since I was questioning the claim that there were "hundreds" of witnesses who "saw a missile". I dispute that assertion.

As far as Waco, I don't think the average American dismisses all claims of conspiracy, but the average American also doesn't assume a conspiracy at every turn. With Waco, there was evidence of mishandling. Mismanagement is far from conspiracy. Still, I don't blame the feds for the deaths at Waco, I blame David Koresch. The "chemicals" that were seens was tear gas. Tear gas is generally nonflammable. As for who fired first, did it matter? What part of "come out or we'll open fire" is in amy way unclear?

I have a rule of thumb: If a police officer is approaching me with his gun drawn, I will live longer by putting my hands up, regardless of whether or not he's got the wrong man.

[ January 28, 2003, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

[LadyEagle]

THis is the problem with this country. Too many people want to ignore what our government does and this is exactly why the Anti-Christ will come on the scene and deceive so many people.

Yup! That just about sums it all up. Thanks.

PS: Some people want to keep their heads buried in the sand.

 

[Ransom]

Pennsylvania Jim:

Folks, you can't just discredit and dismiss something by simply labeling it a "conspiracy theory".

Ever heard of someone being tried in a court of law for "conspiracy"?

Straw man. There's no question conspiracies exist.

Conspiracy theory is not merely conspiracies. It is a worldview in which, the theorist believes, to whatever extent, that world events are being orchestrated by powerful forces behind the scenes toward the accomplishment of some end.

Of course, the "powerful force" is God, but his end is his own glory, not some shadowy and nefarious purpose.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Ransom,

I know what you mean, but I am not talking about a "conspiratorial world view". I have a Christian world view in which truth is objective, valuable, and knowable (with enough evidence). And, too often, folks obscure truth by stating an opinion that something is a "conspiracy theory", slapping a label on it in a humanistic attempt to avoid facts.

So, with whatever subject, TRUTH, not labels, is what is important.

If someone has a "theory" that Elvis was behind the cold weather in the northeast, we simply ask for objective evidence. The problem is not that they had a "theory", the problem is that they had no objective evidence. So, we scratch that one off the list.

On the other hand, if someone has a "theory" that Japan was allowed a successful attack on Pearl Harbor, we must check EVIDENCE. In this particular case, it was once laughable, but avaialable evidence is now shifting the argument to some degree.

With TWA 800, it's not a question of whether someone has a "conspiracy theory". You can call it that if you like, but what is important is the EVIDENCE. If the evidence points to a government cover-up, why dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory"? If there is no evidence to back up the theory, then we can just dismiss it.

But the important thing is the truth, not whether we think it's a "conspiracy theory".

 

[InHim2002]

generally conspiracy theories are attempts to find simplistic explainations for problems with complex solutions - they often do not have enough to support them - but in the mind of a conspiracy theorist that must be because there is some huge conspiracy to deny this evidence.

Conspiracy theories, therefore, are a perfect closed, self re-enforcing belief system and usually based on either shaky evidence or poor interpretation of the avaliable evidence.

Generally, I find it best to apply Occam's Razor to these sorts of theories:

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one

[..]

For example, through two data points in a diagram you can always draw a straight line, and induce that all further observations will lie on that line. However, you could also draw an infinite variety of the most complicated curves passing through those same two points, and these curves would fit the empirical data just as well. Only Occam's razor would in this case guide you in choosing the "straight" (i.e. linear) relation as best candidate model.

more info

Applying Occam's Razor to the TWA crash - it is simpler to believe that the plane blew up or that it was shot down and that (for some undisclosed reason) the government of the United States lied to the public and undertook a huge coverup?

Which of the above two possibilities is the more likely to be correct?

Which leads me onto my second point - people that believe in conspiracy theories have already determined that their government must be trying to hide some huge secret that would reveal "the truth" if only they would allow the people to know about it - this is why so many conspiracy theories link together ie

The government covered up the shooting down of the TWA flight because they don't want to worry people about terrorism, in turn this is so they can pursue a mutli-cultural agenda, which in turn is because they favour a one world order, which in turn is because they are [insert whatever conclusion you wish here (ie zionists, followers of the anti christ etc)]

So we see that in order to take conspiracy theories seriously one must already be viewing the world through a conspiratorial mindset.

I don't know if any of you guys have read Them: Adventures with Extremists but I would really recommend it if you are interested in conspiracy theories - Ronson investigates loads of these theories and comes to an interesting conclusion:

There are powerful people in the world who seek to exert their influence - but they are not hidden in the shadows, they are household names (think George Bush, Rockafella, Trump etc) but, at the end of the day, the only thing that controls the world is the flow of money - that is a far scarier thought IMO.

At least if you believe in a conspiracy theory you believe that the world can be controlled by a small group of people - the idea that no-one has their hands on the reigns is much more frightening I think.

Anyhow I didn't intend this post to be so long - I hope it makes some sense!

 

[JamesJ]

There were eyewitnesses to the event. The eyewitnesses claimed to see "something" going from the ground to the plane before the explosion. These people have no agenda other than to tell what they saw, so I assume nothing more than they are telling the truth.

"The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed."

These are facts that are no longer "officially" talked about. Why?

Charlie Rich wrote a song a while ago that contains the line, "but no one knows what goes on behind closed doors".

When the "official" explanation is so different from what eyewitnesses to an event state, I guess I have to be skeptical and keep asking why there's such a big difference.

 

[Ransom]

Pennsylvania Jim said:

If someone has a "theory" that Elvis was behind the cold weather in the northeast, we simply ask for objective evidence.

No, we refuse to give such nonsense the time of day. Anything more constitutes excessive credulity.

With TWA 800, it's not a question of whether someone has a "conspiracy theory". You can call it that if you like, but what is important is the EVIDENCE. If the evidence points to a government cover-up, why dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory"?

But in this case, the evidence doesn't support a cover-up. It supports an accident. I have the NTSB report open in front of me. It devotes several pages to eyewitness reports as well as the possibility of a missile attack, and concludes, for a number of reasons, that this is unlikely. It is not summarily "dismissed"; it is refuted.

In other words, in order to conclude that there is a cover-up about the crash of TWA flight 800, one must, to use your word, dismiss the official report. In doing so, one must presuppose the conclusion; in doing that, someone falls squarely into the conspiracy theorist camp.

 

[InHim2002]

There were eyewitnesses to the event. The eyewitnesses claimed to see "something" going from the ground to the plane before the explosion.

And this fact is discussed in the report on the incident - it is not kept 'secret' at all.

the FBI initially
suspected that a missile might have been used against TWA flight 800; therefore, FBI
agents tended to use the witness documents to capture information that appeared relevant
to its criminal investigation involving a missile rather than to record a complete
accounting of the events described by the witness. In addition, missile experts were
present at some interviews.

page 234

These people have no agenda other than to tell what they saw, so I assume nothing more than they are telling the truth.

why not assume that they were mistaken? I don't doubt that their perception was of something flying toward the plane - but I believe it is more likely that this perception is faulty rather than the whole huge government conspiracy thing.

These are facts that are no longer "officially" talked about. Why?

perhaps because the issue has been resolved?

When the "official" explanation is so different from what eyewitnesses to an event state, I guess I have to be skeptical and keep asking why there's such a big difference.

is so different from the perception of some witnesses, (there were 699 witnesses and 220 stated that there was a 'streak of light' ie under a third of all witnesses, p232) and these 220 witnesses don't agree with each other either:

The Witness Group determined that of the 220 streak-of-light witnesses who did not characterize the
motion of the streak as vertical or nearly so, 126 provided some information about the lateral motion of the
streak. Of these, 45 witnesses reported that the streak moved to the east, 23 reported that it moved to the
west, 18 reported that it moved to the south, and 4 reported that it moved to the north. Thirty-six of the streak-of-light accounts contained no information about the direction of travel.

page 232

Which of these accounts do you consider reliable? why are they in conflict with each other? is this part of the conspiracy?

really go and read the report linked above from page 230 onwards, it goes into great detail about the witness testimony.

there are a few questions that I would like addressed:

- what did the government have to gain by covering this up?
- how were the CIA, the FBI, TWA, the Insurance company, the witnesses that who cliam didn't see the streak, the investigators, the people recovering the wreakage etc etc all pursuaded to lie for the government an dwhy has no one come forward since then?

all my quotes are from the report linked above

 

[Ransom]

JamesJ said:

There were eyewitnesses to the event. The eyewitnesses claimed to see "something" going from the ground to the plane before the explosion.

Not so. Some eyewitnesses (around 220, as I recall) saw a "streak of light" in the sky. Some claimed it was ascending, some descending; they could not agree which direction it was travelling; some provided no direction information at all. Study the NTSB report; it discusses eyewitness reports starting at page 229. Very few eyewitness actually claim to have seen the streak of light originate on the ground.

Pay particular attention to section 1.18.4.7.1 on page 272. The NTSB actually conducted some scientific missile-launch tests to determine what eyewitnesses would see if a missile were launched from the ground into the air. An actual SAM launch appears significantly different from a "streak of light."

These people have no agenda other than to tell what they saw, so I assume nothing more than they are telling the truth.

No one is disputing their honesty. There are other alternatives to deception, however: delusion and mistake, just to name two.

These are facts that are no longer "officially" talked about. Why?

Because the NTSB's report is complete and the case is closed.

 

[JamesJ]

Yes... Yes...

I've read the document too...

What is intresting is that most of the witness testimony is dismissed in some way as unreliable and then the add page after page of why human perception and memory is unreliable.

Intresting...

I remain skeptical.

 

[Johnv]

Having worked for a police agency, I can tell you that when there's an accident and there are witnesses, the majority of witnesses, while sincere, are unreliable, often contrary to, the physical evidence. Only after cross examining them do they give statements that are more credible. It's very difficult to separate what actually happenned from what the witness wanted to see.

[ January 29, 2003, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

[Ransom]

JamesJ:

What is intresting is that most of the witness testimony is dismissed in some way as unreliable

Well, the accounts of the "streak of light" are so contradictory that by definition, the majority of witnesses have to be wrong about some of the details. But why do you insist on misrepresenting what the report says? No one seriously disputes that a streak of light was seen, only its significance.

and then the add page after page of why human perception and memory is unreliable.

It happens to be quite true that people don't always see what they think they see. The testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses seeing a "streak of light" going in six different directions, is proof enough of that.

It is also true that people's memory can be influenced by others. There are those who truthfully maintain that they saw the president of Procter and Gamble on a TV talk show promoting Satanism, even though it never happened.

Why not include a section on memory and perception? Maybe it was intended to answer exactly the sorts of questions you're asking.

 

[JamesJ]

The testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses seeing a "streak of light" going in six different directions, is proof enough of that.

That's assuming all the witnesses were viewing the event from the same position. There were witnesses viewing it from different vantage points. Some north of it, some east, and some west.

[ January 29, 2003, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: JamesJ ]

 

[Squire Robertsson]

As this thread has gone to a third page, I am giving the six hour warning. Either Brother Murphy or I will close this thread No Earlier Than 445p(PST)/745p(EST/Board Time).

 

[Ransom]

JamesJ said:

That's assuming all the witnesses were viewing the event from the same position. There were witnesses viewing it from different vantage points. Some north of it, some east, and some west.

The issue is not where the streak of light was relative to their position, but the direction in which it was moving. It could only be moving in one direction.