You are missing on purpose that other demonstrated how unreliable he is, and on top of that I pointed already that his points are just “because I say so’s” point to the evidence, not just what Cashill “believes”. Point to the evidence that he was right on the St Lous bomb test or you just have to acknowledge that Cashill also ignored the sworn testimony of others that confirmed that the test was done.
BTW all can see who is really dodging the evidence.
Hey now, that’s some furrin name there, ain’t it? Don’t you be bringin’ no more furriners in here! Only thing worse would be if it was a German name. Then we’d be all, like, Hitler and everything too. So don’t you be startin’ that!
(hopes this is sufficient distraction from his stupid spelling error…)
Notice CurtC dodged the point that the wires to the cockpit run under the center tank and would have been seriously affected if the initiating event occurred there. He then says he doesn't see anything worth further debating and bails. Typical.
The problem with CurtC's obvious evidence avoidance is the type of explosion from a fuel tank blast would not be able to affect the sensors in their locations in the cockpit and on the outside of the plane at the cockpit. This would be very easily shown by exploding a retired 747 center tank in an honest re-creation. - Especially the pressure pitot which is rather a simple type of sensor that would record accurately during any low intensity fuel blast. CurtC has no intention of seeking accurate data so he seeks the cracks with the roll reading in order to dismiss evidence he doesn't want to admit. The two "dumb" instruments are the angle of attack vane and pressure pitot. In order to discount their readings you have to suggest the blast was so strong that it jarred the brain of the avionics equipment causing a false reading. But Donaldson went and calculated the scientific maximum pressure of a fuel blast from the investigation's own data and found that even when he gave them ten times the maximum value it still only came out to .6 pounds per square inch when the data recorder recorded 1.43 pounds per square inch. What a coincidence that equipment erred in the range of a high explosives blast instead of erring in a lower range closer to a fuel blast. And what a surprise official story backers doubt the data! You have a problem here because any blast weak enough to not sever the recorder wires is also one that isn't strong enough to affect the cockpit sensors or avionics to the point of corrupted data. It's obvious a higher intensity blast would be more likely to either corrupt data or cause high end readings. A proximity detonation outside the plane would also explain the recorder wires running under the center tank not breaking immediately. While it is possible to grab the straw of equipment unreliability from this it is grabbed from a surrounding body of evidence that points towards a high energy explosion.
So the answer is, yes, I do think the pressure pitot and angle of attack vane were accurate and the very fact they provided data to the recorder shows they were working. I also think you haven't shown why they weren't working or why their data wasn't accurate. The way real evidence works is that which is bearing, salient, relevant, or pertinent takes precedent over people who answer to their own arguments in a side track tangent designed to avoid real discussion. The suggestion that "I have already shown that" arguments displace or disprove valid cases Cashill makes is preposterous. Those who completely avoid real provable issues only to reference their own evasive arguments have destroyed their own credibility by all known normal civilized standards of debate.
The St Louis bomb test can hardly be described as something Cashill 'believes'. It is provable evidence recorded by FBI itself and all on record. The test agent Herman Burnett himself is on record as saying FBI misrepresented what he said and did. If you doubt the bomb test evidence you doubt your own FBI/official investigation itself.
The "sworn testimony" has been refuted by the evidence you refuse to acknowledge. In this case you forfeit the debate.The “believes” was a word Cashill used himself, it is a very known weasel word.
Speaking of forfeiting, the reality is that you can not produce evidence that came after the latest hearings and trials.
Meyer said he was a helicopter pilot in VietNam and was therefore highly capable of recognizing ordnance flashes. I agree. You were already caught trying to misrepresent Brumley. You are doing it once again with Meyer. The context here is pretty simple. Meyer knows ordnance flashes from seeing them up close at altitude in VietNam. I don't see how any of your attempts to misconstrue Meyer changes that. You also haven't accounted for your preposterous suggestion that attack and rescue missions somehow experienced different types of anti-aircraft ordnance.
You are hardly making any genuine offering. Meyer said after the ordnance flash it "dropped like a rock". Your argument above foolishly ignores that the fire waterfall Meyer saw right away has to be accompanied by an airframe according to the official report and reality.
Ballistic drop is simply an inertial free fall uninfluenced by other forces. It's what Flight 800 would have done if it fell directly to the sea under gravity - which is what it did (and radar recorded).
You've pretty much destroyed your own argument by suggesting the remaining nose-less 747 was "various bits continuing on". You fail to comprehend that the fire waterfall had to be connected to the remaining aircraft according to your own official story. None of your 'honest' fellow debaters will rush in to correct you on that. Also, you foolishly fail to detect that your own version contradicts CIA's "zoom-climb" theory. And you misrepresent Meyer's timing of the burning fuel waterfall happening right away (not 16 seconds later after the zoom-climb as the official story contends). I suggest you study the crash and learn about it before attempting to debate it. :smack: Your argument fails to recognize that any data left over from the previous flight would be data further into the recorder than what was recorded for Flight 800. So, what you are suggesting is the previous flight, which was a normal flight with no odd occurrences, recorded roll conditions near upside down and an angle of attack change from 3 degrees to 106 degrees? Clearly these are anomalous readings that occurred during Flight 800. You can't try to say they were freak readings from the previous flight because they would have set-off significant autopilot responses that would have been observed. If the previous flight's autopilot sensed a 114 degree roll and 103 degree attack angle change it would have snapped the plane back to level and believe me the passengers would have known it. In no place was the previous flight past a 90 degree roll position in normal flight. A 114 degree roll is a jet fighter move that would have had the passenger cabin upside down. The fact you miss this says a lot.
Plus any claim that the data was from the previous flight could be compared to the continuing, unerased data further into the tape. If the tape jumps to a new reading just past Donaldson's last data line it is clearly indicative that the data line in question was from Flight 800.
Again, investigations work by finding what data can be included and used for consideration rather than what data can be dismissed at the weakest excuse. It is a logical fallacy to suggest that instruments have to be built for specific purposes in order to record valid information. The idea being that what information the instrument was able to record and what it means is what counts. If the roll sensor turned 114 degrees, and the angle of attack vane changed 103 degrees, and the pressure pitot sensed a 3700 foot pressure drop we need to know why?
I fully encourage those tests. I think I know what they would show.
The "dumb" instruments are more likely to be accurate. Possibly gyro-dependent instruments are more likely to be thrown by a high explosive shockwave.
I think the St Louis bomb test circumstantial evidence and the media's ignoring of it is nothing other than the definition of a conspiracy of that type. It's clear to me the media ignores it because they can't cook up any official contrivance to get around it.A correction to my CurtC post:
The pressure for the recorded blast was 1.32 pounds per square inch. The fuel blast pressure calculated by Donaldson (while giving a 10 times leeway) was .43 pounds per inch. So a calculation of the force of a fuel blast that gives a 10 times leeway only makes .43 pounds per square inch while the pitot recorded 1.32 pounds per square inch.Still waiting…
Oh bother. Once again, Meyer himself makes the statement that he only flew rescue missions. He says this in the context of his recollection of the “hard” and “soft” explosions he observed. Whatever caused him to offer that particular qualification can only be speculated. And it is further speculation to turn his characterization of a “hard explosion” into evidence of a missile strike.
I briefly paraphrased a description of the incident, saying “…if Flight 800 was ripped apart by an exploding center wing tank, various bits continued on for some seconds due to inertia and specific aerodynamic characteristics…” Intact or noseless, the bits of what had been an airplane, some of them quite large, surely continued on for some period. Do you maintain that they just stopped? How does this destroy my argument?
The only part of Meyer’s timing I mention is his “less than 10 seconds” between ‘poof!’ and ‘splash!’. His 1997 interview which I cited earlier does not provide any specific guess at the time elapsed for the entirety of his observations, from first notice to end. But he and his two co-observers all agree on the less than 10 second fall time of the last and largest explosion they observed. What you’re blathering about with waterfalls and 16 second gaps is beyond me. Unless you’re conflating conspiracies here, and thinking of Nixon, but that was an 18 minute gap.
Frankly I’m becoming less and less enchanted with your continued name calling. Please knock it off. You, sirrah, are the one who keeps this from being an actual debate. For debate, when return, bring actual evidence of something more creditable than nutter manifesto.
Nah, the reality is that guys like Cashill just chicken out or do not bother to follow up with the information that they still believe demonstrates their say so’s.
James Trafficant, the rep that was mentioned early, showed a sympathy for the scenario proposed by Donaldson. So he put his office to check the evidence.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_30_12/ai_50199421/?tag=content;col1
And that is the current state of affairs, guys like Donaldson are not being taken seriously even by the people who asked the questions that were favored by the conspiracy theorists. Questions that were already answered satisfactorily to the serious researchers that investigated the case.
So you think that if the wires got broken, that the recorder just immediately stops functioning? Why? It’s not the power connection to the recorder, it’s just the wires that send data to it. If those got broken, not knowing anything else about the system, I’d expect garbled data.
Can you show me where I said that I didn’t see anything worth further debating? Or where I bailed? Are you just making shit up now?
Still waiting for radar data.
Still waiting for a missile part.
Still waiting for someone with knowledge of a conspiracy.
Please provide some of these things, Jetblast.
Apparently Sir Isaac Newton was in on the conspiracy too.
BTW, if Jim Traficant thinks someone else is a nutcase, you can believe it.
Oh, right, there’s more:
All of the media, too.
There’s a weather buoy in the middle of Lake Michigan, one of many worldwide that report data to Internet sites at least once per hour.
One several occasions, a typical wave height of, say, 6 ft. has been followed one hour later, by a wave height of 255 ft. After a few 255 ft wave hours, it drops down to 6 ft.
So should we all assume that there actually was a 2-hour long, 255 ft wave that passed the buoy? Nonsense. The number 255 strongly suggests that some sensor was shorted or open, and all 8 data bits in a ADC byte became zeros or ones. Stupid sensor software then reported the glitch as fact.
Likewise airplane black box data, especially near the point where data stops and all electronics are operating under great and unplanned stress, needs to be taken with a bit of salt, and not assumed to be gospel.
Right, but the fact you don’t seem to understand is that you cannot simply cherry pick which data you use, depending on whether or not it helps your case. There is absolutely no reason in the world to believe that the altimeter data is more likely correct than the roll or heading readings. If the roll or heading readings are garbage, its likely the other readings are too.
It would be a bigger mistake to just assume that they can. Without testing them you are just assuming.
Unless you can explain what difference there was between anti-aircraft ordnance flashes during rescue missions as opposed to attack missions you are off-point and only adding mulling wordage. Meyer was well credible at identifying anti-aircraft ordnance explosions from his VietNam experience. Nothing you wrote does anything to challenge that. In fact, I consider your failure to show any lack of credibility in Meyer as a strengthening of my case. Meyer clearly differentiated between a brilliant ordnance flash and a yellow fuel explosion. The investigation's disinvolvement of Meyer was deliberately done to keep his missile information from the official record.
Yes. Meyer was quoted as saying "It dropped like a rock" after seeing the ordnance flash. His 10 second estimate of the drop time only reinforces the ballistic drop. Captain Ray Lahr's aviation science currently being used as evidence in his lawsuit against CIA also backs this.
Your argument fuzzed the time period in which Meyer said he saw the fuel fire. Meyer saw the fuel fire right after the ordnance flash. Since the official story necessitates the remaining aircraft to accompany the waterfall of fire there can be no "various bits flying onward".
Clearly CIA's "zoom-climb" becomes more and more apparent as never having happened (that includes the radar evidence showing a ballistic drop). When you lose the zoom-climb and the explosives test the government's story crashes harder than Flight 800 itself. But that doesn't seen to affect some people.
The only part of Meyer’s timing I mention is his “less than 10 seconds” between ‘poof!’ and ‘splash!’. His 1997 interview which I cited earlier does not provide any specific guess at the time elapsed for the entirety of his observations, from first notice to end. But he and his two co-observers all agree on the less than 10 second fall time of the last and largest explosion they observed. What you’re blathering about with waterfalls and 16 second gaps is beyond me. Unless you’re conflating conspiracies here, and thinking of Nixon, but that was an 18 minute gap.
Frankly I’m becoming less and less enchanted with your continued name calling. Please knock it off. You, sirrah, are the one who keeps this from being an actual debate. For debate, when return, bring actual evidence of something more creditable than nutter manifesto.
[/QUOTE]
Donaldson:
The reason it isn't just garbled data from the inputs running on without any attached equipment is because the angle of attack sensor showed the pattern of a shockwave passing past it. You could make the argument that the garbled data just so happened to coincidentally match that of a shockwave, but the argument gets less and less believable considering the many examples of missile evidence repeatedly appearing.
The reason corrupt data isn't likely is because the angle of attack sensor records additional inputs in 1/4 seconds. The angle of attack vane was recorded going from 3 degrees to 106 degrees, down to 30 degrees and then back to 3 degrees at the second mark. This motion exactly conforms to the speed of a high explosives shockwave blasting across the vane and the vane correcting as the forward airflow of flight comes across it again as the shockwave passes. The probability of the sensor being corrupted or inaccurate goes way down as it records what should be the precise pattern of this event. One could go to probability calculations to formulate the chances a garbled recording would record the exact pattern of a shockwave pass and return to forward flight on the vane. I think one would find the chances of it being a false reading to be very low. Especially when the recorder recorded engine inputs of a similar variety. You have trouble when the engines record a similar blast experience because of their location outward from the alleged explosion.
The behavior of a suddenly disconnected recorder is easily test-able. I assume any loss of connection would result in the data from the previous flight being what was left on the tape. In any case, a simple look at the tape would show what was there and what it related to. Something that only accentuates the government's lack of forthcoming with this data.I apologize for the length, but somebody (not naming any names here, but we all know who we’re looking at, don’t we?) refuses to actually read the transcript of his own witness. I know, it’s much more satisfying to read what somebody says about it, especially if that somebody agrees with your conspiracy theory. But c’mon on, let’s have Meyer’s own words.
Meyer says, in the 1997 interview whose transcript I cited and which you clearly still have not bothered to read else you wouldn’t be talking about yellow fuel explosions:
I saw to – in front of me and slightly to my
left of dead front I saw a streak of light in the sky.
I have no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw
it was, what the hell is that?
I observed it for somewhere in approximately
three to five seconds moving in a gradually descending
arc – sort of a gentle descending trajectory. Similar
to that which you would observe at night if you
observed a shooting star. The difference is that it
was red-orange in color and it was broad daylight. It was as bright then as it is right now looking out that
window.
OK, so where’s the yellow explosion?
It was broad daylight… I observed the streak of light for three to
five seconds. And then I saw an explosion. And about
one to two seconds after that I saw a second, and
possibly a third, explosion. Now, these were hard
explosions. This looked like flak. It’s a hard
explosion. It’s like an HPX explosion, as opposed to
soft explosion like gasoline, or something.
Need I remind you that something can be “like” something else while not actually being that something else?
How do I know that? Well, I’m recalling back
20, 25 years. And I put – if – if I observe
something in the air in Vietnam, different things
exploding did different characteristics. Somebody
would have to be more technical. That’s – that’s as
much as I can tell you, is that some things are hard
explosions. They’re gen – they – they, to me,
resemble anti-aircraft fire and other things are soft
explosions; like if you saw somebody hit a fuel storage
depot, the type of explosion that would occur there
would be slow.
What I saw were – and I want to – I want to step back and tell you that at no time during what I
observed did I ever see the airframe. I never saw
anything that told me there was an airplane out there…
Never saw an airframe though, that’s certain.
…And then, from that approximate position
emanated this fireball, which was a soft explosion.
And it was definitely petroleum.
Meyer places no timeline on the emanation of this fireball. You insist it was immediate. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. Meyer provides no evidence either way. The rest of your falling blather is incoherent and not worth any attempt to translate.
…If you’ve ever seen a
– I – I did not fly attack; I flew rescue. But I was
in position to observe A-4s and F-4s hitting storage
depots and watching the color of a storage depot that’s
being hit and exploding and blowing up…
I still do not know why Meyer chose to interject this comment about attack versus rescue. Perhaps it was preemptive. Perhaps someone sometime had accused him of lack of knowledge due to this differentiation. Regardless, it is indubitably Meyer’s differentiation, something that he felt it necessary to specially qualify, not me.
Now, the fireball had hit the
water before we crossed the beach. We estimated to
each other at the – an hour or two later – or maybe
it was the next day – that it had taken approximately
10 seconds to fall. But it had to have taken a lot
longer than that. But, I mean, our – our memories
were distorted.
But all three of us asked each other, how
long do you think it talk – took to fall? And we all
said, about 10 seconds. And – I mean, that’s just
crazy, but it gives you some idea of the – the fact
that when you observe things sometimes your – your
timing mechanism is off…
Nowhere in this interview does he use the words you attribute to him “dropped like a rock”. Where did you get those words?
He does though, somewhat later, say
…I saw a fireball. As you can see, I – I
wear – I had these glasses on at the time. My eyes
aren’t as good as his… (referring to crewman Chris Baur)
Maybe he just has a need to question his own observations?
Alas! If only you had the need or the ability to question your own prejudices.