I find that a rather stressing comment considering it is defending an investigation that was unprecedented in its exclusion of other evidence, or "cherry-picking" as you say. There are reasons. If you ignore them and return to generalities is up to you. I have pointed out that the angle of attack vane and pressure pitot are rather simple devices that would be hard to corrupt because of their design. One simply records the windflow going past it and the other the pressure around it. There clearly are differences in reliability in these devices in explosive conditions. If one is doing an accurate investigation one has to seek accurate information. If these devices are likely to give the most accurate information then they should be looked into. Again, you've shown nothing to show why they would be inaccurate. And it is valid to assert some gyro-dependent devices would be more inaccurate under explosive influences. You are just ignoring my arguments that low intensity fuel blasts are less likely to cause influences that would corrupt the equipment. You are also ignoring my argument that if the wires were severed immediately we could see that in the recorder data past Donaldson's last line. A second is a long period of time to record changes in the angle of attack vane if the wires are severed. Even if they are not severed, the data itself tells us of its reliability.
As I showed in the other post, the nature of the data conforms more to reliable readings than unreliable. So far I have data backing up my assertion, you only have doubts and attempts to discredit the information.
The pressure pitot simply records the air pressure around it. We could research the actual sensor, but I assume it is a simple pressure detector that would detect the sudden low pressure a blast is. The angle of attack vane is just a simple wind vane like on a barn roof that would detect a change in wind direction like an explosion. These are hardly things that need testing - but if you did test them I assure you it would back what I'm saying (which is why government never tested them).
Your spurious rendering of Meyer is obvious for what it is. If you read closer, Meyer actually *does* put a precise time to this event. He clearly says "a second or two after the ordnance detonations". So, again, you are just flat out wrong there.
I'm more than glad to entertain your arguments since they represent a good example of how Flight 800 has been investigated. You clearly have no idea of how what you say backs my case. If Meyer quotes the fuel explosion as happening one or two seconds past the ordnance flashes he therefore proves the "zoom-climb" didn't happen. The fact you don't realize this speaks the most. And I think most people would see your labeling my input "incoherent", in light of this, as the tacit admission you don't understand what is being said that it is.
I think most see that, like with Brumley, you suggested something you couldn't back-up with the different types of ordnance flashes. Meyer is simply referencing the difference in color between anti-aircraft high explosives and fuel explosions. Simple as that. He clearly distinguishes between the flashbulb brightness of the original flash and the orangey fuel explosion.
If one bothers to read what Meyer really said in his testimony one will see it is different than what CannyDan tries to depict it as. Also note where he said "it dropped like a stone" when referring to how it behaved after the flash:
http://twa800.com/lahr/affidavits/o-fred-meyer.pdf
Well, hooray! You’ve finally provided an actual citation. Still, it hardly proves mine to be “spurious”. I don’t render Meyer at all. I quote him at some tedious length. Did you miss that part?
Mine after all is the actual transcript of his January 11, 1997 interview for the NTSB. Look again, here. PDF warning!!
Yours on the other hand is an “affidavit” produced (apparently) almost exactly 6 years later. I say “apparently” because there is no certification, no witness to the affidavit except the signature of Meyer. Under what circumstances was this produced? Threat of force? Offer of vast sums of money? Deathbed confession? I believe the circumstances would help us properly evaluate its credibility.
In your 2003 version the story has changed over the intervening time-- in many cases, the changes are dramatic. It is also a fact that this document contains a host of “insertions” along its margin, many of which produce some of the most dramatic changes. The origin of these is unknown. Some are initialled, most are not. Are they part of Meyer’s original document? Do they represent added fragments of memory, or are they the result of specific prompting by an unnamed party present when the affidavit was produced? Or were they added later by person or persons unknown? Why, even the running number on the lower right has been edited!
One issue with this document is of course the revision of memory that occurs with the passage of time. This is an established phenomenon, and is a major factor in the unreliability of eye witness testimony. The fact that Meyer’s 2003 testimony hews closely to the prevailing theory in which he immersed himself is entirely to be expected.
The other problem with this so-called affidavit is that it reads like the product of multiple sources, all chiming in, all trying to help ensure “completeness” and all having their own ax to grind. It is much more about conclusions, and less about observations. Indeed, all observations have now become amplified, reinforced, and enshrined as dogma. Conclusions that Meyer never thought to even suggest shortly after the incident (e.g., top of page 15 of 15, “This was not an accident. This aircraft was shot down.”) are now offered as irrefutable, indeed inevitable.
I keep returning to Meyer because he is such a wonderful illustration of conspiracy theorists. Travel long enough in your own echo chamber and the inside really does begin to make some kind of sense. Others who share the echo chamber also see the sense of it. But anyone who looks in from outside recoils from the harsh contrast with objective reality.
So, with a mind toward objective reality, I’ll copy RickJay:
Still waiting for radar data.
Still waiting for a missile part.
Still waiting for someone with knowledge of a conspiracy.
Only for tyhose who want to take Meyers’s faulty reconstruction as gospel.
What he actually described, (although he failed to interpret it correctly), was the sun reflecting off Flight 800, followed by the explosion of the empty tank, (perceived by him as “ordnance”), followed by the slower eruption of the full fuel tanks. His descrption matches the description of the NTSB conclusion. His interpretation leaves room for all sorts of errors.
(Ol’ drop getting paternal) Honest to God, Jetblast, if you would JUST PROVIDE THESE THREE THINGS, everybody else at the SDMB would be more willing to look at your claims. Instead, all I can find without your help are drawings of where parts were found, which tell us VERY LITTLE, considering how they drifted once air resistance burned off their initial velocity. Without something, ANYTHING, to support your claims they are worth the hot air from which they are formed.
A clue about how reality is described: Somebody suggests something. Somebody else says, “Yeah, but,” and holes in the first guy’s hypothesis are either poked or filled. Repeat as needed until a reality that isn’t easily poked results. Your claims–I can hardly call them evidence, especially seeing how they fall apart when the testimony (def: Testimony - Stuff a person claims that can land him in jail if he lies, if someone bothers to complain) is quoted–fall apart immediately. You may not be making shit up. I will go out on a limb and (I was raised to hope for the best from my fellow men) assume your very few references are not Making Shit Up. But their, and by proxy, your, claims are easily batted aside because you, and they, DO NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS! “What ifs,” “maybes,” and flat misrepresentations of facts (I won’t claim that to mean “lies” in this forum) count for shit when trying to describe something, either scientifically or legally. Honest to God, most of the legal profession would LOVE to succeed in a case like you suggest. Can you imagine the publicity (= more billable hours, even beyond this case) it would create?
The people you quote have, at best, little knowledge of what they are claiming. Gee, I can find the errors in their claims! AND SO CAN SOME OF THEM! You have to do better than quoting the same three references, especially when they contradict you. The time for bluffing ended long ago. Either you have real evidence, or you do not, so I am calling. Technically speaking, you are talking out of your [del]ass[/del] hat, and you need to either put up or shut up.
Does anybody else have a problem with Meyer’s testimony regarding the lighting at the time of the accident?
In case anyone has forgotten, the crash occurred at 8:31PM.
I don’t know about anyone else, but calling 9 minutes before sunset broad daylight bugs the shit out of me.
Me too, though I hadn’t consulted my almanac. Note that it was not only 9 min before sunset, but that he was headed roughly eastward, into the gloaming. Flight 800 fell before a dark backdrop.
Nah. I’d give him that one. As long as the sun is up on a clear day, the sky is bright. Ths is particularly true in the summer. While nine minutes prior to the actual setting the ground will have substantial shadows across it and the eastern sides of buildings will be deeply shaded, we’re talking about the sky where the sun is still shining, (and will continue to shine for several minutes after it “sets” relative to an observer on the ground).
Meyers reported his heading as 236°. He was facing a bit South of West with Flight 800 “a little to his left,” so probably a bit West of South. The sky behind it would have been fairly bright.
So, why was he looking northeast? Or was he when the first explosion occurred? Was all of his testimony initially based on something he saw out of the corner of his eye, which he had to turn more than 90deg to see properly? While piloting a helicopter, which requires much of ones attention? His usefulness as a witness is, I fear, limited.
This is my main complaint against the eyewitness testimony. Flight 800 was just another blinking light against a twilight sky. Despite the many claims of eyewitnesses, of all the people out enjoying the evening practically NOBODY was likely to be looking at it when the CWT explosion occurred. It was only yet another flight out of JFK, and living by ORD I have to make an effort to notice a plane flying over. Only after the explosion, when 800 announced it was not just another plane, did anybody paid any attention to it, and when the FBI came around, with their leading questions about missiles, their brains began to assemble a lot of little into a coherent, if false, narrative.
I doubt that he was looking Northeast. I don’t find a claim by him that he was facing Northeast at any time. On page 9 he describes his copter’s orientation as 236° magnetic, that is 34° South of West, (with some variation for magnetic swing). On page 5 he describes the “streak of light” as appearing “from my left-center to my left” (with his head pressed against the windscreen of a plane oriented a bit west of southwest). Then, on page 6, he first notifies the tower, (point 15) that he had seen a fireball and was heading south to investigate it. Then, on the same page (in point 16) he notes that he was heading “roughly 180,” (i.e., due west) toward the scene. A quick movement south, out to sea, followed by a correction to head due west would account for his maneuver to reach an object seen in the southwest.
He notes elsewhere that the setting sun was at his “2 o’clock” position and the fireball at his “10 o’clock” position, which would place the setting sun in the northwest, (a good place for it in July in New England), and the fireball somewhere west of south.
Any conclusions based on claiming that Meyers was looking to the East in any way are contradicted by his testimony.
You’re right. And I knew that there was something wrong with my post. He’d have been heading due south to look at the debris field from an object in the southwest that was proceeding east when it began to fall.
Those points are ridiculous. Even quite nervy considering the documented "threat of force" used by the government in this case against Sanders. I can imagine the undocumented threats involved here as well. Meyer's position is well known from the first day. His affidavit makes his position quite clear and I think most honest people can see that's why you need to attack it. I don't see any attempt to objectively judge Meyer's statements and what they mean towards evidence, all I see is an effort to hack anything and anybody who proves the government cover-up. That includes Meyer. Personally I don't see any entry showing the credibility to judge Meyer's credibility. I think most people would see that no matter how much credibility Meyer's has it will be denied. Again, the pattern of your argument is being forced to continually back off wrong assertions you've made (like the ordnance) in order to self-quote overly general accusations of credibility. You live under the illusion that we couldn't validate Meyer and his statements very quickly, maybe even by asking Meyer himself. But we don't really need to because simple research will show that Meyer's main statements haven't changed from that evening to now. Once again, you've asserted something that is wrong and can't back-up. How many shots do you get at that?
I see this as the 'legal argument' that it is and I don't think you've accounted for the ordnance flash or timing of the drop, which hasn't changed from day one. Meanwhile no accounting for the changes in the government's story and how it progressed right in line with missile evidence being covered-up. And not a peep about the "zoom-climb" now being firmly assigned to fantasy land by a full body of converging evidence. The playing field here is: Our side lies and gets caught - no mention. A credible witness sees a missile - full crack-down on notes in margins.
In my personal opinion I think people who flagrantly ignore the numerous cases of government deception and falsehoods - even to the point of breaking the law - in order to crack-down on contrived problems with Meyer's affidavit (and every single other witness) expose themselves for what they are. That alone is proof that an honest argument isn't going on here.
I think you make a good example of something yourself. I hope people see the hubris in an internet person having the nerve to tell a credible eyewitness what they saw and didn't see. And, once again, I promise you CannyDan would never say that to Meyer's face.
Meyer saw a missile streak and ordnance flash. CannyDan's weak attempt to discredit that only helps reinforce it. The affidavit is under legal bearing as part of Ray Lahr's lawsuit against CIA. After CIA is forced to no longer stonewall the case you'll see it will hold up to legal scrutiny of an order much higher than other frivolous pecksniffing designed to divert us from the meaningful points.
I don't think this answers what we are talking about here and I don't think you've accurately portrayed what Meyer said.
1) Meyer clearly saw a flash of "flashbulb" brightness like anti-aircraft ordnance he witnessed in VietNam. This type of flash could not be made by jet fuel exploding. He also saw a "shooting star" before the flash. This was the missile exhaust streak witnessed by many. Its speed was too fast to be Flight 800 and its brightness was too bright for a meteor at dusk.
2) Meyer gave a timing of the event that precludes any "zoom-climb". He specifically said a second and a half to two seconds after the ordnance flashes the fireball erupted. This would make impossible any zoom-climb of 16 seconds.
Why isn't this being answered *directly*?
Let's ask Mayer if he mistook reflected sun for an ordnance flash?
Less ridiculous than yours, since you haven’t provided any radar data (because it doesn’t exist).
Well, you’re running low on your shots, since there still isn’t anyone coming forward with knowledge of the conspiracy.
No he didn’t, because there was no missile, as evidenced by the lack of any pieces of missile in the wreckage. Meyer’s ability to distinguish between an “ordinance flash” and a fuel explosion was called into question by Meyer himself. In addition to the failure of conspiracy advocates in providing missile parts, radar data, and people with knowledge of the conspiracy, the explosion noise from the CVR matches with a fuel explosion, not a missile or bomb explosion.
Upon further consideration this "reflected sun" explanation is easily refuted because numerous witnesses described seeing the blast flash. Since reflected sun can only be projected in a limited direction according to the angle of perspective and reflecting face it would be unlikely any reflection would be seen at so many different angles. The sun is very weak while setting with the infamous New York haze in front of it. It would hardly resemble what Meyer recognized as an ordnance flash from VietNam.
If Meyer and the witnesses were asked if they saw "reflected sun" it would be quickly shown as the preposterous notion it is. - Which is why they were never asked.