Posted on 04/30/2002 12:32:08 PM PDT by Asmodeus
"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?"
"Here's Meyer's reply to my e-mail:
"TYPO = I saw a streak of light in the sky. I HAD no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?"
World of difference, folks.
He had no way of knowing what it was at the time. It looked like a streak of light, and that's what he reported.
But he KNEW what ordnance looked like, and described it when the streak ended and after a space without seeing anything, further to the left, a hard explosion, military ordinance.
He admitted he had never seen the second explosion of "brilliant white light" before...It was totally new to him...
These explosions happened at TWA 800's altitude. The Massive Fireball was the LAST event to happen, further left, and lower down.
Let's take a little closer look Acehai's rant.
" . . . sneaking and peeking at the Yahoo Groups TWA 800 board".
He's referring to a forum open to the public to read just as FreeRepublic is.
"TYPO = I saw a streak of light in the sky. I HAD no idea what it was. And my reaction when I saw it was, what the hell is that?"
The "shootdown" tinfoil hats have no idea what the real significance of that statement by witness Meyer is. 1. When he saw the fiery streak, it did not look to him like the exhaust or trail or a missile, dispelling the tinfoil hats' allegations that it was obviously a missile in flight. 2. Experts want to know what witnesses actually saw - and separate those actual observations from the witnesses' conclusions after input from other sources. Which is referred to by experts as tainting input.
But he KNEW what ordnance looked like, and described it when the streak ended and after a space without seeing anything, further to the left, a hard explosion, military ordinance.
If so, why did Meyer and his crewmates initially speculate that what they had seen was a MIDAIR COLLISION?
"In the first place we didn't know what we had. I think we speculated that we might've had a mid-air because we know from here a lot that aircraft from Easthampton Airport and Montauk Sky Portal and aircraft from west of here fly the beach, and they look at the mansions along the beach. And we know that it's very common to have aircraft flying at 1,000 to 2,000 feet, east and west, right at each other along this beach."
"It's very dangerous. It's all VFR traffic. It's unregulated. The only regulation at all occurs when they fly through the southern tip of a control zone. They'll call this tower for clearance through the control zone. They'll say, all right. I'm at 1,500 feet. And the tower will tell them, well, you got another guy westbound and he's at 1,500. So, why don't one of you change altitude. so -- Mid-airs are -- the potential is always there. It's a very dangerous situation. We thought we had one."
SOURCE.
{Elmer}If so, why did Meyer and his crewmates initially speculate that what they had seen was a MIDAIR COLLISION?
{Swordmaker} Asmodeus, there is a very simple explanation... these flyers were trying to assess (diagnose) a peculiar event... an event beyond their experience in the area they were flying.
In medicine, an old saying is applicable: "When you hear hoofbeats, look for horses, not zebras."
In this instance, they saw a streak of light, followed by an bright flash explosion. Their experience, in this flight area, is that it is filled with airplanes (horses) and that it would not be unreasonable to assume, initially, that what they had seen was a mid-air collision of two airplanes.
They DID NOT expect to see a missile (a zebra) flying before their eyes. The first inclination is to fit observed data into expected norms. It is only upon reflection that a rarer diagnosis can be made... that the hoofbeats were from zebras and not horses... when the observations DO NOT FIT the expected normal scenario. In this instance, the streak of light followed by the bright flash of an ordnance explosion DID NOT FIT the mid-air collision scenario expected. To make that conclusion one must shift time and place and situation.
Flying on a warm evening evening off of Long Island, one DOES NOT EXPECT TO SEE an AA missile! One's mind must shift gears and paradigms to realize what actually was seen.
{Elmer}You've given a classic example of "shootdown" tinfoil hat blabberbabble on a subject you know NOTHING about.
{Acehai} ...And you've given a classic example of how to recognize and expose a disinformationist. I'll simply invoke Number 5 of H. Michael Sweeney's 25 Rules of Disinformation, found at his excellent website by clicking...
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', tinfoil hats', [my addendum] radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
Swordmaker then responds to your faux pas with the following:
Your database is truly amazing... my compliments to your staff.
This article from the September 1, 1996 Newsday (article deleted in the interest of brevity, check Elmers post if truly necessary to recap [acehai])was part of the astounding coordinated effort to disparage and impeach ALL of the eyewitnesses to TWA-800. To believe this, NOTHING reported by a witness can be at all reliable in any way.
The true method of evaluation of eyewitnesses is to compare and contrast the various reports... not to totally discount everything stated and ignore the qualifications and training of those who are making the reports. ALL observations are filtered through the mind of the observer... and initial reports are best for raw data, however INTERPRETATION of that data requires input from other sources.
Now, let's look at your introduction to the article and see how you are less interested in presenting an objective discussion than you are in attacking anyone who disagrees with you. You said:
You've given a classic example of "shootdown" tinfoil hat blabberbabble on a subject you know NOTHING about.
Expert - "A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.
Objective readers are encouraged to compare the following with your wacky "analysis".
Your introduction is filled with "loaded" words... all designed to attack your oponents and are therefore ad hominem" argumental fallacies. They are intended to insult the person you are addressing and prejudice the idle reader against anything they may say.
YOU have no information at all about my background or fields of expertise... yet you, based on some articles in the popular press, call a well thought out analysis and opinion "tinfoil hat blabberbabble" and "wacky." It is neither.
Our system of justice DOES NOT RELY on experts. It relies on the judgement of ordinary people, weighing and evaluating the evidence presented which may include the OPINIONS of experts. In the case of TWA-800, the testimony, the evidence, offered by hundreds of eyewitnesses, regardless of its probitive value, was systematically distorted, devalued, obfuscated, and finally, uniquely, BANNED from presentation before the probitive panel, effectively preventing that panel from evaluating and weighing that evidence. Instead, they were given an "expert's" opinion and interpretation of that testimony that in most, if not all, instances was FALSE TO FACT and was based solely on what THIRD PARTY interviewers recalled of the statements sometime after the interview! The FBI 302 system does not lend itself to accurate reporting... it relies on the memories of the FBI agents as to what the witness reports. The NTSB was then presented with an "expert's" recollection of what the FBI agents wrote down of what they recalled the witnesses said instead of hearing what the witnesses have to say themselves. Absurd.
You continually present yourself as an "expert" on this case... I suggest that there is another definition of "expert" that fits:
And the best reply you could come up with, Elmer, was...
You continue to demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about.
Aw gee, Elmer...Whatsamatter? Won't these nasty old "tin-foil hats" play fair???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.