Based on how the aircraft was destroyed. To blame the fuel tank sensor was a rediculous ploy. That sensor has been used in thousands of aircraft prior to and after the incident with no problems what so ever. The eye witness accouts, the photo's, the aircraft flight path and the damage done are all indicative of a shoot down. This may have been something else, but it was not the fuel sensor and it does match a shoot down scenario. Reports also indicate that there was some Navy testing of an anti-aircraft system in the area that night (only reports and no proof on this but it makes me wonder).
What do you have to challenge this theory? I would be interested in hearing.
As I stated in post #30, there were 2 different accounts in the magazines. The first magazine had statements from the crew of the C-130 and that they were aware of the P-3 aircraft.
For the record, I've got 15 years experience flying military fighters, I've been trained in accident investigations, I've witnessed numerous missile tests, been involved in several ordinance tests, been fired on by SAMs, am a certified flight engineer and a commercial pilot.
My Momma had a saying, "If someone acts like they're guilty, they usually are."
Having FBI intimidation of witnesses, reporters, workers, just looks like they're acting guilty.
Having CIA reports trumping NASA reports on aviation looks like they're acting guilty.
Having witnesses who say they saw something streak to the plane and then the plane exploded only to later, after many visits from the FBI, say they saw something fall from the plane after it exploded looks like they're acting guilty.
If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's PROBABLY a duck. (Though at the zoo the other day, we saw some Teals that look like ducks and quack like ducks, but they're Teals.)
Paul