Posted on 02/28/2002 9:31:30 AM PST by Asmodeus
What a bunch of crap! It's called continuing a lie. Covering up a lie is complicity! That is the exact opposite of "CLASS"!
Obviously, our government cannot admit that fact, because it can paralize air travel, as well as shake our security. Of course, I have no proof, only speculation. It was obvious to me after hundreds of eye witnesses testified that they seen a flame going up from the sea to hit the plane, and made the explosion. The government said all of them were unreliable? thus a cover up started.
Still peddling the cargo door conspiracy theory.
How many government officials have to be lying for this conspriacy theory to be true? (any less than the missile theory?)
It couldn't have been.
On July 17, 1996, in New York, sunset occurred at 7:24 PM. Flight 800 exploded at 8:31 PM.
While the aircraft might have still been in direct sunlight because of its altitude (and thus clearly visible from the ground), how much daylight would you expect there to be at ground level 67 minutes after sunset?
No, I don't have any data illustrating what overpressure from exploding ordnance would look like on an FDR tape, and it doesn't matter anyway because the FDR data has been tampered with.
So I guess there is no point in discussing any conclusions anyone has taken from the FDR data. Now maybe we can resume a discussion on the questionable source quoted in Irvine's article ironically published on his AIM site.
You're safe! There's not a whole lot of room for passengers in my jet.
Well, that's a different take from the typical conspiracy approach favored by the likes of Rivero et al. I am surprised this has become an obsession for you, because I think you are on a road to nowhere. You basically trust none of the investigation data, but it is exactly that data that most of the folks you listed as trusted sources rely on. Garbage in equals garbage out, and I'm not sure you are ever going to find something that measures up to your standards. What is your desired outcome in all your personal effort? You have a contract with dead French students? Is that a personal vow or a formal contract? And I'm not sure what citizen duty you hope to accomplish "exposing" me. I'll save you some trouble and invite you to visit me whenever you chose. I live in Madison Wisconsin. Come on up and I'll buy you some cheese curds and a beer. I think you'll find the cheese curds a lot more exciting then anything you'll learn about me.
Some other interesting questions arise out of the following:
Reed Irvine states as follows about his first telephone discussion with Randy Beers: ”I obtained Beers’ phone number from information and found him willing to talk. In our taped interview, he was somewhat more guarded than he had been with his acquaintance. He said he didn’t want to do anything that might "mess up" his retirement, but nothing was said about the conversation being off the record. I told him that I was with Accuracy in Media and recommended that he visit our Web site, where he would find a lot of articles we had written about TWA 800. The following is a partial transcript of the taped interview. I did not begin taping at the very beginning of the conversation. The transcript begins where the taping started. This was Thurs., Nov. 15 at 10:00 a.m.” [emphasis added]
”B: I told everything, you know, when the Navy came on board with everybody else on my submarine.
Reed Irvine states as follows about a later telephone discussion with Randy Beers: ”I called Randy again the next morning, Friday, Nov. 16. He asked me to call him back Monday morning, Nov. 19. I did, and I found myself talking to an entirely different person. The confident, courageous master chief had been transformed into a quivering moral coward. He said he had talked to his skipper over the weekend and that he had been reminded that he had signed certain papers when he retired from the Navy. Whoever it was that he had talked to had scared him to death. He feared that he was going to lose his retirement because of what he told me. He claimed he had spoken off the record, but I told him that was not so and that was very clear from the tape that I had recorded.” [emphasis added]
Reed Irvine states as follows about a still later telephone discussion with Randy Beers: "My last conversation with Randy Beers was on February 5. I wanted to tell him that I was going to reveal his name, and I left a message saying it was important that he call me. He did. He first asked me if I was recording the call. I wasn’t and I said so. He then said that he was so upset that he had experienced trouble sleeping for two months. But he had found a solution to his problem. He told me that he was notorious for telling tall tales and that all that he had said about where the Trepang was and what he had seen was false. He claimed he just made it up.
He said the submarine was at its homeport in Groton, Connecticut that night, not beneath TWA Flight 800 when it was blown out of the sky. He said he didn’t know anything about any exercise that was taking place and he had never heard of W-105, the large area off Long Island that is regularly used by the military for testing and training. He said at least twice that this was his story and he was sticking to it. That is a gag line that says, in effect, I am lying but don’t expect me to admit it." [emphasis added]
Note: Everyone should obtain competent legal advice and guidance before making any decisions about taping conversations. Applicable law today, yesterday, last week or last year may be different tomorrow, next week or next year.
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
[quote][emphasis added]
At first, the question of whether or not to tape record a phone call seems like a matter of personal preference. Some journalists see taping as an indispensable tool, while others don’t like the formality it may impose during an interview. Some would not consider taping a call without the subject’s consent, others do it routinely.
However, there are important questions of law that must be addressed first. There are both federal and state statutes governing the use of electronic recording equipment. The unlawful use of such equipment can give rise not only to a civil suit by the "injured" party, but also criminal prosecution.
Accordingly, it is critical that journalists know the statutes that apply and what their rights and responsibilities are when recording and disclosing communications.
Although most of these statutes address wiretapping and eavesdropping -- listening in on conversations of others without their knowledge -- they usually apply to electronic recording of any conversations, including phone calls and in-person interviews.
Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most have also extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as "one-party consent" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)
Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.
It shouldn’t need to be said, but it is illegal in all states to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.
Federal law and most state laws also make it illegal to disclose the contents of an illegally intercepted call or communication.
At least fifteen states have laws outlawing the use of hidden cameras in private places. Be warned, however, that the audio portion of a videotape will be treated under the regular wiretapping laws in any state. Also, many of the statutes concern unattended hidden cameras, not cameras hidden on a person engaged in a conversation. And regardless of whether a state has a criminal law regarding cameras, undercover recording in a private place can prompt civil lawsuits for invasion of privacy.
This guide provides a quick reference to the specific provisions of each jurisdiction’s wiretap law. It outlines whether one-party or all-party consent is required to permit recording of a conversation, and provides the legal citations for wiretap statutes. Some references to case law have been provided in instances where courts have provided further guidance on the law. Penalties for violations of the law are described, including criminal penalties (jail and fines) and civil damages (money that a court may order the violator to pay to the subject of the taping). Instances where the law specifically includes cellular calls and the wireless portion of cordless phone calls are also noted, but many laws are purposely broad enough to encompass such calls without specifically mentioning them.
Sidebar articles throughout the guide address specific issues related to taping. Note that these are general discussions, and you will have to consult the state entries to see how these issues apply in particular states.
Still have questions about how the laws affect you? Journalists can always call the Reporters Committee’s hotline at 800-336-4243 for further information. [end quote]
The legality or illegality of recording your discussions with another person without their knowledge and consent, whether face to face or on the phone, is dependent on the then applicable law(s) under the circumstances.
It’s only common sense that if you obtain the consent of another person to record your discussion with them, it’s in your own self interest to document it after returning your recorder on and thereby avoid the possibility of a later swearing match.
Reed Irvine has publicly stated that Randy Beers ”claimed he had spoken off the record, but I told him that was not so and that was very clear from the tape that I had recorded.”
Is it logical that Randy Beers would state to Reed Irvine that their earlier discussion was “off the record” if he had known it was being recorded?
Where is the rest of the recording transcript? Will it be "very clear" to objective observers from the complete transcript and tape that Randy Beers knew it was being recorded?
What is clear is that Randy Beers recanted his first story, that he thereby demolished his own credibility and that his recanted comments didn’t even come close to being "shootdown" evidence anyway.
See also: The missile theory myth.
"It could take a couple of minutes."
Falltime of the Massive Fireball to the surface was only about 7-10 seconds. Sources
By the way, there is a "submarine witness" interview report:
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:43:41 -0500
Reply-To: Flight 800 discussion list FLIGHT-800@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
From: Tom Stalcup stalcup@MAGNET.FSU.EDU
Organization: Florida State University
Subject: More Witnesses
[excerpt][quote][emphasis his] BARBARA PACHOLK had an AMAZING story. She saw two objects rise from the water or land. The first object exploded near the tail and the second near the nose. She also saw a black submarine and its periscope. According to Ms. Pacholk, the periscope was looking in the direction of the plane, rotated about a 3/4 turn and saw her, then left the area. She believes that it is possible that at least one missile came from this sub. She also notice two large navy vessels in the ocean. One of which quickly left the area after the tragedy.[end quote]
Stalcup was referred to by Bill Donaldson during his congressional testimony, the transcript of which was earlier posted in this thread.
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.