Bottomline, you don't know what you're talking about.
But I agree with you on one thing..... Reed does overstate the sailor's statements. The sailor was not saying the Navy did it, and he didn't even say a missile did it. But the sailor did say there were other Navy vessels in the area and he said "Im uncomfortable with saying what we was actually doing." Why would that be if their activities were not classified?
From Reed Irvines partial transcript:
I: He said they were Navy vessels on a classified maneuver. Thats interesting because he never said-- Oh, he said, Ive said that in public, but I had no record of him...
B: Oh shit. I dont think anything we did off Long Island was classified.
Let's take a look at that.
Your first point "Beers said their activity was not classified."
I didn't say he did. That was Irvine's input. But Beers did say what I highlighted in bold print. He says his sub was a couple miles off Long Island and it is a fact that when TWA 800 exploded it was still daylight.
Your next point "The submariner here said the Trepang can dive in even shallower water."
Actually, what he said is it could submerge in shallower water. According to Beers' buddy, Beer's said the sub crash dived. Big difference.
Your next point "The TWA crash was not "in broad daylight.""
Really? Several eyewitnesses reported observing TWA 800 before it exploded. One even reported watching the right wing fall off. It must have been light enough for eyewitnesses to see an airliner at 13,000ft while standing at least eight miles away on Long Island. And surely if you can see an airliner 8 miles away, you must be able to see a surfaced submarine a couple miles away. Are you saying eyewitnesses might be wrong?
Next point: "The Trepang could have filmed falling debris regardless of the time it took it to dive."
I suppose. But how often does a submarine use its periscope on the surface?
Final point: "There are radar tracks other than the 30-knot track."
Sure, but find me one that matches Beer's description other than the 30 knot track. There isn't one.
My final point...I don't believe anything I wrote is contrary to the facts. What is clear is that the "facts" as presented by Irvine are either contridictory or impossible and for the most part, assumptions based on his understanding of the facts. Again, I say, if his goal is accuracy in media, he is a fraud.