Theories Abound To Explain Cause of China Airlines Crash Similar To TWA Flight 800

Taipei Times ^ | 27 May 2002 | Chiu Yu-tzu and Patrick Kearns

[Asmodeus]

You continue to demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about.

[acehai]

Elmer...Since you went to so much trouble to post this question on all the threads, I feel it my duty to post the answer that most Freepers would accept as reasonable. Swordmaker was astute enough to provide a reasoned rebuttal to your question, so, begging his indulgence and permission:

{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...

ASMODEUS HOIST ON HIS OWN PETARD

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:

Expert - "An unknown drip under pressure."

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???