March 31st, 1997
Subject:
Flight 800
Date:
Tue, 18 Mar 1997 20:58:51 -0500
I thought you might like to know that rumor has it that Jim Sander's fabric swatches were at the offices of CBS for them to do an independent analysis, when the FBI came in and once again confiscated the evidence. The swatches were there for a hopefully upcoming story on 60 Minutes. The real question is, how did anyone at the FBI know that CBS had these swatches, and why did CBS cave in and hand them over to the FBI. We've yet to have a final confirmation of this episode which happened today...all of a sudden CBS stopped talking.
> THREE NAVY SUBS WERE OFF LONG ISLAND DURING TWA 800 MISSILE HIT
>
> http://www.newsday.com/jet/cras0322.htm
The Number 1 counter argument against the TWA 800 Navy-
missile theory is that members of the guilty crew would
have come forward to report Navy guilt, and because none
have so far, it never happened (a perfect non-sequitur).
Well, the Navy at the highest level just came forward to
admit, contrary to previous claims, that they DID have
three submarines off Long Island during the crash [1].
QUESTION: How many members of the crews
of these 3 submarines came forward to
blow the lid off of the Navy cover-up
by admitting they were in the area?
ANSWER: 0 crewmen blew the cover-up
Of the three subs in the area of TWA 800, the USS
Wyoming holds approximately 173 crew members [2], the
USS Albuquerque holds 128 [3], the USS Trepang holds
107 crew members [4]. That's as many as 408 Navy-sub
crew members who were aware that their existence was
being covered-up, and how many ran forward to blow
the lid off the cover-up? 0 crewmen came forward.
Ipso facto: 100% obedience to the sub cover-up.
Simple mathematics reveals that the factual basis
for the Number 1 counter to the Navy-missile theory
is null and void. Even worse: the Number 1 counter
to the Navy-missile theory is contradicted by the
facts in the TWA 800 case, and thus it's "truth-
correlation score" is negative.
Now the only counter argument to the Navy-missile
theory is: the Navy said they didn't do it -- the
same Navy that said they didn't have subs in the
area, and there were no exercises in the area.
__________________________________________________________________
[1] http://www.newsday.com/jet/cras0322.htm
[2] http://www.netwiz.net/~bkackman/submarine/wyoming/wyoming.html
[3] http://www.cabq.gov/ssn706/index.html#statistics
[4] http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-ssn.html
***********************************************************************
IAN GODDARD (igoddard@erols.com) Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
_______________________________________________________________________
TWA 800: THE FACTS --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
WACO - WTC - OKC ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/facts.htm
Check out the carefully crafted death threat I just got
from the for-real military-intelligence operative Ron
Lewis. Obviously I don't have to watch my back for my
"Iranian paymasters" to kill me because they exist only
in Ron's DISOP concoctions, but what a perfect way to
knock me off and try to make it work for their Iranian
fabrication. Cunning and devious to say the least!!
What he sent seems to be written for the public,
yet I have no evidence that it was posted. ??
Please let me know if you do.
Here's the cunning death threat, please save it:
------------------------------------------------------------------
X-Sender: INTELLIGYST@postoffice.worldnet.att.net
To: Ian Goddard
From: RONALD LEWIS
Subject: GODDARD AGAIN: Re: Global InterNet Police
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 13:21:04 +0000
My comments follow immediately after this nut's rantings.
Lewis
At 07:04 AM 3/28/97 +0000, you wrote:
>The following citation is a stunning and hallmark
>example of the Clinton administrations'
>hard-core totalitarian agenda:
>
> THE NEW YORK TIMES, March 27, 1997
>
> U.S. Fails in Global Proposal
> for Internet Eavesdropping
>
> By John Markoff
>
> In a setback for the Clinton administration that
> demonstrates the difficulty of setting global
> policies for the Internet, the leading industrial
> nations have declined to embrace a U.S. proposal
> to allow computer eavesdropping by the world's
> law enforcement agencies. [*]
>
>IAN: To the Clinton administration, a "setback" is the preservation
>of human freedom. The Clinton administration has engaged in a pro-
>longed aggression upon all traces of human freedom and individual
>liberty. Without apology, the Clinton administration just tried
>to establish the foundation for a Global Internet Police Force!
>Global eavesdropping... a head-on, no holds barred assault on
>freedom of speech that would represent a giant-leap forward
>for global totalitarian conquest and control. Ipso facto:
>
>The Clinton administration is on the cutting edge of Global
>Police-State Control... leading the world to totalitarianism.
>The guaranteed right of cradle-to-grave global eavesdropping
>for all people regardless of race, sex, or religion. Universal
>surveillance for all. So where is the civil-libertarian Left?
>
>The Clinton administration agenda is a full-court industrial-
>strength Orwellian agenda. And why not?! The major media have
>let them get away with mass murder in Waco, let them get away
>with murder in Fort Marcy Park, let the government get away
>with involvement in the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City
>bombings, and has effected the cover-up TWA 800. But the
>Internet has not allowed them to get away with murder;
>hence the need for a Global Internet Police Force.
>_____________________________________________________________
>[*] http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/032797code.html
>
>***********************************************************************
> IAN GODDARD (igoddard@erols.com) Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
>_______________________________________________________________________
>
> TWA 800: THE FACTS --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
>
> WACO - WTC - OKC ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/facts.htm
I would fully expect to see Parveez Syed in London or their friend Eric
Margolis in Paris come out with something that virtually photocopies the
above comments. In fact, I would not be surprised if they have already done
so and Goddard is copying them. Would lay money on it, in fact.
I would advise watching Mr. Goddard very closely and ensuring his continued
good health. This arrogant moron is obviously too clueless to understand
that the more he accuses the US government and FBI of "murder", the more
likely he makes it that Iran will dispose of him. It would cement the TWA
800 "friendly fire" myth for years to come, increase suspicion that Iran
Goddard (oops, Ian Goddard) was "really on to something and had to be
silenced." Meanwhile, it would be one less potential leak, one less payroll
to have to meet and, above all, he is such an obviously high-strung nut that
he is unpredictable. He whines and screams like a spoiled child every time
something doesn't go his way and his rants about 60 Minutes reveal that he
is crying for attention. Iran's MOIS may see him as more of a security
threat (not to mention that his continued blathers give me more information
and his carelessness helped me to link him with Salinger, Margolis, Russell,
Shoemaker, Rivero and Parveez Syed.
I am concerned for my own safety in pushing this issue but I think Goddard
is one who should REALLY be worried. He served his purpose by getting the
web page out there, introducing his nonsense at the same time Salinger did
his dirty work, and made great strides in getting this nonsense into the
public eye. Now, particularly as it looks as though the FBI will be asking
for charges to be brought against the Salinger and Goddard element to help
make up for the obstruction of the investigation, Iran will almost certainly
realize that this guy is a squealer and whiner. That means he'll blow the
whistle to weasel out of anything. That is something they cannot afford.
The more he pumps out talk of "murder", the more likely he makes it that the
next one might be his.
For all of his many faults, Goddard could prove to be a key witness in any
future court trials. He may be worthless scum, but there may yet be worth
in making sure he does not meet with an Iranian-ordered accident. Of
course, any surveillance of this jerk would have to be top-notch or he would
probably start whining about "intimidation."
Sincerely,
Ron Lewis
The following citation is a stunning and hallmark
example of the Clinton administrations'
hard-core totalitarian agenda:
THE NEW YORK TIMES, March 27, 1997
U.S. Fails in Global Proposal
for Internet Eavesdropping
By John Markoff
In a setback for the Clinton administration that
demonstrates the difficulty of setting global
policies for the Internet, the leading industrial
nations have declined to embrace a U.S. proposal
to allow computer eavesdropping by the world's
law enforcement agencies. [*]
IAN: To the Clinton administration, a "setback" is the preservation
of human freedom. The Clinton administration has engaged in a pro-
longed aggression upon all traces of human freedom and individual
liberty. Without apology, the Clinton administration just tried
to establish the foundation for a Global Internet Police Force!
Global eavesdropping... a head-on, no holds barred assault on
freedom of speech that would represent a giant-leap forward
for global totalitarian conquest and control. Ipso facto:
The Clinton administration is on the cutting edge of Global
Police-State Control... leading the world to totalitarianism.
The guaranteed right of cradle-to-grave global eavesdropping
for all people regardless of race, sex, or religion. Universal
surveillance for all. So where is the civil-libertarian Left?
The Clinton administration agenda is a full-court industrial-
strength Orwellian agenda. And why not?! The major media have
let them get away with mass murder in Waco, let them get away
with murder in Fort Marcy Park, let the government get away
with involvement in the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City
bombings, and has effected the cover-up TWA 800. But the
Internet has not allowed them to get away with murder;
hence the need for a Global Internet Police Force.
_____________________________________________________________
[*] http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/032797code.html
***********************************************************************
IAN GODDARD (igoddard@erols.com) Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
_______________________________________________________________________
TWA 800: THE FACTS --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
WACO - WTC - OKC ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/facts.htm
(free 2 copy (*)---------(free 2 forward)
FBI KNOCKS OVER STRAW MAN
by Ian Williams Goddard
In an ongoing FBI effort to separate the
American people from the truth about the
demise of TWA flight 800, FBI agent James
Kallstrom last week pretended to counter
the claims of Navy-missile theorists.
The FBI was so confident that their radar
data analysis puts the Navy-missile theory
to rest, that they would only present their
radar analysis behind closed doors so as to
prevent the American people from evaluating
the evidence for themselves. As the Associ-
ated Press [1] reported (emphasis added):
...the Federal Aviation Admin-
istration radar screen tape was
shown in Washington during a
CLOSED SESSION of the House of
Representatives' Subcommittee
on Aviation.
The radar proves the FBI's case, believe
them, it does... Just don't look at the
radar data yourself, keep your eyes closed,
the FBI will look, and think, for you.
KALLSTROM'S STRAW MAN
FBI agent James Kallstrom pretended to
address the Navy-missile theory by fab-
ricating a rigged pseudo-Navy-missile
theory designed for an easy push-over.
Navy-missile theorists have proposed
that an unidentified blip on FAA radar
tape might be a missile. In an effort
to counter this proposition, FBI agent
Kallstrom misleadingly implied that the
P-3 Orion radar blip that passes over
TWA 800 was the blip that Navy-missile
theorists propose could be a missile;
but the P-3 blip is NOT the possible-
missile blip [2]. The AP [1] reported:
...James Kallstrom, in his
first public explanation of
the blip, said the official
tape shows an unarmed Navy
P-3 Orion flying at 20,000
feet, with the knowledge of
air traffic controllers but
without a working transponder,
an instrument that allows
controllers to monitor and
identify an aircraft.
``When your transponder is
not on, it shows on the radar
screen as a solid line. And if
you look at that, I guess if
you're a school kid, you could
say that looks like a missile
or a cigar or a pencil,'' he
told business executives at
a luncheon at Kennedy Inter-
national Airport.
A fundamental tenant of honest inquiry
is faithful representation of your oppo-
nent's theory. Kallstrom violates this
primary tenant. Mr. Kallstrom must know
that the P-3 radar blip is NOT the blip
pointed to by missile theorists as the
possible blip of a missile. Indeed, the
Paris-Match article clearly identifies
the "mystery blip" as distinct and
separate from "the P-3 blip."
The radar data was acquired via inside
channels by retired American Airlines
pilot Richard Russell. Mr. Russell was
fully aware (a) that a blip of the Navy
P-3 Orion passes across the radar screen,
and (b) that it passes over TWA 800 by
several thousand feet. Mr. Kallstrom
scores no counter points by citing
what everyone agrees upon.
What is more, I've never heard anyone
claim that the shape of the blip meant
it's a missile... but pretending they
did makes for yet another straw man.
The Kallstrom counter is a shameless
misrepresentation of the radar data
interpretation presented by Navy-missile
theorists, which only forces us to
question: Why is Kallstrom afraid to
address the real theory? Why can he
support his radar theory only when the
radar tape is hidden from the American
people behind closed doors with all
opposition run out of the room?
NO AUTHORITY
The FAA radar tape was paid for by the
American taxpayer, it is public property,
it is the "property of the people," not
the private property of Kallstrom & Co.
(This situation puts the lie to "public
property," revealing to us how public
property is actually nothing more than
the private property of those in power.)
If the radar shows no evidence that
human activity, criminal or accidental,
lead to the demise of TWA 800, and if,
as the FBI claims, there is "NO EVIDENCE"
of such human involvement anywhere in
this case, then the FBI has NO AUTHORITY
to continue to conceal both radar and
satellite data from the taxpayers who,
at least in theory, own that data.
By claiming that there no evidence of
criminal or accidental human factors
in the TWA 800 case, the FBI has boxed
itself out of any logical or legal basis
for its continued stranglehold over the
case. The FBI should be removed from the
TWA 800 case and, if not abolished out-
right, should be directed to focus its
limited resources on cases that DO have
evidence of criminal activity.
GET THE FBI OUT NOW !!!
___________________________________________
[1] ASSOCIATED PRESS: FBI Says Mystery Blip
on Radar Tape is Unarmed Navy Reconnaissance
Plane, 03/20/97.
[2] My TWA 800 radar analysis:
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/radar.htm
***********************************************************************
IAN GODDARD (igoddard@erols.com) Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
_______________________________________________________________________
(c) 1997 Ian Williams Goddard (*) free to copy nonprofit w/ attribute.
TWA 800: THE FACTS --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
WACO - WTC - OKC ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/facts.htm
Subject:
Re: Russell Radar Real
Date:
Wed, 19 Mar 1997 13:20:34 -0500
From:
Ian Goddard
Important facts regarding TWA 800 radar:
(1) There are TWO radar tapes: Video 1 and Video 2.
Each is from a different radar facility.
The March 20 issue of Paris-Match shows both.
The webpage of Paris-Match shows only Video 2.
The March 20 issue of Paris-Match is out now.
It seems that Video 1 must be the video referred
to when it is said that the blip tracked and
"merged" with TWA 800. I think we loose a lot
because the FBI has taken the real-time video
of the radar data back into hiding so all we
have to work with are these random snapshots.
I still see problems with the radar data relative
to eyewitness accounts. All accounts I am aware of,
except one, state that the kill-missile came from
west of TWA 800. As cited in the New York Post and
Aviation Week, the FBI reported way back that eye-
witness accounts of the "streak of light" had been
uniformly triangulated to one point of origin.
It's very possible that the blip is the missile
drone that was photographed later flying out of
military warning zone W-105:
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm
I need to update the graphic at this page because in
fact the actual trajectory of the drone is far closer
to the crash site, in fact they overlap!! That is a
giant leap forward is strength of evidence. I now have
the trajectory about 10 miles to the north of Docker's
restaurant where the drone was photographed flying out
of W-105, which is about 10 miles north of the crash
site, and that position is in error. When I make the
correction, we will see how much closer the drone
must have come to TWA 800 than currently imaged.
(2) Another important fact: most witnesses who have made
a time measure, say that the kill-missile traveled
for about 3 to 4 seconds before hitting TWA 800.
That means that the kill-missile could have "occurred"
within one radar sweep and thus could have NEVER been
seen on radar. If so, it stands to reason that the
mystery blip is the missile drone. Also, as the drone
was likely a cruise missile (often used in tests) it
could pop into and out of the field of radar coverage.
Cruise missiles are generally low-flying (as drone
witnesses stated and as the Kabot photo shows) and
can fly under the coverage of radar, but could rise
up into coverage. I do not know how low the radar
coverage at these facilities went.
It's not likely that the drone ever came close
enough to TWA 800 is hit it. The kill missile
missed it at a very low-level, as the witness
account of Tom Dougherty indicates, the kill-
missile tracked two targets over it's course
and the first was at a much lower altitude.
Many people think we are saying that the cruise
missile drone hit TWA 800, the initial proponents
of the drone-miss theory have never claimed such.
About the radar data in general: the very least
we can say is that there is an unidentified
flying object (oh no!!!) in an area where an
unidentified missile-like object and a mysterious
"aircraft without lights" were seen. Both missile
and drone were seen, the drone was also photo-
graphed, and there is busy activity around TWA
800 on the radar... all of this correlating in
space and time directly to the sudden annihilation
of TWA 800. Too much coinciding activity to dismiss.
***********************************************************************
IAN GODDARD (igoddard@erols.com) Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
_______________________________________________________________________
TWA 800: THE FACTS --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
WACO - WTC - OKC ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/facts.htm
Subject:
TWA 800: ERROR CORRECTION - PT I
Date:
Tue, 18 Mar 1997 20:33:32 -0500
From:
Ian Goddard
(free 2 copy (*)----------------------------(free 2 forward)
CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN AND AROUND
THE PIERRE SALINGER TWA 800 REPORT
Part I
by Ian Williams Goddard
THE FOLLOWING are corrections of errors made by
major media in claims against the Pierre Salinger
TWA 800 report, and corrections of errors in the
report. I am a coauthor of the Salinger Report.
SALINGER REPORT MISQUOTE OF WITNESS
FBI agent James Kallstrom said "most witnesses"
interviewed by the Salinger investigative team deny
what the Salinger Report says they said [1]. The only
example of a witnesses claiming this that I've found
was cited in the New York Times [2] as follows:
[The Salinger Report] quotes Thomas Dougherty
of East Quogue, as saying, "My eyes were glued
to the TWA hitting the missile's flames."
But Tuesday, Dougherty said in an inter-
view that "I was misquoted" in the article.
He said that he saw what appeared to be a
flame streaking in the sky and an explosion,
but that he never saw a plane.
(Note that the only way a missile-witness will find
their way into the New York Times is if they can be
used to discredit the Navy-missile theory.)
Indeed, as he tells the Times, Mr. Dougherty told me
that he did NOT see the plane until after it was hit
and falling apart. I cannot account for the quotation
cited from the Salinger Report. I should note that
the report was assembled by Pierre Salinger and Mike
Sommer and I cannot get hold of the final report as
I cannot locate Mr. Sommer and Mr. Salinger went on
a vacation right after the release of the report.
Clearly the quotation that the NY Times cites from
the Salinger Report is typographically flawed. What
the report should read is: "Mr. Dougherty's eyes were
glued to the flame that shot upwards and hit TWA 800."
What I've stated about Mr. Dougherty's eyewitness
account can be found on the Internet [3].
The portions of the Salinger Report that are derived
from my work -- hence my status as a coauthor -- are
derived from the carefully researched and referenced
reports I have posted publicly on the Internet [4].
SALT I VIOLATION ?
The Pierre Salinger TWA 800 Report suggests that an
accidental downing of TWA 800 with a missile by the
U.S. Navy could indicate a violation of SALT I arms-
control agreements, and that such violation could
be an incentive for a cover-up. I, a coauthor of the
Salinger Report, studied the SALT I ABM Treaty [5]
months ago and concluded that it is not a likely
incentive for the cover-up [6].
However, if the SM-2(IVA), which is an upper-tier
Standard Missile, was used, which Salinger and I
have proposed, then that would indeed violate the
SALT I ABM Treaty.
The Washington Times (03/13/97, A10) countered
the SALT I claim in the Salinger Report:
Mr. Salinger's claim the conventional
tactical missile used was one outlawed
by the first Strategic Arms Limitation
Treaty [SALT I] was disputed in Washington.
Arms Control Association Deputy Director
Jack Mendelsohn said, "SALT I dealt with
silos and nuclear missiles, and I have
no recollection of SALT I dealing with
any nonnuclear weapon like that."
Wrong: SALT I did deal with missiles that are not
necessarily nuclear. SALT I was a series of Strategic
Arms Limitation Talks between the USSR and the USA
that occurred between November 1969 to May 1972.
During these talks the Treaty on the Limitation of
Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, also known as the
ABM Treaty, was drafted and later "entered into
force" on October, 3 1972 [7][5].
The ABM Treaty placed limitations on the deployment
of anti-ballistic missiles -- any missile designed
to intercept nuclear-ballistic missiles -- and their
missile systems. This limitation would render any
anti-ballistic missile, such as the nonnuclear SM-2
(IVA), fired or simply located off Long Island, a
violation of SALT I as the Salinger Report claims.
The ABM Treaty allows the United States to possess
anti-ballistic missiles, including their launchers
and radar systems, in only four locations:
1. 150 km around Washington D.C. [8]
2. 150 km around Grand Forks ICBM silo launcher [9]
3. White Sands, New Mexico, missile-test range [10]
4. Kwajalein Atoll missile-test range [10]
The 1974 ABM Protocol established further limits [11].
The areas near Long Island, where Navy missile activity
was not only scheduled but witnessed and photographed,
are outside the legal ABM zones. Therefore, the claim
implicit in the Salinger Report, that ABM deployment
off Long Island would violate SALT I, is correct.
I just spoke with Arms Control Association Deputy
Director Jack Mendelsohn, quoted in the Washington
Times above. He pointed out that he was not fully
aware of the exact claims in the Salinger Report he
was asked to address. Mr. Mendelsohn agreed that
IF the SM-2(IVA) with Kinetic-Kill Vehicle was used
off Long Island (which the Salinger Report suggests)
then, in his opinion, that would indeed violate the
SALT I ABM Treaty. However, he does not believe the
SM-2(IVA) is deployable. There is evidence to the
contrary, although it is not decisive.
The Washington Times states that the Salinger
Report claims that the Continuous-Rod warhead is
outlawed by SALT I. That is not true: CR warheads
are anti-aircraft, not ABM, missiles. I don't know
how or why that claim was included in the report.
The portions of the Salinger Report that are derived
from my work -- hence my status as a coauthor -- are
derived from the carefully researched and referenced
reports I have posted publicly on the Internet [4].
I believe, in accord with the Salinger report and as
based upon my research, that the U.S. Navy accidently
shot-down TWA 800 during an exercise where a missile
missed its test target (a drone missile) and hit TWA
800 instead. The drone missile was then photographed
over Long Island flying out of military zone W-105 [12].
____________________________________________________
[1] THE WASHINGTON TIMES, 03/14/97, A3.
[2] THE NEW YORK TIMES: Officials Dispute Latest
Claims... by Matthew Purdy, (03/12/97)
[3] Report on my interview of Tom Dougherty:
http://home.dc.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9612&L=flight-800&O=A&P=9234
[4] http://www.erols.com/igoddard/views.htm
[5] US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency:
http://www.acda.gov/treaties/abm.htm
http://www.acda.gov/treaties/abm2.htm
[6] Proof of TWA 800 cover-up:
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/cover-up.htm
[7] http://www.acda.gov/treaties/salt1.htm
[8] ABM Treaty, Article III a
[9] Ibid., III b, and Agreed Statements 2A
[10] Ibid., Agreed Statements 2B
[11] http://www.acda.gov/treaties/abmprot1.htm
[12] http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm
***********************************************************************
IAN GODDARD (igoddard@erols.com) Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
_______________________________________________________________________
(c) 1997 Ian Williams Goddard (*) free to copy nonprofit w/ attribute.
TWA 800: THE FACTS --> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
WACO - WTC - OKC ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/facts.htm