From: Jeff Dee (jeff@illusionmachines.com)
Date: Tue Sep 24 1996 - 13:29:17 MDT
>From: Ira Brodsky
>James Daugherty wrote:
>> Ira: You seem to be missing the point...FBI Official loudly and
>>derisively rejected the missle theory just a few days ago without making
>>any significant effort to refute the evidence already in the public
>>domain! That is suspicious!
>This debate seems to be going in circles, so let me summarize my view:
>Really, what is claimed by the originators of the navy missile + cover-up
>theory is that the U.S. government knew the cause from the very beginning
>and has somehow tricked the entire population into believing there is an
>"investigation" going on. This is just as preposterous as someone claiming
>to have invented an anti-gravity machine in the absence of significant
>prior research.
>The 100+ eyewitnesses may have seen a missile, or they may have seen
>something else -- people sometimes misinterpret what they see in the dark.
>But one thing I am certain they didn't see: hundreds of people converging
>on the crash site to cover it up.
>Ira Brodsky
>Datacomm Research Company
>Wilmette, Illinois
'Misinterpreting what you see in the dark' isn't likely to be a very convincing
sounding explanation for 100+ witnesses reporting a missile. But people
have been known to:
a) lie through their teeth for the sake of attention
b) say 'hey, me too!' once a claim like that starts circulating
c) re-interpret hazy memories after the fact to fit an exciting theory
and so on.
To determine whether the testimony of those 100+ witnesses are accurate,
the investigators have to try to weed out these possibilities. One good
question to ask would be: "How many of these 100+ witnesses called in
to report what they saw *before* the incident started getting media
coverage?" A very poor means of determining their accuracy (though
apparently, this is what some investigators have done) is to ask them,
after the fact, to point to where they saw it. After the fact, each and every
one of them has had access to extensive media coverage of the incident,
including maps showing exactly where the plane went down. It would be
no big suprise for anyone motivated by a desire for attention, or mere
wishful thinking, to adjust their story to accomodate widely-known facts.
-Jeff Dee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:45 MST