From: Ian Goddard (igoddard@erols.com)
Date: Thu Nov 14 1996 - 11:51:10 MST
At 12:13 PM 11/14/96 -0600, Ira Brodsky wrote:
>>Eyewitness accounts are considered factual evidence, are they not?
>>The fact that much remains classified is a smoking gun in and of itself.
>
> Yes. But how many eyewitnesses reported seeing a *US naval vessel* fire
> a missile?
IAN: Eyewitness Lou Desyron (ABC World News Sunday, 07/21/96) reported:
We saw what appeared to be a flare
going straight up. As a matter of
fact, we thought it was from a boat.
It was a bright reddish-orange color.
...once it went into flames, I knew
that wasn't a flare.
Now she did not say "Navy vessel," nor does she seem 100% positive it was
from a boat, however, when we also consider that the area off-shore was
reserved for navel maneuvers that night, and that such were reported early
on, and that witnesses saw flares being dropped before the explosion
(flares are used to divert the course of heat-seeking missiles), it
follows logically that the Navy must be a suspect. It is not unreason-
able to speculate that the Navy was conducting missile related exer-
cises in the area and a missile hit an unintended target.
************************************************************************
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
________________________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:50 MST