Re: Goddard's fantasies???

Hara Ra (harara@shamanics.com)
Thu, 20 Nov 1997 23:16:14 -0800


OK. I've had enough. To all members of this list:

Is the endless ranting about TWA Flight 800 an appropriate topic
for this list? I don't think so....
- Hara Ra

===============================================================

Ian Goddard wrote:
>
> Abraham Moses Genen (futurist@frontiernet.net) wrote:
> >
> >Since Mr. Goddard claims to have all this "proof" let him
> >supply us with the substantive and corroborated unimpeachable
> >documentation
>
> IAN: Below I confirm each evidentiary claim I made,
> which Abraham Moses Genen has requested that I do:
>
> CLAIM 1: There is PROOF that the military
> lied about their activities on July 17,'96.
>
> PROOF: At a Department of Defense press conference
> on July 23, 1996, DoD spokesman Kenneth Bacon said:
>
> Iím not aware [that] there were any
> military exercises in the area. Iíve
> been told by the Joint [Chiefs of]
> Staff that there were not. [DOC 1]
>
> However, after eight months of such denials, on March
> 22, 1997, Newsday [DOC 2] reported that the Navy finally
> admitted that there were (a) military exercises and (b)
> three Navy submarines in the area at the time of the
> TWA 800 accident. (Now the story has changed again,
> and the number of subs in the area is down to 2.
> Interesting: recently a woman contacted Richard
> Russell saying her husband was the captain of
> a sub off LI that shot down TWA 800.?? I'll
> have to see if the sub she named is the
> sub that just vanished into thin air.)
>
> DOCUMENT 1: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul96/t072396_t0723asd.html
> DOCUMENT 2: http://www.newsday.com/jet/cras0322.htm
>
> Rather than repost it, here you will find many more, well,
> lies pertaining to military asset locations and activities
> on July 17, 1996: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/1year.htm
> and a few here: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-fact.htm
>
> CLAIM 2: There is proof the govt continues to lie about such.
>
> This proof is derived from many facts cited here:
> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/1year.htm and the fact
> that just yesterday, James Kallstrom said at the FBI's
> closing press conference that there were no military
> exercises in the area on the night of the crash, which
> contradicts Navy admissions after the radar tapes were
> leaked: http://www.newsday.com/jet/cras0322.htm
>
> CLAIM 3: There is proof that the FBI has acted to cover up facts.
>
> Don't you have web access? I don't feel it
> appropriate to post such a large document:
> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/cover-up.htm
> read that document, the proof's in there.
>
> CLAIM 4: There is photographic evidence of a military drone-
> type aerial device a few miles and moments from the crash.
>
> Here it is: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/kab-dir.htm
>
> The FBI says that their experts say it is
> a plane. Can you find a plane that is shaped
> like a rod with a luminous end? I can't. But
> I can find many target drones that fit the
> bill better than any manned plane. Atomist
> logic dictates that if Y is like X, but
> Y is not like Z, Y is more likely to
> be X than Z. Ergo: the object is
> most likely a target drone.
>
> CLAIM 5: There are over 100 witnesses of a missile-like
> streak rising from the ocean to impact TWA 800.
>
> Again, I cannot post here all I have at my
> website. I have amassed an extensive collection
> of witness accounts, including a triangulation
> of their sightings. Study them if you want to
> see how clear and consistent they are:
> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-core.htm
>
> In reply to your comments pertaining to eyewitnesses:
>
> >I'm not really interested in so-called "eye witnesses" whose
> >imaginations can easily play tricks on them. Any first year
> >law student knows that "eye witnesses" are rarely consistant
> >or reliable.
>
> IAN: But in this case they are consistent. Witness
> accounts are admissible evidence in all courts of law.
> Uniformity of accounts in over 150 witnesses increases
> the reliability to virtually 100%. Here is a mathematical
> analysis of the probability of eyewitness accuracy using
> the case of only 50 witness (as an early report cited):
>
> http://www.webexpert.net/rosedale/twacasefile/probabilities.html
>
>
> CLAIM 6: There is massive penetration deformation to
> the exterior fuselage panels exceeding the psi strength
> of a CFT explosion.
>
> Again, I can't post a photo here. You'll have to visit
> the webpage: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/twa-core.htm
> go to the bottom graphic and click on the lower photos
> therein. The area of massive fuselage-panel-penetration
> deformation would have experienced a 8 psi shockwave
> from a CFT explosion. The radical pig-tailed deformation
> there would require forces over 1000 psi. This area
> of analysis is what I was getting into before dropping
> the case, but I'm happy to say that others, with exten-
> sive aviation and engineering expertise are working on
> such a mathematical analysis of damage to the airframe.
>
> RECONSTRUCTION STILL OFF-LIMITS
>
> I spoke with a free-lance journalist who attended the
> FBI press conference, and a press visit to the hangar
> yesterday to see the reconstruction of the part of the
> plans that is allowed to be seen. The nose section remains
> hidden. All of the visitors were prohibited from viewing
> the left side of the plane. I thought with the FBI off
> the case, and it being no longer a criminal investigation,
> that the evidence was supposed to be open... NOT. Guess
> how many major media reports will tell you that access
> to the left side was prohibited? None. Mark my word.
>
> >On the other hand, in the absence of such legitimately meaningful
> >evidence and continued specious and uncorroborated claims, psychotherapy
> >from a competent licensed clinician might be in order.
>
> IAN: I think it's appalling, not only the abusive
> treatment those who REALLY question authority are
> subjected to, but the utter lack of knowledge of
> the case on the part of those that will so quickly
> launch into vicious smears on those who question.
>
> It seems your quite certain of the truth a priori
> to inquiry. I do not profess such surety as you.
> I present what I see as relevant evidence in the
> case, and let you take it from there. Maybe the
> Navy didn't shoot it down, but why should ques-
> tioning official claims and making a case against
> be grounds for medical treatment. That's just
> an outrageous attempt to stifle free inquiry!
>
> ****************************************************************
> VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
> ________________________________________________________________

-- 
O----------------------------------O
|  Hara Ra <harara@shamanics.com>  |
|  Box 8334  Santa Cruz, CA 95061  |
O----------------------------------O