>If 157 people all said some form of: "I saw what looked like a missile,
>I saw a missile, I may have seen a missile, etc" chances are that there
>is some truth to their statements. If there are on the other hand many
>wildly contradictory stories, then an investigator assigns probability
>values to various pieces of each story based on the amount of
>corroboration.
Great. But my question was/is how does that suggest it was a *US Navy*
missile?
>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?
>Using your pet theory, that the French Intelligence servicess are
>somehow stirring things up, I can also see a possible scenario: that
>French Agents were escaping US jurisdiction on the plane with some
>extremely dangerous intelligence. Navy Captain, at the direction of the
>DIA or NSA, says, " Fish food, anyone?" This idea is only as implausble
>as your rationalization.
I never said anything about French intelligent services. That was someone else.
Ira Brodsky
Datacomm Research Company
Wilmette, Illinois