Ian Goddard (igoddard@netkonnect.net)
Fri, 07 Nov 1997 11:52:19 -0500

( free to forward & copy nonprofit with attribute )


(c) 1997 Ian Williams Goddard

CNN has spread false information on television indicating
that I said my TWA 800 inquiry was a "sham" and a "plot."
To counter these lies, the "Goddard Chronicles" has been
reopened (http://www.copi.com/articles/Goddard). My work
was not a sham. See for yourself that it was factual.
For it, I've been repeatedly slandered by the media.

To support the false claims, CNN culled statements of
mine out of context from an Internet post, reporting:

...Goddard...said he only pursued the charges
because he "wanted to give the government a
black eye by any means that looked opportune."

Goddard says he wanted to promote libertarian
ideology by encouraging distrust of the government.

I stated in my Internet post that encouraging distrust
of the government maybe good "if it's founded," but CNN
omitted that most critical statement, leaving the false
impression that I tried to cook up anything however base-
less it might actually be just to hurt the government.
That's what the GovtMedia does to me, not me to them.

"If it's founded" means if there's basis in FACT for dis-
trust. So my statements explicitly EXCLUDED the possibility
of being defined as an admission of the promotion of fraud,
for I defined the proper spreading of distrust as that
which is founded in fact. I think there is basis in fact
for questioning the government on TWA 800 and many other
areas: http://www.copi.com/articles/Goddard

Hoping to get the media to stop assaulting me with mis-
information, I took down my webpage on September 11 and
had DEEP TIMES remove the Goddard Chronicles. But after
ending my war of "improper inquiry" I am hit harder than
ever by the media, perhaps in an effort to snuff me out
for good, which forces me to have the Goddard Chronicles
made available to allow people to judge for themselves.

Below is from the Internet message from which CNN culled
my statements. My big error, ipso facto, was excessively
honest self-critique. My effort was to accurately define
the sociopolitical function of conspiracy theory, when
it is proper, and what good it can do, even as I was
discontinuing it as a means toward effecting social
change, for the media will "kill you" if you try:

Ian Goddard's Internet message (10/20/97)__________________

I think it was a big mistake to encourage people to
believe the Navy did it. How could I know? I just
wanted to give the govt a black eye by any means
that looked opportune. TWA 800 was just a vehicle
for my larger agenda. I think others, like Tom
Shoemaker, may be in TWA 800 for TWA 800. It's
not that I didn't care about the loss of life,
I did/I do. To do no harm is a primary axiom.

Why would I want to give govt a black eye? To pro-
mote by default libertarian ideology. One way to
get people to stop voting for more govt is to
encourage distrust and suspicion of the govt. Well, <-------
if it's founded, maybe that's a good thing. Too <-------
bad people didn't distrust govt more in Germany
just prior to Hitler. A healthy dose of anti-govt
paranoia then might have saved millions. I don't
think the idea that "anti-govt paranoia" is some
kind of disease that must be eradicated is such
a healthy concept.

But what if I was wrong about the Navy having done
it? Then ipso facto I've done a bad thing. In short,
the business of finger pointing is a risky business,
since your always maybe doing the wrong thing. Unless
you saw the event by 100%, which if a missile flew out
of the water would mean seeing also underwater, you never
can know for 100% sure what happened. I don't know what
happened to TWA 800 and probably never will, so I'm
not going to guess. I'll leave the finger pointing
to those who are more foolhardy than I.

Ian Goddard <igoddard@netkonnect.net>