Re: Goddard's fantasies???

Ian Goddard (
Fri, 21 Nov 1997 00:12:11 -0500

Abraham Moses Genen ( wrote:
>Since Mr. Goddard claims to have all this "proof" let him
>supply us with the substantive and corroborated unimpeachable

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.)


Rather than repost it, here you will find many more, well,
lies pertaining to military asset locations and activities
on July 17, 1996:
and a few here:

CLAIM 2: There is proof the govt continues to lie about such.

This proof is derived from many facts cited here: 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

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:
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:

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:

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):

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:
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.


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 ---->