some stuff
IAN: Your critique from top to bottom avoids the factual details
and focuses attack on the personalities of those proposing theories
you seem to be opposed to. You even refused to present any facts that
invalidated the documents you totaly dismiss, choosing instead to call
Salinger a "dishonest scoundrel" for possesing them. I cannot know
his reasons for withholding them, but it looks pretty bad by any
measure, but the TWA 800 crash is not about persnol reviews,
at least not to me.
The only logical-type argument I've seen you made is that it can't have
been a naval hit because you can't get govt employees to keep secrets.
The more evidence to the contrary we ignore, the more plausible this
nonfactual argument appears to be.
Your rationale for the nonpresentation of facts was an appeal to the
inherent reliability of the authorities -- let them think for us and
us smear all those who dare to think for themselves. It's such a worn-
out tire. The more facts we ignore, the more we can believe that the
FBI is a reliable source of unaltered physical evidence.
If your only going to offer personal assessments rather than review
of factual data or logical analysis of the case at hand, please don't
reply or bother to draw me into further debate. Thanks.
************************************************************************
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
________________________________________________________________________