TWA Flight 800 Investigators Claim the Official Crash Story Is a Lie
 

A new film claims the official government report on the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996 is an elaborate fabrication, but the most shocking part of the story is that charges are being leveled by some of the very investigators who put the report together. Six experts who appear in the film were members of the National Transportation Safety Board investigation team that concluded the crash was an accident, but they now claim they were silenced by their superiors. The movies, "TWA Flight 800" will debut on EPIX TV next month, on the 17-year anniversary of the crash.

TWA Flight 800 was en route from JFK Airport in New York to Paris, France, when it exploded and crashed off the coast of Long Island, killing all 230 people on board. From the very beginning, there were some who speculated that the plane was the victim of a terrorist attack, leading the FBI to conduct its own criminal investigation. Among the possibilities that were suggested as the cause were a bomb in the cargo hold, or an anti-aircraft missile. Several witnesses even claimed they saw an object or streak of light that looked liked a missile or rocket moving toward the plane before it exploded.

The final NTSB reported said that faulty wiring connected to a central fuel tank caused a blast that destroyed the fuesalage, however, there were still many skeptics and conspiracy theorists who have long doubted that official story. In one particularly famous example, Pierre Salinger, a former Press Secretary for President John Kennedy and reporter for ABC News, claimed he'd seen proof that the U.S. Navy shot down the plane and then covered it up.

Now, those theories are likely to get a new airing, thanks to accident investigators who worked on the TWA 800 case, but say they were not allowed to speak up at the time of the official report. The experts include NTSB and TWA accident investigators, who say they are only able to speak up now that they are retired. According their statements in the film, they believe the official explanation is wrong and the damage was caused by an explosion that came from outside the plane.

The filmmakers won't speculate on what could have caused such an explosion, and haven't yet offered up evidence to support their theory (you'll have to watch on July 17), but they are asking the NTSB to re-open the investigation. Whether or not that happens, or even if a follow-up reaches the same conclusions as the original, this new film will ensure that the alternate theories and claims up a cover will probably never be put to rest.

http://news.yahoo.com/twa-flight-800...120157562.html
<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Weird I always thought it was public knowledge that a missile took it down.

For everyone that thinks this might be true.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EhWpP-vPUcQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Or

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/e_uVwrPdHkI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Aliens.

You're thinking of the Space Shuttle.

No, no. Alex Smith threw a football that high.

You gotta like the government workers in the story. "This is a massive government conspiracy! It's a cover up! Eh, let's wait until we retire and our pensions roll in before we start whistleblowiing." Justice takes a back seat to a Florida condo.

No, no it was Tyler Bray that threw the ball. Of course it was just a 4 yard dump off to the running back but accuracy is highly overrated. Its all about the arm strength.

The Navy was conducting ground to air missile tests off Long Island. All the commercial flights were supposed to be at 21,000 feet or higher. TWA 800 was at 13,800 feet, because of another commercial aircraft in the area. They had just been given a directive to climb when the plane blew up. I think the Navy accidentally shot it down, and the Govt has wanted to cover that up for whatever reason. That's just what I think.

Fairly accurate and typical from a government that never admits it makes mistakes of any kind.

Govt: Missile worked! /highfive

Well, had they pressed it at the time, they'd have lost their jobs, have no pension, and probably be living in inland Florida trailers instead of coastal Florida condos. Assuming they didn't conveniently die of.... something.

At least they're coming forward now. Dead people are still dead, so it's not like they were in a hurry.

So, the Navy tests live missiles near one of the busiest airports in the world?

Seems legit.

I love me a good conspiracy.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

They were using dummy warheads. That's why only small amounts of explosive residue was found in the seating compartment. The damage to the fuselage was consistent with a projectile entering from one side and exiting the other, right in front of the wing and behind the cockpit section. The nose area of the plane basically fell off and the rest of the plane went down into the ocean a few thousand yards further downstream.

Nope, it's just what I think.

Salinger thought the same thing:
http://www.welfarestate.com/twa800/pierre.htm

And these guys think the same thing:
http://www.twa800.com/index.htm

The FBI and The Navy did a helluva job concealing evidence. That's the point.

Again... the Navy is testing missiles next to one of the busiest airports in the world? Seems legit.

I see. That's chilling.

Why would the Navy do any kind of missile test anywhere near NYC? There are several very large airports in the area.

I could maybe buy a terrorist attack but I really don't see the logic in the military theory. :shrug:

So did Bob Lazar.

Right, because nobody in the military ever ****s anything up. LMAO

Here's why they THEORIZE the Navy may have been involved. -BTW, I'm not saying with any certainty this is what happened. I just don't buy that a fuel tank just blew up like that. I think it warrants further investigation. Info comes from here:

http://tinyurl.com/lrgeqcc

Why Did Attention Focus on a Test Missile?

Initially, it was claimed that there was virtually no explosive residue on the 747 wreckage. In normal practice, missiles being tested or used for training have dummy warheads; inert packages which are the same size and weight of real warheads but which do not explode.

In many cases, such practice munitions are recovered and reused.

An Associated Press Article on March 10, 1997 reported the following:
The report said “compelling testimony” indicated a missile hit the
plane on the right side, forward of the wing, passing through the
fuselage without exploding.

This is consistent with a test missile with a dummy warhead. Of course, it was not known at the time that evidence of explosive residue was even then being concealed from the public, but by that time, the claimed lack of explosive residue had suggested a test missile to most observers, and attention began to focus on the Navy’s Cooperative Engagement Capability system, which had been undergoing tests, including live missile firings, along the Atlantic seaboard all that summer.

When it was finally revealed that there was explosive residue on the remains of the Boeing 747, the mainstream media tried to explain it away as contamination from a bomb sniffing dog training exercise that ultimately turned out to have taken place on a different aircraft entirely.

Had it been true, remnants from a training exercise did not explain a swath of residue ten rows long and three seats wide reaching from an obvious perforation in the forward section trailing back to where the forward section broke away from the rest of the 747.

Why not?

Some people have theorized that this was a stinger missile fired as an act of terrorism, perhaps funded by Iran. But (of course) that has never been acknowledged or confirmed. But that is another missile theory.

I think the evidence points towards the cause being a missile, not an exploding fuel tank. Who fired it? That's the $64 quesiton. And for whatever reason, the US Govt doesn't want that information confirmed or known.

Unfortunately, the Stinger's range is ~15,000 feet.

the FIM-92 Stinger missile has a range up to 15,000 feet. The plane was at 13,800 feet when it blew up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger

So there is no evidence at all to the theory a missile took it out.

Why not?

Considering the number of scandals coming out in the mainstream media in the last month or so, maybe you should stop lumping all conspiracy theories in the same boat. Criminal conspiracy is not a theory.

I still think superman accidentally ran into it & won't fess up

If the plane was at 13,800 feet, the Stinger would have had to have been launched almost directly below it.

Geometry.

I see. Chilling.

Why don't you "buy" that the tank caused the explosion?

Okay, actually there is about a radius of a mile on the ground. Do-able, I suppose, but seems unlikely.

Hey man, I guess it's totally possible.

I'd have to think about this, though...

Navy is doing missile testing that morning close to NYC and no media outlets are alerted - there's no press release or anything. Fine, I can buy that.

The Navy has told all commercial flights to be above 21,000 feet. Is that on record somewhere?

There is ONE plane in the sky that is below altitude, and this dummy missile happens to hit it (nice shot, Navy!). Stranger things have happened, I guess. Even stranger than the military hitting a moving target.

The plane crashes. IMMEDIATELY scores of people would know exactly what happened. The naval commander informs his commander, who calls directly to the Pentagon.

Bill Clinton is in the Oval Office getting his pipes cleaned by a chubby intern, and is stopped, pre-nut - by his Chief of Staff informing him he's needed in the situation room. The intern pulls her panty hose back up and starts eating a honey glazed ham that was sitting on the Resolute Desk.

Clinton - still with a RAGING hardon - walks down to the Sit Room, where his NSA, the joint chiefs, several other advisors, and intelligence officials inform him that the US Navy was doing testing of surface to air missiles and accidentally brought down a US made Boeing 747 with 230 passengers and crew off the coast of NYC.

"Hmm. Who else knows about this?"
"Well, everybody who was at the testing. Commander Howell at the Pentagon, who took the call and then told me. And my secretary, I guess. She always listens in on calls."
"Louis, what do you think?"
"Well, Mr. President, obviously, the FBI will have to investigate-"
"Sorry to interrupt, but can we get an intern in here to finish me off?"
"Excuse me, sir?"
*POINTS AT BONER*
*CHIEF OF STAFF PICKS UP INTERCOM"
"Nancy, can you get me an intern with top level clearance? No, the chubby one. Thanks"
"Go ahead."
"As I was saying, sir, the FBI will have to investigate to ensure this was indeed an accident and not an act of domestic terrorism."
"We have to do that?"
"Yes sir."
"Excuse me sir? My name is Cindi."
"With a 'y'?"
"An 'i', sir."
"Perfect. Have at it."
*FAP FAP FAP*
"So Louis."
"Yes sir..."
"Don't mind her. Louis, I want this to be kept completely confidential. The investigation, the report, everything. You will do the investigation, and at the end of it, you will conclude that there was an explosion in the fuel tank that crippled the plane and brought it down. There was no missile testing. There was no accident."
"With all due respect, sir-
"Ohh.....Ohhhh....RAZORBACK FOOTBALL! YES!"
*wipes sweat from brow*
"Thanks, Cindi, you can go now."
*She leaves*
"Go ahead, Lou."
"With all due respect, you can't possibly expect multiple FBI agents, multiple government employees and sailors, not to mention everyone at the airlines who had been told about the testing, to keep this quiet, right?"
"Sure, there will be conspiracy theories, but none of our people will talk. They want to protect me."
"Sir, many of the people you're talking about hate you and would go on record blowing the whistle - ESPECIALLY about a White House sanctioned misinformation campaign, since that's the ONLY THING IN THE WORLD THAT COULD POSSIBLY INITIATE THE COVER-UP - just to hurt you."
"No way. My west wing is a vault of secrets. Nothing I do will ever become widely known public knowledge. A bi-partisan House Armed Services committee would never get wind of this and then try to take me down. Impossible. I am impervious to all scrutiny."
*Stands*
"Good work, boys. I'm gonna head back to the Oval. I got a greasy ham waiting for me. And I better get back there before she eats the Honeybaked. get it? Get it? The girl's the ham. Man, I'm ****ing hilarious."
*Leaves room playing saxophone.*

That's entirely possible... except Bubba would have nutted in the Oval Office.

I think it was either a mistake by the Navy that they don't want to acknowledge, or it may have been a Stinger Missile shot as an act of terrorism -who knows who was on that plane headed for Paris or Rome that somebody might have wanted dead? But the reason for this story re-surfacing is, the NTSB guys who actually WORKED on finding what happened are now saying after retiring that the official explanation is a hoax and a lie. So again, it'll be interesting to see what happens after the July 17th documentary comes out. Probably nothing. (The JFK coverup has worked for 50 years now).

Why doesn't Anonymous just find out for us? WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE FOR, ANYWAY?

I don't think there were any other examples of this symptom being found in 747s, before or since this happened. Although as a CYA, the FAA grounded and re-wired all 747s fuel tanks in service in the months after the official "cause" was announced. Perhaps to give some credence to the official findings.

I read somewhere that the entire investigation by NTSB and FBI cost over $46 million and took around four years to complete. The Navy had submersibles on site within 72 hours looking for wreckage, which was unusual for them. Before that time they hadn't been involved with anything like this concerning a commercial airline.

It will be interesting to watch the documentary when it comes out.

No, not on 747s, but there have been multiple incidents of fuel tank fires in 727s and 737s.

The NTSB ruled that "the plane's center fuel tank exploded, "most likely" from a short circuit that jolted the tank through wiring from a fuel gauge."

Let's look at this. Airliners have fuel boost pumps that when turned on help deliver fuel under pressure to the engines. TWA 800 had no fuel in the center fuel tank on that flight (but plenty of combustible fuel vapor) and those pumps were off in that tank. That eliminates high voltage (115VAC) as a source of the short. Besides, the motors for the pumps themselves are not inside the fuel tank.

The other source of electricity in the tank is the fuel quantity systems probes and wiring. This system uses a capacitance system to measure fuel quantity. The flow of a momentary current into a probe (capacitor) establishes a potential difference across its plates. The dielectric i.e. fuel in the aircraft’s fuel tanks contains no free electrons so the current cannot flow through it. The measure of potential determines fuel quantity. This is accomplished on every airplane at all times that fuel quantity is being measured. This system is very safe and very little current is used.

Fuel tanks explosions never happen unless an outside factor such as lightning, a bomb or a missile creates the combustion source.

I worked for TWA when Flight 800 crashed. I know people who went to the NTSB investigation. I was told by more than one, "not to believe what you hear". These individuals were also afraid to speak the truth.

Another thing that bothers me about this theory is how is an plane coming in and out of JFK stay/get above 21,000 feet by the time it gets to Long Island? I'm not sure a plane taking off from JFK can get to 21,000 feet by the time it hits the Atlantic?

The plane blew up at 13,800 feet, right?

Last I checked 13,800 < 15,000

The NTSB stated the following:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the TWA flight 800 accident was an explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT), resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system.

This posted on the KC Star website today. Excellent overview of what happened:
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/06/19...light-800.html

I checked on that.

There was a fight this morning from NYC to Paris. Exactly twelve minutes into the flight, it was at 21,800 feet. So, yeah... getting to 21k wasn't a challenge or out of the ordinary. Granted, this was a 777, but that shouldn't make a difference.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A.../LFPG/tracklog

But why was it still at 11,000 feet?

That's the theory I'm going with.


This thread isn't helping me much. My youngest son flew to France yesterday and, when coming home, will be flying from Paris to JFK like this flight did. I'm hoping the Navy is testing their missiles somewhere else a week from tomorrow.

I was referring to the idea that the Navy was shooting missiles off of Long Island and expecting all flights to be above 21,000 feet by then. Considering how close JFK is to Long Island, that didn't seem plausible but I didn't know exactly where the Navy was supposed to be in all of this.

Yep, I think Uncle Sugar was full of shit with their wild west story about what happened. I also think the movie will be worth a look.

This seems super super solid...

I'm always amused by the blanket dismissal of any and all conspiracies. Because, you know, we United States have a long history of doing everything above-board and never, ever misleading anyone about anything.

I dismiss all conspiracy's without something in the form of, well, what do you call it? Oh yeah, evidence to the contrary. Show me some videos conclusive studies of the skin of the plane... something.

Until then I know one thing, there is a 0.00000% chance 600 investigators and no telling how many other workers could keep this thing quiet.

Uncle Sugar loves you. You have a zero % chance of the IRS clowns showing up on your doorstep.

The Valuejet flight crashed into the Everglades that same year.

Why no conspiracy theories on that?

Sometimes, where there is smoke, there is fire.

That reminds me. I was still living in KC in 96.

My folks paid for me to visit over Thanksgiving.

I flew TWA. On the tarmac next to me there was a Valuejet.

Thought in my head: Well, shit.

Lahr persuaded one key witness, James Holtsclaw, to go public for the first time. In 1996, Holtsclaw was serving as the Deputy Assistant for the Western Region of the Air Transport Association. On July 25, 1996, one week after the disaster, it was Holtsclaw who gave United Airlines pilot Dick Russell a copy of the radar tape recorded at New York Terminal Radar Approach Control. This is the same tape that got Pierre Salinger involved in the case and eventually ruined his career and reputation. Holtsclaw knows it to be “authentic” because he received it directly from an NTSB investigator frustrated by its suppression.

“The tape shows a primary target at 1,200 knots converging with TWA 800, during the climb out phase of TWA 800,” swears Holtsclaw on the affidavit. “Primary target” simply means an object without a transponder. Although Holtsclaw estimates the object’s speed, his estimate falls within the likely range of a missile.

Lahr also recruited retired Air Force Col. Lawrence Pence to his cause. “I find [the CIA scenario] highly unlikely, incredible. With the loss of a wing, with the loss of its pilots, cockpit and front end, I believe that [the aircraft] would have tumbled, tolled and basically dropped like a stone,” argues Pence, who spent most of his career in intelligence, dealing with missile and space issues. “And this is exactly what the radar data that has subsequently been looked at says happened.”

Physicist Thomas Stalcup, Ph.D., has reviewed most if not all of that radar data. “The radar data,” swears Stalcup in his affidavit, “indicate that Flight 800 began an immediate descent and northward turn immediately after losing electrical power.”

Several of the eyewitnesses Lahr has gathered have verified Pence’s stone-falling thesis. One is Maj. Fritz Meyer, a winner of the Distinguished Flying Cross. Meyer stared the explosion in his face from his Air National Guard helicopter about 10 miles away:

When that airplane blew up, it immediately began falling. It came right out of the sky. From the first moment it was going down. It never climbed. The thought that this aircraft could climb was laughable. … If you shot a duck with a full load of buck it came down like that. It came down like a stone.

Master Chief Petty Officer Dwight Brumley also volunteered his testimony to Lahr. A 25-year U.S. Navy vet with top security clearance and hands-on experience with missile exercises, Brumley was flying as a passenger on the right side of US AIR 217. The plane was flying north at 21,000 feet and was just moments from intersecting TWA 800′s flight path when Brumley observed a “flare” moving parallel to US AIR 217 … but faster:

During the approximately 7 to 10 seconds I observed the “flare,” it appeared to be climbing. It then pitched over and then just after the apex (one to two seconds at most) a small explosion appeared in the center of the “flare.” The body of the explosion was spherical in shape and then suddenly grew much bigger and then began to elongate as it appeared to be headed downward, growing larger as it descended.

Brumley’s “flare” was moving at nearly a right angle to TWA Flight 800. In addition to Brumley, Meyer and others, Lahr has entered the testimony of two critical witnesses whose testimony has been largely overlooked. On the subject of the CIA animation, however, no witnesses are more critical than the two pilots of an Eastwind Flight 507 from Boston to Trenton, First Officer Vincent Fuschetti and Capt. David McCLaine.

The Eastwind pilots were about to begin a slow descent to Trenton when they first spotted TWA Flight 800, then some 60 miles away on this “crystal clear” night. McClaine described the plane with its landing lights still on as “definitely the brightest light in the sky.” As Flight 800 approached them at a slightly lower altitude and began crossing its path from right to left, McClaine flicked on his own inboard landing light to signal to the pilots of TWA 800 that he and Fuschetti had the aircraft in sight.

Just as he flicked on his light, wrote McClaine in his report to Eastwind Airline immediately after the crash, “The other aircraft exploded into a very large ball of flames.” At this point, the two aircraft were less than 20 miles apart. “Almost immediately,” observed McClaine, “two flaming objects, with flames trailing about 4,000 feet behind them, fell out of the bottom of the ball of flame.” Within 10 seconds of witnessing the explosion, McClaine called in the explosion to Boston air-traffic control. He was the first one to do so. The FBI knew this by day two:

Eastwind: “We just saw an explosion out here, Stinger Bee 507 (Dave McClaine, Captain, Eastwind Airlines)”

Controller: “Stinger Bee 507, I’m sorry I missed it … did you say something else.”

Eastwind: “We just saw an explosion up ahead of us here, somewhere about 16,000 feet or something like that. It just went down – in the water.”

The reader does well to recall the postulate on which, the infamous CIA video is based: No eyewitnesses saw the initial explosion. This was a lie – there is no nice way to describe it – and the CIA knew it. Fuschetti and McClaine both witnessed the initial explosion. The crew of two other airliners immediately confirmed their sightings. Brumley and Meyer saw the initial explosion as well. At a minimum, eight unimpeachable, experienced, airborne eyewitnesses saw the first blast and from a variety of different angles.

The CIA lied to protect its bizarre timeline. As the CIA told the story, the plane suffered an invisible center fuel tank explosion, lost its nose four seconds later, zoom-climbed an additional 3,200 feet and only then broke into two distinct fireballs, “more than 42 seconds” after the initial blast.

Compare the CIA story with Eastwind First Officer Fuschetti’s testimony. “At the onset of the explosion, the fireball spread horizontally then spilt into two columns of fire, which immediately began to fall slowly towards the water below.” Lest anyone misinterpret him, Fuschetti adds, “At no time did I see any vertical travel of the aircraft after the explosion occurred.”

The CIA’s fiery climb was necessary to explain away the hundreds of claims from eyewitnesses on the ground. It does not, however, account for what McClaine and Fuschetti saw. They saw the plane clearly at every stage.

Although McClaine and Fuschetti could not see a missile streak from their angle, they undoubtedly saw the first explosion and the immediate plunge of the plane into the sea. Indeed, McClaine was telling Boston air-traffic control that the plane “just went down – in the water” within 10 to 15 seconds of that first blast.

This may well explain why the NTSB never interviewed Fuschetti and did not interview McClaine until March 25, 1999, nearly a year and a half after the FBI closed the criminal case with a showing of the CIA video. “You are a very key person as far as we are concerned,” said Robert Young, TWA’s representative on the NTSB witness group, “because you were the only person that was looking at it at the time.”

Although McClaine was by no means the “only person,” Young’s acknowledgement boldly refutes the CIA claim that no one had seen the initial explosion. Young, at least, wanted this to be known. He asked McClaine whether there were any noticeable climbing angle changes before or after. Answered McClaine, “None at all.”

“I didn’t see it pitch up, no,” McClaine elaborated. “Everything ended right there at that explosion as far as I’m concerned.” When McClaine ironically ventured a far-fetched scenario that could have resulted in the CIA’s zoom-climb, Young responded in the same spirit, “We’d be cutting new trails in aviation if we could do that.” Young, however, was in no position to convert irony into action, and he knew it. The die had already been cast.

Still, Young did not give up. A few weeks after its interview with McClaine, the NTSB witness group managed to secure an interview with the two CIA analysts responsible for the video, now a full 18 months after the video’s sole showing. Young badgered the chief analyst, then unidentified, with McClaine’s testimony.

“If [the nose-less plane] had ascended,” Young asked the analyst rhetorically, “[McClaine] would have been concerned because it ascended right through his altitude.” When the analyst tried to deflect the question, Young continued, “I think he would have noticed it. Your analysis has it zooming to above his altitude.”

“It’s a very critical point that it’s not critical precisely how high that plane went,” the CIA analyst bluffed before pulling out his trump card. “Even if the plane went up several thousand feet on the ground there’s maybe one witness that saw that, this guy on the bridge.”

When pressed, the analyst could cite only one person who actually saw the zoom-climb, “the guy on the bridge.” Ray Lahr has marshaled his testimony as well. His name is Mike Wire, a millwright from Philadelphia and a U.S. Army vet. And how did the “guy on the bridge” feel about the CIA video?

“When I first saw the scenario, I thought they used it just as a story to pacify the general public,” attests Wire, “because it didn’t represent what I had testified to the agent I saw out there.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2003/12/22274/#lyIUVfhyY6RQHRBu.99

Where is this alleged "tape", seriously people this is beyond stupid. Where the **** is ANY hard evidence I can look at?

Well considering the government cant keep shit secret for like 3 minutes you have effectively proven my point. Thanks for the assist.

Sure thing Dave. :drool:

Dave is alright in my book, we just don't agree on everything. :hmmm:

If you really wanna know the truth,ask the prez Whitehouse spokeman.
Truth,never,skirt,(cough) .skirt(COUGH),"next conspiracy please"...

Likewise Bwana is a peep. And if the shit ever hit the fan he'd be one dude you'd want to hang with.

Get a room already.

My maternal grandfather was a scientist on the Manhattan Project and to this day we can't get information released about what he did. So that's at least one thing that's been kept secret for decades. I suspect there may be a few other secrets out there.

Most conspiracy theories are bullshit.

This one is the one that could be true.

This isn't ****ing Highlander. There can be more than one.

I watched something about this the other day. There were many witnesses on the shore who all said they saw an object being propelled towards the plane, eventually exploding next to the plane or colliding with the plane causing the explosion.

The government investigators kept telling these people that what they saw was debris from the explosion falling.

You're so right. No one has any idea what happened in... What did you call it again? Yep totally unknown from beginning to end on that project.

Great background shot of Antares / and the rho ophiuchi cloud complex,

Great shot.

It's quite amusing how...religious your fervor with this is.

wouldnt doubt it. I dont trust our gov

Gotta love government drones.

"I won't believe this until somebody credible comes forward."

[Somebody credible comes forward]

"LIAR! ATTENTION WHORE! CRACKPOT!"

"I won't believe this until somebody presents proof."

[Somebody presents proof]

"FAKE! PHOTOSHOPPED! LIAR!"

"If this stuff was real, don't you think somebody credible would have come forward with proof by now?"

:drool:

Well I guess crazy beliefs without any evidence really are a form of religion. So maybe that's why I don't like them. I kinda like to know actual facts, and that dicey evidence stuff. You know some proof.

Some one once doubted the government had drones? Really? link?

Why is the credible person rarely credible?

Why is the proof always in some crappy youtube video or fringe website?