According to the Navy the Augusta was in Groton, Conn. for some standard maintenance during the timeframe of the Flight 800 disaster...........That should put that rumor to rest.
If you believe the Navy's FOIA response without question, why didn't you believe their widely publicized claims of not being there in the first place? Do you think they would lie to the entire world and then tell you the truth?
Why just the Augusta? If the Augusta was not there, does that mean no Navy ships were? Why not file a FOIA for every possible ship? Yet the Navy has already "released" the "data" and they say NO Navy ships were closer than 180 miles. Do you really think they'd send you a response saying otherwise?
Why not just repost a media report with the Navy saying they didn't do it? What you've posted here is really nothing more than that.
It appears that Mr.Fiorentino is conducting the same
"turn over every stone" type of investigation as that immortalized by Jim Hall and James Kalstrom.
Someone should drop a gentle hint that this very website has plenty of evidence of Navy involvement, and Commander Donaldson has cleverly made it available to anyone who can read between the lines.
Case in point ... Aphrodite's encounter with strange boats.
Quare ... are Seals still a part of the Navy?
How about "significant Naval units? (FOIA)
Oh yeah; 'n then there's those "Navy vessels on classified maneuvers". (Kalstrom on tape to Reed Irvine)
By the way ... LHO did the deed by himself. No conspiracy or coverup where JFK was concerned.
Well -- Mr Fiorentino says so. And he wrote a book ... So he should know.
No Navy involvement in TWA? Wonder when his book stating that position goes to the publisher? Hmmmm?
First, let me state, that perhaps we have a misunderstanding of views or opinions. Please set me straight, (as I'm sure you will) if you believe I'm wrong.
1) I have stated for the record that I believe the FBI, NTSB, CIA investigation into Fl. 800 is FLAWED. Now, that's pretty plain, I believe.
2) Re: "Navy involvement" as posted by anjin:
Case in point ... Aphrodite's encounter with strange boats.
Quare ... are Seals still a part of the Navy?
How about "significant Naval units? (FOIA)
Oh yeah; 'n then there's those "Navy vessels on classified maneuvers". (Kalstrom on tape to Reed Irvine)
ALL of the above are VALID points. I NEVER stated that I didn't think any Navy units were in the area. OBVIOUSLY there were!......I have stated I was unhappy by the apparent Navy vascillation on the point. Unhappy with their initial response. I neither "believe" at face value, nor take as "gospel" things that are said by ANYONE during the course of ANY investigation I have ever participated in. There is a difference however, at least in my mind, between the Navy conducting classified maneuvers, and their firing a missile or missiles at TWA 800. Simply put, at this point, I can't find any EVIDENCE to support that claim.
How about "significant Naval units? (FOIA)
Can I ask a ? re: the above?........WHY do you choose to believe THAT FOIA request, and cast doubt on the FOIA re: the Augusta?
Do I think it's POSSIBLE the Navy, or the FBI, or the CIA, or anyone else can simply "lie thru their teeth".........YES, it's possible......YES, I believe it's happened. Which begs the ? as an independent investigator with limited means, EXACTLY how do YOU suggest I proceed?.......Do I disbelieve EVERY FOIA request that doesn't fit MY theories?.......The FOIA is probably THE most useful tool the private citizen has at their disposal in conducting ANY investigation into Government activities.
3) Please present ANY evidence you have re: "the Navy fired a missile at Fl. 800.".......(EVIDENCE----NOT HEARSAY......Please)........I'll even take a good SUGGESTION of evidence of the same.
4) Why is it nobody thought it a bad idea when I SUBMITTED the FOIA request?......Or, at least no one voiced an objection, other than Trevor's remarks, I believe who thought I would be waiting a long time for a response.
5) If the Navy had stated to me that the Augusta was the "30 knot track" making a beeline for NJ, would you have believed that?
6) Let me restate a few points. (And I'll preface them by saying "at this point").......I don't buy the NTSB CWT theory as being the IE for the destruction of TWA 800. I believe the FBI was in error when they stated a "dog training exercise" aboard TWA 800 several weeks prior to the disaster was responsible for the traces of explosive residue found.......I don't believe the material obtained by Sander's was simply "glue."......It needs to be investigated further........I believe the FBI conducted a "witch hunt" in it's prosecution of James and Elizabeth Sanders.......I believe Jim Hall and the NTSB used "selective evidence" in arriving at it's CWT scenario.........A good example of this has been recently posted on the Donaldson sight re: Witness #649.........I don't like the fact the NTSB ignored the results of it's own missile test firings during the Summer of 2000..........I don't like the general exclusion of the witness testimony in general.......I believe the CIA animation of the breakup of Fl. 800 has been given the appropriate label by many: ie., a CARTOON...........And there's alot more, I don't have time to state.
7) I think we need a Congressional investigation.
8) Believe me when I say, I am looking at this thing hard and long. It just isn't appropriate in my opinion to run around like a chicken with it's head cut off yelling "conspiracy.".............Perhaps, it will turn out that there was an intentional coverup......But, let's assemble the "facts" first to establish that conclusively. And if we can't, let's present the "best case" we have.
My comment was to check out the Wyoming which Sanders claims had it's capatain and XO relieved of duty after something went wrong on sea trials.
Sanders has posted a list of Navy assets and their whereabouts at the time, all those within some unspecified distance. It's on his old site, the interesting one's have lat/long coordinates and bear the designation VCOA - whatever that means.
I believe this list was produced for congress, but I could be mistaken. I used to be able to name them all, but it's sort of died a death so I've erased it from memory - or over-written it.
Check out the P3 its proximity to the action is extremely interesting, if coincidental. Why fly through a busy air traffic zone with the transponder off? It is said that it was intermittent, but no fault was found with it. It's almost as if the P3 was a target for something, or towing a target.
All speculation of course, but submarines and P3's go together, EMP weapons and P3's sounds interesting but I don't see the point of firing such a weapon when TNT wipes out the target absolutely.
This EMP thing is designed to fit the reported evidence of no missile etc. I'm not going for it, it fits too easily into the category of obscuring the view, muddying the waters etc.
It doesn't make the author a nasty person however, I am not intending to offend or attack, just state my opinion of this scenario.
Anjin's ok John, once you get used to our schizoprenic behaviour you'll come to that same conclusion I'm sure.
Has anyone got details on these weapons, I'm having trouble with their purpose, or the technicalities of how they are intended to work.
I don't see why you would produce a purely EMP weapon, a mixed EMP/TNT makes much more sense to me, if you don't get it one way you have a second chance with the other.
We know from the scud/patriot results that even a large missile like a scud is difficult to take out, but having it's targeting circuits blown leaves you with a very unpredictable target - far more dangerous than destroying it. Much of the unhappiness with the patriot system is that it turns one item in several, all capable of doing serious damage when they hit the ground.
This EMP scenario is an attempt to accept the ntsb/FBI data as sound and to find a solution which fits that claim. That the CWT exploded in not in question, but the electrical damage in that aircraft is far from unique - it would almost be expected.
Engines and the generators they drive do not suddenly stop turning - not all 4, and the break-up of the aircraft is going to produce broken wires and shorts all over the aircraft.
An aircraft is not a faraday cage, the windows will allow frequencies through - depending upon their size. An antenna is fitted exterior to the aircraft because it's the most obvious and logical place to put it. All wide area (long distance) antennas are best placed outside and as high as necessary.
I'm against following this path, it's an exercise in acceptance that all the contrary evidence is fabricated and the inside people who had the guts to question the way the investigation was conducted are liars - or deluded.
Why did Terry Stacey do what he did and hand over that material to Sanders? Why did people accuse the FBI of witholding/concealing and altering evidence? If there was no evidence to indicate a missile, why would any of that be necessary?
There was evidence of something untoward, there must have been in my opinion.
I basically agree with you Trevor.........You may want to see my response to Stan under Ian's EMP Theory.
BTW I have received another analysis, or opinion would be a better word on the material Sander's had analyzed. Some of it is conflicting, with a few "surprises" thrown in. I just want to re-read it, perhaps several times before making any more comments.
Is the old site not there any more? I know the new one - least said about that the better.
I've lost my machines and their links a zillion times in the last year, so I don't have it stashed, I hope it's still there, it was an interesting item.
It's gone, I just checked, the old site I linked you to is gone John. Sorry about that, we may never see it again.
No and thrice nay, George is as sound as I am, I'm surprised you ask that question. There are not may things can produce the violent yaw he describes, I assume the control surfaces cannot be commanded to move that fast? You should know, I don't, but can they?
It appears to me that it would be sensible to ensure that rapid manouvres which could injure or kill passengers would be filtered out by the avionics - but I wouldn't know. This sin't a fighter plane after all.
I trust George, I mean that, maybe I'm a fool, but I see him as a very knowledgeable and open individual.
I don't think we should be discussing a third party as we are either, you know my e-mail address, as you know where he is - which means you can address your concerns to him directly.
If you fellows fail to obtain "Kelly's Navy Documents" from James Sanders, let me know. I Have the documents, and will provide them to you.
I think the complete set runs 27 pages. Stored as large TIF images on my hard drive, they amount to a total of 6 megabytes.
I think you are interested in the east coast deployments. If that is the case, I will convert that one graphic to a single document and send it to you.
Let me know if you need it, and where it can be sent. If you would not like to receive it as an attachment to a personal e-mail, advise me of that fact, and I will place it on the web and cite the URL in a future post to this BB.
The pages available there are those that pertain to submarines and also a map of deployments in the Western Hemisphere including areas near the accident.
After reading the docs published, I'm gonna assume EXUMA indicates the West Indies. I went back and re-read my FOIA request. As it turns out, I'm glad I did. First off the documents provided to me by the US Navy were rather poorly reproduced. I misread the Augusta as being in Groton 7/17.........After viewing the docs with a magnifying glass (which was needed, and I probably should have used the first time)........I discovered my error.
The timeframe the Navy gives was divided into 3 sections labeled H I & J.........In order to read it you have to line up the letters with the dates which they provided me which was 7/15/96 thru 7/21/96.
So without further boring everyone. A CORRECT reading shows the following: (H) 7/15-7/16 ENR EXUMA (I) 7/17-7/18 ACTRL EXUMA (J) ENR GROTON.
So this matches the Kelly's Naval docs.........Indicating the Augusta was in EXUMA timeframe 7/17-7/18..........NOT Groton as I first indicated................So we still have the Augusta out of the Fl. 800 area...............I apologize for my mistake, and am very glad you posted the docs. I probably wouldn't have looked at them again for quite awhile.
U/W......Underway, etc................Any comments on the fact several Units including the Wyoming have no information?
BTW Trevor, If you read this, I BELIEVE the term VCOA......indicates Vector Coordinates Assignment......If you look at the Kelly docs......you'll see notations of VCOA are apparently followed by their Coordinates.
Based on those docs, what type of "fleet" is seen in the vicinity of Fl. 800?
Fantastic, great stuff guys, I've had those documents for years now, and just scratched my head over them. It's great to finally get some reading of what they really mean.
John, I don't know why there is no information for the Wyoming, but as far as I know, the Navy were asked (by Congress?) to provide positions of all assets within x miles of TWA800 over a 24 hour period. IF that is the case, the assets with no info are not within that area.
The maps are interesting, note how the copy which covers those assets which are indicated as being close seems to have been amended - ie it looks as though a bit of rubbing out has taken place
I'm not suggesting there's anything sinister in that, it's just that those assets are the VCOA entries, most of which have lat/long coordinates.
