The Weather Channel Joins the Conspiracy

Checking the weather this morning of December 20, 2014, I saw an ad for a video clip called "Mystery of John F. Kennedy's Plane Crash Solved?" and, of course, watched it.

Incredibly, the video text itself made no claim whatsoever to have any new information on the 15-year-old crash. In other words, there was no news--just a lot of lies: JKF Jr. didn't have his instrument rating, therefore, 'when other planes remained grounded,' he took off in the growing haze to the doom of 'all three on board' after the advice of an unnamed onscreen expert to 'get more training before flying solo' "fell on deaf ears."

It's amazing how many boldface lies can make it into a single video minute. As a pilot, I know that flying on instruments is part of basic flight school. If you can't fly through haze without 'spiraling out of control,' you're never even going to get your private license. And the video shot of 'all the other planes that remained grounded?' Well, 'remaining grounded' is another way of saying 'parked at the airport,' and that's what the majority of private planes spend the majority of their time doing, regardless of the weather.

Now, it's true that JFK did not yet have his instrument rating--just as my adult daughter does not yet have a driver's license. Big deal; she has been driving for years, but has to clear so many legal hurdles to be able to 'drive solo,' the paperwork has yet to catch up with the reality of her being a capable, experienced driver.

Thus with JFK Jr. He had all of the training, most of the experience, and almost all of the paperwork needed to be a full-fledged instrument-rated pilot. No way was he still at the level where he would go into a spin at 2500 feet while on approach to a lighted runway; instrument-rated pilots have to be able to safely navigate within 100 feet of the ground without being able to see it. But he still used an instructor every time he flew in unfamiliar conditions.

So, the video hits all the talking points of the original cover-up, whilst ignoring the salient fact that rescuers were intentionally misdirected for an entire day:
1. JFK Jr. was not competent to make that flight (he was).
2. He was warned not to fly solo in hazy conditions (he never flew solo in hazy conditions).
3. The plane spiraled out of control (the plane's engine was turned off and it was flown into the sea).
4. There were three on board (the fourth person on board was removed by a covert dive team, seat and all).

Why, Weather Channel? Why?

Two responses to serious charges

There are two ways to respond to a serious charge of wrongdoing:
1. Refute the charges. This is how it's handled in a courtroom by a defense attorney.
2. Claim that the charges are so ridiculous, they aren't worth responding to. This seems to be how such things are handled everywhere else--at least by those who can actually afford the first option.

The US Government chose the second option when confronted with the charges in my most recent post.

The Sad Fate of Flight Three Seventy

I've written before about airplanes that fly into the sea, and the various reasons why this might happen. Which brings us to what may well be my final post on the fate of Flight Three Seventy.

I just ran across one theory, which doesn't seem like it would hold much water: The Electronic Fog. I quote:

The first indication the airliner may have been in trouble is when the co-pilot signed off from Malaysian air traffic control. He said �all right good night 370.� Normally he would say something like �Malaysian 370 contacting Viet Nam at 128.4 thank you goodnight.� Maybe the electronic fog had just attached itself to the aircraft so he cut the procedure short. They never contacted Viet Nam airspace and strange things started happening immediately after that last call. The fog can disable the radios. The Boeing 777 has a glass panel cockpit. All the panels could have turned off and turned blank. The pilots would have no idea of their exact heading because even the whisky compass would be spinning. They would have to rely on their mechanical backup instruments to maintain control. They are the altimeter, the airspeed indicator and the attitude indicator.

They made about a 120 degree turn to the left, apparently trying to aim for the nearest airport. It appears they went up higher trying to get above the fog and down lower trying to get below the fog but it did not detach. When the time came to the point where they should be able to identify the airport there was no visibility. They made some more turns and that would have disoriented them to the point where they are not sure of their heading anymore. Many pilots that have been in the electronic fog that crashed, went through a series of turns then became spatially disoriented and ended up entering what is known as a graveyard spiral which always ends up in death.

They may have been able to control the autopilot but the heading would have to be controlled by their input. After going through a series of turns they would be becoming disoriented so they did something similar to Flight 19. They just continued until they ran out of fuel. Also like Flight 19 they unfortunately aimed for a remote location over the ocean where they may never be found.

I think a better supported theory is that of Marc Dugain:

Dugain, a well-respected French author, argues that the Boeing 777 carrying 239 people crashed near Diego Garcia, a British island in the middle of the Indian Ocean used as a strategic air force and intelligence base by the US military, in the six-page article in Paris Match.

The US has always officially denied that flight MH370 came anywhere near Diego Garcia.

The latest theory into the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 on March 9, 2014 has all the ingredients of a spy thriller and has grabbed the French public’s attention. The former boss of Proteus Airlines travelled to the neighbouring Maldives where residents told local media on March 9th that they had seen an airliner fly in the direction of Diego Garcia. Their claims were promptly dismissed by the authorities.

“I saw a huge plane fly over us at low altitude,” a fisherman on Kudahuvadhoo island told Dugain. “I saw red and blue stripes on a white background” – the colours of Malaysia Airlines. Other witnesses confirmed the sighting.

Dugain speculates – adding to the numerous other existing hypotheses about what happened to flight MH370 – that a modern aircraft such as Malaysia Airlines' Boeing 777 could have been hijacked by a hacker. “In 2006, Boeing patented a remote control system using a computer placed inside or outside the aircraft,” he noted. This technology lead Dugain to the idea of a “soft” remote hijacking. But the writer also suggests that a fire could have led the crew to deactivate electrical devices, including transmission systems.

Whatever the initial reasons for leaving its flight path, Dugain suspects that the plane then headed to Diego Garcia, where a number of scenarios may have played out – including the US Air Force shooting it down for fear of a September 11-style attack. Dugain met the mayor of neighbouring Baarah island, who showed him pictures of a strange device found on a beach two weeks after the plane had disappeared and before the Maldives military seized it. Two aviation experts and a local military officer concluded that the object was a Boeing fire extinguisher. Dugain points out that for the extinguisher to have floated, it must have been empty, having been automatically triggered by a fire. He adds that precedent exists in which fires on board aircraft caused all passengers and crew to die of asphyxiation, while the plane’s automated systems extinguished the blaze and kept it in the air.

Okay, so we have no direct evidence of an Electronic Fog, but we do have indirect evidence of a fire on board a Boeing aircraft--along with eyewitness testimony of just such an aircraft, bearing the Malaysian livery, being where it did not belong. We know that Diego Garcia is a strategically important air base, in the center of a very strictly enforced restricted zone. By the way, the rumour that Philip Wood was imprisoned there was a cruel hoax, and easily refuted. But no one, apparently, has tried to refute the eyewitness testimony and fire extinguisher, both of which place the airliner within shoot-down range of the Naval Air Facility.

This is what apparently happened: The US shot down the plane when it looked like it was on a suicide run toward the most important US base within a thousand miles. Unsure of what they had hit, government forces didn't say anything at first, but worked to misdirect the search effort long enough to make sure they had cleaned up the crash scene. Then, realizing they could sweep the whole operation under the rug, they kept up the cover-up to this day.

You can count on official disinformation whenever there is a cover-up, and here we have it. Taking a page from the Soviet's Flight 007 playbook, a US submersible faked a sonar ping from the airliner's black box, leading search efforts to concentrate thousands of miles from where the plane was actually shot down. Everything that came out of the US role in the 'search effort' was misinformation from that point on.

This still doesn't address the question of why Flight 370 was misdirected, but the fact that the pilot had practiced simulator landings on Diego Garcia, combined with his Islamic world view, shows a man with the method, means, and motivation to set back the US War on Terror for years to come.

If he really was targeting NAF DG, there's no reason why he shouldn't have been shot down; since 9/11, it is official USG policy to shoot down a passenger jet in such a scenario.  But why admit that they did, when it turned out to be so easy to leave everything a big mystery?

UPDATE FEBRUARY 2019:
Well, the search has been called off--critically, without EVER searching in what this 60 Minutes investigation says is the most likely final resting place of the plane.

Dispensing with the Ambulance

I've made several forays into the field of textual criticism where it involves cybertexts, so I'll not bother to trace how this particular version of an old poem developed into what you see here, other than to say that this scribe made an alteration or two of his own before passing it on. This poem was published at least as early as 1912, and is usually attributed to Joseph Malins, who titled it, The Fence or the Ambulance." An ambulance, back in 1895 when he reportedly wrote it, was a glorified battle wagon drawn by a team of horses.

The Ambulance Down In The Valley

'Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,
Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant;
But over its terrible edge there had slipped
A duke, and full many a peasant.

The people said something would have to be done,
But their projects did not at all tally.
Some said, "Put a fence 'round the edge of the cliff,"
Some, "An ambulance down in the valley."

The lament of the crowd was profound and was loud,
As their hearts overflowed with their pity;
But the cry for the ambulance carried the day
As it spread through the neighboring city.

A collection was made, to accumulate aid,
And the dwellers in highway and alley
Gave dollars or cents - not to furnish a fence -
But an ambulance down in the valley.

"For the cliff is all right if you're careful," they said;
"And if folks ever slip and are dropping,
It isn't the slipping that hurts them so much
As the shock down below - when they're stopping."

So for years (we have heard), as these mishaps occurred,
Quick forth would the rescuers sally,
To pick up the victims who fell from the cliff,
With the ambulance down in the valley.

Said one, to his peers, "It's a marvel to me
That you'd give so much greater attention
To repairing results than to curing the cause;
You had much better aim at prevention.

For the mischief, of course, should be stopped at its source,
Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally.
It is far better sense to rely on a fence
Than an ambulance down in the valley."

"He's wrong in his head," the majority said;
"He would end all our earnest endeavor.
He's a man who would shirk his responsible work,
But we will support it forever.

Aren't we picking up all, just as fast as they fall,
And giving them care liberally?
A superfluous fence is of no consequence,
With an ambulance down in the valley."

The story looks queer as we've written it here,
But things oft occur that are stranger;
More humane, we assert, than to succor the hurt
Is the plan of removing the danger.

The best possible course is to safeguard the source,
Attending to things rationally.
If we build up the fence, we might almost dispense
With the ambulance down in the valley.

Another month, another post

Here in the USA we recently passed the 51st anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy. There's always a bit of news coverage every year, but especially on the big anniversaries. I may be a bit behind the times, as I'm just now getting back to it, a year after the big 50.

It's been over seven years since my previous post on the topic of Kennedy assassinations, and in the interval the internet has filled with material on both JFK assassinations--more videos than one person can keep up with. But I have been doing some viewing--and reading--and coming to a clearer picture of what may have, or may not have, happened.

Anyway, I've been thinking about the idea that Lee Oswald fired, in less than six seconds, three bullets from a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano 91/38 in the direction of the Presidential motorcade, striking the President with two of them.

Ballistic tests proved that this was possible. Not easy, not even likely--just possible. One thing, then, is certain: if there was a concerted plan to shoot AND kill the President that day in Dallas, it is impossible that Oswald was the only gunman. As lone-wolf assassination attempts on both Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan have shown, even a semi-automatic weapon at short range is unlikely to put even a single bullet into a President's body. Oswald was not at short range, and did not have a semi-automatic weapon. His chances of hitting the president even once were very small; twice, infinitesimal--and it was only the third shot that killed the President.

If there was a concerted effort to kill the President, there was at the very least one other gunman--who was much closer to the President than Lee Oswald. In fact, I strongly doubt that any sort of organized effort would have had any fewer than three men with a bead on the President as he entered Deally Plaza.

If Oswald was a lone wolf, he was not only a remarkable marksman, he was incredibly lucky. He had one chance to shoot the President, and he was able to get three shots off--the maximum possible with that gun in that amount of time. Furthermore, he connected squarely with the second shot--then fatally with the third. And, the range to the target was farther and farther with each shot. As range increased, his effectiveness increased!

So why, a few minutes later, would he have expended three rounds at point-blank range into Dallas policeman J. D. Tippit--and then require a fourth shot directly to the head to kill him? There goes the remarkable marksman theory.

The conclusion that Lee Oswald was acting alone--that he, on a whim, took a junk rifle up six floors, stood at a window, and hit a six-inch-diameter moving target over 100 yards away not once, but twice--is simply preposterous.

Therefore, the Warren Commission was wrong. How could the Commission be wrong? Well, they used the FBI and the CIA as their investigators. The FBI and the CIA must have provided them false information.

I leave it to the reader to draw his own conclusions.

Oh, one more thing. I don't recommend that Ben Carson run for president. It's clear that the office of the president is only a position that can be filled--or at least held--by a puppet. Break free of the strings, and see what happens.

ADDENDUM MARCH 2017
Well, well. This little article hadn't attracted much attention--only 57 views in the two and a quarter years it's been up (perhaps due to having such an innocuous title)--but I return now to admit, to anyone whose hap may be to pass this way in the future, that I'm quite sure I was wrong in that last paragraph. Donald J. Trump is no puppet. Now, whether he dies peacefully after having served out a full term--that remains to be seen.