JFK Jr obtained forecasts for his flight under conditions suitable for visual flight rules. He then departed on a dark night when the horizon was invisible because of haze, and thus it was necessary to fly on instruments. He was not instrument qualified, having only completed half the training course. Other pilots had changed their plans because of the conditions. The flight of the aircraft was consistent with spatial disorientation of the pilot, and it eventually crashed into the sea. It was recovered and "examination of the airframe, systems, avionics, and engine did not reveal any evidence of a preimpact mechanical malfunction."
My vote is for accident, he clearly voluntarily put himself and his passengers into a dangerous situation which he was not equipped to handle, the result is tragic but unsurprising, and there is no indication of anything else.
John Hankey has released a film on this called The Assassination Of JFK Jr. Tried to find it on google video for you but no luck. _________________ There is no squabbling so violent as that between people who accepted an idea yesterday and those who will accept the same idea tomorrow.
from where you will see that the Coast Guard reported that JFK Jr contacted the tower as he started his descent to land at Martha's Vineyard (the news report is included in the vid). However the NTSB report makes no mention of this at all which is strange given the supposed exhaustive nature of the investigation). And also from the NTSB report :-
Quote:
FLIGHT RECORDERS
The airplane was equipped with a Flightcom Digital Voice Recorder Clock, DVR 300i. The unit contained a digital clock, was wired into the radio communications circuits, and could record conversations between the airplane and other radio sources, ground, or air. The unit was voice activated, and the continuous loop could record and retain a total of 5 minutes of data. The unit had a nonvolatile speech memory that required a 9-volt backup battery to preserve the speech data. When the unit was located in the wreckage, it was crushed, its backup battery was missing, and it had retained no data.
Now instead of normal civilian actions taking place when a plane falls below 100 feet or doesn't land after reporting into the tower, the FAA was replaced by the Pentagon as the main source of information and the Pentagon had no idea where the plane could be - despite the report of the coastguard from the TV. So their search took place over the entire route of the flight. And this charade continues for many hours. Why would the Pentagon do this? Why did they not want a search to take place in the area that the plane "accidentally" crashed in? Or wasn't it really an accident?
So either someone made up the fact that the Kennedy plane contacted the tower - and also picked exactly the correct time it would have happened - or else various parties are complicit in lies, namely the Pentagon, the media, the NTSB and the FAA.
Hankey's theory is even more barking than most conspiracy theories, involving as it does:
A CIA "mind control program" so effective it can make people commit suicide. (why not use it for 9/11 then?)
The active co-operation of the CIA, Coast Guard, the Pentagon, the USAF, the US Navy, the FAA and all the media.
A certified flight instructor (CFI) who would never be reported missing.
A plan so flakey that any one of dozens of things could derail it, ie someone sees the CFI board the plane, JFK jr or any of his passengers mentions that a CFI is going with them, JFK jr reports that to Air Traffic Control or records it in any way, the US Navy fails to locate or recover the wreck in time, or any one of all the personnel involved blows the whistle at any stage.
Why not just shoot him? It worked for his father and uncle.
Hankey's theory is even more barking than most conspiracy theories, involving as it does:
A CIA "mind control program" so effective it can make people commit suicide. (why not use it for 9/11 then?)
The active co-operation of the CIA, Coast Guard, the Pentagon, the USAF, the US Navy, the FAA and all the media.
A certified flight instructor (CFI) who would never be reported missing.
A plan so flakey that any one of dozens of things could derail it, ie someone sees the CFI board the plane, JFK jr or any of his passengers mentions that a CFI is going with them, JFK jr reports that to Air Traffic Control or records it in any way, the US Navy fails to locate or recover the wreck in time, or any one of all the personnel involved blows the whistle at any stage.
Why not just shoot him? It worked for his father and uncle.
Once again you miss the main point and instead focus on the area which you are far more comfortable with, ridiculing other people's theories.
I am much more interested in the deliberately incorrect NTSB report, the complicity of the FAA in that error, the faithful lapdog media who forget the original report (but slavishly report every leak about JFK Jr's recklessness) and of course the Pentagon and why they delayed a proper search and rescue for all that time - and why they were involved at all.
Hankey's theory is even more barking than most conspiracy theories, involving as it does:
A CIA "mind control program" so effective it can make people commit suicide. (why not use it for 9/11 then?)
The active co-operation of the CIA, Coast Guard, the Pentagon, the USAF, the US Navy, the FAA and all the media.
A certified flight instructor (CFI) who would never be reported missing.
A plan so flakey that any one of dozens of things could derail it, ie someone sees the CFI board the plane, JFK jr or any of his passengers mentions that a CFI is going with them, JFK jr reports that to Air Traffic Control or records it in any way, the US Navy fails to locate or recover the wreck in time, or any one of all the personnel involved blows the whistle at any stage.
Why not just shoot him? It worked for his father and uncle.
Once again you miss the main point and instead focus on the area which you are far more comfortable with, ridiculing other people's theories.
I am much more interested in the deliberately incorrect NTSB report, the complicity of the FAA in that error, the faithful lapdog media who forget the original report (but slavishly report every leak about JFK Jr's recklessness) and of course the Pentagon and why they delayed a proper search and rescue for all that time - and why they were involved at all.
Ah silly me, thinking the main point was given by your thread title!
I see you now think the NTSB report was deliberately incorrect, having previously merely thought it strange - what has changed? Is it impossible that the Coast Guard misunderstood what the FAA told them, mistaking information about the radar contact for radio contact? What would be the point of suppressing the radio call, since radar confirmed where the plane was anyway?
The video strangely says the search was delayed 15 hours, but according to reports it started at 0730, it could not have started at night, of course.
Washington Post:
"Yesterday, a Kennedy family member reported the plane missing to the Coast Guard at about 2:15 a.m., officials said. After standard checks to see whether Kennedy had landed at another airport, the Air Force and the Coast Guard launched an intensive search at 7:30 a.m., fanning out 16 planes, four helicopters and several cutters along Kennedy's entire flight path.
Initially, there were reports that an underwater beacon was beeping off the coast of Long Island, and search teams began trying to sweep about 1,000 square miles of ocean. But the agencies focused their search to the north after a preliminary FAA analysis found that the plane disappeared from radar 17 miles southwest of the Vineyard. In the afternoon, debris from the plane – including carpet, a headrest, a pedal cover, a wheel and a strut, and a bottle of prescription drugs bearing Carolyn Kennedy's name – began to wash up near the town of Gay Head on the Vineyard, and the search focused on an area 10 to 15 miles south of the resort island."
The report of an underwater beacon near where he took off may explain why the whole route was initially searched.
It is not true to say, as the video does, that the Pentagon took control of news, the Coast Guard remained the lead agency and the video even shows Rear Admiral Larrabee USCG giving a briefing. The Washington Post quotes him and other USCG officers, and never mentions the Pentagon. LINK
So there was no great delay in starting a search, the Pentagon was not responsible for the search, the Air Force and Navy were simply assisting the Coast Guard.
Is it impossible that the Coast Guard misunderstood what the FAA told them, mistaking information about the radar contact for radio contact? What would be the point of suppressing the radio call, since radar confirmed where the plane was anyway?
Sounds impossible to me given that he gave the correct time for the call to have been made. Indeed the radar did confirm the location of the plane but that didn't convince them to do an initial search in that area either.
Bushwacker wrote:
The video strangely says the search was delayed 15 hours, but according to reports it started at 0730, it could not have started at night, of course.
I'm guessing first light is a lot earlier than 0730 in July - it is reported that the search was only undertaken after Ted Kennedy contacted Clinton. The radar information was available at 5am which showed the descent of the plane ......
Bushwacker wrote:
Washington Post:
"Yesterday, a Kennedy family member reported the plane missing to the Coast Guard at about 2:15 a.m., officials said. After standard checks to see whether Kennedy had landed at another airport, the Air Force and the Coast Guard launched an intensive search at 7:30 a.m., fanning out 16 planes, four helicopters and several cutters along Kennedy's entire flight path.
So they fanned out despite the fact that the FAA already knew the radar linked to the plane transponder and the fact that he had contacted the tower in preparation to land.
Bushwacker wrote:
The report of an underwater beacon near where he took off may explain why the whole route was initially searched.
Then again that may just have been made up as a story to give the press.
Bushwacker wrote:
It is not true to say, as the video does, that the Pentagon took control of news, the Coast Guard remained the lead agency and the video even shows Rear Admiral Larrabee USCG giving a briefing. The Washington Post quotes him and other USCG officers, and never mentions the Pentagon. LINK
This is from later on - the Pentagon seemed to be fronting the story in the early hours.
Bushwacker wrote:
So there was no great delay in starting a search, the Pentagon was not responsible for the search, the Air Force and Navy were simply assisting the Coast Guard.
There was significant delay in searching in the right location - and a reluctant search altogether.
So from the video we have one genuine unexplained anomaly, the USGC said that he spoke to the Martha's Vineyard control tower, but the FAA say they have no record of that.
Then we have one outright lie about the search being delayed 15 hours, and one misrepresentation, that the Pentagon took over news management, which they did not, they were simply briefing alongside the Coast Guard, who remained the main agency throughout.
I suspect that the information given about an automated low altitude alert is also misleading. The FAA say this: "LOW ALTITUDE ALERT SYSTEM- An automated function of the TPX-42 that alerts the controller when a Mode C transponder equipped aircraft on an IFR flight plan is below a predetermined minimum safe altitude. If requested by the pilot, Low Altitude Alert System monitoring is also available to VFR Mode C transponder equipped aircraft." As we know, JFK jr was on VFR, so would have had to request the monitoring, it would not happen automatically as is said. Since the FAA say he did not speak to them, clearly they were not monitoring his height.
Your comment that they were not searching the right location is unsupported, the reports indicate they were searching a large area at first, then later concentrating on the smaller correct area. Do you have any evidence that it was a reluctant search?
So from the video we have one genuine unexplained anomaly, the USGC said that he spoke to the Martha's Vineyard control tower, but the FAA say they have no record of that.
Then we have one outright lie about the search being delayed 15 hours, and one misrepresentation, that the Pentagon took over news management, which they did not, they were simply briefing alongside the Coast Guard, who remained the main agency throughout.
I suspect that the information given about an automated low altitude alert is also misleading. The FAA say this: "LOW ALTITUDE ALERT SYSTEM- An automated function of the TPX-42 that alerts the controller when a Mode C transponder equipped aircraft on an IFR flight plan is below a predetermined minimum safe altitude. If requested by the pilot, Low Altitude Alert System monitoring is also available to VFR Mode C transponder equipped aircraft." As we know, JFK jr was on VFR, so would have had to request the monitoring, it would not happen automatically as is said. Since the FAA say he did not speak to them, clearly they were not monitoring his height.
Your comment that they were not searching the right location is unsupported, the reports indicate they were searching a large area at first, then later concentrating on the smaller correct area. Do you have any evidence that it was a reluctant search?
Well he contacted the tower so at 9.39pm "they" knew where he was. By 5am they had the radar information which pinpointed the area where he came down. There should have been an emergency beacon also. So in multiple ways, they knew the plane was missing and they knew where the plane came down. Yet no search was commenced until 7.30am? Does that not sound reluctant to you?
And then they went across the whole flight path. Does that not sound reluctant to you?
And Roark, when answering a reporter's question about the radar information, insisted that it was not conclusive and that they would continue searching in the same way. Does that not sound reluctant to you?
And the search in the correct location was delayed 15 hours. It is not a lie.
So from the video we have one genuine unexplained anomaly, the USGC said that he spoke to the Martha's Vineyard control tower, but the FAA say they have no record of that.
Then we have one outright lie about the search being delayed 15 hours, and one misrepresentation, that the Pentagon took over news management, which they did not, they were simply briefing alongside the Coast Guard, who remained the main agency throughout.
I suspect that the information given about an automated low altitude alert is also misleading. The FAA say this: "LOW ALTITUDE ALERT SYSTEM- An automated function of the TPX-42 that alerts the controller when a Mode C transponder equipped aircraft on an IFR flight plan is below a predetermined minimum safe altitude. If requested by the pilot, Low Altitude Alert System monitoring is also available to VFR Mode C transponder equipped aircraft." As we know, JFK jr was on VFR, so would have had to request the monitoring, it would not happen automatically as is said. Since the FAA say he did not speak to them, clearly they were not monitoring his height.
Your comment that they were not searching the right location is unsupported, the reports indicate they were searching a large area at first, then later concentrating on the smaller correct area. Do you have any evidence that it was a reluctant search?
Well he contacted the tower so at 9.39pm "they" knew where he was. By 5am they had the radar information which pinpointed the area where he came down. There should have been an emergency beacon also. So in multiple ways, they knew the plane was missing and they knew where the plane came down. Yet no search was commenced until 7.30am? Does that not sound reluctant to you?
And then they went across the whole flight path. Does that not sound reluctant to you?
And Roark, when answering a reporter's question about the radar information, insisted that it was not conclusive and that they would continue searching in the same way. Does that not sound reluctant to you?
And the search in the correct location was delayed 15 hours. It is not a lie.
But what you are doing is putting together all the information that is now available about what happened, eliminating anything else that might have misled the Coast Guard at the time, and saying this is what they knew. That may not have actually been the situation at all, at the time. Searching a wider area might well have appeared the right thing to do. If you are suggesting that the correct area was not searched at all until later, for whatever reason, that needs to be substantiated. It seems to me that what Hankey is doing is the old conspiraloon trick of manufacturing artificial anomalies to add to the one genuine one he has unearthed.
So from the video we have one genuine unexplained anomaly, the USGC said that he spoke to the Martha's Vineyard control tower, but the FAA say they have no record of that.
Then we have one outright lie about the search being delayed 15 hours, and one misrepresentation, that the Pentagon took over news management, which they did not, they were simply briefing alongside the Coast Guard, who remained the main agency throughout.
I suspect that the information given about an automated low altitude alert is also misleading. The FAA say this: "LOW ALTITUDE ALERT SYSTEM- An automated function of the TPX-42 that alerts the controller when a Mode C transponder equipped aircraft on an IFR flight plan is below a predetermined minimum safe altitude. If requested by the pilot, Low Altitude Alert System monitoring is also available to VFR Mode C transponder equipped aircraft." As we know, JFK jr was on VFR, so would have had to request the monitoring, it would not happen automatically as is said. Since the FAA say he did not speak to them, clearly they were not monitoring his height.
Your comment that they were not searching the right location is unsupported, the reports indicate they were searching a large area at first, then later concentrating on the smaller correct area. Do you have any evidence that it was a reluctant search?
Well he contacted the tower so at 9.39pm "they" knew where he was. By 5am they had the radar information which pinpointed the area where he came down. There should have been an emergency beacon also. So in multiple ways, they knew the plane was missing and they knew where the plane came down. Yet no search was commenced until 7.30am? Does that not sound reluctant to you?
And then they went across the whole flight path. Does that not sound reluctant to you?
And Roark, when answering a reporter's question about the radar information, insisted that it was not conclusive and that they would continue searching in the same way. Does that not sound reluctant to you?
And the search in the correct location was delayed 15 hours. It is not a lie.
But what you are doing is putting together all the information that is now available about what happened, eliminating anything else that might have misled the Coast Guard at the time, and saying this is what they knew. That may not have actually been the situation at all, at the time. Searching a wider area might well have appeared the right thing to do. If you are suggesting that the correct area was not searched at all until later, for whatever reason, that needs to be substantiated. It seems to me that what Hankey is doing is the old conspiraloon trick of manufacturing artificial anomalies to add to the one genuine one he has unearthed.
What you are doing is relentlessly excusing bizarre behaviour by government agencies. Surely this "genuine anomaly" deserves some follow-up by the "proper" media so that low-budget guys like Hankey don't have to do it? Instead they slavishly report that Kennedy was a reckless fool and that is the impression that everyone is left with long after the bungled search is forgotten.
The radar data was ready at 5am, the call was made to the tower - the search didn't start until 7.30am, how could they possibly take so long to get started and then search in the wrong area? Have you watched part 4 of the video where the reporter tries to press Roark on the radar data and he is evasive and states that it is not conclusive and they will carry on searching in the wide area? Does that substantiate it for you?
So from the video we have one genuine unexplained anomaly, the USGC said that he spoke to the Martha's Vineyard control tower, but the FAA say they have no record of that.
Then we have one outright lie about the search being delayed 15 hours, and one misrepresentation, that the Pentagon took over news management, which they did not, they were simply briefing alongside the Coast Guard, who remained the main agency throughout.
I suspect that the information given about an automated low altitude alert is also misleading. The FAA say this: "LOW ALTITUDE ALERT SYSTEM- An automated function of the TPX-42 that alerts the controller when a Mode C transponder equipped aircraft on an IFR flight plan is below a predetermined minimum safe altitude. If requested by the pilot, Low Altitude Alert System monitoring is also available to VFR Mode C transponder equipped aircraft." As we know, JFK jr was on VFR, so would have had to request the monitoring, it would not happen automatically as is said. Since the FAA say he did not speak to them, clearly they were not monitoring his height.
Your comment that they were not searching the right location is unsupported, the reports indicate they were searching a large area at first, then later concentrating on the smaller correct area. Do you have any evidence that it was a reluctant search?
Well he contacted the tower so at 9.39pm "they" knew where he was. By 5am they had the radar information which pinpointed the area where he came down. There should have been an emergency beacon also. So in multiple ways, they knew the plane was missing and they knew where the plane came down. Yet no search was commenced until 7.30am? Does that not sound reluctant to you?
And then they went across the whole flight path. Does that not sound reluctant to you?
And Roark, when answering a reporter's question about the radar information, insisted that it was not conclusive and that they would continue searching in the same way. Does that not sound reluctant to you?
And the search in the correct location was delayed 15 hours. It is not a lie.
But what you are doing is putting together all the information that is now available about what happened, eliminating anything else that might have misled the Coast Guard at the time, and saying this is what they knew. That may not have actually been the situation at all, at the time. Searching a wider area might well have appeared the right thing to do. If you are suggesting that the correct area was not searched at all until later, for whatever reason, that needs to be substantiated. It seems to me that what Hankey is doing is the old conspiraloon trick of manufacturing artificial anomalies to add to the one genuine one he has unearthed.
What you are doing is relentlessly excusing bizarre behaviour by government agencies. Surely this "genuine anomaly" deserves some follow-up by the "proper" media so that low-budget guys like Hankey don't have to do it? Instead they slavishly report that Kennedy was a reckless fool and that is the impression that everyone is left with long after the bungled search is forgotten.
The radar data was ready at 5am, the call was made to the tower - the search didn't start until 7.30am, how could they possibly take so long to get started and then search in the wrong area? Have you watched part 4 of the video where the reporter tries to press Roark on the radar data and he is evasive and states that it is not conclusive and they will carry on searching in the wide area? Does that substantiate it for you?
No, that is simply a pretence that there is bizarre behaviour, when it is not. The guy says that until they are quite positive about the crash area, they will continue to look wider, which seems very sensible.
No, that is simply a pretence that there is bizarre behaviour, when it is not. The guy says that until they are quite positive about the crash area, they will continue to look wider, which seems very sensible.
So ignoring accurate radar data pinpointing a location for the crash in favour of looking for a needle in a haystack is "very sensible". That's lame, even for you. Make a choice, staggering incompetence or more something more sinister? Because I know that even in a small country like NZ, if a flight goes missing after contacting the tower in preparation to land they will start searching for it as soon as they can and they won't search the whole flightpath.
No, that is simply a pretence that there is bizarre behaviour, when it is not. The guy says that until they are quite positive about the crash area, they will continue to look wider, which seems very sensible.
So ignoring accurate radar data pinpointing a location for the crash in favour of looking for a needle in a haystack is "very sensible". That's lame, even for you. Make a choice, staggering incompetence or more something more sinister? Because I know that even in a small country like NZ, if a flight goes missing after contacting the tower in preparation to land they will start searching for it as soon as they can and they won't search the whole flightpath.
As we know, whether the tower was contacted or not is in question, the FAA who man the tower say not, the Coast Guard said the FAA had told them yes, at the time. The primary purpose of a search must be to rescue anyone left alive, and it makes sense not to rule out possible options until you are quite sure.
What it truly lame is constructing a whole bizarre theory of an invisible unknown mind-controlled CFI on the basis on no evidence apart from a belief that the search could have been better conducted.
No, that is simply a pretence that there is bizarre behaviour, when it is not. The guy says that until they are quite positive about the crash area, they will continue to look wider, which seems very sensible.
So ignoring accurate radar data pinpointing a location for the crash in favour of looking for a needle in a haystack is "very sensible". That's lame, even for you. Make a choice, staggering incompetence or more something more sinister? Because I know that even in a small country like NZ, if a flight goes missing after contacting the tower in preparation to land they will start searching for it as soon as they can and they won't search the whole flightpath.
As we know, whether the tower was contacted or not is in question, the FAA who man the tower say not, the Coast Guard said the FAA had told them yes, at the time. The primary purpose of a search must be to rescue anyone left alive, and it makes sense not to rule out possible options until you are quite sure.
What it truly lame is constructing a whole bizarre theory of an invisible unknown mind-controlled CFI on the basis on no evidence apart from a belief that the search could have been better conducted.
Have you seen documentary evidence of the FAA who man the tower saying "not". Do you have that?
If the primary purpose of a search is to rescue anyone alive then why was the radar data present at 5am, but the search only started at 7.30am?
What is truly lame is that you have got so accustomed to defending a Government position that you cannot even criticise them slightly leading to the ridiculous comment about it being sensible to ignore the radar data which exactly pinpointed where the plane came down. I do believe whatever shred of credibility you were clinging to has been truly washed away.
No, that is simply a pretence that there is bizarre behaviour, when it is not. The guy says that until they are quite positive about the crash area, they will continue to look wider, which seems very sensible.
So ignoring accurate radar data pinpointing a location for the crash in favour of looking for a needle in a haystack is "very sensible". That's lame, even for you. Make a choice, staggering incompetence or more something more sinister? Because I know that even in a small country like NZ, if a flight goes missing after contacting the tower in preparation to land they will start searching for it as soon as they can and they won't search the whole flightpath.
As we know, whether the tower was contacted or not is in question, the FAA who man the tower say not, the Coast Guard said the FAA had told them yes, at the time. The primary purpose of a search must be to rescue anyone left alive, and it makes sense not to rule out possible options until you are quite sure.
What it truly lame is constructing a whole bizarre theory of an invisible unknown mind-controlled CFI on the basis on no evidence apart from a belief that the search could have been better conducted.
Have you seen documentary evidence of the FAA who man the tower saying "not". Do you have that?
If the primary purpose of a search is to rescue anyone alive then why was the radar data present at 5am, but the search only started at 7.30am?
What is truly lame is that you have got so accustomed to defending a Government position that you cannot even criticise them slightly leading to the ridiculous comment about it being sensible to ignore the radar data which exactly pinpointed where the plane came down. I do believe whatever shred of credibility you were clinging to has been truly washed away.
The NTSB report stated that the FAA had no record of any contact between the plane and ATC after take-off. Why the Coast Guard said he had spoken to the Martha's Vineyard Tower is the only unexplained feature or the whole incident.
You keep saying that radar data was available, but there was no confirmation that it was of JFK's plane. Despite the claim in the video that the plane transponder would indicate the plane's ID on the radar plot, the reported conversation between ATC and AA1484 shows that was not the case. ATC knew only that it was some plane operating under VFR, not its identity.
The search starting at 7.30am involved 16 planes, four helicopters and several Coast Guard cutters. These would have taken some time to assemble.
As I have said, initially there were reports that an underwater beacon was beeping off the coast of Long Island, which you simply dismiss as possibly a made up story to give the press, but which explains perfectly well why the whole route was searched, until the radar information was verified.
The Coast Guard thought their primary purpose was rescue, even if you do not.
Quote:
Not long after the skies grew dark with a second day's setting sun, a Coast Guard admiral declared an end of hope tonight that John F. Kennedy Jr., his wife or her sister could be found alive in the waters that swallowed their aircraft Friday night.
"We did everything we possibly could to find survivors from this incident," Rear Adm. Richard M. Larrabee told reporters about 9:45 p.m., declaring a shift of focus from "search and rescue to search and recovery" in support of a federal investigation of the cause of the crash.
Describing a telephone conversation with the next of kin of Kennedy and of Carolyn and Lauren Bessette, Larrabee added: "It was a very difficult phone call for me, and I'm sure it was much more difficult for them. We're in the business of saving lives. . . . This is not the result we were looking for."
In a final bow to the mysteries of Providence, or perhaps only to soften the blow, Larrabee emphasized that he had not called a halt to extensive search efforts and "if something were to turn up, we're going to be out there, we're going to know it, so I don't want to characterize it as something we have stopped doing."
Sorry, but it is very clear that the idea that the Coast Guard, the FAA, the USAF, the NTSB, the CIA and the Pentagon all colluded in causing or covering up the death of JFK jr is simply not supported by any evidence you have produced, and the theory put forward about his death is ludicrous beyond belief. That will naturally not stop you believing it.
You said you were interested in views from all parties, so there is mine.
No, that is simply a pretence that there is bizarre behaviour, when it is not. The guy says that until they are quite positive about the crash area, they will continue to look wider, which seems very sensible.
So ignoring accurate radar data pinpointing a location for the crash in favour of looking for a needle in a haystack is "very sensible". That's lame, even for you. Make a choice, staggering incompetence or more something more sinister? Because I know that even in a small country like NZ, if a flight goes missing after contacting the tower in preparation to land they will start searching for it as soon as they can and they won't search the whole flightpath.
As we know, whether the tower was contacted or not is in question, the FAA who man the tower say not, the Coast Guard said the FAA had told them yes, at the time. The primary purpose of a search must be to rescue anyone left alive, and it makes sense not to rule out possible options until you are quite sure.
What it truly lame is constructing a whole bizarre theory of an invisible unknown mind-controlled CFI on the basis on no evidence apart from a belief that the search could have been better conducted.
Have you seen documentary evidence of the FAA who man the tower saying "not". Do you have that?
If the primary purpose of a search is to rescue anyone alive then why was the radar data present at 5am, but the search only started at 7.30am?
What is truly lame is that you have got so accustomed to defending a Government position that you cannot even criticise them slightly leading to the ridiculous comment about it being sensible to ignore the radar data which exactly pinpointed where the plane came down. I do believe whatever shred of credibility you were clinging to has been truly washed away.
The NTSB report stated that the FAA had no record of any contact between the plane and ATC after take-off. Why the Coast Guard said he had spoken to the Martha's Vineyard Tower is the only unexplained feature or the whole incident.
You keep saying that radar data was available, but there was no confirmation that it was of JFK's plane. Despite the claim in the video that the plane transponder would indicate the plane's ID on the radar plot, the reported conversation between ATC and AA1484 shows that was not the case. ATC knew only that it was some plane operating under VFR, not its identity.
The search starting at 7.30am involved 16 planes, four helicopters and several Coast Guard cutters. These would have taken some time to assemble.
As I have said, initially there were reports that an underwater beacon was beeping off the coast of Long Island, which you simply dismiss as possibly a made up story to give the press, but which explains perfectly well why the whole route was searched, until the radar information was verified.
The Coast Guard thought their primary purpose was rescue, even if you do not.
Quote:
Not long after the skies grew dark with a second day's setting sun, a Coast Guard admiral declared an end of hope tonight that John F. Kennedy Jr., his wife or her sister could be found alive in the waters that swallowed their aircraft Friday night.
"We did everything we possibly could to find survivors from this incident," Rear Adm. Richard M. Larrabee told reporters about 9:45 p.m., declaring a shift of focus from "search and rescue to search and recovery" in support of a federal investigation of the cause of the crash.
Describing a telephone conversation with the next of kin of Kennedy and of Carolyn and Lauren Bessette, Larrabee added: "It was a very difficult phone call for me, and I'm sure it was much more difficult for them. We're in the business of saving lives. . . . This is not the result we were looking for."
In a final bow to the mysteries of Providence, or perhaps only to soften the blow, Larrabee emphasized that he had not called a halt to extensive search efforts and "if something were to turn up, we're going to be out there, we're going to know it, so I don't want to characterize it as something we have stopped doing."
Sorry, but it is very clear that the idea that the Coast Guard, the FAA, the USAF, the NTSB, the CIA and the Pentagon all colluded in causing or covering up the death of JFK jr is simply not supported by any evidence you have produced, and the theory put forward about his death is ludicrous beyond belief. That will naturally not stop you believing it.
You said you were interested in views from all parties, so there is mine.
I have not stated what I do or do not believe - it is you who always resort to the childish use of the words "conspiraloon" or "troofer". Unlike yourself I like to approach things with an open mind. Your dismissal of the report of tower contact is the key to the whole episode, without that report the film would not have been made - yet there it is, in golden technicolour on the big screen. So let's summarise :-
1. Report from coastguard of radio contact with the tower. He gets the time exactly right, it would have been the exact time in his flight when JFK Jr would have contacted the tower and why the hell would the coastguard say it if it wasn't true? If it did happen then the NTSB is lying in collusion with the FAA, the Coastguard, the Air Force and the Pentagon. There is the evidence .....
2. Unattributed report of beacon off Long Island. What happened to JFK's beacon? To the battery inside his CVR?
Given the huge amount of press coverage of his death, doesn't this look like just the story for an investigative journalist to sink his teeth into?
You have an open mind? - You have to be joking! You have consistantly ignored anything that does not fit in with the theory, such as the evidence of the CFI who said Kennedy told him he wanted to fly alone, the sighting of only the recorded passengers at the aircraft, the Long Island beacon, the ATC conversation with the AA flight. As usual with conspiraloons (which I have not called you before) you are picking evidence that can be made to fit in with a preconceived theory and ignoring anything that does not. You dismiss the Long Island beacon story as unattributed, but accept as gospel the contact with the tower, equally unattributed since we do not know who told the Coast Guard spokesman about it.
JFK's beacon would be under water, where if it worked at all, the range would be very limited. These things are by no means infallible, Steve Fossett has not yet been found, for instance. There was extensive damage to everything in the cockpit, as expected in a high speed crash, the GPS system also lost its volatile memory.
Why do you expect an investigative reporter to look into the matter? Surely you believe that all the media were complicit, along with the Coast Guard, the FAA, the USAF, the NTSB, the CIA, the Pentagon and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all? Probably the Kennedy family as well, since they seem to have failed to use their enormous influence. And of course the Bisset family, who made a claim from the Kennedys.
You dismiss the Long Island beacon story as unattributed, but accept as gospel the contact with the tower, equally unattributed since we do not know who told the Coast Guard spokesman about it.
Well riddle me this one, BW.
1. Why did the coastguard state there was radio contact if there wasn't?
2. How did he pick the exactly correct time for the radio contact to take place if it didn't actually happen?
That should be pretty easy for you.
Bushwacker wrote:
Why do you expect an investigative reporter to look into the matter? Surely you believe that all the media were complicit, along with the Coast Guard, the FAA, the USAF, the NTSB, the CIA, the Pentagon and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all
Exactly. That's one of your better summaries. Because the coastguard was correct and the NTSB is lying - that is the only conclusion a person of good sense can draw.
This is almost a test case for 9/11 and all the deceptions of that treacherous day. I know you always like to use the "well surely all of these people couldn't have been in on it" line to justify the many physical impossiblities of that day (oh and your favourite of the OCT being "more likely" as if that has any relevance). But the more you look into 9/11, the more you realise that many many agencies and people are complicit and that the world is a nasty place. I wish it wasn't, I have no "need" to believe 9/11 was an inside job, it provides me no comfort and has often kept me awake at night.
You dismiss the Long Island beacon story as unattributed, but accept as gospel the contact with the tower, equally unattributed since we do not know who told the Coast Guard spokesman about it.
Well riddle me this one, BW.
1. Why did the coastguard state there was radio contact if there wasn't?
2. How did he pick the exactly correct time for the radio contact to take place if it didn't actually happen?
That should be pretty easy for you.
Bushwacker wrote:
Why do you expect an investigative reporter to look into the matter? Surely you believe that all the media were complicit, along with the Coast Guard, the FAA, the USAF, the NTSB, the CIA, the Pentagon and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all
Exactly. That's one of your better summaries. Because the coastguard was correct and the NTSB is lying - that is the only conclusion a person of good sense can draw.
This is almost a test case for 9/11 and all the deceptions of that treacherous day. I know you always like to use the "well surely all of these people couldn't have been in on it" line to justify the many physical impossiblities of that day (oh and your favourite of the OCT being "more likely" as if that has any relevance). But the more you look into 9/11, the more you realise that many many agencies and people are complicit and that the world is a nasty place. I wish it wasn't, I have no "need" to believe 9/11 was an inside job, it provides me no comfort and has often kept me awake at night.
1. Why did the coastguard state there was radio contact if there wasn't?
I don't know, but it sounds like a simple breakdown in communications between the two agencies. We have heard recently in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes how there was a complete failure of communications even within one agency, with tragic consequences.
2. How did he pick the exactly correct time for the radio contact to take place if it didn't actually happen?
Perhaps part of the communication failure. Someone at the FAA says, "We saw a radar track at 9.39 that might have been him on his final descent" but by the time the message reaches the USCG spokesman it has become "there was a last communication with him at 9.39 on his final descent"
If you think this was all something sinister, answer me this, why did the FAA, complicit in the murder, tell the Coast Guard this crucial piece of information, and why did the Coast Guard, complicit in the murder, tell the media? The plotters must have known right away how important it was to supress this evidence, but allowed it to be broadcast the next day at 12.35pm, after they had ample time to kill the story?
Interestingly, the information about the emergency beacon at Long Island, which you suggest might have been a made-up story to give the press, also came from Todd Burgun! LINK
I have to give credit to the makers of the video, they have at least done what no 9/11 "researcher" has yet done, they have produced a theory that at least attempts to take in most of the relevant details, although they have as usual to resort to misrepresentations to attempt to support it. However, it is a theory so ludicrous, with so many obvious holes, that you find it embarassing and prefer not to talk about it.
You happily embrace the idea that "all the media were complicit, along with the Coast Guard, the FAA, the USAF, the NTSB, the CIA, the Pentagon and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all" which is very telling. Financial controls in organisations have long operated on the idea that having one person in sole control is inherently dangerous, but the internal check of having two people involved, needing collusion to behave dishonestly, makes it safe. You and other believers in conspiracies ignore this completely, you simply do not see a problem in bringing in any number of fellow conspirators, because "the world is a nasty place" The fact is that these agencies are composed of people, and if they are all involved a large number of them would know about it, and could earn themselves fame and fortune by exposing the plot. If there were plotters, they simply could not risk that.
You say that you have no need to believe conspiracies, and to do so keeps you awake at night. There is in fact nothing odd about that, very many people throughout history have worried themselves sick over irrational beliefs that they would have been more comfortable without. This is quite irrelevant to the truth of those beliefs, obviously.
The word "complicit" can cover a large scale of involvement. It doesn't mean that everyone knows exactly what is going on, just that it may be in someone's "best interest" not to talk about something that happened. Your explanation for a possible reason why the coastguard said what he said is tenuous in the extreme but I do appreciate that you take the trouble to answer sensibly. I sense we have about exhausted this topic now.
You are right about films trying to explain what happened on 9/11 - anything suggested sounds just as ridiculous as the official impossible tale. But it doesn't make the official impossible tale any more likely. It is still impossible. It is your right to believe this impossible tale in the absence of a convincing alternative but that is rather like believing in Father Christmas because "surely all those parents can't be simultaneously lying"
It is your right to believe this impossible tale in the absence of a convincing alternative but that is rather like believing in Father Christmas because "surely all those parents can't be simultaneously lying"
What are you trying to say here KP50 ?
Are you seriously suggesting that there has been a global parental conspiracy to deceive their own children ?
For crying out loud, get a grip !
Especially at this time of year, folk have shopping to do and chimneys are being swept as we speak.
Disgraceful. _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
The word "complicit" can cover a large scale of involvement. It doesn't mean that everyone knows exactly what is going on, just that it may be in someone's "best interest" not to talk about something that happened. Your explanation for a possible reason why the coastguard said what he said is tenuous in the extreme but I do appreciate that you take the trouble to answer sensibly. I sense we have about exhausted this topic now.
You are right about films trying to explain what happened on 9/11 - anything suggested sounds just as ridiculous as the official impossible tale. But it doesn't make the official impossible tale any more likely. It is still impossible. It is your right to believe this impossible tale in the absence of a convincing alternative but that is rather like believing in Father Christmas because "surely all those parents can't be simultaneously lying"
You are right, I think we have got about as far as we can go with the JFK jr case. Like many things in life, there are unsatisfactory loose ends left unexplained, and they permit different speculation.
On 9/11, we obviously differ on whether the official theory is impossible or not. I do not accept it because I think it is the least implausible of various alternatives, I accept it because it seems to me to be consistent with all the available evidence, and a convincing explanation, while the objections to it put forward do not withstand examination. However, we shall just have to continue to differ on that.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
