-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:47:54 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ALTERED EVIDENCE by Jim Sanders ==> A Comment & Some Speculation I normally would have gotten around to reading a book like Altered Evidence before now, but this has been a heck of a winter with putting a contract on a new home being constructed in the SFO Bay Area (East Bay -- East Dublin), getting the house in the Dallas area ready for sale, and the usual tax busy season demands. I wish I had read it when it first came out in very late 1999. Anyone interested in the loss of TWA800 will be really interested in this book. Amazon has it for $14 (plus whatever shipping charges there are). AIM has it for sale (I believe) at a somewhat lower price ($12.95?). The book tells two related stories -- 1) a really good update on the evidence of a government cover-up in connection with the loss of TWA800 (and per force, information supporting the claim that one, probably two, missiles, brought the aircraft down, missiles that could have come from US Navy vessels in the area). 2) a detailed accounting (with a good historical/legal background as well) of the events leading up to the indictments of Jim Sanders and his wife, the pre-trial maneuvering, the trial itself, and the imposition of sentence. There is also an excellent chapter of Altered Evidence in which Sanders shreds many of the factual claims made by Patricia Milton, an AP reporter who recently wrote In The Blink of an Eye, a book that espouses the government line on the crash. I found a couple of items in the book of particular personal interest (in addition to the rewarding experience of reading the book generally). In connection with the evidence of a second missile hit (detonating more forward and lower relative to TWA800 than the other missile, which itself passed through the fuselage forward of the right wing, moving upward from right to left), Sanders makes the point that the Navy could have been expected to have a nearby launching platform dedicated to attempting to shoot down the missile being tested in case the test missile guided in a direction other than the one planned (presumably southward within W-105). This observation struck me because I made a similar comment to CDR Donaldson (TWA800.com) some months ago without any knowledge that Sanders was going to make the same point. I also indicated that the required launch timing and the attack geometry re the second missile would be such that without a lot of luck and achieving a very optimistic low launch reaction interval, the second missile would end up guiding on TWA800 rather than the first missile since the second missile would likely not be able to intercept the first missile before it either hit or closely approached TWA800. The ideal position for the location of the vessel launching what Sanders terms "the back stop missile" would have been between the first missile's launching platform and the area needing the most protection. This would place the "protective" launching platform to the north of the other launching platform, closing to the southern shore of Long Island and near or under the main E-W flight corridors there. Sanders wonders why the first missile (the test missile) took a northerly trajectory rather than a southerly one. One obvious possible explanation (of several) is that the guidance instructions loaded into the missile real time had an error (perhaps as simple at the difference between the true bearing of the target at the time of launch versus its relative bearing (relative to the bow of the lunching vessel) if the launching vessel were crusing slowly back and forth on a more of less E-W line. Another possibility is that the launching platform engaged the southbound target too soon, generating an intercept solution for a location in the vicinity of TWA800 (the targeet presumably being a modified BGM Firebee or similar drone launched southbound from a position near the southern shore of Long Island (from an aircraft like a C-130 or a P-3 -- I prefer the latter -- so equipped). The above is aggressive speculation, but it would not be unusual for the missile being tested to acquire the much larger object, such as TWA800 if, contrary to plan, a much larger object came within angular range of the weapons sensors. More speculation would suggest that the intercept missile was a modernized version of the Sea Sparrow BPDMS, possibly carried (as a two-pack) in the VLS of an Aegis Cruiser or DDG-51 Class Burke destroyer. That is, a significantly smaller weapon than the test missile. Given some of the other evidence that has surfaced in the unoffiial investigations, it is perhaps more possible that the "backstop" missile was a modern Stinger missile instead of a Sea Sparrow launched from the ship in question (though a Stinger's chances of intercepting the test missile in an emergency would be even less than that of a Sea Sparrow unless the Stinger launch platform was quite close tot he ground track of TWA800, a modern Stinger has the range, IMHO, to reach TWA 800). Sanders expresses the possibility that the launch platform for the test missile was a submarine. Sanders apparently likes the SSN-21 Seawolf as the launching platform for the test missile, but I doubt that could be corret since Seawolf, the lead ship of its class was not commissioned until July 1997 or so; also in these situations, one would not want to tie up the lead ship of a class -- with lots of operational systems tests to perform across the board -- with such a narrow mission. (Within this admittedly speculative scenario) I would prefer an SSN-688 of SSN-688I class submarine (Losa Angeles or Improved Los Angeles Class). They are relatively numerous and relatively modern and would be the preferred platform (cf. SSN021 even if she were available) for tests of a CEC missile (the speculative BQM Firebee would be simulating a stealthy or semi-stelathy cruise missile with th object of the exercise being its destructions by the CEC systemts employed on the ships, submariines, and aircraft in the exercise area). The other point that Sanders makes that struck me personally: Though he speculates that the launch platform for the CEC (Co-operative Engagement Capability) system (guiding the missile) was a submarine, he does not appear to understand why a submarine (heretofore a ridiculous vessel to mount anti-aircraft missiles) would make an excellent launch platform in the CEC context. A sub-launched anti-air weapon in the CEC environment would typically get all its targeting data from other CEC equipped platforms, such as surface ships and, more importantly, aircraft. That data would be sent to the sub, presumably proceding as covertly as possible at low speed at a location inshore of the battle fleet (or troopships) being targeted by the enemy cruise missile and on the anticipated threat axis. All that would need to break the surface would be a small (semi-stealthy) radio antenna -- much smaller than a periscope. Unless the enemy was possessed and was operating a relatively sophisticated ASW capability, the submarine (submerged except for 2-3 feet of narrow antenna) would be hard to detect -- certainly much harder to detect than a surface vessel. I note in passing that if the Navy screwed two things up -- what Sanders refers to as the "backstop missile" as well as the (larger) test missile BOTH intercepted TWA800 -- there would be much more government incentive for a cover up than one missile going astray under vey unusual circumstances. Futhermore, though the supersonic passage of the test missile (instrument package not a warhead assumed in place, but a sizable missile, perhaps a modified SM-3 that fits nicely in the VLS tubes of one of the SSN-688 classes modified to carry a VLS system -- originally for cruise and anti-shipping missiles) through the fuselage at the point in question would very likely have brought down TWA800 by iteslf, any small chance the aircraft had (in this speculative scenario) was eliminated a coupla seconds later by the detonation of the "backstop missile's" warhead near the underside of the fuselage in the area of the forward landing gear. While the government does have legitimate security interests in protecting a potential nenemy from acquiring useful information about the US's emerging CEC capability (both re cruise missiles, sea-skimming anti-ship missiles, and theatre ballistic missiles), if the general scenario put for ward by people like Jim Sanders and CDR Donaldson is correct, it's completely obvious that the cover-up had not one iota to do with national security, but with protecting various actors in the USG (perhaps, as the situation evolved, more so those involved in the cover-up rather than those involved in the shootdown itself which was doubtlessly a negligent -- perhaps grossly negligent -- act, not a criminal one). The main thing I can say about the book that is negative: it could have used another draft and/or a closer editing. That said, it is plenty clear enough and a revelation (even for someone like me) to read. The book also refers the reader to a web site, primarily in connection with the photographs that the government did not bar Sanders from releasing to the public (many of the photos he took in connection with his indictment were barred from public release by the government according to the book). Warm regards, Hugh Sprunt ================================================================= Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day. ================================================================= <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
