-Caveat Lector- Reply to: http://deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=685111440&fmt=text ====================================================================== > The Alt.Disasters.Aviation FAQ **DRAFT VERSION 2** > 2.1.5) What about the surface vessels on the RADAR tapes? > > Contributed by Dr. George O. Bizzigotti > > The Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization (FIRO) argues that > there were over 30 ships steaming at high speed in the area of the TWA > 800 crash. I did a little bit of work this past weekend, and provide > here a few questions concerning that assertion; it will be interesting > to see if FIRO addresses these questions at today's news conference. > > FIRO have posted a graphic: > > http://flight800.org/shp_ln.gif > > that shows the purported tracks of 35 surface vessels and aircraft; > there's an inset showing another 4 tracks, for a total of 39, all > identified as a result of radar data. > > FIRO has simply assigned certain tracks as "surface vessels," without > explaining some interesting aspects of radar. It appears to be well > established (see, for example, "Communications Standard Dictionary, > 2nd ed.," M. Weik, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1989) that one > can readily calculate a "radio horizon," the distance beyond which > radar cannot "see." In these calculations, one uses an effective earth > radius, which is defined as the radius of a hypothetical earth for > which the distance to the radio horizon, assuming rectilinear > propagation, is the same as that for the actual Earth with an assumed > uniform vertical gradient of atmospheric refractive index. For the > standard atmosphere, the effective Earth radius is 1.33 times that of > the actual Earth radius, or 5269.67 statute miles (4/3 x 3,952 miles). > One can then calculate the distance to the radio horizon using the > formula: > > (distance to radio horizon) squared = (effective earth radius) squared > + (effective earth radius + antenna elevation) squared > > In the case of the ISP data, the antenna elevation is the altitude of > Long Island Mac Arthur Airport (ISP), ca. 100 ft MSL, plus the height > of the antenna, approximately 30 ft AGL. Setting the total antenna > height of 130 feet gives the radar horizon of the antenna, 14.0 > nautical miles (nm). Using a similar equation, one can calculate the > radar horizon from the top of a ship's mast. adding the two radar > horizon values together gives the maximum distance at which the ISP > radar can possibly reach the ship. > > Let's begin with the largest warships in the world; the US Navy's > Nimitz class aircraft carriers have a published keel to mast height of > 244 feet, approximately 210 feet of which is above the waterline. > Thus, the radio horizon for a carrier is 17.8 nm, and it can be seen > by a 110 foot high radar from no more than 31.8 nm away. Any further, > and the radio waves cannot reach the ship. By my count, 21 of the > objects identified as surface vessels (and one aircraft) on > http://flight800.org/shp_ln.gif are further than 31.8 nm from ISP, the > longest range at which ISP ought to be able to "see" even an aircraft > carrier. > > Using readily available photographs, one can estimate that the Navy's > Aegis cruisers are approximately 160 feet tall above the waterline. > Thus, they have a radio horizon of 15.6 nm, and can be seen by 130 > foot high radar from no more than 29.6 nm away. Similarly, one can > estimate that the Navy's Arleigh Burke class destroyers and Oliver > Hazard Perry class frigates are approximately 140 feet tall above the > waterline. These have a radio horizon of 15.6 nm, and can be seen by > 130 foot high radar from no more than 28.6 nm away. > Three of the ships identified on http://flight800.org/shp_ln.gif are > between 29.6 and 31.8 nm from ISP; to be seen on radar, they could > only be Nimitz class carriers. Two of the ships identified on > http://flight800.org/shp_ln.gif are between 28.6 and 29.6 nm from ISP; > to be seen on radar, they could only be Aegis cruisers or Nimitz class > carriers. This leaves 9 of the surface vessel radar tracks that could > possibly be any Naval ship as big as or larger than a frigate. > > One should also note that these are the theoretical maximum ranges for > detection. Three major effects will decrease the "real" radio > horizons: > > - There are 20 foot sand dunes on Fire Island, which is between 9.5 > and 11 nm from ISP in the direction covered by > http://flight800.org/shp_ln.gif. The radar's radio horizon is 14 > miles, meaning that in some directions the radar waves could be > blocked by the dunes. This effectively reduces the antenna height by > up to 20 feet, and could reduce the maximum detections distances to > 30.7 nm, 28.5 nm, and 27.5 nm. > > - Structures can block radar propagation. I've checked maps and seen the > area from the air; there is a residential neighborhood along Lincoln, > Coates, and Grundy Avenues to the southeast of ISP, so there are plenty of > Structures and large trees between the radar and the area covered by FIRO's > analysis. Moreover, much of this area is slightly higher than the airport; > topographical maps indicate that there is a rise east of Grundy Avenue > (approximately 1.3 nm SE of the center of ISP) that is 10-15 feet higher > than the airport elevation. A row of good-sized houses and large trees > along that rise could limit the radio horizon even further. Also, note that > structures do not necessarily have to be directly in between the radar and > the target to interfere; radar beams often include significant energy in > side lobes. All of this is responsible for "ground clutter," which is > particularly severe when one is searching for objects at low elevation. I > have insufficient data to quantitate how this will effect the range of the > ISP radar for detecting ships, but these effects will work to decrease that > range. > > - The structures at the tops of the ships are comparatively small. On > the Aegis class, it's approximately 160 feet above the waterline to > the tip of the mast, but about 100 feet to the top of the solid > structures; the radar horizon decreases from 28.6 nm to 26.3 nm if > only the radar returns off the solid walls are detectable. > > In sum, it would appear impossible for the ISP radar to detect surface > vessels at the ranges of most of the FIRO tracks. Certainly, FIRO > should have provided some explanation of why conventional radar > horizon considerations would not apply in this case. In the absence of > such an explanation, I would suggest that FIRO's designation of these > 22 tracks as "ships" calls into question their assignment of radar > tracks to most of the "other" ships as well. > > I would propose an alternative explanation for many of the tracks. > According to their figure, most of FIRO's "ship tracks" were moving at > speeds between 12 and 22 knots. NTSB Exhibit 22A indicates that the > winds aloft on 17 July 1996 ranged from 12 knots at 1,000 feet to 21 > knots at 16,000 feet in directions ranging from 270 to 335 degrees > (from out of the west to north-northwest). Over 20 of the identified > tracks are moving in this general direction at speeds that match the > observed wind speed. Sensitive radars can receive strong signals from > refractive index inhomogeneities, insects, and large dust particles in > an apparently clear atmosphere, as well as from clouds. If present on > 17 July 1996, such features would appear to be moving between 12 and > 21 knots out of the west to north-northwest at altitudes that could be > seen by the ISP radar. Note also that many of FIRO's arrows are less > than 1 nm long; if this reflects the length of the "track" this would > be more consistent with natural phenomenon (which might persist for a > few minutes only) than with a warship (which ought to keep reflecting > radar signals as long as it's in view). > > FIRO makes a rather bold statement as part of their web site: > > "The RADAR data indicates that over 30 surface vessels and cooperating > aircraft ignored a tragedy that took the lives of 230 individuals. The > FBI has allegedly determined the identity of all but one nearby > surface vessel. It is now imperative that an explanation for the > inhumane behavior of so many fast, large, surface vessels is explained > by the investigating agencies, which allegedly accounted for these > vessels, recording appropriate interviews." > > I would suggest that it is imperative for FIRO to explain the > following: > > - how they could use the radar data to identify _at least_ 21 ships > beyond distances at which the radar should be capable of illuminating > something as large as an aircraft carrier, at least using standard > principles of radio wave propagation? > > - how they can be certain that the many tracks moving between at the > same speed and direction as the wind were not caused by natural > atmospheric phenomena such as refractive index inhomogeneities, > insects, large dust particles, or clouds.? > > Moreover, they probably ought to have provided such explanations > _before_ they made allegations of inhumane behavior. > > No one disputes that _some_ ships and aircraft were in the vicinity > when TWA 800 exploded; the FBI and NTSB have stated that from the very > beginning. However, the number of ships actually observed would appear > to be insufficient to support conclusions of massive Naval exercises, > and FIRO's analysis is insufficient to support any increase in that > number. Unfortunately, despite extraordinarily weak evidence, "massive > Naval exercise on 17 July 1996" seems to have become an article of > faith among certain TWA 800 posters. IAN: Important definitions for readers: a radar "blip" refers to a single radar return, a radar "track" refers to a series of blips indicating the motion of an object in space. The radar tacks in question can be seen here: http://www.Flight800.org/shp_ln.gif To answer the key questions that Bizzigotti raises: (1) How could ships beyond the radar horizon of the radar facility be tracked? Temperature inversion. When the first limited block of radar data was released by the NTSB, Commander Donaldson argued that the radar- track furthest out to sea had to be around 70 feet high... ergo it must be a large ship. The FBI countered that there was a temperature inversion that night causing radar beams to follow the curve of the Earth, so you can't calculate the height of a vessel by assuming the radar beams propagated along a straight line. The curvature of the radar beams parallel to the Earth's curved surface is why the larger body of radar data tracks vessels over 30 miles out to sea. (2) Dr Bizzigotti asks: how can FIRO know that the radar tracks are not caused by things other than surface vessels? The NTSB identified some of the radar tracks in question shown in Exhibit 13A (attachment IV-5) as "consistent with the speed of a boat" (page 5) and James Kallstrom admitted that three tracks were Navy vessels on classified maneuvers. [*] So we have examples of what surface vessels look like on radar, and they look like All the relevant tracks in the larger body of radar data: http://Flight800.org/shp_ln.gif . However, Dr Bizzigotti's listing of other phenomena he suggests might produce similar radar tracks is not supported by an example of what those phenomena actually look like on radar. As such it's clear that the "surface vessel" interpretation of the radar tracks is the only interpretation supported by any corroborating evidence. Furthermore, the FBI cited the Privacy Act to hide the identities of several of the "boats" tracked on radar, so if, as Bizziggotti suggests, those tracks are bugs or particles of dust, why would the identities of those bugs or particles of dust be a matter of National Security? The easiest explanation is that those radar tracks close to shore (and probably others) are what Kallstrom admitted they were: Navy vessels on classified maneuvers. [*] There are additionally many reasons why we should not expect the radar tracks to be things like bugs or dust carried by the wind. For one thing, if radar sensitively was so acute that dust and bugs could be consistently detected, radars would be virtually useless for Air Traffic Control because the operators ATC screen would be a field of noise with a return for every particle of dust and bug in the hundreds of square miles of radar coverage, which could conceivably include millions of individually tracked entities. All the radar tracks identified by FIRO as boats are exactly like those radar tracks in the NTSB data known to be surface vessels. None of the tracks have been shown to be like any other phenomena. See: 30 Vessels Ignore a Tragedy http://Flight800.org/flotilla.htm [*] Tracks are Navy vessels: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/irvine.htm ===================================================================== In quick review; ADA FAQ 2.1.3 asks: "Who is Cmdr. Donaldson? Can his results be taken at face value?" George Bizzigottli's answer faults Bill Donaldson for trying to ignite jet fuel below the flammable temperature, but Bizzigotti doesn't mention that Donaldson DOES heat jet fuel to temp in his second video: http://twa800.com/realaudio/jeta_cooker.ram . Bizzigotti also argues that if Donaldson gets paid for any of his Flight 800 efforts, he has an incentive to ignore official findings. Well, FBI and NTSB officials are also paid, and by the Govt, and thus they have incentive to ignore evidence that may implicate the Govt... we'll probably have to stick to just examining F800. In ADA FAQ 2.1.5, Dr Bizzigotti speculates that the red residue on seat cushion material from the crash was sediment from the seabed. The FBI argues that it is adhesive. I'm not aware of an analysis of sediment, but a side-by-side elemental analysis of the red residue Sanders acquired vs the adhesive the FBI says the residue is shows that they are not similar, which obviously confounds the FBI's claim: http://Flight800.org/comparison.html I have not examined the red-residue issue closely and I don't know what the residue is, but the FBI sure went all out to suppress any information about it and access to it. Sanders states that an explosives expert says it is consistent with explosives residue from a current-generation incendiary warhead. For more information on the residue: http://Flight800.org/res.html ===================================================================== > 2.1) TWA 800 > > 2.1.1) Is it possible there has been a cover-up? > >Contributed by John Mazor > >Let's admit that it is possible that the NTSB was bamboozled or >subverted by higher feds. Okay, what does that get you? "It's >a possibility." You have proven nothing. In that vein, it's >possible that aliens have been living among us for millennia, >shaping human history and destiny. However, I'm not going to >invest much time or energy or emotional capital in possibilities >such as "Hitler and Stalin were aliens inserted by Zygorthians >to promote human advancement through the advancements in >technology that the pressure cooker of war provides. And so >were three lead scientists in the Manhattan Project." IAN: So if there is not 100% absolute proof for theory X, then theory X is equally probable as Hitler and Stalin being extraterrestrials. If that were true, then investigation and science would not be possible, because there could be no way to select one theory over another. Fortunately it's not true. The only possible dispute over the matter of a cover-up in the Flight 800 crash is not "if" but why critical evidence is being kept out of the hands of independent investigators. Already several members of the official investigation have reported evidence tampering in the official investigation. In one case a senior NTSB official, Hank Hughes, stated before the Senate that FBI agents removed evidence from the hanger without notification (other insiders have reported surreptitious evidence removal by the FBI). Hughes also testified that agents tried to flatten bent wreckage, and even "stuck knives and screw into seat back which destroyed any chance of trajectory analysis." He also testified that he found seat cushions in a dumpster (gee, where those the cushions with the residue that vanished from the hanger?). Hughes also said passenger's clothing was put into a common large bag, cross contaminating any chemical residue on one item of clothing to others. Standard investigative protocol dictates that articles of clothing are kept separate, dried, and then individually wrapped and stored in butcher paper. Instead the wet clothes of Flight 800 victims were dumped in a big bag where they were eventually destroyed by mold! See some details: http://judiciary.senate.gov/51099f9.pdf Others in the official investigation have reported alterations and disappearances of evidence, such as a large piece of wing with holes punched in from the outside that disappeared after going to FBI hq: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/coverup6.htm The fact that the government is being sued to comply with the Freedom of Information Act and release known evidence proves that there's a cover-up: http://Flight800.org/FBI_COMP.htm http://Flight800.org/ntsb_comp.htm . We can argue over what's being cover-up, or why it's being cover-up, but the fact is that a great deal of important evidence is being covered-up. The indicated definition of "cover-up" in Webster's College Dictionary (Random House) is: "any act, stratagem, or other means of concealing or preventing investigation or exposure." ------------------------------------------------------------ GODDARD'S JOURNAL: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/journal.htm ____________________________________________________________ Asking the "wrong" questions, challenging the Official Story <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions 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, CTRLgives 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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== 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
