-Caveat Lector-
On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Bill Kingsbury wrote:
>>
>>I've seen this assertion in various emails for a couple of days now, but
>>no one ever gives the name of the reporter, what news outlet reported
>>this, WHEN they reported, etc.
>
> The reporter's name was apparently
> never given to the public :
[snip]
> You could ask Vineyard Gazette :
>
> phone: 508-627-4311
> mail: P.O. Box 66, Edgartown, MA 02539
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> web: http://www.mvgazette.com
_I_ am not the one disseminating hearsay as gospel truth.
It should be those who are desseminating this story regarding the
supposed flash seen by the supposed reporter who should be calling the
Gazette to find out the name of this reporter, and perhaps get a FIRST
HAND account of what he claims he saw, instead of depending on 3rd hand
hearsay that would be inadmissable as evidence in a court of law....
> Jamie Gaspar, spokesman for Martha's Vineyard Airport,
> told UPI that "someone was at the airport to pick up the
> passengers on the plane, but it never arrived."
Again, why wasn't the alert raised THEN?
>>I find it very suspicious...first, that a reporter would conveniently be
>>in the area to witness this, and yet no one else in the area seems to
>>have noticed it....
>
> "Reportedly," at least four other people also DID notice;
> they "SAW and HEARD an explosion in the air" :
Reported by whom? Why don't we have the NAMES of these 4 people? Why
haven't we seen them on the media, giving their version of what they
claim to have seen...
Again, these supposed witnesses are only told about in what can be
described as second-hand, if not third-hand, accounts -- legally,
hearsay, and would be inadmissable as evidence in a court of law.
> Several local news reports
Where we are conveniently never given the names of these media outlets...
> initially (reported) that several people
Who are conveniently never named.
Hearsay.
>>One would think that the Martha's Vineyard air control personnel would
>>have taken notice of a bright flash, especially when Kennedy's plane
>>didn't land....
>
> The airport may not be near that part of the island...
The island's not all that big...and one would think the air control tower
would have a 360 degree view....
Also doesn't explain why the one verified witness, who HAS been named
(altho I don't have the New York TImes article at hand), saw no flash but
DID report seeing the plane disappear without a sound...
> Was the fisherman near Philbin Beach, or on the other side of
> the island ?
He apparantly was near enough to the airport to state the plane was
coming from a direction commonly used by pilots who missed their first
approach and circle around to make another approach...he saw the plane
after it was finishing a curved direction and straightened out, and it
was shortly thereafter that he says that it 'disappeared'...
So one would presume he was fairly close to the airport if the plane's
direction straightened out in anticipation of making a 2nd landing
approach....
>Did he specify the exact time of his sighting ?
I believe he stated it was around 9:40, but the NYT article would have
the details...unfortunately, I'm currently without a web browser, so I
don't know if they have it online or not...
But this is moot, if the report of a flash is blatant disinformation, and
never happened...
> Did he see a different plane - and not the Kennedy plane?
> Without time and location specifics, this report is not useful.
He was in the vacinity of the airport at the general time Kennedy was due
to land.
That doesn't prove that the plane he saw was Kennedy's, but his account
remains the one that has the most validity, because it was reported on in
the first hours of the search and rescue and his name is given in the NYT
article...
So his is a firsthand account, which WOULD be admissable as evidence in a
court of law, while the flash of light version is inadmissable hearsay...
> The currently- alleged crash site, and radar results, indicate
> Kennedy NEVER reached the island, and therefore the reports of
> appearing to "circle for a second landing attempt" may possibly
> be either bogus, or referring to a different plane.
Or perhaps the alleged crash site and radar results are what are indeed
'bogus'...after all, it took them a day and a half to come up with this
radar which they're presenting to the public as 'this shows Kennedy's
plane'...no, it is radar of A plane, possibly Kennedy's, possibly someone
else's, possibly radar tapes created from whole cloth...
What they can't explain away is that if they had these radar tapes
Saturday morning, why were we being told at that time that searchers had
no idea WHERE Kennedy went down, and so were conducting a search that
included all of Long Island Sound, and the Atlantic south of Long Island
ranging westwards back to NJ?
> Also, perhaps the "circling plane" was an "attack craft"
> (possibly a Piper Saratoga, also) -- which was waiting with
> an anti-personnel laser to blind its assigned target.
> Possibly the fisherman witnessed this plane turning off
> its lights to assume "stealth attack mode."
Perhaps. Any speculation beyond what he attests he saw and heard with
his own eyes and ears is just that...speculation...
> Perhaps all passengers were blinded by a "blinding device."
That wouldn't stop at least one of them being able to radio that they
were in distress.
> Kennedy would have been disoriented -- obviously he lost
> control of the airplane --
Only to you. To the rest of us who are assessing what the authorities
are spoon feeding the public, it is NOT obvious what exactly happened.
> attempt radio contact -- and he couldn't even see his radio
> if he was blinded.
It would only have been a few inches away, on the 'dashboard', and able
to be activated by feel alone...
I'd imagine that the cockpit is fairly dark at night, anyways...
> Also, radios can be jammed.
But not selectively...jamming would have affected ALL radio communication
in the area, which would have readily been noticeable to an island
community.
>>When the supposed evidence is CRITICALLY analyzed, we really don't have
>>PROOF that they even made it to Martha's Vineyard...
>
> That's what the official reports are now indicating....
And you obviously unquestioningly accept everything officials tell you.
You must also then believe in the unfailing validity of the Warren
Commission Report...
>>But then suddenly the Martha's Vineyard airport 'remembers' they talked
>>to Kennedy when he was only a few miles out from the island...why then
>>didn't they alert the authorities to that 'fact' early on?
>
> Friday night is party night, and as things were going slow,
> they went outside for a smoke -- and someone put GHB in
> their diet coke ?
>
> Or, someone used NLP + hypnosis to convince them they'd
> already reported the incident ?
>
> Something smells very fishy...
This is the crux of what makes this whole thing questionable to me...no
good explanation as to why the Vineyard airport refused to act on a
missing airplane on Friday night, and especially why they let the rescue
missions roam far and wide most of Saturday because they didn't know
where to look...the Vineyard airport should have at least on Saturday
morning have said "Hey guys, we talked to John-John last night, he must
have gone down in the vacinity of the Vineyard....'
> Which plane was that ?
As in the radar tapes, a plane PRESUMED to be Kennedy's...
> Perhaps a prowling laser attack craft ?
Or perhaps Kennedy's...
The eyewitness only saw one plane, flying parallel with the ocean, albeit
only 40 feet up...he does NOT report seeing or hearing a plane in a nose
dive....
> I doubt the 'blinding flash' was visible from the airport,
Why not? They SHOULD have a 360 degree FOV....
> and the person who reported it did not (then) know of any
> missing plane.
But someone, especially a reporter, should have thought it indicated
SOMETHING awry...and a reporter especially should have then called
authorities, especially the airport, and asked if there had been any
aircraft accidents....
And where was this reporter Saturday morning, when it was being reported
that no one knew even where Kennedy's flight path had been, let alone
where he may have gone down...why didn't he report his blinding flash of
light then?
Why are you so willing to accept 3rd hand hearsay? With no names
even given?
> Since he (and the flash) was not near the
> airport, he (apparently) did not have a reason to report it
> to the airport.
But it was in the sky, hence presumably an aircraft...unless he believes
in UFOs...
> (Or, perhaps he actually did report it...)
Which then brings us back to the airport not alerting searchers early on
to the most likely location that Kennedy went down, until more than 12
hours had elapsed...so it would seem that 'someone' had a vested interest
in making sure that search and rescue was diverted AWAY from the
Vineyard, at least for a period of time...
> reporter was subsequently "gotten to" (by the CIA?) -- and
> "told" to change his story...
Without a name for this reporter, anything stated as 'the truth' about
him is in fact bullshit.
As far as I'm concerned, until this guy comes forward and is willing to
tell his story in person and have his name attached to it, he doesn't
even exist, and what he is purported to have seen is just disinformation.
> Why don't you contact the Vineyard Gazette
> for the "real" story ?
Again, because _I_ am not the one disseminating 3rd hand hearsay which
would have no validity in a court of law as the gospel truth. Since YOU
seem so enamored of this piece of disinformation, it is YOUR job to
substantiate it.
Why AREN'T you contacting the Gazette, if you really believe this 'flash
in the sky' fairytale?
June
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
revcoal AT connix DOT com
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*
It is UNLAWFUL to send unsolicited commercial email to this email
address per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227. I assess a fee of
$500.00 US currency for reading and deleting such unsolicited commercial
email. Sending such email to this address denotes acceptance of these
terms. My posting messages to Usenet neither grants consent to receive
unsolicited commercial email nor is intended to solicit commercial
email.
*========================================================================*
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! 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 credeence 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
