Jim Fetzer: The Strange Death of Paul Wellstone

[Len Colby]

The “sudden cut-off of communications” solved!!!

Fetzer of course makes a big deal about the lack of a distress call which he misleadingly calls a “cessation”, “loss” or “cut off” of “communications” and normally throws in adjectives like “abrupt” or “complete” for dramatic effect. This misleadingly gives the impression communication was cut off midsentence or that further communication from the plane was expect which it was not.

He says this “cut off” “appears to be” “the key to understanding the crash” and it is the crash’s “most salient feature” (Chapter 5, pgs. 78 – 9 1st Ed.). But all he has is the lack of a distress call.

But IF there was a distress call, there is a good chance no one would have heard it.

The last communication between Wellstone’s plane and Duluth ATC (air traffic control) was as follows:

Michael Guess (co-pilot) 1018:31 –“Left three hundred on the heading and thirty five hundred till established cleared for the VOR runway two seven approach at Eveleth ah four one bravo echo”

[i.E. he was confirming the heading given by ATC asking for permission to begin the approach to Eveleth Municipal Airport (EVM).]

Duluth ATC 10:19:12 - "King Air one-bravo-echo, change to advisory frequency approved; advise cancellation of IFR with the Princeton flight service when on the ground." [ATC expected no further communication till AFTER the plane had landed, the controller told Guess to “change to advisory frequency” i.e. to EVM’s frequency]

Guess 10:19:20 - “Roger that we’ll contact Princeton on the ground four one bravo echo good day”

ATC –“Good day”

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2003/Eveleth/Eveleth_Board_Meeting_IIC.pdf pgs. 11 - 14

That was the last communication between the Duluth tower and the plane but not the last communication from the plane (as Fetzer leads his readers to believe). Guess (or Conry) as directed by ATC and SOP switched to Eveleth’s frequency and “made a normal and routine radio contact (with Gary Ulman the airport’s general manager). He was about seven miles* out from the airport and checked for clearance to land. There was nothing unusual about their request; no note of alarm in their voices, he (Ulman) said. Ulman then went outside to “move some planes around and do some chores.”

He was gone several minutes and when he went back inside the Duluth airport tower was calling about” the Wellstone plane which was long over due. Ulman “was working a one-man shift”

http://www.grandrapids-mn.com/placed/index.php?story_id=123600&view=text

“As he walked back to the hangar, Ulman heard a pinging sound over the airport's sound system, an indication that the pilot had used a remote-control device to turn up the runway lights in preparation for landing.”

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1608/3391866.html

Ulman, the only person at the airport to whose frequency the plane’s radio was tuned to, was outside at the time of the crash and thus is unlikely to have heard an SOS IF one had been made.

I said IF one had been made because, as I pointed out on in a previous post, it is common for there to be no distress calls before crashes involving stalls even when there are 3 pilots more experienced and qualified that Conry in the cockpit.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=4542&view=findpost&p=39616

Len

*Presumably Guess (or Conry) told Ulman they were 7 miles out, this corresponds with their position when Guess signed off from Duluth. [see the NTSB link above pg. 15]

[Peter McKenna]

[

The “sudden cut-off of communications” solved!!!

I am a fairly new reader of this forum, but can't help but be completely and wholely entertained by the ping pong match filling these 19 pages so prolifically.

After having read Mr. Fetzer's diatribes, I can only comment that there are seldom so many conclusions supported by so little evidence. While the Wellstone crash may indeed be a topic for investigative journalism to tug upon, Mr. Fetzer should spnd more time in investigation and less in reporting. Of particular entertainment value is the claim that the plane was done in by an EMP. The facts to support this particular claim do not appear and this claim sets my regard, at best, as highly skeptical.

Also, so much time is spent in critical review that I wonder to what end does this particular argument lead? I don't spend a fraction of this energy trying to explain things to my kids.

Maybe I'm missing the salient points of this topic, but if there is justification for suspicion of foul play, you may want to start over.

[Len Colby]

The senior editor of online news at Minnesota Public Radio, Bob Collins, is a pilot. He reports that a flew to Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport (EVM), the same one Wellstone was heading to, a week after the crash and that following the navigational beacon (VOR) he “ended up in the same spot Wellstone's pilots did -- looking out the window wondering where the heck the airport was and forgetting to keep track of what my airplane was doing”

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collectio...e_republi.shtml

Collin’s account is interesting because it is independent confirmation of the FAA’s findings that miscalibration of the airport’s beacon could lead pilots close to the crash site. Fetzer’s response was revealing in how it brought to light his poor research of the case. I brought this up on a Yahoo group dedicated to discussing the crash and was a bit surprised by the ignorance of the facts shown by Fetzer who has written several articles and a book and given several talks about the case and claims to have exhaustively researched it. He responded:

“…this guy…knows nothing about the case...Moreover, what he says about his piloting experience is rubbish. The beacon was only maringally out of alignment and even the NTSB acknowledged that it had nothing to do with the crash. So if he actually did what he claimed--followed the beacon and wound up at the crash site--then he must be a really bad pilot! There is no way that would be the outcome of doing what he claims he has done…

...the guy…cannot possibly have performed the feats he attributes to himself.”

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaims...NK/message/3104

He must have missed the following report during his ‘meticulous’ research:

"The day after the crash, FAA pilots tested the VOR. The inspection pilots reported to the NTSB that when they flew the approach without their automatic pilot engaged, the VOR repeatedly brought them about a mile south of the airport. In one written statement an FAA pilot told the NTSB that THE SIGNAL GUIDED HIM ONE TO TWO MILES LEFT OR SOUTH OF THE RUNWAY. That's the same direction Wellstone's plane was heading when it crashed."

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/feat...likm_wellstone/

But he really has no excuse because I brought this up here and at the Yahoo group while he was participating.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaims...NK/message/2192 and post 88 of this thread

Fetzer makes it sound like the NTSB came to a different conclusion than Collins and the FAA but that it not the case. Fetzer must also have missed the following when reading their report about the crash:

“…the pilots who conducted the October 2002 flight checks told Safety Board investigators that the VOR runway 27 approach took them approximately 1 mile south of the field when hand-flying the approach, but that it took them to the correct aiming point (the position from which a normal transition to landing can be made) when flown coupled to the autopilot.”

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/AAR0303.pdf pg 33

They concluded that the VOR was not a factor in the crash not that it couldn't have led an already off course pilot furthur astray.

For those of you not well versed in the issues regarding the crash, Wellstone’s plane was off course when it crashed. Fetzer says this is evidence evil forces led the pilots astray. More rational minds have speculated that the pilots became distracted while trying to find the airport which they were 2 miles south of at the time. For example Alan Palmer, the director of flight operations at the University of North Dakota's School of Aerospace Sciences, said:

"If they were that far off course, then that would have meant that the airport probably wasn't off of the nose of the airplane and having said that, maybe they started to look around for the airport and during that process of looking around, both pilots were looking and perhaps they forgot to fly the aircraft."

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/feat...likm_wellstone/ (same link as above)

So someone will have to dig up the coffin in which Fetzer’s theories about the crash were buried so that yet another nail can be pounded into it!

Peter McKenna wrote

I can only comment that there are seldom so many conclusions supported by so little evidence.

I’d rewrite that ‘That there are seldom so many conclusions supported by so little evidence and so thoroughly contradicted by the facts’

Peter Lemkin wote

well worth watching and pondering.....

Fetzer doesn’t saying thing here that he hasn’t said before, all of it (most of it at least) has been debunked on this thread.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Len Colby

[John Simkin]

Interesting article by Pat Williams on Paul Wellstone:

Do you remember the name Paul Wellstone? He was the United States Senator from Minnesota who five years ago this month was killed along with his wife Sheila, and daughter Marcia. They died in the crash of a small airplane while campaigning for Paul's re-election.

Paul and Sheila were friends of my wife Carol and I during the years I represented Montana in the U.S. Congress.

I still remember many of the eulogies, condolences, and media statements that were made about Paul following his tragic death. Although well-meaning, of course, many of those who commented about Paul frankly had him wrong. Too many described the late Senator as "Senator Softy," and "an innocent." The implications inherent in such remembrances of Paul were that he was an unproductive legislator, a likable dreamer"a sort of loveable mascot for the other senators. They attempted to portray him as a friendly but ineffective legislator. Wrong!

Paul was elected to the U.S. Senate eleven years after Montanans had elected me to the U.S. House. He and I found occasions to work together on trade bills, education, public lands issues"including wilderness"and we worked together, no, fought shoulder-to-shoulder on the critical matter of health care for middle income people.

I came to know Wellstone really well and trust this"he was no softyhe was tough. Perhaps it was from his days as a champion high school wrestler that Paul learned how to operate in close, using his leverage, and if needed, his elbows.

Wellstone's policy determinations and political skills had been forged during the turbulence of the 1960s"a decade as maligned as was Wellstone.

Those of us who came of age during those times were horrified but tempered and hardened by the assassinations of first President Jack Kennedy, then Martin Luther King and yet again with the killing of Bobby Kennedy. The lies of Nixon taught millions of us, including Wellstone, to develop tough questioning doubts about words sent down from on high by our elected leaders"a lesson we need in these times of presidential excess. The unnecessary tragedy of Vietnam turned millions of Americans, including Wellstone, firmly against empowering any president ever again with the authority to make undeclared war. You know, Wellstone was the only senator up for re-election to vote "no" on the Bush proposal to vest the power of war with himself alone. That vote took guts. And now five years later we understand that Paul Wellstone was right and those senators who went along to get along were wrong"tragically, expensively wrong.

Wellstone brought with him to the Senate the organizing political skills he learned in those 1960s. That was a time when the tools of campaigning were developed by the civil rights and cotton field organizers in the south and, up our way by the union organizers from the shop floors, the classrooms, and mine tunnels.

We remember how the 1960s seemed filled with scenes of young people going door-to-door for their cause or candidates, traveling the byways in their crowded buses. They, too, were belittled. Wellstone used those same techniques to win election and re-election. He even had an old beat up green bus in which he and his wife and kids traveled across Minnesota. He understood how to connect with common people"in their homes, in the farm fields, and union halls.

Nope, Paul Wellstone was not a naïve ideologue out there on the fringe who, like most of our candidates, depend upon the paid mercenaries to do their campaigning for them; rather Paul did it the difficult, old-fashioned way"he earned the votes one at a time door-to-door; looking people in the eye and sometimes telling them what they might not have wanted to hearbut needed to know.

During those days five years ago immediately following the deaths of Paul, his wife and daughter, it was interesting and predictable to listen to how carefully some of Wellstone's arch conservative fellow politicians chose their words, each strategically distancing themselves from his policy preferences by beginning their statements of condolences with words of separation: Utah's Senator Orin Hatch""Paul and I seldom saw eye-to-eye;" and Senator Jesse Helms""Despite the marked contrast between Paul's and my view" Yes, they may have been well-meaning, but nonetheless they and others of Paul's conservative colleagues carefully chose words of purposeful separation from this senator, who through the years they had methodically painted as a "fringe soft liberal." And one can't help but notice that during these past five years, the country seems to have forgotten about Paul. And trust this"that memory lapse is just fine with those who voted wrong on the war, wrong on health care, wrong on the environment, and wrong on the catastrophe that is global warming.

This strategy of forgetfulness is purposeful, count on it. It is part and parcel of the efforts to denigrate policy progressives as weak and ineffective. Such consistent but intentional tactics are a relatively recent phenomenon. After all, can anyone recall a claim that Jack Kennedy was weak, or that Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman were ineffective, or that Teddy Roosevelt was a softy? Each of them was the progressive, the liberal in their time.

Paul Wellstone, like the 1960s that forged him, believed the rights of people were higher than the rights of corporations. One has to be darn tough to hold that view! He understood that wholesale deregulation of the private sector would result, as it has, in the excessiveness of the drug companies, Enron and, closer to home, the old Montana Power Company. You know, it's easier not to do battle with those boys!

Those who marginalized Paul Wellstone in death as they did in life and now five years later dismiss him, have confused their own conceit with strength and Wellstone's productive determination with weakness.

Be sure of this: there are a lot of Paul Wellstone's out there--tough, progressive, independent thinkers, risk-takers, tired of the elite rich interests stacking the deck and lining their own pockets. And there are millions more just like them waiting, just waiting for a candidate, like Paul Wellstone, someone who is actually worth voting for.

http://www.counterpunch.org/williams10112007.html

[Len Colby]

Wellstone was the only senator up for re-election to vote "no" on the Bush proposal to vest the power of war with himself alone. That vote took guts. And now five years later we understand that Paul Wellstone was right and those senators who went along to get along were wrong"tragically, expensively wrong.

Thanks for that John. The US undoubtedly would be a better country if Wellstone had survived and if there were more people like him in the government.

There was a slight error in the essay though “Wellstone was” NOT “the only senator up for re-election to vote "no" on the Bush proposal to vest the power of war with himself alone”. Among the other senators joining Wellstone in voting against the use of force authorization were Dick Durbin (IL), Jack Reed(RI) and Carl Levin (MI) who were all up for reelection. Of the four however Wellstone was the only one facing a serious challenge, the others facing only token candidates. If those up for relection had voted against the resolution at the same rate as those who weren’t there would have been 5 more no votes. Bush still would have won but the victory would have been less lopsided.

[David G. Healy]

Len Colby' wrote and quoted:

[...]

They concluded that the VOR was not a factor in the crash not that it couldn't have led an already off course pilot furthur astray.

[...]

He must have missed the following report during his ‘meticulous’ research:

"they concluded.... not that it couldn't..."? Is that what Lone Nutters call covering your ass? LMFAO! Perhaps the FAA research wasn't as meticulous as YOU would like (and apparently do) to believe, eh?

[Len Colby]

This thread has been dead awhile but debate over the crash continued on again off again over at the Yahoo group where it started. Fetzer has failed as promised to respond to some points so I'm posting them here.

He has a tendency to "practice special pleading by citing only evidence on one side" For example he never acknowledged the following in any of his writing or comments about the incident.

- Richard Conry, the pilot told a close friend he had difficulty

flying and especially landing King Airs, the model of plane involved in

the crash.

- Michael Guess, the co-pilot, was fired from his only previous piloting

job, flying a single engine plane for a sky dive company, for

incompetence.

- Conry's widow said her husband told her the other pilots at the

charter company thought Guess was a poor pilot.

Here's my reference for the one about Guess being fired

http://www.startribune.com/politics/11758266.html

The 1st and 3rd come from the interview summaries

http://www.startribune.com/style/news/politics/wellstone/ntsb/252886.pdf\

?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUec7PaP3E77K_0c::D3aDhUiacyKUUr://http://www.startribune.com/style/ne...:D3aDhUiacyKUUr://http://www.startribune.com/style/ne...:D3aDhUiacyKUUr

In addition to omitting evidence that contradicts his theory he repeatedly contradicts

himself - and I doubt he notices. Below are but examples related to the Wellstone crash.

1) NTSB INVESTIGATION OF CRIMINAL CRASHES:

Though he insists on misinterpreting the statue he knows that the NTSB

" does not investigate criminal activity" and that in such cases

the FBI assumes lead status – he has complained however that the

safety board didn't complete "accident" reports for the 9/11

crashes 'as required by law'.

2) WHAT THE NTSB CONCLUDED ABOUT WHO WAS FLYING WELLSTONE

On pg 104 of the 1st edition of the Wellstone book he wrote:

"Since the NTSB determined that Conry was flying the plane, not

copilot Guess, this evidence of the copilot's incompetence may or

may not be relevant"

But only 11 pages later he quoted the NTSB report

"…the Safety Board could NOT determine who was flying the plane at

the time of the accident"

…and asked:

"One might well ask, then why is so mush made about the incompetence

of the pilot, especially when we are told by NTSB [sic] that he often

let copilots fly?"

3) MINIMUM TRAVEL TIME FROM THE TWIN CITIES TO EVELETH

On page 50 of the book (Ch. 3 "Crash Scene Wreckage" section),

Fetzer recounts with out attribution (just as most of the information

in the book is not sourced) that reporters and a camera crew from a Twin

Cities TV station made it to "the [Eveleth] airport 90 minutes from

the time they first received the news". Ironically 32 pages later he

concludes after rather specious analysis that it would have taken FBI

"agents at the very least 2:32 minutes to make their trip"* from

there office to the crash site 2:22 minutes of which were getting to the

point of the road closest to the crash or 52 minutes longer that the TV

crew

Fetzer of course will hem and haw and point out that the folks KSTP flew

to Hibbing while the FBI supposedly flew to Duluth (which is about 20

minutes further from Eveleth than Hibbing according to Yahoo maps) and

that the reporters went to the airport rather than the crash site**.

This is not enough to explain the discrepancy.

According to Google maps the driving time from the TV station (3415

University Ave. Saint Paul) and FBI office (111 Washington Avenue South,

Minneapolis, MN 55401) to Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport are virtually

the same 17 and 19 minutes respectively. Even if we add an extra 2

minutes for the FBI's drive to the airport and an extra 20 for the

drive from Duluth the TV crew was 30 minutes faster than the FBI's

"minimum time" even though as Fetzer correctly points out FBI

agents should be able to get in and out of airports and planes faster

than private citizens and as he failed to note should be able to drive

faster than private citizens as well.

4) PILOT COMPETENCE

Both Hani Hanjour and Michael Guess had a commercial pilot's

licenses with multi engine certificates and a comparable number of

logged flight hours 600 for the former and 701 for the latter. Anecdotal

evidence about their flying abilities is similar - mixed but for the

most part negative the American had been dismissed from both of his

previous piloting jobs and had mostly negative reviews from his

co-workers, the Saudi failed to get hired by an airline in his country

and was once denied rental of a single engine Cessna.

Fetzer concludes that one of these very comparable pilots was

"highly competent" and that the chances of him accidentally

crashing a King Air slim but the other was to incompetent to have

crashed a 757 on purpose.

[Len Colby]

He has a tendency to "practice special pleading by citing only evidence on one side" For example he never acknowledged the following in any of his writing or comments about the incident.

Hey smokin' cowboy for the Borg, I'm seeing you on this. When have you EVER cited evidence from the 'other' side?!

You can't equate forum entries with books and articles. The former are part of an adversarial process all sides have an equal opportunity to present their views the same can't be said of the latter were only one side presents the facts, making it incumbent on them to acknowledge facts that contradict their theories if they want to be considered objective. "My" definition of "special pleading" is a direct quote from Fetzer he considers it to be a logical fallacy, I agree.

I notice that (par for the course) you don't even attempt to rebut the facts. Do you think it was proper of Fetzer to have omitted the facts I cited? It's hard to believe he was not aware of them because he cited the same sources. Can you cite any examples of when I cited a source but omitted facts in them that undermined my interpretation?

And I can find and demonstrate lots of questions I've [and others] have asked YOU, you'be never answered

.

You've already presented me with your 'laundry lists' of atrocities conspiracies and supposed conspiracies to comment on a few times. Normally I respond to several if not most of them. This time you're asking me about close to 20 despite the fact I've already responded to some of them. I'm under no obligation to respond to every inquiry you or anyone else makes of me concerning issues I didn't bring up.

.

Shall I list on a new thread the repeated harm you tried and did cause me off forum and tried on?

Go right ahead, I even started a thread for my detractors to cite example of the atrocious behavior they claim I engage in but no one responded. While you're at it you can justify the following on that thread as well "A hypocrite and character assassin if I EVER saw one and likely 'more' [less] IMHO"

What is your story and that of your father…

Just as your family and personal life are not relevant mine aren't either. The same applies to everyone else unless they themselves make an issue out of them. You complain rightly about the Bush cabal pushing aside privacy rights but have no qualms about violating those very same rights yourself, the epitaph hypocrite applies much better to YOU than to me.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

A King Air 350 crashed 9:13 PM (local time)** last night at the private airport

of a luxury condo in Trancoso, Bahia, Brazil a beach resort where the owner, banker

Robert Wright, had a home.

– The plane crashed 500 – 600 meters (1650 – 2000 feet) from runway when coming

in for a landing.**

– The plane was completely destroyed by fire and an explosion

– It had just passed its annual maintenance inspection ("havia acabado de passar

pela inspeção anual de manutenção")

– The 56 year old pilot, Jorge Lang Filho, "was considered very experienced by

his colleagues" ("considerado muito experiente pelos colegas.")

– According to a friend of Wright's he flew frequently to Trancoso and "He

always flew with the same pilot who he completely trusted" ("Ele viajava sempre

com o mesmo piloto, que era de sua confiança.")**

– There was a co-pilot**

– There is no info yet as to the causes

– Although it started raining heavily afterwards it was drizzling at the time of

the crash and the airport administrators said visibility was good at the time

("havia total condição de visibilidade da pista.")

– 11 to 15 people were on board including the plane's owner and both of his kids

and possibly 2 other children (not relevant to anyone but Fetzer)

Further undermining Fetzer's theory that two experienced pilots couldn't make a

stupid error a King Air 200 with a pilot (25 years experience) and co-pilot (29

years-old)*** crashed in Recife (PE) Brazil last November because it ran out of

fuel. ****

Article in English – http://www.velozia.com/?p=1693

Unless otherwise noted info from this article:

http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Brasil/0,,MUL...IBERA+REM\

OCAO+DOS+CORPOS+DE+AVIAO+QUE+CAIU+NA+BAHIA.html

** http://www.estadao.com.br/estadaodehoje/20...imp375579,0.php

***

http://www.meionorte.com/noticias,aviao-da...ane-seca-\

em-recife,63655.html

[Len Colby]

Reports about the crash are a bit contradictory. Some say it was only lightly raining others say there was a downpour, my best guess is that the rainfall was light at the time but became heavier shortly there after. Metrologists say winds were moderate but some workers at the airstrip said the plane balanced its wings which they took to be a sign of a sudden gust of wind. Stories also vary as to how far the crash site is from the runway and whether it was to the side or short of it. The preponderance of reports are that it was about 150 meters (500 feet) to the side.

Despite the light to heavy rain the bodies of those aboard were so carbonized they will be IDed via DNA and dental records. Another “mysterious post crash fire”!

Apparently the plane had a CVR (voice recorder) but not a FDR (data recorder))

[Len Colby]

Northwestern Flight 188, JAL 02 other mishaps and the Wellstone crash.

One of the central pillars of Fetzer’s thesis is that it is impossible that two such “highly qualified” pilots as Conry and Guess could both have lost track of their airspeed while lost to the extent that the plane stalled. This ignores of course that…

…Guess had been fired from:

- his only previous piloting job for incompetence AND

- Northwestern for not being able to master their flight systems

…Conry had:

-never worked previously as a professional pilot

-had told a close friend that he had difficulty flying and especially landing King Airs AND

-probably had less than 3000 hours though he claimed over 5000

…coworkers said both were incompetent AND

…that there have been numerous crashes involving crews far more experienced and qualified that those two idiots discussed here previously including:

Colgan Air Flight 3407 Feb.19 this year 2 pilots more experienced than Conry and Guess flew too slowly on approach in inclement weather and stalled near Buffalo,

Avianca Flight 052 Jan 25 1990, after circling JFK for over an hour the three-man flight crew failed to inform ATC they were dangerously low on fuel. ATC (R67) only became aware of the gravity of the situation during this exchange with the first officer (who made all radio transmissions to U.S. controllers)

5) 20,44,50 AVA052 - Zero five two well I think we need priority we’re passing (unintelligible)

6) 20,44,58 R67 - Avianca 052 heavy Roger how long can you hold and what is your alternate

7) 20,45,03 AVA052 - OK stand by on that

8) 20,46,03 AVA052 - Yes sir we’ll be able to hold about five minutes thats all we can do

9) 20,48,08 R67 - Avianca 052 heavy Roger what is your alternate

10) 20,46,24 ’ Note - Now the handoff controller stops monitoring the frequency in order to phone approach control and get a clearance for AVA052

11) 20,46,24 AVA052 - It is Boston but we can’t do it now we we will run out of fuel now.

12) 20,46,47 R67 - Avianca 052 heavy cleared to the Kennedy Airport via . . .

13) 20,46,57 AVA052 - Cleared to the Kennedy . . . Thank you

The actually had about 45 minutes fuel but the pilot missed the 1st approach and ran out of fuel when circling around for a second attempt. Part of the problem was the crew lack of proficiency in English. But they should have informed the ATC’s much sooner when they still had enough furl for Boston their alternate airport. The Pilot had almost 17,000 hours and had held a US ATP certificate since 1976 and a Colombian one since 1969. The FO had over 1800 hoiurs and the engineer over 10,000

http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-...ts/AAR91-04.pdf

Eastern Airlines Flight 401 Dec. 29 1972 3 pilots all more experienced than Conry aided by an Eastern maintenance chief who was flying jump seat became so distracted by a malfunctioning landing gear light they lost track of airspeed and altitude despite an altitude warning chime going off and sighting landmarks on the ground. The realized too late they were close to the ground.

The pilot had nearly 30,000 hours, the 1st officer 5800 and the engineer almost 16,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_401

http://ealflt401.blogspot.com/2009/07/east...tribute_26.html

And now just a few days ago two pilots obviously far more qualified than Conry (let alone Guess) either fall asleep or became so distracted that they were out of radio contact for 74 minutes and over flew their airport by 150 miles. This incident also shows that once again the notion that a plane will been intercepted with in minutes of going no radio or off course is more “truther BS”.

Another incident mentioned on a forum discussing flight 188 shows yet again that pilots far more qualified than the morons flying Wellstone can crash because they lost situational awareness.

Landing Before Takeoff...

Kohei Asoh, a 15 year veteran with Japan Air Lines, had served as a flight instructor for the Japanese military in World War II, and had nearly 10,000 hours of flight time - well deserving of his title of "Captain." He was experienced enough to be given the assignment of flying one of JAL's newest acquisitions - a Douglas DC-8…The DC-8…took off from Tokyo at 5:36 on the afternoon of November 22nd, 1968, bound non-stop for San Francisco (SFO).

[…]

As Captain Asoh, and his flight crew, first officer Joseph Hazen, flight Engineer Richard Fahning, and navigator Ichiryo Suzuki, were approaching SFO at approximately 9 AM, where the weather was reported to be "ceiling indefinite, 300 feet overcast, sky partially obscured, 3/4 mile visibility with fog". The airport's minimums at the time were, 200 feet ceiling and 1/2 mile visibility. Normal communications were established, and the crew was radar vectored to the Woodside VOR and thence to intercept the ILS for Runway 28L at San Francisco.

The cabin crew, consisting of a purser, two stewards, and four stewardesses, prepared the passengers for landing as the plane crossed the Woodside VOR at 9:16 AM at approximately 4,000 feet and, at 9:18 AM, was cleared to descend to 2,000 feet . The flight then descended at a constant, uninterrupted rate towards the airport, lined up on the localizer approach course.

On Final...

The landing gear was lowered and flaps fully extended. When they broke out below the fog, the first officer called, "Breaking out of the overcast, I cannot see the runway light ." He then called out, 'We are too low - Pull up, pull up!"

Asoh applied power to the engines, and started to rotate the aircraft when water contact was made. At a speed of 137 knots, the right main gear hit the water first, followed immediately by the left gear striking. Then, the airplane reportedly made a slow turn to the left, and settled in the shallow waters two and a half miles short of runway 28L, at 9:24 in the morning.

County Park Ranger Doug Lakey was in the Coyote Point parking lot when the plane splashed into the bay. He heard it and immediately notified Harbormaster Art O'Leary who hurried three boats to the plane within minutes. Fire tugs also rushed to the scene to help prevent fire in case jet fuel ignited from a spark.

Wet Feet...

Amazingly, there were no injuries to any of the 96 passengers or 11 crew during the accident and ensuing evacuation.

http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Shiga-SFBay.htm

When asked what happened the pilot responded ""As you Americans say, Asoh f*(k up."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21249023/The-Fif...ine-Peter-Senge

Conry and Guess "f*(ked up" but like the crews of the Colgan, Avianca and Eastern flight didn't survive the experience.

[Guest John Gillespie]

"This strategy of forgetfulness is purposeful, count on it."

John,

Thank you. How fascinating it is that we recently had - in the month of the 5th anniversary of the Wellstone death - a display of what seemed unprecedented and colossal incompetence on the part of pilots, plural, who zoned out and overshot - wait for it - MINNEAPOLIS, by 150 miles!? What a coincidence...again.

I say 'unprecedented' in perhaps the same vein as Lewis Carroll's 'unbirthday', that is to say, a non-event that is now a valid event because of the unprecedented precedence now established, retroactively of course. An apparent birthday gives birth to an unbirthday which becomes a real birthday.

Since this is a forum and not a court of law, there are those of us who look at something like this, get the stench of psyops, and know that the evidence has manifested itself. Piece of (unbirthday) cake.

JG

Interesting article by Pat Williams on Paul Wellstone:

Do you remember the name Paul Wellstone? He was the United States Senator from Minnesota who five years ago this month was killed along with his wife Sheila, and daughter Marcia. They died in the crash of a small airplane while campaigning for Paul's re-election.

Paul and Sheila were friends of my wife Carol and I during the years I represented Montana in the U.S. Congress.

I still remember many of the eulogies, condolences, and media statements that were made about Paul following his tragic death. Although well-meaning, of course, many of those who commented about Paul frankly had him wrong. Too many described the late Senator as "Senator Softy," and "an innocent." The implications inherent in such remembrances of Paul were that he was an unproductive legislator, a likable dreamer"a sort of loveable mascot for the other senators. They attempted to portray him as a friendly but ineffective legislator. Wrong!

Paul was elected to the U.S. Senate eleven years after Montanans had elected me to the U.S. House. He and I found occasions to work together on trade bills, education, public lands issues"including wilderness"and we worked together, no, fought shoulder-to-shoulder on the critical matter of health care for middle income people.

I came to know Wellstone really well and trust this"he was no softyhe was tough. Perhaps it was from his days as a champion high school wrestler that Paul learned how to operate in close, using his leverage, and if needed, his elbows.

Wellstone's policy determinations and political skills had been forged during the turbulence of the 1960s"a decade as maligned as was Wellstone.

Those of us who came of age during those times were horrified but tempered and hardened by the assassinations of first President Jack Kennedy, then Martin Luther King and yet again with the killing of Bobby Kennedy. The lies of Nixon taught millions of us, including Wellstone, to develop tough questioning doubts about words sent down from on high by our elected leaders"a lesson we need in these times of presidential excess. The unnecessary tragedy of Vietnam turned millions of Americans, including Wellstone, firmly against empowering any president ever again with the authority to make undeclared war. You know, Wellstone was the only senator up for re-election to vote "no" on the Bush proposal to vest the power of war with himself alone. That vote took guts. And now five years later we understand that Paul Wellstone was right and those senators who went along to get along were wrong"tragically, expensively wrong.

Wellstone brought with him to the Senate the organizing political skills he learned in those 1960s. That was a time when the tools of campaigning were developed by the civil rights and cotton field organizers in the south and, up our way by the union organizers from the shop floors, the classrooms, and mine tunnels.

We remember how the 1960s seemed filled with scenes of young people going door-to-door for their cause or candidates, traveling the byways in their crowded buses. They, too, were belittled. Wellstone used those same techniques to win election and re-election. He even had an old beat up green bus in which he and his wife and kids traveled across Minnesota. He understood how to connect with common people"in their homes, in the farm fields, and union halls.

Nope, Paul Wellstone was not a naïve ideologue out there on the fringe who, like most of our candidates, depend upon the paid mercenaries to do their campaigning for them; rather Paul did it the difficult, old-fashioned way"he earned the votes one at a time door-to-door; looking people in the eye and sometimes telling them what they might not have wanted to hearbut needed to know.

During those days five years ago immediately following the deaths of Paul, his wife and daughter, it was interesting and predictable to listen to how carefully some of Wellstone's arch conservative fellow politicians chose their words, each strategically distancing themselves from his policy preferences by beginning their statements of condolences with words of separation: Utah's Senator Orin Hatch""Paul and I seldom saw eye-to-eye;" and Senator Jesse Helms""Despite the marked contrast between Paul's and my view" Yes, they may have been well-meaning, but nonetheless they and others of Paul's conservative colleagues carefully chose words of purposeful separation from this senator, who through the years they had methodically painted as a "fringe soft liberal." And one can't help but notice that during these past five years, the country seems to have forgotten about Paul. And trust this"that memory lapse is just fine with those who voted wrong on the war, wrong on health care, wrong on the environment, and wrong on the catastrophe that is global warming.

This strategy of forgetfulness is purposeful, count on it. It is part and parcel of the efforts to denigrate policy progressives as weak and ineffective. Such consistent but intentional tactics are a relatively recent phenomenon. After all, can anyone recall a claim that Jack Kennedy was weak, or that Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman were ineffective, or that Teddy Roosevelt was a softy? Each of them was the progressive, the liberal in their time.

Paul Wellstone, like the 1960s that forged him, believed the rights of people were higher than the rights of corporations. One has to be darn tough to hold that view! He understood that wholesale deregulation of the private sector would result, as it has, in the excessiveness of the drug companies, Enron and, closer to home, the old Montana Power Company. You know, it's easier not to do battle with those boys!

Those who marginalized Paul Wellstone in death as they did in life and now five years later dismiss him, have confused their own conceit with strength and Wellstone's productive determination with weakness.

Be sure of this: there are a lot of Paul Wellstone's out there--tough, progressive, independent thinkers, risk-takers, tired of the elite rich interests stacking the deck and lining their own pockets. And there are millions more just like them waiting, just waiting for a candidate, like Paul Wellstone, someone who is actually worth voting for.

http://www.counterpunch.org/williams10112007.html

[Len Colby]

Thank you. How fascinating it is that we recently had - in the month of the 5th anniversary of the Wellstone death - a display of what seemed unprecedented and colossal incompetence on the part of pilots, plural, who zoned out and overshot - wait for it - MINNEAPOLIS, by 150 miles!? What a coincidence...again.

Despite

1)numerous cases of highly competent pilots in 2 - 4 man crews screwing up on various occasions AND

2)overwhelming evidence that Wellstone's pilots pilots were incompetent, one even said he found flying that particular model plane difficult

Fetzer continues to insist it is virtually impossible they could have screwed up,aviation experts disagree.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat, on another thread, I was reminded of this one, which I have neglected for ages. Let me say how much I appreciate what

you have contributed here, which is eminently sensible and very impartial and objective. Here's my latest exchange with Len,

which appeared on the thread, Critical Thinking about Conspiracy Theories: JFK and 9/11, Portland presentation, 11 December

2009 (two hour video). I have three blogs about Wellstone on http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, including reviews of the book.

What Len isn't telling you is that we have been over these things time and time again on FETZERclaimsDEBUNK@yahoo.com,

where literally thousands of attacks have been launched against AMERICAN ASSASSINATION (2004), which I co-authored with

Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs, Ed.D., Ph.D., a Native American scholar from Northern Arizona University. So when Len complains,

"Fetzer starts of listing logical fallacies, the irony of course is that he is one of the worst offenders. He complains about "special

pleading" or excluding evidence which contradicts your theory but does this all the time", he doesn't observe that I have spent

some FIVE YEARS dealing with cheap petty crap from the likes of him. THAT's a very nice example of SPECIAL PLEADING!

Now he says, "For example in his book, articles and presentations about the Wellstone crash be never informs his audience that

(i) pilot Richard Conry's best friend (also a pilot) said Conry told him "he wasn't fast enough," [to fly the type of plane involved

in the crash] 'and he was worried about it' and had difficulty operating the rudder pedals during landing. *

(ii) that Conry's widow said her husband had told her "the other pilots thought Guess [the co-pilot] was not a good pilot."*

(iii) that Guess had been fired from his only previous piloting job (flying a single engine Cessna) for incompetence**"

In response to (i), another pilot who had flown with him more than 50 times reported that he was the most cautious and careful

pilot with whom he had ever flown. A friend of mine who knew him personally said he was obsessive-compulsive about details,

which is consistent with that report. He had some 5,200 hours of experience, an Air Transport Pilot's Certification--which is the

highest civilian qualification short of Astronaut--and had passed his FAA "flight check" just two days before the fatal flight. Sen.

Wellstone, who did not like to fly, preferred to have Conry as his pilot when he did fly, because he had great confidence in him.

In response to (ii) and (iii), the King Air A-100 is the Rolls-Royce of small aircraft and practically flies itself. Two pilots were not

required on the plane. If this guy was as bad as Colby claims, then why was he employed by Charter Aviation? Sometimes this

guy's arguments are self-refuting. According to the NTSB, the plane crashed because the pilots lost track of their altitude and let

it crash. But tracking your airspeed and altitude are the most basic elements of flying. PLUS they would also have had to lose

track of their azmuth and ignored a loud stall warning alarm. The NTSB's report is rubbish, just like this trash from Len Colby!

And since he mentions Carol Carmody's employment history, yes, that she worked for the CIA before she came to the NTSB is

relevant when you consider the sleights-of-hand involved in this investigation. The FBI, for example, was on the site by noon,

when the crash only took place at 10:20 AM and was not reported before 11 AM. They had to have taken off at the same time

the senator''s plane was departing to cover a crash that had yet to occur! Their spokesman said the evening of the crash that

there were "no signs" of terrorist involvement, when they did not even know the cause of the crash! And Carmody played along!

Don't let Colby play you for a sap! I have had hundreds and hundreds of exchanges with him and know him to be a completely

devious and untrustworthy critic who specializes in slanting evidence. I could write a book on critical thinking using his posts as

my examples. How many times to I have to respond to him? If you had known that we had been doing this for years, perhaps

his claim that I was avoiding him would not have appeared plausible. Well, there's a nice example of special pleading from him

right on this very thread in the act of accusing me of committing fallacies! I will admit, the man is clever and does have nerve!

QUOTE (Len Colby @ Dec 17 2009, 07:53 PM) *

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Dec 17 2009, 06:08 PM) *

Anyone who wants to know my views about the crash that took the life of US Senator Paul Wellstone should visit my

new blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, where the three most recent are about this case. Judge for yourself!

I no you love to blown your own horn Jim but lets try to stay focused on the matter at hand,are you or aren't you guilty of committing special pleading and using ad homs.

If you wish to deny the former you will have to

a) assert that the facts I cited were incorrect,but they were clearly documented

cool.gif show that you did mention them, but I've rad just about everything you've written and seen some of your video and saw no mention of them

c) claim that they were no relevant,but they clearly were

If you wish to deny the latter you will have to explain how Carmody's 1960's - 70's employment history was relevant

QUOTE (Stephen Turner @ Dec 17 2009, 02:23 PM) *

In fact, there is a 19 page thread on the wellstone case in the history books section of this forum. Might be worth checking that out as well.

Yes 19 paper of Fetzer dodging the holes in his 'theory'

If someone has called you "an idiot", it was not me.

Come on Jim go back and see how you replied to Pat's post. You did not use the word idiot but you called him "massively ignorant" among other things [see post 23 for the 'lowlights']. Your infamous temper and unpleasantness do you a disservice. Are you so detached from reality that you don't remember what you wrote only 2 days ago! If feel a certain responsibility to defend him because in a certain way "I got him into it" and he is such a nice guy that he apologised to you after you insulted him! Do yourself a favor and do the right thing apologize and admit you were wrong. Try to make it sound sincere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Len, I can do my own feuding. I took Dr. Fetzer's post as an attempt to find common ground. As such, it was an acknowledgement that he had over-reacted.

I respect Dr. Fetzer and his attempts at unveiling a "secret history," in both the JFK case and the Wellstone case. I have noted the looks on people's faces when I've told them I'm investigating the JFK assassination, and I imagine the looks Dr. Fetzer receives are far worse. There's a security one derives from touting the official government position, or defending the "safest" viewpoint. You know you're on the side of the American flag, and Walter Cronkite and Uncle Ron. I don't know the entire history between you two, Len, but I can see clearly how your sudden arrival on this Forum to continue your assault on his book, would make Dr. Fetzer paranoid. He probably feels like he's being stalked. While you claim to be a liberal, one doubts you were as upset by the Bush Administration's attempts to blame September 11th on President Clinton, as you are by Dr. Fetzer's attempts to link Wellstone's death to the Bush Administration. I wonder as well how you responded to the Clinton Chronicles videos which purported to prove that Clinton was behind the murder of Vince Foster, not to mention those poor little kids by the railroad tracks. Somehow I don't see you as having devoted as much time and energy to fight those kinds of outright lies, as you do in refuting Dr. Fetzer's not-unfounded opinion that it was unlikely for a plane with two pilots to crash in the manner described, and that an alternative explanation is worth exploring. If I'm wrong, and you've spent a lot of time arguing against the multitude of right-wing lies, I apologize to you for my incorrect impression.

If I'm right, however, then maybe you can answer me why it is so important to you that people NOT THINK Wellstone was murdered. Your answer could be most helpful to us studying the JFK assassination, as it may help us understand why the media at least initially cooperated with the government in depicting the Warren Report critics as cranks and scavengers, and why even today a TV show such as Bullxxxx would pick Jim Marrs as a representaive of the research community, and then use his UFO studies to make us all look like wackos.

I'm sorry if my dimestore psychiatry offends you, but I'm sincerely interested.

[Evan Burton]

I don't know if Senator Wellstone was murdered or not, but there is nothing unusual about the aircraft incident. Similar events have happened before and will happen again.