Evan Burton

The title of this forum is "JFK Assassination Debate."

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "debate" as follows: "(1)To discuss a question by considering opposed arguments.(2) To take part in a debate."

Therefore, David, as a member of the forum you have a right to put forth an argument on any aspect of the JFK assassination just as do all other members.

We are not like a servile Congress such as when the President declared the U.S. must attack Saddam's Iraq because he had weapons of mass destruction and there was no debate and it turned out later there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Healthy debate is good.

Here, here. If someone with an opposing viewpoint is so blatantly wrong then why wouldn't you welcome the chance to demonstrate just how wrong they are? In debates with "Moon hoax' people, I welcome them; I want them to post so I can show exactly why they are wrong and what twaddle they try to peddle. The very last thing I want to do is for them to be silenced. What I want is to show the evidence against their claims is overwhelming. Why wouldn't JFK investigators want to do the same?

What we DO want to stop is abusive, inappropriate language and libelous comments, such as accusing people of being paid shills, etc (unless, of course, it can be proved beyond doubt).

If when you started you said "stay signed in", every time you go to the Forum it should try to log you in.

I would have thought you would have the login screen with username & password pre-filled rather than actually login in, but I might be mistaken.

Anti-vaccination proponents have been responsible for a drop in vaccination rates in the US which has lead to outbreaks of previously preventable diseases.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-on-edge-as-measles-outbreak-spreads-20150130-132lti.html

Larry,

That's an excellent summary of US military's nuclear C2 at the time. I think your book will make interesting reading.

Cheers,

You don't think that your news sources - openly pro-Russia or communist - might not be a little biased?

Wishing you the best of luck and hoping the Forum is useful to you.

Doug,

My bandwidth does not allow easy viewing of videos nor do I have sufficient data allowance to download. Could you give a brief summary of the details? It sounds very interesting.

Many thanks!

I am somewhat an expert in the history of the US manned space programme, with particular emphasis on the Apollo programme. I have some knowledge of the Soviet manned space programme though do not claim to be an expert in the field. I welcome questions.

Thanks!

Evan

Hi Faris!

Welcome to the Forum; I hope it proves useful to you.

Cheers!

Evan

Steven, you should read here.

The difference between you and me, Steven, is that I will accept an independent accident board's findings; you won't. Anything that doesn't agree with your own beliefs is immediately dismissed.// BURTON

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DUH ?? !??

As posted twice this thread Ukraine is a prime suspect in the shoot down of the plane AND is part of the independent accident board.

Independent ?????

That is just your lack of expertise in this area.

Whenever there is a major aviation accident, there will be at least four major parties involved:

- The country where the accident occurred

- The country which owned the aircraft

- The country in which the aircraft was registered (state of registry)

- The country which manufactured the aircraft

In cases where the engines or other significant subsystems were manufactured in another country, that country may also be party to the investigation. if there were fatalities, then the parent nation of those killed may also participate. Many other people may participate.

The country where the accident occurred will be responsible for the investigation. The other parties are observers.

Look up the Chicago Convention, Annex 13, Chapter 5.

This process has been followed for decades.

It's a predictable reaction by those who swing wildly towards the "conspiracy theory". establishment theory . When an investigation fails to give you the answer you seek, claim it is "corrupted" or "part of the cover-up". pressured to give a politically correct view.

I also note some preemptive actions: the full report has not yet been released rewritten/covered up and yet the CTers establishment hacks are condemning loving it.

Can anyone say "poisoning the well"?

========

[30] The most censored stories of the year, professional revolutionists and hoverboards https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZXGQGDoesc

The difference between you and me, Steven, is that I will accept an independent accident board's findings; you won't. Anything that doesn't agree with your own beliefs is immediately dismissed.

Good to see he referenced the thread. Too many articles fail to give you the source that allows you to read and determine how good the source material is.

It's a predictable reaction by those who swing wildly towards the "conspiracy theory". When an investigation fails to give you the answer you seek, claim it is "corrupted" or "part of the cover-up".

Insignificant facts like the evidence fitting the widely held view that it was brought down by a surface-to-air missile play no part in their beliefs.

I also note some preemptive actions: the full report has not yet been released and yet the CTers are condemning it.

Can anyone say "poisoning the well"?

What will be the reaction from CTers if the final report says that the aircraft WAS shot down by air-to-air attack? Will they still say the findings are false?

Unnamed people telling - ummm - 'incredible' stories?

I'll wait for the accident investigation board.

Hi Richard!

I'm current RAN myself. What area were you in?

Hi Ed!

Missing aircraft? What ones are on your list?

Did you see about the recovery of the B-29 "Kee Bird" and how tragically it ended?

Hi Ian!

"When proven wrong, paste walls of text to hide the fact"

The gospel according to Steven.

Steven, co-incidences happen. Here are another two examples:

1. On RAN ships during the 1980s and prior, the wakeup call that was piped throughout the ship at 0630 was called "wakey wakey"; it was also the "Call the Hands", requiring emergency teams to turn to. On an RAN DDG (I can't remember which, either Hobart, Brisbane or Perth), just about 0630, there was a fire in the galley. The emergency call was piped for the fire party, etc.... but no-one reacted immediately. Why? Perhaps you would say it was deliberate sabotage, perhaps it was meant to destroy the ship in a "false flag" operation. The truth however, was that the pipe was made just when people were expecting to hear wakey-wakey and so to them, it wasn't "emergency" it was "time to get up!". The emergency pipe was changed so as to avoid any confusion in future.

2. There was a major emergency exercise at a RAAF base, testing fire, medical, etc. The firies came out onto the runway, followed by the ambulance, the hospital was on standby to receive, crash teams were ready... and just at that time there was an emergency with an aircraft that had to make an unplanned, emergency landing at that base. The firies see this aircraft coming down, on fire, with calls over the radios of "Safeguard! Safeguard! This is NOT a drill!". The aircraft landed safely but everything was there if the worst had of happened. If that aircraft had been involved in some bigger event and required emergency services, I am sure you would have sneered and proclaimed how impossible it was for such a co-incidence.

Yeah, so you have no idea.

On one day, we were conducting a base security exercise, I was running a command post exercise, there was a major naval exercise to the north, the Army were running two exercises (one on each coast of the county), and the air force was running an air defence exercise. That doesn't include the numerous local exercises that were being conducted that I didn't have visibility of.

Steven, you make yourself look foolish when you pretend to know things outside your area of expertise.

"Less than 6 in one day"?

That's it? Which of the categories is that for?

And are you sure? Don't want to change your mind?

Let's test your knowledge, Steven.

How many drills and of what type did the ADF conduct during 2013?

How many drills and of what type did the Royal Australian Navy conduct during 2013?

How many drills and of what type were conducted at HMAS Albatross (an air base) during 2013?

Based on your superior attitude, you should be able to make a reasonable estimate of what is considered to be "normal".

Steven, I think the answer you are looking for is "I have no expertise in that field".

The same was said, however, about 9-11 so the comparison is valid. Co-incidences do happen.

Drills are usually for preparedness against common events,like broken safety cables.

Drills for uncommon events would be suspicious and not thinking they are suspicious would not be good thinking.

And your expertise in determining drills to be conducted by military, para-military or EMS drills is?

First off, they claim it was an "Su-25", Here is an Su-25:

Does it look anything like the aircraft in the image? That should immediately tell you that the report may be inaccurate in the detail.

Perhaps they meant "MiG-25"? Hmmm - I don't think so:

It's not the Su-27 or MiG-29 either. Next, ex-Soviet Bloc pilots were taught to fly attacks under ground radar control, not independently. Just keep that in the back of your mind.

Now, the angle shown:

At the same time, pilots must remain conscious of the angle between the opponent's velocity vector and their own, called the track crossing angle (TCA), which is important when aligning or avoiding a firing solution. Most importantly, the pilot must remain aware of the angle off tail (AOT), which is the angle between flightpaths.^[18] A high AOT causes a high rate of closure, but makes achieving a suitable guns solution nearly impossible. Acquiring a low AOT, (getting on the enemies tail), can decrease or even reverse closure rate, and is usually the primary goal before an overshoot occurs. However, an uncooperative defender may try to take advantage of the high closure rate by turning to increase AOT, forcing an overshoot.^[17]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_fighter_maneuvers}