Evan Burton

Also, interesting you chose to bring up Duane [who you, Lamson and Burton [iMO]] conspired to do a 'job' upon and get him forced out of the Forum in frustration (unable to speak or post without permanent moderation)....he just sent me all the information I need to prove he was done in against all the rules and any sense of decency.....I'll post it when the time is ripe.

Please do. This has been discussed ad nauseum and where both John and Andy made the situation quite clear. People have made bogus claims in the past and I would not put it past him to also do it.

You should make sure you apply that term correctly, Jack:

ad ho⋅mi⋅nem

–adjective

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.

2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Ad+Hominem

It was already shown - in the previous thread - that he was not a physicist as you initially claimed, that he had no special skills in building engineering or construction, and that others (equally qualified) found flaws with his claims and calculations.

Whether you like it or not, you have started a new thread on the same subject... and in that thread you accuse me of an ad hom attack when all I did was point out that he was not an MIT physicist (as you claimed) but an electrical engineer who was a graduate of MIT. Then you questioned my qualifications, and I presented them.

You then started to talk about Dr Judy Wood and Richard Gage.

in two parts...watch both.

Jack

We've been over this guy before, he isn't really an MIT engineer he got a BS in electrical engineering from the school in the early 70's and then after a few years went to medical school and has been a family practitioner in rural VT since graduation. Thus nothing in his training or professional experience makes him any more qualified than Jack or I to opine on what did ordidn't lead the towers to collapse.

He doesn't add anything new other than his false title, qualified civil/structural/materials science engineering profs from schools like MIT, Cambridge and Northwestern came to completely different conclusions

Yep - previously discussed here. Standard tactics: make a claim, have it proven false, ignore responses, wait a while, reintroduce claim.

I am happy to provide a tutorial for all the Board functions if people are interested.

The opposite is true.

Fetzer QUOTES EVIDENCE.

Thompson invents AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.

Jack

Hahahahahaha. Oh Jack, you really break me up. You are such a card!

David has answered the question:

Evan,

I'm not that proficient in using the forum. So here is my response.

1. I never subscribed to the double-head hit theory, so obviously i never made the charge that Josiah Thompson ripped me off or did anything wrong in that regards. FYI: from the outset, I had a different explanation for the small forward motion between Z- 312 and Z-313 (I postulated a forward high angle shot, and you will find that elaborated in Best Evidence); and I also wrote a paper about it that was published in the Paul Hoch anthology.

2. More about the 312-313 motion: After I came to realize that the car stop had been removed and the Z film had been edited, I had (that is, "subscribed to") an entirely different explanation for the 312-313 motion: that it was nothing more than an artifact of the editing process. In other words, 312 and 313 was not contiguous on the original (i.e. unedited) film. That was my position then, and it continues to be my belief today.

3. Yes, I was irritated when the Saturday Evening Post ran that headline, in the December, 1967 issue, about "three assassin", but so what? I did not consider that a ripoff. Subsequently, Josiah Thompson was very helpful in providing me transcripts of his interviews with Sitzman etc., and certain films. He was very helpful.

I want to emphasize again that I never subscribed to the double head-hit theory.So allegations that someone stole it from me is inappropriate and unfair to Thompson.

DSL

Thread closed.

Jack,

Just ask John via a PM. I am sure he'd increase you limit.

In response to Dr Fetzer's post could I say I do not edit Dr Fetzer's posts without first making a copy of the original, so that others can review my decision and judge whether it was justified or not. This is why a post is often made invisible - it remains in original form and allows other moderators to view it and review other moderator's actions. It is NOT edited. This is a claim made by others in the past and proven wrong time and time again.

Let me iterate:

- if I have edited a post of Dr Fetzers, I have a screen copy of the original.

- making a post invisible does not alter a post; it simply makes the post not visible except to mods and admins.

This post deals with Dr Fetzer's claims as detailed in his paper COLUMBIA MYSTERY, available here.

1. "They clearly record an electrical discharge like a lightning bolt flashing past, and I was snapping the pictures almost exactly . . . when the Columbia may have begun breaking up.."

Dr Fetzer even then quotes at least two other sources that show the lightning occurred seven minutes BEFORE the breakup. If this electrical discharge had been some type of directed energy weapon, the disruptive effects should have occurred immediately... but systems were nominal.

2. "...the foam-insulation-damaging-the-tiles, appeared to be inadequate because the computer simulations have failed to show how the insulation could have done enough damage to cause the catastrophe..."

That was the initial belief: they didn't think that it could cause enough damage. It was foam, after all, and the leading edge of the orbiter's blended wing was designed to withstand re-entry. When a full scale test was conducted though, they were all astounded to see the massive damage done to the wing by the foam impact.

3. "...Data from the Columbia's sensors, moreover, have not shown how the temperatures that were generated could have been sufficient to melt the Columbia's aluminum skin during reentry..."

That's because it was not the cause of the breakup. Damage to the leading edge of the wing allowed superheated air into the interior of the wing, which was NOT designed to withstand them. That caused the structural failure.

4. "...He also said that Columbia did not execute those turns, which are completely computer-generated, but instead came straight in..."

Incorrect. The turns were commenced as per normal.

"At 8:49:32 a.m. (EI+323), traveling at approximately Mach 24.5, Columbia executed a roll to the right, beginning a pre-planned banking turn to manage lift, and therefore limit the Orbiterʼs rate of descent and heating."

5. "...Columbia was out of control almost immediately upon its reentry..."

It wasn't. To all concerned it was a nominal profile until shortly before the breakup, when overtemps were recorded in the left landing gear bay followed shortly by the loss of various sensors around the same area. Breakup occurred shortly afterwards.

There were problems 270 seconds after Entry Interface (EI), when stresses above normal were recorded on the left wing spar but the sensor recording this was an engineering sensor, designed for post flight analysis and was not transmitted in real time to the flight crew nor ground control. What they did not know was that the flight control computer was fighting hard to keep the orbiter on a normal re-entry flight path.

6. "...Columbia was engaged in a military mission using a multi-spectral telescope to scan for emissions released at night over the Iraqi desert as waste products of chemical weapons production..."

Hardly. It was an unclassified mission:

http://luna.tau.ac.il/~peter/MEIDEX/english.htm

http://irc-iamas.org/files/MEIDEX.doc

7. "...Ilan Ramon made Earth observations with a cluster of instruments, which required an independent source of power for its infarred beam to discern images at night. Yoichi Clark Shimatsu reports that the source of that power was an exotic type of fissionable fuel called “americium-242” developed at

Ben-Gurion University..."

The camera used was a Xybion IMC-201 radiometric camera, whose power source is the orbiter's own onboard Electrical Power System... which is fed by oxygen / hydrogen fuel cells, not a radioisotope thermoelectric generator. The camera was LOOKING for Americium. Ben-Gurion University did NOT develop Americium-242; they discovered it could be used as a power source and have led development of a battery.

http://thefutureofthings.com/articles.php?itemId=26/64/

8. "...Ilan Ramon and Commander William McCool were both specialists in electromagnetic warfare..."

No, they weren't.

CMDR McCool was a USN pilot, whose first posting was to be the PILOT of an EA-6B Prowler EW aircraft. He later became a test pilot and had a degree in

aeronautical engineering. He certainly had a good understanding of EW but he was far from a 'specialist' in EW.

COL Ramon was a fighter pilot in the Israeli Air Force (IAF) who eventually became a department head in IAF Operational Requirements for Weapon Development and Acquisition. He had no expertise in EW.

9. "...such as the loss of control, failure to make the "S" maneuver, and abnormal temperature..."

As shown above, this is wrong.

10. "...There is no guarantee that the EMP hypothesis is true..."

Correct, because the hypothesis is wrong. The whole hypothesis is based on supposition, innuendo and inaccuracy.

So let's have a look at facts.

At 8:49 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EI+289), the Orbiterʼs flight control system began steering a precise course, or drag profile, with the initial roll command occurring about 30 seconds later. At 8:49:38 a.m., the Mission Control Guidance and Procedures officer called the Flight Director and indicated that the “closed-loop” guidance system had been initiated. The Maintenance, Mechanical, and Crew Systems (MMACS) officer and the Flight Director (Flight) had the following exchange beginning at 8:54:24 a.m. (EI+613).

MMACS: “Flight – MMACS.”

Flight: “Go ahead, MMACS.”

MMACS: “FYI, Iʼve just lost four separate temperature transducers on the left side of the vehicle, hydraulic return temperatures. Two of them on system one and one in each of systems two and three.”

Flight: “Four hyd [hydraulic] return temps?”

MMACS: “To the left outboard and left inboard elevon.”

Flight: “Okay, is there anything common to them? DSC [discrete signal conditioner] or MDM [multiplexer-demultiplexer] or anything? I mean, youʼre telling me you lost them all at exactly the same time?”

MMACS: “No, not exactly. They were within probably four or five seconds of each other.”

Flight: “Okay, where are those, where is that instrumentation located?”

MMACS: “All four of them are located in the aft part of the left wing, right in front of the elevons, elevon actuators. And there is no commonality.”

Flight: “No commonality.”

At 8:56:02 a.m. (EI+713), the conversation between the Flight Director and the MMACS officer continues:

Flight: “MMACS, tell me again which systems theyʼre for.”

MMACS: “Thatʼs all three hydraulic systems. Itʼs ... two of them are to the left outboard elevon and two of them to the left inboard.”

Flight: “Okay, I got you.”

The Flight Director then continues to discuss indications with other Mission Control Center personnel, including the Guidance, Navigation, and Control officer (GNC).

Flight: “GNC – Flight.”

GNC: “Flight – GNC.”

Flight: “Everything look good to you, control and rates and everything is nominal, right?”

GNC: “Controlʼs been stable through the rolls that weʼve done so far, flight. We have good trims. I donʼt see anything out of the ordinary.”

Flight: “Okay. And MMACS, Flight?”

MMACS: “Flight – MMACS.”

Flight: “All other indications for your hydraulic system indications are good.”

MMACS: “Theyʼre all good. Weʼve had good quantities all the way across.”

Flight: “And the other temps are normal?”

MMACS: “The other temps are normal, yes sir.”

Flight: “And when you say you lost these, are you saying that they went to zero?” [Time: 8:57:59 a.m., EI+830] “Or, off-scale low?”

MMACS: “All four of them are off-scale low. And they were all staggered. They were, like I said, within several seconds of each other.”

Flight: “Okay.”

At 8:58:00 a.m. (EI+831), Columbia crossed the New Mexico-Texas state line. Within the minute, a broken call came on the air-to-ground voice loop from Columbiaʼs commander, “And, uh, Hou …” This was followed by a call from MMACS about failed tire pressure sensors at 8:59:15 a.m. (EI+906).

MMACS: “Flight – MMACS.”

Flight: “Go.”

MMACS: “We just lost tire pressure on the left outboard and left inboard, both tires.”

The Flight Director then told the Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM) to let the crew know that Mission Control saw the messages and that the Flight Control Team was evaluating the indications and did not copy their last transmission.

CAPCOM: “And Columbia, Houston, we see your tire pressure messages and we did not copy your last call.”

Flight: “Is it instrumentation, MMACS? Gotta be ...”

MMACS: “Flight – MMACS, those are also off-scale low.”

At 8:59:32 a.m. (EI+923), Columbia was approaching Dallas, Texas, at 200,700 feet and Mach 18.1. At the same time, another broken call, the final call from Columbiaʼs commander, came on the air-to-ground voice loop:

Commander: “Roger, [cut off in mid-word] …”

This call may have been about the backup flight system tire pressure fault-summary messages annunciated to the crew onboard, and seen in the telemetry by Mission Control personnel. An extended loss of signal began at 08:59:32.136 a.m. (EI+923). This was the last valid data accepted by the Mission Control computer stream, and no further real-time data updates occurred in Mission Control. This coincided with the approximate time when the Flight Control Team would expect a short-duration loss of signal during antenna switching, as the onboard communication system automatically reconfigured from the west Tracking and Data Relay System satellite to either the east satellite or to the ground station at Kennedy Space Center. The following exchange then took place on the Flight Director loop with the Instrumentation and Communication Office (INCO):

INCO: “Flight – INCO.”

Flight: “Go.”

INCO: “Just taking a few hits here. Weʼre right up on top of the tail. Not too bad.”

The Flight Director then resumes discussion with the MMACS officer at 9:00:18 a.m. (EI+969).

Flight: “MMACS – Flight.”

MMACS: “Flight – MMACS.”

Flight: “And thereʼs no commonality between all these tire pressure instrumentations and the hydraulic return instrumentations.”

MMACS: “No sir, thereʼs not. Weʼve also lost the nose gear down talkback and the right main gear down talkback.”

Flight: “Nose gear and right main gear down talkbacks?”

MMACS: “Yes sir.”

At 9:00:18 a.m. (EI+969), the postflight video and imagery analyses indicate that a catastrophic event occurred. Bright flashes suddenly enveloped the Orbiter, followed by a dramatic change in the trail of superheated air. This is considered the most likely time of the main breakup of Columbia. Because the loss of signal had occurred 46 seconds earlier, Mission Control had no insight into this event. Mission Control continued to work the loss-of-signal problem to regain communication with Columbia:

INCO: “Flight – INCO, I didnʼt expect, uh, this bad of a hit on comm [communications].”

Flight: “GC [Ground Control officer] how far are we from UHF? Is that two-minute clock good?”

GC: “Affirmative, Flight.”

GNC: “Flight – GNC.”

Flight: “Go.”

GNC: “If we have any reason to suspect any sort of controllability issue, I would keep the control cards handy on page 4-dash-13.”

Flight: “Copy.”

At 9:02:21 a.m. (EI+1092, or 18 minutes-plus), the Mission Control Center commentator reported, “Fourteen minutes to touchdown for Columbia at the Kennedy Space Center. Flight controllers are continuing to stand by to regain communications with the spacecraft.”

Flight: “INCO, we were rolled left last data we had and you were expecting a little bit of ratty comm [communications], but not this long?”

INCO: “Thatʼs correct, Flight. I expected it to be a little intermittent. And this is pretty solid right here.”

Flight: “No onboard system config [configuration] changes right before we lost data?”

INCO: “That is correct, Flight. All looked good.”

Flight: “Still on string two and everything looked good?”

INCO: “String two looking good.”

The Ground Control officer then told the Flight Director that the Orbiter was within two minutes of acquiring the Kennedy Space Center ground station for communications, “Two minutes to MILA.” The Flight Director told the CAPCOM to try another communications check with Columbia, including one on the UHF system (via MILA, the Kennedy Space Center tracking station):

CAPCOM: “Columbia, Houston, comm [communications] check.”

CAPCOM: “Columbia, Houston, UHF comm [communications] check.”

At 9:03:45 a.m. (EI+1176, or 19 minutes-plus), the Mission Control Center commentator reported, “CAPCOM Charlie Hobaugh calling Columbia on a UHF frequency as it approaches the Merritt Island (MILA) tracking station in Florida. Twelve-and-a-half minutes to touchdown, according to clocks in Mission Control.”

MMACS: “Flight – MMACS.”

Flight: ”MMACS?”

MMACS: “On the tire pressures, we did see them go erratic for a little bit before they went away, so I do believe itʼs instrumentation.”

Flight: “Okay.”

The Flight Control Team still had no indications of any serious problems onboard the Orbiter. In Mission Control, there was no way to know the exact cause of the failed sensor measurements, and while there was concern for the extended loss of signal, the recourse was to continue to try to regain communications and in the meantime determine if the other systems, based on the last valid data, continued to appear as expected. The Flight Director told the CAPCOM to continue to try to raise Columbia via UHF:

CAPCOM: “Columbia, Houston, UHF comm [communications] check.”

CAPCOM: “Columbia, Houston, UHF comm [communications] check.”

GC: “Flight – GC.”

Flight: “Go.”

GC: “MILA not reporting any RF [radio frequency] at this time.”

INCO: “Flight – INCO, SPC [stored program command] just should have taken us to STDN low.” [sTDN is the Space Tracking and Data Network, or ground station communication mode]

Flight: “Okay.”

Flight: “FDO, when are you expecting tracking? “ [FDO is the Flight Dynamics Officer in the Mission Control Center]

FDO: “One minute ago, Flight.”

GC: “And Flight – GC, no C-band yet.”

Flight: “Copy.”

CAPCOM: “Columbia, Houston, UHF comm [communications] check.”

INCO: “Flight – INCO.”

Flight: “Go.”

INCO: “I could swap strings in the blind.”

Flight: “Okay, command us over.”

INCO: “In work, Flight.”

At 09:08:25 a.m. (EI+1456, or 24 minutes-plus), the Instrumentation and Communications Officer reported, “Flight – INCO, Iʼve commanded string one in the blind,” which indicated that the officer had executed a command sequence to Columbia to force the onboard S-band communications system to the backup string of avionics to try to regain communication, per the Flight Directorʼs direction in the previous call.

GC: “And Flight – GC.”

Flight: “Go.”

GC: “MILAʼs taking one of their antennas off into a search mode [to try to find Columbia].”

Flight: “Copy. FDO – Flight?”

FDO: “Go ahead, Flight.”

Flight: “Did we get, have we gotten any tracking data?”

FDO: “We got a blip of tracking data, it was a bad data point, Flight. We do not believe that was the Orbiter [referring to an errant blip on the large front screen in the Mission Control, where Orbiter tracking data is displayed.] Weʼre entering a search pattern with our C-bands at this time. We do not have any valid data at this time.”

By this time, 9:09:29 a.m. (EI+1520), Columbiaʼs speed would have dropped to Mach 2.5 for a standard approach to the Kennedy

Space Center.

Flight: “OK. Any other trackers that we can go to?”

FDO: “Let me start talking, Flight, to my navigator.”

At 9:12:39 a.m. (E+1710, or 28 minutes-plus), Columbia should have been banking on the heading alignment cone to line up on Runway 33. At about this time, a member of the Mission Control team received a call on his cell phone from someone who had just seen live television coverage of Columbia breaking up during re-entry. The Mission Control team member walked to the Flight Directorʼs console and told him the Orbiter had disintegrated.

Flight: “GC, – Flight. GC – Flight?”

GC: “Flight – GC.”

Flight: “Lock the doors.”

Having confirmed the loss of Columbia, the Entry Flight Director directed the Flight Control Team to begin contingency procedures.

...However, if his posts are not abusive they will be made visible...

I think this is worth repeating. Being on moderation does NOT mean your posts will never appear; it means they are reviewed (by admins and moderators) and if they conform to Forum rules they are allowed through.

Only John or Andy can place a member on moderation or lift it, and likewise suspend or reinstate a member.

Dr Fetzer,

You have been previously warned about using banned words and cautioned about personal attacks on members. There have been multiple complaints about your conduct.

I don't have the time to continually edit out all the violations promptly, so any further posts that contain infractions of the Forum rules (available here) will be made invisible until such time as the offensive material can be removed, and a recommendation made for you to be placed on moderation.

I first came into the thread on 16 SEP 05. I posted the opinion that the circumstances of the crash were not suspicious, that they had occured before. Len Colby warned me that by posting in opposition to Dr Fetzer, I would make myself a target and subject to attack.

A couple of days later I made my most provoctive statement. Dr Fetzer had earlier said:

"...This remark displays either massive ignorance or deliberate deception..."

and in response I replied:

"...I think the ignorance is on your part here..."

Dr Fetzer then posted reprints of numerous articles on the web, presumably in support of his position.

On 19 SEP 05 I said:

There is no way to either prove or disprove that some parties may have wanted Wellstone dead. That being said, there is absolutely no evidence that the crash was anything other than pilot error.

Ten minutes later Dr Fetzer commenced with the insults:

With this post, Evan Burton proves that he has no serious commitment to the

truth in the Wellstone case, since we devote more than a chapter to laying out the evidence that the White House wanted to get rid of him. I am appalled at

the level of ignorance displayed by some members of this forum, which does not seem to inhibit them from making assertions that are not only false but

even provably false. I suggest Burton exercise just a modicum of effort to ascertain whether or not his suggestion is even remotely reasonable, which

it is not. Egad! This guy really doesn't know even the basics about this case.

Here's an example that displays Burton's massive ignorance about this case.

Here's another. Frankly, it's embarrassing that this guy is posting on this subject.

At this time I clarified my position, and I gave specific points in support of my position. Then I said:

"Mr Fetzer,

I'm not looking at the politics surrounding the Senator. I am looking solely at the facts of the flight and subsequent crash.

If there was anything to suggest that outside interference was responsible for the events of that flight, THEN those political motivations might explain why those events happened. The simple fact is, however, there is nothing to suggest that this was anything more than pilot error. Nothing."

Dr Fetzer did not address my points but rather posted (again) numerous verbatim reprints of articles that he believed supported his claims.

Then on 20 SEP 05 I said:

"...I'm not going to put up with any more of Mr Fetzer's dribble; he has fixated on the idea that the crash was an 'assassination' and nothing will convince him otherwise. I suspect that if the ghosts of the flight crew appeared before him and said they screwed up, Mr Fetzer would accuse them of being part of a 'cover up'..."

Joshia Thompson then posted in support of me, which naturally made him a target of Dr Fetzer:

Non-explanatory replies from Burton are useless. The smoke was bluish-white,

not simply white. Spite from has-been hack Thompson is all we should expect. Neither of them appears to have anything of value to contribute to this thread.

and again Dr Fetzer repeated posts making it more difficult to see what evidence - if any - had been produced by both sides of the debate.

I replied:

"Mr Fetzer, you keep on ignoring the arguements put before you and maintain your tirade, insisting that you are right - no matter what is shown to the contrary. Please continue to do so, because it simply further weakens your credibility as far as the cause of the accident is concerned."

He then replied:

I have also noticed a pattern, namely: that whenever I put up a post that lays out the case for assassination using a directed-energy weapon and leading the pilots into the "kill zone" using manipulated GPS data, there is a flurry of posts from Burton, Colby, and Thompson that makes it hard to even find the explanation I have provided, given the blizzard of new posts. This appears to be a technique of obfuscation intended to distract attention from what we have found. I hope no one is taken in.

Dr Fetzer fails to notice that Joshia Thompson made perhaps two or three posts. Still, Dr Fetzer believes that if you are not with him then you must be an enemy.

I summed up several replies in a single post:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=41244

I ended with:

Mr Fetzer, I challenge you to put your hypothesis to any recognised organisation of professional pilots and publish their unedited reply here.

Dr Fetzer failed to do this. After a couple of years absence from the thread, Dr Fetzer made a post. I reinterated my position. Dr Fetzer asked "..If you learn of similar cases, I would like to know...". I did so in a number of the following posts. The result? In December of 2009:

...My impression is that you have never read my ten columns on the case...My co-authors and I know how to conduct research, which you apparently do not.< RULE VIOLATION, BY THE WAY> That you would shoot off your mouth in a state of virtual ignorance tells me all I want to know about Evan Burton... I and others are likely to conclude that you are simply one more phony who posts on this forum based upon their own ignorance!

"...What a nitwit!"

"...Evan Burton appears to be pulling this right out of his ass."

At which point Dr Fetzer has chosen not to address my posting - in response to his request - the numerous examples of similar accidents, as well as the various statistics regarding such accidents.

Hi Russell!

Welcome to the Board. Please have a look at the JFK board rules of behaviour (pinned to the top of the sub-forum) and enjoy yourself.

Cheers!

My name is Russell Ford and I'm from London. I have been a student of the JFK assassination for quite a few years now ...

I feel the truth is already known but not yet accepted and my aim is to fully understand exactly what happened and why and be there when it is.

Again from earlier in the thread:

Let's assume for a moment that Dr Fetzer is correct about a 'high energy' weapon of some type 'luring' the aircraft off-course and completely frying all the aircraft electrics.

That would make his theory about the crash correct, wouldn't it?

Simple answer: no.

If all electrical systems are completely fried:

1. Engine power and blade pitch controls still have a mechanical linkage that would allow close to normal performance - sufficient to fly out of the stall;

2. Aircraft still has altimeter - pressure operated, no electrical power required;

3. Aircraft still has Air Speed Indicator (ASI); pressure operated from pitot tube and static port on fuselage - no electrical power required;

4. Aircraft still has Vertical Speed Indicator (VSI); operated by pressure - no electrical power required; and

5. Aircraft still has Standby Atitude Indicator (AI), sometimes called the 'artifical horizon'. Main AI runs off electrics; standby AI run off vacuum reserve specifically in case of total electrical failure. FAA standards say it must run for at least 30 mins with no power.

So you still have control of your engines to deliver power, you know your pitch / roll (AI), how fast you are going (ASI), your altitude, and how fast you are descending / climbing (VSI) - everything you need to fly out of the situation. Even if the stall warning was disabled, part of instrument flying is maintaining an instrument scan - looking at all those primary flight instruments.

EVERYTHING indicates they didn't have a proper scan going (PIC responsibility), they should have seen the airspeed bleeding off, failed to recognise the impending stall, then failed to correctly recover from the stall.

And some of Dr Fetzer's supporting evidence? Well, it's dodgy to say the least. The Troy Hurtubise mentioned below is a well-known loon.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/2296/

http://www.baytoday.ca/content/news/print.asp?c=6657

Hurtubise says invention sees through walls-BayToday.ca exclusive

By Phil Novak

BayToday.ca

Sunday, January 16, 2005

Photo by Bill Tremblay, Special to BayToday.ca.

Troy Hurtubise has done the seemingly impossible with his newest invention and

defied all known rules of physics, he says.

The Angel Light—Hurtubise claims the concept came to him in a recurring

dream—can reportedly see through walls, as if there was no barrier at all.

That’s not all, though.

So impressed

Hurtubise, 41, said the device detects stealth technology.

And he’s done the tests to prove it, with the covert help of scientists at the

famed Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Hurtubise said.

If that’s not enough, Hurtubise also said the French government sent

representatives to North Bay to witness a demonstration of the Angel Light.

Hurtubise said the reps were so impressed with the eight-foot long device they

paid him $40,000 in cash to put the finishing touches on it.

New universe

The French, Hurtubise adds, have also agreed to pay him a “substantial” amount

of money for the technology if it passes rigorous tests in France.

“They couldn’t believe what they saw,” Hurtubise told BayToday.ca.

“One of them told me it was as if I’d discovered a new universe.”

Gary Dryfoos, a consultant and former long-time instructor at MIT, said "there's

a Nobel Prize" for Hurtubise if the Angel Light really performs as described.

"There are laws of physics waiting to be written for what he's talking about,"

Dryfoos said.

The French aren't the only ones interested in Hurtubise's innovations.

BayToday.ca has obtained documentation confirming that the former head of Saudi

counter-intelligence, who asked that his name not be used, has been in regular

contact with Hurtubise regarding the Angel Light, fire paste, and the Light

Infantry Military Blast Cushions (LIMBC).

Ultra-wideband technology

While Hurtubise’s claims appear, on the surface, to strain credulity, he has now

placed himself miles ahead in the quest by high-tech companies to invent

something that will do the same thing.

Motorola Inc. for example, has set its sights on emerging technology that could

allow first responders and Special Forces to see through building walls, the

Washington Technology Web site reports.

Camero Inc. an Israeli firm founded by technology and intelligence veterans,

received $5 million from Motorola and other investors to develop portable

imaging radar that uses ultra-wideband technology to create a 3-D picture of

objects that are concealed by walls or other barriers.

Plasma light

Three units make up the Angel Light.

The main unit, which Hurtubise calls the centrifuge, contains the Angel Light’s

brains and includes black, white, red and fluorescent light sources, as well as

seven industrial lasers.

The second unit, or the deflector grid, contains a large circle of optical

glass, a microwave unit and plasma intermixed with carbon dioxide.

The third unit contains eight plasma light rods, CO2 charges, industrial

magnets, 108 mirrors, eight ionization cells industrial lights, and other

components Hurtubise chooses to remain tight-lipped about.

Just a dream

Hurtubise said the Angel Light has cost $30,000 to build—he sold percentages of

his other innovations to finance it—as well as 800 to 900 hours of his time.

He credits his subconscious with the idea.

“I had a dream about a year and a half ago as I do for most of my innovations,

just a dream, and I saw it, saw the whole casing and everything, and I saw what

it could do,” Hurtubise said.

“I had the same dream about that three times and by the third time I had it in

my head and I started to build it.”

Through the wall

Troy dreamed the Angel Light would be able to see through walls with window-like

efficiency, and then built it with no blueprints, drawings or schematics.

“I turned it on—that was well over a year ago—and it worked and it was really

awesome.”

Hurtubise said he could see into the garage behind his lab wall, and read the

licence plate on his wife's car and even see the salt on it.

"I almost broke my knuckles three or four times, because it was almost like you

could step through the wall," Hurtubise said.

"You could be fooled into believing that you could actually walk through the

wall and go touch the car."

Across the border

Hurtubise called his MIT contacts with news of what he’d done.

“They told me that I was playing with electromagnetism,” Hurtubise said.

The conversation ultimately led to the discovery of the Angel Light’s other

startling properties.

Hurtubise said “somebody from MIT” shipped him an eight-inch by eight-inch piece

of panelling from the latest Comanche helicopter, which was built using

radar-resistant stealth technology.

“It’s amazing what you can get across the border on a Greyhound bus,” Hurtubise

said.

Pick it up

Hurtubise was instructed to set up an outdoor track, which he did on First

Nations land.

He attached the panel piece to a remote control car that went down the track.

Hurtubise then aimed the Angel Light at the panel and turned on a radar gun.

“I was able to pick it up the panel on the radar gun,” he said.

Stopped working

But a strange thing happened to the car, once it was hit by the Angel Light

beam: it stopped working.

Hurtubise returned to his lab and began testing the Angel Light on other

electronic items including portable radios, TVs and a microwave over.

“They all stopped working,” Hurtubise said.

He duly reported this to his MIT contacts.

"They said 'Troy, this is unbelievable.'"

To the ground

Hurtubise purchase a remote-control plane for $1,800 and took it and the Angel

Light to a flying field on the way to Powassan.

He directed the Angel Light beam toward the sky and started the plane flying.

"On the first loop it came around, passed through the beam of light and fell

right to the ground,” Hurtubise said.

Peeled it back

Hurtubise continued testing the light on other materials and discovered it could

also see through other metals including steel, tin, titanium and, unlike

Superman, lead.

As well the beam also penetrated ceramic and wood.

The Hurtubise put his hand in the light beam.

“I could see my blood vessels, muscles, everything, like I’d taken an Exacto

knife, cut into my skin and peeled it back,” Hurtubise said.

Bad stuff

Soon after, Hurtubise discovered the Angel Light had devilish side-effects.

He lost feeling in the finger of the exposed hand and began suffering an overall

malaise.

“MIT told me every time I turned it on there must have been splash-back hitting

me,” Hurtubise said.

A test on a tank of goldfish was even more disturbing.

“I turned the beam on it and within minutes all the goldfish died,” Hurtubise said.

“That’s when I realized there was a Hyde effect, as in Jekyll and Hyde, and I

dismantled the whole thing.”

Walked on water

He didn’t reassemble it until the French called him after seeing a Discovery

Channel program about the LIMBC.

Hurtubise believes the Hyde effect can be taken out, but by others who have far

more expertise than him.

In the meantime Hurtubise believes that after 17 years inventing, his ship may

finally have come in with France.

"My brother told me the only way I'd be able to sell any of my innovations is by

walking on water," Hurtubise said.

"Well, I think I've just walked on water."

View Photo Gallery for this Story

From a previous post, but worth repeating (italics are Dr Fetzer's comments):

[There was no distress call, even though the plane--whose passengers included

a US Senator, his wife and daughter, and three aides--was going down in a

remote, swampy area where the rapid arrival of first responders might make

the difference between life and death. There were two pilots. He is committing

a fallacy of equivocation by playing with words. That the copilot, who had handled

most of the communications, did not send a distress call suggests he sent no call

because communications were disabled and he was unable to send out a call.]

It is also just as feasible that no call was made because the crew were in a high workload situation, pushing a bad approach, and did not realise the situation they were in. There is nothing to suggest that the comms were in any way inoperative.

[This is a nice example of "spinning" by trying to turn vice into virtue. Since

the plane was in distress, the pilots would be expected to "power up" and get out

of trouble, which is exactly what happened during the NTSB's own simulations.

They were unable to bring the plane down, even when it was flown abnormally

slowly. They were not landing. The field was miles to the north from where they

were. This remark displays either massive ignorance or deliberate deception.]

I think the ignorance is on your part here. The simulation demonstrated that it would have been possible for the aircraft to climb out and conduct a missed approach; there was sufficient power available from the engines. The fact that the engines were still in Flight Idle shows the crew did NOT attempt to apply power - another indication that they did not have SA.

"... the weather was fine..."

It was not. The AWOS was reporting scattered at 400, overcast at 700 (AGL). With a field elevation of 1378 ft, this means it was overcast at about 2080 ft AMSL. The MDA was 1840 ft AMSL - a difference of a little over 200 ft. That's about 10 seconds to get visual with the field and transition from the instruments to a visual approach before reaching MDA and having to conduct a missed approach. Factor in the fact it was scattered at about 1780 ft AMSL (400 AGL + FE), altimeter tolerance of +/- 50 ft, and an increased rate of descent to maintain profile, and they may have been breaking out at minimas. That is NOT fine weather. That is marginal - at best - and is further confirmed that the pilots planned an alternate, and the ATCO asked about intentions after a missed approach.

"...Richard Healing, a member of the NTSB team that wrote the report, admitted that they had no idea what caused the crash and were merely speculating..."

Was that a direct quote? I think he may have phrased it differently although, in some regards, it is correct. There was no physical evidence to indicate that the aircraft should not have been able to make an approach and land safely. Because there was no CDR / CVR, they have no record of what occurred in the cockpit apart from the radio transmissions. With nothing to positively identify what caused the crash, they have to look at the known facts and develop a most likely hypothesis as to why the accident occurred.

Please note that Dr Fetzer nor Jack White asked me to provide those professional reports. I suspect that they knew what they might contain and preferred not to have such professional opinions aired in contradiction to their own.

And a reminder what I said then (and what I say now):

(BTW, please excuse the use of Mr rather than Prof or Dr - I didn't really understand Dr Fetzers professional qualifications at that time)

Mr Fetzer,

I'm not looking at the politics surrounding the Senator.

I am looking solely at the facts of the flight and subsequent crash.

If there was anything to suggest that outside interference was responsible for the events of that flight, THEN those political motivations might explain why those events happened. The simple fact is, however, there is nothing to suggest that this was anything more than pilot error. Nothing.

Jack,

Perhaps you'd prefer a more unbiased view? I can give the report to a couple of people. One is a former senior air accident investigator for CASA (now the ATSB); the other is a work mate who performs a similar role but for the Navy.

Would yourself and Mr Fetzer be interested in their opinions regarding the NTSB report and the conclusions they drew? I am willing to pass the report (along with the various URLs Mr Fetzer has supplied)

I suspect that if they both concurred with the NTSB report, Mr Fetzer would 'dismiss' their opinions on some ground and continue with his original assertions.

This leads me to a question for Mr Fetzer which I have asked Jack on a different subject: what WOULD convince you that you were wrong and the crash was caused by nothing more sinister than pilot error?

Mr Fetzer,

You insist on 'harping' on! The FACTS are:

1. The weather WAS marginal. The reason the NTSB concludes it was not a factor was because it was still within limits. Being within limits does NOT make it 'fine'. Refer to an aviation meteorologist if you need guidance on this.

2. The aircraft requested, and was cleared for, a VOR approach to RWY 27. That is the approach they were vectored for. That is the approach they conducted.

3. If they had set up the GPS to monitor the approach, it would have been different. The GPS RWY 27 approach tracks 273 to the FAF from the COLLS intersection (see http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0509/05236G27.PDF).

4. If the GPS signal had been "manipulated" in any way, a 'GPS UNRELIABLE' or 'GPS DEGRADE' flag / warning would have appeared.

5. If they had a problem with the VOR approach, and the GPS became unreliable, and they had ANY doubt about what was happening, the CORRECT thing to do would have been to conducted a missed approach, gone around, and sorted out the problems.

6. There is NO evidence they attempted to power up the engines and fly out. This does not mean the engines or systems did not respond, it means there was no attempt to do so.

7. There is NO evidence that the communications system was inoperative.

8. There is NO evidence that any systems were damaged by any type of EMR, as would have been apparent if any systems had been subjected to sufficient EMR as to cause a malfunction.

9. It is unknown if the stall warning went off. Even so, as the reports show, the stall warning may have only sounded (IIRC) 5-7 kts above stall speed. The airspeed was bleeding off quite rapidly, so they may have only had a few seconds to react (not 'ample time'). This, combined with a preoccupation to regain the radial and get the aircraft back on the profile, may (and most likely did) lead to momentary confusion and a failure to react in time to the stall. A stall, 400-800 ft AGL when transitioning from IFR to visual, without dedicated and proper prior training, is DEADLY. More experienced and capable pilots than that flight crew have been killed in similar circumstances.

10. Pilots can and have 'worked against each other', each trying to do what they thought was right in an emergency situation. That's what CRM is all about.

Mr Fetzer, you make wild assumptions and draw conclusions from data which you are not qualified to assess.

Jim...Burton and Lamson seem to be clear advocates of ALL OFFICIAL STORIES ARE TRUE.

They attack JFK researchers; they attack Apollo researchers; they attack 911 researchers; they attack HAARP researchers; they attack chemtrail researchers ; they attack Wellstone researchers. They deny any "conspiracies".

Can we draw any inference from these data?

Jack

And let's just remind readers about this. I have never expressed a position regarding JFK - I am a novice in the field and just don't know enought to make an informed decision.

All the others I'll gladly put my hand up to, and am more than willing to discuss on separate threads.

And of course when I said:

There is no way to either prove or disprove that some parties may have wanted Wellstone dead. That being said, there is absolutely no evidence that the crash was anything other than pilot error.

Dr Fetzer replied:

With this post, Evan Burton proves that he has no serious commitment to the truth in the Wellstone case, since we devote more than a chapter to laying out

the evidence that the White House wanted to get rid of him. I am appalled at the level of ignorance displayed by some members of this forum, which does

not seem to inhibit them from making assertions that are not only false but even provably false. I suggest Burton exercise just a modicum of effort to ascertain whether or not his suggestion is even remotely reasonable, which it is not. Egad! This guy really doesn't know even the basics about this case.

We strongly believe that the GPS was manipulated to bring the plane into the

"kill zone", which is a vastly more plausible hypothesis than the NTSB ever advanced.

I don't recall you ever answering this, Dr Fetzer. Can you explain - in detail - how this occurred? I am sure many people would be very interested in following on how this might be done.... especially without disrupting other GPS users.

If you aren't a spook, you are obsessive and probably somewhat demented.

A reminder about how Dr Fetzer treats people who disagree with him (the above to Len Colby but have a look at his posts to me, for instance).