Len Colby

You think it was more conspiracy or incompetence? I think a lot of the stuff that was destroyed, was destroyed years later. IIRC the door frame only got chucked out in 1975. Len

I don't know if it was fair for Tink to have accused Fetzer of skedaddling from the Marines but he skedaddled from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaimsDEBUNK/ and he is doing the same here. He hit and ran the Apollo hoax forum*. It seems he can't bear his theories being held up to scrutiny. * http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...26833989&page=2

"My most enjoyable time was when I went to Muehlhausen in East-Germany and had a chance to play an organ in Bach's church where he had his second job... I have been to all of the cities he worked in. It's a hobby of mine." Larry Teeter , Sirhan Sirhan's lawyer http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~ dlewis /teeter.htm My dad was born in Muhlhausen [that's the correct spelling]. The house he grew up in, which is now the post office, is across the street from "Bach's church where he had his second job". My grandfather was friends with the deacon and was allowed to play the organ there when the church was closed.

Mel, There is a giant whole in Evans' theory The first time that Palestinians hijacked a plane was, July 23, 1968 - an El Al flight from Rome to Tel Aviv, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front...on_of_Palestine The first hijacking of a non-Israeli plane was a TWA flight from LA to Athens, August 29, 1969. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc.../incidents.html The terrorist believed incorrectly that Yitzak Rabin then Israel's ambassador to the US was on board. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_840 The first attack against an airliner with no connection to Israel was some time between December 1969 and January 1970 [ http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc.../incidents.html see incidents 9, 11 & 12] It seems highly unlikely that Onassis would be paying protection money for a type of crime that had not yet taken place. The El Al incident is what kicked off airline hijacking as a political tool. The Jackie angle doesn't make sense. Onassis would risk being executed and having to keep a secret like that from his wife so he could marry her a few months earlier?!?! One wonders with such poor research and reasoning if anything in his book should be taken seriously. [it probably deserves a place along side another CT book about the death of another liberal Senator] I am also skeptical about the sunk shipping deal angle. How does Evans allege that happened? In 1953 RFK, 2 years out of law school, was a Senate staff attorney either for McCarthy or Kefauver [sp?] and Onassis was already one of the biggest shipping magnates in the World So the Mickey Cohen and Aristotle Onassis theories don't hold any water. The idea that Nixon or some ultra-right wing types would want to kill him seems more plausible.

Steve there are no sources listed for this information on the site. I imagine that most of it is true but we have no way of know what is and what isn't.

Norman, I am intrigued by your statements. I thought Cohen had lost his money and power by 66. Mickey Cohen was also friends with Ruby's attorney, Belli. Sirhan's attorney was involved with fellow L.A. mobster Johnny Rosselli. Additionally, the man who admitted to police that he'd given Sirhan a ride, Gerry Owen, used a business partner of Cohen's as his alibi for the night of the shooting. Coincidence? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Norman [<especially] and Pat, Do you have any evidence to support these claims? Cohen was in various Federal maximum security prisons from 1961 - 1972*. Even if he did own the track and hotel, it seems doubtful he had contact with Sirhan or could have been anyway involved in the murder. Also why would the hotel owner have to be in on the murder? Len * http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/new_s...6&showgroup=593 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Cohen

Pat I think you partialy misunderstood what I was trying to say. According to Fetzer Bush had two reasons for wanting to be rid of Wellstone. 1] To be rid of Wellstone - I agree with Fetzer that he was very definately a thorn in the Bush Junta's side 2] To regain control of the Senate I don't deny that these two motives could drive Bush to kill Wellstone. What I question is tacticlly when it would have made more sense to kill him. Fetzer is right Coleman wouldn't have to know but that doesn't change the logic of my argument that killing him after the new congress was sworn in would be more likely to result in Wellstone being replaced by a Republican than killing him before the election. I agree "that ANY Democrat would have been ... preferable" to Wellstone but of course ANY Republican would have been preferable to ANY Democrat As for the RFK case it was a very different situation. I also have often wondered what might have happened if he hadn't been killed that very sad day in 1968. Len

I forgot to add the "16 crashes with stalls" file in the posts above as promised. Here tis in 3 formats. This is an updated version from the one posted previously. Once again there are various crashes where the pilots "simply let the plane crash" most of the planes had three man flight crews made up of pilots far more experienced that Conry & Guess. Fetzer will probably argue now that those crashes were caused by beam weapons too. Of five crashes with Cockpit Voice Recorder transcripts only one had a distress call. In the file there is link to dozens of CVR transcripts and only a few of those have distress calls. Two more of Fetzer's theories debunked once again Len

Wow another meaningless post from Mr. Fetzer. Once again Jim all that the existence of DEPS proves is that people are working on such weapons. As for the various bills introduced in the US Congress, Michigan House, UN etc all that they prove is that people are concerned about these weapons, no evidence of working models is even hinted at. Some directed weapons exist it seems but they are not the kind that could have downed the Wellstone plane. In the Time magazine article Jim cited they mentioned a weapon that could blind people. If Jim wants to argue that one of these was used he can go ahead. Another kind of weapon can cause an intense burning sensation but does not cause injury. Once the person is no longer being hit by the beam the pain stops. Something like this theoretically could bring down the plane but the assassins would have to keep the beam focused on the plane until it crashed and the pain would have to be so intense that neither pilot could operate the plane or make a radio call. Let's not forget that the beam would have to pass through the fuselage which would probably absorb/dissipate all of of it's energy. The beam does penetrate more then a fell cell layers of human skin. Just the existence of these two weapons and the development of others could explain the concern of the "informed people" cited by Fetzer

My word procesor went bezerk I think the problem has be fixed now sorry if anyone thried to read this before and got confused # or reasons Fetzer could come up with as to how Wellstone's death should have helped Coleman 0 The very idea that taking out the opposing party's candidate for the U.S. Senate ten days before the race when he was pulling 7-8 points ahead would not help the party's candidate is so simple-minded as to hardly merit any response. It would make it extremely difficult for the opposition party to regroup.... Wrong again - In the first poll after crash right after the rally Mondale actually increased Wellstone's lead By 2 pts. Many Democrats and Republicans though Wellstone's death would help the the Democrats against Coleman and other GOP candidates. It was only after the GOP spin machine started that Mondale lost points. Mondale could have Been expected to be boosted By sympathy for Wellstone. Coleman's 2 main points against Wellstone were that he was too radical and had broken his promise not to run for a third term and these did not apply to Mondale. The overwhelming consensus By liberal and conservative analysts is that if not for what happened at the rally and the resulting fallout [regardless of who was to Blame] Mondale would have won. You could also anticipate, under the circumstances, that the memorial service that would predictably take place would include at least some rhetoric encouraging carrying on the dead candidate's platform, goals and ideals, which could Be spun against the party... This is among the silliest things you have ever said. If this was so predictable why didn't it occur to any of the rally's organizers to vet the speeches? Why did they let it Be set up as a non-partisan event. In my opinion and that is shared By many, Both sides were at fault, some Dems. acted inappropriately But it got spun out proportion. To say such and out come was predictable is pure fantasyland. Cite one respected political analyst who shares your view. Evidence that Fetzer has that agents from Minneapolis arrived less than 2 1/2 hrs. after the crash was discovered 0 The testimony of Rick Wahlberg, Sheriff of St. Louis County, corroborated By that of Gary Ulman, the Airport Assistant Manager, Both of whom were contradicted By Paul McCaBe, spokesman for the FBI. These are certainly reliable sources who had no reason to lie, unlike FBI spokesman McCaBe. Ulman only said that FBI agents arrived Before 1 But never said which city they were from and thus did not contradict McCaBe. According to you, Whalberg said he got to the site "around 1:30" and saw agents he knew from Minneapolis. People were aware of the crash Before 11am. That is the 21/2 hour period I was referring to. Even your friends at From the Wilderness say the drive tales 2 1/2 hours. That would Be for a normal car and driver, how much faster could FBI responding to an emergency with flashing red lights etc get there? Explanations Fetzer has given as to why agents from Minneapolis simply didn't fly to Eveleth if they were in such a hurry. 0 The airport was temporarily closed, which is standard practice, in case something about the airport had contributed to the crash. Not point in setting up a situation where those investigating the crash also crash! According to you Ulman took the Fire Chief up after the crash was discovered. TB was no evidence that the airport had caused the crash. You might have a point But I think if the FBI said it was an emergency they would have Been allowed to land. Worst come to worst they could have diverted to near By Hibbing. Evidence that the plane was using GPS 0 The NTSB spent hours questioning pilots from Charter Aviation about the possiBility that the pilots were making a GPS rather than a VOR approach, which suggests that even the NTSB was taking the possibility seriously. 1] I read many But not all the interviews [some are not available on-line] I don't remember reading that. Please Briefly summarize these interviews and provide links if they are on-line. If not please attach them to a post B or put them up on your site. All pilots I have asked said your fly VOR or GPS not Both 2] I thought that it was you position that the NTSB was trying to cover-up the case. WB they investigating all possibilities or covering up? 3] The assassins would have no way of knowing in advance if they would use GPS [Not that I think they were]. What would the killers have done if they only used VOR. The late-model plane had an advanced avionics package, including a GPS system. The problem is to explain why the plane was heading for landing on the wrong gamut, 268 rather than 276. The Waukegan pilot's odd GPS experience, which occurred at the same time, suggests that GPS data may have Been manipulated to lead the plane into the "kill zone" and kill it. It's wrong heading has Been explained ad infinitum But I'll explain it, just for your Benefit one more time. The plane had Been off course since the first overshoot of the approach. Evidence cited By Fetzer indicating the gov't can manipulate GPS 0 This is a new phenomenon, of course, But that is part of the ingenuity of the plan. Use a weapon of which the public is largely unaware, But which can do the Job. ... In other words "Zero". Your speculation B is even more untenable than regards EM weapons. That the US and other countries have Been working on them for years is not in dispute. Show me one article from a reliable source saying that someone is working of this type of technology or explaining how in theory this might Be done. Specifically how one GPS unit could Be targeted Explanations Fetzer has given as to why the "manipulation of GPS" effected two planes 500 miles apart But there were no other reports of trouble. 0 It appears to have Been a "local" as opposed to "global" phenomenon in which data was affected with a "spill over" effect across state lines. It does not appear to have Been a world-wide manipulation, But rather one that was designed for this specific purpose that "spilled over". In other words "Zero". 500 miles away is a "local" "spill over"? What about the thousands of other planes and thousands of other GPS users the same distance from the Wellstone plane or at least in Between? O'Hare the World's Busiest airport is only marginally further away from Eveleth than Waukegan. You didn't´t answer the "no other" part of the question. # of times it says in the NTSB final report [or any of the other reports] where it says the pilots "lost track of altitude" as Fetzer alleges it does. 0 It is interesting that you raise this question, Because, while the NTSB said they lost track of their airspeed, that cannot occur without a com- mensurate loss in altitude. So, like the NTSB, you are covering up the true situation, which is that they were losing Both airspeed and alti- tude ("But let's just talk about airspeed: after all, it is starting to sound too incrediBle to Be true!") Not exactly true By adjusting trim they could maintain altitude. The question was you misquoting the report. In fact they had to loose altitude Because they were to high for their approach. So the altitude loss [before the stall] was probably intentional. If they weren't try to loose altitude that would Be additional evidence of incompetence. I'm not covering up anything nor do I Believe the NTSB is. The NTSB's own data supports the inference that the pilots had almost no forward thrust from the props during the last few minutes. So they could maintain altitude and lose airspeed or they could loose altitude and gain airspeed. And if they were still in control, then they also ignored the loud stall warning! I'm not a pilot But I think a lack of thrust and a stall are Basically the same thing - not enough airspeed By focusing on airspeed, the NTSB glosses over crucial questions about direction: why were the pilots making an approach into the woods instead of the runway? It doesn't gloss over this, they were lost, they continued on the same off course direction they'd Been on for several minutes. Their own analysis showed the VOR should have guided the plane directly to the runway. 1] Not directly close enough to come in sight of the runway 2] This contradicts the reports of the FAA pilots who flew check flights a few days later. If the NTSB wanted to smear the pilots as you claim why didn't they mention those flights? Since they already were off course the CDI should have Been already showing deflection. They only flew about 1 1/2 minutes after the second over shoot. That is not a lot of time for an inattentive pilot looking out the window in overcast weather when it's snowing trying to catch sight of an airport he has never flown to Before [if it was Guess] or only four times Before [if it was Conry] to take his eyes off the CDI. And once they Broke through the clouds and saw woods instead of runway, why didn't they simply power up for a missed approach? Ulman said it looked like they were aborting the landing Why didn't they [he] power-up? Good question. Why didn't the Avianca crew [3 pilots] tell the control tower they were having a fuel emergency long Before they were down to 5 minutes of fuel in a Blizzard with JFK Backed up? Why didn't any of the three pilots of Eastern 401 notice they were loosing altitude and power for nearly 7 minutes? Look at the attached 16 crashes with stalls file - Why did one flight crew slow to Below stall speed just Because ATC told them to? Why did one captain fail "to adequately monitor the flight instruments" and another enter "a steep turn at too low an airspeed" among various other Blunders. These of course were professional airline pilots not clowns like Conry and Guess The logical conclusion is that, for some reason, they couldn't. Finally, out of altitude and airspeed, with little or no forward thrust. Incompetence and inattention are more likely explanation They turned south into a grove of softer trees, slightly higher than the surrounding swampy areas and attempted an emergency landing. You said at times you though the pilots were incapacitated or already dead, which is it? The fuselage survived the drop through the trees, But not the impact with the ground. It Burned. The NTSB never explained why such a sequence should happen. 1] How do you know the fuselage survived the drop through the trees? Was it destroyed By the fire? 2] Even if it had why would this be unusual. You just said it was "a grove of softer trees". Soft trees against a 5000 - 8000 lbs "bullet" shaped piece of metal. It doesn't seem like much of a contest. 3] Even if it were true and unusual, what relevance does have - how does it further your theory of foul play? # of people who disagree with Fetzer's findings that he hasn't insulted 0 Egad! TB must Be large numbers with whom I have had no contact. My objections have not Been grounded in differences of opinion But in cases like yours where you go out of your way to distort and manipulate with the intention of misleading others about what logic and evidence have to tell us about this case... OK let me re-write that. # of people who disagree with Fetzer's findings in public forums he hasn't insulted. Your replies to Pat and Steve Belie you defense. WB they "going out of their way to distort and manipulate..."? Obviously not But that didn't stop you from attacking them Most importantly, you have never acknowledged that the NTSB never considered "non-accident" alternatives, Because the Attorney General never declared the crash scene to be a crime scene. I have repeatedly pointed out to you your misinterpretation of the NTSB rules. Since you obviously are not retarded I can only conclude you are Being intentionally deceptive. The NTSB can designate whoever it wants to help it. So the only possibilities the NTSB considered were that something was wrong with the pilots, the plane, or the weather. They eventually cleared the weather and the plane, which left them with the pilots. If the NTSB had considered non-accident alternatives, such as a small bomb, a gas canister, or a high-tech weapon, and had applied the proper principles of reasoning--in particular, inference to the Best explanation--to this case, it might have arrived at very different conclusions. It is not in the NTSB's mandate to study these unlikely scenarios. They don't really fit the situation anyway The FBI did and found no signs of foul play. Much of the coroner's finding also discount possibilities of a bomb or gas canister. You have not explained how one got on board [see my previous question regarding these possibilities] As it happens, the only parties to consider the full range of possible explanations, including assassination alternatives, are civilians like Christoper Bollyn of americanfreepress, Michael Ruppert of fromthewilderness, Michael Niman of Buffalo State College, Don "Four Arrows" JacoBs of Northern Arizona University, and of course John Costella, the leading expert on the case, and me. John Costella is only the leading expert in your and possibly his estimation, Niman only conjectured a few days after the crash Before the evidence was in. Herr Bollyn is a political extremist [Fascist - not as in Republican as in Nazi] he is interested in any story that would make Bush look bad because he believes that he is a tool of the NWO to put Jews in control of the planet. Ruppert is respectaBle But has come up with some strange notions in the past. These three wrote a grand total of four or five articles immediately after the crash and have Been silent since. None of them like Costella, Arrows and you have any experience investigating crashes and have little if any notion of aviation. But you are not about to admit THE NTSB REPORT did not even considered non-accident alternatives; people might think you were an idiot! I have already spelled out my reasons why I think foul play unlikely. There is no reason to suspect the NTSB's findings. One or two in competent pilots started off poorly - off course, too high and too fast in poor visibility. They [he] continued on the same track and forgot to pay attention to airspeed when they realized they were lost. If numerous pilots who studied the crash do not find that scenario unlikely neither you or I have grounds to second guess them. Pilots far more competent have made similar Blunders, there's no mystery

1] the whitts article is largely irrelevant because it focuses on in flight fires which could be different from post impact ones; Yes it says that electrical fires have white smoke nothing about blue or bluish white smoke. You discounted Evan's photos of the helicopter crash because the smoke in it was white. 2] your theory that the fire was electrical in origin is plausible but it would have ceased being an electrical fire once there was no longer any electrical current - long before Ulman found it if the smoke was blue, bluish-grey or bluish-white as you and your friends have variously described it there would have to be another explanation. No electricity = no electrical fire 3] I'd like to see those photos If Costella has all these diplomas and still believes there can be an electrical fire without electricity than one must truly doubt his intelligence. Maybe that's why he is one of the few PHDs who teaches high school. From the sounds of it he's not even competent to do that. When I studied akido the teacher told me getting a black belt was only the beginning. A PhD should also be only the beginning. Most scientist before calling themselves experts in anything will research the subject scientifically at a university, foundation, private hi-tech company etc publish papers etc none of which Costella ever did. Of course he is - in your opinion. The fact that you would think some one with 0 knowledge of aviation, 0 experience investigating crashes and 0 experience piloting a plane is more knowledgeable than the crash investigators - many of whom are pilots and/or have advanced degrees in related fields, and have spent years investigating crashes, who studied the crash for over a year - just because has diplomas in unrelated fields of science is telling. For all the fuss you make about the article it is a rehash of what you've said before Costella is not any more competent to evaluate the NTSB report than anybody on this forum. He is less so than Evan It was not up to the NTSB to explain the exact reason for the fire. They are crash investigators not fire investigators Post impact fires are common. Knowing exactly what set fire to what was not important. The fact that the tail and wings were relatively undamaged and that the plane did not explode into a fireball and that no witnesses who saw the plane before it crashed said anything about smoke or fire all reinforce the idea of a post impact fire. If such a strong fire was burning while the plane was in flight it should nave ignited the fuel supply, because some of the fuel is stored in the fuselage. The three people who had smoke in their lungs were Wellstones staff members who were probably siting in the back. Thus they would have been the most likely to survive the impact. Conversely if the fire had started in the cockpit they would have been the least likely to have inhaled smoke. The coroner determined that the Wellstones and the crew had not inhaled smoke or carbon monoxide, they were dead before the fire started. You have provided hundreds of links to UFO/pothead/ET/tinfoil hat/hollow earth etc. sites and many of those don't even say such weapons exist. All the reliable sources I've found on my own and that you have supplied say that the gov't has been working on them for decades and might soon be close to deploying some. None of the articles say such weapons are operational and most indicate otherwise - that progress still needs to be made. Most of the weapons described in them don't have the capability to do what you say. All I ask of you is ONE article from a RELIABLE source that says such a weapons exists. As I pointed out the existence of deps only proves that such weapons are being researched. As for retired Gen. "Chicken little"-"Dr. Stranglelove" Schwieter's testimony he was a paranoid kook who got fired from the Nat. Security Council in 1981 for saying we were about to be vaporized by the Soviets. By the time he testified in 1996 he was 15 years out of the loop, his report by his own admission was based on Internet research and speaking to unnamed experts and even he did not say such weapons definitely existed or that he had any direct knowledge of there existence. Go ahead quote Schwietzer it will give me an opportunity to embarrass you. One EM weapon is described as shooting a lighting bolt. a lightning bolt shooting 2000 feet straight up probably would have drawn attention. The assassins could not have taken such a risk. If you could prove that 1] a) there had been an electrical fire and there is no other reasonable explanation or 2] a) there had been a metal fire and there is no other reasonable explanation. That would be direct evidence. ???????????????????? which study? John Organo retracted his claim, oh yeah I forgot he was coerced unsubstantiated. Third hand reports we'll just have to take your word right? see above not uncommon even with THREE pilots in the cockpit Not uncommon almost all crashes are losses of control deceptive and inaccurate "flight idle" was the appropriate setting for approach As explained above they already were off course do to their own incompetence. To be honest you should rephrase "failure to regain proper course" going back to the previous pdf file they had been off course for about 2 minutes [frames 11 - 20] and continued in a straight line about a 11/2 minutes after overshooting the approach path for the second time! The crew gave no indication of being aware that they'd overshot the approach [either time] incorrect [QUOTE]# of people on the ApolloHoax thread who believe that Costella knows what he is talking about in the EM chapter 0 Your source, "JayUtah", whose background is in mechanical engineering, does not appear to have qualifications that are appropriate to address these issues. ... I think that Jay's decades working in aerospace industry more than trump your friend the high school science teacher's diplomas. Jay does argue that much about the finer points of particle physics but disputes Costella's analysis of the reason for various plane crashes and how cell phone or game boys could effect a plane. It seems that Costella cited cases of "fly by wire"aircraft especially susceptible to EM interference radiation [very different from the low-tech A100] and some cases where EMI was suspected but not proven. Costella's claim that a stereo pops or clicks when a light is turned due to EMI is ludicrous, As Jay pointed out "This has less to do with EM waves and more to do with electrical wiring." In Brazil most homes don't have hot water many like mine have electric shower heads. When someone takes a shower it's not uncommon for lights, TVs etc to act funny. The shower is not an EM emitter. You and your anonymous sources again. Since you are very unreliable in quoting written sources including your own book and are prone to stretch the truth why should anyone believe when you use unnamed sources? Not that they've said anything publicly but I wouldn't be surprised if the pilots loved ones would not want to accept that they were at fault. Since various lawsuits were involved and money was at stake they would have added motive to doubt what they didn't want to hear.

I have edited some of Fetzer's replies for brevity Strange that after I have repeatedly asked you this question on this thread you are only responding now. After your tirade against pilots here I imagine that maybe you only have some self appointed experts who don't agree with the final report. To prove me wrong tell us who three or four of these experts are and their credentials. Briefly summarize their arguments and provide some direct quotes. I'm not asking a lot a few sentences for each person. Two incompetent pilots, the record is overwhelming. Their [or his if Guess was doing everything] performance before the last radio communication was poor. They overshot the original turn off to catch the approach path, the ATC's late instruction was a factor but a good pilot should have been able to make the turn in time anyway, as they approached the airport they were coming in too fast and too high. Since they [he?] were screwing up before the last radio message and had a record of screwing up why is it hard to believe they screwed up for a couple minutes more? Airspeed - yes, altitude - no. It's happened before and will happen again replied to ad infinitum. There are various reasons why the stall alarm might not have sounded. The last time a Air King crashed the stall alarm was off etc In the case of Eastern 401 the "altitude alert horn" sounded but there was no response from the flight crew. replied ad infinitum - The simulations weren't to test whether the plane would stall but to check the role of the added workload of the bad approach and to verify radar data. I provided quotes and links back to the final report in that regard in a previous post. If you have info about any other flight simulations please tell us about them. Also since no flight simulator for the A 100 exists all simulations were done on similar but different planes with different flight characteristics. Simulators might not exactly simulate all the variables of a real flight with 100% accuracy. Again altitude no. and the horn has been responded to repeatedly. For the following discussion it would be helpful to open the following file http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2003/Eveleth/Ev...Meeting_IIC.pdf The were off course due to there own incompetence and poor directions from the ATC [air traffic controller]. They overshot the approach path by a mile when still flying north [frames 10 - 15] then then started flying a course that would have allowed them to intercept the approach path again [frames 11 - 20] for some unknown reason they continued straight, the time from the 2nd overshoot till the stall was less than 2 minutes [frames 21 - 28]. I believe the CDI would have been reading full deflect the whole approach. It's possible that the pilot though his path would bring him with in sight of the runway, Nowhere in the ATC transcript is the fact that they overshot the approach course, were off course and would have to intercept it again mentioned by the pilots or the controllers. The pilot(s) might not have known this. That's your spin on what he said. What was the exact quote? He was simply stating the obvious they didn't have enough info to say exactly what happened. 1] You repeatedly claim to have proven your conclusions not that they can simply be inferred 2] Both pilots showed repeated signs of incompetence Guess who was probably flying was basically a trainee, Conry told his wife the other pilots thought Guess was incompetent. Guess had been fired from both of his previous piloting jobs etc etc Conry claimed to be experienced but even Justin Lowe, who was one of 2 pilots at Aviation Charter who his wife said he confided in, said Conry had made serious mistakes in the past, lacked confidence and "he just seemed real slow. Always hitting wrong things, saying wrong things." An instructor and operations director said he "did not fly like a seasoned pilot" http://www.startribune.com/dynamic/story.p...a&story=3736949. Conry told one of his closest friends he had difficulty flying the model of plane that crashed. etc etc Both pilots had problems with landings and paying attention 3] 2 - 3 pilot flight crews made up of truly competent pilots have made similar errors. So it's not accurate to say they would have to be "less competent than trainees" It makes more sense to believe that something not uncommon occurred that to believe that a weapon that probably doesn't exist was used. Groundless speculation on your part which is contradicted by the evidence. I am not referring to the JFK jr or Carnahan etc. crashes but rather Eastern 401, the Aviaca flight whose crew let the plane ran out of fuel, the King Air crash cited by Evan, several of the crashes from the file "16 crashes involving stalls" [which I attached to a previous post and again here] and several of the "20 worst aviation disasters" described in an article I provided a link to previously. ????????? Various people have examined crash investigations in 99% of the cases no one doubts the outcome. They always come to the same conclusion + 40 % of airline and + 70 % of small plane crashes are due to pilot error. All of which are easily discounted Bullxxxx, the only evidence that you have of this is a sworn statement from Conry who was convicted of 14 counts of fraud, lied about his previous flight experience to Aviation Charter [AC], his colleagues there and one of his closest friends, kept double logbooks with numerous discrepancies forged signatures, claims to have lost logbooks which were in his attic and hid his 2nd job from AC. Even his wife said he had 3000 - 4000 hours. Even if we were to believe he had 5200, 4518 of those were from before 1989. Before working for AC he had not flown for 12 years due to his legal and vision problems. Speaking of which he probably was not wearing his contact lenses as mandated by the FAA. Also irrelevant pilots with more hours have screwed up. Just like 80% of professional pilots. Most crashes pilots are ATPs Irrelevant except for the fact that he flew too slowly out of a simulated stall. Pilots are checked every 6 months remove the modifier highly and I agree. Many competent pilots have crashed and Guess might well have been flying 1] As fits human nature Conry and Guess would have been trying to save themselves. Being in the cockpit they were the least likely to survive. It does not make sense to say that Wellstone's presence would make any difference. What are you proposing was going through their minds "It's OK if I die but I gotta save Sen. Wellstone"? 2] Many of these crashes had hundreds of people on board, would their lives mean less to a pilot than 1 senator? Then point the important differences out. 1] I read somewhere that it had an accident rate about 30% lower than the average for similar planes not a huge difference 2] All pilots who I have seen answer the question say the "Cadillac" would have continued flying with complete electronics/avionics failure OK smarty pants 1] show evidence that it was a metal fire 2] what is the ignition point for the type of aluminum in the fuselage? 3] what is the max temperature for a Kerosene based fire? 4] 3] might be irrelevant because it seems the kerosene had burnt off already what's the max temp of a fire based on the combustible material in the cabin? Not according to most of the literature I've read, cite a report not from a UFO etc site to back your claims.

Jim The link to the NASA article in the Costella chapter does not work. Please give us a working one. If it is no longer available on-line please attach a copy to your next post. Len

Fetzer Score Card # of pilots or aviation experts Fetzer could find who doubt the NTSB's explanation the crash 0 Reasons Fetzer can come up with that since many similar crashes were due to pilot error to doubt that the Wellstone crash was too.. 0 # of fire experts who agree with Fetzer's theories about the fire. 0 # of scientists other that Costella who believe there can be an electrical fire without electricity 0 Costella's qualifications other than his diplomas 0 Evidence that Fetzer has that the fire was pre-impact 0 # of articles from reliable sources that say that operational EM weapons as described by Fetzer exist 0 Direct evidence he has that an EM weapons was used against the plane 0 # of people on the ApolloHoax thread who believe that Costella knows what he is talking about in the EM chapter 0 # of friends, family and co-workers of any of the 8 people who died who believe Fetzer's theories 0 # or reasons Fetzer could come up with as to how Wellstone's death should have helped Coleman 0 Evidence that Fetzer has that agents from Minneapolis arrived less than 2 1/2 hrs. after the crash was discovered 0 Explanations Fetzer has given as to why agents from Minneapolis simply didn't fly to Eveleth if they were in such a hurry. 0 Evidence that the plane was using GPS 0 Evidence cited by Fetzer indicating the gov't can manipulate GPS 0 Explanations Fetzer has given as to why the "manipulation of GPS" effected two planes 500 miles apart but there were no other reports of trouble. 0 # of times it says in the NTSB final report [or any of the other reports] where it says the pilots "lost track of altitude" as Fetzer alleges it does. 0 # of people who disagree with Fetzer's findings that he hasn't insulted 0 Jim instead of just dismissing this message as rubbish come up with examples to prove me wrong. Len PS - I have edited this post to add more 0s and will continue to do so as more occur to me.

For all who have not done so already I urge to look at the thread started by Craig in another forum where Fetzer and Costella's EMP theories are taken apart by people who unlike them know what they are talking about. http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...26833989&page=1 Jim, we are still waiting for your theory about the fire and explanation about why the smoke was blue. Are you still going to maintain that the fire was electrical even though there wasn't any electricity?

Some highlights from Fetzer last post Great Jim more quotes from the tinfoil hat /UFO nut/ silver-lined boxer shorts/ hollow earth crowd!!! These are a bunch of paranoids who blame secret electromagnetic mind control for their neurosis Don't you look at this stuff before you post it? It's almost like you enjoy making a fool of yourself because you keep posting stuff from lunatics. They build mirror cover Faraday boxes - I think to sleep in like crazy 21st century paranoid Dracula shut-ins!! Jim if this is the best you can come up with give up!!! The only thing remotely interesting in that post was for the device to stop cars. The patent said nothing about range. From what I understand the prototypes which are only now being tested have ranges of 10 - 20 feet and aren't very reliable. Patents don't prove anything - you don't have to show that something will work to get one. See more quotes from the site below. I have developed a plan to recruit, hire and invite a million leaders to become company club trust members, some of whom may be representatives of star visitors, E.T.'s, and inner Earth societies. In order to provide the security services needed to protect club members and leaders world wide and to provide a secure base for company trust club main offices, I have also developed a plan to purchase and accept as donations some Islands and ships at sea on the surface of the Earth, in the inner hollow Earth, and bases on planets and space stations in outer space. Underwater floating submarine cities, flying saucers, airships, satellites, space stations, hover ships, and other private security and militia services may also be purchased and accepted as donations to provide basic militia and security services to club members and to secure company club ventures, properties, and their goals. http://www.rhfweb.com/club.html the quotes below are from various pages on the site. No urls but if want to check do a Google search "From my understanding much of electronic harassment is coming from international organizations outside of the United States, especially from Asian, Middle Eastern, and Shadow governmental underworld organizations, who live in underground bunkers and who use stealth airships, and satellite technologies to target world citizens with directed energies and remote sensing technologies; and who are hostile to US citizens and all world citizens, who live on the surface of the Earth, and who may have contracts with organizations in the US to target US citizens." "An electrified piece of metal or a faraday cage can be used to block out more intense radio waves. A simple faraday cage can be built in the basement by painting the basement walls with metalized paint and insulating them and then electrifying them...A metallic shiny mirror faraday cage box or wall which has a fountain of water sprayed over the randomly energized in phase, frequency, and intensity metal mirror box, may also jam out sound and beam weapons. The more layers of energized mirror metal and water the more successful one may be in jamming out the beam weapons and sound waves" Less emf at < http://www.lessemf.com/personal.html > sells a clothing with a silver conductive lining to block out some Emfs.[They sell silver lined caps, aprons, boxer shorts, tube socks etc. Len] There are companies which engineer and place crystal fibers in clothing also. If we were to also energize the clothing with an alternating current, phase, and frequency, and shield the clothing then we could create a small plasma force field around the clothing to jam out most energies. Some crystals can be engineered to pull in environmental energies and reflect them back to create a force field

It is really hard to say what exactly happened those last few minutes, there weren't any black boxes, there wasn't a distress call [which is NOT unusual] and no mechanical problems were discovered, the pilot's tox screens were clean, it was snowing and visibility wasn't good but icing was ruled out as a factor. The radar info only gave approximate data on airspeed, flight path, altitude, descent rate. The plane was almost completely destroyed by the impact and fire. Another words there are no obvious explanations and the investigators had very little to go on. The smoke theory isn't tenable because only three victims had smoke in there lung and they were all Wellstone aids. Also the coroner as indicated ran tox screen and didn't find anything I don't think there was enough time either the plane was only airborne about 2:20 after the last radio communication and crashing. The idea of a bomb or anything being planted on the plane is unlikely also. The time frame was pretty limited. Wellstone only contacted Aviation Charter the afternoon before the crash but the plane was on a job until about 7pm. Conry got to the airport at about 8am. I don't know when the company [small c] decided which plane Wellstone would fly on or how the Company [big C] could have gotten that info. One problem with any theory of foul play is the pilots. As I said to you after one of your 1st posts on this thread if there were any assassins they were very lucky to have two such poor pilots together FBI and CIA maybe but I doubt at the NTSB despite Fetzers insinuations. The investigator are people with technical backgrounds including several with advanced degrees and they criss-cross the country investigating various types of transportation accidents. Very few of them if any have law enforcement or intelligence backgrounds. I think Fetzer said that Carol Carmody was a Bush apointee*. That is complete bullxxxx see was appointed in 2000 by and made acting chairwoman Jan 19 2001. That's right one of Fetzer's archvillians, responsible for the "cover-ups" of the Wellstone and Carnahan crashes was Clinton appointee *[Griffeth did at least and Fetzer pasted the review into one his posts] I think plane crashes can be faked pretty easily but not in away that would match the circumstances of this crash.

Tink After looking at your bio. it makes perfect sense to me. Didn't they promoted you twice after the 1st ed. of "6 Seconds". If you want to see another example of "your nemesis" making a fool of himself check out the link that Craig provided. Fetzer had a bit of a conniption fit. In the thread an aerospace engineer takes Cotella's EMP chapter to pieces and Jimmy didn't take it well. I'm sure you're extremely jealous of Fetzer, teaching at UM-Duluth is close to the pinnacle of academic achievement.

Wikipedia has an excellent entry on fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire "There are many different classification systems used for uncontrolled fires; In Europe and Australasia 6 groups are used:" "Shock Risk (formerly known as Class E): Fires that involve any of the materials found in Class A and B fires, but with the introduction of an electrical appliances, wiring, or other electrically energized objects in the vicinity of the fire, with a resultant electrical shock risk if a conductive agent is used to control the fire." "In the U.S., fires are generally classified into four groups: A, B, C, and D." "Class C: Fires that involve any of the materials found in Class A and B fires, but with the introduction of an electrical appliances, wiring, or other electrically energized objects in the vicinity of the fire" Unfortunately I couldn't find anything relevant ther about smoke This site was more informative Color of Flames and Smoke http://www.maiif.net/pdf/fire_chapter4.pdf Color of smoke may indicate the type of material being burned. Complete combustion often produces little or no smoke, while dense smoke often indicates incomplete combustion. Flame color may indicate the type of materials being burned. As the amount of hydrocarbons increase the flames will become darker or more orange in color. A lack of sufficient oxygen usually causes flames to be darker than when the same fuel is burned in a well-ventilated area. Extreme caution is required when using color of smoke and flames as an indicator. Remember, the investigator often arrives on the fire scene during the latter stages of the fire, and may observe smoke colors that relate to materials burning in the latter stages, which will give false indications. Also, most vessel contain fuels with hydrocarbon bases which, when burning, may produce smoke and/or flames which can mislead the investigator. Smoke and flame colors which indicate the type of material being burned are listed in the chart below. Kerosene is listed as giving off green smoke* *Source: Kirk's Fire investigation, 1991 and Factory Mutual Engineering Corporation. A Pocket Guide to Arson Investigation, 1979.

You can try spinning this however you want but I caught you in a lie. The poll itself was not "sinister or misleading", what was misleading [sinister would be an overstatement] was how YOU reported it. YOU are the one who wrote 'In the wake of the crash, 69% of Minnesotans blamed a "GOP conspiracy" for Wellstone's death.' If you are going senile and forgot having written that all you have to do is click on the link provided. How else did you expect your reader to interpret the offending sentence if not to infer that a scientific random poll had been conducted? Unless you can argue that the sentence wasn't deceptive or that you didn't know it was deceptive - you have no grounds to claim you didn't lie. You lied I called you on it and I am the disreputable one! Your fetzerian logic never fails you! Your trying to pin some of the blame on the publisher is a cop out, you wrote the deceptive sentence not one of their PR people. I think if one thought that Wellstone's death was due to a "GOP conspiracy" it would be logical to assume that Coleman as one of the principal beneficiaries would have been in on it. Didn't you use the qui bono [who benefits] principle to point the finger at Bush? In any case I rewrote the sentence, I hope it's to your satisfaction . Nailed him how? By asking him questions most people wouldn't expect him to be able answer? Why should he be able to explain what the FBI was doing days before he got there? His answers were not that far, if at all off the mark. The FBI was not a party to the investigation, they were carrying out a parallel investigation and yes possibly there to help identify bodies. I didn't see any information in any of the various reports that came from the FBI, did I miss something? That the FBI would respond to the site of a plane crash that killed a US Senator a little over a year after 9/11 and the anthrax letters seems natural to me. If it turned that the crash was criminal they would have been the lead agency and they not the NTSB are qualified to look for signs of terrorism or criminal activity. If they hadn't shown up, you would have made an issue of that, you would say "they didn't even bother to investigate because they already knew what happened!" -You seem to be under the mistaken impression that just because you assert something people have to accept it as 'a Fetzer given fact'. -Did you sincerely believe that '69% of Minnesotans blamed a "GOP conspiracy" for Wellstone's death'? Funny this coming from the guy who compared me to Hitler! The guy who repeatedly accuses me of being a government agent , deranged or intellectually challenged. He is the one who pounced on Pat and Steve and Evan. It's clear from you statement about the 'black box' that you weren't merely suspicious you had already made up you mind. Webster's defines prejudice as "1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge" Your prejudices led you to come to a preconceived conclusion Incorrect I know that your suspicion was not well founded

Jim all that the deps.org page proved is that these weapons are being researched. Note that almost all the people work at some research facility. No one denies that such weapons are being developed. What is still "in dispute" is if WORKING models of such weapons that could have been deployed against Wellstone's plane exist. Short range weapons don't count, weapons that only cause pain don't count either, nor do ones that cause headaches or ones that blind people. It has to be a weapon that could disable the plane and/or the pilots. That an EM weapons triggered the fire is not crucial to your argument but you insist that is the case. 1] That you can't even find one report [NOT from CT/UFO site] that says these weapons exist is very telling. If such weapons exist why are there any articles saying they do. You can't simultaneously argue they are secret weapons the gov't is trying to keep 'under wraps' and cite articles based on DoD PR. 2] Even the articles you cite and all the articles I have read say that these weapons are NOT ready for use. 3] Why don't you get in touch with the people at deps.org and see if any of them will confirm that such weapons exist? 4] If you want to argue that the pilot's were disabled AND that the plane was disabled and/or set on fire, you would need two or three weapons. If you have seen any reliable accounts of a single weapon being able to accomplish all three or just being able to disable people AND electronics, quote a few snippets and provide a link Once again you are switching the burden of proof. You are the one insisting that something exists even though you can't cite one sources that says they do. I think my analogy comparing you to Creation Scientists, Holocaust deniers [like your buddy Bollyn] and Moon landing deniers [wait you are one!] is more apt.

Amazing Fetzer misquoted his own book and pays fast and loose with the truth. - Despite claims of objectivity he decided the moment he heard about the crash that it was a "conspiracy" I have discovered two cases of Fetzer knowingly distorting the truth Case 1 - "The poll" - [this is based on a message I posted to the Yahoo forum, Fetzer had previously spelled out "four conditions" that had to be met before a person could be said to be lying. Did his version of events meet his own conditions? - No doubt about it!] On Fetzer's site he makes 2 references to a poll in which a majority of respondents said they thought the Wellstone crash was due to "a GOP conspiracy". Problem is that this was an Internet survey which is of course a totally unscientific method for gauging public opinion. He repeated this distortion of the truth in this thread and various other places. The poll in itself is not important. I don't think that Fetzer even considers it a key piece of evidence, but he does like bringing it up. The issue is how he reports it. Is shows that he is willing to distort the truth to prove his case. He reported it like this - 1] 'In the wake of the crash, 69% of Minnesotans blamed a "GOP conspiracy" for Wellstone's death.' http://www.assassinationscience.com/Americ...assination.html This distorted version of the truth appears on Amazon's page for the book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846 and in slightly different form on the book publisher's site, "At the time, 69% of Minnesotans polled said they had a hunch a "GOP conspiracy" was at play in his death. American Assassination validates the common wisdom: the people had it right all along." http://www.voxpopnet.net/index.php?id=54&t...Hash=48d825d50d and in one form or another on about 110 other webpages http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls...acy&btnG=Search Obviously there was no way to draw this inference from the poll, because it only measured the opinion of those who chose to participate. Also there is not any way of knowing how many people voted various times or how many 'voters' were Minnesotans. It's totally illogical to believe that 69% of Minnesotans believed this. A few days later Coleman got 50 % of the vote. Even if we would make the highly dubious assumption that all the people who voted for Mondale or the other candidates believed in the conspiracy, we would have to believe that 19 % of Minnesotans [38 % of Coleman's voters] blamed a "GOP conspiracy" and voted for Coleman any way. I am most certainly not a Republican and sometimes find it hard to believe they make the choices that they do, but I can not believe that over 38 % of them would have voted for Coleman if they thought Wellstone had been the victim of a "GOP conspiracy". [i edited the bold part of the above sentence due Fetzer's hair-splitting complaint, see below] 2] "A survey that evening [Oct. 25, 20002] by THE ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS would show that 69% of the respondents thought his death was the result of 'a GOP conspiracy.' " http://www.assassinationscience.com/About_...SASSINATION.pdf This is not as distorted as the first quote. But tends to leave the reader with the impression that a telephone survey was carried out by the paper. He gave a similar version on this thread: 'Not to mention that a poll conducted immediately after the crash reported by THE PIONEER PRESS found, given choices like an accident, an act of God, etc., 69% picked "a GOP conspiracy"! ' http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=39571 Again if the reader got the false impression that the 69% figure accurately measured public sentiment or that the poll was scientific it's obvious that this false impression was not unintentional. Let's apply Fetzer's 'four conditions' - "someone is lying when and only when (a) the claim they are making is false, ( they know it is false (that means they believe it is false, they have evidence that it is false, and it is false), © they are asserting it intentionally (d) with the aim or purpose of misleading." [ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FETZERclaims...NK/message/1939 - the replies are interesting too!] (a) - The claim that '69% of Minnesotans blamed a "GOP conspiracy" for Wellstone's death.' was false. ( - Obviously he knew it was false. © - Unless Dr. Fetzer claims "the devil made him do it" or that he had been subject to some sort mind control how can he deny that he 'asserted it unintentionally' (d) - © was already superfluous and (d) is too, (a) and ( were already sufficient to define a lie. What was his intention here if not to mislead? That Fetzer puts so much faith into web surveys is quite humorous if you consider this one: Poll Results What do you think of Jim Fetzer's JFK/Wellstone theories? He's probably right [12 votes, 19.05%] Somewhat plausible [28 votes, 44.44%] Nutty as a fruitcake [23 votes, 36.51%] http://www.perfectduluthday.com/2003_12_01_archive.html I also found the comments quite amusing java script:openBackBlog('107129493991962988','Perfect%20Duluth%20Day','feedback') Case 2 -Fetzer misquotes his own book!! From "The NTSB Failed Wellstone" By Jim Fetzer and John Costella in From the Wilderness July 6, 2005 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...ne.shtml#_edn56 they = the FBI Hildrup = Fred Hildrup a NTSB investigator 'When further asked what they were doing on the scene for many hours before the arrival of the NTSB, Hilldrup (who only took over on Monday) speculated that “maybe they were responding to the—you know—the conspiracy theories.” When it was further pointed out to him that there could hardly have been any conspiracy theories operating before the crash was even known to the general public (first reports emerged around 1:30 PM),' The footnote cites pg. 14 of American Assassination as the source Excerpt of American Assassination [presumably page 14] as quoted on Fetzer's site: [Fetzer makes a big deal about this interview, like it is some sort of "smoking gun". but it is ridiculous. They are asking some guy from the NTSB who arrived three days later what the FBI was doing on the day of the crash] FH = Fred Hilldrup , FA = Four Arrows - Fetzer's co-author "FH: I can't say for sure, since I only took over on Monday; but maybe they were there responding to the--you know--the conspiracy theories. FA: How could there have been any conspiracy theories operating before the plane crashed?" Arrows did not ask the right question, but that didn't stop Fetzer from quoting him as if he had. Arrows should have asked "How could there have been any conspiracy theories operating before the plane crash was even known to the general public?". Arrow's had not "pointed out to him that there could hardly have been any conspiracy theories operating before the crash was even known to the general public", therefore Fetzer's statement was false and since he wrote the book he knew it was false. Also his assertion that "first reports emerged around 1:30 PM" is false. All times in the article refer to local [Central] time and first reports emerged BEFORE 12:30 PM.. This is clear from two webpages that I found. On October 25, 2002 [the day of the crash] at 6:35 PM GMT, "King Air-Minn" a new thread was started in airdisaster.com's forums with the following post: "Early report of King Air down enroute from St Paul, Minn. Eight POB including possibly Senator Wellstone. Crashed 7 miles from intended destination, Eveleth, Minn. Reported no survivors." 3 minutes later someone replied that [they're] "talking about it on CNN" http://airdisaster.com/forums/printthread....26&page=1&pp=25 Minnesota is 6 hours behind GMT so the message was posted at 12:35 local time. http://www.worldtimezone.com/ - A post titled "Wellstone's plane crashed" appeared on the liberal Daily Kos blog site, it quotes CNN.com and an AP story which appeared on the Minnesota Star-Tribune's website. The AP story quotes a local TV station. http://www.dailykos.net/archives/000436.html The post time is 10:35 AM but no timezone is mentioned. Nor could I find any indication of which state the blog was based in . Obviously the the post could not have been made Eastern time or Central time, if it was made Mountain time that would be 11:35 in Minnesota and Pacific time would make it 12:35 PM. Fetzer could try to argue the blog is based in Alaska or Hawaii. HOWEVER on the blog's homepage http://www.dailykos.com/ and elsewhere on the site post times are shown as PDT or Pacific time, no other timezones appear. The only logical assumption is that the message was posted at 12:35 Minnesota time simultaneous with the airdisaster.com post. Obviously the following steps took more than 5 minutes 1] the TV station reports the story, 2] AP picks up the story and publishes an article, 3] the Tribune places the article on their site 4] the blogger finds and reads the article 5] the blogger writes and posts his message Fetzer was listening to the radio or TV at the time so he should have known when the story broke "The day of the crash, I was interviewed in my office at the University of Minnesota about the death of JFK by a reporter for a weekly alternative newspaper in Duluth, THE RIPSAW. We listened to intermittent reports about the tragedy, including that emergency workers had not had access to the plane, which was still burning hours after the crash. This led me to ask myself, "So how do they actually know that he is dead?" When we ended our conversation several hours later, he remarked that the contents of the "black box" should be important. I told him there wouldn't be one" This passage is interesting because it shows that Fetzer within hours of hearing about the crash, before he had any evidence was sure that a conspiracy was involved. [How else can we interpret his comment about the black box?] His publisher claims the book is based on "meticulous, objective, and scientific analysis"*. How could his analysis be objective if he had reached his conclusion before he had any evidence? Doesn't sound very scientific does it? * http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846

Jim since Costella is a member of this forum [ http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2357 ] why doesn't he post here himself? Why do we need you as a go between? Are we to infer from this that he is afraid to debate his ideas here? Dr. PhD in physics expert on what ever field you so declare him - even if it doesn't relate to his thesis and he hasn't published any papers on the subject - can't hold his own against people who don't even have B.S. degrees [i have a BA, Craig is a self declared college drop out, I don't know about Evan.]

Jim I have four simple questions for you and I would appreciate four simple answers. No fetzering please. Why do you believe the smoke was bluish-white? Are you still insisting that the fire was electrical even though there was no electrical supply? Are you admitting now [see above] that pilot error is a rational explanation for the crash? Does anyone with a background in aviation agree with your assessment of the crash and its probable cause?

Jim I think you were the only person on this thread who did not get it. You are the one arguing that we should expect smoke from crashed aircraft to be black. This as Craig and I pointed out would only be true if the fuel supply was burning. Obviously what was burning on the Wellstone plane was something else, what fuel that was in the fuselage had already burned off. Same with the helicopter something else was burning. Craig explained the conditions under which a fire produces blue smoke and white smoke You're charming as always So you've been studying this case for over two years and you only realized that now?!?! At least three things indicate that it was post impact The fuel supply was not ignited till after impact the tail was not burned No witnesses said anything about seeing smoke or flames Already explained to you various times. If you find that explanation lacking debunk it!!! Other than the EMT's statement what evidence do you have that it was a metal fire? Does Burton also know, based upon his vast experience, this did not happen in this case? Under the conditions, how could he possibly know?... There must be something about being a pilot that leads these guys to assume they know what happened... Because it is POSSIBLE that the pilots screwed-up and simply allowed the plane to crash, that must be what actually HAPPENED! School children might get away with simple-minded reasoning like this, but not adults...." Jim, did I missunderstand you or are you now admiting that "it is POSSIBLE that the pilots screwed-up and simply allowed the plane to crash"? You're reversing the burden of proof you are the one who has to show that it wasn´t pilot error and thatb you explination is rational! The overwhelming evidence is indicative of pilot error based on 1] All the xxxx ups previously committed by Conry and Guess 2] the xxxx ups commited by them during the pre-approach and approach BEFORE the last radio communication 3] there are many example of similar crashes involving flight crews far more experienced and compotent than Conry and Guess Jim you really have a thing against pilots. That must be because you can find one, not one who agrees wuth you. The only pilots you like are those two incompotents who killed your hero!! ????? under what conditions? All critical systems working? Jim the ball is in your court he is a pilot with many year experience. What evidence do you have that he is wrong Jim arguing with you is pointless reread the NTSB report and our posts Jim you have no evidence they were using GPS Waukegan is 500 miles from Eveleth why didn't any other planes or anyone else using GPS complain? You have no evidence that GPS can be manipulated I could go on but why bother I tired because it's getting late here and arguing with you seems pointless. Your brain has a remarkable ability to block out any info that counters your far fetched thesis For once I agree with you