It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stephen McGraw: alleged Pentagon attack witness

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   
*Off topic personal attacks will not be tolerated in this thread.

S.O. has agreed to let me continue the discussion started in this thread that was horribly derailed by individuals who had no interest in the topic.


Stephen McGraw was a former DoJ attorney of 5 years who was ordained a catholic priest 3 months before 9/11 and allegedly found himself right in front of the Pentagon at the time of the attack supposedly after a wrong turn while being late to preside over a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery.


CIT interviewed him at his church. Watch our 10 minute presentation including the interview here:


From the Law to the Lord
(featuring Stephen McGraw)




Google Video Link


Here are some significant points relative to McGraw personally and his testimony:

1. McGraw claims he did not see or hear the plane until it had passed over his car and was therefore not a witness to the approach (or what side of the citgo station it flew) at all. This means he would have only been able to see the tail end of the plane for about one second at most according to the official speed of the plane at 535mph.

2. McGraw claims he did not see the plane hit any light poles even though if he was directly under the plane as he claims he would have been right in the middle of the 5 downed poles. Here would be his approximate alleged point of view in relation to the official flight path:



And here is his alleged location in relation to the official flight path:


He would have a front row seat to the plane hitting the poles. The notion that he could miss 5 light poles falling down all around him 10's of feet away strains credulity if the poles were in fact really hit by the plane.

Nevertheless McGraw not only claims he didn't see the poles get hit.....he indicates that he was only aware of one pole being hit and even thought that only the top part was knocked off because that is all he saw on the ground after the fact.

How this could be the case even though all the entire poles were lying on the ground right next to the pieces I do not know.



3. Although McGraw states that he was a DoJ attorney for 5 years and even grew up in the area.....he claims he was not aware that the building he was next to on 9/11 was the Pentagon. This is rather curious because the Pentagon is the largest low rise structure in the world and has a rather commanding presence. There are numerous exits labeled "Pentagon" on the highway. The notion that anyone wouldn't be able to tell what it was is difficult to believe let alone a former DoJ attorney who grew up in the area.

4. McGraw states that he got out of his car with his holy water and stole immediately after the attack (within 45 seconds) to administer prayer to the wounded and dying on the scene. There are two issues with this claim. Navy Times reporter Mark Faram says he witnessed McGraw cross the guardrail with his holy water and stole in "one fluid motion" but he didn't arrive to the scene until 10 minutes later. AND.....McGraw claims he was late to preside over a funeral at Arlington Cemetery. Why would he get out of his car at all with such an important commitment? We know for a fact that funerals continued as scheduled at ANC.


Middleton and his co-workers at Arlington continued to work Sept. 11 as Washington offices closed and buildings emptied. The cemetery crew had no choice. Funerals were scheduled and burials had to be completed, chaos and all.
source


What happened to the poor family that was waiting for him as he hung around the Pentagon?



5. McGraw has admitted to having a connection to the controversial fundamentalist catholic secret society Opus Dei.



" Invaluable too was "the spiritual and human formation that I have received over the years from priests of Opus Dei."
source


This is notable because of the political intrigue surrounding this catholic cult. It is well known to be favored by the "Washington elite" as reported in the History Channel special "The Spy Next Door: Robert Hanssen".

Robert Hanssen is a convicted traitor who was an FBI employee that sold secrets to the Russians for years. He was a good friends and parish members with former head of the FBI Louis Freeh who is said to have been instrumental in the Oklahoma City bombing cover-up. Both were devout members of Opus Dei but Hanssen was exposed as a sexual deviant who had extra marital affairs with strippers and secretely video taped sex with his wife while his friend would watch from a monitor set up in their spare room in the basement.




The discussion in the initial thread was centered around a write up that ATS member Caustic Logic did on his blog about our interview.

Link to his write up and my complete response can be read here.

Ironically CL lampoons us for pointing out inconsistencies in McGraw's account and suspecting his legitimacy while CL himself accuses all of the north side witnesses (who prove 9/11 an inside job) as being deep cover government agents planted to spread disinfo!

In a nutshell CL claims that CIT has been deceptive about McGraw's account in the sense that we are supposedly trying to cover up the notion that he is a "south side witness" meaning he saw the plane fly south of the CITGO gas station contradicting the north of the CITGO testimony.

This notion is instantly debunked by the fact that McGraw specifically claims he did not see the plane on the approach at all but CL insisted that there are "indicators" that point to a south side approach in his testimony.

Unfortunately for CL none of his points hold water. Here they are:


1. That McGraw claims the plane came from "behind" him which would indicate a south side approach.

McGraw made no such statement. Ever. I guess CL simply decided to make that up as he has offered no retraction.


2. That McGraw gestures that the plane came from behind him.

He did no such thing but he DID gesture that the plane traveled left to right supporting a north side approach.


(making left to right gesture when describing the plane approach at 3:16 of the video.)



3. That the plane would be in front of him as opposed to over the top of him if it were on a north side approach.

Since the only thing we have to go off of in regards to McGraw's location is his claim that he was directly under the plane this means he would be under the plane regardless of where it flew.


So if we are to go off of CL's "clues" it's clear that McGraw actually supports a north side approach before a south side approach due to his hand gesture indicating a left to right flight path and the fact that he did not see any light poles getting clipped.

Although McGraw claims he witnessed the impact; due to the north side testimony it is clear to us that if he isn't a traitor/spy like fellow Opus Dei sympathizer Robert Hanssen that he was deceived in this 1 second military sleight of hand illusion just like the CITGO witnesses were.







[edit on 11-12-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]




posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Mr. Ranke

I think the implications of your post here are enough to derail this thread on their own. In your first line you state;

“*Off topic personal attacks will not be tolerated in this thread.”


But you sure don’t seem to mind leveling personal attacks at the subject of your posts. Your point number 5 is ridiculous:
***
"5. McGraw has admitted to having a connection to the controversial fundamentalist catholic secret society Opus Dei."
***

You go onto state that:
***
"This is notable because of the political intrigue surrounding this catholic cult. It is well known to be favored by the "Washington elite" as reported in the History Channel special "The Spy Next Door: Robert Hanssen".

Robert Hanssen is a convicted traitor who was an FBI employee that sold secrets to the Russians for years. He was a good friends and parish members with former head of the FBI Lois Freeh who is said to have been instrumental in the Oklahoma City bombing cover-up. Both were devout members of Opus Dei but Hanssen was exposed as a sexual deviant who had extra marital affairs with strippers and secretely video taped sex with his wife while his friend would watch from a monitor set up in their spare room in the basement."

******
None of that has anything to do with any of this. It is slanderous speculation designed to attack this man personally. You are trying to insinuate he has some connections with OK City and sexual deviants! That is UNACCEPATABLE and beyond normal decency.

This entire post should be shut down. How dare you make these accusations, in an attempt to ruin this man on a personal level, with no evidence whatsoever.

You sir are a hypocrite and do a disservice to all others seeking truth in a civilized manner on these forums.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by megaman1234
 


Stephen McGraw is not a member here.

His connection to a controversial fundamentalist catholic cult that has been tied to traitors, spies, the Washington elite, and conspiracy is most certainly notable within the context of this discussion.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Give me a break Ranke!

You are referencing a conspiracy theory with yet another conpsiracy theory! How far back can you go using that logic? I guess forever if you just like stringing together random bits of nothingness.

I looked around and see nothing saying Freeh was a member of OD.

And please justify the spouting of Hanssens sexual issues in this forum. Thre is absolutetly no reason for that. It is a deliberate attempt by you to place make McGraw guilty by association, when there is NO direct association to be found.

This raises the question as to why you would bring it up?

Possibly because you are realizing that this entire post is a stretch, and an arguement you are losing, and thus need to try some mad slinging to attempt to damage this guys reputation?



Also - so are you saying that you can say anything you want about people that aren't members of this forum? Can we write the same kinds of things about your valuable witnesses? Can I see if any are members of weird things - or porno sites or whatever - and then stick that in here in a post saying we can't trust them because of this slimy stuff?

I say again you have a clear double standard, on witness reliability, on personal attacks, and on "standards of evidence".

Again I request that this post be deleted or removed.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
This is an honest question: what assertions are you making and how does your very interesting read support those assertions?

I'm not trying to be schmarmy......I really don't know what your trying to prove in your thread.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I was thinking of re-starting this too. Mostly to admit that I'm not so sure about McGraw's gestures, It's easy from the position he's seated to confuse L-R and back-to-front motion. And I had my bias of course wanting to see it from behind. Craig says I made up from behind, but I just say his gestures are not totally clear either way while the only poles before them on a L-R path are to the left, poles 1+2, which are also behind. A circumstantial case, but a case...

Mainly I believe he's a south path witness because, like Coughy, I beileve that's what happened and I think this guy is honest. [ETA: I forgot, that's not his position - he's agnostic on the flight path.] He also is an impact witness, with less ability to be fooled, being so close to the pull-up and flyover spot with no obstruction of view yet he reports neither.

And regarding his position, Craig said at the other thread that the only clue to position was he was under the plane, so maybe under the north path. Really? He didn't show you on a map? What about being close to Lloyd's cab? Why is e placed under the official path in your graphic if you're sure that's not where the plane was? That's confusing to me...

Thanks, Megaman, for trying to get it shut down again. I don't know if there's anything else I want to say anyway. Now that I've rushed this in before closure again, lemme go back and read for what's new.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by megaman1234
 



Everything I posted is relevant, true, and sourced.

I made up nothing.

Opus Dei most certainly is associated with espionage and the Washington elite and that most certainly is relative to the 9/11 operation and discussion.

My claims about Robert Hanssen are historical fact and are public information.

Take it for what you will.

I would not have a problem with you posting any factual information that is relative to the context of the crime.

If like Caustic Logic you believe the witnesses who prove 9/11 an inside job are actually deep cover operatives and you had factual information associating them with questionable organizations relative to that claim OF COURSE it would be perfectly ok to post it.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
This is an honest question: what assertions are you making and how does your very interesting read support those assertions?

I'm not trying to be schmarmy......I really don't know what your trying to prove in your thread.


Most of it is simply factual data provided to let you make your own conclusions.

The last part is a direct response to a deceptive hit-piece that CL posted on his blog in an attempt to cast doubt on my motives and methods.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Okay, gotcha. Thank you for answering my questions. I'll read the blog you mentioned and re-read the whole thing again.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

And regarding his position, Craig said at the other thread that the only clue to position was he was under the plane, so maybe under the north path. Really? He didn't show you on a map? What about being close to Lloyd's cab? Why is e placed under the official path in your graphic if you're sure that's not where the plane was? That's confusing to me...


No he did not show us on a map. Since he claims he is so unfamiliar with the area he grew up in that he didn't even know he was next to the Pentagon it doesn't make sense to suggest he would have even been able to do that.

We place him under the official path because we are typically discussing his account in the context of the official story. But hypothetically.....if he is a legitimate witness and was really directly under the plane as he said he would be under the north side path.



Thanks, Megaman, for trying to get it shut down again. I don't know if there's anything else I want to say anyway. Now that I've rushed this in before closure again, lemme go back and read for what's new.


Thanks for trying to get it shut down???


Why would you want to stifle discussion of the evidence?

Didn't you just say you wanted to restart the thread yourself?



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
He would have a front row seat to the plane hitting the poles. The notion that he could miss 5 light poles falling down all around him 10's of feet away strains credulity if the poles were in fact really hit by the plane.


So... he SAYS he was in the spot under the official planne - which didnt pass that way... so he's lying but forgot to lie about the poles being hit
OR
he was under the north path plane and just saw one pole later and heard about the cab story and confused about the space he was in called it just before it got to him
OR he was where he says/where you put him, he saw the plane RIGHT OVER and from behind, the poles happened to fast to be recorded properly as he was looking up and possibly overwhelmed by the 757.


What happened to the poor family that was waiting for him as he hung around the Pentagon?


They all died. Just kidding. They probably re-scheduled with no hard feelings. And doesn't McGraw mention in the interview how he was stuck in traffic anyway, and so it wouldn't hurt anything to go help out? And even if it did add to his tardiness, is helping the wounded and dying MANY over ONE already dead guy really so suspicious? So the Pgon already has a chaplain? Cool - they also have doctors. So should doctors nearby not also stop and help, seeing that this situation was out of hand?

Your other points are what they are and no arguments. Maybe he is suspicious and that makes him a liar here, or maybe he's suspicious but honest here anyway, or not suspicious but lying about the plane, or whatever...




In a nutshell CL claims that CIT has been deceptive about McGraw's account in the sense that we are supposedly trying to cover up the notion that he is a "south side witness" meaning he saw the plane fly south of the CITGO gas station contradicting the north of the CITGO testimony.

This notion is instantly debunked by the fact that McGraw specifically claims he did not see the plane on the approach at all but CL insisted that there are "indicators" that point to a south side approach in his testimony.


I've played up the south path witness aspect too much. There's a case for that (see post above) but it's not as clear as I thought.


Unfortunately for CL none of his points hold water. Here they are:


1. That McGraw claims the plane came from "behind" him which would indicate a south side approach.

McGraw made no such statement. Ever. I guess CL simply decided to make that up as he has offered no retraction.


Gestures - unclear IMO - they are clearly to the left but also maybe back a bit - we disagree. Craig, do his gestures RULE OUT a south path or just not support it? If so why not trust his projection back from the stretch he saw, and call him a north pather?


2. That McGraw gestures that the plane came from behind him.

He did no such thing but he DID gesture that the plane traveled left to right supporting a north side approach.


Sub-set of above - the gestures were the main way I thought he 'said' from behind. Anyone else? I was watching his shoulders - it seems his body turns somewhat as if he's reaching not just out further to the left but also back a bit... but I've been wrong before.

[qupte]3. That the plane would be in front of him as opposed to over the top of him if it were on a north side approach.

Since the only thing we have to go off of in regards to McGraw's location is his claim that he was directly under the plane this means he would be under the plane regardless of where it flew.

And you've proven it flew north, right? SO why are you placing him way back there in your own video? I don't get this...

Okay so those are all my claims? How about:
- "McGraw’s ‘deducing’ the poles were clipped by the plane indicates, as does it coming in ‘over” him, that the poles were knocked down on the flight path he saw. Which would make him a south path witness." Can none of your witnesses have a sense of space? Lagasse - McGraw, all just clueless that the poles and plane were in a different spot...

- "he said he ‘picked up’ a memory from others of the plane bouncing on the lawn. It didn’t literally do this, but this persistent impression might be a clue that it was that low – which it would not be if ‘pulling up’ to fly over." He's a low flight wiyness with a very good view. /his hand gestures seem to indicate the pitch - pointed slightly down, all altitudes low and getting lower.

- "when asked to clarify that it entered the building he responded “yes, yes, yes. I definitely watched as it disappeared into the building.” You'll need to explain that too if you're gonna say he's a north path flyover witness

- "trees blocking the view of impact for some witnesses, those headed northbound like McGraw but further back. For some northbound witnesses this is true. It’s not true for Father McGraw."

- also the pole clipped 'just before it got to us.' Craig thinks maybe pole 4 or 5, closer to the north path, but to McGraw's right, so it's odd for him to say 'before' since it was GOING L-R by ether path.

- the fact that this witness was treated very differently from those in the PentaCon. He was suspicious for not being verified and for *seeming* to say he *saw* the poles clipped, etc... then verified and still suspicious.


So if we are to go off of CL's "clues"
(as presented) it's clear that McGraw actually supports a north side approach before a south side approach due to his hand gesture indicating a left to right flight path and the fact that he did not see any light poles getting clipped.

Well since you put it like that I guess it's settled. I have illustrated that McGraw is a north path witness.


Although McGraw claims he witnessed the impact; due to the north side testimony it is clear to us that if he isn't a traitor/spy like fellow Opus Dei sympathizer Robert Hanssen that he was deceived in this 1 second military sleight of hand illusion just like the CITGO witnesses were.



Wait, now I am confused. That's how you would want to treat a south path/lom impact witness you can't disqualify with the shrubbery test - one you want to discredit. If you get a north-pather they have to be up-by-the-bootdtsraps immigrant citizens or upstanding hardworking peace officers with nothing to gain.

So is this is then? I feel like we've got this sorted out alright then. More-or-less.


[edit on 11-12-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 11-12-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I have a couple quick questions. How accurate is that green dot pinpointing McGraws car on the map? Is that the verified location by him?


Also - I don't understand your sticking point of him not seeing the poles get hit. The plane was traveling at over 500 mph. At that speed the poles would have been down a mere instant after he registered the plane. In the roar of the plane, I would think that the tink of light poles getting clipped would be insignificant in comparison. Plus those poles in front of him would have been knocked forward, onto the side of the road, where they may not be readily visible from the left hand lane.

You also make the point of Faram saying it was 10 minutes later. I don’t think you can offer that up as rebuttal until you interview him in a likewise fashion. Perhaps both of them are off by a few minutes, who knows? But it really doesn't change anything.

Also to be honest - i don't see how you can discern a flight path from his description either way. he saw nothing behind him, felt it overhead, and saw it hit the building. Its too vague to label him as north OR south. But he certainly counts as an impact witness - which is the bottom line to all this.

In all - he strikes me as a very honest witness. He is clear to differentiate between what he KNOWS he saw, and what he "thinks", or may have heard after the fact.

Once again - I think it is shameful that you are slandering him like this, in order to further your agenda. I will continue to ask for a moderator to review the last part of your post, and take appropriate action.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT



Thanks, Megaman, for trying to get it shut down again. I don't know if there's anything else I want to say anyway. Now that I've rushed this in before closure again, lemme go back and read for what's new.


Thanks for trying to get it shut down???


Why would you want to stifle discussion of the evidence?

Didn't you just say you wanted to restart the thread yourself?



Sarcastic thanks. He was making it personal and somewhat OT I thot, maybe not, and the the last one got shiut down for that before I was done talking. So far so good tho.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Craig,

I thought you accepted that McGraw was indirectly a south side witness, whilst I accepted that his testimony alone didn't refute the north side evidence.

Have you had a change of heart?



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by megaman1234
 


Good post, on-topic, informed...

McGraw's placement is not scientific. It seems to be based on where the official story puts him. He was under the plane.' Except not, since the plane flew north. They didn't know that with McGraw as they interviewed him. I'm not sure why he's placed in any one spot in their graphics instead of having that issue explained. He might've been right under the north path, was confused about the poles situation, and some say his gestures all indicate this.

I agree with your assessment of the light poles. It seems to me the only two people who definitely should have noticed that would be anyybody leaning against one, parked next to one, or having one fly through their windshield. Yet NO published witnesses report the light poles getting hit. Oh, except Lloyd. But he is very suspicious becuase his story too doesn't add up, he has odd connections, and his location can't be fudged at all.

Oh and McGraw dsribes Lloyd's cab as a few feet from him, meaning he had some reason to say this; either he saw it, or deduced the location from photos, or was simply told to say this, who knows. That's where all the suspicious people wound up it seems.



[edit on 11-12-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by megaman1234

I have a couple quick questions. How accurate is that green dot pinpointing McGraws car on the map? Is that the verified location by him?


It is solely based on the notion that he said he was directly under the plane in the left hand lane traveling northbound.

Naturally since the plane was actually a bit north than that if he is a legitimate witness then he would have been a bit north as well.

We merely plot him there to discuss his account in context of the the official story.



Also - I don't understand your sticking point of him not seeing the poles get hit. The plane was traveling at over 500 mph. At that speed the poles would have been down a mere instant after he registered the plane. In the roar of the plane, I would think that the tink of light poles getting clipped would be insignificant in comparison. Plus those poles in front of him would have been knocked forward, onto the side of the road, where they may not be readily visible from the left hand lane.


He claims he walked to the scene so he would have walked right by poles 3, 4, and 5 on his way there but he says he only saw the top part of one pole.

You might think that it's no biggie but if McGraw was where he said he was he had arguably the best view possible of the plane hitting the poles and was right in the middle of all 5 of them.

This is notable particularly since we know the plane could not have hit the poles and the witness with the best view does not back up the notion that they were hit.



You also make the point of Faram saying it was 10 minutes later. I don’t think you can offer that up as rebuttal until you interview him in a likewise fashion. Perhaps both of them are off by a few minutes, who knows? But it really doesn't change anything.


The statement is a direct quote from Faram:



"He literally had the stole in one hand and a prayer book in the other and in one fluid motion crossed the guardrail," said Mark Faram, a reporter from the Navy Times who witnessed McGraw in the first moments after the crash.
source


And then this:



“When the explosion happened I ran down the hill to the site and arrived there approximately 10 minutes after the explosion."
source



We already have the "45 second" claim confirmed from McGraw so if you doubt Faram I suggest you contact him to see if he will retract his previous claim. Of course since he walked there from the Navy Annex I doubt he could have gotten there in 45 seconds.




Also to be honest - i don't see how you can discern a flight path from his description either way. he saw nothing behind him, felt it overhead, and saw it hit the building. Its too vague to label him as north OR south. But he certainly counts as an impact witness - which is the bottom line to all this.


Agreed!

Excellent observation and that is EXACTLY what my point is.

This is why the premise of CL's blog is so deceptive.

He is suggesting that we deliberately covered up the fact that McGraw is a definitive south side witness.

When you look at the facts it's clear a retraction is in order on his part.



In all - he strikes me as a very honest witness. He is clear to differentiate between what he KNOWS he saw, and what he "thinks", or may have heard after the fact.


Let me guess.....you believe the official story. Right?



Once again - I think it is shameful that you are slandering him like this, in order to further your agenda. I will continue to ask for a moderator to review the last part of your post, and take appropriate action.


Yeah well one report should be sufficient.

All of my claims are factual and sourced.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
Craig,

I thought you accepted that McGraw was indirectly a south side witness, whilst I accepted that his testimony alone didn't refute the north side evidence.

Have you had a change of heart?


No no no.

I didn't agree to that.

I was satisfied with the notion that you agreed to that.

There are no witnesses who directly refute the north side claim.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   



Forgive me, Craig, but that is not how I interpret this comment, which you made shortly before this thread was closed:



[edit on 11-12-2007 by coughymachine]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 


I said that YOU can accurately state it for the sake of argument.

But you see I have provided evidence proving the north side flight path demonstrating how there was a deception designed to fool people into believing the impact.

So to me it is not logical to suggest that someone who didn't even see the approach supports the official flight path in any way.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   
So Craig... he was placed in 'context' of the official story - a 'proven lie.' He didn't see the poles but should have. Again, based on his placement. I think you placed him right is the problem, I just didn't get that you didn't literally mean he was there.

So where could he have been:
1) where you placed him - which I think is correct
2) under the north path more-or-less just a few car-lengths north
3) somewhere else and only brought in just before Faram arrived

And Coughy, thanks for the clarification. I have backed off on the clarity of the south path just from the words and gestures offered. It's the collected sum of his account that's interesting.

We're also getting away from the big picture. If he is neither North ot South path witness here are some thoughts:
1) He's an impact witness. Some say this makes him a south path witness. But Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios also describe the 'impact.'
2) North path = flyover. We all know this.
3) He MIGHT have been deceived - or has re-arranged his own memories to lie to himself or whatever or...
4) Real Plane Impact means internal damage and death on a path from the southwest, which would also have the poles clipped by the plane whether he was able to recollect the images later or not.

This is not simple algebra where we can divide and re-define the variables at will. He DID see some path. It does have a logical projection back. The available evidence is not clear enough for us to determine what that direction is. We don't know where he was.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join