8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[jaydeehess]

Thanks, Gaspode. cornsail started the personalizing in #674. Please move it too, or let me repeat my answer to it (that you moved):

Give it up, cornsail. This thread is not about me.

I have taken the liberty of de-personalizing cornsail's questions;

If the remains of the Flight 77 passengers were taken there from somewhere else what evidence of this is there? Other than unadulterated, pure conjecture?


1. You said earlier in the thread "These more than hundred witnesses are still a myth. If you are able to name at least one of them that stands a few seconds of factchecking, i'm all ears. In the other thread."

Please link to this 'other thread'.

cornsail provided a bunch of witness examples in this post. Mudlark responded with a critique, which was responded to here.

Given that you imply you would comment on witnesses, do you have further comment on these?

2. It is surprising that so much stock is granted to the testimony of a few witnesses regarding flight path specifics of the plane, recounted years after the event. This taken as hard evidence that the plane took a specific flight path. How much does the fallibility of human memory for such details affect the quality of eyewitness testimony, especially 2 years after the fact, especially given that the variation among even these few witnesses is quite wide even to the point such that if some of them are 100% correct it makes others within this small subset of witnesses, 100% wrong?

3. If the contentions of the CIT are correct then one must inquire as to the motivation for pretending to fly a plane into the Pentagon, then hitting it with a missile, then flying it somewhere else (and counting on no one seeing it fly over the pentagon or firing a missile) and then killing all the passengers? If planes were flown into other buildings why it be a problem for government to do it a third time?

4.What are the odds of the plane flying over the pentagon and no one witnessing it? And also no one witnessing the plane firing a missile or dropping a bomb?

 

[mudlark]

No mudlark, I am claiming nothing. The radar, fdr, physical damage and yes, eyewitness accounts do not support any 'over the annex' flight path. Sorry, but that is what the data says. If you have an eyewitness, or a hundred eyewitnesses that say otherwise, then they are simply mistaken.

eyewitness accounts do not support any 'over the annex' flight path.

Lie. Plain and simple.
And just a couple of posts after I pointed out so many witnesses who saw the plane fly over the Annex
That is what the government controlled data fails to show.
NOBODY describes SOC.

 

[mudlark]

Actually...the only thing that Reheat's debunk includes is the physical and proven data evidence. There is no need to debunk NoC claims...because there's no reason to refute the actual evidence. NoC is as valid a claim as Godzilla did it. It's nonsense to even think NoC is relevant.

False.
And the parallel path which avoids the Annex like the plague which makes the math absurd?
Does Reheat´s path include ´the physical and proven data evidence´
Sure?
Do you even know what you are talking about?
Or is this just another automatic reflex two liner special from you without reading what the actual argument is about?

 

[mudlark]

It is funny how twoofs go and interview folks WELL after the fact (YEARS LATER) and then try to make their statements as if they were fully accurate.

I mean we all know how time often affects our memories. Great example
Four guys... matthew, mark, luke and john (no not the beatles)

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

wildly differing accounts of the same dude, written well after he died. No wonder the christian church is so ****ed up.

Instead of taking eyewitness testimony WELL after the fact, look at the physical evidence... it is overwhelming.

False.

Darrell Stafford
ANC parking lot

Original CMH interview

¨and this is just about on top of the building, scraping the building
.. guess it was pretty big to be on top of you......The wing span was out here somewhere¨

Darius Prather
ANC parking lot

Original CMH interview

The Navy Annex, above midway. You can see where is a little area on the roof... the lower roof [...]. Right along in that area is where the American Airlines plane came directly across that, and it was only about 3 and half or 4 feet above that. We thought it was the weirdest thing. "It is too damn low", we were saying ..it came on down in between where the gas station [CITGO] is and our parking lot

William Middleton
upper end of ANC buildings

Original CMH interview

William Middleton: As I made a turn to come back I heard this whistling noise as if it was coming behind me. So when I turned to look, I seen this big large airplane beside me.

CMH officer: Where were you at?

Middleton: Uh Patton Drive.

...And he glazed over like our parking lot here and made a turn toward the Pentagon….

George Aman
In his office in the ANC buildings.

Original CMH interview

I thought it was going to hit this building here. So I was just looking out here and I see this airplane coming down here and I thought it was coming, going to hit this building. And I said good God Almighty. So I'm just petrified. I'm looking. The plane flies right over the parking lot here...
When I seen he was kind of turning and gliding when he came across here, across the parking lot but when he got out right in front here

Maria De La Cerda
Arlington Cemetery

Original CMH interview

...And we're facing the site that was struck. And that's what was also weird, is that it seemed like it struck on the other side

Roosevelt Robert Jr.
South parking loading dock

Original CMH interview

´the plane hit the building..I ran to the centre of the dock and I looked up and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot..¨

 

[mudlark]

It is worth noting that, as a matter of geometry, the "over the annex" mistake is a very natural mistake for eyewitnesses to make.

Consider BCR's unofficial flight path, which is currently the best available estimate of the actual flight path. To take just one example, an eyewitness positioned just south of the southwest corner of the Pentagon would perceive the aircraft as "over the annex" when the aircraft is at the position marked -1, even though the actual position of the aircraft at that moment is about halfway between the annex and the Pentagon (and south of the Citgo). That's just a geometrical fact.

And the 5 ANC witnesses who ALL describe the plane flying towards the carpark?
Sean Boger and Mike Dobbs had a direct view of the Annex (heliport tower and 4th floor of west face of Pentagon - above ´point of impact´)

The same goes for eyewitnesses at almost any other position that lies sufficiently far from the flight path. If their position allowed them to see the aircraft in line with the annex, then the altitude of the aircraft combined with the ground-level altitude of the observer would have made the aircraft appear to be "over the annex" at that moment.

From this geometrical fact, an eyewitness who reports seeing the aircraft fly "over the annex" does not count as evidence that the aircraft actually flew over the annex unless the eyewitness also reports that the aircraft flew directly over the eyewitness.

If an eyewitness reports that the aircraft did not fly directly over the eyewitness, then the eyewitness was not positioned along the line of flight. From such an eyewitness, a report that the aircraft flew "over the annex" counts not as evidence for the flight path actually going over the annex, but as evidence that the eyewitness was correctly reporting what it would have looked like when the aircraft and annex were lined up with the eyewitness.

Will

Albert Hemphill who was INSIDE the Annex?

I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy Annex at a slow angle. It looked to me to be on a zero-to-zero course.

R.E. Rabogliatti? Also INSIDE the Annex.

R. E. Rabogliatti was in his office at the Navy Annex. He peered out of his office window and saw the airliner looming over the building.

Levi Stephens who was in front of South Parking?

I saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex

Edward Paik

Right BEHIND the Navy Annex metres away?

It was coming from here, very low, it almost hit my head. I thought it might hit the Navy Annex building's roof. That’s why I was running and I looked at the Navy Annex building and it wasn’t touched.

Terry Morin who was INSIDE the wings of the Navy Annex?

06:50

¨MORIN: WHEN THE PLANE WENT RIGHT OVER THE TOP OF ME I WAS WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE EDGE OF THE WING (OF THE ANNEX)

CRAIG : SO YOU WERE KINDA IN BETWEEN THEM (THE WINGS OF THE ANNEX)

(...)

MORIN: I WAS INSIDE..FLEW OVER THE TOP OF ME¨

The plane flew over the Annex witnessed from almost ALL conceivable angles.
No matter how you spin it.

 

[mudlark]

Apologies to all by the way for having to post this way.
Connection has been null in my area due to extreme weather.

No, they haven't. They merely deceptively devised a path that by cheating on parameters is possible. Hell, a path along the Canadian border is also possible and is North of the Citgo. Both DO NOT adhere to an aggregate path described by all witnesses. Give it up.....you lose.

What parameters did they ´cheat on´?
That´s rich by the way coming from the guy who twisted two witness´s testimony to make the flightpath and math derived from it as assinine as possible.

 

[mudlark]

Mudlark:
I don't think you addressed this;

A very appropriate question to ask yourself. Just like Ranquist, you just don't get the fact that if Middleton were even remotely correct then both Paik and Morin were totally wrong with their descriptions. It's not even close.

Paik and Morin witnessed the plane´s initial crossing of the Annex.
Paik has it at an angle. Morin was in between the wings and would have found the plane´s exact trajectory VERY difficult to ascertain, apart from the FACT that the body of the plane passed over his head.
All the ANC workers including Middleton described the plane as approaching the ANC carpark.
Given that Middleton saw the plane arrive as it passed over towards the righthand side of the Annex, the speed, and the plane´s sudden entrance onto the scene, this would be a reasonable assumption given the circumstances.
He would NEVER have seen the plane or ´felt the heat´ of the engines had it passed through the Official Path.

 

[mudlark]

No no no no no no no. You misunderstood the question.

I asked what WEIGHT you give to the various forms of evidence. You will see my % figures add up to 100%. I only weight my evaluation of the evidence 10% based on witnesses. That's because the forensic, documentary and physical evidence are so overwhelming as to make witness accounts meaningless.

Example -

• carlito is shot through the head with a crossbow
• There he is, lying on the ground with an arrow through his head.
• Coroner says cause of death = arrow.
• Video shows Fred with crossbow entering the room just before the murder.
• Fred has a freshly-fired crossbow in hand when arrested.
• Fred's fingerprint is found on the arrow.
• 10 people in the room all swear that Fred shot carlito with a pistol.

In the example above, the witnesses are wrong. It wasn't a pistol. I don't care what they say. Get it?

And for your CIT nonsense to be true, it wouldn't even be all 10 witnesses, it would be only 3 from one side of the room, and even those 3 would agree that the dude with the crossbow shot the guy! AND, the angle of the shot would have to be physically impossible. AND, you waited 5 years to interview them, and they changed their story.

Brainless. Complete rubbish.

So, when I ask - are you ignoring all of the other evidence, because of these few witnesses, your answer is:

yes

no

?

This analogy is very bad because of the ´arrow in head´ and pistol contradiction in evidence.

The real analogy should be:

1) Carlitos is shot in the head with an object through the left eye and it exits the back right of his head.

2) All witnesses on the left hand side see an arrow coming from their direction.None on the right describe the arrow as having come from there.

3)The witnesses on the left gave the same story to the police in the weeks and months after the event (not 5 years - do I have to quote all the CMH interviews AGAIN?)

4) We have the police´s word and the police´s word alone on the ´physical evidence´

We should IGNORE these witnesses or try to deduce a VALID explanation?

 

[mudlark]

mudlark,

No response to my post regarding the impact witnesses? It took me awhile to write and I tried to give careful consideration to all of your points (expect in the cases where I didn't know what point you were trying to make).

Sorry cornsail I didn´t see that post.
I´ll give it my attention as soon as I can.
Cheers.

 

[mudlark]

Originally Posted by mudlark
Post a direct link to this specific argument and I will post it on to Balsamo.
He told me that the links that you DID post were calculations which ignored topography and obstacles.

Of course he does. He can't identify any specific topography or obstacle that would present a problem for my calculations, but not having a leg to stand on isn't going to slow you guys.

Take it up with him here.

Originally Posted by mudlark
Pilots have plotted a hypothetical flightpath based on the sum of all the NOC witnesses. They have also done their best in trying to include all possible parameters. You want an EXACT path based on witness testimony?

An approximate but specific path would be enough. Estimated error bounds would be even better.

How can PFT describe a ´specific path´?? Now you are nitpicking and asking the impossible.

No witnesses report a flyover.

Roosevelt Roberts saw a plane AFTER the explosion.
Maria de la Cerda believed the plane ´hit on the other side´ of the building.
Erik Dihle claims he heard people shouting that a plane dropped a bomb ´and flew on´.
Dewitt Roseborough heard a plane over his head in South Parking THEN heard the explosion on the OTHER side of the building.

Many witnesses report a low-flying aircraft. Some saw it strike light poles or slam into the Pentagon. Many witnesses saw the resultant damage to light poles and Pentagon.

Mary Ann Owens? 75 feet over her car (Route 27)
Penny Elgas? 80 feet over head (Route 27)
Sean Boger? Third floor height (Heliport tower)
Sepulveda? Third floor height (South Parking)
Liebner? Third floor height (South Parking)
Wanda Ramey? Skipped UP midway across lawn (North parking security booth)
There are more if you want.

Resultant damage AFTER the event.

Those witnesses are supported by competent analysis of data supplied by the government and other sources.

Not all from Route 27, the lawn and South Parking. Critical areas don´t you think? There is no available data from the Annex apart from what PFT have found regarding altitude.
The FDR data is fraudulent according to these stats.

Your fantasy requires much more than wholesale deception by the government. It also requires wholesale misrepresentation and cherry-picking of eyewitness accounts. Even then, you can't find anything in the witnesses' testimony that supports an alternative to impact with the Pentagon.

Umm...NOC? Navy Annex flyover? Right bank? Contradictory speed accounts?
Do me a favour and ´cherry pick an SOC witness?
Cheers big ears.

 

[mudlark]

maybe it's available, and you just haven't asked for it.

Having been on the business end of arson investigations many times, I can assure you that every piece of evidence that we collect are labeled, and there is a chain of custody sticker on it. Even if I hand it off to another firefighter, their name goes on that sticker.

I know that DNA is even more regulated, as it is considered a HazMat.

It has been asked for. As you must know.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158703&page=11

FOIA Flight 77 plane part identification.

14. By letter dated March 12, 2008, the FBI advised Plaintiff that, following a records search and extensive research into Plaintiff’s request, no responsive records were located.

The FBI conducted a reasonable search for the records requested in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and located no responsive records. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim should be denied as moot.

Despite these extensive and detailed search efforts, RIDS located no FBI records responsive to Plaintiff’s request. Id. The lack of documentation revealing the process by which the FBI identified the hijacked aircraft is unsurprising because the identity of those aircraft has never been in question and because other evidence collected after September 11, 2001, has corroborated the identity of the hijacked aircraft.

Thus, no documentation exists “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered . . . from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified . . . as belonging to the said aircraft,

The documented proof of passenger and crew of Flight 77 DNA identification has also been asked for.

FOIA DNA retrieval and identification

The following is a September 10, 2008 Freedom of Information Act response from the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), regarding a request for records establishing the process of recovery and identification of forensic evidence from the crash scenes of American Airlines flight 77 in Arlington, VA and United Airlines flight 93 in Shanksville, PA on September 11, 2001. The records were deemed exempt from disclosure under U.S.C. § 552 (b)(7)(a) and (b)(7)(c) regarding law enforcement proceedings and privacy.

Of additional interest

http://www.arlingtonva.us/web/pdfinfo.aspx

Because of the volume of debris inside the Pentagon, front-end loaders were
used to load the debris in dump trucks, which carried the debris to a sifting
operation in the North Parking Lot. Special Agent Samuel Simon and Special
Agent Jeffrey Bedford ran the 2 shifts of the 24-hour a day sifting operation,
which was extremely labor intensive. Volunteers from the FBI, Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA), EPA, BATF, Arlington County and mutual-aid law
enforcement agencies, MDW, and others worked around the clock with 200 or
more persons on each shift. BATF heavy equipment operators spread rubble
from inside the Pentagon.


Metropolitan Police Department cadaver dogs worked through the debris, then volunteers carefully raked the area searching for body
parts, personal effects, evidence, and classified documents. Papers of any type
were turned over to the DPS to determine if they contained classified materials
and, if so, to safeguard them.

(...)

The sifting operation produced about 70 percent
of the body PARTS processed at the morgue.

(...)

Recommendation:

Occasionally, it is appropriate for senior government officials to visit sensitive
facilities such as the FBI’s temporary morgue, even if only to check on the wellbeing of the staff working there. However, these visits must be carefully
controlled and absolutely necessary. (LE-073)

(...)

A statement issued by the county said:

Responsibility for incident and site management at the Pentagon crash site was transferred from the Arlington County Fire Department to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) effective at 7 a.m., Friday, Sept. 21. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT ADDITIONAL REMAINS WILL BE DISCOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF THE FBI’S INVESTIGATION. Qualified mortuary personnel remain on site to process these remains.

Also of interest

http://radiology.rsna.org/content/223/1/7.full

There is also the ever-present problem of debris. Virtually every specimen from this site was mixed with debris composed of aircraft and building materials of an opaque and semiopaque nature. Body parts from several individuals may have been mixed into a single specimen.

(...)

The existence of a reference database allows relatively rapid positive identification of military casualties. THIS WAS, IN FACT, TRUE WITH THE PENTAGON ATTACK, SINCE MANY MORE MILITARY CASUALTIES WERE POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED THAN CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN THE EARLY STAGES OF THE INVESTIGATION.

The passenger remains were identified AFTER the Pentagon casualties.
Even after such an extensive search outlined in the above papers.
70% of bady parts (not bodies) had been ´recovered.
The FBI then moved in and recovered the ´rest´?

Had they no records as was stated on military personnel that were ON the plane?

Passengers involved in gov’t/defense related work: 21
Military backgrounds: 10
Navy background: 7

So yes, we need to see chain of custody and all related documents.

 

[mudlark]

BIG LIE!!!! Navy personnel died in the Pentagon. There was a very stringent chain of custody that you have no clue on. So who are you calling a liar now!? All the USN? The entire chain of DoD? I was on active duty on 911 and you have to call me a liar and in on it too.

The FOIA request I posted above has been officially denied.
It´s there in black and white.
Do you know of a change in that position that I´m not aware of?
I´d gladly read the link.

You spew lies and false information. ... you post in the USA where you can post what you want, even your lies.

Any honest skeptics reading this thread KNOW who the real liars are.
That´s not an insult, it is a fact.

Where do you find these big lies; are you on the payroll of p4t and CIT? There are only a few fringe people who share your failed opinions based on delusions. How disrespectful can you be as you spit on all the 911 victim graves spewing lies like this based on your own ignorance.

All you posts are very disrespectful to those who died on 911; what do your parents say?

Don´t go down the road of calling me a traitor or unpatriotic. I´m not a US citizen but 9/11 was a crime against humanity itself.
You believe I´m here for ´the fun of it´? I´m being PAID? I´m certainly no kid.
I´m asking for an explanation as to how this confirmed corraborrative evidence in the form of the NOC witnesses correlates with the Official narrative. It doesn´t.
No amount of squirming, innuendo or blatant lies will derail it.

These witnesses are ´US citizens´. As are the Navy Annex flyover witnesses. As are the ´right bank´ witnesses.
But various posts here have advocated that we ´ignore´ them.

Every time a falsehood is typed here it´s not me who is spitting on these people´s graves.

Mods please don´t remove this post. I can back up my claims on falsehoods if you wish.


[/QUOTE]

 

[mudlark]

http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/pub_pres/Edson2004.pdf

http://911review.org/Wget/www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/releases/afip.htm

Of course our resident account sharing sock will hand wave this all away in less than an hour.

I´ve just posted on this subject.
Again, no documented chain of custody of the remains of passengers of ´Flight 77´ mentioned.

We have the right to know just how many samples were ´found´ when the FBI took over on 21st September after such an extensive combing of the area and just exactly WHICH remains they ´recovered´ after the initial 70% of ´body parts´ were identified. This is crucial.

This has been denied under the ´national security´ whitewash.

I write my own posts by the way. Back that claim up or retract it.

 

[mudlark]

Are you saying the remains of the Flight 77 passengers may have been taken there from somewhere else?

I have a few questions for you, BTW.

1. You said earlier in the thread "These more than hundred witnesses are still a myth. If you are able to name at least one of them that stands a few seconds of factchecking, i'm all ears. In the other thread."

I don't know which other thread you were talking about so maybe you can point me to it.

But I provided a bunch of witness examples in this post. Mudlark responded with a critique, which I responded to here.

I will post a reply later on these witness examples.

Are you still all ears?

2. What I think is most surprising is that you put so much stock in the testimony of a few witnesses regarding flight path specifics of the plane, recounted years after the event. You take this as hard evidence that the plane took a specific flight path. You do realize that the fallibility of human memory for such details, especially 2 years after the fact, is enormous?

You need to read the thread again. Many of these testimonies were recorded
within weeks and months of 9/11 through CMH interviews. They all confirmed their testimony to CIT. The plane flew over the Annex and NOC in both sets of testimony.
Fallibility becomes an issue when discussing minor details such as colour, description, etc. NOT the sight of a bigass plane flying towards your position or just over your head and having specific reference points such as buildings.
AND especially if you have worked in the area for years and are very familiar with the surroundings. That argument doesn´t apply here.

3. What do you think the motivation would be for pretending to fly a plane into the pentagon, then hitting it with a missile, then flying it somewhere else (and counting on no one seeing it fly over the pentagon or firing a missile) and then killing all the passengers? Do you think the pilot may have been in on it and is still alive somewhere with a changed identity? If planes were flown into other buildings why it be a problem for government (if you believe in an inside job) to do it a third time?

Who is talking about a ´missile´??
If I were give an explanation as to the ´reason why´ they did it, it would just be speculation.
NOC is irreconcilable with an impact. That´s the bottom line.

4.What do you think the odds are of the plane flying over the pentagon and no one witnessing it? And also no one witnessing the plane firing a missile?

All 911 calls and transmissions were sequestered and are STILL unavailable to this day from the Arlington area on 9/11. We have by no means received ALL witness testimony.

Roosevelt Roberts saw a jet AFTER the explosion.

Before the disinfo starts from others that this ´jet´ may have been the C130..
The C130 didn´t arrive on the scene until minutes after.
Even the pilot of the C130 states

"I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE (in flight emergency) and was trying to make it back to National Airport."

This gives you an idea also of the ALTITUDE of the C130 at the time of the explosion.

Maria de la Cerda thought the plane ´hit the other side´ of the Pentagon.

Erik Dihle said that he heard others claim that a plane had dropped a bomb and ´flew on´

 

[The Big Dog]

c-c-c-c-c-combo breaker!

 

[DGM]

William Middleton: As I made a turn to come back I heard this whistling noise as if it was coming behind me. So when I turned to look, I seen this big large airplane beside me.

CMH officer: Where were you at?

Middleton: Uh Patton Drive.

...And he glazed over like our parking lot here and made a turn toward the Pentagon….

Wouldn't this put it behind Paik's garage and out of sight of Morin?

 

[A W Smith]

We have the right to know just how many samples were ´found´ when the FBI took over on 21st September after such an extensive combing of the area and just exactly WHICH remains they ´recovered´ after the initial 70% of ´body parts´ were identified. This is crucial.

no,, you don't

The records were deemed exempt from disclosure under U.S.C. § 552 (b)(7)(a) and (b)(7)(c) regarding law enforcement proceedings and privacy.

(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement
purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law
enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be
expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would
deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial
adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be
expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source,
including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any
private institution which furnished information on a confidential
basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by
criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal
investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national
security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a
confidential source,

 

[Meed]

Thanks, Gaspode. cornsail started the personalizing in #674. Please move it too, or let me repeat my answer to it (that you moved):

Give it up, cornsail. This thread is not about me.

wow... the extent of my personalizing was essentially "I come in peace, so let's talk about the evidence". at least that's how I saw it. I was trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to be polite.

 

[carlitos]

This analogy is very bad because of the ´arrow in head´ and pistol contradiction in evidence.

The real analogy should be:

1) Carlitos is shot in the head with an object through the left eye and it exits the back right of his head.

2) All witnesses on the left hand side see an arrow coming from their direction.None on the right describe the arrow as having come from there.

3)The witnesses on the left gave the same story to the police in the weeks and months after the event (not 5 years - do I have to quote all the CMH interviews AGAIN?)

4) We have the police´s word and the police´s word alone on the ´physical evidence´

We should IGNORE these witnesses or try to deduce a VALID explanation?

OK, you obviously don't like my analogy. Could you answer the direct question that closed my post?

So, when I ask - are you ignoring all of the other evidence, because of these few witnesses, your answer is:

yes

no

?

ETA - actually, in your analogy, YES. The witnesses are likely wrong. Does this surprise you? Why do you say "the police's word" alone? What's wrong with the police and their evidence technicians and the physical evidence and most of the witnesses?

 

[carlitos]

no,, you don't

Agree. mudlark also doesn't have the right to know about my dead sister's remains in an unrelated accident.