GA.CJJ@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU (Clifford Johnson) (06/20/91)
From: "Clifford Johnson" <GA.CJJ@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU> [mod.note: Guess I missed this when I was on vacation, so I'm taking the author at his word and allowing this rebuttal. This concludes the discussion of KAL 007 in this newsgroup. - Bill ] I think that the issue as to whether KAL 007 was intentionally routed over the Soviet Union does not belong in sci.military. However, a 677-line posting that derogated the conspiracy theorists was permitted, and failure to post any rebuttal would amount to abusing the newsgroup by one-way censorship. Accordingly, I wish to contest the impression the article gives, that the new revelations of the Soviet pilot substantially "puncture" so-called conspiracy theorists. In my opinion, the great weight of evidence for KAL 007 being an intentional flight does not center on the act of shooting down the plane, but on the incredibility of the route being accidental, together with very strange circumstances such as KAL 015's accompanying flight. Regarding this evidence, Lepingwell's posting is silent, except by implication, e.g.: "The best ... conspircay theories are incisively critiqued in Marilyn J. Young, Michael K. Launer, Flights of Fancy." Exemplary of this incisive critique, the authors do not even discuss KAL 015's consecutive reports of incorrect positions of KAL 007, notwithstanding an order from the ground that KAL 007 was to report its own co-ordinates. As for the inherent improbability of the route being accidental, the authors do not even discuss the several consecutive and gross reports of incorrect positions, the crossings of mountainous land instead of sea, etc. -- they merely assert (pp.245,253), as though it was conclusive proof that conspiracy was thereby discredited as a sensible alternative, that in 1984, 55 aircraft strayed off-course over the North Atlantic, basically ignoring the fact that none of them were as far off as KAL 007's deviation of well over 300 miles. I could go on with the critique, but my main purpose in expressing this brief opinion is to let readers realize that argument re KAL 007 is not appropriate in this newsgroup, especially not long opinions. The few new facts should have been reported without the opinion, at most. To: MILITARY@ATT.ATT.COM