AWACS crew member says Flight 93 shot down

reply to post by REMISNE

If you do not have the proper numbers to match the FDR to the plane then it is not evidence, in fact it woul be thrown out of court for not being proper evidence.

Do you really believe that? If an investigating officer says he found one FDR at the scene of a single-plane crash the courts will not accept that FDR as evidence without some theoretical number matching?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by REMISNE

 

If you do not have the proper numbers to match the FDR to the plane then it is not evidence, in fact it woul be thrown out of court for not being proper evidence.

Do you really believe that? If an investigating officer says he found one FDR at the scene of a single-plane crash the courts will not accept that FDR as evidence without some theoretical number matching?

The numbers are not "theoretical." The numbers are very real and if it was challenged by the opposition...without proof it would absolutely be thrown out.

reply to post by Lillydale


Wrong. Lets say that:

a) The numbers on the presented FDR don't match the frame number of the plane. However, you still have the word of the investigating officer that the subject FDR was found at the site of a single-plane crash. Is the officer's testimony now weightless? Is there a reasonable explanation? Clerical error?

b) The numbers were destroyed as a result of the fire and impact. Is the item no longer acceptable as evidence, the investigating officers testimony invalid?

c) The numbers can be read but the records are lost. Now what?

Originally posted by hooper
Do you really believe that? If an investigating officer says he found one FDR at the scene of a single-plane crash the courts will not accept that FDR as evidence without some theoretical number matching?

Yes, the FDRs cannot be accepted in court as evidence without proper soures of ID. Basic evidence 101



[edit on 9-2-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


OK....ULTIMA, (Roger)....or whomever....

Let's think about this for a bigger minute.

I daresay that in just about EVERY commercial airliner crash there may be lawyers involved. Usually, at the behest of the victims' families. Whether they see $ signs in their eyes or not....(naturally -- no offense -- the lawyers certainly do..)

SO.....IF you want to keep on about this refrain, please show EVERY OTHER commercial airline accident case that has been litigated, in court, where EACH and every time the DEMAND for serial numbers was presented, and where the LACK of any S/Ns, (given that the recorders, since we're talking about these now) were found at the crash scene, and just HOW those cases were resolved.

I can help you narrow your search, by suggesting you focus ONLY on instances where criminal activity was alleged. Surely, you have the resources to accomplish this???

Originally posted by weedwhacker
[OK....ULTIMA, (Roger)....or whomever....

Let's think about this for a bigger minute.

Lets look at the main facts for a minute.

In any court evidence cannot be presented without proper sources of ID.

The FDRs would not be considered proper evidence in court.



[edit on 9-2-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


Why not???

Look into ANY other major airline disaster....please.

SHOW US where, in the inevitable court procedings that would be involved, WHERE this sort of specious DEMAND for serial number matching exists!!!!

Come on, a simple challenge!!!

There are a LOT of high-profile incidents and accidents to choose from....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Why not???

Look into ANY other major airline disaster....please.

Because we are not talking about airline disasters we are talking about proper evidence in court.

reply to post by REMISNE


Sorry you cannot get my point, as you struggle to TRY to make yous...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sorry you cannot get my point, as you struggle to TRY to make yous...

I will make my point as simple as possible for you to understand.

The FDRs would not be accepted as evidence in court.



[edit on 9-2-2010 by REMISNE]

www.aviation-safety.net...

The reader of these transcripts is cautioned that the transcription of a CVR tape is not a precise science but is the best possible product from a group investigative effort. The transcript, or parts thereof, if taken out of context can be misleading. Therefore, the CVR transcripts should only be viewed as an investigative tool to be used in conjunction with other evidence. Conclusions or interpretations should not be made using the transcript as the sole source of information.
Furthermore, this transcript is made available for educational purposes, so the reader is encouraged to read the accident description associated with the transcripts for better understanding of the circumstances.

www.ccs.neu.edu...

Furthermore, some of the FDR data (certainly position
and time, possibly altitude) require calibration
adjustments to resolve systematic discrepancies
between FDR and radar data. A certain amount of
subjective human judgement goes into that.

No one outside the government has physical access to
the FDR itself [1]. The FDR data are available to
the public only in the form of computer files [2].
There are actually two distinct computer files, an
FDR file that requires special software to decode,
and a more convenient summary called a CSV file.
The CSV file should have been derivative of the FDR
file, but the CSV file has been reported to contain
one extra data point at its end [3,4]. If true,
that means the government once had access to an FDR
file that is more complete than the one that has
been made public. Whether the government still has
that file and how much more data it contained are
unknown.

At least three investigators have reported that the
last data point contained within the FDR files puts
the plane on the order of a mile away from the
Pentagon, several seconds before impact [3,4].
The position, time, and altitude for that last data
point depend on exactly how the data were calibrated,
which is slightly subjective.

Originally posted by REMISNE
www.aviation-safety.net...

The reader of these transcripts is cautioned that the transcription of a CVR tape is not a precise science but is the best possible product from a group investigative effort. The transcript, or parts thereof, if taken out of context can be misleading. Therefore, the CVR transcripts should only be viewed as an investigative tool to be used in conjunction with other evidence. Conclusions or interpretations should not be made using the transcript as the sole source of information.
Furthermore, this transcript is made available for educational purposes, so the reader is encouraged to read the accident description associated with the transcripts for better understanding of the circumstances.

That's interesting REM,
It seems to imply that CVR's cannot be used even as circumstantial evidence. Is there a similar ruling for FDR's, whether there may be ambiguity or not? I'm thinking of the FDR's parameters here, like in use or not. What about about the expert opinion on the technology in court, they will be there without doubt. I'm sure Weed has to take this into account in his profession.

I like this link to Citizen, (FOIA) Monaghan,

www.sheilacasey.com...

[edit on 9-2-2010 by smurfy]

reply to post by smurfy


Hey, smurf...

This has been well covered, already, right here on ATS....search threads for "American 77 FDR"....I will go find and bring the link to one of the latest ones....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, that was easier than I thought, since it's in the "My ATS" folder!! ;0
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 10 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by REMISNE

At least three investigators have reported that the
last data point contained within the FDR files puts
the plane on the order of a mile away from the
Pentagon, several seconds before impact...

This is old news, you are late to this party!!

See the above ATS link...covered thoroughly.


(BTW, FDR Lat/Long positional data relied on the IRS, which, back then, had no GPS updating. IRS Lat/Long data wasn't designed to be accurate to the higher standards that we see today. As airspace is increasingly more crowded, and as technology such as GPS improves, the demand for increased accuracy in Flight Management Navigation Systems becomes ever more achievable).

Look up the acronym "RNP". OK, I'll tell you, "Required Navigational Perfomarnce" The RNP values vary depending on airspace requirements, and operating environments."RNP" was not a factor, much yet, in 2001. NOT like it is today....

reply to post by weedwhacker


Uh oh...this is about UA 93, and we started talking AA 77!!!

Well...if we can see how the AA 77 FDR is valid, it applies, then, by inference, to UA 93....yes??

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This is old news, you are late to this party!!

See the above ATS link...covered thoroughly.

Its jus too bad the FDR is not conidered evidence in court.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This is old news, you are late to this party!!

See the above ATS link...covered thoroughly.

Its jus too bad the FDR is not conidered evidence in court.

1 I suspect you're wrong

2 Could you give me some evidence from your version of events that would stand up in court? Perhaps you have firm evidence of bombs at the WTC? Or firm, court-standard stuff regarding whatever hit the Pentagon.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
1 I suspect you're wrong

2 Could you give me some evidence from your version of events that would stand up in court? Perhaps you have firm evidence of bombs at the WTC? Or firm, court-standard stuff regarding whatever hit the Pentagon.

...and if he does not? How does that help? Does it not concern you that no one can come up with a story that will hold up in court? Logic tells me that this needs to be investigated until there is something that stands up in court no matter which story it proves.

Don't you OSers wonder how sound your story is when you have to resort to saying things like 'Ok mine wont stand up in court but neither will yours?'

[edit on 2/11/10 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by Lillydale

...and if he does not? How does that help? Does it not concern you that no one can come up with a story that will hold up in court? Logic tells me that this needs to be investigated until there is something that stands up in court no matter which story it proves.

Why? Courts don't exist to make you feel better about an historical event. They mediate on points of law. If you think there's a criminal case to be answered (or I suppose a civil one) then that's what they're there for. You can feel free to make your accusations and bring your evidence. Although of course the Truth Movement is noticeably reluctant to do this.

The poster is just using the criteria (which he clearly has little knowledge of anyway) in an attempt to discredit the opposing argument by applying a ludicrous standard of evidence to it.

Don't you OSers wonder how sound your story is when you have to resort to saying things like 'Ok mine wont stand up in court but neither will yours?'

[edit on 2/11/10 by Lillydale]

The story doesn't have to "stand up in court" for me to be largely satisfied, no.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by TrickoftheShade]