I find there compelling reasons to suspect the official report is not accurate. The behavior of the various investigating organizations is foremost, and failed protocols on testing materials is also very questionable. In any investigation there should be a strong protocol on testing and management of evidence. There was no consistency.
I do have to wonder where the missiles came from. If they came from a ship, or numerous locations, I would think someone would talk. But then, look at how well members of the military keep secrets historically. So there could have been a massive failure on the part of servicemen or electronics that control missiles.
As far as the witnesses, the reports show that 755 people were interviewed after the event. The documentary never says how many of these were witness that observed phenomenon that was regarded as possible missiles. The final hearing had a testimony given by an NTSB employee who cited how inaccurate witness testimony can be. My background is in psychology and we did cover the various biases common in witness testimony. Generally the main problem for accuracy is accounting for many details at a given event that one person may notice, but others not notice. This is why the police gather as much testimony from all the witness and then piece together the consistencies and discount the inconsistencies.
The NTSB cited a study about how witness testimony changes over time, and that is true. This is why it is important to depose and interview witnesses as soon as possible after events. But this is irrelevant to this investigation. The witnesses WERE interviewed within days after the event, not months or years where memory fault is relevant. So why did the NTSB cite such an irrelevant study except to prejudice witness testimony as a credible tool for investigation? If a witness is to testify under oath they are usually represented by an attorney, and the job of the attorney is to make sure the testimony given months or years later is consistent with original answers.
To my mind if so many witnesses, even just a dozen, which is a significant number, independently observed flares or rockets rise FROM the horizon into the air and intersect with the plane, THAT is highly credible. If the initial interviews don't reflect these answers and only came well after the event, then there would be grounds io discount them. But if the records show a consistent pattern of observation, then that is compelling.
As for seeing one flare/rocket versus as many as three, well that is part of the witness bias that can happen. If a person focuses on one object it is not easy to break focus and see something else unless trained as an observer or distracted by something more extraordinary. If you watch planes fly at night you can understand how the mind will focus on the lights and peripheral vision unable to pick up stars or lights of other planes. It is a phenomenon of the human brain to focus on uncertain things we observe. It is related to what is called "weapon bias" where witnesses are focused on a weapon and do not see other details.
So it is not significant that all witnesses did not see all three rockets. What is significant is one issue: did witnesses see flares or rockets originate from the horizon and into the air to intersect with the plane. If yes, and there is an accumulation of other testimonies that compliment others, and don't invalidate them, then this can't be ignored. I find the dismissal of witness accounts unwarranted and if what the documentary presented was true, there wasn't an honest official explanation of the disaster.
reply
share