Talk:Korean Airlines Flight 007

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The article makes no mention of an attempt to contact the airline pilot by radio. --Ed Poor Talk 06:33, 5 November 2007 (EST)

It's not done yet, Ed! There's plenty of time to add into this! Karajou 06:57, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Here's some info I don't think even Wikipedia has:

  • No flyer doubts that the region is sensitive. North Pacific flying charts are boldly marked AIRCRAFT INFRINGING UPON NON-FREEFLYING TERRITORY MAY BE FIRED ON WITHOUT WARNING. According to General George J. Keegan Jr., the former director of Air Force intelligence, six Soviet colonels and lieutenant-colonels have been executed, over the years, for failing to destroy intruding American planes.
  • Moreover, that night Soviet defenses had already counted five flights by US intelligence planes waiting for the launch toward Plesetsk of an experimental Soviet SS-X-24 intercontinental ballistic missile ... None of the five spy-plane flights had infringed Soviet airspace, but they came close. [1]

This might explain why they were so trigger-happy. --Ed Poor Talk 10:30, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I just read the same thing a few minutes ago. Could be part of the article. Karajou 10:31, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Added layout

Just a proposed layout for the article. Think it will work? Karajou 10:35, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Good layout, already started using it.
How about also a comparison with other overflight incidents. I understand that it is ROUTINE to force an airliner to land. Even if you can't raised the pilot by radio, the fighter planes can maneuver in an unmistakable way, fire shots into relatively non-crucial parts of the fuselage, etc.
It seems the Soviets were trying to PUNISH. And that's why the incident led to their losing the Cold War. --Ed Poor Talk 12:42, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Possible motive

Odd that Congressman Larry P. McDonald, the president of the anti-Communist John Birch Society, would be in first class, on his way to the 30th anniversary of the signing of a mutual defense treaty between South Korea and America. --Ed Poor Talk 10:36, 6 November 2007 (EST)


That Andropov personally ordered the shoot-down, I do not think anyone Disputes. However Vladimir Solovev and Elena Klepikova in thier book, Behind the High Kremlin Walls, have said something I have never seen repeated and/or refuted anywhere. At the time the official Soviet version was Yuri Andropov was on a kidney dialysis machine as he was not seen in public for months. Vladimir Solovev and Elena Klepikova maintain this was not true, Andropov was recovering from a gunshot wound from an assassination attempt. The widow of a Soviet General who disappeared in the gulag system under Andropov's KGB lived in the same apartment building as Andropov (contrary to popular misconception, Soviet leaders did not live in Kremlin, as there is strong superstitious belief that the Kremlin is haunted) and hid in a stairwell one morning. While Andropov & entourage were exiting to go to the car to go to work in the Kremlin, the woman got close enough to Andropov and shot him. Andropov was recovering for many months in a hospital. The report of KAL intrusion was brought to his hospital bed, and he ordered the shoot down. This version would fit other researchers, such as Seymour Hersh's account. Rob Smith 16:17, 8 November 2007 (EST)

The responsibility for the shootdown may well have come from Andropov but there is no documentary evidence, I believe, for that. Nevertheless, it is possible to "work up" as suggested by the Soviet hierarchical system of command.

Gen. Kamensky, the commander of Far East Air Defence forces, for whom there is documentary evidence [2], would have informed both General Ivan Tretyak [3], his direct superior and commander of the Far East Military District as his direct commander and the Commander-in Chief of Air Defense Forces at the National Command Center in Kalinin. This was Gen. Alexandr Koldunov. As this was an evergency, the Commander in Chief of Soviet Air Forces (VVS), Chief Marshal of Aviation Pavel Kutakhov would have beeen informed. As the test of the illegal (Salt ll) SS-25 had been planned for that night with the missile coming down on the Klyuchi target range of Kamchatka - where KAL 007 was to traverse in its first intrusion of Soviet terriroty- the head of the Frist Directorate of Strategic Concealment, First Deputy Chief of Staff Marshal Sergei Akhromeyev would have been present for any decision. Further, Chief of the Soviet General Staff and First Deputy Minister of Defence Nikolai Ogarkov would have been in any decision and would have informed his superior and link with the Political echelon, Minister of Defense Dmitri Ustinov. It is then that Andropov wuold have figured in.

Maj. Victor Belenko, who served in one of the units that brought 007 down, but who had defected to Japan in his MiG 25 in 1976, says that at the first intrusion of KAL 007 over Kamchatka, Gen. Kamensky would already have informed his superior at the National Command Center at Kalinin and the intruder would have been tracked on the screen there until it had left Soviet territory - if it would have left! BertSchlossberg 15:13, 16 January 2008 (EST)


I find it a little remarkable that someone in Anchorage happened to photograph the doomed plane on its last refueling stop. I also thinks it's remarkably bright out for the hours around three in the morning Anchorage time, which is when KAL took off from Anchorage - sunset is around 9PM in Anchorage in early September. Unless it made an eight-hour refueling stop - and hey, I've had flights like that...I'm also not sure that the background matches these pictures of the Anchorage airport:

Dewey 16:25, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Why would it be remarkable? There were 269 passengers, most of which we can assume had families, most of which may have considered it a big event seeing a family member off. Happens daily. Rob Smith 16:27, 8 November 2007 (EST)
I don't find it remarkable at all. There are plenty of people at airports then and now, and they are interested enough about planes to take pictures, never knowing what could happen later, as this one demonstrates. My own grandmother took a trip to the Soo Locks in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan in April of 1975, and photographed the Edmund Fitzgerald passing through; she didn't know what would happen to that ship a few months later. Karajou 16:32, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Did a lot of people get on the plane at Anchorage to go to Seoul? Do we have any numbers in terms of passengers from NYC and those from Alaska? Dewey 16:30, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I'm not certain how that is relevent to rules of engagement. The 1996 New York Times interview states, "he was ordered to shoot down the plane," even after he reported a visual identification as civilian aircraft. Rob Smith 16:35, 8 November 2007 (EST)
Dewey's question is probably trivial in nature; I did read that a family had left the plane while it was down in Anchorage. All it means to me was that there was people on board, and not statistics. Karajou 16:38, 8 November 2007 (EST)

It's not relevant to the rules of engagement, it's relevant to the question of haow many Alaskans had loved ones who took pictures of their doomed flight in the afternoon as it waited for a three AM takeoff. Dewey 16:46, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Of course those links said fact they were empty! Oh well. Karajou 16:44, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Yeah, they were too looooooooooong for the wiki I guess. Anyway, I still doubt the veracity of the claim, but what to do? Dewey 16:46, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Alright, here's one" (Scroll to the bottom)

and the other: Dewey 16:48, 8 November 2007 (EST)

The source of the picture should not be too hard to trace; as to it being part of some big conspiracy, just why, pray tell, would the conspirators be stupid enough to leave evidence behind by taking a picture, duh? Rob Smith 16:53, 8 November 2007 (EST)

My point is simply that it's odd that nobody else using the image online is making the claim that this is image is KAL007 hourse before being shot down. Especially the second link, which is a website dedicated to the incident in question. Everything tells me that this is a stock shot of a KAL 747 at Seoul or another Korean airport. And there's nothing wrong with using it if that's the case - but where does it say that this is flight 007 from all those years ago? Dewey 16:57, 8 November 2007 (EST)

The registration number on the back end of the plane, and the "I Love NY" logo added to the side. Karajou 17:05, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Good question; can anybody identify the airport from the photgraph? [4] Rob Smith 17:07, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Karajou might have a point with the tail number - I don't know if they get recycled or not, and the number isn't remarkably clear - but I don't see any American airport - even in Alaska - being surrounded by burnt-out abandoned tenement housing. Dewey 17:12, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I checked it out...the pic is of the plane, but the topography does not match Anchorage, despite what was said about that pic. Perhaps it is Korea, or any other place the plane was authorized to fly to. We'll have to change the caption. Karajou 17:34, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Karajou - thanks for hearing me out - I didn't want to tick anyone off, but if this project is going to maintain its credibility, it has to interrogate its claims and sources all the way to the end...Dewey 17:43, 8 November 2007 (EST)

You're welcome. At first, I did think you were wrong; for years the world was told that this was the last pic of KAL 007 in Anchorage. I looked at Wikimaps and Google Earth to see if I could find the mountains and that roundish building in the background, but both do not exist in Anchorage. I'm thinking this may be a scene in Hong Kong. Karajou 07:40, 9 November 2007 (EST)
I checked it out for Hong Kong via Wikimapia, and it matches it better than 90%. Behind the tail of the aircraft is what looks like water, plus the crowded urban setting climbing up the hills in the background. It matches the older Hong Kong International Airport in Kowloon, looking south towards Hong Kong Island's North Point. Still not 100% sure - but it's definately not Anchorage. Karajou 07:57, 9 November 2007 (EST)
  • I have been there at least 50 times, and it is Hong Kong in the picture.....old airport. Would not be unusual for equipment to, say, fly as one flight number, then change to another, for ongoing repositioning. Check this picture out of Anchorage and the airport in the far distance. If you click on the pic and enlarge it, you will see the airport and terrain clear, some 15 miles from where the picture was taken. [5] --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 04:01, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Line in the intro

"...may have been a catalyst leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union itself as a political entity."

I included that line because I believe that this incident was part of a series of events (such as the SDI arms race push, the reopening of communist countries to the West, the opening of the Berlin Wall, Chernobyl, etc) leading to the final collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. I have not explained such reasoning in the article yet. If anyone want to, they may do so, or they can remove the line itself if it's felt to be unjustified. Karajou 15:37, 11 November 2007 (EST)

  • Karajou, your instincts are right! It was indeed one of the seminal events in turning the tide of world opinion against them. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 17:05, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Still not done

Needs info pertaining to the search for the plane, from both U.S. and Soviet sides, in addition to the overall Soviet deceptions in the search; it needs something about possible survivors and what happened to them. Karajou 17:11, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Some grammar might need correcting: the paragraph "American Response" repeatedly uses the historical present tense, but the rest of the article uses the simple past. I'd correct it if I got the author's go-ahead.
Also, I had never heard of this event (can you believe that?!?!). It was slightly before I was born, but this is a terrifying story, which I am glad to finally have heard. Thanks to the author!-MexMax 17:17, 11 November 2007 (EST)
It's not told much these days, and it needs to be. Go ahead and make the necessary corrections. Karajou 17:20, 11 November 2007 (EST)
There was a 24 hour gap in the timeline from the time the plane was shot down, until the time Korean, Japanese, and US officials made announcements to the press. Relatives waiting at the airport didn't have a clue what happened, and nothing was reported about a lost or crashed plane for a full 24 hours. This is the time the US, Japanese, and Korean officials contacted the Soviet side to get thier version. It was known to the US, Japan, and South Korea, that a the Soviet's shot the plane down, but the Soviets were not forthcoming with information. Ultimately, the US, Japan, and South Korea made a public disclosure to the press which was very embarassing to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union finally countered the negative publicity with a pilot interview claiming he was a hero, and supposed support from the Soviet people that he was acting to defend thier beloved motherland, etc. Rob Smith 17:29, 11 November 2007 (EST)

The Shootdown from inside KAL 007

I don't know if and how it can be done in the body of the article but here is the combined Digital Flight Data Recorder tape transcript with the Cockpit Voice Recorder tape transcript showing what transpired in the cockpit for the first minute and 44 seconds after missile detonation [6]BertSchlossberg 19:08, 18 December 2007 (EST)Bert SchlossbergBertSchlossberg 19:08, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Senator Helms and KAL 007

Here is some material that I think would do well in this article but I would prefer someone else doing the job - not my forte! I tried to post this on the Jesse Helms article but I'm blocked, I think with all others:

"On December 5, 1991, Senator Helms wrote to Boris Yeltsin concerning U.S. servicemen who were POWs or MIAs. "The status of thousands and thousands of American servicemen who are held by Soviet and other Communist forces, and who were never repatriated after every major war this century, is of grave concern to the American people." Yeltsin would ultimately respond with a statement made on June 15, 1992, while being interviewed aboard his presidential jet on his way to the United States, "Our archives have shown that it is true — some of them were transferred to the territory of the U.S.S.R. and were kept in labor camps... We can only surmise that some of them may still be alive." On December 10, just five days after Senator Helms had written Yeltsin concerning American servicemen, he again wrote to Yeltsin, this time concerning KAL 007. "One of the greatest tragedies of the Cold War was the shoot-down of the Korean Airlines flight KAL-007 by the Armed Forces of what was then the Soviet Union on September 1, 1983. . . The KAL-007 tragedy was one of the most tense incidences of the entire Cold War. However, now that relations between our two nations have improved substantially, I believe that it is time to resolve the mysteries surrounding this event. Clearing the air on this issue could help further to improve relations [7]." Yeltsin would ultimately respond on January 8, 1992 by handing over to the International Civil Aviation Organization what the Russians had for so many years denied possessing: the tapes of the KAL 007's "Black Box" (its Digital Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder).

Concerning Stacy (3years) and Noelle (5 years) Grenfell [8], Senator Jesse Helms, who was on sister flight KAL 015, which was also on the way to Seoul Korea, would write:

I’ll never forget that night when that plane was just beside ours at Anchorage airport with two little girls and their parents.

I taught them, among other things, to say I love you in deaf language, and the last thing they did when they turned the corner was stick up their little hands and tell me they loved me.

I’ll never forget that, and I know you won’t.BertSchlossberg 13:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)Bert SchlossbergBertSchlossberg 13:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Added the above to the Jesse Helms article. Karajou 14:13, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks! BertSchlossberg 16:09, 19 December 2007 (EST)Bert SchlossbergBertSchlossberg 16:09, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Attempts to contact the pilot

How hard did USSR try to contact the pilot?

  1. Were there any international frequencies they might try?
  2. Did they contact any air traffic control, such as Japan?
  3. Assuming radio contact failed, did they try any visual signals?
    • I wrote an article section at Wikipedia about visual signals used to initiate a forced landing: starting with the fighter plane in front of the intruder - where it cannot be missed!

I don't think they made any actual effort to warn the plane away. They just wanted revenge. Which backfired on them incredibly, because President Reagan exposed them as an Evil Empire. --Ed Poor Talk 19:58, 20 December 2007 (EST)

According to the transcripts of the fighter pilot/base communications, warning shots were fired across KAL 007's nose, IAW internationaly recognized proceedures; however, this pilot (Osipovich) admitted that no tracer shells were loaded into the fighter's ammunition bays, which would have been clearly seen by the jumbo jet's pilots. It was also revealed via the transcripts that the fighter was below and behind KAL 007; at the moment the warning shots were fired, KAL 007 began to climb to 35,000 feet. The shells would not have been noticed in either case.
In a video interview (link provided on the main page) Osipovich also stated that tracers or not, the SU-15 he flew had cannon which had highly-visible bursts when fired; still, these bursts cannot be seen if the fighter is behind and below the jumbo jet. Karajou 16:36, 23 December 2007 (EST)

"CIA" Report

I put quotes around CIA. It is true that media at first termed the report CIA Report following Sonn Se il's announcement in the South Korean Parliament and introducing the report as the CIA Report. It is also true that the authors of the report had recourse to the CIA (as well as the NSA) for verification of the information which would make its way into the report. But the report itself is the 1991 draft report of the Republican (minortiy) staff (under Jesse Helms) of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and terms iteslf Republican Staff Study (on page 43). On a visit to the Committee I was informed that indeed there was such a study and was made aware that the study as we now have and is listed at end of our article was the Committee Study. The following is a letter [9] to Avraham Shifrin, Director of the Israeli Research Centre for Prisions, Psych-Prisons, and Forced Labor Concentration Camps of the U.S.S.R., from Rear Admiral Bud Nance, Helms' Chief of Staff on the Committee affirming that the info about survivors coming in from the Research Centre in Israel was sent to the CIA and that this was the basis for the appeal letter of Helms to Yeltsin for the desired info - which resulted in the return of the Black Box tapes, and the gold mine of Soviet real time-to-the-shootdown military communications. Here is the history of the Report - [10] BertSchlossberg 15:56, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Related Study and Discussion Page linked to its article

Karajou and all, Is it possible to inaugurate a page for further discussion of the contents of an article (as opposed to the Talk Page for recommendations for improving article) that one can turn to and comment, discuss, develop ramifications of the subject of the article, all in ways that would not be appropriate in the article itself, but which would enhance knowledge and understanding?

For example, the inclusion of General Valeri Kamenski's history after the KAL 007 incident seems out of place in the KAL 007 article itself but his involvement as head of Ukrainian Air Defense Forces after the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the Ukrainian Defense Forces Oct. 4, 2001 shooting down over the Black Sea of Siber Air Tupolev Flt. 1812 carrying 78 new immigrants to Israel on their way from Tel Aviv to Novosibirsk, especially his words just prior to this shootdown, shows something of the "references of mind" of the man that was the "strategic" commander of the shootdown. We see something of his parameters which add to the KAL 007 incident. See BertSchlossberg 08:46, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Something like a debate page, specific towards KAL's possible. Karajou 07:34, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Probably more like a discussion page which might also be for debating certain points BertSchlossberg 11:55, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Call For Help!

I want to put photos throughout the article on KAL 007 but don't know how (I have tried to no avail) These photos are a good addition and are of of the persons and ships, interceptor plane, etc. involved and will really enhance the article. Would some of you try your hand at it? The urls for the photos are:

In the Story [11] : The Stalk, the Shootdown, the Escape, the Rescue, "KAL 007, the U.S. 7th Fleet and the Great Russian Ruse", The Photo Essay

In the FAQs [12] are a number of very good photos

In the Passenger listing and stories, there are these photos [13] of Noelle Anne Grenfell (on the left) and Stacy Marie Grenfell (on the right), the two little girls that Senator Helms met at Anchorage Airport and spoke so often about.


Look what happened now!!!Please look at Andy's talk page to see what my request is. I have no idea what's happening!Bert Schlossberg 18:44, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Bert, I have uploaded the following files:

Noelle Grenfell
Stacy Grenfell
Yuri Andropov

I have no idea about the copyright of these images please visit the image pages and add the necessary details. You can change the alignment of the images by replacing "left" with "right" or "center". BrianCo 15:34, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks!Bert Schlossberg 05:02, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Picture of the plane

There is a photo of a 747 near the top of the article. The caption says it is KAL 007 at Hong Kong. Is this correct? Surely if flight KAL 007 is from the US to Korea it doesn't stop at HK? I'm guessing the shot is of the plane rather than the flight. -- Ferret Nice old chat 08:51, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

It is a photo of the aircraft that flew KAL 007 (note the number on tail and the "I love New York" on fuselage side) but of course its route was New York, then direct Anchorage, Alaska to Kimpo Airport in Seoul rather than via Hong Kong.Bert Schlossberg 10:52, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

So the picture shows the aircraft that was shot down, not flight KAL 007? The caption is confusing (and strictly speaking, wrong). Could you change it please? Thanks Bert. -- Ferret Nice old chat 08:21, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

You'r right. I'll tryBert Schlossberg 11:14, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Did it! It's amazing. Just a short time ago before BrianCo I didn't know a thing about these things. Now I feel like I'm an expert. Uh OH, we all know about feelings!Bert Schlossberg 11:22, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

spelling correction

Thanks for corrections. I changed back one - "manoeuvres". It's the way its spelled in the quote from ICAO report

Mess up at bottom

The Soviet Action section got removed from its place and now is at bottom with references attached to it wrongly. Can someone untangle and restore?Bert Schlossberg 10:57, 6 August 2008 (EDT)I had tried to do it. The "edit page" has the Soviet Action in the right place even though page itself has it in the wrong place. How can that be? When I click on to the "edit section" itself for Soviet Action, what comes up is the "Flight" section.Bert Schlossberg 09:37, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

Bert, I've fixed it. You had the reference tags back to front. BrianCo 20:32, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. I didn't even know I did it!Bert Schlossberg 03:11, 16 August 2008 (EDT)


U've been trying to tidy up and instead made it worse. Can anyone get the yellow color out (starting from the timeline)?Bert Schlossberg 16:22, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

correctedBert Schlossberg 02:21, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Separate article for flight transcription

This article may have become to weighty with the flight transcriptions of KAL-007 and the Soviet air command. Perhaps a transfer to an article featuring just this subject? Something for Bert to consider. Karajou 21:10, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

Karajou, I'm thinking about it. I know that the article is a long one (only 4 others that oure longer) but somehow the transcripts seem to belong in their entirety as part of the article itself. But maybe I can pare down the article in other ways. I'll be looking into that. Thanks for commentBert Schlossberg 05:59, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

Editorial Ideas

Bert, first of all, thank you for your immense research efforts. I've been looking at your website, and I'm amazed at the depth and scope of information there.

It's hard to condense or summarize such a huge body of information, and I'd like to help.

I wonder if we can come up with a list of main points. Here's my idea, but please take it only as me thinking aloud; I have no desire to impose or intrude here.

In no particular order:

  • What rights, under international law or treaties, does a sovereign nation have over a plane which (1) has overflown its territory and/or secret military bases and (2) is now in international waters?


  • Are they allowed to take revenge by deliberately shooting it down?


  • Does this depend on whether the plane is civilian, military, or of unknown status?
    Can they force it to land? If so, how would they communicate with the pilot?


  • What attempts were made to tell the pilot he had overflown Soviet territory?


  • Did anyone try to radio him about Kamchatka?
    Or Sakhalin?


The below is from The top Secret Memos disclosed by Boris Yeltsin ( See )

"However in case the flight recorders shall become available to the western countries their data may be used for: - Claiming possibility of erroneous use by the crew of airborne navigational equipment to form various theories based on the data analysis; - Confirmation of no attempt by the intercepting aircraft to establish a radio contact with the intruder plane on 121.5 MHz and no tracers warning shots in the last section of the flight;- Disputing our specification of the flight termination time (the time of the flight termination may be altered within a range from 30 to 40 seconds); - Confirmation of no intelligence mission by the plane on the strength of argument that within the last 30 minutes of flight during which the voice recorder registered oral communications of the crew nothing was said that might disclose the reason of incursion of the airplane into the airspace of the USSR. However in our opinion the same argument might equally be used as circumstantial evidence of intentional incursion. In sum the available objective data by the flight recorder may equally be used by the USSR and the western countries in confirmation of opposite views on nature of the flight by the South Korean airplane. The data by the voice recorder may be expressly favorable for the western countries. CONCLUSION In connection with above, it seems unnecessary to transfer the flight recorders to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) or any third party willing to decipher and analyze of their data. Head of the Group Lieutenant-General of Aviation MAKAROV Staff of the Group Lieutenant-General Engineer TICHOMIROV Major-General Engineer DIDENKO Major -General of Aviation STEPANOV Major -General of Aviation KOVTUN Corresponding Member of Academy of Sciences of the USSR FEDOSOV 28 November 1983" -

In particular, I am concerned about the Soviet justification for shooting down the airliner. The incident did not occur during the heat of a battle, and there was no question of a threat to a military surface ship (compare Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988). No shots were fired in self-defense. They apparently thought the airliner was spying on them; or had been spying on them.

A second group of points may be of more interest to you, because it concerns your theory about the fate of the passengers:

  • How could a shot-down plane be found underwater with no bodies and no luggage?


  • How hard is it to cover up the shooting down of an airplane?
  • I recall another incident of an airliner: "A surface-to-air missile, launched from the ocean off the coast of Long Island rose up and exploded at or near TWA Flight 800."
    Commander Donaldson said the plane was shot down, but Clinton's "investigation" said it self-destructed. Who's right?
    If the USA, a relatively free country, could cover up an incident like this, how much harder or easier would it be to cover up an incident in an Iron Curtain country?

Let me know if any of these ideas seem relevant. --Ed Poor Talk 10:13, 10 February 2010 (EST)