![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Save the enlarged pic in that repeort, open it in any graphics editor and
use the color chooser (usually an eyedropper) and check the colors. The box in the enlargement clearly has 1 red corner at the bottom, the other bottom corner (closest to the photog) has a white bottom. The stripes are diagonal. The IPSC should lay off the wine during investigations. "Phil Miller" wrote in message ... On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:11:23 -0500, JL Grasso wrote: On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:46:00 +1100, Phil Miller wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:40:35 -0500, JL Grasso wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:07:53 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: JL Grasso wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:23:07 -0700, "khobar" wrote: Pooh Bear wrote in message ... JL Grasso wrote: On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet. The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up with the low slow fly by all on his own. Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to exit the fly-by. The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above 'explanation'. You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes? ... based on Assiline's assertion which he based on the appearance of the box. IIRC correctly, he said that the one that he saw shortly after the crash had vertical stripes on the housing, whereas the one in court had diagonal stripes. Pretty conclusive, yes? Yes actually. I've seen footage of the DFDR being recovered and no way is it the same one presented in court. Surely there are some good still images from this footage available, right? Can you provide a cite, or is this more 'common knowledge'? Jerry Try this Jerry: http://www.airdisaster.com/investiga...96/af296.shtml Whether it proves anything or not I'll leave to the reader. Thanks, Phil. I'd seen that bit earlier. It clearly looks like the same boxes to me. I have no idea where the conspiracy theory is supported by that, other than the written text which alleges it. Jerry Yeah. How anyone can draw any conclusion from such a terrible picture is boggling. Seems fairly consistent with this pic for mine: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/cvr_sidefront_lg.jpg but too fuzzy (and the box is on a fair old angle to the photographer) to say whether the stripes are vertical, horizontal, diagonal, or it's just a white blob and not stripes at all. Phil -- The biggest conspiracy has always been the fact that there is no conspiracy. Nobody's out to get you. Nobody gives a **** whether you live or die. There, you feel better now? -- Dennis Miller |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"C-175 SoCal Beware" Original Poster Replies | Bill Berle | Aviation Marketplace | 8 | July 8th 04 07:01 AM |
More LED's | Veeduber | Home Built | 19 | June 9th 04 10:07 PM |
Replace fabric with glass | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 38 | April 17th 04 11:37 AM |
RAN to get new LSD class vessel to replace 5 logistic vessels ... | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 10 | November 3rd 03 11:49 PM |
Air Force to replace enlisted historians with civilians | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | October 22nd 03 09:41 AM |