| Viewing Single Post From: Question | |
|---|---|
| KenyonG | Jul 2 2009, 12:07 PM |
|
When Robert T says that the plane pulled up to avoid the highway road sign, does he mean that it continued in an upward trajectory? I always thought that he meant that it pulled up to avoid the sign but went back down after it cleared it. This would be a very signigicant detail to know. He is never asked that question. The narrator gives the impression that this proves or supports a flyover, but I don't think it does. Why not do follow through questions to get a complete picture. It seems that the questions only go far enough to get the part that the interviewer wants to hear. All of the witnesses are never asked about the impact. Some may differ with the interviewer categorically saying none of them could see the impact so they deduced it. Some of them have said they saw the impact. If they were testifying in a trial, they would be asked about every aspect of what they witnessed. The jury deserves to get the complete picture and evaluate if this is a credible witness. Stopping you questions at the details you may be interested in only give a part of the whole account. You can't testify for them as to what they saw and didn't see. I haven't even talked about other witnesses who are not in your video, who will contradict these witnesses on the impact and other details. For instance, the fact that Lagasse says both impact and noc are true, would discredit him, if both can not be true. It doesn't mean he's malicious or anything, it just proves that he is inaccurate and will lead some to not trust his judgement. |
 |
|
| Question · Skeptics | |
4:32 PM Nov 29
